Glad to see Saudi govt. has finally taken my advice

[Khafee]

What will happen to shia's?

You need to get in touch with reality fast. Your piss-poor flaming attempt got shot down. Next time, the results won't be nice!

 

[dadeechi]

your idea will lead Pakistan into Civil war between Shia's and Sunni ..

no thank you .. we are better on our own , we did not have to , must not have to push our legs in this Arab Gobber ..

Why would there be civil war? I thought there are only 5% Shias in Pakistan.

 

[fallstuff]

This would be a coalition to serve GCC interest only, in other words it would be designed to fail to curb terrorism. A clear case of fox guarding the hen house !!!

 

[kalu_miah]

I'm so confused, why am I being tagged brother? Islam is Islam. 'Islamism' is a term used nowadays that refers to political activists who want to implement Islam into the society and join Church and State. I refer to the Middle East, I am an 'Islamist' in regards to the ME. As far as the West, I don't want to implement anything here, this a society for secular people and will remain way. But for the ME, 'Islamism' is what looks to be the only possible political alternative which people will long for in the long run.

If these nations will work to meet peoples demands then I'm all for it. But I am familiar with the societies and governments at least in the Arab world. They don't implement Islam into the society, and their political approach is a greedy one which only suits their personal interests. I already know what this coalition will do. It will attack MB in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, etc....It has nothing to do with ISIS. It's about eliminating the effective 'Islamists' who have genuine alternative to the society. Neither is this about Iran. So it's bound to fail, it's just attempted rebranding of their already existent policy but trying to add religious legitimacy to it.

I tagged you because I saw your posts criticizing this new coalition declared by Saudi govt. Islamists want to implement Islam into society, but the sticking point here is which version of Islam? Is it a version Islam according to Imam Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i or Hanbal or is it a reformed reinterpreted version by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Wahhab, Jamal Afghani, Mohd. Abduh, Rashid Rida, Maududi, Qutb et al. Both Salafism and Islamism are based on ideas of these later scholars.
Salafism for Dummies | The Revealer
http://conflictsforum.org/briefings/Wahhabism-Salafism-and-Islamism.pdf

None of them I believe were as qualified as the older historical Mujtahids who have founded the original Madhabs. The fragmentation and infighting of various groups within Salafism and Islamism have pretty much doomed these movements, because they cannot seem to agree on much. And time and time again we can see that some of them shoot themselves at their feet by becoming some kind of satanic death cults as we see in case of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

This is why I suggest the GFC concept to iron out the differences by perhaps going back to the original Madhabs and allow Ijtihad to be done only by a global council of qualified Ulama's that have the required expertise and knowledge:
How to stop Islamic extremism: Global Fiqh Council (GFC)

As for the Arab and Muslim regimes, of course most are authoritarian, dictatorial and more or less anti people. So there removal and replacement with a more democratic alternative would be nicer for the people. But no one wants to leave power voluntarily. In most cases they are either killed or removed by force. So the significance of this Saudi step is that they feel threatened and pressured from the situation in the ME region. They are feeling pressure from Iran, Russia, regional Shia's such as Houthi and of course they are being threatened by ISIS. Obama is cozying up to Iran. The Arab coalition did not do that well in Yemen, so now they are willing to try a bigger Sunni Muslim coalition to see how that works.

I think it is a positive development, because it creates an opportunity for a large number of Sunni Muslim nations to work together towards a common goal. The goal may or may not be achieved, I believe that is secondary, but the experience itself of working together is what I see as having some far reaching potential. This level of cooperation has not happened in a global scale like this in the past, so this fact itself creates a precedence. And that I believe to be an important milestone for the Sunni Muslim world.

So lets give the Saudi govt. the benefit of doubt and lets see how things actually turn out, then we can criticize looking at the results.

 

[nForce]

although you are being a little bit naughty here but question is logical and I think only Saudis have the right to respond to this.
provided that your government actually approaches them and offers its men for their war.
again will it consist of Indian Muslim soldiers only or a mix of others as well?

Muslim Civilian volunteers sounds good to me. They can be trained to fight or they can work in non-combat roles.

 

[Falcon29]

I tagged you because I saw your posts criticizing this new coalition declared by Saudi govt. Islamists want to implement Islam into society, but the sticking point here is which version of Islam? Is it a version Islam according to Imam Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i or Hanbal or is it a reformed reinterpreted version by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Wahhab, Jamal Afghani, Mohd. Abduh, Rashid Rida, Maududi, Qutb et al. Both Salafism and Islamism are based on ideas of these later scholars.
Salafism for Dummies | The Revealer
http://conflictsforum.org/briefings/Wahhabism-Salafism-and-Islamism.pdf

None of them I believe were as qualified as the older historical Mujtahids who have founded the original Madhabs. The fragmentation and infighting of various groups within Salafism and Islamism have pretty much doomed these movements, because they cannot seem to agree on much. And time and time again we can see that some of them shoot themselves at their feet by becoming some kind of satanic death cults as we see in case of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

