Is Allah Omnibenevolent?

[mattpegher]

Or rather " Do Islamic scholars believe that Allah is Omnibenevolent?"

In discussions here, we alway seem to have the christians vs the athiest. And I've been thinking. The judeochristian god is supposedly the same "god of abraham" as that of Islam even though they refer to him as Allah. I wonder if they islamic scholars consider him, under the same definition, that of : Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolent.

I am interested because, I was considering that it would be illogical that any being with the above definition would be biased toward one set of religious beliefs over any other. (Yes athiest that behave well would get to go to heaven) Ie that faith would not be a requisite only actions would be considered. One could further debate that this being would be incapable of punishing even the most evil among us.

Omnibenevolence holds very powerfull implications.

 

[shiner]

Well he is a member of the Super Best Friends....so probably...maybe....I dunno.

Swallow....come!

 

[child of wonder]

Considering he doesn't exist, we can assign whatever attributes to him we want.

 

[Elias824]

Ill remember to ask this "God" fellow this question when im dead, ill get back to you in about 60-70 years.

 

[mattpegher]

Considering he doesn't exist, we can assign whatever attributes to him we want.

Existence is not requisite to defining a concept. These scholars believe in him, so they must define him. The pat answer is often that "God" defies definition but that is only the answer for the throng, the scholars job is to explain the nature of "God" so therefore they must define the concept. Sure you can say the definition of say ... a elf, can be variable since they do not exist. Are they tolkein elves, tall and slender, or Harry potter elves, or Santa's elves. But if a zoologist was introducing a creature that he believed to be real, he would have to describe it as an definitive set of atributes.

 

[William Gaatjes]

In discussions here, we alway seem to have the christians vs the athiest. And I've been thinking. The judeochristian god is supposedly the same "god of abraham" as that of Islam even though they refer to him as Allah. I wonder if they islamic scholars consider him, under the same definition, that of : Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolent.

I am interested because, I was considering that it would be illogical that any being with the above definition would be biased toward one set of religious beliefs over any other. (Yes athiest that behave well would get to go to heaven) Ie that faith would not be a requisite only actions would be considered. One could further debate that this being would be incapable of punishing even the most evil among us.

Omnibenevolence holds very powerfull implications.

Can you not see it is truly funny that some religious people fight each other over differences of opinions and presenting those opinions as the word of god while claiming to believe in the same god ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeuRAWSJGFY&NR=1

 

[ShawnD1]

Maybe wiki can solve this for us!

Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". It is sometimes held to be impossible for a deity to exhibit this property along with both omniscience and omnipotence, because of the problem of evil.

In short, the answer is no. /thread

 

[mattpegher]

As you may see, the logical conclusion is that If Allah is Omnibenevolent, there are many evils that have been done in his name that would condemn his more radical followers to damnation.

Of course this brings into the debate of military/police/protection function as a quantifiable evil. Ie: it can only be justifiable when actively preventing an evil act. But that is entirely another topic.

 

[mattpegher]

Maybe wiki can solve this for us!



In short, the answer is no. /thread

Ah but I should have asked if Islamic scholars believe that Allah is Omnibenevolent.

For the debate of Omnibenevolence and the existence of evil (esp that between Aquinous and Bacon?) is quite convoluted, and not as finished as you would have us believe.

 

[mattpegher]

Can you not see it is truly funny that some religious people fight each other over differences of opinions and presenting those opinions as the word of god while claiming to believe in the same god ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeuRAWSJGFY&NR=1

Yes, because the primary teaching of every organized religion is that every other religion is wrong, evil and must be eliminated (infidels).

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yes, because the primary teaching of every organized religion is that every other religion is wrong, evil and must be eliminated (infidels).

Exactly, because if they would not be so ferociously defending, they would loose the base of power. And that afcourse cannot happen...

It is a tool. It can be used for good as for evil.

 

[mattpegher]

Exactly, because if they would not be so ferociously defending, they would loose the base of power. And that afcourse cannot happen...

