Recently in Saudi Arabia Category

In PJ Lifestyle yesterday I discuss the odd case of a female campaigner for the Islamic oppression of women in Saudi Arabia:

Some slaves prefer slavery: “A prominent Saudi female activist,” Emirates 24/7 reported last Thursday, has come out against Saudi Arabia’s lifting its ban on women driving cars.

Rawdah Al-Yousif complained that campaigns to give women the right to drive

“continue despite the clear response by the rulers of this country that any decision to allow women to drive cars is up to the community not to just 3000 people or to some articles in newspapers or online. I hope there will be no decision to allow women to drive at this stage because we have first to respect the wish of the people and the society…Women are also not ready yet to bear their responsibility and leave their homes at a time when news of blackmail against the women are widespread.”

Ah, yes. Women are not yet ready to bear their responsibility, just as we heard in the antebellum South that black Americans were not yet ready to bear the responsibilities of freedom, or in the Jim Crow South that they were not yet ready to bear the full responsibilities of citizenship. This is a common argument that oppressors make to justify oppression; it is unusual to hear it offered by one of the oppressed themselves.

Yet Rawdah Al-Yousuf is the prime mover behind a recent campaign in Saudi Arabia called “My Guardian Knows What’s Best For Me.” This involved, according to Emirates 24/7, “sending letters to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in which women confirmed their full support for an Islamic approach in administering the Kingdom.” Al Yousif expressed her “dismay at the efforts of some who have liberal demands that do not comply with Islamic law (Shariah) or with the Kingdom’s traditions and customs” and railed against what she characterized as “ignorant and vexatious demands” to abolish the guardianship system.

A manual of Islamic law certified by the foremost Islamic institution among Sunni Muslims, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming to “the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” explains the guardianship system:

“A husband may permit his wife to leave the house for a lesson in Sacred Law, for invocation of Allah (dhikr), to see her female friends, or to go to any place in the town. A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, m10.3).

This is based on a statement attributed to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam:

“It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse.”

In other words, a woman is her husband’s slave: he controls her movements, and if she dares to get out of line, another Sharia provision that is rooted in a Qur’an verse offers husbands a ready remedy:

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.” (Qur’an 4:34)

Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) – and according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child bride Aisha, reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” (Sahih Muslim 2127) Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Sahih Bukhari 7.72.715)

The Qur’an commentary Ruhul Ma’ani reflects mainstream Muslim understandings of this verse when it gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

If these divinely sanctioned threats and terror don’t work on a woman so recalcitrant as to leave the house without a valid excuse, there is always the opprobrium of her peers like Rawdah Al-Yousuf, who love their slavery and want to make sure their Muslim sisters remain slaves. It is, after all, the will of Allah.

The man is set to get six years in prison and 300 lashes, but that isn't good enough: ""He has deprived us of our daughter and he must assume his responsibilities. We will ask the court to keep him behind bars until our daughter comes home." If she does come home, she will be pressured to return to Islam, and possibly imprisoned until she does so.

"Father to contest sentence in daughter's conversion to Christianity," from UPI, May 13:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, May 13 (UPI) -- The father of a woman who fled Saudi Arabia after accepting Christianity says the sentence given the man responsible for the conversion isn't "appropriate."

That man, the Lebanese director of a company where the woman worked, has been sentenced to six years in prison and 300 lashes, Gulf News reported Monday.

The father of the woman said he would dispute the ruling, saying it was "not appropriate for what he has done to us."

"He has deprived us of our daughter and he must assume his responsibilities," said the father, who was not named. "We will ask the court to keep him behind bars until our daughter comes home."

The woman, known in Saudi media as "The Khobar Woman" in reference to the city where she worked, had been sentenced to six years in jail and 300 lashes. She has reportedly fled to Sweden.

The father said he hoped the Saudi Embassy in Sweden would work to return his daughter to Saudi Arabia. He said he would guarantee she would not be harmed.

A Saudi national who reportedly forged a travel document so the woman could flee the country was sentenced Saturday to two years in jail and 200 lashes.

Saudi Arabia "applies a strict version of Sharia that stipulates Muslims who convert to another religion must be sentenced to death." Actually, there is no version of Sharia that doesn't stipulate that Muslims who convert to another religion must be sentenced to death.

"Saudi jails Lebanese who helped woman convert to Christianity," from AFP, May 12:

A Saudi court jailed a Lebanese man for six years and sentenced him to 300 lashes after convicting him of encouraging a Saudi woman to convert to Christianity, Saudi dailies reported Sunday.

