THE WAHHABI MUSLIMS OF SAUDI ARABIA

AS YOU READ THE FOLLOWING, REMEMBER THAT ISIS HAS SWORN TO ALLAH TO EXTERMINATE THE HOUSE OF SAUD FOR ALLOWING, ENCOURAGING AND PROFITING FROM THE PILGRIMAGES MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS MAKE EACH YEAR TO MECCA.

ISIS HAS VOWED TO ALLAH TO DESTROY MECCA AND THE "BLACK STONE" AND TO PULL DOWN THE TOMBS AND SHRINES ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST.

ISIS HAS CLAIMED TO UPHOLD THE WAHHABI DOCTRINES, TO BE THE PUREST OF THE PURE IN ISLAM, AND TO BASE THEIR CALIPHATE ON SUCH PURIST THOUGHT.

ISIS CLAIMS TO BE THE ONLY GROUP ADHERING TO THE "PERFECT" ISLAM, ISLAM AS THE PROPHET INTENDED IT TO BE...JIHAD AND ALL.

PBS ATTEMPTED IN OCTOBER, 2001, TO EXPLAIN WAHHABI BELIEFS AND SHOW THAT SAUDI ARABIA GAVE RISE TO THIS 'EXTREMIST THOUGHT'...FAILING TO REALIZE THAT IT IS EXACTLY THIS "EXTREMISM" THAT IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF ISLAM, PURE ISLAM, REAL ISLAM.

THAT MOST OF THE 9/11 'HIJACKERS' WERE SAUDI CITIZENS WAS PRAYING ON THE MINDS OF MANY.


"For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith.

It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.

 Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies.

 Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Wahhabism's explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California.

Here are excerpts from PBS' FRONTLINE's interviews with Mai Yamani, an anthropologist who studies Saudi society; Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism; Maher Hathout, spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California; and Ahmed Ali, a Shi'a Muslim from Saudi Arabia.  

PBS: If you go to school in Saudi Arabia, what do you learn about people who are not followers of Wahhabi, of the prophet?

Ahmed Ali: The religious curriculum in Saudi Arabia teaches you that people are basically two sides: Salafis [Wahhabis], who are the winners, the chosen ones, who will go to heaven, and the rest. The rest are Muslims and Christians and Jews and others.

They are either kafirs, who are deniers of God, or mushrak, putting gods next to God, or enervators, that's the lightest one.

The enervators of religion are {what} they call the Sunni Muslims who ... for instance, celebrate Prophet Mohammed's birthday, and do some stuff that is not accepted by Salafis.

And all of these people are not accepted by Salafi as Muslims.
As I said, "claimant to Islam."

And all of these people are supposed to be hated, to be persecuted, even killed. And we have several clergy who have said that against the Shi'a and against the other Muslims.

And they have done it in Algeria, in Afghanistan.
This is the same ideology. They just have the same opportunity.
 They did it in Algeria and Afghanistan, and now New York. ...

PBS: What do you mean, it reached New York?

AA: Well, when it was a local problem, the American media did not really care much about it. But until September 11, you saw how this faith of hate, I call it, did to all of us, to New Yorkers and to the rest of the world, honestly. ...

PBS: But the Saudi government has condemned what happened on September 11....

AA: Yes, Prince Nayif condemned bin Laden, and other princes... Prince Turki condemned bin Laden.

They did not condemn that message.
They condemned bin Laden. 

Bin Laden learned this in Saudi Arabia.
 He didn't learn it in the moon.

That message that Bin Laden received, it still is taught in Saudi Arabia.

And if bin Laden dies, and this policy or curriculum stays, we will have other bin Ladens. ...

PBS: Can you show me an example of what the [religious teaching is in the schools?

AA: Well, here, this is a book, hadif, for ninth grade.
Hadif is a statement of Prophet Mohammed.
This is a book that start for ninth graders.
This is talking about the victory of Muslims over Jews.
This is a hadif that I truly believe it's not true, as a Muslim:

"The day of judgment will not arrive until Muslims fight Jews, and Muslim will kill Jews until the Jew hides behind a tree or a stone. Then the tree and the stone will say, 'Oh Muslim, oh, servant of God, this is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'
Except one type of a tree, which is a Jew tree. That will not say that."

This is taught for 14-year-old boys in Saudi Arabia.

PBS: In middle schools...

AA: In middle schools, yes. Official middle schools. This is a book printed by Saudi government Ministry of Education.

[READ THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH ALI <HERE>.]

(Ed. Note: read some excerpts from these textbooks.)

