The website Memri.org is so full of disturbing news from the Arab and Muslim world — newspaper articles, mosque sermons, academic lectures, media appearances, book excerpts — that we come to expect the worst, and the worst is what we ordinarily get. Recently at the site, for example, Mahmoud Abbas could be seen defending his “pay for slay” program – generous stipends for terrorists and their families — insisting he would never end it, no matter what financial pressures he endured. Elsewhere on the site, a Jordanian writer explains how the Israelis have fully implemented the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” An Egyptian “scholar” engages in Holocaust denial, while another Arab “scholar” insists that yes, some Jews were killed, but nothing like the six million victims the Zionists claim. This television personality insists that the Zionists worked hand-in-glove with the Nazis. An Iranian leader promises the complete destruction of the Jewish state. Another Iranian announces that his people “will be proud to be killed by Zionists.” Several Muslim journalists insist that ISIS was begun, and is still run, by Israel. Others claim that Jews are behind the world-wide epidemic of “Islamophobia.” And so it goes, each claim crazier than the next.
So when, every so often, there is something good to report that has been posted at MEMRI.org, the work of a journalist or historian from the Arab world who does not make wild charges, who soberly takes issue with the demonization of the Jews that is so prevalent in the Arab and Iranian media, we ought to publicize that person, in the hope that others may emulate his example.That doesn’t mean he has freed himself entirely from conventional Arab criticism of the “Zionist political project.” But his sympathetic view of Jews, shown in his emphasizing the positive aspects of Muslim-Jewish relations in early Islam, should not be ignored.
In his March 3, 2019 column in the leading London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Saudi journalist and businessman Hussein Shobakshi made some observations about the obsessive hatred of Jews found so often in the Arab and Muslim world.
“When the extremists in the political Islam organizations want to carry out character assassination against a leader in the Arab world, they are accustomed to reiterating over and over that ‘his mother was a Jewess’ or that ‘he has Jewish roots.’ [this has been said about El-Sisi by the Muslim Brotherhood].Often, the supporters of this or that leader [e.g. El-Sisi] respond to this by saying of the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood that ‘his mother was a Jewess.’This has made me wonder about the scope of the hatred for Jews in our culture, and about our inability to distinguish between the Jews as People of the Book – whom Allah commanded us to love and respect and permitted us to trade with them, eat their foods, and marry them – and the Israeli Zionist political project that has instilled [in us] schizophrenia [in our attitude towards the Jews] from which we have not yet awakened.“The intensity of the Jew-hatred disseminated by the media and by art, literature, and political cartoons [in the Arab world] has reached a degree that cannot be ignored. No one, of course, is arguing that the Jewish and Israeli arena itself is free of a culture of hatred within it. [He cannot yet free himself from all the calumnies about Israel]In the extremist religious Jewish schools, there is [also] the same takfir [i.e. accusing others of heresy, as there is among Muslims] and differentiation between the [Jewish] people and the ‘gentiles,’ who are worthless and may be robbed and killed. From these schools emerged the well-known extremist terrorists Meir Kahana and Baruch Goldstein.“However, antisemitism in the Arab world is the product of loathsome, racist education that is rooted in the Arab mentality that is used to labeling people according to tribal, family, and racial affiliation, and according to the religious school to which they belong. It is this education that prompted thousands of Jews who were citizens of Arab countries to emigrate after the establishment of the State of Israel… (this is the same mentality faced by Christians of the Arab Orient and by all other religious [non-Muslim] streams in the region).
He recognizes that antisemitism is part of the Arab mentality, but he does not mention — how could he? — that the Qur’an itself is the main source of Arab antisemitism. Instead he refers to a “loathsome,racist education that is rooted in the Arab mentality,” a mentality that keeps labelling people according to “tribal,, family, and racial affiliation.” This “mentality” led Jews to emigrate after Israel was established. That is an oblique reference to the pogroms all over the Arab world, prompted by the rage over the Naqba, the catastrophe of the loss to the despised Jews in the 1948-49 war.
“The Prophet Muhammad married a Jewess, arrived at a peaceful coexistence agreement with the Jews of Madina, mortgaged his shield to his Jewish neighbor, and stood at the funeral of a Jew, and the Quran says of People of the Book that t hey are not all like each other [i.e. that there are respectable people among them]. [However], we disregard all these very positive references [to Jews] and present invented theories, interpretations, and motives that justify Jew-hatred, and, based on this, we have formulated views rife with suspicion regarding them and fear of them stemming, in truth, from hatred…
To support his claim that Jews today deserve better treatment from Muslims, he reminds Muslims of their relations to Jews during early Islam. Muhammad “married a Jewess, arrived at a peaceful coexistence agreement with the Jews of Madina, mortgaged his shield to his Jewish neighbors (a sign of trust).” Hussein Shobakshi is trying to put his own spin on those events. He mentions Muhammad’s marriage to Saafiya, a Jewess, but does not tell us about his raid on the Jews of Khaybar, or the killing of her father and husband by the Muslims. He mentions the agreement with the Jews of Madina, but not the killing of the Banu Qurayza (one of the Jewish tribes of Madina) by the Muslims. He is putting a slant on the past to encourage Muslims to change their view of Jews, an objective some may believe sufficiently worthy to justify the scanting of history it requires.
“It is inconceivable that [you, a Muslim] should argue that your religion commands you to respect the People of the Book and yet not implement this in practical, concrete terms. But the [real] challenge [that you face is answering the questions]: Can peace with the other be possible without first actualizing this peace with yourself and with those around you? And do we have a problem of hatred and racism towards Jews? An honest, credible answer to these questions is necessary, and they may be the first in a series of embarrassing questions that we have for many years been avoiding dealing with and answering.”
Here Shobakshi widens his argument to include Christians–Islam “commands you to respect the People of the Book.” He suggests that Muslims ask themselves if they can truly be at “peace with ‘the other”[Jews and Christians] without first “actualizing this peace” with themselves. Then he calls for Muslims to recognize their intolerable “hatred and racism toward Jews.” It’s a tall order. But at least he has raised the issue of the obsessive antisemitism of the Arabs, has declared it unacceptable, and has suggested ways to fight it, by reporting on what he believes is evidence of good relations between Muslims and Jews in early Islam. He has exaggerated the amicability of those relations, and has deliberately not mentioned those Qur’anic verses that are anti-Jewish, but he has done so in a good cause. If thereby he manages to persuade some Muslims to reject their obsessive anti-Jewishness, that would be worth the slight offense to history..And if he manages to do even more, that is to convince Muslims not just to jettison their antisemitism but to look positively on Jews, and possibly even on Israelis, that would be worth whatever further slight to history might be required..

CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, people working toward a “good cause” usually fail to mention that pesky verse 9:29 in the Quran and also something called abrogation required to explain contradictions in the Quran. But it’s all good as long as you don’t think too long and hard about it.
christianblood says
This is the latest sign that ‘Jihadwatch’ is turning into a propaganda outlet for the barbaric Takfiri/Wahabi, Saudi (ISIS) head-choppers!
By propagandizing for ISIS-like Saudis, ‘Jihadwatch’ is shitting on the graves of millions of victims of Islamic jihadist violence worldwide and the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11 as all murderous jihad attacks sourced on islamic jihadist theology and hate that emanates from and is based in Saudi Arabia, the birth place of islam. The ‘prophet’ of islam, mohamed, himself a Saudi, beheaded 900 Jews from the (Abu Quraysa tribe) on a single day and took their women and children as slaves, including sex slaves!
Even today, any identifiable Jew walking in the streets of Mecca would be immediately incinerated on sight by a Saudi fanatical jihadist mob supported the violent and hateful Islamic ideology that emanates from Saudi Arabia ! In comparison, Iran, which you all, the US and the West constantly demonize have thousands Jews and many dozens of Synagogues across the country and Iranian Jews sit in Iranian parliament! Could the same be said about Saudi Arabia or any Sunni Arab/Islamic country anywhere in the Islamic world for that matter? More below:
CogitoErgoSum says
Is the Iranian Quran different from the Saudi Quran? Do the Iranians not believe in abrogation? Did the Iranian Ayatollah vow to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? What will happen to the Jews who survive the massacre that will take place if that happens or will the Iranians give the Jews refuge in Iran until the day that the rocks and trees tell the Iranians where the Jews are hiding so they can be slaughtered by an army led by Jesus? This is a news video from CNN of dhimmi Jews and the Jizya can be paid in different forms. Give me a break.
christianblood says
CogitoErgoSum
As the CNN video above proves, Iran is the only country in the Arab/Islamic world where thousands of Jews live peacefully and where there are many dozens of Jewish Synagogues and Jews have their own representation in the state parliament!
