King Abdullah flies in to lecture us on terrorism

[Fabregas]

Robert Fisk: King Abdullah flies in to lecture us on terrorism

By Robert Fisk

 

Published: 30 October 2007.....

 

In what world do these people live? True, there'll be no public executions outside Buckingham Palace when His Royal Highness rides in stately formation down The Mall. We gave up capital punishment about half a century ago. There won't even be a backhander – or will there? – which is the Saudi way of doing business. But for King Abdullah to tell the world, as he did in a BBC interview yesterday, that Britain is not doing enough to counter "terrorism", and that most countries are not taking it as seriously as his country is, is really pushing it. Weren't most of the 11 September 2001 hijackers from – er – Saudi Arabia? Is this the land that is really going to teach us lessons?

 

The sheer implausibility of the claim that Saudi intelligence could have prevented the ondon bombings if only the British Government had taken it seriously, seems to have passed the Saudi monarch by. "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy," he told the BBC. This claim is frankly incredible.

 

The sad, awful truth is that we fete these people, we fawn on them, we supply them with fighter jets, whisky and whores. No, of course, there will be no visas for this reporter because Saudi Arabia is no democracy. Yet how many times have we been encouraged to think otherwise about a state that will not even allow its women to drive? Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister, was telling us again yesterday that we should work more closely with the Saudis, because we "share values" with them. And what values precisely would they be, I might ask?

 

Saudi Arabia is a state which bankrolled – a definite no-no this for discussion today – Saddam's legions as they invaded Iran in 1980 (with our Western encouragement, let it be added). And which said nothing – a total and natural silence – when Saddam swamped the Iranians with gas. The Iraqi war communiqué made no bones about it. "The waves of insects are attacking the eastern gates of the Arab nation. But we have the pesticides to wipe them out."

 

Did the Saudi royal family protest? Was there any sympathy for those upon whom the pesticides would be used? No. The then Keeper of the Two Holy Places was perfectly happy to allow gas to be used because he was paying for it – components were supplied, of course, by the US – while the Iranians died in hell. And we Brits are supposed to be not keeping up with our Saudi friends when they are "cracking down on terrorism".

 

Like the Saudis were so brilliant in cracking down on terror in 1979 when hundreds of gunmen poured into the Great Mosque at Mecca, an event so mishandled by a certain commander of the Saudi National Guard called Prince Abdullah that they had to call in toughs from a French intervention force. And it was a former National Guard officer who led the siege.

 

Saudi Arabia's role in the 9/11 attacks has still not been fully explored. Senior members of the royal family expressed the shock and horror expected of them, but no attempt was made to examine the nature of Wahhabism, the state religion, and its inherent contempt for all representation of human activity or death.

 

It was Saudi Muslim legal iconoclasm which led directly to the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan by the Taliban, Saudi Arabia's friends. And only weeks after Kamal Salibi, a Lebanese history professor, suggested in the late 1990s that once-Jewish villages in what is now Saudi Arabia might have been locations in the Bible, the Saudis sent bulldozers to destroy the ancient buildings there.

 

In the name of Islam, Saudi organisations have destroyed hundreds of historic structures in Mecca and Medina and UN officials have condemned the destruction of Ottoman buildings in Bosnia by a Saudi aid agency, which decided they were "idolatrous". Were the twin towers in New York another piece of architecture which Wahhabis wanted to destroy?

 

Nine years ago a Saudi student at Harvard produced a remarkable thesis which argued that US forces had suffered casualties in bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia because American intelligence did not understand Wahhabism and had underestimated the extent of hostility to the US presence in the kingdom.

 

Nawaf Obaid even quoted a Saudi National Guard officer as saying "the more visible the Americans became, the darker I saw the future of the country". The problem is that Wahhabi puritanism meant that Saudi Arabia would always throw up men who believe they had been chosen to "cleanse" their society from corruption, yet Abdul Wahhab also preached that royal rulers should not be overthrown. Thus the Saudis were unable to confront the duality, that protection-and-threat that Wahhabism represented for them.

