Hello Friends,

There are many questions about the causes for the explosion of Radical Islam not only in the world at large but within the confines of the Islamic world itself. Over the centuries since the birth of Islam there have been many factions and sects within Islam that preached different versions and interpretations of what is the true Islam.

There have been factions that sought enlightenment and basic freedoms that would allow Islam to inter mesh with other religions, beliefs and cultures to the insulated versions that are against any form of freedoms that stray from their understanding of Islam and the Koran.

As you'll read in the article below the liberal and rational factions always inevitably lost and the radical factions won aside from short periods in history where the moderates had the upper hand.

The radical factions also brought about forms of government that were autocratic and despotic and the radicalization of Islam was a product of these societies.

Shalom,

Peter

About the author. Tarek Heggy is both a leading liberal political thinker in the Arabworld and International Petroleum Strategist. His work advances thecauses of modernity, democracy, tolerance, and women's rights in theMiddle East – advocating them as universal values essential to theregion's progress. Professionally, Tarek Heggy is a world-known expertin Natural Gas and has written about the Middle East 's Natural Gasplans in relation to its political and economic future. As one of thecontemporary leading Arab liberal theoreticians, Tarek Heggylectured/spoke at a wide number of universities and research centers:London, Oxford, Rotterdam, Tokyo, Princeton, Columbia , Maryland,California Berkeley universities, Colorado School of Mines, theHeritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Nixon Center, TheWashington Institute for Near East Policy, the National Endowment forDemocracy, the Carnegie Endowment ,the American Enterprise Institute,the RAND, the Foundation of Defense of Democracy, the Council onForeign Relations (NY), the Center for National Security and many otheruniversities and research centers.

Hudson New York

November 23, 2009 7:00 AM
by Tarek Heggy

The Proliferation of the Radical Jinni

The Fuel of Intolerant Islam

Manyhave attributed the spread of religious extremism today in countrieslike Egypt, for example, to external factors, such as foreignincitement and foreign financing of extremist movements in general, andof fundamentalist Islamic groups in particular. This attribution isextremely dangerous: by presenting the issue of religious extremism asa security problem - to be dealt with by the police and other securitybodies – it removes it from the realm of problems amenable to politicalsolutions.

Those who are quick to point an accusing finger atexternal forces should realize that if Egypt had been a haven of socialtolerance, brotherhood and peace, it would not have been susceptible tointerference from abroad. This means that other local factors havecreated a favorable climate for such attempts to succeed.

Political Oppression

Over the last fewdecades, many societies in Islamic countries were subjected to varioustypes of despotic rulers, governing their countries with an iron fistin a setting of widespread autocracy. The most dangerous of the manynegative effects of political oppression is the impediment of socialmobility: it impairs the opportunity for the most qualified citizens torise to leading positions in various fields.

The disappearanceof a healthy process of social mobility makes for a static situation inwhich inept and mediocre persons come to occupy top positions by dintof accepting, indeed, of supporting, oppression through unquestioningloyalty to their superiors. This occasions a downward spiral that Icall “the equation of destruction”: Oppression and autocracy producefollowers, not competent people. Lack of social mobility destroyscompetence across the board at all societal levels. Lack of competence,in turn, results in the collapse of all institutions and in widespreadmediocrity which then becomes the norm. This engenders a powerfulsubversive energy of despair and rage, which breeds the mentality ofviolence. That mentality devalues the worth of human life, whether ofone’s self or of others, as well as spreading a desire for revenge.This acquired “mentality of violence” has come to permeate many ofthese societies.

By the same token, oppressors prevent the growth of civil society, widen incompetence and divide political life into two levels:

• a level above ground (which belongs exclusively to the rulers and their cohorts)
• alevel below ground (which belongs to symbols of Wahhabi, Qutbi, orother such versions of Islam, who receive the best possible training inthe art of growing underground in secrecy).

In the absence of civil society, with the lack of social mobility andthe prevalence of incompetence, the stage is set for a new group ofoppressors who are at the same time themselves incompetent.

Nosooner are there changes causing the downfall and removal of thedespotic ruler in these societies (Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Husseinin Iraq), than there emerge on the scene representatives of thefanatical interpretation of Islam by the only political force whichexisted underground, and who now put themselves forward as saviors.However, they will only succeed in leading their societies to greaterdepths of backwardness, distancing them still farther from the modernage and sinking them even deeper into social problems. Some people arefooled into thinking that these fanatic representatives are the onlypolitical power produced by those societies, when in fact this state ofaffairs is produced by the despotic rulers and their autocratic regimeswho kill social mobility.

Both sets of oppressors, thoseoperating above ground and those belonging to clandestine undergroundorganizations, are products of this equation. A valid question is: Whyis this the only model that emerges whenever an oppressive regime fallsin a Muslim or Arab country? The answer is simply that this is anatural result of the widespread despair felt by those living under anautocratic regime that allows no political activities above ground.Hence, the only organizations that can survive in its shadow are thoseoperating underground.

