Rant on Islam comments

[PregnantPornStar]

Perhaps it is just me, but I can not get this link to work. Thanks, though.

I put a break in it because it isn't an actual news source. If it is allowed I can edit.

[formergothardite]

Yes, I realize what I'm posting. I think my posts on this subject have been pretty clear and unambiguous.

Do you realize how YOU are posting? Do you think people are jumping on you because you ARE making a distinction? The problem is you are NOT making any distinction whatsoever and until I brought it up, you didn't make ANY reference to the other 50% of muslims, AT ALL.

Your answer to me is the first time in this 20something page thread that you have acknowledged that it's NOT ok to lump all muslims together, even though you have done it throughout the entire thread.

I don't think *I* am the one with the problem understanding.

Even with the 50% who do support Sharia law it is unwise to lump them all together because the Pew(and the study does not lump all Muslims together, it separates them by region or country to show the different beliefs.) report makes it clear that not all the people who support Sharia law believe the exact same thing. In some regions people who say they support Sharia law are more likely to say divorce and family planning is okay while in other regions people who says they support Sharia law are less likely to say that those things are okay. ,

Making blanket statements about Islam or Muslims doesn't help anyone. That study also showed that in some areas most Muslims believe in evolution while in another area most Muslims reject the idea of evolution so it wouldn't be accurate to say "Islam teaches belief in the theory of evolution" or "Islam doesn't teach belief in the theory of evolution.'"

[Whoosh]

I put a break in it because it isn't an actual news source. If it is allowed I can edit.

OK, that is linking me to a site with a plethora of information. Are you saying that buried in there somewhere is the source for your claim?

[sawasdee]

Mecca, thank you for a reasoned but passionate report of first hand experiences. I think that your post sums up what some of us have been trying to say about generalizing re Muslims - it happened to you and your husband because he LOOKED Muslim? Can we all acknowledge that taking a step back and examining our prejudices is very often a good thing?

[OkToBeTakei]

Even with the 50% who do support Sharia law it is unwise to lump them all together because the Pew(and the study does not lump all Muslims together, it separates them by region or country to show the different beliefs.) report makes it clear that not all the people who support Sharia law believe the exact same thing. In some regions people who say they support Sharia law are more likely to say divorce and family planning is okay while in other regions people who says they support Sharia law are less likely to say that those things are okay. ,

Making blanket statements about Islam or Muslims doesn't help anyone. That study also showed that in some areas most Muslims believe in evolution while in another area most Muslims reject the idea of evolution so it wouldn't be accurate to say "Islam teaches belief in the theory of evolution" or "Islam doesn't teach belief in the theory of evolution.'"

There is also NO distinction in 'Cultural' norms under the blanket of 'Muslims.' As has been pointed out too many times to remember cultural practice and religion are not the same thing.

[PregnantPornStar]

Here is the text of that opinion piece. Perhaps I am missing the reference to Wahhabism. Maybe you are equating Wahhabism to something else and simply have not stated that?

"PROMINENT VOICES are already painting the Boston Marathon Bombings as the “next Sept. 11,†pointing to the influence of Al Qaeda or to the world’s Muslim community — as US Representative Peter King of New York has recently done. Anyone who does so is making a huge mistake.

Suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fit the model of self-radicalized terrorists — so-called “homegrown†terrorists — motivated to call attention to violence occurring against Muslims around the world. Analysis of the older brother’s YouTube account reveals a deep interest in Salafism, the fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam adhered to by Osama bin Laden. But this does not mean the Boston bombers were directed by Al Qaeda, or part of a broader Islamist conspiracy.

Rather, this case bears a close resemblance to the July 2005 London suicide bombings. Although these were inspired by Al Qaeda causes, the London bombers were largely self-radicalized and acting mostly on their own. The key point is that the London bombers were not a sleeper cell waiting to go off, or part of a broad wave of follow-on attacks. They were largely responsible for their own deadly acts, and few followed in their wake.

Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had his hands laced by Somerville boxing club trainers in 2006.

ANNE REARICK

Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had his hands laced by Somerville boxing club trainers in 2006.

