Wahhabism vs. liberalism: trends in the Muslim world

[Northwest]

Judging by the discussions on this forum, one might conclude that liberalism is winning the Muslim ummah. Thread after thread mentions the rise in divorce, experimental drug-taking, apostasy, zina, and so on. On the other hand, my impression is that Wahhabism and Wahhabi-influenced Islamism is winning the ummah far more than liberalism is. The Wahhabis and their acolytes are having more offspring, are more aggressive in proselytisation and conquest, etc. than the liberal or ex-Muslims. They are also far better organised and funded than the liberals. Their appeal extends to a much wider segment of the ummah than that of the liberal currents.

In Muslim country after Muslim country, one sees Wahhabis and their partners gaining power, most recently in Afghanistan, with the return of the Taliban. (The Taliban are Deobandi and therefore historically linked to Wahhabi influences.) Even in states such as Egypt and Tunisia, their underground influence is strong and spreading. Wahhabism has gained a surprisingly strong foothold among Iranian Sunnis as well. Given the predominance of Saudi and Qatari funding, Wahhabism has long since gained predominant influence over Sunni Islam and the Salafi movement(s) generally. By contrast, liberal Islam(-ism) is far less visible and popular.

I think that Wahhabism and its socially conservative, reactionary, sectarian acolytes are winning over the Muslim ummah, not liberalism. (Shiism and traditional Sunni Islam simply lack the resources to defend against Wahhabism, much less compete with it.) The West, Turkey, and Israel also seem to be relying more on Saudis and Qataris than liberal or anti-Islam forces. The West isn’t telling its Saudi, Qatari, and Turkish clients to stop supporting Wahhabism and instead shift to liberalism or anti-Islam campaigning. Instead, the West continues to focus on supporting socially conservative, sectarian, predominately Sunni Islamism, Wahhabism.

Even under MbS the KSA hasn’t shut down its Wahhabi NGOs, foundations, and so on. MbS’s liberalism is mainly cosmetic and geared toward the upper middle classes. Wahhabism is still used to control the vast majority, the masses. There is still a lot of money that is behind Wahhabism. This does not even cover the extreme underground Wahhabis who oppose the state-sponsored Wahhabi clergy and in many ways are even more extreme than the Saudi religious establishment. These underground Wahhabis have long been reaching out to anti-Saudi forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood and are seeking a more “populist“ Wahhabism.

It is the Wahhabis who will be the main Muslim foot soldiers in the coming NATO/Israeli war on Iran, Russia, and China—not the liberal or ex-Muslims.

Note that I include Salafi Muslims as Wahhabis, because virtually all Salafi Islamism today is strongly influenced by Wahhabism.

[Abu_Zahra]

The reality is a bit more complex than 'liberalism vs wahabbism' and even more so when you conclude with a political context.

There are hardly any Muslims today who call themselves wahabbi, except perhaps some in the Indian subcontinent.

If you are referring to salafism, for sure it has a strong influence in regions which didn't already have a strong Muslim tradition. 

However, this is limited by beliefs. When it comes to politics and political activism, there are a lot of 'spin offs' so to speak and they often end up opposing each other (hizbis, ikhwanis, madkhali, etc etc)

Finally when it comes to warfare, the religious motive is just a cover. The key driver behind ISIS was not religion, even if this was maintained as a front for purposes of propaganda. The real foot soldiers were mercenaries who were simply accepting the best rate on the market, which in this case came from ISIS. The intelligence came from ex baathist intelligence officers who were not ready to give up their previously acquired wealth and power. Obviously governments were also involved. 

So to boil this down to liberalism vs wahabbism is most likely inaccurate and irrelevant in the context you are looking it.

If your discussion is based on aqeedah then some sort of a comparison can be made, although again hardly anyone actually identifies as a wahabbi. But in the political context this comparison becomes meaningless. 

 

[Uni Student]

Wahhabism in the east and liberalism in the west (oversimplification)

[Northwest]

On 10/14/2022 at 7:52 PM, Mahdavist said:

If you are referring to Salafism, for sure it has a strong influence in regions which didn't already have a strong Muslim tradition.

@Mahdavist

Yes, I am referring to Salafi ideology in general, which I view as being more less under Wahhabi influence vis-à-vis the GCC, at least today.

On 10/14/2022 at 7:52 PM, Mahdavist said:

However, this is limited by beliefs. When it comes to politics and political activism, there are a lot of 'spin offs' so to speak and they often end up opposing each other (hizbis, ikhwanis, madkhali, etc etc)

As far as opposition to traditional Sunni fiqh is concerned, they all seem to be very unified and even aggressive. They oppose traditional Sunni scholarship almost more than they oppose Shias at times. Most of these Salafi movements were engineered by the British colonisers to undermine “feudalistic” Sunni Islam and introduce modernistic currents under the guise of “purifying” the faith.

On 10/14/2022 at 7:52 PM, Mahdavist said:

Finally when it comes to warfare, the religious motive is just a cover. The key driver behind ISIS was not religion, even if this was maintained as a front for purposes of propaganda. The real foot soldiers were mercenaries who were simply accepting the best rate on the market, which in this case came from ISIS. The intelligence came from ex baathist intelligence officers who were not ready to give up their previously acquired wealth and power. Obviously governments were also involved.

I don’t entirely agree. I know that some people here very much wish to defend Islamic unity against the secular West, but it would be a lie to conclude that all those mercenaries who joined Daesh, Boko Haram, the Taliban, et al. were just doing so for pay. Money alone would not motivate these people to leave their homelands, undergo privations, and risk death for years on end.

