Archive | March 7th, 2017

A History of Wahhabism and the Hijacking of the Muslim faith

Our century so far has been overshadowed by a plague which roots, western powers have proclaimed, can be found in Islam and its practice. And though politicians have been careful not to publicly brand all Muslims terrorists, the narrative has nevertheless been one of suspicion and assumption. The words terror and Islam have been juxtaposed too many times in the media for anyone to believe that it was not by “design.”  There has been a war of words against both Islam and Muslims. Its aim is rather simple and only too predictable since it falls within an equation of greed and cynicism.

By ridiculing Islam and dehumanizing its followers, western powers have essentially laid the ground for intervention – positioning their armies within a narrative of moral salvation and liberation when their aims are everything but.

Iraq serves a perfect example. Even though US soldiers committed heinous crimes against Iraqis, despite the rapes, the raids and the mass massacres; in the face of systematic tortures and aggravated human rights violations, Washington still claimed moral high ground, arguing the greater good required decisive actions.

Truth is, from the moment the towers of the Trade Center tumbled down to the ground in great swirls of smoke and ashes, the MENA and with it all Muslims within it, have been lined up as sacrificial lambs to the altar of imperialism.

If anyone and anything has benefited from this grand war on terror, it is surely weapons dealers and all those behind who feeds corporate America its fill of blood. The signs are everywhere for those who care to see!

And if speaking the truth is conspiratorial theorism then so be it!

Terror was engineered and unleashed as a weapon of mass destruction and a political trojan horse. What better way to control the narrative and outcome of wars but by creating the very crisis, one intends to find solutions to, while keeping a hand in both pots?

If not for 9/11 Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq would not have been invaded. Arguably, without the war on terror Americans would still enjoy some of their civil liberties, and terminologies such as rendition and institutionalized torture might not have become generic terms. But then again corporations would not have seen their bottom lines explode under the influx of billions of dollars in weapon sales, security deals, and oil concessions the way it did.

The terms “follow the money” takes on a completely different meaning when correlated to terror.

But if corporate America has indeed played the terror card to forward its own very selfish and radical form of capitalism, it did not invent the ideology of terror per se – it only rebranded and repackaged it to fit its purpose.

It is again in history we must look to understand how this evil – Wahhabism, came to be in the first place; and under whose influence it first sparked into life. There too, the shadow of imperialism lurks …

It is crucial to understand though that ISIS, terror’s modern manifestation and expression, carries no tie with Islam. NONE!

Actually both Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali warned us against this black plague.

In Kitab Al Fitan – a compilation of hadiths (Islamic tradition) relating to the end of times put together by prominent scholar Nuyam bin Hammad in 229 AH – Imam Ali recalled the Prophet saying,

“If you see the black flags, then hold your ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the State (literally the people of Al Dawla), they do not keep a promise or a treaty. They call to the truth but they are not its people. Their names are (nicknames like Abu Mohammed) and their last names (are the names of town and cities, like Al Halabi) and their hair is loose like women’s hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then Allah will bring the truth from whoever He wills.”

In another reference to a period of intense religious, political and social confusion Imam Ali  warned,

“If you are against a group of ‪Muslims and the kuffar (unbelievers) are against them too, then know that you have aligned yourself with the kuffar against your own brothers. And know that if that is the case, then there is definitely something wrong with your view. If you want to know where the most righteous of Muslims are then look to where the arrows of the kuffar are pointing.”

In this extract, Imam Ali clearly refers to a time when Muslims will cross swords with other Muslims while in alliance with non-Muslims. And because western powers are undeniably colluding with those radicals they claim to want to destroy – training them and funding them in plain view, one can legitimately ponder.

Looking at events currently unfolding in the Middle East such warnings have found a deep echo within the Muslim community and religious leaders, among whom most prominently Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Both have mapped their decisions within such religious parameters. And whether one agrees with those men or not is not the point – understanding where they are coming from and where they stand however, is.

And if we can agree that not all is as it seems, then could it not be that those enemies we have imagined are indeed – not?

If ISIS has certainly been sold as an Islamic movement, everything it professes and teaches stands against Islam and its teachings. This divide actually goes beyond Islam’s great schism – which schism it needs to be noted remains part of this myth Saudi Arabia has been so eager on selling the world.

If indeed religious disagreements have occurred over the centuries and if Muslims have in truth fought and argue over the legitimacy, legality and religious superiority of their schools of thoughts and judicial principles, scholars did so in the knowledge and express belief that while men are flawed, Islam is perfect.

Islam’s disagreements came about out from a desire to walk better on God’s path, not to obliterate people with an implacable and merciless truth.

Looking back at the long line of prophets, from Adam to Noah, Ibrahim, Jesus, Yehia and Muhammad, all shared in the Oneness which is God’s ultimate command, God’s boundless mercy onto His creation and His injunction of peace. And if those holy messengers came at different times and places in our history, the essence of their message has been as permanent and immovable as God’s will. From Adam’s first cries of remorse and calls for forgiveness, to Prophet Muhammad’s last breath, God’s message onto us has always been Islam – as Islam means submission. In truth, the only real freedom which was ever given to us is that to submit, body and soul to The Creator of All things.

Islam did not start at Prophet Muhammad, rather it was reborn with him and through him; a last call before the sunset, a last mercy and guidance for us to follow – or not – a last ray of hope before evil can get its fill and the last chapter of our fate written down.

Islam was on the first day as it will be on the last day – it is us which have called it many things in our need to possess and label the divine. It is us again which have strayed and plotted, coveted and perverted to serve very earthly ambitions.

Wahhabism is no more than an engineered perversion, a division, an abomination which has but spread like a cancer onto the Islamic world and now threatens to destroy all religions.

Wahhabism and its legions: Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, are but the manifestations of a reactionary atheist movement which seeks the death of all faiths.

Wahhabism is not of Islam and Islam will never be of Wahhabism – it is a folly to conceive that Islam would ever sanction murder, looting and atrocious barbarism. Islam opposes despotism, injustice, infamy , deceits, greed, extremism, asceticism – everything which is not balanced and good, fair and merciful, kind and compassionate.

If anything, Wahhabism is the very negation of Islam. As many have called it before – Islam is not Wahhabism. Wahhabism is merely the misguided expression of one man’s political ambition – Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, a man who was recruited by Empire Britain to erode at the fabric of Islam and crack the unity of its ummah (community).

