Sunday, July 18, 2010

What is To Be Done

What is To Be Done About Islam

Whereas treacherous war has been waged, is being waged, and will continue to be waged against the United States by an organized faction of the Islamic religion;

Whereas this war is being waged in obedience to a doctrine, jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic, and central feature of the laws and traditions of the Islamic religion;

Whereas Islamic law, sharia, divides the world into the Realm of Islam and the Realm of War, meaning that all non-Islamic states including the United States, simply by virtue of being non-Islamic, are at war with Islam, the only true faith, requiring Muslims to wage jihad on the Realm of War until all non-Islamic states including the United States have been brought under the political power of Islam;

Whereas the unchanging and ultimate aim of jihad is the imposition of sharia, the Islamic system of law, on all states and nations, including the United States;

Whereas the imposition of sharia on non-Islamic states is to be brought about both by criminal and violent means, including terrorism, and by lawful and non-violent means, including immigration-fed population growth and the resulting increase of Islamic political influence and power;

Whereas sharia commands the extinction of self-government and of all the liberties and privileges existing under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the several states;

Whereas even the milder and more limited aspects of sharia, namely sharia family law as distinct from sharia criminal law, embodying such doctrines as polygamy and the sanctified inferiority of women, are totally incompatible with the customs, institutions, and liberties of the United States and with the traditions of the Western and Christian world as a whole;

Whereas jihad and sharia are inextricably linked, with sharia formulating and commanding jihad, and jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting sharia;

Whereas the doctrine of jihad requires Islamic citizens of non-Islamic states, including the United States, actively to engage in, or passively to support, sedition against those states;

Whereas adherence to this doctrine is not exclusive to those individuals immediately prepared to carry out acts of war against the United States, but embraces a wider circle of sympathizers and abettors, constituting a large part of the Islamic community;

Whereas in any conflict between a non-Islamic state and jihadists, the great majority of Muslims are in solidarity with the jihadists;

Whereas numerous so-called "moderate" Muslims, including the head of Britain's most prominent "moderate" Muslim organization, have said that any attempt by Western governments to identify and suppress the jihadist elements of Islam is a deep insult to the "moderate" Muslims and will turn them into terrorists or terror supporters;

Whereas Islam is unique in being both a religion for its own followers and a political movement divinely commanded to seek global political power over all non-Muslims and to eliminate all non-Islamic states;

Whereas Islam's unique status both as a religion and as a global political movement seeking power over non-Muslims through the imposition of sharia implies the following about the different types of "moderate" Muslims:

Muslims who refrain from speech and action for sharia but believe in sharia:
Even if Muslims do not engage in explicit behaviors or speech to advance sharia and jihad, their silent belief in sharia or jihad means that they are on the side of those seeking sharia, whether through violent or non-violent means. As long as Muslims believe in Islamic law and believe that all Muslims--or all Muslims and all non-Muslims--should live under Islamic law, either they must support the spread and imposition of sharia, or, at best, they have no grounds on which to oppose the imposition of sharia.

Muslims who believe in sharia for Muslims, but not for non-Muslims:
Many Muslims who believe in Islam as a religion but not as a political movement to impose sharia on non-Muslims nevertheless believe in the imposition of sharia on Muslims. Therefore, whenever Muslims dwell in a non-Islamic society, they will inevitably seek to bring themselves under sharia to the extent possible, demanding that the host society formally recognize at least some aspects of sharia. As the numbers and power of Muslims increases, the range of sharia regulations demanded by the Muslims, and the range of the society that must come under those regulations, will keep increasing.

Muslims who don't believe in sharia at all:
Even the Muslims who believe in Islam solely as a private religion and do not believe in sharia either for Muslims or for non-Muslims are, though notably less dangerous than other Muslims, nevertheless members of the global Muslim community or umma and thus, as Muslims, will tend to feel solidarity with their fellow Muslims who believe in jihad and sharia, especially when the latter come into conflict with non-Muslims.

Muslims who oppose jihad and do not support sharia but nevertheless support the right of Muslims to campaign peacefully for sharia
By supporting the right of Muslims peacefully to spread sharia, such non-jihadist Muslims are in effect on the side of the spread of sharia.

The above considerations make it clear that it is not practically possible to distinguish "radical," dangerous sharia-supporting Muslims from "moderate," non-dangerous sharia-supporting Muslims. To a lesser degree, it is not possible to distinguish non-sharia supporting Muslims from sharia-supporting Muslims. The spread and imposition of sharia is a function of Islam as such, and any increase in the number of Muslims in a society helps advance sharia.

Furthermore, it is essential to understand that what makes both "radical" and "moderate" Muslims dangerous to non-Muslim societies is not that the Muslims are morally bad people, but that they are Muslims. As Muslims, they are required by their god and their religion to do and believe certain things. As long as they remain Muslims, the things Islam commands them to do and believe are sacred to them. In waging jihad and instituting sharia, they are not being bad people, they are being good Muslims. Thus the question of the moral goodness or badness, the kindness or the meanness, of individual Muslims is utterly irrelevant from the point of view of the threat Islam poses to non-Muslim societies. The issue is not the moral character of individual Muslim persons, but the unchanging and unchangeable character of Islam itself. Therefore in excluding Muslims, we are not discriminating or passing judgment against them as human beings, we are protecting ourselves from the religion to which they, as Muslims, are inextricably linked.

It follows from the above that the purpose of these measures is not to promote hostility against Muslim persons or to spark civilizational warfare between the West and Islam, but to reduce and to end the current increasing civilizational warfare by permanently separating Muslims from the West. We respect the right of Muslims to follow in peace their religion in their lands. But in order for us Americans to continue to have the right to follow in peace our respective religions, to live according to our culture and way of life, to enjoy our liberties, and to preserve our nation, the followers of sharia need to leave our country and return to the historic lands of Islam.


That the doctrines of sharia and jihad being totally incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the several states, and with our most fundamental customs, institutions, and liberties, the advocacy and promotion of these doctrines is deemed not to be protected speech or a protected exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution;

That advocacy of the Islamic doctrines of jihad and sharia is tantamount to sedition and ought to be expressly proscribed in law;

That any person who espouses, promotes, formulates, or apologizes for these doctrines is committing sedition against the United States and against the state wherein he resides;

That adherence to the doctrines of jihad and sharia, even in the absence of open advocacy of same, is incompatible with adherence to the Constitution, laws, liberty, and sovereignty of the United States;

That with the exception of immediate family members, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other prescribed legitimate purposes, all immigration into the United States of persons known or determined to be followers of the Islamic religion, whatever the person's nationality or country of residence, shall cease;

That with the exception of diplomatic personnel and temporary visitors for business and other prescribed legitimate purposes, no person who advocates or adheres to the doctrines of jihad and sharia shall be permitted to enter the United States as a temporary visitor;

That any legal resident alien who advocates, or who adheres to, or who on investigation can be reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;

That any legal resident alien who espouses, or promotes the right of Muslims peacefully to espouse, the institutionalization of sharia in the United States shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;

That any naturalized citizen who advocates, or who adheres to, or who on investigation can be reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be deprived of his citizenship and removed from the United States;

That any natural born citizen of the United States, descended of Muslims born abroad, who espouses, promotes, formulates, or apologizes for the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall lose his citizenship and be removed from the United States.

