The Saudi political and military collaboration with the West has come to be widely accepted since the Gulf crisis of 1990. At the ‘invitation’ of the Gulf Arab rulers, notably the Saudi, the military forces of the kuffar occupied the Arabian Peninsula, ostensibly, in order to prosecute their war against Iraq; thereafter, having destroyed that country’s civil as well as military structures, they continue to have a very large and powerful military presence in the Gulf countries. This is done with much less publicity than during the Gulf war but with not much effort at concealment. The policy of non-concealment also has its purposes apart from its effect of proving the Gulf regimes helpless, it makes them vulnerable to the discontent of their own people which in turn makes them more dependent upon the Western presence.
The situation is not very different from the protection rackets run by the mafia: the Gulf Arab regimes are required, in exchange for ‘protection’, to spend huge sums of money on the purchase of arms and other equipment’s (which, if the Arabs could use them effectively would not be sold to them) and other back-up services, which returns the petrodollars to the West and keeps the Western military industry well-enough supplied with funds to go on producing new kinds and grades of weapons which their victims cannot match. It is a vicious circle in every sense.
The ambition to dominate the Arabian Peninsula is not a new one. The goal has its roots in the missionary activities which were initiated in the Gulf towards the end of the 19th century. Samuel Zwemer, the American Christian who established the first mission in the area as long ago as 1889, founded many schools and churches in the coastal townships. Zwemer is explicit in his understanding of the situation at that time. The Christian missionaries are to consider themselves as the allies of the Jews in their hope and plans for the creation of a Jewish homeland in the region. Zwemer justifies this on the grounds that the region had ‘belonged’ to Christ: before Islam came to dominate, there had been Christian communities in the Peninsula (in Najrân) and, similarly, Jewish communities (in Yath rib [Madînah], Khaybar, etc.). Western powers had the right, in his view, to bring the region ‘back’ to its former religious affiliations.
An American Orientalist, John Kelly, who served as adviser to the President of the United Arab Emirates, advocates the reoccupation of the Gulf area by Western powers to reverse or replace the withdrawal of the British Empire east of Suez. The primary motivation may be to control the oil reserves of the region, but missionary ambitions (religious and cultural), and, most important of all, control of the peoples and of the Islamic revival in the area, are a part of the strategic commitment. The heartlands of Islam, the direction of daily prayers for millions of Muslims and the focus of the annual pilgrimage to the holy cities of Makkah and Madînah, could, if managed for the sake of the Muslim Ummah, unify and organise the efforts and resources of all the disparate Islamic revival movements world-wide. The political potential of this region is therefore immense and the Western powers are only too well aware of this.
As noted above, it is a matter of open knowledge that the Americans and the British have permanent military bases in each of the countries of the Gulf except Yemen. Kuwait, Bahrain, the Emirates, Oman, Qatar, each have at least one significant American military installation. Saudi Arabia is host, to several military bases which are huge complexes cut off from the rest of the country and run quite independently of it.
Who is responsible for the presence of the kuffâr in the holy lands of Islam? Evidently, those who invited them, the rulers of these countries, and the Saudi ‘religious scholars’ who authorised their invitation. The authorisation was given publicly in a formal document called the Makkah Document on the 10th October, 1990. The argument of these ‘scholars’ was based mainly on an appeal to necessity whereby that which is nominally forbidden may be temporarily permitted, or whereby one may be temporarily excused from doing what is normally obligatory. The argument of necessity is plainly meaningless or unprincipled if the temporary allowance becomes permanent. But leaving that aside, let us look closely at the argument of necessity as it was used in this case. The necessity in question was, of course, the threat of invasion and war from Iraq under Saddam Hussain.
We can begin by asking: who convinced the Saudi-Wahhâbîs that this threat existed? Of course, the Americans. They claim to have shown the Saudi authorities secret pictures of Iraqi troop movements, taken by secretly operated satellites, pictures whose interpretation requires very specialised training which is also secret. In short, the Saudis took the American’s word for it: they did what they were told. In fact, there is no evidence of any immediate threat to Saudi Arabia. The movement for the Iraqis to invade Saudi Arabia, had they had any intention of doing so, would have been immediately after the occupation of Kuwait, or, at the least, well before the ‘allies’ had time to establish themselves in that country. In the end – surely a unique event in military history – the Americans enjoyed six full months of a totally unopposed landing. Even assuming criminal intention on the part of Saddam Hussain (not a difficult assumption to make), one would have supposed that he must quickly attack and occupy the oil-fields in the northeast of Saudi Arabia, a perfectly realistic option in the first month of the crisis, and hold them in order to bargain for Kuwait. But the Iraqis made no such move.
