Article

2003-10-19 Arabia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-10-19 09:48|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 like roaches though, they thrive in the dark - we have to keep the spotlight on them.

Posted by Frank G 2003-10-19 10:02:16 AM|| 2003-10-19 10:02:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Chritstian children are raised on the idea that individual faith, love, hope, chairty and forgiveness will make the world a better place. Muslim children are raised on the principle that, if you could only exterminate the Jews, the world would be a better place.

Posted by B 2003-10-19 10:13:21 AM|| 2003-10-19 10:13:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Prince Nayef, as Interior Minister, has been the Royal overseer of the education system. I doubt that Nayef is unaware of what has been done to the education system by the Wahabbists - to whom the Royals ceeded control over education more than 30 years ago.

I hate to quote something I can't ascribe to the author(s), but I do have something I saw on Command Post, IIRC, posted by "Clive." Clive, if you see this, please pipe up and identify the source(s), if possible. Anyway, here's a nifty little primer on Saudi history, excerpted from Clive's comment, that may be of interest:

"The political arrangement of Saudi Arabia is based on a compact made between Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (died 1791) and his contemporary, Muhammad Ibn Saud, in the mid-18th century.

Both were emerging into history from Najd in the interior of the Arabian peninsula.

Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the founder of the extremist puritanical sect known as Wahhabi. Wahhabism is the religious-political doctrine of Saudi Arabia.

Ibn Saud was the ancestor of the Saud clan. His descendant, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, supported by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's followers and Britain as patron, founded the kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

Hamid Algar, a scholar of the Middle East and Islam at the University of California, Berkeley, observes, 'Wahhabism is essentially a movement without pedigree; it came out of nowhere in the sense not only of emerging from the wastelands of Najd, but also its lack of substantial precedent in Islamic history.'

The Saudi ruler's absolute authority is limited by the compact made between Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Saud. The House of Saud may only rule while it follows the Wahhabi precepts reflecting the value system of a closed patriarchal tribal society.

Within the larger Arab-Muslim world, Wahhabism has been viewed as a gross aberration of traditional Islam. To change this view, the House of Saud, establishing itself as the protector of the sacred mosque in Mecca, set out to buy approval of Muslims as it bought the loyalty of tribes in the kingdom.

Oil money provided the resource for this purpose of sectarian diplomacy, and Saudi money sent to poorer Muslim countries to build mosques and train preachers became a conduit for Wahhabism into places like Afghanistan, leading to the making of the Taliban.

But the demands of the modern world compounded the internal conflicts of Saudi society. Corruption within the royal family, waste and unaccountable expenditures, relative decline in oil revenue with a rapidly bulging population in excess of 22 million, unprepared and unwilling to work, have taken their cumulative toll.

In 1979, a band of disgruntled Wahhabis stormed the holy mosque in Mecca attempting to overthrow the House of Saud. They failed, but disclosed in their action the extent and nature of the opposition within the kingdom.

The House of Saud made a Faustian bargain with its opposition. It financed them to take their animus into the wider Muslim world in preaching their bigoted version of Islam.

Then came a congruence of Wahhabi fanaticism with the American-supported war in Afghanistan against the former Soviet Union. The success of the Afghani war fed into the imagination of Muslim fundamentalists to wage jihad, an armed struggle, against the presence of the West in the Arab-Muslim world.

These Muslim fundamentalists and fascists described the enemy, in the spiteful language of bin Laden, as the Crusader-Zionists. Their first terrorist strike into the heartland of America was the bombing of New York's World Trade Center in 1993."

And this is the only thing I find disagreement with:
"On the second anniversary of 9/11, Bush finds there is no alternative to maintaining relations with the House of Saud. It is the least of worst options while waging the war against international terrorism that spilled forth from the interiors of the peninsular Arabia's wasteland."

I think things between the US and SA will change, perhaps dramatically, after the fall of Iran and SyrLeb. Then we will take a new compass reading and start afresh.