That any mosque, Islamic center, or Islamic school in the United States that promotes, or disseminates any literature promoting, or hosts sermons or classes promoting, the doctrines of sharia and jihad shall be closed.

That the United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim legal immigrants and their descendants by offering them $______ in a one-time fee to return to their native land and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States. To facilitate the acceptance by the respective Muslim governments of their returning emigrants and ancestral sons and daughters, the United States may also consider paying those governments a one-time fee for each person who relocates from the U.S. back to his respective native or ancestral land.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Muslims' Liberation

Ibtihal and Muslims' Liberation Movement
by Dr Thomas Ahmed

The book of Dr. Ibtihal on Islam became a masterpiece because it came with spiritual interpretation of the Qur’an. In that, Dr. Ibtihal did not only show originality but also a genius work. In her book, she claimed that the Qur’an has strong power on its recitor because its words were spiritually infested. She made a contrast between singing and the recitation of the Qur’an. A person might not understand the meaning of a song but still he could be charmed by its tone and music. This was the first stage in being captivated by the recitation of the Qur’an. This captivation would open the person to a spiritual realm. When the person opened his spirit to that realm, another power would take over. That power was spiritual power. Now there are four kinds of spirits in the world; the Holy Spirit, human spirit, angelic spirit, and demonic spirit. Angelic spirits and human spirits do not possess a person. The Holy Spirit of God can take control of a person and help him to live a good spiritual and moral life. On the contrary, the demonic spirits or devils can possess a person, influence him spiritually, and make him to lead a bad spiritual and moral life and turn him into a dangerous being. Now invading, killing, looting, stealing, raping, committing adultery and fornication, coveting, etc are the works of Satan. From this Dr. Ibtihal deduced that the Qur’an recitation opens up the Muslim to such a kind of spiritual control and makes him commit such atrocities like blowing up thousands of innocent people and committing suicide.

Dr. Ibtihal contended that the verses of the Qur’an were all satanic verses. At the time of Muhammad there were some soothsayers known as Kahins. Those Kahins could communicate with evil spirits, which help them to know things that could not possibly be known by the ordinary human mind. In addition, the poets were believed to have satanic assistance in composing their poems. Whether we called him, a Kahin or poet Dr. Ibtihal believed that Muhammad had an encounter with those demonic spirits that deceived him in believing that he was receiving direct revelation from God almighty. The Qur’an testified that some demons met Muhammad, listened to the recitation of the Qur’an, and declared their belief in Islam (Qur’an Sorah Al-Jinn 72: 1-2).

[1] Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns [demons] listened (to the Qur'an). They said, ' we have really heard a wonderful Recital! [2] 'It gives guidance to the Right, and we have believed therein: we shall not join (in worship) any (gods) with our Lord.
These verses revealed that Muhammad had opened himself to a spiritual realm where demons could easily talk and communicate with him. Nevertheless, for some time, Muhammad was resisting and disbelieving that spirit which claimed to be the angel Gabriel of the Bible. He tried to kill himself out of desperation and frustration. He hated to be called Kahin or poet. However, his wife Khadiga was responsible for misguiding him into the belief that he received a revelation from God. She used a method known to the women of Makka at that time in order to verify whether the spirit that appeared to her husband was an evil spirit or good spirit. She made him to sit on her right thigh and then on her left thigh. When Muhammad could still see the spirit, Khadiga undressed herself and asked him to sit on her lap. The women of Makka at that time believed the evil spirit would not feel any shame to look at the naked woman. However, the good spirit would disappear when a woman exposed her nakedness. When Khadiga exposed herself before that spirit Muhammad said he could not see it. Therefore, Khadiga shouted, “cheer up the son of my uncle, that was an angel and not Satan.” That was the first proof for Muhammad that an angel appeared to him and not a satanic spirit. Then Khadiga took Muhammad to her cousin Waraqa Ibn Nofal to confirm the calling of her husband. Surprisingly, the story of the confirmation told that Waraqa Ibn Nofal was a Christian but still said to Muhammad that what he saw was the Namos of Moses or the Law of Moses. The writer of this story did not know what the Law of Moses (Torah) was and hence confused the word Namos with the word angel. Those were the two people who convinced Muhammad that he saw an angel and not an evil spirit.

Believing that the angel Gabriel appeared to him Muhammad began to preach his message. The words that were written in the Qur’an were believed by Muslims to be dictated to him word for word by the angel Gabriel. However, this claim could be disputed. The words of the Qur’an revealed that on many occasions they were composed to suit some unfavorable or favorable situation of Muhammad. The huge contradiction between the Makkan verses and Medinian verses showed that the Qur’an was composed by its author. If this was the case then where was the influence of a spiritual force in the Qur’an? Dr. Ibtihal was aware of this question and answered it spiritually. She argued that the Kahins and the poets at the time of Muhammad were aware of what they were doing and aware in addition, of the spiritual assistance, that helped them to compose those verses.

According to Dr. Ibtihal while the Qur’an was the thoughts and ideas of Muhammad, it was also empowered spiritually. For that reason the Qur’an had spiritual power that surpassed any spiritual power in the world barring the Bible. The Qur’an and the Bible were spiritual books but they had different sources. The Bible and the Qur’an contradicted each other in their claims to be divinely revealed. If the Bible was correct, then the Qur’an was false and vice versa. The Qur’an was composed for two purposes, to destroy the message of the Bible and destroy human beings. In many verses, the Qur’an rejected the foundations of the Gospel of Jesus when it claimed that Christ was not crucified nor did he die for the sins of the world. It also rejected the divinity of Jesus and considered it a blasphemy. It was said, Christianity stands and falls with the crucifixion, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Qur’an rejected all those three fundamentals of Christianity. The Qur’an stated that any one who called Jesus God was an unbeliever. Secondly, Muhammad claimed to have been given a direct order from God to kill anyone who refused to acclaim him as the messenger of God. In the verse of the Sword Muhammad claimed that God ordered his followers to kill the unbelievers of Arabia if they refused to accept him as a prophet. In Sorah, al-Touba verse 29 Muhammad gave his followers full authority to slaughter the Jews and Christians if they refused to accept him as a prophet or pay money as ransom. The second caliph Omar extended the punishment of the Jews and Christians by forbidding them to build any new Church or repair any damage that happened to their churches. That was understood by the Shari’a as not allowing Christians and Jews to build synagogues and churches in a Muslim country. For this reason today, Christians and Jews are not permitted in Saudi Arabia to have places of worship. In one of his sayings, Muhammad said, “No two religions should be allowed in the Peninsula of Arabia.” “The prophet in his fatal illness said, “Allah cursed Jews and Christians because they took their prophets’ graves as places for praying’”(al-Bukhari: V2, B 23 hadith no. 414). The same hadith was narrated in Muwta Malik as follows: “The last words the prophet said before he died were, “Allah cursed the Jews and Christians because they took their prophets’ graves as places for praying. No two religions should be allowed in the Peninsula of the Arabia.”

