The Salafis’ Daddy Warbucks: Saudi Arabia

ksFrontpage, by Rachel Ehrenfeld, December 17, 2015:

The first-ever global meeting of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) network of some 200 jurisdictions over the weekend in Paris “to discuss actions…to combat the financing of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) …and to combat the financing of terrorism ” will probably make the participants feel good, but will do little to cut-off state sponsorship of the fast growing radical Islamist movement.

The development of new technologies and encryption of online communications, financial transactions and other non-traditional methods to transfer money present serious obstacles to monitoring funding of large number of terrorists and their supporters.  But the most important obstacle is the West’s decades-long willful blindness to name and shame Saudi Arabia as the biggest terror financier, as well as the Saudis’ role in the development and spread of opaque Sharia finance institutions and Islamic charities.

Thus, Germany’s Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel‘s recent condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s ongoing funding of the spread of radical Islam in the West was surprising. “Wahhabi mosques all over the world are financed by Saudi Arabia. Many Islamists who are a threat to public safety come from these communities,” he told Bild am Sonntag, the largest-selling German Sunday paper. Even more unexpected was his statement: “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over.”

The Saudi role in fostering Islamic terrorism is no secret. Before it came under some criticism after the al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Saudi Kingdom used to openly brag about its large donations to build, maintain and supply mosques, Islamic centers and madrassas, stocking them with Wahhabi Imams and ulemas (religious teachers) and covering expenses such as salaries, pensions, and “terrorcare” that included hospitals and other public services.

Directed by Muslim Brotherhood advisors who championed the oxymoron ‘Political Islam’ to deceive the infidels, the Kingdom funded Western tax exempt Islamic organizations engaged in dawah (proselytization for Islam). Among them were networks of charitable organizations that provide financial aid to prisoners (including non-Muslims to lure them to Islam) in Western jails, lavishly funded academic chairs in Middle East Studies in universities around the world, student-exchange programs and spending many millions of dollars to increase Saudi political influence in the West — even contributing $100 million to coordinate and assist the United Nations international counterterrorism efforts.

Saudi efforts to bring Wahhabi Islam to global dominance began in earnest in 1962, with the establishment of the first international Saudi charity, the Muslim World League (MWL). Influenced by exiled Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, then-Crown Prince Faisal bin Abdul Aziz used growing oil revenues to fund MWL, which in turn established many other Islamic charities and nonprofits that helped directly and indirectly create the global jihadist movement. Successive Saudi kings have created additional “charitable” organizations to fund the worldwide spread of Wahhabism and have on occasion organized several national campaigns encouraging their subjects to support Sunni terror organizations outside the country, including the PLO, Hamas and al Qaeda. Thus it would be wrong to distinguish between contributions to radical Sunni organizations by the Saudi theocratic monarchy, its government and its wealthy subjects.

But Saudi support for terrorism extends much beyond direct deposits to openly radical elements. Direct financing of terrorist activities is but one of several means to further their agenda.

Indeed, little has changed since then-Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 2008 that Saudi Arabia is “serious about fighting Al Qaeda in the kingdom[but] the seriousness of purpose with respect to the money going out of the kingdom is not as high” (emphasis added).

The spread of Salafist radical groups, such as the global Hizb utTahrir, Tablighi Jamaat, and ISIS proves the effectiveness of the decades-long, $2 trillion’s worth of Saudi funding to indoctrinate Muslims everywhere, creating a large base of followers ready for further radicalization of what the West has erroneously labeled “self-radicalization.”

Saudi Arabia’s role in initiating and fomenting worldwide Muslim riots to curtail Western free speech has been mostly ignored. However, Muslims riots following the October 2005 publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark’s largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, began only after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark; after Sheikh Osama Khayyat, imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, praised on national Saudi television the Saudi government for its action; and after Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify, imam of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, called “upon governments, organizations and scholars in the Islamic world to extend support for campaigns protesting the sacrilegious attacks on the Prophet.” The Saudi-controlled Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) initiated and coordinated Muslim rioting worldwide after the Danish Muhammad cartoon publications.

Moreover, to wield more control over Muslim communities worldwide, better orchestrate “spontaneous demonstrations,” and better allocate funds for them, the Saudi-backed OIC established the clerical International Commission for Zakat (ICZ) on 30 April 2007. Previously, there were more than 20,000 organizations that collected zakat. Now, however, the Islamic clerics’ centralized “expert committee” based in Malaysia also supervises and distributes zakat funds globally. Yet, President Obama and his former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, describe Malaysia as a “moderate Muslim country” and Saudi Arabia as an ally.