It’s pretty dangerous and self-defeating for minorities such as Shias to deny that many “Muslims” are sincerely motivated by their own religious interpretation(s) to commit horrific crimes—especially when these “Muslims” hate fellow coreligionists who simply adhere to a different sect. Many Shias and others have gotten killed for seeking Islamic unity, a chimera, misjudging Sunni masses.

Secular individuals and powers have certainly been manipulating the violent Salafi currents, but the religious inspirations were already present and prevalent. As a person who yearns for a world in which religious minorities are free to govern themselves and practice their faith(s), I feel that we must not deny the role of religiously inspired, genocidal violence. Salafi sects must be wiped out.

1 hour ago, Uni Student said:

Wahhabism in the east and liberalism in the west (oversimplification)

Wahhabism is very widespread in the West as well, as are broader Salafi currents. Observant Sunnis in the West and East are under the thumb of the Salafi bigots. Religious Sunnis are growing in number much faster than nonobservant or secular Sunnis. Among the former, Salafi extremism, even subliminal, is dominant. Given this, I don’t understand why people see secular liberalism as a greater threat. Has secular liberalism taken over Afghanistan? Turkey? Qatar? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Bangladesh? No, but Salafi ideology has. If the West wants to spread secular liberalism instead of Salafi extremism, why didn’t it seek to prevent the Taliban from regaining power in Afghanistan? Why didn’t it seek to impose a Western-style liberal regime there, for instance?

[Northwest]

Quote

Political analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi finding a “growing trend of Islamic sectarianism” predicts that with Pakistan’s rapid shift...“sectarian thinking” is likely to dominate. ...

Pakistan’s own domestic policy of using jihad as a tool ...

Pakistan’s neighbour-phobic national identity anchored in religious ideology ...

nothing short of genocide against the Shias ...

“What’s worse we were advised by elders in our village, that we shouldn’t agitate as it may fuel riots,” he said. ... 

“studious silence of the Shia massacre by the Sunni majority” ... 

“Pakistan was conceived in haste with just one goal in mind – Muslims must be separated from Hindus, and then somehow all Muslims will live together in bliss. Zero thought was given to what happens when religious fervour is aroused,” ... 

The pre-independence writings by Wahabbi, Deobandi and Ahle-Hadees hardliners, added Rizvi, show discord between Shias and Sunnis existed even then.

blamed the rise in extremism to the “overdose of religion given to young Pakistanis”

50 per cent of Sunnis in Pakistan believe Shias to be non-Muslims

Source

Quote

parts of the military still see Islamist militants as important tools of foreign policy in India and Afghanistan

some of them can be rehabilitated and persuaded to aim their guns, suicide vests, and vehicle-born IEDS away from the Pakistani state and towards Afghanistan or India

voters in the Punjab who support the agenda of the TTP and their anti-Shia sectarian allies

no Pakistani government has seriously sought to completely extirpate those Deobandi groups that slaughter Shia

the state outsources its domestic violence to terrorists such as LeJ/SSP/ASWJ

Hazaras draw the ire of Deobandis and Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies because they oppose the Afghan Taliban

Source

All this is a reality not just in Pakistan, but also throughout the Sunni world, and is being promoted by the West vis-à-vis the Salafi GCC. Where’s the secular liberalism?

[Abu_Zahra]

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

As far as opposition to traditional Sunni fiqh is concerned, they all seem to be very unified and even aggressive. They oppose traditional Sunni scholarship almost more than they oppose Shias at times

I don't think this is accurate.  The four Imams of Ahl us Sunnah are generally well respected and recognized by most Salafis. In fact Salafism isn't a separate fiqhi school, rather a Salafi can adhere to any of the four prominent schools. Furthermore their aqeedah in general is probably not very far from the teachings of Ahmed ibn Hanbal.

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

I don’t entirely agree. I know that some people here very much wish to defend Islamic unity against the secular West, but it would be a lie to conclude that all those mercenaries who joined Daesh, Boko Haram, the Taliban, et al. were just doing so for pay. Money alone would not motivate these people to leave their homelands, undergo privations, and risk death for years on end.

On the contrary,  when you are an ex army or policeman in North Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other low income Muslim countries, then the prospect of supplementing a pathetic pension can be very tempting.  

Just picking up someone from the street and putting them against trained militaries doesn't work. You need people who know how to use military equipment properly.

The people who showed up thinking they were joining a caliphate and performing jihad were useful for making propaganda videos but weren't going to win any real battles against the Syrian army 

 

[Northwest]

On 10/16/2022 at 7:57 PM, Mahdavist said:

...

@Mahdavist @Ashvazdanghe @khizarr

On a related note, do you have any idea as to why the West isn’t promoting secularism in, say, Pakistan? If the West aims to impose secularism, why hasn’t it ordered its Saudi, Qatari, and Turkish proxies to stop financing Wahhabi–Salafi forces in Pakistan? If Pakistan were truly a secular country, it would either a) discriminate against all religions equally or b) enforce genuine religious pluralism. Yet today Pakistan generates religious hostility to religious minorities such as the Shia. It wouldn’t make sense for the West to continue backing sectarian religious forces if its aim were to impose Western-style secularism in Pakistan (and elsewhere in the Sunni world).

Edited November 10, 2022 by Northwest

[Abu_Zahra]

7 hours ago, Northwest said:

 

On a related note, do you have any idea as to why the West isn’t promoting secularism in, say, Pakistan?