The main thesis of the book of Dr. Ibtihal was that the words of the Qur’an could possess a person the same way evil spirits could possess him. In other words, the words of the Qur’an were evil spirits. Every word and every letter in the Qur’an were infested by an evil power that could possess and direct the person as it wanted. The Muslim terrorists in fact were possessed people. Dr. Ibtihal arrived at this conclusion when she compared a gangster or notorious criminal with a religious terrorist. In the case of the criminal no matter how evil he might be, still he would care about his life whereas the terrorist would not hesitate for a second to blow himself up in order to kill others. The greatest evil in life is to kill oneself. The terrorist would love to kill himself and others. The terrorist would love to do the work of Satan because he was possessed and controlled by Satan. Jesus Christ said about Satan, “The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy . . . ” If we look at the full verse we would see the huge difference between Muhammad and Christ and we would know for sure that the former message is from Satan and the latter from God, “The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10: 10). Muhammad believed that Allah commanded him to slay any one who refused to bear witness for him as a messenger of God. In this way, there is no difference between Muhammad and Satan. Both come to steal, kill, and destroy.

The Qur’an is a poetical book and could be put into tone. The recitation of the Qur’an is nothing but chanting those evil spirits that control every letter and word of it. For this reason the Quran is not allowed to be translated in any other language. Dr. Ibtihal understood why this restriction was imposed only on the Quran. The Qur’an would lose its spiritual power when it was converted into another language. That spiritual power was associated with the Arabic language in which the Qur’an was originally composed. Dr. Ibtihal suggested that the Qur’an spiritually influenced even the entire Arabic language. Muslims who do not know the Arabic language are not allowed to pray except by reciting the Arabic verses of the Qur’an. In other words, a non-Arab Muslim has to chant the verses of the Qur’an five times in a day in order to pray to Allah. The so-called translations of the Qur’an are considered to be mere interpretations by Muslim scholars. Ninety percent of Muslims recite the verses of the Qur’an daily without knowing their meanings. Muslims are strictly forbidden to interpret or try to understand the words of the Qur’an by themselves. Any one who interprets a verse of the Qur’an is promised to occupy his seat in hell. The Qur’an itself says that no one would know it’s meaning except those who were given special knowledge. In fact, the Qur’an was meant to be recited rather than read. The recitation of the Qur’an is a sort of spiritual chanting and invoking of evil spirits. Dr. Ibtihal gave some examples of people in Sudan known as Fakis who used the verses of the Qur’an to do harm to others. When the verses of the Qur’an were recited, they invoked evil spirits. Those people controlled those evil spirits and sent them to whomsoever they wanted.

Dr. Ibtihal concluded the chapter of the spiritual interpretations of the Qur’an by saying that the religious terrorists were neither criminals nor victims. They were people who sold themselves to Satan and were controlled by him. Those religious terrorists were demonically possessed. Those demons used them to do mass killing and killing themselves too. Dr. Ibtihal tried to avoid an important question but somehow she gave a vague answer to it. Should we conclude that every Muslim in the world is spiritually infected or demon possessed? She said that not every Muslim was possessed but every one was potential to such demonic influence. She also said that still those potential Muslims were used by Satan in other ways such as beating their women and abusing them or appreciating the works of notorious religious terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and Ayiman al-Zawahari.

Dr. Ibtihal also spoke in separate chapters, which she linked to her arguments in this chapter. In those chapters she tried to prove that those demons did not only use religious terrorists to kill non-Muslims but also very often stirred religious strife among Muslims themselves and used them to kill each other. There is no religion in the world that it is followers hate and kill each other more than Islam. I would discuss this point in separate chapters in order to go along with the arrangements of the author. Before we do that we would like to trace along with Dr. Ibtihal the origin of Islam. Besides, the spiritual interpretations of the Qur’an Dr. Ibtihal offered detailed historical accounts of the origin of Islam. She believed that Muhammad could not be alone credited with establishing an Arabian religion. Before him there were Arab poets and sages who tried to form a religion for the Arab Bedouins but for various reasons they could not succeed. However, Muhammad is highly indebted to those predecessors because he incorporated most of their religious doctrines in his new religion.

Dr. Ibtihal Al-Khatib

Friday, July 16, 2010


By Hugh Fitzgerald, Oct 2007.

“When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry -- that is a sad and troubling development,” Annan said. “Such is the case with ‘Islamophobia.’ The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.”
--- Former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan

The “world” was not “compelled to coin a new term” -- it was Muslims who coined the word, and they did so deliberately. For that word so deliberately kept undefined is merely a weapon employed to deflect criticism, to label all those who may offer criticism of Islam and of its adherents, basing their criticism not on some blind prejudice, but on their own observations and study. Indeed, the entire Western world -- its political leaders, its media, its university departments of Middle Eastern studies -- have all been engaged in a massive effort to deflect criticism or disarm it. It is despite all that that Infidels everywhere are coming to some conclusions about Islam, and the more they study, and the more they observe, and the more “Interfaith” gatherings and little Muslim Outreach evenings they attend, all of which end up being dismal exercises in Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque argumentation, the more wary, and critical, and indignant, and sometimes more, they become. The game is up. From a Beslan school full of children to a Bali nightclub full of revellers, from Madrid subways to Moscow theatres, from New York skyscrapers to Najaf mosques (where Sadr’s bezonians tortured, killed, and stacked the bodies of Iraqis who had opposed their reign of terror), from Istanbul to India, the evidence just keeps piling up. And the evidence, too, of what is actually in the Qur’an and hadith and sira -- and how many Infidels, a few years ago, even had heard of the “hadith” and the “sira,” or had any idea what was really in the Qur’an, or had ever heard of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya -- now online, and it can easily be read. And all the excuses, all the nonsense, can no longer be offered up -- for we Infidels, fortunately, have the guidance of defectors from Islam, ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq (whose own guide to debating Muslims, and how not to be intimidated or snookered, will for many prove invaluable).

Kofi Annan, as Oriana Fallaci notes in her Fallaci Intervista Fallaci, looks, on the surface, to be far more presentable, and far more decent, and far more intelligent -- grey hair, gravelly voice, grave mien -- than in fact he is. The words quoted above are the words of a simpleton. Perhaps Edward Mortimer, that early admirer of Khomeini and Nazi-Zionist conspiracy theorist, who feels a special responsibility to protect Islam, is the main puppet-master here, or perhaps it is Ms. Rishmawi (the “Palestinian” behind-the-scenes operative who was so influential with Mary Robinson, she of the antisemitic lynch-mob meeting in Durban in September 2001). Or perhaps it is Annan -- the man on whose watch for more black African deaths occurred than anyone since Leopold III of Belgium -- really thinks that the word “Islamophobia” came into use because it actually described a real, and deplorable condition; that it describes an unfair, unjust, prejudiced and irrational (i.e. without foundation, against reason and logic) phobia, or hatred, of Islam. What is unreasonable or irrational would be the opposite. That is, the continued ability of many Infidels to regard Islam as just another “religion” worthy of respect, perhaps at the edges a bit rough, but hijacked by a few extremists, or even many extremists, but having a decency at its core, a real religion of “peace” and “tolerance” as a number of Western leaders have insisted.

If, upon reading and studying Qur’an and hadith and sira, and if, after looking around the world over the past few years, and if, after having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and Muslim behavior toward dhimmis -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists -- you do not feel a deep hostility toward the belief-system of Islam and toward its adherents (for the category of “moderate” is nearly meaningless, given the dangerous use to which “moderates” can be put in continuing to mislead the unwary Infidels), then it is you who are irrational, and need to have your head examined.