The public outrage and rejection of Saudi King Salman’s offer to fund 200 new mosques for more than 800,000 new Muslim refugees in Germany, and the Vice Chancellor’s statement: “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over” point in the right direction. But don’t hold your breath. Germany, the United States and the rest of the West have been turning a blind eye to Saudi funding of thousands of mosques, madrassas and Islamic centers that have propagated radical Islamic ideology for decades and are unlikely to face reality anytime soon.

***

Disturbing Questions Lurk Behind Dutch “Jihad Galas”

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
February 27, 2015

1140It’s hard enough choosing the right gown for the Oscars, the prettiest frock for Junior Prom. But how do you select the burqa that best befits a jihadi gala?

Two such soirees, ostensibly being staged to raise money for humanitarian aid to Syria, Palestine, and elsewhere in the Middle East and Asia, have raised controversy in the Netherlands in recent weeks. Nicknamed “jihad galas” by local media, both events have been forced to revamp their programs and venues after the government raised concerns about several of their invited speakers.

In the process, heightened focus on the two organizations has helped unveil a web of secrecy and deceit behind many such endeavors and the people who support them.

The first event, tentatively scheduled to take place in Utrecht on March 1, aims to raise funds for World Wide Relief (WWR), a Dutch-based organization that supports children in Syria, among others. The other, originally set for March 8 in Rijswijk and now planned as a live-stream event to be broadcast from an undisclosed location, will benefit Holland’s Rohamaa Foundation, a self-described “Islamic-inspired” charity that aids communities in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Southern Turkey.

But according to a number of reports, the two groups, which claim to have each raised hundreds of thousands of euros from Dutch Muslims, have links to Salafist preachers and supporters of ISIS and al-Qaida. Several of those preachers were invited to speak at the galas, including some from the Middle East who received visas from the Dutch government to do so. Immediately, concerned Parliament members, armed with information provided by the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism (NCTV), protested, successfully demanding that the visas be rescinded in light of the imams’ anti-Western, Salafist profiles. The uproar has led to changes in plans for both galas, though Rohamaa has hinted that its invited speakers will still be heard via the live-stream broadcast.

While the government has not banned either event from taking place (Rohamaa itself made the decision to hold the event online), the controversy surrounding the two galas has set off heated debates about the meaning of “free expression” in the current climate: If you allow Charlie Hebdo‘s provocative content, shouldn’t you also allow the anti-Western tirades of Salafist imams? If not, why not?

The question touches on a highly sensitive issue that has long raised hackles even among members of the United Nations: Resolution 16/18, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which bans speech that would be construed as “incitement to imminent violence,” received U.S. approval in 2011.

The problem with this argument, and with Resolution 16/18, is that the Mohammed cartoons do not, in themselves, incite violence, however much some Muslims might insist otherwise. They are simply used that way by religious fanatics and Islamists whose twisted logic determines that anger and insult are reason enough to justify violent behavior.

The speakers invited to the Dutch galas, on the other hand, include Egyptian imam Wahid Baali, who has decried the killing of Osama bin Laden, and Saudi Sheikh Assim al-Hakeem, known for supporting the execution of Christians and Jews who insult the prophet Mohammed, and for his conviction that women are obliged to serve the sexual needs of their husbands. (Al-Hakeem was among those whose visas were rescinded.)

Rohamaa invitee Muhammad Hussan has referred to Jews as “those hateful and disgusting creatures.” He also owns  Al-Rhama TV, whose programming, according to MEMRI, frequently exhorts Muslims to annihilate the Jews. If you’re looking for speech that “incites violence,” it would be hard to find better examples than these.

WWR in particular seems to have forged a strong and intricate network among the stars of Salafist activity. In addition to partnering with al-Hakeem and Baali, WWR founder Abou Hafs has also chummed up with  the Belgian extremist Tarik Chadlioui, aka Tarik ibn Ali, considered one of the top fundraisers for Salafist causes in Europe. Just last year, Ronald Sandee, a former Dutch secret service official, described Chadlioui as “one of the most important influences behind the now-banned organizations Sharia4Belgium and the German Millatu Ibrahim, as well as the Dutch Sharia4Holland. He has many contacts via social media with young men from Belgium, Holland, and Germany who have joined the jihad in Syria.”

World Wide Relief is also frequently praised on Dutch jihadists’ web sites, according to Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Even Hafs, the NRC reports, has been known to praise Dutch Muslims who travel to Syria to join the jihad. The father of 19-year-old Dutch suicide bomber Sultan Berzel, who blew himself up in Baghdad, killing 20 others, has accused him of spreading “IS ideology.”

