West finally needs to admit all
radical roads lead back to Saudi Arabia
David McWilliams 23/03/2016 Irish Independent
Yesterday,
few places felt more vulnerable than the Central Line, as I sat
with my son, deep under London's streets. The train stopped
suddenly around Queensway and we both looked at each other, indeed
everyone looked at each other. No one needed to say anything;
everyone understood what everyone else was thinking. This is what
terrorism does, it terrorises; and, if not quite terrorise, it puts
doubts in your head where there weren't any before. That's
enough.
London is full of mosques, the vast majority
of them frequented by people who have no truck with those who
murdered so callously in Brussels, but some people who go to some
mosques obviously do. This is the only conclusion that you can
draw.
Young men and young women become radicalised
because someone else teaches them. It doesn't happen on its own.
People who once were happy to be barmen don't turn into soldiers of
Allah overnight. It is a process.
If you talk to Muslims, particularly older
ones, they will tell you that this process of radicalisation is
relatively new. It is the product of the past 30 or 40 years. If
this is the case, what has happened? What has happened is that
after the revolution in Iran in 1979, the West decided that Iran
was the enemy and that our new best friend, Saudi Arabia could do
no wrong. Saudi Arabia was the strong counterbalance to Iran in the
Middle East and, therefore, anything it did was
sanctioned.
We looked the other way, so much that we
didn't even bother to understand the extreme form of Islam that
Saudi Arabia practised and, worse still, fomented
abroad.
Saudi Arabia practises Wahhabism. If you want
to understand the region, it's critical to understand this strain
of Islam that is preferred by - and exported by - Saudi
Arabia.
You can't understand Isil and those people
that carried out yesterday's attacks without understanding Saudi
Arabia's role in all of this. What drives Isil to blow up ancient
Roman, Persian and Buddhist monuments is rooted in Wahhabism. Nor
can you understand what perverted logic drives them to kill
innocents without learning about this type of strict
Islam.
It all begins a long time ago.
Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab was born not far
from Riyadh in 1703. He trained as a holy man and was, like many
religious people, constantly torn between a purist adherence to the
original scriptures and a more tolerant accommodation of the word
of God leavened with the reality of day-to-day living. This schism
is not unusual. The fight between puritanism and pragmatism is,
after all, at the heart of the great split in the western Christian
Church too - what we called the Reformation.
Al Wahhab called for the purification of Islam
and a return to pristine Islam. When the young Imam called for the
beheading of women in his local town for adultery, the people knew
this guy meant business. However, it is likely that this form of
extremism wouldn't have caught on in what was, by the standards of
the time, a reasonably tolerant place had it not been for local
insurrection against the unpopular Ottoman Empire which ran the
Arabian Peninsula and taxed the locals mercilessly.
Possibly, in an effort to get God on his side
in his fight against Istanbul, the local leader of a small oasis,
Mohammad ibn Saud, threw his lot in with the renegade preacher, Al
Wahhab, in 1745. The link between the House of Saud and Wahhabi was
forged there and then; and they have been allies ever
since.
At the time, Islam, like lots of religions,
was a concoction of bits of other religions, beliefs and practices.
These had been borrowed and customised along the way. Remember,
this part of the world was the crucible of civilisation, the
epicentre of the world's great trading routes and a place where the
three main monotheist religions - Christianity, Judaism and Islam -
had been founded; Judaism and Christianity literally a few yards
from each other, Islam a few hundred miles down the
road.
Al Wahhab objected to this evolutionary,
almost 'hand-me-down' approach to Islam. As a purist, he wanted to
go back to basics, to make pristine the religion. Possibly the most
important tenet of Wahhabis is that they believe in what they call
"the oneness of God". As a result, association with lesser gods,
other gods, mysticism, shrines, temples, saints or holy men amounts
to idolatry and must be stamped out.
This put Wahhabis on a collision course with
the other strains of Islam, such as Shi'as or, even worse in the
eyes of the Wahhabis, Sufism. Shi'as and Sufis were the enemy
within and, of course, Judaism and Christianity were the enemies at
the door. Wahhabis called for jihad against all these
infidels.
For a century, the march, and reach, of the
Wahhabis was limited to the Arabian Peninsula. Then the game
changed, Saudi Arabia struck oil and the politics of the region
altered forever, so too did geo-politics and Western economic
expedience. Once the Saudis discovered oil, the West snuggled up to
Riyadh, no questions asked.
Now the most extreme form of Islam was wedded
to the richest country on earth and the Saudis have set about
exporting not just oil, but a radical, intolerant form of Islam
which drives Isil and various other jihadi groups. Saudi Arabia has
spent some of its vast oil wealth on financing madrassas from
Malaysia to Manchester - some of which are projecting Wahhabi ideas
far from the Gulf.
Isil, with its murder of innocents, its
desecration of ancient monuments and its subjugation of women, is
the latest incarnation of extreme Wahhabism, and Saudi Arabia - the
West's biggest ally in the region - is Isil's biggest external
financier. It costs money to wage war and Isil gets money from oil,
local racketeering, hostage-taking and external private donations.
The private donations come from donors, many of whom are
Saudi.
When you follow the money, all radical roads
lead back to Saudi Arabia, not states that are supposedly the
West's enemies such as Libya, Iraq or even Assad's
Syria.
The majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Bin Laden,
his al-Qa'ida chief lieutenants and all five regional Isil
commanders in Syria and Iraq are Saudis. Each of these extremist
organisations are the 21st century offspring of Muhammad ibn Abd al
Wahhab, the cleric who came out of the desert in the 1730s and the
institution he allied with in 1745: the House of Saud.
The sooner the West admits this, the
better.