PDA

View Full Version : Salafisms rise



Sultan
06-28-2012, 04:31 PM
The Salafi Awakening| June 28, 2012

http://nationalinterest.org/files/imagecache/resize-340/images/Salafi-supporters.jpgSINCE EGYPTIAN president Hosni Mubarak was pushed aside on February 11, 2011, many U.S. academics and policy makers have issued warnings, reassurances and speculations on the question of how relations with Egypt will be affected by the rise of its largest opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood. True to expectations, the Brotherhood did well in the first post-Mubarak parliamentary elections, with its Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) collecting almost half of the seats in the new People’s Assembly. The biggest election surprise, however, was that its greatest rival was not one of Egypt’s many secular parties, all of which did poorly, but rather another set of Islamists—the Salafi Islamist bloc won almost a quarter of the seats.


This surprising Salafi showing stirred many Egyptian liberals and international human-rights activists to warn that the Salafis, if given any power, would curtail the rights of women and non-Muslim minorities, particularly Egypt’s large Coptic Christian population. For the United States, the potential consequences of the Salafi rise are also profound. In some circles, the label “Salafi” is understood to mean one particular stream of Salafism championed by Ayman al-Zawahiri (an Egyptian), Osama bin Laden’s successor as head of Al Qaeda. And indeed, some of the Salafis in politics once were jihadis. Even if the Salafis are not all closet jihadis, they are feared because of their unrelenting hostility toward Israel, harsh stance on women’s and minority rights, rejection of democratic principles and general anti-Americanism.

The Brotherhood presents itself as a group of pragmatic, kinder and gentler Islamists. The Salafis do not.



Thus, a big question hovering over events in Egypt is how a strong Salafi influence there will affect U.S. interests in the region. Recognizing the concerns of the international community, the leadership of the largest Salafi party has gone out of its way to strike a pragmatic tone on foreign-policy priorities. However, it is hostile to U.S. military actions in the region and opposes U.S. counterterror measures and support of Israel. Tensions on issues such as minority rights also seem likely, as the primary Salafi focus is on domestic political and social issues. Perhaps most worrisome, many of the problems the United States has with the Salafis reflect mainstream Egyptian public opinion. Hence, far from being radical outliers, Egypt’s Salafis represent a kind of barometer on the thinking of significant elements of the country’s population, and any democratic leaders will take these feelings into account. As most U.S. interests in the region will not—and should not—change, the United States will only be able to offset some of this criticism, and often we simply must anticipate problems. Ideally, areas of disagreement should not be put at the center of the U.S.-Egyptian relationship.


THE SALAFI movement gets its name from the Arabic al-salaf al-salih (the worthy ancestors, or venerable forefathers), which refers to the early generations of Muslims, “who had first-hand experience of the rise of Islam and are regarded as exemplary for the correct way to live for future Muslims,” in the words of author Roel Meijer. Though they are not inherently antimodernity, Salafis strive to emulate the Prophet Muhammad and maintain a literalist reading of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet. Historically, Salafis have focused more on personal behavior and less on politics.


There is no centralized international Salafi leadership, and Salafi practices may differ regionally, by country, within individual countries and even (or especially) among the followers of different Salafi preachers within a city. Particularly important to Salafis are charismatic religious leaders, and divisions often occur due to personal rivalries masquerading as doctrinal disputes.


The ShariaAssembly was created as a Salafi association in Egypt in 1912—sixteen years before the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, Salafism really took off in the 1970s and 1980s with the return of Egyptian laborers from the Arabian Peninsula, specifically Saudi Arabia. The Saudi legal system is based on Wahhabi doctrine—perhaps the most well-known Salafi movement—and both the government and wealthy Saudi individuals export Wahhabism across the ummah (Islamic community) by funding preachers, building mosques and spreading Salafi religious materials.



Egyptian government policy also fostered the spread of Salafism. While Islamists faced many restrictions and brutal treatment at the hand of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government, his successor, Anwar Sadat, lifted the lid and portrayed himself as a pious leader in hopes of using the Islamists to counter the strong Nasserist current. However, his relations with Islamists soured because of his refusal to implement Islamic law, his close ties to Washington and his peace deal with Israel. Radical Salafis, some of whom were linked to a young jihadi leader named Ayman al-Zawahiri, assassinated Sadat in 1981. One assassin declared, “I have killed Pharaoh.”


The Sadat assassination led to ferocious repression of many Salafi groups. The level of repression rose and fell during the Mubarak years, but the regime kept a heavy hand on Salafi organizations if they showed any political inclination.

