What Arab Spring? This is Saudi Winter! – by Abdul Basit

Related post: Saudi winter in the Middle East and Hamas militants’ attack on Shia Muslims in Gaza

The public lynching and gruesome murder of Libyan dictator Maumar Qaddafi is not a matter to be celebrated; rather it represents another victory for the Saudis and their well placed and petro-dollar funded Ikhwan lobbies in the White House (e.g., Dalia Mogahed) and North America (organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MSA etc).

This is not meant to defend Qaddafi, a ruthless dictator and tyrant who had tyrannized Libya for decades as well as the complicity of his regime in the Lockerbie bombing and the alleged execution of “disappeared” charismatic Lebanese Shia Muslim leader , Musa Al-Sadr.  Al-Sadr’s popularity cut across the religious and sectarian divides in Lebanon as he did his best to (unsuccessfully) prevent Lebanon from descending into civil war in the 1970’s.

Al-Sadr had inspired the poor and disenfranchised Lebanese Shia Muslims to pull themselves up and stake their rightful claim as citizens in a democratic and diverse Lebanon.  Aside from taking the initiative and reaching out to Lebanon’s Maronite Christain community, Musa Al-Sadr was also critical of PLO’s tactics of targeting civilians.   For challenging Qaddafi in Libya, Musa Al-Sadr was allegedly held and subsequently executed by the Qaddafi regime.   After the public lynching of Qaddafi by the Al Qaeda mobs, one will never know what happened to Musa  Al-Sadr.   Like Slobodan Milosovic, Qaddafi should have been tried in Hague;  instead he was executed by the bloom of the “Arab Spring” – the brainwashed youths affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Today, Libya is as far away from becoming a tolerant, democratic and moderate nation as is Egypt.  Similar to the lynching and attacks on Egypt’s indigenous Coptic Christain community by the Muslim Brotherhood linked thugs, the Libyan “rebel” Al Qaeda militias have already attacked scores of Sufi shrines, consistent with an intolerant, narrow sectarian Saudi-Salafi agenda. The contradiction of opposing the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while supporting the Al Qaeda NTC in Libya is clearly lost on the US and NATO.  They appear to be following a confused and compromised policy that could probably be dictated by Ikhwan lobbyists in the White House .

From ensuring that the Egyptian Army accommodates the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) in Egypt to crushing the genuine pro-democracy movement in Bahrain, Yemen and also within KSA, the Saudis are calling the shots over a vast stretch of the Middle East and West Asia.

The Arab Spring is as much an oxymoron as flowers blooming in Nejd.  Substitute Tahrir Square for the far smaller rallies in Lahore and Rawalpindi and the showering of rose petals on the murderer Mumtaz Qadri with the lynching of Qaddafi and one can best describe the “Lawyer’s Movement” whose results have been the freeing of mass murderers (Malik Ishaq, Qari Saifullah Akhtar, Hafiz Saeed) and the selective targeting of pro-democracy parties.  For attempting to divert the ISI-initiated “Lawyers’ Movement” into the political mainstream while simultaneously opposing the Taliban, the late Benazir Bhutto was first sidelined with   blatantly biased judgements and then executed by the Pro-Saudi Deep State.

In the daze of the “Arab Spring” few have asked the question as to why the Saudis are supporting the Al Qaeda bloom in Libya?

After 9/11, there was a significant shift in Qaddafi’s geo-political stance. He openly condemned the attacks of 9/11 and positioned himself against the Saudi Salafi lobby and Al Qaeda. The much publisized distance between KSA and Al Qaeda is as genunine as the alleged rift between Pakistan’s military establishment and the Haqqani Network. He was also against nuclear proliferation and was working actively to rejoin the commity of nations. Therefore, he could no longer be relied upon by the Saudis who want pliant regimes from Indonesia to the Ivory Coast in Africa and an accomodation of Salafist political doctrine as espoused by Hasan Al Banna, Syed Qutb and Mawdodi in the heartland of North America and Europe. In the end, the Arab Spring ensured a cosmetic change in Egypt and Libya while making sure that genuine democracy movements were crushed in Bahrain, Yemen and within Saudi Arabia itself.

