Saudis Must Stop Exporting Extremism

[Zabaniyah]

Not all Salafi' are terrorists, but most terrorists are Salafi's. There is an obvious connection there.

The biggest mistake we Muslims make is that we start blaming others, as if we have no fault of our own. In order to solve our problems we need to find where we went wrong. It is only when we are weak due to our own faults, the enemies find an opening to exploit those weakness. For example Salafists as well as Arab nationalists were used by the West to break Ottoman empire.

Extremism is growing because extremist ideas are getting sponsorship to spread using petrodollars, both Sunni and Shia kind. Shia extremists are more smart and organized and use state terror like Israel, but Sunni extremists, most of whom are Salafists, are clueless yahoo morons. Both are equally dangerous for the Muslim world.

ISIS cannot be called Khawarij, because Kharijism died out long ago and their only remnant are Ibadi's. ISIS have more in common with Saudi Salafism than anyone else:
ISIS’ Harsh Brand of Islam Is Rooted in Austere Saudi Creed

And it is no surprise, ISIS biggest sponsors were from the gulf Salafist or Salafi sympathizers since 2004 and I heard they still are sending money.

It doesn't matter what delusional fantasies a bunch of cavemen have. What matters is where they got so much money from, and who is backing them? Without money and support, they would have been able to field such a force to reckon with.

Reports indicate that they have $2 billion at their disposal.
The terrifying rise of Isis: $2bn in loot, online killings and an army on the run | World news | The Guardian

You know what's funny? The Allied forces fought hard against the Iraqi insurgents during the middle of the early decade of the 21st century.

Think about it. Those insurgents were fighting a vast and a powerful force. And yet, they managed to come together and become stronger than ever at the same time. The Allies were their the whole time they were building up. This ISIS was planned from the very beginning. It all happened right under America's nose.

How can the Allies not see this as it was unfolding? It was their responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the GCC nations. The war was both on the front, and back-end. And by back-end, I mean measures against money laundering and terrorist financing.

The war was seriously flawed from the beginning, and ISIS was planned right from the start of the insurgency.

I always wonder if they consider themselves as Muslim first, or Sunni first, or Shi'ite first. It's confusing.

I find their tenacity and resolve terrifying.

 

[Luffy 500]

You are right, there isn't. It was a term coined by people who opposed Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab who opposed grave worshiping. It was never invented by Western governments.

People engaged in the act of Ziarat (dua) often used to engage in grave worshiping in the middle east. He even wrote a book, Kitaab At-Tawheed to prove his point.

Have you ever thought about the shrines that exist in our country? Rumors say that Moulana Faruqui (the Channel-i host) was murdered by Salafists in light of the view. Although, Faruqui never embraced "grave worshiping", and he wasn't political either. Though, it was said that he did oppose Jammat's views.

We have plenty of extremist yahoos in our country but murder of people like faruqi do play into the hands of the current regime and help paint an extremist picture of the country. I don't think any Islamic group would be involved in the crime and given the scenario of awami ruled BD, rumors are just rumors specially the finger pointing at 4 prominent scholars in the case is beyond ludicrous.

If i m not wrong faruqi had his own political party.

 

[Mosamania]

As many members here know, I am a staunch Anti-Reliigoinist, however to try and point fingers of blame on a "sect" makes you no better than the very people you are trying to blame.

While I while heatedly abhor all religious extremists, especially the ones within our own borders, hate them with every inch if my heart body and soul, I am against what they represent, which is intolerance, barbarianism, and most of all conspiracy theory fabrication for which they thrive under.

All they talk about is conspiracies of the world aimed at Muslims to break their religion, and how they are the only ones left to stand against it, making up stories and releasing absurd claims like meat in Mcdonlads were actually dipped in pig's fat prior to it coming here for no other reason but malice and hate from the infidels.

I grew up on this, I was force fed this, and as a young lad believed them even, but then I started thinking from my own and came to my own conclusions and made my own thinkings.

So to me issuing blames of conspiracy and pointing fingers at one group of people and bringing half asses journals to blame a single religious group for all world wide problems, is to me no different than the acts of these religious buffoons, the dry same mentality, and the very same thought process and the very exact same propaganda.

So to me @kalu_miah you are the exact same replica of them, only on the other side of the coin.

 

[Zabaniyah]

If i m not wrong faruqi had his own political party.

It's not a political party in the sense that it can participate in election. It's just sort of like a council.

