From: steve (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Sep 23 2001 - 08:02:47 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: fw: the week from British eyes
> From: "steve" <steve365@btinternet.com>
> > I think they probably were actually. The evidence so far suggests most
of
> > them were from Saudi or the UAE (it's confusing because several were
using
> > the identities of Saudi citizens who turn ot to be alive and living in
> > Jeddah etc). It was the Saudis who funded most of the Madrasseh in
Pakistan
> > that produced the Taliban. Steve Davies
>
> Thanks Steve. That's very interesting. Of course funding doesn't enter
into
> the equation as heavily as religious fanaticism since suicidal missions
don't
> pay.
That wasn't exactly the point I was making. What I was trying to hint at was
that the religious fanaticism of the Taliban and other Muslim groups is
largely funded and encouraged by the Saudis (and to a lesser extent the
UAE). In Pakistan for example the "fundamentalist" mullahs are funded almost
entirely by Saudi money - the same here in Britain. (I have personal
knowledge of this as I was married for eight years to a lady whose family
were Pakistani by origin and with connections to the elite in that country-
her grandfather had been a close friend of Jinnah). Mike Lorrey asked why
Saudi or Gulf Arab dissidents don't attack their own countries' rulers
directly. The answer is (a) they don't fancy tangling with the secret police
(b) there is a kind of implicit deal being done in the Saudi/Gulf states:
radicals are allowed to attack the U.S./Israel so long as they don't openly
attack the Saudi regime. Those who are too honest to accept this are allowed
to go into exile but continue to get funding from "charitable donations". I
was going to launch into a much longer historical rant but the item below
says it all much better. Steve Davies.
This business all began in Saudi Arabia
By Stephen Schwartz
THE first thing to do when trying to understand "Islamic suicide bombers"is
to forget the cliches about the Muslim taste for martyrdom. It does exist,
of course, but the desire for paradise is not a safe guide to what motivated
the appalling suicide attacks on New York and Washington 12 days ago.
Throughout history, political extremists of all faiths have willingly given
up their lives simply in the belief that by doing so, whether in bombings or
in other forms of terror, they would change the course of history, or at
least win an advantage for their cause. Tamils are not Muslims, but they
blow themselves up in their war on the government of Sri Lanka; Japanese
kamikaze pilots in the Second World War were not Muslims, but they flew
their fighters into US aircraft carriers.
The Islamo-fascist ideology of Osama bin Laden and those closest to him,
such as the Egyptian and Algerian "Islamic Groups", is no more intrinsically
linked to Islam or Islamic civilisation than Pearl Harbour was to Buddhism,
or Northern Irish terrorists are to Christianity. Serious Christians don't
go around killing and maiming the innocent; devout Muslims do not prepare
for paradise by visiting Florida strip bars and getting drunk, as one of
last week's terrorist pilots was reported to have done.
The attacks of September 11 are simply not compatible with orthodox Muslim
theology, which cautions soldiers "in the way of Allah" to fight their
enemies face-to-face, without harming non-combatants, women or children.
Most Muslims, not only in America and Britain, but in the world, are
law-abiding citizens of their countries - a point stressed by President Bush
and other American leaders, much to their credit. Nobody on this side of the
water wants a repeat of the lamented 1941 internment of Japanese Americans.
Still, the numerical preponderance of Muslims as perpetrators of these
ghastly incidents is no coincidence. So we have to ask ourselves what has
made these men into monsters? What has so galvanised violent tendencies in
the world's second-largest religion (and, in America, the fastest growing
faith)? Can it really flow from a quarrel over a bit of land in the Middle
East?
For Westerners, it seems natural to look for answers in the distant past,
beginning with the Crusades. But if you ask educated, pious, traditional but
forward-looking Muslims what has driven their umma, or global community, in
this direction, many of them will answer you with one word: Wahhabism. This
is a strain of Islam that emerged not during the Crusades, nor even at the
time of the anti-Turkish wars of the 17th century, but less than two
centuries ago. It is violent, it is intolerant, and it is fanatical beyond
measure. It originated in Arabia, and it is the official theology of the
Gulf states. Wahhabism is the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism.
Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are
Wahhabis - except, perhaps, for some disciples of atheist Leftists posing as
Muslims in the interests of personal power, such as Yasser Arafat or Saddam
Hussein. Wahhabism is the Islamic equivalent of the most extreme Protestant
sectarianism. It is puritan, demanding punishment for those who enjoy any
music except the drum, and severe punishment up to death for drinking or
sexual transgressions. It condemns as unbelievers those who do not pray, a
view that never previously existed in mainstream Islam.
It is stripped-down Islam, calling for simple, short prayers, undecorated
mosques, and the uprooting of gravestones (since decorated mosques and
graveyards lend themselves to veneration, which is idolatry in the Wahhabi
mind). Wahhabis do not even permit the name of the Prophet Mohammed to be
inscribed in mosques, nor do they allow his birthday to be celebrated. Above
all, they hate ostentatious spirituality, much as Protestants detest the
veneration of miracles and saints in the Roman Church.
Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792), the founder of this totalitarian Islamism, was
born in Uyaynah, in the part of Arabia known as Nejd, where Riyadh is today,
and which the Prophet himself notably warned would be a source of corruption
and confusion. (Anti-Wahhabi Muslims refer to Wahhabism as fitna an
Najdiyyah or "the trouble out of Nejd".) From the beginning of Wahhab's
dispensation, in the late 18th century, his cult was associated with the
mass murder of all who opposed it. For example, the Wahhabis fell upon the
city of Qarbala in 1801 and killed 2,000 ordinary citizens in the streets.
In the 19th century, Wahhabism took the form of Arab nationalism v Turks.
The founder of the Saudi kingdom, Ibn Saud, established Wahhabism as its
official creed. Much has been made of the role of the US in "creating" Osama
bin Laden through subsidies to the Afghan mujaheddin, but as much or more
could be said in reproach of Britain which, three generations before,
supported the Wahhabi Arabs in their revolt against the Ottomans. Arab
hatred of the Turks fused with Wahhabi ranting against the "decadence" of
Ottoman Islam. The truth is that the Ottoman khalifa reigned over a
multinational Islamic umma in which vast differences in local culture and
tradition were tolerated. No such tolerance exists in Wahhabism, which is
why the concept of US troops on Saudi soil so inflames bin Laden.
Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his
Egyptian allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at
Luxor not many years ago, bathing in blood up to their elbows and emitting
blasphemous cries of ecstasy. So are the Algerian Islamist terrorists whose
contribution to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people
for such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So
are the Taliban-style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus. The Iranians
are not Wahhabis, which partially explains their slow but undeniable
movement towards moderation and normality after a period of utopian and
puritan revivalism. But the Taliban practise a variant of Wahhabism. They
employ ancient punishments - such as execution for moral offences - and they
have a primitive and fearful view of women. The same is true of Saudi
Arabia's rulers. None of this extremism has been inspired by American
fumblings in the world, and it has little to do with the tragedies that have
beset Israelis and Palestinians.
The Wahhabis have two weaknesses of which the West is largely unaware; an
Achilles's heel on each foot, so to speak. The first is that the vast
majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful people who would prefer
Western democracy in their own countries. They loathe Wahhabism for the same
reason any patriarchal culture rejects a violent break with tradition. And
that is the point that must be understood: bin Laden and other Wahhabis are
not defending Islamic tradition; they represent an ultra-radical break in
the direction of a sectarian utopia. Thus, they are best described as
Islamo-fascists, although they have much in common with Bolsheviks.
The Bengali Sufi writer Zeeshan Ali has described the situation touchingly:
"Muslims from Bangladesh in the US, just like any other place in the world,
uphold the traditional beliefs of Islam but, due to lack of instruction,
keep quiet when their beliefs are attacked by Wahhabis in the US who all of
a sudden become 'better' Muslims than others. These Wahhabis go even further
and accuse their own fathers of heresy, sin and unbelief. And the young
children of the immigrants, when they grow up in this country, get exposed
only to this one-sided version of Islam and are led to think that this is
the only Islam. Naturally a big gap is being created every day that silence
is only widening." The young, divided between tradition and the call of the
new, opt for "Islamic revolution" and commit themselves to their
self-destruction, combined with mass murder.
The same influences are brought to bear throughout the 10-million-strong
Muslim community in America, as well as those in Europe. In the US, 80 per
cent of mosques are estimated by the Sufi Hisham al-Kabbani, born in Lebanon
and now living in the US, to be under the control of Wahhabi imams, who
preach extremism, and this leads to the other point of vulnerability:
Wahhabism is subsidised by Saudi Arabia, even though bin Laden has sworn to
destroy the Saudi royal family. The Saudis have played a double game for
years, more or less as Stalin did with the West during the Second World War.
They pretended to be allies in a struggle against Saddam Hussein while
spreading Wahhabi ideology, just as Stalin promoted an "antifascist"
coalition with the US while carrying out espionage and subversion on
American territory. The motive was the same: the belief that the West was or
is decadent and doomed.
One major question is never asked in American discussions of Arab terrorism:
what is the role of Saudi Arabia? The question cannot be asked because
American companies depend too much on the continued flow of Saudi oil, while
American politicians have become too cosy with the Saudi rulers.
Another reason it is not asked is that to expose the extent of Saudi and
Wahhabi influence on American Muslims would compromise many Islamic clerics
in the US. But it is the most significant question Americans should be
asking themselves today. If we get rid of bin Laden, whom do we then have to
deal with? The answer was eloquently put by Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, professor
of political science at the University of California at San Diego, and
author of an authoritative volume on Islamic extremism in Pakistan: "If the
US wants to do something about radical Islam, it has to deal with Saudi
Arabia. The 'rogue states' [Iraq, Libya, etc] are less important in the
radicalisation of Islam than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the single most
important cause and supporter of radicalisation, ideologisation, and the
general fanaticisation of Islam."
>From what we now know, it appears not one of the suicide pilots in New York
and Washington was Palestinian. They all seem to have been Saudis, citizens
of the Gulf states, Egyptian or Algerian. Two are reported to have been the
sons of the former second secretary of the Saudi embassy in Washington. They
were planted in America long before the outbreak of the latest Palestinian
intifada; in fact, they seem to have begun their conspiracy while the Middle
East peace process was in full, if short, bloom. Anti-terror experts and
politicians in the West must now consider the Saudi connection.
Stephen Schwartz is the author of Intellectuals and Assassins, published by
Anthem Press. This article appears in the current edition of The Spectator.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:56 MST