Berkeley Forum

In the his previous post , Omid has brought up a few points. I appreciate his comments but I must clarify a few things for our readers.

First of all you accused me of saying “Then he mentions that how this wave of terrorism is an outcome of the Wahhabi ideology “. I certainly believe that Wahhabis are responsible for a large portion of terrorist activities around the world, but I certainly don’t believe they are the only group of people who do so.

Second, when I said “I am not after finding the faulty side here” I was referring to the Israeli- Lebanese conflict. I meant that I was no going to determine who started the war first. That quote had nothing to do with Wahhabis and if anyone reads my text carefully, you will see my point.

You claim that “Different version of Islam, have different readings, including Wahhabism”. Not true. Sunni Islam and Shiite Islam have various understandings of Islamic readings. The same applies to Christianity and Judaism. But Wahhabism by definition is a “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam”. You can find this definition in any encyclopedia.

You said “I think it is not precise to accuse a part of Islam on what is happening now in the region, while the roots of terrorism in the region related to many complicated factors such as economy, history and the lack of good governance among Middle East countries”. Good points. Where have I said that the Wahhabis are the only cause of terrorism in the region? But there is no doubt that the Wahhabi establishment was and is the principle financial and ideological supporter of many radical terrorist groups such as the Sepah-e- Sahabeh in Pakistan, more than 10 Wahhabi jihadist groups in Iraq including the Zarqawi network, the Janjaweed in Sudan, the Somalian Islamic fundamentalists such as Sheikh Nur Barud and the Council of Ulema, more than 60 Wahhabi groups in Russian( according to Russia’s interior ministry and reports by interfax) including those of Aslan Maskhadof and Shemil Basayef. The Wahhabi produce such violent ideologies and their wealthy Saudi supporter pour hundreds of millions of dollars into their cause. This is just a short list.

You said” Corruption of the rulers is a common pain for the countries in this region It is not just Saudi Arabia, which I think its rulers try to be more pragmatic in the International policy making processes.” I never said Saudi Arabia was the only corrupt regime on the planet. Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and many more government alike are corrupt as well. Regarding the Saudi’s level of pragmatism, we all know that the Saudi regime is America’s Stooge. And what kind of pragmatic policy would endorse 200 or more small and large terrorist organizations in the world?

“What Arash says about the Mecca and Saudis’ palaces, are not something to discuss”. Why not? Do I not have the right to express my opinion about Islam’s two holiest shrines? I cannot believe that some of our leading scholars and journalist are so bogged down by such levels of political correctness that they self censor themselves and ban anyone from speaking against the occupation of the holy land because it may hurt the feelings of some Wahhabis. If that is the case, so be it. We must embrace free speech and not limit it. I cannot censor myself just because it might hurt someone’s feelings. I stated my opinion about the condition of the two holy cities and I stand by it.

At the end I encourage our readers to study the history of Wahhabism. Wahhabism is not just another version of Islam like the Hanafis or the Malikis. Wahhabism is a strict and harsh interpretation of the religion and anyone who claims to be a practicing Wahhabi adheres to those principles. At the end I must say that not all Saudis are Wahhabis. There are many Saudis who are fed up by the current system and are fighting for more civil and political liberties. May peace and success be with them.

# posted by Berkeley Forum : 12:07 PM