Planting the Seeds of Your Own Destruction

A&E's Biography: "The Saudi Royal Family" presents an often overlooked (at least by those who don't know enough to look) ideological linkage between the Saudi Royal Family and Islamic terrorism.

The episode presents the story of Ibn Saud, the founder of the Saudi Arabian state, and the man credited by some as the ultimate founder of Wahhabi Islam, the denomination of Islam that Muslim militants most often subscribe to.

If one accepts this to be true -- the matter is not nearly so simple in reality, but if one does -- then it stands to reason that Ibn Saud may have planted the seeds of his dynasty's own destruction.

Social theorizing on terrorism generally shares the conclusion that terrorism is rarely meant on its direct victims.

According to the crimonological perspective on terrorism, terrorism is a form of coercive social control, wherein those with little social, economic or social influence seek to enforce their values on their society.

In the case of Muslim terrorism, and particularly Osama bin Laden, many speculate that the true target of that terrorism is not actually the western world, but rather the Saudi Royal Family. The idea, clearly, is that if muslim terrorists can inflict great harm on the Royal Family's most powerful allies -- as they did on 9/11, that the House of Saud would fear what terrorists could do to them.

The years of opulant and leisurely lifestyle led by the House of Saud and their political alliances with western countries -- as well as the presence of foreign troops on Saudi soil, particularly too close to holy sites -- has led Wahhabi Muslims to see the House of Saud, from which their religious ideology is believed by some to have originated, as an enemy of their religion.

One can only wonder if, had he known what the future would hold, Ibn Saud would have done anything differently.

Predictably, Speech Not So Free in Saudi Arabia

Saudi blogger arrested for "non-security regulations"

In a move some surmise is intended to intimidate Saudi bloggers, Saudi police arrested Fouad Al-Farhan for writing about political prisoners in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Farhan may have been deliberately targeted not only for this reason, but because he was also organizing gatherings of Saudi political bloggers. And everyone knows what authoritarian regimes think of gatherings of political dissidents.

He may also have been vulnerable on account of using his real name.

Clearly, all bloggers have a stake in the suppression of freedom of the electronic press. Although I personally try not to get caught up in every other blog-related cause, I do encourage all political bloggers of all political stripes to throw their support firmly behind Fouad Al-Farhan, and remind Saudi Arabia that the eyes of the world are watching.

As-Salamu Alakyum

Western Muslims need to provide a beacon for radical Islam

A Saudi Arabian court recently added injury to, well, injury when it sentenced a 19-year-old rape victim to 200 lashes and six months in prison for "being in [a} car with an unrelated male at the time of the [gang] rape".

By contrast, her six armed attackers were merely sentenced to prison.

Predictably, this has provoked a wide range of outrage. But none is more profound than that expressed by Vancouver's Jiti Khanna, who protested the treatment of the young woman in a letter to The National Post:

"The whipping and jailing of a 19-year-old women for being "in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the [gang] rape" shows, once again, the inherent discrimination and violence against women contained within Shariah law. Saudi Arabia practises a specially puritan form of Islam that it has exported worldwide through its funding of mosques and training of mosque leaders. Furthermore, every year Shariah attitudes are reinforced in millions of Muslims when they go on the prescribed Hajj pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. To prevent such practices from finding resonance in Western Muslims, we must express our abhorrence and ask Saudi Arabia to re-form its Islamic practices.

We should also ask Western Muslims to loudly denounce such examples of Shariahbased discrimination and violence against women."

Amen.

While many in the Western world look upon Islam with a great deal of (arguably well-justified) concern -- or sometimes outright hostility -- it's important to remember that a Westernized, moderate brand of Islam could prove to be a light upon the Muslim world.

People like Jiti Khanna serve as a reminder of this.

Nor is she alone. For a distinctly Western brand of Islam to emerge, people like Irshad Manji will have to continue to challenge Islam, and movements such as the Dawoodi Bohras will have to step up its efforts to engrain progressive values within Islam.

Of course, a westernized, progressive Islam will only emerge through open and honest debate. As such, Muslim conservative movements will need to have an opportunity to have their say, as well.

As for the rest of us, we'll need to provide this modernized brand of Islam room to grow. As such, it will fall to ordinary non-Muslims to protect Muslims from unreasonable discrimination. People like Jiti Khanna need to be given room to advance their cause, and people like Robert Spencer cannot be allowed to cynically denounce Islam into a rhetorical vacuum.