As Wahhabism began its land and mind grab in Hijaz – now known as Saudi Arabia – one family, Al Saud saw in this violent and reactionary school of thought a grand opportunity to claim and retain power. This unholy alliance has blotted the skies of Arabia for centuries, darkening the horizon with its miasms.

Wahhabism has now given birth to a monstrous abomination – extreme radicalism; a beast which has sprung and fed from Salafis and Wahhabis poison, fueled by the billions of Al Saud’s petrodollars; a weapon exploited by neo-imperialists to justify military interventions in those wealthiest corners of the world.

But though those powers which thought themselves cunning by weaving a network of fear around the world to better assert and enslave are losing control over their brain-child, ISIS and its sisters in hate and fury, as they all have gone nuclear, no longer bound by the chains their fathers shackled them with.

ISIS’s obscene savagery epitomises the violence which is inherent and central to Wahhabism and Salafism – its other deviance. And though the world knows now the source of all terror, no power has yet dared speak against it, instead the world has chosen to hate its designated victim – Islam.

In July 2013, the European Parliament identified Wahhabism as the main source of global terrorism, and yet the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, condemning ISIS in the strongest terms, has insisted that “the ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism do not belong to Islam in any way”. But then again the Grand Mufti might remain oblivious to the history of Wahhabism or what Wahhabism actually professes.

Wahhabism 101

During the 18th century, revivalist movements sprang up in many parts of the Islamic world as the Muslim imperial powers began to lose control of peripheral territories. In the west at this time, governments were beginning to separate church from state, but this secular ideal was a radical innovation: as revolutionary as the commercial economy that Europe was concurrently devising. No other culture regarded religion as a purely private activity, separate from such worldly pursuits as politics, so for Muslims the political fragmentation of society was also a religious problem. Because the Quran had given Muslims a sacred mission – to build a just economy in which everybody is treated with equity and respect – the political well-being of the ummah was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed, the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.

If 18th-century reformers were convinced that should Muslims ever regain lost power and prestige, they would have to return to the fundamentals of their faith, ensuring that God – rather than materialism or worldly ambition – dominated the political order, Wahhabism would come to pervert such desires.

There was nothing militant about this “fundamentalism”; not yet, rather, it was a grassroots attempt to reorient society and did not involve jihad.

Only, if the idea of going back to the root of Islam at a time when society had strayed from the path was indeed laudable, Wahhabism would work to betray such ideal by twisting on its head Islam’s most sacred pillars, perverting Islamic law and the interpretation of its Scriptures to serve the mighty and enslave the weak.

Under Wahhabism’s interpretation of Islam, women reverted to being objectified. Those many great women Islam saw rise under the strict protection of the Quran, those models Muslim women came to look up to and aspire to become – Maryam, Khadijah, Fatimah, Zaynab; Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab would have had locked up in chains in their home.

When Islam gave women their rightful place within society, Wahhabism denied them everything.

And for those of you who continue to live under the premise that Islam is profoundly unfair against women, do remember it is not Islam but rather men’s interpretations of it which is the source of your ire.

Islam secured women’ status according to God’s will. Islam poses both men and women on equal footing in terms of their faith – it is only in their duties and responsibilities which they differ, not worthiness. Islam calls on men to provide for women and offer them security, both financial and physical. Under Islam women are free to marry, divorce and work. Under Islam women cannot be bought, bartered or oppressed. Under Islam women enjoy more freedom than most western women have been given. It is society and cultural deviations which have denied them those rights, not Islam.

Women rights are forever imprinted in the Quran – this reality will never change, no matter how men chose to interpret it and falsify it.

Like Martin Luther, ibn Wahhab claimed he wanted to return to the earliest teachings of Islam and eject all later medieval accretions. To achieve such ambitions he opposed Sufism and Shia Islam, labelling them as heretical innovations (bidah) as both opposed tyranny in faith. He went on to urge all Muslims to reject the learned exegesis developed over the centuries by the ulema (scholars) and interpret the texts for themselves, or rather under his guidance.

This naturally incensed the clergy and threatened local rulers, who believed that interfering with these popular devotions would cause social unrest. Eventually, however, ibn Wahhab found a patron in Mohammed Ibn Saud, a chieftain of Najd who adopted his ideas. Ibn Saud quickly used Wahhabism to support his military campaigns for plunder and territory, insisting such violence was all in the name of the greater good.

To this day Al Saud’s house is following in such bloody footsteps.

Although the scriptures were so central to ibn Wahhab’s ideology, by insisting that his version of Islam alone had validity, he distorted the Quranic message in the most violent way. The Quran firmly states that “There must be no coercion in matters of faith” – Quran 2:256.

It rules that Muslims must believe in the revelations of all the great prophets (3:84) and that religious pluralism was God’s will (5:48). Until Wahhabism came knocking, Muslims remained traditionally wary of takfir, the practice of declaring a fellow Muslim to be an unbeliever (kafir). Hitherto Sufism, which had developed an outstanding appreciation of other faith traditions, had been the most popular form of Islam and had played an important role in both social and religious life. “Do not praise your own faith so exclusively that you disbelieve all the rest,” urged the great mystic Ibn al-Arabi (d.1240). “God the omniscient and omnipresent cannot be confined to any one creed.” It was common for a Sufi to claim that he was a neither a Jew nor a Christian, nor even a Muslim, because once you glimpsed the divine, you left these man-made distinctions behind.

After ibn Wahhab’s death, Wahhabism became more violent, an instrument of state terror. As Al Saud sought to establish an independent kingdom, Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Hussain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children. A few years later,  in 1803, in fear and panic, the holy city of Mecca surrendered to the Saudi leader, wary of that his army would do to the population.

Little do we remember the sacking of the holy city of Medina, when Al Saud’s legions ransacked mosques, schools and homes. Al Saud’s army murdered hundreds of men, women and children, deaf to their screams. As imams pleaded for the most sacred relics of Islam to be protected, Al Saud’s men pillaged and looted, setting fire to Medina’s library. Al Saud made an example out of Medina, the very city which proved so welcoming to Islam. On the ground which saw rise the first mosque of Islam, Al Saud soaked the earth red with blood.

Where the footsteps of the last Prophet of God still echo, Al Saud filled the air with ghastly cries of horrors.

But such terror has been erased from history books. Such tales of blood and savage betrayals have been swallowed whole by Al Saud as this house attempted to re-write history and claim lineage to the house of the prophet.

