WHY MOSLEMS CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM HISTORY










Sing a song of Hist'ry
pocket full o' lies?
Twenty-four billion Saracens?
Baked in into pies.
When the pies were opened,
They started to attack.
Wasn't that a big mistake
To let them mus'lm'ns back?

(footnotes ** and ***)



Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.*
George Santayana

Look at the failures when at fighting against Islam in the past--don't repeat them--and look at the successes: how was it beaten back? Battles and Wars.

BUT, and this is a big BUT:

What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are 'the lessons of history'? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.
Gerda Lerner:

Superb! Post that in your brain!


We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events.
Gerda Lerner

Ditto!


I worshipped dead men for their strength,
Forgetting I was strong.
Vita Sackville-West

ENGRAVE THAT IN YOUR BRAIN! (me hearties!*)


Brief Interlude:


Take a page from History -1:

How to fight the musulmans. Not exactly the same way, not even parallels, but take ideas and turn them into tactics.

To the Shores of Tripoli

(Fighting the Barbary Pirates 1804 AD)

[United States Navy Lt. Stephen] Decatur and his small crew disguised as North Africans sailed the Barbary ketch into Tripoli harbor on the night of February 15, 1804. The tiny craft bumped into the Philadelphia [a United states vessel captured by the Mahometan pirates] , and Decatur's boarding party flung grappling hooks to lash the rails together. Then yelling and screaming, they leaped onto the deck of the frigate. As a [Mahometan] pirate reported later, the Americans "sent Decatur on a dark night, with a band of Christian dogs fierce and cruel as the tiger, who killed our brothers and burnt our ships before our eyes." Decatur's men wielded tomahawks and killed twenty pirates in as many minutes, chasing the rest over the side. Only one raider was wounded before the Philadelphia was set afire in four places. Then the Americans withdrew (Castor, 1971).

* * *
When British Admiral Lord Nelson heard of the raid, he called it "the most bold and daring act of the age." Decatur, just twenty-five, won promotion to captain-then the highest rank in the navy-and remains the youngest man ever to be so honored (Bobby-Evans, 2001).

[and this while Europeans were still paying tribute to these Saracens]

Read the entire Tripoli campaign against the Mahometan pirates at

http://islamicdanger4u.blogspot.com/2008/02/to-shores-of-tripoli.html

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/10/to-shores-of-tripoli.html


Recess 's over, me hearties, let's go back into what we can learn from history about how to fight the Sararacen:


other good quotes about History:


HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.
Ambrose Bierce

True or False? Just because somebody said it, and it's quoted, doesn't mean it represents what is true.

The accounts may not be accurate, but the events are often important (Islam defeated at the Gates of Vienna). that the "rulers" were, and are, mostly knaves (self-seeking) we find to be true. But soldiers as fools? No! Soldiers may be dupes, may be pawns, but fools--never! Soldiers are used, let us, the people in arms, make certain that they are used rightly.


History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are.
David McCullough:

No harm's done to history by making it something someone would want to read.
David McCullough:


(I'm changing style of presentation here to save time and effort--mine)


Denise Levertov:
I don't think one can accurately measure the historical effectiveness of a poem; but one does know, of course, that books influence individuals; and individuals, although they are part of large economic and social processes, influence history. Every mass is after all made up of millions of individuals.

On this, see how individuals, influenced by books (ideas), part of the economic and social processes of a country, can influence the present, which will one day soon (all too soon) become "history" at

http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/12/propaganda-secrets-of-rich-and-famous.html


Edward Gibbon:
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past.

Etienne Gilson:
History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.

Gustave Flaubert:
Our ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times.

Too true! and then we slander our own culture, civilization, country.


Jawaharial Nehru:
A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the sound of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.

Nehru: not one of my favorite people (sold out to the Moslems--people of the Bharat, correct me if I err), The first part of that statement holds true for our time. The Age without Islam in our Midst has ended. The second part applies to India throwing off the British Raj. Good or Bad? Good, if only the government of India (like ours, the US's) does not cater to the enemy--within and without.


Karl Marx:
It is not "history" which uses men as a means of achieving -- as if it were an individual person -- its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends.

