The “FALL” of the "ARAB SPRING” and THE END OF WAHHABISM

THE “FALL” OF THE ARAB “SPRING” AND THE END OF WAHHABISM

I will not hide my admiration, fascination, aspiration in, and expectations of the ‘Arab spring” about 7 years ago. I figured that the people in the Middle East would –finally- follow their northern neighbors in Eastern Europe who changed their former totalitarian communist regimes into more democratic ones while not just holding on to their national accomplishments but improving and growing them.

Most Muslim-Majority countries have been suffering from a post-colonial political-economic oppressive regimes that assume religious garb at times as well to continue authoritarian ruling. Not taking heed from the changing socio-economic-political systems globally, such regimes hold their citizens hostage to the theory that absolute wisdom and leadership are all confined in one figure, family or system, to the point where “religious” halos are conferred, and it becomes very difficult to descent or voice any constructive criticism. But people in the world have changed. Communication, social media, and the internet have made it so easy to change the opinion of the public, anywhere. Literal E-armies, public opinion strategies and marketing techniques are tasked with tackling a host of issues daily, worldwide. The world is becoming more and more a global village with a global value-system and views, where all traditions and even religions become increasingly irrelevant. If authoritarian regimes in Asia and Africa are slow in riding this wave and even mastering it, like their Western counterparts, they will face serious challenges and difficulties.
There are many societies in Asia and Africa where Muslim communities exist, where animals in the West have more rights than them in their own communities. They have been robbed of hope, growth and opportunity in many ways, and allowed to live. People knew what their price is, but not what their worth. This kind of oppression and injustice is a recipe for disaster and a ticking time-bomb, if immediate reform is not actualized.
I must admit that a political change is very difficult in nowadays authoritarian regimes, since they deprive their citizens from any meaningful resources to positively contribute and power share. With every regimes having more intel agencies spying on each and on all others than constitutional institutions, it becomes extremely difficult for an organic political movement to reach power by an absolute replacement of the sitting authoritarian regime. Change must start, grow, and work with the surrounding circumstances. It needs to push the limits and broaden the perspectives, but it must be real in its methods and means, ideal in its vision and mission. This balance between real and ideal must be kept intact. It is not machiavellian nor should it ever be. Real is capacity based. Remaining strictly faithful to the ideal vision/mission ensures not slipping into a machiavellian, opportunism or deviation from principles. Change is usually gradual anyway and the goal of any good political movement is positive change until a system of wider participation, independence of the judicial, executive and legislative branches, equal citizenship, transparency, etc. Therefore a call for an overnight absolute change in any country nowadays is a call for violence and inevitable bloodshed, in general. Another important aspect is that "overnight" absolute changes are usually not organic notwithstanding the true organic pressing issues, but organic movements are slow, involve the wider populations, and tend to want to protect the accomplishments a country gained thus far and build on them. Deadlines are usually indicative of external influences and timelines. I don't know where the word Arab "Spring" came from and who really invented it first. It maybe related to the similar idea of the "Prague Spring" or similar movements. An analytical study of that and movements like the Rice, Rose or the Orange revolution and so on may produce some interesting information. It surely doesn't seem to be Arab nomenclatured. All this doesn't really matter now for the Arab "Spring". The burden of patience, persistence, perseverance, non-violence, positive contribution to all segments of society is all the responsibility of the movement that seeks change, equally and independently of the opposing party.
But solely blaming authoritarian regimes in some countries for lack of democracy,  transparency or wider participation is neither accurate nor complete.
The world has changed so much and it is changing so fast lately that it is becoming very difficult to catch up with the lightspeed continuous changes. The entire world communities are witnessing -on various but intense levels- the emergence of a mutually-reinforcing political, economic and social norms that transcend national or regional borders to form a new social, economic and political world. The current geopolitical and economic fights are not necessarily limited to the new format but equally so about the primary beneficiaries of the new macroeconomic system.
Authoritarian regimes have largely not caught up to the new modus operandi of social control. Political systems exert social control through consensual mechanisms rather than coercive domination. This is what is called generally termed as democracy nowadays, yet the fact is; it is more of a polyarchal system than a true democracy where the authentic aspirations of all human social segments are represented or greater socio-economic and cultural justice is realized. Therefore, further contraction of the middle class will continue to happen globally with chronic inequalities to women and economically disadvantaged minorities.
Additionally, a mutually reinforcing mechanism is a depiction of the individual's happiness confined to consumerism and extremely narrow individualism. Happiness, as presented often, is acquiring more commodities and the personal struggle to achieve that justifies the sacrifice of our collective well-being. We learned from consumerism in the past couple of decades that creating consumer's hunger for an idea is extremely successful even if the idea is not needed. Exploiting human weaknesses in many ways is what consumerism and individualism is all about.
Smaller economies in "independent" countries are not independent in our global system and must be part of a bigger system to survive. This has political and social consequences. The obvious in today's world is the emergence of a transnational powers, rather than a nation-state or a state-based colonial power, who have envisioned the economic, political and social discourse, and made it  possible to survive only if you follow the directions of the discourse. This is not a Western versus Eastern as much, but more the elites and powerful globally. We are in a world where the nation-state in many ways is a thing of the past and the emergence of a transnational crème de la crème is the order of the day. The transnational system is forming and is also clashing with the old and competitive system.
All that and more make geo-economic wars inevitable and erodes the global social stability.
Media and social media are not an exception to the transnational agenda. It is part and parcel of it, yet like everything else, there are no absolutes, there is the good and bad in everything. Social media was partly the means to direct the Arab "spring" movement. Social media is interesting in a sense it makes us all equal in using and consuming, but then it is grossly negligent to mistaken being consumed in social media with real activism. This is similar to the fact that a family "may" sit together on a dinner table nowadays, each equally having a smartphone. In this aspect we are all equal and we are all plugged in. Yet we are all disconnected from each other, equally so, if not more so. We are all so unplugged yet we are all so plugged in, or vice versa.  It is like an illusion of being equal, yet not being even present.
Religion is no exception either. Religion is undergoing changes to fit the vision of the new world in one way and to serve the geopolitical economic agenda if need be, in another way, even if both such roles contradict the core values of religion symbolized in equal worth and dignity of all human beings, hope, growth and opportunity for all.
All the above are contributing factors to the changing geopolitical and economic scenes, globally, and this is in many aspects overwhelmingly influences and dictates the directions of small countries regimes.
This isn't to say that reform is not needed or impossible. Exactly the opposite, reform is needed to all systems, including the global capitalist system, to be kinder and gentler. This is not to say that socialism/communism is the answer. The totalitarianism of socialism/communism is beyond cruel, and the elimination of the free market system, and big government overruling the laws of supply & demand that set prices, etc. are unjust and oppressive.
Reform is needed everywhere, but reform must be non-violent principally.
Religion should play a positive role by connecting the people to their Creator thus slowing down the rush to be consumed in and by any and everything from smartphones to the glitter and glamor new presentations bring. Religion is responsible for upholding and teaching moral and ethical values, providing the space for us to be interacting humans, a sense of togetherness, and speaking constructively against unrestrained greed, envy, power, and selfishness. Faith systems -all of them- have been used and abused in most geopolitical and economic fights. Religious slogans or innuendos were employed in many ways to mobilize humans against each other, thus not just causing harm to people but eventually imploding religion altogether.
I am of a firm belief that Islam is fundamentally non-violent, and so are all Divine faith systems. In fact, Madina Institute’s Center for Non-Violence and Peace Studies is all about just that, with our first publication just about to come true substantiating these facts right from the Qur'an and authentic Prophetic Sunnah. So when I saw and heard of a non-violent “rebellion/revolution” on Arab streets demanding freedom from political, economic, and religious tyranny, I was ecstatic at the maturity, intelligentsia, and far-sightedness. It restored my hope in the youth of the region despite incapacitating post-colonial and current socio-economic-political conditions.

But soon all my hope, admiration, fascination, aspiration and expectations went to almost null. The Arab "Spring" plummeted in a drastic way shortly after it took off. A realization dawned onto me after less than a year of the Syrian Arab "Spring" took off that this whole Arab "Spring" business is hoax. Hoax because it became very militant and militant in an organized way too soon after its extremely short non-violent phase. While media outlets and social media were pushing hard to militarize the streets and manipulate the religious sense of people, most people were reluctant to move towards a violent struggle despite their conviction of obvious injustices and widespread corruption. This is reflected in the sheer numbers of people and their views on the ground (not necessarily on "respectable" News media outlets, papers, maganizine or social media). 

Hoax because I saw and listened to political and “religious” leaders, Salafi’s/Wahhabi’s and some “Sufi’s” as well, both performing clear Tawassul (beseeching/imploring/pleading the creation) by the NATO, the West, the US, the East, the South, the North, and even the devil himself for some, to bomb their homeland and kill their fellow citizens with whom they may disagree, politically or/and religiously. I also saw and heard about some cleric's rare found “bravery” in rushing to issue “Fatwa’s” of bloodshed, “Jihad” and “al-Nafeer al-‘Aam” (religiously obligatory armed struggle call on every individual) against all those who differ with their view politically or/and religiously, meanwhile most of such Fatwa issuing clerics are living far away from in the "hot zones" and usually in very comfortable surroundings in addition to having been and are still mute on many other similar and maybe worse cases of struggle for freedom and rights!

I knew it was hoax, lectured about it and written about it years ago, because this wave of Arab "Spring” 's political and economic reform was suspiciously very selective. It targeted certain oppressive regimes and left out many very corrupt and very oppressive regimes in the same region. In fact such very corrupt and oppressive regimes became the support base that adopted this “freedom  movement" politically, financially, and through intensive media campaigns! 

I knew it was hoax because this Arab “Spring” did not address the major long standing chronic issues and challenges of Arab peoples nor of Muslims (for Islamic movements). The questions of why, who and how weren't even mentioned, but instead it called for freedom without any boundaries of responsibility. Just sounded the word freedom and kept repeating it. Freedom is a magical word that resonates profoundly with all human beings; it touches our most inner core, and speaks to our soul. But to throw the word freedom at people and not having to define responsibilities is as destructive as dictatorship and slavery, if not worse. Because based on that understanding freedom means to kill and shed blood of all who disagree and destroy everything. The reality is: freedom does not exist outside the individual. Because once there are two, a compromise on freedom and a principle of understanding must be present.

I knew it was hoax because the “freedom” movement was not established on nor did it have any intellectual foundation or frame other than rebellion. All that started coming much later. It would sound off selective statements at different occasions/audience to gain their support with promises of a vision. The only objective and frame was to “topple regimes” rather than repair, reform, restore, heal and do Islāḥ (constructive reform) of the regimes. The notion of all bad versus all good is anything but naïve and too ideal versus real, it is theory versus practical. Therefore it was a rebellion with only rebellion in sight meaning it was a rebellion for rebellion itself with wishful thinking and romanticism about the day after the collapse of the oppressive regimes. Since when is "toppling" of a regime is an objective!! rather than ensuring justice, equality and opportunity for all with a complete and sound vision for all that. With preparedness. Is the DNA of people helping oppressive regimes different from those "opposing" them?!. Toppling a regime to those who believe in violent toppling of regimes ought to be the means for a well studied, researched, prepared and functional plan for the day after. None of that was present. For those providing directions to the "rebellion" it was "islamization" of the rebellion as the fastest and most effective route. This hits many (many: on the religious, economic, political, geopolitical, and social, on short, middle and long term effects) birds with one stone. Additionally, when an oppressive regime collapses, vacuums are created that only lead to more chaos, bloodshed, destruction, and even more corruption. Violence, weapons, bloodshed and destruction were the only common denominators of most if not almost all armed factions, religious or secular. Nothing else brought them together, nor would have their vision of the future for almost all factions had exclusivist and one sided view of the future. As for the “Islamic”-based armed factions, well, most were recruited, supported and maintained to play part of the dirty war in and on Syria employing hateful sectarian rhetoric and inciting violence based on austere Wahhabi/Salafi agenda, which is not indigenous, organic, or consistent with the socio-historical religious context or fabric of Syrians, in addition to violating the very objective of "freedom, democracy or transparency" they claims to have been fighting for. The religious teaching in Syria for centuries up until the 2011 crisis did not allow Wahhabism to fester there nor was the Syrian people's religious inclination, culture and religious practices permissive for organic Wahhabi growth. Syrians, if any, are Sufi' leaning, if not Sufi's, then they are mostly have opposite Islamic views to Wahhabis as the rest of orthodox Sunni masses of the world ever since Sunnism surfaced. The armed factions fighting the regime were almost entirely Wahhabi/Salafi/Ikhwani and while they may have received some empathy at the beginning when things were non-violent, but soon after violence erupted in a mad way most Syrians (most of the 26 Million people) refused to participate in this "revolution" as they started witnessing an emerging militant Wahhabi direction and it became obvious that each and every armed faction had their own agenda, priorities, support base, foreign backer, and exclusivist vision.

