| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Bridge for sale! With Saudi jihadists now making up almost half of the foreign fighters in Iraq, the Saudis are touting their anti-jihad campaign. This man asked two questions: Was the jihad for which he traveled to Iraq religiously sanctioned? And were the edicts inciting such action correct in saying the militants should not inform their parents or government of their intentions? He got negative answers, and according to this story, that was it. The jihad imperative in general is unquestioned -- Iraq is just the wrong place, wrong time.
This might be a temporary fix, but it ultimately won't be even close to enough.
By Donna Abu-Nasr for Associated Press (thanks to all who sent this in):
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - The last time Ahmed al-Shayea was in the news, he was in the hospital at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, being treated for severe burns from the truck bomb he had driven into the Iraqi capital on Christmas Day, 2004.Today, he says, he has changed his mind about waging jihad, or holy war, and wants other young Muslims to know it. He wants them to see his disfigured face and fingerless hands, to hear how he was tricked into driving the truck on a fatal mission, to believe his contrition over having put his family through the agony of believing he was dead.
At 22, the new Ahmed Al-Shayea is the product of a concerted Saudi government effort to counter the ideology that nurtured the 9/11 hijackers and that has lured Saudis in droves to the Iraq insurgency. The deprogramming, similar to efforts carried out in Egypt and Yemen, is built on reason, enticements and lengthy talks with psychiatrists, Muslim clerics and sociologists.
[...]
Al-Shayea says his change of heart began when he was visited by a cleric at al-Ha'ir Prison in Riyadh following his repatriation from Iraq.
He says he put two questions to the cleric: Was the jihad for which he traveled to Iraq religiously sanctioned? And were the edicts inciting such action correct in saying the militants should not inform their parents or government of their intentions?
No and no, came the reply.
"I realized that all along I was wrong," al-Shayea told The Associated Press in a two-hour interview at a Riyadh hotel before returning to an Interior Ministry compound that serves as a sort of halfway house for ex-jihadists rejoining Saudi society.
"There is no jihad. We are just instruments of death," he said.
[...]
At the time he was first approached to join the insurgency, al-Shayea was already becoming a devout Muslim in his ultraconservative town of Buraida. He grew a beard, prayed five times a day and stopped listening to Arabic love songs he used to enjoy. He was 19 and jobless.
Then he was contacted by a school friend whom he doesn't identify.
"My friend started telling me about Iraq, how Muslims are getting killed there and how we should go there for jihad," said al-Shayea. "He told me there were fatwas (edicts) and DVDs issued by Saudi and Iraqi clergymen that called for jihad."
"We didn't think of jihad as something that would lead to our death. It was a fight against occupiers," said al-Shayea....
Posted by Robert at July 31, 2007 6:57 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
To this gentleman who had turned his back on jihad, a bit of advice, watch your back.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 31, 2007 7:17 AM
"There is no jihad. We are just instruments of death," he said.
Same thing
Posted by: Elric66 at July 31, 2007 7:19 AM
Yes Muslims are getting killed over there. Who are the ones killing the innocent Iraqis? Muslims. Why arent Muslims going on a jihad against al-Qaeda?
Posted by: Elric66 at July 31, 2007 7:50 AM
The Saudi elites, fearing the crumbling of their corrupt regime, have taken it upon themselves to export the more fundamentalist groups overseas in order to weed out regime-threatening elements in Saudi Arabia itself. It seems as though the agenda is to send Wahhabi missionaries to proselytise the Bosnians such that civil war will return and thereby create a maelstrom that will continue to draw jihadi fighters from the KSA to their deaths in the Balkans and other locales.
"We didn't think of jihad as something that would lead to our death. It was a fight against occupiers," said al-Shayea....
Now, I wonder if that is revealing of what jihadists actually think of the West: unwilling to fight for its principles, unwilling to sacrifice lives to preserve the greater good - perhaps they predicted that the "occupiers" would prove to be spineless, turning tail and running from them at the first sign of the jihadists.
Posted by: harrison at July 31, 2007 8:15 AM
@ Elric66: "My friend started telling me about Iraq, how Muslims are getting killed there and how we should go there for jihad," said al-Shayea.
You picked up on the same line I did. Saddam killed over a million Muslims. Jihadists in Algeria have been murdering Muslims since the early '90s, including slaughtering entire families and entire villages. Taliban slaughtered Muslims. Al Qaeda in the embassy bombings injured over 2000 people, mostly Muslims. The Iranian Mullahs have murdered, tortured and slaughtered Muslims.
America has saved Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and saved tens of thousands of Muslims after the Tsunami and Pakistan Earthquake.
