Saudi Arabia’s Phony Anti-Terrorism Fatwa

(FILES) A picture taken on December 30,It is a popular aspect of media mythmaking about the Islamic State that it is so extreme that even other “extremists” such as al-Qaeda shun and repudiate it. But this claim, like the many declarations by both Muslim and non-Muslim leaders that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, is always left unexplained and unsupported.

The recent Saudi statement against terrorism is yet another example of this. The credulous and ignorant will wax enthusiastic over this display of Saudi “moderation,” but in reality — yet again — the closer one looks, the less there is to see.

The Associated Press reported that

Saudi Arabia’s highest body of religious scholars issued a stern ruling on Wednesday calling terrorism a “heinous crime” and saying perpetrators including Islamic State militants deserve punishment in line with Islamic law.

The Council of Senior Religious Scholars said in its fatwa, or religious edict, that it backs the kingdom’s efforts to track down and punish followers of the Islamic State group and al-Qaida.

The House of Saud is in trouble. They’ve spent billions to propagate worldwide the view of Islam held by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. They perhaps never envisioned the prospect of a caliphate practically on their doorstep, and challenging their own legitimacy: the monster they created is returning to haunt them, and they know that if they join any military action against the Islamic State, they could face an uprising at home from young Muslims who have imbibed the understanding of Islam that they have so energetically taught. Hence this fatwa: they hope to delegitimize now what they have spent billions to legitimize, and convince their own people that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam and must be rejected.

AP, as biased as it is, seems aware that this is the point of this fatwa: to preserve the Saudi monarchy. “The clerics,” it reported, “are appointed by the government and are seen as guardians of the kingdom’s ultraconservative Wahhabi school of Islam. The statement by the group of 21 scholars underpins the kingdom’s broader efforts to deter citizens from joining extremist groups that want to bring down the Western-allied monarchy.”

The report noted that Secretary of State John Kerry had gone to Saudi Arabia last week and “planned to ask Mideast countries to encourage government-controlled media and members of the religious establishment to speak out against extremism.”

How ironic: the understanding of Islam that Saudis have worked so hard to spread throughout the world is now “extremism.” But the Saudi statement points at others as the “extremists”: “The council’s condemnations extended to others the Saudi government opposes as well, including the Shiite Hawthi rebel group in Yemen and Saudi Hezbollah, a Shiite militant movement that was engaged in attacks in the kingdom in the 1980s and 1990s. It also criticized what it called ‘crimes of terrorism practiced by the Israeli occupation.’”

It sounds as if this is the Saudi Islamic scholars’ version of the hit on the Five Families. But note the hypocrisy: the Saudis are against the jihad terrorism of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Hizballah, but also against the foremost target of the global jihad, Israel — which shows that they’re not really against jihad terror at all. And what they’re really against is anything that would upset the House of Saud: “One of the greatest sins,” says the statement, is “disobeying the ruler.” This essentially makes it explicit: this is all about preserving the House of Saud, not about genuinely rejecting terrorism.

Yet “to help back up its religious ruling, the council referred to words of the Prophet Muhammad, who warned against following those who want to divide the nation.” The Islamic State, however, doesn’t want to “divide” Saudi Arabia. It wants to incorporate all of it into the Islamic State. But the scholars dismiss the new caliphate as a terrorist group: “The scholars added that any Muslim who thinks jihad — or striving in the path of God — means joining a terrorist group ‘is ignorant and has gone astray.’”

These scholars, remember, are in the country that for years has been the chief financier of jihad terrorism worldwide. But in any case, “the head of the council and grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, described the Islamic State and al-Qaida as Islam’s top enemies.”

“Islam” in that case means “Saudi Arabia.”

Amid all these condemnations of terrorist groups was one notable omission: “Notably absent from the council’s list is the Muslim Brotherhood, which Saudi authorities have outlawed and also branded as terrorist.” The Brotherhood also has significant support in Saudi Arabia, but it doesn’t pose a threat to the Saudi state at the moment. Thus there is no need to mention it and risk angering even more of the population than this present declaration will rile up.

The Saudi Gazette offered more detail, saying that the Saudi Scholars Commission and Ifta Council “said terrorism, which is rejected by Shariah, is contradictory to the principles and purpose of Islam, which came as a mercy to the world and for the goodness of mankind.”

Saudi Arabia is, of course, a Sharia state. It regularly practices beheadings, amputations, and the like. It subjugates and oppresses women. This is what the Saudi Scholars Commission and Ifta Council means by a “mercy to the world.” When they condemn “terrorism,” they don’t mean by the word what most Americans think of. They mean “anything that threatens the Saudi state.”

They likewise redefine “tolerance”: “Tolerance is the essence of Islam, which came to maintain coexistence and peace on earth, the senior Ulema (Islamic scholars) said at the conclusion of the Council’s 80th session.” Tolerance? Remember: these apostles of Islamic tolerance believe that someone who has a Bible or a crucifix deserves arrest, imprisonment, and deportation or death.

The Orwellian redefinition machine went into overdrive when the scholars said: “Terrorism has nothing to do with jihad, and Islam rejects the deviant thought which causes bloodshed.” Except, that is, for the blood of apostates, heretics, adulterers, and all the others whose blood is called for under Sharia. The statement “described terrorism as any crime aimed at corrupting and undermining security, offenses against lives or property, homes, schools, hospitals, factories, bridges, state facilities or oil and gas pipelines, or blowing up or hijacking aeroplanes.”

And yet they condemn Israel, even though Hamas jihadists target Israeli lives and property, homes, schools, etc. What they really mean here is that terrorism involves offenses against Muslim lives and property.

Finally, “the council urged everyone to utilize all means to strengthen unity and cohesion.”

That is, utilize all means to strengthen the House of Saud. That is what this statement against terrorism is all about. Which will not keep it from being an object of celebration for the naïve and credulous.

*

Don’t miss Robert Spencer on this week’s Glazov Gang discussing The Fog of Jihad-Denial:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • punditwannabe

    Das messed up

  • Texas Patriot

    What the Saudis need to be concerned about is their own soldiers either dropping their arms and refusing to fight Khalifa Ibrahim and the Islamic State or, worse, joining them in fighting against and overthrowing the Saudi ruling dynasty because it is “not Islamic” enough.

    President Obama is right about one thing. The charge of heresy, apostasy, inauthenticity, and infidelity to the teachings and life example of Muhammad and his followers is probably the most serious charge that can possibly be brought against any individual Muslim or any Muslim political organization or regime.

    Unfortunately, the Islamic State under the leadership of Khalifa Ibrahim is probably the least susceptible to that charge of any Muslim political organization now in existence anywhere on earth.

  • robert clark

    They also know that as sunnis their greatest enemy is Iran a shia state and if the Saudi regime and military forces collapse and the country turns into another Syria or lybia the Iranians will just walk in and take over. Will the west then protect its greatest supposed friend in the region? causing www3 with a nuclear power like iran.

  • Hard Little Machine

    It’s hard to see how one is more repressive, more ‘real Islam’ than the other. ISIS could storm into Saudi Arabia and impose its will and apart from maybe changing the social welfare payouts to Saudis so they stay home and make more Saudis, the people there would scratch their heads and think “well, ok, this is pretty much the same thing.”

  • Mik

    When animistic/syncretistic Europe got to read their religious book for themselves, Handel, Mozart, Bach,Descarte, Bacon, Newton just happened to show up. I realize that the church did not go down without a fight. I also realize that modern Europe was not even in formation until after the Reformation.

    When the animistic/syncretistic Middle East got to read their religious book in their own language, the modern form of Jihad appeared.

    The entire world was barbaric in the 7th Century. Europe evolved because of the changes to the underlying, assumed ideas upon which society was based. (Do not nitpick this idea. I realize that that colonization, that slavery, that ethnocentrism were still part of society).

    What is happening today is that your average Muslim has much more access to the Koranic text NOT in Arabic. Now they know what their book says. A good Muslim puts it into practice. They do not want to be hearers of the word, but rather doers.

    • Pete

      Europe was better, when they worshiped Oden, who originally was a death god.

      I really admire the Roman Republic/Empire. But there were problems that led to rise of the Bagaudae.

      The Medieval Church was not perfect, but they did try to stop through the Peace of God the alpha males from laying waste to the countryside and killing everyone in sight. It was an established practice of war going back to Greek times, if not earlier, that if you will not agree to a set piece battle to determine, who wins and rules, then they will pillage until you do.

      I personally think people should read the book Connections by James Burke to see how, when & why progress is made. Modeling social interactions would not hurt either. I attended university courses, one in engineering and one in agriculture, and they were solely hon how things built upon one another and connections.

      I’ll take the whole “It is the Church’s Fault” with a gain of salt.

      • UCSPanther

        It appears the Bagaudae movement was a widespread rural rebellion that arose mainly thanks to the failing rule of law in the Roman Countryside.

        It could be considered a collection of rebel peasant militias and bandit gangs who engaged in their activities for a variety of reasons, ranging from as noble as resisting the increasingly desperate, punitive and repressive central authority, to as ignoble as using the unrest as an opportunity to raid and pillage.

        They were crushed during the reign of Diocletian, but flared up again decades later and continued until the complete downfall of the Roman Empire.

        • Pete

          I objected to Mik’s portrayal as the Church being bad. I am not saying it is perfect or was perfect.

          I read & have the book A Dark History: The Popes.

          I have read about most of it before, but it is good to review and to have a reference. I am not saying the book is the best scholarship on the subject, but it seems to be okay. It covers among other things the Albigensian Crusade.

          If you read military history magazines, you are going to come across the Albigensian Crusade once every 5 or 10 years. Anti-Christian people always like to throw it out as if it is a nuke and ends all dissent. they don’t mention that the Pope’s envoy, Pierre de Castelnau, was murdered for one thing.

          Anyway, I threw the Bagaudae in there to show not everything was great before the Church arrived on the scene. I also think you nailed it as to who they were.

          I threw the Peace of God in there to show the Church was doing very important work. My point is, if the Church had not been there, would mankind gotten to the enlightenment sooner or later? The German Warlords later knights were not exactly nice people. In many respects they are exactly like the Arabs or chimps.

          PS The periods of history get recycled in the mags. I wondered why am I reading it. The scholarship of the articles is not all even and some people have different perspectives. The stuff by Karwansaray is awesome and I think a little more readable than Osprey.

          • UCSPanther

            It should be noted too that the Roman Catholic Church played a major role in preserving old knowledge that would have been lost forever otherwise with the fall of the Roman Empire.

  • Paul of Alexandria

    In the eyes of Mohammed, only Muslims are “innocent”. To be a non-believer is to be guilty by definition.

  • Pete

    “Saudi Arabia is, of course, a Sharia state. It regularly practices beheadings, amputations, and the like”

    I have no problem beheading someone, who has been justly condemned to death by a court that is not a kangaroo court for capital offenses. I might prefer that it be hanging or firing squad so long they are not doing it Chinese style. That was hard to watch. But if a person is a serial murderer or committed heinous murder, I am not going to quibble with a country that beheads them instead of hanging them.

    I do have a problem with the amputations. You let someone back into society, he had better be able to integrate & be productive. That is not easy if you cut their hands off.

  • CaptainCurmudgeon

    Three of the Five Taliban terrorists Obama released from Gitmo to QATAR are now leading ISIS….

    Is Obama building the Caliphate with your tax-dollars?? …to kill and slaughter?
    Open borders and amnesty appear to be an act of Insanity–or of the enemy.

    http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/09/16/three-of-five-gitmo-detainees-swapped-are-now-isis-leaders/

    3 of the 5 Terrorists…Obama released to Qatar…are leading ISIS

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2014091334839/world/terrorism/the-real-islam.html

    Under the Obama administration, it must be considered oil prices are 3x’s what they had been under George W Bush…this is a massive transfer of American wealth to the Muslim Brotherhood and oil rich nations while Americans are out of work and stymied from drilling our own vast oil reserves by Barack Obama. We are committing national suicide under Barack Hussein Obama’s policies…with the help of QATAR.

    GITMO? Obama facilitated a meeting with Karzai and the Emir of QATAR…with the end result being the new headquarters for the Taliban being built in QATAR…reconstituting and strengthening the Taliban.

    Obama, unbeknownst to Congress or the Pentagon, released the Taliban 5 from Gitmo. Those five Taliban terrorists were released to QATAR from Gitmo–Though those those 5 terrorists were deemed by the United Nations as having committed crimes against humanity. Obama exchange those 5 terrorists for a deserter-traitor on his own, without Congressional knowledge, approval or input…. and delivered them to QATAR, THE HOME of their New Taliban Headquarters..in Qatar. The old leadership of the Taliban, that Americans fought and died to capture has been retired to their new palatial headquarters in QATAR…TO FIGHT AND KILL ANOTHER DAY…by Barack Hussein Obama.

    Stand up America…join the campaign to STOP QATAR

    STOP QATAR CAMPAIGN

    facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stopq…

    twitter: https://twitter.com/StopQatarN…

  • Pericles

    “This essentially makes it explicit: this is all about preserving the House of Saud, not about genuinely rejecting terrorism.”

    Just as Obama’s ISIS ‘strategy’ is really about preserving the House of Obama.

  • onecornpone

    Not to worry Mr Spencer. obama is about to send our war weary military into Syria as bait for those worrisome, returning Saudi-created “monsters”. I wonder how many of the Princes of the House of Saud will join the battle against the Great Satan?

    • Pete

      If troops are sent there, I hope many princes go to Syria.

      The Saudi people will thank the troops. Less princes to support means more $$ for the average Saudi.

      • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

        The Saudi’s MIGHT send ONE ‘prince’. The least favored of course.

        • Pete

          One of the Hezbollah bigwigs had a son who was a suicide bomber. He was so proud of his boy.

          Out of his gaggle of kids he was the one, who was slow and would never be the apple of his father’s eye unless he martyred himself.

      • onecornpone

        I, for one am sick seeing our brave, young military fighters used and abused in order to protect oil-rich, 7th century, goat-herding “royalty” from insurgency, in spite of the fact that the Saudis first act was to hang a huge log chain of gold around Obama’s neck.

        What would happen if we left them to their own devices? Could the princes fight in those long, flowing bedsheets they wear?

  • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

    The only difference between the Saudis and ISIS is that ISIS believes in the overt jihad of physical aggression and the Saudi’s believe in the covert jihad of subversion and infiltration. ISIS is impatient and wants the personal glory of conquest. The Saudi’s are willing to wait generations and collapse the West from within. Same goal, different means.

  • keyster

    ISIS is the only true Islam, with the most literal interpretation of the Quran.
    The “moderate” Muslims are too afraid of terrorism to comment publicly.

  • https://twitter.com/BlissTabitha Tabitha Bliss

    What’s really insane is that many liberals actually believe & repeat that narrative on Islam, despite ALL EVIDENCE to the contrary!
    Seriously, how disconnected from reality does someone have to be to believe this? Has anyone ever actually seen an Islamic state that’s peaceful & free? If so, I’m betting some photos or video of that magical land from another dimension may be worth more than a live unicorn on ebay. ;-)

    • Softly Bob

      There are many Islamic states that are peaceful and free. For starters there’s er…………………… hang on. What’s that one in the Middle East that’s called……no wait. There is that country next to…. no, wait that’s not one…… give me half hour or so……

  • herb benty

    The Saudi’s are also luring America back into Iraq, for annihilation purposes. Islam, one thing they agree on, from Boko Harum to the Taliban and all Muslim outfits, is that Israel and America(Christians) has to be destroyed. You can almost hear Satan laying this out.

  • Moa

    “terrorism” is defined as “unlawful warfare” under Sharia. Therefore, using the Islamic deception called “kitman” (use a meaning of the word that the hearer will interpret a different way) the “terrorists” that Islam condemns are Western anti-terror forces, as well as rival jihadis.

    “jihad” is defined as “lawful warfare” under Sharia. Which is why the Saudis have no problem condemning Israeli self-defense.

    See how deceptive Islam is? it truly is evil.

    ps. Watch Stephen Coughlin on YouTube and he explains this Islamic perspective in fascinating detail.