| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Taking the Soddies seriously |
| 2005-03-14 |
| ON TUESDAY, March 15, the U.S. State Department faces a deadline: as previously mandated by State itself, the bureaucrats must show that they have taken action in accord with last year's designation of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a "country of particular concern" because of its flagrant violations of religious freedom. Will State fulfill its responsibility? Who knows. That's why 15 Senators from both sides of the aisle sent a letter to Secretary Condoleezza Rice last Friday demanding that the U.S.-Saudi relationship be "defined more clearly." The signatories were: Charles Schumer (D-New York), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Evan Bayh (D-Indiana), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), Sam Brownback (R-Kentucky), John Ensign (R-Nevada), Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey), Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota), Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota), and Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania). The need for heightened pressure on the Saudis has never been more obvious. The kingdom continues to maintain the ultra-radical Wahhabi sect of Islam as the state religion. Wahhabism is more an ideology than a faith, and is the inspiration for al Qaeda and much of the terrorism launched against U.S., coalition, and Iraqi democratic forces north of the Saudi-Iraq border. As the text of the letter notes, the Saudi regime continues to disseminate limitless quantities of Wahhabi literature through mosques and schools on American soil. Samples of these materials were highlighted in a recent report by Freedom House, but the problem is not new. The Saudi Institute, a human rights monitoring group in Washington, first exposed the dissemination of Saudi hate propaganda in America two years ago. (On Saturday, March 12, three democratic reform leaders went on trial in the kingdom: Dr. Abdullah Al-Hamed, Dr. Matrook Al-Faleh, and the poet Ali Al-Domaini were arrested on March 16, 2004, for demanding adoption of a constitution by the Saudi monarchy.) Saudi Arabia is an especially flagrant violator of its own subjects' religious rights. Non-Wahhabi Sunni Islam is banned; the large Shia Muslim minority is suppressed; the spiritual teaching of Sufi Islam are illegal. Possession of religious works, including classics of Arabic and Islamic literature, reflecting these traditions, is a crime. And, of course, Saudi Arabia has millions of foreign workers living and toiling on its soil--more than a quarter of its population of 16.5 million--of which a large but unknown number are Christians from such countries as the Philippines, United States, Canada, Western Europe, India, and South Korea, Buddhists from Sri Lanka and India, Hindus, and non-Wahhabi Muslims from Sudan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Egypt. None of these people has the right to practice their faith openly while serving their Saudi masters. The kingdom is the only Muslim country in the world which forbids non-Muslims to practice their faith. It is the largest absolutist monarchy in the world. The 15 Senators have it right: "it is essential that Saudi Arabia be held accountable for its support of radical Islamic ideology." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #6 Charles Schumer (D-New York), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Evan Bayh (D-Indiana), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), Sam Brownback (R-Kentucky), John Ensign (R-Nevada), Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey), Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota), Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin), Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota), and Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) I don't trust the guys in bold at all. What an odd mix... ...and Bayh has been on my shit list since he voted against Condi... Is this for real? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-14 3:23:23 PM |
| #5 It's not a bad idea, but obviously I wouldn't want alot of our Soddy policy to get out in the press, so a public breakdown of policy is out. A private meeting with "concerned" Congressmen is out too, since nobody with a brain trusts them to keep their mouths shut. I believe that there are a variety of different strategies on the table behind closed doors regarding the Saudis, but W and his staff aren't idiots and they aren't going public. Look at everything that is happening in the ME right now without any further military actions having been necessary. The Saudis are going to find themselves under the same internal pressures as their neighbors and it won't be long until the signs of internal unrest begin to stir. The time for those Congressmen to complain about this was last summer when all those |
| Posted by: Chris W. 2005-03-14 12:55:30 PM |
| #4 Nothing serious will be done about the Saudis until the world's oil supply can be ensured through control of Iraq and Iran. In the meantime, this kind of thing serves to remind the Saudis that they are not slipping under the radar, and that they will not be able to fast talk their way out of this -- not when both sides of the aisle are of the same opinion. And if, in the meantime, the Saudis loosen restrictions/harassment even slightly of non-Wahabbi worshippers, that is all to the good. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-03-14 12:40:24 PM |
| #3 Thank you, .com. The Islamists represent the Muslim reformation. I gag every time the USG calls Islam the "Religion of Peace." I hope that the USG will emerge from PC wishful thinking before a lot of Americans die. Same goes for Western Europe, but not much hope there. |
| Posted by: SR71 2005-03-14 8:27:16 AM |
| #2 I see a flaw right in the headline. Should be: Taking out Soddies, seriously. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-03-14 7:30:26 AM |
| #1 I have to ask: What, precisely, does anyone - particularly these politicians - expect to happen? Would allowing religious services for non-Muslims IK (In Kingdom) make it all better? Would the Saudi Govt declaring it will (or has) stopped funding of Wahhabi pamphlets and other printed matter for distribution in the US make it all better? Would their declaring that all Wahhabi funding to found new moskkks and "schools" and "institutes" in the US has been cut off make it all better? Would ending all funding of Wahhabi interests in the US make it all better? Would ending all funding of Wahhabi interests world-wide make it all better? Though the article points out that Wahhabism is more an ideology (More? Lol!) is this only about "religious freedom" or ideological "intolerance"? Without naming the goals, this is just a bunch of politicians posturing and posing for the press. Calling a spade a spade regards the Wahhabi / Caliphatist / Islamist screed is on the tip of everyone's tongue - but none of our politicians have, as yet, made the call. Until that happens, until reciprocal war is declared on this totalitarian hate machine, for it declared war on us in 1973, it's all spitting in the wind. The nibble, nibble approach means nothing, accomplishes nothing, and leads to nothing without the stones to make the call. Would anyone be so gullible as to believe any such declaration? The House of Saud is composed of thousands of ultra-rich twits across the spectrum, from playboys fools to ideological fanatics. There is no Govt, there are a hundred (or more) factions. They fund whatever they want. They all make Saudi policy. They all act in their own "interests" and there is no effective means of restraining those who disagree with the "official" policy - short of killing them, that is. So what would any of the forgoing Official Saudi Govt policies, efforts, and declarations mean? Nothing. None would be worth warm spit. Pfeh - Wahhabism is an ideology - with the goal of world domination and destruction or total subjugation, by any and all means, of all other ideologies. Period. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-14 3:04:39 AM |