The same court sentenced a Saudi man convicted in the same case to two years in prison and 200 lashes for having helped the young woman flee the ultra-conservative, US-backed Sunni kingdom, local daily Al-Watan said.

A court delivered the verdict in Khobar in the kingdom's east, where the woman and the two accused worked for an insurance company.

The July 2012 case caused a stir in Saudi Arabia, which applies a strict version of Sharia that stipulates Muslims who convert to another religion must be sentenced to death.

The woman, known only as "the girl of Khobar," was granted refuge in Sweden where she lives under the protection of unspecified NGOs, according to local press reports.

She had appeared in a YouTube video last year in which she announced that she had chosen to convert to Christianity.

Her family's lawyer Hmood al-Khalidi said he was "satisfied with the verdict," according to the press....

Oh good.

This is a demonstration of how effective the much-ballyhooed Saudi deprogramming of jihadists really is. Supposedly the Saudis show the jihadists how they're misunderstanding Islam -- yet Khalid al-Suwid is not the first recidivist to return to misunderstanding the Religion of Peace even after having been shown the Straight Path.

"Saudis Try to Quell Jihadists," by Ellen Knickmeyer in the Wall Street Journal, May 3 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—After spending two years in Saudi prison for fighting in Iraq, Khalid al-Suwid graduated in 2012, a free man, from the kingdom's well-regarded rehabilitation program for religious extremists, Saudi officials said. Mr. Suwid was a government-certified ex-jihadist.

Mr. Suwid turned up again in a photo released in mid-March, smiling, holding an assault rifle and wearing what appeared to be a bomb vest. It was a so-called martyrdom notice, announcing his death in Syria.

Mr. Suwid "killed a large number of Christians before his acceptance by God," said the notice, which appeared on a Facebook FB -2.27% page—"Foreigners in theSyrian [sic] Revolution"—that anonymously records and lauds foreigners killed fighting Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

The battle by Syria's Sunni majority against the Shiite-linked Assad regime has drawn more men from Saudi Arabia to Syria than any country except Libya and Tunisia, said analyst Aaron Zelin of the Washington Institute, a think tank.

But for Saudi Arabia's monarchy, Syria's pull to jihad is creating tensions and risks linked to its recent past.

During the 1980s Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and later in Bosnia, Chechnya and other conflicts, Saudi Arabia encouraged jihad to promote the kingdom's legitimacy as a champion of Muslims world-wide. Some analysts said it also was aimed deflecting internal tensions at home.

That began to change by 2003, after Saudi members of al Qaeda returned home from foreign wars to launch a bloody campaign against the Saudi monarchy, which the jihadists saw as beholden to the West.

Within several years, the monarchy's security forces had crushed the insurgency. Now the Syria conflict is exposing rifts and contradictions within the kingdom over its tradition of aiding beleaguered foreign Muslims.

"There are tensions…between some elite decision makers over how best to deal with the Syrian issue," said Michael Stephens, a regional researcher at the British Royal United Services Institute think tank in Qatar. "It is clear some princes favor an activist approach that involves increased support for Islamist groups in Syria, while other princes remain concerned over the…undermining of Saudi's internal security."

Syrian rebels and Arab officials say Saudi Arabia has shipped arms and aid to the Syrian opposition, though the Saudi government hasn't confirmed or denied such reports.

But top Saudi government officials and religious leaders are ordering its citizens to stay home, telling them instead to send money and prayers to Syria's rebels.

"Involvement in the Syrian conflict is against Saudi laws," Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki told reporters in Riyadh in late March. Saudis will be arrested whether they are caught coming or going from fighting in Syria, he said.

But some Saudis say the government's message is mixed. "Sometimes the government says not to go fight, and acts on it," said Abdulrahman al-Talq, a resident of the religiously conservative central Saudi city of Buraidah. Other times, he said, the message is muddled.

Mr. Talq said his son traveled to Syria last year following the young man's arrest for taking part in a demonstration. A local judge had suspended the son's sentence then encouraged him to go to Syria, Mr. Talq said. The father said his son died there in December.

Buraidah has a reputation of sending its sons off for jihad to countries including Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. When local men go to Friday sermons these days, though, they hear conflicting messages from the clerics.

"Some say, 'Help the Sunni, and Syria, and destroy the Shias,' " said Fawzan al-Harbi, a Buraidah native.

In other mosques, Mr. Harbi said, he hears Buraidah's imans counsel Saudis to let Syrians fight among themselves....

