Posted on 02/12/2004 5:20:29 AM PST by SJackson
In recent months some 70 individuals with diplomatic status from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia have left the United States - an event little noticed in the broad policy debate, but extremely important. Here's why: Since 9/11, and the revelation that 15 of the 19 attackers on that day were their subjects, the Saudi rulers have repeatedly told the United States that the princely regime in Riyadh is a reliable ally in the war against terror. Such claims were restated with greater conviction after the bombings inside the kingdom last year. Yet as often as these reassurances are offered, the trail of Islamist extremism leads back to Saudi officials and Saudi state agencies.
In the latest such case, the State Department ordered 24 Saudis with diplomatic visas to return home. They included Saudis who came ostensibly as members of the kingdom's diplomatic staff but who functioned at an Islamic school in Virginia known for radical indoctrination of imams and military chaplains.
American officials, declining to be named, had previously criticized the Saudis for granting diplomatic status to those whose activities do not constitute legitimate diplomatic business.
Of the 24 ordered to leave, 16 were employees of the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America (IIASA) in Fairfax, Va. IIASA is affiliated with a religious university in Riyadh. But it is funded by and serves as an arm of the embassy's Religious Affairs Department. Its board chairman is the Saudi ambassador to America, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
IIASA has been a major center for Saudi-sponsored Islamic outreach in America, training imams for local mosques as well as at least 75 Muslim lay chaplains for service in the U.S. armed forces. Its 400 students pay no tuition.
IIASA's status as a religious body that enjoys diplomatic standing was questioned 18 months ago by Ali al-Ahmed, a prominent Saudi dissident then based in Washington. Al-Ahmed charged that IIASA, in its instruction on Islam, hewed to an ultra-radical line.
Al-Ahmed analyzed literature produced by IIASA, including an Arabic-language textbook titled "A Muslim's Relations with Non-Muslims, Enmity or Friendship," by Dr. Abdullah al-Tarekee. The author wrote, "unbelievers, idolaters and others like them must be hated and despised . . . Qur'an forbade taking Jews and Christians as friends, and that applies to every Jew and Christian, with no consideration as to whether they are at war with Islam or not."
These views reflect the domination in Saudi Arabia of the movement known as Wahhabism.
Based on his disclosure of IIASA's role as a distributor of extremist literature, dissident al-Ahmed called on U.S. and Saudi authorities to close the school and repatriate its staff.
In November, the diplomatic visa of one Islamic cleric who lectured at IIASA, Jaafar Idris, was revoked after he was scheduled to appear at a Muslim conference in Houston. Another cleric, Sheikh Allamah Ibn Jibreen, was advertised to address the Houston gathering via satellite. On his Web site, linked to that of IIASA as a recommended source of Islamic teaching, Jibreen called on Saudis to go north of the Iraqi border to attack Coalition troops.
Jibreen also praised Osama bin Laden only months ago, calling on God to "aid him and bring victory to him and by him." Sources in the Saudi embassy in Washington announced late in 2003 that the kingdom would cease operating religious affairs departments in their embassies, but as soon as the pledge was made, it was denounced by clerics in Riyadh, who denied any such action would be taken.
The return to Saudi territory of the 70 diplomats, according to Saudi sources, was part of an effort to curb extremism, rather than a normal rotation of embassy employees.
But there is little that is normal in this picture. If Saudi Arabia is really our ally, why is extremism a problem inside its embassy?
In the best case, the purge of "diplomats" may reflect a division in the highest circles of Saudi society, with those who are aware of the crisis, such as Crown Prince Abdullah, pressing for a break with the Wahhabi legacy, while a majority of hardliners in the royal family resist change.
A shutdown of the Saudi embassy's Religious Affairs Department, and of IIASA, would be welcome. But we should not forget that Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, was exposed for giving a cash donation that ended up in the pockets of two lead members of the 9/11 conspiracy, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.
Last month, the Senate Finance Committee said it would investigate 24 Islamic charities and other entities operating in the U.S. The target list includes the Muslim World League, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the International Islamic Relief Organization, all branches of the Saudi government.
The Saudi rulers want us to believe they are our friends, and that terrorist rule is the only alternative to their rule. Yet they still subsidize the global Wahhabi offensive.