I don't think their main interest lies in secularism or theocracies. As long as a government is subservient to America and its puppets, they don't care less about human rights, fair elections or any of the other values they pretend to champion. 

[Northwest]

17 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I don't think their main interest lies in secularism or theocracies.

@Mahdavist

The U.S. and its clients have long exerted near-total control over Pakistan. If the U.S. and Co. are above all hostile to religion, including Islam, then one would have expected them to use their influence and impose a hardline atheistic/secularist regime in Pakistan, à la Kemal Atatürk (pre-AKP Turkey) or the Pahlavi Shah (pre-Revolutionary Iran). Instead the U.S. and Co. have been consistently upholding a Wahhabi–Salafi military-intelligence establishment in Pakistan that relies on religious bigotry and sectarianism to maintain and project power. This is still going on under the latest “civilian” figurehead, after Imran Khan’s departure. Without explicit American support/command, the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment would have long since abandoned its ideological affinity with GCC-sponsored Wahhabi–Salafi sectarianism. There must be a reason as to why the U.S. and Co. have clearly preferred to back Wahhabi–Salafi regimes in the Sunni world vs. hardline atheistic/secularist regimes.

[Abu Hadi]

20 minutes ago, Northwest said:

@Mahdavist

The U.S. and its clients have long exerted near-total control over Pakistan. If the U.S. and Co. are above all hostile to religion, including Islam, then one would have expected them to use their influence and impose a hardline atheistic/secularist regime in Pakistan, à la Kemal Atatürk (pre-AKP Turkey) or the Pahlavi Shah (pre-Revolutionary Iran). Instead the U.S. and Co. have been consistently upholding a Wahhabi–Salafi military-intelligence establishment in Pakistan that relies on religious bigotry and sectarianism to maintain and project power. This is still going on under the latest “civilian” figurehead, after Imran Khan’s departure. Without explicit American support/command, the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment would have long since abandoned its ideological affinity with GCC-sponsored Wahhabi–Salafi sectarianism. There must be a reason as to why the U.S. and Co. have clearly preferred to back Wahhabi–Salafi regimes in the Sunni world vs. hardline atheistic/secularist regimes.

I don't think they are hostile to religion, including Islam, above all. 

A more accurate statement would be they are hostile, above all, to anyone or any ideology or system which directly challenges their authority and is a viable system separate and apart from them, i.e. a system or ideology that is independent of them, something which they don't control. 

Their favorite choice for Pakistan (and other places) is the Salafi Wahabist ideology for two main reasons. 

First, it is acceptable to most of the Pakistani people. The Salafist portrayal of themselves as being primarily interested in 'Amr bil Maroof wa Nahiya Al Munkhar' (Enjoining good and forbidding evil, a specific Islamic concept and the main function of an Islamic government) is 'good enough' to fool most of the Pakistani people into thinking that this is what they are doing and that this is their primary motivation. They don't fool the Shia, and other minority groups, but they fool alot of people. In order to govern, it is essential that you have a large number of people, ideally the majority of the people supporting you and believing your cause. There is no way to govern without this support, and the US. & Co know this. 

Second, the US & Co control them from behind the scenes. This is the ideal setup for them because if anything goes wrong, they can blame the Wahabist / Salafist government while not exposing themselves to blame. If anything goes right, they can take credit for it. They control them thru $$ which they pay to them under the guise of 'selling weapons and other 'defense' related services' via US / European Defense Contractors. Without that continuous flow of money, the Salafists would be finished in a few days, and for that reason they are completely dependant on US & Co. so they can't refuse any type of order they are given. 

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[khizarr]

On 11/10/2022 at 8:40 AM, Northwest said:

On a related note, do you have any idea as to why the West isn’t promoting secularism in, say, Pakistan?

For the same reason that the United States jumps in to help every time Pakistan treads on the brink of default. They don't want a country as polarized as Pakistan to go berserk. And promoting secularism will do just that.

Promoting secularism is not viable or safe in a country that has a heavily funded military, nuclear warheads, countless different ethnicities and ideological currents, and where mullahs often get in bed with the establishment due to their sheer power to sway people and impact societal affairs. It is far more easier to promote secularism in a homogeneous society. I think that the secularist seedling is present in Pakistan, but is yet to sprout. Pakistan is commonly considered to have been created out of a religious need for a Muslim homeland, it is one of the few self described Islamic Republics, and is therefore a de facto non-secular state. 

I also don't think the United States is particularly interested in spreading secularism in the Muslim world. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by khizarr

[Northwest]

On 11/12/2022 at 7:16 AM, khizarr said:

For the same reason that the United States jumps in to help every time Pakistan treads on the brink of default. They don't want a country as polarized as Pakistan to go berserk. And promoting secularism will do just that.

@khizarr

The problem with your statement is that the U.S. literally created the anti-secularist forces in Pakistan to begin with, during the Cold War. The Deobandi and related Wahhabi–Salafi forces were/are used by the U.S., as they were/are by the British, to counter anti-imperialist Pashtun and other tribal forces on the Afghan–Pakistani frontier, as well as to subdue Soviet/Russian influence. The U.S. helped forge an alliance between the sectarian clerics and the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment to this end. Without Western support via the GCC, the unpopular Wahhabi–Salafi clerics would not continue to retain significant, hegemonic influence within Pakistan and its near abroad. After all, the Taliban, being sponsored by the West and Saudis via the Pakistani ISI, continue to be very unpopular within Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. If the West were to order its proxies to stop supporting the Taliban and their ilk, there would most likely be a popular uprising that would quickly exterminate all the sectarian clerics, given that most of the masses despise the Wahhabi–Salafi forces. Promoting secularism would not cause Pakistan to “go berserk,” but the opposite!