The cure must start with the first link in the chain, not with thelast. The educational and media institutions are incapable ofredressing this disaster: they too have been corrupted at the hands ofincompetent leadership.

Wahhabism and Tribal Values

When I wasstudying towards a degree in comparative law, I acquired a knowledge ofthe principles of Islamic jurisprudence. My readings took me beyond thecircle of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence to those of theShi’ites and the four main doctrines of the Khawarij, as well as toother schools, such as the eponymous Al-Tabari and Al-Laith and manyother interpretations. [Other worlds closely linked to the field ofIslamic jurisprudence, the most important being the doctrine of theMutakallimun (dialectical theologians), and delving deeply into thephilosophical teachings of the Mu’tazalites and the Ash’arites. Therewas also the world of the Bateneyites in the history of Islam, to whichI was introduced by a close friend, Dr. Mahmoud Ismail, whose writingson the thinking of the Khawarij, the Qarametta and of what he calls theother “secret sects” of Islam (radical fringe movements that neverbecame part of mainstream Islam), served as one of my primary sourceswhile studying the history of Islamic jurisprudence.]

In short,we are dealing here not just with one single model of Islam but with amultitude of interpretations by different schools. Islamic texts areamenable to many interpretations. Some of the earliest converts toIslam admitted as much some one thousand four hundred years ago whenthey said “The Qur’an displays many faces.” Again, what counts is notthe scripture or text but the person who reads, understands andpresents it.

The practice of relying on one text while ignoringanother is a destructive process that lends itself to abuse. As astudent of the Torah and the Talmud, particularly the BabylonianTalmud, known as the Gemara, I do not allow myself to take at facevalue the words spoken by Joshua, son of Nun, on a certain occasion ina given context. By the same token, I cannot accept that “saddaq”(dowry) is an article of Jewish faith just because King Saul demandedit from David, son of Jesse of Bethlehem (King David for the Jews, theProphet David for the Muslims) for the hand of his daughter Michal. Icannot go around brandishing this text as a divine revelation outsideits historical, human and chronological framework.

For example, the sources of jurisprudence and the number of the Prophet’s “Hadiths”regarded as sources of religious doctrine and practice vary widely fromone school to another. The great jurist Abu Hanifah accepted just overa hundred as apostolic precept, while the conservative theologian AhmedIbn-Hanbal accepted over ten thousand in his book Al-Musnad.Thus, the Hanafites rely on istihsan (literally preference, which meansusing few traditions and extracting from the Qur’an the rulings whichfit their ideas) while the Malikites rely on istislah (publicadvantage). Then we have those who insist on a dogmatic interpretationof holy texts and others who, like Ibn Rushd, eschewed narrowinterpretation in favor of deductive reasoning (al ta’weel).

Evenwhen it comes to the consumption of alcoholic drinks, we have differentopinions. Whereas most jurists interpret the text addressing thesubject as banning drinking altogether, others like Abu Hanifah believethe ban applies only to intoxication. He makes his views on the subjectclear in the following passage:

"If it gets me thrown into Hell I will not drink it,
“But even if I am thrown into Hell I will not call it sinful."

The Roots of Wahhabism

Having different trends, creedsand schools of thought, Islam has had its share of fanatical hardlinersthrough the ages, from its inception to the present. As early as thefirst century of the Muslim calendar, Islam has known radical sects whodemanded blind adherence to their rigid reading of the articles offaith, side by side with mainstream Islam, whose adherents forgoviolence and extremism and do not profess to hold a monopoly on Truth.The phenomenon began with the emergence of Al-Khawarij (the Seceders)in 660 AD, the middle of the first Hijra century (their mostimportant doctrine is the Abadeya School, still prevalent in a smallregion of Algeria and in most of the Sultanate of Oman). This sectpreached a dogmatic interpretation of Scripture, and practiced aversion of excommunication by branding those who did not adopt itsteachings as heretics. This was the first such sect, but by no meansthe last. Throughout the history of Islam the quiet rhythm of religiouslife was disrupted many times by marginal groups who tried to imposetheir extremist views on the majority by violent means.

Amongthe earliest was Hamdan Ibn Qarmat, who carried away the Black Stone ofthe Ka’bah, and the latest is the man now hiding in the caves ofWazirstan, Osama bin Laden. In between these two, was Sayed Qutb, whocame up with a theory that will continue to be a wall separatingMuslims from the rest of humanity and from any hope of progress untilthe wall is torn down. Known as the “theory of divine dominion,” Qutb’stheory postulates that mortals are not ruled by mortals but by God. Andwho, you might ask, will make God’s wishes known to humans? The answeris, of course, “we, the ‘ulemas”! [Religious scholars.] It isa theory that holds Muslims hostage to a theocracy overtaken by themarch of human progress and places them at the mercy of a powerstructure dominated by a caste of clerics -- even though in most Muslimdoctrines there is no such thing as a clergy in Islam and nointermediaries between Man and God.

