SAUDI NIHILISM, WAHHABISM AND THE ROOTS OF TERRORISM

Islam’s Messenger, Muhammad Abu-Al-Qaassim, regarded the region of Najd, at the very center of Arabia, to be a nest of vipers. Muhammad led some campaigns againstNajdi tribes and personalities whom he thought had “deviant” ideas. Najd is at the very epicenter of Wahhabist thinking. Najd is also the birthplace of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, the founder of the heresy.

The intellectual bankruptcy of Wahhabism is best summarized by its association with a tribe of thieves, highwaymen and pillagers called the Sa’ood Clan, all of whom are linked ineluctably to the aspirations of history’s most rapacious and insatiable empire, the British Empire. It is at the confluence of these 3 phenomena that one finds the vacuum in the “Islam” of Saudi Arabia and it is exactly here where mass murderers likeUsaamaa Bin Laadin and Muhammad ‘Abdul- Wahhaab are seen contriving their atrocities.

Let us agree on a definition of “nihilism”. I adopt the second definition: “The rejection of all distinctions in moral value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality.” I will also adopt the third and most controversial definition: “The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary to ensure future improvement.” I will a add a fourth definition which I have developed myself from reading about nihilism as an expression of blunt human emotion: “The belief that nothing truly exists and, if it does exist, the need to render all existence a nullity in order to prepare for a possible afterlife.”

As many writers point out accurately, Wahhabism is a relatively recent phenomenon. The founder was born in 1703 A.C.E. in the village of ‘Uyayna in the Najd, the same area which gave the Arab World its most famous liar: “Musaylima”. Some would argue that King Hussayn of Jordan would be a more appropriate bearer of such a title, seeing the Hashemites originated on the western border of the Najd. Its proximity to us in time was quite propitious since it gave the movement so much more territory to overwrite and nullify. Which gets us to the first principal of Wahhabist Nihilism:

1. Past events are meaningless; past religious pronouncements are sacrilege; the past only exists in the twisted mind of apostates, blasphemers……atheists;

Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab’s father was a judge and religious authority. In Arabia that meant only that he could give advice about simple gynecology and fulminate over metaphysical trifles. The father was a follower of Ahmad Ibn Hanbalwho established one of Sunni Islam’s four recognized schools of religious/jurisprudential practice and thought. Hanbalites were known for their ultra-orthodox, simplistic and uncomplicated interpretation of the Qur’aan. Hanbalism was the choice of most Najdis during the time which concerns us. Naturally, because he was a nihilist, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab found his own father’s Hanbalism too meek and watered down for his tastes. As he drifted from his father’s chosen theology, the father began to despise the son.

Salafism, the doctrine that a good Muslim should “follow” the sayings and acts of the early Muslims was rejected outright as interference in Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab’s vision of the “true” Islam. A genius of his rank could not be constrained by precedence lest his narrow vision of existence be challenged by “pretenders” to knowledge. Only those he proclaimed worthy could influence the course of his religious heresy. Enter Ibn Taymiyya.

Historians who do their best to cover up the mental aberrations of the absolutely derelict Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab always mention Saudi Arabian government-promoted nonsense about his early life. For example, it is not unusual to learn that he had “a voracious appetite for reading”, so much so that his father detected a talent in him which caused his being sent to Baghdad to pursue religious studies. It was in Baghdad, you see, that the young man started to “voraciously” study Ibn Taymiyya.

THE IBN TAYMIYYA FACTOR

Ibn Taymiyya has a very long name. I’m going to spare you its exhibition. He was born in 1263 A.D. in Harran which is found today in southeast Turk-Occupied Syria inSanliurfa Province close to Mesopotamia. He was born in a time of great political and military turmoil mostly occasioned by the arrival of the Mongols, the existence of the Crusader state and the rise of the Mamelukes in Egypt. He was also born in a time of vast religious and philosophical debate over such elemental concepts as God’s nature or His attributes, if any.

This article is not a biography of Ibn Taymiyya. In that vein, I’ll only refer to the theologian’s works as they impact on the subject of this essay. Those of us who have read Ibn Taymiyya’s works are always cognizant of his obsession with the destruction of the Caliphate at the hands of Hulagu and his pagan Mongol army. The Caliph Al-Musta’sim was wrapped by Hulagu in a carpet and crushed under the hooves of a thousand steeds in a show of contempt for Islam so trenchant it conjures up images of the humiliation and execution of Romanus Diogenes, or even Christ. Ibn Taymiyyamust be understood in this way for his life’s works are a call-to-arms against all those who would defy Islam as he understood it. This was a theologian bent on vengeance.

