Posted on 12/14/2004 1:02:47 AM PST by Critical Bill
The leader of the group of al Qaeda militants that attacked the U.S. Consulate in Saudi Arabia was found to be a former member of the Saudi religious police -- a fact that is further evidence of al Qaeda's penetration of the Saudi state system. As militant Islamism grows and the Saudi government faces increased pressure to crack down on jihadists, the kingdom's rulers eventually will come into conflict with the religious establishment. The Saudi English-language daily Arab News on Dec. 13 quoted Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom Prince Turki al-Faisal as saying there could be no solution to the problem of terrorism until the Palestinian issue is resolved. Al-Faisal's comments come a week after a group of al Qaeda militants -- led by Fayez Jihani, a former member of the Saudi religious police known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or mutaween -- attacked the U.S. Consulate in the western Saudi city of Jeddah.
Al-Faisal's comments do not address Saudi Arabia's real threat from militants. There might or might not be a correlation between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamist militancy -- jihadists use the conflict to justify their actions while they have other motives -- but it is clear that Islamist militants are threatening the Saudi state because of the widespread perception that the Saudi government has abandoned Islam. Al Qaeda's infiltration of the Saudi state -- evidenced by Jihani's leadership in the Jeddah attack -- and U.S. pressure on the House of Saud to crack down on its religious establishment and enact reforms seen as anti-Islamic eventually will lead to a clash between the country's political and religious leaders.
Having to deal harshly with a state-militia-turned-official-vigilante-force is not unprecedented in Saudi history. The Ikhwan (Brotherhood), a group of Wahhabi zealots, was the backbone of the fighting force Abdel-Aziz bin Abdel-Rahman al-Saud (the father of the current Saudi king and his brothers) used when he conquered territory the Ottomans had taken from his ancestors. Al-Saud then had to wage a military campaign in the late 1920s to eliminate the Ikhwan when the militia began to oppose the king's Western-inspired modernization drive -- much like al Qaeda's opposition of the direction the current rulers have taken the kingdom. Like al Qaeda, the Ikhwan saw al-Saud's policies as a betrayal of Islam.
Back then it was the British in Iraq urging the ruling family to move against the Ikhwan. Today, the Saudis are seen as being in collusion with the United States -- not only in Iraq but also inside the kingdom. The openness of U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia and the availability of information about U.S.-Saudi cooperation in the media -- as opposed to the United Kingdom's more covert influence before the era of mass media -- make the situation far more explosive than it was 75 years ago.
It is difficult to gauge the level of infiltration al Qaeda enjoys in the Saudi state's security forces and religious organizations. The fact that the latest attack was carried out by a cell commanded by a member of the mutaween bodes ill for the future of the group -- which already is under fire from Saudi society's more liberal elements and the West for alleged human rights abuses. If the religious police force is deemed a threat to the state's stability, the Saudis likely will try to reduce their powers, which will place further strain on the Saudi political system.
The sons of the founder of modern Saudi Arabia will have to take on the mutaween, just as their father had to eliminate the Ikhwan. Al-Saud was able to quash the Ikhwan without any danger to his own power and authority. His sons might not be that successful in dealing with a similar emerging scenario with the mutaween in the 21st century.
Thanks for posting this piece.
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
My pleasure.
Anyone who doubts the notion that ALL of Islam is a dangerous plague should reflect on the fact that the Islamic state most friendly to the US actually has RELIGIOUS POLICE!
Not even the most radical of Christian, Jewish or other sects in the west would even consider living under such a condition.
The Saudis are trying to play both ends against the middle. They will ultimately line up against us, or it will bring down their government.
The islamic "police" (crazy mullah mafia) is what the house of Saud is loosing it's battle against. They used to have a cozy little relationship, The kingdom ran the nations business, the mullahs ran the communities. Now they want the whole ball of waxy oil. The house of Saud in the Crazy Mullahs eyes are a bunch of faggots and sinners; They need Bush's support more than most people realize, and it would be a bad thing if they ( the Saudi royal familly) lost control.
Adding to that, the Saudi's have gone as far as they can appeasing the Wahabbi's. That's why they have been "cracking down" on them lately, trying to weed out the radicals without upsetting the whole applecart. Too little, too late as far as I'm concerned. The bin Laden fundamentalist movement has had decades to spread and establish itself all over the world, no doubt Saudi Arabia is the most established stronghold of all.
That's what I meant by "playing both ends against the middle". I just don't see how it can be a tenable position to live a Western lifestyle and try to run an Islamic state.
I don't believe this, and I don't believe they believe this. What happens when the Pali problem is solved? Who are they going to blame then?
I can't decide if those ancient Saudis need to go or if they are the last remnant of any sanity, but I suspect its the former.
Saudi Arabia has huge expanses of lands they could give to the Palis, but it seems like every nation in the middle east has kicked them out over time.
You mean Afganistan still has these?
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.