As a result, many Salafis focused their activities on preaching and community service, trying to Islamicize society from the bottom up. The Mubarak regime encouraged this, hoping to use apolitical Salafis to counter the influence of the more political Muslim Brotherhood.



http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-salafi-awakening-7068

The strange thing is that the Al Saud and West seem to be determined to spread the fanatical Wahabi style of Islam in Saudi around the region in opposition to the more moderate MB sunni style.

Crazy isn't it.........

or is there something more to it?

Peter1469
06-28-2012, 07:43 PM
Well I suspect that the West is linked to Saudi Arabia because of their oil. I do agree that Wahabism is much more extreme and dangerous than the current model of the MB, especially as it stands in Egypt. I remember our National Intelligence Director took a lot of flack for stating that. The Egyptian MB seems to be moving toward the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) position. Except for their position on Israel that is.

Sultan
06-30-2012, 03:55 AM
Well I suspect that the West is linked to Saudi Arabia because of their oil. I do agree that Wahabism is much more extreme and dangerous than the current model of the MB, especially as it stands in Egypt. I remember our National Intelligence Director took a lot of flack for stating that. The Egyptian MB seems to be moving toward the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) position. Except for their position on Israel that is.

Soon America is going to wake up to the reality of Wahabism and today it is way too late because you have been instrumental in spreading it, partners in it. That jinni is out of the lamp and will not be put back no matter how hard you try now to contain it.

Saudi Arabia is a nest of terrorists all active and all showing you a very nice face. Today India is demanding Saudi hand over 6 terrorists responsible for Indian terror campaigns.

Saudi funds terrorists and hosts them and teaches them and you are too blind to see it because of your media and because of your thirst for oil BUT soon your eyes will be fully opened.

Your government allowed 120 Saudis to leave without a single question being asked fo them 2 days after 9/11 when your own flights were cancelled. Your own FBI and airport security could not believe what Bush allowed to happen. As Bush scooped up the Al Saud and Bin Laden family from Las Vegas ( and you might also be asking what are devout Muslims doing in Las Vegas! of all places!) Kentucky and Florida to Washington to get them back to Saudi, your own were still burning in the ashes of the towers.
Prince Bandar (the US ambassador to Washington and very close friend of Bush Snr) and his wife were found to be paying into an account that paid for 3 of the hijackers! Yet your eyes are still firmly closed.

Sultan
06-30-2012, 04:16 AM
Check this out and there is plenty more

On Thursday, March 28, 2002, acting on electronic intercepts of telephone
calls, heavily armed Pakistani commando units, accompanied by American Special Forces and FBI
SWAT teams, raided a two-story house in the suburbs of Faisalabad, in western Pakistan.

They had received tips that one of the people in the house was Abu Zubaydah, the thirty-year-old chief of
operations for Al Qaeda who had been head of field operations for the USS Cole bombing and who was
a close confidant of Osama bin Laden's.

Two days later, on March 30, news of Zubaydah's capture was spreading all over the world. At first, the
administration refused to corroborate the reports; then it celebrated the capture of the highest-ranking
Al Qaeda operative ever to be taken into custody. "This represents a very significant blow to Al
Qaeda," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. He called Zubaydah "a key terrorist recruiter, an
operational planner and a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle."
Donald Rumsfeld told a news conference that Zubaydah was "being given exactly the excellent
medical care one would want if they wanted to make sure he was around a good long time to visit with
us."
The international media speculated as to what Zubaydah might know, what he might say.

On Sunday, March 31, three days after the raid, the interrogation began. The CIA used two rather
unusual methods for the interrogation.
First, they administered thiopental sodium, better known under its trademarked name, Sodium Pentothal, through an IV drip, to make Zubaydah more talkative. Since the prisoner had been shot three times during the capture, he was already hooked up to a drip to treat his wounds and it was possible to administer the drug without his knowledge.

Second, as a variation on the good cop- bad cop routine, the CIA used two teams of debriefers.
One consisted of undisguised Americans who were at least willing to treat Zubaydah's injuries while they interrogated
him.

The other team consisted of Arab Americans posing as Saudi security agents, who were known for
their brutal interrogation techniques.

The thinking was that Zubaydah would be so scared of being turned over to the Saudis, ever infamous for their public executions in Riyadh's Chop-Chop Square, that he would try to win over the American interrogators by talking to them.

In fact, exactly the opposite happened.

"When Zubaydah was confronted with men passing themselves
off as Saudi security officers, his reaction was not fear, but instead relief," Posner writes.

