|
submit
articles |
|
Ground
Zero and the Saudi Connection: on
the extreme Islamic sect that inspires Osama bin Laden as
well as all Muslim suicide bombers - and is subsidised by Saudi Arabia Washington The first thing
to do when trying to understand 'Islamic suicide bombers' is to
forget the clichés about the Muslim taste for martyrdom. It does exist,
of course, but the desire for paradise is not
a safe guide to what motivated the
appalling suicide attacks on New York and Washington last week.
Throughout history, political extremists of
all faiths have willingly given up
their lives simply in the belief that by doing so, whether in bombings or
in other forms of terror, they would change
the course of history, or at least win
an advantage for their cause. Tamils are not Muslims, but they blow
themselves up in their war on the government of Sri Lanka; Japanese
kamikaze pilots in the second world war were
not Muslims, but they flew their
fighters into US aircraft carriers. The Islamofascist
ideology of Osama bin Laden and those closest to him, such as
the Egyptian and Algerian 'Islamic Groups', is no more intrinsically
linked to Islam or Islamic civilisation than
Pearl Harbor was to Buddhism, or Ulster
terrorists - whatever they may profess - are to Christianity.
Serious Christians don't go around killing and
maiming the innocent; devout Muslims do
not prepare for paradise by hanging out in strip bars and getting drunk,
as one of last week's terrorist pilots was reported to have done. The attacks of 11
September are simply not compatible with orthodox Muslim theology,
which cautions soldiers 'in the way of Allah' to fight their enemies
face-to-face, without harming non-combatants, women or children.
Most Muslims, not only in America and Britain,
but in the world, are clearly law-abiding
citizens of their countries - a point stressed by President Bush and
other American leaders, much to their credit. Nobody on this side of the
water wants a repeat of the lamented 1941
internment of Japanese Americans. Still, the
numerical preponderance of Muslims as perpetrators of these ghastly
incidents is no coincidence. So we have to ask ourselves what has made
these men into the monsters they are? What has so galvanised violent
tendencies in the world's second-largest
religion (and, in America, the fastest
growing faith)? Can it really flow from a quarrel over a bit of land
in the Middle East? For Westerners,
it seems natural to look for answers in the distant past, beginning
with the Crusades. But if you ask educated, pious, traditional but forward-looking
Muslims what has driven their umma, or global community, in this
direction, many of them will answer you with one word: Wahhabism. This
is a strain of Islam that emerged not at the
time of the Crusades, nor even at the
time of the anti-Turkish wars of the 17th century, but less than two
centuries ago. It is violent, it is
intolerant, and it is fanatical beyond measure.
It originated in Arabia, and it is the official theology of the Gulf
states. Wahhabism is the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism,
and its followers are called Wahhabis. Not all Muslims
are suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are Wahhabis
- except, perhaps, for some disciples of atheist leftists posing as
Muslims in the interests of personal power,
such as Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein.
Wahhabism is the Islamic equivalent of the most extreme Protestant sectarianism.
It is puritan, demanding punishment for those who enjoy any form
of music except the drum, and severe punishment up to death for drinking
or sexual transgressions. It condemns as unbelievers those who do not
pray, a view that never previously existed in mainstream Islam. It is
stripped-down Islam, calling for simple, short prayers, undecorated
mosques, and the uprooting of gravestones
(since decorated mosques and graveyards
lend themselves to veneration, which is idolatry in the Wahhabi mind).
Wahhabis do not even permit the name of the Prophet Mohammed to be inscribed
in mosques, nor do they allow his birthday to be celebrated. Above all,
they hate ostentatious spirituality, much as Protestants detest the
veneration of miracles and saints in the Roman
Church. Ibn Abdul Wahhab
(1703-92), the founder of this totalitarian Islamism, was born
in Uyaynah, in the part of Arabia known as Nejd, where Riyadh is today,
and which the Prophet himself notably warned
would be a source of corruption and
confusion. (Anti-Wahhabi Muslims refer to Wahhabism as fitna an Najdiyyah
or 'the trouble out of Nejd'.) From the beginning of Wahhab's dispensation,
in the late 18th century, his cult was associated with the mass
murder of all who opposed it. For example, the Wahhabis fell upon the
city of Qarbala in 1801 and killed 2,000
ordinary citizens in the streets and
markets. In the 19th
century, Wahhabism took the form of Arab nationalism v. the Turks.
