Saudi king receives Moqtada Sadr

With the ultimate goal of Islamic triumphalism, it stands to reason that various stripes of sects and political ambitions have common cause. This isn't rocket science. Only an idiot wouldn't understand this point!

Yes, epg. Nonetheless, the widely-held belief that there was no way the supposedly secularist Saddam Hussein could find common cause with radical Islamists despite the well-known fact that he was hosting international Arab/Muslim terrorist conferences and sponsoring training camps inside Iraq since the early 1990s persists to this day among politicians, the media and academia.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall during that meeting...

in his own words:
"From here I announce my solidarity with the genuine unity announced by Hezbollah general secretary Hassan Nasrallah with the mujahideen movement Hamas. Let them consider me their striking hand in Iraq whenever the need arises. As the martyr Sheikh Ahmed Yassin said, Iraq and Palestine have the same destiny."

Sadr speaking on Al-Manar TV, 2 Apr 04

And he's now saying he's worried about fanaticism.

Hmmm... pot calling kettle black comes to mind.

"Fanaticism and branding others as apostates dominate now," said Sadr.

To which the king replied, "Moqtada, you Rafidite dog, this is unfortunate."

Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr...

Sadr is not a cleric, and Islam is not a religion. He is a political leader and a military commander of a personal militia.

Why we persist with these destructive Moslem-induced myths is beyond me.

Many members of the press, most perhaps, parrot various phrases as though they are fact.

"The firebrand cleric", in referencing Moqtada Sadr, is one of those phrases.

We should start a list to send to our favorite news outlets.

The firebrand cleric, Moqtada al Sadr.
The religion of peace...
Islam has been hijacked by a few extremists.
Rioting youth....
Islamophobia.
Jllyands-Posten printed twelve drawings of Mohammad. (There were seven).
Such drawings are prohibited in Islam.
Racial profiling.
Moderate Muslims.
Jihad means an inner struggle...

Somewhat OT:
Can a muslim switch sects (i.e. Shiite to Sunni)?
Does it happen?
If they do is that considered apostasy?

"'I am pessimistic (about the future of Iraq). Fanaticism and branding others as apostates dominate now,' said Sadr..."
-- from the article above

Less here than meets the eye. Naturally Saudi officials, so worried about the Shi'a ascendancy in Iraq, which in their view strengthens the Islamic Republic of Iran, will do what they can to limit the damage and the influence of Iran. Compared to the SCIRI and Dawa parties, that of Moqtada al-Sadr is hardly a party at all, but a scream merely of protest by those below, happening to be funneled through the megaphone of the local troglodytic scion of a famous local family of clerics. But Moqtada al-Sadr is not only ABD -- all but disseration (so that he cannot possibly receive tenure as an ayatollah, no matter how many references he receives from the street) -- no, he still hasn't been able to graduate. From high school.

Moqtada al-Sadr's expresses worry over these Sunni takfiris --that is, over Zarqawi and company viewing Shi'a as "Rafidite dogs" or Infidels. This view is merely the extreme and vivid expression of the hostility between Shi'a and Sunni that has nothing to do with the Americans, and that has always existed. Attacks on Shi'a by Sunnis in Pakistan have been doing on for years. Why? Because they can. Underr the Taliban the Shi'a of Afghanistan, the Hazaras, were subject to murderous attacks -- not as being anti-Taliban, but for being Shi'a. The several hundred thousand Shi'a in Saudi Arabia are discriminated against, and they feel it. And they all happen to live in the eastern, oil-bearing province of Al-Hasa. The very doctrine of Taqiyya, religiously-sanctioned dissimulation about the Faith, or about one's particular beliefs, originates as part of the necessary self-defense of Shi'a against attacks by Sunnis, their historic persecutors -- long before those Americans entered Iraq, and about a thousand years before the United States was founded.