I knew it was hoax because the intellectual and spiritual leadership of the Arab “Spring” emerged later as the vacuum in such leadership became clear, but while the majority of the great and innocent youths involved had noble aspirations and great goals, yet they lacked seriously needed practical experience and knowledge of the reality. Therefore their direction was more ideal than real. True emotions and noble goals are good, but alone they may not be good enough. An understanding of Fiqh al-Istiṭā‘a (actual means, capacity and limitations), Fiqh al-Muwāzanāt (balancing pros and cons), Fiqh al-’Awlawīyyāt (priorities), Fiqh al-Ma’ālāt (Objectives) and a basic look at the general Shar‘ī Maqāsed (main 5 goals in protecting the human Nafs, property, intellect, faith, children) would have given some intellectual frame. But the reality of the matter is; what was needed - if indeed it was a hoax- was mobilization of warm bodies, aspirants, and emotions of people to flood the streets and screens demanding to topple regimes without any involved thinking save romanticism and wishful thinking. 

I knew it was hoax because I saw and heard “religious” figures and people teaching hatred, mercilessness, and violence which contradict the essential theme of Islam in the very name of Islam.

I realized then that the people on the ground are the true innocent victims, falling between the oppression of the regimes governing them and an interventionist geo-political change desiring power system aided by local and regional proxies, despite the means being violence, tragedies and sufferings.
Needless to repeat that when I say hoax, i don't mean with it the true feelings, wants, desires, aspiration, precious sacrifices, extreme sufferings, and rightful entitlement of the Arab peoples and Muslim majority communities and all people on the face of the earth to be free and have a transparent and humane governance.  Nor do I mean to belittle in anyway any and and all genuinely organic non-violent struggle to achieve a positive political/economic change. When I say hoax, I don't mean in any way that there is no need for change for the better economically and politically, nor do I say that the elements of change aren't all present and any country resting under dictatorship is on a hot stove waiting to boil anytime. Such explosions when they happen, irrespective whether the first light is imported or organically initiated, will be destructive and chaotic. No peace will ever last without genuine power sharing and wider public participation by the ruling class, even if at basic levels.
People are people, and normal people everywhere are the same; human beings looking for hope, growth and opportunity. All peoples have an entitlement to freedom of expression, transparency, equality, and justice. People shouldn't have to fight to take these rights from their fellow human beings. We can, and should live harmoniously as human beings together, with mutual respect despite all our cultural, creedal, ethnic and background differences.
The post-mortem view of the objective of the whole hoax in Syria was never to bring about democracy, freedom or prosperity to Syria, but exactly the opposite. Knowing that destruction waves are contagious just like construction waves, the region could have easily plunged into a long term turmoil. We all live very close to each other in this world.
The point here is not to demonize people, any people, including those who do wrong. But the point to realize that good people need to take very active, non-violent, caring, compassionate, and positively constructive roles in society everywhere. Religious people especially. They need to be the firefighters and builders of humanity not those who set "evil" people ablaze. Religion did not come to burn "bad/evil" people and torture them but to save them and help them become more responsive and better contributors. This doesn't mean not standing up to oppression, but it means not facing evil with an equivalent or even worse evil. 

Syria is where the Arab “Spring” is taking its last labored breaths and it seems that this "monster" of “freedom” is about to leave with millions of innocents killed and mass destruction. It seems this nightmare will be over for that region soon, at least for now. Surely, it will take years if not decades for people to heal and a comprehensive stability to ensue. Additionally, a completely stable and peaceful Middle East region will not be achieved so long the issue of Palestine and Israel is not resolved. But for now, maybe this “creative chaos” or “Fall” will stop. Maybe the people there can finally have time to reflect, honor their dead, and care for their wounds. But after what? And how long before a new “peaceful and freedom” episode starts again?.       

I am not a politician (Thank God for that), but it doesn’t take a politician to see that Syria’s neighbors were part of a vision for " a future Syria", and that will for change wasn't exclusively Syrian, that's why they opened lose their gates –to say the least- and allowed armies of zombies into Syria along with their war machines, ammunitions and everything, while the media was responsible for creating and leading a PR campaign to recruit people and monies into a violent conflict. One may argue that the Media played the most essential element of deception and pushing selective views to fuel the violent conflict and become a lethal "political agenda driving" force. This is not restricted to media under authoritarian regimes in the region, but Western media as well, in general. This reminds me with the old soviet and middle eastern media outlets pushing news (views) in the late 70's and early 80's, except that this time around the deception is much more sophisticated and diverse. I am sure in the next months and years reports will emerge about forgey scandals and a serious failure in delivering news and delivered manufactured news, mixed with real news and views. I am still puzzled about respected Western media and journalism that have stooped to this level and buried a good legacy of genuine and investigative journalism. President Trump deserves recognition for being the first such big caliber figure to point to "fake news" at such public levels. Whether one agrees with him on what or who he considers the source of fake news is not as important, nevertheless. A laymen or even a politically ignorant average observer such as myself can easily recognize the shift from investigative journalism based News to Views mixed with News and even doctored News at times by various Media Corps. The plummeting of investigative journalism is real and felt. What President Trump is bringing to the table here -in one way- is that all Media corps are political views propagating agents, rather than investigative journalism or delivering political/global news in an unbiased pure delivery. All present VIEWS mixed with NEWS and even when they don't, they have a choice on what News they cover and present and what to turn the lights off on. All this shapes the public opinion. I see the president's statement of "Fake News" a statement of "News mixed with political views", and the journalism community should take heed despite their view of Mr. Trump and do some internal constructive criticism. For that he deserves credit.    

One friend said all you wrote here is political, how can you say political Islamic movements are problematic and you yourself are writing politics here. Well, firstly; I do not have political knowledge, goals, or full political understanding of any particular situation. Secondly, it is one thing to speak politics, it is another to confer a religious halo (even if indirectly) on a religious view. Confounding "spiritual/religiousness" with political views could be disastrous and have catastrophic results (Syria, Libya, etc..). Thirdly: a political view from a religious figure nowadays that calls for violence and bloodshed against "others" who differ politically and/or religiously is by definition political tyranny joined with religious tyranny, and is evil, abuse, and must be called out.  

Anyway, this vision for a "new Syria" or a forceful change of the political regime seems to be dying and the musical chairs game is about to end.

I realized that what is needed on the Arab streets is not a violent revolution, but a revolution to restore the value system that is conducive to nation-building. I also realized we need more Akhlāq (value system, character and ethics) building more than “ sectarian religious” indoctrination. I realized that we need an educational and a spiritual revolution much more urgently than a political one. I Also learnt long ago through authentic original Islamic texts that violence is never the answer, no matter what. And that if someone is portraying violence as the only means, then suspect a non-constructive motivation or/and consequence. Change is definitely urgently needed. But maybe the change ought to start in the hearts first. That’s the revolution that’s urgently needed. I realized that a genuine revolutionary (like many of those young Syrians) without sufficient educational/spiritual/ethical preparedness of the grassroots is like someone who sets himself ablaze to light the way for blind people behind him.

There is no doubt in my mind that all oppressive regimes need Islāḥ (constructive reform) urgently. But I don’t believe that destruction and mass bloodshed is the appropriate means or method. Violence and indiscriminate killings can never and should never be a valid means to achieve a noble goal.

Seven years after the war on/in Syria: more than a million people have lost their lives or have permanent disability. Hundreds of thousands of orphans and widows, schools and hospitals destroyed, basic infrastructure devastated, bankrupt economy, halted education, and a serious brain drain of the country. This is the least to describe the result of the Arab “Spring” in Syria. Refugee camps in neighboring countries became bazaars of human trafficking, modern-day slavery, children exploitation and abuse, and a strategic human reservoir to embezzle funds and emotions on one side, and to recruit an aiding and abetting environment and personnel to fuel the ongoing mad violence. This isn't the result of one party versus another, nor can the responsibility be pointed solely at one side versus another entirely, but all those who killed, terrorized, bombed and those facilitating for them, are responsible, regardless what side/background they are.

Seven years later, some people are still fighting, while others are declaring victory. In reality, in a dirty war like this, nobody wins. All lose. Humanity loses, truth loses, and most of all; the innocent people on all sides on the ground are the ones who sustained the biggest loss.

A country that lost its skilled workforce, educators, career professionals, and productive youths has lost almost everything. 
The people of third world ( for a lack of a better word) are still far behind. I am not talking about Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts and activities. I am talking about organic universities, think tanks and research institutions that have a track record in being essential to educational milestones and advancements? Or can be compared to other known international universities in quality and standards? Where are the cutting edge research institutions? Where is the scholarship? I don’t mean by scholarship; people who regurgitate memorized information, but innovative scholarship in all fields including theology. Where is the society that is conscious of its challenges, potentials, and responsibilities along with its rights? How about the basic Islamic tenet of positive contribution to all? Where are the dialogues that are principled in depth and breadth and are conducive to productivity and ingenuity? Constructive criticism? Non-violent constructive Reformism? We have to be free to think. But we are almost always free to think, free to self-change. This is more prioritized than building an eagerness to change others. We are almost always free to go through self-refinement and do lots of good things. It’s our willingness to do so.

Tyranny doesn’t happen overnight, and oppressive regimes do not land uninvited from a far galaxy, at least not yet. It’s a build-up over time that occurs in phases reflecting a clear shift in socio-economic and political spheres. People live the gradual change to tyranny, see it, taste it, smell it, hear it, and experience it every day. Reversing this evil process is much more difficult, taxing, and requires increased awareness and wider social participation. It’s not instantaneous. The Fuqaha (Islamic Jurists) went to great extents to list all things that disqualify one from being an admissible court witness including a person who walks while eating in public for being insensitive about the needs of those deprived, but Shaytan made them forget to include a paragraph in their books disqualifying of persons in charge of their affair for blatant corruption! This is what helps shape public opinion, education, and expectations. It’s the education that is at the crux of the matter. Many Muslim-majority societies have been ruled by political and religious tyranny for far too long. They only remember the Khilafa Rashida (first 30 years after the Prophet, sallallahu Ta’ala alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam,) with admiration and specifics, and then they lump up the rest (1400 years) together. Since the abolishment of the Righteous (transparent) Muslim Leadership (Khilafa Rashida) on the hands of political Muslim movements, we have gotten (too) used to cheering for tyrants. When he abuses his power and inflicts harm on people we are awed by his might, when he robs the land blind we thank him for keeping us alive, when he insults us we praise his loftiness, when he drives some against others we are amazed at his skilled politics, when he lavishly dissipates people’s money we say he is generous, when he kills or issues long prison sentences we see his merciful side in it, and when he drives the land and people to inevitable destruction and ruin we obey out of fear of being rebuked, reproached and so that we are not “divisive”!!!. It is the people that make dictators, not the other way around. It is the people who erect idols out of average people making them into tyrants, not the other way around. That’s why an educational and spiritual revolution is the key to any real reform. 
Any people who have lived for a longer period of time under any kind of tyranny need a change in people first hand, a change on all three levels; thoughts, words and actions. This is because tyranny must have gotten to the human being on all three levels already. You can never change tyranny in a political system so long social and family values have not changed, as an indicator among many. Even if you succeed in changing a tyrant political system, tyranny will creep back up again from the social reservoir of the populus. For a true revolution is essentially what the Qur'an specifies: " a change in people's Nafs (self). Surah al-Ra'd verse 11, means: ( Allah does not change people until they change themselves). The change of self must be based on a specific "value system" not just generalized slogans and "toppling regimes". The real objective of a true "revolution" is actually a renaissance. A  renaissance of decent value system that is ethical, equal, and just. In fact, the backbone of any revolution is based on values not weapons. When values are at extreme poles and the circumstances are right, revolution is ignited between two fierce and opposite value systems. Therefore, a "revolution" is a result of a long unorganized evolution based on defined common value system, which makes this revolution resilient to interferences, foreign and domestic, and prevents its deviation from course. During that phase, a " revolution" does not have institutions, but its institution is the wide value and strong resolve of the populous. Institutions require sponsors, and sponsors almost always alienate the populous even when good intended. But what we have seen in the Arab "Spring" is a move from one form of oppression to another, from one layer of ignorance to multiple enforced layers, from little accomplishments to erasing of entire collective accomplishments of nations and societies, and from being under one oppressive one-way system to being under multiple oppressive one-way systems.  
The people can turn a tyrant into a good leader if he realizes that accountability awaits him not sensational actions and reactions. The tyrant fears the reaction of his people more than they fear him, for his fear stems out of what he knows he deserves from them, and their fear of him stems from their ignorance of who he truly is. His fear is out of a true incapacity and their fear is out of cowardice and amotivation, his fear is out fear of losing life and privileges and their fear is about losing basic food, safety, and an abode, his fear is from everything under the sky and their fear is keeping what they have so far and maybe a hope in a slight increase. The tyrant’s fear is much bigger and more complex than the people’s fear, and the more tyrant he becomes the more fearful he becomes, so that he fears and suspects everything under the sun, hence he tries to control, hear and monitor everything. Worse than the tyrant himself are his entourage and cheerleaders who beautify every evil for him to do, so they can finally have their chance to fight for the crumbs and left over.  

