A Primer On Wahhabi Islam

Excellent article from a few days ago over at Soldiers For The Truth, which really lays out the basis behind the argument that not all Islam is bad, just the extremist forms. The author Robert G. Williscroft explains, in detail, what Wahhabi Islam is and why it is so dangerous to the West.

Mr. Williscroft has laid out the foundations of the two major sects of Islam and of Shari'a, pointing out some details that I wasn't aware of. He also details out Wahhabi Islam in all its gory details. It is one of the harshest (and best supported) condemnations of Saudi Arabia that I've seen in a long, long time.

Wahhabi Islam is the extremist view of Islam. It is the basis on which all the radical movements are based. And it is 100% supported by the House of Saud.

But what is the key element? Education. Wahhabi Islam doesn't have real education (which I define as reading, writing and arithmetic), it only teaches religious absolutism and hatred for anything that is even slightly different. It isn't education; it's indoctrination into a cult of hate.

Until there is a real educational system in place in the Islamic states, there will be problems. At the beginning of the Renaissance in Europe there was a shift from nearly exclusively religious education to a more scientific, secular educational system. The shift from religious dogma to scientific inquiry helped to drag Europe out of the Dark Ages.

Islam is currently in its own version of the Dark Ages. There is virtually no progress in the Islamic world. Like the Church dominated Europe of old, Islam today is ruled by a backwards theocracy. Instead of moving forward, the religious leaders are dragging Islam backwards. Who will be the Islamic Galileo? Who will be the Da Vinci? Will there be an Islamic equivalent of Venice or Florence?

An Islamic Renaissance needs to happen and soon. Europe halted the spread of Islam when the continent was at its weakest intellectually and militarily. Since then, the West has experienced the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Technologically, we can do things that were not even conceived of during the last great incursion of Islam. Islam on the other hand, hasn't really changed. Intellectually, they are at the same point, still fighting the battle against scientific reason. Militarily they have moved from horse-mounted cavalry to steel tank, but there is still the lack of initiative or creativeness that allowed Charles Martel to defeat the Islamists at Poiters.

The House of Saud is the biggest impediment to the needed Islamic Renaissance. Their fanatical support of Wahhabism is repressing the necessary inquiry by denying large portions of the Arab world the tools needed to advance their civilization.

So what I want to know is why do we continue to support the House of Saud?

I know the anti-Bushies will come out and say that it's because of the family business and the family ties. But that can't be the explanation. This has been fermenting for the last few decades. Reagan was the last President who could use the Cold War excuse. Why did Clinton stand fast beside the brutal and repressive regime?

Even protecting our oil supply isn't worth supporting these guys. Was it to protect the military contracts? Was it because of their "support" in the fight against terrorism? Or was it because the US media and citizens chose to look the other way and accepted "blissful" ignorance instead of facing up to the facts?

No matter what the reason, this nation has supported the evil in Riyadh for way too long. Extremist Islam must be stamped out for the good of the world. Dumping the House of Saud is the best start we could make. Let the rest of the extremist wither away after their primary source of resources and recruits to the death cult is ceremoniously relegated to the dustbin of painful history.

Time to introduce them to what Neal Boortz refers to as the Church of the Painful Truth and the sermon on the failure of extremism.