I HOPE YOU DO GO READ EVEN A FEW EXCERPTS.
I AM WEARY OF TRYING TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT SUCH THINGS ARE TAUGHT TO CHILDREN IN NATIONS OF ISLAM, THAT THEY GROW UP BEING INDOCTRINATED TO SEE ALL WHO ARE NOT LIKE THEMSELVES AS THE ENEMY.

PBS: When the Saudi government came to power in 1932, it tried to get rid of these various different groups, or ethnic groups or beliefs, and unify it all into one?

Mai Yamani: Actually, yes. ... [into] the Wahhabi Islamic thought... They regarded it as much purer because it's more fundamentalist, much more conservative than the people who are like in the south, the people in Mecca, who had more mystical religious trends, such as the Sufi trend, which is very mystical.

PBS: So the state religion in Saudi Arabia is this pure, stricter form of Islam?

Mai Yamani: Yes. ...


PBS: And we're told by people we've interviewed that it's the nature of this thought, its fundamentalist nature, that can be easily manipulated, so that people would, for example, become violent or extremist. 

M.Y.: I think that the new mood, the new trend, especially after the Gulf War, has become for all these neo-Wahhabis ... [is to use] Islam ... as a platform for political ideas and activities, using Islam to legitimize political, economic, social behavior.

These people have been brought up in a country where Islam legitimizes everything. And they have used the teachings from the religious establishment, but became more political in expressing dissent and criticism of the regime.

PBS: And it's been exported. To Pakistan, through systems of madrassas and throughout the Islamic world.
M.Y. : And it has been exported, yes, indeed.

PBS: We are told that it's this form of fundamentalist religion represented by this Wahhabi-influenced Islamic, if you will, ideology, or view, that has created, if you will, a seedbed for people to become violent, to become anti-American, and to do the kinds of things that we call "extremism" now.
Is that true?

M.Y. : I don't think it has to do with Islam. I don't think it has to do with any form of this ... Islamic interpretation. ... Of course there is a problem with dogma. But I think the problem lies with the political systems that use religion. ...


PBS: There's been a politicization of Islam. You've said it. But bin Laden, and his, if you will, similar people, are using Islam to promote political goals.

M.Y.: Yes.

PBS: They base this on a dogmatic interpretation of the religion itself, black and white. Is the base of support that they are gaining a result of this proliferation of this view of Islam? ... Wahhabism is what I am talking about. ... Is there a relationship between that and this development that we see of bin Laden and his movement?

M.Y. : Probably there would be a relation between an interpretation of Islam that lacks tolerance, and is a more narrow vision of the world.

But particularly the problem is about the political systems that promote this type of interpretation of religion.
This gives people the excuse, the platform, to go ahead and express themselves in Islamic language to suit their purpose of political ends.

Saudi Arabia has its own particular interpretation of Islam which is very legalistic, is very austere, it's very black-and-white.

[Wahhabism is] sort of an extreme orthodoxy that historically has not been shared by a majority of Muslims, particularly nobody outside of the Arabian Peninsula."

[READ THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW WITH YAMANI <HERE>.]


THOUGH WAHHABISTS, HOUSE OF SAUD DOES NOT LIVE IT.

PBS: Is there a connection between the fundamentalism of the Taliban and the fundamentalism of the Wahhabi?

Vali Nasr: The connection has been growing very, very strong in the past 20 years, and particularly in the past ten years. The dominant school of Islam with which the Taliban associate -- which is known as the Deobandi school -- is very prominent in Afghanistan and also in wide areas of Pakistan. Northern India has increasingly gravitated toward Wahhabi teaching, and has very, very strong organizational ties with various Wahhabi religious leaders.

PBS: When we saw the Taliban destroy the Buddhist statues and other artifacts in Afghanistan, is that similar to a Wahhabi view? 

Vali Nasr: Yes, yes. Because Wahhabis don't believe in tombstones, don't believe in images being acceptable, don't believe in statues. They believe all of these are forms of polytheism. 
A majority of Muslims don't share that degree of literal reading of religious texts or banning of these kinds of reflections. ...

PBS: And the Wahhabis dominate in Saudi Arabia?

Vali Nasr: The Wahhabis dominate in Saudi Arabia, with also significant influence and presence in United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait. ...

PBS: The nature of these Islamic beliefs, you're saying, foster fundamentalist extremism? 

Vali Nasr: The teachings are fundamentalist in the definition you have in mind. The question is who's going to cross the line and engage in violent acts or not.
So you see, recruitment into terrorist movements is small generally.

PBS: There's a big swamp out there of people.

Vali Nasr: Right, yes. And what we're confronting is not just flushing out Al Qaeda.