On 11/12/2022 at 7:16 AM, khizarr said:

Promoting secularism is not viable or safe in a country that has a heavily funded military, nuclear warheads, countless different ethnicities and ideological currents, and where mullahs often get in bed with the establishment due to their sheer power to sway people and impact societal affairs.

This is just an excuse used by the U.S. and its allies to continue supporting religious extremists who repress and manipulate their own people.

 

[Northwest]

On 11/11/2022 at 5:17 PM, Abu Hadi said:

First, it is acceptable to most of the Pakistani people. The Salafist portrayal of themselves as being primarily interested in 'Amr bil Maroof wa Nahiya Al Munkhar' (Enjoining good and forbidding evil, a specific Islamic concept and the main function of an Islamic government) is 'good enough' to fool most of the Pakistani people into thinking that this is what they are doing and that this is their primary motivation. They don't fool the Shia, and other minority groups, but they fool a lot of people. In order to govern, it is essential that you have a large number of people, ideally the majority of the people supporting you and believing your cause. There is no way to govern without this support, and the US. & Co know this.

@Abu Hadi

Having thought about this for some time, I must respectfully disagree in part. I don’t think that the Pakistanis who do support the Wahhabi–Salafi groups are in the least “fooled.” When the Wahhabi–Salafi groups called for “jihad” against Syria’s Assad, surely their supporters in Pakistan noticed that the West, Israel included, was also opposing Assad, especially in various fora such as the media. Even today Wahhabi–Salafi groups such as the anti-China Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), affiliated with al-Qaida and Daesh, openly state that they appreciate America’s support and are basing their “caliphate” on the Zionist model. During NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan the Taliban openly protected Western bases while killing Afghan civilians. Leaders of Wahhabi–Salafi groups in the Caucasus have repeatedly affirmed that they have no conflict of interest with America or the collective West.

All this actually goes far beyond a mere tactical alliance and reflects profound admiration of the Western and Zionist project. My point is that no one in Pakistan who supports the Wahhabi–Salafi agenda can reasonably claim ignorance about its pro-Western, pro-Zionist stance. The evidence is publicly available and internationally distributed; the leaders of the Wahhabi–Salafi groups themselves openly espouse pro-American, pro-Israeli talking points. At the same time they have not become the slightest bit secular in orientation or outlook, much less liberal. Given the dependence of these groups—as well as that of their immediate sponsor, the GCC—on Western/Zionist control, surely they would be at the mercy of a determined effort to impose genuine secularism, pluralism, and/or Western-style liberalism on the Sunni ummah. The West has the means to do so, but clearly lacks the will.

On 11/11/2022 at 5:17 PM, Abu Hadi said:

Without that continuous flow of money, the Salafists would be finished in a few days, and for that reason they are completely dependant on US & Co. so they can't refuse any type of order they are given.

Precisely. This brings me to the gist of my argument: the rulers of the collective West have had absolutely no compunction about achieving their aims. They destroyed the global economy several times over, have killed millions of people in world wars, and are ruthlessly imposing the Great Reset via digitalisation, lockdowns, mandatory vaccines, “woke” ideology, and so on. These very same elites created the Wahhabi–Salafi ideology and its Saudi patron(s) to begin with. All their moves have been largely successful, against the wishes of the majority of planet Earth. Endless ruthlessness and infinite means (privately owned central banking, petrodollar, etc.) have been sufficient. Given that these same elites once installed the hardline secularist Atatürk in Turkey, against the wishes of most Muslims, surely they would be able to replicate the same all over the Sunni world. Yet they don’t.

This to me reveals far more about the West’s actual ideology than mere assertion. Action, or lack thereof, is the only thing that matters. Moreover, while you may disagree with me, I would even argue that were the West to drop nuclear warheads on the Kaaba, the vast majority of Sunni Muslims, being under Wahhabi–Salafi influence, would either a) not care or b) blame anyone but the West. In other words, they would rather defend the West/Israel than side with, say, Shias and Christians against the West/Israel. After all, they openly allow the likes of MbS, Erdoğan, et al. to rule with impunity, while openly supporting Western/Israeli narratives on matters of importance. So the fact that the West has the power not only to impose universal secularism but also to destroy Sunni Islam yet chooses not to is very telling, given that a determined effort would almost certainly be successful.

My real question then is: why is the West only imposing “woke” secularism on its own citizens but not on Sunni Muslims in, say, Wahhabi–Salafi states such as Pakistan?

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

Having thought about this for some time, I must respectfully disagree in part. I don’t think that the Pakistanis who do support the Wahhabi–Salafi groups are in the least “fooled.” When the Wahhabi–Salafi groups called for “jihad” against Syria’s Assad, surely their supporters in Pakistan noticed that the West, Israel included, was also opposing Assad, especially in various fora such as the media.

