It is true that most of islamic extremist of modern times is a result of Wahhabism...

It is true that most of islamic extremist of modern times is a result of Wahhabism? And that Islam was relatively more moderate before Wahhabism was created?

Islam was slowly fading before ww1

So Islam became fundamental because of it's unpopularity?. Also why did Egypt and Turkey (which were controlled by the Ottoman Empire till it's dissolution) turn out to be relatively secular countries while Saudi Arabia (also Ottoman) became fundamentalist as hell?

Arabic Supremacy

Fundies lived over an ocean of oil, as they say in Texas they got fucking cured

A lot of Islamist extremists are Wahabists encouraged, promoted (or even outright funded) by the Wahabist kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Outside of ISIS and Al Qaeda, there are significant numbers of Islamist extremist that are not friendly to Saudi; most notably, Hezbollah is funded by Saudi's arch nemesis, Iran. You've also got groups like the PKK in Turkey and various Moro separatist groups in the Philippines doing terrorist shit, but their goals are to establish ethnic states; they're Muslim terrorists in that most members of their respective ethnicities happen to be Muslim. If the House of Saud collapsed, the royal family was rounded up Tzar Nicholas style, and support and funding for pro-Wahabist groups stopped, a lot, but certainly not all, Muslim terrorism would dry up.

In places such as SEA and Pakistan yes it is but much of Islamic extremism has also been a result of foreign meddling and destabilisation mixed with the doctrines of Islam that incite violence.

PKK is marxist

I thought they stopped being marxist almost immediately after founding?

you must be thinking of iraqi kurds

And like the followers of every Marxist movement that has ever occurred in all the world, the rank and file tend to keep their religion despite the atheism of the leadership.

>muslim Marxists
I'm surprised I didn't see more hate towards them on /pol/
weird

nobody's made a facebook group hating on them yet, so /pol/ likely doesn't know about them

>It is true that most of islamic extremist of modern times is a result of Wahhabism?

THE PERCEIVED EXTREMISM IS FROM WAHHABISM/SALAFISM; WAHHABISM/SALAFISM IS NOT MOHAMMEDANISM, BUT A ZIONIST ANTIMOHAMMEDAN MOVEMENT.

>And that Islam was relatively more moderate before Wahhabism was created?

1. YOU MEAN "MOHAMMEDANISM", NOT "ISLAM"; ISLAM IS COMPRISED BY MOHAMMEDANISM; ISLAM IS MERELY THE ETHICONORMATIVE ASPECT OF MOHAMMEDANISM; THE TERMS "MOHAMMEDANISM", AND "ISLAM", ARE NOT MUTUALLY SYNONYMOUS.

2. MOHAMMEDANISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN A RADICAL DOCTRINE —NOT MODERATE, NOR EXTREME.

kurds are somewhat more competent so its harder to make fun of them then random ISIS terrorist #374.

Can you elaborate on that?

doesn't matter. they should just be genocided

>And that Islam was relatively more moderate before Wahhabism was created?

Muslims beheaded the sons of Muhammad at Karbala all the way back in the 7th century. So no, it was never "more moderate".

>SAUDi Arabia
The answer lies in their very name.

>Islamist extremists (...); most notably, Hezbollah
Yeah that's a real good example of Islamist extremist party that doesn't have a stated goal of establishing shari'a, has been in a parliamentary coalition with Catholics for 11 years now and includes Christian units in their terrorist militia.
And just look at how they treat those poor oppressed women.

Islamic radicalized as a reaction to perceived western (and even soviet) control - USA and USSR exported their cultures (liberalism and socialismo) and it's citizens seemed to live lavish lives while arabs lived under opressive dictators backed by western powers that extracted the natural wealth of western nations. Early islamic insurgents were seen as freedom fighters. Neocons* even backed them to push back against socialism, before the mujahedeen turned on them.

*A lot of US conservatives were interested in spreading liberal (sounds weird, I know) democratic values.