The bigger headache for the U.S. government is dealing with the Muslim world as a whole, with the political ramifications of our counterattack. That's the bigger problem."

[READ THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH NASR <HERE>.]

PBS: But what is the creed of Islam that is preached in Saudi Arabia? What is it called?

Maher Hathout: Well, the word "creed" is important because the creed of Islam is the same: the belief in one God, the belief in the oneness of his message, the oneness of the human family. And the devotion to God should be expressed in human rights, good manners, and mercy, peace, justice, and freedom. No two Muslims will argue about this creed. It is documented in the Koran as the highest authority, modeled by the authentic teaching of the prophet, and the authenticity has always been subject of study and debate.

So the creed is crystal clear. But the interpretation or the way you approach life, which should be a dynamic thing, should change from time to time. When you freeze it at a certain period or at a certain interpretation, problems happen. I know that people called it Wahhabism; I don't subscribe to the term. [Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab] at his time was considered a progressive person.

If you freeze things at his time -- which was the eighteenth century, or the late part of the seventeenth century, I don't remember the dates exactly -- it becomes very stagnant and very literalist.
And a very straitjacketed puritan approach that does not cater to the changeables and the dynamics of life.
People call this Wahhabism.  

Saudis, by the way, never say, "We are Wahhabis." They say, "We are just Muslims."

But they follow the teachings, and the major booklets taught in all schools are the books of Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab.

Anyone who's subscribing to someone else is not very much welcomed.

PBS: So there's a quote in the [New York Times] article that we were looking at before that basically says that Saudi Arabians believe that their form of Islam ... is the real true form of Islam, and that pretty much any other kind of way of practicing Islam is wrong.  

MH: Yes. This is probably some of the Saudi scholars. ...

They are playing the role of clergy; there should be no church in Islam.

There should be no theological hierarchy.
But they acquired that position and, of course, them and the ruling family are very close.

 After all, Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab is the one who paved the road for Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the patriarch of the family, to conquer the rest of the [Arabian] Peninsula and to rule. So there is very great cohesiveness between the two.

And so they believe that that's it, this is the truth. And not only that that is it, it does not change, which is very problematic.
Because we know that even at the early history of Islam, as new issues emerged, new jurisprudence was created to suit the change of the time and age.

That's early on, at probably 25 years after the death of the prophet, peace be upon him.

So they, that group of people, believe that this is the only form and it does not change.

This of course creates major problems, and it creates some kind of schizophrenic situation. ... I don't think that Wahhabism ... will condone or accept lots of things that are done by some of the elite of Saudi Arabia who come to Las Vegas and have fun and do this and do that.

And we don't hear a very strong voice exposing this or condemning them for that. But if they see a woman driving a car, they consider this a major sin. There is confusion here.

We wanted to actually protect Islam from that very narrow tunnel-visioned look that will make it irrelevant, will marginalize Islam as one of the shaping factors of human civilization, as it has always been.

Once you are irrelevant to the civilization of the time and age, you can have your own cocoon and say whatever you want. But who cares?"

[READ THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH HATHOUT <HERE>.]


IT MAY TAKE MORE THAN ONE READING OF THAT ENTIRE INTERVIEW, BUT WHAT THE "EXPERTS" ARE SAYING IS THAT, YES, FUNDAMENTALLY, ISLAM WAS WAHHABIST IN NATURE, WAS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROPHET HAD WRITTEN DOWN, BUT NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE ARE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE THAT, OVERALL, ISLAM HAS MORPHED, BECOME SOMETHING BETTER, SOMETHING THAT VALUES ALL LIFE, A "RELIGION OF PEACE", ALTHOUGH THE PROPHET ELEVATED HIMSELF IN RANK BY WAR, BY JIHAD, BY FORCING OTHERS INTO SUBMISSION TO HIS RELIGION, AND BY KILLING THOSE WHO DEFIED HIM.

HYPOCRISY AND HERESY OF THE SAUDI MONARCHY
OSAMA (USAMA) BIN LADEN WAS CONDEMNED BY THE SAUDI MONARCHY FOR HIS FAULTING THEM ON THEIR BETRAYAL OF THIS"PURE ISLAM", THE "REAL ISLAM", WAHHABI ISLAM.

HE CALLED THEM OUT ON THEIR HERESIES, JUST AS ISIS HAS, AND THEY CUT ALL TIES WITH HIM...WELL, ALL THE TIES THAT AMERICAN 'INTELLIGENCE' COULD FIND.

The two closest friends of SAUDI ARABIA'S King Fahd were Prince Mohammed bin Abdullah (son of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud's youngest brother) who died in the early 1980s, and Salem bin Laden who died in 1988, when an ultralight aircraft that he was flying flew into power lines in San Antonio, Texas. 