The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.

So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobic”:

1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 -- because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya -- would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels -- all Infidels.

6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying marks on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law -- and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty -- and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here -- would you like me to read it now for the audience?

13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known -- and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want -- whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses -- and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete -- with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform -- except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages -- for example, from Leviticus -- that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.

25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.

I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

If this is “Islamophobia” -- show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Britain and Wahhabism

Britain and the Rise of Wahhabism and the House of Saud


One of the most rigid and reactionary sects in all of Islam today is Wahhabism. It is the official and dominant sect in Saudi Arabia whose sole constitution is the Holy Qur’an.

Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia’s ruling House of Saud have been intimately and permanently intertwined since their births. Wahhabism created the Saudi monarchy, and the House of Saud spread Wahhabism. One could not have existed without the other. Wahhabism gives the House of Saud legitimacy, and the House of Saud protects and promotes Wahhabism. The two are inseparable because each supports the other and depends on it for survival.

Unlike Islam in other Muslim countries, however, Wahhabism treats women as third class citizens, imposes the veil on them, and denies them basic human rights such as: driving cars; the freedom of traveling within the country or leaving it without permission or Mahram (“a relative male chaperon”); the interaction with men who are not related to them in order to maintain a complete separation of the sexes; and until a few decades ago denied them public education and banned them from Radio and Television.

In addition, unlike other Islamic sects, Wahhabism outlaws the celebration of Almoulid (Prophet Mohammad’s Birthday); forbids religious freedom, opposes political freedom of expression by constantly admonishing Saudis to obey their leaders (who are not even elected); bans movie theaters; forces the public and businesses to observe prayers; cows the masses by publicly using the harshest Islamic punishments (applied mostly to the poor, like all other punishments) such as the beheading for convicted killers and the hand-amputation for thieves; denies the Saudi citizenship to non-Muslims; and condoned slavery until the 1960s. Wahhabism also abhors smoking, singing, and dancing. To ensure full compliance of its stern ordinances, the Wahhabi “Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice” with its religious police keeps a watchful eye on the Saudi public.

Wahhabism is highly self-centered and extremely intolerant of progressive ideologies, other religions, and other Islamic sects such as Shiism and Sufism. It despises Arab Nationalism with a great deal of passion, yet it promotes “Saudi” nationalism, despite the fact that any nationalism is considered a violation of Islamic theology due to the concept of Islamic Ummah (“nation”). Wahhabism considers itself to be the only correct way in all of Islam, and any Muslim who opposes it as heretic or non-believer.


Wahhabism was born in the middle of the 18th century in the sleepy desert-village of Dir’iyyah located in the Arabian Peninsula’s central region of Najd. The Wahhabi sect derives its name from the name of its founder Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (1703-92). Born in the Najdi small desert-village of Uyayna, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was a zealot preacher who married a total of 20 wives (no more than 4 at a time) and had 18 children. 1 Before becoming a preacher, however, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab traveled extensively for years for business, pleasure, and education to Hejaz, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and India.

Although Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is considered to be the father of Wahhabism, it was actually the British who initially impregnated him with the ideas of Wahhabism and made him its leader for their own sinister purposes to destroy Islam and the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The intricate details of this intriguing British conspiracy, which are beyond the scope of this article, are to be found in the memoirs of its master spy, titled “Confessions of a British Spy” from which the following two paragraphs are drawn. 2

While in Basra, Iraq young Ibn Abdul-Wahhab fell under the influence and control of a British undercover spy nicknamed “Hempher” who was one of many spies sent by London to Muslim lands in order to destabilize the Ottoman Empire and create conflicts among Muslims. Hempher, who pretended to be Muslim, went by the name of “Mohammad” and cunningly established a long-term intimate friendship with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. Hempher, who showered Ibn Abdul-Wahhab with money and gifts, completely brainwashed him by convincing him that most Muslims should be killed because they had “dangerously violated” the basic tenets of Islam by becoming “heretics” and “polytheists”. Hempher also fabricated for him a wild dream in which he supposedly “saw” Prophet Mohammad “kissing” Ibn Abdul-Wahhab between the eyes, telling him you are the “greatest”, and asking him to be his “deputy” to save Islam from “heresies” and “superstitions”. Upon hearing Hempher’s dream, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was wild with joy and became more determined than ever to assume the responsibility of establishing a new Islamic sect to “purify” and “reform” Islam.

In his memoirs Hempher described Ibn Abdul-Wahhab as “extremely unstable”, “extremely rude”, “morally depraved”, “nervous”, “arrogant”, and “ignorant”. The British, who viewed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab as a “typical fool”, also arranged for him to have Nikah Mut’a (“marriage for pure sex”) with two British female undercover spies. The first was a Christian woman, nicknamed “Safiyya”, who lived with him in Basra as well as in Isfahan, Iran. The other was Jewish, nicknamed “Asiya” and married him in Shiraz, Iran.


After returning to Najd from his trips, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab began to preach his wild ideas in Uyayna. However, because of his rigid preaching, he was thrown out of his birthplace. He then went to preach in nearby Dir’iyyah where his dear friend Hempher and other undercover British spies joined him. Ibn Abdul-Wahhab ordered women to shave off their heads in order not to “seduce” men with their hair. 3 He also mercilessly killed a local adulteress in a crowded public square by brutally smashing her head with a large heavy boulder. 4 While Islamic punishment for adultery is stoning, but only with small stones, Muslim scholars disagree as to whether the punishment was actually intended to kill.

Although many people opposed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s rigid teachings and actions including his own father and brother Sulaiman, who were both religious scholars, British undercover spies and money succeeded in cajoling an insignificant Dir’iyyah sheik, Mohammad al-Saud, to support him. 5 In 1744, al-Saud joined forces with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab by forging a political, religious, and marital alliance. With this union between them and their families, which is still in existence today, Wahhabism as a religious and political movement was born. By this joint venture each head of the al-Saud family (House of Saud) assumed the position of a Wahhabi Imam (“religious leader”), while each head of the Wahhabi family was guaranteed control over religious interpretation.

Ignorant people, not by means of knowledge or persuasion, but by pure violence, bloodshed, and terror, spread Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula. As a result of the 1744 Saudi-Wahhabi alliance, a small Bedouin army was established with the help of British undercover spies who provided it with money and weapons. 6 In time this army grew into a major menace that eventually terrorized the entire Arabian Peninsula up to Damascus, and caused one of the worst Fitnah (“violent civil strife”) in the history of Islam. In the process, this army was able to viciously conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula to create the first Saudi-Wahhabi State.

For example, to fight what they considered Muslim “polytheists” and “heretics”, the Saudis-Wahhabis shocked the entire Muslim world in 1801 by brutally destroying and defacing the sacred tomb of the martyr Hussein Bin Ali (Prophet Mohammad's grandson) in Karbala, Iraq, a particularly holy shrine to Shiite Muslims. They also mercilessly slaughtered over 4,000 people in Karbala and stole anything that was not nailed down. It took over 4,000 camels to carry the huge loot. 7Again in 1810 they ruthlessly killed many innocent people across the Arabian Peninsula. They raided and pillaged many pilgrimage caravans and several major cities in Hejaz including the two holiest cities of Makkah and Madinah. In Makkah they turned away pilgrims, and in Madinah they attacked and desecrated Prophet Mohammad’s Mosque, opened his grave, and sold and distributed its valuable relics and expensive jewels.

