Saudi's Materials in American Mosques

[dmz]

This report (http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm) from freedomhouse.org is quite the eye opener, apparently our good friends from the kingdom are shipping their "interesting" ideas to America:

Among the key findings of the report:


· Various Saudi government publications gathered for this study, most of which are in Arabic, assert that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations;


· The documents promote contempt for the United States because it is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian Wahhabi-style Islamic law. They condemn democracy as un-Islamic;


· The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam......


wild.:wow:

[segovius]

Good. Thank God. We've finally reached stage one. At last. Now we can proceed through the others.

Stage 2: Recognizing that the Wahabis represent less than 1% of Muslims and, more importantly, that they are in no way, shape or form to be regarded as Islamic.

Abbas Khadim's blog (http://abbaskadhim.blogspot.com/) - entry dated Monday, January 31, 2005:

For those who took interest in the characterization of Wahhabis. Don't go to dictionaries or soldiers who spent a few weeks in a city they don't even speak its language. Also don't rely on pseudo-experts.
I was going to write about the topic, but remembered that the best on it has already been written. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, here is a passage from, Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, by Prof. Hamid Algar (my dissertation advisor). He does not read my blog, so there is no hidden agenda!

"...Wahhabism is an entirely specific phenomenon, calling for recognition as a separate school of thought or even a sect of its own. Sometimes the Wahhabis are characterized, particularly by non-Muslim observers searching for a brief description, as "extreme" or as "conservative" Sunnis, with adjectives such as "stern" or "austere" added for good measure. It has, however, been observed by knowledgeable Sunnis since the earliest times that the Wahhabis do not count as part of the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a, for almost all the practices, traditions and beliefs denounced by Muhammed b. `Abd al-Wahhab have been historically integral to Sunni Islam., enshrined in a vast body of literature and accepted by the great majority of Muslims. Precisely for that reason, many of the `ulema contemporary with the first emergence of Wahhabism denounced its followers as standing outside the pale of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a... Our characterization of Wahhabis as non-Sunni is therefore above all a historical clarification; it has in itself no polemical purpose, if only because for the present writer Sunnism is but one representation and interpretation of Islam."

Professor Algar btw, is the world's leading authority on Islamic Studies.

Stage 3: Recognizing that 90% plus of 'Islamist' terrorism is Wahabi.

Stage 4: Recognizing that the US as a nation and Bush in particular have a very special relationship with the Wahabis - one that places them above the law and one that exempts them from investigation or censure under the WOT or in any other sense.

No doubt this is why such material is freely circulating in the US whereas it would not be tolerated in France or the UK for example.

Bush and the Wahabis are symbiotic. He is far closer to them than he is to Blair for example. that is where his unerring loyalty lies. It's not about religion or ideology, it's about money.

It's a simple as that: money.

[Harald]

Why don't the wingers care about Bush's relationship with the Wahabis?

I just do. Not. Get it.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Harald
Why don't the wingers care about Bush's relationship with the Wahabis?

I just do. Not. Get it.

I agree... I find it funny how we just HAD to "bring democracy" to Iraq yet in SA we leave the royal oil pimp family and their close friends and family alone.

Fellows

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
Why don't the wingers care about Bush's relationship with the Wahabis?

I just do. Not. Get it.

The Saudis own a significant percentage of US real estate, companies etc - they are estimated to have around they have $700 billion invested in the US.

Personally I do not believe, as Michael Moore suggests for example, that fear of withdrawal of these sums has anything to do with the relationship. In any event, the President has powers to prevent such a withdrawal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701 - 1707.

It is just a cosy money making club. They are too linked through business and make too much money to let differences of religion, politics, nationality or anything else get in the way.

And of course the US is so dependent on Saudi oil that it is a one way relationship in effect. So they call the tune and do their thing while the government turns a blind eye to stuff other people would not get away with.

[dmz]

I understand what you guys are saying here, and American presidents have kissing Saudi buttocks from quite some time, but America isn't alone in that ignominious club.


BUT

This language that is being used in this literature, especially the infiltration for subversion bit, makes David Koresh look like Ralph Nader. This wasn't okay in America in the early 1990s, and wasn't 'tolerated', by the FBI -- who succesfully infiltrated and harrassed a number of black helicopter outfits. I don't know where this stuff crosses the line into sedition, but it certainly pissed off the right people.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
This language that is being used in this literature, especially the infiltration for subversion bit, makes David Koresh look like Ralph Nader. This wasn't okay in America in the early 1990s, and wasn't 'tolerated', by the FBI -- who succesfully infiltrated and harrassed a number of black helicopter outfits. I don't know where this stuff crosses the line into sedition, but it certainly pissed off the right people.

Well, as we discussed in a thread on fundamentalism a while back, the Wahabis ARE the terrorists so what do you expect ?

This is the ideology of the 911 hijackers and OBL - what's the surprise ?

My issue is more that you cannot have elections in Saudi or Uzbekistan (say) and yet Bush plays the freedom card in Iraq. This is not Bush bashing - I'm just not prepared to sit back and clap false victories while the real threat is continually allowed to build up till they do something. Again.

If Bush wants support for his cause - which is a noble cause although he himself is lying about his commitment to it imo - from thinking people, then he must be consistent. But he will never call for elections in Saudi. That is why I know he is insincere, I would support him (possibly and theoretically) in the WOT if he did any one of the following things:

1) aimed it were it should be aimed: Saudi, Uzbekistan, Wahabism in general

2) stopped aiming it where it should not be aimed: Syria, Iran

3) didn't hype 'democracy' at all thus leaving open the possibility that he might not be a hypocrite or a liar

Meanwhile (quickly rushes back on-topic) these materials circulating can have only one effect in the long run: fostering hate and some form of attack by people who believe the materials against Americans.