 

Prince Bandar, formerly Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, once characterised his country's religion as part of a "timeless culture" while a former British ambassador advised Westerners in Saudi Arabia to "adapt" and "to act with the grain of Saudi traditions and culture".

 

Amnesty International has appealed for hundreds of men – and occasionally women – to be spared the Saudi executioner's blade. They have all been beheaded, often after torture and grossly unfair trials. Women are shot.

 

The ritual of chopping off heads was graphically described by an Irish witness to a triple execution in Jeddah in 1997. "Standing to the left of the first prisoner, and a little behind him, the executioner focused on his quarry ... I watched as the sword was being drawn back with the right hand. A one-handed back swing of a golf club came to mind ... the down-swing begins ... the blade met the neck and cut through it like ... a heavy cleaver cutting through a melon ... a crisp moist smack. The head fell and rolled a little. The torso slumped neatly. I see now why they tied wrists to feet ... the brain had no time to tell the heart to stop, and the final beat bumped a gush of blood out of the headless torso on to the plinth."

 

And you can bet they won't be talking about this at Buckingham Palace today.

 

The Independent.............

[Fabregas]

quote:yet Abdul Wahhab also preached that royal rulers should not be overthrown.

 

Strange!

[Seekknowledge]

Abdul Wahhab did preach the royals should not be overthrown. Infact they would not be in power at all without his support. Why is that strange?

[Khalaf]

^^^I suspose because he believes the sheikh taught to overthrow the royals and establish an islamic government in the place of the monarch?

 

Which would be correct gentlemen, since Islam is against fitnah.

 

What i didn't particularly like was the sheikh's very cozy relationship with the royal family in the kingdom.

 

And Allah knows best.

[who-me]

I think Sheik Abdulwahab was more concerned about the Fitnah that could have rose if the monarchy was overthrown. For that it is a perfect logic and there is a nothing wrong with it. Also in his days saudis did not have general consensus on matters regarding the religion and the sheik him self was more involved in the act of reforming the Diin. I guess we have to admire his ability to see the bigger picture and it is something his followers the modern day wahabis are lacking, because they are too keen to wage jihad on minor things. May allah have mercy on him he was true visionary and a wise man.

[FatB]

on terror in 1979

 

wat is this i cant find anything about it on the net? does anybody have additional information?

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Originally posted by tHe oNe aNd OnLy:

on terror in 1979

 

wat is this i cant find anything about it on the net? does anybody have additional information?

I think you should polish your online search skills. There are plenty of information about this unfortunate event out there online.

 

Here a paragraph from the event's article on Wikipedia:

 

"The seizure shook the Islamic world as hundreds of pilgrims present for the annual hajj were taken hostage, and hundreds of militants, security forces and hostages caught in crossfire were killed in the ensuing battles for control of the site. The siege ended two weeks after the takeover began with militants cleared from the mosque."

[Seekknowledge]

quote:I think Sheik Abdulwahab was more concerned about the Fitnah that could have rose if the monarchy was overthrown.

 

Abdulwahhab invented the monarchy along with Saud before that it didn't exist. Isn't strange he ordered the killing of the Sheikhs of Macca and Madina claiming they innovated the religion while he added the worst of the innovations The Kingdom of the Saudis. The wahhabis of today are nothing compared to his time. The concept of killing other muslims if they don't follow their particular sect came from him. In his days the Saudis were not called saudis but Arabians and they had consensus in religion but Abdulwahhab changed all that and the Fitna in the Islamic world started.

[FatB]

let me refrase, any credible account.

wasnt here some iranians involved as well?

[Fabregas]

Originally posted by Khalaf:

^^^I suspose because he believes the sheikh taught to overthrow the royals and establish an islamic government in the place of the monarch?

 

Which would be correct gentlemen, since Islam is against fitnah.

 

What i didn't particularly like was the sheikh's very cozy relationship with the royal family in the kingdom.

 

And Allah knows best.