These Saudi-Wahhabi terrorist acts and blasphemous crimes aroused the deep anger of Muslims around the world including the Ottoman Caliph in Istanbul. As the official ruler of the Arabian Peninsula and the guardian of Islam's holiest mosques, Caliph Mahmud II ordered an Egyptian force to be sent to the Arabian Peninsula to punish the Saudi-Wahhabi clan. In 1818, an Egyptian army led by Ibraheem Pasha (son of Egypt’s ruler) destroyed the Saudis-Wahhabis and razed their desert capital of Dir’iyyah to the ground. The Wahhabi Imam Abdullah al-Saud and two of his followers were sent to Istanbul in chains where they were publicly beheaded. The rest of the Saudi-Wahhabi clan was held in captivity in Cairo.


Although the fanatically violent Wahhabism was destroyed in 1818, it was soon revived with the help of British colonialism. After the execution of the Wahhabi Imam Abdullah al-Saud in Turkey, the remnants of the Saudi-Wahhabi clan looked at their Arab and Muslim brothers as their real enemies, and to Britain and the West in general as their true friends. Accordingly, when Britain colonized Bahrain in 1820 and began to look for ways and means to expand its colonization in the area, the Wahhabi House of Saud found it a great opportunity to quickly seek British protection and help.

In 1843 the Wahhabi Imam Faisal Ibn Turki al-Saud escaped from captivity in Cairo and returned to the Najdi town of Riyadh. Imam Faisal then began to make contacts with the British. In 1848 he “appealed” to the British Political Resident in the Persian city of Bushire “to support his representative in Trucial Oman”. In 1851 Faisal again applied to the British for assistance and support. 8 As a result, the British sent Colonel Lewis Pelly in 1865 to Riyadh to establish an official British treaty with the Wahhabi House of Saud. To impress Pelly with his Wahhabi fanaticism and violence, Imam Faisal said that the major difference in the Wahhabi strategy between political and religious wars was that in the latter there would be no compromise, for “we kill everybody”. 9

In 1866 the Wahhabi House of Saud treacherously signed a “friendship” treaty with Britain, a power hated by all Muslims because of its colonial atrocities in the Muslim world. The treaty was similar to the many infamous unequal treaties imposed by Britain on other Arab puppets on the Arab Gulf (also known as the Persian Gulf). In exchange for British help, money, and weapons, the Wahhabi House of Saud agreed to collaborate with Britain’s colonial authorities in the area.

By these treacherous acts with the bitterest enemy of Arabs and Islam, the Wahhabi House of Saud aroused the intense anger of Arabs and Muslims in and out of the Arabian Peninsula. Among those who were extremely outraged at the Wahhabi House of Saud was the patriotic al-Rasheed clan of Hail in central Arabia. In 1891 the Turkish-supported al-Rasheeds attacked Riyadh and destroyed the Saudi-Wahhabi clan. However, some members of the Wahhabi House of Saud managed to escape; among them was Imam Abdul-Rahman al-Saud and his teenager lad Abdulaziz. Both quickly fled to British-controlled Kuwait seeking British protection and help.


While in Kuwait the Wahhabi Imam Abdul-Rahman and his son Abdulaziz spent their time kneeling to their British masters begging them for money, weapons, and help to capture Riyadh. By the end of the 1800s, however, the aging and ailing Abdul-Rahman was forced to delegate the leadership of the Wahhabi House of Saud to his son Abdulaziz, who then became the new Wahhabi Imam.

Because Britain’s colonial strategy in the Arabian Peninsula at the beginning of the 20th century was quickly gearing towards the final and complete destruction of the Muslim Ottoman Empire and its allies in Najd, al-Rasheed clan, the British decided to swiftly support the new Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz. Fortified with British support, money, and weapons, the new Wahhabi Imam was able in 1902 to capture Riyadh. One of his first savage acts after capturing Riyadh was to terrorize its inhabitants by spiking the heads of the falling al-Rasheeds at the age of the city. He and his fanatical Wahhabi followers also burned over (1,200) people to death. 10

Known in the West as “Ibn Saud”, the Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz was well loved by his British masters. Many British officials and emissaries in the Arab Gulf area frequently met or interacted with him, and generously supported him with money, weapons, and advisors. Sir Percy Cox, Captain Prideaux, Captain Shakespeare, Gertrude Bell, and Harry Saint John Philby (the so-called “Abdullah”) were among the many British officials and advisors who constantly surrounded Abdulaziz to help him with everything he needed. With British weapons, money, and advisors, Imam Abdulaziz was able to gradually conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula in a ruthless manner under the banner of Wahhabism to create the Third Saudi-Wahhabi State, known today as Saudi Arabia.

In creating Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz and his fanatical Wahhabi soldiers of God committed horrible massacres especially in Islam’s holy land of Hejaz from which they brutally expelled its noble Shareef ruling class, the direct descendants of Prophet Mohammad. In Turabah in May 1919 they waged a sneak attack in the dead of the night on the Hejazi army and viciously massacred over 6,000 of its men. Again, in August 1924 the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis barbarically broke into people’s houses in the Hejazi city of Taif, threatened them, and stole their money at gunpoint. They decapitated boys and old men, and were amused by the horrified women who were screaming and weeping. Many of Taif’s women quickly hid down deep in their water-wells to escape the ongoing rape and murder committed by the savage Saudis-Wahhabis. The primitive Saudis-Wahhabis also murdered many Imams while they prayed in their mosques; burned most of Taif’s buildings to the ground; indiscriminately slaughtered most men they found in the streets; and stole everything that could possibly be moved. More than 400 innocent people were quickly butchered in Taif. 11

When the vicious Saudis- Wahhabis entered Islam’s holiest city, they found Makkah’s terrorized inhabitants hiding in their homes, the streets were totally deserted, and the houses’ doors and windows were tightly shut in their faces. The Saudis-Wahhabis brutally broke into Makkah’s houses and destroyed all musical instruments and records, gramophones, radios, cigarettes, tobacco pipes, pictures, and mirrors – all considered by them (at that time) to be the work of the Devil. The primitive invaders then used the wooden frames of Makkah’s houses and doors for cooking fire. The Wahhabi soldiers of God also flogged Makkah’s inhabitants who wore Western clothes, gold, perfume, or silk. They also desecrated most graveyards, and destroyed many of Makkah’s beautiful tombs, ornamental mosques, and shrines that had stood for centuries reflecting the glorious Islamic past and the great history of the holy city. In addition, the ignorant invaders barbarically destroyed any physical traces of Prophet Mohammad’s historical monuments and sights in the holy city as well as all other historical buildings or physical structures that could in any way be traced to his disciples “in order not to be worshiped as holy spots”. 12

In addition, Imam Abdulaziz’s Wahhabi soldiers of God savagely bombarded Islam’s second holiest city of Madinah. To the horror of all Muslims around the world, their British-made bombs and shells fell on Prophet Mohammad’s tomb, badly damaging it.

