Posted on 09/19/2014 2:37:08 AM PDT by markomalley
It is a popular aspect of media mythmaking about the Islamic State that it is so extreme that even other “extremists” such as al-Qaeda shun and repudiate it. But this claim, like the many declarations by both Muslim and non-Muslim leaders that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, is always left unexplained and unsupported.
The recent Saudi statement against terrorism is yet another example of this. The credulous and ignorant will wax enthusiastic over this display of Saudi “moderation,” but in reality — yet again — the closer one looks, the less there is to see.
The Associated Press reported that
Saudi Arabia’s highest body of religious scholars issued a stern ruling on Wednesday calling terrorism a “heinous crime” and saying perpetrators including Islamic State militants deserve punishment in line with Islamic law.
The Council of Senior Religious Scholars said in its fatwa, or religious edict, that it backs the kingdom’s efforts to track down and punish followers of the Islamic State group and al-Qaida.
The House of Saud is in trouble. They’ve spent billions to propagate worldwide the view of Islam held by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. They perhaps never envisioned the prospect of a caliphate practically on their doorstep, and challenging their own legitimacy: the monster they created is returning to haunt them, and they know that if they join any military action against the Islamic State, they could face an uprising at home from young Muslims who have imbibed the understanding of Islam that they have so energetically taught. Hence this fatwa: they hope to delegitimize now what they have spent billions to legitimize, and convince their own people that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam and must be rejected.
AP, as biased as it is, seems aware that this is the point of this fatwa: to preserve the Saudi monarchy. “The clerics,” it reported, “are appointed by the government and are seen as guardians of the kingdom’s ultraconservative Wahhabi school of Islam. The statement by the group of 21 scholars underpins the kingdom’s broader efforts to deter citizens from joining extremist groups that want to bring down the Western-allied monarchy.”
The report noted that Secretary of State John Kerry had gone to Saudi Arabia last week and “planned to ask Mideast countries to encourage government-controlled media and members of the religious establishment to speak out against extremism.”
How ironic: the understanding of Islam that Saudis have worked so hard to spread throughout the world is now “extremism.” But the Saudi statement points at others as the “extremists”: “The council’s condemnations extended to others the Saudi government opposes as well, including the Shiite Hawthi rebel group in Yemen and Saudi Hezbollah, a Shiite militant movement that was engaged in attacks in the kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s. It also criticized what it called ‘crimes of terrorism practiced by the Israeli occupation.’”
It sounds as if this is the Saudi Islamic scholars’ version of the hit on the Five Families. But note the hypocrisy: the Saudis are against the jihad terrorism of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Hizballah, but also against the foremost target of the global jihad, Israel — which shows that they’re not really against jihad terror at all. And what they’re really against is anything that would upset the House of Saud: “One of the greatest sins,” says the statement, is “disobeying the ruler.” This essentially makes it explicit: this is all about preserving the House of Saud, not about genuinely rejecting terrorism.
Yet “to help back up its religious ruling, the council referred to words of the Prophet Muhammad, who warned against following those who want to divide the nation.” The Islamic State, however, doesn’t want to “divide” Saudi Arabia. It wants to incorporate all of it into the Islamic State. But the scholars dismiss the new caliphate as a terrorist group: “The scholars added that any Muslim who thinks jihad — or striving in the path of God — means joining a terrorist group ‘is ignorant and has gone astray.’”
These scholars, remember, are in the country that for years has been the chief financier of jihad terrorism worldwide. But in any case, “the head of the council and grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, described the Islamic State and al-Qaida as Islam’s top enemies.”
“Islam” in that case means “Saudi Arabia.”
Amid all these condemnations of terrorist groups was one notable omission: “Notably absent from the council’s list is the Muslim Brotherhood, which Saudi authorities have outlawed and also branded as terrorist.” The Brotherhood also has significant support in Saudi Arabia, but it doesn’t pose a threat to the Saudi state at the moment. Thus there is no need to mention it and risk angering even more of the population than this present declaration will rile up.