This is why I suggest the GFC concept to iron out the differences by perhaps going back to the original Madhabs and allow Ijtihad to be done only by a global council of qualified Ulama's that have the required expertise and knowledge:
How to stop Islamic extremism: Global Fiqh Council (GFC)

As for the Arab and Muslim regimes, of course most are authoritarian, dictatorial and more or less anti people. So there removal and replacement with a more democratic alternative would be nicer for the people. But no one wants to leave power voluntarily. In most cases they are either killed or removed by force. So the significance of this Saudi step is that they feel threatened and pressured from the situation in the ME region. They are feeling pressure from Iran, Russia, regional Shia's such as Houthi and of course they are being threatened by ISIS. Obama is cozying up to Iran. The Arab coalition did not do that well in Yemen, so now they are willing to try a bigger Sunni Muslim coalition to see how that works.

I think it is a positive development, because it creates an opportunity for a large number of Sunni Muslim nations to work together towards a common goal. The goal may or may not be achieved, I believe that is secondary, but the experience itself of working together is what I see as having some far reaching potential. This level of cooperation has not happened in a global scale like this in the past, so this fact itself creates a precedence. And that I believe to be an important milestone for the Sunni Muslim world.

So lets give the Saudi govt. the benefit of doubt and lets see how things actually turn out, then we can criticize looking at the results.

Agree with you, will give them benefit of doubt. I don't believe Saudi has ill intentions, but I posted something like this on another forum. To summarize in short, Saudi Arabia can't get the rest of Arab countries to comprehend the scope of threat you described and get them to be attentive to it. Countries like Egypt and Jordan are more focused on cracking down on Muslim Brotherhood, so they will not assist Saudi efforts in Syria or against Iran. So this is why it will fail. Because the stubbornness of other nations wanting to direct efforts against moderate Islamist. This was my overall point I was trying to make in the thread. I am sure Saudi Arabia has gotten past that post-Morsi anti-MB mindset under King Abdullah but the other nations aren't ready to mature yet. I would like your opinion on that.

As for your point on madhabs, having different madhab isn't a problem. For example, MB has followers who share different madhabs but overall general political/social goals are similar. I don't believe in politics by Islamist movements unless they're forced to participate in politics but should keep it at minimum. I believe the armed Islamist should be decision makers and they can agree on common formula. Right now their role in region is small, I'm giving hypothetical scenario if it becomes bigger role in future. But right now main political decisions is dictated by nations so we will see what they are up to. If they can be effective, champion common causes we Sunni's share and also be good willed towards moderate Islamist then I believe it will be new era in Muslim world. But that's asking for a lot.

I'm not sure what you mean by Islamism. Islamism is just reaction to modern state of Muslim society. It is political/social effort to reestablish Islam again. Islam is not established as it should be in most Muslim nations.

 

[Azad-Kashmiri]

Is it a version Islam according to Imam Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i or Hanbal

Sir, there is only ONE sharia and the above are NOT different. They form what is called the Ahal Al-Sunnah wa-Jammath, it is the aqeedah/creed that the above four Mujdahid Imam rahamtha'Allah alayhum.

If you're serious with your question and it is stupid question to claim there are four ''Islams'', because unfortunately, people like you are NOT qualified to discuss this topic. To give you an analogy, what you're ''trying'' to debate is kursi and chair. It is the SAME thing!

So, pick one of the four Madhab and a person who does taqlid of the Hanafi FIQH for eg, will follow any other SUNNAH Madhab of the above school of the Amir. Clear?

In this land of the pure people will NOT follow Shia Imam! Follow means to give bayah only to Sunnah Amir!

 

[Chika_Pika]

They will suck in the Pakistanis and similar other countries into this and make sure somebody else dies for them.

Just like Americans do

 

[kalu_miah]

Agree with you, will give them benefit of doubt. I don't believe Saudi has ill intentions, but I posted something like this on another forum. To summarize in short, Saudi Arabia can't get the rest of Arab countries to comprehend the scope of threat you described and get them to be attentive to it. Countries like Egypt and Jordan are more focused on cracking down on Muslim Brotherhood, so they will not assist Saudi efforts in Syria or against Iran. So this is why it will fail. Because the stubbornness of other nations wanting to direct efforts against moderate Islamist. This was my overall point I was trying to make in the thread. I am sure Saudi Arabia has gotten past that post-Morsi anti-MB mindset under King Abdullah but the other nations aren't ready to mature yet. I would like your opinion on that.

As for your point on madhabs, having different madhab isn't a problem. For example, MB has followers who share different madhabs but overall general political/social goals are similar. I don't believe in politics by Islamist movements unless they're forced to participate in politics but should keep it at minimum. I believe the armed Islamist should be decision makers and they can agree on common formula. Right now their role in region is small, I'm giving hypothetical scenario if it becomes bigger role in future. But right now main political decisions is dictated by nations so we will see what they are up to. If they can be effective, champion common causes we Sunni's share and also be good willed towards moderate Islamist then I believe it will be new era in Muslim world. But that's asking for a lot.

