Doctrine of armed jihad or doctrine of Saudi Wahhabi caliphate?
Woolwich: Muslim reaction, Saudi connection and inept state -by Ale Natiq
Woolwich Beheading: Educating the West about the Wahhabi brand of terror – by Rusty Walker
While the world is being wrecked by terrorist acts of Wahhabi-Deobandi extremists right from Boston to Woolwich and Madrid to Kabul, a concerted effort is being made to hide the central role of the supremacist, totalitarian ideology that is being spread by Saudi Arabia.
- 95 percent of terrorists follow shades of Saudi literalist ideology, i.e., Takfiri Wahhabi-Deobandi sect
The Saudi Kingdom along with its protege states like UAE, Qatar etc is an epicentre for spreading this supremacist ideology in the form of virulent intolerant strand of Islam, i.e., Wahhabi-Salafi ideology. In South Asia and Afghanistan, the Deobandi sub-sect is closely aligned with and generously funded by the Saudis.
All attempts to divert attention away from this core issue (i.e. the pursuit of worldwide Saudi Wahhabi Caliphate) are tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. Those who are a part of such obfuscation are either wittingly or unwittingly complicit in the Saudi Salafist agenda.
Saudi Arabia has invested billions of dollars from Indonesia to North America and from South Africa to Scandinavia in order to promote its Wahhabi-Salafi doctrine in the shape of mosques, madrassas, media, think tanks and advocacy groups.
Consequently in the global mainstream media, there is a coordinated and deliberate effort to hide, dilute and obscure the ideology of the Wahhabi-Salafi perpetrators of violence. Similar efforts are undertaken to obfuscate the fact that terrorism in the West as well as in Muslim countries remains, in the main, a Wahhabi-Deobandi phenomenon.
A few cases of violence by other Muslim sects or sub-sects are statistically insignificant. However the Saudi lobby and its propagandists inflate them out of proportion to hide the Wahhabi-Deobandi monopoly on violence. Indeed, Ahmadis are not hijacking planes, Shia Ismailis are not burning shrines in Mali, and Sunni Sufis are not gruesomely murdering British soldier in Woolwich.
An often used tactic by certain respected Western journalists (e.g., Declan Walsh of the New York Times, Sadanand Dhume of the Wall Street Journal etc) is to resort to sweeping generalizations and describe the Wahhabi-Deobandi militants as Sunni extremists. Besides dangerous stereotyping, this tactic also obfuscates the central role of the Saudi Wahhabi Kingdom which not only provides ideological impetus to terrorists but also provides them with financial, moral and political support.
Another tactic is to use half truths in order to mask the guiding ideology behind terrorism.
A term that is being used by some sections of the mainstream media is the doctrine of armed jihad. This once again serves to hide the Wahhabi-Deobandi identity of terrorists. While it is a fact that Wahhabi-Deobandi terrorists from Mali to Libya and from Syria to London make ample use of the ideology of Jihad to justify and promote their violent agenda, the doctrine of armed Jihad is an insufficient and incomplete raison d’etre for Wahhabi-Deobandi terrorism. Jihad literally means struggle, and is a tenant for all Muslims.
An important question being ignored is: whose doctrine of armed Jihad are we talking about?
Internally Muslims are themselves suffering from this tension and obfuscation. There are plenty of examples of how Wahhabis-Deobandi militants justify violence against Sunni Barelvis, Shias, Ahmadis etc in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, Libya, Mali, Iraq etc.
Jihad is neither homogeneous nor a unitary concept. In Islam, struggle within one’s sole and defining the moral compass from within is considered a bigger Jihad. In contrast, the doctrine of armed Jihad (described as lesser Jihad by Sunni Sufis, Shias and Ahmadis) has different interpretations and different significance for different sects. And the proof of this is manifested in statistics of terrorism from Mali to Mumbai and from Islamabad to New York. Look at the (almost non-existent) number of Sunni Barelvi, Shia or Ahmadi Muslims involved in an act of terror and compare that number with the number of Wahhabi-Deobandi terrorists, e.g. 9/11 bombers, Faisal Shehzad, Major Nadal Hasan, Bali Bombers, Madrid terrorists, 7/7 bombers, Woolwich and Boston attackers etc.
On the contrary, Shia Muslims and Sunni Sufis worldwide are the biggest victims of the Wahhabi-Deobandi violence. Failure to highlight this important detail is an indicator of true intentions of those who want to obfuscate the role of Saudi Arabia.