We begin by noting, therefore, that the necessity to which the Saudi ‘scholars’ appealed was not correctly judged: they had only the word of the kuffâr that any such necessity existed. But let us allow that this was an error of judgement on their part, not a wilful attempt to legitimise the demolition and total subjugation of the Middle east and Arabian peninsula to the forces of kufr. Let us allow that they had no wish to help the enemies of Islam kill huge numbers of Muslims by long-range air and missile bombardment, to so thoroughly destroy the roads, bridges and utilities of Iraq as to cause many hundreds of thousands of deaths for years to come. Let us allow that they did not foresee or wish any of this to happen. They saw it as a necessity that Saudi Arabia should be defended. Very well. But events have unfolded. We know what did happen, what was done to the Muslims of the region. The whole world knows. Have the Saudis expressed some sorrow or regret for the loss of so many human lives? Have they no cause to un-wish what they did? Evidently not, for these traitors have remained quite silent on the sufferings of the Muslim people of the land; nor, now that the necessity exists no more, have they had anything to say on the continuing military presence of the Americans, the British and the French in Arabia and elsewhere.
Yet, even if we accord to these ‘scholars’ the best of motives for what they did, it cannot make what they did right. They are obliged, insofar as they are Muslim scholars, to give advice and judgement according to the Qur’ân and Sunnah. They did not do so. Their judgement was false judgement, a grave surrender of their responsibility in favour of a slavish submission to what the Saudi government needed; certainly, their silence about it ever since is an unqualified evil.
NOTE: The forerunners of Dajjâl have exhausted every avenue in their rabid obsession to destroy Islam, either directly through military and economic coercion or indirectly using ideological warfare. They have divided and conquered, instilling diseases such as nationalism and racism into the heart of the Ummah. Their greatest fear is Muslim unity and revival of the message brought by the last Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to mankind, and everything they do is geared to prevent this. They have manipulated Muslims, setting up and promoting divides. What they have used most to keep the Muslims at bay is … oil .
During World War One, the Western governments, taking advantage of the degeneration that had set in, managed to destroy the Islamic (Ottoman) Khalîfate and annexed all its territories. The part now called Iraq was put to British mandate and current borders were defined by them. After its independence the United States of America took over interest in Iraq. In fear of an Islamic uprising the CIA aided the Ba‘th parties rise to power, making Saddam Husein the leader of Iraq and an ally of the Western states. Ostensibly, when Kuwait started raising its oil prices it was claimed to be destroying the war-torn economy of Iraq. Threats were made but ignored. The situation worsened until, finally, Iraqi troops were mobilised to the border. Western media portrayed this as a shock and an outrage. However, it is reported that the US ambassador to Kuwait had prior knowledge of the invasion and Iraq’s intentions as did the CIA. After the Gulf War Saddam Husein is still alive and Kuwait has been liberated. It remains to be asked: What purpose did the Gulf War serve to its Western orchestrators?
The West has long realised that the control of oil is vital to their economies. One of the frequently heard reasons is their reliance on cars and road transport. However, although technology exists to mass-produce fully operational electric cars, all attempts to do so have been vetoed. This is because oil is crucial to maintaining their world order. Without the wealth from oil, Muslim economies would fall, and without the puppet governments and leaders, such as the Saudi-Wahhâbîs and Saddam Husain, the West would not be able to control Muslim nations. Without the division of wealth and false leadership of these nations nothing would prevent the Islamic movements from coming to power. Poverty creates unity, and Muslim unity is the greatest fear of the West.
The Gulf War served many purposes: to promote Western unity; to create further division amongst the Muslim nation states; to act as a testing ground for an entire arsenal of military weapons and cocktails of chemicals and drugs … but most of all, it served to ensure a strong Western military presence in the Middle East. Dajjâl has placed a strong hold in the very heart of Islâm itself and laid a firm grip on the Muslim Holy Lands. It is unfortunate and ignominious indeed that fate ordained that the Saudis be his insidious collaborators.
But although they plan, Allâh also plans, and Allâh is the best of planners.
The nature of the alliance between the kuffâr of the West and the rulers of Saudi Arabia has three defining characteristics. Let us now examine these characteristics in the light of the Qur’ân and Sunnah:
1) that the alliance constitutes a joining of forces between the kuffâr and the Munâfiqûn, the unbelievers and the hypocrites. The Munâfiqûn are those who pretend to rule according to Islam but in reality have an alliance with the kuffâr by which they are maintained in prestige, power and privilege. It is an historical fact that the power of the Saudi royal family was established by the British who paid King ‘Abd ul-‘Azîz a regular salary and surrounded him with ‘advisers and helpers’, more notably the notorious British spy, John Philby. Such an alliance and collaboration is indicated in the Qur’ân:
‘Convey to the hypocrites the news that for them there is a painful doom – those who choose unbelievers for their allies instead of believers ! Do they seek Power at their hands when surely all power belongs to Allah?’ (Qur’ân, an-Nisâ’, 4:138-9)
2) that their relationship is not one of equals but of master and servant. The psychology of willing servitude to human masters is such that, inevitably, the servants do more to ingratiate themselves with their masters, more even than is asked, becoming ever more eager to please. In the end, they not only betray their religion, their nation, but little by little acquire the habit of vilifying both religion and nation by word and deed, and lose all sense of judgement and decency until, in the case of the Saudi princes and princesses, they have become the source of contempt in the world.