As to the notion of men ofreligion passing themselves off as men of wide learning, which is theEnglish translation of the word ‘ulema, a recent incidentillustrates just how limited their fund of knowledge really is. In thecourse of a debate which took place recently, someone asked one ofthese ‘ulemas, the supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt,whether he knew who Bill Gates was. His reply: “I don’t, and it is notimportant to know!” This reply also shows how insular and isolated fromthe realities of modern life these self-appointed authorities truly are.

Alongsidethe groups and sects whose members insist on a literal interpretationof holy texts and laid down strict rules governing all aspects of life,there is the general trend represented in the main Sunni schools, [themost important of these are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafici and Hanbali,and their offshoots, Al-Laith and Al-Tabari] as well as the Shi’ites,who are split into a number of sects.

The most importantShi’ite sect is the Imamiyah, or Ithna’ashariyya, (i.e. Twelvers), socalled because they accept as imams twelve of the descendants of AliIbn-Abi Talib. (According to their belief, the twelfth imam, whodisappeared about 874 AD, is still living and will return).

Itis within this general trend that prominent proponents of deductivereasoning emerged, like the great jurist Abu Hanifah, as well asuncompromising champions of tradition, like Ahmed Ibn-Hanbal. Theconservative Ibn-Hanbal served as the bulwark of orthodoxy andtradition against any intellectual endeavor and for a time exerted aconsiderable hold on public imagination. His influence eventuallywaned, but prior to the decline that preceded recent resurrection in1744 AD, in his heyday tradition reigned supreme and very little roomwas left for reason. The two main disciples of Ibn-Hanbal wereIbn-Taymiyah and Ibn-Qaiyim Al-Jawzeya, who, like their mentor, allowedno scope for reason or independent thinking, but insisted on a dogmaticadherence to the Hadiths as authoritative sources of allmatters spiritual and temporal, laying down strict guidelines to governevery aspect of daily life. In addition, the world of Islam was thescene of a battle of ideas between Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (Algazel), astrict traditionalist who did not believe the human mind capable ofgrasping the truth as ordained by God, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), whochampioned the primacy of reason. The exponents of these two schoolswaged a bitter battle in which the first salvo was fired by Al-Ghazaliwith his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-Falasifah).Ibn Rushd answered with his brilliant treatise in defense ofrationality, “The Incoherence of the Incoherence” (Tahafut Al Tahafut).But despite his spirited defense, the outcome of the battle was clearlyin Al-Ghazali’s favor, and the great majority of Islamic juristsadopted his ideas, interpreting the precepts of Islamic law by appealto the authority of tradition, and spurning deductive reasoningaltogether. Islamic jurisprudence was dominated by the Mutakallimun,(dialectical theologians), who asserted the primacy of tradition (naql), as advocated by Al-Ghazali, over that of reason (‘aql), as advocated by Ibn Rushd.

Inthe course of this journey, I developed a strong aversion for those Icall “worshippers of the word” and “prisoners of tradition,” and aprofound admiration for the proponents of reason, most notably, ofcourse, Ibn Rushd (Averroes). His championship of the primacy ofreason, though rejected by the Muslim world, took root strongly inEurope, particularly in France, which embraced his visionwholeheartedly. Europe’s gain was our loss; as in turning our backs onIbn Rushd, we lost a historic opportunity for development. A closereading of all of Ibn Taymiyah’s works, as well as the works of hisdisciples, from Ibn Qaiyim Al-Jawzeya to Mohamed Ibn-Abdul Wahhab atthe end of the eighteenth century, only heightened my admiration forthe Mu’tazalites, who emphasized human responsibility in matters ofreligion, and for liberal thinkers who chose the path of reason overthat of dogma -- like Ibn Sinna (Avicenna), Al-Farabi and the leadingexponent of this school, Ibn Rushd.

When one compares some ofthe works of Al-Ghazali [or example, “The Revival of the ReligiousSciences” (Ihya’ Ulum ad-Din), “The Criterion of Knowledge” (Mi’yaral-‘Elm), “The Criterion of Work” (Mi’yar al-‘Amal), “Salvation FromPerdition” (Al-Monqedh Min al’Dallal), “The Essence of Orthodoxy”(Al-Mustafa Min Elm al-Osoul) and the “Incoherence of the Philosophers”(Tahafut al-Falasifah)] which are distinctly lacking in rationality]with the writings of Ibn Rushd, [For example, “The DistinguishedJurist’s Primer” (Bidayat al-Mujtahid Wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid),“Relationship of Religious Law with Philosophy” (Fasl al-Maqal fi mabayn al-Shari`a wa al-hikma min al-Ittisal), “Islamic Doctrine and ItsProofs” (Al-Kashf `an Manahij al-Adilla fi `Aqa’id al-Milla). in whichrationality reigns supreme] one cannot help being amazed that thebattle waged between the exponents of these two distinct schools tencenturies ago should have ended up in a clear victory for Al-Ghazaliand a crushing defeat for Ibn Rushd. Nowhere is the difference in theapproach of the two men more evident than in their defining works:Al-Ghazali’s “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” and Ibn Rushd’s “TheIncoherence of the Incoherence.”

