Sunday, May 07, 2006


QUOTE (self explanatory article - no comments)

Freedom House, a Washington based organization founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, and now chaired by former C.I.A. Director, James Woolsey, conducted a survey of literature found in America’s leading Mosques. They came to three conclusions, two of which were accurate. The Saudi government and royal family are the primary purveyors of Islamic religious materials in America and worldwide. The overwhelming majority of the Islamic literature printed by the Saudi government and distributed in American mosques and Islamic schools is uncivilized, hateful, violent, and treasonous. But then they claimed, without evidence or reason, that such materials were reflective of Wahhabi extremism, and were therefore a corruption of Islam!!!!?????? .

Freedom House’s stated bias for religious tolerance may have contributed to their error, but I suspect their deceptive view is more likely born of complete ignorance. They analyzed 200 books and pamphlets but didn’t bother reviewing the only five that actually mattered: Ibn Ishaq’s Sira (the only biographical account of Muhammad written within 200 years of his death), Tabari’s Ta’rikh (Islam’s earliest and most authentic history of Muhammad and his formation of Islam), the topical Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim (Islam’s most revered collection of Muhammad’s words and deeds), and the Qur’an (a book devoid of context and chronology and thus dependent upon the Sira, Ta’rikh, and Hadith accounts). These prime sources contain all that is known about Muhammad, his god, and his religion. They are fundamental Islam.

I am pleased that Freedom House conducted this survey, translated these documents, and made the incriminating evidence available to everyone for free. The very survival of the civilized world is dependent upon us understanding that Islam is mankind’s greatest enemy. Yet, I am deeply disturbed by their continual positioning of Islam’s uncivil and treasonous rhetoric as representing a corrupted and extremist view when most every word of what they uncovered came directly out of the Qur’an, Sira, Ta’rikh, and Hadith—collectively the Islamic scriptures. To infer that Saudi Wahhabism is an inaccurate view of Islam is equivalent to saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul presented an inaccurate and extremist view of Christianity.

If America is going to survive, average Americans must do two things our religious leaders, politicians, scholars, and media are either unable or unwilling to accomplish simultaneously. We must come to know and then think. Freedom House was generous in making this vital information about the nature of the Saudis and Islam available, but their unthinking commentary on it renders it unusable.

When we don’t know, we can’t think—as understanding the relationship between things is the essence of thinking. So when we don’t think, we cannot understand these vital relationships.

Freedom House came to the conclusion that the best way to eliminate the threat of hatful and violent “Wahhabi” Islam, and to save America, was to ask Islamic imams to remove the Saudi government literature from their mosques and schools. But since these materials are all based on the Islamic scriptures, it would be like removing a bucket of water from the ocean.

This strategy is analogous to America’s “War on Terrorism.” It’s senseless and useless. Islam is the enemy; terror is just a tactic. And so long as we obfuscate the source of our pain and lash out blindly at its symptoms, or “tactics,” Islam will manufacture 100 new Jihadists for every 1 we kill.

Freedom House trumpets another deadly misconception in their article as well—that of moderate Muslims and Islamic reform. The sole arbitrator on the subject, Muhammad, said in his Qur’an that a Muslim who does not leave his home to fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause ceases to be a Muslim. Allah calls them “hypocrites” in the 9th surah and orders good Jihadist Muslims to kill them in the 4th, so that he can personally attend to their torture in hell. As for reform, Islam’s lone prophet said, “Islam cannot change.” And in that regard, he was a prophet. This "religion" is just as deceitful, destructive, and deadly as it was when Muhammad was inventing it in a milieu of mass murders, piracy, rape, plunder and slavery. Reforming Islam is akin to thwarting Nazism by asking Hitler to edit the most deceitful, destructive, and deadly passages out of Mein Kampf.