Osama bin Laden was born the only son of Muhammed bin Laden's tenth wife, Alia Hamida al-Attas, who was of Syrian origin,  making Osama a member of the Syrian group of the Bin Laden family. 

(For more on the Bin Laden family, go <HERE> and follow all the well-documented links.)

THE WAHHABI INFLUENCE AMONG AMERICA'S MOST POWERFUL...
ANOTHER BIN LADEN CONNECTION WAS THE ONE TO THE BUSH FAMILY.
BUSHES AND BIN LADENS EVEN VACATIONED TOGETHER A TIME OR TWO.

AS THE GUARDIAN U.K. REPORTED:

On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel.

Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama.


The Carlyle Group defines the next phase of [BUSH] power: a Washington-based private equity fund with a difference. It is headed by Frank Carlucci, former CIA director and defense secretary under Ronald Reagan and lifelong friend of George Bush Sr.

Bush (also once director of the CIA) sits next to Carlucci on the board with a portfolio specialising in Asia and does not hesitate to communicate with his son on concerns of regional relevance to Carlyle such as Afghanistan or the Pacific Rim.

Bush Jr was once chairman of a Carlyle subsidiary making in-flight food.

On Carlucci's other flank is the ubiquitous James Baker III. Chairman of Carlyle Europe is John Major.
The group's new asset management is headed by Afsaneh Beschloss, former treasurer of the World Bank.

Carlyle has grown quickly to be worth some $12bn, specialising in energy and defence, with particular attention to the oil-producing Gulf states.

 Among its most eager investors is Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to Washington and his father Prince Sultan, the kingdom's defence minister.

The group's most spectacular recent coup was to reap $400m in a stock sale of its subsidiary United Defence Industries, maker of the Crusader artillery system which most military experts argued was redundant, but which won $470m in development money from the Pentagon and whose future in the US arsenal still hangs in the balance after a series of recent meetings between Carlucci and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Within a month of 11 September last year, Carlucci was meeting with Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and 10 days later offered an assessment which exactly predicted the endless-war scenario: 'We as Americans,' he said, 'have to recognise that terrorism is more or less a permanent situation.'

BACK TO THE PBS INTERVIEW TO WRAP IT ALL UP...

An Egyptian-born cardiologist, Dr. Maher Hathout is now an American citizen.


 He is a senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the spokesperson for the Islamic Center of Southern California.

In this interview, Hathout says that Islam has been hijacked and tampered with by radicals.

He describes his mosque's progressive philosophies, its insistence on creating a Muslim identity that gels with American pluralism, and explains why his mosque decided to protect its independence by refusing foreign funds.

He also discusses the Saudi money flowing into the U.S. to build and support mosques during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

This interview was conducted on Oct. 26, 2001.
PBS: But what's the difference between you, let's say, and another mosque, let's say, in this area? Maher Hathout: The difference is that we are trying to find our own way, not to follow a way that somebody came from abroad and told us, "This is the way."

For example, in this center early on, the language was always the English language except when we recite scripture, when we recite it in the original language followed by translation.

We never segregated genders.
We never imposed any code.
We educated -- but no imposing of anything.

So this gives a different flavor than a traditional mosque, which is an extension to an area.
Whether this area is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan or Iran, it carries the flavor of that area which will make persons who are not from that area feel foreigners inside the mosque.

They deliver their sermons in Arabic, while we have a large component of African-American Muslims and white American Muslims and Pakistanis and Indians who don't understand the language.

We don't have an imam. I lead the prayers here. I'm Dr. Hathout, not Imam Hathout.

So the performance there and the execution of the mission is completely different.

We believe in equal distribution of the wealth.
 It is very wrong to see that the natural wealth that came from the land belongs to a certain family.
It is the property of all the people, and so on and so forth.

If you are taking money from those people, you will not be feel free to criticize.

They send the imams, who are speaking a language that our new generation does not understand. ...
It alienated the new generation from the mosques to a great extent.

And they send books in Arabic that, when the critical mind of a young American Muslim will read, will not exactly accept.

 It creates an environment where the family comes together, then at the doorstep, the woman go this way and the man go this way, which I don't understand why. So that influence definitely was there.

And sometimes in the attire itself. ... When you look at [clothing] like this, say, "My God, they are not from here."
 And this is something that I don't think is very conducive. ...

 [People] should not lose their cultural complexions, but should definitely adapt to the American environment without losing their principles or their beliefs or their model of behavior.

But they don't have to do that. They don't have to be the foreign team that's coming to play a game and leave.