Why had the Muslims chosen to follow the line advocated by Al-Ghazali,the proponent of orthodoxy and tradition -- for whom knowledge meantonly knowledge of religion, and who cancelled the role of the mindaltogether by denying the possibility of acquiring knowledge throughintuition -- over the line advocated by Ibn Rushd -- who upheld theprimacy of reason and sowed the seeds of a renaissance we chose not toreap? Why were Al-Ghazali’s ideas so readily accepted while Ibn Rushd’swere rejected? The answer, I believe, can be summed up in one word:Despotism.

It is also amazing how historians of Islamic thought concealed the factthat Al-Ghazali was unfailingly supportive of despotic rulers, contraryto Ibn Rushd, who was a constant source of irritation for tyrants whowere determined to keep their subjects in a state of intellectualinertia, thereby guaranteeing the perpetuation of the status quo andtheir continued authority unchallenged. If an active mind is the sourceof questions, and questions lead to accountability, questions have eyesand answers are blind.

At a time when despotism in the Arab and Muslim world was at itsheight, therefore, it is not surprising that Muslim rulers should havefound Al-Ghazali’s ideas more appealing than those of Ibn Rushd.

Theorthodox line was also more appealing to their subjects who, under theyoke of tyranny, found it safer and less demanding to go along with theviews of those who required nothing more from them than a suspension oftheir critical faculties. In Europe, where the forces of enlightenmentwere locked in a confrontation with the clericalism that stifledintellectual initiative and rational thought, despotism was in retreat.This could be why, in the thirteenth century, a prestigious center oflearning such as the University of Paris supported the ideas of theArab Muslim Ibn Rushd over those of the European Christian ThomasAquinas, the scholastic philosopher famous for his two-swords doctrine.

TheMuslim world continued to be ruled by despots who brooked no challengeto their authority, and an equally despotic religious establishmentwhich decried the use of reason and demanded blind adherence to theauthority of tradition. Closely linked in methods, motivations andgoals, these two factors created an atmosphere inimical to theunhindered pursuit of knowledge.

Matters, however, were not just black or white. True, the Muslims losta historic opportunity to use Ibn Rushd’s ideas as a springboard thatcould have placed them on a path similar to the one which took Europefrom the obscurantist thinking of the thirteenth century to thevigorous intellectual climate encouraging debate, free thinking,general freedoms and creativity in literature, art and science. ButMuslims also have known both an Islam which allowed for the acceptanceof the “Other,” and another Islam --rigid, doctrinaire, and violentlyrepressing free thought. The first took hold in the more intellectuallyvibrant climate that prevailed among the peoples descended from ancientcivilizations in places like Egypt, Iraq, Turkey and the Levant, whichI call the “Turkish-Egyptian model of Islam.” The second, bestdescribed as the Bedouin model, was espoused by the secret sects(limited in number and influence) who emerged in remote areas of theArabian Peninsula together with the rise of Wahhabism, a puritanrevival launched by Mohamed Ibn-Abdul Wahhab, born in Najd in 1703.

Althoughthe first model of Islam can in no way be described as secular, itadopted an enlightened approach to religion, dealing with it as asystem of spiritual beliefs rather than as a system that ruled allaspects of life and governed the affairs of society. Even if it cannotclaim to have attained the level of enlightenment, progressive thinkingand freedom that characterizes the ideas of Ibn Rushd, it wasnevertheless a gentle and tolerant Islam that could -- and did --coexist with others.

Meanwhile, the altogether differentBedouin model of Islam was taking shape among geographically isolatedcommunities living far from coastlines and hence from exposure to theoutside world. Their insularity provided an ideal breeding ground forthe ideas of Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qaiyim Al-Jawzeya and, towards the endof the eighteenth century, those of Mohamed Ibn-Abdul Wahhab.

Thiswas the model that produced the Saudi Brotherhood who waged war on KingAbdul Aziz Ibn-Saud (1870-1953) in the nineteen twenties. It has sincemetamorphosed into a powerful ideology thanks to the combination of theideas of Sayed Qutb, petrodollars, and a series of blunders on the partof international, regional and local players. One such blunder was thefefeat of the Russians in Afghanistan at the end of the seventies.Another was the late President Sadat’s ill-advised decision to givefree rein to Islamic groups and consider them allies in his war on theLeft. Not surprisingly, the move was orchestrated by senior members ofthe Muslim Brotherhood acting through their mouthpiece, the wealthybusinessman and close confidante of Sadat, Osman Ahmed Osman.