 

[Mosamania]

Trying to blame a certain religious belief makes you no different them, remember that @kalu_miah .

You yourself then, become active in promoting religious intolerance. So you should start asking yourself these questions before long.

 

[kalu_miah]

SO are salafists to blame? Who do u call a salafist? Most scholars who take a stance based on Quran and sunnah and are labelled Wahabi/salafist by anti-islamic heretic and hate groups. The fact that terrorist and extremist don't understand the Quran and make distorted interpretation doesn't mean peaceful salafists are to blame.


This is a very good lecture by Dr. Yasir Qadhi on extremism:

He is not a salafists btw but is still labelled as one.




I agree we shouldn't blame each other. Muslims should become more knowledgeable both in religous and secular education and Islamic scholars have a very prominent role to play here.




Extremism won't find ripe ground if their is no political instability and oppression on people by dalal regimes in the muslim world.

Yeah i agree most terrorist are yahoo morons and are good pawns of the west.



Khawarij extremism keeps on arriving from time to time. Its a ideology whose traits have been described by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). All the khawarij starting from the first one to the current times share the same traits. please watch the video link above.
There is no such thing as saudi creed. ISIS have typical Khawarij tendencies. Khawarij has always been overtly religious and over zealous.


Don't agree that ISIS scums are funded by gulf. Its a direct threat to GCC itself. ME is a very murkey place where u can not exactly pinpoint who is funding what. Most prominent scholars who denounced ISIS as deviants extremist are what the western media calls "salafists".

A non religious OIC Peace Keeping Force could easily counter Assad and Iran, but gulf Arabs unleashed their secret Jihadi weapon, which they did also in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I am no expert, but from my limited knowledge the trend starts with Ibn Taymiyyah, revived by Abdul Wahab and then another trend started by Jamal Afghani, Banna et al. The urge is almost always to purify Islam and go back to 7th century for inspiration, while ignoring or sideline or side skirting the 4 major Madhabs and the jurisprudence (fiqh) that was built in last 1400 years. What I proposed earlier:
How to stop Islamic extremism: Global Fiqh Council (GFC)

Some effort like the above or similar is needed by Ulema/scholars to chart a course, outside the influence of petrodollars.

We cannot call these people Wahabi, we cannot call them Salafi, what should we call them then? Normal everyday Muslims from the four Madhabs? I am afraid you are dismissing valid research by many impartial researchers and scholars. ISIS is a direct result of the nonsense and rot that spread within Sunni Islam. Iran's theocracy is the Shia version of that rot. Regardless of what they are called, they are the problem and both are armed with petrodollars to spread their Bidaa/innovation.

Who is funding ISIS:
Who's Funding ISIS? Wealthy Gulf 'Angel Investors,' Officials Say - NBC News

Who's Funding ISIS? Wealthy Gulf 'Angel Investors,' Officials Say
BY ROBERT WINDREM

A small but steady flow of money to ISIS from rich individuals in the Gulf continues, say current and former U.S. officials, with Qataris the biggest suppliers. These rich individuals have long served as "angel investors," as one expert put it, for the most violent militants in the region, providing the “seed money” that helped launch ISIS and other jihadi groups.

No one in the U.S. government is putting a number on the current rate of donations, but former U.S. Navy Admiral and NATO Supreme Commander James Stavridis says the cash flow from private donors is significant now and was even more significant in the early fund-raising done by ISIS and al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, the al-Nusrah Front.

"These rich Arabs are like what 'angel investors' are to tech start-ups, except they are interested in starting up groups who want to stir up hatred," said Stavridis, now the dean of the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts University. "Groups like al-Nusrah and ISIS are better investments for them. The individuals act as high rollers early, providing seed money. Once the groups are on their feet, they are perfectly capable of raising funds through other means, like kidnapping, oil smuggling, selling women into slavery, etc."

Stavridis and other current U.S. officials suggest that the biggest share of the individual donations supporting ISIS and the most radical groups comes from Qatar rather than Saudi Arabia, and that the Qatari government has done less to stop the flow than its neighbors in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. One U.S. official said the Saudis are "more in line with U.S. foreign policy" than the Qataris.

Groups like ISIS and al-Nusrah employ fundraisers who meet with wealthy Sunni Arabs. Most of the Arab states have laws prohibiting such fundraising, but U.S. officials say the Qataris do not strictly enforce their laws.

