The Saudi State of Mind

Being a soccer fan I always stop and watch a game if I see one playing. This weekend I caught a game out of the corner of my eye, but things just didn’t look right so I walked over and studied the screen for a minute. What I saw blew my mind. It was an international game between Saudi Arabia and London. The London team and fans had a moment of silence for a terrorist attack on London and to show the murdered the respect they deserve and were not shown in life because some coward wanted to kill people for religion. During the moment of silence the Saudi team not only didn’t stop but joked about it. Now this is indicative of how Saudi Arabia thinks. They are the main support base for terrorism and the financial backers of most of the religious terror groups. They see themselves above reproach or consequence because they’ve bought most of our politicians and like the politicians themselves have perfected the art of saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. Which their religion instructs them to do, literally. When will the self important ignorant politicians stop playing whack a moles with terrorists and just pull the plug on the damn machine. If it wasn’t so sad it would almost be funny how money makes our politicians turn a blind eye to the real problem.

6 thoughts on “The Saudi State of Mind

  1. I don’t know if you’ve taken the time to read the koran, or the hadith. I highly recommend it. It’s difficult reading (for such a small book, the koran uses many words to say very little), but it explains so much. Including the attitude you describe.

    After my reading and research, I came to the conclusion that islam is not a religion at all. It is a nation building, expansionist ideology that uses cult tactics and the veneer of religion to control those it subjugates. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can read the koran and think islam is a “religion of peace.”


    1. I’ve haven’t read the whole Koran or Hadith I have the bible. I’m not religious, I am open to spirituality. I have done a lot of reading on religion and my understanding of the Koran is this.
      The start based in Mecca is very positive and preaches peace and understanding. Then, Mohammad, their leader was kicked out of Mecca and forced to go to Medina where his teaching turned militant and hateful to regain his power base in Mecca that being the center of their society. The problem being this made much of the writing in the first half contradictory to the second half. He addressed this by saying the last thing said is what to be followed. So my understanding is the last part of Koran is the part to be followed and thus its pretty Militant and angry. I do agree it does have some very positive and beautiful ideas, but there are overshadowed in the end. I could be wrong I’m by no means a religious scholar.


      1. That is how it’s typically understood; the koran itself says nothing about when or where things were happening, and it is not organized into any chronological time frame. (That’s why islam relies so much on the hadith; the koran really doesn’t say much at all, and makes little sense.) If you were to go with archeological evidence, however, there is none to show the koran even existed at the time Mohammad supposedly lived – and no evidence of his existence, either. Islam was always militant, though the first invaders were known as the Ishmaelites or the Hagaarians. There is no contemporary record of a book they followed, or a single leader. The closest to it is from a letter written by a Christian monk, describing an attack he survived, where he references a leader who used to be a merchant. That was only about the group that attacked the city he was in. At the time Mohammad is said to have lived, the word was never used as a name, but as a title meaning something like “blessed one.”

        Some of the passages in the koran actually predate islam. The word koran, itself, predates islam and means something like “lectionary”. Fully 20% of it is gibberish. At least when translated as Arabic; a language that did not have a standardized written form at the time the koran was supposed to have been written. If translated as Syriac – the lingua franca of the time – that gibberish suddenly makes sense. The result for parts is some rather lovely Christian hymns. This, coupled with archeological evidence, lends weight to the theory that what we now know as islam most likely started from one of the Christian sects rejected by the Nicene Council as heretical for denying the divinity of Christ. A number of these groups went their own way, with some going to Egypt, where these invaders are said to have come from, several centuries later.

        It is just as likely that these invaders simply came up with a version of Judeo-Christianity as a way to control the people they conquered. One of the things that jumped out at me while reading the koran is how it addressed what Jews or Christians supposedly believed. It came across like people I have tried to debate with myself, who attack Christianity for things they are utterly convinced Christians are, believe or do, but are twisted versions of reality. They have only a strawman version. That’s how I found the koran.

        Until I read it for myself, I used to believe the koran was similar to the torah or the Bible. It isn’t. Not even close. It tends to speak directly to the reader, speaks of itself in the third person, and even references itself in the past tense. In parts of it, I can even recognize the marks of the writer being someone with a mental illness. My educated guess would be paranoid schizophrenia, or some other type of schizophrenia.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thank you for a new point of view. I’d also say all religion is just a cannibalized form of a previous belief system including stories and celebration days. So it makes sense that trying to find solid facts about them are about impossible. Religion and facts rarely go together. With the leaders of these cults being some of the most hypocritical and egotistical people on earth regardless of religious sect or time they lived. Important to say some are really good people who were just raised that way. Breaking from these traditions is super hard to do for people. Even when logic and facts are presented.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Agreed, except that I would say most, not all, religions are based on earlier forms. But even then, there will always be those who will twist evidence and facts into what they want to believe, against all logic. I have come to believe that emotionalism lies behind most of our problems, throughout history!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s