Posted on 12/05/2002 9:06:59 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Declare War on Wahhabism
Ray Pierce
Thursday, Dec. 5, 2002
The salient aspect of a successful war strategy is correct threat analysis. A leader who correctly interprets the threat enables the institutions of society to form a zeitgeist, which allows the common man to understand the rationale and goals of the war. This is especially important in a democracy, where broad support is essential for a war of extended duration.
Our current war on terror lacks this clarity. The term "terrorist" means different things to different people, as does therefore the term "states that sponsor terror." Pedestrian thinkers concentrate mainly on bin Laden, who is a product or symptom of the threat in the big picture. Others from the elite media and academia focus on the lack of an Islamic Reformation or else blame America, while some on the right condemn Islam itself.
In philosophy, there is the concept of corresponding truths, which simply stated is the idea that people see what they expect or want to see, as opposed to what is actual or real. An example of this is our government's view of Wahhabite Saudi Arabia within the war on terror parameter.
It was not by accident that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 murders were Wahhabi from Saudi Arabia. Or that the Taliban was the ideal form of Wahhabite government. Or that bin Laden himself is a Wahhabite Saudi.
Wahhabism, masquerading as a religion, has a network of Mosques and schools worldwide which are poisoning the young and sowing hatred. Our own PC military is seeking additional Wahhabite clergy. Wahhabite clergy teach in our prisons.
A religion is an ideology coupled with a metaphysical belief, which forms a theology. The world's five major religions all have aspects of tolerance. Can an ideology that is xenophobic to all that are different be considered a religion?
Can Wahhabism, which seeks either the conversion or death of all other Muslim sects, plus all Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, secularists and pagans, be considered acceptable in our modern and pluralistic world?
If the answer is no, the Western Achilles' heel of religious tolerance is not exposed. But if Wahhabism is considered a religion, we will be defeated in this war, as we will be powerless to stop its spread.
The reason we are losing our war is that our government lacks veracity in its actions. When Prince Bandar is allowed to visit the president's ranch, when the State Department continues to issue express visas, an impression of duplicity is created. This is fortified when we are told that Saudi Arabia is a staunch ally.
How can a country which does not allow Christian worship or even Christian burial on its scared soil be our ally? A greater incongruity occurs when we learn about Saudi funding of terrorism.
Some may point to oil as the main ingredient in our alliance with Saudi Arabia. But our new ally Russia has vast deposits of petroleum and natural gas. During World War II, Germany made synthetic petroleum from coal, which we have in great abundance. And, with our technology, we should start to transfer to a hydrogen economy if we intend to remain a world power throughout the 21st century.
The correct and honest course is to declare war on all Wahhabite states and peoples. By doing this, our goal would be concentric to the facts as they exist in reality.
By declaring war on the Wahhabi, a more refined debate could occur which would allow Wahhabism to be viewed as a cult of hate. This would allow for mainstream adherents of Islam to explain the differences between tolerant Islam and Wahhabism. This discussion may lead to an Islamic Reformation of sorts, which could embrace modernity and pluralism, as it once did before Wahhabism became widespread.
The singular advantage to declaring war on the Wahhabi is that they hate all that are not Wahhabite. From this, many natural alliances will occur. Iran, a Shiite county, had five ambassadors killed by the Taliban, for example. Iran was the chief sponsor of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
The focus of our foreign policy must change, where a reasoned threat analysis and prioritization takes place. Iraq is a secular Stalinist state. The Wahhabi also threaten it. It is purported that bin Laden said that Saddam is a "bad Muslim." Rather than have a policy which aligns these enemies of the Wahhabi such as Iraq and Iran against us, our policy should be to align them against their Wahhabite enemy.
A precedent for this may be found in our policy during World War II. FDR did not declare war on Stalin while we were fighting Hitler, but rather used Stalin to defeat Hitler. By going to war with Iraq, we strengthen Wahhabite Saudi Arabia.
Added to this is the fact that Iraq has no ethos, and therefore is not a nation-state. With Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, Sunni and secularists in the center, Iraq is analogous to Yugoslavia in that violence will result after Saddam is gone. In actuality, the only way to hold such a disparate place together is through a strongman like a Tito or Saddam. And if Iraq splinters, Turkey will be threatened.
The worldwide spread from Saudi Arabia of Wahhabism must be stopped. Their "religious" schools must be closed. Their worldwide political intrigue, which has infested many states to include Pakistan and Indonesia, must be halted. Their followers must be taught to feel secure in Islam, while accepting modernity and pluralism. We need to promote a mainstream brand of Islam.
Our government needs to become honest about this war, which is nothing less than a threat to our civilization. We need to seek allies where they exist. By declaring war on Wahhabism, all of the world's peoples and religions currently under threat will benefit, and our war will become an honest fight against evil.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
Middle East
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism
Editor's note:
Revealed: The Terrorists Living Among Us
Those people whose mind is blinded by wishful thinking, into saying it is just Wahhabism, are people who if Christianity were the problem, would call our attention to many "nominal" lapsed Christians around the world who were baptised as babies, to unitarians, to the pcusa, to leftist episcopalians and bleeding heart lesbian worshippers of the Goddess.
Heretics, apostates, liberals, agnostics, people who have given the faith over, would be pointed to as if they were examples that not all Christians were evil.
Show me any Muslim who will speak critically of the behavior of any other Muslim however violent, depraved, or intolerant. Show me any Muslim, however secular or non-Wahhab you may think he is, who would lift a finger to prevent the genocidal murder of Christians now going on in Sudan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, and the like.
Doh! There's that word again. Al Gore has started a word fad!
:)
http://www.akdn.org/hh/highness.html
also, try www.akdn.org.
Methinks bin Laden's whole operation is a black flag op to put this man in charge ... there is an undercurrent in the Saudi Islamic theocracy, at the very top levels, who are secretly Ismaili.
Anyone can follow my earlier posts re black flag op.
The first ruler of the First House of Saud was Muhammad bin Saud (forebear of the present rulers). He started as ruler of Ad-Dar'iyah, where he joined forces with Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, the eminent religious leader, in what could be called the first alliance.
Muhammad bin Saud concluded an agreement with Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab that together they would bring the Arabs of the peninsula back to the true faith of the Islamic religion. They confirmed this agreement with an oath in 1744 (1157 AH).
Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was born in the town of Uyaina in the Nejd of a highly respected and religious family. In keeping with his family tradition, he exhibited a keen interest in religion and was profoundly perturbed by contemporary deviations from Islamic teachings which included serious deviations from the teachings of the Prophet, peace be upon him. He therefore undertook to bring about a revival of Islam in its simplest and original form. Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. His sole purpose was to re-establish Islam in its purest form.
His forthright sermons led to his persecution. When he and his family were driven out of Uyaina, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab sought the protection of Muhammad bin Saud, in Ad-Dar'iyah, the home of the House of Saud.
Muhammad bin Saud and Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab found they had interests in common, pre-eminently a desire to see all the Arabs of the Peninsula brought back to Islam in its simplest and purest form. In 1744, they therefore took an oath that they would work together to achieve this end. Muhammad bin Saud's son, Abdul Aziz, married the daughter of Imam Muhammad. Thus, with an oath and a marriage, the two leaders sealed a pact between their families which has lasted through the centuries to the present day.
Imam Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792.
One might question if Muhammad bin Saud's overiding goal was to rule what is now Saudi Arabia (uniting all Arabs...)
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.