You know, single-celled creatures have to recognize harmful things from needful things. Muslims seem to be so propagandized, that they can't distinguish friend from foe. Murdering co-religionists, who are as likely to slaughter them as anyone else, are friends. Infidel Americans, who rescue, feed, clothe and attempt to provide a modicum of security, are considered Muslim killers.
This sounds like a a mass nomination for the Darwin awards.
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt at July 31, 2007 8:29 AM
So true jabba.
Muslims killing Muslims, not a peep.
A cartoon of Mohammed. JIHAD!!!!!!
at July 31, 2007 8:46 AM
The last sentence indicates he's either an unbelievable moron ("didn't think of jihad as something that would lead to our deaths"???-as if he thought it was a campout with the boys) or a bold-faced liar, and "It was a fight against occupiers" is classic unrepentant doublespeak on his part, thus neutralizing every word he said up to that point, and thus making him out to be a total liar...it reeks of taqqiyah.
I'm not buying a bit of this scam of his.
taqqiyah taqqiyah taqqiyah
Robert got it right:
"Bridge for sale!"
End of story.
at July 31, 2007 8:49 AM
Muslims protest over pet food factory that could 'rain down' pork
Butchers Pet Care could shelve plans for a factory in Coton Park, near Rugby, because angry Asian families have complained to their residents' association about pork smells drifting into their garden.
Muslim residents in the area also claim the pork will effectively "rain down" on their homes and gardens after the factory's 100ft chimney has pumped the meat extracts into the atmosphere.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471866&in_page_id=1770
What next? What us the future going to be like in 20 years?
Posted by: DP111 at July 31, 2007 8:59 AM
Another dose of b.s. from the Saudi puppet-masters for the stupid infidels to lap up.
at July 31, 2007 9:00 AM
"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - The last time Ahmed al-Shayea was in the news, he was in the hospital at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, being treated for severe burns from the truck bomb he had driven into the Iraqi capital on Christmas Day, 2004".
Unfortunately, in these kind of circumstances, only the pain meted out by the supremacist-aggressor turned against them open the mind to some reason. General Sherman, in the Civil War, believed that only very a harsh response to the "Slaveocracy" would end their purple dream. Sherman certainly made them rethink their jihad.
When Sherman reached Savannah (12/25/1865) he telegraphed President Lincoln telling him that he had a Christmas present for him: the capture of the city. He outlined what had been done in the march to the sea that had begun in Chattanooga. He proposed a continuation of crushing the "Slaveocracy" and rebellion in the Carolinas. Sherman said "if the thing is pressed" the war would come to an end. Lincoln's answer to his telegraph came back, "Let the thing be pressed".
The sad truth is that the Jihadists are similar to the "Slaveocracy" in their Imperial dream. Reality is often painful but we must deal with it to make things turn out right.
Posted by: Frank at July 31, 2007 9:06 AM
This story screams: Public relations, hear all about it, public relations !
"We are not funding 80% of all mosques in the West with Wahhabi imams who espouse jihad.
"Come and get your red hot load of taquyya.
"You might be selling us weapons, but we will defeat you and sharia will be everywhere.
Belongs in the loo with the koran.
Posted by: dgene at July 31, 2007 9:16 AM
The correct date above should be 12/25/1864. I was thinking of the unconditional surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virgina (4/12/1865) at the same time I wrote the date of the capture of Savannah.
Posted by: Frank at July 31, 2007 9:37 AM
Obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at July 31, 2007 9:44 AM
"There is no jihad. We are just instruments of death," he said.
The "jihad" in Iraq turned out to be not a proper jihad, in the view of this terrorist-for-turning, because, as his Saudi handlers may have convinced him, he was working against fellow Muslims and the interests of Islam.
But that has nothing to do with, and should not be seized on as good news by, Infidels. For they remain Infidels. And in Islam, a state of permanent war (if not always open warfare) exists between Believers and Infidels.
In Iraq, his experience taught him, there is "no jihad." But there is a "Jihad" elsewhere, "Jihad" is a permanent duty. But "Jihad" was just not to be found, in the conditions of that particular bomber found himself, in Iraq. Perhaps he was told that the actions of Al Qaeda in Iraq were actually helping the Shi'a, and harming fellow Sunnnis, and anyway, didn't he know that the local Sunnis had turned on Al Qaeda? Something like that.