Moqtada al-Sadr is murderous, and himself had no compunction about having his followers, his blindly primitive followers, kidnap, torture, and kill, hundreds of Shi'a who followed other Shi'a leaders or parties. And of course he sees nothing wrong -- why should he? -- and everything right about killing the real Infidels, the Americans. But he worries, too, about when Bad Things Happen to Bad People, and no doubt was also expressing, to his dishdasha-and-daggered hosts (how much was he offered? did he reject it outright? or will he think it over, and decide he really prefers to receive the money indirectly, the way some Western ex-diplomats and professors in pseudo-think-tanks and pseudo-research-centers like to do?), that he hopes they, at least, will put whatever kibosh they can not on Zarqawi himself (that's not possible), but on Saudis who need to be re-edducated, in the North Korean sense, about this business of going off to fight those perfectly-good Muslims (in Moqtada al-Sadr's view) who are declared to be Infidels -- well, did you ever! --by fellow Muslims.

The Al-Saud, though they themselves share the general distaste of many Sunnis for the Shi'a, and of course are worried sick about Iran's resisitible rise, must have some comprehension of Moqtada al-Sadr's chagrin at all this takfiri stuff. With his glowering troglodytic bad looks, and violent refusal to support the American effort to create the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, Moqtada al-Sadr thought he was being the Compleat Muslim Fighting the Good Fight Against the Infidel, and now along come some Sunnis who kidnap and kill his own men, and not just because they like to do things like that (in Iraq, as in Gaza and Syria and Yemen and elsewhere whenever the veneer of civilization is removed, who doesn't?), but -- humiliatingly, unacceptably -- because those nice Shi'a are regarded as Infidels themselves.

And those nice princes and princelings, when they are not being entertained by a few dozen call girls at a time, or trying to break the Saudi bank at Monte Carlo, or aimlessly sailing their yachts around the Mediterranean, or trying to buy up media companies (as Abdullah said back in November 1979 in an interview to the Jordanian newspaper "Al Rai" -- "We would have liked to have bought all the Western media, but so far have been unsuccessful." They've done better since.), find that their Grand
Auto-Theft, that is, the Saudis of the Al-Saud family stealing from themselves, or rather from the country they decided, back in the early 1920s, that they own and that should really be named after themselves just so that everyone gets the same idea (you know: Al-Saud family, "Saudi" Arabia -- just as, since there was this placename "Palestine" the local Arabs cleverly decided to rename themselves, after 1967, as "the Palestinians" -- presto-magico, ap-parently quite convincing to most of the world, both as to the "Saudiness" of "Saudi Arabia," and the "Palestian-people-ness" of this "Palestine." What's in a name? Just about everything. Just ask Ms. Nafisi if she had titled her best-seller feelgood-book about Liberation Through Literature, what would have been its chances if it had been called "Reading 'Pride and Prejudice' in Tehran"?

Revenons a nos moutons, just in time for the holiday throat-cutting. The Saudis, too, are horrified by the idea of takfiris telling their subjectes that they, the princes and princelings and princelettes of the House of Al-Saud, are themselves "Infidels" because of their corruption. Never did they think, given the the way they have loyally supported the most fanatical imams (just look around), and the nearly hundred billions they have spent, on paying for Wahhabi mosques and madrasas and missionaries all over the world, most obviously in the capitals of the Western world, that their theft of hundreds of billions more -- for god's sake, it isn't that much when you consider how many princes's mouths there are to feed -- would be defined not as corruption, but as the behavior of "Infidels."

In a way, peas in a pod, the Saudi rulers, and Moqtada al-Sadr. They don't like this takfir business. It worries them. Muslims should stick to killing the real Infidels, and not treat other Muslims, even if Shi'a or corrupt
Sunnis, as if they were Infidels.

That's not fair. That's not right.

And one more thing: Moqtada al-Sadr is "pessimistic about the future of Iraq." And that should make Infidels optimistic, instead of investing still more time and money trying to avoid what is so clearly in the Infidel interest.

Can't admit they were wrong? Why not? Four years ago, no one knew about Islam. When they invaded Iraq, few knew about Islam. The so-called "realists" who were against the invasion -- the scowcrofts and brzezinskis --are not realists at all, and never were. They know, and knew, even less about the nature and menace of Islam than did Blair or Bush. Even two years ago, aside from this website, where was the worry over the islamization of Europe, the use of Da'wa and demography as slow but sure instruments of conquest? But a year ago? But now?