For example, see this harsh exchange of allegations and counter-allegations between Saudi King Abdullah and Libyan dictator Qaaddafi:


For English translation, review this link:

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and the army used the Tahrir Square protestors as pawns.  In Pakistan,  elitist civil society, by and large, was always the pawn of the military establishment and they had no moral trepidations in hitching their wagon with the Jamaat-e-Islami, Sipah-e-Sahaba and Al Qaeda thugs and their backers and apologists like Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Imran Khan, Mubashir Hasan, Nasim Zehra, Tahira Abdullah and Hamid Gul.  In Pakistan, human rights and civil society activists have often acted as willing or unwitting mouthpieces of the military establishment, as reflected in their various statements and published reports.

In South Asia, the Pakistan army itself is the most loyal pawn  of Saudi Arabia, along with the various Jihado-sectarian militant groups that include the Taliban and  Sipah-e-Sahaba/ Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, LeT etc. Asif  Zardari, who is hated by the pro-army urban elites, is incidentally also hated by the monarchal regime in Saudi Arabia – that alone should raise his stature amongst those who value democracy, secularism and a tolerant society.  For the common admirers of the Arab Spring and the Lawyers’ Movement in Pakistan, they should see this clip of a Saudi activist demanding rights for the marginalized Saudis and the Bahrainis who have been brutally massacred and disenfranchised by the Saudi and Pakistani mercenaries.

Libya has proved that the “Arab Spring” is really a “Saudi Winter”; it will bring nothing but a stark, harsh and gloomy future to all those concerned.

19 responses to “What Arab Spring? This is Saudi Winter! – by Abdul Basit”

  1. So Saudis are the main source of problems. They deserve the same fate as Gaddafi & others met.

  2. Saudis Are our Brothers.. They supported us when all countries left us and helped us to fight India back..

    Nothing u can say will let us hate our brothers.. U’re an Iranian agent ..anything happens to Saudis ,Iran will pay the price remeber that tratour ..

  3. Saudis are the enemies of Islam. They have divided the Muslims along narrow sectarian lines through their petro dollars and wahabi ideology.

  4. What Qaddafi says in this video is quite right about the situation in the Arabian peninsula. The Saudi royal family was installed by the British Empire as a proxy against the Ottoman Caliphate. The father of the current ruling family was funded by Britishers and since then has been protected by the American govt.

  5. Gaddafi Storms Out Of Arab Summit, Slams Saudi King For Pro-Americanism

    AP | March 30, 2009 09:26 AM

    Doha, Qatar – Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi stormed out of an Arab summit on Monday after denouncing the Saudi king for his long ties to the West.

    Gaddafi disrupted the opening Arab League session in Qatar by taking a microphone and criticising Saudi’s King Abdullah, calling him a “British product and American ally”.

    Gaddafi has harboured a grudge against Abdullah since exchanging harsh words during a summit in early 2003 shortly before the US-led invasion of Iraq.

    “Now after six years, it has proved that you were the liar,” Gaddafi said, adding that he now considered their “problem” over and was ready to reconcile.

    But when the emir of Qatar tried to quiet Gaddafi, the Libyan leader insisted on speaking to the summit.

    “I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam (leader) of Muslims and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level,” Gaddafi said before getting up and walking out of the hall.

    A Libyan delegate said Gaddafi went to the Islamic museum in Doha for a tour.

    The Libyan leaders is known for his unpredictable behaviour and it’s not clear whether he will rejoin the two-day summit.

    Gaddafi has angered other Arab leaders with his sharp remarks at past summits.

    Last year, he poured contempt on fellow Arab leaders at a summit in Syria and warned that they might be overthrown like former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein.