In speeches across the country, Hafs calls on fellow Muslims to resist the influence of “kuffars” (unbelievers) and to separate themselves from Dutch society or secularism by refusing to vote in Dutch elections.

But if that’s not enough to keep you from ordering up your Albert Nipon  niqab, your abaya by Alaia and sending in your contributions to the cause, try this: no one really seems to know exactly what Rohamaa and  World Wide Relief fund actually do with their donations.

Though Rohamaa claims to work through Allah “in an Islamic way,” it seems to do so secretively: its website provides no information about its officers or administrators, let alone its financial activities. (A button for “sponsors” on its home page is inactive.) And no reports seem to be available on its finances, beyond the basic banking information one would need to wire a donation.

The same seems to be true of World Wide Relief. An extensive investigation by theNRC Handelsblad revealed that the organization consistently failed to submit annual reports of its activities as required by law. There may be a reason for this: based on what information is available on the charity’s website, Roland Sandee, now the chief global jihad analyst for the Kronos Advisory think tank, calculated that only half of the €150,000 allegedly devoted to humanitarian aid in Syria had actually been spent – though details about the use of those funds are lacking. What happened to the other €75,000 is a mystery. This, while dozens of European Muslims head off to Syria in the guise of “humanitarian aid.” In fact, says the NRC, many fundraisers for such organizations themselves eventually “show up in Syria as jihadists.” Officials who spoke to the NRC also noted that, “A portion of the collected funds [of these charities] is likely given to non-humanitarian causes.”

At the Oscars, at least, no matter what you wear, you know who the winners are.   What’s clear about these galas is we’re the ones who lose.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Dr. Walid Phares: Jihad in Europe — Implications for European and American Security

 

Published on Feb 9, 2015 by securefreedom

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Thursday, February 5, 2015.

Islamist Jurisprudence Group to Train 200 U.S. Imams

Basyouni

The group instructs Muslims to infiltrate positions of power for the purpose of gradually implementing sharia in America.

By Ryan Mauro:

The California-based Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) is holding a conference in Texas next month where it hopes to educate 200 imams.  AMJA is an anti-American Salafist group that supports abuse of women, violent jihad and the stealthy imposition of sharia in the U.S.

AMJA’s 11th Annual Imams Conference will be held on February 21-23 in Dallas, Texas with the theme, “Islamic Home Finance in the West.” The subject is part of Sharia Finance, or economics that comply with sharia.

The organization says it has already had 150 imams sign up and it has a maximum capacity of 200. Imams lead mosques and Islamic centers and are seen as the local authority on the faith, so AMJA’s teachings can impact thousands of Muslims in North America.

AMJA’s self-description says that the organization has a “moderate approach and a rejection of extremism,” but if you read what AMJA actually says, a picture emerges.

AMJA has an online bank of fatwas, or authoritative religious determinations. They explicitly command Muslims to pursue the imposition of sharia-based governance entirely. AMJA specifically criticizes those who say parts of sharia are not applicable to today, essentially saying that America should model itself after Saudi Arabia.

It instructs Muslims to infiltrate positions of power for the subversive purpose of incrementally implementing sharia. In one translated document, AMJA says Muslim judges in non-Muslim countries must “judge by the rulings of the Sharia as much as possible, even if by a ruse.”

AMJA also supports violent jihad. In 2009, AMJA responded to Israeli military operations in Gaza against the Hamas terrorist group by telling Muslims that they are required to defend their co-religionists whenever their land is attacked by an enemy. Its fatwa said to help them “with every possible means of support: military, financial, political and journalistic.”

On the topic of jihad in America, AMJA states in an Arabic fatwa that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time” [emphasis mine]:

“With our current capabilities, we are aspiring towards defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation,” AMJA explained.

Read more at Clarion Project

The Myth of Islamic Extremism

 

Koran (2)By Daniel Greenfield:

The question of Islamic extremism has more relevance to Muslims than to non-Muslims. It’s mainly Muslims who are obsessed with Islamic extremism. And with good reason. As they so often point out; they tend to be its leading victims.

It’s not that Islamic extremism doesn’t exist. Islam, like every ideology, has its gradations. It’s that for Muslims, there is a great deal at stake in the battle over Islamic extremism. That battle will determine whether they can listen to music, play chess or watch soccer games. Whether men can shave their beards, women can drive cars, little girls can go to school and little boys can grow up learning anything except Koranic verses.

Non-Muslims however remain unequal no matter which brand of Islamic theocracy is in charge. And either way they remain fair game in their own countries.