Second sentence is too true.

Karl Marx:
History does nothing; it does not possess immense riches, it does not fight battles. It is men, real, living, who do all this

"history" per se is like "Islam," it does not exist without humans that make it.

Winston Churchill:
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

His fame will grow and grow and grow. How right he was. And he need not embellish history to find his place in it. A man who towers over all of his contemporaries (yet with flaws).

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_history.html


It is more pleasant to read history than to live it.



Why Moslems Cannot Learn Anything from History


Mahathir Mohammad, former president of Malaysia said:

We may want to recreate the first century of the Hijrah, the way of life in those times, in order to practice what we think to be the true Islamic way of life….

As Muslims, we must seek guidance from the Al-Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Surely the 23 years’ struggle of the Prophet can provide us with some guidance as to what we can and should do.”

And that is why Moslems cannot learn from history. They will always go back to try and repeat their successes at the time of, and shortly after, Mohammed. But don't they know? We are no longer in the 7th and 8thCenturies. They still are.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
George Santayana

They, the Moslems, learned nothing from what happened to them after their initial successes. They will always go back and try to repeat those heady early years.


Should've left them in the pies.


then we wouldn't have 'em fluttering all about us now
___________________________________________
*This saying appears in many different forms, but the earliest version
is probably that of the poet and philosopher George Santayana: "Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

"Notable Quotations from George Santayana
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284"

Collecting and Editing the Works of George Santayana
http://www.iupui.edu/~santedit/

"The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Studying history is necessary to avoid repeating past mistakes. This
saying comes from the writings of George Santayana, a Spanish-born
American author of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."

Bartleby: The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/thosewhocann.html

"The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.

NUMBER: 48129
QUOTATION: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
ATTRIBUTION: George Santayana (1863–1952), U.S. philosopher, poet.
Life of Reason, 'Reason in Common Sense,' ch. 12 (1905-6).

William L. Shirer made these words the epigraph for his Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich (1959)."

Bartleby: The Columbia World of Quotations
http://www.bartleby.com/66/29/48129.html

Here's an interesting little article about the many versions of this famous quote:

Jaywalker Magazine: Forget the Past!
http://jaywalker.ca/Jaywalker_Magazine/Columns/Publisher%27s%20Notes/forget_the_past.htm

My Google search strategy:

Google Web Search: santayana "common sense" "to repeat it"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=santayana+%22common+sense

http://www.google.com/search?q=santayana+%22common+sense%22+%22to+repeat+it%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I hope this is precisely what you need to know. Please let me know if
anything requires clarification.

Best regards,
pinkfreud


**Sing a song of sixpence a pocket full of rye,
Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.
When the pie was opened the birds began to sing,
Oh wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?
The king was in his counting house counting out his money,
The queen was in the parlour eating bread and honey
The maid was in the garden hanging out the clothes,
When down came a blackbird and pecked off her nose!


Lovely words to this children's action nursery rhyme which is often referred to as blackbirds baked in a pie probably because the image that blackbirds baked in a pie would create in a child's mind . The rye ( a pocketful of rye) was purchased to feed birds. Blackbirds, and other song birds, were actually eaten as a delicacy! However a court jester may well have suggested to the court cook to bake a pie pastry crust and place this over some live blackbirds to surprise and amuse the King! It would not be unreasonable for the blackbirds to look for revenge hence "When down came a blackbird and pecked off her nose!" It is interesting to note that the references to the counting house and eating honey were the common man's perception of what a King and Queen spent their time doing. The nursery rhyme Sing a song of sixpence or blackbirds baked in a pie always end with the tweaking of a child's nose!

Our grateful thanks goes to Rebecca Harris for providing the following additional information:
"During the Medieval times, there were occasions when the cook in the house of a wealthy knight did indeed put live birds (often pigeons, but I'm sure it could just as easily have been blackbirds) inside a huge pastry crust, on his own initiative. This was seen as a great joke and the cook would usually have a real pie waiting to bring in when the birds had been released."

http://www.rhymes.org.uk/sing_a_song_of_sixpence.htm


Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye;
Four and twenty blackbirds
Baked in a pie.
When the pie was opened,
They all began to sing.
Now, wasn't that a dainty dish
To set before the King?

The King was in his countinghouse,
Counting out his money;
The Queen was in the parlor
Eating bread and honey.
The maid was in the garden,
Hanging out the clothes.
Along there came a big black bird
And snipped off her nose!

http://www.zelo.com/family/nursery/sixpence.asp


First published in 1744, the rhyme is one of many rhymes depicting bakers putting "suprises" in baked items. Another popular rhyme is Little Jack Horner.

Little Jack Horner
Sat in a corner,
Eating a mincemeat pie.
He stuck in his thumb
And pulled out a plum,
And said, "What a good boy am I!"

Variation: Some versions have Jack eating a Christmas pie instead of a mincemeat pie.

http://www.zelo.com/family/nursery/jackhorner.asp

***Urban Legend(s):

The nursery rhyme 'Sing a Song of Sixpence' originated as a coded message used to recruit crew members for pirate ships.
http://www.snopes.com/lost/sixpence.htm


The people who posted it claim it is true, and go to elaborate lengths to provide proof for this. It is, however, by most "authorities" (of sing-a-song-of-sixpence) deemed to be an urban legend, hence untrue.

Salafism and Wahhabism

What's the Difference?

Salafism (Arabic: سلفي‎ "predecessors" or "early generations"), is a generic term, depicting a school of thought that takes the pious ancestors (Salaf) of the patristic period of early Islam as exemplary models^[1]. This branch of Islam is often referred to as "Wahhabi," a term that many adherents to this tradition do not use. Wahhabism is a particular orientation within Salafism. Most puritanical groups in the Muslim world are Salafi in orientation, but not necessarily Wahhabi^[2]. Salafism is not a sect per se but describes a simplified version of Islam, in which adherents follow a few commands and practices^[3].

Salafis view the first three generations of Muslims, who are Muhammad's companions, and the two succeeding generations after them, the Tabi‘in and the Taba‘ at-Tabi‘in, as examples of how Islam should be practiced. This principle is derived from the following hadith by Muhammad:

“	The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then whose who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Wahhabism (Arabic: الوهابية, Wahabism, Wahabbism, Whahhabism) is a derogatory term used to describe a movement of Sunni Islam based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792).

The term "Wahhabi" (Wahhābīya) is rarely used by members of this group. The term they use to describe themselves is "muwahhidun", translating as "unitarians." Another common term used is "Salafi," translating as "followers of the pious forefathers," though this term has a wider applicability, and is used by many modern Muslim groups who do not specifically follow the teachings of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. The term Wahhabi was originally bestowed by their opponents.

The Wahhabis claim to hold to the way of the Salaf as-Salih, the "pious predecessors" as earlier preached by Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, and later by Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and his followers.

Beliefs

Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as fundamental texts, interpreted upon the ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328). The Wahhabis see their role as a movement to restore Islam due to innovations, deviations, heresies and idolatries.

There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

• Praying at tombs ((see mawlid and urs)
• Invoking any prophet, Sufi saint, or angel in prayer, other than God alone ^[1]
• Celebrating annual feasts for the birth of Muhammad or Sufi saints (see mawlid and urs)
• Wearing charms, and believing in their healing power
• Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship) - Bid‘ah

[edit] Modern spread of Wahhabism

In 1924 the ruling dynasty of Qatar, accepted Wahhabism, while the neighboring Al Khalifa clan, the rulers of Bahrain), rejected it. Conflict and division into separate states followed.

Salafism and Qutbism

Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis, but was a known Sufi. The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam, but its goal wasn't to call to Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism), but rather to amass Muslims of different beliefs into its group. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles, who in turn influenced modern-day holy warriors such as Osama bin Laden. This proved to be a horrible mistake later on, though, and Salafis in Saudi Arabia now reject the Muslim Brotherhood. Most Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism.

The following is from a Moslem website:

[Note the PBUH following Mohammed's name. Also, beware of the contents of any links from the following article, Da'awa (Islamic proselytizing) is used to inveigle the gullible, allay their apprehension as regards Islam, and try to make converts. These Moslem sources all have an ax to grind. What it is, in every instance, is not immediately discernible. Keep a grain of salt at hand.]