Overall, the four London bombers were highly socially integrated and had tremendous respect for their social and economic conditions. For instance, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, drove his own red Mercedes, worked in one of his father’s several businesses, and was a trophy-winning cricket player who rarely missed his Wednesday night matches. Hasib Hussain, 18, was known for going to night clubs and holding frequent discussions about cars — little different from many teenagers, according to his friends. None had a history of outbursts or violence, or other signs of significant opposition to British life.

The Boston bombing suspects have a similar socioeconomic profile. Dzhokhar, an honors student, attended public school in Cambridge, was captain of his wrestling team, and was the recipient of a selective college scholarship award by the City of Cambridge. This hardly fits the model of someone who is socially alienated. Tamerlan, who was older when his family moved to the United States, was less comfortable among Americans. He nonetheless was a Golden Gloves boxer, dreamed of representing the United States in the Olympics, and was said to have enjoyed the movie “Borat.’’ Again, hardly out of synch with mainstream American life. Even his difficulties with assimilation are not unique for someone who emigrated to the United States as a teenager.

What about religious indoctrination? Although religion likely played a role, it is not the way most people expect.

What does Tamerlan’s growing interest in Salafism tell us about his motives? Religious fundamentalism is a consequence — not a cause — of politically motivated anger. Salafism makes a distinction between suicide and martyrdom — e.g. between killing oneself over personal issues like depression versus a self-sacrificing mission in defense of Muslims. So, Muslims willing to die for a political cause have a moral dilemma. Salafism resolves this dilemma.

What about the London bombers? All four were Muslims, but varied in their commitment to the religion. According to the British intelligence agency MI5, Mohammed Siddique Khan and Tanweer showed no signs of religious extremism, while Germaine Lindsay was a recent convert to Islam who was frequently unfaithful to his wife. Hussain was particularly religious, undertaking a hajj to Saudi Arabia in 2002. Salafism may nonetheless have played a role, but certainly not consistently so, and could easily be just as much a result as a cause.

The Boston bombing suspects were indeed religious Muslims, but millions of Americans are. That is hardly enough to consider someone to have been “indoctrinated.†It is possible that the older brother Tamerlan was indoctrinated during his six months in Russia, but that only confirms the profile of a transnational terrorist. They commonly seek affirmation from like-minded elites for a stamp of approval to gain the training required to carry out an attack. By definition, seeking out approval and training means one has already been self-radicalized.

What motivated the London bombers was a spiral of anger over perceived injustice by the West toward the Muslim world. As Tanweer revealed in a martyr video — his final testament to the world — “You will never experience peace until our children in Palestine, our mothers and sisters in Kashmir, our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq feel peace.â€

The ongoing interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, assuming that he is being honest, confirms that the Boston bombing fits this same profile. CNN reported on Wednesday that “he and his brother had no outside help, and that his brother became an Islamist thanks to the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.†If this account is correct, they were acting alone, driven by anger over US policies in the Muslim world — with religious fundamentalism serving merely as an enabler of a political cause."

Which is why I would have linked another source.

Salafism is essentially Wahabbism

[Mecca]

Mecca, thank you for a reasoned but passionate report of first hand experiences. I think that your post sums up what some of us have been trying to say about generalizing re Muslims - it happened to you and your husband because he LOOKED Muslim? Can we all acknowledge that taking a step back and examining our prejudices is very often a good thing?

You are welcome. Crazy, but it is true experience.

[sawasdee]

This is so exactly my experience! I am not now in Europe, but part of an expat "western" community (Europeans, N.Americans, and Antipodeans) in Asia, and on the whole most people are right of centre.I totally identify with the statement above, and have a great deal of trouble counteracting the kneejerk opinions of some of my circle. This is exacerbated by the fact that some of them were in the fairly recent atrocity at the oilfield in Algeria; some of our friends never came home. Arguing for moderate Islamicism is not easy after that. I am not well enough informed to be effective in breaking down prejudice - so thank you,FJ, for my reading list gleaned from these this thread, and for the, on the whole , reasoned discussion and sharing of all views.

When I said "on the whole", I meant with two or three glaring exceptions.... :naughty:

'

[Whoosh]

Which is why I would have linked another source.

If you do have another source, please do link it whenever you get a chance.

Salafism is essentially Wahabbism

Do you have a source for this statement? It is my understanding that this is NOT the case and that Wahabbism is actually a radical, militant branch under the broader umbrella of Salafism, but I am not even sure if that is correct.