 

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

All this actually goes far beyond a mere tactical alliance and reflects profound admiration of the Western and Zionist project. My point is that no one in Pakistan who supports the Wahhabi–Salafi agenda can reasonably claim ignorance about its pro-Western, pro-Zionist stance. The evidence is publicly available and internationally distributed;

Hi majority of supporters of Wahhabi–Salafi groups  in rural areas don't have any access to Internet or Media or it has been banned for them by Wahhabi–Salafi  leaders which only handpicked people have access to Internet & media for distributing their propaganda or their statemnet for outside world or maybe few supporters in cities may have access to internet & Media which they have highly brainwashed by Wahhabi–Salafi so therefore they resist against accepting truth.

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

My real question then is: why is the West only imposing “woke” secularism on its own citizens but not on Sunni Muslims in, say, Wahhabi–Salafi states such as Pakistan?

I think because every oundation of religion have been neutralized in west but on the other hand religous duties still are most important things in Pakistan which due that people don't accept "woke" at Pakistan anyway we can see some traces of it betwen young generations in cities likewise Lahor due to affection with Internet & some of western founded Media in Pkiastan.

[Northwest]

On 12/17/2022 at 11:31 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

maybe few supporters in cities may have access to internet & Media

@Ashvazdanghe

If so, they would have certainly been aware of Western and Israeli opposition to Assad, so I highly doubt that “brainwashing” played a role. They would have known.

On 12/17/2022 at 11:31 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

I think because every oundation of religion have been neutralized in west but on the other hand religous duties still are most important things in Pakistan which due that people don't accept "woke" at Pakistan anyway we can see some traces of it betwen young generations in cities likewise Lahor due to affection with Internet & some of western founded Media in Pkiastan.

To me this is irrelevant. The Western elite successfully imposed Atatürk’s hardline secularist regime on the religious Turkish masses for nearly eighty years, sparing no resources whatsoever in its effort to do so. As you mentioned, the same Western elite also managed to undermine its subjects’ religiosity at home as well, so if it really desired to do so, it could and would install hardline secularist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The fact that the Western elite has the ability to do so but chooses not to tells me that it is not interested in secularism.

[Northwest]

On 12/21/2022 at 4:29 PM, Northwest said:

@Ashvazdanghe

If so, they would have certainly been aware of Western and Israeli opposition to Assad, so I highly doubt that “brainwashing” played a role. They would have known.

To me this is irrelevant. The Western elite successfully imposed Atatürk’s hardline secularist regime on the religious Turkish masses for nearly eighty years, sparing no resources whatsoever in its effort to do so. As you mentioned, the same Western elite also managed to undermine its subjects’ religiosity at home as well, so if it really desired to do so, it could and would install hardline secularist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. The fact that the Western elite has the ability to do so but chooses not to tells me that it is not interested in secularism.

To further back this up: international, pro-Western sources, using the U.N. as cover, have already transferred more than $1.8 billion in assistance to the Taliban regime under the guise of “humanitarianism.” The aid has not just gone to Taliban-friendly NGOs in Afghanistan, but also to Taliban-controlled ministries such as finance, economy, interior, transport, civil aviation, electricity, and water—in short, all the essential components that keep the Taliban regime in power. In fact, the “humanitarian” cover has allowed the West to use the U.N. to transfer funds to sanctioned Taliban officials. So while pretending to decry the Taliban’s moves, the West is actively financing and arming the Taliban through so-called “humanitarian” channels. Once again, please explain why the West is actively supporting a misogynist, anti-secularist Taliban regime instead of working to install a feminist, hardline secularist regime in Kabul.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Northwest

[Ashvazdanghe]

14 hours ago, Northwest said:

Once again, please explain why the West is actively supporting a misogynist, anti-secularist Taliban regime instead of working to install a feminist, hardline secularist regime in Kabul.

Hi it's due to belief system & culture & demographic of Afghanistan which people of Afghanistan always put religion & culture over everything which historically it's proven which they have  not tolerated any secular government likewise westernized  ruling of Mohammed Zahir Shah or anti religion government likewise communist ruling over Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992 which whole of era of communist ruling on Afghanistan all of Afghan people whether sunni or Shia from any ethnicity have united against all aspects of it likewise spreading feminism by both of communist party & Humaira Begum wife of Mohammed Zahir Shah which both of them have been more secular than any Queen or king even more secular & feminist than shah of Iran  & his queen which both of these types westernized & soviet governments  have been rejected by people of Afghanistan because procedure of both governments have been against belief & cultural values of people of Afghanistan which in similar fashion American backed governors of Afghanistan although of heavy support of America from spreading feminism & secularism at the end have been rejected by Afghan people because people of Afghanistan prefer any government which claims that follows sharia code & cultural values even a barbaric ,misogynist, anti-secularist Taliban regime  over all of these previous three types of governments which people of Afghanistan only accept an Islamic government which follows cultural values which also supports  education of women & developing of Afghanistan which Taliban has failed about these issues which probably they will fall again until Afghanistan will have an Islamic government which supports education of everyone & developing Afghanistan.

[Northwest]

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi it's due to belief system & culture & demographic of Afghanistan which people of Afghanistan always put religion & culture over everything which historically it's proven which they have  not tolerated any secular government likewise westernized  ruling of Mohammed Zahir Shah or anti religion government likewise communist ruling over Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992 which whole of era of communist ruling on Afghanistan all of Afghan people whether sunni or Shia from any ethnicity have united against all aspects of it likewise spreading feminism by both of communist party & Humaira Begum wife of Mohammed Zahir Shah which both of them have been more secular than any Queen or king even more secular & feminist than shah of Iran  & his queen which both of these types westernized & soviet governments  have been rejected by people of Afghanistan because procedure of both governments have been against belief & cultural values of people of Afghanistan

@Ashvazdanghe

While you are not incorrect, you neglect to mention that those regimes did develop Afghanistan. The regimes of Zahir Shah, Muhammad Daoud, and the Soviet-aligned rulers installed infrastructure, sanitation, technical education, and so on. They also helped maintain Afghanistan’s diversified agricultural sector. By contrast, it was the pro-“religious” groups, most of which were Sunni or Wahhabi–Salafi, that destroyed the work of the secularist governments, with the assistance of the West, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. These groups forced Afghan farmers to export heroin for the benefit of Western multinational corporations, banks, and criminal syndicates, while using the revenue to finance Wahhabi–Salafi madrassas and insurgent campaigns.

