Yemeni columnist: International Islamic terrorism is as Saudi as crude oil

Hassan Al-Haifi speaks here of "the Wahhabi misguided rendition of Islam," but the only indication he provides of what exactly he thinks is misguided about it is that the Wahhabis fought and are fighting their fellow Muslims. Meanwhile, he takes our friends and allies the Saudis to task for pretending that they are not responsible for the global spread of the jihad ideology.

"'Libya and Iran financing Al-Qaeda in Yemen': The Saudi Gazette Really Knows Better," by Hassan Al-Haifi in the Yemen Times, August 28:

One cannot help but read with awe the gross misrepresentations of the facts by the Saudi press, as it seeks to whitewash the evil doings of the Saudi religious establishment throughout the world. It is not just by trying to disassociate themselves from all terrorist (and safe to say, absolutely non-Islamic, in deed and in concept) activities.

Like last Thursday's (August 21, 2008) article of the Saudi Gazette (link: www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008082114998), and of course acting under directions from their bosses in the Saudi regime, these paid pens of the Saudi regime wish to convince the reader that anyone to their dislike is the torchbearer of all the evil they have unleashed throughout the world over the last three decades. Thus the Saudi Gazette wishes to mislead the world that the Saudis are as innocent of Al-Qaeda and all its doings as the Prophet Joseph was of the seductress that was infatuated with him and demanded that he relieve her from the fire of temptation that had come to overtake her, because of this infatuation.

That is a reference not to the Bible but to the Qur'an's Sura 12, about which you can read here.

The fact of the matter is that the international so called "Islamic" terrorism, which has engulfed the Islamic world and brought havoc to the rest of the non-Islamic world, is as Saudi as the light crude oil that provides the source of financing for the propagation of the Wahhabi misguided rendition of Islam. The fact of the matter is that the Wahhabi Establishment, itself a hereditary clerical order (although Islam forbids the existence of a clergy) under the tight control of the descendants of Mohammed Abdul-Wahhab. This establishment is the mentor and financial backer of all these prominent so called "Salafi" movements. Mohammed Abdul Wahhab presumably concocted the divergent and deviant "Wahhabi" creed of Islam over two hundred years ago. One is puzzled why the followers of this gross misrepresentation of Islam in so many ways do not even like to be called Wahhabis, and try to cloud this association by taking on names that associate them with genuine ideological and seminarian associations (such as "Salafi", Moslem "Brotherhood", "Jihadists", "Fundamentalist"). The answer is obvious, as the Wahhabis are viewed by most mainstream Moslems, even the majority of Sunnis, as unorthodox, bloodthirsty highway robbers, as their early history was drowned with the blood of thousands of fellow Moslems, who were the victims of their lust for loot from pilgrims to Mecca and from those who dare dispute their misguided interpretations of Islam.

So the "mainstream Moslems" view the Wahhabis as "unorthodox, bloodthirsty highway robbers" because "their early history was drowned with the blood of thousands of fellow Moslems." Not, you see, because they make war against unbelievers. On that the Wahhabis and other Islamic sects and schools do not disagree.

You will never see, in their revelations of the history of their movement, the hundreds of raids, especially in the earlier part of the past two and a half centuries, which these bandits inflicted on their brethren of the faith, who they actually labeled as "non-believers" or infidels, which makes their blood and their assets sanctified for them.

Not that the writer is against Wahhabism as such:

One is not here trying to smear the glorious bloody past of the Wahhabi Movement. Not that their past should be ignored, but one can state for certain that intra-sectarian bloody conflict between Moslems is virtually non-existent since the Prophet Mohammed's days until the Wahhabis came into being. Sure there was politically related Moslem bloodshed, but never was this fuelled by how long your beard is, or where you place your hands while standing in prayer and some of the other very secondary issues, in which Moslems might differ, which to the Wahhabis can be ground for war or for repression, if you are living in a Wahhabi regime. There have only been two countries that have succumbed to Wahhabi regimes (Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban), and in both cases it was by the use of repressive force. Ironically, there is a suspicious historical collusion between the Wahhabi movement and the British Crown (see Wahhabi Past), but that is a long story and there are enough sources in the internet and elsewhere that covers it.

The point to be made here is that the Saudis are not at all acting responsibly when they seek to disassociate themselves from an evil they have been rearing now for over two hundred years whether with British support or collusion with Masonic or Zionist [ed.: Boo!] forces, as so many historical chroniclers wish to point out on many occasions. The obvious incongruity of the accusation that Al-Qaeda is funded by the Iranians, with whom there is a big rift with the Al-Qaeda from a sectarian point of view is somewhat unbelievable and the same is true with the Libyans. On the latter one cannot help but remember how Washington tried to mislead the world into believing that Saddam Hussein was associated with Al-Qaeda (Actually Saddam had his own means of terror, which was more straightforward and down to earth and discernible than the wishy washy form Saudi Arabia has been nurturing and with which the Saudis could never disclaim any sectarian, ideological and even congenial association, as most of the Al-Qaeda elements that have been killed or arrested are actually Saudi citizens (Yemen has just submitted eight of them to the Saudis last week as well).. So it is not hard to tell, who is the real backer of world terrorism, morally and materially?

| 9 Comments
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

9 Comments

Islam is to international terrorism as Saudi Arabia is to crude oil.