Why on earth would someone in the Saudi diplomatic compound get involved in such a thing? Well, maybe because the Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

...A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth….I brought up (this man’s) situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?” 

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?,” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not--she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"Possible Human Trafficking Investigated at Saudi Diplomatic Compound in Virginia," by Jackie Bensen for NBC Washington, May 1 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A case of "possible human trafficking" at a Saudi diplomatic compound in Virginia is under investigation, Homeland Security confirmed to News4.

Agents from U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement/Homeland Security Investigations and Fairfax County police were called to a home in the 6000 block of Orris Street in McLean overnight and, in the words of a source familiar with the investigation, "rescued" two women. One woman reportedly tried to flee by squeezing through a gap in the front gate as it was closing.

It's not clear if the women, who sources say are from the Philippines, called investigators to the home themselves or if someone else did.

"Homeland Security Investigations DC did encounter two potential victims of trafficking and the investigation is ongoing," a D.C.-based spokesman for ICE/Homeland Security investigations told News4.

The investigation is in its very early stages and complicated by the possibility some of those involved may have diplomatic immunity.

UPDATE: The Saudis now deny that they tipped off U.S. officials -- the Daily Mail link below now leads to an updated story denying the one excerpted in this post. So add this to yet another of the murky, contradictory elements of the story of the Boston Marathon jihad bombing. Will we ever know the whole truth? Only if it isn't too politically disadvantageous to Obama and the Democrats.

---------

They received the warning but did nothing, because it had to do with Islamic jihad, and Obama’s FBI is forbidden to study Islamic jihad. This is because the Obama Administration in 2011 mandated the scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of the truth about Islam and jihad. It is the terror threat that dare not speak its name. Those who called for counterterror training materials to be scrubbed of truthful information about jihad are responsible for this, and have blood on their hands; they include the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which mounted a huge campaign in 2010 to have me dropped as a trainer of FBI agents. Nor was that campaign personal: they mounted similar campaigns against any trainers and training materials that told the truth about Islam and jihad. Others responsible for the politically correct scrubbing of counterterror training materials of any mention of Islam or jihad include hard-Left pseudo-journalist Spencer Ackerman, who published a series of “exposes” of “Islamophobic” counterterror training; Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates, who wrote a letter to Obama’s then-chief counterterrorism adviser and current CIA director, John Brennan, demanding that this material be removed. Brennan, who readily acquiesced to this demand, also bears responsibility, as does Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who piled on in the mainstream media. They got what they wanted: now FBI agents are woefully ill-equipped to deal with the Islamic jihad threat, which they largely must pretend does not even exist.

"EXCLUSIVE: Saudi Arabia 'warned the United States IN WRITING about Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2012,'" from the Daily Mail, April 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia sent a written warning about accused Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2012, long before pressure-cooker blasts killed three and injured hundreds, according to a senior Saudi government official with direct knowledge of the document.

The Saudi warning, the official told MailOnline, was separate from the multiple red flags raised by Russian intelligence in 2011, and was based on human intelligence developed independently in Yemen.

Citing security concerns, the Saudi government also denied an entry visa to the elder Tsarnaev brother in December 2011, when he hoped to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, the source said. Tsarnaev's plans to visit Saudi Arabia have not been previously disclosed.

The Saudis' warning to the U.S. government was also shared with the British government. 'It was very specific’ and warned that 'something was going to happen in a major U.S. city,' the Saudi official said during an extensive interview.

It 'did name Tamerlan specifically,' he added. The 'government-to-government' letter, which he said was sent to the Department of Homeland Security at the highest level, did not name Boston or suggest a date for his planned attack.

If true, the account will produce added pressure on the Homeland Security department and the White House to explain their collective inaction after similar warnings were offered about Tsarnaev by the Russian government.

A DHS official denied, however, that the agency received any such warning from Saudi intelligence about Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

'DHS has no knowledge of any communication from the Saudi government regarding information on the suspects in the Boston Marathon Bombing prior to the attack,' MailOnline learned from one Homeland Security official who declined to be named in this report.

The White House took a similar view. 'We and other relevant U.S. government agencies have no record of such a letter being received,' said Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the president’s National Security Council.

The letter likely came to DHS via the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the agency tasked with protecting the Saudi kingdom’s homeland.

A Homeland Security official confirmed Tuesday evening on the condition of anonymity that the 2012 letter exists, saying he had heard of the Saudi communication before MailOnline inquired about it.