The unfortunate reality is that, save Iran, most “Islamic” regimes have done far less to develop their countries than secularist ones. Even Saddam’s regime, brutal though it was, did more to develop Iraq internally than the post-Saddam governments. Religiously-based Sunni regimes, unlike secularist ones, tend to rely on foreign handouts rather than work to develop their domestic resources. Simply compare the achievements of a Saddam, Assad, or Gaddafi to an MbS, General Zia, or Mullah Omar. The secularists made massive achievements vs. the religious. The religious Sunni regimes always end up as terroristic, misogynist, sectarian, bigoted, underdeveloped basket-cases, dependent on Western neocolonialism and “expertise.”

Gaddafi gave Libya universal healthcare, housing, education, hygiene, and clean water. Mullah Omar gave Afghanistan heroin, burqas, and Shia genocide.

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

which in similar fashion American backed governors of Afghanistan although of heavy support of America from spreading feminism & secularism at the end have been rejected by Afghan people because people of Afghanistan

The West actually spent very little on feminism and secularism in Afghanistan. Most of the money went to Pashtun, pro-Taliban, Pakistan-aligned groups and sympathisers such as the Karzai and Ghani cliques. (In the 1990s the Taliban tried to recruit Karzai for a senior role in their “emirate” and Ghani himself played a major role in selling out Afghanistan to the Taliban.) In the meantime ethnic and religious minorities such as the Hazara, Tajiks, and Uzbeks were systematically excluded from power, both under the Taliban and the Karzai–Ghani duoply. NATO was notoriously complicit in failing to properly fund, equip, and train the central Afghan army, while declining to help Afghans restore their domestic agriculture, housing, healthcare, culture, etc. All the Western funding went to Wahhabi–Salafi-aligned interests such as the drug-and-arms trade, Saudi-linked madrassas, Taliban-aligned militias, and so on. You can’t really blame the West for trying to do something—“spread feminism/secularism,” inclusivity, or pluralism—that it never made a serious effort to do in Afghanistan.

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

prefer any government which claims that follows sharia code & cultural values even a barbaric ,misogynist, anti-secularist Taliban regime  over all of these previous three types of governments which people of Afghanistan only accept an Islamic government which follows cultural values which also supports  education of women & developing of Afghanistan which Taliban has failed about these issues which probably they will fall again until Afghanistan will have an Islamic government which supports education of everyone & developing Afghanistan.

As I mentioned earlier, just about any “Islamic” government in Afghanistan would do far worse of a job developing the country than a secular, pluralistic one would:

^ This is what religious governance has brought to Pakistan. More than half of the population now thinks that shedding non-Sunni blood and property is halal.

[Ashvazdanghe]

8 hours ago, Northwest said:

While you are not incorrect, you neglect to mention that those regimes did develop Afghanistan. The regimes of Zahir Shah, Muhammad Daoud, and the Soviet-aligned rulers installed infrastructure, sanitation, technical education, and so on. They also helped maintain Afghanistan’s diversified agricultural sector. By contrast, it was the pro-“religious” groups, most of which were Sunni or Wahhabi–Salafi, that destroyed the work of the secularist governments, with the assistance of the West, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. These groups forced Afghan farmers to export heroin for the benefit of Western multinational corporations, banks, and criminal syndicates, while using the revenue to finance Wahhabi–Salafi madrassas and insurgent campaigns.

The unfortunate reality is that, save Iran, most “Islamic” regimes have done far less to develop their countries than secularist ones. Even Saddam’s regime, brutal though it was, did more to develop Iraq internally than the post-Saddam governments. Religiously-based Sunni regimes, unlike secularist ones, tend to rely on foreign handouts rather than work to develop their domestic resources. Simply compare the achievements of a Saddam, Assad, or Gaddafi to an MbS, General Zia, or Mullah Omar. The secularists made massive achievements vs. the religious. The religious Sunni regimes always end up as terroristic, misogynist, sectarian, bigoted, underdeveloped basket-cases, dependent on Western neocolonialism and “expertise.”

 

Hi they have developed because they have appeared during modern era due to developing & spreading technology in all whole of world which has forced them to use modern technolgies of their time so therefore they have forced to build limited infrastructures for benefitting it  just by themselves likewise new Taliban is using cutting edge technolgies for justtification of themselves although of keeping their brutal & backward mindset which all of these developments only have been applied in in few big cities of these countries which at Iran until end of Pahlavi era only few big cities of Tehran & Mashhad  & Abadan & somehow Isfahan   & Shiraz & Ramsar have had adequate infrastructures because these cities have been favored by which Pahlavi dynasty due to buiding their palaces or having religious  importance or living British & American expacts in Abadan  majority of cities & villages & rural areas of Iran have not any infrastructure or adquate roads & eletricity which a great development & spreading infrastructures have been happened after Islamic revolution of Iran by command of Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) so then later Imam Khamenei which in similar fashion of Taliban cursed Saddam & Gaddafi & MbS & General Zia have developed infrastructres just in cities  where they have been rulling there just for themselves & their followers not for whole of people of their countries so therfore secularism & development have no direct connection with each other also in similar fashion being a religious government doesn't contradict with development of country .