It is a tool. It can be used for good as for evil.

But it is my contention that Omnibenevolence defies such bias. So to believe in an Omnibenvolent god is to say that all religions (even athiesm) are adequate and as such each person must be measured by his/her actions. Yes this destroys the power structure of the organization but cannot be logically denied.

 

[child of wonder]

Existence is not requisite to defining a concept. These scholars believe in him, so they must define him. The pat answer is often that "God" defies definition but that is only the answer for the throng, the scholars job is to explain the nature of "God" so therefore they must define the concept. Sure you can say the definition of say ... a elf, can be variable since they do not exist. Are they tolkein elves, tall and slender, or Harry potter elves, or Santa's elves. But if a zoologist was introducing a creature that he believed to be real, he would have to describe it as an definitive set of atributes.

Sure, but confining a concept within certain boundaries or assigning it particular values is ultimately meaningless if that concept is imaginary.

We can argue all day about things like Star Trek vs. Star Wars or Tolkein vs. Dungeon and Dragons, but we can't expect the endeavor to be anything more than fantasy play -- none of the attributes are independently verifiable in an actual context nor do they hold any bearing outside of that fantasy arena.

 

[mattpegher]

Sure, but confining a concept within certain boundaries or assigning it particular values is ultimately meaningless if that concept is imaginary.

We can argue all day about things like Star Trek vs. Star Wars or Tolkein vs. Dungeon and Dragons, but we can't expect the endeavor to be anything more than fantasy play -- none of the attributes are independently verifiable in an actual context nor do they hold any bearing outside of that fantasy arena.

Ok to you the discussion is moot because you contend that this entity does not exist.
Again logical progressions based on a definition are not contigent upon the actual existance of the entity. But more important is the fact that one group contends that this entity does exist so therefore their explanations must follow logical progession. Curt dismissal of the debate serves only to remove yourself from it, especially in the minds of those believers. If you choose to logically discuss the metaphysics then the discussion continues otherwise you simply enter into a screaming contest where neither listens or contributes.

 

[cubeless]

Ok to you the discussion is moot because you contend that this entity does not exist.
Again logical progressions based on a definition are not contigent upon the actual existance of the entity. But more important is the fact that one group contends that this entity does exist so therefore their explanations must follow logical progession. Curt dismissal of the debate serves only to remove yourself from it, especially in the minds of those believers. If you choose to logically discuss the metaphysics then the discussion continues otherwise you simply enter into a screaming contest where neither listens or contributes.

oh sure... but postulating an imaginary situation and then trying to get people to agree with your definitive wrangling is usually a tool used by people who have an answer that they want to try to lead others to that cannot be reached directly...

you could just come out and say islam is a bad religion and all muslims are evil and the same groups on either side will join the discussion... you don't have to work so hard at your proposition...

 

[mattpegher]

oh sure... but postulating an imaginary situation and then trying to get people to agree with your definitive wrangling is usually a tool used by people who have an answer that they want to try to lead others to that cannot be reached directly...

you could just come out and say islam is a bad religion and all muslims are evil and the same groups on either side will join the discussion... you don't have to work so hard at your proposition...

I am not so arrogant as to say that Islam is a bad religion, although I will say that it is an immature one. I wonder if the lack of a centralization of authority plays a malignant role in the tendency toward fanatacism. I do contend that it leads to a more widely varied interpretation of their holy text.

It took nearly 1500 years for christianity to be at a stage where it would accept debate surrounding the metaphysics that pertain to its believe structure. And another 500 years to stop the persecution of those who would publicly question it. Islam is about 500 years younger than christianity but about 1000 years behind in its maturation toward tolerance. This is simply an unfortunate timing considering the globalization of travel and information.

My interest is to understand the metaphysical construct on which Islam is based and therefore to understand the future development of maturity of an organization. No different than one would attempt to predict the trends in any group.

 

[Lemon law]

Yes yes yes, since Allah, God , and Yehwah are one and the same God for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, world history somewhat proves that same deity is a really violent
Violent God who embraces human blood shed as blood price from his adherents. And only one and only one of those faiths is correct.