It is strange because the Sheikh and his followers strongly contributed to the actual creation of the Saudi Monarchy. Ibn Saud was a simple desert chieftan who used Abdul Wahab to religously indoctrinate people and then takeover their area with violence. This is a strange because a system of Khilafah existed and there were legitimate Islamic rulers, albeit somewhat corrupted. I believe one of the Sauds was actually hanged in Istanbul after the Ulema labeled him as a heretic and another was hanged and paraded across the streets of Cairo. This is very strange because Abdul Wahab and his followers(including the Sauds) rebeled against a Muslim Ruler and also made alliances with the British, but their followers are teaching people it's fitna to rebel against a Muslim state and that it kufr to seek alliance with the enemies of Islam. Isn't this what Abdul Wahab and the Saud Monarchy did?

[Sharmarkee]

Originally posted by who-me:

[QB] I think Sheik Abdulwahab was more concerned about the Fitnah that could have rose if the monarchy was overthrown. For that it is a perfect logic and there is a nothing wrong with it. Also in his days saudis did not have general consensus on matters regarding the religion and the sheik him self was more involved in the act of reforming the Diin. I guess we have to admire his ability to see the bigger picture and it is something his followers the modern day wahabis are lacking, because they are too keen to wage jihad on minor things. May allah have mercy on him he was true visionary and a wise man.

I agree with who-me the shiekh at time he came out from Dirciya -small not even town or village but laba dergadood north of riyadh, in 1703 was totally different than nowadays, with all this oil boom, and billions of dollars. the shiekh brought the Hanbali sect of school of thought, he adovacated the return of Quraan, and Sunnah and the practice of the Prophet(SCW), he rejected the practices that had accreted and become permitted in traditional islam such visiting graves(you all remember Cabdulqaadir jilaanow, sheekh Uwaysow,suufiyo braawow,shiekh yussuf kawnaynow)and shrines of the saints. He firmly set himself against all popular superstitions. and what is when Islam slipped from leading the world 800 years to nothing but grave-worshpping, and Akhuzacblaat of suufiyah.

 

the contemporary Saudi creed owes as much, or possibley as little , to Abdulwahab as it deos to Thirteen-centuray muslim political scients Ibn Taymiyah, who stand in heroic and long struggle to stand on the traditions of Salaf or early mulims (athar) or tradtion. the above said shiekh was more concerned with the strenght and survival of muslim community at atime when islam was recovreing from the onslaught of the crusaders and under siege of Mongols. when he saw the dissenion and divisons amongst muslims as their main weakness, he ban plurality of interpretations as everything has to be found in the Quraan and sunnah. he even ban theolog and philosphy Ibn Taymiyyah asserted boldly, had no place in Islam.

 

But modern house of Abdulwahab and house of Saud share power, wealth and intermarriage, and they support against each other from the rest of the community who looks like commoners while they are Aristocratics, The reformers always go behind the bars, people like Dr/Sh.Muhsin AWaji, DR.Sh Salman bin coowdah,Dr.Sa’d al-Faqih(heart surgeon)and hundred others tried and tried but no avail,they failed because the two instiuations become too powerful - in wealth and power both, supporting each other.

 

in that respect Wahabism become manufactured on basis of tribal loyalty. the place of tribal allegiance was now taken by islam, everyone outside this terriotry is by definition a hostile dweller in a domain of unbelief.

 

But the best joke is the new-Salafiyah - mostly subuscribes by the Somalis - saying everthing is bidcah this and bidcah that, calling saudi arabian wadaad evey 5 minutes.

[Jacaylbaro]

Maalin dhowna shaydaanka ayaa maxaadaro inoo geli doona uu inoogu sheegayo inaynu cibaadada ku dadaalno ...........

 

 

what this world is coming to ???

[Sharmarkee]

^^Wax ku darso topic isakad aaabaa yaaba ayaan cunayaada, iyo jigjiga yaan xalay joogay. and where is inantii ku so ka xaynaysay hope she get rid of you.

[Blessed]

This is an unusually flimsy piece from Mr Fisk. Can’t say much for the ‘Wahabi’ debate on this thread either. Some of you par the brother before me, should extend your reading list on the subject.

 

*click, clock*

 

On a lighter note, anyone watch, The Kingdom?

 

It was stup*d too. *yawn* Don't mind me, I'm Saudi talked out.

 

P.S I'm on lucky number 3000 , where's my camel?