Eventually, in 1815, the Ottomans despatched Muhammad Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt, to crush the Wahhabi forces and destroy their capital. But Wahhabism became a political force once again during the First World War when the Saudi chieftain – another Abd al-Aziz – made a new push for statehood and began to carve out a large kingdom for himself in the Middle East with his devout Bedouin army, known as the Ikhwan, the “Brotherhood”.

In the Ikhwan we see the roots of ISIS. To break up the tribes and wean them from the nomadic life which was deemed incompatible with Islam, the Wahhabi clergy had settled the Bedouin in oases, where they learned farming and the crafts of sedentary life and were indoctrinated in Wahhabi Islam. Once they exchanged the time-honoured ghazu raid, which typically resulted in the plunder of livestock, for the Wahhabi-style jihad, these Bedouin fighters became more violent and extreme, covering their faces when they encountered Europeans and non-Saudi Arabs and fighting with lances and swords because they disdained weaponry not used by the Prophet. In the old ghazu raids, the Bedouin had always kept casualties to a minimum and did not attack non-combatants. Now the Ikhwan routinely massacred “apostate” unarmed villagers in their thousands, thought nothing of slaughtering women and children, and routinely slit the throats of all male captives.

In 1915, Abd Al-Aziz planned to conquer Hijaz (an area in the west of present-day Saudi Arabia that includes the cities of Mecca and Medina), the Persian Gulf to the east of Najd, and the land that is now Syria and Jordan in the north, but during the 1920s he tempered his ambitions in order to acquire diplomatic standing as a nation state with Britain and the United States. The Ikhwan, however, continued to raid the British protectorates of Iraq, Transjordan and Kuwait, insisting that no limits could be placed on jihad. Regarding all modernisation as bidah, the Ikhwan also attacked Abd al-Aziz for permitting telephones, cars, the telegraph, music and smoking – indeed, anything unknown in Muhammad’s time – until finally Abd Al-Aziz quashed their rebellion in 1930.

After the defeat of the Ikhwan, the official Wahhabism of the Saudi kingdom abandoned militant jihad and became a religiously conservative movement.

But the Ikhwan spirit and its dream of territorial expansion did not die, instead it gained new ground in the 1970s, when the Kingdom became central to western foreign policy in the region. Washington welcomed the Saudis’ opposition to Nasserism (the pan-Arab socialist ideology of Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser) and to Soviet influence. After the Iranian Revolution, in 1979 it gave tacit support to the Saudis’ project of countering Shia Islam by Wahhabizing the entire Muslim world.

Just as Nasserism posed a threat to both the Saudis and the US in that it entailed independence and a supranational sense of belonging and solidarity, in opposition to colonialism and feudalism, Iran Shia democratic movement presented too much of a pull for countries in the region to follow to be allowed to shine forth.

And so the wheels of propaganda were set in motion and Iran became western powers and its allies’ designated enemy. Right alongside Soviet Russia, Iran became the source of all evil, while all the while Saudi Arabia was left to industrialize radicalism on a mass scale.

The soaring oil price created by the 1973 embargo – when Arab petroleum producers cut off supplies to the U.S. to protest against the Americans’ military support for Israel – gave the Kingdom all the petrodollars it needed to export its idiosyncratic form of Islam.

The old military jihad to spread the faith was now replaced by a cultural offensive. The Saudi-based Muslim World League opened offices in every region inhabited by Muslims, and the Saudi ministry of religion printed and distributed Wahhabi translations of the Quran, Wahhabi doctrinal texts and the writings of modern thinkers whom the Saudis found congenial, such as Sayyids Abul-A’la Maududi and Qutb, to Muslim communities throughout the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, the United States and Europe. In all these places, they funded the building of Saudi-style mosques with Wahhabi preachers and established madrasas that provided free education for the poor, with, of course, a Wahhabi curriculum.

Slowly Muslims’ understanding of Islam became polluted by Wahhabism and Sunni Muslims began to think and breath Wahhabism, no longer in tune with its own religious tradition, cut off from free-thinking Islam, moderate Islam, compassionate Islam and non-violent Islam.

At the same time, young men from the poorer Muslim countries, such as Egypt and Pakistan, who had felt compelled to find work in the Gulf to support their families, associated their relative affluence with Wahhabism and brought this faith back home with them, living in new neighbourhoods with Saudi mosques and shopping malls that segregated the sexes. The Saudis demanded religious conformity in return for their munificence, so Wahhabi rejection of all other forms of Islam as well as other faiths would reach as deeply into Bradford, England, and Buffalo, New York, as into Pakistan, Jordan or Syria: everywhere gravely undermining Islam’s traditional pluralism.

Posted in Saudi Arabia, West BankComments Off on A History of Wahhabism and the Hijacking of the Muslim faith

A Dose of Very Nasty Truth: Trump Clears Rearming Al Qaeda in Yemen, US Troops to Train Terrorists


This is why Trump made such a big deal of hiding behind a dead Navy SEAL

Al-Qaeda Receives New Saudi Arms Cargo in Southern Yemen

TEHRAN (FNA)- The al-Qaeda terrorists stationed in the Southern parts of Yemen received a new cargo of American and British weapons from Saudi Arabia where newly arrive American instructors are replacing the Saudi and Israeli special forces in Yemen.

France 24 news channel quoted local Yemeni sources as saying that a truck carrying a large number of weapons and ammunition moved to the Lodar region in Abyan province and delivered its cargo to al-Qaeda.

According to the sources, the truck was loaded in one of the Saudi-led coalition bases in Ma’arib province and sent to the Northern parts of Abyan province and included Stinger surface to air missiles like the one used to shoot down a US Marine Corps Osprey aircraft with up to 30 onboard.

The US is still withholding casualty figures on that failed “raid” against forces the US helped train and organize and continues to arm.

The al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Shari’ah terrorist group received the cargo of weapons and ammunition, according to the report.

Earlier this week, a Yemeni intelligence source disclosed Saudi Arabia’s attempts to reinvigorate al-Qaeda terrorist group in Abyan province through excessive arms shipments and aids.

“The al-Qaeda terrorists have received a cargo of weapons sent by the Saudi mercenaries stationed in Ma’arib, near Akad heights in Lodar city of Abyan province,” the source told FNA on Tuesday.

According to the Yemeni activists in the Southern parts of the country, the forces loyal to General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar (fugitive president Mansour Hadi’s deputy commander of armed forces) have sent the arms to al-Qaeda after the terrorist group’s recent defeats in different cities of Abyan province, the source added.