Quote

Gaddafi gave Libya universal healthcare, housing, education, hygiene, and clean water. Mullah Omar gave Afghanistan heroin, burqas, and Shia genocide.

Both of them & cursed Saddam  have done their actions based on orders of their masters which for a period time of time America has allowed limited development in Libya & Iraq through Gaddafi  & Saddam to let them rule over their countries  with iron hand so in order to  sell cheap oil to America which in similar fashion Mullah Omar has followed orders of America & KSA for keeping Afghanistan in total chaos for supporting of American drug network by providing cheap heroinn & opiom .. & being a treat for Iran & Shia muslims which in similar fashion MbS is following footsteps of previous puppets of America which between them Assad family have been a little better than rest of them due to standing against Isreal & supporting Iran during Saddam-Iran war although they have not been free from corruption & ruling with Iron hand which at the end Bashar Assad has had to done some reforms in Syria for limiting financial corruption & some developments  in Syria due to being one of memers of axis resistance against Isreal &America.

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

The West actually spent very little on feminism and secularism in Afghanistan. Most of the money went to Pashtun, pro-Taliban, Pakistan-aligned groups and sympathisers such as the Karzai and Ghani cliques. (In the 1990s the Taliban tried to recruit Karzai for a senior role in their “emirate” and Ghani himself played a major role in selling out Afghanistan to the Taliban.) In the meantime ethnic and religious minorities such as the Hazara, Tajiks, and Uzbeks were systematically excluded from power, both under the Taliban and the Karzai–Ghani duoply. NATO was notoriously complicit in failing to properly fund, equip, and train the central Afghan army, while declining to help Afghans restore their domestic agriculture, housing, healthcare, culture, etc. All the Western funding went to Wahhabi–Salafi-aligned interests such as the drug-and-arms trade, Saudi-linked madrassas, Taliban-aligned militias, and so on. You can’t really blame the West for trying to do something—“spread feminism/secularism,” inclusivity, or pluralism—that it never made a serious effort to do in Afghanistan.

It has been a mixed blessing which both of Karzai and Ghani  have done both of paradoxical spreading of feminism & liberalism in Kabul & Qandahar & other big cities of Afghanistan while at parallel of it they have been supporting pan Pashun,propTaliban Pakistan-aligned groups in borders & rural places of Afghanistan which their pardoxical avtivities have done by order of America until America has favord Taliban to them in order to return Afghanistan to stone age & total chaos because according to America project of spreading feminism & secularism in Afghanistan by Karzai and Ghani  has been failed which handing again Afghanistan to Taliban for turning it into a treat for Iran has been cheaper strategy for saving money of American politicians instead of wasting their money for traing Afghanistan army & limited rebuilding of infrastructures which whole of destruction of Afghanistan has happened for following west or east instead of relyying on itself.

9 hours ago, Northwest said:

As I mentioned earlier, just about any “Islamic” government in Afghanistan would do far worse of a job developing the country than a secular, pluralistic one would:

Conclusion ,There is no difference between Taliban government or Secular or communist government in Afghanistan until it's government is puppet of west or east wich before fake reforms of Zahir Shah , the islamic government of Durani dynasty of Afghanistan has been a self reliant country & a traet for British colonianism in India which  corruption of Zahir Shah by Britain has lead to weakening of Afghanistan which due that communists could overthrow him by help of soviet union which after that America has became inheritor of Britain so then has created bipolarity of western secularism & Taliban in Afghanistan for looting valuable minerals likewise lithium & cheap supporting of drug network & using it as a treat aginst Iran.

[Northwest]

On 1/3/2023 at 6:18 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Assad family have been a little better than rest of them due to standing against Isreal & supporting Iran during Saddam-Iran war although they have not been free from corruption & ruling with Iron hand which at the end Bashar Assad has had to done some reforms in Syria for limiting financial corruption & some developments  in Syria due to being one of memers of axis resistance against Isreal &America.

@Ashvazdanghe

He didn’t need to implement those economic reforms, but was forced to do so by the West and Co. According to the pro-Israeli think tank MEMRI, the IMF had pushed Assad to liberalise Syria’s domestic economy. The IMF demanded: the streamlining/downsizing of regulation(s); an end to trade-barriers; and large-scale structural reforms such as privatisation. Specifically, the IMF wanted to promote the service and financial sectors at the expense of the productive. Under Western pressure, Assad allowed private, GCC-linked banks to establish themselves in Syria, eliminated some subsidies, and merged several exchange rates. As a result, even figures such as Hillary Clinton praised Assad as an economic “reformer”, even though liberalisation has arguably corrupted the Syrian military-intelligence apparatus, by allowing the defence sector to invest in lucrative private businesses.

