otb,

It may help if you paid closer attention to
what a person has actually said - not what
you think they said.

I am not interested in responding to your
attempts to provoke.

There is no difference between godbotherers.
They are all Dangerous!

Mikk,
So the Salvation Army, Little Sisters Of The Poor and Brotherhood Of St Lawrence or Chabad Lubavitch and B'nai Brith are on a par with,Jemaah Islamiyah, ISIL and the Taliban are they?
The Wahabi and Salafist beliefs are the most modern, up to date interpretations of Islam, they're the cutting edge, pun intended,even though all debate about the Koran was supposedly settled in the ninth century. In contrast to that way of thinking the Catholic and Protestant churches are all "progressive" and are constantly shifting positions and adapting their activism and the structure of their ministry toward embracing more of the secular concerns of the present era.

Hi Mikk,

Psychologists would suggest that there are 'open thinkers' and 'closed thinkers'. 'Open thinkers', perhaps a slight misnomer, tend to see that the world is very complex, in ways that they may not comprehend fully, and that rules and principles often have exceptions. They are 'open' to changes in the way they see things. They can tolerate uncertainty, up to a point, and the sort of incompleteness of everything.

'Closed thinkers' have ready, simple answers to everything. For example, 'it's all f*&%ed', or 'they're all nuts'. Therefore case closed: everything has a clear and simple answer. No uncertainties, let's move on.

Thank you for exemplifying the difference :)

Joe

'There is no difference between godbotherers.
They are all Dangerous!'

if u were to ask unborn babies they would tell u that god deniers are far more dangerous

‘morning yvonne,

There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia for general information, so you don’t need to trivialize it with “it’s only Wikipedia”. However, if you had read further into the Wikipedia link you provided, the answers are in fact there.

There are thousands of other links on this topic but at least you actually looked.

It has been said on this thread that Wahhabism a “philosophical movement within Sunni Islam” and that it “is an extreme form of Sunni Islam”.

Whilst I agree with both statements this is nothing to do with my assertion that “Saudi Arabia is based on Wahhabi Islam”.

Wahhabism it the official State Religion of Saudi Arabia and definitely not Sunni. Wahhabism is sponsored and driven by the State and the House of Saud.

Yes there are reportedly 52% of the population who are Sunni and yes there is reportedly a 15% to 25% Shia population however, Wahhabism is the State Religion and refutes all other forms of Islam and the enemies of Wahhabism are all other forms of Islam, Jews and Christians.

The House of Saud ruthlessly applies the harshest form of Islam on all its subjects. It is the ultimate power governing all social, religious, legal, economic and political policy, all enforced by the religious police, the Haia. More so if you happen to be Sunni or Shia and naturally less if you are Wahhabi.

Saudi Arabia differs little from any other Islamic totalitarian state, the main variation is the type of Islam they use to control their subjects. The Saudi’s are having to tread very carefully because their population does not provide majority support for the state religion of Wahhabism, but that’s dictatorships for you?

If you want to explore more on the risks to Saudi Arabia of the minority rule of Wahhabism, Google up some fun on the topic of the risks that the Islamic State (ISIL) poses to Saudi Arabia?

This might also shed some light on why there can be no appeasement of any form of Islam in any country on the planet.