And why do you think the Al-Saud would have wanted to inculcate such thoughts in this particular Saudi who had been hoist by, but managed to survive, his own petardd? Why have they brought in Islamic scholars to teach him to regret his actions in Iraq? Not because of anything to do with Iraq, of course. Not because of any moral objection to suicide bombing. Not because of any moral objection to the killing of civilians. No. It's entirely prompted by "what's-in-it-for-us" considerations. Of course the Al-Saud and other Saudis look with approval on the blowing-up of uppity Shi'a in Iraq, as they would on the killing of Shi'a, should they get uppity, in the Eastern (al-Hasa) Province.
No, there are two reasons for this "re-education" The first, and by far the most important reason, is to ensure that there are no attacks on them, on the Saudi rulers and their government, within Saudi Arabia -- and that means getting the idea of "jihad" directed at Muslims out of the minds of the most primitive (for it is the most primitive and uneducated who are used by the planners and plotters and schemers as suicide-bombing fodders.
The second, and far less important reason, is to make the ever-credulous Americans believe that the Saudis remain an "ally" and are doing their bit to stoutly stand with us and defeat -- as only fellow Muslims can, fondly think some in the American government -- the "ideology of Jihad." But for god's sake, the ideology of Jihad is central to Islam. Only a wilful ignoramus could continue to be fooled by the Saudis. Only a wiflul ignoramus could conceivably think that selling the Saudis $20 billion in the most advanced weaponry -- having falling for their whipped-up campagin about a "Shi'a crescent" when there is no chance that the Shi'a of Iran could take over any of the Sunni Arab countries, and what is really going on, and what the Americans fail to understand, is that this is being used not only to extract as much advanced weaponry as they can (for Saudi Arabia, and for Egypt, the most populous and potent of Sunni Arab countries), weaponry that will have no use or effect on unrest among the Shi'a of Al-Hasa, but will make life hell for Israeli defense planners.
The Saudis have made all kinds of overtures to Iran. The mere fact that Rice and Gates are now off to Saudi Arabia, in order to "convince" the Saudis to support stonger sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear project, should tell govenment officials all they need to know about Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is not against Iran's nuclear project, as long as that weaponry is used on Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity. It is concerned only to re-estrablish Sunni hegemony in Iraq, and to ensure Sunni hegemony continues in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The "Shi'a crescent" business is exaggerated nonsense for the benefit of Americans.
Just as the Shi'a in exile led American policymakers by the nose to make sure that they invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein and his Sunni (even Tikriti) despotism disguised as a "Ba'athist" (i.e., "secular") regime (similar to what the Alawites do in Syria, and for essentially the same reasons), giving them sugarplum dreams that caused those policymakers to predict that the "liberation of Baghdad would make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession" and would cost, at most, a few tens of billions of dollars -- far less than the cost of the previous sanctions regime, now it is the turn of the Sunnis, in this case not smiling "secular" exiles (Chalabi et al.), but the daggers-and-dishdashas Saudi rulers (echoed by Mubarak and Abdullah of Jordan), with those sneers of cold command, and their utterly sinister funding of Da'wa, and making easier, with mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and the subverting through money of so many willing collaboratrs, Western hirelings on the make and on the take -- of whom there are, in Washington and London especially, a great many.
Yes, there is a "Jihad." Long live the Jihad, say the Saudis. But just make sure that "Jihad" does nothing to harm us or the Camp of Islam. Direct it to the real targets: those skyscrapers in New York. That Pentagon building. Those trains, and planes, and busses, and subways, those churches and synagogues and Hindu temples and Buddhist shrines, those -- everything, everything that is connected to, deemed important by, the Infidels.
La lutte continue, the war mandated by Allah, transmitted in the Qur'an, glossed by the Sunnah, that tells Muslims their struggle to spread Islam throughout the world -- a world that of course belongs to Allah -- will continue until Islam triumphs throughout the whole world. It is not, pace Cheney or Bush or Blair, a war that is a "long war," not a "war that will last for 15 to 20 years." Not at all. It is a war -- though a perfectly containable war, and one which the Infidels would prevail in without at this point terrible losses if only enough people calmly came to their senses and acted accordingly -- that will go on forever.
Plenty of things "go on forever." The Nazis are not gone, but contained. The Stalinists are not gone, but contained. That is the matter: to contain Islam, to weaken it, to divide and demoralize its camp, to split off as many Muslims from Islam, especially those non-Arabs who can be made aware of Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism, as possible.
It's doable.
It's only a matter of intelligence -- and not of the CIA kind. The other kind.
Posted by: Hugh
at July 31, 2007 9:44 AM
* Flush a Koran, get yourself arrested and spent 4 years in the can. Burn a flag, put a crucifix in urine and call it art and you get a stipend.
