Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Neo-Con Salafis of Saudi

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Neo-Con Salafis (Saudi-Salafis) Yamin Zakaria - yaminz @ yahoo.co.uk London, UK http://www.iiop.org In the 13th century, Hulagu Khan, the grandson of Genghis
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 7, 2006
      Neo-Con Salafis (Saudi-Salafis)
      Yamin Zakaria - yaminz @ yahoo.co.uk
      London, UK

      In the 13th century, Hulagu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, led
      the brutal Mongol invasion of Baghdad, turning the river Euphrates and
      Tigris red with blood of men, women and children. To instil fear and
      humiliation, the invaders made pyramids with the human skulls of the
      victims. For the same reasons, the neo-Mongols of today made similar
      pyramids with the bodies of naked Iraqis. Clearly technological
      advancements does not always equate to advancement of civilisation; at
      least Hulagu Khan was honest, and did not pretend to wear the mask of
      civilisation while his men carried out atrocities!

      The advancing Mongols were halted after their defeat by Sultan Baybars
      in the battle of Ein Jalut in 1260. Subsequently, the Mongol invaders
      were absorbed by the Muslims. This is a distinct episode of human
      history, where the invading conquerors assimilated into the culture
      and religion of the conquered nations. Yet, the medieval propaganda
      that Islam was spread by the sword continues to be propagated, by the
      `enlightened' and scientifically advanced minds of today.

      Prior to Sultan Baybars, Salahuddin Al-Ayubi came to the defence of
      Muslims and non-Muslims of Palestine, and liberated it from the
      clutches of the barbaric crusaders. After Sultan Baybars, came the
      rule of the Othmania Caliphate (Ottomans). It produced the likes of
      Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih, who liberated Istanbul (Constantinople) at
      the age of 21, partly fulfilling the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad
      (SAW). The Islamic State reached its apex under the rule of Suleiman
      Al-Qanuni (Suleiman the Magnificent), who was on the verge of opening
      up Venice to Islamic rule.

      After his demise, the Islamic State kept declining, with its inherent
      problems of economic and cultural stagnation. The gap between the
      Islamic State and secular Europe increased significantly after the
      Industrial Revolution, because now the European powers could produce
      much larger quantities of military hardware over a shorter period of
      time. This led to loss of territory in a series of disastrous wars and
      increasingly the Ottoman State fell under the financial control of the
      European powers, who labelled it as "the sick man of Europe'.
      Furthermore, fuelled by nationalism and inspired by outside forces,
      internal rebellions from the various ethnic groups increased, after
      living together in harmony for centuries under the Islamic State.

      The last independent Ottoman Sultan was Abdul Hamid, who was renowned
      for refusing to sell Palestine to the Zionists, despite being tempted
      by huge amounts of money and at the time the state was in huge debt.
      He also tried to eradicate the notorious network of freemasonry which
      was prevalent within the Islamic State. During the Ottoman rule, there
      were Sultans in other parts of the Islamic world that also defended
      the Muslim community, for example, Ahmad Shah Durrani (Ahmad Shah
      Abdali) of Afghanistan, Imam Shamil of the Caucasus, and Sheikh Uthman
      Dan Fodio who established the Sokoto Caliphate over Nigeria, Cameroon
      and other parts of West Africa.

      Eventually, the Ottoman Islamic State was symbolically demolished in
      1924. This was achieved by the collective effort of the colonial
      powers (Britain and France), the Turkish nationalist movement (Young
      Turks), and the treacherous Arab regimes that were aided by the
      Wahhabi (Salafi) movement. The Wahhabi movement `legitimised' the
      revolt against the Islamic State, as they considered everyone as an
      apostate unless they followed the Wahhabi school of thought. Whilst
      the British schemed to create the Arab revolt, the French worked to
      create the revolt of the Young Turks, both groups worked for the
      destruction of the Caliphate.

      As a just `reward' for their treachery, the colonial nations handed
      Palestine to the Zionists. People forget that these Arabs aided by the
      Salafi movement, were complicit with the Zionists in creating the
      Israeli cancer. Also, the colonial powers betrayed the Arabs by
      carving up the rest of the region, according to the secret treaty of
      Sykes-Picot. They created petty kingdoms ruled over by puppet
      dictators to serve their policy of divide and conquer. Some of the
      countries are so small and artificial that it can be classified as an
      oil field with a flag. The colonial powers even manufactured royal
      dynasties out of wild Bedouins who were operating as bandits.