Radical Salafism: Osama's ideology

By Bernard Haykel

Radical Salafism is the ideology of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Its particular world view can be understood by looking at the roots of this ideology in Islamic intellectual history and by realizing that its teachings have been marginal to and opposed by mainstream Islamic thought.

Muslims in the modern period are either Sunni (90%) or Shi'iah (10%). The distinction pertains to a dispute over the spiritual and political leadership of the Muslim community after the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). In matters of politics, two principles are strongly identified with the Sunnis:

1) they are loath to declare fellow Muslims infidels, a practice called takfir;

2) they prohibit war against Muslim rulers, however tyrannical these may be, so long as Islam remains the religion of state and Islamic law is enforced. Sunnis argue that adherence to these two principles is crucial in order to maintain social order and to avoid warfare amongst Muslims which might lead to the demise of Islam itself.

Osama bin Laden and his followers are Sunni Muslims of the Salafi branch. Salafism is a minoritarian tendency within Islam that dates back to the 9th century - under the name of Ahl al-Hadith - and whose central features were crystallized in the teachings of a 14th century Islamic scholar, Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328). Ibn Taymiyya's importance lies in that he was willing to hereticize fellow Muslims who did not share his views and, more important, he declared permissible war against Muslims rulers who did not apply the Shari'ah (he advocated war against the Mongols who had declared themselves to be Muslims but did not apply Islamic law).

Salafism's hallmark is a call to modern Muslims to revert to the pure Islam of the Prophet Muhammad's generation and the two generations that followed his. Muslims of this early period are referred to as al-Salaf al-Salih (the pious forefathers) whence the name Salafi. Salafism's message is utopian, its adherents seeking to transform completely the Muslim community and to ensure that Islam, as a system of belief and governance, should eventually dominate the globe.

Salafis are not against technological progress nor its fruits; they do, however, abhor all innovations in belief and practice that are not anchored in their conception of the pristine Islamic age. They refer to such reprehensible innovations as Bid'a, a term of deligitimization in Islamic law or the Shari'ah.

According to the Salafis, Muslims can only be certain that they are not practising reprehensible innovations if they adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of the sources of revelation, and those are the Qur'an and the Sunna (the Sunna is the practice of Prophet Mohammad and can be found exclusively in the canonical collections of accounts of his sayings and doings (hadith)). Salafis claim to be the only Muslims capable of providing this literal interpretation; all other Muslims would therefore be - to a lesser or greater extent - deviant innovators.

Another salient feature of Salafism is an obsession with God's oneness while condemning all forms of polytheism (shirk) and unbelief (kufr). Certain Sufi practices (Sufis are mystics of Islam), such as visiting the graves of great Sufi masters, are condemned by the Salafis as diminishing true belief in Allah. The world, according to the Salafis, is unequivocally divided between the domains of belief (iman) and unbelief, and it is incumbent on Muslims to be certain that they remain in the domain of belief.

This they can do only if they are Salafis. Nothing less than eternal salvation is at stake. The Salafi world view is rigid and Manichaean. In its radical form Salafism leads to the practice of takfir. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden did in his November 4 statement: Muslims who are not with him are, by definition, infidels.

The mantle of Ibn Taymiyya's teachings was most famously taken up by a movement in central Arabia in the 18th century. Known to its enemies as the Wahhabi movement, whose adherents called themselves the Muwahhidun (The believers in the oneness of God). The Wahhabi's had a powerful reformist message and were able to galvanize the tribes of central Arabia into a powerful military period.

So great was their zeal to focus all the belief and religious practices of fellow Muslims on God alone, that the Wahhabis destroyed in 1805 tombs in Medina, including a failed attempt at destroying the cupola over the tomb of Prophet Muhammad.

Such excesses, including the declaration of fellow Muslims to be infidels whose blood could be shed, horrified the wider Muslim world leading the Ottoman Sultan to send an Egyptian military force and destroy the fledgling Wahhabi state. This was accomplished in 1818. The example the Wahhabi sect, however, left an indelible mark on the world of Islam and the like-minded would look to their experience as a model to be emulated.

King Abd al-Aziz ibn Sa'ud, commonly known as Ibn Sa'ud, the founder of the present Saudi kingdom, based his rule and conquests on Salafi doctrine, and this remains the ideology of Saudi Arabia today. But Ibn Sa'ud realized quickly that embedded in this ideology was the potential for radical extremism and he vanquished militarily his own radicals, otherwise known as the Ikhwan, in 1930.

The radical Salafis raised their heads again in November 1979 when one of their leaders, Juhayman al-Utaybi, led a revolt in Makkah that seized control of the Great Mosque for two weeks. As they had done in 1930, the Saudi authorities attacked al-Utaybi and his followers, killing every last one in a bloody battle in the Makkan sanctuary.

However, it is important to know two features that distinguish the official Salafism of the Saudi kingdom from the teachings of these radical Salafis. The Saudis believe that: 1) war against an Islamic ruler is not permitted, and 2) declaring fellow Muslims to be infidels is also not permitted. For this reason, the Saudi minister of Islamic Affairs stated on October 19, in the aftermath of the WTC attacks, that "obedience to Islamic rulers is obligatory for Muslims."

A principal reason radical Salafis like Osama bin Laden advocate violence against the Saudi state and the United States relates to the presence of US troops on Saudi soil. By permitting this, Osama says the Saudis are no longer adhering to Islamic law and consequently war against them is permissible. Osama bin Laden bases his claim about the illegality of the presence of US troops on a statement of Prophet Mohammad in which the Prophet says: "Expel the polytheists from the Arabian peninsula."

Literally understood, the injunction is clear. Non-Salafis, i.e., the vast majority of Muslims, disagree with Osama's judgement. The non-Salafis counter with another statement of the Prophet in which he says: "Expel the Jews of Hijaz from the peninsula of the Arabs." The reference to the Jews is to be read as a synecdoche (for non-Muslims: Hijaz is a region of Arabia and this second Prophetic statement narrows the more general first statement. In other words, non-Muslims are permitted to reside in Arabia, but not in Hijaz, the region of the twin sanctuaries of Makkah and Medina.)

Such differences in abstruse legal opinions, however, do not explain Osama bin Laden's massive appeal among Muslims today. It is his genius at manipulating images and symbols, as well as his ability to tap into a wellspring of legitimate Muslim and Arab resentment of US foreign policies, that explains his success. Muslims live under the yoke of authoritarian regimes - regimes that have succeeded in destroying the fabric of traditional Muslim education and networks of knowledge and socialization.

Most Muslims therefore do not appreciate or understand legal arguments like the one stated above. What Muslims react to enthusiastically is Osama's role as a leader and symbol of Muslim resistance to domestic and western oppression. This reaction is fuelled by a century of arguments promoted by the Arab regimes that all the problems of the Arab and Muslim worlds are due to foreign intrigue, and are not because of any policies or actions of the Arab and Muslim leaders themselves. This reasoning explains, for example, the eagerness with which so many Arabs and Muslims have accepted the conspiratorial theories that the attacks of September 11 were the work of Jews and Zionists.

Thus far, moderate Sunni Muslims have been reluctant to condemn Osama bin Laden in light of the events of September 11. This is a consequence of the quiescent political culture Sunnis subscribe to: pointing fingers at fellow believers might lead to a state of chaotic disorder they fear most. Moreover, the present conflict involves unbelievers and Muslims prefer not to air their differences in public. Another reason for this conspicuous silence is that moderates feel the evidence Osama bin Laden in the attacks has not been provided by the US government.

Finally, the fear of violent retaliation by the radical Salafis has kept many silent. Moderate Muslims, many of whom have been and continue to be oppressed by Arab and Muslim governments, do exist and must be encouraged to take centre stage. We can take heart from the fact that most Muslims have not heeded Osama's call to kill innocent Americans wherever and whenever they find them.