Do the right thing. Make Iraq work for us. the real Infidels. Leave Iraq, and by that act, and a hundred others that should accompany the withdrawal (so that no one can get the wrong idea, and every one inclined to shrilly scream with delight at this "victory" of Islam is quickly disabused -- just as, it happens, the descent into chaos in Gaza, though certainly not foreseen by Sharon, has helped to pluck there, possibly, a certain victory from otherwise what was a self-inflicted defeat), show that at long last, this big mystery of what Islam is all about, and what it means for Infidels, remains a mystery no longer.

We should start a list to send to our favorite news outlets.

Some other Moslem Myths for your list:

* Islam is a religion

* Islam was not spread via the sword

* Islamic scholar

* Hadiths science

* The Koran is no more violent than the Bible (equivalence)

* Palestinian

* The vast majority of Moslems have been peaceful folk down through history

There is an old saying: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Maybe that's what the Saudi's were doing. That and "whatever the mullahs are paying you we'll pay double". By the same token I don't necessarily object to US officials who say that Saudi Arabia is our "friend". It is all the ones who seem to believe it that I worry about.

Sadr:"The meeting was to strengthen relations between the two countries,"

Pig farmer:"Sadr is not a cleric, and Islam is not a religion. He is a political leader and a military commander of a personal militia."

Sadrs statement is political. Does he represent the gov of Iraq? No, he represents the gov of Islam,an Ambassador, He obviously thinks his mere presence with the King will strengthen relationships between countrys....Pig Farmer is right...

So, the corrupt king and the scowling, wanna-be mullah got together for a hate-fest. What a cozy, charming picture I have in my mind of those two bearded dunces. Fortunately, for those in the West, the common hatred that joined those two for a few brief hours will also divide them again. Islam means submission and not peace. Soon, the followers of those two will be slitting each other's throats and bombing each other's schools and hospitals. Violence and hate always wins out in Islam.

Shame he wasn't wearing a suicide bomb vest.

(I'd have gladly paid the imported dhimmi Phillipino maid's bill to mop up the mess.)

These two must have been "supping" with some really long spoons.

A king must keep in close contact with those that do his bidding - establishment of a Caliphate.

Not if we nail the SOB first (before he gets to power)!

AWWWWW thank saudi for its treacherous double dealing and once again exposing itself for its true intention

as to Sadr, he's nothing a decent sniper couldnt put right

best of luck to them all, as we just need a mass gathering of these jihadists and we'll have somewhere to aim at which should catch them all

Wait everybody, I'm sure that there is a good explaination for King Abdullah's meeting with Sadr. He may be trying to show the world that Islam is a "religion of peace", by convincing Sadr
to stop his jihad and for him
to turn himself in to the Coalition Forces. Letting the world know that there can be a lasting peace between Muslims and non Muslims.
King Abdullah is an alright guy. He loves to party. He has to, He and the Saudi people are friends to President Bush and the United States.
All you people are mistaken about Abdullah.
Okay, of the 19 9/11, 95% were Saudi. But our pal the "King" assured "we the people" that the Saudis love us. Forget about the many Saudi clerics that call "Death to America!!!" they only speak to the vast number of Saudis that truly hate America. You know, The 99% that want to see us dead and our way of life put away. I mean, the Saudis did present then Mayor Rudolph Guiliani a check after 9/11 on the behalf of the Saudi people. All he, the mayor, had to do is let the King put us down, and berate our way of life.
Damn it!!! Why couldn't Guiliani be a good politican and sell himself and his country down the Hudson River like a good leftist democratic politican.
No, he had to maintain his dignity, and pride, and love of the citizens of New York and the United States, and act like a Repulican Mayor of New York.
I mean, the Saudis sell us oil at a cut throat, I mean, cut rate price. A paltry, low $60 a barrel.
A mere bag of shells for the American consumer.
These are our friends. King abdullah is our friend. Any day now, Sadr will stop jihad and turn himself in. I also have a bridge in Brooklyn for sell to. And prime land in Florida. Its just a little wet.