The al-Qaeda terrorist group is fighting against the Yemeni army and popular forces in Yemen, while multiple reports and documents show that the terrorists are operating for the Saudi army after working out a deal last year.

Local sources in Yemen disclosed earlier this month that several members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group, including a senior commander, have been killed in an ambush operation of the Yemeni army and popular forces in Ta’iz province.

“Notorious al-Qaeda commander, Mohsen al-Aoulaqi, was among a number of the terrorists killed in the Yemeni army’s ambush operation East of al-Mukha region in Ta’iz province,” a Yemeni military source said.

From 2015:

Israeli Officers Captured, Killed in Yemen Attacks

Tens of Israeli, Saudi Officers Killed in Yemen Missile Attacks

TEHRAN (FNA) – Some 20 Israeli officers and 63 Saudi military men and officials were killed and many others taken captive in a special military operation of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement in Amir Khalid airbase in Southern Saudi Arabia, a top security official announced on Wednesday.

“The Ansarullah fighters backed by the Yemeni army hit Amir Khalid airbase in Khamees al-Mushait region in Southern Saudi Arabia with a scud missile and several Najm al-Saqeb (Striking Star) missiles last week, killing over 20 senior Israeli officers and 63 Saudi military men and capturing 35 others,” Mehdi Nasser al-Bashi told FNA on Wednesday.

He mentioned that the Israeli officers were agents of the Mossad spy agency and were in the region to help the Saudi army, and said, “At the time of the attack the Israeli officers were working on a plan to attack some regions of Yemen with prohibited Israeli-made weapons.”

The Yemeni army targeted Amir Khalid military base in Khamees al-Mushait region by Scud missiles last week. The Saudi army claimed that it had intercepted the Scud by two Patriot missiles, but the Arabic-language Al-Mayadeen news channel showed footage of the missile attack, reporting that it had hit the target. Following the attack the Saudi army evacuated the passenger terminals of two airports in nearby areas.

Later reports revealed that Saudi Arabia’s Air Force Commander Lieutenant General Muhammad bin Ahmed al-Shaalan had been killed in the missile attack. Earlier today, a senior commander of Ansarullah confirmed that the Yemeni popular forces and the army had killed the Saudi Air Force Commander in the missile attack.

“Shaalan was killed 5 days ago in the Yemeni army’s special operations against Amir Khalid airbase in Khamees al-Mushait border area in Saudi Arabia,” Colonel Salih Mohammad told FNA on Wednesday.

“The attack against Khalid airbase was waged by missiles and weapons systems that were not very special; the operation was planned by Ansarullah and the Yemeni army conducted it after Ansarullah provided it with the information about Muhammed Shaalan’s presence at Khalid airbase in Khamees al-Mushait,” he added.

Colonel Mohammad, meantime, said that the Yemeni army has also come in possession of advanced US-made weapons systems after capturing the Saudis’ Khalid airbase following the initial missile attack.

Last Wednesday, the official Saudi Press Agency quoting the Ministry of Defense declared the death of Lieutenant General Muhammad bin Ahmed al-Shaalan, but asserted that the commander had died of a heart attack during a work trip outside the kingdom.

Only a few hours later, informed sources in New York challenged the Saudi news agency’s report, and said the General had been killed in Yemen’s missile attacks. An informed Yemeni source who called for anonymity said in New York last Wednesday that “Shaalan was killed in the Yemeni army’s missile attacks against Saudi Arabia’s Khamees al-Mushait region five days earlier”.

Then later on Wednesday, another well-known Saudi source rejected the reports that Shaalan had died of a heart attack, and disclosed that his body was charred showing that he has been killed in an enemy attack.

Jamal Bean wrote on his Tweeter page that Shaalan and his accompanying team have been killed in the Yemeni army’s missile attack since their corpses were scorched by the fire of a blast.

Background, an Israeli run propaganda site:

Senior Iranian Officials: Close Straits, Attack U.S. and Gulf Targets

Following the January 23, 2012 announcement that Europe would boycott Iranian oil, Iranian Majlis National Security Committee deputy chairman Hossein Ebrahimi said that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz and would not allow other countries to export oil via the strait if it was not allowed to export its oil. He added, “The Persian Gulf will become a graveyard for all the forces that will come from all corners of the earth to this sensitive region.”[1] Another committee member, Isma’il Kowsari, said, “If there is any disruption of Iran’s oil sales, we will doubtless close the Strait of Hormuz.” He added, “If the U.S. tries to prevent the closure of the strait, Iran will within a short time strike at American targets across the world, and it will not allow U.S. forces to escape from the region.”[2]

During Friday prayers on January 27, 2012, in Mashhad, northeastern Iran, preacher Ahmad ‘Alam Al-Hoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts, said: “Do not doubt that Iran has the capability to blockade the UAE and Saudi tankers departing for Europe via the Strait of Hormuz.”[3]

Prior to the announcement of the European boycott, senior Iranian officials had threatened to strike at U.S. sites in the Gulf states. At a November 15, 2011 Basij convention, Basij commander Mohammad Reza-Naqdi said, “The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, the American land forces [base] in Kuwait, and the U.S. Air Force [base] in Qatar are entirely surrounded by holy fighters of the Islamic ummah who are counting the minutes in anticipation of the command to wipe out the U.S.” He added, “The U.S. is so wretched that if Iran launches a military attack [against it] it will not respond militarily and will beg for negotiations.” [4]

Another army official, Iranian Army Self-Sufficiency Jihad commander Rear Adm. Farhad Amiri, stressed that the American aircraft carriers were easy pickings for Iranian submarines. He explained that because of how the submarines were equipped, they could lie in wait for the Americans undetected and could strike at them from the bottom of the sea.[5]

Article on Iranian Website: “We Welcome War”

On the eve of the Iranian Navy’s extensive Gulf maneuvers in December 2011, the conservative Serat News website, which is close to Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the Kayhan newspaper, published an article by blogger Ali-Reza Forghani titled “We Welcome War.” The article glorifies jihad and martyrdom against the U.S. and warns it and its leaders that not only do the Iranians have no fear of war, but they long to die in it. The article also set out details of threats, including suicide missions against American targets. The following are highlights of the article:

Ali-Reza Forghani[6]

Photo accompanying article: Fighters kiss the Koran before setting out for battle

“America needs to know that if it attacks Iran – the Muslims must [attack] it in response, based on the instructions of the religion, and they will not hesitate for a moment to carry out this religious duty. America needs to know that while [the American administration] was preparing the American people for the wars of 2001 [apparently a reference to the war declared by President Bush on Afghanistan after 9/11], 2012 and 2035… which will demand a high price, the Shi’ite youths were anticipating the appearance [of the Hidden Imam] and, as a result, they are ready for war and jihad.