A U.S. intelligence official said the amount provided by wealthy individuals is small relative to the group’s other sources, but admitted that the flow continues. “Although ISIS probably still receives donations from patrons in some of the Gulf countries," said the official, “any outside funding represents a small fraction of ISIS’s total annual income.”

The U.S. believes ISIS is taking in about $1 million a day from all sources. The largest source of cash now, say U.S. officials, is oil smuggling along the Turkish border, with ISIS leaders willing to sell oil from conquered Syrian and Iraqi fields for as little as $25 a barrel, a quarter of the going world price. Other previously lucrative sources, like kidnapping for ransom, are not what they once were. As one U.S. official put it, "there are only so many rich Syrian businessmen." Similarly, there are fewer banks to loot.

Adm. Stavridis, author of the forthcoming book "Accidental Admiral,"suggests that the U.S. must cut off as much funding as it can, calling cash flow the "fourth front" in the war against ISIS, along with helping the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi military and carrying out a bombing campaign.

As long ago as last March, before ISIS's military advances, a senior Treasury Department official spoke publicly about "permissive jurisdictions" that were allowing fundraising on behalf of ISIS and other groups.

"A number of fundraisers operating in more permissive jurisdictions -- particularly in Kuwait and Qatar -- are soliciting donations to fund extremist insurgents, not to meet legitimate humanitarian needs,” said Daniel Cohen, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. "The recipients of these funds are often terrorist groups, including al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, al-Nusrah Front, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIS]."

David Phillips, a former senior advisor to the State Department on Iraq and now director of the Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University, said the bottom line, financially and politically, is that "wealthy Arabs are playing a dirty double game. “

“Their governments claim to oppose ISIS,” he said, “while individuals continue funding terrorist activities."

The financial help from "rich patrons," as U.S. intelligence calls them, was also noted this week by Iranian officials, who have been excluded from participating in anti-ISIS discussions. High-ranking officials complained publicly Wednesday about the early role of Arab states in building opposition to the Assad regime to Syria, and blamed them for the consequences.
On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, in comments to the Council of Foreign Relations, said it was not realistic to expect those who have helped fund ISIS and other groups to now oppose them.

Zarif called the recently convened Paris conference on fighting ISIS a "coalition of repenters" who are only now seeing that they have created a monster. The Gulf states were among the countries attending the summit.

"Most participants in that -- in that meeting in one form or another provided support to ISIS in the course of its creation and upbringing and expansion, actually at the end of the day, creating a Frankenstein that came to haunt its creators," Zarif told the CFR. "So this group has been in existence for a long time. It has been supported, it has been provided for in terms of arms, money, finances by a good number of U.S. allies in the region."

In an interview earlier the same day with Ann Curry of NBC News, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was just as emphatic, asking a string of rhetorical questions.

"Who financed them? Who provided them with money? It's really clear -- where do the weapons come from?" asked Rouhani. "The terrorists who have come from all the countries, from which channel [did they enter], where were they trained, in which country were they trained? I don't think it is somehow difficult to identify this information.”

But U.S. officials suggest that as the group has expanded -- and its range of enemies has broadened – so have its costs, which could make the group vulnerable.

"Is [the ISIS financial model] sustainable?" asked Stavridis. "The bigger they get, is that their downfall?"

The Qatari Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Qatar has previously strongly denied supporting ISIS "in any way," including funding.

 

[Sugarcane]

A non religious OIC Peace Keeping Force

"Non religious OIC" is wrong term.

 

[kalu_miah]

Trying to blame a certain religious belief makes you no different them, remember that @kalu_miah .

You yourself then, become active in promoting religious intolerance. So you should start asking yourself these questions before long.

Confronting and exposing spread of intolerant ideas as the root cause is an example of intolerance?

"Non religious OIC" is wrong term.

They would be from professional Armed forces, many with UN peace keeping experience, not Sunni or Shia jihadi's.

 

[Mosamania]

A non religious OIC Peace Keeping Force could easily counter Assad and Iran, but gulf Arabs unleashed their secret Jihadi weapon, which they did also in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I am no expert, but from my limited knowledge the trend starts with Ibn Taymiyyah, revived by Abdul Wahab and then another trend started by Jamal Afghani, Banna et al. The urge is almost always to purify Islam and go back to 7th century for inspiration, while ignoring or sideline or side skirting the 4 major Madhabs and the jurisprudence (fiqh) that was built in last 1400 years. What I proposed earlier:
How to stop Islamic extremism: Global Fiqh Council (GFC)

Some effort like the above or similar is needed by Ulema/scholars to chart a course, outside the influence of petrodollars.