The founder of the Saudi kingdom, Ibn Saud, established Wahhabism as
its official creed. Much has been made of the
role of the US in 'creating' Osama bin
Laden through subsidies to the Afghan mujahedin, but as much or more
could be said in reproach of Britain which, three generations before,
supported the Wahhabi Arabs in their revolt
against the Ottomans. Arab hatred of
the Turks fused with Wahhabi ranting against the 'decadence' of Ottoman
Islam. The truth is that the Ottoman khalifa reigned over a multinational
Islamic umma in which vast differences in local culture and tradition
were tolerated. No such tolerance exists in Wahhabism, which is why
the concept of US troops on Saudi soil so inflames bin Laden. Bin Laden is a
Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his Egyptian
allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at Luxor
not many years ago, bathing in blood up to their elbows and emitting
blasphemous cries of ecstasy. So are the
Algerian Islamist terrorists whose contribution
to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people for
such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So
are the Taleban-style guerrillas in Kashmir
who murder Hindus. The Iranians are not
Wahhabis, which partially explains their slow but undeniable movement
towards moderation and normality after a period of utopian and puritan
revivalism. But the Taleban practise a variant of Wahhabism. In the
Wahhabi fashion they employ ancient
punishments - such as execution for moral
offences - and they have a primitive and fearful view of women. The
same is true of Saudi Arabia's rulers. None of
this extremism has been inspired by
American fumblings in the world, and it has little to do with the
tragedies that have beset Israelis and Palestinians. But the Wahhabis
have two weaknesses of which the West is largely unaware; an
Achilles' heel on each foot, so to speak. The first is that the vast
majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful
people who would prefer the installation
of Western democracy in their own countries. They loathe Wahhabism
for the same reason any patriarchal culture rejects a violent break
with tradition. And that is the point that must be understood: bin Laden
and other Wahhabis are not defending Islamic tradition; they represent
an ultra-radical break in the direction of a
sectarian utopia. Thus, they are best
described as Islamofascists, although they have much in common with
Bolsheviks. The Bengali Sufi
writer Zeeshan Ali has described the situation touchingly: 'Muslims
from Bangladesh in the US, just like any other place in the world, uphold
the traditional beliefs of Islam but, due to lack of instruction, keep
quiet when their beliefs are attacked by Wahhabis in the US who all of
a sudden become "better" Muslims
than others. These Wahhabis go even further and
accuse their own fathers of heresy, sin and unbelief. And the young
children of the immigrants, when they grow up
in this country, get exposed only to
this one-sided version of Islam and are led to think that this is the
only Islam. Naturally a big gap is being created every day that silence
is only widening.' The young, divided between
tradition and the call of the new, opt
for 'Islamic revolution' and commit themselves to their self-destruction,
combined with mass murder. The same
influences are brought to bear throughout the ten-million-strong Muslim
community in America, as well as those in Europe. In the US, 80 per
cent of mosques are estimated by the Sufi
Hisham al-Kabbani, born in Lebanon and
now living in the US, to be under the control of Wahhabi imams, who
preach extremism, and this leads to the other
point of vulnerability: Wahhabism is
subsidised by Saudi Arabia, even though bin Laden has sworn to destroy
the Saudi royal family. The Saudis have played a double game for years,
more or less as Stalin did with the West during the second world war.
They pretended to be allies in a common
struggle against Saddam Hussein while
they spread Wahhabi ideology everywhere Muslims are to be found, just
as Stalin promoted an 'antifascist' coalition
with the US while carrying out espionage
and subversion on American territory. The motive was the same: the belief
that the West was or is decadent and doomed. One major
question is never asked in American discussions of Arab terrorism: what
is the role of Saudi Arabia? The question cannot be asked because American
companies depend too much on the continued flow of Saudi oil, while
American politicians have become too cosy with
the Saudi rulers. Another reason it
is not asked is that to expose the extent of Saudi and Wahhabi
influence on American Muslims would deeply compromise many Islamic clerics
in the US. But it is the most significant question Americans should
be asking themselves today. If we get rid of
bin Laden, who do we then have to deal
with? The answer was eloquently put by Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, professor
of political science at the University of California at San Diego, and
author of an authoritative volume on Islamic extremism in Pakistan, when
he said: 'If the US wants to do something
about radical Islam, it has to deal
with Saudi Arabia. The "rogue states" [Iraq, Libya, etc.] are
less important in the radicalisation of
Islam than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the
single most important cause and supporter of radicalisation, ideologisation,
and the general fanaticisation of Islam.' From what we now know, it appears not a single one of the suicide pilots in New York and Washington was Palestinian. They all seem to have been Saudis, citizens of the Gulf states, Egyptian or Algerian. Two are reported to have been the sons of the former second secretary of Saudi embassy in Washington. They were planted in America long before the outbreak of the latest Palestinian intifada; in fact, they seem to have begun their conspiracy while the Middle East peace process was in full, if short, bloom. Anti-terror experts and politicians in the West must now consider the Saudi connection. Stephen Schwartz
is the author of Intellectuals and Assassins, published by Anthem
Press. The Spectator
UK |