An aide to a Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee speculated Tuesday about why the Obama administration contradicted the knowledgeable Saudi official.

‘It is possible the Department of Homeland Security received the information from the Saudi government but never passed it on to the White House,’ the GOP staffer said. 'Communication between DHS and the White House's national security apparatus isn't always what it should be.’

'I can easily see it happening where one hand didn't know what the other was doing because of a turf war.'

'Just like the different agencies in the Boston JTTF [Joint Terrorism Task Force] want credit for breaking the Tsarnaev case,' the aide added, 'they sometimes jealously guard the very intel they should be sharing the most freely. Sometimes it makes no sense at all.'

House Homeland Security Committee chairman Mike McCaul plans to announce on Wednesday an investigative hearing to probe what U.S. intelligence knew prior to the Boston attacks, two senior Republican sources told MailOnline.

Separately, President Obama announced Tuesday that the U.S. government will launch a wide-ranging inquiry into the sharing of information among the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and other intelligence and law-enforcement agencies of the federal government.

'We want to leave no stone unturned,' the president said in a rare White House press conference....

Yeah, sure.

If a Catholic really had done that, there would have been an international uproar. But no one will take much notice of this.

"Saudi Wahhabi Sheikh Calls On Iraq's Jihadists to Kill Shiites," by Haytham Mouzahem for Al-Monitor, April 28:

On April 23, Saad al-Durihim, a Saudi Wahhabi sheikh, posted a tweet on Twitter in which he said that jihadist fighters in Iraq should adopt a "heavy-handed" approach and kill any Shiites they can get their hands own, including children and women. This is so that the "rawafid" — a term used by Wahhabi Salafists to refer to Shiites — will fear them.

This tweet sparked sharp criticism on Twitter. Many considered it to be incitement to murder and contrary to the tolerance of Islam, which forbids the killing of women and children in battle, even those of infidels and polytheists.

Sheikh Durihim had previously posted a tweet in which he said that the people of Najd [in central Saudi Arabia] were the "saved group", meaning they alone were the only ones who would enter Paradise on Judgment Day among all humans, including other Muslims. Najd is the region of Saudi Arabia where Wahhabism originated.

Daraihim's statements denouncing the Shiites as apostates — in accordance with Wahhabi Salafist doctrine — are not the first of their kind. Takfir (the idea of Muslims renouncing other Muslims as nonbelievers) goes back to fatwas issued by Sheikh Taqi ad-Din bin Taymiyyah, a Syrian sheikh from the Hanbali school of jurisprudence born in 1283 A.D. in Harran, a city near the Turkish-Syrian border. Sheikh Taymiyyah considered Shiites to be deluded heretics. He accused Shiite scholars of blasphemy and considered the general Shiite populace to be ignorant and misguided. This led his followers — in particular Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1700-1791), the founder of Wahhabism — to denounce all Shiites, regardless of sect, as nonbelievers. They also authorized killing Shiites, holding their women captive, and stealing from them. This goes against the words of the Prophet Muhammad: "The whole of a Muslim is inviolable for another Muslim: his blood, his property and his honor."...

That doesn't apply to non-Muslims. This statement is also ascribed to Muhammad: "I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah." (Sahih Muslim 30)

So the Infidels' property and life are not protected unless and until they convert to Islam.

This is on Muhammad's orders: "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim." (Sahih Muslim 19.4366)

And while AFP says, "Unlike Saudi Arabia, the kingdom's Gulf Arab neighbors allow the building of churches and the celebration of non-Muslim feasts," the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia recently said that there should be no churches in Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates.

No one will pay any attention to this. But imagine the outcry if a non-Muslim state said that it did not allow the establishment of Muslim places of worship.

"Saudi to retain ban on non-Muslim places of worship," from AFP, April 24 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia will retain its longstanding ban on non-Muslim places of worship, Justice Minister Mohammed al-Issa said in comments reported by the Saudi media on Wednesday.

As Saudi Arabia is "home to the Muslim holy places, it does not allow the establishment of non-Muslim places of worship," Al-Hayat newspaper quoted Issa as telling European MPs in Brussels.

Saudi Arabia, home to the holy Kaaba -- the cube-shaped structure at the Grand Mosque in Mecca towards which Muslims worldwide pray -- has come in for repeated criticism for its ban on non-Muslim places of worship.

Although Saudi Arabia's citizen population is Muslim, the kingdom is also home to millions of expatriates of various beliefs.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, the kingdom's Gulf Arab neighbors allow the building of churches and the celebration of non-Muslim feasts.