The fanatical Saudi-Wahhabi army then laid a yearlong crippling siege on the seaport city of Jeddah causing starvation. As a result, drinking water was practically impossible to find and Jeddah’s poor spent their days searching the streets for food in the garbage. Many of them even picked and ate the undigested corn found in the camels’ dung. After severely bombarding the city for some time, the ignorant Saudi-Wahhabi fighters finally entered Jeddah and immediately began destroying the telephone lines, the radio station, and other signs of modern life, considered by them (at that time) to be sacrilegious and work of the Devil.

During the 30 years of creating Saudi Arabia (1902-32), the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis brutally killed and wounded over 400,000 Arabs throughout the Arabian Peninsula; and carried out over 40,000 public executions and 350,000 public amputations, respectively 1% and 7% of the then estimated population of 4 million. 13 In addition, the Saudi -Wahhabi terror forced more than one million inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula to flee for their lives to other parts of the Arab world, never to return. 14

Unlike a century earlier when the Egyptian Ibraheem Pasha under Ottoman orders punished the Saudi-Wahhabi warriors for their crimes against Hejaz’s holy cities and inhabitants, this time the Arab and Muslim worlds were under the brutal control of Western colonial powers. Accordingly, the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis escaped punishment and found protection and safety in Britain’s power and friendship.

After establishing his British -made Wahhabi State, Imam Abdulaziz became a brutal dictator who took control of everything personally. He destroyed Hejaz’s free press, political parties, constitution, and all of its governmental apparatuses. The Wahhabi Imam then brazenly named the whole country after his own family, calling it the Kingdom of “Saudi” Arabia.

Besides being a dictator, King Abdulaziz was well known for his insatiable sexual appetite. In addition to his innumerable concubines, the “pious” Wahhabi Imam married about 300 wives; some of them were only a one-night stand. While his sons are estimated to be about 125, no one knows for sure how many daughters he fathered. Moreover, King/Imam Abdulaziz encouraged the practice of slavery by personally owning hundreds of slaves for himself as well as for his family members. However, to avoid international embarrassment, Wahhabism and the House of Saud were finally forced to abolish slavery in 1962. Other embarrassments caused by Wahhabism came in 1969 when the top religious Wahhabi sheik, Abdulaziz Bin Baz, emphatically declared that the Earth was flat, static, and that the Sun revolved around it.

All of Imam/King Abdulaziz’s sons who assumed power after his death in 1953 (Saud, Faisal, Khalid and Fahad) became brutal dictators like him and continued to rely heavily on the enemies of Islam and Arabs in the West for protection. And ever since the US replaced Britain during World War II as the dominant power in the Arab world, the Wahhabi House of Saud has shamelessly turned Saudi Arabia (the holy land of Islam) over to Islam’s foes to make it into a virtual American colony.

Unlike their father, however, Abdulaziz’s sons dropped the title “Imam” preferring to be called simply “kings”. But in late 1986 Saudi Arabia’s current King Fahad (a spoiled playboy in his heydays) in a way returned to a different title of “Imam” when he dropped the title “King” and assumed the title of “the guardian of the two holiest shrines” of Makkah and Madinah, a title that was originally coined for the Muslim Turkish Sultan Selim I (reign: 1512-20).

However, with Saudi Arabia’s immense oil wealth at its disposal, Wahhabism has been able in recent decades not only to mute most of its critics, but also to dramatically improve its own image throughout the Muslim world. Hence, Wahhabism has now been presented as a “reformist movement” that re-established the “purity” of Islam. Even the name “Wahhabism” itself has been dropped in favor of new more suitable names such as “Salafi movement” (“noble tradition”) and “Muwahhedoon” (“unitarians”). Furthermore, the Wahhabi founder himself, Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, has been presented as a “great man” of immense character and knowledge, a man who single-handedly “saved” Islam from “superstitions”. Accordingly, fortified with petro-dollars Wahhabism has in recent times begun to creep out of Saudi Arabia into the surrounding Arab and Muslim lands in a futile attempt to erase its stigma of being a minority trend in Islam.

The Wahhabi House of Saud’s dismal failure to defend al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Palestinians against Israel’s illegal occupation and brutalities, as well as its shameful treachery and open cooperation with the Western enemy of Islam and Arabs not only in killing Muslims and occupying their lands in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in allowing this enemy to militarily occupy the holy land of Islam itself, make all of its efforts to improve its image and the image of its Wahhabism worthless and fruitless.

Contrary to current American media propaganda in the post 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US still strongly supports the Wahhabi House of Saud which fears terrorism as much as the US does. In fact, Wahhabism has already implemented American orders by changing the Saudi Islamic curricula and the meaning of Jihad (“holy war”) in Islam to please Washington. In reality, the House of Saud and the Wahhabi leaders are as much hated by most Muslims as the US itself. Terrorist attacks by Saudi Muslim fundamentalists (some of whom are connected to Osama Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’eda) inside Saudi Arabia aimed at destabilizing the Wahhabi House of Saud have actually increased in the last 10 years.

The fact that the enemies of Islam and Arabs, Israel and the US, fear and loath Shiism (i.e., Iran and Hizbolah) more than any other Islamic sect, is considered by most Muslims to be an honor for Shiism that Wahhabism has shamefully failed to attain for itself.


The two Saudi ruling -class families (the political House of Saud and the religious Wahhabi House), who are from the Najd region in central Arabia, are deeply hated by millions of Muslims in and out of Saudi Arabia especially in its Hejaz region where many people continue to privately celebrate Prophet Mohammad’s Birthday despite Wahhabism. In a well-known Hadeeth, Prophet Mohammad said:

“Narrated by Ibn Umar: The Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) said, 'O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sha'm! [Greater Syria] O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.' The people said, 'And also on our Najd.' He said, 'O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sha'm (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.' The people said, 'O Allah's Apostle! And also on our Najd.' I think the third time the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) said, '... There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan.” 15

Many Muslims around the world truly believe that “the head of Satan” that Prophet Mohammad was talking about in the above Hadeeth is none other than the two evil families, the House of Saud and its bosom body, the reactionary Wahhabi House.

Also, in another famous Hadeeth Prophet Mohammad said that one of the signs that the end of the world is nearing is: “... that you find barefooted, [unclad], destitute, shepherds of goats vying with one another in the construction of magnificent buildings.” 16

Again, many Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammad in this second Hadeeth was also referring to these two Saudi ruling-class families. In fact, just several decades ago before oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia, both of these families were indeed destitute, barefooted, goat herders who lived in the Arabian deserts’ villages and oasis in tents made of sheepskin. They now own some of the most magnificent skyscrapers in the entire Muslim world and control the lion share of the Saudi immense wealth.


It is very clear from the historical record that without British help neither Wahhabism nor the House of Saud would be in existence today. Wahhabism is a British-inspired fundamentalist movement in Islam. Through its defense of the House of Saud, the US also supports Wahhabism directly and indirectly regardless of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Wahhabism is violent, right wing, ultraconservative, rigid, extremist, reactionary, sexist, and intolerant. Its bloody historical record is well documented and cannot not be erased or dismissed by anyone. All of Wahhabism’s recent cosmetic changes to improve its own image would never deceive most educated Arabs and Muslims.