3) that there is a powerful tendency for the wrong-doers and the corrupt to be attracted to one another so that they flock supporting each other in their wrong-doing and corruption. This condition is described in the Qur’ân :
‘Now We have set you on a clear road of religion, so follow it, and do not follow the desires of those who do not know. Surely they will be of no use to you in the sight of Allah; and surely the wrongdoers, they are allies of each other, whereas Allah is the ally of those who have taqwâ.’ (Qur’ân, al-Jâthiyah, 45:18-19)
The corruption of the rulers of Saudi Arabia has four major attributes :
A] Firstly, their rule is dynastic They have appointed for themselves the worst of advisors and they go far beyond any other regime in favouring members of their own family. The injustice and illegitimacy of their government is such that they can trust no one else and so are obliged to trust the least trustworthy in their kingdom themselves. The Gulf States were the only countries where it was considered unremarkable that all senior and junior ministers should have the same surname. The purpose of this favouritism is not to exploit the special talents or patriotism of a particular family, but simply to retain all wealth and power of patronage within one group, like a family business. The Western powers, having engineered this situation, are, naturally, very content with it. It enables them to control, through the privileged family, the wealth and resources of the whole nation. The tyranny of the Saudis is described in the West as a force for moderation and stability. But anyone who has lived there knows that the Saudi government is a hukm al-Jâhiliyyah; it is very far removed indeed from having any Islamic character.
B] Secondly, there is no sh’urah or consultation in the Saudi government, nor any justice. Their rule is based on strict policing and coercion, on massive bribery, and on the ‘protection’ of kuffâr interests. Violation of even minimal human rights is widespread. A case in point was the recent expulsion of more than 600,000 Yamanis for no fault of their own, but simply because the Yamani government had refused to support the kuffâr in their war against Iraq.
C] Thirdly, the Saudis have consistently followed the policies, both domestic and foreign, dictated to them by the Americans, even when these policies are obviously anti-Islamic. For example, the Saudis gave support to Islamic movements when these were judged by the Americans to weaken the forces of Arab nationalism. Then, when the Americans judged that the danger to their interests was from the Islamic movements, the Saudi switched their support to the Arab nationalists, now regarded as ‘moderates’. This is precisely what has happened in Algeria. Again, in Sudan, now that the Islamic movement has become established there, the Saudi have been instructed to support the animist/Christian rebels in the south of that country against the Muslims, and they are doing so. Similarly, as the battle lines become clearer, the Saudi have been advised to give visible support to the cause of ‘peace in the region’ which is a euphemism for supporting the Israelis who, able to cope with Arabs fighting as nationalists, are unable to cope with the resistance of Arabs fighting as Muslims.
Finally, we cannot but charge the Saudi rulers with ingratitude to Allah, which is a stage in kufr. For Allah has given them enormous wealth, and the power and influence that go with it, to use on behalf of the Muslims in the region and to use for the betterment of the world at large. Their attitude is quite the contrary. The terrible fate which awaits such rulers and their helpers is assured by Allah in His Book in the following verses :
‘Allah coins this analogy: a township (community) enjoying security and stability, its provision reaching to it abundantly and from every side, but ungrateful for Allah’s favours, so Allah made them taste of hunger and of fear because of (the evil of ) what they had been doing.’ (Qur’ân, an-Nahl, 16:112)
‘And when We decide to destroy a township (ie. community) We send a definite order to its people who live luxuriously, but they (persist in) living immorally therein, and so the word (i.e. promise of destruction) is proved against them, and We destroy them utterly. ’ (Qur’ân, al-Isrâ’, 17:16) ‘
Do they think that, because We have provided them with wealth and sons, We hasten to them with good things? No, but they do not perceive.’ (Qur’an, al-Mu’minûn, 23:55-6)
‘Then, when they forgot that of which they had been reminded, We opened to them the gates of all (good) things until, in the midst of their enjoyment of Our gifts, We seized them suddenly, and they were plunged into despair. Thus, of the wrongdoers, were the last remnants cut off (ie. destroyed).’ (Qur’ân, al-An‘âm, 6:44-5)