The Growth of Wahhabism

The man who founded Wahhabismwas not a theologian but a proselytizer who was determined to convertthe faithful to his harsh brand of Islam. Intellectually close to thedialectical Islamic theologians who asserted the primacy of tradition (naql) over reason (‘aql),Mohamed Ibn-Abdul Wahhab was a disciple of Ibn-Taymiyah, a stricttraditionalist who allowed little scope for reason or independentthinking. He was also a product of his geographical environment, aremote outpost of history. Unlike Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq andYemen, where ancient civilizations had flourished and left their markon human history, or places like al-Hijaz and a number of the Gulfcoastal line cities, which lay on trade routes and dealt extensivelywith the outside world, the desert of Najd in the Eastern Province ofwhat is now Saudi Arabia had no civilization to speak of before Islam.Nor did it ever become a cultural center like the various capitals ofthe Caliphate: Medina, Damascus and Baghdad. Thanks to its arid, barrenlandscape, Najd remained a cultural backwater, its sole contribution tothe arts a traditional form of poetry that spoke of narrow tribalmatters.

In 1744, Abdul Wahhab forged an alliance with theruler of Al-Dir’iyah, a tribal chieftain by the name of MohamedIbn-Saud, who became his son-in-law. The alliance led to the firstincarnation of the Saudi state, which, by 1804, had expanded to controlnearly one million square meters of the Arabian Peninsula.

Acollision between the two models of Islam was inevitable; in the seconddecade of the nineteenth century, they confronted one another on thebattlefield. Mohamed Ali, who introduced Egypt and the entire region tothe modern age, sent a huge army to the Arabian Peninsula. Led first bythe Egyptian ruler’s son, Tousson, then by Tousson’s younger brother,Ibrahim, the army had as its objective the destruction of the newlyestablished state in the Eastern Province of the Arabian Peninsula.Based in Najd, that state was governed according to the strict Wahhabiinterpretation of Islam. In 1818, under the command of Ibrahim Pasha,arguably the greatest of the Egyptian ruler’s sons, the Egyptian army,and with it, the more enlightened Turkish-Egyptian model of Islam,emerged victorious. They defeated the enemy, destroyed their capital,Al-Dir’iyah, and captured its leader, later executed in Istanbul.

MohamedAli’s decision to first send his son Tousson followed by his sonIbrahim Pasha, known for his military skills, to destroy the firstSaudi state, had implications going far beyond the political ormilitary ambitions of one man. It was in fact an expression of a“cultural and civilizational” confrontation between the two models ofIslam -- a confrontation the enlightened Turkish-Egyptian model decidedto take to the heartland of the obscurantist, extremist and fanaticalWahhabi model.

Mohamed Ali, who was extremely impressed by theEuropean model of development -- and saw no contradiction between themechanisms by which it had come about and his Islamic beliefs --believed the Wahhabi understanding of Islam stood as a major obstaclein the way of the dream he had nurtured since coming to power in 1805(and until he abdicated in favour of his son Ibrahim in 1848) to placeEgypt on a similar road to development. However, although the moderate,tolerant, mainstream version of Islam, which accepted coexistence inpeace in with others and was not pathologically opposed to progress andmodernity, emerged victorious in that particular round of itsconfrontation with the forces of obscurantism, it was later forced toretreat before the internal factors mentioned before: oppression,absence of social mobility, spread of incompetence, despair, outdatededucational systems and corruption.

The years that followed werenot kind to Turkey and Egypt. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire afterWorld War I brought an end to Turkey’s ascendancy, while Egypt’sinfluence receded as its economy and educational system declined. Atthe same time, the proponents of the model of Islam -- which demanded astrict adherence to the letter of scripture and had slammed the doorshut in the face of rationality --suddenly found themselves in controlof vast wealth unprecedented in history. This gave the Saudis anenormous edge over their moderate rivals and allowed them to extendtheir influence into the traditional strongholds of theTurkish-Egyptian model of Islam, where they waged a systematic campaignto co-opt the establishment elite and institutions. The success of thiscampaign found its most salient expression in the emergence offanatical movements like the Taliban. This other stricter version ofIslam found, therefore, for the first time, opportunities to spread itsuncompromising message to every corner of the world, aided byinternational conditions (and lack of vision) which allowed what hadonce been an obscure sect confined behind the sand dunes of Najd toimpose itself on the world stage and boldly proclaim its brand of Islamas the one and only true Islam.

As the drama played out, some ofthe spectators chose to look the other way, while the sword-wieldinghero of the piece was playing the role required of him at the time.