Lack of knowledge is the main enemy of people, nothing else. The human being is an enemy of what he/she is ignorant of. Ignorance is always coupled with arrogance. The Pharaonic arrogance is not far away of an example from all of us. But the Qur'an tells us that arrogance and extreme selfishness is Satanic. Hence, selfishness is the obvious symptom of a deeply concealed arrogance which stems from ignorance. This is how people breech all codes, trusts and boundaries to satisfy their satanic (lower-self) egos.

Education on the other hand is the key to transformation through discipline with an obvious manifestation of transparency, servitude and humility. This is what begets true freedom. Ignorance and arrogance can never set anyone free. This is why the first verse ever revealed in the Qur’an was : Iq̣ra’ (Read!). Read to be free.

Freedom starts in the mind and heart. This is a basic Islamic tenet. So is the dignity afforded to every human being, and hope, growth and opportunity are basic rights of all. This is the first thing Allah Ta’ala commanded in Surah al-Naḥl:90; dignity of all humans through radical equity before God, and positive contribution (Ihsan) to all, regardless. Today people aspire to live in dignity, with an opportunity to learn, live, and have a health care system available to them. Reform is urgently needed so that all that is provided to all, but destroying the present because of an idea about building a future we don’t have nor prepared for, sounds too romantic and quite naive.

When violence was the daily game in the Arab "Spring", we saw lots of suddenly emerging “heroes” issuing Fatwa’s of Jihad, rallying groups and nations to bomb people and land, and collecting money through massive and frequent fundraisers worldwide to "aid" the Syrian “people”! I have attended one or two such fundraisers watched carefully crafted presentations by fundraisers to invoke the emotions of people and collect their monies. Least to say, little of that money went to the “people” and when it did, it went to specific “people” based on political and religious affiliations and stands, and mostly outside Syria. The Syria fundraisers were happening all the time and almost in every place, especially in the West. The presented scenario was a simple black and white but urgent scene. Pictures of children being killed, stories about women being raped, footages of sufferings, and few religious invocations and innuendos to seal the deal. Presenting true and fake scenes that would make stones cry. There is no doubt that the massive human suffering was and still is beyond grave and wars are no child games. One child suffering is one too many. But now that the re-building of those countries affected from Afghanistan to Somalia, Iraq has started and the re-building of places devastated by the Arab “Spring” is about to start, I don’t see the fervent collection of money to re-build hospitals, schools and homes for those children who are deprived. I am not talking about universities, institutions, and a long term vision institutions yet. We saw the overzealous activists only collecting to aid the conflict and fuel the fight by supporting the armed rebels, their families, areas, and logistics. Now, that the call for bloodshed is dwindling, we don’t see their fundraisers for building. We saw fundraisers when destroying was the first means/goal. But wise scholars have always taught us to be careful of fundraisers/crowd-raisers when destruction is means even or a temporary! goal. We don’t see Fatwa’s that make it urgently obligatory to give to foster peace, and build bridges. No fiery speeches and no “hero” acts/figures are being displayed now when the living need lots of help, when violence is down and love and peace needs to be built. Schools, hospitals, heritage, streets, bridges, water supply, electric plants, orphans, widows, wounded, and much more all require the money now. Or it seems that silence has befallen those fiery speakers and preachers and they suddenly became mute. This is not an Afghanistan specific, Somalia specific, Iraq specific, or Syria-specific scenario, nor is it even an Arab "Spring" struck community, but a wider symptom affecting many communities. We need a focus and zeal shift, for people who suffered from oppressive regimes from Afghanistan on, are suffering now from multiple tragedies ranging from terrorism, hunger, exploitation, mass destruction, diseases and much more. The human need is multiplied now and much more grave than ever before in all those countries starting from Afganistan, but the will and zeal is absent!!! Aren't we the children of Adam (clay) rather than the children of Satan (fire). Doesn't clay indicate construction, contribution and building rather than the might of fire and fire power that causes only destruction and death! Aren't we supposed to be excited about our raw origin and the reason for our first father being from clay!!! rather than walking his enemy's nature!!!!???..I am not making a call to fundraise here, for that's a field i don't understand well, but I am making a comparison of drives, focus, efforts, and objectives.

Another byproduct of the Arab "Spring" is the increase of the phenomenon of atheism among the Arab "Spring" youths and similarly the increase of the "none"s.
The connection between atheism and the largely social media driven Arab "Spring" youths is not a new phenomenon. One may cite globalization as one of the aspects for social media savvy Arab youths, but in authoritarian regimes the religious establishment is an essential element of the regime. While it tries to serve the religious needs of the people, it is, however, inseparable from the regime, its policies and objectives.
When authoritarian regimes include the religious establishment as a tool in their quest of social control, the very religion is sacrificed, not just the religious figures involved.
One may say, religious freedom, or individual freedom has receded recently in the whole world, especially after the tech advancement, civil and individual rights have been eroding and big companies with political connections in addition to governments collect all kinds of information about all, thanks to the internet use, etc.. This may or maybe be true, but religious establishments in polyarchal systems "democracies" have their own affiliations, political, economic and others but based on mutual and consensual benefits. In authoritarian regimes, religious establishments largely don't have the option to choose their political ally in the system, as there is only one. This makes them, in the eyes of the populous- part of the regime. Many of the Arab "Spring" youths took it a step further to blame religion itself for the dictatorship and erosion of freedom in their communities, especially with the religious establishment vehemently defending any and all practices of the regime without any constricism, even if constructive (not destructive). This is related to globalization in many ways too. One can examine Charles Bradlaugh in the 1880's in England, and in France when atheism took the side of defending human rights against the tyranny of the church , hence religion was blamed not the church, and humanism replaced the religion which should have defended human rights and all humanity. French-German anti-church philosopher Baron d'Holbach in his 1770 "The System of Nature" points to this same direction. The religion is blamed for the actions of the religious to the point of anti-religion atheism. Julian Baggini of Microphilosophy cites atheism as the drive of the french revolution. This is because the political tyranny and religious tyranny combination. Therefore in France after the revolution, atheism turned from an enemy of the state to almost the religion of the state. This point in history continued to spread to the rest of Europe. 9/11 and neo-atheism activists such as Dawkins, Harris and others have contributed to the wave of atheism in the Arab "Spring" youths.  Rebelling against political tyranny is usually never alone, but it includes rebelling against many if not all things associated with that political tyranny, whether social or religious habits and beliefs. Globalization as a source of driving, drawing the picture, and engineering lot of the thought process of the movement shapes the thought process of the youths involved. Finally, failure of the Arab "Spring" to yield the ideally imagined "freedom" results in serious disappointment and frustration fueled by three elements:
a- Religious establishments quickly adapting to the new conditions and now fiercely defending the new values/ways yielded by the Arab "Spring" after having been against it. In both cases, religiously.
b- religion came to be part of the Arab "spring" at a later stage when wider mobilization of the masses was needed, and in some cases militarization. The emergence of extreme Takfiri violent austere Wahhabi/Salafi figures trying to take over the "movement for freedom for all" deeply frustrated the youth and made them feel robbed of their "own" product, and now they don't even understand what is happening.
c- The Arab youths saw two kinds of religiosity; the state establishment and the Salafi\Wahhabi or even some Sufi violent movements. Both are violent and intolerant on their respective sides, as they are tools of those behind them, more than a free tongue reflecting the religious conscious of the population let alone the religion itself. Salafism/Wahhabism may have been spread in Arab "Spring" communities, but it was theoretical Salafism/Wahhabism detached from politics let alone militarization. Yet the Arab "Spring" afforded the opportunity to practice politics and even become militant. A religion that calls for killing of its opponents is no religion. The Arab Youths thought as such, but failed to differentiate between the religion and the religious, and failed to see that there is just as urgent of a need to have reform and renaissance in the religious arena and not just the political.
What happened in the Arab world post Arab "Spring" is anything but spring. It is bloodshed, destruction and robbing the people of a lot of things with not much positive achievements. Post "revolution" anger and depression was directed against religion in many ways. This is a result of mixing nowadays politics with religion.
Religious leaders should uphold non-violence as a fundamental principle, unconditional compassion towards all, taking the sides of all human beings irrespective of political background, and affording all people hope, growth, opportunity and honor. This is not an easy thing in a complicated world.

We can at least pray for peace, pray for education and freedom of those people, and all people. There is no alternative to peace, love and compassion. War, hate and exclusion are never the answer. Education is the best start after love.

THE END OF WAHHABISM

The Wahhabism that we knew for the past 4 decades or so has officially ended. The Wahhabism/Salafism that roamed Muslim communities worldwide and controlled many if not most Muslim activities, centers and platforms, especially in the West, with it's Takfīrī [anathematizing other Sunni Muslims by calling them Kafir (infidel) or Mushrik (polytheist)] and Tabdī‘ī (labeling other Sunni Muslims as evil innovators leading to belittling them and demonizing them as "haters" against the Prophetic Sunnah in speculative, non-definitive and Ijtihaadi matters) are taking their last breaths in communities globally, but more so in the West. The belligerent Takfīrī Tabdī‘ī, deeply sectarian, slanderous, exclusivist, self-righteous approach of Wahhabism/Salafism is dying in tone to say the least. What that means is that these things are no longer sounding off of the Salafi/Wahhabi pulpits. This kind of rhetoric has slowly stopped resonating with the masses, especially in a post 9-11 world.

Wahhabi/Salafists have largely self-adopted more of a reconciliatory rhetoric, and toned down the talk about their “exclusive self-righteousness” and the "eternal damning" and "evilness" of all other Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman has taken it upon himself to end the era of Wahhabism as we know it and "return to what we were always before" in Saudi Arabia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChAqsVBazMw). 
This kind of bold statement may mean a push to change the extremism of the upcoming Salafi/Wahhabi graduates from various Salafi/Wahhabi institutions.
This is also to mean a reduced source of support in both human and financial resources. But Wahhabism/Salafism in the East and especially in the West already established itself independently now, and has for long not relied on outside support. It controls most if not almost all centers and avenues to the masses, and therefore, it no longer needs any outside support. In fact, you may see a reversal, where Western Salafism/Wahhabism sponsors the global intellectual re-branding of Salafism/Wahhabism and the re-birth of the sect. The rhetoric change coming out of Salafi/Wahhabi pulpits is praiseworthy for sure and constitutes a secondary and an irrelevant, non-essential shift to the better.  