The other FACt is, Iran invaded or attacked NO country in over 200 years in comparison, the imperialist U$ invaded and bombed many dozens of small countries in the last few decades killing millions in the process! If there is any terrorist state in the world today, it is the U$, NOT Iran!
Check your fact-sheet below:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Bombing_campaigns_since_1945
CogitoErgoSum says
It seems we disagree about a few things, Christianblood. BTW, are you really a Christian or do you call yourself by that name because you have a desire to see Christian blood being shed? Why are you advocating support for Muslims — any kind of Muslims? Islam does seek Christian blood, you know.
christianblood says
CogitoErgoSum
Its the U$ and its allies that seek the extermination of Christians in the ME by their Islamic jihadist allies. Christians in Iraq were numbering around 1.5 million before the U$ attacked that country and unleashed
ISIS on them and today they number around only 150 thousand! U$ and its allies did the same thing in Libya backing jihadists and then jihadists started beheading Christians on Libyan beaches and opening slave markets!
We just commemorated the 20th anniversary when U$ and its Nato allies bombed Christian Serbs in support of their KLA jihadist allies, killing thousands of Christians in Serbia in their 78 days bombing!
In Syria too, U$ and its allies backed, armed, and funded Islamic jihadists
there to overthrow the secular government of that country, replace it with jihadists and instigate mass-murder of Christians in that country! Thank God because of Iran and Russia, their EVIL, genocidal plan did not succeed! I am wondering, why don’t you see all those facts, ErgoSum? Has the devil clouded your poor judgment? And you didn’t answer my question as to why Shiite Iran is the only country that has thousands and thousands of Jews living freely and hundreds of Synagogues and even Jewish members in its Parliament? Could something like this ever be possible in the land of your Saudi allies where infidels are off limits half of that savage hellhole/country? BTW, in “Jihadwatch” I am the only one who constantly and passionately raises the genocidal persecution against Christians in the ME and beyond and how the U$ and West are directly and indirectly creating this genocide and are in many cases initiating it through their jihadist proxies!
CogitoErgoSum says
Excuse me, Christianblood. I thought I did answer your question by saying those Jews living in Iran were dhimmis. Now, please answer my question to you. Are you really a Christian or are you an Iranian Muslim pretending to be a Christian? Oh, I know I won’t be able to trust your answer but I just want to see how you respond — if you do respond.
CRUSADER says
He cited CNN.
‘Nuff said.
christianblood says
CogitoErgoSum
They are ‘dhimmis’ is not an answer because you can’t find Jewish dhimmis living in other muslim country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Somalia? Why only in Iran in their thousands, where they are in the Parliament and have many, many of Synagogues? Please think long and hard about this, be objective and just ignore the anti-Iranian propaganda which you are being constantly for decades fed by your CIA-controlled “deep state” media?
To answer your question, I am an Orthodox Christian and I can tell you that Islam is a satanic cult, full of hatred, darkness and evil, the quran is a savage textbook of satan and mohamed was a violent, warlord and mass-murderer who had sex with a 9 year old child! Is that good enough for you?
Having said that, please understand I am not an American and don’t think like one and my attitudes and worldview is very different from yours
and since you are ethnocentric and you see everything through your uninformed American ‘exceptionalist’ glasses you assume anyone who don’t think like you do is a muslim to you!
CogitoErgoSum says
Christianblood, if you really are a Christian I think you are one that is willing to accept the status of a dhimmi. I am not. There are dhimmis in other Muslim lands. Some may be treated a little better than others but they are still dhimmis not on an equal footing with their Muslim overlords. There are no Jewish (or Christian) places of worship in Saudi Arabia because before Muhammad died he requested that all the infidels be driven from the Arabian peninsula. He didn’t make that request for Iran or other places; just that the infidels either be forcefully converted, killed or made to pay the Jizya in humiliation — and that part is permanent because it’s in the Quran.
You may be satisfied with living life as a dhimmi but I prefer to live free or die — so, there you go, that’s my “exceptionalist” world view.
christianblood says
CogitoErgoSum
In the Orthodox East, we understand islam and muslims, our people have been under islamic rule for five centuries and during that time millions perished and millions were converted to islam forcefully!
We thank God for Russia for sending thousands of its own brave soldiers to liberate our people from grip of the muslim rule! What we cannot understand is why the US and its Nato allies are always on the side of the muslim jihadists!!! The establishment of two islamic states
(Bosnia & Kosovo) with the support of the US and Nato and the destruction of hundreds of churches and ancient monasteries in Metohija by Western-backed jihadists is something that will never be forgotten or forgiven! US and its allies are giving exactly the same support to muslim jihadists in the ME to exterminate Christians in places like Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Syria! 1.5 million Christians in Iraq during the Saddam times and now only a few thousand remain! There SHOULD BE JUSTICE FOR THIS! THIS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT UNANSWERED!
CogitoErgoSum says
Christianblood, I think I understand what you are saying. I don’t believe the US should be helping ANY Muslims. I don’t think helping even the Kurdish Muslims is a good idea. I don’t think you should be advocating for any group of Muslims either no matter how benign you may think they are. I want you to understand that I want Islam completely wiped from the face of the Earth.
christianblood says
CogitoErgoSum
As long as the US and the West wholeheartedly support Islam and Islamists, Islam will not be wiped out but Christianity and Christians will be completely wiped out from the face of the Earth! Isn’t that why the liberal imperialist secular system led by the US and jihadist Islamist system led by Saudi Arabia are constantly conspiring and colluding with each other to do just that?
gravenimage says
christianblood wrote:
They are ‘dhimmis’ is not an answer because you can’t find Jewish dhimmis living in other muslim country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Somalia?…
………………………..
Grotesquely, christianblood seems to be fine with Jews–and Christians–living under the brutal heel of dhimmitude. He thinks that so long as Muslims have not wiped out all Infidels and is just oppressing and persecuting them that it is all good. *Ugh*.
More:
To answer your question, I am an Orthodox Christian and I can tell you that Islam is a satanic cult, full of hatred, darkness and evil, the quran is a savage textbook of satan and mohamed was a violent, warlord and mass-murderer who had sex with a 9 year old child! Is that good enough for you?
………………………..
Well, it would be if christianblood didn’t regularly condone Muslims engaging in child marriage, murdering gay people, committing “Honor Killings”, and persecuting unbelievers.
More:
Having said that, please understand I am not an American and don’t think like one and my attitudes and worldview is very different from yours
and since you are ethnocentric and you see everything through your uninformed American ‘exceptionalist’ glasses you assume anyone who don’t think like you do is a muslim to you!
………………………..
It is certainly true that christianblood does not think like an American–he hates democracy, freedom, and human rights, and has said so many times.
As for assuming he is a Muslim, I don’t. But he does regularly spout apologia for the horrors of Islam, as well as demand that God allow Muslims to conquer and destroy the West. The idea that only Americans would find this concerning is just ludicrous.
More, in reply to CogitoErgoSum:
In the Orthodox East, we understand islam and muslims, our people have been under islamic rule for five centuries and during that time millions perished and millions were converted to islam forcefully!
………………………..
Anti-Jihadists actually consider this to be a bad thing. But christianblood has praised Muslims treating Christians as dhimmis in Iran, Lebanon under Hezb’allah, and in Chechnya. He has dismissed all Christians arrested and persecuted in Iran as “American spies”.
More:
We thank God for Russia for sending thousands of its own brave soldiers to liberate our people from grip of the muslim rule!
………………………..
Well, this is true–and is to be praised. All of this was well over a hundred years ago, though–today, christianblood is lauding Russia building mega-Mosques for Muslims in Moscow and allowing Shari’ah law in Chechnya.
More:
What we cannot understand is why the US and its Nato allies are always on the side of the muslim jihadists!!!
