(November 18, 2015 at 12:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The mistake is trying to separate the religious from the political from the cultural with those people. They have mashed it up into a stew and it is impossible to separate out the strands. IOW, it doesn't matter if "islam" is violent. The culture it sprang from is violent and the politicians use that to sustain themselves.
This is why I cringe each time someone armed with an unlimited supply of willful ignorance registers the apology "it's not Islam" when referencing some attack in particular or organizations such as ISIS or al-Qaeda in general. Wahhabism was a 17th century invention and was almost immediately wed to the political motivations of the House of Saud.
KSA gave birth to the more radical elements of this tradition when they happily used their oil wealth and made exceptions to Wahhabist conservative doctrine to import western technology and a smidgen of its culture. Some felt betrayed by the political alliances that necessarily resulted from the exchange. By the time you get to the 1970s, there was enough perceived betrayal that the more radical among them started to act independently.
Typically in these conversations, those that attempt to excuse Wahhabism's influence are quick to forget that 'other' Muslims are the focal point of extremist ire. To be sure, Westerners are targeted and attacked for perceived meddling, but this is not the primary motivation for these people.