In fact, the pursuit of a worldwide totalitarian Wahabi Caliphate is the primary root cause of religiously motivated violence in the name of Islam. That’s why simply pointing out the notion of armed Jihad not only gives an incomplete picture but also masks the Wahhabi-Deobandi Takfiri agenda. Using the doctrine of armed Jihad to explain horrific acts of terrorism is intellectually lazy and politically useless.
Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi-Deobandi militants promote their agendas on two fronts through two different but interconnected tools. On the internal front, they use the notion of the Takfeer (apostatizing) to suppress and eliminate all non-Wahhabi non-Deobandi Muslims (e.g., Sunni Sufi, Shia, Ahmadi, Alawites etc). On the external front, they use the convoluted Wahhabi Salafist notion of armed Jihad to promote their violent agenda. However, armed Jihad is only a tool, not the objective. Anyone who condemns the tool but obscures the identity and guiding ideology of the perpetrator is either naive or intellectually compromised.
Also, it is important to note that Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq, Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Al Nusrah Front in Syria, Sipah Sahaba in Pakistan etc are different shades of the same Wahhabi-Salafi supremacist ideology.
The pursuit of global Wahhabi Khilafah is clearly promoted by the 20th-century writings of such Slafi Deobandi Islamists as Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Al Zawahiri of Al Qaeda, and Syed Maudoodi of Jamaat-e-Islami of Indo-Pakistan. Such writings in turn are inspired by the ideology of the 14th century Salafist cleric Ibn Taymiyyah.
The central tenant of this supremacist ideology is to create artificial binaries between Muslims and non-Muslims and also between Sunni and Shia Muslims, therefore justifying murder and violence. Hence, simply stating that the doctrine of armed Jihad is the cause of terrorism is to put the cart before the horse. Even worse, this also completely obscures and hides the Saudi agenda that has the world in the grip of its fascist ideology today.
Saudi Arabia and the Rise of the Wahhabi Threat
Posted on Fri, May 7, 2010 at 13:20 pm CEST
Email | Print | RSS | Comment |
Still a current article on the dangers of Wahhabism.
Originally published by The Middle East Forum; february 27, 2003; Saudi Arabia and the Rise of the Wahhabi Threat.
A briefing by Stephen Schwartz,
the Al-Saud Kings
Al-Qaeda represents Wahhabism in its purest form – a violent fundamentalist doctrine that rejects all non-Wahhabi Islam, especially the spiritual forms of Islam. Wahhabism is an expansionist sect intolerant of Shi‘ite Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism; in fact, Wahhabists seek to challenge and destroy these faiths. The Saudi-Wahhabi threat must not be underestimated; it requires our grave attention.
A History of Violence
Contrary to prevalent Western beliefs, Wahhabism is not an old Islamic tradition and the House of Saud does not enjoy a credible historic claim to rule over Arabia. Indeed, Wahhabism emerged only 250 years ago under the guidance of an obscure fanatic known as Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab who later formed an alliance with a group of desert bandits, the Sauds. From the time they established their covenant to the creation of the modern Saudi state, the Saudi-Wahhabi movement spread across the peninsula brutally defeating and enslaving non-Wahhabi elements.
A substantial body of nineteenth century scholarship does exist to confirm the bloody rise of the Saudi-Wahhabi state. Thomas Hope, a British author, wrote extensively about the Wahhabi spread from his travels throughout the Middle East. In his novel Anastasius, he described Wahhabi agents in words that will be strikingly familiar to modern readers: as extremist puritans bent on dominating the Muslim world by adopting tactics reminiscent of Al-Qaeda’s calculated savagery.
The theological and political pact between the Saud clan and the Wahhabists resulted in the fall of Mecca for the second and last time in 1924, solidifying their grip on power. After the conquest of Mecca, the vast oil wealth of the kingdom would be used to export a radical Wahhabist ideology across the globe.
Nerve Center of Islamic Extremism
Even after September 11, the Wahhabi bureaucracy in Saudi Arabia continues to foster religious extremism. When bombs go off in Israel, Kenya, Indonesia, and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia is still the main source of the terrorist money. The kingdom is an unwavering nerve center of ideological indoctrination, incitement, and terrorist financing.