………………………..
christianblood has bizarrely said that the US defeating the Caliphate and freeing Christian and Yezidi sex slaves is–somehow–being on the side of ISIS. Just ludicrous.
gravenimage says
christianblood has claimed before that Jews in Iran love living as oppressed dhimmis. He has also said that any Christians persecuted in Iran are “American spies” and deserve what they get.
He has also said that the US defeated ISIS because the “hate Christians”–never mind that this makes no sense. He has also frequently praised Ghadaffi, despite the fact that he himself was a Jihadist. Very disturbing stuff.
mortimer says
The Bloodthirstypseudochristiangenocidist is a Russian disinformation agent who is SEVERELY neurotic to the point of unremitting PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION.
He is on the verge of living in his castle in Spain … which is the definition of psychosis.
RonaldB says
For christianblood
Your description of the status of Jews in Iran is corroborated in Robert Spencer’s book “Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran”. The Jews are indeed dhimmis, are protected, are allowed to practice Judaism, and are safe walking in the streets dressed as Orthodox Jews, as opposed to not being safe in Paris, London, etc.
For alternative sources on “Jews in Iran”, simply use the search term in Google for multiple sources saying the same thing.
Having said that, the Jews in Iran are under the same political restrictions as other Iranians. They support the Islamic government, at least publicly, and support Iran in its conflict with Israel. I have no knowledge of how they deal with Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the map. I’m not saying existence in a Muslim country is a bed of roses for anyone, but let’s not change the truth just to suit the narrative.
I also agree with you on the reprehensible intervention by the US and NATO in the Yugoslavian civil war in 1999. It wasn’t entirely an anti-Christian intervention, as the Serbians were fighting the Catholic Croatians, also supported by NATO bombing.
I think your accusation that JihadWatch is becoming an apologist for Wahabi Saudi Arabia is over the top. There are a number of Muslims who criticize jihad and buck the tide of the usual Muslim bigotry. These Muslims generally misrepresent, whether intentionally or not I don’t know, the orthodox teachings of Islam, and are usually shunned by other Muslims. But, they definitely exist. Why come down like a ton of bricks on a Muslim preaching tolerance, even if that Muslim is from Saudi Arabia?
CogitoErgoSum says
Is it better to lie to people or to tell them the truth? Perhaps a lie is better in the short term, but the truth will always be there in the Quran for people to come across at any time and then the lies will be forgotten.
RonaldB says
Much better to tell the truth. I assume you mean that it is best to ignore Muslims who say Islam preaches tolerance of Jews, even if it is convenient for our current policy.
CogitoErgoSum says
Ronald, telling a lie is not usually a commendable thing to do but sometimes it may be the lesser of two evils. I suppose I would have to know what the alternative to telling the lie would be before I could know for sure what to do. If telling a lie were to save the life of a person I was absolutely certain was innocent, yes, I would probably lie and worry about the consequences to me later. At least, I hope I would.
If I thought lying about the Quran would make the world a better place permanently, I would do that too. But for it to work, most of the world would have to be in on the lie and go along with it permanently — and I would have to be able to live with myself knowing that I’m a liar. I try my best not to be a liar.
christianblood says
RonaldB
You made good points! The Jews in Iran actually have more rights than Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahais and Buddhists in Iran in that they are accepted as more ancient and as indigenous to Iran for millennia and that is why they have their own representation in the Iranian parliament! I don’t think there is any other religious group that have representation in the Iranian Parliament like the Jews do! You are also correct in saying that Jews in Iran are safer than those in France and other parts of the EU.
I would even say that for the past few years, more Jews and Christians have been murdered in the US than in Iran! There were two major church massacres in the US in recent years, in South Carolina and the another in Texas where around 30 Christians (in both cases) were gunned down and two Synagogue massacres in Boston and in California and over 12 Jews killed there! No Christians or Jews were murdered in Iran during the same time or even before it!
My point is always that I never say Iran is a some progressive country or that it is a beacon of human rights. It is not! Iran is a Shiite theocracy but the real fact which I have studied and thoroughly researched is that the Shiite Iran is far more progressive and far more tolerant than all the oil-rich Arab/Wahhabi savage theocracies that the US and the West support and lionize! Iran lost thousands of its soldiers fighting ISIS and Al-qaeda
in Iraq and Syria preventing those nations from falling into the hands of ISIS and Al-Qaeda jihadists who were (in Syria) directly supported by the Arab theocracies, the US, Nato and Israel!
Another thing is that Iran is hated by the US and its allies, not because Iran is supporting terrorists because it DOES NOT but because Iran would NOT be a puppet for the US empire! After seeing what happen to the Shah and the prime minister before him and how the CIA back-stabbed them, Iranians decided to follow an independent path and that is the sole reason why it is really hated. Iran also supports indigenous Shiite militias in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and to some extant in Yemen and for that they are hated by Arab theocracies and their US allies because without Iran, Arab theocracies and their Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other Wahhabi jihadist groups would exterminate and victimize those Shiite minorities!
christianblood says
RonaldB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Z-ORkIjpA
christianblood says
RonaldB
christianblood says
RonaldB
gravenimage says
christianblood wrote:
RonaldB
You made good points! The Jews in Iran actually have more rights than Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahais and Buddhists in Iran in that they are accepted as more ancient and as indigenous to Iran for millennia and that is why they have their own representation in the Iranian parliament! I don’t think there is any other religious group that have representation in the Iranian Parliament like the Jews do!
…………………………….
christianblood does not appear to understand that decent people don’t like to see others oppressed and persecuted–the claim that things are hunky-dory in Iran because Jews are (arguably) somewhat less persecuted than are other non-Muslims there is just sickening.
And most of the reform of the treatment of Jews in Iran–such as it has been–came under the Shah, not under his beloved Mullahs.
And his claims that Infidels are not harmed in Iran is just ridiculous–there is systematic mistreatment of unbelievers there–of course, there is nothing like this in the United States.
More:
My point is always that I never say Iran is a some progressive country or that it is a beacon of human rights.
…………………………….
But christianblood does not have a problem with this–he has sneered at the whole concept of human rights here many times.
And saying that Iran is more “progressive” than other Muslim states is surely damning with faint praise, given that this “progressivism” includes hanging gay people, vowing to wipe Israel off the map, and stoning women to death.
And his constant ludicrous claims that Anti-Jihadists somehow actually love Jihadists is just calumny.
More:
Iran lost thousands of its soldiers fighting ISIS and Al-qaeda
in Iraq and Syria preventing those nations from falling into the hands of ISIS and Al-Qaeda jihadists who were (in Syria) directly supported by the Arab theocracies, the US, Nato and Israel!
…………………………….
How many times has christianblood made this claim, despite the US having defeated the “Caliphate”? I doubt he is going to stop any time soon.
https://www.businessinsider.com/isis-military-defeat-iraq-syria-2017-11
More:
Another thing is that Iran is hated by the US and its allies, not because Iran is supporting terrorists because it DOES NOT but because Iran would NOT be a puppet for the US empire!
…………………………….
christianblood has also made this claim many times–that the US and the rest of the West have no problem with the savagery of Iran, and that the horrors of Shari’ah in Iran are really just all “resistance” by the brave Mullahs there.
More:
After seeing what happen to the Shah and the prime minister before him and how the CIA back-stabbed them, Iranians decided to follow an independent path and that is the sole reason why it is really hated.
…………………………….
Also common from christianblood–that we are to blame for the Mullahs for not having invaded Iran when the Ayatollah took over. Of course, if we had, he would be condemning us for this. After all, he has also castigated us for defeating the Fascists and for saving South Korea from the horrors of Communism. He has praised North Korea for starving and brutalizing its people as more laudable “resistance” to American values.
christianblood says
gravenimage
I suggest you set up a website and call it “Christianbloodwatch.org”..
gravenimage says
christianblood wrote:
gravenimage
I suggest you set up a website and call it “Christianbloodwatch.org”..
………………..
What a lot of rot. I post here at Jihad Watch all the time, and christianblood rarely comes up unless he is–as on this thread–spamming his claptrap here.
Notice that he is unable to address a single thing I said. This is not at all uncommon.
RonaldB says
For christianblood
I am well aware of the destructive and costly interventions by the US in Iran, 1953, the pulling of the rug out from the Shah in 1979 when he was instituting progressive changes in Iran, including the promotion of women’s rights, the interventions by the US in the Yugoslavian wars against the Serbs, the staunchest US allies in World War II, and the US interventions in Libya, Iraq, and Syria.
