Khodoristan wrote:Sulamalik wrote:
Salafism is actually one of, if not the, most benign movements within the whole "fundamentalist" Islam sub sect. Contemporary Salafism was created during the 19th century out of a desire to disengage the Arab Islamic community from Western influences and bring it back to a more "pure" and 'stable" version of Islam. They did this because they felt that Western values like Capitalism prevented Muslims from practising the sort of social justice and charity that Muhammed preached.
Unlike the moderate Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists aren't interested in sweaping Islamism, rather they seek to work within the existing civil system to allow them the freedom to practice their beliefs (read; Islamic Auto insurance, and banking) without usurping the entire structure. Leaders within the movement denounce violence and extremism in the harshest of terms.
A Salafist government in Syria would be one of the best outcomes we could hope for.
Any form of religious government, Salafi, Wahabbi, or otherwise, is a no-go. Salafism does not have a good track record. And Wahabbism? Forget it.
Wahabbism doesn't exist. You will never find a Muslim who calls themselves as Wahabbist.
And if you'd notice, I said one of the best, not the best.
Obviously, Syria transforming itself into a fully-functioning secular liberal democracy would be the ideal situation, but that's so far out of the realm of the possible I don't see why we should dwell on it. What we should be concerned about is the prevention of Syria descending into sectarian conflict like Iraq, a Salafist government is one of the most realistic ways to keep this sort of violence from happening, and even that's not very likely either.