“America needs to know that, while it tempts its young people with monthly salaries of $9,000 to fight in other countries, we have learned that if we do not carry out jihad or aspire to do so, then we die in a kind of hypocrisy, [and] death of this kind is shameful for us, [for] the aspiration to wage jihad [and to die] in war is our pride.

“America needs to know that the children of [founder of the Iranian Revolution Ayatollah] Ruhollah [Khomeini] and the companions of Ali [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei] are not like the young people of the neighboring countries. Although they [too] are Muslims, they have never internalized the [words of the] Imam Ali, [father of the Shi’a], who said ‘No people was attacked in its home unless [it first became] wretched.’ We have learned that there is no need to drag war [into our] home and that we must locate the playing field [i.e. battlefield] anywhere outside our home, as quickly and safely [as possible].

“America needs to know that there are young people of Hizbullah who have located [the battlefield] outside Iran, and that they will carry out attacks and martyrdom operations within less than 48 hours [if America attacks,] in every one of the 112 countries in which America has a military base.

“America needs to know that while the American youth shouts the slogan ‘Stop the war,’ for fear of dying, the children of Ruhollah never flee from war and always pray ‘Allah, give us martyrdom for Your sake.’”[7]

Iranian Website: This Is How We’ll Strike At the American Bases in the Region

On December 14, 2011, the Mashregh News web site, which is close to Iran’s security circles, published an article examining Tehran’s ability to strike at U.S. bases in the region. The article included statistics about the bases and their respective distances from Iran’s borders, and about the missiles that Tehran would use against them. The list included U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Kyrgyzstan, and Pakistan.

The article stated also that the U.S. air defense systems across the region were inefficient and that they would be quickly targeted by Iran’s missiles. The following are the highlights of the article and the images that accompanied it:[8]

“This report will examine the distances of the important U.S. bases [from Iran’s borders], particularly its Air Force bases along Iran’s borders, along with Iran’s missile capability to threaten these sites.

“The U.S. has bases, or uses bases, in the following countries: Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kyrgyzstan…


“These are the rockets manufactured by Iranian experts: the Naza’at H10 with a maximal range of 130 km, the Zilzal 3 with a range of 200 km, and the Zilzal B3 with a range of 250 km, suitable for striking the bases of the enemy in the region.

“These are the missiles that can threaten the more distant enemy bases: Fath 110, Qiam, Shihab 2, Shihab 3, Qadr, ‘Ashoura, Sejjal 1, Sejjal 2…

“Kuwait, a small country which is [less like a country and] more like a large American military base, has two air force bases and six military camps. The Ali Al-Salam air force base, which is 115 km from Iran’s borders, can be easily threatened by any of the above [Iranian] rockets and missiles… The runways at this air force base are about 3,000 meters long, suitable for most light and heavy aircraft.

Ali Al-Salam AFB

“Another airfield in Kuwait open to the Americans is the Ahmad Al-Jabr air force base, located 134 km from Iran, and within range of [Iran’s] Zilzal rockets and various Iranian ballistic missiles…

Ahmad Al-Jabr AFB

“The camps at which U.S. military forces are stationed are Camp Doha, located 94 km from Iran; Camp Buehring, located 104 km from Iran; Camp Spearhead, located 109 km from Iran; Camp Patriot, located 123 km from Iran; and Camp Arifjan, located 126 km from Iran. All of these sites are within range of all the surface-to-surface missiles and rockets presented above, so Iranian artillery forces will have an easier task.

“East of Iran… in Afghanistan, there are four military airfields in use by American forces… Bagram Airbase, in which most of the American transport and attack aircraft are deployed… is 730 km from Iran. Kabul airfield is 732 km from the Iranian border… These targets can all be hit by Qiam missiles, with a range of 800 km; Shihab 3, with a range of 1,300-1,800 km; and Qadr, Sejjil, and ‘Ashoura missiles with a range of 1,800-2,000 km.

Bagram AFB. The photo clearly shows C-130 transport aircraft and A-10 Warthog tactical attack aircraft

“Other bases and airfields in Afghanistan are Kandahar Airbase, located 387 km from Iran; Shindand Airbase, located 124 km from Iran; and Herat Airbase, located 122 km from the Iranian border. The first of these bases is threatened by Shihab-2 and Qiam missiles, and the two other bases are easily threatened by Zilzal rockets and the highly accurate Fath 110 missiles, as well as by other models.

Shindand AFB, where RQ-170 detection drones are stationed

“However, the American super base in the region is Al-Udeid air force base in Qatar. Despite good relations between the two countries [Qatar and Iran], recent stances taken by Qatar vis-à-vis Syria show that the U.S. can still utilize [Qatar to attack Iran].

Al-Udeid AFB in Qatar

“This base, situated in the center of the small nation of Qatar, is located 278 km from the Iranian coast, and has a large number of American aircraft. Spotted at the base were B1-B Stealth Bombers; C-17 and C-130 transport aircraft; KC-135 and KC-10 refueling tankers; [P-3] Orion marine surveillance aircraft; and [E-8] Joint STARS [Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System]. Reports indicate that F-16 fighter jets are also stationed there. This base is within range of the Fath-110 and several other medium- and long-range Iranian missiles. The open air aprons, where dozens of expensive aircraft are parked, are the optimal target for the ballistic missile warheads, and thanks to the wide deployment [of the missiles], most of these aircraft will undoubtedly be destroyed or seriously damaged.

Photo shows KC-135 tankers, P-3 Orion aircraft, and B-1 bombers

“In addition, we should mention the U.S. Fifth Fleet naval base in Bahrain, located only 200 km from Iranian shores. Deployed to the base are several missile boats and warships, including equipment and ordnance. Aside from Zilzal rockets, all [Iranian] short- to long-range missiles can target this location, and considering the nature of the target, using missiles to ensure accurate hits would be more effective.