    He boycotted the 2007 summit in Saudi Arabia but gave a televised speech saying “Liza” – referring to former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – had dictated the gathering’s agenda.

    In 2005, he told the summit in Algeria that Palestinians and Israelis are “stupid”. A year earlier, he sat smoking cigars on the conference floor of the Tunisia summit to show his contempt for the other leaders.


  6. Gaddafi trades insults with Saudi prince

    03/03/2003 – 16:01:34
    Libya today recalled its ambassador to Saudi Arabia for consultations following a heated and public exchange of insults between Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at an Arab summit.

    The official JANA news agency said the Libyan parliament, expressed “strong discontent for the verbal attack launched against the positions of the great revolution and its symbol, leader Moammar Gaddafi.”

    Gaddafi, talking at a summit being broadcast live on Saturday by most Arab satellite television stations, said that during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he had spoken with Saudi King Fahd about Libya’s concern over the presence of US troops in the kingdom.

    “King Fahd told me that his country was threatened and that he would cooperate with the Devil to protect it,” Gaddafi said.

    Muslims consider co-operating with Satan a sin, and to attribute such a remark to King Fahd – who holds the revered position of custodian of Islam’s two holiest shrines – would be particularly offensive.

    Before the live feed was cut off, Crown Prince Abdullah angrily responded: “Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country and not an agent of colonialism like you and others.”

    Wagging his finger at Gaddafi, Abdullah said: “You, who brought you to power? Don’t talk about matters that you fail to prove. Your lies precede you, while the grave is ahead of you.”

    A bewildered Gaddafi replied: “By God, I don’t know how I am going to answer this man.”

    After the exchange was broadcast, thousands of anti-Saudi demonstrators took to the streets in Tripoli, the Libyan capital. Some tried to break into the Saudi Embassy but were dispersed by riot police using tear gas and batons.

    Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said Gaddafi had not apologised to Prince Abdullah because “he who does not have the characteristics of men and does not have noble principles cannot do such things.”

    Furthermore, Prince Saud said, a noble man “would not commit acts that call for apologies.”

    “Every official must master communicating with others,” he added.

    Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2003/0303/world/snaumheykf/#ixzz1bXWmiTxL

  7. very nice…A to Z ………..it is SAUDI wahabi rulers which have turned this world in to Hell by spreading terrorism in the name of Islam….

  8. Abdul-Aziz came into power after he got support from Ikhwaan and made deal with them to fight Al Rashid. After conquest of Nejd he went ahead to face Ottomons and then Sharif Hussain of Hijjaz, it is there when British decided to stop supporting Sharif and recognized AlSaud, they were nevertheless supporting him long before and he was supplied with arma and ammunition. British were instrumental in his conquest of Hijaz, people of Jeddah tell stories how British ships have siezed the shores of Jeddah and the port and demanded that city should be handed over to AlSaud.
    Since beginning Saudis have used Ikhwaan as hands and legs and foreign powers(Britain and US) as enablers both financially and technically. They have along with their enablers successfully used this combination in Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan etc.

  9. Libya’s new leader declares an Islamic state
    Posted By Blake Hounshell Sunday, October 23, 2011 – 1:07 PM Share

    In February, when Libya erupted in spontaneous protests that quickly turned into an armed revolt, Muammar al-Qaddafi and his son Seif al-Islam had a ready response: This was an al Qaeda-backed uprising, a plot to install “Islamic emirates” paying homage to Osama bin Laden.

    The world scoffed (especially after the Qaddafis accused the revolutionaries of a lot more outlandish things, from putting hallucinogenic drugs in their Nescafe to being simple “criminals”). These weren’t jihadist terrorists — they were ordinary Libyans seeking freedom from an evil, capricious tyrant. And their leaders were secular liberals, people like Mahmoud Jibril, Mahmoud Shammam, and Ali Tarhouni — who sold the revolution to the West and made NATO intervention politically palatable.

