There is no need to debate with the Salafi/Wahhabis on ideological grounds. It’s their history that condemns them most effectively. Until now, it had been difficult to get precise details on Saudi history. However, I read an excellent book recently by David Cummins, called the Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. It is the only comprehensive study of the history of SA and Wahhabism that I know of.

In any case, it’s nearly impossible to pin the Salafi down on any one particular principle. They have mastered the ability of denying everything and blaming any wayward ideas on false representatives of their movement.

They will usually even deny that they are “Wahhabis” and or that any such name even means anything. And yet, they follow closely the reformation proposed by Abdul Wahhab.

This is what is sneaky about this group. They basically insinuate themselves as merely a devout segment of the general Muslim population.

But, a reading of their history reveals very clearly that they are most definitely a sect, and have deviated from the body of the Muslim population since their founder.

This is the fact that becomes very clear in reading the book. It also helps to explain a lot about the Wahhabis and their ignorance, as well as their political inclinations.

Because, from the beginning, the relationship between the Saudis and Wahhabis has been one of tacit compromise. Monarchism, we know, is an affront to traditional Islamic practice. But from the beginning, the Wahhabi clerics agreed to overlook the ruler’s poor implementation of Islamic law, as long as they could continue to concentrate on “reforming” the masses. This is of course egregious hypocrisy, but it helps to explain the relationship that persists into our time.

What I try to point out in my book is that what the world has completely failed to recognize is that the real “axis of evil” is Britain, the US and Saudi Arabia. And that SA has not only played a pivotal role in the conspiring of the last half of the 20th century, but has been a willing participant, in what is evidently a long-term strategy against the Islamic world, or all part of the creation of a “Clash of Civilizations”, between Islam and the West.

So SA is in blatant collusion with the enemies of Islam in an attempt to undermine it. And much of the Muslim world is completely unaware of that, due primarily to the massive propaganda campaign that the state has maintained over the century, through the monopolization of Islamic literature.

But that is only part of the problem. The central aspect of this problem is the fact of that the so-called “Ulema” are a state-sponsored religious establishment (likely the only one of its kind in the world). So throughout the century they have acted to excuse the actions of the ruling family.

This explains the narrow conception of Islam that they propagate. Because they are not able to address the guts of the matter, which is the corruption of the royals, they have to compensate to by trying to appear strict in other less substantial matters. But the contradiction is that, and as controversial as this may sound, Islam is a political ideology. It’s a complete system of politics, offering an alternative to capitalism, communism or anarchism. The more trivial details were never meant to be emphasized to the extent they are by the Wahhabis.

This is how they fail to communicate the true meaning of Islam. I would say this is the reason why the Muslim world as a whole is plagued with hypocrisy. Ask a Muslim what Islam is, and he will list you the “five pillars”, but he doesn’t understand the political responsibilities that it imparts to him, and that are the true essence of the religion.

This is compounded by another fact. Essentially, Wahhab denounced the Islamic world, except for his small band of followers, as “Kaffirs”, or apostates, who had fallen outside of Islam, and therefore that it was legal to fight and kill them and seize their property, and enslave their women and children. Conveniently, the modern Wahhabis never refer to this aspect of their history.

And, to protect their ignorant citizenry from learning the true Islam from other parts of the world, they produced prohibitions against fraternizing with the “infidels”. They managed to keep this quarantine on the country essentially ever since. Through this exclusion, and by rejecting traditional Islamic scholarship, they have created a manner of dialogue on Islamic jurisprudence that is completely unique to themselves.

The problem is that the Muslim world is unaware of that. Because when the Wahhabis say “this scholar said” or “that scholar said…”, they are not referring to the centuries of Islamic legal opinion, but to their own Wahhabi tradition. However, Islamic legal thought had developed strict processes for formulating opinions. The development of several schools is testament to the tolerance that was perceived necessary in the interpretation of such laws. While the Wahhabis, on the contrary, do not have to resort to precedence, or support their arguments by past decisions, and are therefore free to distort the religion at their whim.

For all these reasons, SA has a completely unique but also very narrow and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam, which, however, they have been able to, through their fantastic oil wealth, spread to much of the Muslim world. I hope that studies like The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques will help elucidate that the current conception being propagated is one that is being monopolized by a single voice, but more importantly, that that voice comes from a very minor and corrupted sect of Islam.

Bookmark to:

An authoritative new report by Policy Exchange, the UK’s leading centre-right thinktank, entitled The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques, that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the majority of literature distributed in British mosques, and that that literature is rife with incitements to racism.

It is important that this is being revealed, because the penetration of Saudi influence is so thorough that even Muslims themselves simply regard it as status quo, and are mistaking Wahhabism for Islam.

But it isn’t anything like it. Very simply, Wahhabism preaches bigotry, not only against Kuffar or “unbelievers”, but also against “innovators”. In fact, this is how the movement itself started out.

During the eighteenth century, the British were making encroachments into the Arabian peninsula, but Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, the founder of the movement, instead declared “Jihad” against the entire Muslim world.

