The Cult of Wahabism in America by Matthew Mainen

This is one of the best articles I have read that addresses the 'cult like nature' of Wahabism and it's Saudi Funding.

WAHABISM IN AMERICA

by Matthew Mainen

Traditionally in international politics, the word “invasion” is used to describe a situation in which a state forcefully penetrates the territory of another. But in a world in which non-state actors, especially terrorist organizations, play an increasing role in international politics, the word “invasion” can be used to describe far subtler actions.

Recently, a number of anti-Western texts, many of which were distributed by the Saudi Embassy, were discovered among authentic Muslim works at prominent Muslim institutions in the United States. This tactic carried out by extremists within the Saudi government represents an invasion on two fronts: the Muslim religion and the sovereignty of the United States. Although there is no evidence that Saudi Arabia has directly sponsored terrorism, it nonetheless is the largest contributor to the faith that breads it: Wahhabism, a fringe Islamic sect created more than 1,000 years after the time of Muhammad.

When such ideas posing as authentic Islam enter the United States, it can only serve to sabotage long-lasting American values. If the goal of social upheaval is achieved, it will be far more damaging than any incendiary device used in acts of terror.

The threat posed by Saudi Arabia’s interference in America’s religious affairs is not to be taken lightly, and requires immediate attention at the high levels of office.

The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom in the United States. Nearly 200 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the ideals of religious freedom and tolerance were codified in the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights. Although attempting to argue that Saudi Arabia is legally bound to respect religious tolerance is an arduous task, there is another option: Saudi Arabia, like all other countries, is legally bound to respect the sovereignty of the United States. By playing a direct role in the distribution of texts designed to erode domestic religious harmony, Saudi Arabia is illegally interfering with America’s internal affairs.

Wahhabism, especially as it attempts to influence American Muslims, is best described as a cult and should be dealt with as one. After all, fatwas published in materials distributed by the Saudi Embassy exhibit signs of fundamental cult practices. Muslims living in the United States are instructed to progressively isolate themselves for the sake of their purity. First, they must have almost no contact with non-Muslims. After this separation is complete, they are then instructed to distance themselves from Muslims who do not share the extreme beliefs of Wahhabism. Finally, they are to undergo a breaking down of their identities; such practices as celebrating a birthday are strictly forbidden. Young Muslims looking for spiritual guidance are duped into believing that these distorted teachings are the true path of Islam.

Once a person is stripped of their identity and the included morals, he becomes a puppet to the masters of whichever ideology is controlling him. None of the September 11 hijackers were born terrorists; they went through a similar process as what is being advocated to American Muslims by Saudi religious leaders. Cults, when they become dangerous to society, are not protected by the Constitution or international convention, and neither is Saudi Arabia’s role in bringing the philosophy of this cult to the United States.

In response to Wahhabist terrorism, non-Muslim Americans will often misdirect their aggression against Islam as a whole instead of the fringe faith. An increased amount of acts of intolerance against peaceful Muslim communities such as the burning of Korans in front of mosques is evidence of this. Thus, the Wahhabist claim that the West is waging a war against Islam becomes a fulfilled prophecy, giving extremists an opportunity to recruit more adherents at the expense of mainstream Islam. Once the belief of victimization becomes prevalent, acts of intolerance on the part of Muslims are all the more likely to occur. Thus, the cycle repeats itself, and at each successive stage, the prospects of violence increase.

So far, the American Muslim community has almost single-handedly protected the United States from such social turmoil by reporting to the proper authorities when they find extremist texts. But without the help of a higher power, the U.S. government, there is nothing guaranteeing that mainstream Muslim institutions will forever remain impervious to this invasion.

Even at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was unable to penetrate the United States with its ideology to the degree Saudi Arabia has. This issue cannot be ignored, as Wahhabist infiltration of mainstream Islam in the United States affects all people, not just Muslims. The foundation of terrorism is not the tools used to carry out attacks but its driving philosophy. The American Muslim community recognizes this; it is time the U.S. government recognize the same.