Or alternately we could dare to think that same common deity is being misused by all stupid and barbaric so called religious authorities of all three faiths.

Since God himself has not bothered to tell the entire truth to me alone, I still choose to hope that my latter explanation is the correct one.

 

[peonyu]

I am not so arrogant as to say that Islam is a bad religion, although I will say that it is an immature one. I wonder if the lack of a centralization of authority plays a malignant role in the tendency toward fanatacism. I do contend that it leads to a more widely varied interpretation of their holy text.

It took nearly 1500 years for christianity to be at a stage where it would accept debate surrounding the metaphysics that pertain to its believe structure. And another 500 years to stop the persecution of those who would publicly question it. Islam is about 500 years younger than christianity but about 1000 years behind in its maturation toward tolerance. This is simply an unfortunate timing considering the globalization of travel and information.

My interest is to understand the metaphysical construct on which Islam is based and therefore to understand the future development of maturity of an organization. No different than one would attempt to predict the trends in any group.

Islam is alot more straightforward than other religions are. Its text [Quaran] encourages the killing of apostates, it encourages killing people who blasphemy [those who question Islam]. It also lays out the groundwork for an Islamic nation. It states how non-Muslims are to be treated [they are second class citizens], it states how wars are to be fought etc. So pretty much, you cant compare Christianity to Islam. They are polar opposites in many areas, similar in some...but where it counts, they are completely different.

I could be wrong and maybe that religion will 'modernize' but unlike the Bible, which states little to nothing about how a Christian nation should be...The Quaran is clear on what is ok and whats not ok in Muslim society. And much of our modern ideas are not ok [Quaran wise].

 

[totalnoob]

Islam is alot more straightforward than other religions are. Its text [Quaran] encourages the killing of apostates, it encourages killing people who blasphemy [those who question Islam]. It also lays out the groundwork for an Islamic nation. It states how non-Muslims are to be treated [they are second class citizens], it states how wars are to be fought etc.

The bible says pretty much the exact same thing..God repeatedly orders apostates and nonbelievers to be put to death..

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 )

So don't just kill a single nonbeliever. **KILL EVERYONE IN HIS TOWN! **

a few more..

Everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3)

1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 )

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

There are plenty of other verses modern muslims would agree with.. How bout men treating women like property, giving them up to be married (and made sex slaves) before puberty. (Exodus 21:7-11)

What about rape victims being required to marry their rapists? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

And what about stoning homosexuals to death? The Christian God obviously hates them just as much as Allah.. (Leviticus 20:13, Corinthians 6:9-10, etc)

This doesn't even get into the countless instances where God commanded the subjugation, enslavement, and genocide of entire civilizations (including CHILDREN who obviously never had the chance to form their own beliefs).. If you actually read your bible instead of letting your pastor gloss over these stories in Sunday school, I think you'll find it much more similar to the Koran than you realized.

 

[cubeless]

see? just like i said...

 

[totalnoob]

just wanted to clear up any confusion among christians who didn't get an accurate picture of their holy book during the weekly sermons.

 

[soccerballtux]

no, but God is.

 

[Dekasa]

In my religion, all laws from the Old Testament are ignored, save the Ten Commandments.

Levitican law is a bitch.

As such, in my religion, we don't believe in killing infidels.

 

[1prophet]

I am not so arrogant as to say that Islam is a bad religion, although I will say that it is an immature one. I wonder if the lack of a centralization of authority plays a malignant role in the tendency toward fanatacism. I do contend that it leads to a more widely varied interpretation of their holy text.

It took nearly 1500 years for christianity to be at a stage where it would accept debate surrounding the metaphysics that pertain to its believe structure. And another 500 years to stop the persecution of those who would publicly question it. Islam is about 500 years younger than christianity but about 1000 years behind in its maturation toward tolerance. This is simply an unfortunate timing considering the globalization of travel and information.