The first couldn't survive without the second.

The absence of "intrasectarian" feuds within Islam didn't preclude intersectarian feuding, or there wouldn't be such enmity between shia and sunni.

Where is the "obvious incongruity" in the accusation that al Qaeda is funded by Iranians? This man has never that politics makes strange bedfellows?

Speaking of strange befellows, if only two lands ever succumbed to Wahhabist regimes then why are Muslims all over the world accepting Saudi money? The Saudis aren't forcing Filipinos, Indians, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Egyptians or any other nationality of Muslims to commit terrorist acts. Muslims are doing that all by themselves. The modern Muslim terrorist organizations were founded by Egyptians, not Saudis. Al-Zawahiri is an Egyptian, as were Arafat and Qutb. Muslim terrorists of all stripes use the same doctrine as those Wahhabists this man claims to hate. So it is not hard to tell who is the real backer of world terrorism, morally and materially.
It's not Wahhabi Islam. It's not Saudi Arabia. Morally, it's ISLAM. Materially, it's Muslims.

It's not Wahhab Islam. It's not Saudi Arabia. Morally, it's ISLAM. Materially, it's Muslims.
Posted by: PMK

yes, your right PMK. but the west don't know about Wahhabi islam. anything that gets a the word out that islam is evil is alright with me. let them get the message that Wahhabi Islam is evil (something that all westerners would believe), then its a short hop a teach them all islam is bad

This confused individual needs to take a deep breath and then dial into Ali Sina's Faith Freedom International site where he can be deprogrammed by Ali's band of skillful apostates.

let them get the message that Wahhabi Islam is evil (something that all westerners would believe), then its a short hop a teach them all islam is bad

theygottago,
I disagree. Let them get the word out that Wahhabist Islam is bad and you let everyone else off the hook. When confronted with what Muslims are doing, they'll just say: but I'm not a wahhabi. Many Westerners will buy it.
It's not like getting people to condemn Wahhabism will get your foot in the door. They won't want to accept that all Islam is bad and Westerners won't want to force it on them. Religious confrontation is not something we seek.
When you ask them the difference between their brand of Islam and Wahhabism, what will they say? This author sees the only difference being that Wahhabists attack fellow Muslims. There wasn't a word about the many non-Muslims who are attacked every day, because those are the actions of people following the example of Muhammad. He can't condemn jihad. The target makes all the difference.
When it's done to infidels it's jihad, a glorious act and in keeping with the example set by Muhammad.
When the very same Wahhabi creed is directed toward other Muslims, only then does it become terrorism.

He says: "one can state for certain that intra-sectarian bloody conflict between Moslems is virtually non-existent since the Prophet Mohammed's days until the Wahhabis came into being."

Note the words. All he cares about is Moslems killing Moslems. The rest of us don't count. Those who accept that Wahhabi Islam is bad won't be convinced that Islam is bad. Muslims are the ones who need convincing. The Shia aren't Wahhabists but they know terrorism very well.

If "Wahhabis are viewed by most mainstream Moslems, even the majority of Sunnis, as unorthodox, bloodthirsty highway robbers", then why do so many Sunnis attend Wahhabi mosques?

The Sunni's are the Klingons, The Shia are the Romulans, and there is no Federation.

It is never made clear just what the mis-interpreters of Islam are mis-interpreting.

Wahhabism is a purer form of Islam?

A less pure form of Islam?

Why would Allah be unhappy with Wahhabism when he created it?

Why should Wahhabi's be condemned when they go the extra mile for Allah?

It's all for Allah...Isn't it???

"...the Wahhabis are viewed by most mainstream Moslems, even the majority of Sunnis, as unorthodox, bloodthirsty highway robbers, as their early history was drowned with the blood of thousands of fellow Moslems, who were the victims of their lust for loot from pilgrims to Mecca...."

What is so unorthodox about being bloodthirsty highway robbers? It's just following the example of the for-profit prophet Mohammed himself.

also:
"The point to be made here is that the Saudis are not at all acting responsibly when they seek to disassociate themselves from an evil they have been rearing now for over two hundred years whether with British support or collusion with Masonic or Zionist [ed.: Boo!] forces...."

So the Wahhabis are in cahoots with the British, the Masons, and the Zionists, too. Wow, this gets more complicated all the time! I guess that explains Prince Charles' odd affinity for Islam. But I'll bet that the Rosicrucians, and Fu Manchu, and Professor Moriarty are involved in it too.

Is Hassan Al-Haifi an Islamophobe?

Let's ask CAIR.

All "iterpretations" of Islam end up becoming the same thing...

Muslim apologist always like to bring up the tolerance of Akhbar - even though Akhbar wasn't very religious. However, his successor Jahangir was very religious - and things like this were the result:

http://www.thesikhmuseum.com/pages/LEISM2000_16.htm

Sikh women butchered, after watching their children thrown into the air and impaled on spears. Something, Mohammad himself would surely have been proud of.

Islam may have peaceful periods, but, in the end, it always involves returning to the example of Mohammad.

He he he...... interesting that noone on this board has thought of the Al-Saud's family friends in good ole' USA. maybe it is just too Politically incorrect to being up the POTUS, when Al-Sauds and terror are linked.
Very interesting!