    This narrative was challenged as it became evident that some of the best anti-Qaddafi fighters were Islamists like the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which was later accused by some of killing interim “defense minister” Abdel Fattah Younis. Then, when Tripoli fell in August, one of the most prominent figures to emerge was Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the bearded former emir of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Belhaj — who claims to have been tortured by the CIA — was at pains to differentiate himself from al Qaeda, but his sudden ascension took many by surprise. Leading Libyan Islamists like exiled cleric Ali al-Sallabi began to agitate against the secularists on the interim council, and Jibril’s continuance in office became untenable.

    All this, however, was merely an undercurrent, and the world got swept up in the excitement of the fall of Tripoli and the subsequent liberation of Qaddafi’s strongholds in Bani Walid and Sirte. Last week, the Brother Leader himself was captured and appears to have been executed later that day.

    The issue of religion in politics came roaring back Sunday, however, when interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, thought to be a moderate, declared in his “liberation” address that Libya would be an Islamic state and that sharia law would be a fundamental source of legislation. That remark differed little from statements he had made previously, however (and all Arab states have similar provisions in their constitutions). What did catch people’s attention was when he got into specifics: Libya’s new constitution “will not disallow polygamy,” he said, and charging interest will be forbidden.

    Libyans seemed satisfied, but secular Arab commentators were taken aback. Sultan al-Qassemi, an Emirati columnist, tweeted that Abdel Jalil had just declared “the Islamic Republic of Libya.” Gulf News editor Abdul Hamid Ahmad said “Mustafa Abdul Jalil has just given an evidence to all [the] world that [the] Arab uprising will end up to be Islamic states.”

    No doubt the international press is going to have a field day, and there will be some serious soul-searching in Western capitals, especially coming after the shocking way in which Qaddafi was killed and the far-from-transparent way in which his autopsy was conducted.

    It’s hardly surprising that Libya is heading in a more religious direction — the vast majority of Libyans are conservative Muslims, after all — but what is somewhat alarming is the way Abdel Jalil simply decreed these things from the podium. If Libyans want to outlaw interest and bring back polygamy, fine, but let them do so in a democratic and transparent way: Write a new constitution and let the country vote on it.

    What’s amazing is that Abdel Jalil’s speech happened on a day when, next door, Tunisians lined up to vote in what look to be free and fair elections to choose a constitutional assembly. Maybe they’ll end up granting a plurality to the moderate Islamist Ennahda party, and maybe a coalition of liberal and leftist parties will emerge to promote a secular state. Either way, the important thing is that the people are getting a chance to choose in an open and institutionalized process. After today, the gnawing doubts that Libyans will be able to do the same will only grow.

    UPDATE: I should note that others had a different interpretation of Abdel Jalil’s speech. Al Jazeera English reports him calling for “a democratic state based on Islamic law” (their paraphrase) and quote him saying, “We strive for a state of the law, for a state of prosperity, for a state that will have Islamic sharia law the basis of legislation.”

    I should also add that, while there are clear differences between technocrats like Tarhouni and Islamists like Belhaj, I don’t think religion will much be a faultline in Libyan politics — it’s pretty clear where the bulk of the population stands: in the conservative middle. What is worrisome are the clear geographic faultlines — between east and west, for instance, or between the Western mountains and the coast. Perhaps, then, Islam can serve as a glue that unifies the country as splits begin to emerge over reconstruction, how to distribute oil revenues, and the some $200 billion Qaddafi left behind.


  10. one who challenges the dictatorship of Saudi-Zionist Imperialist Alliance is “brutal dictator”. what a hypocritical use of English!!!

    Qaddafi was the most beloved leader of Libya. He was a Messiha for his masses while ‘Viagra-using’ Kings of Arab countries are slaves of US Imperialism.

    “zaaghoon kay tasaraf me shaheenoon ka nasheman”