Interfaith Unity against Terrorism (IFUT) is a global interfaith organization that seeks to develop interfaith understanding and cooperation to protect the US homeland.
As patriotic Americans, we have witnessed the tragic attacks against our homeland from the early 1990s. We feel that that there are multiple approaches to tackle extremist-inspired acts of terrorism. However the most important approach is to correctly identify the specific ideology that has inspired terrorist attacks on the US homeland from the 1993 attack on the World Trade center to 9/11 and onto the tragic massacre at San Bernardino.
Just as in World War II, we identified the totalitarian and exclusivist ideology of Nazism that threatened the Free World, today that same threat comes from the ideology of Takfeer as espoused by Wahhabism.
Education across various platforms is our biggest weapons in confronting ignorance and bigotry.
Americans can no longer afford the obfuscations being provided by Saudi-funded lobby groups. We at IFUT feel that such obfuscations and apologist behavior is leading to more Islamophobia or fear of all Muslims – whereas Muslims globally are themselves the biggest victims of Wahhabism and its local variants.
IFUT comprises of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists and other activists of diverse faiths and ethnic backgrounds who want to unite against extremism. Our goals are to tabulate, analyse and protest against the terrorism being committed against our homeland. Only by correctly identifying the source of extremism and terrorism can we take the correct approach to intellectually confronting these creeds.
In July 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism.
Wahhabism has become increasingly influential, partly because of Saudi money and partly because of Saudi Arabia’s central influence as protector of Mecca.
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemned Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), insisting “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”.
Somewhat paradoxically, however, members of the Saudi ruling class have applauded Wahhabism it for its Salafi piety – i.e. its adherence to the original practices of Islam – and the movement’s vehement opposition to the Shia branch of Islam.
The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of its Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimate that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists.
Founded by Mohammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), it stresses the absolute sovereignty of God. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab also rejected any reliance on the intercession of Mohammed and denounced pilgrimages to saints’ tombs, declaring that their domes or shrines should be destroyed.
As an opposer of innovation, he advocated a return to what he saw as the purity of the first generation of Islam, the salaf and the teaching of any school of law. His ideas were deeply influenced by the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328), who saw the state as an adjunct of religion and opposed discursive theology.
Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahab
Ibn Taymiyah also branded the Mongols of his day as kafirs (unbelievers), even though they professed the main tenets of Islam. In this, he has been imitated by modern Islamist movements which excommunicate those who profess Islam without following it rigorously. These ideas were further developed in the twentieth century by Sayyid Qutb.
Wahhabists enforce public attendance at prayers, forbid shaving and the smoking of tobacco. Their mosques are plain. By the middle of the 18th century, they dominated the Arabian peninsula with the political support of the Al Saud, the family that to this day rules through a monarchy.
In 1925, the Wahhabists seized Mecca, but the state has continued to allow pilgrims of all Muslim traditions to observe their rites during the hajj. Even so, the Interior Ministry funds the religious police, who seek out illegal alcohol and ensure shops are shut during mosque time.
Since the 1980s, unemployed young people have been attracted to neo-Wahhabist groups embracing salafiyah, the ideology of primitive Islam, who seek social justice as well as the imposition of Koranic punishments.
Men study at a madrassa in Dhaka Bangladesh
Wahhabism today
The exclusivism of Ibn Taymiyah combined with the use of violence advocated by modern ultra-Wahhabists such as Al Qaeda, Isil and Boko Haram, have now given rise to cells of activists outside Saudi Arabia, ready to commit terrorist outrages such as the ones seen in Beirut, Paris, Brussels and Lahore.
Its ironic that Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali seemed to warn against the rise of extremism in Kitab Al Fitan – a compilation of hadiths (Islamic tradition) relating to the end of times, put together by prominent scholar Nuyam bin Hammad in 229 AH.
In it Imam Ali recalled the Prophet saying:
“If you see the black flags, then hold your ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the State (literally the people of Al Dawla), they do not keep a promise or a treaty.
“They call to the truth but they are not its people. Their names are (nicknames like Abu Mohammed) and their last names (are the names of town and cities, like Al Halabi [and now al-Baghdadi]) and their hair is loose like women’s hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then Allah will bring the truth from whoever He wills.”
[ig_text enable_dropcap=”no” disabled_el=”no” ]
In July 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism.
Wahhabism has become increasingly influential, partly because of Saudi money and partly because of Saudi Arabia’s central influence as protector of Mecca.
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemned Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), insisting “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”.
Somewhat paradoxically, however, members of the Saudi ruling class have applauded Wahhabism it for its Salafi piety – i.e. its adherence to the original practices of Islam – and the movement’s vehement opposition to the Shia branch of Islam.
The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of its Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimate that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists.
Founded by Mohammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), it stresses the absolute sovereignty of God. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab also rejected any reliance on the intercession of Mohammed and denounced pilgrimages to saints’ tombs, declaring that their domes or shrines should be destroyed.
As an opposer of innovation, he advocated a return to what he saw as the purity of the first generation of Islam, the salaf and the teaching of any school of law. His ideas were deeply influenced by the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328), who saw the state as an adjunct of religion and opposed discursive theology.
Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahab
Ibn Taymiyah also branded the Mongols of his day as kafirs (unbelievers), even though they professed the main tenets of Islam. In this, he has been imitated by modern Islamist movements which excommunicate those who profess Islam without following it rigorously. These ideas were further developed in the twentieth century by Sayyid Qutb.
Wahhabists enforce public attendance at prayers, forbid shaving and the smoking of tobacco. Their mosques are plain. By the middle of the 18th century, they dominated the Arabian peninsula with the political support of the Al Saud, the family that to this day rules through a monarchy.
In 1925, the Wahhabists seized Mecca, but the state has continued to allow pilgrims of all Muslim traditions to observe their rites during the hajj. Even so, the Interior Ministry funds the religious police, who seek out illegal alcohol and ensure shops are shut during mosque time.
Since the 1980s, unemployed young people have been attracted to neo-Wahhabist groups embracing salafiyah, the ideology of primitive Islam, who seek social justice as well as the imposition of Koranic punishments.
Men study at a madrassa in Dhaka Bangladesh
Wahhabism today
The exclusivism of Ibn Taymiyah combined with the use of violence advocated by modern ultra-Wahhabists such as Al Qaeda, Isil and Boko Haram, have now given rise to cells of activists outside Saudi Arabia, ready to commit terrorist outrages such as the ones seen in Beirut, Paris, Brussels and Lahore.
Its ironic that Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali seemed to warn against the rise of extremism in Kitab Al Fitan – a compilation of hadiths (Islamic tradition) relating to the end of times, put together by prominent scholar Nuyam bin Hammad in 229 AH.
In it Imam Ali recalled the Prophet saying:
“If you see the black flags, then hold your ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the State (literally the people of Al Dawla), they do not keep a promise or a treaty.
“They call to the truth but they are not its people. Their names are (nicknames like Abu Mohammed) and their last names (are the names of town and cities, like Al Halabi [and now al-Baghdadi]) and their hair is loose like women’s hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then Allah will bring the truth from whoever He wills.”
This article was originally posted on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/what-is-wahhabism-the-reactionary-branch-of-islam-said-to-be-the/
In July 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism.
Wahhabism has become increasingly influential, partly because of Saudi money and partly because of Saudi Arabia’s central influence as protector of Mecca.
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemned Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), insisting “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”.
Somewhat paradoxically, however, members of the Saudi ruling class have applauded Wahhabism it for its Salafi piety – i.e. its adherence to the original practices of Islam – and the movement’s vehement opposition to the Shia branch of Islam.
The US State Department has estimated that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more than $10bn (£6bn) into charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the harsh intolerance of its Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimate that 15 to 20 per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists.
Founded by Mohammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), it stresses the absolute sovereignty of God. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab also rejected any reliance on the intercession of Mohammed and denounced pilgrimages to saints’ tombs, declaring that their domes or shrines should be destroyed.
As an opposer of innovation, he advocated a return to what he saw as the purity of the first generation of Islam, the salaf and the teaching of any school of law. His ideas were deeply influenced by the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah (1263-1328), who saw the state as an adjunct of religion and opposed discursive theology.
Ibn Taymiyah also branded the Mongols of his day as kafirs (unbelievers), even though they professed the main tenets of Islam. In this, he has been imitated by modern Islamist movements which excommunicate those who profess Islam without following it rigorously. These ideas were further developed in the twentieth century by Sayyid Qutb.
Wahhabists enforce public attendance at prayers, forbid shaving and the smoking of tobacco. Their mosques are plain. By the middle of the 18th century, they dominated the Arabian peninsula with the political support of the Al Saud, the family that to this day rules through a monarchy.
In 1925, the Wahhabists seized Mecca, but the state has continued to allow pilgrims of all Muslim traditions to observe their rites during the hajj. Even so, the Interior Ministry funds the religious police, who seek out illegal alcohol and ensure shops are shut during mosque time.
Since the 1980s, unemployed young people have been attracted to neo-Wahhabist groups embracing salafiyah, the ideology of primitive Islam, who seek social justice as well as the imposition of Koranic punishments.
Wahhabism today
The exclusivism of Ibn Taymiyah combined with the use of violence advocated by modern ultra-Wahhabists such as Al Qaeda, Isil and Boko Haram, have now given rise to cells of activists outside Saudi Arabia, ready to commit terrorist outrages such as the ones seen in Beirut, Paris, Brussels and Lahore.
Its ironic that Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali seemed to warn against the rise of extremism in Kitab Al Fitan – a compilation of hadiths (Islamic tradition) relating to the end of times, put together by prominent scholar Nuyam bin Hammad in 229 AH.
In it Imam Ali recalled the Prophet saying:
“If you see the black flags, then hold your ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the State (literally the people of Al Dawla), they do not keep a promise or a treaty.
“They call to the truth but they are not its people. Their names are (nicknames like Abu Mohammed) and their last names (are the names of town and cities, like Al Halabi [and now al-Baghdadi]) and their hair is loose like women’s hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then Allah will bring the truth from whoever He wills.”
[/ig_text][ig_text el_title=”Citation” enable_dropcap=”no” disabled_el=”no” ]This article was originally posted on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/what-is-wahhabism-the-reactionary-branch-of-islam-said-to-be-the/[/ig_text][/ig_column][/ig_row]
ITV’s Exposure:SaudiArabia Uncovered portrays the horrific brutality with which the House of Saud maintains its rule and has been the subject of intense media commentary.
Much of this focuses on the documentary’s depiction of how dissent is suppressed in collaboration with the Wahhabi religious police, including public beheadings, crucifixions, stoning, amputations and 1,000 lashings, as well as gratuitous police violence on the street.
In contrast, the media has been almost silent about the exposure of the Saudis’ export of religious hatred and funding of terrorism that took up about one quarter of the film’s airtime. This omission is politically motivated.
The programme explained that the Saudi ruling family had spent $70 billion exporting its particularly repressive form of Islamism through books, the media, Islamic welfare institutions and charities.
It reiterated that there was evidence of Saudi involvement in the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in 2001, noting that 15 of the 19 suspects were Saudi citizens, while Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was a member of a prominent Saudi family.
It then referred to the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC), ostensibly a charity for the relief of Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan wars in the 1990s, which had collected £375 ($600) million by 2001. The largest fundraising effort undertaken in Muslim and Arab countries, it was a front organisation for Al Qaeda in the Balkans and was used to facilitate arms shipments to break a United Nations embargo on the former Yugoslav states from 1991 to 1996. Jihadists attached to the SHC carried out a car bomb attack in 2001 after the war had ended, in an effort to reignite the war.
The SHC was set up by prince, now king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, who was the Saudis’ chief fundraiser for the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s and later the Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s, at the direction of his brother, King Fahd. His role was to fund the Islamic mercenaries used in the US and its regional allies’ proxy wars in the Middle East and Asia. Salman helped to recruit fighters for Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan fighter who trained Osama bin Laden and the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, providing them with generous funding.
In 1996, a CIA report identified the SHC as one of several Saudi “charities” that “employ members or otherwise facilitate the activities of terrorist groups operating in Bosnia.”
A Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded that the Al Qaeda-affiliated Somali warlord responsible for the massacre of US military forces during the battle of Mogadishu—the subject of the movie Black Hawk Down—received “weapon shipments from the Saudi Arabian High Commission for Relief.”
Although it was well known that the SHC employed and covered for Jihadi terrorists in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere, US forces did nothing until after the 9/11 attacks, when NATO forces raided the office in Sarajevo. There it discovered a horde of terrorist materials, including maps highlighting government buildings in Washington, notes about meetings with bin Laden, and plans for an attack using crop duster planes.
Relatives of the 9/11 victims have filed claims for billions of dollars in damages from companies, countries and organisations, accusing them of aiding Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the hijacking of the planes. So close were the SHC’s links to the Saudi government that they have cited Saudi Arabia, Prince Salman and other members of the ruling family, as defendants in their suits.
They charge that one of the defendants, Abdul Rahman Hussayen, had said he was a Saudi government official. He had entered the U.S. five days before the 9/11 attack and moved from his hotel to another where three of the hijackers were staying.
Ali Ahmad Ali Hamad, a confessed former Al Qaeda member and employee of the SHC, testified for the 9/11 families that “the Saudi High Commission was extensively involved in supporting Al Qaeda’s operations in Bosnia.”
The lawsuit argued that there were repeated warnings from US and European officials that SHC and similar charities were serving as fronts for terrorist organisations, but the Saudi authorities did nothing.
Between 1992 and 1995, Western intelligence officials discovered that the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA) spent most of its funds arming fighters aligned with the Bosnian government. At least $120 million came from Prince Salman’s personal bank accounts and the SHC.
In 1994, French interior minister Charles Pasqua, who had oversight of French intelligence operations, told his Saudi counterpart, Prince Naif, that he had evidence that the Muslim World League, a Saudi government-funded charity to promote Islam, was funding terror cells in France.
In 1998, US intelligence told the Saudis that employees of a Saudi government-affiliated charity, al-Haramain Foundation, may have been involved in the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
In 1999, following these attacks, then-vice president Al Gore appealed to Saudi crown prince Abdullah to help the Clinton administration stem Al Qaeda’s flow of money. US officials flew to Riyadh on two occasions to give their Saudi counterparts lists of suspect Saudi charities, money exchanges, banks and suspected terrorism financiers.
US Treasury documents show that another terrorist-front organisation with close links to the Saudi government, the International Islamic Relief Organisation (IIRO), set up branches in the Philippines in the 1990s. One of its directors there was Mohammad Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law and a senior Al Qaeda member.
The US Treasury designated both the Philippine and Indonesian IIRO branches as conduits for channelling money to Al Qaeda and other radical groups. A 1996 CIA report said the IIRO had financed six militant training camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s.
Despite this and other evidence, the US government has consistently covered up the involvement of the Saudi ruling clique, which is one of its key allies in the Middle East. Senator Robert Graham of Florida, chairman of the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11, said that during the inquiry the FBI repeatedly stonewalled efforts to subpoena a Muslim academic and FBI informant who had housed the hijackers. He said, “That is one of the major unanswered questions of 9/11: Why the administration tried to disguise the role of the Saudis.”
The authorities also intervened to block the lawsuit and prevent the evidence against King Salman and the Saudi ruling family seeing the light of day. In September 2015, the US courts dismissed the families’ claims against the Kingdom, citing “sovereign immunity.” In 2008, a US court ruled that even if the Saudis retained their immunity, there was enough evidence to proceed against several Islamist charities, banks and alleged terrorism financiers named in the lawsuit.
These revelations provide a devastating exposure of the fraudulent nature of the “war on terror,” which has provided the axis for the last 15 years of US and British foreign and domestic policy. In particular, they point once again to the degree to which the CIA, MI5 and other intelligence agencies must have had foreknowledge of terror attacks that were then used to legitimise and then step up repressive measures directed against the working class, most recently in Belgium.
The 9/11 attacks were used by the Bush administration and the British government as the pretext for war against Afghanistan, whose government had provided shelter to Osama bin Laden, but had no involvement in 9/11, and against Iraq, which had no connection to either 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, remains a key ally. Britain has supplied the Saudis, who spend more on arms in proportion to its GDP than any other state, with £5 billion in weaponry since 2010, and trains its police force. With consummate cynicism, Colonel Richard Kemp, former Head of International Terrorism, told ITV, “We don’t approve of what Saudi Arabia does, we don’t like what they do, but they are a necessary evil in combating other regimes. And of course, ultimately they have a lot of oil.”
The biggest military defeat that Isis has suffered in more than two years. The recapture of Palmyra, the Roman city of the Empress Zenobia. And we are silent. Yes, folks, the bad guys won, didn’t they? Otherwise, we would all be celebrating, wouldn’t we?
Less than a week after the lost souls of the ‘Islamic Caliphate’ destroyed the lives of more than 30 innocent human beings in Brussels, we should – should we not? – have been clapping our hands at the most crushing military reverse in the history of Isis. But no. As the black masters of execution fled Palmyra this weekend, Messers Obama and Cameron were as silent as the grave to which Isis have dispatched so many of their victims. He who lowered our national flag in honour of the head-chopping king of Arabia (I’m talking about Dave, of course) said not a word.
As my long-dead colleague on the Sunday Express, John Gordon, used to say, makes you sit up a bit, doesn’t it? Here are the Syrian army, backed, of course, by Vladimir Putin’s Russkies, chucking the clowns of Isis out of town, and we daren’t utter a single word to say well done.
When Palmyra fell last year, we predicted the fall of Bashar al-Assad. We ignored, were silent on, the Syrian army’s big question: why, if the Americans hated Isis so much, didn’t they bomb the suicide convoys that broke through the Syrian army’s front lines? Why didn’t they attack Isis?
“If the Americans wanted to destroy Isis, why didn’t they bomb them when they saw them?” a Syrian army general asked me, after his soldiers’ defeat His son had been killed defending Homs. His men had been captured and head-chopped in the Roman ruins. The Syrian official in charge of the Roman ruins (of which we cared so much, remember?) was himself beheaded. Isis even put his spectacles back on top of his decapitated head, for fun. And we were silent then.
Putin noticed this, and talked about it, and accurately predicted the retaking of Palmyra. His aircraft attacked Isis – as US planes did not – in advance of the Syrian army’s conquest. I could not help but smile when I read that the US command claimed two air strikes against Isis around Palmyra in the days leading up to its recapture by the regime. That really did tell you all you needed to know about the American “war on terror”. They wanted to destroy Isis, but not that much.
So in the end, it was the Syrian army and its Hizballah chums from Lebanon and the Iranians and the Russians who drove the Isis murderers out of Palmyra, and who may – heavens preserve us from such a success – even storm the Isis Syrian ‘capital’ of Raqqa. I have written many times that the Syrian army will decide the future of Syria. If they grab back Raqqa – and Deir el-Zour, where the Nusrah front destroyed the church of the Armenian genocide and threw the bones of the long-dead 1915 Christian victims into the streets – I promise you we will be silent again.
Aren’t we supposed to be destroying Isis? Forget it. That’s Putin’s job. And Assad’s. Pray for peace, folks. That’s what it’s about, isn’t it? And Geneva. Where is that, exactly?
