This is not getting enough attention:
Muslims in the United States should “behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines.” This is not the admonition of a crank or a freak from the lunatic fringe, but Saudi-funded religious pamphlets distributed to mosques throughout America.
Says who? Freedom House, one of the oldest human rights groups in the United States and currently headed by James Woolsey, who was CIA director during the first Clinton administration.The organization conducted a one-year study of the kind of “hate propaganda” the Saudi government has paid to print and distribute to U.S. mosques. The 89-page report, based on 200 Saudi documents, was released last Friday.
One mosque where Freedom House researchers found evidence of Saudi Wahhabi skullduggery is three miles from where the World Trade Center used to be. Muslim newcomers to America are told Wahhabism, the official creed of the Saudi kingdom, is the only true religion. Anyone who doesn’t conform to the postulates of Wahhabism is an apostate.
For those interested in the details of the study, a more detailed write-up can be found here and the full report can be found here. I am not going to take the time to review the methodology, as it is unimportant in the bigger scheme. That any of this was found in the United States andfunded by the Saudi’s is troubling enough.
How bold are the Wahhabists/Jihadists? Bold enough to push this bile in the neighborhoods surrounding the remains of the WTC:
“We have ascertained that as of December 2004, Saudi-connected resources and publications on extremist ideology remain common reading and educational material in some of America’s main mosques,” explain the researchers, who compiled documents from more than a dozen American mosques – including a prominent one in New York, Brooklyn’s Al-Farouq Mosque. The mosques maintain libraries or racks of literature for parishioners, and often run religious schools for Muslims…
Saudi works on Islamic theology also preach the incompatibility of liberal democracy and Islam. One book published by the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, also found at the Al-Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn, even authorizes Muslims to kill converts to Islam who tolerate homosexuality.
This needs to be addressed. Now.
Bob
The Wahhabi branch of Islam is by far the most dangerous to Western, Democratic values. Unfortunately, the Saudi royal family have for years been building mosques and providing Wahhabi clerics around the world in order to spread this radical, reactionary brand of Islam.
Here’s a passage from “The Wordsworth Dictionary of Pirates” about the Qawasim, who sailed the Persian Gulf in the early 1800s: “The Wahhabi took the Koran literally and rejected later commentaries. They considered it legal to exterminate other Muslims, who were worse than infidels. Because the Koran forbids plundering the living, Qawasim pirates routinely killed captives before robbing them. Their attacks on neighboring Oman and Muscat became a religious war, as those regimes remained loyal to more traditional forms of Islam.”
The recent book “House of Saud, House of Bush,” touches on Saudi money connections with both these radical clerics in the US and the Republican Party. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, folks.
The US shouldn’t be propping up scumbags like this.
CadillaqJaq
Bob, let’s say hypothetically that GWB and the U.S. suddenly end formal relations with Saudi Arabia and tell ’em to go screw their oil. Maybe that’s a tad too drastic, but what would be your reaction to gasoline prices reaching say, $7.99 per gallon or higher? What would the “loyal opposition” in Congress say? I’m guessing the screaming would be loud and long.
I’m also guessing that the ongoing U.S./Saudi connection is the only thing that prevents the Wahhabists from taking total control of the country and it’s wealth/money/power.
caroline
shh, shh
We mustn’t upset the Saudi’s must we now?
narciso
Steve Emerson’s American House of Saud, in 1983, gave a more comprehensive view of the problem.
Including Bill’s mentor Fulbright,
LBJ factotum Fred Dutton, many of
the chief Arabists like Akin,
Parker,Seelye et al . Think tanks like CSIS, dependent on Arab funds. interestingly at the time,
he thought the Shia threat was more
dominant in Saudi, but then again, at the time, it probably was.
Bob
Cadillac Joe, you may have beans in your ears so you can’t hear, but how come you don’t read? Or how come you invent what you want other people to say?
I just know that you want to have a deep discussion on what should be done about Wahhabism and the House of Saud, but if you keep inventing stuff people will begin to think that you are actually unable to carry on a discussion and will begin to ignore your drooling.
narciso, we can go back to the Dulles Brothers before WWII for Americans willing to cut other Americans’ throats for that Saudi oil. Certainly, Clinton had no problem staying quiet during the 90s when it was apparent that the Saudis were funding nutcases who were blowing up American landmarks. But there was all sorts of sellouts on both sides of the aisles when it came to Saudi Arabia (for ex, the phony Soviet invasion threat and the sales of AWACs and Ollie North’s work in that), the quid pro quo of the Saudi work in the arms-for-hostages and Iran-contra scams. There is the whole BCCI (the senior Bush was up to his neck in that one, both as VP and head of the CIA). Bert Lance’s little banking scandal was connected to BCCI.
So we can all agree that there has been a lot of folks of all political persuasions with Saudi strings attached. The biggest strings are currently connected the the Bush Family. Like I said, sunlight is the best disinfectant, but my guess is that most people here are willing to shut up in order to stay in line.
But you folks can surprise me.
CadillaqJaq
Bob,
FYI, it’s CadillaqJaq, (as in Jack) not CadillaqJoe. As far as the rest of your comments: PFFFT!
Have a nice day, and I hope you will soon stop peeing on yourself when attempting political discourse.
JD
CJ, unfortunately, the Saudis no longer have the control over global oil prices that they used to. And in the future, they will have even less. The reason Bush does not want to confront the Saudis is not so much economic as it would expose his own values orientation, which is actually strikingly similar to the Saudis and also bin Laden.
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/BLOG/BLOGgifs/cagleOsamaBush0.gif
narciso
You really have to farther back than that, Bob. At least to 1932
when former TR undersecretary
Francis Loomis, met with St. John
Philby to hammer out the original
Saudi oil concession, here’s a source from the horse’s mouth; (Href* or to the findings of the King/Crane commission, or by proxy,
to the British strategy of
supporting Ibn Saud, who did nothing during the 1st world war, over Prince Hussein, who did) come to think of it, that’s just like what we did in Afghanistan. suppor
-ting the likes of Hekmatyar and Abu Sayyaf (Osama’s pals) & Younis
Khalis (mentor to the Taliban) over
Massoud and Abdul Haq.
Yellow Monkey
Thank you! Chinese Apes.