We cannot call these people Wahabi, we cannot call them Salafi, what should we call them then? Normal everyday Muslims from the four Madhabs? I am afraid you are dismissing valid research by many impartial researchers and scholars. ISIS is a direct result of the nonsense and rot that spread within Sunni Islam. Iran's theocracy is the Shia version of that rot. Regardless of what they are called, they are the problem and both are armed with petrodollars to spread their Bidaa/innovation.

Who is funding ISIS:
Who's Funding ISIS? Wealthy Gulf 'Angel Investors,' Officials Say - NBC News

Who's Funding ISIS? Wealthy Gulf 'Angel Investors,' Officials Say
BY ROBERT WINDREM

A small but steady flow of money to ISIS from rich individuals in the Gulf continues, say current and former U.S. officials, with Qataris the biggest suppliers. These rich individuals have long served as "angel investors," as one expert put it, for the most violent militants in the region, providing the “seed money” that helped launch ISIS and other jihadi groups.

No one in the U.S. government is putting a number on the current rate of donations, but former U.S. Navy Admiral and NATO Supreme Commander James Stavridis says the cash flow from private donors is significant now and was even more significant in the early fund-raising done by ISIS and al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, the al-Nusrah Front.

"These rich Arabs are like what 'angel investors' are to tech start-ups, except they are interested in starting up groups who want to stir up hatred," said Stavridis, now the dean of the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts University. "Groups like al-Nusrah and ISIS are better investments for them. The individuals act as high rollers early, providing seed money. Once the groups are on their feet, they are perfectly capable of raising funds through other means, like kidnapping, oil smuggling, selling women into slavery, etc."

Stavridis and other current U.S. officials suggest that the biggest share of the individual donations supporting ISIS and the most radical groups comes from Qatar rather than Saudi Arabia, and that the Qatari government has done less to stop the flow than its neighbors in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. One U.S. official said the Saudis are "more in line with U.S. foreign policy" than the Qataris.

Groups like ISIS and al-Nusrah employ fundraisers who meet with wealthy Sunni Arabs. Most of the Arab states have laws prohibiting such fundraising, but U.S. officials say the Qataris do not strictly enforce their laws.

A U.S. intelligence official said the amount provided by wealthy individuals is small relative to the group’s other sources, but admitted that the flow continues. “Although ISIS probably still receives donations from patrons in some of the Gulf countries," said the official, “any outside funding represents a small fraction of ISIS’s total annual income.”

The U.S. believes ISIS is taking in about $1 million a day from all sources. The largest source of cash now, say U.S. officials, is oil smuggling along the Turkish border, with ISIS leaders willing to sell oil from conquered Syrian and Iraqi fields for as little as $25 a barrel, a quarter of the going world price. Other previously lucrative sources, like kidnapping for ransom, are not what they once were. As one U.S. official put it, "there are only so many rich Syrian businessmen." Similarly, there are fewer banks to loot.

Adm. Stavridis, author of the forthcoming book "Accidental Admiral,"suggests that the U.S. must cut off as much funding as it can, calling cash flow the "fourth front" in the war against ISIS, along with helping the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi military and carrying out a bombing campaign.

As long ago as last March, before ISIS's military advances, a senior Treasury Department official spoke publicly about "permissive jurisdictions" that were allowing fundraising on behalf of ISIS and other groups.

"A number of fundraisers operating in more permissive jurisdictions -- particularly in Kuwait and Qatar -- are soliciting donations to fund extremist insurgents, not to meet legitimate humanitarian needs,” said Daniel Cohen, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. "The recipients of these funds are often terrorist groups, including al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, al-Nusrah Front, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIS]."

David Phillips, a former senior advisor to the State Department on Iraq and now director of the Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University, said the bottom line, financially and politically, is that "wealthy Arabs are playing a dirty double game. “

“Their governments claim to oppose ISIS,” he said, “while individuals continue funding terrorist activities."

The financial help from "rich patrons," as U.S. intelligence calls them, was also noted this week by Iranian officials, who have been excluded from participating in anti-ISIS discussions. High-ranking officials complained publicly Wednesday about the early role of Arab states in building opposition to the Assad regime to Syria, and blamed them for the consequences.
On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, in comments to the Council of Foreign Relations, said it was not realistic to expect those who have helped fund ISIS and other groups to now oppose them.