The Blaze marshals all the details of this ever more curious story. "Beck Breaks Exclusive Information on Saudi National Once Considered a Person of Interest in Boston Bombings," by Erica Ritz for The Blaze, April 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Background points:

• A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing
• As the story gained traction, TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national, originally identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi
• Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject when confronted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill.
• An ICE official said a different Saudi national is in custody, but is “in no way” connected to the bombings.
• A congressional source, however, says that the file on Alharbi was created, that he was “linked” in some way to the Boston bombings (though it is unclear how), and that documents showing all this have been sent to Congress.
• Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano
• Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports that Alharbi was allegedly flagged on a terrorist watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted
• New information provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered early Wednesday evening to disassociate him from the initial charges
• Sources say the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts
• Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.

Monday morning Glenn Beck laid out what he knows about the Saudi connection to the Boston marathon bombings.  It is a story that the mainstream media has all but completely ignored, though Beck says TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood reached out to numerous other networks in an effort to get the story out.   Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to acknowledge the story even existed when questioned by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) last Friday.

But now a number of congressional sources have confirmed that the story is as TheBlaze reported last week, and Beck is presenting more pieces of the big picture.

“This week has changed me,” he said at the top of his radio program on Monday.  “The events in Boston changed me….The events in Washington around Boston changed me.”

We crossed an “extraordinarily disturbing threshold” last week, Beck said, but we know “exactly who we’re dealing with now.”

After a discussion of how Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is currently under guard in the hospital, wasn’t read his Miranda rights, Beck proceeded to lay out a number of key points on the case.

“While the media continues to look at what the causes were of these two guys, there are, at this hour, three people involved,” he said.  “The first one is the one we are going to address.”

Beck proceeded to highlight the background of the Saudi national first identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston bombings, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, noting that the the NTC issued an event file calling for his deportation using section 212, 3B which is proven terrorist activity.

“We are not sure who actually tagged him as a ’212 3B,’ but we know it is very difficult to charge someone with this — it has to be almost certain,” Beck explained.  “It is the equivalent in civil society of charging someone with premeditated murder and seeking the death penalty — it is not thrown around lightly.”

Beck continued, noting that after Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud on Tuesday, the FBI began backtracking on the Saudi national from suspect, to person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.

Then, on Wednesday, President Obama had a “chance” encounter with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud and Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.

“Wednesday at 5:35 p.m. the file is altered,” Beck said.  “This is unheard of, this is impossible in the timeline due to the severity of the charge….You don’t one day put a 212 3B charge against somebody with deportation, and then the next day take it off.  It would require too much to do it.”

“There are only two people that could revoke the deportation order — the director of the NTC could do it after speaking with each department, the FBI, the ATC, etc. — which is impossible to do in such a short period of time, — or, somebody at the very highest levels of the State Department could do it.  We don’t have any evidence to tell you which one did it,” Beck said.

Read it all.

Multiple sources confirmed that he was set to be deported this week for "national security concerns" supposedly unrelated to the Boston jihad bombings, just days after being questioned about his role in those bombings. Now that order has been rescinded -- probably because it has come to light how Obama appears to be kowtowing to the Saudis yet again.

"EXCLUSIVE: Source-Saudi National's Deportation Record Altered," by Elizabeth Shield for Breitbart, April 20 (thanks to Benedict):

Breitbart News has learned that the Saudi National questioned after the Boston Marathon Bombing had his deportation order records altered, rescinding his deportation order.

The alteration occurred the night before Secretary Napolitano vehemently denied the existence of any deportation order in testimony before the House of Representatives. Sources with knowledge of these matters says the change occurred subsequent to Secretary John Kerry's closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Saudi Minister and around the time of the meeting between the Saudi Minister and Obama later on Wednesday evening.

The Saudi National has been identified as Abdulrahman Ali Al-Harbi. There is no evidence that Al-Harbi is connected to the Boston Marathon Bombings. 

Steven Emerson announced on Wednesday night's episode of Hannity that the Saudi National who was a person of interest and later cleared, was set to be deported.

Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was questioned by Congressman Jeff Duncan about the alleged deportation in a House hearing. Napolitano responded “I am unaware of anyone who is being deported for national security concerns at all related to Boston. I don’t know where that rumor came from.”

Congressman Duncan pushed Napolitano and she retorted:

“I am not going to answer that question, it is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions, that it is just not worthy of an answer....there has been so much reported on this that has been wrong, I can’t even begin to tell you, congressman.”

