[kaz1]

Daesh have no more relation to salafism than what Bush and Blair's murderous excursions have to do with WMD or democracy. Daesh apparently attracts two categories of people:

1. people suffering from PTSD who have lost much of their capacities to think clearly; specifically, part of butchered Sunni community in Iraq following the sectarian war fuelled by US invaders after years of deadly sanctions (they also include former members of Saddam's secular stasi-equivalent http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...), and some of the Syrians going through Assad's butchery. This is no different from how a bunch of peaceful villagers turned into brutal group that was Khemer Rouge (http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything...).

2.A tiny western group who are largely clueless about the world (almost entirely about religion), seeking certain warped sense of glory: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/jihad-f...

On a different note related to welfare, Saudis are probably not that worse off in certain ways: any (poor) Saudi is eligible to receive funding/stipend from his/her government for studying in world's top universities, unlike many rich capitalistic states that are effectively no less of an oligarchy.

[nzp]

Oh, I agree that it would be naive to think that the force behind IS is merely some form or interpretation of Salafism, and I'm aware that there is a strong voice against IS among Salafis around the world (not just in Saudi Arabia). My point was that Saudi clerics denounciation of IS has little to do with them being the "good guys" or with religious reasons. Islam, in whatever form, here is being used by all nominally Islamic sides as an ideological gift wrap for various political and economic power struggles in the region the way that suits them the most.

[kaz1]

There are apparently religious reasons for the clerics' positions that go back to as early as the Prophetic statements regarding the emergence of the Khawariz, the passionately brutal yet religiously clueless group of newcomers that emerged within the broader Muslim community and caused chaos. There are pertinent religious texts regarding keeping up with the legitimate rulers (without taking part in their misdeeds) and the general obligation on shunning anarchy, militant rebellion and chaos. The jurisprudential rules of wars regarding prohibition of killing women, children, non-combatants, priests are widely studied in the academically oriented circles, and I haven't come across evidences that suggest that prominent/mainstream salafi academics of the past or present have remarkably contradicted on these issues.

Given the turmoil that has lately (and long been) transpired in the form of militant experiments and perceived revolutions around the region (and the globe), the tradition that promotes mass-education, deeply-rooted revival and collective rectification doesn't seem to be a bad idea as the feasible choice for societal betterment.