Zarif called the recently convened Paris conference on fighting ISIS a "coalition of repenters" who are only now seeing that they have created a monster. The Gulf states were among the countries attending the summit.

"Most participants in that -- in that meeting in one form or another provided support to ISIS in the course of its creation and upbringing and expansion, actually at the end of the day, creating a Frankenstein that came to haunt its creators," Zarif told the CFR. "So this group has been in existence for a long time. It has been supported, it has been provided for in terms of arms, money, finances by a good number of U.S. allies in the region."

In an interview earlier the same day with Ann Curry of NBC News, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was just as emphatic, asking a string of rhetorical questions.

"Who financed them? Who provided them with money? It's really clear -- where do the weapons come from?" asked Rouhani. "The terrorists who have come from all the countries, from which channel [did they enter], where were they trained, in which country were they trained? I don't think it is somehow difficult to identify this information.”

But U.S. officials suggest that as the group has expanded -- and its range of enemies has broadened – so have its costs, which could make the group vulnerable.

"Is [the ISIS financial model] sustainable?" asked Stavridis. "The bigger they get, is that their downfall?"

The Qatari Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Qatar has previously strongly denied supporting ISIS "in any way," including funding.

Here you go again, thinking that this newly coined term "Salfist" sidelining the 4 Madhabs, are you really that brainwashed by propaganda to think that?

In fact they are the biggest proponents of the Shafei Fiqh Madhabs, here I mean the religious intolerant people in KSA, however Hijazis still abide by the Maliki Madhab in Fiqh. They have nothing to do with Madhabs. You are not just religious intolerant it seems, but outright ignorant on the matter. Please go do some none biased reading then we will discuss this.

Confronting and exposing spread of intolerant ideas as the root cause is an example of intolerance?



They would be from professional Armed forces, many with UN peace keeping experience, not Sunni or Shia jihadi's.

You know how best to confront them, bring religious evidence that anything they do is wrong. Being it from Quran and Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that what they promote is wrong , plain and simple. If you can't the damn man you are sh11t out of luck aren't you?

Then you are just another religious intolerant aren't you? Have a little bit of self reflection then come back to me.

 

[kalu_miah]

Here you go again, thinking that this newly coined term "Salfist" sidelining the 4 Madhabs, are you really that brainwashed by propaganda to think that?

In fact they are the biggest proponents of the Shafei Fiqh Madhabs, here I mean the religious intolerant people in KSA, however Hijazis still abide by the Maliki Madhab in Fiqh. They have nothing to do with Madhabs. You are not just religious intolerant it seems, but outright ignorant on the matter. Please go do some none biased reading then we will discuss this.

Ok, so I am ignorant on the matter, I never claimed to be an expert anyways. Why don't you enlighten us then with your version of what gave rise to extremism and its latest incarnation called ISIS.

 

[Mosamania]

Ok, so I am ignorant on the matter, I never claimed to be an expert anyways. Why don't you enlighten us then with your version of what gave rise to extremism and its latest incarnation called ISIS.

What gave rise to it was extremist individuals and their seekage of religious fundamentalism. I don't give them a name, and I would never give them a name. Because if I did I risk being exactly like those people that say all Muslims are terrorist because the acts of a few individuals. Trying to lessen the spectrum to say "no not all these Muslims just this group of Muslims" is exactly the same thing as the first one. You are still lumping a huge chunk of people together for the acts of a few. And this is the very basis of everything I stand against, I believe in individualism, the very thing any civilized person should.

After all, these individuals do the same thing, lump a huge chunk of people together "Kafirs etc." and I refuse to be anything like them in any way shape or form.

 

[jaunty]

Kalu miah should be appointed as the leader of the sunni world. He has some revolutionary ideas. I still remember the thread where he was encouraging his countrymen to use bow and arrows against the govt. He even posted some youtube instructional videos.

 

[kalu_miah]

What gave rise to it was extremist individuals and their seekage of religious fundamentalism. I don't give them a name, and I would never give them a name. Because if I did I risk being exactly like those people that say all Muslims are terrorist because the acts of a few individuals. Trying to lessen the spectrum to say "no not all these Muslims just this group of Muslims" is exactly the same thing as the first one. You are still lumping a huge chunk of people together for the acts of a few. And this is the very basis of everything I stand against, I believe in individualism, the very thing any civilized person should.