On 1/3/2023 at 6:18 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

It has been a mixed blessing which both of Karzai and Ghani  have done both of paradoxical spreading of feminism & liberalism in Kabul & Qandahar & other big cities of Afghanistan while at parallel of it they have been supporting pan Pashun,propTaliban Pakistan-aligned groups in borders & rural places of Afghanistan which their pardoxical avtivities have done by order of America until America has favord Taliban to them in order to return Afghanistan to stone age & total chaos because according to America project of spreading feminism & secularism in Afghanistan by Karzai and Ghani  has been failed

I would argue that the promotion of feminism and liberalism in the urban areas was more of a PR project for foreign consumption than a serious domestic effort. After all, most of Afghanistan’s population resided in rural areas. The fact that the Karzai and Ghani administrations actively promoted the spread of the Taliban in the rural areas shows that they never intended secularism to be a viable project. The fact that the West failed to properly train and equip the central Afghan army since 2001 further shows that it favoured the Taliban from the very beginning. So large-scale secularism was never adequately supported and thus was meant to fail by the West.

[Northwest]

On 1/3/2023 at 6:18 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Taliban cursed Saddam & Gaddafi & MbS & General Zia have developed infrastructres just in cities  where they have been rulling there just for themselves & their followers not for whole of people of their countries so therfore secularism & development have no direct connection with each other also in similar fashion being a religious government doesn't contradict with development of country .

Both of them & cursed Saddam  have done their actions based on orders of their masters which for a period time of time America has allowed limited development in Libya & Iraq through Gaddafi  & Saddam to let them rule over their countries  with iron hand so in order to  sell cheap oil to America which in similar fashion Mullah Omar has followed orders of America & KSA for keeping Afghanistan in total chaos for supporting of American drug network by providing cheap heroin & opium

@Ashvazdanghe

General Zia, the Taliban, and the Saudi elites did not develop their countries’ productive capacities at all, whereas the secularist dictators, however brutally, at least did so to some degree. The secularists did not rely entirely on foreign specialists, unlike the Islamists. My point is that the secularists have at least some achievement to boast of, however deceitfully, while the Islamists have absolutely nothing. (I exclude Iran for a reason. I consider the Iranians—who are not flawless, of course—to be actual Muslims, unlike the West’s Islamist puppets in the GCC etc.) Secularist countries such as China, Cuba, India, Venezuela, Syria, the former USSR, etc. have actually developed their internal capacities without being completely dependent on foreign expertise. So far Iran is the only religious/theocratic example in the Muslim world to have done so, at least under Imam Khomeini; unfortunately the country has drifted toward neoliberalism since the 1990s.

Still, I think it says something that theocratic “Muslim” governments, with the exception of Iran, have generally done less, often far less, to develop their countries than secularist regimes. The religious “Muslim” governments outside Iran tend to spend most of their time killing other religious people, stealing their property, spreading terrorism, relying on imperialist handouts, and trafficking drugs/arms. I already offered a prime example: Pakistan. More than half of Pakistani Sunnis see religious minorities, especially Shias, Christians, and Hindus, as bigger problems than corruption, poor infrastructure, the lack of healthcare, education, and so on. These people prefer to live in a wasteland and be dependent on Western imperialism rather than have non-Sunnis as neighbours. The woman-hating, bigoted rulers of the West, as I have mentioned, have consistently supported the misogynist Wahhabi–Salafi puppets vs. the secularists and minorities.

Again, as with the Trinitarian Christians, you can’t “fix” religious people who believe in insane, barbaric ideologies. These include the Western elite and religious Sunnis.

[Northwest]

^ Going back to this: it is surreal to see Western governments and institutions publicly pretend that they have no ability to influence the Taliban. This serves as a convenient excuse to whitewash the Taliban’s record and “engage” with them on ostensibly “humanitarian” grounds. Already the West has given the Taliban many billions in aid through “humanitarian” channels since the fall of Kabul in 2021. It is also clear that the Taliban allow groups such as Daesh (ISIS) to operate freely in Afghanistan and only pretend to oppose them. Recently Russia notified that Taliban that thousands of Daesh militants are present near the Afghan–Tajik border, yet the Taliban claimed that those militants supposedly do not exist. Meanwhile the Taliban have allowed Daesh to target Shia Hazara and other minorities in Afghanistan, along with Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and Indian interests. Obviously all this serves the West’s Great Game in the region vis-à-vis the Taliban’s regional sponsors, e.g., the GCC (=Pakistan) and Israel. The “new” Taliban are the same as the pre-9/11 Taliban: a terroristic, sectarian, globalist battering-ram on behalf of imperialism.

So, again, the West is preferring the religious bigots over the pluralist secularists in the Sunni-majority ummah. The West obviously has the power to install and remove dictatorships on a whim, yet for some reason it is consistently refusing to install secularist dictatorships for the most part, preferring the Sunni-Islamist nexus. Certainly, there have been some notable exceptions to this trend: in North Africa, for instance, the West has been sponsoring secularist strongmen such as Egypt’s Sisi, Tunisia’s Saied, and General Khalifa Haftar in Libya. Elsewhere, however, the West has clearly preferred the Wahhabi–Salafi militants and their allies, be they Turkey’s Erdoğan, Azerbaijan’s pseudo-secularist Aliyev, the petrodollar monarchies (the KSA, Qatar, Bahrain, et al.), and so on. Furthermore, the most fertile demographics are also witnessing the greatest Wahhabi–Salafi propagation. The urban areas have lower fertility rates than the rural to begin with. So the fact that the West is spreading Wahhabi–Salafi ideology in the rural areas makes a bigger long-term difference than short-term secular-liberal PR projects in the cities. Liberalism appears to be cosmetic at best.

I see that most respondents—eight out of nine—voted for “liberalism.” Where’s the evidence that liberalism is growing in rural, fertile Sunni areas?

Edited February 22, 2023 by Northwest