Matthew Mainen is a policy analyst at the Institute for Gulf Affairs.

NY TIMES: Don’t Fear All Islamists, Fear Salafis

Don’t Fear All Islamists, Fear Salafis

By ROBIN WRIGHT

Washington

THIS spring, I traveled to the cradle of the Arab uprisings — a forlorn street corner in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, where a street vendor, drenched in paint thinner, struck a match in December 2010 that ignited the entire Middle East. “We have far more freedoms,” one peddler hawking fruit in the same square lamented, “but far fewer jobs.” Another noted that Mohamed Bouazizi, the vendor who set himself on fire, did so not to vote in a democratic election but because harassment by local officials had cost him his livelihood.

As the peddlers vented, prayers ended at the whitewashed mosque across the street. Among the faithful were Salafis, ultraconservative Sunni Muslims vying to define the new order according to seventh-century religious traditions rather than earthly realities. For years, many Salafis — “salaf” means predecessors — had avoided politics and embraced autocrats as long as they were Muslims. But over the past eight months, clusters of worshipers across the Middle East have morphed into powerful Salafi movements that are tapping into the disillusionment and disorder of transitions.

A new Salafi Crescent, radiating from the Persian Gulf sheikdoms into the Levant and North Africa, is one of the most underappreciated and disturbing byproducts of the Arab revolts. In varying degrees, these populist puritans are moving into the political space once occupied by jihadi militants, who are now less in vogue. Both are fundamentalists who favor a new order modeled on early Islam. Salafis are not necessarily fighters, however. Many disavow violence.

In Tunisia, Salafis started the Reform Front party in May and led protests, including in Sidi Bouzid. This summer, they’ve repeatedly attacked symbols of the new freedom of speech, ransacking an art gallery and blocking Sufi musicians and political comedians from performing. In Egypt, Salafis emerged last year from obscurity, hastily formed parties, and in January won 25 percent of the seats in parliament — second only to the 84-year-old Muslim Brotherhood. Salafis are a growing influence in Syria’s rebellion. And they have parties or factions in Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya, Yemen and among Palestinians.

Salafis are only one slice of a rapidly evolving Islamist spectrum. The variety of Islamists in the early 21st century recalls socialism’s many shades in the 20th. Now, as then, some Islamists are more hazardous to Western interests and values than others. The Salafis are most averse to minority and women’s rights.

A common denominator among disparate Salafi groups is inspiration and support from Wahhabis, a puritanical strain of Sunni Islam from Saudi Arabia. Not all Saudis are Wahhabis. Not all Salafis are Wahhabis, either. But Wahhabis are basically all Salafis. And many Arabs, particularly outside the sparsely populated Gulf, suspect that Wahhabis are trying to seize the future by aiding and abetting the region’s newly politicized Salafis — as they did 30 years ago by funding the South Asian madrassas that produced Afghanistan’s Taliban.

Salafis go much further in restricting political and personal life than the larger and more modern Islamist parties that have won electoral pluralities in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco since October. For most Arabs, the rallying cry is justice, both economic and political. For Salafis, it is also about a virtue that is inflexible and enforceable.

“You have two choices: heaven or hellfire,” Sheikh Muhammad el-Kurdi instructed me after his election to Egypt’s parliament as a member of Al Nour, a Salafi party. It favors gender segregation in schools and offices, he told me, so that men can concentrate. “It’s O.K. for you to be in the room,” he explained. “You are our guest, and we know why you’re here. But you are one woman and we are three men — and we all want to marry you.” Marriage may have been a euphemism.

Other more modern Islamists fear the Salafi factor. “The Salafis try to push us,” said Rachid al-Ghannouchi, founder of Ennahda, the ruling Islamist party in Tunisia. The two Islamist groups there are now rivals. “Salafis are against drafting a constitution. They think it is the Koran,” grumbled Merhézia Labidi, the vice chairwoman of Tunisia’s Constituent Assembly and a member of Ennahda.