In the meantime, peace be upon you, Jiti Khanna. You're a credit to your faith.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

The Kingdom reveals the difficulties of winning "hearts and minds" even amongst our supposed allies

Saudi Arabia is officially considered an ally of the United States -- one of the few in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, as Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) discovers the hard way in The Kingdom, the official stance of a state doesn't necessarily reflect the sentiments of its people. Perhaps there is no better case study for this in the world today than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Kingdom opens with a brief history lesson in Saudi/American relations. In short: Saudi Arabia is established, oil is discovered, westerners are allowed to develop Saudi Arabia's oil reserves, OPEC, Gulf War, Osama bin Laden spurned by the Saudi royals in favour of the United States, 9/11.

Then, the film gets right down to business, as Saudi terrorists launch a brutal and merciless attack on a foreign housing bloc, where western oil companies accomodate their employees.

With the attack leaving well in excess of 100 people dead, Fleury (Fox) deploys an FBI investigative team to Rhiyadh, consisting of Grant Sykes (Chris Cooper), Janet Mayes (Jennifer Garner) and Adam Leavitt (Jason Bateman). Although they are placed under severe restrictions by their Saudi hosts, they manage to determine who planned the attacks, and essentially get the bad guys.

When worse comes to worst, however, Fleury and his team discover that while the Saudi state may be willing to accomodate them given the proper prodding (read: blackmail), the Saudi people (predominantly Wahabi muslims) really don't like them much, to the extent that Saudi men are prepared to cross-dress if it will give them an opportunity to kill them.

In the end, it all comes down to hearts and minds. While they manage to win the heart and mind of their Saudi bodyguard (read: babysitter), Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhorn), the families of the terrorists killed in the wake of their pursuit of justice certainly aren't so convinced.

Then again, they weren't convinced to begin with, and not likely to be.

The aforementioned (in a previous post) criminological perspective on terrorism often espouses the winning of hearts and minds as a measure of prevention in regards to terrorism.

Often, the programs of prevention suggested embody generous foreign aid programs. The idea is rather simple: if we placate the state while feeding the country's hungry and helping its sick, we can give them an incentive not to attack us. In a sense, it becomes a gentler form of coercion, whereby we can inflict great suffering on their oft-impoverished people by withdrawing that aid in the event of an attack.

Admittedly, this may not apply to Saudi Arabia as much as it applies to other Muslim countries.

Regardless, thinking such as this actually hits a very unpleasant dead-end.

It has recently been estimated that only 10-15% of Muslims actively support Jihad. This 10-15% conceptualizes the suffering of impoverished Muslims (actually, Muslims in general) than mere starvation or sickness.

In the case of Osama Bin Laden, his primary stated goal is to reestablish the Caliphate -- the spiritual post of leadership of all Muslims. As such, Bin Laden regards the association between Saudi Arabia and the United States, in particular, as a form of suffering worse than any worldly suffering any Muslim could endure. He regards it as collusion with ungodliness, and thus living in the absense of Allah's influence, and defiance of (in Bin Laden's mind) his word.

As such, no measure of material aid to Saudi Arabia, or any other Muslim country, could ever convince Bin Laden that the potential benefit (or, conversely, expense) to his people would justify the cessation of hostilities. He believes he's fighting for the welfare of his people in the next life, if not in this one.

As is the case with the perpetrators of the attack in the film.

The Kingdom offers a very profound and satisfying ending.

Unfortunately, this ending falls short in one regard: it tries to portray terrorists and those who pursue them as all too similar in regards to their motives. Simply put, it's suggested that both sides simply desire revenge, and this eternal mutual death struggle merely amounts to a form of post-cold-war MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine.

Of course, there is a difference.

Terrorists, by the virtue of the very tactics they choose, at least make their targets appear to be as random as possible. The polar opposite is what's actually true. In fact, because terrorism is never really aimed at its victims, the idea is to choose victims that are as symbolic as possible, so as to convey a message in support of that terrorist's goal.

The ultimate idea is to actually choose targets as carefully and intricately as possible, while still making it appear as if absolutely anyone can become a target.

Fear is a weapon not unlike any other: it must be aimed if it's to have its desired effect.

On the other hand, counter-terrorist operatives don't have the luxury of making their targets appear indiscriminate. They have a very specific set of targets to pursue. Although their activities may often cause the deaths of innocent civilians (something we all too often simply brush aside as "collateral damage"), those they pursue are themselves the perpetrators of militancy.

Aside from this particular conceptual snag, however, The Kingdom offers a very profound message. Think of it as Syriana without George Clooney's conspiracy theories.