ETA - fixed links and to qualify my statement.

[sawasdee]

Well, according to Wiki, Salafism considers Wahabbism to be a derogatory description of their sect.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I found this article on the connection between Salafism and Wahhabism: jamestown.org/programs/tm/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=528.VgwmGisYHko

It seems like the origins were distinct, but they sort of blended together in Saudi Arabia.

[Whoosh]

Based on my reading on this topic, it is my understanding that scholars who study Islam can readily and easily disagree on how these two terms interrelate. Further, based on my reading, it is not at all clear exactly what the ties and/or beliefs of the Boston Bombers were. That frustrates me and I would like a deeper understanding of it all. I don't think that I have personally seen any reliable source say these brothers subscribed to Wahhabism. On the other hand, I don't know enough about the distinctions between Wahhabism and Salfaism to make any type of reasoned argument here.

I will simply step away saying that I, personally, do not know of evidence to support the claim that these brothers subscribed to Wahhabism specifically.

[OkToBeTakei]

I found this article on the connection between Salafism and Wahhabism: http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=528.VgwmGisYHko

It seems like the origins were distinct, but they sort of blended together in Saudi Arabia.

It's a complicated history. One the Saudi's are now wishing to distance themselves from....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... terrorists

I doubt anybody can deny Saudi Arabia's history. Certainly not the Saudi's themselves. They walk a fine line with their allies and their relationship with Israel.

I don't think it is any way helpful without exploring the subject far more deeply to say as PregnantPornStar did ..Oh yes the Saudi's are awful, they are the route of all extremism. Again it is just too much generalisation.

[OkToBeTakei]

When I said "on the whole", I meant with two or three glaring exceptions.... :naughty:

'

:lol:

“What a sad era when it is easier to smash an atom than a prejudice.â€

― Albert Einstein

:(

[VelociRapture]

I agree. I really, really wanted to stay out of this thread because, frankly it makes me rather cranky, but I believe I need to say something about the thought that moderate Muslims have remained silent and have not come out to condemn the actions of the extremists. That simply is not true. There have been numerous Muslim leaders, scholars and practicing Muslims that have come out against ISIS and the terrorist events. It appears their voices are not being heard and widely ignored, but I can give examples.

There was the letter of 120 Muslim Scholars that took ISIS to task point by point and condemned the actions of the group. Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which represents numerous countries and many, many Muslims around the globe, has made a public stand against the actions of ISIS and their mistreatment of Christians. My family is Australian, so we closely followed the situation recently at the cafe in Sydney. Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, Australia's highest Islamic office holder, came out and condemned the actions of the terriost. So did Rehin Ghauri and Keysar Trad. I was living in Chattanooga a few months back when all the mess happened at the recruiting sites. The local Muslim leaders in the area condemned the shooter's actions, worked with people within the community, and the Muslim community came together and gave the families $20,000 to help them out. I could go on and give many more examples, but it appears their actions and words will not be good enough for some and go ignored.

Now for a personal story. My husband is not Muslim, but for some reason many people thinks he is by the way he looks. Dark hair, darker complexion and a beard equals terrorist, I guess. His mother is Spanish, his father is Scottish, and he was born in Australia, for the record. Anyway, we were traveling to Canada on 9/11. A very long story short, we were grounded in Toronto due to the situation and could not get into the U.S. until everything settled down. My husband was a permanent resident at the time, but he was in the process of getting his U.S. citizenship. After everything settled down a bit, we had to rent a car to go back home because flying out was a nightmare. At the boarder coming into the U.S. we were forced out of our car at gunpoint, told to get on the ground, searched, and questioned. What a frightening ordeal that was, but after a few hours they allowed us to go back into the U.S. While traveling back to our home, you would not believe the treatment my husband received when we stopped just to fill our gas tank. In Ohio, a group of men, about four I believe, pulled up in a truck beside us, got out of the truck and threatened to kill my husband. We left immediately. This type of event occurred another time when driving home. Over the last few years, this type of situation has happened several more times. He has been told to go back home to the Middle East. People threaten to kick his ass, etc. My husband is an engineer and there have been clients that refused to allow him on site because of the way he looks. It is so bizarre, but it is also frightening.