If these materials circulate unchecked then that WILL happen. And when it does (and we should all think very carefully about this) do you really think Bush will blame the Saudis and take action against them ? He will take action against someone just like after 911 but do you really believe it will be the Saudis ? I don't.

To me it looks like nothing has been learnt from 911 at all and the factors that were present in the years running up to it are brewing up unchecked yet again. I hope I'm wrong and I'm not trying to make any partisan point but that's how it looks to me - and not just from info in this post either.

Something needs to be done before we slide deeper into madness and chaos. We need some new approaches here.

[Harald]

Originally posted by segovius
The Saudis own a significant percentage of US real estate, companies etc - they are estimated to have around they have $700 billion invested in the US.

Yeh yeh, I know ... but why don't the Naples / Scotts of this world CARE? Why don't THEY say something?

George cares because the Bush Clan gets rich out of it. But why do people who sweat bullets at the thought of, say, France funding Palestinian sewage farms cuz they're TERRRSTS!@!!!! ...

... never say shit about people doing big nasty deals with people who are preaching we should all die?

Why?

Care to give us your side of the story Wingnuts?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by segovius


Something needs to be done before we slide deeper into madness and chaos. We need some new approaches here.

When "leaders" "lead" for no other reason than money, business, and greed we find injustice, death and insecurity which leaves a dismal taste of fear in the air for all.

If leaders would lead with integrity we could have a chance for a better world.

Fellowship

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Harald
Yeh yeh, I know ... but why don't the Naples / Scotts of this world CARE? Why don't THEY say something?

George cares because the Bush Clan gets rich out of it. But why do people who sweat bullets at the thought of, say, France funding Palestinian sewage farms cuz they're TERRRSTS!@!!!! ...

... never say shit about people doing big nasty deals with people who are preaching we should all die?

Why?

Care to give us your side of the story Wingnuts?

I would also like to understand this. This is one reason I had to depart from the right. I believe in fiscal conservatism yet I do not believe in this "drunken support for the millitary" to solve every issue in the world with "blind" faith given to the president, his neocon friends and the pentagon.

Fellowship

[segovius]

Originally posted by Fellowship
When "leaders" "lead" for no other reason than money, business, and greed we find injustice, death and insecurity which leaves a dismal taste of fear in the air for all.

If leaders would lead with integrity we could have a chance for a better world.

Fellowship

Yes, I agree but to echo what I think Harald was getting at in his post above, there are some things that transcend all other considerations - things that threaten us all.

Climate change would be one and obviously terrorist threats another - we can argue all we like about who's to blame and indulge in political point scoring till the cows come home (as my gran used to say) - and God knows I indulge in it as much as anyone here - but the bottom line is that there are certain issues we cannot ignore or else we won't be around to argue whose fault it was.

This is where Bush's 'uniting' rather than 'dividing' could come in.

Actually, I'm not sure I should say this, but as a digression, I really do believe that Bush had some sort of 'destiny' and world role assigned to him. I think he knows it and his followers know it - that's why they have a 'religious-like' aspect.

The problem is that he is just not rising to it. He had a chance to after 911 and he has a chance to with his re-election. But he just seems to misread it and do the wrong thing. A failure of faith for all his words on the topic. I don't know how many more chances he has.

</ obscure and irrelevant digression>

[Gene Clean]

Maybe a bit off-topic, and I apologize if it is, but its strange how few legal mosques are in America these days. I mean, in the area I live in (Chicago), there's only 2 mosques that I know of, and one of them is in the shittiest place that could be and the other is not even a mosque in terms of design and space; its an old house that happens to look like a religous object.

And there are at least 200,000 - 300,000 muslims here if not more. There are other places where muslims gather and pray, namely in basements and other 'dark' places, where I suppose, some of the even get influenced by Wahabis working in the US or such maniacs.

Now, I never undersood why there are no normal mosques, even encouraged by the city that could be closely monitored, not like The Big Brother, but monitored nevertheless, that could provide a place for muslims to pray and a gathering place for those that seek advice on different matter; but not religious bigotry. I see many churches and sinagogs, but no mosques. And do not tell me that muslims don' want to build them; that is simply not true. They are rather prosperous, and could afford to build them themselves if they got the necessary permission from the city. They didn't get it, and I don't know why. I'm suprised though. Really.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Maybe a bit off-topic, and I apologize if it is, but its strange how few legal mosques are in America these days. I mean, in the area I live in (Chicago), there's only 2 mosques that I know of, and one of them is in the shittiest place that could be and the other is not even a mosque in terms of design and space; its an old house that happens to look like a religous object.

And there are at least 200,000 - 300,000 muslims here if not more. There are other places where muslims gather and pray, namely in basements and other 'dark' places, where I suppose, some of the even get influenced by Wahabis working in the US or such maniacs.

Now, I never undersood why there are no normal mosques, even encouraged by the city that could be closely monitored, not like The Big Brother, but monitored nevertheless, that could provide a place for muslims to pray and a gathering place for those that seek advice on different matter; but not religious bigotry. I see many churches and sinagogs, but no mosques. And do not tell me that muslims don' want to build them; that is simply not true. They are rather prosperous, and could afford to build them themselves if they got the necessary permission from the city. They didn't get it, and I don't know why. I'm suprised though. Really.

I don't know how it is in the US but in Europe the Saudis get to buy prime real estate because they have the money and consequently the 'grand' mosques are usually Saudi (ie Wahabi). Often the case with mosques in houses (of which there are many) is that they are run/started up by people with little access to funds.

But also there is the issue that large scale mosques are regarded by many as an ostentation and a to some it is a disgrace to spend money in this way which could help the poorer people in the community - also Muhammad's mosque was in his house and I think many Muslims consciously model this.