My interest is to understand the metaphysical construct on which Islam is based and therefore to understand the future development of maturity of an organization. No different than one would attempt to predict the trends in any group.

That is a fallacy that is widely promoted that somehow like fine wine that needs aging so does religion in order to be modernized and Islam must somehow be behind when it actually was ahead during the dark ages.

The reason Islam is held back is because of Wahabism thanks to the Saudi's who spent billions promoting their version to the masses.


http://www.saag.org/common/uploaded_files/paper903.html

End Muslim Terrorism by Ending Wahabism Influence in Saudi Arabia
Guest Column- by Hari Sud
A. Introduction
Osama bin Laden, Talibaan Chief Mullah Mohammed Omar, Chief Suspect in Daniel Pearls murder, Omar Saeed are all followers of Mohammed Abdul Al Wahab, the eighteenth century fundamentalist Mullah (cleric) in present day Saudi Arabia. His view was, that since the time of Prophet Mohammed the followers of the faith have strayed away from his teachings, hence they have to be refocused back to what Prophet Mohammed said in Qoran. Influence of Wahabs word, spread in Saudi Arabia during his lifetime. But the Ottomans, rulers of Arabia at that time, who originally are Central Asian Turks and Sunnis, did not encourage this firebrand Mullah. They set out to completely smash his small band of followers, locally called Wahabis. Ottomans did not succeed very well; hence Wahabis influence remained strong with Mullahs who control the Muslim holy sites and Mosques in and around Arabia. Wahabis have spent last 300 years waiting for an opportune time to gain political influence.
The opportunity came during WW I, when Britain looking for local support within Arabia, Transjordan and Iraq for war against Ottomans found two competing princes for power in Arabia. They had to choose one for their backing. Prince Ibn Rashid lorded over one era of the Arabia (close to present day Iraq) and Prince/Emir Faisal maintained influence in Western end of the desert. They spent their life as Bedouin nomads; hence Ottoman had difficulty catching them. Briton dispatched Gertrude Bell (later called Desert Queen) to prince Rashids camp. She was the first ever lady intelligence officer, Briton had sent on an overseas mission, partly because she had lived in Middle East and partly she was daring in the mold of the proverbial Indiana Jones. She undertook a four-week journey to reach Prince Rashids camp through an uncharted desert with a group of Bedouin guards. There she found Rashids camp divided and decimated by family feuds over women and spoils of raids. She reported her findings back to her British masters. Dissatisfied with Rashid, British sent a second mission lead by T.E. Lawrence (popularly called Lawrence of Arabia) to feel Prince Faisal. Lawrence found Prince Faisal a valuable ally, worthy of British military and technical aid. This alliance resulted in a series of victories for Lawrence & Faisal and a complete rout of Ottoman in Middle East. Thereafter states of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia were born (after a long difficult Paris conference in 1919).
Prince Faisal, to broaden his support, aligned himself with the Wahabi Mullahs of Arabia peninsula. With this alliance, Wahabis gained influence within the ruling circles of Prince later King Faisal and became the interpreter of the Islamic ideology in Arabia. King Faisals successors not only maintained this alliance but also with the arrival of Petro-dollars, enhanced it by giving them monies to build, maintain Muslim holy sites. This increased Mullahs influence ten fold. Extra Petro-dollars at Mullahs disposal gave them ideas of exerting influence outside Arabia in same manner as Pope exerts influence over the Roman Catholics world over from Rome.
B. Wahabis in Arabia and their Influence with the Ruling Princes
All Saudi princes including the king Fahad are Wahabis. They grew up in schools and education system run by Wahabis. Western education to some of them has not changed their outlook. Saudi King(s) have created a special government department which looks after all the religious affairs including Hajj pilgrimage, the up keep of Grand Mosques in Mecca and Madina, free printing and distribution of Qoran in native languages, distribution of cash within Arabia and outside Arabia. The latter is key to galvanizing Muslims in their home countries. With cash at their disposal the local Mullahs are free to open Madarssa (religious school), repair Mosque, build new Mosque and help terrorists find shelter, food money and training. Madarssa curriculum is based on Wahabi teachings.
From 1973 2001, the price of oil scaled new height; hence more money became available to be distributed through out the Muslim world. All teachers of the Madarassas, Mullahs of the Mosques under pretext of Hajj pilgrimage underwent Wahabi training in religious schools in Saudi Arabia. Care was taken not to indulge in political propaganda to alarm the home country government. The latter was left for the mullahs and teacher to undertake after their return.
With the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Saudis involved themselves in a, first war of the twentieth century against the infidel. To this, they were encouraged by the USA. Open call was given to Muslim all over the world to come to Afghans rescue. They did come and came in large numbers. The military hardware was paid for by USA, it was facilitated thru Pakistan by the Pakistani Government. Saudis paid for their religious indoctrination and recruitment thru the Mosques and Madarssas built by them all over the world.
C. What is Wahabism all about
Al Wahab in his teachings wished to arrest the decadence in the Muslim society and infuse vitality in it. In its original form it was a reformist movement. It rejected Sufism & saint worship and advocated return to the original teachings of Islam incorporated in the Qoran. He wished to liberate Islam from previous 1400 years of interpretations and distortions of the medieval times. He wished Muslim to go back to the fundamentals.
In a way he was turning the clock back on 1400 years of evolution.
To get a better understanding of Al Wahab message, please go to the following references:
http://biphome.spray.se/isllam/WAHABYA.htm?
In this simple message, Al Wahab set in motion events, which lead to present day religious and political alignment in Arabia and influence outside its borders. It is the interpretation, which matters. Theologians differ in its true meaning and the underline meaning. But there is only one conclusion It is a fundamentalist challenge.