So I say all that to say this, I can understand why anyone that is actually Muslim may want to keep a low profile at times. Not because they fear their own people, but because they fear the people in their everyday lives and community that fail to understand the difference between them and extremist and like to lump everyone that practices that religion in the bad category. If my husband that has no association to the religion gets judged solely based on his appearance and that gets him threatened with death and not allowed to work on some projects, I can't imagine the fear they must feel. We can't make everyone in the Muslim faith responsible for the actions of extremists. We don't do that with other groups, so why are these people different?

I have no proof to back this statement and its just my opinion - but I've always had this feeling that the media doesn't actually care that much about reporting the truth when the truth is boring. Reporting that there are many moderate Muslims condemning these attacks isn't as interesting as showing video or pictures of extremists burning flags. It's unfortunate, but fear is more likely to draw viewers in and provide better ratings.

I do want to take a moment to say how sorry I am that you and your husband experienced that type of prejudicial behavior. It's completely indefensible and wrong on so many levels. I remember reading that the first hate crime murder in retaliation for the September 11th attacks was the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh gas station owner in Arizona, four days after the attacks. He was killed by Frank Silva Roque, self-described "patriot." An innocent man killed all because this asshole was uneducated, bigoted, violent, and had access to a handgun (despite having a criminal record for attempted robbery.)

I don't get scared when I see a man with a turban or a woman wearing a hijab or anything like that - just like I don't get scared when I see someone with a rosary or cross or yarmulke. I do get scared when I read about people like Roque or Wade Michael Page (the Sikh Temple murders in Wisconsin) or Tamerlan Tsarnaev or Warren Jeffs or extremists of any belief (or non-belief) system.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Mecca and VR:

My non-Muslim FIL was pulled over for almost 2 hours when crossing the border at Niagara Falls several years ago, because he's a brown guy born in Iraq. This is a good example of why prejudice is so toxic. There is absolutely nothing gained in security from going after people because of how they look, the only result is a lot of fear and hatred. A good chunk of my husband's family would get the same reaction.

[FundieFarmer]

A close family member was born in the Middle East while their parents were working there, so that's what their birth certificate reads. They have been questioned about it several times and also flagged when they bought their gun, despite the fact they are your typical WASP from the South. It is nuts how the prejudice can boil down to a certain country or location.

I feel for you all who have stories far worse than that.

[Sundaymorning]

I'm having quite a stressful time right now, so I can't really participate in the discussion but I still wanted to add that my issue with a significant part of the Muslim population is not that I think that they are terrorists or support terror attacks.

I can understand if you hear on Fox news and other places "omg Muslim=terrorists" all day long, you are going to react annoyed and feel compelled to defend them against people who criticize them.

So, 99.99% of the Muslims do not want to commit terror attacks or kill anybody. But guess what, neither do Jim Bob Duggar or Gil Bates or Steven Maxwell. And we still snark on them relentlessly, because they think that they can force other people (including their own family) to live accordingly to their personal religious rules.

And if you look at the study I posted earlier in this thread, it heavily implies that the majority of the Muslims holds similar views.

That is the main issue, that a very significant percentage of the Muslim population holds views on things like gender equality, personal freedom, or lgbti topics which probably range somewhere from what we would call "fundie/fundie-lite" to "makes Steven Anderson aka PP look like a liberal feminist".

[Mecca]

I have no proof to back this statement and its just my opinion - but I've always had this feeling that the media doesn't actually care that much about reporting the truth when the truth is boring. Reporting that there are many moderate Muslims condemning these attacks isn't as interesting as showing video or pictures of extremists burning flags. It's unfortunate, but fear is more likely to draw viewers in and provide better ratings.

I agree with you. Fear is polarizing and it controls. Look what the group of extremists are doing to the globe. That fear has made people scared and rather irrational towards a whole group of people. There is a movie that recently came out called "Night Crawler" that was a bit of a social commentary on the very thing you spoke about. Media is driven by fear because fear sells.

I do want to take a moment to say how sorry I am that you and your husband experienced that type of prejudicial behavior. It's completely indefensible and wrong on so many levels. I remember reading that the first hate crime murder in retaliation for the September 11th attacks was the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh gas station owner in Arizona, four days after the attacks. He was killed by Frank Silva Roque, self-described "patriot." An innocent man killed all because this asshole was uneducated, bigoted, violent, and had access to a handgun (despite having a criminal record for attempted robbery.)

