Who has more "sinister" intentions for the Muslim World?

[phk]

Putting population figures aside.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Definitely Iran

[Хahar 🤔]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

Wait, what did he do to Mecca and Medina?

[Хahar 🤔]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

Wait, what did he do to Mecca and Medina?

It's a gradual process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites

[dead0man]

My vote went to Iran, but Xahar makes a good point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

Wait, what did he do to Mecca and Medina?

It's a gradual process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites

They're...they're destroying gravesites? In the name of the oneness of God?

What on Earth...

[dead0man]

The Waqf (asshat in Arabic) in charge of the Temple Mount has been doing it for years.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

Wait, what did he do to Mecca and Medina?

It's a gradual process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites

They're...they're destroying gravesites? In the name of the oneness of God?

In the name of...

Some prospects say that by 2050 money coming from religious 'tourism' in KSA would be more important than oil income...

According to my experience, lots of Arabs consider the attitude regarding money and holy sites to be totally shameful...

[The Mikado]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

Wait, what did he do to Mecca and Medina?

It's a gradual process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites

They're...they're destroying gravesites? In the name of the oneness of God?

What on Earth...

Islam's oldest fear has been that people would start worshipping Muhammad.  The Saudis have solved that by razing Muhammad's historical home, destroying various artifacts and buildings related to his friends and relatives, anything that might turn into a place of veneration for Muhammad or his companions.

It's...pretty remarkably horrible.

[memphis]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

Wait, what did he do to Mecca and Medina?

It's a gradual process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites

They're...they're destroying gravesites? In the name of the oneness of God?

What on Earth...

Islam's oldest fear has been that people would start worshipping Muhammad.  The Saudis have solved that by razing Muhammad's historical home, destroying various artifacts and buildings related to his friends and relatives, anything that might turn into a place of veneration for Muhammad or his companions.

It's...pretty remarkably horrible.

Wow! Didn't know about that. The American media had an aneurism when the Taliban destroyed some ancient Buddhas but has been strangely quiet about all this. How convenient.

[dead0man]

I don't think they've destroyed anything as cool as those giant Buddha statues were.  Plus bulldozing a 1300 year old hovel makes for sh**tty video when compared to the spectacle that was the blowing up of the Buddha's.  The American media sucks, but I don't think this really shows that.

[memphis]

I don't think they've destroyed anything as cool as those giant Buddha statues were.  Plus bulldozing a 1300 year old hovel makes for sh**tty video when compared to the spectacle that was the blowing up of the Buddha's.  The American media sucks, but I don't think this really shows that.

That 1300 year old hovel was the site of the founding of one of the world's biggest religions. That's way more historcally significant than some old Buddhas. And it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Both could be covered. It's just like when the Second Congo War was occuring. Bloodiest war since WWII, but it got zero coverage because the US media doesn't give a crap about Africa. It's as if the media only exists to prop up the government. You have the Democratic papers/tv show and The Republican papers/tv shows, but nobody cares about actually covering world events. And if it weren't for wikipedia, none of us would have access to any information about the outside world.

[dead0man]

Agreed.  I'm just saying that it shouldn't be suprising that a statue blowing up in spectacular fashion makes for better TV than a hovel getting bulldozed (unless there is a Jew driving it).

[The Mikado]

I don't think they've destroyed anything as cool as those giant Buddha statues were.  Plus bulldozing a 1300 year old hovel makes for sh**tty video when compared to the spectacle that was the blowing up of the Buddha's.  The American media sucks, but I don't think this really shows that.

That 1300 year old hovel was the site of the founding of one of the world's biggest religions. That's way more historcally significant than some old Buddhas. And it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Both could be covered. It's just like when the Second Congo War was occuring. Bloodiest war since WWII, but it got zero coverage because the US media doesn't give a crap about Africa. It's as if the media only exists to prop up the government. You have the Democratic papers/tv show and The Republican papers/tv shows, but nobody cares about actually covering world events. And if it weren't for wikipedia, none of us would have access to any information about the outside world.

The statues of Buddha at Bamiyan were over 1500 years old and were, IIRC, the tallest man-made objects in Afghanistan, they really shouldn't be dismissed that easily.  It should also be remembered that the entire world begged the Afghans not to do it, while no one even in the Islamic world raised a peep about bulldozing Muhammad's house.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The King of Saud, without a doubt. He has Mecca and Medina razed in the name of monotheism, and yet he erects a tower a thousand yards tall in Jeddah. For whose glory is that? Not God's, certainly.

Wait, what did he do to Mecca and Medina?

It's a gradual process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites

The Wahhabis are nuts.