Salafis are deepening the divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and challenging the “Shiite Crescent,” a term coined by Jordan’s King Abdullah in 2004, during the Iraq war, to describe an arc of influence from Shiite-dominated Iran to its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Today, these rival crescents risk turning countries in transition into battlefields over the region’s future.

The Salafis represent a painful long-term conundrum for the West. Their goals are the most anti-Western of any Islamist parties. They are trying to push both secularists and other Islamists into the not-always-virtuous past.

American policy recently had its own awakening after 60 years of support for autocratic rulers. The United States opted to embrace people power and electoral change in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Yemen. Yet Washington still embraces authoritarian Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia, tolerating their vague promises of reform and even pledging the United States’ might to protect them.

Foreign policy should be nuanced, whether because of oil needs or to counter threats from Iran. But there is something dreadfully wrong with tying America’s future position in the region to the birthplace and bastion of Salafism and its warped vision of a new order.

Robin Wright, the author of “Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World,” is a fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/dont-fear-all-islamists-fear-salafis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Aftermath of 7/22 Radical Christian Terrorism: Oslo Crusader's Manifesto Details War Plan

Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- A rambling, 1,500-page manifesto purportedly written by the suspect in Friday's deadly terror attacks in Norway lays out right-wing extremist views and vows that a "European civil war" will lead to the execution of "cultural Marxists" and the banishing of Muslims.

"If you are concerned about the future of Western Europe you will definitely find the information both interesting and highly relevant," the author writes, adding later that his "European Declaration of Independence" took him nine years to complete.

While the title page of the document says "By Andrew Berwick," the writer later identifies himself as Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the Norwegian terrorist attacks.

The document -- part political diatribe, part confessional and part action plan -- also contains a link to an online video post with the same title.

CNN could not independently verify that Breivik wrote the document or posted the 12-minute video, and Norwegian authorities would not confirm that the man in their custody wrote the manifesto, saying it was part of their investigation.

Police told the Norwegian newspaper VG that the document is "linked" to Friday's attacks.
Norway shooting survivors react Norway stunned, distraught after attacks Shooter not 'on the police radar' Manifesto refers to European civil war

Text in the video rails against the "Islamization" of Europe and "cultural Marxists" and asserts that the majority of Europe's population will be Muslim by 2050 "unless we manage to defeat the ruling Multiculturalist Alliance."

"Celebrate us, the martyrs of the conservative revolution, for we will soon dine in the Kingdom of Heaven," the video says.

Parts of the document use the same wording as the 35,000-word anti-technology manifesto written by "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski and published in the Washington Post in 1995.

In one passage, the document published online last week uses the same wording as the Unabomber's manifesto, but substitutes the phrase "cultural Marxist" where Kaczynski used the word "leftist," and uses the word "Muslims" where Kaczynski used the phrase "black people."

The document contains some of the same anti-Muslim rhetoric that has become a part of mainstream debate in Norway, according to Anders Ravik Jupskaas, a Ph.D. researcher at the University of Oslo who studies right-wing political movements in Scandinavia.

"What you see here is this new European phenomenon of this anti-Islamic rhetoric, where it's not only the immigrants (who are enemies). In fact, the main enemy is the political elite," he said. "They argue that this political elite has betrayed their own country. They have imposed multiculturalism."

But the writer takes such philosophies to another level, he said.
"It's part of the same stream of ideas, but it's still very different in terms of extremeness," Jupskaas said.

The old saying 'if you want something done, then do it yourself' is as relevant now as it was then.

--Excerpt from manifesto

RELATED TOPICS

Norway

Oslo

Norwegian authorities have said they are still trying to determine the motive behind the terror attacks.

In the manifesto, the author vilifies Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and his Labour Party, which has majority control in Norway's government, accusing the party of perpetuating "cultural Marxist/multiculturalist ideals" and indoctrinating youth with those ideals. The author accuses the Labour Party of embracing those ideals and therefore allowing the "Islamification of Europe."

The manifesto speculates about would happen if the author were to survive "a successful mission and live to stand a multiculturalist trial."