"The prisoner, who had been reluctant even to confirm his identity to his American captors, suddenly started talking
animatedly.

He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would torture and
then kill him.

Zubaydah asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the ruling Saudi family.

He then provided a private home number and cell phone number from memory. 'He will tell you what to
do,' Zubaydah promised them."

The name Zubaydah gave came as a complete surprise to the CIA.

It was Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, the owner of many legendary racehorses and one of the most westernized members of the royal family.

On September 16, 2001, Prince Ahmed, of course, had boarded the flight in Lexington
as part of the evacuation plan approved by the Bush White House.


He was such an unlikely name that the interrogators immediately assumed that Zubaydah was lying to buy time. The interrogators then kept their prisoner on a "bare minimum" of pain medication and interrupted his sleep with bright lights
for hour after hour before restarting the Sodium Pentothal drip.

When they returned, Zubaydah spoke to his faux Saudi interrogators as if they, not he, were the ones in
trouble.

He said that several years earlier the royal family had made a deal with Al Qaeda in which the
House of Saud would aid the Taliban so long as Al Qaeda kept terrorism out of Saudi Arabia.

Zubaydah added that as part of this arrangement, he dealt with Prince Ahmed and two other members of the
House of Saud as intermediaries, Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, a nephew of King Fahd's,
and Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, a twenty-five-year-old distant relative of the king's.
Again, he furnished phone numbers from memory.


The interrogators responded by telling Zubaydah that 9/11 had changed everything.

The House of Saud certainly would not stand behind him after that.

It was then that Zubaydah dropped his real bombshell.

"Zubaydah said that 9/11 changed nothing because Ahmed knew beforehand that an attack was scheduled for American soil that day,"

"They just didn't know what it would be, nor did they want to know more than that.

---------------------------------------------------------

The three Saudi princes were amongst the 120 who were flown out by special permission of Bush Jnr when the USA was still closed to commercial traffic.

The three flew back to Saudi.

In May the interrogation of Abu Zubeydah was completed.

By July all three Saudi princes were dead!

All three that Abu Zubeydah had told FBI about having links to Bin Laden and knowing about 9/11.

Sultan
07-02-2012, 01:45 PM
Well I suspect that the West is linked to Saudi Arabia because of their oil. I do agree that Wahabism is much more extreme and dangerous than the current model of the MB, especially as it stands in Egypt. I remember our National Intelligence Director took a lot of flack for stating that. The Egyptian MB seems to be moving toward the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) position. Except for their position on Israel that is.

Monday, Jul 2, 2012
The Salafist Al-Nour party has threatened to withdraw from the Constituent Assembly if Egypt is declared a civil state, or if the term “principles” is added to the constitutional article providing for Sharia law. On the other hand, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Egypt, agreed that Egypt should be a civil state, and that the Sharia should act primarily as a point of reference when ushering in new legislation (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/02/a-few-objections-what-should-we.html).

I was just watching the news on Timbucktu and the fanatics smashing the mosques and shrines and the outrage and comments about it from around the world.

The funny thing was though that no one mentioned Saudi Arabia. This is where it is happening today and not a word about it.
Al Saud is destroying shrines and graves and burial grounds and houses the International community is silent and not calling that war crimes!
This Wahabi belief from Saudi is spreading faster than the world can deal with it.
So many different Islamic sites and shrines etc have been destroyed and not a word about it on TV!

Wahabi imams are calling for this kind for thing in Saudi.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable!

Sultan
07-02-2012, 01:50 PM
http://hasnain.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/saudi-arabia-wahhabis-destroy-heritage-of-meccashadows-over-mecca/

By Daniel Howden


There is a growing shadow being cast over Islam’s holiest site. Only a few metres from the walls of the Grand Mosque in Mecca skyscrapers are reaching further into the sky, slowly blocking out the light. These enormous and garish newcomers now dwarf the elegant black granite of the Kaaba, the focal point of the four million Muslims’ annual Haj pilgrimage.

The UK Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article358577.ece) published photographs from the Islamic Heritage Foundation which show clearly how the Wahhabi ideology, espoused by the House of Saud, the Saudi royal family, is destroying sites which are not only precious to Muslims, but also valuable for archeological reasons, and as part of world heritage.
The picture above shows how the Grand Mosque at Mecca (left) is becoming overshadowed by rising skyscrapers, including the Zam Zam tower, being constructed by the bin Laden family.
The religious zealots of Wahhabism do not cherish sacred sites, as they believe pilgrimage to such places encourages heretical and idolatrous worship. The Saudi religious authorities have been engaged in wholesale destruction of historical places for decades now.
In 1998, the grave of Amina bint Wahb, the prophet Mohammed’s mother, was bulldozed and doused in gasoline. Irfan Ahmed al-Alawi, who chairs the Islamic Heritage Foundation, said that despite petitions from thousands within the ummah, the Saudis went ahead regardless.
The birthplace of the prophet Mohammed came under threat 50 years ago, when the House of Saud decided to build a library over the site. The architect then persuaded the authorities to allow him to preserve the remains beneath the library. Now the authorities want to concrete over the site and turn it into a car park.
The house of Khadijah, the prophet’s first wife, was demolished and replaced with public lavatories. The house of Abu Bakr, the companion of Mohammed and father of Aisha who first compiled the verses of the Koran, was demolished to make way for the Hilton hotel.
Lay people, and in some cases even US senators could be forgiven for thinking that the House of Saud has been the guardian of the two holy places for time immemorial. In fact, it is only 80 years since the tribal chieftain Ibn Saud occupied Mecca and Medina . The House of Saud has been bound to Wahhabism since the 18th century religious reformer Mohamed Ibn Abdul-Wahab signed a pact with Mohammed bin Saud in 1744. Wahab’s warrior zealots helped to conquer a kingdom for the tribal chieftains. The House of Saud got its wealth and power, and the clerics got the vehicle of state they needed to spread their fundamentalist ideology around the world. The ruler of this fledgling kingdom needed the legitimacy afforded by declaring himself ” custodian of the two holy places”.
The Independent states that as early as 1929, Wahhabists began to censor who could visit the Ka’aba, and what ceremonies could be performed. Egyptian pilgrims were prevented from visiting to carry out their Mahmal ceremonies, and at least 30 were killed in that year.

http://hasnain.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/demolition-mecca.jpg?w=510Demolition of Mecca



There are now less than 20 structures remaining which date from the time of the prophet Mohammed. Above is the scene of destruction when the muttawa or “religious police”, visible in red headgear, supervised the demolition of the ancient Mosque of Imam Al Uraidh. This mosque, built 1,200 years ago, stood on the site where Ali-Oraid, grandson of Mohammed, had lived. Now it is covered by rubble.

http://hasnain.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/prophet-wifes-tombs.jpg?w=510Prophet's wives tombs



The picture above show all that remains of the grave of Mohammed’s wife Al Baqi. Destroyed 50 years ago, the muttawa guard the site to prevent pilgrims placing flowers or praying by the ruins.

http://hasnain.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/al-nur-mountain.jpg?w=510al-nur-mountain


The mountain pictured is the al-Nur or ” Mountain of Light “. A cave is situated on this mountain, which was where Mohammed received his first “communications” which became the first verses of the Koran. The Independent states: “Hardline clerics want it destroyed to stop pilgrims visiting. At the foot of the hill there is a Wahhabi fatwa: ” The Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) did not permit us to climb on to this hill, not to pray here, not to touch stones, and tie knots on trees…”
The Saudis happily spent money subsidising the Taliban in Afghanistan . When the Taliban blew up (http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/000589.html) the World Heritage site of Bamiyan, home of the giant Buddhas carved into cliffs, the world was aghast. The current destruction, which is encouraged by the House of Saud is an equally disgraceful activity, and Muslims and non-Muslims alike should similarly be aghast at such wanton vandalism.

Peter1469
07-02-2012, 04:56 PM
Monday, Jul 2, 2012
The Salafist Al-Nour party has threatened to withdraw from the Constituent Assembly if Egypt is declared a civil state, or if the term “principles” is added to the constitutional article providing for Sharia law. On the other hand, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Egypt, agreed that Egypt should be a civil state, and that the Sharia should act primarily as a point of reference when ushering in new legislation (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/02/a-few-objections-what-should-we.html).

I was just watching the news on Timbucktu and the fanatics smashing the mosques and shrines and the outrage and comments about it from around the world.

The funny thing was though that no one mentioned Saudi Arabia. This is where it is happening today and not a word about it.
Al Saud is destroying shrines and graves and burial grounds and houses the International community is silent and not calling that war crimes!
This Wahabi belief from Saudi is spreading faster than the world can deal with it.
So many different Islamic sites and shrines etc have been destroyed and not a word about it on TV!

Wahabi imams are calling for this kind for thing in Saudi.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable!

Many people say that the 9-11 attacks could not have happened without a State sponsor (intel agency). Most serious fingers point to Saudi Arabia.