I would say the US has been its own worst enemy. The biggest blunder by far was to depose Saddam Hussein and to destroy all mechanisms of social control in Iraq. Iraq was a natural enemy of Iran. Once we destroyed Iraq, at the cost of thousands of US lives and a trillion dollars, we have to risk thousands of lives and trillions of dollars countering Iran. When we could have simply let Iraq and Iran fight each other.
As to your claim that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization: I’ll simply list the instances. I am not going to include links because anyone reading this is as able to do searches as I am. I include Hezbollah affiliates. Even the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis have the grace to use fronts to maintain at least a thin deniability.
Hezbollah:
Blew up US marine barracks in Beirut, 1983
Slowly tortured to death US Beirut CIA station chief William Buckley
Blew up Jewish Community centers in Argentina, 1993
Fired thousands of rockets into northern Israel from Lebanon
That’s more or less just off the top of my head.
The Shi’ite regime in Iran:
Hung all its opponents, and non-Shi’ite allies like the Iranian Communist party;
Invaded the US embassy and held embassy personnel hostage under brutal conditions for over a year. By the way, if you want a basis for the “irrational” US hatred of present-day Iran, look to the occupation of the US embassy;
Constantly threatens to invade and destroy Israel. I’ll break my own rule and include a link here:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-iran-threatens-to-annihilate-israel-hezbollah-boast-of-reach-of-rockets/
So, what has Israel done to merit a decades-long threat by Iran to destroy them? Simple. Israel is a non-Muslim government in a land that was once Muslim. So, tell me again how benign the Shi’ites are vis a vis the concept of jihad against non-Muslims.
I will say this emphatically: US actions in the Middle East paved the way for ISIS. If the US had not blundered into the Middle East like a blind bull, there would be no massive refugee crisis in Europe, no ISIS, millions of Christians and Yazidis still alive and in their homes, and a much lessened threat from Iran, which would be focused more on Iraq than anything else.
By the way, I understand the Saudis were very opposed to the idiot Bush intervention in Iraq, foreseeing exactly what happened.
christianblood says
RonaldB
All true, RonaldB!
Iranian verbal threats to Israel are undeniable and Israel also threatens Iran with the same verbal threats and let us consider those verbal threats and nothing more than verbal threats and rhetoric! In actuality, while Iran never attacked anyone, Israel attacked Syria over 200 times in the last two years alone and violated the Lebanese airspace countless times, so don’t assume Israel as innocent and blameless because it is not! Like the US, Nato and Saudi Arabia, Israel also backed various islamic jihadist groups in Syria fighting to overthrow Assad! In fact, a few months back, Israel evacuated 800 encircled Al-Qaeda “White Helmets” from inside Syria!
gravenimage says
Of course, Israel has never vowed to wipe Iran off the map, as Iran says about Israel.
And christianblood’s claim that Iran’s threat to Israel is nothing more than saber-rattling is of course quite false. Iran backs Hezb’allah’s Jihad terror attacks on Israel.
But then, christianblood supports this, screaming “God bless Hezb’allah!” and lauding their Jihad against Israel.
“Hizballah operates “Museum for Jihadi Tourism” in South Lebanon”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/09/hizballah-operates-museum-for-jihadi-tourism-in-south-lebanon
Lots of ugliness from christianblood on that thread.
shortfattexan says
christianblood has reached the “Scrollover Zone”. That is, whenever I see his name I just scroll past without bothering to read.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I remember one night when Sean Hannity breathlessly reported that some MoBroHood official had said that Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs. Hannity failed to mentioned that this was (and still is) commanded by Allah in the Holy Ko-Ran.
Cognitive dissonance is never in short supply when it comes to speech about Islam, a loud clanging that the supposedly conservative press declines to stop.
Ole Pederson says
Well, one comment shoul dbe enough: taqiyya.
Michael Garant says
thumb up
thebigW says
“we ought to publicize that person, in the hope that others may emulate his example.”
“But his sympathetic view of Jews, shown in his emphasizing the positive aspects of Muslim-Jewish relations in early Islam, should not be ignored.”
What in hell is Hugh talkin’ about? He thinks this Muzzy ain’t lying? He’s obviously lyin’, there ain’t no “positive aspects” in the history of Islam from Day Freaking One. “Muslim-Jewish relations” like beheading hundreds of Jews and raping the wives of Jewish men they slaughtered? I’d like whatever Hugh is smokin’
Hugh Fitzgerald says
“I’d like whatever Hugh is smokin’.’
I don’t smoke. Not a puff, of nicotine or marijuana, ever. I drink, very occasionally, a half-glass of wine with dinner. That’s it.My mind is unaffected. My main vice is reading Webster’ 2nd. That does affect my mind.
I am sorry that I have infuriated people –people I like –with this piece, the second in two days where I have shown what a credulous dope I am when it comes to these taqiyya-tossing Saudis. How can I be taken in so easily? I still think that these people should not be instantly dismissed, as they were not dismissed by Yigal Carmon and other editors/and translators at MEMRI. Shobakshi’s piece was not written to fool the Unbelievers but intended for fellow Arabs, whom he is trying to convince that their “obsessive Jew-hatred” is both idiotic and disgusting. .He has nothing to gain, and potentially a lot to lose, from making such statements. I am taking his remarks at face value. He is trying to construct a narrative that will allow for the possibility of some Muslims not hating some Jews. It’s worth a try.
I have not joined Peace Now. Israel must hold on to every last dunam it currently controls. The Arabs in Judea and Samaria should be granted only as much local autonomy as is consonant with Israel’s security. And that’s it. No two-state “solution.” No “solution” at all, just a most imperfect management of the situation.
That means no Arab military force west of the Jordan. As for Gaza, it should be on its own, never to unite with other “Palestinians,” and again, with only as much local autonomy as Israel believes it can safely grant.
gravenimage says
This news is certainly better than the usual “Jews to the gas!” and “We will finish the job Hitler started!” that you usually hear from Muslims.
I’m not sure it bodes much in the long haul–but it’s better than a kick in the head.
Thank you, Hugh.
christianblood says
Next thing to expect from ‘Hugh Fitzgerald’ is praising and propagandizing openly for ISIS & Al-Qaeda and maybe even carrying their black flag! Anyone saying anything good about the Saudi, head-chopping savage state has absolutely NO morals, whatsoever!
Saudi Arabia=ISIS!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnnnOAKWsAE1cN1.jpg
gravenimage says
This article merely reports the facts–something christianblood has *never* had any respect for.
RonaldB says
For christianblood,
As you are a Christian, I’m a bit surprised at your pro-Shiite partisanship vis a vis the Sunni-Shiite divide in Islam. There have been Shiite partisans in the past on JihadWatch, claiming that all terrorism is sponsored by Saudi Arabia and other Sunnis, rather than by the Shiites.
In fact, protection of Christians seems to be related to nationalism rather than sect. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni in majority-Shiite Iraq, protected Christians before the war of aggression waged by the US deposed and assassinated him. Similarly, Assad of Sunni-majority Syria, as an Alawite, protected Christians and Yazidis, among others, before being forced into a civil war by US-backed rebels. Alawites are neither Shiite nor Sunni, but Assad is strongly affiliated with the Shiite Iranians.
As to the claim that only Sunnis promote terror, Hezbollah was a vicious terror organization in Lebanon after the Palestinians were allowed to immigrate to Lebanon. Also, Iran was involved in blowing up Jewish community centers in South America. So, while Sunni may be faintly more aggressive and expansionist, there is plenty of terror left over for the Shiites.
christianblood says
RonaldB
Let us put aside US anti-Iranian propaganda and deal with facts and reality before us please:
According to the (thereligionofpeace.com) there are close to 40.000 Islamic jihad attacks since 9/11, now prove me a single one of them being carried out by Iran, by Hezbollah or by Shiites!!! If you do, I will totally agree with you!