They have to be indigenous in a way, part of America, part of the fabric of America. "

 [And those "differences" between the Americanized version of Islam and  TRADITIONAL Islam are just a few reasons Americanized Muslims are seen as infidels and heretics and are targets of ISIS and others of the "pure Islam", THE ISLAM OF THE PROPHET.]


DO YOU "GET IT" NOW, FOLKS?

WHAT IS PRESENTED TO AMERICANS AS ISLAM IS NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL, TRADITIONAL, PURE ISLAM. 

IT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SUIT THOSE WHO, BASICALLY, HOPE TO FIND EXCUSES FOR ABANDONING THE RELIGION OF THEIR FOREFATHERS, THAT VERY DEDICATED PURE RELIGION THAT PREACHES THAT THE ENTIRE WORLD MUST SUBMIT TO ISLAM OR BE DAMNED AND KILLED AND ERASED FROM THE EARTH.

AMERICANIZED ISLAM IS A TARGET OF PURIST ISLAM.

AND WHEN ISIS COMES TO TOWN, THOSE AMERICAN MUSLIM "INFIDELS" WILL DIE IN GREAT NUMBERS...ALONG WITH ALL WHO WILL NOT BOW IN SUBMISSION.

LIKE IT OR NOT, THE FACTS ARE RIGHT THERE.

DR. HATHOUT AND OTHERS WILL SEE WHAT BETRAYAL TO THE "MOTHER RELIGION" GETS THEM. 



_________________


JUST A FEW INTERESTING FACTS...
WELL, I FIND THEM INTERESTING, OTHERS MAY NOT...

~Breakfast with the bin Ladens...ERASED FORM YOUTUBE MORE TIMES THAN I COUNTED...

~ FROM HISTORY COMMONS:

November 1998: Former President George H. W. Bush Meets with Bin Laden Family

Former President George H. W. Bush meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. The meeting takes place in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 10/7/2001]

January 2000: Former President Bush Meets with Bin Laden Family on Behalf of Carlyle Group

  Former President George H. W. Bush meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group.
 Bush denies this meeting took place until a thank you note is found confirming that it took place. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/2001; Guardian, 10/31/2001]

(8:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Former President George H. W. Bush Heads off After Spending Night at the White House

Former President George H. W. Bush, along with former First Lady Barbara Bush, leaves Washington, DC, by private jet, bound for a speaking engagement in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Bushes spent the previous night at the White House. They had flown to Washington the previous day to attend several meetings and a dinner. One of the meetings attended by the former president was the annual investor conference of the Carlyle Group, which was also attended by Shafig bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers (see (9:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). They are later informed of the WTC attacks while on their jet. Due to all planes being grounded, they have to land in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [CBS News, 11/1/2002; CNN, 10/25/2003; Newsweek, 10/27/2003]

What has happened to the love affair between Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and President Bush?

THE WASHINGTON POST WONDERED....

April 29, 2007

Two years ago, down on the Texas ranch, they were photographed walking hand in hand.

 

 It was the beginning of a beautiful relationship: Bush dropped his demand for democratization in the puritanical kingdom, and Abdullah did his best to moderate oil prices. The dowry was a new U.S. arms deal for the Saudis.

 

A second honeymoon was scheduled for this month, when Bush

 planned to host Abdullah for his first state visit.

 

So the White House was mightily perplexed when it was informed that the king's schedule didn't allow for a spring visit to Washington.

Then, at an Arab League summit in Riyadh last month, Abdullah denounced the U.S. war in Iraq as an "illegitimate occupation." He also used the occasion to make up with Bush's bete noire, Bashar al-Assad, the brash Syrian president who had previously denounced the Saudi leader as "a dwarf." The Bush administration was furious about this seeming reversal, but it had largely itself to blame. It had been taken for a ride by the freelancing Bandar, and it should have known better. In Riyadh, at least, the king is still the decider. And the king's worldview differs importantly from Bandar's.

Abdullah agrees with Bandar that their main challenge is the Iranian/Shiite threat to Sunni dominance of the Arab world. But where Bandar wants to confront Iran's Arab proxies, Abdullah seeks to wean them off their dependence on Tehran. That dictates engagement, however distasteful, with Hamas in Gaza and Assad in Damascus. It also requires distancing Saudi Arabia from Bush's ill-fated Iraq adventure, which in Abdullah's view is only strengthening a pro-Iranian Shiite government at Sunni Arab expense.
If Bush wants to rekindle the U.S.-Saudi love affair, he needs to deal with the Saudi leader we have, not the one we'd like.


AHHH, THE GOOD OL' DAYS....


AND THE HYPOCRISY OF THE POWERFUL...