But the Madonna urinals are all the rage: Have you got one yet?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/07/29/%e2%80%9cthe-flush-heard-round-the-world%e2%80%9d/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 31, 2007 9:47 AM
Jabba the Tutt:You're onto something there. I think American leadership are bigger Muslims than Al-Sauds or Saddam (he really wasn't a big Muslim at all, just your average oppressive dictator sitting on a lot of oil). Americans did push Albanians and Muslims into war though, just to be able to save them and prove they love Muslims. But Muslims are still thinking Americans are their biggest enemies:
America has saved Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and saved tens of thousands of Muslims after the Tsunami and Pakistan Earthquake.
It suggests not only that for the West, the lives of Muslims are not worth the trouble. The failure to stop the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims, along with the behavior of the West in post-war Bosnia, suggests that genocide will be tolerated for the sake of a political goal; in this case, the prevention of a European Muslim state.
Go figure.
Posted by: SerbInfidel at July 31, 2007 11:49 AM
America has saved Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and saved tens of thousands of Muslims after the Tsunami and Pakistan Earthquake.
Not with any of my money. I refuse to donate to a call for relief of muslim suffering. I figure since Allah is all powerful, the tsunamis, the earth quakes, the famines, etc. are his will. Who am I to interfere with his plan?
at July 31, 2007 12:11 PM
America has saved Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and saved tens of thousands of Muslims after the Tsunami and Pakistan Earthquake.
Not with any of my money. I refuse to donate to a call for relief of muslim suffering. I figure since Allah is all powerful, the tsunamis, the earth quakes, the famines, etc. are his will. Who am I to interfere with his plan?
at July 31, 2007 12:16 PM
hugh,
Funding the Saudis to aid in their stabilisation of the regime while ensuring the continuation of exporting of Wahhabism throughout the world, triggering anti-Wahhabist sentiment and reaction from Shiites and fellow Sunnis - a self-perpetuating cycle that will continue to provide a reason to expend more resources and lives fighting terrorism, while mistakenly painting the Saudis as a counterweight to Shiite radicalism and Iranian ambitions, thus reinforcing the perceived need to stabilise the Saudi infrastructure.
Only when the Bush administration chances upon an epiphany that allows them to see that by propping up the Saudis, he is inadvertently creating the very monster that US troops are trying to vanquish in Iraq, or in Pakistan, or in Afghanistan - and thereby manifesting the very reason why the US finds itself perpetually having to revisit problematic, jihadist-infested locales and pay the price for engaging with enemies, undead and resurrected under an ever-amorphous banner of Arab radicalism. The very same line of reasoning that demands that the 'fragile, teetering' regime of the Saudis needs saving by consecutive US administrations is identical to the one that expounds on exactly how Islamism has managed to survive for so long, even when subsisting on a diet of corruption, clientelism, degeneracy and the free-flowing blood of its own Believers.
Exacerbating religious conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis, empowering one radicalised side against another will send both halves into an endless vicious cycle of radicalisation and indoctrination - the victors would then turn on their financial and ideological backers i.e. the West, now emboldened by the justification of similar methods of genocide against their previous co-religionists, and without hesitation implementing those exact methods against us; the losers would be reduced to such degeneracy as that of the Palestinian strain, blaming the West for its downfall, lamenting about Western intervention and meddling characterised by events such as the 1953 coup in Iran. Furthermore, we would inevitably place ourselves in the unenviable position of replacing one extremist government with another. And another. And another.
And in Islam, a state of permanent war (if not always open warfare) exists between Believers and Infidels.
True, but Infidels who have snuggled under the aegis of dhimmitude are being foolishly nonchalant and oblivious that there is actually a war going on - those rose-tinted shades that they produce in bulk and purchase from the MSM and the Democrats provide a reassuring visual of Islamism. The dhimmis grab at any hint of the Islamists expressing moderation, while censoring the constant backdrop of suicide bombings, systematic terror and jihad. Believers thus have a great advantage over the unsuspecting kuffar, carrying out surreptitiously clandestine efforts to slowly undercut the foundations of society and jurisdictional law. Infidels won't even catch on to this as "good news" because it has never occurred to them that Islam - being a 'religion of peace' - would ever sanction such murderous ideological justification.
Posted by: harrison at July 31, 2007 12:32 PM
So, now they'll turn their attentions to more "righteous" violence, like the popular jihadist plan to attack the former Muslim-invaded and occupied Christian land of Spain?
Islam has nothing to offer but terror.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 31, 2007 6:05 PM
Nuestros amigos los Saudis
Posted by: november1981 at July 31, 2007 7:38 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)