“The Khalij-e Fars missile – the marine version of Fath-110 missile, with a range of 300 km – is specially designed to hit ships, which makes it highly suitable for threatening this naval base. The Qadr anti-ship cruise missile, which according to [Iranian] Defense Minister [Ahmad Vahidi] has a range of over 200 km, can be launched from several points on the Iranian coast, and [can] hit ships stationed at this base if they move a small distance from it.

U.S. Fifth Fleet naval base in Bahrain

“Another important American site in Bahrain is the Bahraini Air Force Sheikh Isa Airbase. The base is located 238 km from the Iranian coast and lies within range of all [Iranian] ballistic missiles, as well as the Zilzal-3B rockets. This airbase has two 3,800-meter runways, and spotted there were C-17 [Globemaster III transport aircraft], P-3 Orions, F-16 and F-18 fighter jets, and EA-6B Prowler Electronic Warfare aircraft.

Sheikh Isa AFB with F-18 and Prowler aircraft

“Another large U.S. base in the region is the Al-Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, which has two main runways 4,200 meters in length… and is located 253 km from Iranian shores and 184-255 km from Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf…

Al-Dhafra AFB, UAE

“This base lies within range of Iran’s ballistic missiles. The KC-135 tankers and AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System] E-3 Sentry aircraft are extremely high value targets for Iranian ordnance.

AWACS, refueling tankers, and covered hangers (on the right) at Al-Dhafra Airbase
24 fighter jet hangars at the UAE Airbase

“There is widespread American activity taking place at Thumrait air base in Oman. Located 963 km from Iran, it lies within the range of the long-range Shihab-3, Qadr, ‘Ashoura, and Sejjil missiles. Another base used by the Americans, albeit mostly for transportation and espionage, is Manas Airbase in Kyrgyzstan, located 1,433 km from Iran. Upgraded Shihab-3 missiles, as well as ‘Ashoura, Qadr, and Sejjil missiles, can take care of enemies in the home of our old friend[s].

C-17 transport aircraft and KC-135 refueling tankers in Manas

“Incirlik Airbase in Turkey is the pinnacle of U.S. military bases in the region, comparable to Al-Udeid air base [in Qatar]. Although the longstanding presence of U.S. aircraft at this base is a source of shame for Turkey, it seems that the base will also be hosting mercenaries for the arrogant U.S. government, along with long-range bombers and atomic bombs. The base is located 875 km from Iran on the northwestern Syrian border, and the largest aircraft in the U.S.’s arsenal are deployed there. It can be threatened by Iran’s long-range missiles.

“The Americans also use bases in Pakistan, including the important Shamsi Airbase, located 199 km from Iran, and Shahbaz Airbase, located 527 km [from Iran]. According to information in the professional military media, [the U.S.] uses Shamsi Airbase for drone aircraft. Despite the current good relations between the Pakistani government and Iran, in light of the political instability there over the past two decades Iran could be threatened from that area as well. Shamsi Airbase can be threatened by Zilzal B3 rockets, as well as all Iranian ballistic missiles. Shahbaz Airbase can be hit by medium- and long-range ballistic missiles…

“After Iraq conquered Kuwait, many bases in Saudi Arabia were transferred to the Americans but were later evacuated. Now there is only a limited presence of U.S. air units at Prince Sultan Airbase, located 575 km from Iran, which can be hit by Iranian medium- and long-range missiles.

“Although U.S. aerial defense systems have been deployed in several countries in the region, launching accurate long-range missiles from deep inside Iranian territory as a first strike, with the missile velocity at mach 10-12, makes the enemy’s attempts to destroy them impossible. In addition, some of these aerial defense systems could be part of the initial target in Iran’s missile response.

“Moreover, simultaneous launches of a large number of missiles and rockets from different locations are another way to overcome these [defense] systems. Additionally, Iran possesses long-range air-to-surface missile systems, and anti-Radar missiles to suppress enemy aerial defense… and facilitate the work of Iran’s ballistic missiles.”


[1] Al-‘Aalam TV (Iran), January 24, 2012. See MEMRI TV Clip No. 3284, Iranian MP Hossein Ebrahimi, Deputy Chairman of Iranian Majlis National Security Committee: “The Persian Gulf Will Be Turned into a Graveyard” for International Forces, Ali Akbar Velayati, advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stressed that Tehran would not permit a situation in which it could not sell oil while other oil producters could do so. Press TV, Iran, January 26, 2011. Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of Kayhan and an associate of Khamenei, called for inspections for vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and for the subsequent closure of the strait to all E.U. vessels. He said that the West would be harmed more by the boycott than Iran would. Kayhan, Iran, January 25, 2012. Kayhan itself mocked U.S. President Barack Obama’s statement that all options against Iran were on the table, calling it a “bluff” because the American threats were aimed at persuading Tehran to agree to negotiations. It added that the Americans had no option other than begging for negotiations with Iran. Kayhan, Iran, January 29, 2012.

[2] Fars (Iran), January 23, 2012. It should be noted that Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, as well as Iranian Navy deputy commander Mahmoud Moussavi, clarified in December 2011 that Iran has no intention of closing the strait. This, apparently out of awareness that any military aggression of this sort would be tantamount to a declaration of international war, and also due to the clear U.S. military supremacy in the Gulf. Iran (Iran), December 14, 2011 (Mehmenparast) and Press TV, Iran, January 2, 2012 (Moussavi).

[3] Al-Hoda added that President Obama’s emphasis in his letter to Khamenei that the U.S. would not attack Iran reflects Tehran’s might versus Washington’s weakness. ISNA, Iran, January 27, 2012.

[4] Fars (Iran), January 15, 2011; Iranian TV interview on November 27, 2011,

[5] Khorasan (Iran), January 19, 2012.


[7]Serat News (Iran), December 12, 2011.

[8] Mashregh News (Iran), December 14, 2011.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran, Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on A Dose of Very Nasty Truth: Trump Clears Rearming Al Qaeda in Yemen, US Troops to Train Terrorists

Official Washington Tips into Madness


Exclusive: President Trump responded to evidence-lite accusations from Democrats about his ties to Russia with his own air-filled allegations about President Obama wiretapping Trump Tower, as Robert Parry shakes his head.

By Robert Parry

The intensifying hysteria over Russia has pushed Official Washington over the edge into outright madness. On one side of this asylum, you have the Democrats, neoconservatives and mainstream media, while on the other, you have the embattled Trump administration. Both sides have been making grave allegations with little or no evidence to support them.

President Donald Trump delivering remarks at CPAC on Feb. 24, 2017. (Screen shot from

The Democratic/neocon/MSM side has pushed the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians to put the real-estate mogul in the White House, but there is, as yet, no evidence that such a thing happened.

Even one of the top advocates feeding this Russia frenzy, New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, acknowledged on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “I agree, there is no evidence,” but then added: “which is why we need a special prosecutor or an independent commission to get to the bottom of it.”

But that is not how investigations are supposed to work. You’re supposed to have evidence of wrongdoing and then examine it in the investigative phase to see if the evidence withstands scrutiny. What Friedman is suggesting is more like a “fishing expedition” or a “witch hunt.”

The drip-drip of this investigative water torture finally got to President Trump last week as he flew down to his winter home at Mar-a-Lago. He joined the crazy melee early Saturday morning by sending out a flurry of tweets accusing President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower in New York City in the weeks before the Nov. 8 election. Trump also offered no evidence while demanding an investigation to get to the bottom of this.

By contrast, in all the major investigations that I have handled as an investigative reporter, such as Oliver North’s secret White House paramilitary operation; the related Nicaraguan Contra drug trafficking scandalRichard Nixon interference with President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks in 1968; and Ronald Reagan’s campaign sabotage of President Jimmy Carter’s Iranian-hostage negotiations in 1980 – there was substantial evidence from eyewitnesses and documents supporting the suspicions before the story was published.

At no point would I have argued that just because Oliver North met a Contra leader that it was time to investigate whether he and his Reagan administration superiors were breaking the law. I first found multiple insiders, including people in the U.S. government and the Contra movement, describing how North was running his back-channel war. In some of these investigative situations, we had two dozen or so sources describing detailed aspects of these operations before we made any allegations in print.

Now the argument is that because some people suspect something, even without evidence, major investigations are warranted. That is usually what a conspiracy theory sounds like. Someone claims not to understand how something could have happened a certain way and thus a full-scale inquiry is needed into some highly unlikely and speculative scenario.

Opening Salvos

In the case of the Russia investigation, the opening salvos came from President Obama’s intelligence agencies, which alleged that Russia had “hacked” Democratic emails and slipped the contents to WikiLeaks, but the agencies offered nothing in the way of U.S. government evidence to support that supposition.

President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Antalya, Turkey, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The two reports that were issued were heavy on the word “assesses” – which in intelligence jargon usually means “guesses” – but short on anything that could be checked out or verified.

The Jan. 6 report, issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, admitted as much, saying, “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks representatives denied getting the two batches of Democratic emails from Russia, suggesting that two different American insiders had leaked the material.

Yet, despite this dubious send-off, the “scandal” careened into the area of “secondary” offenses, such as the conversation between Trump’s National Security Adviser-designate Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak which was intercepted by the National Security Agency on Dec. 29, 2016.

Rather than redact Flynn’s name as “minimization” procedures usually require for an American citizen who is inadvertently picked up on an intelligence wiretap, the transcript was given to the FBI which then tested Flynn’s memory of the conversation and found it wanting.

The Flynn case should be of particular concern to civil libertarians because it shows how NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s warning of a “turnkey tyranny” could work, with the Surveillance State monitoring phone calls and then finding flimsy legal excuses to justify an FBI probe – in Flynn’s case the never-tested-in-court 1799 Logan Act was used – and then manufacturing the crime of lying to the FBI if a person’s memory doesn’t match with the NSA transcript.

For Flynn, who was on vacation in the Dominican Republic when Kislyak called and thus didn’t have his usual support network with him, the immediate penalty for lacking total recall of the conversation was to lose his job. But there is still pressure for him to be prosecuted.

Similar demands have come from Democrats who want Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign and face prosecution for perjury over his clumsy answer to a question about the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia to which Sessions claimed he had not met with Russians (although it turned out he had two conversations with Kislyak, one a group meeting with several ambassadors at the Republican National Convention and the other in his Capitol Hill office with aides present.

Again, there is no evidence that Sessions conspired with Kislyak on any plans to have the Russians undercut Hillary Clinton’s campaign, an unlikely possibility in either of the two settings. But Sessions is under fire for lying about the seemingly innocuous meetings – and there are demands that the Sessions-Kislyak contacts be investigated, too. In this Russia case, the absence of evidence appears not to be evidence for the absence of a special prosecutor.

On “Meet the Press” on Sunday, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also said he was unaware of evidence that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russians.

Moderator Chuck Todd asked, “Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?”

Clapper: “We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.”

Todd: “I understand that. But does it exist?”

Clapper: “Not to my knowledge. … at the time [of the report in early January], we had no evidence of such collusion.”

Bill Clinton Echoes

In many ways, what is happening now to Trump reminds me of the situation in 1992-93 at the start of Bill Clinton’s presidency when Republicans were furious that they had lost the White House after 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. They considered Clinton an unworthy interloper and sought to cripple his presidency from the outset by pursuing one investigation after another.

President Bill Clinton, First Lady Hillary Clinton and daughter Chelsea parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1997. (White House photo)

During the campaign, President Bush and his team even suggested that the Arkansas governor may have been a KGB mole because of a student trip to Moscow in 1970. The idea was to portray the trip to the Soviet Union as prima facie evidence of Clinton’s disloyalty even though there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton.

Back then, Bill Clinton countered that smear by accusing the elder President Bush of stooping to the tactics of Sen. Joe McCarthy, the infamous Red-baiter from the 1950s. But today’s Democrats apparently feel little shame in whipping up an anti-Russian hysteria and then using it to discredit Trump, who – like Bill Clinton in 1992 – is being forced to fend off vague accusations that he is some kind of Manchurian candidate.

However, unlike Bill Clinton who seemed able to “compartmentalize” between governing as president and sparring with Republicans over their unending accusations, Trump lashed out in a flurry of Twitter messages accusing President Obama of wiretapping phones at Trump Tower.

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory,” Trump said. “Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Trump added: “This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

In making this extraordinary charge against his predecessor, Trump offered no evidence to back it up, leaving the impression that he may have gleaned this information from the right-wing Breitbart News web site which published an article summarizing claims by conservative radio talk show hosts. Trump and White House officials then called for an investigation into Obama’s alleged wiretapping.

Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis responded with a statement of dubious veracity, saying: “neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” However, Obama did more than surveil at least one U.S. citizen; he had an American Al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki not just put under surveillance but killed by a drone attack in 2011 in Yemen.