I can't help but wonder what the Shia in Iraq think about the visit. If they don't like it we just might hear about his death some time soon. We can only hope.

"The meeting was to strengthen relations between the two countries," the firebrand cleric said on Wednesday, declining to give details.

That's too bad, I would have liked to have seen the photo of the King handing the firebrand cleric one of those 6'x 3' checks for X million dollars and shaking his hand as they both smiled for the camera.

They both have the same goal, it's just that one of them is more willing to have his own hands get a little dirtier doing it.

Tabari VIII:179 “Abdallah bin Sa’d fled to Uthman, his brother, who after hiding him, finally surrendered him to the Prophet. Uthman asked for clemency. Muhammad did not respond, remaining silent for a long time. Muhammad explained, ‘By Allah, I kept silent so that one of you might go up to him and cut off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Why didn’t you give me a sign?’ Allah’s Apostle replied, ‘A prophet does not kill by pointing.’”

And, it could be added, a King does not himself carry a sword.

OT, but the wire services are reporting that that heinous US attack on the pakistani "women and children" might have taken the egyptian doctor off the roster. Dang, I had a hundred bucks on him for kalifate, too.

Mogtada al Sadr is an Arab, as are the Saudis.

SCIRI and Da'wa (the current rulers of Iraq) are Iranian (Persian) or Iranian controlled.

There is an age old antipathy and hostility between the Persians and the Arabs, going back as far as the first battle of Qadisiya, where General Rustam lost to the Arabs.

Persian poets like Ferdowsi wrote laments and scathing criticisms of the Arabs in his Book of Kings, as have other Persian poets.

Despite the theological differences twixt Shi'a and Wahabbiyah Islam, the Shari'a of both have more in common than not..

I said it before, Osama's secret mission to Afghanistan and Pakistan was to forge a syncretic union between Wahhabiyyah and Shi'a Islam..and that is what the Taliban is..

We are told that Taliban means Students, but Talib means student and Taliban means followers of the Student, and the student was Ali ibn abu Talib the lst Shi'a Imam, cousin of Muhammad, father of Fatima and fourth Sunni Caliph. His name means Exalted son of the father of the Student, and that extrapolates to a self referential nomen, actually a title..as Ali was THE (First) student of Muhammad and his first follower.

If you examine the name Ali ibn Abu Talib and translate it, you can see that it is not a name at all, but merely a title or reference to someone, and the Taliban are thus Followers of Ali ibn abu Talib..and Osama has shed his Arab ghutra and iqal for the Shi'a Turban and robe.

The Saudis are threatened by the Persians, not only because the Wahhabi's consider Shi'a to be mushrik and kufr, but because they are Persians.. so the alliance is obviously an Arab alliance, and Mogtada (who is not a cleric and has no clout with the Iranians) is using the Saudis and the Saudis are using him..expect the usual betrayal when the time comes (when the kufr forces are "defeated"), a marriage of convenience as theologically Shi'a and Wahhabi Islam are incompatible..unless they decide to suspend questions of theology and settle for their commonality in Shari'a.

"Why we persist with these destructive Moslem-induced myths is beyond me."

You're right -- it is beyond you. It's in the hands of our culturally dominant PC majority, which includes millions of ordinary people as well as the so-called "elites".

"Many members of the press, most perhaps, parrot various phrases as though they are fact."

These members of the press didn't fall out of the blue sky or get produced by an elite factory: they come out of the general population.

DP,

These members of the press didn't fall out of the blue sky or get produced by an elite factory: they come out of the general population.

Some were produced by elite factories.

And, IMO, regardless of their political/social motivations, those journalists who parrot unsubstantiated or erroneous 'facts' are just too damned lazy to check facts for themselves.

Example:

Jllyands-Posten printed twelve drawings of Mohammad.

That's not a big thing. But it isn't accurate. And it gets parroted.

Here's a question - do the Shia in Iraq fear hegemony from Iran, and getting Farsi-ized, or do they fear Saudis more, and getting Sunni-ized?