Washington has yet to face, with the vigor it demands, the problem of official Saudi backing for extremism. It's time to serve the Saudis with an ultimatum: support for international Wahhabism must end.
I'm in the middle of reading "Terrorist Hunter" by Anonymous.
The Islamist situation in Northern Virginia is much worse than I thought (and I thought I was perhaps being an alarmist).
Even after the shutdown of the SAAR foundation - a false front, $1 billion "charity" which clearly was funding Wahabbi and Islamist doctrine here on U.S. soil - the jihadi plotting continues is places such as Falls Church, Herndon, Fairfax, Sterling, and Leesburg.
I had originally thought that the schools ought to just go away due to some horrible accident or the attacks of some "right-wing loonies." Then our government could apologize profusely, express horror, promise that the bad guys would be brought to justice, give some money to the Saudis, etc., and the problem would be over. But now I think this is going on without being disturbed because it's convenient for everyone. The FBI agents don't even have a long commute from their own homes in Reston.
I will know that we are really into winning this war when Islam is categorized for what it is: an ideology hostile to the USA, and actively working to bring about its demise.
See the recent threads on the FBI Middle Eastern translators passing around sweets on 9-12-01 if your stomach can stand it.
Hey, I want a "religious Affairs Department" operating out of our Embassy in Saudi for the purpose of passing out Bibles and evangelizing the Saudis.
They need the income form their oil.
We won't see a repeat of the oil embargos of the 70s. They are a much poorer nation now, with other oilfields online ourside of Saudi. If they cut, we would go into full conservation mode, and other producers would respond to the market share opportunity.
The Saudis would only be cutting their own throats if they did this and they know it.
That would surprise me.
When people in this country gain power, they gain what ever power has to offer.
Not likely to "convert," especially to islam, given its retrograde condition now with respect to human rights.
Now I can believe that there are those in power who have been bought by the Saudis.
Cold, hard greed.
That's also very American, and is the product of a loss of spiritual values.
The only likely "power" sector in the US likely to convert to Islam are those in academia, who are already mentally-ill (I'm quite serious about this) as a result of their lefist-liberalism.
In the case of SAAR and its 120 beneficiaries (all operating from the same "office" in Herndon VA), they were simply laundering money. A billion $$$ slushfund from Saudi, they passed it around from one "charity" to another, with the occasional sidetrip to Isle Of Man for washing.
See Terrorist Hunter by Anonymous for details.
It's difficult for me to envision a true believer in Islam 1) a convert who then remains rational enough to 2) remain as a sleeper and insinuate himself into the power structure.
As I said, the place for irrationality in the American power structure remains academia.
It is anamalous to the typical American profile to do otherwise. Islam just doesn't have that appeal in this country, except for the dissaffected. And it doesn't have the appeal that pre-Stalinist communism had in this country, due to its treatment of women.
Conversion to Islam in this country produces crazies, or people who live on the margins, like African-American Muslims IHO. The only seemingly rational Muslims who are also successful are the foreign-born, or those who are of Muslim descent, NOT converts.
The one person who could do this kind of damage to the US would be someone like Mansoor Ijaz.
His father, when he was dying, got him to promise that he would do something for Islma.
I wonder.....
Sleeper convert ?
He was not enough of a convert to be happy that his comrades were going to Afghanistan to fight India.
These also were converts pre-9-11.
I don't doubt that there are Americans who might convert, I don't see the juxaposition of an upwardly mobile achiever with a jihadi mindset unless he or she were not a convert, but an American-born Muslim.
The real threat, it seems to me, comes from subsequent-generation American-born Muslims, of which there are many. Searching for their roots, etc.
Yes, it is. That's becauses it is not an American trait, and would not be natural, especially to an American convert.
Those are cultural characteristics. I think one has to be raised and immersed in the culture to adopt doubletalk and hatred as a natural mindset and characteristic.
Now, truly, how many native born Americans have that kind of pathology, and if they do, how many are not sabatogued by it, but are achievers ?
The only ones I can think of are criminals, and their motivation is money, not ideology.
It just isn't an American charactersitic, which is why we're so likeable, doncha think ?
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.