In my view, a change in the theological landscape needs to be based on a transparent revision of where the movement made mistakes, why and how correction can take place safely. For forty years or so, we (traditional Sunni Muslims: Imam Ghazzāli school of Ash‘arīm and moderate Sufīsm- as a general prototype of Sunni Islam) have been saying that Sunni Islam has been hijacked by a Takfīrī, Tabdī‘ī, extremely sectarian, hateful and intellectually violent cult called Salafism by its followers and Wahhabism by it's adversaries. This Wahhabism or Neo-Hanbalism mushroomed globally like never before. Aided by limitless human and financial resources, fresh university graduates every year returning back as missionaries of their cause, platforms, national and international organizations, the movement managed to take a hold of most Muslims in non-Muslim majority communities and it was successful to dramatically change the theological landscape in traditional Sunni Muslim communities. The traditional theological opposition was no match to stop the Wahhabi/Salafi massive flood.
It is imperative to understand that the term "Sunni" or "Ahlus Sunnah" has been historically claimed -as mutually exclusive- by two groups; the majority of Sunni Muslims starting around 300 years after the Prophetic departure. This is namely the Ash'ari, Maturidi and non-anthropomorphistic Ahlul Hadith school. This was traditionally what all Sunni Muslims part of it for the past 1100 years. They belonged to one of the four Fiqh (jurisprudential schools of "how" to worship) and often times were moderate Sufi's (the Sufism of Al-Hareth al-Muhsibi, al-Junayd al-Baghdadi, Abd al-Qader al-Jaylani, etc. even if the term Sufism wasn't used). The other school is an offshoot of the early Hanbali school, maybe termed as Barbahari Hanbalism. Al-Barbahari (spice man) was a Hanbali scholar who held extremely exclusive views denigrating other Sunni Muslims who disagree with his Ijtihad as enemies of the Prophet and Sunnah, etc. Al-Barbahari (d. 329 H) was taught by a similar line predecessor; Ibn Batta al-'Akbari (d. 387 H) who seems to have first invented the three Tawhids (Rububiyyah. Iluhiyya and Asma' wa Sifat) that the Qur'an, Sunnah, Sahaba and Tabi'in never mentioned, yet was later adopted by the Salafi's/wahhabi's as a benchmark in Tawhid!!!. Al-Barbahari was followed by Abu Ya'ala, Ibn Mandah, etc. This is considered the first Salafi school. It held that it was the only Sunni school and the Ash'ari'/Maturidi/Sufi in general were people of Bid'a if not flat out deniers of God and His attributes. This school almost died after the Abbasid Caliph al-Mutwakkil, and one can comfortably say that Ibn Taymiyyah is the reviver of the school in the 8th Hijri century.
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 H.) was able to establish a state who adopted the school of Ibn Taymiyyah adding to it more austerity involving physical violence against other Sunni Muslims who refused to abide to the Salafi/Wahhabi doctrine.
The Turks were ruling and they were Sufi's in general. (when I say Sufi or Salafi to a government, I mean by that the official state religious establishment, not necessarily the government or figures or head figures in or during its reign). So the spread of Salafism/Wahhabism was contained and restricted to parts of the Arabian peninsula. Upon the collapse of the Ottomans and eventually the finding of oil in the desert, major resources was directed to hygeminize the entire Sunni Muslim world and change it towards Salafism/Wahhabism. 
For the past 40-50 years, Salafism/Wahhabism with all its Takfiri/Tabdi'i elements swarmed Sunni Muslim communities and changed the actual 1100 year old hegemony of what is known traditionally as Sunni Muslim communities (Ash'ari/Maturidi in creed, moderate Sufi -even if the term Sufi isn't used).

One of the characteristic of the re-birth of Neo-Salafism other than its Takfīrī and Tabdi'i foundation was reducing the religion to rituals and marginalizing “the spiritual”, anthropomorphism, predestinarianism, and what I call "intellectual terrorism"; threatening anyone who disagrees with everlasting damning and viewing all other Sunni Muslims as enemies of the Sunnah  or evil innovators to say the least. The term Bid'a was and is still largely (ab) used to denigrate other Sunni Muslims and demonize them. Since the message was echoed all over, and no opposition was heard (allowed to be heard), the masses simply followed. All this resulted in taking the religion from the heart, mind and body to the mind and body.  Focus on Tazkiyah was down to minimum and a suspect. From the mind to a narrow indoctrination streak that didn't take well to dissent. With their hallmark being how righteous they are and how evil other Muslims are (either a person of Kufr or Bid‘a), inciting hate against others was just the beginning.
Wahhabism/Salafism terrorized the Muslim masses with their intellectual terrorism warning them that their faith is in real jeopardy unless they follow the "Wahhabi/Salafi" doctrine. But loading our youths with such exclusivist cultish and hateful dogma turned the youth into either information bots mistaking information for realizations or people who eventually withdrew out of/from religion entirely. Inciting hate, intolerance and "demonizing" the "other" over years turned some youths into ticking time-bombs and when the situation was ripe, such as during the Arab “Spring”, many youths from the UK, Belgium, France, the US and other places went to carry out in the form of action the intellectual terrorism they have been indoctrinated with for years. This seems to have now come to an end, thank God. In fact many Salafists in the West have turned to what's classically been Sufī rhetoric, some have turned a focus to social, social justice and similar issues, and abstained from their usual older topics, in general. In fact you will begin to see continuous moderate rhetoric by Salafists/Wahhabists and one should not be dazzled if he sees such figures participating in "Mawlids" or even holding one whether in the West or in traditionally strong Salafi hold Muslim majority communities and countries. This is also not to be understood that every Salafi/Wahhabi is violent, for this would be a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Though almost all acts of violence carried out by a Sunni Muslim/a Sunni group of Muslims in the past few decades -to say the least- was either carried out by Takfiri Salafists/Wahhabi's directly or Salafi/Wahhabi/Ikhwani influenced. But it is to say that Salafi/Wahhabi teachings -in general and so far- incorporates hate استعلاء فكري وكراهية against those who dare to disagree -within Sunni Islam-, intellectual violence, exclusivism, and rigidness in blindly immulating certain few figures despite the Salafi/Wahhabi lofty claims of sidelining all human figures and resorting back directly to the Book and Prophetic Sunnah. To substantiate this claim isn't difficult at all for any beginner researcher looking at the documented actions and books of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, Ibn Tamiyyah, and up the line in regards to other "Sunni" Muslims who disagree with the Salafist/Wahhabist/Barbaharist positions, let alone other Muslims!. Again, that's not to say that everything they wrote is wrong, evil and violent! It's just that extremists collect the errors and extremism from them specifically and others as well to a lesser extent to make it into one path. Yet Ibn Tamiyyah is the un-contested ideological father and benchmark figure of the modern Salafi/Wahhabi school today with all of its shades. Intellectual violence, inciting hate against those who disagree, mobilizing the whole religion against those who dare to dissent from his views, and actually calling for Takfir, Tabdi'i, and even killing of others - in some instances- for merely ideological reasons are rife in his books and the books of the austere Hanbali line he follows which is followed today, despite his vast knowledge. I will be making a small effort in gathering such statements from their books as a sample to show an ancient legacy of violence; both verbal and physical, not as a comprehensive collective effort, because it is a waste of time since any beginning researcher can easily extract that. 
It is, however, evident that where Salafism or Wahhabism is allowed to have a free unrestricted reign, has been ruthless and notorious for disenfranchising "other Sunni" Muslims using all kinds of violence; intellectual and physical.
In the West, where there is an overwhelming dominance of Salafism over centers and organizations, it wasn't just a taboo but quite incriminating to be associated with long standing traditional Sunni Muslim schools such as Ghazzalism, Ahs'arism, Maturidism, etc. The idea was; if you were not Salafi, then your Islam is doubtful, your Iman is shaky, and your practices and beliefs are full of innovations, if not not flat out Kufr(disbelief). If this is not intellectual terrorism, then I don't know what is.
As in Syria, Libya, etc. Where Salafism/Wahhabism/ and recently many of al-Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) are under the grip of the law, they resort to keeping alive the tradition of intellectual violence against those who disagree. The reason is, there is no difference between Jihadi Salafism and secular Salafism in theology and theory whatsoever when it comes to Takfir, Tabdi', exclusivist self-righteousness sectarian, rigidly blind imitating theological views. Yet this intellectually violent approach in non-violence permissive lands is slowly receding lately for the benefit of raising general social and general theological issues and weathering the current geo-political storms.
So I am cautiously optimistic at the rhetoric change in Salafi/Wahhabi circles and figures, and pleased to hear less Takfīrī and Tabdī‘ī anathematization from their pulpits and speakers. Yet this rhetorical change is not accompanied by an academic and comprehensive revision of the whole movement, ideals, doctrine and methodology. It is important to note that while there is sufficient Takfīr and Tabdī‘ anathematization in their movement and lots of intellectual terrorism in their methodology from my point of view, but there is also lots of good. I -despite my rooted upbringing, education and firm belief which contradicts Salafism on major issues of creed and issues relating to Sufism- have had the pleasure of meeting and learning from some of the main Salafi' figures/scholars in this Hijri century through their public lectures and sometimes through dedicated sessions for students of knowledge, in Mecca, Madina, Riyadh and other places. Among my other Shuyukh, I also narrate Hadith through many of their main contemporary chains of Hadith, may Allah Ta'ala give them all His Mercies, forgive them and us, and grant us all Paradise. When I say i disagree with Wahhabism/Salafism on major creedal issues, I am specifically pointing to the creed of the majority of Ahlus Sunnah (Ash'ari/Maturidi and non-anthropomorphistic Ahlul Hadith) on matters of who is God, His attributes, and the stark contradiction we have to the explicits and innuendos made by Wahhabism/Salafism that God lives in a place (limited from the below direction and limitless from above) yet in a physical aboveness, consists of parts/limbs (that are unknown in how), etc.. Qadi Abu Ya'la and the early Salafists were more honest and transparent in their belief regarding God when he said in his "Ibtaal al-Ta'wilat" that God is a beardless young male, curly hair, lives above the 7th heaven, sitting on a chair, has golden shoes, and puts one leg onto another, has actual beaming light from his face, angels are made from the light of his arms, etc...etc..!!!. Basically, in addition to the ridiculousness and idol describing that is attributed to God, the gist of it is holding God to be matter (a mass in space@time) unlike other matters, whereas all Sunni Muslims (Shafi'i, Hanafi, Maliki and non-Tajsimi Hanbali's), all Shia (post Hisham bin al-Hakam who was a founder and anthropomorphist) and the current Khawarej (Ibadi) Muslims, are unanimous that God is unlike anything (Surah al-ikhlas: lam yakum lahu Kufwan Ahad). He is not attributed with space/time dimensions -even if limitless from all directions except one and doesn't resemble the creation in being composed of parts - even if the term "we don't know how" is thrown. He is unlike the creation in an unimaginable way that doesn't resemble the creation (be it matter, light, energy, etc) in anything. This confounded Wahhabi/Salafi creed is facilitated by their invention of the " Three Tawhid; Rububiyya, Uluhiyya, and Asma' wa sifat", a trio that was never uttered by the Prophet, his companions, or the Tabi'in, but the "three Tawhids" facilitate the Takfir of all other Muslims to the Wahhabi/Salafists. Nevertheless, the zeal of Wahhabism/Salafism for prioritizing the Prophetic Hadith and fighting evil innovations are praiseworthy to a good extent, among other things.

In general, I don't believe in an absolute evil versus absolute good when it comes to fallible human beings. Most, if not all, Salafi/Wahhabi followers are ardent adherents of Salafism because they were indoctrinated to believe that this is the only way to righteousness (Sunnah) and all other Muslims are innovators of evil. But there is still love and zeal for the Qur'an and Sunnah in those people. Hence, appropriate and comprehensive revision and full disclosure ensures constructiveness and a change for the better. Keeping the good and replacing the wrong with good. This is because Wahhabism/Salafism will not die entirely, despite the label above. Wahhabism/Salafism has always existed (though on a very narrow scale at times throughout history) and will probably always exist. What Wahhabism and Salafism is doing nowadays seems to be weathering the storm and making rhetorical adjustments, but the need of the time requires much more than just rhetorical adjustments. It requires core adjustments and revisionism. A question of where and why things went wrong, must be fully and transparently answered, and wronging "big" figures in the past or present should be consistent with constructive criticism, Islamic fine etiquettes, and conducive to growth. The truth of matter on the ground is that Wahhabism/Salafism is still very large, powerful, and holds the keys to many if not most platforms, institutions, organizations, and mosques, both; in some of the East and most of the West. Their printed materials, websites, and seminaries are plenty, resourceful and much more present in comparison to the other traditional Sunni Muslim organizations. Though this has started to change. This change is accompanied by a change of rhetoric and adaptation to the new circumstances by many if not most Salafi/Wahhabi figures/organizations. 