I'm not sure what you mean by Islamism. Islamism is just reaction to modern state of Muslim society. It is political/social effort to reestablish Islam again. Islam is not established as it should be in most Muslim nations.

Its possible that the coalition will fail to achieve any meaningful goals against ISIS, because in your opinion regimes in Egypt and Jordan consider moderate Islamists a bigger threat. But I believe ISIS is a threat for Egyptian and Jordanian regimes as well, as it is a future threat for most Muslim dictatorial regimes in the world. This is because most of these dictatorial regimes are propped up by either by some regional or world power that are hostile to the Muslim world.

Only democratic regimes such as the ones in Turkey, Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Nigeria seem to be safe from ISIS threats as the rulers are more or less answerable to the people. But for Turkey, Syria and Iraq are both right next door, so that makes it a threat for them as well. So using this logic Turkey and the Muslim countries that have dictatorial/authoritarian regimes I believe will participate in an effort to eliminate ISIS.

As for anti Muslim brotherhood or other similar groups in Muslim countries, we have to look at it country by country. Saudi Arabia may have moved on, but obviously Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait are probably still anti-MB and so are many other Muslim countries that are outside of ME that have authoritarian anti-people govt. This will not change in the immediate future.

I did not mean to say having 4-5 Madhabs within Sunni Muslim world in itself is a problem, rather what I meant to say is that by creating new pseudo Madhabs, such as Wahhabism, Salafism, Radical Islamism and even Moderate Islamism based on limited scholarship on ad hoc basis is part of the bigger problem with these relatively new movements. This makes a situation where these people start believing in something that is slightly different from mainstream Islam of different Madhabs and having these groups on the scene makes them an easy target for elimination by anti-Muslim regimes propped up by anti-Muslim powers.

By armed Islamists I believe you mean the rebels in Syria. I am pretty sure they will not be able to achieve unity. Many of them are AQ supporters and biggest of them all ISIS will not unify with anyone. The common problem with all of them is that they believe that their interpretation of Sunni Islam is the only correct one and others (fighters or civilians) are simply following the wrong versions of Islam.

I do not think armed Islamism will be able to bring stable regimes in Sunni Muslim population and countries. I believe we will have to wait out for a decade or two and suffer under dictators for now rather than risk getting killed in a civil war such as what we see in Iraq and Syria. This is why I consider the Saudi effort a good thing, as in case it succeeds, it will not only eliminate a failed strategy for Muslims which is Radical/Armed Islamism, but also create future room for Moderate Islamism which may succeed in bringing democracy and people power to most Muslim countries in the next few decades. The main drivers will be social media, technology and increasing prosperity within Muslim population and countries that will bring democratic changes. A successful Saudi effort may also create space for bigger common efforts among Muslim countries to tackle common problems which will be an additional bonus.

 

[AugenBlick]

your trolling is a failure.
why you think this alliance is against Israel? the clear stated goals are an alliance against the global terrorism and protection of the sovereignty of member states, its not talking about some anti Semitic conquest

Oh comeon buddy....
Who finances all these terrorists ? SA and other gulf countries.
Who do muslims blame for terrorism. Israel.(sometimes india in case of our esteemed neighbors )

This "coalition " is all bells and whistles. There is no anti terror intent, only intent is to pursue saudi geopolitical objectives.

If muslims really wanted to eliminate terror, all they need to do is remove all the hate they preach for jews/hindus/ahmadis/yazidis/west etc. But i don't want to discuss this line of reasoning because I know most members will start the regular oppressed muslims=terror bullshit. They will blame US/Israel/India/Whoever to justify their victim hood and keep on chopping vulnerable minorities like Yazidis .

 

[Sipahi]

now now
lets not be too greedy and unrealistic. even a single squadron will be enough

Irfan bhai lalach tou banda khul kr apni marzi se kare na kam az kam

Most probably force will go Yemen, because Yemen is beyond Saudi control. GCC joint force failed to perform. This operation suppose to be ended in few weeks , but......it is slowly dissolving GCC asset.

will see, currently all are speculations

 

[Sipahi]

Hi,

If you don't swear on the flag---then you would be sent to a boot camp to be re-programmed---and if you don't---then you would be a permanent part of the labor team building the gwadar hwy----.

We would need some Bsc and Msc graduates for the labor force---.

Sir,

I like the Idea of mandatory military service and I fully support it.

 

[rockstar08]

Why would there be civil war? I thought there are only 5% Shias in Pakistan.

5% in 200 million population ... and why should we go into the mess Arabs created for themselves ?
Shia and Sunni Arabs are crazy .. let them fight , let them die their own death .