Emerson appeared for a second time on Hannity on Thursday night to reveal that "the documents are going to surface or at least members of Congress have it right now, and they'll make the contents public."

HANNITY: I have multiple sources, high level, within our government, that told me the exact same thing. That this Saudi national, they said now is a witness, not a suspect, but saying is to be deported Tuesday, I was told for the exact same thing, for national security reasons. I did see the video where Janet Napolitano denied any knowledge of that, but yet it's been confirmed now by multiple sources.

EMERSON: And the documents are going to surface or at least members of Congress have it right now, and they'll make the contents public. We don't know if he was connected to the bombing or not, but it's a strange coincidence for sure.

ICE denies that al-Harbi is being deported and Janet Napolitano danced around the issue, but Steve Emerson here maintains, and Hannity confirms, that Al-Harbi, the "person of interest" questioned in the Boston bombings, was indeed set for deportation next Tuesday -- at least until the story broke. This was after his home was exhaustively searched. Did the immediate deportation have anything to do with the Boston bombing, and his ties to an influential and jihad terror-linked Saudi family? We may never know, since the mainstream media isn't interested in pursuing stories like this when they might reflect badly on presidents like Barack Obama.

Video thanks to Pamela Geller.

Steve Emerson just said on Hannity that a senior official in the agency that is conducting the deportation that Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, the Saudi national who was detained in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and then was declared a "witness, not a suspect" after his home was searched, is going to be deported next Tuesday on national security grounds.

Why deported and not prosecuted? To keep our "allies" the Saudis happy. After all, Al-Harbi has numerous jihad terror connections, as well as friends in high places.

Was this the deal that was worked out between John Kerry and the Saudis at their meeting yesterday that was suddenly closed to the press?

Could this have to do with the Saudi man who is being held in connection with the Boston terror bombings? "Kerry meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister abruptly closed," by Josh Gerstein for Politico, April 16:

A meeting Secretary of State John Kerry was to hold with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal was abruptly closed to press coverage Tuesday morning.

The State Department provided no reason for the change, which was announced just 15 minutes before the scheduled 10 A.M. session, but media reports have said that a Saudi national in the U.S. on a student visa is a "person of interest" to investigators probing the bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday.

The person being investigated was badly injured in the attack, sources said.

"Apologies for short notice," the State Department's press office told reporters as it announced the change. A spokesperson did not immediately respond to a query about the closure of the meeting, which had been scheduled to include a so-called "camera spray" at the top of the session.

This is on Muhammad's orders: "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim." (Sahih Muslim 19.4366)

And that doesn't mean just Saudi Arabia. That means Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Islamic Tolerance Alert: "Saudi Arabia Declares Destruction of All Churches in Region," from Charisma News, April 1 (thanks to Rene):

Earlier this month, news reports surfaced out of Saudi Arabia that raised the red flag for Christians.

Todd Nettleton, a spokesman for Voice of the Martyrs USA, says, "The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia—the top Islamic official in the country of Saudi Arabia—has declared that it is 'necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.'" Nettleton goes on to note that the report hasn't surfaced anywhere except on the Council on Foreign Relations Web site, which was then picked up by The Atlantic.

As Saudi Arabia is ranked second on the Open Doors World Watch List (a compilation of the 50 countries where persecution of Christians is most severe), the news is not really a surprise. There is no provision for religious freedom in the constitution of this Islamic kingdom.

All citizens must adhere to Islam, and conversion to another religion is punishable by death. Public Christian worship is forbidden; worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and torture. Evangelizing Muslims and distributing non-Islamic materials is illegal. Muslims who convert to Christianity risk being subjected to honor killings, and foreign Christian workers have been exposed to abuse from employers.

Sheikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, created an implication with his assertion. Nettleton explains, "This was in a meeting with Kuwaiti officials who came to Saudi Arabia. They were asking this Islamic official, ‘What should we do about the churches?' His statement was, ‘There should be no Christian churches on the Arabian Peninsula.'"

According to the report, the delegation wanted to confirm Shariah's position on churches. Essentially, Nettleton says, "If you have churches in Kuwait, which they do, they should be destroyed. The interesting thing about this is that there are no churches in Saudi Arabia. There are no church buildings that are allowed to exist there. So he clearly wasn't talking only for his own country. He was trying to export this ideology to the surrounding countries."

This proclamation could affect churches in Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Nettleton observes that "in most of these countries, we're not talking about a lot of churches; we're talking about a few that are allowed to exist primarily to serve foreigners that are living in that country."