I think that the “Arab Spring” was the last field experiment for the Jihadi Wahhabism/Salafism as we know it, for now. It was a major component of the interventionist policies of regional and global powers, and maybe the future of Wahhabism/Salafism would have been different had the scenario in Syria been different. The scenario that was heading quickly towards Afghanization, Somalization or Libyization of Syria, was arrested because of the lack of wider Syrian populous enthusiasm, lack wide public disobedience despite the presence of all supporting elements, and lack of believe in the militant "revolution" by most of the 26 million Syrians. Then add to all that: the Iranian involvement, the Shi'i militia's involvement and the overpowering Russian involvement, in addition to a major factor: the steadfastness of the Syrian government establishments, institutions and armed forces -in large- throughout. One exception to the wide enthusiasm expression for the "revolution" was noted only in the city of Hama a few months only after the launch of the "revolution" where some pro- "revolution" media said about a half million people went on the streets in the city demanding a change of regime. The US Ambassador to Syria at the time Robert Ford also joined in a few days later in that city. But that was the largest demonstration and only once, compared to the rest throughout the country which were in the 10's of people, 100's, and maybe in the low 1000's at best in isolated areas. But the way things are looking now, it seems that what started with Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, etc.. is ending in Syria as far as religious extremists driving political changes in actual battlefields. Syria did not have any significant organic Salafi/Wahhabi population, for Syria has been an organically Sufi country for centuries. Even when the populous spoke about corrupt scholars or people of Bid'a (evil innovation) it was meant those who have sold their principles in return for some worldly gain, politically or financially. It wasn't meant to be against the traditional (Ghazzali) Sunni Sufi approach, for this is how all people grow up there for centuries. The Arab "Spring" brought with it the first concentrated  injection of Wahhabism/Salafism in Syria in addition to those Syrians Salafized/Wahhabized when they went to fight the US forces during the early years of the US occupation of Iraq. The notion was made to the public after the militant opposition took over some areas, that the reason for all this oppression, corruption and evilness of the regime is the legitimation conferred upon it by the "Sufi" religious" establishment, and that traditional Sufi scholars in Syria bear the responsibility. They depicted Sufism as a sell out to any and all oppressive regimes (rather than non-violent reformists) and coined Sufism with Shi'ism as the first leading to the latter. Now, understanding that the theological archenemy of Wahhabism within Muslims is Shi'ism and vice versa, for both do Takfir of each other, one can see the "guilty by association" tactic used by the Wahhabi/Salafi movements in Syria to label traditional scholarship as Sufi and therefore a sellout and an accomplice to the Shi'i "infidels". This "guilty by association" tactic works on face value, because Sufi Muslims are probably the most expressive of their love to Ahlul Bayt (Prophetic Household). Ahlul Bayt is the centerpiece of Shi'i Islam. Adding to that the fact that the majority of traditional Sunni Ash'ari Sufi scholars do not view any armed rebellion against a sitting oppressive regime as Islamically valid, out of fear of massive bloodshed and destruction. They prefer a more organic non-violent change, in general. All this may have been the basis upon which Shaykh al-Buti was murdered while teaching the Qur'an to the public in his Damascus mosque. Wahhabi/Salafi influence grew with the Muslim Brotherhood joining in. The Muslim Brotherhood has recently turned into Wahhabism/Salafism, theologically speaking, in general.  Proper Wahhabi/Salafi curriculum was introduced in rebel-controlled areas in Syria for the first time, and the books of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the Wahhabi movement founder who died in 1791 CE were being taught along with the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah. It is imperative to understand that Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab is a junior preacher and executioner of the theories laid down by Ibn Taymiyyah; the benchmark of modern Wahhabism, who was a scholar, philosopher and a fierce theological fighter against his theological opponents. When Takfiri (anathematization) movements (regardless what background they are) take off, what happens next is violence, mayhem, bloodshed and destruction. Even though at a later stage as Wahhabism/Salafism became more clearly defined as Salafiyya ilmiyyah (academic/theoretical Salafism), Salafiyyah Harakiyyah (Activist Salafism), and Salafiyyah Jihadiyya (Jihadi Salafism), but the base theology and core of all is identical anyway, despite the different focus. While al-Salafiyyah al-Ilmiyyah (theoretical Salafism) is emerging lately as the least political, it constitutes the religious establishment appointed by governments who adopt Salafism as a religious school for the masses, yet it was actively participant in mobilizing the masses in obvious synchronization and role playing when it came to the Arab "Spring" encouraging people to support armed violent conflicts short of calling for carrying weapons, fueling sectarianism, and serving political agenda's. 
Wahhabism, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb al-Tahrir, and the likes are all politically focused movements based on religious rhetoric, except the Ilmi Salafism which is struggling to reconcile with its theological foundation. While Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood are ideologically very close, they both compete to be the main representative of Sunni Islam in this era. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with a religious person or even organization having political views or leanings. There is, however, serious problems in religious preachers or organization conferring "holy religious" cover to a political movement, or reducing the religion to a political figure, movement or political agenda. Because now, you've made the politics of this organization/people holy and divine. Especially when the base of this religious organization or movement is Takfiri (anathematization) and exclusivist, then bloodshed, destruction and mayhem are the natural result. There is nothing more corrupt than religious tyranny joining political tyranny. Wahhabism/Salafism has been used as a tool that enables those Jihadi political movements to recruit vulnerable youths, feed them their propaganda, and legitimize hate, anathematization of others, theft, killing, modern-day slavery, etc. all under the banner of religion. They cannot recruit people into intellectual and physical violence using traditional Sunni or Sufi-based teachings. There is no hate, no exclusivism, and no Takfir offered with those views, in general. In addition to mass tragedies, bloodshed, and destruction, injecting Wahhabism/Salafism into communities has resulted in an unending intra-Muslim sectarian violence, wars in the name of the religion of peace, and religious tyranny. 
As a result, an important step must be taken nowadays is to separate clerics from claiming to be political experts or political leaders, except after presenting a clear political agenda and vision ensuring in some mechanism no religious abuse whatsoever. After all this mayhem, vast bloodshed and wide destruction done through the Arab "spring" based on the calling and vision of political religious figures/organizations, merging religion and politics should be a red flag until proven non-abusive, for the sake of the well being of the people and the preservation of the Deen. Politicians using religious platforms, like any other human being, should have the freedom to be politicians in democratic societies, but custom fitting the religion to suit their political views and directions should be called out, especially when conflicts of interests are obvious and the religion supports multiple views in a particular issue. The problem with politicians in religious garb or political religious movements is the prevalent thought that change must be enforced by the power of the State from the top of the political helm downwards, where as the religion almost always worked most extensively on grassroot level without neglecting to engage the top as well. What fuels this confusion even more becoming quite harmful is when you have a self-righteous, exclusivist, Takfiri, Tabdi'i, cultish and violence-permissive religious view that is political-helm starving. Those kinds of political candidates are quite dangerous and this kind of politics is exactly the amalgamation between political and religious tyranny with predictable disastrous consequences. Politically ambitious clerics should not be allowed to (ab) use religion as means to mobilize the emotions of the masses selling them politics in religious garb without being called out, especially when their politics involves violence and hate. The social, moral, educational and economic objectives of religion are universal because of the core religious principles, which include: radical equity of all before God, justice, hope, growth and opportunity for all. These goals ought to be achieved, enforced and protected by those religious politicians as well, as these principles as primary religious objectives and can be worked on without necessarily deposing the political helm. The other objectives of religion are the theological and spiritual convictions, which Islam made as an absolutely personal choice and prohibited enforcement of spiritual/religious values onto members of society (109:6). This separation between religious (legislative and judicial) and political/military (executive) powers are not strange to the Qur'an, despite popular belief, In fact the Qur'an brings the events forth without any condemnation of this separation and provides an example of leadership in society where there is the Prophet (leading people in religious and spiritual matters) and the King (leading them in executive and military matters). This is the Qur'anic example of the period after the commissioned Messenger/Prophet Musa (Moses), may God's blessings be upon him. For further reading, reflect on Surah al-Baqara verses 246-252. 
In times of confusion like these, where religion is being used, by friends and foes alike, as weapons of war and conflicts, it is an extremely important urgency to carefully scrutinize the claims of figures/organizations who seek/claim political and religious leadership, and eliminate any possible abuse of religion. I am not talking about judging the intentions of politically ambitious religious figures. I am assuming the best of intentions, not just good ones. I am talking about the actual results on the ground from a reality perspective, the balance of cons and pros, Mafasid and Masaleh, accomplishments versus destruction, and wins versus loss. Good intentions are great, but good intentions by themselves are not good enough when it comes to actualizations of ideals. Reform is never unidirectional. Islam came to teach, illuminate, and refine people with ethics, character-building and provide a harmonious value system. People can then form whatever system they want so long it is based on Justice, Equality and Ihsan (goodness/ethics/hope/growth/opportunity). The latter is a must. As for the question of religion or faith, it is a personal choice, Islamically speaking. Justice, equality, and Ihsan are obligatory, while religion is a choice entirely. See Surah al-Nahl #90 and Surah al-Kafirun #6. I think it would be good for Muslim political movements to renounce violence as means, entirely. No intra or inter religious hate and to focus on the universal foundations of reform laid down by Surah al-Nahl verse 90 (Justice, equality, and decency), is the foundation. I think all that ought to be a start, to ensure that the religion is not abused as means for political objectives. That would also require working the grass roots rather than focusing to topple the helm of political leadership first. They also need to try their theories in the field, with people, and not sell the masses romantic theories that have never been tried in our context (time and circumstances). Similarly, the romantic ideas about the Righteous Khilafah (The four Righteous Successors after the Prophet -sallallahu Ta'ala alayhi wa aalihi wa azwaajihi wa sallam) need to be left as stories for school kids or for preachers and storytellers. But political Muslim movements need to have a real understanding of the serious challenges and major decisions taken during those times. This era is looked upon by most through a lens of storytellers (historical Seerah approach with focus on virtues سرد تاريخي مناقبي) rather than an in-depth academic, critical, and comprehensive approach keeping in mind all the political and social currents back then, violent conflicts that erupted, and that 3 out of the 4 Righteous Khulafa' (may God be pleased with them all) were killed by Muslim political movements!!! Many if not most political religious movements/figures sell the masses theories, ideals and dreams with no experience whatsoever in the real world of political helms and leadership. 
Young people of shallow religious background have been watching all this, and if any it's pushing them quickly to the edges; mostly out of religiosity altogether, and a few to are lost to radicalism. For one, they see Wahhabi's/Salafi's rallying for killing other Muslims in the name of religion and see Shi'a rallying for killing other Muslims in the name of religion, as in the example of the Arab "Spring" in Syria. The Arab "Spring" was almost entirely about "Muslims" killing/facilitating/financing the killing of other "Muslims". Observing all that was being played out in Syria as a prototype of this bloody and evil "Spring", many university youths in the Arab and Muslim majority-communities have displayed a loss of hope in a "religion" where its own people kill and incite hate against each other and push towards vast destruction in the name of Islam!!. How can they ever afford others compassion if they don't extend mercy to each other!!!. A question sounds off frequently in ex-Muslim youth circles. This question and other similar questions are absolutely legitimate. But the religion of extremists was never reflective of the true compassionate, non-violent and unconditionally loving religion of Islam, of Jesus or of Moses. Therefore the rise of organic, balanced, transparent, non-violent, compassionate based islamic movements is key.
Another confusing component has been the Muslim Brotherhood organization, a political activist Muslim organization that seeks the political helm and does charitable works. Throughout the scenes of the Arab "Spring" in Syria, Libya and maybe more, we have seen the Muslim Brotherhood organization (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) identify with Jihadi Salafism/Wahhabism more than anything else. For decades now, the Muslim Brotherhood has been slowly drifting towards Wahhabism/Salafism in matters of theology and religious authorities. Surely, not in everything. Most if not almost all political Muslim movements today can be categorized under al-Salafiyyah al-Harakiyyah (Activist Salafism, which is a category between ilmi -academic- Salafism and Jihadi Salafism). The Muslim Brotherhood started off on a much more traditional Sunni approach including the word Sufism and other inclusive non-Takfiri terms in their original foundation instructions. Surely, the MB people are not all the same, just like Salafism/Wahhabism. But there are many emerging common denominators. The Muslim Brotherhood used to have factions that were Ash'ari and Sufi in general. Take Shaykh Sai'd Hawwa for example. Surely, he may have adopted violent struggle against the Syrian regime back in the 70's and 80's, but he was extremely clear in his theological stands, which makes him a flat out Kafir (infidel) to austere Wahhabism/Salafism because of issues in the attributes of God and beseeching The Creator through a creation (Shar'i Tasawssul), etc. But slowly it has become hard to differentiate between Jihadi Salafism/Wahabbism and the Muslim Brotherhood from a theological perspective. With Shaykh al-Qaradawi, as the head academic figure of the movement, calling for killing of political opponents and heads of states on Al-Jazeera and similar satellite TV's assuring the viewers that he is responsible for their shed blood before God and that the public shouldn't worry about their bloodshed retribution on the day of judgment. Just kill them!!! This is a dramatic shift in promoting vigilantism and violence, no different from Jihadi Salafism/Wahhabism. (Shaykh al-Qaradawi: Kill Qaddafi and I am responsible for his bloodshed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8xZ4zZCYyM  . ٍShaykh al-Qaradawi calls for killing of all military, scholars and civilians who are with the Syrian regime: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxy7IM9MV4g ).
Interesting enough is the perception of the United States by political Muslim movements, violent and non-violent alike. When Shaykh Al-Qaradawi was calling for violence against Libyans, Syrians, etc., he was also praising the US (under the Obama/Clinton era) and thanking America for being a strong interventionist and an upright "supporter" of toppling oppressive regimes for the sake of justice, pleading to the US and other powers to bomb those who disagree with his religious and/or political views and methods. America was great, stands with justice, etc. When President Trump was elected and Clinton lost, many "Arab Spring" enthusiasts felt abandoned (a term was thrown around: Clinton's orphans). As President Trump's focus is more America first, he seemed less willing to intervene internationally militarily, despite his tough talk. When it comes to peace and war, he is much more of a president for world peace and less of a direct interventionist in wars and violent conflicts than Obama thus far. This may change with respect to Iran or its affiliates, but to a limited scale if any. He goes out of his ways and endures heavy criticism to build bridges with Russia, North Korea and even offered to meet with Iranian leaders!. He engages China and Venezuela differently. It was not under his watch where Libya was bombed and its regime was forcefully changed, the Ukrainian and Crimea conflict happened, the war on Syria from all directions was unleashed, the Yemen war started, etc. All of them leading to horrifying human disasters, bloodshed and mass sufferings. It is his political opponents who are wanting him to beat the drums of wars against everybody he is extending a chance for talk or an olive branch to. From a pro-peace and a non-violence principle, I find myself siding with any side who avoids wars, irrespective of any other factor of corruption. For no human being or system is perfect, and bloodshed is the redline. Anything can be solved but bloodshed and hostility/hate infusions which oftentimes lead to wars are redlines for me, irrespective whether the label of this violence is social, political or religious. Spreading anything through wars and bloodshed is evil. As for politics, it is the usual back and forth, right and wrong, with no absolute good or absolute evil almost anywhere. In fact, during his campaign President Trump accused Obama and Clinton of founding and co-founding ISIS respectively (https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/index.html).
I, however, disagree with President Trump that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS if he means the ideology. Because all the horrific ideas and practices ISIS harbors are all written in the early Barbahari-Hanbali style Salafist books widely available for the past 1000 years. It's just that such ideology was naturally rejected by the vast majority of Muslims and they -organically- refused to be confounded with their religion, until human and financial resources were poured into a semi uncontrollable growth of this ideological monster. It maybe, however, that the war policies of Obama and Clinton created vacuums that enabled the resurgence/re-birth of the old Barbahari Hanbali/Wahhabi movements filling the gaps even if not directly aided and supported. Yet aiding and supporting this violent movement is a known fact despite the different labels.
The Obama admin estimated the war in Syria or with ISIS to be around 30 years: (https://videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove2/29906170001/2014/10/29906170001_3822740117001_LEON-PANETTA-FULL2.mp4 ).
It did not take 30 years like the Obama administration said. Within only two years or less in the era of President Trump, ISIS and the horrendous war in Syria are coming to an end. ISIS is done in Syria and Iraq for now. The political and economic stability in the region is pending political negotiation and bargaining for a favorable P&L report by all involved sides.
Now, some Sunni political Muslim movements and their enthusiasts consider America the great Satan again!! This is because the US is not willing to deliver for them their political wishlist; deposing a sitting regime and then handing the country over to them. Conspiratorial theories about the whole "Spring" blaming America for it from the beginning have shifted recently from the targeted regime to the militant Islamist opposition/pro-violence opposition which has been supported in one way or another by the Obama administration and other global and regional powers!!
This shifting of the blame to others (to America specifically!!!) and conspiracy theories seem prevalent in a region plagued by oppressive regimes and extremely corrupt militant opposition. But they themselves are never to blame.. others are!!!!
Many "theoretical revolutionaries" utter that had it not been for the US betraying them!! , or Turkey "being forced/pressured" !!! to abandon them, or this and that, they would have won!!. Now, either they knew/anticipated/calculated or they didn't, both are seriously problematic and reflect disastrous romantic idealistic immature theoretical "revolutionary" movement that was equally a reason to bring more harm than good, and more bloodshed and destruction than hope, at the end of the day when all numbers are tallied. I find myself forced to repeat to those "theoretical" revolutionaries that violence is never the answer and hate is never the answer. I say "theoretical" because those are the mouthpieces of violence and hate under religious slogans, but no real sacrifice or suffering on either side of the conflict. They usually are in comfortable zones while preaching violence and hate towards their enemy.
My response to those "theoretical revolutionaries" and their enthusiasts is: shifting the blame to America, even if their claim of betrayal is true, is nonsense and does not alleviate you from your responsibility. It is not the US who put all the hateful, exclusivist, and outright incitement of violence in Wahhabi/Salafi books against other Muslims. All that started way before the United States was ever an independent nation!!. It was not the US that inserted the dogma of Takfir and Tabdi' and incitement of violence against those who disagree in al-Barbahari and Ibn Taymiyyah's books and literature, since they died hundreds of years before the US ever existed!. The reality of the matter is that Salafi/wahhabi actual and intellectual terror is older than a 1000 years ago when they killed the grand Imam of Tafsir; Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 H). In fact, history is rife with Salafi/ultra conservative old Hanbali's/Barbahari/Wahhabi terror and verbal violence against others wherever Wahhabism/Salafism existed. Again, this is not to say there is nothing good in Salafism, but this is to point to the truth, as I and -I believe- every fair minded non-sectarian researcher sees it. As far as the history of Wahhabism in modern age there is a blood trail starting from their modern re-birth in the Arabian Peninsula on the hands of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (the name varies based on the era: from Old ultra conservative Hanbali's to Wahhabi's to Salafi's, to.....? or maybe no name change this era) until now in Libya, Syria, etc.. that leads to the same old result: verbal violence leading to violence, destruction, and killing of mostly other Muslims.
There is no point hiding behind the finger, but rather taking brave and transparent measure of genuine reform, and not just in rhetoric. All other Muslim groups have enjoyed a pretty uneventful history when it comes to sectarian differences respecting independence and co-existence. Hate towards the other, belittlement, verbal violence and actual violence are found often where Wahhabism/Salafism is found. This kind of austere and Takfiri, rigid dogma is partly to blame to an ever increasing wave of leaving religiosity or the religion altogether by some religiously-uneducated Muslim university students.
Lately, both, the MB (many, not all. As some MB factions are already parts of the ruling governments in some countries) and Jihadi Wahhabism/Salafism share the view of seeking political power, even if the means is through violence against fellow Muslims, Takfir, Tabdi', bloodshed and destruction. Some of the Muslim Brotherhood factions if not many seem to have adopted the Jihadi Salafism/Wahhabism violent political means in addition to adopting their theology . One exception when it comes to ideology is the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood example, if there is such a thing, for this is also very iffy. Turks are traditionally Sufi Muslims in large. But if there is an emerging version of MB there, then it still differs when it comes to the pure theology from Wahhabism/MB yet it seems to facilitate a gray zone whereby Jihadi Salafism and similar Muslim Brotherhood factions are more than just tolerated and supported. I doubt the Turkish example is a version of the MB, I tend to think it's more of an independent political Muslim movement that flirts with many political Muslim movements to garner their allegiance and flirts with many other sides as well based on its interests with an overall objective to appeal to the wider Muslim population (in Turkey and out) as the best possible representation by offering commonalities in vision/ideology/grounds while appealing to the West as best suitable to represent the region, thus capitalizing politically and economically, both East and West, with religion and Islamic theology being more a means rather than a founding/guiding principle and objective. Another exception is Malaysia's Muslim Brotherhood. The Malay people are not inclined towards violence in general, and they have a friendly non-violent demeanor usually, even with those they disagree with. They are, however, politically inspired by the MB political ambitions as a political leadership with an Islamic banner that mobilizes votes and popular support.
The theological matrimony between Jihadi Salafism/Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood was made a reality because of their relentless attempts and plans to reach the helm of political ruling. I am not politically savvy or even knowledgeable, but from a purely theological perspective this caused a drift of the youths of the Muslim Brotherhood to Salafism/Wahhabism!! A phenomenon that can be easily observed today in the East and West.
But the common denominators were planted early. Taking the known icon and famous Egyptian litterateur, author, theorist, poet, and a leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 50's and 60's: Sayyid Qutb, as an example because his theories are extremely influential till today on the youth of the Muslim Brotherhood and political Muslim activism in general. There is no doubt in his literature capabilities, refined, elegant, mobilizing and moving method of writing, and him being hung at the orders of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel-Nasser in 1966 without any plea for pardon. Sayyid Qutb's works were something resembling revolution or liberation theology but with a few more components. The man's latter portion of his life and death attest to his strong resolve and firm belief in his recently developed theological ideas. No doubt about that. There is no doubt also in the literature power and ideals presentation, and there is no doubt that many things he wrote about, like any other human being who has experienced living in the East and West, are true, poetic, romantic, and ideal. Similarly, there is no doubt to the vast majority of Muslim scholarship, Sufi and Salafi alike, that his school of "liberation/revolution" theology and some of his statements have serious theological holes in it. Some of his writings constitute a common factor that helped bridge the gap the Muslim Brotherhood had with Salafism/Wahhabism in many ways. The point here is not evaluating the person or judging him, for he is now with his Lord. The point is examining the current obvious influences his liberation/revolutionary theology still has on many Muslim-based radical movements, figures, and the youth in particular. Among such issues:

1- Anathematization (Takfir= considering other Muslims infidels) of not just a few Muslim groups but the masses of Muslims. When he describes a mass apostasy including those who are calling the Adhan (the call for prayers) daily as in his commentary on Surah al-An'am #19, it makes it easy for young activists today to view and call his/her whole society as Kafir or Murtadd (apostated) if they don't see eye to eye on some issues, irrespective of faith declaration/practices. Well, Sayyid did it, so they can do it too. While Sayyid Qutb himself did not call for the killing or even violence against those who "apostated" according to him, but the theoretical substantiation was made and execution of the theory is what naturally follows when the situation permits. This is exactly what ISIL and other Jihadi Salafism/Wahhabism groups did when they killed people, stole property, enslaved, and led a widespread destruction. Actually Sayyid Qutb was much more restrained even in his theory than the current Jihadi Salafi/Wahhabi/Ikhwani movements. Those who "apostated" according to him, shall await the punishment of God in the day of Judgment for they knew the truth yet betrayed their oath. Intellectual terrorism can easily be based on the  mass Takfir example Sayyid Qutb demonstrated. In the East and West, Salafism/Wahhabism even in their softest form promoted a culture of Takfir, Tabdi', and demonization of other Muslims (including non-Salafi/Wahhabi Sunni Muslims) which lead to building a culture of hate and belittlement towards all others.
I am not saying that Sayyid Qutb is the founder of this line, for we have sufficient written books from austere "Salafi" scholars in the past substantiating all that Jihadi and Takfiri Wahhabism/Salafism does in the name of God. It's all written and documented and a simple research shows you the amount of intellectual terrorism some clerics generated. But Sayyid Qutb revived one aspect here, and in a very eloquent and effective way that avoided the classical and complex statements of scholars.