PS: Please understand this: when I say prove me a terrorist attack that was perpetrated by Iran or Hezbollah I mean show me a real terrorist attack like a suicide bombing in a mosque, a cinema, a bar, a church or a school like the one that killed 48 Shiite students in Afghanistan a few days ago. Show me Iranians and Hezbollah members beheading Westerners or Christians or Sunnis on video while screaming allahu akbar! Show me Iranian or Hezbollah terrorists gunning down people in night clubs or bombing trains and churches or attacking news paper offices and killing journalists or using vehicles and killing hundreds of civilians as happen in Europe for the past two years or flying planes into buildings! That is what I mean a terrorist attack which is a daily occurrence around the globe! So go, show me a proven, verifiable terror attacks perpetrated by Iran, by Shiites or Hezbollah!
gravenimage says
Christianblood has previously praised Hezb’allah murdering American troops and Jews–he considers them fair game.
RonaldB says
For christianblood
I gave a detailed list above, but since you ask for a single incident of Hezbollah Shi’ite terror, how about the Jewish Community Center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
True, it happened before 9/11. Does that exempt them?
Perhaps you could list the threats presented by the Jewish community in Argentina in 1994 to justify Hezbollah reaching across the ocean to sponsor an act of pure terror. Or, perhaps it was simply a Muslim Shi’ite terror group showing what it could do whenever it chose to do so.
The Jews do live in relative safety in Iran. This is pursuant to the traditional institution of the dhimmi. One of the features of dhimmihood under sharia is that it can be withdrawn under any real or imagined violation. So, for the entire Jewish community in Iran to be sold as slaves would be as legal under Sharia law as is their protected status today.
How’s that for confidence?
Can you show me any provision against slavery in Shi’ite law?
The US may actually be protecting the Iranian regime. The real brake on their nuclear development is not US sanctions, but Israel. The Iranian government is tweaking Israel because they know Israel is restrained by its alliance with the US, not entirely a good thing for either Israel or the US. Left to its own devices, Israel would probably nuke Iranian nuclear facilities in the face of any real threat. And the Iranians would probably be smart enough not to cross the line, all other things being equal. But, I’m speculating here. The Iranian theocracy has already said it would be willing to sacrifice millions of Iranians to achieve the destruction of Israel.
Renate says
I like reading your articles. If I were a Saudi, I would be encouraged to modernize by reading them.
gravenimage says
Renate, I don’t think that Muslims are much influenced by the desires of the ‘filthy Infidels’.
CRUSADER says
A dunam, also known as a donum or dunum and as the old, Turkish, or Ottoman stremma, was the Ottoman unit of area equivalent to the Greek stremma or English acre, representing the amount of land that could be ploughed by a team of oxen in a day.
— a measure of land area used in parts of the former Turkish empire, including Israel (where it is equal to about 900 square meters).
RonaldB says
For Hugh,
I agree with your views on Israel and the desirability of standing firm. I appreciate your devotion to truth. Agree or disagree with the details, someone who speaks the truth as he sees it is always worth reading and contemplating.
I would add, vis a vis Israel, that I do not support foreign aid or military intervention for Israel. I don’t see a problem in buying technology from them or selling to them. I just think the two countries should be separate entities and it is not the business of the US to involve itself in affairs not directly related to its own security.
FYI says
Oh I see he has not read the koran or hadith..
{Al{ ilah CURSES the Jews k9:30{some nonsense over “And the Jews say..’Ezra is the son of allah’:really,is that what Jews say?}
The “prophet” muhammed{APFh,allah prays for him} CURSES the Jews Sahih Muslim 1082
The “angel” jibreel is the “Enemy of the Jews” Sahih Bukhari vol 4 bk 60 no 3329
Sahih muslim 6985 “There is a Jew behind me..Kill him”
The Jews : “Be ye Apes to be despised and hated” k2:65
{Surely a disgraceful thing to say about Moses and Jesus{Jews}:except of course in islam,Moses and Jesus are MUSLIMS,musa and issa:al-iLah cannot even get the religion of Moses and Jesus right in his “perfect” koran}
As for “Love and respect the Jews”?Alas,no
“Oh ye who believe!Take not the Jews and christians for friends” k5:51
Al-ilah completely missed the 2nd Chief commandment didn’t he{in Judaism and Christianity but not in islam}?
“Obsessive Jew hatred in islam”
hmm.
Let’s see..an..
antisemitic pagan Arab god al -iLah CURSES the Jews k9:30 gives his
antisemitic “scripture”, the koran to his .
antisemitic “prophet” muhammed:a mass-murderer of Jews{Abu dawud 4390}through an..
antisemitic “angel” jibreel{“the ENEMY of the Jews”}
In a cave with conveniently no witnesses.
islam appears to be based on obsessive Jew hatred.
WHEN will muslims ever do their OWN research…?
CRUSADER says
Having been to Israel many times, and studied the situation there,
I agree with the below by 100% !!!
==========================
*The Arabs in Judea and Samaria should be granted only as much local autonomy as is consonant with Israel’s security.
*And that’s it. No two-state “solution.”
*No “solution” at all, just a most imperfect management of the situation.
*That means no Arab military force west of the Jordan.
*As for Gaza, it should be on its own, never to unite with other “Palestinians,” and again, with only as much local autonomy as Israel believes it can safely grant.
==============
PERFECTLY PUT.
RonaldB says
I, and whatever logic I’m capable of producing, agree with you completely. The mainstream Jewish organizations in the US seem obsessed on the “two-state solution”, as well as opposing any expression of real nationalism by Israel. Lots of nationalists in the US, whether they like Jews or not, respect Israel’s devotion to actual nationhood as a great example to follow.
Israel gives the Palestinian Authority PA, as much autonomy as security permits. (Note: of course there are abuses. Show me a government bureaucracy anywhere that doesn’t produce palpable abuses.) Making the West Bank a full-blown state means they would be constantly trying to obtain military weapons. This in turn would force Israel to invade them periodically, or else treat them as an existential threat in any ME conflict. It’s just crazy to claim that you support Israel, and at the same time, push for a two state solution.
CRUSADER says
Crazy, indeed.
Keep the status quo, as tenuous as it may seem.
And if the “palestinians” just can’t handle that,
there is always Jordan for them to occupy.
CRUSADER says
Three Westerners try – and fail – to solve the enigma of Saudi Arabia.
https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/1.5373412
“The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’Ud from Tradition to Terror” by Stephen Schwartz
“Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude” by Robert Baer
“Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism” by Dore Gold
It has been 37 years since I received orders to report as a junior diplomat to the U.S. Embassy in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. As I had just completed a grueling course in colloquial Moroccan Arabic, which was unintelligible in Saudi Arabia, I went kicking and screaming – at least figuratively. What I found there was utterly fascinating: a proud, intensely private and traditionalist people, newly flush with oil money, rushing headlong from somewhere between the 7th and the 18th century into the modern world.
Saudi Arabia was not a household name in those days. It had few of the modern amenities that are associated with the kingdom now. King Faisal shunned the radical Arab nationalism of the Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, against whom he was fighting a proxy war, with covert Israeli aid, on the side of Yemeni royalists in a civil war against the Egyptian-backed republicans. Saudi Arabia had proved a staunch friend of the United States, and following the Arab defeat the following June in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Faisal was one of the few Arab leaders to maintain friendly diplomatic relations with the United States.
Fast forward and the picture is totally changed. Saudi Arabia became a household name in the 1970s when it led the Arab oil embargo against the West, and again in 1990 to 1991 when American troops landed on Saudi soil to repel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The Saudis even put up over $50 billion to pay for the war. But post- September 11, 2001, things have been different. Fifteen of the terrorists that day were Saudi citizens, and their leader, Osama bin Laden, though stripped of his citizenship, was still a Saudi in the eyes of Americans, and was funded by private donations from the Gulf oil states, including Saudi Arabia. What had happened to the staunch personal friendships that existed between the Saudi people and the thousands of Americans who went there to share in the oil wealth and protect the kingdom from outside threats? What happened to the close cooperation between the Saudi government and the American government, dating back to World War II, on a whole range of political, economic and military issues at considerable political costs to both countries? Three books have recently been published, each in its own way challenging whether Saudi Arabia was ever a true friend in the first place, and claiming that the relationship was based on the self-serving American desire for oil revenues and on the self-serving Saudi desire to perpetuate its own corrupt, antidemocratic governmental system and its terrorist campaign to propagate its hate- filled Wahhabi ideology for Islamist world domination.