They thus failed to realize that the hero was no longer sticking to thescript set for him, but was now playing a much more central anddangerous role.

This unfortunate state of affairs could have been avoided if themajority of Muslims had supported Ibn Rushd’s ideas, or if conditionshad not forced the retreat of the Turkish-Egyptian model.

Theharsh and unforgiving environment in which the Najdis lived explainswhy Mohamed Ibn-Abdul Wahhab found a receptive audience for his equallyharsh and unforgiving brand of Islam. The same environment thatproduced the founder of Wahhabism later produced the radical Ikhwan movement, which challenged the authority of King Abdul Aziz Ibn-Saud.

In the nineteen twenties, the king took on the Ikhwan,who were openly accusing him of deviating from the true faith. When hereturned to Riyadh after joining Hijaz to his kingdom, the Ikhwan said that he had left on a camel and returned in an American car.

Thiswas just one of many clashes between the movement and the king oversuch issues as whether the radio was sinful, or the telephone aninvention of the devil -- in short, conflicts over any of the fruits ofmodernity which threatened their fundamentalist vision of the world.

Itis a vision that can only be understood by studying what is known asthe secret sects of Islam, as well as the message of Mohamed Ibn-AbdulWahhab, who was the product of many factors, including the sociologicaland geopolitical environment of the deserts of Najd.

Thesefactors allowed the Wahhabis, after they invaded Hijaz, to impose theiraustere understanding of religion throughout the Arabian Peninsula.Among other things, they banned tombstones and any structuresidentifying burial sites, insisting on unmarked graves flush with theland. They combated Sufism in Mecca and elsewhere as contrary to theteachings of Islam. They even entered into an armed clash with theEgyptian mahmal, a splendidly decorated litter on which the Egyptians sent a new cover for the Ka’bah every year.

The mahmalceremony was a merry occasion celebrated by the Egyptians with theirtraditional love of music, dancing and revelry. For the Najdis,however, who had launched their puritanical revival movement to purgeIslam of what they saw as deviations from the straight and true path oforthodoxy, such unseemly displays of levity could not be tolerated.

Mostimportantly, throughout its history, the desert wasteland of theArabian Peninsula’s Eastern Province had suffered greatly from itsgeography. However, with the richest oil fields and the oil price boomthat turned the desert kingdom into a major financial power, it wasinevitable that this part of the world should try to market its ideas.

Thisit did with missionary zeal in the second half of the twentiethcentury. With a virtually endless supply of funds at their disposal,the Wahhabis were able to successfully propagate their model of Islamthroughout the Arab and Muslim world and start to instill it in theWest. Disillusioned populations, facing massive internal problemscaused by political oppression and its consequences were easy prey, andmainstream Islam gradually lost ground to the austere, puritanicalWahhabi model that was now presenting itself as the one and only trueIslam.

Flawed Education

Educational systems that are out of step with the age are a vital link in the chain of destruction.

Read the rest here

Hello Friends,

Here's another excellent article by Lt. Col (Ret) Alan West. He raises and discusses all the important and pertinent issues facing the United States and many are common with the rest of the Western World.

Last year B Hussein promised change and that's the one thing he didn't lie about. The change is there but not the change that his supporters were dreaming about. He's running the country into the ground and straight into the arms of bankruptcy all with aid and assistance of the corrupt Senate and Congress. His Marxist and socialist agendas are so obvious that even many of his past supporters are quickly realizing that the Emperor is naked and joining the many grassroots organizations. Hence his dismal approval ratings only 1 year into his presidency.

We need many more people like Alan West in congress and the Senate and come 2012 someone with stature, honesty, integrity and the best interests of the United States at heart in the White House. It's up to us to support honorable men and women cut in the same mold as Alan West.

Here's an interview with Alan West on the Hannity show. Well worth watching.



Shalom,

Peter

Washingtoons
19 December 2009
Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

"2010: America's Decisive Year"

Greetings fellow riders, South Floridians, and indeed America, time for another monthly installment of our Wheels on the Road (WOTR) political assessment.

By the time this edition goes to print we shall be in the New Year, 2010, one decade down into the 21st century. What amazes me are the challenges which face our Republic and its future.

We are embroiled in a new style of conflict whose nuances areconfounding but yet the solutions are clear, if we only recognized thethreats as they present themselves. There are two critical socialphenomena, which if not checked, will result in the destruction of ourCountry; political correctness and multiculturalism. These two factors preclude us, as a Country, and indeed western civilization from saying what needs to be said.

This 21st century battlefield combines economic, informational, andmilitary aspects which together has brought America to a critical pointin its existence.