D. Where is the major concentration of the Wahabis in the World?

• Mostly in the Arabian Peninsula

• In Pakistan/Afghanistan

• In Indonesia

• Smaller proportions exist in Sudan, Gulf countries

Saudi Arabia
It is the home of all firebrands Wahabis. Since they are allied to the ruling princes, hence their influence with in the Saudi society is the greatest.
To repeat, all this has been financed using Petro-dollars under the very nose of USA.
Pakistan
General Zia Ul Haq, the eighties dictator of Pakistan was the first convert to Wahabism in Pakistan. He imported the Wahabi philosophy to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. His other motive was to drive India out of Kashmir under the pretext of freedom struggle.
Zia aligned himself with the local Mullahs and invited Saudi aid to build Saudi style madarssas and other religious infrastructure. The famous Binori Madarssa in Karachi, Pakistan has been built with Saudi aid. It can boast of having Osama bin Laden, Daniel Pearls murders as its graduates.
The greatest damage General Zia did was to the Pakistani army. He instituted Madarssa graduate recruitment into the army. Army officers were promoted on the basis their religious beliefs. In this way he hoped that Pakistani Army would become defenders of the faith. In order to ensure that his successors are Wahabi, General Zia ensured that bright young army officers are posted in Saudi Arabia in a Pakistani sponsored army mission in eighties. Current crop of senior army officers in Pakistan are all Wahabis.
For Pakistani Army, like Saudi Arabian princes, 9/11 gutted a carefully constructed strategy. Things, which US did not wish to get involved, previously became issues of the day.
Indonesia
Indonesia is a Muslim country with a gentle form of Islam practiced for the last 400 to 500 years. Its post Dutch independence leaders like Sukarno, Suharto etc. were secular in their dealings. Until 1966, it had the largest Communist Party outside Soviet Union and China. Then why has militant Islam emerged in Indonesia? The answer lies in the economic failure of the politicians giving Mullahs an opportunity aided by monies from Saudi Arabia. This was further aided by Afghan war which has let Osama bin Laden to establish contact with the local Mullahs.
Wahabi movements are strong in Sudan, Egypt and all of Gulf countries except Iran. The latter follows the Shia version of Islam, hence runs a foul with Al Wahabs teachings.
E. Why is Wahabism on a Collision course with the West and Others?
Wahabis stayed in the background after WWII. They were thankful to the West for providing them help in exploring and exploiting its oil wealth. The problem first started with the Israel Palestinian conflict. It galvanized the Mullahs and they began to preach anti Semitism, anti west and anti infidel message.
Second and more important cause of galvanizing Wahabis was the importing of the decadent western values (according to Wahabis) from the West. Oil revenues enriched the Saudi Arabian society. They traveled into the West and acquired modern amenities. Moral values suffered at the expense of Islamic teachings. Arrival of large number of workers from the west to exploit the oil wealth and to build and maintain their new cities further exasperated an already critical Mullah community.
Third, the Afghan War and preaching of Jehad against the Soviets further offered opportunity to the Wahabi Mullahs to take on a political stance more boldly. Princes in power supported it; hence the state and the religion combined their resources to meet the challenge of Jehad.
