Twitter erupts after Saudi cleric says chess is forbidden..... A video clip of Saudi Arabia's top cleric saying that the game of chess is "forbidden" in Islam because it wastes time and leads to rivalry and enmity among people has provoked heated debate, and widespread criticism, among Arabic Twitter users. The clip was shared on YouTube in December, gaining traction in recent days on social media. Some Twitter users mocked Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdelaziz Al Sheikh, saying chess is an intelligent game and that is why conservative clerics decry it. Others defended his religious advice, saying that many other Islamic scholars have also warned that the game can be addictive and cause people to lose focus from their daily prayers and remembrance of God. Similarly, Shiite Iran's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani previously declared that chess is religiously prohibited because it could be used for gambling, which is not permissible in Islam. Despite some top religious scholars frowning upon chess, the Saudi sheikh's opinion is not seen as a formal edict that could lead to a ban on the game in the kingdom. Games such as backgammon and cards are popular among men in the Middle East.....snip~ http://news.yahoo.com/twitter-erupts-saudi-cleric-says-chess-forbidden-202904211.html Now isn't this quite funny.....its not a formal edict. Yet it is FORBIDDEN. Now what makes this so funny is......Muslims have been playing chess since the 7th Century. So then why is this So called TOP Cleric of the Saud saying something about this in the first place? Has the mope figured out Nintendo and X Box yet? Online adventure games, not to mention card games like Poker. As you can see the Arab Sunni clerics.....are not all that there.
Here is what this mope looks like. Now why would Muslims put up with listening to this type of BS? Its about time some Saudi Citizens give these clerics a slap upside their heads. Help open their eyes to reality.
This is very little to demand... I wish this would have been the last decadent request of all these turbulent clerics to the follower of Islam. But...radicalization of Muslims is the thing that surpasses practically anything in addition to FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) and many, many other outlandish demands from Muslims... Read this... The 'Radicalization' Fraud ~by A.J. Caschetta The Sun-Sentinel January 21, 2016 http://www.meforum.org/5804/politics-radicalization http://www.meforum.org/5804/politics-radicalization#print http://www.meforum.org/article_send.php?id=5804 Share: http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.meforum.org/5804/politics-radicalization https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?source=webclient&text=The+'Radicalization'+Fraud http://www.meforum.org/5804/politics-radicalization http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik.../www.meforum.org/5804/politics-radicalization Be the first of your friends to like this. Originally published under the title "The Politics of Radicalization." Towards the end of his too-brief life, George Orwell came to the conclusion that English society had become decadent and that "the English language is in a bad way." It was 1946, several years before introducing the world to "newspeak" with his greatest novel, 1984, when he wrote perhaps his greatest essay, "Politics and the English Language," describing the disease he observed and prescribing its cure. The belief that "political chaos is connected with the decay of language" led him to conclude that language had become "ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish [and] the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." Today, the ways we speak and write about the threat of Islamism are often inaccurate and slovenly, making "foolish thoughts" almost inevitable. Everyone involved needs Orwell's prescription. The post-9/11 era is rife with what Orwell called "the abuse of language" ("war on terror," "overseas contingency operations"), but no abuse more obviously illustrates his complaints than the media cliché describing how a moderate Muslim becomes an Islamist: he becomes radicalized. This euphemism (a passive construction in grammatical terminology) denotes almost nothing. Orwell calls it a "verbal false limb," that is, a device used to "save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns." It has become the default explanation for a phenomenon few want to discuss. The post-9/11 era is rife with what Orwell called 'the abuse of language.' "Politics and the English Language" has advice for arresting the English language's slide into decadence, culminating in 6 rules that "will cover most cases." Each rule points to its author's zeal for clear and precise prose, unmarred by clichés, jargon and anything extraneous. Among the obstacles to clarity, the passive construction is so severe that rule #4 is "Never use the passive where you can use the active." An active structure emphasizes the agent of activity conveyed in the verb: "Tom kicked the ball." A passive structure emphasizes the object being acted upon: "The ball was kicked by Tom." It can also eliminate the agent altogether: "The ball was kicked." Aside from being imprecise, passive constructions allow writers to conceal important evidence: who kicked the ball? Or, more germane to political prose: who dropped the bomb? Who gave the order? Who planned the attack? There is much to dislike about both the passive "was radicalized" construction and the term "radicalization," which comes from an adjective (radical) turned into a verb (radicalize) and then into a noun. The term "self-radicalized," which appears to be a reflexive passive verb, if such a thing exists, is even worse. Consider the following sentences, which could have been pulled from a thousand sources: Tamerlan Tsarnaev was radicalized in Dagestan. Sayed Rizwan Farook became radicalized by his wife. Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan was self-radicalized. The passive construction in each blurs the relationship between agent (Tsarnaev, Farook, Nidal) and the already-vague verb "radicalized." Each deflects responsibility elsewhere, or omits it altogether, treating "radicalism" as a contagion that infects its host upon first contact. Observing Rule #4 from "Politics and the English Language" might yield instead the following sentences: Tamerlan Tsarnaev sharpened his nascent hatred for the US among the Islamists in Dagestan. Sayed Rizwan Farook traveled to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia seeking a wife who shared his Islamist views. Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan sought spiritual and operational guidance from AQAP leader Anwar al-Awlaki. What Gore Vidal called "the popular Fu Manchu theory that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind" is not a good metaphor for Islamism. Islamism is inculcated over time. Teachers spread it in schools with books. Imams and community leaders reinforce it in mosques and Islamic centers. Some communities ignore it, and some families tolerate it. Sudden Jihad Syndrome only appears sudden to outsiders. What Gore Vidal called 'the popular Fu Manchu theory that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind' isn't a good metaphor for Islamism. Orwell insisted that language always be used "as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought," but he understood that not everyone shared his view. The "was radicalized" construction has become ubiquitous mostly by thoughtless repetition, but to those who deliberately obfuscate, this seemingly inoffensive passive construction provides a way to avoid what has increasingly become the un-nameable. Maajid Nawaz calls this "the Voldemort effect: the refusal to call Islamism by its proper name." Those who make and influence US counterterrorism policy must recognize that jihadists are not created accidentally or spontaneously. Speaking and writing as though they are, either deliberately or through "the slovenliness of our language," hinders clear thinking. And as Orwell put it, "to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers." A.J. Caschetta is a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Let him try that here.....someone will put a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slap upside his head knocking his Foster grants off. Then look at his of Entourage of Sunni Arabs daring them to make a move.
They should buy some Cowboy Boots so that they are prepared to Help the Sunni Clerics with the point. But it seems not all Sunni or Saud ignore these clerics. What can you show us that with the Saud Citizens, that will challenge these Sunni Clerics Openly
They don't challenge them.. they ignore them. These doddering old fools are ridiculous.. The only people who take them seriously are Western pundits.
What a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*) Margot.....you know damn well that Saud so called and self alleged Nobles follow these Clerics. So to does most Sunni Arabs. If they didn't follow them there wouldn't be as much Chaos as there is.....in the ME.
No they don't.. Ask any Saudi.. they'll just shrug their shoulders.. These old clerics and the Muttaween are considered pests.
Respecting your elders is important in the culture.. but even Bedouin play card games and such. Fatwas are not binding.. and anyone can't issue a fatwa.. You know there is no authority or hierarchy in Sunni Islam, don't you? "Grand Mufti" is sort of an honorarium........
Yes Respecting elders is important in cultures. But then some elders don't know how to respect others. I am sure there is more gambling going on with cards than Chess. Seems the Shia are in agreement with this Cleric. Do the Saud citizens ever protest these clerics openly in front of their mosque. Maybe once they get a few protests they will learn not to get into the private lives of others.....unless asked to be there.
Why would they protest?? Not everyone lives for a chip on their shoulder. "Despite some top religious scholars frowning upon chess, the Saudi sheikh's opinion is not seen as a formal edict that could lead to a ban on the game in the kingdom. Games such as backgammon and cards are popular among men in the Middle East.....snip~" Saudis like games..
So that the Clerics are not emboldened to their own ambitions. So they know that the people will not allow them to be enabled. So that they know their role in society and exactly where they are on the food chain. Then why come out publicly and talk about the Game is Forbidden since it is not a Formal edict? Yeah, and some like X Box and PlayStation to.
The Saudis don't protest.. They go to majlis.. You are looking for excuses to create conflict... as if this silly fatwa carried any weight. It doesn't.
So why was it released Publicly, again? Actually I am looking for something from you that shows the Saudi citizens just ignore this Top Saudi Sunni Cleric.
Same reason the US news reports on idiocy. In my experience Shia are more prone to riots and protests.. at least among low class Shia. Sunnis are more stoic. I have seen Shia riots .. its a positive frenzy with erections poking up thru their thobes.
No, it has nothing to do with what the US Media reports, as they were in last on the knowing. So that's a failed excuse.