Ibn Taymiyya was a follower of Ibn Hanbal. Just like the Najdis. But, he also was an innovator and revivalist. He extolled the virtues of the Muslims of Madeena (Yathrib). It was only through emulation of their conduct and knowledge that one could achieve the highest level of Islamic practice. To know Islam was quite simple: read only the Qur’an and those Sayings of the Messenger Muhammad which were valid (Hadeeth). The human mind cannot be an instrument of generating knowledge about Islam because it was too limited. It is strictly through the 2 branches of literature, the Holy Bood and the Sayings, that a Muslim could achieve true knowledge.

What his philosophy accomplished was a complete break with the other three schools of religious thought. Even more so, his animosity to Sufism, Ash’arism, Christianity and Shi’ism (Raafidhiyya) took his putative followers down the path to outright demoniacal action against these sects and religions. While it cannot be argued that his writing was elegant, the content was a source of license for any kind of brutality as practiced against those deemed unworthy. The burning of the Jordanian pilot was justified, amazingly, not by reference to the Qur’aan (which specifically prohibits such horrific practices), but, by quoting Ibn Taymiyya! Inasmuch as Islam forbids Muslims from fighting Muslims, it was through Ibn Taymiyya’s innovations that such wars could be fought – a wonderful gap in the rule that would serve Britain’s interests so mightily in the war to destroy the Ottoman Empire.

Ibn Taymiyya was a literalist. And so was Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab. There is nothing to interpret in the Qur’aan. It’s all right there. Whereas Ibn Taymiyyaworshiped the early Muslims of Arabia, Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab found such adorations abominable. Wahhabism owes its hostility toward Salafism because of this break withIbn Taymiyya. Think of Saudi Arabia’s aversion to the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB is a Salafist group. It was only during the time of King Faysal Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Azeez that the KSA brought them into the fold (temporarily) due to a need for educators sorely missing in the kingdom during those times.

This all gets us to the second principal of Wahhaabist nihilism:

2. No saints or objects of worship from the past can be tolerated in true Islam.

Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab was at the head of an army of 600 bedouins when he entered a village and destroyed the grave of Zayd Ibn Al-Khattaab, a local saint, with an axe. Sound familiar? His followers today, whether in ISIS or Alqaeda/Jabhat Al-Nusra,have ritually destroyed whole treasures of the past in both Iraq and Syria. No resting place of any Sufi saint has been spared. In Ma’arrat Al-Nu’maan, Syria, the bust of one of the Arab World’s greatest literary minds, the freethinker, Abu Al-‘Alaa` Al-Ma’arri, was beheaded – if you can believe this!…. by the savages of Alqaeda…… Wahhabists.

It is through the nullification of the past that this kind of heresy finds its apotheosis. Any demonstration of respect for those who have lived in former times is pure blasphemy. Only a mind addled by repeated bouts with the rays of the sun could envision a world destroyed, even in memory, by the passing of time. And so, Ibn Taymiyya, who found little support from the established religious authorities of the Islam of his time, and who failed miserably in numerous debates over his doctrines (which he later rescinded), passed into time himself and would have been forgotten but for the British need to ignite a war between Muslims.

THE HOUSE OF SA’OOD CONNECTION

While Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab was stirring up his witches’ brew in Baghdad out of the now-disgraced theologies of Ibn Taymiyya, the British were looking for an “appropriate” ally among the Arabs to promote their campaigns against the Ottoman Turks. They had spies in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq whose tasks were to collect simpletons like Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab, to promote their policies against the Ottoman Sultan on the throne in the Sublime Porte. One such spy was a Mr. Hempher who connected with our subject theologian and found him to be most appropriate for the kind of shenanigans the British are notorious for contriving as part of their island’s “survival plan”.

Hempher has written on the subject of this scruffy Najdi bamboozler. We know that he was able to secure his loyalty by marrying him to a Christian female (a la Tzipi Livni in Baghdad who operated as a spy for London). He regaled the young heretic with compliments about his genius. He encouraged his charge to develop Islamic theories to counter the prevailing prohibition against Muslim fighting Muslim.

It was in Ibn Taymiyya’s diatribes against the Muslim’s of his age, their departure from the ways of the ancestors in Madeena, their laxity, theosophies and slovenly pietisms which inspired Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab to new depths of collaboration. It was here that his fame began to spread, not to Al-Azhar University, which would later condemn him for heresy, but to the ears of Arabia’s most despised thieves, plunderers and rapists – the tribe of Sa’ood whose predilections for banditry and pedophilia put them at odds with the Ottoman Sultanate and into the laps of the equally kinky British.