"Not only will all my friends and family detest me and call me a monster; the united global multiculturalist media will have their hands full figuring out multiple ways to character assassinate, vilify and demonize," it says.

The manifesto and videoinclude photos that appear to match those of the suspect, some of which had been posted on his Facebook page and several never-before-seen images of the same man. The author leaves clues about his family and background, and also indicates that English is his "secondary language."

The document and video are titled "2083: A European Declaration of Independence," a date that the author later explains is the year he believes an European civil war will end with the execution of cultural Marxists and the deportation of Muslims.

This "civil war" would come in three phases, he predicts. The first runs through 2030 and includes "open source warfare, military shock attacks by clandestine cell systems (and) further consolidation of conservative forces."

Between 2030 and 2070, he calls for "more advanced forms of resistance groups (and the) preparation of pan-European coup d'etats."

The final stage features the deposition of Europe's leaders and "implementation of a cultural conservative political agenda."

The author does not specifically explain why he chose the date 2083, though it is the 200th anniversary of the death of Karl Marx.

The manifesto and video also containphotos of Breivik in what appear to be uniforms, including one in which he is wearing a U.S. Marine dress jacket decorated with an Iron Cross, Knights Templar and Free Mason medals.

Another picture shows Breivik dressed in a wet suit with a patch that reads "Marxist Hunter" and holding a high-powered rifle.

The author states that he was moved to action dating to "my government's involvement" in NATO's 1999 strikes during the Kosovo campaign, claiming this wrongly targeted "our Serbian brothers (who) wanted to drive Islam out by deporting the Albanian Muslims back to Albania."
He also criticizes "my government's cowardly handling of the Muhammad cartoon issue" -- a reference to the Norwegian government's apology for the nation's private newspapers having repeatedly published the controversial cartoon. Another reference blasts Norway, home of the Nobel awards, for awarding a peace prize to late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

The author details his bomb-making experiments, including a theory that one should purchase a farm so that purchase of large amounts of fertilizer -- which can be used to make bombs -- is less likely to be noticed.

"Be extra careful when researching for bomb schematics (fertilizer bombs), as many terms will trigger electronic alerts," he writes, one of several tips that include using an "anonymous laptop and browse free to your local McDonalds" in order to "avoid ending up on any watch list."
Besides hands-on instructions, the document also functions as a running diary. It also includes references to his relatives' sexual indiscretions, entries on some of his friends' personal lives, and his own off-and-on steroid use.

From July 2 on, though, the author becomes more business-like and complains that going off his testosterone supplements had ramped up his "aggressiveness." He then digs up his guns and prepares the bombs. It all leads up to July 22, the date of the Norway terror attacks.

"The old saying 'if you want something done, then do it yourself' is as relevant now as it was then," he writes. "In many cases; you could do it all yourself, it will just take a little more time. AND, without taking unacceptable risks. The conclusion is undeniable.

"I believe this will be my last entry. It is now Fri July 22nd, 12.51."
Less than three hours later, a bomb went off in downtown Oslo.

SOURCE AND VIDEO: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/24/norway.terror.manifesto/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

MORE NEWS ABOUT CRUSADER TERROR: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Norway+terror+attacks%0APolice%3A+Suspect+says+he+acted+alone%0A'Manifesto'+envisions+civil+war%0APicture+of+suspect+emerges%0ASuspect+writes+Q%26A+with+himself+%C2%A0Time%0ANorway+wakes+to+new+reality%0ASurvivor+played+dead+|+High-res+photos%0ANorway+mourns+its+victims%0AEurope's+resurgent+right's+focus#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=Norway+terror+attacks&pbx=1&oq=Norway+terror+attacks&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=8652l8926l0l9949l2l2l0l0l0l0l305l521l2-1.1l2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4314f23e9084643a&biw=1366&bih=643

Norway terror attacks
Police: Suspect says he acted alone
'Manifesto' envisions civil war
Picture of suspect emerges
Suspect writes Q&A with himself Time
Norway wakes to new reality
Survivor played dead | High-res photos
Norway mourns its victims
Europe's resurgent right's focus