Reacting to all these crazy exchanges, a Wall Street Journal editorial even managed to make some sense. Entitled “Washington Goes Nuts,” the editorial said:

“What the country desperately needs are some grown-ups to intervene, discover the facts, and then lay them out to the American people,” both regarding any untoward contacts between Russian officials and Trump’s advisers and whether the Obama administration crossed any lines in its zeal to nail Trump’s team over Russia.

The Journal’s editors expressed hopes the congressional intelligence committees could step up and perform this function. But the problem with the Journal’s idea is that it will be hard, if not impossible, to find the requisite “adults” in Official Washington where traditional standards of evidence and fair play have long since disappeared.

Posted in USAComments Off on Official Washington Tips into Madness



Image result for SAUDI KING CARTOON

By Dr. James Sears

DELIVERED BY CANADA POST (BANNED!) TO 305,000 HOMES, BUSINESSES, AND APARTMENTS, WITH A READERSHIP OF OVER ONE MILLION. HOUSE OF SAUD: MEN OF GOD OR RELIGIOUS FRAUD? CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE… The House of Saud adopted “Wahhabism”, a puritanical form of Islam, after the son of Muhammad ibn Saud married the daughter of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab in 1744. Their history is marked by a desire to spread Wahhabism and unify the Arabian Peninsula, most recently by committing war crimes in Yemen.

But notice how Saudi Zio-Wahhabi regime always supports ‘Israel’ against other “Arab” nations? How they fund terrorism worldwide without suffering repercussions? How ‘Israel’ and America never criticize Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading human rights violator? How Saudi agents openly helped ‘Israel’ and the CIA on 9-11, yet the Zio-Nazi controlled mainstream media turned a blind eye? On September 17, 1969, Zio-Wahhabi King Faisal Al-Saud told the Washington Post, “We the Saudi family, are cousins of the Jews. We entirely disagree with any Arab or Muslim Authority which shows any antagonism to the Jews; but we must live together with them in peace.”

An example of how much the House of Saud loves Jews is found in 1922 when Sheikh Faisal Al Darweesh criticized Saudi King Abdul Aziz Al-Saud for signing a document giving Palestine to the Jews. The King killed the Sheikh and used his blood as an ablution liquid before he stood up for his prayer. So why does the murderous House of Saud love Jews so much, and how did these psychopaths ever come to control the Arabian Peninsula?

Regular readers of Your Ward News know things are never what they seem. There is good reason for the Saudis’ love of Jews and their Nazi-like immunity from all criticism and prosecution, which I will explain as we take a historical journey down the Saudi rabbit hole of murder and intrigue … In 1447 A.D. men from Al Masaleekh clan, a branch of Anza tribe, formed a caravan to buy cereal and other food from Basra, Iraq, and transport it back to Najd (middle of present-day Saudi Arabia). In Basra they met Jewish cereal merchant Mordakhai Bin Ibrahim Bin Moshe. During bargaining the Jew asked “Where are you from?” They said “Anza tribe, Al Masaleekh clan.” The Jew started hugging them and fabricated a story that he too was from Al Masaleekh clan, but had come to Basra, Iraq, after his father had a family feud with some Anza tribe members.

The Jew loaded the clan’s camels with wheat, dates, etc., a gesture of generosity which clouded the clan’s judgement so much that they agreed to take the Jew back to Najd, where he began a propaganda campaign to gain supporters. But he was opposed by Sheikh Saleh Salman Abdulla Al Tamini, a Muslim religious leader in Al-Qaseem. The Sheikh’s huge preaching area of Najd, Yemen, and Hijaz, impressed the Jew so much that the Jew travelled from Al-Qaseem to Al-Ihsa, and changed his name to Markhan Bin Ibrahim Musa. The Jew settled down in Dir’iya near Al-Qateef, where he spread a fabricated story that an Arab Pagan took Prophet Mohammad’s shield as booty at the battle of Ohod between Arab pagans and Muslims, and sold it to a Jewish Clan called Banu Qunaiqa’ who preserved it as a treasure!

The Jew gradually enhanced his position amongst the Bedouins through such stories about Jewish clans in Arabia being influential and deserving high esteem. He made Dir’iya his capital and a springboard to establish a Jewish Kingdom in Arabia. To fulfill his ambitious scheme he approached the Bedouins for support, and gradually declared himself their King! The Ajaman and Banu Khaled tribes verified his Jewish identity and tried to stop him. They attacked and conquered his town, but the Jew evaded them and sought shelter in a farm at Al-Malibeed-Ghusaiba near Al-Arid, the present-day capital of Saudi Arabia, Al-Riyadh.

The farmer took pity on the Jew and granted him asylum, but a month later the Jew murdered the farmer and his family then claimed he bought their real estate BEFORE an “invading band of thieves” murdered them! He renamed the stolen land Al-Diriya, the same name as the town he lost. He established Madaffa Guesthouse, gathering followers to help him spread false propaganda that he was a prominent Arab Sheikh. He had his enemy Sheikh Saleh Salman Abdulla Al Tamimi assassinated in the mosque at Al-Zalafi. He now felt safe to make Al-Diriya his permanent home. He practiced wide scale polygamy, begot many children given pure Arab names, growing into the powerful Saudi clan. They illegally seized rural sectors and farm lands, murdering everyone opposing them.

They assassinated prominent Arab tribal leaders under the pretence the leaders were Islamic apostates that deserted the Koran. In “History Book of the Saudi Family” their private family historian states … “The Saudi dynasty considers all the people of Najd blasphemous; so their blood must be shed, their properties confiscated, and their females be taken as concubines; no Muslim is authentic in his/her belief unless he/she belongs to the sect of MOHAMMAD BIN ABDUL WAHAB. His doctrines give authority to the Saudi family to destroy the villages with all their inhabitants–males including children, and to sexually assault their women; stab the bellies of the pregnant, and cut off the hands of their children, then burn them! They are further authorized by such a brutal doctrine to plunder all the properties of whom they call renegades (not following their Wahabi Sect).”

The House of Saud bribed dissidents, offered their women and money to influential people, and bribed historians to purify their heinous past. For example, Mohammad Amin Al Tamimi, Director of The Contemporary Libraries of the Saudi Kingdom, fabricated a family tree, falsely connecting the Jewish Saudi family to Prophet Mohammad! For concocting that fiction, believed to this day, in 1943 Al Tamimi received 35,000 Egyptian pounds from the then Saudi ambassador to Egypt, Ibrahim Al-Fade


Shoah’s pages