In short, the battle being waged today is at heart an internal Islamic one and may take a very long time to end. It is part of a larger battle about the very nature of Islamic society and politics, and one in which there are many sides (moderate Muslims, state-sponsored Muslims, radical and moderate Salafis, secular nationalists, and Shi'ah

---

The writer teaches Islamic law at New York University

---

Copyright Notice

This article is copyright 2001 DAWN, and may be redistributed provided that the article remains intact, with this copyright message clearly visible. This article may not under any circumstances be resold or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from DAWN. If you have any questions about these terms, or would like information about licensing materials from DAWN, please contact us via telephone: +92 (21) 111-444-777, +92 (21) 567-0001 or email: webmaster@dawn.com

DAWN is located on the World Wide Web at http://dawn.com/

This entire Website including all its contents, graphical images and other elements are the intellectual property of the Pakistan Herald Publications Ltd. (P.H.P.L.) - publishers of the DAWN newspaper.

This site is for use by individuals and may not be used for any commercial purposes. No part of this site may be redistributed or otherwise published without written consent of P.H.P.L.

---

Manichaen: a believer in religious or philosophical dualism

the vast majority: i.e. of the entire Muslim population, Salafi's comprise less than 1% of them

synecdoche: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)

"massive" (sic). We hardly think bin Laden has "massive" appeal. We disagree with the author here.
http://muslim-canada.org/binladendawn.html

* * *

Saudi Arabia and the Rise of the Wahhabi Threat

A briefing by Stephen Schwartz
February 27, 2003

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.

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.

False Arguments

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.

The Future

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.

Conclusion

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 11^th 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.

This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at http://www.meforum.org/article/535

COMMENT

Important Points from the foregoing:

The Saudi-Wahhabi threat must not be underestimated; it requires our grave attention.

Wahhabism is not an old Islamic tradition and the House of Saud does not enjoy a credible historic claim to rule over Arabia.

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.

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.

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.

[T]he 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.

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.

Saudi Arabia and its militant Islamic doctrines constitute a clear and present danger to the United States and the international community.

MOSLEMS RIOT IN DENMARK--AGAIN!

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF (RECENT HISTORY THAT IS)

MOHAMMED CARTOONS REPUBLISHED GIVE RISE TO ANOTHER ROUND OF MOSLEM CAR-AND-TRASH BURNINGS IN DENMARK
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019994.php

"Jordanian political and cultural organizations called for boycotting Denmark at all economic, political and cultural domains in a gradual manner."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019995.php

SUPPORT THE DANES! BUY DANISH!

LOOK BELOW: DANISH GOODS FOR YOU TO BUY!






ANOTHER DANISH PARTY!

Everyone's pleasant, except a couple of guys who refuse our food and drink and glower at the guests, with hatred. Who invited them? Let them go back to wherever they came from, some fly-infested pestholes named مكة المكرمة and Yathrib.

(Click on these links for the last party and the one before it)

Now

Click this:

Hjemve - Large selection

Danish Ex-Pat shopping

Danish Deli Food

Nordic House

Nordisk Import

Hans Christian Andersen

(Click on these links for the last party and the one before it)

The Search for Real Absinthe



















ALCOHOL IS ALLOWED HERE


Some say,"Do not enrage them*!"


but


Sun Tzu says,


"Provoke the enemy." [paraphrased]


"Agitate him"


That is what we are doing here.


Why? What is this going to accomplish?


I'm not going to tell them here.


Let them scramble and turn to their Sun Tzu and


look for it.



Suffice it to say that an irrational



allahu akbar! charge offers excellent targets.

So, don't be afraid to make them mad.

Don't be walking on eggs


afraid to set them off.


Don't be afraid of them.


Practice gun control**







____________________________
*the mus

**hold steady, keep eyes on the front sight, sqeeeeeze trigger
never point at anything that you don't want to shoot

PARTY! LET'S HAVE A PARTY!

DON'T BE GLUM!


CELEBRATE!


Celebrate What?


Uh, I dunno, how 'bout the Danes?

Why?

Well, they got what is good. Just take a look.

Dig in! Enjoy!

I don't feel like celebrating. With all this shit that's going on,

what's there to celebrate?

Life! That we are alive!

Let the enemy feel it's good to be dead.

(For them it is)

(and for us too)

Anyway, let's party!