Fourth, the Gulf War I, resulted in a significant presence of American and British on the Arabian Soil. The former felt that it is a necessity to keep Saddam Hussain under control. The Saudi Arabian Mullahs felt it otherwise. They considered their presence, as an occupation of their sacred soil. USA, which had portrayed itself as liberator of Kuwait became occupiers of their holy land. They plotted to get rid of Americans from their soil and gain complete independence from the Wests economic hold on them.
Lastly, oil wealth provided them an opportunity to run an independent foreign policy with or without ruling princes approval by directly supporting Madrssas all over the Muslim world. With this they could preach Jihad on a minor pretext e.g. Jihad for the Palestinian cause, Jihad to get Soviets now Russians out of Chechnya, Jihad to get Kashmir liberated, Jihad to expel Americans out of Arabia etc.
All the above causes have now galvanized Wahabis into action. A major strike at WTC was there first such major act. Many more are threatened. God forbids, if they do succeed in acquiring crude nuclear technology, threat to the rest of the world will be the greatest.
F. What do we do to eliminate this Ever Present Threat?
Former British allies, turned enemies have grabbed the world headlines especially after 9/11. Prior to that, their support for East Africa bombing, USS Cole bombing brought them into the limelight. Osama bin Laden is one of the Wahabi who undertook all the aforementioned acts. In India, Chechnya, Philippines Muslim terror threat is ever present for worthless causes. West is now paying attention to Arabia because majority of the 9/11 terrorists hailed from there.


There is a little US can do directly to the policy making in Saudi Arabia. Indirectly they may be able to influence a few key princes in power to:

• Limit the amount of monies, which Wahabis get under the pretext of upkeep of holy places.

• Modify the school system in Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere to prevent the Wahabis from affecting the young minds.

• Close down some of the premier Madarssas in above countries and replace them with better schools of study and learning.

• Mullahs to be relieved of their duties if they preach Jehad in Mosques and other places.

• Hajj is not to be used to recruit and indoctrinate people for worthless Jehadi causes.

• No monies outside Saudi Arabias border are to be handed over to the local religious charities. No matter what the cause.

• Israel- Palestine, Chechnya-Russia, India-Pakistan, Bosnia -Serbs are to be treated as bilateral local issues. Calls for recruits to join in the fight are to be thoroughly discouraged.

• Guerilla Fighters in Philippines, Talibaan in Afghanistan etc. are not to be given monetary or technical aid under any pretext.

• The West and US develop a policy of slowly disengaging from Arabian oil supply.

• No political support locally or in any world forums to be given to movements which have smiling face on one side and terrorist face on the other.

In the end, I must say, Wahabis are here to stay. Only Arabian government can control them. West can only help to reshape their education and prevent monies transferred to other countries to galvanize masses there. To end Muslim terrorism, the West has to influence Saudi policy. Only the latter can control the Wahabi influence in the Kingdom and outside it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe wiki can solve this for us!



In short, the answer is no. /thread

You were sucker punched, chump, there is no evil. There is only Love. If you knew nothing you wouldn't be so full of shit.