After all, these individuals do the same thing, lump a huge chunk of people together "Kafirs etc." and I refuse to be anything like them in any way shape or form.

That is a good point, generalization is never good, but sometimes it is necessary to put names and terms to describe a trend.

"Extremist individuals seeking religious fundamentalism" - this term I can live with. Question is:
- where are they getting inspirations from, which historic individual preachers and which leaders?
- are these preachers and leaders still being revered by some govt. and wealthy private individuals?
- are private financiers and govt.s funding efforts to promote the same ideas from these preachers and leaders?
- are they teaching young kids these same ideas from early age in schools?

 

[Mosamania]

That is a good point, generalization is never good, but sometimes it is necessary to put names and terms to describe a trend.

"Extremist individuals seeking religious fundamentalism" - this term I can live with. Question is:
- where are they getting inspirations from, which historic individual preachers and which leaders?
- are these preachers and leaders still being revered by some govt. and wealthy private individuals?
- are private financiers and govt.s funding efforts to promote the same ideas from these preachers and leaders?
- are they teaching young kids these same ideas from early age in schools?

They are getting their inspiration from Qur'an and Sunnah, unless you think Qur'an and Sunnah is wrong. Unless you want to use that and bring your own evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah to disprove them.

Sensational religious funding by private individuals for those who seek to "Make Allah's name supreme" and bring "Qur'an and Sunnh" to the folds and from just that, individuals.

So we go back to our first saying "prove them wrong from Qur'an and Sunnah" otherwise you are just being religiously intolerant. Government dapple into their politics of the time according to which best serves their interests, religion rarely if ever plays any part in that.

 

[Luffy 500]

A non religious OIC Peace Keeping Force could easily counter Assad and Iran, but gulf Arabs unleashed their secret Jihadi weapon, which they did also in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These r all Hypothetical scenarios and i don't think any ME state has the appetite or capability for regional war yet. Iran btw is becoming more valuable to US interest.

I am no expert, but from my limited knowledge the trend starts with Ibn Taymiyyah, revived by Abdul Wahab and then another trend started by Jamal Afghani, Banna et al. The urge is almost always to purify Islam and go back to 7th century for inspiration, while ignoring or sideline or side skirting the 4 major Madhabs and the jurisprudence (fiqh) that was built in last 1400 years. What I proposed earlier:
How to stop Islamic extremism: Global Fiqh Council (GFC)

Yes u are no expert on the workings of Ibn Taymiyyah and Abdul Wahab and as such how can u pass judgement against them ?

Ibn taymiyyah is one of the greatest scholars of Islam and worked tirelessly to teach correct Islamic creed in its pristine purity. Abdul Wahab fought against the social ills of his time and made sure unislamic shirk practices can not creep into Arabia. The urge is to hold on strongly to the rope of Allah and make sure the deen is propagated in its pristine form which is the 7th century form as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) left it. Neither Abdul Wahab nor Ibn Taymiyyah sidelined the 4 major madhabs infact their work was based on the 4 madhabs. The 4 school of jurisprudence doesn't differ on the basic aqidah and all go back to the 7th century for the basics.

Islam is for all times and the basics are set in stone. As for different times there is room for ijmah and ijtihad by scholars which is within the framework of the fundamentals of Islam and this perfectly suitable for all times.

As for the global fiqh council, u r forgetting the most important thing, terrorist don't give 2 woot about what scholars have to say. Please watch the video link in my last post. But such councils can definitely play a good role.

Some effort like the above or similar is needed by Ulema/scholars to chart a course, outside the influence of petrodollars.

Who will take the effort?

We cannot call these people Wahabi, we cannot call them Salafi, what should we call them then?

U mean what do u want to call terrorist? Just call them terrorist.

Normal everyday Muslims from the four Madhabs? I am afraid you are dismissing valid research by many impartial researchers and scholars.

Western sources r not impartial. They will spout non-sense to suit their agenda.

ISIS is a direct result of the nonsense and rot that spread within Sunni Islam. Iran's theocracy is the Shia version of that rot. Regardless of what they are called, they are the problem and both are armed with petrodollars to spread their Bidaa/innovation.

Every community has rotten eggs. ISIS and other extremist terrorists are rots and balck sheeps of the muslim community. But How do u blame scholars such as ibn taymiyyah and Abdul Wahab for such rots?