Every leading form of Islam agrees that an Islamic society is perfect, that its laws perfect man and that imposing those laws on society is a religious duty. They may differ on whether those laws allow Muslims to vote or fly kites; but that is small consolation to the non-Muslims who lose their civil rights either way.

Islamic societies are built around an Islamic law that makes non-Muslims second class citizens. Whether Islamic law is the basis of all legislation, as tends to be written in the constitutions of most “moderate” Muslim countries, or whether it actually is the legislation, makes a great deal of difference to Muslims who fear losing the ability to sing or play chess at the snap of a fatwa; but has less impact on non-Muslims who are still doomed to an unequal status.

What Western secular liberals insist on describing as extremism is really a reform movement seeking to purge innovations from the modern Islamic admixture absorbed from the cultures and peoples whom they conquered.

Reform means major changes for the descendants of the Islamic conquerors who have learned to like the living standards of Islamic empires and don’t care for going back to the ways of their many times great-grandfathers. It doesn’t change things nearly as much for the non-Muslim minorities who were conquered by those Islamic empires. Life for them would become worse if the Salafists were to take over. But the difference lies in degrees of subjugation.

There is no Islamic option for equal rights.

****************

Distinguishing moderate and extreme Muslims is as useful as making distinctions between moderate and extreme Communists. These distinctions did and do exist, but they are less relevant in the context of an overall ideology whose goals are war, dominance and subjugation.

A moderate Communist was still a pretty terrible person. Likewise, a moderate president of Iran is still a political force in a theocracy that discriminates against non-Muslims, engages in regional religious wars and denies many civil rights to half the population.

Western liberals obscure this basic fact in their obsession with finding moderates to talk to. Moderate Muslims are still extreme by the standards of the West. They still support violence; the only difference is that they are more willing to try non-violent methods of conquest first.

In the long run, how much difference is there between the moderate slave owner who tricks his slaves into putting on their own chains and the extremist slave owner who makes them do it at gunpoint?

The end result is still the same. And that is the problem.

Read more at Front Page

London Woolwich’s Jihadi Butchers: Their Non-Spontaneous Words Matter

images (59)by DR. WALID PHARES:

The savage slaughtering of a British soldier on the streets of Woolwich, England is not a common random crime; it is an act of terror, an expression of relentless war that is inspired by a Jihadist ideology and sponsored by an international network of Salafist indoctrination.

The reason we are making this assertion hours after the killing is not to simply repeat what we have underscored in reports on similarly-inspired bloody attacks in the West in recent years. Rather, it is to prevent disorienting a shocked public by propaganda being diffused by apologists spreading intellectual chaos, covering up for the real culprit, and confusing audiences in Great Britain and around the world with irrelevant arguments.

We will hear some pushing the argument of root causes being the Western presence in Muslim lands. The two assassins made sure to shout their “political motives” and the cri de guerre, “Allahu Akbar,” in a determined way. They said their actions were in response to Western occupation of Muslim lands. That is the same excuse that was repeatedly given by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda Jihadists in the 1990s, and increasingly since 2001. The two perpetrators are British citizens, but they act as citizens of the “umma” in defense of an emerging Caliphate. They do not speak on behalf of a community; they speak on behalf of a movement that claims to speak on behalf of a community. In short, they are Jihadists, regardless of whether they are rank and file al Qaeda or not. They are part of a movement solidly anchored in a doctrine, whether they act as individuals, a pair, or two commandos dispatched by a larger group.

The attackers spoke openly to witnesses on the street where they committed their treachery and spoke with predetermined certainly, not spontaneity. “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. We must fight them (the infidels-kuffar) as they fight us.” These words matter, not because of their content alone, but because they come from the Salafi Jihadi dictionary used by committed operatives, fighters and killers around the world. In his letter to the American people Osama bin Laden said, “It is commanded by our religion and doctrine that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.” The commander of al Qaeda and his successor and other Jihadi leaders around the world, have consistently used the expression “as long as we won’t have our security, you won’t have yours.”

Translated strategically, the proposition means that as long as the enemies of the Jihadists are obstructing the rise of a Caliphate, a Taliban-style empire to cover one fifth of the Planet for starters, all those who resist are enemies and will be treated with the full force of militants continually produced by pools of indoctrination.

The Woolwich butchers had no personal quarrel with the UK soldier they hacked to death with medieval weapons. They had no mandate from the Afghani people to commit bloodshed in Great Britain as a way of provoking a withdrawal. The mandate the two terrorists acted upon was from a standing, growing, creeping political ideology with a name, Salafi Jihadism (al Salafiya al Jihadiya).

