Is the House of Saud Financing
Global Terror with Bush's Consent?
YOWUSA.COM, 27-October-02
Marshall Masters
…Continued
Who or What is Saudi Arabia
After all the America-bashing that has been going on lately, I haven't seen American Muslims being lined up against a firing wall. Have you? But if this
were Saudi Arabia, things would be a lot different! That is, if you believe our State Department.
U.S. Department of State, September 9, 1999
Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for
1999: Saudi Arabia Section I. Freedom of Religion Freedom of Religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims.
The Government prohibits the public practice of other religions. Private worship by non-Muslims is permitted. The Government has declared the Islamic holy book the
Koran, and the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad, to be the country's Constitution. The Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to the precepts of a rigorously conservative form of
Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concept of separation of religion and state. Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is
considered apostasy. Public apostasy is a crime under Shari'a (Islamic law) and punishable by death. Islamic practice generally is limited to that of the
Wahabi order, which adheres to the Hanbali school of the Sunni branch of Islam as interpreted by Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahab, an 18th century religious reformer. Practices contrary to this interpretation, such as
visits to the tombs of renowned Muslims, are discouraged.
It is most interesting how the State Department leaves their explanation with "Islamic practice generally is limited to that of the Wahabi order" and goes
no further. If it did, it would have to admit that Wahabi order has pursued its intolerance with the blood of innocents since the 18th century. Yet, President Bush tells us that he never saw 9-11 coming!
The Spectator, November 30, 2001
Ground Zero and the Saudi connection
For Westerners, it seems natural to look for answers in the distant past, beginning with the Crusades. But if you ask educated, pious, traditional but forward-looking Muslims what has driven their umma, or
global community, in this direction, many of them will answer you with one word: Wahhabism. This is a strain of Islam that emerged not at the time of the Crusades, nor even at the time of the anti-Turkish wars of the
17th century, but less than two centuries ago. It is violent, it is intolerant, and it is fanatical beyond measure. It originated in Arabia, and it is the official theology of the Gulf states. Wahhabism is the
most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism, and its followers are called Wahhabis. Not all Muslims are suicide bombers, but all Muslim suicide bombers are Wahhabis — except, perhaps, for
some disciples of atheist leftists posing as Muslims in the interests of personal power, such as Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein. Wahhabism is the Islamic equivalent of the most extreme Protestant sectarianism. It is
puritan, demanding punishment for those who enjoy any form of music except the drum, and severe punishment up to death for drinking or sexual transgressions. It condemns as unbelievers those who do not pray, a view
that never previously existed in mainstream Islam. It is stripped-down Islam, calling for simple, short prayers, undecorated mosques, and the uprooting of
gravestones (since decorated mosques and graveyards lend themselves to veneration, which is idolatry in the Wahhabi mind). Wahhabis do not even permit the name of the Prophet Mohammed to be inscribed in mosques, nor do
they allow his birthday to be celebrated. Above all, they hate ostentatious spirituality, much as Protestants detest the veneration of miracles and saints in the Roman Church.
Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703–92), the founder of this totalitarian Islamism, was born in Uyaynah, in the part of Arabia known as Nejd, where Riyadh is today, and which the Prophet himself notably warned would be a
source of corruption and confusion. (Anti-Wahhabi Muslims refer to Wahhabism as fitna an Najdiyyah or ‘the trouble out of Nejd'.) From the beginning of Wahhab's dispensation, in the late 18th century, his
cult was associated with the mass murder of all who opposed it. For example, the Wahhabis fell upon the city of Qarbala in 1801 and killed 2,000 ordinary citizens in the streets and markets.
OK, so things change and soften around the edges — right? Not when it comes to the Wahhabis of modern day Saudi Arabia. They faithfully cling to
a belief system that believes that innocent girls must be burned and trampled to death for violating a male-invented dress code.
Irandandtheworld.com, March 19, 2002
They Died for Lack of a Head Scarf
The fire was a tragedy that could have struck anywhere. Fifteen girls between ages 13 and 17 were trampled to death and 52 others were hurt when a blaze swept through their school. Parents and journalists angrily
demanded the resignation of education officials they accused of incompetence and corruption. Firefighters told the Saudi press that morality police
forced girls to stay inside the burning building because they were not wearing the head scarves and black cloaks known as abayas that women must wear in public in that kingdom.
One Saudi paper said the morality police stopped men who tried to help the girls escape the building, saying, "It is sinful to approach them." Girls died because zealots at the gate would rather see them burn
than appear in public dressed inappropriately. Who are these men who would choose a scarf and an abaya over a girl's life? The morality police, or mutawwai'in
as they are known in Arabic, are officers of the Kafkaesque-sounding Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
The zealous Saudi religious police, or Mutawwa, represent a symbol of just how radical and dangerous the form of Islam is that Saudi Arabia wants to
spread throughout the world. While they patrol the streets with sticks used to beat women for violating a male-invented dress code, others of a similar mind are doing far worse.
Saudis are Financing bin Laden
The whole point of what the 9-11 families are saying is that the bulk of the money bin Laden is using to finance his worldwide campaign of terror is coming from Saudi Arabia, if not from the House of Saud itself.
PBS Frontline, 2001
Interview Said K. Aburish
 He (Aburish) is a Palestinian-born journalist and author of many books on
the Middle East, including The Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud. He talks about Osama bin Laden's roots in Saudi Arabia's dissident movement--a movement which seeks to drive 'infidel' U.S. forces
out of the Saudi kingdom, the land of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina.
FRONTLINE: You mentioned the bin Laden family profiting off the oil and bin Laden being a member of this
prosperous family. Can you give a thumb nail sketch of the bin Laden family? Their role in Saudi Arabia? ABURISH: The bin Laden family is originally from ... a
part of the Yemen called Hadramout. And the Hadramoutis used to be the merchants in Saudi Arabia. So it's an old merchant family that was trading before the discovery of oil and the benefit of the big jump in oil
prices in the 70s. But they were there on the ground. And they had a construction company. And the government was so much in need of companies to undertake standard
development targets, that the bin Laden company was one of the big ones they called on to take these projects. And they benefited hugely. We're talking about a family
that may very well be worth over a billion dollars. And Osama is from the main branch. He is the son of the former owner. He is one of the heirs to this huge fortune. And ... this is indicative of where things are
... it is not limited, this movement of Islamic fundamentalism, to poor people. It is not a social movement as such. It is a political movement aimed at changing the foreign policy of the country.
FRONTLINE: If I understand, the bin Laden family rebuilt the major mosques in Mecca and Medina... . They are basically the Bechtels of Saudi Arabia?
ABURISH: Well, one of the Bechtels of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, they are large contractors ... they have been involved in programs to rebuild the mosques throughout the kingdom.
FRONTLINE: So they're an integral part of the Saudi royal family's entourage? ABURISH: Very, very close. ... The House of Saud does not award huge construction contracts except to
friends. So you can assume through analyzing the amount of contracts or the number of contracts the bin Laden family received over the years, that they were close to the royal family. And they are still getting business
from the royal family. So Osama is one off. He's a renegade. He's an outsider in the family. And, this should be understood, that he does not represent the bin Laden family. Nor does he have access to the money
of the bin Laden family. He has access to a small share of it, which he has already taken out of the family pot. And that money is no where near the numbers that have been banded around in terms of hundreds of
millions of dollars. FRONTLINE: He's not worth 250 million dollars? ABURISH: I do not believe so. I believe the most that
Osama bin Laden took out of Saudi Arabia is probably somewhere between 30 and 40 million dollars. But he is happy for people to think that he took 250 million dollars out. Or 500 million dollars out. Because then
he does not have to answer the question of, "Where does the money to support his operations come from?" ... He gives the impression that he's paying for it himself.
In fact, I believe that money comes from inside Saudi Arabia, from other people who belong to merchant families. And perhaps from members of the royal family itself.
The last line is chilling; "And perhaps from members of the royal family itself." This is what America senses, and this is what the 9-11 families feel
they know for certain. Yet, its seems that President George Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell will do everything within their power to
protect the Saudi merchants of death from the light of justice, or at least to lurk in the background so as to befuddle the legal process. So then, does
this not beg the question, are they trying to hide something or to protect themselves as well?
|