I don't get scared when I see a man with a turban or a woman wearing a hijab or anything like that - just like I don't get scared when I see someone with a rosary or cross or yarmulke. I do get scared when I read about people like Roque or Wade Michael Page (the Sikh Temple murders in Wisconsin) or Tamerlan Tsarnaev or Warren Jeffs or extremists of any belief (or non-belief) system.

Thank you. I think it is important for people to take a step back and realize that these types of actions towards innocent people are wrong and needs to stop. Feeding hatred and buying into the fear causes harm in more ways than one.

[formergothardite]

I'm having quite a stressful time right now, so I can't really participate in the discussion but I still wanted to add that my issue with a significant part of the Muslim population is not that I think that they are terrorists or support terror attacks.

I can understand if you hear on Fox news and other places "omg Muslim=terrorists" all day long, you are going to react annoyed and feel compelled to defend them against people who criticize them.

So, 99.99% of the Muslims do not want to commit terror attacks or kill anybody. But guess what, neither do Jim Bob Duggar or Gil Bates or Steven Maxwell. And we still snark on them relentlessly, because they think that they can force other people (including their own family) to live accordingly to their personal religious rules.

And if you look at the study I posted earlier in this thread, it heavily implies that the majority of the Muslims holds similar views.

That is the main issue, that a very significant percentage of the Muslim population holds views on things like gender equality, personal freedom, or lgbti topics which probably range somewhere from what we would call "fundie/fundie-lite" to "makes Steven Anderson aka PP look like a liberal feminist".

I have no issue with snarking on Muslims who have fundie beliefs, my issue has been with the blanket statements implying that all Muslims hold fundie beliefs. There are Muslims who believe that their beliefs say that there is nothing wrong with being gay, lesbian or transgender and so that group shouldn't be lumped in with the Muslims who believe in stoning gay people.

[sockinshoe]

Also Jim Bob Duggar and his ilk do support laws that would badly damage what we would consider the best and core values of our society.

[OkToBeTakei]

Not sure if most of you can access BBCi player. Last night they aired 'Welcome to the Mosque.'

Director Robb Leech is best known for two fine documentaries about his stepbrother, a convert to militant Islamism who was imprisoned on terrorism charges. This film, shot over eight months at the East London Mosque, is a curious enquiry into the faith that beguiled his brother. Granted extraordinary access, Leech films the workaday rituals and conversations of the congregation – and is on hand when the story breaks about three London schoolgirls defecting to Islamic State, whose families’ distraught search he follows.

East London Mosque is one of the largest Mosques in Europe and notable as being one of the first to use loudspeakers to broadcast the adhan.

Some may have seen the first two documentaries. Definitely worth a watch.

mybrothertheislamist.com/

[2xx1xy1JD]

It's a complicated history. One the Saudi's are now wishing to distance themselves from....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... terrorists

I doubt anybody can deny Saudi Arabia's history. Certainly not the Saudi's themselves. They walk a fine line with their allies and their relationship with Israel.

I don't think it is any way helpful without exploring the subject far more deeply to say as PregnantPornStar did ..Oh yes the Saudi's are awful, they are the route of all extremism. Again it is just too much generalisation.

Nice bit of double-speak from the Saudi ambassador.

The kernel of truth is that the Saudi government does not support ISIS, and considers it a threat. That's true - ISIS wants to redraw the map of the Middle East and eliminate the current regimes. The Saudi regime primarily wants to preserve itself.

A bit more background on the Saudi-Wahhabi connection: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair- ... 17157.html

The closest American Christian analogy would be to Republicans courting the evangelical Christian vote. They want this support, and they will push policies to appeal to this segment. If elements from this segment go truly rogue, however - by bombing a building, or shooting abortion doctors, or announcing that they are their own sovereign state - that's not what the Republicans intended and support, even if some of the ideology and policy that they support may have been similar and paved the way for the extremist element.

[OkToBeTakei]

Nice bit of double-speak from the Saudi ambassador.

The kernel of truth is that the Saudi government does not support ISIS, and considers it a threat. That's true - ISIS wants to redraw the map of the Middle East and eliminate the current regimes. The Saudi regime primarily wants to preserve itself.