…
CRUSADER says
…
Wahhabism, the enemy–
In “The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’Ud from Tradition to Terror,” Stephen Schwartz, former Washington bureau chief of the Forward, asserts that mainstream Islam is not the face of the enemy in the war against terror. Rather, the enemy is a fanatical, hypocritical, totalitarian and violent version of Islam called Wahhabism, born in central Arabia, that forms the ideological base of legitimacy for the Saudi regime. The book is basically historical, beginning with the birth of Islam and moving on to the birth of Wahhabism in the 18th century and creation of the Saudi state in 1932, and finally, to the events leading up to September 11 – a melange of the rise of militant secular Arab and Islamic organizations and oil politics and the rise of militant Wahhabi holy war under the tutelage of Saudi Arabia.
“The Two Faces of Islam” is by far the most erudite of the three books, as well as the most sweeping in scope. Schwartz is sympathetic to what he calls “mainstream” Islam, and his scathing view of Wahhabism was shared by many mainstream Muslim scholars and clerics of the 18th and 19th centuries. But the book’s major flaw is Schwartz’s lack of perspective on the human dimension of his subject. He evinces virtually no understanding of Saudi behavior or of the impact of the physical and intellectual environment that molded it.
It would be presumptuous to suggest than any Westerner can see the world through Saudi lenses – so different are Saudi and Western cultures. Still, not to take those differences into account is to risk misinterpreting Saudi behavior as an unending stream of inconsistencies and irrationality. Schwartz appears to have fallen into that trap. To him, apparently, Saudi behavior is driven exclusively by the basest intentions and motivations. True, he demonstrates some familiarity with other Muslim societies; he was an interfaith activist in Kosovo and Bosnia. But little understanding of Saudi behavior can be gained from experience among non-Arabian Muslim populations. In the Islamic world, as in the Western world, one size does not fit all.
Saudi behavior is shaped first and foremost by its ancient and highly conservative Arabian desert culture, which in the seventh century became permeated with Islamic values. That culture, which has remained remarkably stable to the present day, is nevertheless now under unbelievable stress as it collides with the secularizing and dehumanizing effects of oil-financed modernization.
The extraordinary thing about Saudi culture is not that it has resisted modern pop culture, the West’s legacy to the world, but that it has maintained its own cultural identity and values despite the onslaught of modernization. In a world where family structures are disintegrating, the basic unit of Saudi society is still the extended family. One’s first loyalty is to one’s family, whose lineage can be traced back to Ismail, or Ishmael, not to the Saudi monarchy, which can be traced back only to the 18th century, much less to the Saudi nation, which was created only in 1932.
Saudi Arabia is a society run by the elders of extended families who are collectively ruled by the elders of the royal extended family, not a country of individuals ruled by an individual ruler. In this context, the ancient desert culture and customs and the Islamic values and mores of the royal family are the same as those of any other Saudi family. Not to understand this is not to understand commercial, political, social or religious practices in the kingdom.
This is not to challenge the factual content of the case Schwartz presents, highlighting sins of omission and commission attributed to Saudis leading up to September 11. I do challenge, however, the accuracy of his portrayal of Saudi society overall as corrupt, intolerant and vicious, and the doctrine of the Wahhabi reform movement as a doctrine of hate. Such broad generalizations unjustly stereotype a society and its religious beliefs.
…
RonaldB says
Crusader,
I absolutely appreciate your knowledge of the Arab desert culture and its intersection with Wahabi Islam. And with your making the effort to share it with us.
Unless I’m interested in Arab desert Wahabbi culture from an anthropological standpoint, which I’m not, my main interest in the dynamics of Saudi religion and culture is in how it affects the US and Western society and culture. Unfortunately, oil money has brought about more of an intersections than is perhaps good for either society, making it necessary to examine Saudi culture in the light of its influence in the West.
You pointed out that Saudi is more a collection of tribes and tribal loyalty than a coherent country with a well-defined government. Thus, policies can be carried out by tribal factions which seem to reflect government policy, whereas any “government” policy might not be more than the ideas of its dominant family.
Nevertheless, we know that
Important, high-level Saudis were involved in financing and personally supporting and assisting at least some of the 9/11 hijackers in the US;
At least some high-level Saudis had a very good idea of what was going to transpire on 9/11;
Saudi Arabia is buying influence in US communications, political, and educational institutions;
Saudi Arabia finances the construction, staffing, and provisioning of many mosques in western countries, including the US. These mosques preach fundamental, intolerant Islam, including the Jew and infidel-hatred mentioned in the article and in Shobakshi’s critiques;
As long as Saidi Arabia funds fundamentalist, subversive theology in US mosques and Muslim centers, the sociological details of Saudi Arab culture are of secondary importance.
CRUSADER says
…
Spy stories —
Robert Baer is a former CIA case officer, specializing in covert foreign intelligence collection, with experience in the Middle East. In “Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude,” he seeks to trace how American public and governmental greed for oil revenues created an unholy alliance with Saudi Arabia, whose Islamic monarchy he sees as submerged in greed, corruption and Wahhabi extremism. The book is essentially a collection of personal anecdotes strung together with his personal observations and comes across as war stories that a group of retired CIA case officers might presumably relate to each other, suitably embellished and embroidered, late one night over beers.
The book’s chapters all bear evocative titles such “We Deliver Anywhere,” “Pavlov and His Dogs” and “In the War Against Terrorism, You Lie, You Die.” The pulp-spy-novel effect is reinforced by frequent blacked-out sections, presumably to represent sections censored when the manuscript was vetted by the CIA, as published works of all former CIA employees must be. One can only speculate on the degree to which the author and/or the publishers felt that the blackouts would attract potential readers with a prurient interest in secret stuff.
Although Baer exhibits more street smarts than the other two authors, and is relatively more candid and less polemical, his book is far less sophisticated. Gaps in his knowledge of petroleum economics, Islam and Islamic law, and even some of the more rudimentary and easily available facts concerning the House of Saud are quite evident. More interesting, however, is the tone. With its portrayal of a world of perfidy, greed and ineptitude, the book struck the reviewer as written in rage – rage directed not simply at the Saudis and their Wahhabism, but also at American businesses and their Washington supporters, both willing to sell their souls for a barrel of Saudi oil. Rage, too, at the culpability of the CIA, the State Department and the FBI, and even, indirectly, against Israel.
In the end, he focuses on oil, not hate: “Like it or not, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are joined at the hip,” he writes. “Its future is our future.” His solution, if the Saudis do not shape up, is simply to take their oil fields by force, and he outlines how that might be done. Whatever one may think of a policy of grabbing whatever one wants from whomever one does not particularly like, his preference clearly places a higher priority on the vital strategic importance of Saudi oil than on the Saudi contribution to Islamist terrorism.
…
RonaldB says
What opens the US to Saudi influence, more than any other factor, is the fact that Saudi Arabian families fund large parts of US deficit spending through the purchase of US treasuries and US properties. The more limitations the US puts on the ability of Saudis to spend US dollars, the more inflationary pressure is exerted on the US dollar. Politicians want to spend without consequences, so they are forced into confederations with the Saudis.
The US does not need Saudi oil. We outproduce Saudi oil production and produce more energy than we use. It is the money that makes Saudi Arabia dangerous, not the oil. That’s all the US needs: another killing field for US soldiers and an endless ocean of Saudi “refugees” in the colonial war that would be created by a US takeover of Saudi oil fields.
CRUSADER says
…
Narrow focus —
Dore Gold, author of “Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism,” is a former Israeli envoy to the United Nations and foreign policy adviser to former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The scope of his book is narrower than Schwartz’s, beginning with the Wahhabi revival in the 18th century and continuing to the present. Like Schwartz, Gold characterizes Wahhabism as a militant offshoot of mainline Islam, but his emphasis is more narrowly focused on its projection of hatred, a term that is used repeatedly and which appears not only in the title but in the titles of two concluding chapters as well.
Though superficially historical in organization, the book is far more polemical in style, with Gold appearing rather like a prosecuting attorney laying out a case. Wahhabism, he writes in a typical passage, “is nothing less than the religious and ideological source of the new wave of global international terrorism,” exemplified by the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Aside from a highly selective choice of citations, uniformly pejorative, from noted commentators – his expert witnesses – he cites at length incendiary Wahhabi rhetoric and intelligence reports on Saudi charitable support for groups engaged in terrorist acts – his evidence. He concludes his case by arguing that Saudi Arabia must be forced to stop supporting Wahhabi hatred and terrorism in the name of Islam.