Although in recent years a few Wahhabi religious leaders have tried to “distant” themselves from the House of Saud’s brutality and un-Islamic policies in a vain attempt to save Wahhabism’s image from further deterioration, most of the top Wahhabi religious leaders are still firmly 100% behind the House of Saud. In fact, most Wahhabi leaders have openly supported and defended all of the House of Saud’s unpopular domestic and foreign policies including allowing the US to occupy the land of Islam and Arabs, as well as to destroy Arabs and Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Indeed, the two families of the House of Saud and the Wahhabi House could not be separated because they are interwoven by bloodline and marriage since 1744. Their dynamic alliance is clearly manifested today in the composition of Saudi Arabia’s ruling class. In fact, the unity between them is stronger than the old unity of Church and State in Europe’s Middle Ages.

Wahhabism’s intimate association with and support of the House of Saud, which is widely recognized to be one of the most brutal, corrupt, undemocratic, and feudal ruling classes in the entire world, makes its boastful claim of representing “the best form of Islam” the target of Muslim ridicule and derision. Today many educated Arabs and Muslims feel that Wahhabism gives Islam a bad name, and represents a reactionary shackle that prevents Arabs and Muslims from advancement. Certainly many Muslim Sunni scholars in the last 250 years both conservative and liberal, all across the Muslim world from Morocco to Indonesia, as well other Muslim sects such as the Shiite and Sufi, have all rejected Wahhabism since its birth as a horrible deformation of Islam.

* Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi is a Saudi-American professor of International Relations. He did his BA and MA at California State University, Sacramento, and his Ph.D. at the University of Southern California. He was a professor at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He also taught at different American universities and colleges including the University of California at Irvine, Cal Poly Pomona, Cerritos College, and Fullerton College. He is the author of many articles both in Arabic and English. His book, The Arabs and the West: The Contributions and the Inflictions, is sold on


1 Alexei Vassiliev, Ta’reekh Al-Arabiya Al-Saudiya [History of Saudi Arabia], Translated from Russian to Arabic by Khairi al-Dhamin and Jalal al-Maashta (Moscow: Dar Attagaddom, 1986), p. 108.

2 For details see “Confessions of a British Spy”,

3 See “The Beginning and Spreading of Wahhabism”,

4 William Powell, Saudi Arabia and Its Royal Family (Secaucus, N.J.: Lyle Stuart Inc., 1982), p. 205.

5 “Confessions of a British Spy”.

6 Ibid.

7 Vassiliev, Ta’reekh, p. 117.

8 Gary Troeller, The Birth of Saudi Arabia: Britain and the Rise of the House of Sa’ud (London: Frank Cass, 1976), pp. 15-16.

9 Quoted in Robert Lacey, The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981), p. 145.

10 Said K. Aburish, The Rise, Corruption and the Coming Fall of the House of Saud (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 14.

11 Powell, Saudi Arabia, p. 68.

12 For more details see my book, The Arabs and the West: The Contributions and the Inflictions,

13 Aburish, The Rise, p. 27.

14 Ibid., p. 24.

15 Mohammad Muhsin Khan, Sahih al-Bukhari: Arabic-English (al-Medinah al-Munauwara: Islamic University-Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), Vol. 9, p.166.

16 Sahih Muslim. Translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Vol. 1, (Lahore: Sheik Mohammad Ashraf, 1976), p. 2.

Wahabism Terrorism

End Muslim Terrorism by Ending Wahabism Influence in Saudi Arabia

A. Introduction
Osama bin Laden, Talibaan Chief Mullah Mohammed Omar, Chief Suspect in Daniel Pearls murder, Omar Saeed are all followers of Mohammed Abdul Al Wahab, the eighteenth century fundamentalist Mullah (cleric) in present day Saudi Arabia. His view was, that since the time of Prophet Mohammed the followers of the faith have strayed away from his teachings, hence they have to be refocused back to what Prophet Mohammed said in Qoran. Influence of Wahabs word, spread in Saudi Arabia during his lifetime. But the Ottomans, rulers of Arabia at that time, who originally are Central Asian Turks and Sunnis, did not encourage this firebrand Mullah. They set out to completely smash his small band of followers, locally called Wahabis. Ottomans did not succeed very well; hence Wahabis influence remained strong with Mullahs who control the Muslim holy sites and Mosques in and around Arabia. Wahabis have spent last 300 years waiting for an opportune time to gain political influence.

The opportunity came during WW I, when Britain looking for local support within Arabia, Transjordan and Iraq for war against Ottomans found two competing princes for power in Arabia. They had to choose one for their backing. Prince Ibn Rashid lorded over one era of the Arabia (close to present day Iraq) and Prince/Emir Faisal maintained influence in Western end of the desert. They spent their life as Bedouin nomads; hence Ottoman had difficulty catching them. Briton dispatched Gertrude Bell (later called Desert Queen) to prince Rashids camp. She was the first ever lady intelligence officer, Briton had sent on an overseas mission, partly because she had lived in Middle East and partly she was daring in the mold of the proverbial Indiana Jones. She undertook a four-week journey to reach Prince Rashids camp through an uncharted desert with a group of Bedouin guards. There she found Rashids camp divided and decimated by family feuds over women and spoils of raids. She reported her findings back to her British masters. Dissatisfied with Rashid, British sent a second mission lead by T.E. Lawrence (popularly called Lawrence of Arabia) to feel Prince Faisal. Lawrence found Prince Faisal a valuable ally, worthy of British military and technical aid. This alliance resulted in a series of victories for Lawrence & Faisal and a complete rout of Ottoman in Middle East. Thereafter states of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia were born (after a long difficult Paris conference in 1919).

Prince Faisal, to broaden his support, aligned himself with the Wahabi Mullahs of Arabia peninsula. With this alliance, Wahabis gained influence within the ruling circles of Prince later King Faisal and became the interpreter of the Islamic ideology in Arabia. King Faisals successors not only maintained this alliance but also with the arrival of Petro-dollars, enhanced it by giving them monies to build, maintain Muslim holy sites. This increased Mullahs influence ten fold. Extra Petro-dollars at Mullahs disposal gave them ideas of exerting influence outside Arabia in same manner as Pope exerts influence over the Roman Catholics world over from Rome.

B. Wahabis in Arabia and their Influence with the Ruling Princes
All Saudi princes including the king Fahad are Wahabis. They grew up in schools and education system run by Wahabis. Western education to some of them has not changed their outlook. Saudi King(s) have created a special government department which looks after all the religious affairs including Hajj pilgrimage, the up keep of Grand Mosques in Mecca and Madina, free printing and distribution of Qoran in native languages, distribution of cash within Arabia and outside Arabia. The latter is key to galvanizing Muslims in their home countries. With cash at their disposal the local Mullahs are free to open Madarssa (religious school), repair Mosque, build new Mosque and help terrorists find shelter, food money and training. Madarssa curriculum is based on Wahabi teachings.

From 1973 2001, the price of oil scaled new height; hence more money became available to be distributed through out the Muslim world. All teachers of the Madarassas, Mullahs of the Mosques under pretext of Hajj pilgrimage underwent Wahabi training in religious schools in Saudi Arabia. Care was taken not to indulge in political propaganda to alarm the home country government. The latter was left for the mullahs and teacher to undertake after their return.