However, the U.N. Human Rights Council has yet to take a stand on such blatant violations of freedom of religion. How the governments implement this declaration is yet to be determined....

"And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers." -- Qur'an 5:45

What's that? The Hebrew Scriptures say "an eye for an eye" as well? So where are Jews or Christians meting out punishments like this one?

Sharia savagery in the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places: "Young man faces paralysis in eye-for-an-eye sentence," from the Saudi Gazette, March 30 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

HOFUF – He was not sentenced to death by execution or firing squad. Another type of punishment awaits Ali Al-Khawahir, who stabbed his best friend 10 years ago, if he does not come up with SR1 million and pays it to the victim.

Ali was sentenced to be fully paralyzed as a punishment for causing paralysis to his best friend after stabbing him in the backbone.

The victim requested SR2 million in the beginning to forgive his assailant but later reduced the amount to SR1 million. Some people organized a campaign to raise the money for Ali who could not attend his father’s funeral because he was incarcerated.

Ali’s mother has been suffering tremendously over his incarceration and has begged many people over the past few years to help her son and save him from this eye-for-an-eye punishment.

Ali was jailed when he was 14 years old, the 60-year-old mother told Al-Hayat daily. His friend has been completely paralyzed ever since and has not been able to lead a normal life and has been deprived of being a father, she added.

“Ten years have passed with hundreds of sleepless nights. My hair has become grey at a young age because of my son’s problem. I have been frightened to death whenever I think about my son’s fate and that he will have to be paralyzed.”

Ali’s mother feels sorry for the victim too and says he deserves millions in compensation but the problem is that she is poor and does not have the huge amount. She hopes that philanthropists help her son who has spent 10 years of his life in the prison.

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." -- Qur'an 5:33

"Saudi Arabia beheads murderer… and then CRUCIFIES his body," by Jaymi Mccann for the Daily Mail, March 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Saudi authorities have beheaded a murderer and crucified his body after he killed and raped a Pakistani national.

The kingdom's interior ministry announced the execution, stating that the man had murdered and sodomised another male. Both actions are punishable by death.

'The Yemeni citizen Mohammed Rashad Khairi Hussain killed a Pakistani, Pashteh Sayed Khan, after he committed sodomy with him,' said a statement carried by state news agency SPA.

Hussain was also convicted of robbery and carrying out a series of attacks.

The execution, in the southern city of Jizan, was followed by crucifixion, a punishment used by the ultra-conservative country for serious crimes.

Saudi Arabia have been criticised in the international community for their harsh punishments, including executions by beheading and firing squad.

There have been 28 people beheaded in Saudi Arabia this year.

In 2012, they executed 76 people, according to an AFP tally based on official figures, while the US-based Human Rights Watch put the number at 69.

The oil-rich kingdom follows a strict implementation of Islamic law, or Shariah, under which people convicted of murder, rape or armed robbery can be executed, usually by sword....

Hey, it's in the Qur'an.

What's the big deal? Christian clerics call for the assassination of political leaders whom they think are acting "counter to Christianity" all the time, now, don't they? Don't they? "Saudi mufti: Clerics should unite in fatwa on Assad," by Ariel Ben Solomon in the Jerusalem Post, March 14 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Saudi religious leader Sheikh Ayed al-Qarni called this week for all Muslim scholars to issue a joint fatwa (religious ruling) against Syrian President Bashar Assad and his government, the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya TV channel reported.

Al-Qarni told the pan-Arab news channel that the Council of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia and Al-Azhar University in Egypt should condemn the Syrian regime, and even said that assassinating Assad would be justified.

The sheikh said that the Syrian regime, in attacking civilians, was acting counter to Islam. He said he had spoken to refugees from Syria in Jordan, who had told him about the atrocities. In addition, he continued, the Syrian army had forced people to bow down to a picture of Assad.

"That is why all Syrians have to fight this regime. The Syrian youth should take up arms against the regime," he told Al-Arabiya.

Qarni¹s remarks followed a Sunday ruling by the leading Sunni Muslim body in Syria, which called for Syrians to join the army.

The Dar al-Ifta council ­ led by Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, who lost his son in a rebel attack in October 2011 ­ stated that members of the Syrian army should "raise up the words of God in our beloved country" in their "defense and jihad for Syria."...

Jihad for Syria? Hit the gym, fellas!