By portraying Wahhabism as a political ideology of hatred in which unsanctioned political violence is justified by jihad, Gold ignores the purely religious focus of its central doctrine, Tawhid. The essence of Tawhid is the all-encompassing oneness of God (wahid means “one” in Arabic), as expressed in the profession of faith, “There is no god but God, and Mohammed is His messenger.” Wahhabism teaches that communion with the one true God is accomplished neither through mysticism nor rationalism – a heated debate in the early years of Islam – but only through submission to God’s will as revealed in the Koran and the Sunna, Islam’s “oral law,” and by carrying out God’s will through deeds, both personal and corporate, to uphold virtue and suppress evil. Those deeds constitute jihad in its broadest sense, and are to be carried out by peaceful means and not just through force.
Doctrinally, whatever the excesses of individual Wahhabi clerics and their followers might be, they cannot be blamed solely on the teachings of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab any more than the excesses of American Protestant clerics can be laid at the feet of John Calvin or Martin Luther.
Gold’s reliance on textual analysis also obscures the influence of historical changes in political and social conditions on cycles of violence and nonviolence. Militant jihad decreased somewhat with the decline and fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate in the 11th and 12th centuries, not because of a change of belief but because of a change in the political environment. But in 18th-century Arabia at the time of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, tribal warfare was still endemic. Tribal warriors flocked to the banner of Tawhid not to make peace but to add new meaning and purpose to their ancient warring way of life.
By the 20th century, however, Saudi tribal warfare had disappeared. In 1929, at the battle of Sibila, King Abd al-Aziz crushed the Ikhwan, his Wahhabi tribal warriors who, disgruntled over efforts to resettle them as peaceful farmers, had risen up against him. It was the last major Bedouin battle in history. From then until after World War II, with the exception of a brief war with Yemen in the 1930s, Saudi Arabia had no standing army.
Taken together, these three books do more to detract from than to add to the understanding of Saudi Arabia, its people, its government and its religious creed. Understanding Saudi Arabia does not absolve Saudis from responsibility in aiding and abetting the new global Islamist threat. The record is clear enough on that count. But greater understanding does increase the chances of better analyzing the true nature of our mutual interests and antagonisms and, taking both into account, of formulating more effective policies to maximize the one and reduce the other.
The books also detract from the understanding of the nature of terrorism and the new global terrorist threat that presumably was the motivating factor in authoring them. Blaming Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism as the single greatest source of support for global Islamist terrorism obscures the many complex factors that contribute to terrorist behavior no matter who the terrorists are and what cause they seek to further. Terrorism is seldom a simple matter of brainwashing, as Gold claims. Studies of terrorist behavior show that incendiary ideological rhetoric, written or oral, is not in isolation likely to spawn terrorists. A predisposition toward violence must generally be present to begin the shift toward extremism. The causes of that predisposition are infinite – psychological, sociological, demographic, economic and political – and vary with each individual. Once that threshold is reached, religious, ethnic, national or political ideology, or some combination of them, may then be used as justification to commit acts that otherwise would seem reprehensible. But rarely is an extremist interpretation of ideology so intellectually compelling in the absence of a predisposition to violence as to result in terrorist behavior.
In the 1960s, militant Wahhabi rhetoric was as incendiary as it is now, but few were listening. Arab and Muslim youth predisposed to violence listened to nationalist, socialist and Marxist rhetoric. Since then, Islamist rhetoric has replaced socialist and Marxist rhetoric as the vehicle for expressing political disaffection leading to violence, but Wahhabism is only one of several sources of Islamist ideology; militant jihad is not the exclusive property of Wahhabism. Many factors caused the shift to militant Islamicism, including the discrediting of Nasserism after the 1967 defeat, and in particular, the shared experience of thousands of trained, multinational Muslim guerrillas, the mujahideen, who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan with the support of the United States.
In Central Asia, the collapse of the Soviet Empire was a major factor. What made Islamist terrorism a global threat, however, aside from the revolution in communications, transportation and weapons technology, was not ideology but the appearance of a charismatic leader with extraordinary vision and organizational skills: Osama bin Laden. He raised the consciousness level of discontented Muslim youth from local political grievances to a global cause.
Getting rid of him will not rid the world of terrorism, but neither will fixating on one country and one puritanical religious reform movement. Indeed, the means to commit terrorist acts are too cheap, too available and too tempting ever to be eradicated. The best we can do is to seek to keep this evil within manageable proportions in order to provide basic security for all people.
——————-
David E. Long, a teacher, writer and retired American Foreign Service Officer, is a specialist on Saudi Arabia and a former deputy director of the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism.
………………………………………………………..
RonaldB says
So, I presume “Crusader” is David Long, an expert in Saudi Arabian government and culture.
Thank you. I always appreciate an informed discussion, although I do not commit myself to agreeing with the points made.
To me, the “predisposing factors” is a cop-out. When we speak of causation, we have sufficient conditions and necessary conditions. There may be a multitude of necessary conditions to create a terror threat. The good thing about that is, in a chain of necessary conditions, you only need to block one. If you don’t speak of either necessary or sufficient, the concept of “predisposing” factors is cloudy and not very useful.
To my mind, the necessary factor for domestic Islamic terrorists is that they be physically present. If they’re in Saudi Arabia and not in the US, I don’t really care what their actual doctrine is, or if their doctrine reflects religious, or simply nationalist thinking. It is significant that a large number of the Saudi nationals taking part in 9/11 submitted very sketchy visa visitor applications, and were approved by a tourist-promoting State Department. Once here, many overstayed their visas, with not a bit of followup by the US government.
Western countries are permitting hoards of Muslims and running after Saudi money. England is creating a sharia-compliant financial district because they want Saudi money. Sharia compliance means monetary contributions to Muslim organizations and charities, always a front for terror-financing groups. Hoards of Muslims means loads of mosques and lots of Saudi financing of fundamentalist imams. Now, it’s a mystery where any chain or terror causality could be broken in that scenario, isn’t it?
I mentioned above, a primary, and largely necessary, condition for US susceptibility to Saudi tribal and religious influence is the US government spending deficit and dependency on borrowing from countries like Saudi Arabia.
alex reid says
Typical lie…… respect Jews because Allah said so. Pure, unadulterated BS! Islamic Texts throughout call for the extermination of the Jews, along with the subjugation & murder of everyone else until only Muslims are left. It’s always the same. They push & push & when it looks like there will be a backlash against Muslims, then the patronising platitudes come out. This is to give the impression that there are ‘moderate Muslims. Islam is Islam – NO moderate Islam, NO Islam “Lite”! Just Islam. A backward, Fascistic, vile ideology that has the tag of being a ‘religion’.
What religion has as its Leader & role Model, a bandit, a mass murderer, rapist, a slaver, racist, paedophile, a necrophile? Please tell me & the World, as obviously this is the guy we should say is a “Messiah” & to be followed.
shortfattexan says
Mr. Fitzgerald is correct when he says we should not reflexively ignore anything good that comes out of a Saudi’s mouth, simply because it was uttered by a Saudi.
At the same time we should never accept at face value anything someone says without carefully analyzing the content, the context, and the source’s past history. This is true of everyone, not just the Saudis, but, since history does come into play, it is especially true of the Saudis.
Let’s assume for the moment that Mr. Shobakshi is completely on the level, and really believes everything he is saying (we have no way of knowing if that is the case, but let’s just assume, for now). Does this mean that there is a growing movement of Saudis who want peace and tolerance? No, not really. It just means that one guy said we should be a little nicer to the Jews. It is no indication that anything is changing in the Kingdom. In fact, by itself it means nothing other than what it says – Mr. Shobakshi’s opinion.
And of course the other possibility should not be ignored – the possibility that Mr. Shobakshi is not expressing his true feelings, that this is simply another example of taqiya, intended solely for the purpose of lulling Westerners into an even deeper state of complacent inaction. It certainly should not go unnoticed that this article appeared not in Saudi Arabia, but in a UK-based newspaper.
