Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/23/2001 11:38:03 PM PDT by Wallaby

Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

The question America dares not ask: What role do the Saudis play? Stephen Schwartz MAIL ON SUNDAY Pg. 16 September 23, 2001

THE first thing to do when trying to understand Islamic suicide bombers is to forget cliches about the Muslim taste for martyrdom.

What has so galvanised violent tendencies in the world's second-largest religion and,in America,the fastest growing faith?...if you ask educated, pious, traditional but forward-looking Muslims, ... many of them will answer you with one word: Wahhabism.

It exists, of course, but the desire for paradise is not a safe guide to what motivated the suicide attacks on New York and Washington.

Throughout history, political extremists of all faiths have willingly given up their lives in the belief that 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 in Sri Lanka; kamikaze pilots in the Second World War were not Muslims, but they flew their fighters into American 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 than Pearl Harbour was to Buddhism or Ulster terrorists whatever they may profess are to Christianity.

The attacks of September 11 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 Britain and America, but in the world, are lawabiding citizens of their countries a point stressed by President Bush and other American leaders, much to their credit.

So what turned the perpetrators of those appalling attacks into the monsters they became? 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 land in the Middle East?

Westerners 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 strain of Islam emerged not at the time of the Crusades, but little more than two centuries ago. It was born of a preacher Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-92) from the Nejd the area where Saudi Arabia's capital, Riyadh, now stands .

The official religion of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, it is the equivalent of the most extreme Puritanical Christianity. It abolishes all decoration in mosques even the name of the Prophet Mohammed must not be written in them and even gravestones are anathema as idols.

It bans music and demands death for sexual transgressions or drinking.

Unique in Islam, it brands those who do not pray as unbelievers. It is violent, it is intolerant, and it is fanatical beyond measure. Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are Wahhabis.

The cult was always associated with mass murder. When the Wahhabis took the city of Qarbala in 1801 they killed 2,000 citizens in the streets.

In the 19th Century, Wahhabism took the form of Arab nationalism against the Turks.

And a forerunner of America helping Bin Laden by subsidising the Afghan Mujahideen in the early 20th Century Britain lent support to Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi Arabs in their revolt against the 'decadent' Ottoman Empire.

The Turks tolerated the vast differences in local traditions across their Islamic empire.

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, too, are suicide bombers in Israel and the Egyptians who bathed in the blood of tourists they stabbed to death at Luxor four years ago.

So were the Algerian terrorists whose contribution to world purification included murdering people for reading secular newspapers. So are the Taliban-style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus.

The Iranians are not Wahhabis, which partially explains their slow moves towards moderation after a period of puritan revivalism.

The Taliban do practise a variant of Wahhabism.

But 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.

In fact, most Muslims in the world are peaceful people who would prefer Western democracy in their own countries and loathe Wahhabism.

For them, Bin Laden and Wahhabis are not defending Islam; they represent an ultraradical break in the direction of a sectarian utopia.

Thus, Wahhabis are best described as Islamofascists, although they have much in common with the Bolsheviks.

The Bengali Sufi writer Zeeshan Ali has described the situation touchingly: 'Muslims from Bangladesh now in the US, uphold the traditional beliefs of Islam but keep quiet when their beliefs are attacked by Wahhabis who all of a sudden become "better" Muslims.

'These Wahhabis go even further and accuse their own fathers of heresy and sin.

'The children of immigrants get exposed only to this onesided version of Islam and are led to think it is the only Islam.' This is why some of those young people in the ten-million-strong Muslim community in America, as well as those in Europe, are ready to commit themselves to selfdestruction and mass murder.

Wahhabism preached in an estimated 80 per cent of American mosques 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.

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, during the Second World War, Stalin promoted an 'antifascist' coalition with the United States 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?

It cannot be asked because American companies depend too much on Saudi oil while the politicians have become too cosy with the Saudi rulers.

But it is the most significant question: If we get rid of Bin Laden, who do we then have to deal with? The answer was put by Islamic expert Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, professor of political science at the University of California at San Diego. 'If the US wants to do something about radical Islam, it has to deal with Saudi Arabia,' he says.

'The "rogue states" (Iraq, Libya, etc) are less important in the radicalisation of Islam than Saudi Arabia the single most important cause and supporter of the general fanaticisation of Islam.' From what we now know, all the suicide pilots seem to have been Saudis, citizens of the Gulf states, Egyptians or Algerians 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 author of Intellectuals And Assassins, published by Anthem Press.

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.