2- Conspiratorial theories web. Shifting the blame is the easiest thing to do when failure looms. Sayyid Qutb made Jews the centerpiece of almost all problems happening to Arabs and Muslims. Everybody is conspiring against us and the Jews are leading those conspiracies. Occupying the Muslim youths in a mindset of conspiracies and demonizing entire people regardless of the disagreements and differences we have with them, cannot be conducive to productivity, growth and advancements. Instead shackling the youths in such conspiracy webs lead many to a blame-game plan and fostering hate instead of working hard to improve and be free. The Qur'an insists we have only ourselves to blame for our current conditions. Sayyid Qutb was heavily centered on Jewish conspiracies often times directly referencing the known book: " The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This book is neither claimed nor authenticated by any in the Jewish community . It was used by the Nazis as a basis for their anti semitism and crimes against the Jewish people. It has no names, dates, or places, and draws an orchestrated plan by the "Elders of Zion" to take over the world and subjugate all others. Thus it becomes easy for all to hate all Jews indiscriminately, and the book seems constructed with this goal in mind. I didn't waste my time reading it entirely, but i glimpsed at its titles and some content. Below is a wikipedia snapshot of the 24 protocols of the book:

Protocol	Title[28]
1	The Basic Doctrine: "Right Lies in Might"
2	Economic War and Disorganization Lead to International Government
3	Methods of Conquest
4	The Destruction of Religion by Materialism
5	Despotism and Modern Progress
6	The Acquisition of Land, The Encouragement of Speculation
7	A Prophecy of Worldwide War
8	The transitional Government
9	The All-Embracing Propaganda
10	Abolition of the Constitution; Rise of the Autocracy
11	The Constitution of Autocracy and Universal Rule
12	The Kingdom of the Press and Control
13	Turning Public Thought from Essentials to Non-essentials
14	The Destruction of Religion as a Prelude to the Rise of the Jewish God
15	Utilization of Masonry: Heartless Suppression of Enemies
16	The Nullification of Education
17	The Fate of Lawyers and the Clergy
18	The Organization of Disorder
19	Mutual Understanding Between Ruler and People
20	The Financial Program and Construction
21	Domestic Loans and Government Credit
22	The Beneficence of Jewish Rule
23	The Inculcation of Obedience
24	The Jewish Ruler

But spreading such claims and directing people to shift the blame onto others for own failures, erecting walls of hate against a whole segment of human beings, and wasting efforts and resources can only be contradictory to Islamic teachings. It almost seems that everyone and everything is conspiring against Muslims and therefore we are failing!!!. While the Qur'an insists that we have only ourselves to blame and that change must be within first. Additionally, the Qur'an was clear in Surah al-Mumtahinah, verse 7 and 8, in distinguishing between struggling against those who do not believe yet harmed, killed and forced you out of your homes, and those who don't believe yet did not harm, kill or force you out of your homes. As for the latter group, the Qur'an insists on a treatment equal to that of one's own parents! (Birr).
Sayyid Qutb's view may lead some to think that the Jews are the reason for "almost" all things happening in the world, including the era of renaissance in Europe, the declining role of church, downfall in education, and even the Russian and French revolutions. I find this as extreme and a disorientation from the proper track. Jews or other religious or ethnic groups were not the focus of Islam; injustice, corruption, and evil were, regardless who the perpetrator/s is/are. I am not sure if such writings are behind the false notion that many have been indoctrinated with: that if anything is wrong, the Jews must be behind it. This is not just wrong, scapegoating, injustice to the Jews, but also betraying one's own faith by shifting the responsibilities onto others!!. More importantly, it makes people neglect looking for the real reasons of falling behind thus forfeiting pursuing the hard work needed for a real , positive and actualized change. We, as Muslims, may disagree with the Jews on theological issues, but they are our brothers in humanity and our cousins from Abraham. Similarly our Christian brothers. The Qur'an insists that the most people who have love for Muslims/believers are those who say: "we are Nasara (christians)" and praises their priests and preachers, etc.
This is not to say that no injustice was ever carried out by Jews, Christians, Muslims, or members of other faith systems. It is not to deny normal human competitiveness either. It is to stop shifting the blame onto others and start constructive positive work instead of psychological self-lashing while blaming others.

3- Giving false sense of knowledge to the youth by leading by example. All you need is to read his views (or others) and that enables you to judge all others and damn them to eternal Hell. You do not need to study extensively and have a proven track record of academic achievement, verifiable academic milestones, accomplishments and continuing research. All you need is to know this and that, and you can disregard and disparage academia, intellectual input and even grand academic figures in early Muslim history. Afterall, Sayyid Qutb himself wasn't a learnt scholar in the field of Usul, Hadith, Tafsir, or Fiqh, but he did so and so and said so and so. This gave the youth the wrong message and encouraged them to view others as enemies and infidels even if they are praying 50 times/day, without the need to study, the usual Salafi/Wahhabi approach: if it's not our way, it must be either Kufr (disbelief), Shirk (apostasy) or Bid'a (evil innovation).
This is how we confused knowledge today, especially in the West, with the preaching of well marketed charismatic public speakers, without verifiable academic contribution free of plagiarism, allowing them to dictate the course and agenda of most.

One may argue that Sayyid Qutb did not mean to actually declare the Kufr of all Muslim societies or people calling Adhans despite their declaration of faith, from a theological point of view. Or that his actual views are taken out of context or misunderstood. Afterall, the man was not a specialized scholar of exegesis, he was just describing Muslim societies/people from a litterateur/political/social point of view, and all that would mean is that they are distanced from the truthful application of the declaration of faith: La ilaha Illa Allah, and not that they have actually apostated. Maybe. Maybe this can be interpreted in addition to other few serious theological errors in his books. The Qur'an instructs us to always take the good and leave the bad. But this isn't about Sayyid's words or intentions behind those words. This isn't even an attempt to belittle him, his writings, or accuse him of anything. This is about how his words and notions -in addition to previous Wahhabi' teachings- have been widely used as the basis for a wave of Takfir on "Wahhabi" steroids throughout the East and West by Salafists/Wahhabi's and the like. This fact cannot be mistaken. Many factions of the Muslim Brotherhood's shift towards Wahhabism has made them identify with Wahhabism and Jihadi Salafism entirely and cooperate with them to violate the sanctity of life, dignity and property of people they disagree with, as in clear examples in Libya and in Syria.

Salafism/Wahhabism as we know it will die, for some time to say the least. Even those Muslim movements (pseudo-Salafi/Wahhabi) who were in between (shying away at times from a full fledge Takfir on all classically Salafi/Wahhabi issues but indulging in some Takfir and well in Tabdi', Wahhabi-Style intellectual terrorism and exclusivist righteousness style) are slowly distancing themselves from Wahhabism/Salafism and some have even begun criticizing them. Takfir and Tadbi' are the benchmark in my view for such movements. Some of such organizations and figures started even teaching al-Ghazzali books!!!. Figuring al-Ghazzali is a known Sufi symbol, moderate enough, and good to be coined with during these turbulent times!. Those may have been generally Ash'ari/Maturidi in their general affiliation to creedal schools and following one of the four Sunni schools in Fiqh, but Salafi/Wahhabi in some matters of creed and Fiqh, mainly some Takfir and Tabdi', which are the problems with Wahhabism. Their oversensitivity of Sufism has pushed them to stay away from it completely during the powerful era of Wahhabism in the past 5 decades or so. But now you see a little change slowly. But their Takfiri and Tabdi'i practices on issues identified as Wahhabi's/Salafi's almost exclusively (such as Tawassul, the concept of Bid'a and it's inconsistent application, etc.) were loud and clear up a couple of years ago. Now, some of them are searching back for their Ash'ari/Maturidi roots and reducing their public Takfir and Tabdi', which is great. Hopefully they would ensure through proper academic mechanisms never to slip again in Takfir and unrestricted Tabdi' of the Ummah. There is never a harm in believing something to be a Bid'a (evil innovation) if it's evidence is a Qat'i Muhkam (definitive in meaning and existence) but in fact obligatory. But when the Bid'a is a matter of Ijtihaad (scholarly deduction) instead, then they and the Salafi's need to be careful of implying a "definitive Bid'a" implications and application to a scholarly understanding of what a Bid'a is, etc. Salafi's/Wahhabi's are much more transparent in their theory and practice (scientific methodology) than the pseudo-Salafists/Wahhabi's however, simply because of the varying standards and the lack of consistency with the theory Pseudo Salafi's have demonstrated in regards to issues of Takfir and Bid'a. The Salafi theory of sticking to the Qur'an and Sunnah directly to avoid becoming cultish is great had they themselves not become cultish by innovating a new standard that "accepts the texts of the Qur'an and sunnah ONLY through the understanding of 4-5 people who lived in the 3-4rth Hijri century and 2-3 who lived in the 8th century whom they call: "Salaf" disregarding all differing Muslim scholarly views that existed also in the same time period. The selective layer of scholarship whose "human" understanding they've designated as the only valid understanding thus censoring, limiting, subjecting and ending up contradicting the Divine and Prophetic texts have imprisoned Salafi's/Wahhabi's in their self-made ideological maximum security prison made by a few fallible people presenting it as a benchmark.
Revisionism in Pseudo-Wahhabi/Salafi movements is also urgently needed, but one may argue the recent origin of such schools and that they are trying to find their feet and space within the Ummah, keeping in mind that the influence of Salafism/Wahhabism has taken a great toll on them, therefore once Salafism/Wahhabism changes its course (even in rhetoric), they will automatically too, and naturally be much more moderate. Maybe that will change, as it already started. Takfir, Tabdi' intellectual terrorism are common plagues. Claims of exclusive self-righteous understandings has no place in the 21'st Gregorian century with information widely available and people reading. The same applies to Sufi movements who went Takfiri as well, though this is a minority. The issue with Sufi movements, even those who have gone to Wahhabi style Takfir and inciting hate against other Muslims, is not actual violence as much as deviation from the original principal of Ihsan/Tazkiyah/Sufism which is based on prioritization of the Book/authentic Prophetic Sunnah and the basis of "love for all, malice towards none". How can a Muslim, let alone a "Sufi" have enmity towards "others"!!
As for Salafism/Wahhabism, dying here means undergoing a facelift and rhetoric change. This is the case so far in both the East and the West. But hopefully a revision and reform, which are needed by all, for all, will eventually take place and bring transparency and a positive contribution to inter-faith and intra-faith communities. There is a need by all and for the benefit of each and all to return to the basic and essential Islamic theme of unconditional compassion, affording dignity to every human being regardless (17:70), and instill love.
I am not calling for Wahhabism or Salafism to change entirely necessarily, for this is something for them to reflect on, not me. I am just outlining what i think constitute a critically needed genuine reform, as change needs to go beyond rhetoric. A revisionism that identifies some past practices and theories as fundamentally wrong, refuting older instructions and teachings exposing the academic flaws in the theory of some old books, and ceasing their extreme over glorification of past (few) figures.
One doesn't have to wrong figures directly -if they don't like that, though nothing is wrong in constructive criticism-, but definitely the ideas presented by those scholars that led the current Salafism/Wahhabism to adopt Takfir and Tabdi' need to examined theologically and rebutted openly.
My suggestions would be, and that is to all, is to:

1- refrain from radical sectarianism and الإستعلاء الفكري الحزبي أو الفئوي intellectual superiority and exclusive righteousness against other Sunni Muslims first. But this is exactly what Islam criticized about the "religious" elite of the preceding faith systems:
a- al-Baqara:111 and 112 state: " They say no one will enter paradise but the Jews and Christians. This is their wishful thinking, bring evidence is you are truthful. Indeed whosoever surrenders (believes in) to The Creator of all and positively contributes, will have their rewards awaiting them with their Lord, neither fear nor sadness shall befall them".
b- al-Baqara: 113 speaking about some "religious" comments back then. It states: " The Jews said: there is nothing true/right/authentic with the christians. the christians said there is nothing true/right/authentic with the Jews. Yet they are all reading their scripture. Similarly said those who do not know. Only The Creator is the Judge among them all in the day of reckoning in that which they differ about".
c-al-Maa'ida: 18 states about some "religious" exclusivists in the old days: "The Jews and the Christians say: we are the children of The Creator and His beloveds. Say to them: Why does He punish you for your sins then? But indeed you are a creation of His, like others. He forgives whomever He wants and holds to account whomever He wants, to Him belong the dominion and to Him all return".

All above elements are cited by the Qur'an as elements used by some "religious" in other communities of faith claiming exclusivity and superiority over each other and over all others. The Qur'an distinguishes between people who are "Mukallaf" and non-accountable , in addition to ensuring that theoretical faith must be coupled by actions, and that while there is no original sin, but all thoughts, words and actions are recorded and we may answer or be forgiven for each.
It seems that many political islamic movements in addition to the Salafi/Wahhabi movement have done all the three points above and even beyond (except claiming the childhood of God). it is either Wahhabism or you are perished in Hellfire for Bid'as, to say the least. This meaning has been implied and oftentimes states explicitly in the past 4 decades, unfortunately. This is not limited to Wahhabism, but intra-islamically manifested in them and the 12'er Shia's, more than any other group.

2- Refrain for the التقية العقدية creedal Taqiyyah by which some information about creed is mentioned to the public (God lives in the Sky above, occupies space, moves, descends and ascends, has (unknown how) limbs, etc..) but keep the full story of Barbahai Hanbalism/Salafism away regarding God, such as the books Ibn Taymiyyah used to very highly recommend: Ibtaal al-Ta'weelaat and Naqd uthman bin Sa'id, which describe God to have curly hair, wearing clothes, beardless young man, walks on earth, etc...i.e. two levels of anthropomorphism. If the second level is wrong, a clear "why" would be helpful.
Similarly with Takfir and Tabdi'. It's good to refrain from this practice now, but more important to lay down an academic revision so that a relapse into Takfir and Tabdi' and violence again is curbed. The Salafi/Wahhabi Ijtihaadi Tabdi'i needs to be taught to their followers as such, not as a given one single righteous opinion.

2- It is important to immediately cease الإقصائية الفكرية "intellectual exclusion" : exclusive ownership of the innovated term: Ahlus Sunnah. For Wahhabism/Salafism is not the only one claiming it, not 1100 years ago, and not now. If any, Wahhabism/Salafism has always been the minority who claimed it versus the more moderate majority. The term Ahlus Sunnah today is used and claimed by: The Ash'ari's, The Maturidi's, non-anthropomorphic Ahlul Hadith (All Hadith scholars who did not harbor anthropomorphistic views). All of which constitutes what is traditionally called Sunni Islam. But in addition to that: The Dhahiri school, the Sufi school and the Barbahari Hanbali/Salafi/Wahhabi school. All those schools claim the term Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'a too. With all, the traditional and the not so traditional, it makes Ahlus Sunnah a term that is in contrast to being Shi'a or Khawarej. One may argue that the Dhahiri and Sufi schools are not totally independent schools. This is largely true, but not entirely. Agreement in certain or many areas with other schools doesn't mean conformity. Ibn Arabi lists his own views in Aqidah (which differ from the outwardly known Ash'ari/Maturidi approach, and claims a true Sufi is a Mujtahid (doesn't imitate any school/scholar). Similarly with the Dhahiri school. Their agreement with the Ash'ari school on some principals doesn't mean they are entirely subsumed by it. The term Ahlus Sunnah has been historically used by all those groups, despite their stark differences even in some core creedal issues. All above groups, however, unite against Shi'i understandings or the remaining Khawarej schools. Hence, it is more of what they are against that matters rather than what they are for, simply because there is flat out Takfir between the Barbahari Hanbali's/Salafi's/Wahhabi's and the creedal view of the Ash'ari's, Maturidi's, Dhahiri's, non-anthropomorphic Ahlul Hadith and obviously Sufi's. Even if that Takfir remains theoretical in practice for all these groups except Wahhabi's.
The term Ahlus Sunnah is an invented term, it is not in the Qur'an nor the Sunnah. Our theological ancestors invented it to indicate that they follow the Qur'an and then the Sunnah as religious guidelines, rather than the notions of "infallible Imams" which the 12'er Shi'a have or a deconstructive, initially/partly violent rebellious group named by their opponents: Khawarej.
The term does not mean that any member who belong to it practices or prioritizes the Sunnah in a practical way as much as that he/she is not Shia or Khawarej in principal theological beliefs. I am sure our theological ancestors wanted to emphasize following the Sunnah as an action to their followers rather than just issuing a nomenclature. But practicing is an individualized thing in Islam and cannot be measured. Hence, all above groups claim to be the true Ahlus Sunnah (people of the Sunnah) despite the fact that members of their groups may or may not practice or follow the Sunnah. There is no doubt that what is traditionally called Sunni Muslims have been the largest and most represented group academically and in literature out of all other "Ahlus Sunnah" groups. regardless of group, it is important to differentiate between the nomenclature Ahlus Sunnah (people of the Sunnah) and the actual practice of the Sunnah (in daily practices).
Wahhabi's/Salafi's can teach their followers that they are the only right ones, but it is equally important to inform them that other sunni Muslims (who happened and happen to the be the majority of Sunni Muslims) claim it as well, and they is lots of good in them, love and zeal for the Sunnah, and abstaining from the evil Bid'as. The same applies for the Takfiri Sufi's.
The basic testimony: La Ilaha Illa Allah; There is no God but God, is good enough, and sufficient for extra love, fraternity, mutual respect, and good thinking of the other. This applies to all sects.
It is important for all sects to teach their followers to disagree with ideas not people. People are us. All people, regardless of faith.
It is important, however, to know that the Salafi/Wahhabi big figures such as Ibn Taymiyyah and the like, are not present in traditional Sunni Muslim academia or books since Ibn Taymiyyah's time and until now. Their presence is barely minimum and often came in traditional books with some criticism. Take the moderate and balanced Imam of Hadith Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani,as an example. The Salafi/Wahhabi/Barbahai Hanbali domination of the term Ahlus Sunnah in the recent 4 decades was an attempt to take over the 1000 some year old tradition and hijack it. It is financed and empowered, but one can already see that this movement on steroids will not continue to practice "intellectual terrorism" on the large scale it was afforded in the past few decades, nor will it be be able to practice "intellectual exclusion" anymore as effectively as it did recently.

3- The emergence of the "evangelical approach" in the West helped to a large degree the spread of Salafism/Wahhabism. The is an approach based on public speaking skills, charisma, and the opportunity. With intense marketing tactics and the use of the youth lingo, many such "Islamic evangelicals" emerged and dominated the platforms, conferences, and access to the masses. In fact with their marketing muscle and generating lots of money, they were able to compete and even replace some advanced students of Salafism/Wahhabism or borderline scholars in the field to the masses. Such public speakers adopted the Salafi/Wahhabi approach simply because it is marketed already, is further marketable and guaranteed to open the doors of centers, national orgs, etc..for you.
Such approach is usually more "feel good" religion that actually teaching religion that transforms the person to be a better contributor to self and others in addition to the critical thinking religion ought to empower people to have and do.


4- Those who use the "Sunnah" or "Ahlul Bayt" to advance political agenda's need to be called out on all sides for being political not religious, despite the (ab) use of sensitive religious terms.

5- Believing that something is Bid'a or Fisq (deviation from the Sunnah) is either an Ijtihaadi matter or a definitively (Qat'i/Muhkam) matter. If it's the latter then all agree, if it is the first one, then it needs to be restricted to the Salafi/Wahhabi circles rather than implying that their "Ijtihaaad" (opinion) is Deen (The religion).

6- It is important that Salafi/Wahhabi and similar movements immediately cease any teachings that characterizes whole cultures or communities as evil, whether they are Sufi', Shia, Ibaadi (of Oman), etc.
In fact, it is important that they call their youth who live in the West to integrate, positively contribute, and appreciate the many great qualities Western people/communities have. I have traveled the world, and as God is my Witness, I have seen beauty in people, generosity, and hard work in America, by the average American (regardless of background, creed, or ethnicity) that I have rarely seen in other places. The average American is a decent, hard-working, justice/freedom loving and generous person. So are many Western communities that I have visited and so are many Eastern and so are all human communities. We maybe different colors, creeds, and ethnicities, but at the end we are all one people. The good, bad, and ugly exists everywhere. We should celebrate the good everywhere, and contribute positively to improve the bad and ugly everywhere. But as the Prophetic Hadith dictates: "He/She who is not grateful to people is ungrateful to God". And there are lots of things to be grateful for in the West and in the East.

5- It is important for political religious movements to refrain teaching their youth to blame the public and ordinary people -in the West specifically and in the East as well- for their government's overt and/or covert policies. This became their theoretical justification for violence against innocent people. The game is media and public awareness, so they should seek it if they so want to, without holding blanket judgments against whole communities or people for their media sourced information or the lack thereof. People are people, people are us. And for those who keep demanding clean politics, human history has shown us little, short-lived examples of that at best. I am not calling for isolationism and absolute pacifism, on the contrary I am calling for an all-active, non-violent, non-judgmental, radically humane, and positive contribution towards all movement, where there is no space for a blame game. I am calling for a better world for ALL. Because people are people, the same everywhere, and people are us.

Lastly, all followers of all Muslim sects and groups need to be taught that Islam is bigger than any and all Muslim figures (other than the Prophet) and any and all Muslim jurisprudential/creedal schools. The Prophetic wisdom and authenticated statements require no (later scholarly) censorship. Just elucidation. Respecting figures is one thing knowing they are fallible, but making their understanding the standard and benchmark to accept Qur'anic and Prophetic text is cultish not religious. This is exactly the seed exclusivist point of Wahhabism/Salafism. They have identified a few figures in the 3 and 4th Hijir century and a  couple of figures in the 7 and 8th Hijri century and claim that Qur'anic/Sunnah texts can only be understood correctly through their lenses!!!. adding to that is the weak and problematic narration attributed to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) that deems 72 out 73 Muslim groups damned in hellfire. Salafists, and everybody else claim that they are the only saved sect! and all other Muslims are in Hellfire!!!! I have a whole book on this Hadith proving it is not prophetic at all, walhamdulillah. The Qur'an insists on an Ummah Wahidah (one) and so do the sound Prophetic narrations.
Reform is a call of every era, and it is never belittling of any movement to identify its shortfalls, theoretical or practical. Shame is when we don't change for the better and recognize past errors.
Intellectual violence is not limited to the Wahhabi/Salafi movement, though it's much more prevalent within them. This is a phenomenon that many religious groups fall for in various faith systems and sects.
This isn't a call to seed hate against Salafists/Wahhabi's either. I, personally, have love and respect for all Muslims, regardless of background, as human beings and as Muslims. La Ilaha illa Allah is a sacred spiritual bond and is "good enough" for me. I stand against injustice regardless who commits it, and I abhor violence and intellectual terrorism, regardless who carries it out. The sanctity of a believer is indeed great, regardless of Bid'a, to me. Similarly, I have love (Birr) and unconditional compassion (Rahma) for all human beings, regardless of backgrounds (religion, ethnicity, color) as the Qur'an instructs clearly us in (60:8) on top of affirming dignity and worth to every human soul as in Qur'an (17:70).
This is rather sharing my thoughts out loud with some of my brothers and sisters who asked for my thoughts on the matter, hoping reasonable leaders of Salafism are reflecting and planning an actual, concrete, transparent and constructive revisionism, incorporating spirituality, and eliminating hate/belittlement of others, exclusivism, and Takfir/Tabdi'. This constructive criticism is not coming from a bad place, but from a loving and caring heart, Allah Ta'ala is my Witness. Wahhabism/Salafism isn't the only religious group that practices exclusivism, belittlement of others ( استعلاء ) Tabdi' and Takfir of others including some fringe Sufi groups I have met. Such traits are found in many sects, but I took Wahhabism/Salafism because it is the most prominent historically of such traits within the realm of Sunni Islam. Political movements such as Wahhabism/Salafism in almost all its shades should present a clear political agenda too if it wants to pursue political goals as well, and refrain from confounding their political views with definitive religious tenets. Not only Salafism/Wahhabism, but it is also important for all groups reflect, enact self-constructive criticism, refrain from hateful sectarianism and cult-like behavior, and move towards representing the Muhammadan message as The Creator of All revealed it; unconditionally compassionate and loving with the concept that unity should never mean conformity. The Ummah needs healing and then a lot of hard selfless work. The Ummah needs the unity that doesn't require conformity, the unity that is not meant as a political/conference/popular slogan, but a unity based on genuine and deep intellectual research, knowledge, spirituality and humaneness. A unity that sees serious disagreements but doesn't call for hating or belittlement of "the other", doubting their sincerity, intentions and goals!! Especially in non-definitive and Ijtihaadi matters ( المسائل الغير قطعية الغير محكمة، ثبوتاً أو دلالة) . But treatment can only take place correctly after proper and comprehensive diagnosis, and willingness to change for the better. And this applies to all.
Truth is only from The One True Lord, and we all are subject to errors and sins. If I have said anything right, then may He accepts it, and if I said anything wrong, then may He grace me with His forgiveness and may those I wronged forgive me. I only intend to reform, and positively contribute, nothing more. 
إِنْ أُرِيدُ إِلَّا الْإِصْلَاحَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُ ۚ وَمَا تَوْفِيقِي إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ ۚ عَلَيْهِ تَوَكَّلْتُ وَإِلَيْهِ أُنِيبُ
( I only desire to reform/positively contribute as much as I can. Success is only from God, onto Him i rely, and to Him I return)-Qur'an 11:88.
I have spoken about this in my " State of the Muslim union" address at Madina Institute USA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBQbjZMo_w8