If you’re going to nitpick my word choice between two synonyms, you could at least click the link. “Correct” is the word used

> Correct Usage: Either

Britannica doesn’t take a firm stance

Edit: this is by far the lamest thing someone has ever blocked me for

Edit 2: I can't reply to you, /u/LifeStuffAndThings, because the other guy is upstream and blocked me. Here's my comment:

> What two synonyms?

"acceptable" and "correct". The other guy fixated on my word choice there.

Usage determines what is correct. Grammatical rules describe common usage, they don't prescribe them.

Merriam Webster says both are correct. Brittania says "According to most grammarians, this expression is logical and correct only with couldn’t", but then goes on to acknowledge that both are widely used.

They're like the Islamic version of the westboro baptists and other southern evangelicals on steroids. Same brand of religious bigotry, just a different book waving in your face.

[removed]

About what in particular? The different schools of thought? Or wahhabism?

Check out 'the Siege of Mecca' by Yaroslav Trofimov

I also stepped back from Islam for a while and returned basically as a convert of sorts. It's fascinating to see how the Saudis have built this narrative of Wahhabism being ""the official Islam"" --- to the point that even non-Muslims will now tell Muslims that they're not real Muslims because they're presenting an argument that goes against what the Wahhabis have been pushing for decades.

For a while, they were one of the only Islamic countries that had enough money to translate books, and they did so selectively. Things are slowly beginning to change now, but the chokehold they had on the Muslim world was insane.

Especially considering that they were doing this as allies of the Americans and the British, who supported them through overt and covert campaigns to secure their oil. After establishing themselves, they begun exporting their ridiculous ideology around the world, while the (relatively) ""secular"" (for lack of a better term) governments in the region were being destabilized and eventually destroyed.

(Not that these governments were the beacon of morality, but it's just an interesting coincidence that this was happening at the same time)

Simultaneously the Saudis would push missionaries to these destroyed countries, build big massive mosques, and exploit the situation as a whole. Many extremists were recruited in this manner.

Another fascinating point is coming to the realization that there is in fact no such thing as an official, monolithic Islam. There are the core fundamental principles laid out in the Quran --- everything else is a matter of statistics and probability. (And amongst the countless different schools of thought, movements, and sects, the infallibility and sanctity of the Sunni hadith books have been disputed, just as an example for how deep the disputes have been, even though today this would be unthinkable to many Muslims, unfortunately.)

The classical Muslims actually viewed Islam's multitudes of interpretation as a source of Mercy from Allah, and accepted that two contradictory statements could both be true depending on the methodology one used to arrive at those conclusions.

It paints a completely different picture from what the Wahhabis have been shoving down our throats, and even many Sunni scholars have disregarded them as heretical fanatics.

(See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_international_conference_on_Sunni_Islam_in_Grozny)