Read more: Family Security Matters

Related articles

Egyptian Salafi Cleric Murgan Salem: Boston Bombing Was Meant To Deliver A Message; Similar Attacks Expected In France

images (23)

MEMRI:

Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian Salafi cleric Sheikh Murgan Salem, which aired on Tahrir TV on April 16, 2013:

Interviewer: “Today, we will be talking about the Boston bombings, which took place yesterday, during the marathon. There were casualties. People were wounded and killed. What is your analysis of what happened?”

Murgan Salem: “In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Obviously, I do not know who carried out that operation, but if it was done by the mujahideen, it serves as a message to America and the West: We are still alive. Contrary to what you say, we have not died. The [Americans] wanted to send a message to the entire world that they had finished off the mujahideen – not just the mujahideen of Al-Qaeda, but the mujahideen all over the world. I do not know who carried out this attack, but if it was indeed the mujahideen, it was meant as a clear message to America and to the West.”

Interviewer: “But do you think that this could have been an Al-Qaeda operation?”

Murgan Salem: “No. this was not up to the standards of Al-Qeda. It was extremely amateurish. The standards of Al-Qaeda are much higher. By the way, I was not a member of the Al-Qaeda organization. But I knew all the people who belonged to it.”

Interviewer: “You were close to Sheik Osama and Dr. Ayman…”

Murgan Salem: “We were like one family. I am happy and proud to have been a friend of these brothers, but I cannot claim to have had the honor of being an Al-Qaeda member. The standards and techniques of Al-Qaeda are much higher. From what I saw on the news, this was the work of amateurs. I do not know who did it, but they have managed to get the message across: We can reach you whenever and wherever we want.

[…]

“Over the past 30 years, there has been a qualitative leap in the war with America. American is waging a war in our countries, and we are the ones who reap its fruits. Those courageous heroes have shifted the battle over to America’s own turf.

“I do not rule out the possibility that this was carried out by people born in the U.S. I do exclude the possibility that it was done by the Al-Qaeda organization. This is not the work of Osama Bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri. I think it was done by people resentful of the policy and arrogance of America and Europe. It is not just America.

“The Americans have passed their arrogance over to France. France, which led the first Crusade, is now leading the war against Islam and the Muslims. They must taste the bitter retribution for their deeds. This is not a threat, but a warning of what might happen to them.”

Interviewer: “To America and the West?”

Murgan Salem: “To France in particular, and to America and the entire West.”

Interviewer: “Why?”

Murgan Salem: “Because the [French] are leading the war against us. What brought France to Mali? Or America to Afghanistan and Iraq? Why don’t they let our nation be? Have we ever interfered in their affairs?

[…]

“France has accepted the banner of arrogance and enmity to Islam, so it will taste what it deserves. I cannot be held responsible for over one million [Muslims] in the West, who were harmed by French and American policy. More than one million [Muslims] were born in the West. I cannot be held responsible for them. I do not know what they may do. The [Westerners] are facing a deluge, and they will be destroyed.”

Interviewer: “Destroyed?”

Murgan Salem: “There is no doubt about it. The U.S. has completely collapsed, even if they are not hurrying to admit it. The American debt has reached how many trillions of dollars? They have a huge debt. Now poverty is spreading throughout America.

[…]

“We say to the Western peoples: Force your stupid governments to refrain from supporting the tyrants. France’s intervention in Mali will not go unanswered. I don’t think it will. I do not have any specific information, but I am sure it will not go unanswered – just like their intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan did not go unanswered. They will suffer catastrophes for this.

[…]

“With the utmost stupidity, France has accepted the banner of enmity [to Islam] – from the days of Sarkozy to Hollande. This stupidity will bring catastrophes upon them, just like it did upon America. Although I am not from Al-Qaeda, I can say, as someone who has known these people, that the path of Al-Qaeda is the path of the Koran, which calls upon [Muslims] to wage Jihad against infidels who attack them and intervene in their affairs. This is the path of Islam and the Koran, and not something invented by Osama Bin Laden.

“No, it was not invented by Osama or Ayman. It was sent down by Allah, and anyone who thinks he can defeat this path is delusional.”

[…]

Interviewer: “Who do you consider to be an infidel?”

Murgan Salem: “Anyone who does not accept Islam. They are either original infidels, like the Jews and Christians, or apostates, like the secularists, liberals, Communists, or socialists. Whoever does not accept Islam is an infidel. Allah said so, not me.”

Also see: