ulama

It's called Ulama and it's still played in the area around Mazatlan, Mexico.

>and there were plenty of ulama willing to provide them with a fiqh justification for that decision.

Could it be that the West has made a deal with Al Saud (oil, strategic geopolitical area), but the Ulama (separate from the Royals) are those who do not comply?

So basically you are saying you want everyone to commit genocide against Hindus and Buddhists, because a minority of Sunni ulama believe such a genocide to be obligatory (at least in theory)?

You’re correct that the Saudi family is a liberalizing and moderating force in their lands, who are currently in a long battle to wrest control of their countries moral and religious lives away from the ulama.

It seems lots of westerners are under the idea that if the Saudi family was destroyed then the ulama would all become liberal and Islam would move further away from wahhabi style interpretations - when the reality is undermining MBS would just give more power to hardline wahhabists and the peninsula would move from a conservative state slowly liberalizing to a theocracy run by wahhabists.

When Muslim rulers first conquered parts of India, and ended up ruling over Hindus and Buddhists, most of those rulers decided against extermination – and there were plenty of ulama willing to provide them with a fiqh justification for that decision.

In exchange for their support, the Saudi family has historically granted the ulama a wide berth in their regulation of the Saudi people’s moral and religious lives, support they were forced to concede after their near deposal in the ‘79 seige of the cube.

Saudi rule throughout the peninsula is legitimized through the support of the ulama, who by right of being the stewards of Islam in the world (the keepers of Mecca, Medina, and the cube, the most important sumbols of Islam) wield enormous power, not just through their leadership of their local populations but through their religious significance to the larger Islamic world.

So I was never making the assumption you are assuming I'm making > The original issue was whether getting married and having kids is obligatory for Muslims, a requirement of their religion like ritual prayer, fasting during Ramadan, etc In a strict sense, you are right – all Sunni ulama agree that marriage and children are mustaḥabb (recommended/encouraged) not fard (obligatory).

Sunni imams or ulama are just as much "clergy" as Jewish Rabbis or Baptist ministers are.

If you went to Mecca 500 years ago and asked any ulama "is it a bigger sin to murder a 5 year old than a 25 year old", do you honestly think he'd say "no"?

The largest Islamic organization in the country and traditionally the biggest proponent of a moderate Islam, Nahdlatul Ulama, is clearly naming the problem: Wahhabism.

Did those teachings come from a non-existent feminine Ulama?