Knowing that the very survival of the free world is at stake, under the auspisus of the Fair Use Doctrine, I am going to share some of what Freedom House discovered in America’s mosques, all the while challenging their commentary. I want you to know what contemporary Muslims are saying. I want you to know that contemporary Islam is indistinguishable from fundamental Islam. And I want you to know that ignorance of Islam, and toleration of it, will cause Americans to lose all we hold dear—our freedoms, our property and our lives. REPORT ON SAUDI GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS REPORT ON SAUDI GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

Center for Religious Freedom
Freedom House

Copyright © 2005 by Freedom House, Published by the Center for Religious Freedom, All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner without the written permission of Freedom House, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Center for Religious Freedom

Freedom House
1319 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-296-5101, Fax: 202-296-5078


The CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is a division of Freedom House. Founded more than sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorship of the far left and the far right. Its Center for Religious Freedom defends against religious persecution of all groups throughout the world. It insists that U.S foreign policy defend those persecuted for their religion or beliefs around the world, and advocates the right to religious freedom for every individual.

Since its inception in 1986, the Center, under the leadership of human rights lawyer Nina
Shea, has reported on the religious persecution of individuals and groups abroad and undertaken advocacy on their behalf in the media, Congress, State Department, and the White House. It also sponsors investigative field missions.

It’s interesting that FH was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt. FDR had little regard for the covenants of our forefathers and enacted all manner of socialist entitlement programs in direct conflict with the United States Constitution. He not only ruled like a dictator, his decisions caused two billion people to live under dictatorial tyranny. And there are no dictatorships of the far right. A tyranny is by definition a liberal use of power. Hitler was a socialist. His National Socialist German Workers Party exercised greater control over the nation and labor than did Stalin’s U.S.S.R.


Freedom House is deeply appreciative of the volunteers and expert consultants who helped in the preparation of this report. The research, translation and principle analysis of the materials for the report were carried out by both Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of security. In light of the recent targeted assassination and death threats for speaking out against Islamic extremism in the Netherlands, such concerns appear especially valid. All involved did so out of a conviction that the Saudi Arabian publications in this study, which espouse an ideology of hate and purport to be the authoritative interpretation of Islam, continue to be in plentiful supply at some of our nation’s main mosques and continue to be used as principal educational resources on Islam for Muslims in America. We also wish to acknowledge the many Muslims who have requested our help in exposing Saudi extremism in the hope of freeing their communities from ideological strangulation; they have done so in the firm belief that public awareness of this problem will prompt the moderate majority of American Muslims to take steps to remedy it.

Yes, it is true, Islam is deadly and Muslims are ruthless murderers—killing those with the courage and character to expose them. But it is folly to believe these barbaric acts are perpetrated to serve the interests of the Saudi dictators rather than the Cause of Allah. Moreover, since 80% of the mosques in America are connected in one way or another to Saudi funds or sponsorship, how can “the majority of American Muslims” be “moderate?” Who is their prophet? Who is their god? What are their scriptures? If the answer to any of these is Muhammad, Allah, the Qur’an and Hadith, their religion cannot be “moderate,” no matter how one defines the term.


Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom decided to undertake this project after a number of Muslims and other experts publicly raised concerns about Saudi state influence on American religious life. This report complements a May 2003 recommendation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent government agency, that the U.S. government conduct a study on Saudi involvement in propagating internationally a “religious ideology that explicitly promotes hate, intolerance, and other human rights violations, and in some cases violence, toward members of other religious groups, both Muslims and non-Muslims.” In releasing this report, the Center is also mindful of one of the key findings of the 9/11 Commission Report: “Education that teaches tolerance, the dignity and value of each individual, and respect for different beliefs is a key element in any global strategy to eliminate Islamist terrorism.”

Very little the 9/11 Commission wrote was “mindful.” I have posted a review of the Commission’s Report on the site.

Education doesn’t teach tolerance. Like hate, tolerance is the byproduct of indoctrination. To be educated is to know and to think. To be tolerant is to not know and to not think. The least compassionate thing a society can do is to be tolerant of the merciless ideology of Islam. The tolerance of Islam will exacerbate terrorism, not eliminate it.