Why is this a story today? It isn't as if they haven't been doing this already. And note that their concept of jihad is clearly martial, contrary to the whitewashed and distorted view that Hamas-linked CAIR is cynically peddling. They would have us believe that somehow the Saudis, despite their fanatical desire to adhere to Islam, seem to have misunderstood it most drastically.

"Saudi Arabia to Teach Jihad in Schools: Students will be taught 'correct concept of jihad,'" by Vasudevan Sridharan for International Business Times, March 5 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Saudi Arabia has decided to introduce the concept of jihad at the intermediate school level in order to teach Islamic principles and duties to young students in the kingdom.

The ministry of education hopes the proposal will be widely welcomed by parents and educationists in the kingdom.

The ministry says the plan is to instil the "correct concept of jihad" in students.

"Textbooks will include all relevant information on jihad including a definition when it becomes a duty, and the role of women. The information on jihad was developed by the ministry's curriculum development project for intermediate-grade fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) textbooks," spokesperson of the education ministry Abdullah al-Dukhaini told Arab News.

The spokesperson said that the education will facilitate students in understanding Islam and help them play their "role" in society.

The curriculum will be produced by extracting ideas from various sources. Experts from a range of fields will be involved in preparing the course material.

"Saudi curriculum is prepared by experts who have specialised knowledge and is reviewed by a Shariah committee from the board of senior scholars, universities and specialised colleges," added al-Dukhani.

Speaking about the aggression related to jihad, the spokesperson said: "Saudi Arabia is not an aggressive country and will only get involved in conflict to defend itself."

He said that only the ruler has the right to "raise the banner of jihad" and not individuals or Muslim groups....

Actually, this is true only of offensive jihad. But there is also defensive jihad. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that when a non-Muslim force enters a Muslim land, jihad becomes the individual obligation of every Muslim (fard 'ayn) rather than a collective obligation of the entire umma, from which one is released if others are taking it up (fard kifaya). Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masalik fi madhhab al-Imam Malik ("The Sufficiency of the Traveller on the Best Path in the School of Imam Malik,") says this:

Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah [obligatory on the community] once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn [obligatory on every Muslim individually], like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.

Reform? Sanity? Retreat from Sharia? Not quite. These crucifixions may be postponed or even canceled since they've come to the attention of global human rights organizations, but the Saudis will keep crucifying people. How could they not, when this is written in the Quran? "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom." -- Qur'an 5:33

"Saudi Arabia delays execution of seven facing crucifixion and firing squad," from the Associated Press, March 5 (thanks to Block Ness):

The executions of seven Saudis sentenced to death by crucifixion and firing squad have been postponed for a week.

A Saudi security official said King Abdullah would review the sentences. He met families of the seven on Sunday.

The official said the ruler of the south-western province of Asir, Prince Faisal bin Abdel Aziz, had ordered the postponement.

The seven were juveniles at the time they were arrested for armed robbery, a capital offence in Saudi Arabia. One told Associated Press by telephone from prison that they were tortured to force them to confess and denied access to lawyers.

Human rights groups had called on the Saudi government to cancel the executions.

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them." (Qur'an 4:34)

Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur'an 33:21) – and according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child bride Aisha, reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” (Sahih Muslim 2127) Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Sahih Bukhari 7.72.715)

The Koran commentary Ruhul Ma’ani reflects mainstream Muslim understandings of this verse when it gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

"Nearly half Saudi women are beaten at home," from Emirates 24/7, February 26 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Nearly half Saudi women are beaten up by their husbands or other family members at home and many of them are hit by sticks and head cover, according to a university study published in local newspapers on Tuesday.

Surprisingly, the study found that the Bedouin men who still dwell the desert in the conservative Gulf Kingdom, are less violent than Saudi men in urban areas.

The study was conducted by Dr Lateefa Abdul Lateef, a social science professor at King Saud University in the Capital Riyadh. It involved female students at the university and some Saudi women covered by the government’s social security.

“The study showed that nearly half those covered by social security and more than a third of the female students at the university are beaten up at home,” Dr Lateefa said, quoted by the Saudi Arabic language daily Almadina.

“Husbands were found to be beating their wives more than others….they are followed by fathers, then brothers then sons…hands and sticks were found to be used mostly in beating women, following by men’s head cover and to a lesser extent, sharp objects.”

The study showed that husbands beating their wives included both educated and non-educated men and that “those dwelling in the desert are less violent with their wives than those living in cities or villages.”

The study found that the main reasons for violence against women include poor religious motives, drug addiction and alcoholism, arrogance and a tendency to control, psychological problems, poverty, and unemployment.