From time to time, the Saudi elite attempts to confuse Western opinion by claiming that it too is the target of Islamic terror, a rather hollow gesture to hide its complicity in terrorism. Saudi Arabia, being a police state, the monarchy long ago could have ridded itself of extremist elements. But the sobering reality is that international terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda are directly impelled by Saudi clerics. To recover their credibility in the eyes of more reactionary factions after years of excess, the Saudi family has embarked on an ambitious global campaign to support incubators of violence and extremism from Algeria to the Philippines. In sum, Al-Qaeda would not exist absent Saudi money and membership.
Washington needs to end its delusion that the Saudi royal family is a moderating force within Saudi politics when the realty is that it has produced a well-funded launch pad for a fascist ideology. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of Saudi apologists. The so-called specialists and academics continue to argue that Islamic terror is the consequence of Islam enduring Western humiliation. But in fact, Saudi Arabia has never been subjugated by the West, instead it has only been cuddled and bribed to ridiculous extremes. And in turn the West has received a torrent of violence and hateful venom.
Equally as erroneous is the contention that an accommodation of non-Wahhabi religions is somehow a break with traditional Islam. This absurd notion is blatantly untrue. Qatar, another Wahhabi state, has actually authorized the establishment of churches. Also, neighboring Bahrain contains thriving Christian, Jewish, and Hindu communities. One can even find a Hindu temple in Oman.
After decades of theocratic oppression, the vast majority of the Saudi people are restive for the following reasons: 1.) The Shiite minority in the southern and eastern provinces are tired of the violent persecution they have suffered at the hands of the Wahhabist clergy. 2.) The young people of Saudi Arabia want to live in a modern society where they can utilize their enterprising talents and energies to build a prosperous future. 3.) Lastly, non-Wahhabi scholars are already calling on the royal family to reject the officially sanctioned intolerant state religion and replace it with pluralistic Ottoman-Islamic traditions. Remarkably, thousands of young people are turning to Sufism as an expression of protest against the entrenched religious establishment.
The transition to a reasonably open Malaysian parliamentary model from its current medieval state need not be catastrophic. The Saudi monarchy could remain as a symbolic body with power concentrated in a representative legislature. Indeed, the position that a more strict Islamic system might emerge if the House of Saud is brushed aside is ludicrous. Proponents of this view often cite the emergence of an Iranian-style regime as a possible consequence. However, this is a specious historical analogy since the Iranian people never experienced the harsh strictures of Islamic law prior to the ascension of the Islamic Republic. The people of Saudi Arabia know this repression all too well and they are dead tired of it.
Saudi Arabia and its militant Islamic doctrines constitute a clear and present danger to the United States and the international community. The U.S. should demand a full accounting of Saudi complicity in the September 11th terrorist attacks. We should no longer accept the status quo and forcefully pressure the kingdom to cut its ties to terrorism.
This summary account was written by Zachary Constantino, a research assistant at the Middle East Forum.
About the author,
Stephen Schwartz is a senior policy analyst with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies based in Washington, DC. As a journalist, he covered the Balkans in the 1990s for the San Francisco Chronicle. His latest book is The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud from Tradition to Terror (Doubleday, 2002). He spoke to the Middle East Forum in New York on February 27, 2003.
Saudi Arabia: Rise In Domestic Abuse Cases
WikiLeaks: Saudi Arabia Rated a Bigger Threat to Iraqi Stability than Iran
The Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia seeks strike on Iran
Caliph-King inn tasveero ko daikh kar buhat khush ho ga shabasi day ga! — Gubbar-e-Islam.
Takfiri Wahabi-Salafi-Deobandi are hypocrites (Munafiq) and terrorists.
(This does not apply to non-Takfiri Wahabi-Salafi-Deobandi people.)
This post has nothing to do with reality. This article is only to get attention from specific mind of people.
this article gives only the details of the reaction of the Saudi Arabia and other islamic ideologies and states……but it do not describe the root causes of the terrorism…..let me give the reason or the justification for the “acts of terrorism”.. Iraq was attacked by USA 1991 and also 2003. afghanistan attacked 2001. Kashmir is on fire since 1947. Kashmir is the most militarized zone in the world. India has killed more than 70,000 Kashmiris. Russia has killed tens of thousands in Chechnia. 14 NATO states attacked Libya and so on and so on…………. now the muslims all over the wowrld are reacting to this………..i hope this explains it.