A bit more background on the Saudi-Wahhabi connection: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair- ... 17157.html

The closest American Christian analogy would be to Republicans courting the evangelical Christian vote. They want this support, and they will push policies to appeal to this segment. If elements from this segment go truly rogue, however - by bombing a building, or shooting abortion doctors, or announcing that they are their own sovereign state - that's not what the Republicans intended and support, even if some of the ideology and policy that they support may have been similar and paved the way for the extremist element.

Yes I almost posted that link yesterday along with the 'Official' Saudi speak. To be honest there are a thousand interpretations and very little fact on 'Saudi' motives and financial dealings. They do not support ISIS etc. The history as I said is telling. There is change there and I don't think that should be ignored. But overwhelmingly my intent was to say it is of little use to blanket blame Saudi Arabia for extremism as certain posters did, just as they generalise about Islam.

Do extremists in Saudi Arabia play a part in the machine. I would say yes. Is it more or less than extremists in other countries? I don't know, but it would be incorrect and just a bit too convenient to say yes in the bigger picture.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't think that the regime itself intended to create terrorists and revolutionaries. Rather, that seems to be a side effect of promoting a very specific strain of Islam, which is fairly intolerant and which promotes the concept of jihad.

Much of the organization and capital for spreading this particular strain of Islam does link back to Saudi Arabia.

Here's some stuff that I've been able to piece together about the various linkages.

Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones", which sets out his whole philosophy of political Islam, the primacy of Sharia rule and jihad (with a side of anti-Jewish and anti-Christian rants), is published by American Trust Publications.

www.book-info.com/isbn/0-89259-138-2.htm

American Trust Publications says that its objectives are "To educate and instruct the Muslims in North America in the dynamic role of Islam in its encounter with the modern world; and To prepare them to play their destined role as a great cultural and spiritual force in the Western hemisphere. To provide non-Muslim youth and adults with high-quality, accurate literature about Islam." It is owned by NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).

www.nait.net/index.php/american-trust-publications1

NAIT was founded in 1973 by the Muslim Students Association, and is also connected to the Islamic Society of North America.

www.nait.net/index.php/about-nait/about

Ahmed Totonji created the Muslim Students Association in the 1960s. He then went on to found WAMY (World Association of Muslim Youth). https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1441112480

WAMY published a biography of Osama Bin-Laden by Adel Abdul Jalil Batterjee, under the title "al-Ansar al-Arab fi Afghanistan".

One of the co-founders of NAIT was Jamal Barzinji. He was also connected to numerous other organizations, and to Sami al-Arian. www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/29/dr-jama ... -memoriam/

Sami al-Arian has pled guilty to supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which the US has designated as a terrorist organization. Several of the other organizations that Barzinji was involved with, including IIIT. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian More info on IIIT: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Institute_of_Islamic_Thought#cite_note-washingtonpost.com-4

The SAAR foundation, named after Sulaiman Abdul Aziz al-Rajhi, provided the funding for a slew of Islamic organizations located at 555 Grove St. Hearndon, Virginia. The foundation is named after a Saudi billionaire. www.forbes.com/profile/sulaiman-al-rajhi/

Barzinji and another NAIT co-founder, al-Talib, were part of SAAR. law.about.com/library/911/blsaar.htm

The Saudi government does not directly fund terrorists. It does, however, fund organizations like Muslim World League (MWL), which in turn ends of funding jihad. An example involving Batterjee's Benevolence fund: articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-03-10/news/0203100398_1_benevolence-international-foundation-taliban-official-bin Analysis of civil suit filed discussing Saudi involvement in 9/11: articles.philly.com/2008-05-31/news/24990340_1_cozen-o-connor-saudi-arabia-senior-saudi

The tl:dr is that the government in Saudi Arabia is not directly funding terrorists or groups like ISIS. It has, however, actively supported the spread of a strain of Islam that encourages jihad and discourages tolerance. In addition, it has supported groups, including charitable organizations, which have in turn given support to terrorists. As well, funding for groups, including some fronts for terror organizations, has come from a foundation established by a Saudi billionaire.

Many of the people who are casually involved with some of these organizations may have no idea that there is any connection. The founders and upper level directors, though, have some tight connections.