Our government fails to recognize that strengthening our economy isa part of our National power. We currently live under a goverment whichfails to recognize that the indomitable entrepreneurial spiritof its citizens will unlock our economic growth. We have seen over thepast 10 years an unprecedented growth of government, debt, and thedeficit. We now find ourselves having our debt owned by a communistCountry, China. I do not assess that the Chinese will do anything tocollapse the US economy, but they will leverage this for their ownforeign policy gains. But what is more disturbing is that ourgovernment continues on a path of astronomical spending by way ofprinting more money (hyper inflation to follow), raising taxes (meaningthat Americans cannot invest nor innovate), and as stated, borrowing more money (selling our Country).

This is being done under the auspices of creating more unnecessarygovernment social programs in order to increase a societaldependency....enslavement instead of empowerment. If we do not transferour national wealth from Washington DC back to Americans, not Wall Street, we will continue on the road to perdition.

What we do not realize as well is that part of this 21st centurybattlefield is energy resourcing. Russia and China are embarking upon aglobal dominance of energy resources while we sit in America, "stuck on stupid" talking about green jobs.......and creating insidious legislation like Cap and Trade. If we would seek to develop our full spectrum of energy resourcesin America, producing, consuming, and even exporting these resources,consider the economic boom in job creation. Not just that, we then cutoff the greatest revenue source of our advesaries, the despots andautocrats who run OPEC.

Couple with this we MUST leverage our information technology todefeat the ideology of radical islamic infiltration into our society.This past summer Libyan madman Mohammar Khadify stated that "Islam willconquer the West without firing a shot". We are so in the dark aboutthis threat that it is appalling, and wherepolitical correctnessand multiculturalism have really struck home. We are not telling ourstory and after visiting Israel and peering over into the Gaza stripthere is no place where this is more true. We are allowing revisioniststo rewrite history unfavorably and indeed untruthfully. We have mediaoutlets which do not profess the truth but have come partisancheerleaders, all to the detriment of their own existence.

A great example of media blindness is the incredible threat whichillegal immigration presents to America, yet it is not a topic ofserious investigative discussion. This one issue affects our nationalsecurity, economy, healthcare, education, and culture. However, what wejust saw last week was a liberal Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill)introduce legislation to grant citizenship to some 12-15 millionillegals.

Will our economy survive? Will we remain secure? Why are newsoutlets not reporting and asking the hard questions about such adangerous piece of legislation? Why are we allowing special interest groups like La Raza to dominate the messaging?

Lastly, we all know about the military actions in which we are engaged.Somewhere along the way we lost focus on what our military does betterthan anyone, strategic maneuverability. We have become mired down innation-building and not in taking the fight to the enemy. We have tiedthe hands of our Men and Women in combat with restricive rules ofengagement which denies them the critical aspect of combat operations,initiative.

We have yet to clearly identify the enemy, trust me the answer is notTaliban and Al Qaeda, that is far too simplistic. We have a theocraticislamic regime that is pursuing nuclear technology, and soon thedeadline of "negotiations" will cease. And do not tell me that opendialogue will solve the problems of Islamic totalitarianism and statesponsored terrorism.

I have only scratched the surface on the challenges that face our Country, hence why 2010 is a decisive year.

The upcoming mid-term elections may be the last chance we have as aCountry to recognize the situation in which we find ourselves, andresolve it. But let us take a look at what will happen.

There are many on the GOP side who believe that 2010 will be a repeatof 1994. Honestly, I do not see that happening first because Americansare just as angry at the GOP as the Dems. From 1994 to 2006 the GOPviolated their own Contract with America and became a lesser version ofthe liberals, big spending and corruption. They themselves have a longway to go in regaining the trust and confidence of the people.Secondly, there is no definitive GOP leader ala Newt Gingrich from 1994who masterminded recruiting and promoting of an incredible freshmanclass.

The GOP has to win back 40 seats in order to remove the gavel fromthe hands of Nancy Pelosi, without a definitive leader and a commonconservative message......well, that may not happen. There will bevictories, but not a landslide.

What will the liberals do? What they do best, cheat and lie.Congressman Gutierrez's amnesty legislation is just an attempt to alterthe electoral base of America. Recall that the Obama administrationmoved the 2010 census from the Commerce Dept and into the White Houseunder the supervision of Rahm Emmanuel...wonder why? Once amnesty ispassed, then ACORN/SEIU/New Black Panther Partykicks in to register them as new voters. If the liberals are to bedefeated it cannot be close, then the cheating comes out...can you sayAl Franken?

Oh yea, the liberals will once again trounce out their favorite SaulAlinsky type target, George W Bush, claiming that GOP candidates willjust bring back Bush years. The preferred method of liberals is vileridicule and while that works on some, they need beware that some of usplan to fight back. Their intimidation tactics are well known now andthe antidote to their venom is being distributed. I took my shotalready.

The bottom line is this, there is a revolution brewing in America.This TEA Party movement is for real, regardless of the ridicule of theleft and the disenfranchisement from the GOP. Americans are tired ofthe "Intellectual Elite Politburo" which seeks to dominate and controlour Republic while disregarding our rule of law, the US Constitution. It comes down to principle, not party, and the world is watching, our enemies are watching.