I would most definitely welcome a change in the Saudis’ attitude towards Israel, and towards infidels in general, but so far all we have is ink on a page (or pixels on a screen, as the case may be), and not even very much of that.
christianblood says
gravenimage & shortfattexan
You can’t tell me why there are thousands of Jews peacefully living in Iran and many dozens of Synagogues there but none in your Saudi Arabian, Qatari and Pakistani allies or in any other islamic/arabic country for that matter!
You are headless chicken full of ‘deep state’ propaganda shit!
marc says
@christianblood continues being disingenuous, Iranian Jews are prisoners, like all other minorities, truly the vilest of situations to be in, if they loved their jews so much in Iran, why don’t they just let them leave? http://www.thetower.org/article/the-silent-scream-of-irans-jews/
RonaldB says
I read the article to which you linked. It corroborates the claim that the Jews are a protected, safe and prosperous community in a totalitarian country. They have to watch their backs and p’s and q’s like any other Iranian.
“The Jews of Iran are not persecuted, but they are very far from free.” Quote from the book.
gravenimage says
Yes–at many times Jews have not even been allowed to leave Iran–they are treated as a cash cow because they work hard and are innovative (as innovative as anyone can be under the Mullahs). This has been the lot of dhimmis many times in Muslim lands.
chrstianblood’s constant demands that we praise this oppression is pretty sickening.
I’m glad that Jews are not currently being mass slaughtered in Iran–but this is a pretty low bar. Disgusting that christianblood does not recognize this.
DP111 says
For Muslims to get rid of all Jews or Christians, carries a few disadvantages
1. The Jizya payment vanishes
2. The emotional satisfaction of knowing that there are people inferior to Muslims who can be beaten or abused.
3. Effective hostages.
gravenimage says
Spot on, DP111.
CRUSADER says
You hit the points perfectly and pithily.
Thank you DP111.
JIm says
Are the Jews in Iran just cash cows?
gravenimage says
Yep.
CogitoErgoSum says
Indeed, and it is not correct to say that Allah commanded the Muslims to love and respect the Jews and Christians. Allah told the Muslims that Jews and Christians are friends only to each other and the Muslims should not take such people as friends or allies (Quran 5:51). Jews and Christians should be fought to make them convert to Islam or brought into submission to paying the Jizya in HUMILIATION (Quran 9:29). Telling people something that is contrary to what is in the Quran will fall flat when people go to the Quran and read what it says. The person saying that Muslims should love and respect Jews and Christians, while Allah does not, will come off as either a fool or a liar.
CRUSADER says
I have to interject that with all this talk about Iran, Shia, and the back and forth with “christianblood”
it may be that if Iran’s extreme regime and state sponsored terror can become overthrown and replaced with liberalized government, akin to women’s rights and widened education systems, and de-escalation of militaristic export of the islamic revolution — perhaps Iran will have a chance at showing what “reform” in Islam may become like….
I’m not holding my breath.
But 2009 was a missed opportunity….
—————————————————-
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-24/why-obama-let-iran-s-green-revolution-fail
Obama wasn’t just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, “The Iran Wars,” Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran’s green movement. Behind the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America’s support.
Solomon reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green movement’s supporters. “The Agency has contingency plans for supporting democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms,” Solomon writes. “But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down.”
At the time, Solomon reports, Obama’s aides received mixed messages. Members of the Iranian diaspora wanted the president to support the uprisings. Dissident Iranians from inside the country said such support would be the kiss of death. In the end, Obama did nothing, and Iran’s supreme leader blamed him anyway for fomenting the revolt.
It’s worth contrasting Obama’s response with how the U.S. has reacted to other democratic uprisings. The State Department, for example, ran a program in 2000 through the U.S. embassy in Hungary to train Serbian activists in nonviolent resistance against their dictator, Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic, too, accused his opposition of being pawns of the U.S. government. But in the end his people forced the dictator from power.
Similarly, when Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze met with popular protests in 2003 after rigged elections, George W. Bush dispatched James Baker to urge him to step down peacefully, which he did. Even the Obama administration provided diplomatic and moral support for popular uprisings in Egypt in 2011 and Ukraine in 2014.
Iran though is a very different story. Obama from the beginning of his presidency tried to turn the country’s ruling clerics from foes to friends. It was an obsession. And even though the president would impose severe sanctions on the country’s economy at the end of his first term and beginning of his second, from the start of his presidency, Obama made it clear the U.S. did not seek regime change for Iran.
It’s debatable whether the U.S. ever did support such a policy. But it’s striking the lengths to which Obama went to make good on his word. As Solomon reports, Obama ended U.S. programs to document Iranian human rights abuses. He wrote personal letters to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei assuring him the U.S. was not trying to overthrow him. Obama repeatedly stressed his respect for the regime in his statements marking Iran’s annual Nowruz celebration.
His quest to engage the mullahs seems to have influenced Obama’s decision-making on other issues too. When he walked away from his red line against Syria’s use of chemical weapons in 2013, Solomon reports, both U.S. and Iranian officials had told him that nuclear negotiations would be halted if he intervened against Bashar al-Assad.
Obama eventually did get a nuclear deal with Iran. Solomon’s book shines in reporting the details of the diplomacy that led to the 2015 accord. American diplomats held two sets of negotiations with Iran — one public channel with the British, Chinese, European Union, French, Germans, Russians and the United Nations — and another, bilateral track established through the Sultanate of Oman. In 2013, U.S. officials shuttled on public busses between two hotels in Geneva to conduct the two tracks before telling their negotiating partners about the formerly secret channel to Iran.
Eventually, the Iranians wore down the U.S. delegation. At the beginning of the talks in 2013, the U.S. position was for Iran to dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure. By the end of the talks in 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry and his team “agreed that Iran would then be allowed to build an industrial-scale nuclear program, with hundreds of thousands of machines, after a ten year period of restraint.”
Other U.S. red lines were demolished too. The final deal would allow the U.N. ban on Iranian missile development to phase out after eight years, and the arms embargo against Iran to expire after five. Iran would not have to acknowledge that it had tried to develop a nuclear weapon, even though samples the Iranians collected at its Parchin facility found evidence of man-made uranium.
In one particularly revealing passage, Solomon captures the thinking of Kerry, who engaged in detailed negotiations over the deal in the final months of the talks. “So many wars have been fought over misunderstandings, misinterpretations, lack of effective diplomacy,” Kerry told Solomon in a 2016 interview. “War is the failure of diplomacy.”
Kerry’s diplomacy succeeded. But the Middle East got war nonetheless. “The Revolutionary Guard continues to develop increasingly sophisticated weapons systems, including ballistic missiles inscribed with threats against Israel on their nose cones,” Solomon writes in the book’s concluding chapter. “Khamenei and other revolutionary leaders, meanwhile, fine-tune their rhetorical attacks against the United States, seeming to need the American threat to justify their existence.”
There was a chance for a better outcome. There is no guarantee that an Obama intervention would have been able to topple Khamenei back in 2009, when his people flooded the streets to protest an election the American president wouldn’t say was stolen. But it was worth a try.
Imagine if that uprising had succeeded. Perhaps then a nuclear deal could have brought about a real peace. Instead, Obama spent his presidency misunderstanding Iran’s dictator, assuring the supreme leader America wouldn’t aid his citizens when they tried to change the regime that oppresses them to this day.
RonaldB says
For CRUSADER
I appreciate your erudite, fact-filled post. That doesn’t mean I agree with it.
Robert Spencer’s book “Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran” points out that the leader of the Green Revolution was also an islamist, just of a different stripe than the ayatollahs in charge of Iran.
I do not think the US should be intervening in the affairs of foreign countries, unless direct US security is involved. By direct, I mean physical security, not commercial interests. Did the US interventions in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, Egypt have beneficial consequences? These interventions and their presumably unintended consequences are not the rolling disasters of US interventions in the Middle East, but they come pretty close. For example, our intervention in Ukraine might well conclude with a nuclear war, and advanced the cause of democracy and popular government not one whit.
I have nothing against the US making a public statement of support for the Green Revolution. I have lots against any actual interventions in their favor. They were exactly right: any assistance by the US would taint any achievement they could make. The worst thing, by far, the US could do would be to encourage Green Revolution activists to take chances based on the promise of support by the US. That got Hungarian rebels killed in 1956.