With the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Saudis involved themselves in a, first war of the twentieth century against the infidel. To this, they were encouraged by the USA. Open call was given to Muslim all over the world to come to Afghans rescue. They did come and came in large numbers. The military hardware was paid for by USA, it was facilitated thru Pakistan by the Pakistani Government. Saudis paid for their religious indoctrination and recruitment thru the Mosques and Madarssas built by them all over the world.

C. What is Wahabism all about
Al Wahab in his teachings wished to arrest the decadence in the Muslim society and infuse vitality in it. In its original form it was a reformist movement. It rejected Sufism & saint worship and advocated return to the original teachings of Islam incorporated in the Qoran. He wished to liberate Islam from previous 1400 years of interpretations and distortions of the medieval times. He wished Muslim to go back to the fundamentals.
In a way he was turning the clock back on 1400 years of evolution.

To get a better understanding of Al Wahab message, please go to the following references:

In this simple message, Al Wahab set in motion events, which lead to present day religious and political alignment in Arabia and influence outside its borders. It is the interpretation, which matters. Theologians differ in its true meaning and the underline meaning. But there is only one conclusion It is a fundamentalist challenge.

D. Where is the major concentration of the Wahabis in the World?
1. Mostly in the Arabian Peninsula
2. In Pakistan/Afghanistan
3. In Indonesia
4. Smaller proportions exist in Sudan, Gulf countries

Saudi Arabia
It is the home of all firebrands Wahabis. Since they are allied to the ruling princes, hence their influence with in the Saudi society is the greatest.
To repeat, all this has been financed using Petro-dollars under the very nose of USA.

General Zia Ul Haq, the eighties dictator of Pakistan was the first convert to Wahabism in Pakistan. He imported the Wahabi philosophy to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. His other motive was to drive India out of Kashmir under the pretext of freedom struggle.
Zia aligned himself with the local Mullahs and invited Saudi aid to build Saudi style madarssas and other religious infrastructure. The famous Binori Madarssa in Karachi, Pakistan has been built with Saudi aid. It can boast of having Osama bin Laden, Daniel Pearls murders as its graduates.

The greatest damage General Zia did was to the Pakistani army. He instituted Madarssa graduate recruitment into the army. Army officers were promoted on the basis their religious beliefs. In this way he hoped that Pakistani Army would become defenders of the faith. In order to ensure that his successors are Wahabi, General Zia ensured that bright young army officers are posted in Saudi Arabia in a Pakistani sponsored army mission in eighties. Current crop of senior army officers in Pakistan are all Wahabis.

For Pakistani Army, like Saudi Arabian princes, 9/11 gutted a carefully constructed strategy. Things, which US did not wish to get involved, previously became issues of the day.

Indonesia is a Muslim country with a gentle form of Islam practiced for the last 400 to 500 years. Its post Dutch independence leaders like Sukarno, Suharto etc. were secular in their dealings. Until 1966, it had the largest Communist Party outside Soviet Union and China. Then why has militant Islam emerged in Indonesia? The answer lies in the economic failure of the politicians giving Mullahs an opportunity aided by monies from Saudi Arabia. This was further aided by Afghan war which has let Osama bin Laden to establish contact with the local Mullahs.

Wahabi movements are strong in Sudan, Egypt and all of Gulf countries except Iran. The latter follows the Shia version of Islam, hence runs a foul with Al Wahabs teachings.

E. Why is Wahabism on a Collision course with the West and Others?
Wahabis stayed in the background after WWII. They were thankful to the West for providing them help in exploring and exploiting its oil wealth. The problem first started with the Israel Palestinian conflict. It galvanized the Mullahs and they began to preach anti Semitism, anti west and anti infidel message.

Second and more important cause of galvanizing Wahabis was the importing of the decadent western values (according to Wahabis) from the West. Oil revenues enriched the Saudi Arabian society. They traveled into the West and acquired modern amenities. Moral values suffered at the expense of Islamic teachings. Arrival of large number of workers from the west to exploit the oil wealth and to build and maintain their new cities further exasperated an already critical Mullah community.

Third, the Afghan War and preaching of Jehad against the Soviets further offered opportunity to the Wahabi Mullahs to take on a political stance more boldly. Princes in power supported it; hence the state and the religion combined their resources to meet the challenge of Jehad.

Fourth, the Gulf War I, resulted in a significant presence of American and British on the Arabian Soil. The former felt that it is a necessity to keep Saddam Hussain under control. The Saudi Arabian Mullahs felt it otherwise. They considered their presence, as an occupation of their sacred soil. USA, which had portrayed itself as liberator of Kuwait became occupiers of their holy land. They plotted to get rid of Americans from their soil and gain complete independence from the Wests economic hold on them.

Lastly, oil wealth provided them an opportunity to run an independent foreign policy with or without ruling princes approval by directly supporting Madrssas all over the Muslim world. With this they could preach Jihad on a minor pretext e.g. Jihad for the Palestinian cause, Jihad to get Soviets now Russians out of Chechnya, Jihad to get Kashmir liberated, Jihad to expel Americans out of Arabia etc.

All the above causes have now galvanized Wahabis into action. A major strike at WTC was there first such major act. Many more are threatened. God forbids, if they do succeed in acquiring crude nuclear technology, threat to the rest of the world will be the greatest.

F. What do we do to eliminate this Ever Present Threat?
Former British allies, turned enemies have grabbed the world headlines especially after 9/11. Prior to that, their support for East Africa bombing, USS Cole bombing brought them into the limelight. Osama bin Laden is one of the Wahabi who undertook all the aforementioned acts. In India, Chechnya, Philippines Muslim terror threat is ever present for worthless causes. West is now paying attention to Arabia because majority of the 9/11 terrorists hailed from there.

There is a little US can do directly to the policy making in Saudi Arabia. Indirectly they may be able to influence a few key princes in power to:
  1. Limit the amount of monies, which Wahabis get under the pretext of upkeep of holy places.
  1. Modify the school system in Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere to prevent the Wahabis from affecting the young minds.
  1. Close down some of the premier Madarssas in above countries and replace them with better schools of study and learning.
  1. Mullahs to be relieved of their duties if they preach Jehad in Mosques and other places.
  1. Hajj is not to be used to recruit and indoctrinate people for worthless Jehadi causes.
  1. No monies outside Saudi Arabias border are to be handed over to the local religious charities. No matter what the cause.
  1. Israel- Palestine, Chechnya-Russia, India-Pakistan, Bosnia -Serbs are to be treated as bilateral local issues. Calls for recruits to join in the fight are to be thoroughly discouraged.
  1. Guerilla Fighters in Philippines, Talibaan in Afghanistan etc. are not to be given monetary or technical aid under any pretext.
  1. The West and US develop a policy of slowly disengaging from Arabian oil supply.
  1. No political support locally or in any world forums to be given to movements which have smiling face on one side and terrorist face on the other.
In the end, I must say, Wahabis are here to stay. Only Arabian government can control them. West can only help to reshape their education and prevent monies transferred to other countries to galvanize masses there. To end Muslim terrorism, the West has to influence Saudi policy. Only the latter can control the Wahabi influence in the Kingdom and outside it.

(The author is a retired Vice President from C-I-L Inc. and has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. A graduate of Punjab University and University of Missouri; Rolla, USA, the author is a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. The Views expressed are his own.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...