We allowed the liberals their chance and what they gave us was worsethan before. My advice to them, especially my opponent Ron Klein, stepaside or else you will end up with tire marks all over your back. Myadvice to the GOP, embrace conservative principles and values, evidencea contrast, and show some leadership.

Steadfast and Loyal,LTC(R) A B West

Hello Friends,

In the UK a war memorial was defaced by the "far right" according to their main stream media and government.

Sounds interesting until you read what those "far righters" wrote on the monument. ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD. Yep, makes you wonder how d*amn stupid MSM, local government and national government are. Or, how stupid they think the citizens are.

Radical Islam has been preaching and freely telling the world that Islam will dominate the world and now they are calling them the "far right". Local government cleaned the defacement at record speed hoping that no one will see what happened but thank God for "modern technology" called cameras and cellphones that can take pictures. It's on record and calling them "far right" won't change the fact that this is a form of jihad and that Radical Islam is behind this action.

Political correctness at its worst and dirtiest yet again.

Shalom,

Peter


This picture was removed from the Burton Mail article. See below. MSM at it's "best" and most destructive.

Vandals deface the town war memorial

by RICHARD CASTLE

A ROYAL British Legion boss says vandals have “dishonoured those whohave given their lives for our country” by defacing Burtonʼs warmemorial.

RoyWhenman, vice-chairman of the town’s Legion branch, received calls frommembers saying an extremist message had been written on the statue.Having been informed at 9.20am, borough council chiefs had cleaned thegraffiti from the relic, situated outside Burton College, in LichfieldStreet, by 9.40am.

Mr Whenman, of Birches Close, Stretton, has described whoever committed the offence as “diabolical”.

He said: “There’s nothing worse, in my eyes, than discrediting a warmemorial. It dishonours those who have given their lives for ourcountry.

“I don’t know how long it was there for, but I was pleasantly surprised by the council’s quick action and I commend them for it.

“What I would say to them is there are other ways of expressing your anger about certain issues.”

Dennis Fletcher, chairman of East Staffordshire Racial EqualityCouncil, said he suspected someone from the far right was responsible.

He said: “My reaction is one of horror. Just two nights ago at ourgeneral committee meeting we were talking about the harmony betweencommunities in the borough.

“I suspect members of the far right have done this to stir things upand there are generally very good inter-cultural relations in EastStaffordshire.

“Graffiti of any type is terrible but when it includes racist material it has to be considered utterly unacceptable.”

An East Staffordshire Borough Council spokesman said: “We would saythat this vandalism is deplorable and we do our best to clean suchgraffiti as soon as we possibly can.”

■ The Mail has manipulated the mainpicture to remove some of the content of the message.

Hello Friends,

We've often discussed the dangers facing the world with Iran's attaining Nuclear capabilities in the very near future. With all the"talks" B Hussein is insisting on with other world leaders following suit although with serious doubts as to the success of these talks from past experience with the lunatic leadership in Iran.

Time after time Ahmadinejad says a robust no to any international agreements then back steps a bit after showing the world their capabilities the most recent of which were the test firing of their long range missiles and the testing of nuclear triggers for their nuclear bomb. Every time this happens they are telling the west that "we're" not submitting to any demands you might make and the opposite is expected of you. Unfortunately with B Hussein Obowma the great appeaser, bower and submitter (his greatest accomplishments since taking office) he ignores what Ahmadinejad is actually telling him and carries on with his pathetic attempt to talk them out of making a nuclear bomb and is in effect submitting to their will.

B Hussein Obowma is not only endangering the United States but the world at large. He either hasn't got the capability to understand the dangers or I submit understands all to well what he's doing and that it's actually part of his overall agenda.

The below article should be an eye opener for many and if it isn't they're either brain dead or simply in denial believing the "great" Obowma's lies and deceptions.

Shalom,

Peter

Hello Friends,

Dry Bones has the knack of touching on the most sensitive of topics in his inimitable and brilliant way.

The Swedes came up with the original draft to divide Jerusalem and the EU softened it and are behind it at the moment. According to previous agreements Jerusalem is a point to be discussed during the peace talks but so far the Palestinians are doing their utmost not to return to the talks.

What will happen in the future is questionable since I believe Israel will at some stage in the future say no more.Either talk peace or forget about it. There's a limit to one sided actions and so far it's only Israel that's shown any interest in conducting talks, making concessions and reaching agreements. The Palestinians on the other hand are finding every excuse under the sun not to return to peace talks and break every agreement made in the past.

Time will tell but at the moment it seems we're at a stalemate. The building freeze is on and the majority in the country aren't happy with that decision and the Palestinians are stalling yet again.

Shalom,

Peter