To be educated about Islam is to know that it cannot be tolerated—that it is the enemy of freedom, enlightenment, prosperity, and civility. Fundamental Islam is murderous and treasonous; it inspires, instigates, and rewards terrorism. As such, Islam exists outside the protections of the First Amendment.

The phenomenon of Saudi hate ideology is worldwide, but its occurrence in the United States has received scant attention. This report begins to probe in detail the content of the Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi government has worked to propagate through books and other publications within our borders. While substantial analysis has been previously published on Saudi Wahhabism in other countries, few specifics have been reported on the content of Wahhabi indoctrination within the United States. Part of the reason may be that the vast majority of the written materials are in Arabic. Also, U.S. security investigations have focused on stopping money flows and curbing the activities of individual extremists resulting in, among other actions, the recent expulsions of dozens of religious teachers with Saudi diplomatic passports. We have ascertained that as of December 2004, Saudi-connected resources and publications on extremist ideology remain common reading and educational material in some of America’s main mosques.

Wahhab wasn’t the least bit inventive. He wasn’t even a reformer. He was just a good Muslim who based his Islam on the Islamic scriptures—the Qur’an, Sira, Ta’rikh, and Hadith. Wahhab was to Muhammad as Lenin was to Marx. Nothing Wahhab said, nothing the Saudi’s wrote, differs from Muhammad’s words and deeds as they were reported in the books that comprise Islam. Without understanding the consequence, FH admitted as much in their report when they combined these terms: “Wahhabi or salafi interpretations of Islam.”

The “salafs” are Islam’s founding fathers. Without their oral testimony, Muhammad, Allah, Islam, the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sunnah (Muhammad’s example), would be completely unknown. While their words and deeds were the antithesis of Christ’s Disciples, they were Islam’s equivalent. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says of the salaf: “They were the first generations of Muslims, considered by later generations to be the most authoritative source for Islamic practice and guidance. The salaf were the Companions of the Prophet. The Wahhabis do not accord a special validity to the opinions and practices introduced after that generation, seeing them as unwarranted innovations.”

While Islam is wrong, the Wahhabis are right. If Muhammad, Islam’s lone founder and prophet, Allah’s singular conduit, got Islam wrong, then Islam is wrong. Only a fool would build a new structure on a faulty foundation of sand. To revise or moderate man’s most deceitful, destructive and deadly dogma, rather than expose and reject it, is the folly of fools.

The analysis of methodology which follows is both sound and important. However, when you recognize that GWB and his father revel in their relationship with the Fahd family, and have compromised America’s security to protect and advance their alliance with evil, it should send shivers up and down your spine. Crown Prince Abdullah, the dictator in charge of Saudi Arabia, was GWB’s first Crawford Ranch guest following the Saudi Arabian dominated 9/11 suicide bombings. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador, learned of GWB’s planed invasion of Iraq during the time the president was denying his intentions to his own people. In fact, Prince Bandar was invited into the White House Situation Room—a place labeled off limits to all foreign nationals. When the initial Pentagon and Congressional reports came out linking the Saudi Arabian government, and thus the Fahd Crown Princes, to 9/11, GWB blocked the release of their reports. It makes you wonder whose side he’s on.

In order to document Saudi influence, the material for this report was gathered from a selection of more than a dozen mosques and Islamic centers in American cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Washington, and New York. In most cases, these sources are the most prominent and well-established mosques in their areas. They have libraries and publication racks for mosque-goers. Some have full-or part-time schools and, as the 9/11 Commission Report observed, such “Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools are often the only Islamic schools.”

The material collected consists of over 200 books and other publications, many of which titles were available in several mosques. Some 90 percent of the publications are in Arabic, though some are in English. With one exception, the materials for this study were in Arabic and English. The Center had two independent translators review each Arabic document.

All the documents analyzed here have some connection to the government of Saudi Arabia. In some instances, they have five connections. The publications under study each have at least two of the following links to Saudi Arabia. They are:

• official publications of a government ministry;
• distributed by the Saudi embassy;
• comprised of religious pronouncements and commentary by authorities appointed to positions by the Saudi crown;
• representative of the established Wahhabi ideology of Saudi Arabia; and/or
• disseminated through a mosque or center supported by the Saudi crown.

In many examples, the Saudi link is readily apparent from the seal or name appearing on the cover of the publications of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, or of the Saudi cultural, educational or religious affairs ministries, or of the Saudi Air Force.

Some of the mosques and centers, such as the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles and the Islamic Center in Washington, are openly acknowledged to receive official support by the Saudi king as recorded on his website. While some observers distinguish between funding from the Saudi state and donations made by individual members of the Saudi royal family, it should be noted that King Fahd makes no such distinction. His website asserts, “King Fahd gave his support, either personally or through his Government.” The website also asserts that “the cost of King Fahd’s efforts in this field has been astronomical, amounting to many billions of Saudi Riyals,” resulting in “some 210 Centers wholly or partly financed by Saudi Arabia, more than 1,500 Mosques and 202 colleges and almost 2,000 schools for educating Muslim children.”

Furthermore, the Saudi government has directly staffed some of these institutions. The King Fahd mosque, the main mosque in Los Angeles, from which several of these publications were gathered, employed an imam, Fahad al Thumairy, who was an accredited diplomat of the Saudi Arabian consulate from 1996 until 2003, when he was barred from reentering the United States because of terrorist connections. The 9/11 Commission Report describes the imam as a “well-known figure at the King Fahd mosque and within the Los Angeles Muslim community,” who was reputed to be an “Islamic fundamentalist and a strict adherent to orthodox Wahhabi doctrine” and observed that he “may have played a role in helping the [9/11] hijackers establish themselves on their arrival in Los Angeles.”

Several hate-filled publications in this study were also gathered from the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in Fairfax, Virginia. According to investigative reports in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., served as chairman of this school’s Board of Trustees, and some 16 other personnel there held Saudi diplomatic visas until they were expelled for extremism by the State Department in 2004. Until late 2003, the institute was an official adjunct campus of the Imam Mohammed Ibn-Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, part of Saudi Arabia’s state-run university system, funded and controlled by the Saudi Ministry of Education. Although Saudi Arabia claims to have severed official links with it, the Institute the Saudis established continues to operate in northern Virginia.

Some of the works were published by the Al-Haramain Foundation, run from Saudi Arabia with branch offices in the United States until the FBI blocked its assets in February 2004, finding that it was directly funding al Qaeda. In October 2004, the Saudi government’s Ministry for Islamic Affairs dissolved the foundation, and, according to a senior Saudi official, its assets will be folded into a new Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad.

Some of the Wahhabi materials in this study were printed by publishers and libraries functioning as publishing houses in Saudi Arabia. Some of these are directly government-supported and-controlled, such as the King Fahd National Library. Others are monitored closely by the state, which does not grant the free right to expression, and, according to the State Department, the government’s Ministry of Information has the authority to appoint and remove all editors.

A prolific source of fatwas condemning “infidels” in this collection was Sheik ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Bin ‘Abdillah Bin Baz (died 1999), who was appointed by King Fahd in 1993 to the official post of Grand Mufti. As Grand Mufti, he was upheld by the government of Saudi Arabia as its highest religious authority. Bin Baz was a government appointee who received a regular government salary, served at the pleasure of the King and presided over the Saudi Permanent Committee for Scientific Research and the Issuing of Fatwas, an office of the Saudi government. His radically dichotomous mode of thinking, coupled with his persistent demonizing of non-Muslims and tolerant Muslims, runs through the fatwas in these publications.

Bin Baz is famously remembered by many Saudis for a ruling he issued in 1966 declaring the world flat. He was also responsible for the fatwa, unique in Islam, barring Saudi women from driving. In subsequent years Bin Baz seemed to go out of his way to pronounce against Christians, Jews, and “infidel” Westerners. His fatwas, which carry considerable weight, have been circulated through official Saudi diplomatic channels to mosques and schools throughout the world, including some in the United States, and have been particularly influential in radicalizing Muslim youth at home and abroad. The extremist views proclaimed in these official fatwas belie what Adel al-Jubeir, the articulate Saudi spokesman and special advisor to Crown Prince Abdullah, asserts during televised press conferences about fanatical sheiks in the Kingdom being mainly “underground,” and the fatwas they issue being merely expressions of “their personal opinions.” Though Bin Baz is now dead, his fanatical fatwas continue to be treated as authoritative by the Saudi government.

The bulk of the material was collected in November and December 2003. In December 2004, additional samples were collected from mosques in Washington, Falls Church, Los Angeles, Orange County and Chicago showing that the problem continues as this report goes to press. One of the documents from Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Affairs Ministry bears the post-9/11 publication date of 2002, while most of the other titles were published in the 1980s and 1990s. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the titles were published by groups and entities that in the last two years have been shut down or have broken ties with the Saudi government following U.S. government terrorism investigations, and despite the Saudi government advertising campaign that their textbooks are being revised, the offensive titles and similar publications remain widely available in America, and in some cases dominate mosque library shelves, and continue to be used to educate American Muslims.

Copies of the documents and their translations are kept on file at Freedom House. A listing of the mosques and centers where these publications were found and a bibliography of the documents analyzed in this report follow.

The Foreword which follows contains some interesting insights into the conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims hat we are witnessing in Iraq and it provides some rather useful historical context which most Americans are unaware.

R. James Woolsey

(This foreword is adapted from testimony delivered on May 22, 2002, before the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.)

Since the Saudi conquest of the Hejaz [Central Arabia] from the Hashemites [The Hashashen were Islam’s first suicide martyrs. Using hashish to drug their militants, the Hashashen ultimately controlled most of the Middle East.] in 1924 and the formal establishment of the state of Saudi Arabia in 1932 [a gift from Great Britain following the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in WWI] – more or less simultaneously with the discovery of huge oil deposits in the kingdom – Saudi Arabia has been of substantial importance in the world. So although the Saudis have existed as a tribe and a family in control of a small portion of Arabia for centuries, their influence, even their existence as a nation, has come about within the life span of many now living, including the kingdom’s effective ruler today, Crown Prince Abdullah.

Until less than thirty years ago, our relations with the Saudis were generally smooth. We were on the same side in the cold war, and the Saudis valued our support (and we theirs) against Soviet influence in the Mideast. Of course the oil embargo of 1973 created major stress, but the watershed year was 1979, when Khomeini came to power in Iran and extremists took over the holiest of Islam’s shrines, the Mosque in Mecca, which was under the protection of the Saudi King; it was reclaimed by the Saudis only after substantial loss of both life and face.

The Saudis chose after the twin shocks of that year to strike a Faustian bargain with the Wahhabi sect and not only to accommodate their views about propriety, pious behavior, and Islamic law, but effectively to turn over education in the Kingdom to them and later to fund the expansion into Pakistan and elsewhere of their extreme, hostile, anti-modern, and anti-infidel form of Islam. The other side of the bargain was that if the Wahhabis would concentrate their attacks on, essentially, the U.S. and Israel, the Saudi elite would get a more-or-less free ride from the Wahhabis and the corruption within the Kingdom would be overlooked.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792) was a disciple of Ibn Taymiyah, a Syrian born Sunni Muslim who fought Muslim Mongols. Taymiyah in turn was influenced by el-Kharij (of which Osama bin Laden is a devotee). The Kharij, meaning “Ones Who Goes Out,” were the first to follow in the footsteps of Muhammad. They were fundamentalist Muslims and terrorists. While Islamic terrorism is the legacy of Muhammad, el-Kharij established the model that all Islamic terrorist groups emulate today. They forced Muslims to obey the Qur’an’s teachings on Jihad and sent countless Islamic youth out on assassination missions to kill Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If they did not fight, they labeled the Muslim youth hypocrites and murdered them in accordance with Allah’s instructions.

El-Kharij, like Muhammad before them, were terrorists—willing to brutalize and plunder any civilian center in their path. Like their prophet, they were slave traders, rapists, womanizers, sexists, and thieves. They are credited with reinforcing Muhammad’s teachings on the value of deception, dishonesty, and political assassination.

Taymiyah studied both Muhammad and el-Kharij. He taught that Mongolian Muslims were not true Muslims, and thus should not be allowed to rule. Taymiyah, not Wahhab, wrote the words which resonate in Saudi Arabia today: “Any Muslim who submits to the authority of a moderate Muslim, helps them or deals with them, becomes one of them—an infidel—and must be killed.” Taymiyah’s guiding principles were: “Muslims should resist, fight and overturn any Islamic government that doesn’t govern in strict compliance with Islamic law and that Muslims were compelled by Allah to wage Jihad on anyone whose beliefs differed from Islam—especially Christians and Jews.” As a result, Taymiayah and his followers declared that the Mongol Muslims were hypocrites and apostates. They attacked them viciously. With each blow they echoed Muhammad’s no tolerance policy for pacifists that reverberates throughout the Medina surahs of the Qur’an.

Muhammad al-Wahhab applied Muhammad’s, the Kharij’s, and Taymiyah’s strategy to overturn the Turkish government, establishing an Islamic state in what would eventually become Saudi Arabia. While he was an effective warrior, Wahhab was not a religious reformer or interpreter.

As a result, this Wahhabi sect, which would have been regarded as recently as fifty years ago as an austere, fringe group by a large majority of Muslims, is now extremely powerful and influential in the Muslim world due to Saudi government support and the oil wealth of the Arabian peninsula. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, not known for either a propensity for overstatement or for hostility to the Saudis, calls this deflection of Wahhabi anger toward us ‘a grotesque protection racket.’

This presentation of Wahhab as a sect of Islam, rather than fundamental Islam, is both erroneous and dangerous. By any rational definition, fundamentalists cannot be a fringe group. Moreover, every poll taken of Muslims living in the Middle East shows that fundamentalist Islamic groups like al-Qaeda, are viewed favorably by 70% to 95% of Muslims.

This Faustian bargain has had a huge effect on opinion in the Kingdom. Bernard Lewis points out that throughout most of the history of Islam in most parts of the Muslim world, Muslims have generally been more tolerant than many other religions – Jews and Christians, as "People of the Book", were dealt with especially tolerantly. Today in the Kingdom, however, young people are systematically infused with hostility for “infidels.”

Bernard Lewis wrote favorably of Muslims only because he despises Christians. To quote Lewis as an authority on Islamic behavior is embarrassing. But more importantly, throughout most of the history of Islam and in most parts of the Muslim world, Muslims were intolerant of all other religions, especially Christianity and Judaism. Muslims were intolerant because the Qur’an orders them to enslave, tax, kidnap, mutilate, and murder all infidels and unbelievers—terms the Qur’an defines as “Christians” in the 5th surah. And Muhammad said, “Kill every Jew” in the Sira, Ta’rikh and Hadith.

Moreover, most young Saudis are not equipped when they graduate from school to perform the jobs necessary to operate a modern economy. Instead many are employed, if that is the right word, as, e.g., religious police – walking the streets to harass women whose veils may not fully cover their faces, for example. Young Saudis’ anger based on their lack of useful work and their indoctrination is palpable. It is not an accident that 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us on September 11 were Saudis. The New York Times (January 27, 2002) cited a poll conducted by Saudi Intelligence, and shared with the U.S. government, that over 95% of Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 have sympathy for Osama bin Laden. Whether this report from the Saudi government of their young adults’ views is accurate or distorted, it makes an important point about hostility to us, either by the government, the people, or both.

The Saudi-funded, Wahhabi-operated export of hatred for us reaches around the globe. It is well known that the religious schools of Pakistan that educated a large share of the Taliban and al Qaeda are Wahhabi.

No, they are Islamic. The Pakistanis are far more likely to read Q’tub (an Egyptian) and Taymiyah (a Syrian), than Wahhab, and they will invest 1,000 hours in the Qur’an and Hadith for every 1 focused on more modern commentators.

But Pakistan is not the sole target. I had in my office recently a moderate Muslim leader from an Asian country. He was in the U.S., seeking to obtain funds from foundations, so that he could have printed elementary school textbooks to compete with the Wahhabi-funded textbooks that are flooding his country and that are being made available to schools at little or no cost. The Wahhabi textbooks in his country, like textbooks in Saudi Arabia, teach that it is the obligation of all Muslims to consider all infidels the enemy.

America’s State Department did fund the production of Islamic textbooks for Malaysia—spending Christian taxpayer money on books that reminded Muslims that they are to “wipe the Christians out to the last.” And they must have worked. Malaysian Muslims have murdered 300,000 Christians in East Timor over the last 20 years.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Americans are not normally comfortable distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable within a religion, unless they are, say, debating views within their own church. Because of the First Amendment and American culture, most Americans tend not to make judgments about others’ religions. But the Wahhabis and the Islamists whom they work with and support have a long political reach and their views have substantial political effect. Some of the consequences of this ‘grotesque protection racket’ have been quite lethal: American deaths and the failure to apprehend the terrorists who killed them.

And I dare say, the former C.I.A. Director is aiding and abetting our ignorance of this lethal foe by errantly saying that Islam is peaceful and tolerant while only the “Wahhabis and the Islamists whom they work with and support them” are violent and murderous. Moreover, Islam has always been more political than religious. Muhammad was a warlord and pirate, not a prophet. Americans have been led to believe that Islam is just a religion and thus must be tolerated. If it were correctly view as a political doctrine that advocates the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments, we would be in a better position to prevail against it.

One analogue for Wahhabism’s political influence today might be the extremely angry form taken by much of German nationalism in the period after WW I. Not all angry and extreme German nationalists (or their sympathizers in the U.S.) in that period were or became Nazis. But just as angry and extreme German nationalism of that period was the soil in which Nazism grew, Wahhabi and Islamist extremism today is the soil in which al Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are growing. We need to recognize the problem posed by the international spread of this hate ideology, including within the American homeland.

Actually the most accurate correlation is between Islam and Nazism, not between Arabs and Arians. I dedicated 75 pages of Prophet of Doom to a side by side comparison between Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Muhammad’s Qur’an and Hadith. Apart from time and place, they are indistinguishable. These juxtapositions can be found in the following chapters: Demented Deity, Mein Kampf, Islam’s Holocaust, Blood & Booty, and Profitable Prophet Plan. Please read them now.

This report is a first step in an effort to contain the destructive ideology being proliferated by the Wahhabis within the American homeland. Hopefully it will lead to the removal of tracts spreading hatred within American mosques, libraries and Islamic centers. The publications analyzed in this Report and others like them that advocate an ideology of hatred have no place in a nation founded on religious freedom and toleration.

I think it is better to expose, repudiate and ban organizations whose constitution and founders commands the murder of millions, incites terrorism, and treasonously calls the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments. Our former C.I.A. director wants to rearrange their reading material. So were do you stand? Do you have an informed opinion? Have you read Tea With Terrorists and Prophet of Doom? Are you aware of who the terrorists really are and why they kill? Do you know how to stop them?

But I have to give the Director credit for one thing. While he has misidentified the enemy, he has correctly surmised that Islam “has no place in a nation founded on…freedom.



Post a Comment

<< Home