The Saudi Gazette offered more detail, saying that the Saudi Scholars Commission and Ifta Council “said terrorism, which is rejected by Shariah, is contradictory to the principles and purpose of Islam, which came as a mercy to the world and for the goodness of mankind.”
Saudi Arabia is, of course, a Sharia state. It regularly practices beheadings, amputations, and the like. It subjugates and oppresses women. This is what the Saudi Scholars Commission and Ifta Council means by a “mercy to the world.” When they condemn “terrorism,” they don’t mean by the word what most Americans think of. They mean “anything that threatens the Saudi state.”
They likewise redefine “tolerance”: “Tolerance is the essence of Islam, which came to maintain coexistence and peace on earth, the senior Ulema (Islamic scholars) said at the conclusion of the Council’s 80th session.” Tolerance? Remember: these apostles of Islamic tolerance believe that someone who has a Bible or a crucifix deserves arrest, imprisonment, and deportation or death.
The Orwellian redefinition machine went into overdrive when the scholars said: “Terrorism has nothing to do with jihad, and Islam rejects the deviant thought which causes bloodshed.” Except, that is, for the blood of apostates, heretics, adulterers, and all the others whose blood is called for under Sharia. The statement “described terrorism as any crime aimed at corrupting and undermining security, offenses against lives or property, homes, schools, hospitals, factories, bridges, state facilities or oil and gas pipelines, or blowing up or hijacking aeroplanes.”
And yet they condemn Israel, even though Hamas jihadists target Israeli lives and property, homes, schools, etc. What they really mean here is that terrorism involves offenses against Muslim lives and property.
Finally, “the council urged everyone to utilize all means to strengthen unity and cohesion.”
That is, utilize all means to strengthen the House of Saud. That is what this statement against terrorism is all about. Which will not keep it from being an object of celebration for the naïve and credulous.
At-Taubah 73: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.
Al-'Aĥzāb 60-62: Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:
They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.
Well, duh. Anyone who thinks the little Napoleons of the Muslim world are going to willingly give up power and embrace ISIS's claim to the new caliphate is nuts.
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2308.aspx
While improved international counter-terrorism cooperation and steadily improving implementation of financial transparency standards have forced terrorist groups to alter their funds transfer patterns and diversify their revenue sources, some of the traditional fundraising and transfer practices persist and still require our attention.
First, it should come as no surprise to anyone that states continue to fund terrorism.
Iran remains the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism, planning terrorist attacks, providing lethal aid, and delivering hundreds of millions of dollars per year in support to extremist groups across the globe. Hizballah, for example, has received significant monetary payments from Iran to fund the group’s activities in support of the brutal Asad regime. And during the past several years, Iranian weapons shipments, reportedly destined for Shia militants in Bahrain and Huthi rebels in Yemen, have been interdicted by local authorities.
Most notably, Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability. Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria. To say the least, this threatens to aggravate an already volatile situation in a particularly dangerous and unwelcome manner.
Al-Qa’ida still looks to these tried and true methods to raise funds. Since early 2012, senior al-Qa’ida leaders in Pakistan have raised millions of dollars from deep pocket donors. They receive the majority of their funds from Gulf-based sympathizers, followed by supporters based in Pakistan and Turkey.
Al-Qa’ida’s financial strain is also the result of critical bilateral cooperation. Our partner Saudi Arabia has made great progress in stamping out al-Qa’ida funding sources within its borders. Still, we have more work to do with the Saudis to prevent other groups, such as the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LeT), from accessing sympathetic donors in the Kingdom.
Basically - Arab financiers have sought ways to get money to Sunni based or Shia terrorist groups beyond what our financial institutions can monitor...
“And what they’re really against is anything that would upset the House of Saud: “One of the greatest sins,” says the statement, is “disobeying the ruler.”” — sums it up, i think.
“It also criticized what it called ‘crimes of terrorism practiced by the Israeli occupation.’” — but but but, aren’t the saudis pro-israel?! And, we’re told it isn’t/wasn’t the saudis & their satellites, qatar, kuwait & ‘friendly’ sunni states who funded IS; it was the shia mullahs’ regime in iran!! Reminds me of that 80’s song, “everybody wants to rule the world...” mecca must be small fish, relatively!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.