Posted by .com 2003-10-19 10:14:53 AM|| 2003-10-19 10:14:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Too little, too late.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-10-19 10:48:37 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-10-19 10:48:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 The Saudi curriculim makes illiteracy look like a progressive step in the right direction.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-10-19 12:34:58 PM|| 2003-10-19 12:34:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Just about the support of Britain for Saud's takeover of Arabia: in facts there was a fight between two branches of the Intelligence Service.
The people of Cairo (ie the people who had sent Lawrence during WWI) sided with the Hashemites, the
people of India headed by the father of Kim Philby (the traitor) sided withe the Saoud. Unfortunately the people of Cairo (who probabbly knew a lot more about the Arabs) lost. Another irony is that just a few years later the Seoud betrayed the British and became Roosevelt's protegess while giving their oil concessions to American companies

Posted by JFM 2003-10-19 1:40:45 PM|| 2003-10-19 1:40:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 These books are going to be generously donated to all the Wahabi Madrassas around the world. Don't expect the Saudis to change their ways, it's just going to be directed some where else.

Posted by rg117 2003-10-19 1:47:26 PM|| 2003-10-19 1:47:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Unfortunately the people of Cairo (who probabbly knew a lot more about the Arabs) lost.
Despite being on site as it were I don't think Clayton, Wingate et al were that knowledgable about the ME. Gilbert Clayton makes Mahathir look sane & reasonable, IIRC he believed that the Ottoman Empire was controlled by the Jews (probably in alliance with the Freemasons...) & don't forget the ~~Arab~~ Hashemite revolt sponsored by Cairo achieved little except for the capture of Aqaba (they didn't even manage to take Madina.)
With respect to Simla backing the Sa'udis, it made sense at the time, they were the rising power in the region, they were enemies of pro-Turkish rulers of Ha'il & after WWI the Hashemites proved utterly unable to stop Sa'udi incursions into their territory - so we made the rather sensible decision to back winners rather than losers. Plus Ibn Sa'ud was a pragmatist, he bowed to our demands about borders etc & crushed his fundamentalist tribal army when they began calling for a Jihad against us.

Posted by Dave 2003-10-19 4:28:52 PM|| 2003-10-19 4:28:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Clayton and Wingate were two of the five British nationals that worked hardest to kill the British Palestine mandate (the Balfour Declaration), and worked to undermine it when it was accepted. The Israeli/Palestine mess grew out of their meddling.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-10-19 5:31:16 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-10-19 5:31:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 IIRC Herbert Samuel (the UK's High Commisioner in Palestine - & ironically enough Jewish himself) appointed Amin al-Husayni as Grand Mufti (Amin was the guy who wound up recruiting Bosniaks into the Wehrmacht), which hardly helped the situation. The fact that most British officials in Palestine were Arabists encouraged at least some of the Palestinian pogroms during the inter-war period, since they believed (not entirely inaccurately) that the government was on their side.

Posted by Dave 2003-10-19 6:14:14 PM|| 2003-10-19 6:14:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 AP, I believe that the quote posted by Clive in the Free Republic was from a column written by Professor Salim Mansur in the London Free Press (London Ontario) titled "The Saudi Connection".
Sorry I couldn't find a direct link to that article.

Posted by Gasse Katze 2003-10-20 12:26:19 AM|| 2003-10-20 12:26:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 AP, I believe that the quote posted by Clive in the Free Republic was from a column written by Professor Salim Mansur in the London Free Press (London Ontario) titled "The Saudi Connection".
Sorry I couldn't find a direct link to that article.

Posted by Gasse Katze 2003-10-20 12:26:45 AM|| 2003-10-20 12:26:45 AM|| Front Page Top

09:41 B
01:11 Anonymous
00:26 Gasse Katze
00:26 Gasse Katze
00:00 Bomb-a-rama
23:31 Eddie Blake
23:15 R. McLeod
23:08 R. McLeod
23:01 NotMikeMoore
22:36 NotMikeMoore
22:21 NotMikeMoore
21:56 Paul Moloney
21:16 B
20:54 B
20:51 Steve White
20:44 Mike Kozlowski
20:38 B
20:34 Super Hose
20:29 Super Hose
20:24 Super Hose
20:19 Super Hose
20:14 Super Hose
19:48 Charles
19:46 Charles