By 1746, Muhammad Ibn Sa’ood, had accepted Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab’s cockeyed view of Islam embracing it as some divinely derived writ legalizing highway robbery and rapine. The love affair with Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab’s iconoclasticism paid dividends to the British who found their Sa’oodi allies at odds constantly with the Ottomans. The alliance continued during the leadership of ‘Abdul-‘Azeez when he joined the British in conquering Kuwait. To prove his Wahhabist credentials, ‘Abdul-‘Azeez outdid himself by invading the Shi’i city of Karbalaa` and murdering virtually every man, woman and child there in an act totally consistent with Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab’s abhorrence of all heterodox Muslims. Sound familiar?

The third and fourth tenets of Wahhabism are found here:

3. Muslim must fight deviant Muslims in a war to the end to eliminate liberalism, tolerance and beneficence;

4. Muslim must exterminate all non-Wahhabist Muslims such as Shi’is, liberal Sunnis, Alawis, Druze, Ismailis, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists. Only Jews are exempted.

That’s the man: Muhammad Ibn Sa’ood, bandit, reprobate, child molester and ally of Britain. His offspring would forge an alliance with the United States, the beacon of democracy and tolerance in the world.

THE SAUDI-WAHHABIST BOOK OF ETIQUETTE

While Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhaab never addressed women driving cars, he left a sufficient legacy of mean-spiritedness to enable subsequent followers to prohibit that without a single citation of authority because, in Wahhabism, there are no authorities other than the Qur’aan and Hadeeth. Since both sources never uttered one word about then-non-existent machines, the male dominated culture of Arabia decided the matter with all the venom it could muster.

‘Abdul-Wahhaab despised everybody but himself, so, it was easy to figure out that he hated Christians and Persians. Christians cannot build churches in Arabia. Actually, nobody can do anything to promote a religion in Arabia other than the heresy ofWahhaabism. In fact, you can’t even bring the Bible to Arabia even though theQur’aan praises People of the Book, i.e. Christians and Jews.

To make matters even more asphyxiating, you can’t build a theater or cinema in Arabia because that would violate the rule against pleasure although you can have a television set which enforces the rule adopting institutionalized hypocrisy.

No alcohol. Now that’s consistent with the revelations at Madeena. In the Qur`aanrevealed in Mecca, it was okay to imbibe alcohol. (Sura XVI/67) Yeah, so what? In Arabia, you just can’t drink although you can find various bathtub gins referred to as“Waddi’ Ahlak” (ودع اهلك) or fine liquors on the sacrosanct lands occupied by the very white and western ARAMCO. So you would think the pious Wahhabists would always be on their best behavior when vacationing in Lebanon, Syria, Europe or the U.S. Right mate? Ha. Anyone who has witnessed the spectacle of Saudi Arabians and their ilk partying in a boozy night club can spot their vomit-beslubbered Taiwanese-manufactured dishdaashas dragging along the running sewers of red light districts.

Oh. I forgot. Women can’t even travel unless they have a male chaperone from their family with them. They can’t even study co-ed. But, that doesn’t stop Hillary Clinton from praising her allies in Riyaadh while vilifying Dr. Bashar Al-Assad who is the president of a country where a woman is vice president and where women can actually practice engineering, medicine or law without a man peering over her shoulder.

And the beheadings, whippings, canings, hand-choppings for thieves (and this for a nation established by a race of brigands). The justice system is not merely medieval. It is a reflection of Ibn Taymiyya’s darkest fantasies. And you wonder how Arabia can attract the most sociopathic Muslims in the world?

CONCLUSION

A religion founded by a mad man is a cult. When it takes its inspiration from an established universal religion and subverts it, it becomes a heresy. When those who practice the heresy deviate from it at every turn, it becomes pure hypocrisy. When half the population is made up of women who are denied even the basic privilege of driving or an education, you have rampant injustice. When the entire population is damned to living in a nightmare world of conformism, you have unbridled hatred feeding off itself. When the world is all one book and one man’s asides, you have a society cursed to living out its time in a stultifying cellar somewhere in the vacuum of space. This is America’s ally – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is what the West wants to do with Syria. Over our dead bodies. ZAF

N.B. There is one bright light in all of this darkness, the Saudi people, for the most part, despise Wahhabism. It’s a start.
Read more