Excerpts from a book: Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army and America’s War on Terror By Hassan Abbas published by An East Gate Book. M.E. Sharpe Armonk, New York, London England. “The Khomeini revolution in Iran already bolstered the confidence of the Shias, and they were not about to take Sunni dictates in religious matters lying down. Hard-liners among Sunni, for their part, felt that such dictation was their right, and those on the extreme right of the Sunni spectrum simply cut the Gordian knot by taking a position that, correct or not, Pakistan had a Sunni majority and as such it should be declared a Sunni Muslim state in which Shia should be treated as a minority. Since achievement of this holy goal would likely to take some time, some of them decided that the interregnum ought not to be wasted. Thus in 1985 they formed Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba (ASS) – an organization piously dedicated to ridding the country of the nettlesome presence of the Shias by eliminating them physically. Later, when they realized what the organization’s acronym meant in English, they changed the name to Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP).”
“The zealous emissaries of the Iranian Revolutionary Regime started financing their organization Tehreek-e-Nifza-e-Fiqah-e-Jafaria (TNFJ – Movement for the Implementation of Jafaria Religious Law) and providing scholarships for Pakistani student to study in Iranian religious seminaries. For the Zia regime though, the problematic issue was Shia activism leading to a strong reaction to his attempts to impose Hanafi Islam (a branch of Sunni sect). For this he winked to the hard-liners among the Sunni religious groups in order to establish a front to squeeze the Shias. It was in this context that Jhangvi was selected by the intelligence community to do the needful. It is also believed that the JUI recommendation played the decisive part in this choice. The adherents of the Deobandi School were worried about Shia activism for religious reasons anyhow. State patronage came as an additional incentive. Consequently, in a well-designed effort, Shia assertiveness was projected as their disloyalty to Pakistan and its Islamic Ideology.” “In a few months, Saudi funds started pouring in, making the project feasible. For Saudi Arabia, the Iranian revolution was quite scary, for its ideals conflicted with that of a Wahabi monarchy. More so, with an approximately 10% Shia population, Saudi Arabia was concerned about the expansion of Shia activism in any Muslim country. Hence, it was more than willing to curb such trends in Pakistan by making a financial investment to bolster its Wahabi Agenda. According to Vali Raza Nasr, a leading expert on the sectarian groups of Pakistan, the flow of these funds was primarily routed through the Pakistan Military and the ISI. It is not known whether American support for this scheme was readily available, but the Zia regime knew well that the United States would be glad to acquiesce, given the rising US – Iran hostility. However, some analyst believe that CIA funds were involved in the venture.”
How shameless these Citizens of Oil Rich Arab Sates [UAE, KUWAIT, QATAR, SAUDI ARABIA, OMAN, BAHRAIN] while their own countires 'enjoy' a dark record of Human Rights Abuses:Reference: "The Island of Happiness" MAY 19, 2009 http://www.hrw.org/en/node/83110/section/5 yet they HAVE the courage talk about Quran and Sunnah. To me these Arabs are worst creature on Earth. Let me quote an incident a Saudi national [Naval Officer] while in Karachi asked me to help him buy a Car. I asked him "would you trust a Bakistani" to which he said, yes! yes! why not you are a Muslim, to which I asked about the Treatment "so-called alleged Pakistan/Indian/Bengali Muslim brothers [even if one is not Muslim these Rascals have no right to insult anybody]received from Arab hands everywhere particularly at the Airports. I don't like Racism and Prejudice and Arabs, Turks, and Persian are riddled with Racism and Arabs are worst in this regard in literal sense [Muta'asib] to the extent of Ghulu. One must just watch them the way they mistreatreat Pakistanis, Indians and Bengalis at their Airport and mistreatment with Poor Migrant Workers [ The UAE is a member of the ILO and has ratified six of the eight core ILO conventions, namely the conventions relating to elimination of forced and compulsory labor, elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, and abolition of child labor. The UAE has also ratified ILO Convention No. 1 on hours of work, Convention No. 81 on labor inspection, and Convention No. 89 on night work (women). Obligations of UAE Authorities under International Law and International Standards of Corporate Responsibility Reference: Obligations of UAE Authorities under International Law and International Standards of Corporate Responsibility "The Island of Happiness" MAY 19, 2009 http://www.hrw.org/en/node/83110/section/6 ] and compare their excellent VVIP treatment they give to their "Mother's Paramuors i.e. Americans and British. It is disgusting that for them they go the extent of pimping. These Diaper Heads deserve condemnation to the extent of "Tabbarra" because they think Islam is the Property of their Forefathers.
'A picture speaks a thousand words' Sons of Late. King Faisal [Great Great Great Maternal Grandson of Mutawwa Sheikh Mohammad Bin Abd Al Wahab] Turki Al Faisal and Saud Al Faisal with NEO CON Ex- US Vice President Dick" Cheney [Wahabis are one big fraud] - Prince Saud, Prince Turki,Vice President and Mrs. Cheney http://www.saudiembassy.net/archive/2006/news/page562.aspx Man is known by the company he keeps DEATH SQUADS: Seymour Hersh, Dick Cheney & Secret Assassination Wing http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/05/seymor-hersh-dick-cheney-secret.html
- From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House] - Defense Secretary Dick Cheney takes a leading role in drawing up the plans for the US invasion of Iraq (see December 1990). He is appalled by what he calls the “lack of creativity” of the initial plans, drawn up by a number of senior generals. Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell spend days poring over the plans, with Cheney pressuring both Powell and the generals to make wide-ranging changes. But the generals respect Cheney’s input. “He wasn’t a micromanager like McNamara,” one general later recalls, referring to former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who planned much of the US’s Vietnam strategies. “And he wasn’t arrogant like [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld. He wanted this one done right.” Overwhelming Force - Cheney joins Powell in advocating the “enhanced option,” adding 100,000 more troops to the initial invasion force to bring troop strength up to nearly half a million US forces slated to go into Iraq. Powell and Cheney have no intention of being undermanned by Iraq’s large ground forces. And Cheney wants to slough off the remnants of what many call the “Vietnam syndrome.” He wants a resounding victory. “The military is finished in this society if we screw this up,” he tells Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar (see August 5, 1990 and After). While Powell and Cheney see eye-to-eye on most invasion-related issues, they do disagree on one fundamental issue: the possible use of the Army’s tactical nuclear arsenal (see Mid-August, 1990). (Nuclear weapons will not be used in the Iraq invasion.) Limited Role of Congress? - Cheney sees no reason for Congress to have anything more than a peripheral role in the entire affair (see December 1990). Authors Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein later write: “Despite the fact that going to war with Iraq would be a larger undertaking than the D-Day invasion of Normandy, Cheney argued that the president did not need the consent of Congress. He seemed more understanding of King Fahd’s polling of the royal family and calling Arab leaders (see August 5, 1990 and After) than he was of [President] Bush’s willingness to go to Congress for consent” (see January 9-13, 1991). [DUBOSE AND BERNSTEIN, 2006, PP. 101-102] REFERENCE: Late 1990: Defense Secretary Cheney Helps Plan Iraq Invasion http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate90invade#alate90invade Profile: Bandar bin Sultan a.k.a. "Bandar Bush", Prince Bandar http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=bandar_bin_sultan
The dress these Arabs wear is only good for following purposes.
Arabian Diaper [Shemagh/Igal] for Head and Arabic Envelope for body [Thob]
1 - Intercourse.
2 - Eating like Pigs [they are pigs rather Wild Boars].
3 - Going to Bathroom.
4 - Sleeping.
5 - Farting.
6 - and dying, the dress is so comfortable that they don't need "Kufan" Funeral Clothes and can easily be buried in the same. Their dress is not good for any kind of work. This 80-page report found that while the UAE government has moved to improve housing conditions and ensure the timely payment of wages in recent years, many labor abuses remain commonplace. International institutions planning to open branches on the island - including the Guggenheim, New York University (NYU), and the French Museum Agency (responsible for the Louvre Abu Dhabi) - should urgently obtain enforceable contractual guarantees that construction companies will protect workers' fundamental rights on their projects. REFERENCE: UAE: NYU’s Labor Rights Provisions Break New Ground Major Commitment to Protect Migrant Workers from Abuse, but Enforcement and Independent Monitoring Needed FEBRUARY 3, 2010 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/03/uae-nyu-s-labor-rights-provisions-break-new-ground
سعودی عرب: شادی کا نیا نکاح نامہ
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعرات 3 جون 2010 , 07:28 GMT 12:28 PST
سعودی عرب میں حکام نے عمر رسیدہ مردوں کی کم عمر لڑکیوں سے شادیوں کی روک تھام کے لیے نئے نکاح نامے جاری کرنا شروع کر دیے ہیں۔
نئے نکاح نامے میں دلہن کی عمر کے بارے میں بتانا لازمی ہو گا۔
سعودی عرب کے ایک مقامی اخبار نے ایک اہلکار کے حوالے سے بتایا ہے کہ ’عمر رسیدہ مردوں کے نو عمر لڑکیوں سے شادی کرنے کے حالیہ واقعات کے بعد وزارتِ انصاف نے لڑکیوں کی عمر طے کرنے کے لیے سنجیدہ اقدامات شروع کیے ہیں‘۔
خیال رہے کہ سعودی عرب میں عمر رسیدہ لوگوں کی کم عمر لڑکیوں سے شادی کے متعدد واقعات سامنے آنے کے بعد حکام نے اس ضمن میں نئے اقدامات اٹھانے کا وعدہ کیا تھا۔
انسانی حقوق کی تنظیموں نے سعودی حکام نے اقدامات کو سراہتے ہوئے کہا ہے کہ کم عمر لڑکیوں کو نقصان نہ پہنچنے کے حوالے سے واضح اقدامات کی ضرورت تھی۔ انسانی حقوق کی قومی سوسائٹی نے نئے اقدامات کا خیر مقدم کیا ہے۔ سوسائٹی کے چیئرمین کا کہنا ہے کہ ’ گزشتہ تین سال سے کم عمر لڑکیوں سے شادی کے زیادہ واقعات سامنے آ رہے ہیں‘۔
سعودی عرب میں بچوں سے شادی کے حوالے سے قوانین موجود نہیں ہیں۔
رواں سال فروری میں ایک لڑکی نے جب خلع لیے کیس دائر کیا تھا تو اسے اپنے اسی سالہ شوہر کے ساتھ شادی قائم رکھنے کا کہنا گیا تھا۔ شادی سے چند ماہ پہلے لڑکی کے والد کو جہیز کے طور پر بائیس ہزار چھ سو ڈالر ادا کیے گئے تھے۔
اس سے پہلے دو ہزار آٹھ میں ایک آٹھ سالہ لڑکی کا پچاس سالہ شخص سے شادی کا کیس اس وقت سامنے آیا تھا جب لڑکی کی ماں نے شادی ختم کرانے کی کوشش کی تھی۔
کم عمر شادیوں کو جائزہ قرار دینے والوں کا کہنا ہے کہ یہ سعودی ثقافت کا حصہ ہیں
سعودی عرب میں کم عمر شادیاں
کم عمری میں شادیوں کی بڑی وجہ غربت ہے
آخری وقت اشاعت: Wednesday, 15 April, 2009, 12:29 GMT 17:29 PST
سعودی عرب میں ایک ساٹھ سالہ مرد کی آٹھ سالہ لڑکی کے ساتھ شادی کے بارے میں تنازعہ سامنے آنے کے بعد حکومت نے کہا ہے کہ وہ کم عمری میں لڑکیوں کی شادیوں کے بارے میں قواعد وضوابط بنائے گی۔
سعودی عرب کے شہر اونیزہ میں عدالت نے مشروط طور پر ساٹھ سالہ شخص کی آٹھ سالہ لڑکی سے شادی کو جائز قرار دے دیا ہے۔ عدالت نے اپنے فیصلے میں کہا ہے کہ جب تک وہ بچی بلوغت کی عمر کو نہیں پہنچتی اس کا شوہر اس سے جنسی رابط نہیں کر ے گا۔
سعودی عرب کے وزیر انصاف محمد عیسٰی نے کہا ہے کہ ان کی وزارت بچیوں کے والدین کی طرف سے ان کی کم عمری میں شادیاں کرنے کے رجحان کو روکنے کے لیے اقدام کرنے کے بارے میں غور کر رہی ہے۔
تاہم انہوں نے یہ نہیں کہا کہ کم عمری کی شادیوں کو مکمل طور پر ختم کر دیا جائے گا۔
انسانی حقوق کی تنظیموں کا کہنا ہے کہ کم عمری کی شادیاں اور خاص طور پر عمر رسیدہ لوگوں کی کم عمری لڑکیوں سے شادیوں کی بڑی وجہ غربت ہے۔
سعودی عرب میں سنی فرقہ کے شرعی قوانین نافذ ہیں جن کے تحت غیر مرد اور خواتین کے درمیان کس قسم کے تعلقات کی معمانیت ہے اور لڑکی کے والد کو اس کی اپنی مرضی سے شادیاں کرنے کا پورا اختیار حاصل ہے۔
اونیزہ میں آٹھ سالہ لڑکی کی شادی کا مقدمہ لڑکی کی والدہ عدالت میں لائیں تھیں اور انہوں نے عدالت سے استدعا کی تھی کہ اس شادی کو ختم کیا جائے۔
عدالت نے کہا کہ انہوں نے اس ساٹھ سالہ مرد کو اس بات پر راضی کرنے کی کوشش کی کہ وہ لڑکی کو طلاق دے دے لیکن وہ اس پر تیار نہیں ہوا۔
وہ لڑکی نکاح کے بعد بھی اپنے والدین کے ساتھ رہ رہی ہے اور جب تک وہ بالغ نہیں ہو جاتی اسے اس کے شوہر کے گھر نہیں بھیجا جائے گا۔
عدالت کے مطابق یہ لڑکی بالغ ہونے کے بعد خلع کے لیے درخواست دے سکتی ہے۔
مقامی اخبارات کے مطابق یہ شادی معاشرے میں پائے جانے والی روایت کی عکاسی کرتی ہے کہ کس طرح سعودی عرب میں لوگ اپنی لڑکیوں کو بیچ دیتی ہیں۔
نامہ نگاروں کے مطابق لڑکی کے باپ نے ساٹھ سالہ مرد سے پیسے لے کر اس سے اپنی آٹھ سالہ لڑکی کی شادی کی تھی۔
قبل ازیں سعودی عرب کے مفتی اعظم شیخ عبدالعزیز الشیخ نے کہا تھا کہ اسلام میں پندرہ سال اور اس سے کم عمر لڑکیوں کی شادیوں کی اجازت ہے۔
Real Face of Oil Rich Arabs:
غریب لڑکیوں کی شادی یا’ فروخت‘
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، حیدر آباد دکن
اومان کے دو بھائیوں محمد بن سالم اور یوسف بن سالم ثانی بوالسعدی کو مرگی کے دورے پڑتے ہیں اور وہ اپنی بیویوں کو مارتے پیٹتے بھی ہیں
حال ہی میں حیدرآباد کی دو غریب لڑکیاں ثمینہ بیگم اور نازیہ بیگم کی عرب شہریوں سے شادی ایک بار پھر توجہ کا مرکز بن گئی ہے کہ آخر کس طرح غریب لڑکیوں کی خرید و فروحت ہوتی ہے اور کیسے انکا استحصال ہوتا ہے۔
ثمینہ بیگم اور نازیہ بیگم کا نکاح حالیہ سال اٹھارہ جولائی کو اومان کے دو بھائیوں محمد بن سالم اور یوسف بن سالم ثانی بوالسعدی کے ساتھ ٹیلیفون پرہواتھا۔ دونوں ایک خوشحال زندگی کے خواب سجائے اومان روانہ ہوگئیں۔
بے حد کسمپرسی اور غربت میں ڈوبے دونوں خاندانوں کو امید تھی کہ اب ان کے سارے دکھ درد دور ہوجائیں گے۔ لیکن یہ سارے خواب بکھرکر رہ گئے جب ان دونوں لڑکیوں نے انتہائی پریشانی کے عالم میں اپنے خاندان والوں سے رابطہ کر کے یہ شکایت کی کہ ان کے شوہر ذہنی طور پر بیمار ہیں اور انہیں مرگی کے دورے پڑتے ہیں- انہوں نے یہ بھی کہا کہ ان کے شوہر ان پرظلم کرتے ہیں اور انہیں جسمانی اذیت پہنچاتے ہیں- اس فون کال نے ان خاندانوں کے ہوش و حواس اڑادیے-
میرے اومانی داماد نے مجھ سے فون پر کہا ہے کہ ان شادیوں پر انہوں نے پچہتر ہزار روپے خرچ کیے ہیں اور اگر یہ رقم انہیں واپس مل جاتی ہے تو وہ لڑکیوں کو واپس بھجوانے کے لئے تیار ہیں
ثریا بیگم، والدہ نازیہ بیگم
ان میں سے ایک لڑکی ثمینہ بیگم کے والد سید مصطفی کی واحد خواہش یہ ہے کہ ان کی بیٹی بخیر و عافیت وطن واپس لوٹ آئے- دوسری لڑکی نازیہ کی بیوہ والدہ ثریا بیگم کا کہنا ہے کہ ان کے اومانی داماد نے ان سے فون پر کہا ہے کہ ان شادیوں پر انہوں نے پچہتر ہزار روپے خرچ کیے ہیں اور اگر یہ رقم انہیں واپس مل جاتی ہے تو وہ لڑکیوں کو واپس بھجوانے کے لئے تیار ہیں-
حیدرآباد کے پرانے شہر تالاب کٹہ کے رہنے والے ان دو خاندانوں نے اب اس معاملہ کو پولیس کے حوالے کردیا ہے اور پولیس نے یہ شادیاں کروانے والے دو مشاطاؤں اور تین قاضیوں کو گرفتار کرلیا ہے-
ساؤتھ زون کے ڈپٹی کمشنر آف پولیس سندیپ شنڈالیہ نے بی بی سی کو بتایا کہ پولیس کمشنر کی جانب سے دہلی میں اومان کے سفارت خانے کو ایک مکتوب روانہ کیا گیا ہے جس میں مطالبہ کیا گیا ہے کہ ان دونوں لڑکیوں کو ان بھائیوں کے چنگل سے نکال کر حیدرآباد واپس بھجوایا جائے- انہوں نے کہا کہ وہ اومانی حکام سے مسلسل رابطہ رکھے ہوئے ہیں-
سید مصطفی ایک ٹیلی ویژن میکنک ہیں۔ انکا کہنا تھا کہ اومان کے ایک اور شہری قسیب خلفان سعد الحسینی نے جولائی کے مہینے میں ان سے اور ثریا بیگم سے علیحدہ علیحدہ ملاقات کی اور ان دونوں اومانی بھائیوں کی تصاویر انہیں دکھاکر ان کی بچیوں کے لئے پیام دیا تھا-
اس معاملے میں دو مقامی مشاطہ ممتاز بیگم اور شاہنواز بھی شامل تھے- سعد الحسینی نے انہیں ان دونوں بھائیوں کو بیرون ملک شادی کرنےکے لیے حکومت اومان کی اجازت کا مکتوب بھی دکھایا جس میں کہا گیا تھا کہ ان دونوں کو سوشیل سیکوریٹی فنڈ سے تینتیس اومانی ریال ماہانہ ادا کیے جاتے ہیں۔ محمد بن سالم کو دیے گئے اجازت نامے میں اس بات کا بھی واضح طور پر ذکر ہے کہ اسے مرگی کے دورے پڑنے کی شکایت ہے-
مجھے ٹیلی فون پر ان دونوں بھائیوں کے نکاح پر اس لیئے حیرت یا اعتراض نہیں ہوا تھا کہ عام طور پر اس طرح کی شادیاں ہوتی رہتی ہیں اور شریعت میں اس کی گنجائش ہے
سید مصطفی، والد ثمینہ بیگم
مصطفًی کا کہنا ہے ک وہ مشاطاؤں کی باتوں میں آ کر اس رشتے کے لیئے راضی ہو گئے کیونکہ غربت کی وجہ سے حیدرآباد میں اپنی لڑکی کی شادی کا بندوبست نہیں کرپا رہے تھے-
دوسری لڑکی کی والدہ ثریا بیگم کا بھی کم و بیش یہی بیان تھا- مصطفی کا کہنا تھا کہ انہیں ٹیلی فون پر ان دونوں بھائیوں کے نکاح پر اس لیئے حیرت یا اعتراض نہیں ہوا تھا کہ عام طور پر اس طرح کی شادیاں ہوتی رہتی ہیں اور شریعت میں اس کی گنجائش ہے-
مصطفی کی شکایت ہے کہ رشتہ کروانے والوں نے انہیں دونوں اومانی شہریوں کی ذہنی حالت اور مالی حیثیت کے بارے میں دھوکے میں رکھا کیونکہ اومانی حکومت کا اجازت نامہ عربی میں تھا اس لئے وہ اسے ٹھیک طور پر سمجھ نہیں سکے-
پولیس کا کہنا ہے کہ نکاح پڑھوانے میں دو قاضیوں حاجی محمد ظہیرالدین اور محمد عبدالرشید اور معطل شدہ قاضی عبدالوحید قریشی کا ہاتھ تھا- عبدالوحید قریشی کوگزشتہ سال ریاستی وقف بورڈ نے اس وقت معطل کردیا جب انھوں نے پرانے شہر کی دو غریب لڑکیوں کا نکاح دبئی کے ایک شہری سے بیک وقت پڑھادیا تھا-
پولیس کی تحقیقات سے پتہ چلا ہے کہ ان شادیوں کے لیے ان دونوں اومانی شہریوں کی جانب سے مشاطاؤں اور قاضیوں کو پچتہر ہزار روپے کی رقم ادا کی گئی- نکاح پڑھانے کی رسم وحید قریشی نے انجام دی اور دستاویزات پر قاضی ظہیرالدین اور قاضی عبدالرشید سے دستخط کروائے-
حیدرآباد میں مقامی لڑکیوں کی عربوں سے شادی کی تاریخ کافی پرانی ہے کیونکہ اس شہر میں عرب نژاد شہریوں کی ایک بڑی آبادی رہتی ہے- یہ وہ لوگ ہیں جو آصف جاہی حکمرانوں کی فوج میں شامل تھے اور اس کے بعد سے یہ حیدرآباد میں ہی آباد ہیں-
اب یہ تینوں دھوکہ دہی کے الزام میں جیل کی سلاخوں کے پیچھے ہیں- پولیس اس بات کی تحقیق بھی کرر ہی ہے کہ کس طرح ایک معطل شدہ قاضی وقف بورڈ سے ان شادیوں کے سرٹیفکیٹس حاصل کرنے میں کامیاب ہوا- پولیس حکام نے اس امکان کو مسترد نہیں کیا ہے کہ اس اسکینڈل میں کچھ وقف بورڈ کے ملازمین بھی ملوث ہوسکتے ہیں-
حیدرآباد میں مقامی لڑکیوں کی عربوں سے شادی کی تاریخ کافی پرانی ہے کیونکہ اس شہر میں عرب نژاد شہریوں کی ایک بڑی آبادی رہتی ہے- یہ وہ لوگ ہیں جو آصف جاہی حکمرانوں کی فوج میں شامل تھے اور اس کے بعد سے یہ حیدرآباد میں ہی آباد ہیں-
ابتدا میں یہ شادیاں صرف انہی خاندانوں تک محدود تھیں لیکن رفتہ رفتہ جہیز کی رسم اور لڑکوں کے خاندانوں کی جانب سے بڑھتے ہوئے مطالبات نے جب مقامی غریب لڑکیوں کی شادی ناممکن بنادی تو عرب شہریوں سے ان کی شادیوں کا سلسلہ شروع ہوگیا-
یہ شکایت بھی عام رہی ہے کہ کم عمر مقامی لڑکیوں کا بیاہ بوڑھے عرب شہریوں سے کردیا جاتا ہے- 1991 ء میں زبردست ہنگامہ کھڑا ہوگیا تھا جب چودہ سالہ آمنہ کو ایک ساٹھ سالہ سعودی شہری سے بیاہ دیا گیا تھا-
اس لڑکی کواس وقت بچالیا گیا جب سعودی عرب جانے والے ایئر انڈیا کے طیارے میں ایئر ہوسٹس نے اسے روتے ہوئے دیکھا اور پوچھنے پر آمنہ نے اسے اپنی بپتا سنائی-
اس کے بعد آندھراپردیش کی حکومت نےسخت کارروائی کرتے ہوئے بلا اجازت اس طرح کی شادیوں پر پابندی عائد کردی تھی- قاضیوں کے لئے لازمی کردیا گیا کہ وہ متعلقہ ملک کی حکومت کی اجازت اور مقامی وقف بورڈ کی منظوری کے بعد ہی اس طرح کی شادیاں انجام دیں- لیکن پھر بھی اس طرح کے واقعات کا سلسلہ جاری رہا-
عربوں سے شادیوں کا ایک اور گھناؤنا پہلو یہ سامنے آیا ہے کہ اس طرح کی شادیاں کروانے والے مشاطہ اور قاضی جان بوجھ کر کنٹرکٹ میریجز یا مختصر مدتی شادیاں کرواتے ہیں جس کے تحت شادی کرنے اور چند دن گزارنے کے بعد عرب شہری لڑکی کو چھوڑ کر اپنے وطن واپس چلے جاتے ہیں۔
اس طرح کی شادیاں کروانے والے مشاطہ اور قاضی جان بوجھ کر کنٹرکٹ میریجز یا مختصر مدتی شادیاں کرواتے ہیں جس کے تحت شادی کرکے چند دن گزارنے کے بعد عرب شہری لڑکی کو چھوڑ کر اپنے وطن واپس چلے جاتے ہیں۔
سرکاری طور پر اس طرح کی شادیوں کے کوئی اعداد و شمار دستیاب نہیں کیونکہ اس طرح کے کیسز اسی وقت سامنے آتے ہیں جب متاثرہ خاندان پولیس سے رجوع کرتے ہیں لیکن چونکہ استحصال کا شکار ہونے والے اکثر خاندان غریب اور ان پڑھ ہوتے ہیں اس لئے وہ یا رو پیٹ کر خاموش بیٹھ جاتے ہیں یا پھر جو کچھ پیسہ مل جائے اسی پر اکتفا کرلیتے ہیں۔
ایک سینئر پولیس عہدیدار اے کے خان کا کہنا ہے کہ اس صورتحال کی ایک بنیادی وجہ یہ ہوسکتی ہے کہ حیدرآباد میں عرب ممالک کے شہریوں کو بلا روک ٹوک آنے اور گھوم پھرنے کی اجازت ہے جبکہ اس طرح کی سرگرمیوں اور لڑکیوں کے استحصال کے واقعات کے مد نظر یہ لازمی ہونا چاہئے کہ تنہا انڈیا آنے والے عرب شہریوں کی نقل و حرکت پر نظر رکھی جائے
Let me be blunt and allow me to say that since the first day of arrival of First Oil Rich Pedophile/Pederast Arab Rascal Sheikh in Pakistan our Rulers from General Ayub to Zardari [Bhutto is included] played the Role of Pimps and Paddlers for them e.g. Wild Hunting Parties [with every kind of vice] in the most poor areas of Pakistan i.e. South Punjab – The Seraiki Belt – or you may say the HQ of Punjabi Taliban. They way these Rascals Treat Working Class [Educated Middle Class] from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh could only be called worst kind of slavery and cruelty because from Airport to Work Place these Arabs [from Executive to Citizen] insult them and violate every Law given in the book particularly the Labour Laws. And these very Arabs are Financing the Khawarijs in Pakistan, let me show all of you their real face:
Late. Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz [Saudi Grand "RETARD" Mufti who issued Fatwa against Saddam and then against Osama Bin Ladin] - As per Quran and Sunnah, Aal-e-Saud, and Aal-e-Sheikh [means Muttawwa who are blood relatives of Shaykh Mohammad Ibn Abd Al Wahab] Yalla Yalla, Yaani Yaani, Taal Taal - If I tell my whole story it will not be finished even in a day and a night. When I return home, I will maybe bring nothing. From 12 midnight to 2:30 a.m. my employer beat me with an electric cable. In the end, she said, "Other madams [employers] would send you home but I won't. You have only two choices: either you work without a salary, or you will die here. If you die, I will tell the police that you committed suicide." Even if I worked without a salary, it did not guarantee that I would not be beaten. That is why I escaped. All the doors were locked so there was no way out, the windows had iron bars, but there was a hole for ventilation in the bathroom from which I escaped. Before I escaped, I prayed and asked Allah for help although my body was very dirty since she did not allow me to take a bath for a month. I prayed. I'm crying inside my heart. I think that it is foolish to migrate when I remember my little girl. If I can solve my financial problems this time, I will never migrate again. If we have no money, we have no other choice but to go abroad. The government has to get rid of this poverty. REFERENCE: “As If I Am Not Human” JULY 14, 2008 "As If I Am Not Human" Abuses against Asian Domestic Workers in Saudi Arabia http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/07/14/if-i-am-not-human
Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl/Open letter to Arab Sheikhs from a Pakistani Man – 2 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-bush-from-arab-girlopen_22.html
Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl/Open letter to Arab Sheikhs from a Pakistani Man – 3 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-bush-from-arab-girlopen_7348.html Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl/Open letter to Arab Sheikhs from a Pakistani Man – 4 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-bush-from-arab-girlopen_2183.html Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl/Open letter to Arab Sheikhs from a Pakistani Man – 5 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-bush-from-arab-girlopen_23.html Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl/Open letter to Arab Sheikhs from a Pakistani Man – 6 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-bush-from-arab-girlopen_1783.html Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl/Open letter to Arab Sheikhs from a Pakistani Man – 7 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-bush-from-arab-girlopen_6888.html Open letter to Bush from an Arab girl/Open letter to Arab Sheikhs from a Pakistani Man - 1 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-bush-from-arab-girlopen.html
King Fahd presented Kalashnikov to another pervert Saddam Hussein [Fahd ordered Mutawwas to Issue Fatwa against the Same Saddam when Saddam fingered Wahabi Kuwait [Kuwait is even worst than Saudi Arabia] Enjoy the picture and after the pictutre read about the Debauch, Womanizer, Gambler Khadimul Haramian Sharifain.
Khadim ul Harmain Sharifain - Shah Fahad The Debauch - In reality, it was a test of the ebullient Fahd’s capacity to govern. The Crown Prince would have to live down his personal reputation as a reckless womanizer, drinker, and gambler. REFERENCE: King Fahd’s Saudi Arabia by Harvey Sicherman August 12, 2005 http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20050812.middleeast.sicherman.fahdsaudiarabia.html
Real Face of King Fahd: There were stories of all night sessions at seedy clubs in Beirut, of affairs with belly dancers, and of the wife of a Lebanese businessman paid $100,000 a year to make herself available. Then in 1969, Fahd was said to have lost $1,000,000 in a single dusk-to-dawn marathon of Scotch-fuelled gambling at the tables of a MonteCarlo nightclub. He was summoned back to Riyadh by his brother, the then King Faisal Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. REFERENCE: Life and legacy of King Fahd By Paul Wood BBC defence correspondent Last Updated: Monday, 1 August 2005, 10:14 GMT 11:14 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4734505.stm
Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd: [The Mutawwa in Chief due to his fingering Streets of Pakistan are burning] Real Face: His visits with his retinue of 3,000 had earned the local tradesmen riches indeed. It is estimated that an extra €30,000 (£21,000) a day was spent just in Puerto Banus. As heir apparent, Fahd first visited Marbella in 1974 and stayed at the Incosol hotel and spa. He booked 100 rooms but some of the princesses didn’t like the decor so he ordered the dark carpets to be changed to white. As a reward, Fahd left the hotel a tip of $300,000 — enough for the entire staff to receive, in effect, an extra year’s salary. He told one Spanish journalist that he liked Marbella because “it was a land blessed by Allah”, referring to the Arab occupation of most of Spain from the 8th to the 13th century. In the early 1980s he started the construction of his Mar Mar Palace, a replica of the White House. Because of increasing ill health (he suffered a stroke 10 years ago), he last visited in August 2002, just after a £134m refurbishment of the palace. REFERENCE: Marbella mourns its own King Midas King Fahd’s epic spending enriched his favourite part of Spain, says Deirdre Fernand From The Sunday Times August 7, 2005 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article552402.ece
Vice-President George H. W. Bush returns from his trip to the Middle East, where he has passed along a message to Iraq to step up its air war against Iran (see July 23, 1986). The covert machinations nearly become public knowledge when US embassy officials in Saudi Arabia, learning of the Saudi transfer of US arms to Iraq earlier in the year (see February 1986), question the Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar. Bandar, fully aware of the arms transfer, tells the officials that the transfer was “accidental” and the amount of arms transferred was negligible. The State Department is also curious about the transfer, warns that the arms transfer violates the Arms Export Control Act, and says it must inform Congress of the transfer. Such a notification would endanger the entire process, and possibly short-circuit another arms deal in the works, a $3.5 billion transfer of five AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia, of which Congress has already been informed. But after the White House notifies the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar (R-IN), and mollifies Lugar by telling him the arms sales to Iraq were “inadvertent,” “unauthorized,” and involved only a “small quantity of unsophisticated weapons,” Lugar agrees to keep silent about the matter. Another senator later approaches Lugar about rumors that Saudi Arabia is sending US arms to Iraq, and recalls that “Dick Lugar told me there was nothing to it, and so I took his word.” [NEW YORKER, 11/2/1992] REFERENCE: August 5, 1986: Covert Arms Sales to Iraq Nearly Revealed http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_iraq_80s_134#us_iraq_80s_134 Profile: Bandar bin Sultan a.k.a. "Bandar Bush", Prince Bandar http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=bandar_bin_sultan
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. REFERENCE: US NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82 Edited by Joyce Battle February 25, 2003 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
What a joke that Aal-e--Saud and Saudi Muttawwa Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz issued a Fatwa of Takfeer [Apostasy] against Saddam Hussein [that too after he was no more of any use to Corrupt Aal-e-Saud and Wahhaabi Muttawwas whereas an Anarchist Pakistan Ahl-e-Hadith Scholar Late. Ehsan Elahi Zaheer [who was on the payroll of Aal-e-Saud and Saudi Muttawwas rather he was student of Salafi Islamic scholars such as Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani and Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz] had addressed Sddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party Member [as per Saudi Fatwa "Apostate, Secular, Socialist i.e. KAAFIR] REFERENCE: Ehsan Elahi Zaheer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehsan_Elahi_Zaheer
صدام حسين مع إحسان إلهي ظهير رحمه الله - فيديو نادر
Really sometime "This Muslim Ummah" is so hypcortie that one wants to puke.
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, accompanied by senior aide Paul Wolfowitz and US CENTCOM commander-in-chief General Norman Schwarzkopf, visits Saudi Arabia just four days after Iraq invades Kuwait (see August 2, 1990). [SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 8/3/2000; DUBOSE AND BERNSTEIN, 2006, PP. 100] Cheney secures permission from King Fahd for US forces to use Saudi territory as a staging ground for an attack on Iraq. Cheney is polite, but forceful; the US will not accept any limits on the number of troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and will not accept a fixed date of withdrawal (though they will withdraw if Fahd so requests). Cheney uses classified satellite intelligence to convince Fahd of Hussein’s belligerent intentions against not just Kuwait, but against Saudi Arabia as well. Fahd is convinced, saying that if there is a war between the US and Iraq, Saddam Hussein will “not get up again.” Fahd’s acceptance of Cheney’s proposal goes against the advice of Crown Prince Abdullah. [SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 8/3/2000; DUBOSE AND BERNSTEIN, 2006, PP. 100-101] With Prince Bandar bin Sultan translating, Cheney tells Abdullah, “After the danger is over, our forces will go home.” Abdullah says under his breath, “I would hope so.” Bandar does not translate this. [MIDDLE EAST REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 9/2002; HISTORY NEWS NETWORK, 1/13/2003] On the same trip, Cheney also visits Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, who rejects Cheney’s request for US use of Egyptian military facilities. Mubarak tells Cheney that he opposes any foreign intervention against Iraq. [SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 8/3/2000] US forces will remain in Saudi Arabia for thirteen years (see April 30-August 26, 2003). REFERENCE: August 5, 1990 and After: Cheney Secures Permission for US Forces to Attack Iraq from Saudi Arabia http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080590cheneysaudi#a080590cheneysaudi Profile: Bandar bin Sultan a.k.a. "Bandar Bush", Prince Bandar http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=bandar_bin_sultan
USA/Great Britain/King Fahd financed Iraq Iran War but when Saddam Hussein entered Kuwait [Worst than Saudi Arabia] Fahd ordered Saudi Retard Toady Mutawwas to Issue Fatwa against the Same Saddam. Debauch Saudi Wahabi Somersault Fatwa of Takfeer against Saddam Hussein. In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” To which Ambassador Albright responded, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” - BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 — A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here. The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq. That month was the highest for Iraqi civilian deaths since the American invasion. But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths. It is the second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006. REFERENCE: Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says By SABRINA TAVERNISE and DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. Published: October 11, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html
Late. Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz [Saudi Grand Mufti who issued Fatwa against Saddam and then against Osama Bin Ladin] - When Saddam invaded Kuwait - [Immediately a Fatwa was issued against Saddam - "During the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi Arabia bankrolled the Saddam Hussein regime with the express approval of Washington DC which at that time saw Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Shia fundamentalism. It came as a terrific shock to the Saudi Royals when Saddam Hussein turned his attention to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Again, the Royal family turned to the Ulema and obtained (with difficulty) a Fatwa, permitting the use of non-Muslim foreign troops on Saudi soil to defend Saudi Arabia against a foreign invader - one the Ulema regarded as a secular apostate. Thus the Saudi Royal family invited the USA to send it its troops for Operation Desert Storm- the operation to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait - largely at Saudi expense." As per 9/11 Commission Report “In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, [Saudi Fatwa issued in 90s against Osama Bin Ladin - http://abdurrahman.org/jihad/binlaadin.pdf Usama Ibn Ladin Al-Kharijee (our position toward him and his likes) - By Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullaah Ibn Baz [PDF] - Taken from http://www.troid.org/] and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.”
Saudi Wahabi Salafi Shiekh Ibn Bazz Baz fatwa Saddam Sadam
Misconception: The Islaamic Threat
In recent years, a great deal of attention in the media have been given to the threat of "Islaamic Fundamentalism". Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the Western media and the actions of some ignorant Muslims, the word "Islaam" has become almost synonymous with "terrorism". However, when one analyses the situation, the question that should come to mind is:
Do the teachings of Islaam encourage terrorism?
The answer: Certainly not!
Islaam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. It should be remembered that all religions have cults and misguided followers, so it is their teachings that should be looked at, not the actions of a few individuals. Unfortunately, in the media, whenever a Muslim commits a heinous act, he is labeled a "Muslim terrorist".
However, when Serbs murder and rape innocent women in Bosnia, they are not called "Christian terrorists", nor are the activities in Northern Ireland labeled "Christian terrorism". Also, when right-wing Christians in the U. S. bomb abortion clinics, they are not called "Christian terrorists". Reflecting on these facts, one could certainly conclude that there is a double-standard in the media! Although religious feelings play a significant role in the previously mentioned "Christian" conflicts, the media does not apply religious labels because they assume that such barbarous acts have nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity. However, when something happens involving a Muslim, they often try to put the blame on Islaam itself - and not the misguided individual.
Certainly, Islaamic Law (Sharee'ah) allows war - any religion or civilisation that did not would never survive - but it certainly does not condone attacks against innocent people, women or children. The Arabic word "jihaad", which is often translated as "Holy War", simply means "to struggle". The word for "war" in Arabic is "harb", not "jihaad". "Struggling", i.e. "making jihaad", to defend Islaam, Muslims or to liberate a land where Muslims are oppressed is certainly allowed (and even encouraged) in Islaam.
However, any such activities must be done according to the teachings of Islaam. Islaam also clearly forbids "taking the law into your own hands", which means that individual Muslims cannot go around deciding who they want to kill, punish or torture.
Trial and punishment must be carried out by a lawful authority and a knowledgeable judge. Also, when looking at events in the Muslim World, it should be kept in mind that a long period of colonialism ended fairly recently in most Muslim countries. During this time, the people in these countries were culturally, materially and religiously exploited - mostly by the so-called "Christian" nations of the West. This painful period has not really come to an end in many Muslim countries, where people are still under the control of foreign powers or puppet regimes supported by foreign powers.
Also, through the media, people in the West are made to believe that tyrants like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moamar Qaddafi in Libya are "Islaamic" leaders - when just the opposite is true. Neither of these rulers even profess Islaam as an ideology, but only use Islaamic slogans to manipulate their powerless populations. They have about as much to do with Islaam as Hitler had to do with Christianity! In reality, many Middle Eastern regimes which people think of as being "Islaamic" oppress the practice of Islaam in their countries. So suffice it to say that "terrorism" and killing innocent people directly contradicts the teachings of Islaam. .......... Prepared by: Abu 'Iyaad REFERENCE: Misconception: The Islaamic Threat http://www.fatwa-online.com/aboutislaam/0020221.htm http://www.fatwa-online.com/index.htm http://www.fatwa-online.com/worship/jihaad/jih009/index.htm
Question: O esteemed Shaykh, what is happening now (in Iraaq) so what is the position of the Muslim towards this trial, and is there a Jihaad, and are do those soldiers who are in the Gulf have the ruling of being mujaahideen, and may Allaah reward you.
Shaykh Ubayd al-Jaabiree: I dont know why this question (is asked) when, when we have just ended the speech with what I consider to comprise the answer to it and to its likes. However, despite this, just so that it is said, that Ubayd has neglected some of the questions.
So I say: Firstly, not all of the Iraaqi society is Muslim. Rather, amongst them is the Marxist, amongst them is the Ba'athist Heretic, and amongst them are numerous orientations. And there are Muslims amongst them...
And amongst them are the Raafidah. And the positions of the Scholars towards the Raafidah is well known, amongst them are those who declared them Disbelievers.
Secondly, we have Rulers and those who have authority, and it is obligatory to give them hearing and obedience, and around our rulers are those who have knowledge, and experience, and speciality in the political affairs. So we do not undermine them, and we have already mentioned previously that the general affairs are not for just any person. Rather, they are for whom? For those in authority.
And as it is appropriate, I also say that those who call to cutting off from the products of America and Britain and others, then those people have a resemblance to the Raafidah. Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah mentions in Minhaaj us-Sunnah, in the first volume, and I believe it is page 38, "From the stupidity of the Raafidah is that they do not drink from the river that was unearthed (i.e. dug out, like a well) by Yazeed". So those Harakiyyoon and Hizbiyyoon, have resembled the Raafidah. And what an evil model (that is). And the most repugnant for a person that his model, and way is that of the Raafidah.
Thirdly, the banner of fighting in Iraaq, who is carrying it? It is carried by Saddaam Hussain at-Takreetee, and he is the leader of the Ba'athi Party in his land...and the Ba'athi Party, is secularist, disbelieving, heretical. Its foundation is upon mixing and not differentiating between a Sunni Muslim, Guidance from the Scholars Concerning Iraaq and between the Jew, Christian, Communist, and others. They are all the same, equal. And for this reason, their slogan is, as their poet has said:
I believe in, -- (Shaykh Ubayd): I seek refuge in Allaah --
I believe in al-Ba'ath as the Lord which has no partner
And in Arabism as a religion, which has no other (religion)
This is their religion, qawmiyyah (nationalism) and shu'oobiyyah, and their religion is not Islaam. So built upon this, the one who fights under the banner of the Iraaqi government, then he is fighting under a banner of disbelief. And we do not dispute that the people of Iraaq have the right to defend themselves. They can defend themselves, their blood, their honour and their wealth, they can defend those who transgress upon them, whether America or Britain or other than them.
So it is obligatory upon us, the community of Muslims that we ask Allaah in our supplication that He delivers the Muslims amongst the people of Iraaq. So whoever said O Allaah save the [Iraaqi Society]1 , then he has erred. This supplication of his reaches even the Marxist and the Communist. And the Ba'ath Party is at the front of the [supplication of the] one who supplicates for the Iraaqi society (in general). No, but supplicate to Allaah that He delivers the Muslims amongst the people of Iraaq. And that he relieves them of their distress. This is what I can add now. .......... Translated by: Abu 'Iyaad REFERENCE: NEWS\ Monday 31 March 2003
Shaykh 'Ubayd al-Jaabiree on the Position Towards Iraq From a Paltalk Session today 31/03/2003 at 8:30pm UK Time http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0030331.htm
PEACE FLOTILLA: President Bush in Saudi Arabia dancing with Governor of Riyadh
The period of history which is commonly called modern wrote Bertrand Russell in 1945, has a mental outlook which differs from that of the medieval period in many ways. Of these, two are most important: the diminishing authority of the Church, and the increasing authority of science.The culture of modern times, Russell added, is more lay than clerical, so that states increasingly replace[d] the Church as the authority that controls culture. These modern states, partly under the influence of science, tended, Russell felt, toward democracy, which first became an important force in the modern sense with the American and French Revolutions (1). Last Monday, nearly 230 years after the modern democratic American Revolution challenged the Divine Right of Kings and â€œmade the rights of man known to all of Europe (Condorcet), a curious meeting took place in the vacation home of the President of the United States. News of this summit in Crawford, Texas sent Kant, Voltaire, Condorcet, Thomas Jefferson and other leading thinkers of the Ages of Reason and (bourgeois) Revolution spinning in their coffins a little faster than usual.
In one chair sat George W. Bush, the messianic militarist (Ralph Naders description) United States (U.S.) president who once invoked Christ as his favorite political philosopher (because he changed my heart and who announced his imperialist war(s) on terror and the Arab world as crusade (2). A friend of school prayer and the death penalty and a religiously based opponent of abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, evolutionary science, and stem-cell research, Bush is probably the nations most theocratic president to date. He finds critical electoral support among the highly mobilized group of Americans “ equaling perhaps a third of the first modern nations citizenry “ who call themselves Fundamentalist Christians and who therefore tend to believe literally in such biblical prophecies as Armageddon, and the Second Coming. These beliefs, taken from the book of Revelation, imply acceptance, as David Harvey notes, of the horrors of war (particularly in the Middle East) as a prelude to the achievement of Gods will on earth(3).
Bush is probably the most authoritarian U.S. president since at least the turn of the 20th century. He has exhibited extreme disdain for democratic institutions and values in numerous ways, including chronic deception of the American public (most dramatically in regard to the reasons for, and achievements of, his Iraq occupation and nature of his middle-class tax cuts), denial of citizen access to public White House records, and a determination to enact regressive, corporate plutocratic domestic policies opposed by most Americans.
Sitting in the other chair at Crawford was Crown Prince Abdullah, neo-medieval monarch of the most reactionary and doctrinaire nation on earth. According to Gilbert Achcar in 1997, democratic America longstanding client state Saudi Arabia is the antithesis of democracy. It is a country where the Koran and Sharia are the only basic law and which is run by ultra-puritan Wahhabi [fanatically extremist and arch-authoritarian] Muslims. It is incontestably the most fundamentalist state in the world, the most totalitarian in political and cultural terms, and the most oppressive of the female half of the population (4).
Things have not improved much in Saudi Arabia (from an Enlightenment perspective, at least) over the last eight years. The kingdom still enjoys a continuing positive relationship with the United States despite, or because of, its continuing terrible record of antidemocratic actions. It still practices the wholesale denial of civil, political, and human rights. Despite the Bush administration pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the Arab world, the totalitarian Saudi state remains a close US ally, receiving ample support from the Pentagon.
The secret to this positive relationship, of course, is oil. Saudi Arabia has the largest petroleum reserves on the planet, a factor of great significance to the architects and maintainers of American empire. In 1945, Noam Chomsky notes, U.S. State Department officials described Saudi-Arabian energy resources as ˜a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in history. Thanks mainly to its vast oil endowments, President Dwight Eisenhower considered the oil-laden Persian Gulf (where Saudi Arabia remains the petroleum-soaked crown jewel) to be the most strategically important area of the world. By controlling Saudi and other Arab oil resources and production, U.S. policymakers have long hoped to attain significant veto power over the economic, military, and diplomatic conduct of rival states and regions, who depend significantly on external (and especially Middle Eastern) energy supplies(5).
The relevance of that strategic and veto power is accelerated for those policymakers by Americas growing dependence upon foreign oil imports and the emergence of more functional state-capitalist systems in Western Europe and East Asia as superior economic competitors. Increasingly unable to keep up (on purely economic terms) with their world capitalist rivals, the deeply indebted and highly defense (military)-addicted U.S. empire relies like never before on its vast military might (a source of power and weakness at one and the same time) to shore up its challenged economic strength by keeping an armed boot on the global oil spigot (6).
At the same time, American imperialists rightly consider control of that spigot as vital to their declared project of preventing the surfacing of any conceivable challenge to U.S. global military hegemony. As Harvey notes, the military runs on oil. North Korea may have a sophisticated air-force, but it cannot use it much for lack of fuel. Not only does the U.S. need to ensure its own military supplies. But any future military conflict with, say, China [which U.S. planners consider to their greatest strategic military rival in coming decades, P.S.], will be lopsided if the U.S. has the power to cut off oil supplies to its opponent. (7)
Thanks to the State Departments early understanding of oil-rich Saudi Arabia stupendous strategic relevance, U.S. imperial architects made a critical deal with the kingdom after WWII. The U.S. was granted decisive control over the Saudis economic and external affairs (including oil production and pricing), along with military basing rights. In return, the U.S. agreed to guarantee the security of the regime from internal (democratic and otherwise) and external threats.
Buttressed by its initially small share of the oil wealth that American corporations extracted from its soil, the Saudi state managed to keep the Ages of Reason and Revolution at bay into the 21st Century. As Achcar notes, â€œthe perpetuation and installation by the US of pre-modern tribal dynasty in Saudi Arabia“ a process replicated by the US and other western nations (principally England) in other Arab oil states “ has contrasted strongly with colonialism project of overturning traditional structures in other parts of the world and setting up models emulating political modernity. The civilizing mission of the West in the establishment of state institutions did not extend to [Saudi Arabia and other oil monarchies]. On the contrary, here the project was to consolidate backwardness in order to guarantee unfettered exploitation of hydrocarbon resources by the imperial power (8).
And exploit Saudi oil the US did. American corporate petroleum authorities pumped out and processed enormous amounts of the kingdoms black gold and sold it at remarkably low prices “ down to $1.29 per barrel by 1969 “ to fuel the dazzling expansion of leading core state (Western and Japanese) economies during the 1950s and 1960s.
It is true that Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other Arab oil states including Iran, Iraq, and Kuwait dramatically increased oil prices and Arab wealth by forming a producers cartel (OPEC) that brandished the boycott weapon to great effect in the 1970s. By the end of that decade, Middle Eastern oil had risen to $25 per barrel, with Arab elites now receiving most of the revenue. Nonetheless, as Middle Eastern historian Rashid Kahlidi points out, the American companies continued to enjoy a privileged position in their relations with the Saudi oil industry and the United States continued to enjoy its strategic privileges in the country, such as rights to military bases. American industry and services also had great advantages in access to the lucrative Saudi market, which in light of the new oil wealth was insatiable in its demand for construction, consumer goods and most profitably of all expensive weapons systems far too complex to be used without the very expensive training and maintenance provided by American companies. The fantastic new oil revenues made the Saudi regime more powerful than ever in its ability to repress dissent, including that of those who wish to deny the US special privileges in and around the kingdom (9).
Which brings us to the reason for the Crown Prince presence in Crawford. He came to discuss the expansion of Saudi oil output, required by the American overlords to reduce what Bush and his advisors consider the unreasonably high ($55 a barrel) price of oil. The corporate-petrocratic White House does not mind high oil prices; no true oiligarchy would. But the administration is worried that current prices at the American pump are so elevated that they threaten US economic growth and endanger the Republican Partys ability to effectively push its expensive, regressive, and reactionary policy agenda. It was, by all appearances, a successful meeting for Bush: Prince Abdullah committed his kingdom to investing $50 billion to increase Saudi oil production over the next decade.
To show concern for the embattled American consumer, the White House had the monarch sit down briefly with some ordinary folk in a dingy Crawford diner. Heck, Bush wanted the American people to know, ole Abdullah (we do not know if Dubya has given him a personal nickname yet) is a regular fellow...wants to sit down and order a burger too“ just like our pseudo-populist, blue-blooded president. Gas prices and not human rights were the discussion topic during this little appearance, we can be sure.
Responsible journalists might find the administrations push for increased Saudi oil production (and lower oil prices) highly interesting in light of Bushs disastrous, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq. Among other things, this brazen imperial action was supposed to bring Iraqs vast petroleum reserves on line, helping keep oil prices within America definition of â€œreasonable. But two years after Bushs proto-fascistic Mission Accomplished PR stunt (featuring the top-gun president landing in a flight suit on a U.S. aircraft carrier off the California coast), this and other declared Operation Iraqi Freedom objectives remain woefully unfulfilled. The war on Iraq has succeeded only in killing perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians, sacrificing more than 1,500 (predominantly working-class) US service persons (and maiming many more), shattering civil authority within Iraq, and tearing down standard civilized norms and institutions of international law and decency. It has deeply alienated Arab (including Iraqi) and world public opinion, fanned the flames of Islamic fundamentalism, and sparked an impressive Iraqi resistance movement that has naturally targeted oil pipelines in its effort to force the invaders departure.
For a significant number of Americans of Fundamentalist sentiment (maybe even the president himself), however, this may all be largely for the good. After all, the bible calls for a final war beginning in the Middle East as prelude to the return of Jesus Christ Our Savior and the ascendancy of non-sinners to Heaven.
Also meriting critical journalistic attention is the meaning of Bushs call increased Saudi (and global) oil production in relation to the broad scientific consensus which concludes that planetary temperatures are dramatically elevating thanks primarily to human societys massive discharge of petroleum-based emissions. This global warming problem carries numerous disastrous consequences “ many already well underway “ for human beings and other living things. As John Bellamy Foster has recently noted, â€œnot only has global warming emerged since the 1980s as the greatest threat yet to the biosphere as we know it, but the problem has gotten rapidly worse. The prospect of only a very limited rise in average world temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels “ an amount of increase thought to separate non-catastrophic from catastrophic levels of global warming “ will soon become unstoppable.
There is growing fear among scientists, Foster adds, of runaway global warming due to cumulative effects associated with a lessening of the carbon-absorbing capacities of the oceans and forests â€“ a probable consequence of global warming itself. In Antarctica glaciers are melting and ice shelves thinning, pointing to a rise in sea levels. All ecosystems on earth are now in decline. Species are facing extinction at levels not seen for 65 million years. Global shortages of fresh water are looming. The toxicity of the earth is increasing.
All this and more is to be expected,Foster adds, now that the rational regulation of the environment under capitalism has been shown to be a dangerous fantasy in the age of neoliberal globalization, when the worlds unchallenged military superpower refuses to sign even the mild anti-warming Kyoto Protocol (10).
The last thing this developing eco-catastrophe calls for is increased production and consumption of petroleum.
Bushs brazen indifference to the looming problem of anthropogenic global warming (seen in his suppression of government reports documenting climate change as well his rejection of the Kyoto accord) is certainly related to his corporate-petrocratic background and connections. Real (or onetime wannabe) Texan oil men dont lose sleep about the externalized costs of their poisonous industry. But another part of the administration disregard for growing concerns about planetary warming is more cosmological in nature. The nations Fundamentalist Christians have little reason to care about the excessive heating (human-generated or not) of the climate. When its all about the end of the world and getting to be one of The Chosen People who doesnt get Left Behind (the name of a best-selling series of apocalyptic fundamentalist novels in the US) on the fleeting and sinful earth, after all, global warming is no problem. From a literalist biblical perspective, the ongoing climate change might actually be welcome: it will help the world burn faster when Judgment Day comes.
I have no idea what Saudi religious doctrine tells Prince Abdullah to think about the melting of the planet. It seems safe to assume, however, that his government efforts to maintain high oil prices have had less to do with protecting a livable climate than maintaining the wealth and power of his tribal, arch-reactionary state.
The leading minds of the Age of Reason would be horrified by the spectacle of boy-king George and his good friend Prince Abdullah meeting to accelerate the disastrous overheating of humanitys only available climate. More than two centuries after the American Revolution heralded the arrival of modern (at once rational and democratic) statesmanship, these two dynastic and fundamentalist heads of statesâ€™ selfish contempt for democracy, science, and the greater common good should disqualify them from serving as toxic arbiters of our environmental fate. Should, that is ¦in an even moderately rational and democratic world.
Would Enlightenment leaders be surprised? At least one, perhaps, would not. As Chomsky has reminded us on repeated occasions, Thomas Jefferson in his later years warned that the early US Republic banking institutions and moneyed corporations (Jefferson) would, if not curbed, become a form of absolutism that would destroy the promise of the democratic revolution. Subsequent developments, Chomsky notes, have more than fulfilled Jeffersons most dire expectations. The nations great and inherently (and legally, in fact) pathological corporations and the concentrated structures of political power they tend to control have become largely unaccountable and increasingly immune from popular interference and public inspection while gaining great and expanding control over the global order. Ruled by massive, profit-addicted, and militantly hierarchical institutions “ modern managerial corporations “ that were given the rights of immortal persons under early 20th century US law, American global state capitalism has occasionally been compelled to temper its underlying tendencies towards savage inequality, tyranny, oppression, empire, militarism, and ecological as well socioeconomic imbalance. Beyond occasional moments of rational, socially responsible, and democratic reform and regulation, however, the system deeper and irresistible drift is always towards the destructive and chaotic concentration of unaccountable power and the ceaseless pursuit of wealth and control for the most privileged members of the owning, investing, and exploiting (business) class (11). The advance of whatever works (in policymakers eyes) to serve those basic, dark imperatives is the basic rule of life and policy under the soulless regime of the moneyed corporations
Thanks to this harsh reality, theres no particular commitment on the part of those in power to scientific rationalism and/or democratic modernism per se. The dominant values are profit, power, empire, and the never-ending quest for capital accumulation “ guiding principles that lead often enough to the embrace of atavistic, pre-modern barbarism and blatant disregard for humanity and its environmental and other needs. Embodied by such science-friendly national founding heroes as Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, the legacy of the Age of Reason becomes little more than a means to reactionary, selfish, and unreasonable ends.
Rational, scientifically informed thinking is embraced and empowered only insofar as it serves the deeper autocratic imperatives of empire, profit, and inequality. It is employed in the rapacious capitalist extraction of the planets fossil fuels. It is disregarded, however, when it comes to understanding and confronting the grave ecological price that is paid for excessive, unregulated carbon emissions. It is put to profitable and strategic imperial use in the sophisticated arming of a vicious, medieval monarchy that happens to support the United States neo-medieval determination effort to rule the world on the basis of a sheer preponderance of force.
But then, this is what happens when the democratic revolution gives way to the absolutism of state capitalist autocracy. Only those who do not understand the inherently antisocial irrationality of American imperial capitalism " living embodiment of the Thermidorian nightmare that Jefferson glimpsed “ should find it odd that two reactionary, aristocratic petro-Fundamentalists like King George and Prince Abdullah are empowered to push the overheated planet temperature higher even as the preponderant majority of the world scientifically trained climate experts say STOP. REFERENCE: King George, Prince Abdullah, Global Warming, and the Torture of Thomas Jefferson King George, Prince Abdullah, Global Warming, and the Torture of Thomas Jefferson By Paul Street Sunday, May 01, 2005 http://www.zcommunications.org/king-george-prince-abdullah-global-warming-and-the-torture-of-thomas-jefferson-by-paul-street-1
King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Bin Abdulrahman Bin Faisal Bin Turki Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud should be sodomized to have some feeling. Every Wahabi and Ahle-e-Hadith in Pakistan and India should start following this practice of Wahabis of Saudi Arabia. Every Ahl-e-Hadith of Pakistan, Bangladesh and India should start giving their mothers [if widowed], 8 year daughters, and sisters to UAE, Saudi, Kuwaiti and Qatari Sheikhs.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) - The purpose of FGM is to curb the sexual desire of girls and women and preserve their “sexual honor” before marriage. The massive mutilation is irreversible and extremely painful, and is usually done to young girls. http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/somalia/fgmpictures.htm
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) The purpose of FGM is to curb the sexual desire of girls and women and preserve their "sexual honor" before marriage. The massive mutilation is irreversible and extremely painful, and is usually done to young girls. Practiced in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Oman, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, amongst others, FGM is carried out with knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass or razor blades. The mutilation is usually done without anesthetics. Instruments are usually not sterile. Mortality is high. The practice has dreadful costs: many girls die afterwards, the survivors suffer their whole life from the psychological and medical consequences of the operation. All are traumatized and suffer from adverse health effects during marriage and pregnancy.
Yet Muslims have the audacity to complain!
ظَهَرَ الْفَسَادُ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِي النَّاسِ لِيُذِيقَهُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي عَمِلُوا لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ
Corruption doth appear on land and sea because of (the evil) which men's hands have done, that He may make them taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may return. [AL-ROOM (THE ROMANS, THE BYZANTINES) Chapter 30 - Verse 41]
Now watch the pictures of Saudi Kings/Sheikhs with American Presidents, in the light of Quranic Verse above.
Now watch the pictures of Saudi Kings/Sheikhs with American Presidents, in the light of Quranic Verse above.
The meeting between King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Febuary 14, 1945 set the stage for close Saudi-U.S. relations.
King Saud bin Abdulaziz met with President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard Nixon during a state visit to Washington, DC, in 1957.
During his visit to San Francisco, California, to sign the United States Charter in 1945, then-Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Harry Truman.
Crown Prince Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President John F. Kennedy in Washington, DC, in 1962
King Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Richard Nixon in 1971.
King Faisal bin Abdulaziz with President Lyndon B JohnsonRichard Nixon in 1966.
Crown Prince Fahd met with President Jimmy Carter and former President Gerald Ford during a visit to Washington, DC, in 1977.
President Ronald Reagan welcomed King Fahd to the White House in 1985.
Commander of the National Guard Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz met with President Ford in the White House in 1976.
King Khaled bin Abdulaziz and then-Crown Prince Fahd with President Carter in Riyadh in 1978.
Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz and Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz met with Secretary of Defense William Cohen in the Pentagon in 1999.
King Fahd and President George Bush met in Riyadh in November 1990 to discuss the liberation of Kuwait.
During a meeting at the White House on September 20, 2001, Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud Al-Faisal assured President George W. Bush of Saudi Arabia's full cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
King Fahd hosted a visit to Saudi Arabia by President Bill Clinton in October 1994. Their meeting was attended by Ambassador Prince Bandar.
King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and George Bush
Muslims should not complain and should do this for a qucik recovery:
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
Allah hath promised such of you as believe and do good work that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed (others); and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them, and will give them in exchange safety after their fear. They serve Me. They ascribe no thing as partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth, they are the miscreants. [AL-NOOR (THE LIGHT) Chapter 24 - Verse 55]
Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd. The intercepts depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country's religious rank and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to overthrow it. The intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and throughout the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official told me. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys – it's like the Grand Alliance – and had a capability for conducting large-scale operations." The Saudi regime, he said, had "gone to the dark side." In interviews last week, current and former intelligence and military officials portrayed the growing instability of the Saudi regime – and the vulnerability of its oil reserves to terrorist attack – as the most immediate threat to American economic and political interests in the Middle East. The officials also said that the Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration, is refusing to confront this reality, even in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
The Saudis and the Americans arranged a meeting between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and King Fahd during a visit by Rumsfeld to Saudi Arabia shortly before the beginning of the air war in Afghanistan, and pictures of the meeting were transmitted around the world. The United States, however, has known that King Fahd has been incapacitated since suffering a severe stroke, in late 1995. A Saudi adviser told me last week that the King, with round-the-clock medical treatment, is able to sit in a chair and open his eyes, but is usually unable to recognize even his oldest friends. Fahd is being kept on the throne, the N.S.A. intercepts indicate, because of a bitter family power struggle. Fahd's nominal successor is Crown Prince Abdullah, his half brother, who is to some extent the de-facto ruler – he and Prince Sultan, the defense minister, were the people Rumsfeld really came to see. But there is infighting about money: Abdullah has been urging his fellow-princes to address the problem of corruption in the kingdom – unsuccessfully, according to the intercepts. "The only reason Fahd's being kept alive is so Abdullah can't become king," a former White House adviser told me. The American intelligence officials have been particularly angered by the refusal of the Saudis to help the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. run "traces" – that is, name checks and other background information – on the nineteen men, more than half of them believed to be from Saudi Arabia, who took part in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "They knew that once we started asking for a few traces the list would grow," one former official said. "It's better to shut it down right away." He pointed out that thousands of disaffected Saudis have joined fundamentalist groups throughout the Middle East. Other officials said that there is a growing worry inside the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. that the actual identities of many of those involved in the attacks may not be known definitively for months, if ever. Last week, a senior intelligence official confirmed the lack of Saudi coöperation and told me, angrily, that the Saudis "have only one constant – and it's keeping themselves in power."
The N.S.A. intercepts reveal the hypocrisy of many in the Saudi royal family, and why the family has become increasingly estranged from the vast majority of its subjects. Over the years, unnerved by the growing strength of the fundamentalist movement, it has failed to deal with the underlying issues of severe unemployment and inadequate education, in a country in which half the population is under the age of eighteen. Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism, and its use of mutawwa'in – religious police – to enforce prayer, is rivalled only by the Taliban's. And yet for years the Saudi princes – there are thousands of them – have kept tabloid newspapers filled with accounts of their drinking binges and partying with prostitutes, while taking billions of dollars from the state budget. The N.S.A. intercepts are more specific. In one call, Prince Nayef, who has served for more than two decades as interior minister, urges a subordinate to withhold from the police evidence of the hiring of prostitutes, presumably by members of the royal family. According to the summary, Nayef said that he didn't want the "client list" released under any circumstances.
The intercepts produced a stream of sometimes humdrum but often riveting intelligence from the telephone calls of several senior members of the royal family, including Abdullah; Nayef; Sultan, whose son Prince Bandar has been the Saudi ambassador to the United States since 1983; and Prince Salman, the governor of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's capital. There was constant telephoning about King Fahd's health after his stroke, and scrambling to take advantage of the situation. On January 8, 1997, Prince Sultan told Bandar about a flight that he and Salman had shared with the King. Sultan complained that the King "barely spoke to anyone," according to the summary of the intercept, because he was "too medicated." The King, Sultan added, was "a prisoner on the plane." Sultan's comments became much more significant a few days later, when the N.S.A. intercepted a conversation in which Sultan told Bandar that the King had agreed to a complicated exchange of fighter aircraft with the United States that would bring five F-16s into the Royal Saudi Air Force. Fahd was evidently incapable of making such an agreement, or of preventing anyone from dropping his name in a money-making deal.
In the intercepts, princes talk openly about bilking the state, and even argue about what is an acceptable percentage to take. Other calls indicate that Prince Bandar, while serving as ambassador, was involved in arms deals in London, Yemen, and the Soviet Union that generated millions of dollars in "commissions." In a PBS "Frontline" interview broadcast on October 9th, Bandar, asked about the reports of corruption in the royal family, was almost upbeat in his response. The family had spent nearly four hundred billion dollars to develop Saudi Arabia, he said. "If you tell me that building this whole country . . . we misused or got corrupted with fifty billion, I'll tell you, 'Yes.'. . . So what? We did not invent corruption, nor did those dissidents, who are so genius, discover it." The intercepts make clear, however, that Crown Prince Abdullah was insistent on stemming the corruption. In November of 1996, for example, he complained about the billions of dollars that were being diverted by royal family members from a huge state-financed project to renovate the mosque in Mecca. He urged the princes to get their off-budget expenses under control; such expenses are known as the hiding place for payoff money. (Despite its oil revenues, Saudi Arabia has been running a budget deficit for more than a decade, and now has a large national debt.) A few months later, according to the intercepts, Abdullah blocked a series of real-estate deals by one of the princes, enraging members of the royal family. Abdullah further alarmed the princes by issuing a decree declaring that his sons would not be permitted to go into partnerships with foreign companies working in the kingdom.
Abdullah is viewed by Sultan and other opponents as a leader who could jeopardize the kingdom's most special foreign relationship – someone who is willing to penalize the United States, and its oil and gas companies, because of Washington's support for Israel. In an intercept dated July 13, 1997, Prince Sultan called Bandar in Washington, and informed him that he had told Abdullah "not to be so confrontational with the United States." The Fahd regime was a major financial backer of the Reagan Administration's anti-Communist campaign in Latin America and of its successful proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Oil money bought the Saudis enormous political access and leverage in Washington. Working through Prince Bandar, they have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to charities and educational programs here. American construction and oil companies do billions of dollars' worth of business every year with Saudi Arabia, which is the world's largest oil producer. At the end of last year, Halliburton, the Texas-based oil-supply business formerly headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney, was operating a number of subsidiaries in Saudi Arabia.
In the Clinton era, the White House did business as usual with the Saudis, urging them to buy American goods, like Boeing aircraft. The kingdom was seen as an American advocate among the oil-producing nations of the Middle East. The C.I.A. was discouraged from conducting any risky intelligence operations inside the country and, according to one former official, did little recruiting among the Saudi population, which limited the United States government's knowledge of the growth of the opposition to the royal family. In 1994, Mohammed al-Khilewi, the first secretary at the Saudi Mission to the United Nations, defected and sought political asylum in the United States. He brought with him, according to his New York lawyer, Michael J. Wildes, some fourteen thousand internal government documents depicting the Saudi royal family's corruption, human-rights abuses, and financial support for terrorists. He claimed to have evidence that the Saudis had given financial and technical support to Hamas, the extremist Islamic group whose target is Israel. There was a meeting at the lawyer's office with two F.B.I. agents and an Assistant United States Attorney. "We gave them a sampling of the documents and put them on the table," Wildes told me last week. "But the agents refused to accept them." He and his client heard nothing further from federal authorities. Al-Khilewi, who was granted asylum, is now living under cover. The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful."
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the royal family has repeatedly insisted that Saudi Arabia has made no contributions to radical Islamic groups. When the Saudis were confronted by press reports that some of the substantial funds that the monarchy routinely gives to Islamic charities may actually have gone to Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, they denied any knowledge of such transfers. The intercepts, however, have led many in the intelligence community to conclude otherwise. The Bush Administration has chosen not to confront the Saudi leadership over its financial support of terror organizations and its refusal to help in the investigation. "As far as the Saudi Arabians go, they've been nothing but coöperative," President Bush said at a news conference on September 24th. The following day, the Saudis agreed to formally cut off diplomatic relations with the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan. Eight days later, at a news conference in Saudi Arabia with Prince Sultan, the defense minister, Donald Rumsfeld was asked if he had given the Saudis a list of the September 11th terrorist suspects for processing by their intelligence agencies. Rumsfeld, who is admired by many in the press for his bluntness, answered evasively:
"I am, as I said, not involved with the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is conducting the investigation. . . . I have every reason to believe that that relationship between our two countries is as close, that any information I am sure has been made available to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." The Saudis gave Rumsfeld something in return: permission for U.S. forces to use a command-and-control center, built before the Gulf War, in the pending air war against the Taliban. Over the past few years, the Saudis have also allowed the United States to use forward bases on Saudi soil for special operations, as long as there was no public mention of the arrangements. While the intelligence-community members I spoke with praised the Air Force and the Navy for their performance in Afghanistan last week, which did much to boost morale in the military and among the American citizenry, they were crestfallen about an incident that occurred on the first night of the war – an incident that was emblematic, they believe, of the constraints placed by the government on the military's ability to wage war during the last decade.
That night, an unmanned Predator reconnaissance aircraft, under the control of the C.I.A., was surveilling the roads leading out of Kabul. The Predator, which costs forty million dollars and cruises at speeds as slow as eighty miles an hour, is equipped with imaging radar and an array of infrared and television cameras that are capable of beaming high-resolution images to ground stations around the world. The plane was equipped with two powerful Hellfire missiles, designed as antitank weapons. The Predator identified a group of cars and trucks fleeing the capital as a convoy carrying Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. Under a previously worked-out agreement, one knowledgeable official said, the C.I.A. did not have the authority to "push the button." Nor did the nearby command-and-control suite of the Fifth Fleet, in Bahrain, where many of the war plans had been drawn up. Rather, the decision had to be made by the officers on duty at the headquarters of the United States Central Command, or CENTCOM, at MacDill Air Force Base, in Florida.
The Predator tracked the convoy to a building where Omar, accompanied by a hundred or so guards and soldiers, took cover. The precise sequence of events could not be fully learned, but intelligence officials told me that there was an immediate request for a full-scale assault by fighter bombers. At that point, however, word came from General Tommy R. Franks, the CENTCOM commander, saying, as the officials put it, "My JAG" – Judge Advocate General, a legal officer – "doesn't like this, so we're not going to fire." Instead, the Predator was authorized to fire a missile in front of the building – "bounce it off the front door," one officer said, "and see who comes out, and take a picture." CENTCOM suggested that the Predator then continue to follow Omar. The Hellfire, however, could not target the area in front of the building – in military parlance, it could not "get a signature" on the dirt there – and it was then agreed that the missile would attack a group of cars parked in front, presumably those which had carried Omar and his retinue. The missile was fired, and it "obliterated the cars," an official said. "But no one came out."
It was learned later from an operative on the ground that Omar and his guards had indeed been in the convoy and had assumed at the time that the firing came from rocket-propelled grenades launched by nearby troops from the Northern Alliance. A group of soldiers left the building and looked for the enemy. They found nothing, and Omar and his convoy departed. A short time later, the building was targeted and destroyed by F-18s. Mullah Omar survived.
Days afterward, top Administration officials were still seething about the incident. "If it was a fuckup, I could live with it," one senior official said. "But it's not a fuckup: it's an outrage.This isn't like you're six years old and your mother calls you to come in for lunch and you say, 'Time out.' If anyone thinks otherwise, go look at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon." A senior military officer viewed the failure to strike immediately as a symptom of "a cultural issue" – "a slow degradation of the system due to political correctness: 'We want you to kill the guy, but not the guy next to him.' No collateral damage." Others saw the cultural problem as one of bureaucratic, rather than political, correctness. Either way, the failure to attack has left Defense Secretary Rumsfeld "kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors," the officer said. "But in the end I don't know if it'll mean any changes." A Pentagon planner also noted that some of the camps the bombers were hitting were empty. In fact, he added, it became evident even before the bombing that troops of the Northern Alliance had moved into many of the unused Taliban camps. The Alliance soldiers came up with a novel way of alerting American planners to their new location, the officer said: "They walked around holding up white sheets so when the satellites came by they're saying, 'Hey, we're the good guys.'
The American military response has triggered alarm in the international oil community and among intelligence officials who have been briefed on a still secret C.I.A. study, put together in the mid-eighties, of the vulnerability of the Saudi fields to terrorist attack. The report was "so sensitive," a former C.I.A. officer told me, "that it was put on typed paper," and not into the agency's computer system, meaning that distribution was limited to a select few. According to someone who saw the report, it concluded that with only a small amount of explosives terrorists could take the oil fields off line for two years. The concerns, both in America and in Saudi Arabia, about the security of the fields have become more urgent than ever since September 11th. A former high-level intelligence official depicted the Saudi rulers as nervously "sitting on a keg of dynamite" – that is, the oil reserves. "They're petrified that somebody's going to light the fuse."
"The United States is hostage to the stability of the Saudi system," a prominent Middle Eastern oil man, who did not wish to be cited by name, told me in a recent interview. "It's time to start facing the truth. The war was declared by bin Laden, but there are thousands of bin Ladens. They are setting the game – the agenda. It's a new form of war. This fabulous military machine you have is completely useless." The oil man, who has worked closely with the Saudi leadership for three decades, added, "People like me have been deceiving you. We talk about how you don't understand Islam, but it's a vanilla analysis. We try to please you, but we've been aggrieved for years." The Saudi regime "will explode in time," he said. "It has been playing a delicate game." As for the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks, he said, "Now they decide the timing. If they do a similar operation in Saudi Arabia, the price of oil will go up to one hundred dollars a barrel" – more than four times what it is today. In the nineteen-eighties, in an effort to relieve political pressure on the regime, the Saudi leadership relinquished some of its authority to the mutawwa'in and permitted them to have a greater role in day-to-day life. One U.S. government Saudi expert complained last week that religious leaders had been allowed to take control of the press and the educational system. "Today, two-thirds of the Saudi Ph.D.s are in Islamic studies," a former Presidential aide told me. There was little attempt over the years by American diplomats or the White House to moderate the increasingly harsh rhetoric about the U.S. "The United States was caught up in private agreements" – with the Saudi princes – "while this shit was spewing in the Saudi press," the former aide said. "That was a huge mistake."
A senior American diplomat who served many years in Saudi Arabia recalled his foreboding upon attending a training exercise at the kingdom's most prestigious military academy, in Riyadh: "It was hot, and I watched the cadets doing drills. The officers were lounging inside a suradiq" – a large pavilion – "with cold drinks, calling out orders on loudspeakers. I thought to myself, How many of these young men would follow and die for these officers?" The diplomat said he came away from his most recent tour in Saudi Arabia convinced that "it wouldn't take too much for a group of twenty or thirty fundamentalist enlisted men to take charge. How would the kingdom deal with the shock of something ruthless, small, highly motivated, and of great velocity?" There is little that the United States can do now, the diplomat said. "The Saudis have been indulged for so many decades.They are so spoiled. They've always had it their way. There's hardly anything we could say that would impede the 'majestic instancy' of their progress. We're their janissaries." He was referring to the captives who became élite troops of the Ottoman Empire. "The policy dilemma is this," a senior general told me. "How do we help the Saudis make a transition without throwing them over the side?" Referring to young fundamentalists who have been demonstrating in the Saudi streets, he said, "The kids are bigger than the Daddy."
Seymour Hersh is a freelance journalist.
Seymour M. Hersh, Annals of National Security, "King’s Ransom," The New Yorker, October 22, 2001, p. 35
ANNALS OF NATIONAL SECURITY about the corrupt state of the Saudi royal family… National Security Agency intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and throughout the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official told me. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys-it’s like the Grand Alliance-and had a capability for conducting large-scale operations." The Saudi regime, he said, had "gone to the dark side."… Tells about the decrepit state of King Fahd following a stroke… Fahd’s nominal successor is Crown Prince Abdullah, his half brother, who is to some extent the de-facto ruler-he and Prince Sultan, the defense minister, were the people Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld came to see shortly before the beginning of the air war in Afghanistan… The American intelligence officials have been particularly angered by the refusal of the Saudis to help the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. run "traces"-that is, name checks and other background information-on the nineteen men, more than half of them believed to be from Saudi Arabia, who took part in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon…
The N.S.A. intercepts reveal the hypocrisy of many in the Saudi royal family, and why the family has become increasingly estranged from the vast majority of its subjects. In the intercepts, princes talk openly about bilking the state, and even argue about what is an acceptable percentage to take. Other calls indicate that Prince Bandar, while serving as ambassador, was involved in arms deals in London, Yemen, and the Soviet Union that generated millions of dollars in "commissions." The Saudis were also shielded from Washington’s foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful." The Bush Administration has chosen not to confront the Saudi leadership over its financial support of terror organizations and its refusal to help in the investigation. Mentions an incident on the first night of the Afghani conflict in which an unmanned Predator aircraft was not cleared to fire its missiles on the Taliban leader Mullah Omar…
Days afterward, top Administration officials were still seething about the incident. "If it was a fuckup, I could live with it," one senior official said. "But it’s not a fuckup-it’s an outrage.This isn’t like you’re six years old and your mother calls you to come in for lunch and you say, ‘Time out.’If anyone thinks otherwise, go look at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon." A senior military officer viewed the failure to strike immediately as a symptom of "a cultural issue"-"a slow degradation of the system due to political correctness The American military response has triggered alarm in the international oil community and among intelligence officials who have been briefed on a still secret C.I.A. study, put together in the mid-eighties, of the vulnerability of the Saudi fields to terrorist attack. The concerns, both in America and in Saudi Arabia, about the security of the fields have become more urgent than ever since September 11th. A former high-level intelligence official depicted the Saudi rulers as nervously "sitting on a keg of dynamite"-that is, the oil reserves. "They’re petrified that somebody’s going to light the fuse." One U.S. government Saudi expert complained last week that religious leaders had been allowed to take control of the press and the educational system. "Today, two-thirds of the Saudi Ph.D.s are in Islamic studies," a former Presidential aide told me. There was little attempt over the years by American diplomats or the White House to moderate the increasingly harsh rhetoric about the U.S. "The United States was caught up in private agreements"-with the Saudi princes-"while this shit was spewing in the Saudi press," the former aide said. "That was a huge mistake." "The policy dilemma is this," a senior general told me. "How do we help the Saudis make a transition without throwing them over the side?" Referring to young fundamentalists who have been demonstrating in the Saudi streets, he said, "The kids are bigger than the Daddy."
The New Yorker’s archives are not yet fully available online. The full text of all articles published before May, 2006, can be found in “The Complete New Yorker,” which is available for purchase on DVD and hard drive. Many New Yorker stories published since December, 2000, are available through Nexis. Individual back issues may be purchased from our customer-service department at 1-800-825-2510.