      In the absence of the Caliphate who will come to the defence of the
      Muslims now? With the demise of the Caliphate, the incursions into the
      Islamic lands have increased, as has the killing of Muslims and the
      exploitation of their resources. Most of the puppet regimes in the
      Muslim world continue to function like the coolies of the British Raj,
      always ready to serve and take orders in order to preserve their
      self-interests. They would sell anything to maintain their oil fields,
      empty palaces, shopping complexes and Filipino `maids'. After the
      Iraqi invasion, one of the members of the Kuwaiti royal family stated
      on TV that he would embrace the devil to regain his oil-field (Kuwait)
      in the south of Iraq. There was no Fatwa (Islamic edict) to pronounce
      him as an apostate from the land that produces endless fatwas against
      anyone, except those who show support for the pro-US puppet regimes!

      When Iraq was attacked by the US-led coalition in 1991, these Gollum
      (Smeagol) like Salafi `scholars' nearly choked trying to utter the
      word Jihad. Instead they gurgled and legitimised fighting the Muslims
      of Iraq under the American flag; some even saw `Jihad' behind American
      troops in 1991! If fighting behind the Americans is Jihad, surely the
      likes of Bush and Sharon (a close ally of the US) are the Ameers
      (leaders) of Jihad! In reality this is Jihad in reverse gear, as the
      Muslims are the intended victims.

      It was those same American troops that continued to commit the
      atrocities in Iraq, through enforcing the self-styled no-fly zone, and
      the cruel economic sanctions with direct cooperation from the Salafi
      orientated regimes. Then came the second invasion in 2003, the US
      troops committed atrocities in places like Abu-Ghraib, Baghdad,
      Fallujah, and Ramadi. To humiliate the Arab/Islamic world, they
      deliberately taped and aired the sadistic torture of Iraqis. In
      Haditha they gang raped a young girl and killed her along with her
      family, one of many such brutal crimes.

      These Salafi orientated regimes managed to spin idiotic arguments for
      the naïve and their brain-dead followers. One of these claims is that
      the presence of US troops was good for Islam, as allegedly so many of
      them embraced Islam. According to these idiots, the blood of the Iraqi
      Muslims for some mysterious number of US soldiers allegedly converting
      to Islam was a good exchange! I suppose the first instruction given to
      those `converts' by the Gollum like Salafi `scholars' was to bomb the
      Muslims in Iraq! Was it their words of encouragement that led to the
      US forces, perhaps including the so-called `converts', to massacre the
      retreating Iraqis on the road to Basra, and bury the defenceless Iraqi
      soldiers under the sand?

      These Salafis describe the resistance in Palestine and Iraq as
      terrorists and extremists. Concurrently, they will not issue any
      criticism of the Pro-US regimes who are actively aiding the slaughter
      in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, because allegedly they have found
      a `Hadith' which permits this treacherous stance. Even common sense
      tells us that this is a perverted interpretation of Islam, as they
      justify remaining silent and inactive when violence is inflicted upon
      the Muslims but become overtly critical against Muslims for
      retaliating against injustices. This stance contradicts human nature
      as well as Islamic evidences.

      What then is the difference between the Salafi position and the
      neo-con ilk, who are leading the war on terror (Islam)? Only the
      shameless and treacherous ones would adopt the same position as those
      who have raped and tortured their children, mothers and sisters in a
      manner that is not even found amongst animals. Yet, these charlatans
      have the audacity to call themselves followers of the real pious
      predecessors (Salafis) that came after the demise of Prophet Muhammad
      (SAW). Therefore, the label `neo-con salafis' or Saudi-Salafis is most
      appropriate for them. This also distinguishes them from the
      Jihadi-Salafis, who are far more consistent.

      According to the neo-con Salafi obsession of purifying the creed
      (Aqeeda), liberation (purification) of Palestine should be a top
      priority. This is because Palestine includes Masjid Al-Aqsa
      (Jerusalem, Al-Quds), which is explicitly mentioned in the Quran and
      in the Hadiths, as a purified sacred place for the Muslims. Of course
      that is difficult as the Salafi orientated Saudi regime is closely
      aligned with the US and by implication allied with Israel. No one can
      dispute that the US provides the lifeline for Israel. So how will
      these neo-con Salafis liberate Palestine when they are aligned with
      the US and the Israelis? Thus, to date, not a single item of
      literature has been produced by these neo-con Salafis, as to how they
      visualise liberating Palestine.

      When the Muslims in Bosnia were being massacred and raped by the
      Christian-terrorists of Europe, the Saudi-Salafis blamed the victims
      (Bosnians) for their fate, because they were bad Muslims. Surely, such
      arguments are also applicable to the Palestinians and the Iraqis who
      are also suffering. If we recall, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) sent an army
      seeking retribution for the dishonoring of one woman, and there was no
      discussion if she was a good Muslim or a bad Muslim. What the
      Saudi-Salafis really meant was: the Bosnians were apostates, so they
      have no obligation to help them, and they have the same opinion of the
      others, but the existing public opinion makes it difficult to express
      their real views. Isn't it convenient for those who blame the victim,
      because they can simple turn their backs on them! Some would call it
      treachery and cowardice. This is why those planes should have been
      rammed against the palaces of these oppressors, instead of the WTC.
      Remove the snake inside your house, before you attempt to fight the
      bigger beast outside.

      The paradox is: the neo-con Salafis (Saudi-Salafis) incessantly attack
      the mainstream Muslims by calling them deviants, as their Aqeeda is
      not pure enough, yet they have no problem in aligning with belligerent
      non-Muslims with a false Aqeeda and not just a deviant one. Note, the
      US bases in Saudi Arabia, and the other smaller Gulf States are used
      to launch murderous campaigns against the Muslims in Iraq, Palestine
      and else where, this has hardly bothered the conscience of the neo-con
      Salafis. Did the Prophet (SAW) not cleanse this land (Saudi Arabia,
      Hijaz, Najd) and say this is exclusively for the people of Tawhid
      (monotheism)? How can we explain this paradox, when these neo-con
      Salafis scream Shirk (Polytheism), Bidda (Innovation) and Kufr
      (Disbelief) but they are most comfortable with the presence of those
      hostile foreign forces that displays Shirk, Bidda and Kufr and even go
      beyond it?

      This paradoxical behaviour of the neo-con Salafi can be explained if
      we dig deeper. Although they classify the rest of the Muslims (non
      Salafis) as deviants, but in reality they are viewed as apostates.
      Because, the neo-con Salafis follow the Khawarij doctrine of elevating
      minor issues of sin to major issues of disbelief (Kufr), hence like
      the Khawarij they pronounce Takfir (declare someone as an apostate)
      frequently. However, to avoid being isolated they say a particular
      notion makes one deviant instead of an apostate, but this is simply
      clever language on their part.

      Therefore, the neo-con Salafis are also the Khawarij (neo-Khawarij) of
      today. Accordingly they see no real problems with the killings of the
      Palestinians or the Iraqis or the Bosnians, as they are unbelievers
      being killed for their sins by another group of unbelievers (the
      Israelis, Americans, and Serbs). Consequentially, Salafi orientated
      regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States find it easy to
      abuse the poor Muslim workers who have come from places like Pakistan,
      Bangladesh, India, Egypt, Sudan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Yemen.
      These poor workers are often paid very low salaries, and some
      occasions paid a lower than what was agreed and there are many cases
      of withholding payments for long periods. This is disgusting behavior
      and naked oppression by any standards.

      When such criticisms have been raised they become Salafi-Capitalist,
      arguing that the labor force should move elsewhere for greater salary.
      So, the Islamic brotherhood vanishes, the purity of the Aqeeda is put
      aside, and exploiting the poverty faced by the poor Muslims is deemed
      acceptable and even `Islamic'. They are depicting the Sunnah of the
      pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. Is there a chance of issuing a `fatwa' on
      this type of issue? Then the neo-Con Salafis have the audacity to
      lecture these poor Muslim workers facing exploitation about how
      deviant they are in their Aqeeda. In contrast, the white Europeans and
      Americans are paid promptly and paid a far greater salary for doing
      the same work. This is the consequence of having deep inferiority
      complex and racist views. There is no chance of squeezing a `fatwa'
      out of them on this issue either.

      True to their rebellious Khawarij nature, they aided the destruction
      of the Caliphate, replaced it with oppressive monarchies. Surely this
      is one of the greatest form of innovation (Bidda)? Old habits die
      hard, so they remain active in opposing those who are trying to
      re-establish the Caliphate, using various pretexts. For example, they
      say they do not oppose the notion of the Caliphate (Islamic State) but
      the creed of those who are trying to re-establish it, and at times
      they have had the chutzpah to question their sincerity. Obviously this
      is an excuse, otherwise by now we would have seen plenty of
      literatures and books on the notion of the Caliphate from these
      neo-Khawarij. In any case, did the Prophet (SAW) test the creed of all
      the companions before the establishment of the first Islamic State of

      Perhaps these neo-Khawarij are shy to proclaim that they consider the
      current rulers as legitimate. They were dancing and celebrating with
      the American forces after the killing of Muslims (or non-Muslims?) in
      Iraq! Never mind the dead Iraqis, but I would have thought a fatwa on
      the issue on dancing and celebrating with the American unbelievers
      would have been pronounced by now, from the land of `fatwas'.

      For these neo-Khawarij, the Shi'ites are worse than the American
      soldiers massacring the Iraqis and presumably worse than the Zionist
      that are murdering Palestinians and Lebanese everyday! Accordingly
      they criticised the Shi'ites in Lebanon for fighting the Israelis, a
      close friend of their American masters, and simultaneously remained
      silent towards the Shi'ites in Iraq who collaborated with the
      Americans. These neo-Khawarij have been living with the Shi'ites for
      centuries and they only became a problem after Khomeini came to power
      in 1979, challenging the legitimacy of the Saudi regime. It was at
      this juncture we witnessed the circulation of anti-Shi'ite literatures
      from that part of the world.

      To divert attention away from the occupation and slaughter facing the
      Muslims, the neo-con Salafis insist that everyone should accept their
      interpretation of certain metaphysical issues that has no real
      consequences for our life on earth. Nothing else can be discussed
      until this is resolved. So shedding of the blood of the Muslims,
      addressing famine, and other forms of tragedy does not rank very high
      on their list of priorities, assuming it is on their list in the first
      place! Perhaps helping Muslims in need is considered a minor Prophetic
      tradition (Sunnah)! But then again, there are no Muslims unless one is
      a neo-Khawarij (Saudi-Salafi or neo-Con Salafi)!

      These neo-Khawarij are well-known for attacking the mainstream Muslims
      for following the established Madhabs (the traditional Schools of
      thought). They say you should not follow the Scholars but only the
      Quran and Sunnah (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW). Which tacitly implies
      the previous Scholars did not do that. In any case this is a redundant
      argument as following the opinion of a scholar is a must, unless one
      is a scholar who is capable of deducing the rules from the Islamic
      texts. The vast majority of the Muslims are not scholars. Therefore,
      the neo-Khawarij claim of following the Quran and Sunnah in reality
      means: do not follow the established Madhabs but follow our
      interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, i.e. our Madhab. So instead of
      referring to the books of the traditional scholars like the Hanafi,
      Shafee, Maliki, Hanbali, Ghazali, and others, you should pickup `only'
      the books of Al-Albani or Bin-Baaz.

      According to these neo-Khawarij, the solution to our problems means
      going back to the 14th century and continuing the
      philosophical/theological debate that was initiated as a result of
      encountering Greek Philosophy. In essence, when everyone becomes a
      neo-Khawarij, our problem will be magically solved! The US soldiers
      will then suddenly run in fear seeing the prevailing of the Khawarij
      (Salafi) compliant doctrines, Israel will cease to exist, and our
      lands from Morocco to Indonesia will be free and unified under a
      single Caliphate, finally the oil will be ours, and it will be sold at
      genuine market prices, the revenue will be used for the welfare of the
      entire Muslim Ummah (community)!

      The neo-Khawarij hide behind their superficial piety which they like
      to display and brag about, and then confuse the unwary Muslim by
      citing books, scholars and technical terms. It is easy to promote the
      above mentioned arguments, as the vast majority of the Saudi-Salafi
      followers are brain-dead, incapable of thinking independently and
      rationally about their situation. This is why they fear the wooden
      cross or the tombstones over the graves, more than the American firepower.

      Moreover, they have been programmed to attack the mainstream Muslims
      and to raise irrelevant minor issues, so that focus is kept away from
      their paymasters and from vital issues like the mass killings of the
      Muslims. The Saudi-Salafis talk, you must listen. You challenge them
      by the constructing your own thoughts then automatically you are
      reduced to a deviant innovator lacking in scholarly knowledge. There
      is no doubt the neo-Khawarij are the fifth columnist, they will be at
      the forefront of fighting the Caliphate when it returns. If we are to
      learn from history this time we should be prepared to shed their blood
      and make them extinct, if it is necessary!



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.