Sound fishy? Especially since the Muslim world was consolidated within the dominant political power in the world at the time, the Ottoman Empire. It’s amazing that most Westerners are completely unfamiliar with it. But that’s precisely the problem with the myth of Western civilization. It’s confused with the history of human civilization as a whole. But the West was only beginning to rise. On the contrary, it was the Ottomans who erected a formidable empire.

However, through their own corruption as well as efforts like those of the British, to divide and rule, by creating division such as the subversion of the Wahhabis, the Ottoman Empire began a long drawn out decay, until its eventual collapse in 1924.

It was then that the Saudis seized on the opportunity to gain control of Arabia, and by that, control of the great holy places of Islam, Mecca and Medina, and thereby, some pretense of legitimacy.

That pretense is currently being extended to numerous parts of the world, particularly into Muslim populations living abroad, through the dissemination of its literature.

Unbeknownst the most of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia was created by oil interests and continues to serve them. This relationship ripened after the oil Crisis, when the Saudis were recruited by the CIA to use their massive funds to finance their covert operations. This began with the funding of the Contras, that eventually evolved into the Iran-Contra Affair, which traded Nicaraguan cocaine and Afghani opium to finance the so-called Mujahideen.

Just prior to that, however, the CIA had arranged the transfer of numerous members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who helped nurture the “Jihadi” philosophy that was used in the recruitment of Arabs worldwide to join the fight.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which, though it poses as an orthodox Muslim organization, is secretly derived from Egyptian Freemasonry, and has long been a tool of Western intelligence agencies. It’s most famous member was an ideologue by the name of Sayyed Qutb, and it is his incitements to hatred, bigotry and violence which you will find touted by various publications and disseminated through the abundance of Saudi wealth.

It’s time that this insidious campaign be exposed, and that not only the Muslims recognize how their religion is being hijacked, and return to more traditional interpretations, but also that people in the West begin to recognize what is the true source of this supposed radicalization of Islam, and to what extent it does not reflect the mindset of the majority of Muslim, let alone the thirteen centuries of Islamic civilization.

You can read more about the study, and download a copy of it here.
.

Bookmark to:

Barry Seal, “the biggest drug smuggler in American history”, while working for the CIA, was funneling the immense amount of cocaine of the Iran-Contra Operation right through Mena, Arkansas, under the watch of Bill Clinton. The purpose of the Iran Contra affair was to accumulate funds to secretly finance the Mujahideen, particularly Gulbuddin Hekmetyar, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and later bin Laden.

Again, this was the chief strategy of the Neoconservatives. So it ties into the other video I recommended, the Power of Nightmares. The whole thing was headed by George Bush Sr.

Well, it turns out Barry Seal had been recruited at the age of seventeen, along with Lee Oswald, by CIA agent David Ferrie, at a two week summer camp of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol in 1957. David Ferrie is the fiend and pedophile portrayed by Joe Pecci in Oliver Stone’s JFK. (Mad Cow Morning News)

Hopsicker also has a very interesting movie about Seal, called American Drug Lords: Ties to JFK:

A career U.S. intelligence agent, Ferrie was a participant in the assassination of President Kennedy, and the first focal point of Jim Garrison’s investigation of Kennedy’s murder. The assassination team went by the name of Operation 40, established by Allen Dulles, which played a major role in the Bay of Pigs invasion. The group was presided over by then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon and recruited former Batista-regime intelligence officers and mob henchmen, mercenaries like Frank Sturgis and CIA case officer Howard Hunt, who would later become one of the Watergate burglars. As revealed by John Hankey, in his film JFK II, at a 1975 Senate re-investigation into the case, William Colby, as head of CIA, testified that George Bush Sr. and Hunt headed the Kennedy assassination, but said that “…they weren’t really in charge. They were just taking orders from civilians like Allen Dulles and the Rockefellers.” Colby was then promptly dismissed, and George Bush was appointed to head the CIA in his place.

JFK II is also online:

Bookmark to:

It’s now evident who was the chief mythmaker of the 9/11 conventional account, and even the conception of the idea in the first place. That would be Philip Zelikow, who was in the ideal position of executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now serves as counselor to Condi Rice.

Snowshoe Films has an interesting 2-part short documentary, also available on YouTube:

And a lot of incriminating information is offered at a Wikipedia article here:

Relevant samples are as follows:

“While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to William McNeill’s notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.”

In writing about the importance of beliefs about history, Zelikow has called attention to what he has called “’searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all.”

Zelikow has also written about terrorism and national security, including a set of Harvard case studies on “Policing Northern Ireland.” In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”

Accorrding to the same article, in 2002, Zelikow made remarks interpreted as alleging that the United States entered the Iraq War to protect Israel, when he said:

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel,”

“And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

Bookmark to:

CONSPIRACY THEORY GOES MAINSTREAM ON THE ROAD TO TEHERAN

The Rationale for War

“…a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran…”
Zbigniew Brzezinski 02 Feb 2007

By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the mythical historical narrative of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran.

War may result fromIraqi failures at governance attributed to Iranian interference followed “…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…” The “act” would lead to a “lonely America” into a conundrum of conflict across Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Further isolation and estrangement from the world would be the end game for the United States. (more…)

Bookmark to: