What's new

Saudi donors most signifcant source of terrorism funding in Pakistan

DAWN

ISLAMABAD: Federal Minister for Inter-provincial Coordination (IPC) Riaz Hussain Pirzada has accused the Saudi government of creating instability across the Muslim world, including Pakistan, through distribution of money for promoting its ideology.

Addressing a two-day 'Ideas Conclave' organised by the "Jinnah Institute" think tank in Islamabad, the federal minister said 'the time has come to stop the influx of Saudi money into Pakistan'.


He also blasted his own government for approving military courts in the presence of an 'independent and vibrant judiciary' and said that military courts reflect 'weak and coward leadership'.
 
DAWN

ISLAMABAD: Federal Minister for Inter-provincial Coordination (IPC) Riaz Hussain Pirzada has accused the Saudi government of creating instability across the Muslim world, including Pakistan, through distribution of money for promoting its ideology.

Addressing a two-day 'Ideas Conclave' organised by the "Jinnah Institute" think tank in Islamabad, the federal minister said 'the time has come to stop the influx of Saudi money into Pakistan'.


He also blasted his own government for approving military courts in the presence of an 'independent and vibrant judiciary' and said that military courts reflect 'weak and coward leadership'.
I'm guessing he doesn't like his job anymore. :D

To effectively defeat the terrorists Military courts were necessary, though he is 100% correct on Saudi Arabia.
 
would like to see what our Pakistani members say about that.....
No way, it is not true. A Muslim will never do something like this against their brothers. It is all CIA, Mossad and RAW money funneled through the UAE, to hide their act and malign the Arabs.
 
Huffington Post
Alastair Crooke


BEIRUT -- The dramatic arrival of Da'ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed -- and horrified -- by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia's ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, "Don't the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?"

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist/Salafist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan -- please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.


THE SAUDI DUALITY
Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS
The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca."

In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times"), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).
Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life."

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.

"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

"Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. "


Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud -- in this 20th century renaissance -- were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab's and Ibn Saud's earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary "Jacobinism" exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted -- leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life -- and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

"On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism."


But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system -- hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.
As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal's modernization campaign). The "Ikhwan approach" enjoyed -- and still enjoys -- the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS' undermining of the legitimacy of the King's legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?
 
The King of Hearts
Asad Rahim Khan

The Australian musician Nick Cave, who often touches on love and death, once mused on a great man’s last rites (his own), “The motorcade will be ten miles long, the world’ll join for a farewell song … they’ll sound a flugelhorn, and the sea will rage, and the sky will storm. All man and beast will mourn. When I go.”
And so it was, if in a land far from Mr Cave’s jazz riffs: the desert sands of Riyadh. Last Friday, the world woke in panic to find Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and Leading Light of the Ummah, had passed away.

The anguish spread far and wide through Muslim lands. Particularly despairing were Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Iraq, and Syria — united only by their love for the king (and unrelated battles with terrorism).
But beyond sites of civil strife, a man is also known by his friends. George H W Bush called him a “dear friend and partner”. Israeli President Rivlin mourned that “his wise policies contributed greatly to our region and to the stability of the Middle East,” a statement that states the obvious.

Egypt’s Sisi was most earnest, “The Arab nation (has) lost a leader of its best sons.” Many noted the general’s subtle self-praise — Sisi himself was one of the king’s best sons. In bringing back the military in Cairo, the general owes much to the king. Long live his swagger stick over those Brotherhood-electing Egyptians.
And Nawaz Sharif, in agony over the King’s health, rushed to Riyadh the second time in weeks. The king had a “special place in the hearts of every Pakistani,” said Mr Sharif, and Pakistanis everywhere wept along. In the king, Mr Sharif may have seen a kindred soul: a gentle reformer with an image problem, in a land where power is shared between brothers.

The obits were, as always, unjust. They qualified the king’s reforms with feeble adjectives: the IMF called him “a discreet but strong advocate of women”. The New York Times said he “nudged” Saudi Arabia forward. And Reuters called him a “cautious” reformer.
‘Discreet’, ‘cautious’, ‘nudged’; as always, the non-Khaleeji press played it safe. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria tried the mostest — “an extraordinary figure,” he managed.
Let’s see the facts. Abdullah was crowned in 2005, but by the grace of the ailing Fahd, was running the place 10 years yore. He allowed women the vote, but forbade them from driving — a fatherly figure who knew the line between right and wrong.

Which was why justice was swift under the king. So lawful was his reign, state executioners complained they were overworked (and late in coming home to their families). A blogger was lashed 50 times, two weeks ago. And a rape victim was sentenced to 90 lashes soon after King Abdullah’s crowning.
Lo, unvarnished justice.
And with justice came accountability. When 15 schoolgirls died in a dormitory fire, because the religious police hadn’t let them escape (they weren’t appropriately dressed), the king was Significantly Upset. He went as far as sacking the head of women’s education (presumably male).

Yes, the king had his finger on the people’s pulse: even as he flew in fleets of jumbo jets, he directed that princes pay all their phone bills. He was also the first royal to be photographed visiting the shack of an impoverished Saudi citizen, such was His Majesty’s humility. No pharaoh was he: he swatted the heads of petitioners with a ‘slender’ bamboo stick, were they to attempt bowing or kissing the royal digits.

But King Abdullah was also a staunch supporter of the Bush family — the al-Sauds’ personal friends — in their crusade against Moslem terror. Following 9/11, King Abdullah famously wrote to George W., “God, in his mercy … (enables) us to transform such tragedies into great achievements.”

That great achievement proved the War on Terror: so close were their ties, the Bushies forgot 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq instead.

Yet even in a complex world, the king never forgot House Saud’s DNA: the Salafi/Wahhabi School, a doctrine rooted in warm tradition. Famous alumni (under Provost Abdullah) include the Taliban, al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, all beneficiaries of the kingdom’s vast wealth.
But many proved ungrateful. Like evil stepchildren, ISIS and al Qaeda strayed from the righteous path, and were excommunicated by the Saudi clergy. Shame on them.

Speaking of shame, Pakistan’s current leadership was equally blessed by His Majesty’s petro patronage. WikiLeaks uncovered the true extent: as of 2008, says a cable, 100 million dollar cash injections were making their way to Pakistan on a yearly basis from Saudi Arabia — for religious charities and sectarian groups in Southern Punjab. The king’s investment has since reaped rich harvests, and Southern Punjab has changed beyond recognition: an "oasis of peace" between the sects.

Forgetting the philanthropist, hard it may be, and we find Abdullah the statesman. He brought peace to tiny, troubled Bahrain, through excellent ‘military advisers’. He proposed to John ‘Waterboarder’ Brennan that terror detainees be implanted with e-chips, to track their movements via Bluetooth. It worked on horses and falcons, the king said. Brennan replied, “Horses don’t have good lawyers.”
Many laughs were had, and the USA and the KSA grew ever closer — two free nations brought together by oil, arms, and former friend Saddam Hussein.
But none of it comes close to capturing the king’s belovedness, or the universality of his admirers — from Texan tycoons to Yemeni criminals. According to Robert Lacey’s book, Osama bin Laden once told a fellow jihadi about a dream that stayed with him (Abdullah had yet to be crowned). In his dream, Bin Laden heard the sounds of celebrations and “looked over a mud wall”, to see Abdullah arriving — to the joy of cheering throngs.
“It means Abdullah will become king,” Bin Laden said. “That will be a relief to the people and make them happy. If Abdullah becomes king, then I will go back.”

Yes, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud ruled in the hearts of all: the sheikhs and the Sharifs, the Bushes and the Bin Ladens, the Israels and the Egypts.
So blinding was his light, it may be greedy to wish for more of him in the world.
 
DAWN

It is not merely the faith or oil that flows out of Saudi Arabia. The oil-rich Arab state and its neighbours are busy financing Wahabi and Salafi militants across the globe.

A recent report by the European Parliament reveals how Wahabi and Salafi groups based out of the Middle East are involved in the "support and supply of arms to rebel groups around the world." The report, released in June 2013, was commissioned by European Parliament's Directorate General for External Policies. The report warns about the Wahabi/Salafi organisations and claims that "no country in the Muslim world is safe from their operations ... as they always aim to terrorise their opponents and arouse the admiration of their supporters."
The nexus between Arab charities promoting Wahabi and Salafi traditions and the extremist Islamic movements has emerged as one of the major threats to people and governments across the globe. From Syria, Mali, Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indonesia in the East, a network of charities is funding militancy and mayhem to coerce Muslims of diverse traditions to conform to the Salafi and Wahabi traditions. The same networks have been equally destructive as they branch out of Muslim countries and attack targets in Europe and North America.

Despite the overt threats emerging from the oil-rich Arab states, governments across the globe continue to ignore the security imperative and instead are busy exploiting the oil-, and at time times, blood-soaked riches.
The European Parliament's report though is a rare exception to the rule where in the past the western governments have let the oil executives influence their foreign offices. From the United States to Great Britain, western states have gone to great lengths to ignore the Arab charities financing the radical groups, some of whom have even targeted the West with deadly consequences.

While the recent report by the European Parliament documents the financial details connecting the Arab charities with extremists elsewhere, it is certainly not the first exposition of its kind. A 2006 report by the US Department of State titled, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report - Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, reported that “Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been a major source of financing to extremist and terrorist groups over the past 25 years.” One of the WikiLeaks documents, a cable from the US Consulate in Lahore also stated that “financial support estimated at nearly 100 million USD annually was making its way to Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith clerics in the region from ‘missionary’ and ‘Islamic charitable’ organisations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ostensibly with the direct support of those governments.”

The European Parliament’s report estimates that Saudi Arabia alone has spent over $10 billion to promote Wahabism through Saudi charitable foundations. The tiny, but very rich, state of Qatar is the new entrant to the game supporting militant franchises from Libya to Syria.

The linkage between Saudi-based charitable organisations and militants began in the late 70s in Pakistan. A network of charitable organisations was setup in Pakistan to provide the front for channeling billions of dollars to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Since then the militant networks have spread globally, emerging as a major threat to international security. Charlie Wilson’s War, a book by George Crile that was made into a movie, details the Saudi-militancy nexus as well as Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban.

While ordinary citizens in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries have suffered the deadly consequences of militancy supported by the Wahabi and Salafi charitable organisations, the Saudi government had remained largely dormant. This changed in 2003 when militants attacked targets in Riyadh. Since then, the Saudi government has kept a close watch on the domestic affairs of charities, making it illegal to sponsor militancy, but the government has done precious little to curtail activities by Saudi charities abroad. In fact, evidence, as per the European Parliament’s report, suggests that Saudi and Qatar-based charities have been actively financing militants in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Mali, and Indonesia.

Pakistan has suffered tremendously over the past three decades from domestic and foreign inspired militancy. The Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and the US-backed Afghan militancy forced Pakistan into a civil war that has continued to date. The faltering Pakistani economy did not help. Successive governments have rushed to Saudi monarchs asking for loans and free oil in times of need. However, Saudi money comes bundled with Saudi propaganda and a license to convert Pakistanis to a more 'puritan', read Wahabi, version of Islam.

At the same time, the economic collapse in Pakistan forced many to find jobs abroad. Millions of Pakistanis left for the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia. While the remittances kept their families and the Pakistani government afloat, the migrant workers returned to Pakistan after being radicalised during their stay in Saudi. They became the brand ambassadors for the Saudi-inspired Wahabi flavours of Islam, thus expediting the pace of radicalisation in Pakistan.
Pakistan was equally vulnerable to foreign influences after the devastating earthquake in 2005 and floods in 2010 and 2011. The European Parliament’s report revealed that these disasters provided Saudi and other Arab charities to channel millions of dollars in aid, of which an unknown amount was used to fund militant organisations who have broadened their reach in Pakistan resulting in over 45,000 violent deaths in the past few years alone.
 
EXPRESS TRIBUNE

The government has, for the first time, admitted that close to 80 seminaries operating in Pakistan are receiving financial support to the tune of Rs300 million from several countries. The seminaries received the funds during 2013-14.

“Financial assistance for religious or sectarian purposes is discouraged as this potentially threatens to violate law and order and sectarian harmony in the country,” stated the interior ministry, responding to a question by Pakistan Peoples Party Senator Sughra Imam.

She said that she wanted to know why this is happening only in Pakistan. “Why the government is telling a lie. We lawmakers are being kept in the dark about madrassas being financed by many countries.”

This is so far a grey area, she observed, and pledged to take up this issue again in the Senate tomorrow (Friday).
Senator Tahir Mashhadi says almost all seminaries are being financed in one way or the other by someone. “Foreign funding to seminaries is very dangerous. It has triggered sectarian war in Pakistan. It [foreign funding] must be blocked on a now or never basis.”

Punjab
While the Punjab Home Department has claimed that not a single Madrassah in the province received foreign funding, documents belonging to the interior ministry and available with The Express Tribune reveal that Madrassah Jamiat-ul-Islam Sargodha was the recipient of Rs13.3 million from the Sheikh Eid Charitable Association; the money was funneled through Qatar Islamic Bank and National Bank of Pakistan. The Jamiat-ul-Islam Sargodha also received Rs25.3 million through the same banks.

On January 8, 2014, Senator Sughra Imam said, “This reply is deceiving the Parliament because it belied ground realities. I will press the government on this issue.” Senator Imam had questioned foreign funding for seminaries in May last year as well.

Sindh
The Madrassa Aisha Siddiqa Trust of Gulistan-e-Jauhar Karachi received Rs35,000 from an unknown source, the Sindh Home Department stated, while the government granted the Trust’s Director Dr Naseer Ahmad permission to receive funds from Kuwait in 2009. The home department stated that the Ahmed Jaffer Foundation and Sindhi Muslim Cooperative Housing Society Shara-e-Faisal received funding from a Gulf state. However, the department did not disclose the names of donors or the amount received.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Saudi Arabia is funding Madrassah Affan bin Usman Ahle-e-Hadis, Jamia Ashrafia Peshawar and Madrassah Taleem-ul-Quran of Mahalla Munawar Shah, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) home department revealed. Madrassah Abu Bakkar in Lower Dir received Rs3 million from Kuwait in 2014. Darul Arabia Khayl Uloom Pabbi, Uloom Islamic Daagi Tadeed, Darul Quran Mazhiruloom Akbar Pura Darul Uloom Spin Khak Pabbi and Darul Uloom Karimia also received funds from Kuwait, but the home department did not specify the amounts.

Madrassah Al Jamia Al-Arabia Taleem-ul-Quran in Lower Dir received Rs3 million from Qatar. Dar-ul-Uloom Haqqania Akora Khattak is being funded by Saudi Arabia , but the home department did not reveal the amount of funding.

The government also allowed the administration of Main Campus of the University of Science and Technology Bannu to accept financial assistance from Saudi Arabia to construct a mosque. Dr Jehandar Shah was also allowed to take funds from Saudi Arabia for the construction of new blocks at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Upper Dir in 2011 and Dr Ihsan Ali of Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan received funding for the construction of the Islamic faculty in 2012.

Balochistan
Saudi Arabia is funding Madrassah Jamia Dawarul Haq on Quetta’s Airport Road, Madrassah Arabic Darul Islamia uloom Toheed Sunnah, Madrassah Jamatul Islamia, Madrassah/Masjid Al Toheed-Ahle-e-Toheed and Madrassah Ansaria Ahle-e-Hadees, Nawan Killi, Quetta. Jamia Ahle-e-Hadith Balochistan received Rs16,000 from Bahrain, while Iran is funding Madrassah Fatima Zahra Syeda, Madrassah Imam Hussain and Madrassah Khatmul Nabeen. The home department did not reveal the amounts donated in these cases.

Additionally, Home Department Balochistan told The Express Tribune that some 30 Quetta-based seminaries are being funded by Saudi Arabia. However, these seminaries have not disclosed the amounts that they are receiving.
 
DAWN
Irfan Husain


THIS last week witnessed the gathering of the great and the good in Riyadh to pay their respects to the recently departed King Abdullah, and to suck up to King Salman, the newly crowned monarch.
Next month, many of these same worthies will meet in Washington to discuss measures to counter terrorism.
How many lives have to be lost before Western leaders finally connect the dots between the Wahabi/Salafi ideology being pumped out by the desert kingdom and the killing fields of Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
It was no coincidence that many of the 9/11 suicide bombers and planners, as well as Osama bin Laden, happened to be Saudi citizens. Over the years, a large body of evidence has been built up by diplomats, journalists and intelligence agencies pointing to the nexus between jihadi terror and extremist elements in Saudi Arabia. And yet King Abdullah’s death is being considered a huge loss.

In his tribute, President Obama went so far as saying of Abdullah’s deeds: “They will outlive him as an enduring contribution to the search for peace in the region.” Really? Since when has the architect of a project that has destabilised much of the Muslim world deserved such accolades?
Saudi support has blocked change in the Middle East.
In 1924-25, Ibn Saud, the founder of the current Saudi dynasty, defeated the Hashemites and seized control of Saudi Arabia with the help of the British. According to contemporary accounts, over the next seven years or so, tens of thousands were killed, many more had a limb amputated and up to a million fled Saudi Arabia.
So when we deplore the actions of the Islamic State, we need to remember who provided them with a model for conquest. And when we are repulsed by their public beheading of prisoners, we need to keep in mind the fact that on Fridays, those given the death penalty by Saudi Arabia’s opaque and draconian legal system are decapitated in public squares.

In a Faustian pact, the Saudi monarchy is left unchallenged by the country’s ultra-conservative clergy, provided it does not try and bring the country out of the 7th century. Meanwhile, millions of dollars are sent from private and public sources to madressahs in mostly poor Muslim countries.

Saudi Arabia, among some other Arab states, also funds mosques in Western cities where many clerics, whose salaries are reportedly paid by Riyadh, preach hate against the West and non-Wahabi sects. While the official Wahabi clergy stick to a literalist, joyless interpretation of Islam, they overlook the injunctions against rule by despots. They have thus provided the Saudi royal family with a spurious legitimacy in exchange for the tight control they wield over internal social policy. The royal family and the clergy are in a symbiotic embrace that has made them a barrier to change.

With an army of some 7,000 princes to keep in style, the House of Saud has a strong incentive to maintain a lucrative status quo. This creates their leverage with Washington, London and Paris: with the world’s biggest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia has been ensuring a steady supply of oil to the global markets.

The other factor that keeps leaders like Obama and Cameron onside is the rich market for arms the kingdom has become over the years. These purchases, often accompanied with allegations of vast bribes, generate jobs as well as obscene profits.

Finally, the ‘stability’ repeatedly evoked in the recent eulogies to Abdullah refers to his role in leading the fight to roll back the Arab Spring. From Egypt to Bahrain, it has been Saudi money and political support that has blocked change. Simultaneously, however, Saudi Arabia has also reportedly financed extremist rebel groups in Syria.

But there are signs that the Saudis are losing some of their leverage in Washington. When Obama decided against launching an attack on Syria, it was a big setback for Riyadh. For King Abdullah, it was a humiliating reminder that his country is no longer the highest American priority.

Another reality check came when Obama refused to be led into an Israeli-inspired attack on Iran to destroy its nuclear programme and ambitions. A senior Saudi had been quoted in a leaked US diplomatic cable urging the Americans to “cut off the serpent’s head”.

But Saudi support for General Sisi has been directly helpful to Israel as Egypt has acted vigorously against Hamas, shutting down virtually all the tunnels that had been a lifeline for the beleaguered Palestinians virtually imprisoned in the tiny enclave of Gaza.

Thus far, the Saudi government has bought off its people by giving them huge subsidies and many free services. But with falling oil prices, it may not be able to forever bribe the young to stay quiet. Its Shia population in eastern Saudi Arabia is growing increasingly restless under unending discrimination and repression. And no system, even one as backward as Saudi Arabia’s, stays static forever.
 
The Nation

Islamabad- Saudi Embassy has informed Riyadh, of Pakistan’s concerns about funding to Madrassas from Saudi Arabia.

Official sources in Saudi Embassy said that a letter summarizing the concerns about the funding to some of the Pakistani religious seminary was sent to the concerned authorities, in Saudi Arabia.

The acting ambassador doesn’t want to issue a policy statement in this connection as appointment of the new ambassador is awaited, the sources added. “And soon a policy statement would be shared with the media in this connection,” a diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

State Minister for Education Mian Muhammad Baligh ur Rehman told sources the other day that funding from Saudi Arabia, would flow to any institution through government of Pakistan. “Permission of the government would be mandatory,” he said.

The issue of financing of madrassas by Saudi Arabia was making rounds in the sessions of the parliament this week.

Recently, Federal Minister for Inter-provincial Coordination (IPC) Riaz Hussain Pirzada severely criticized the Saudi funding to Madrassas in Pakistan.

A US diplomatic cable, published by WikiLeaks said financial support estimated at $100 million a year was making its way from those Gulf Arab states to an extremist recruitment network in Pakistan’s Punjab province.

So far the Saudi authorities, including their foreign ministry refuse to comment on the issue raised on basis WikiLeaks information and challenge authenticity of the cable.

Last month, on the advice of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the interior ministry reportedly approached the Saudi Embassy in Islamabad for an urgent meeting, to discuss matters related to the funding of madrassahs/mosques by Saudi philanthropists.

Financing of extremist religious institution by the philanthropists from the oil-rich country like Saudi Arabia is an open secret since long. But the issue gained attention in wake of the series of terrorism in the country.
 
USA, IRAN, INDIA, ISRAEL, AFGHANISTAN also fund terrorism. In there case it is referred to as STATE TERRORISM. They openly show it in their Hollywood movies, they even brag about it. No one can deny of a strong shia terrorist network in Pakistan. The reason that fewer acts of them are highlighted is because of control on media and lower percentage in population. In fact shias have shown their actual face in Iraq and Syria. The human rights violation are so high that no one can deny their ugly involvement in crimes against humanity. Same is true with Coalition's crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Express Tribune

ISLAMABAD:
At least 234 madrassas in Balochistan are being funded by ‘brotherly’ Muslim countries, home department officials tasked with investigating religious seminaries in the province said on Thursday.

“We have collected enough evidence against 234 madrassas accused of receiving financial assistance from foreign countries,” a senior official told The Express Tribune on condition of anonymity.
“The list [of these seminaries] has been shared with relevant agencies and departments [the Federal Investigation Agency and State Bank of Pakistan] so that their accounts can be scrutinised and the sources of their funding traced,” he said.
“But the list will go on,” the official added.
The revelation comes barely days after authorities in Punjab admitted that around a thousand madrassas in the province were receiving funds from overseas.
When contacted, Balochistan Home Secretary Akbar Khan Durrani confirmed that various cases have been forwarded to agencies concerned for further investigation, but did not specify the number of madrassas against whom evidence of foreign funding had been collected.
However, he revealed that more than 3,000 of the province’s 5,441 madrassas are not registered. “Some 5,330 of the 129,997 students that study in seminaries in Balochistan are foreigners, mostly of Afghan descent,” Durrani said.
The home secretary added that the surveillance of madrassas suspected of being funded by other countries was still an ongoing process.

A member of the team conducting the surveillance of madrassas in Balochistan revealed the names of seminaries in Quetta and Nushki which were receiving financial assistance from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran.

These, he said, include Mataul Uloom, Arbia Maftaul Uloom, Anwar-e-Sahaba, Gol Masjid, Dunya Arbia Jamia Uloom, Jamia Akbar Darul Uloom, Faiz Darul Uloom, Darul Uloom Haqqania, Jamia Arabia Noorul, Madrassa Fareedia, Arabia Islami Ainul Uloom, Jamia Saeedul Madaris, Taleemul Quran Ghaffaria, Tehzeebul Noorul Madaris, Darul Hufaz, Darul Uloom Ahrafia, Darul Uloom Hanafia, Madrassa Obaidia, Darul Uloom Imam Tirmizi, Darul Uloom Ghausia Rizvia Anwarul Uloom, Jamia Maftaul Uloom Nawqbandia, Madrassa Noorani, Jamia Salafia Dawatul Haq, Arabia Darul Uloom, Ashatul Toheed Sunnat, Toheed Ahl-e-Hadis, Hakimul Nabeen, Hazrat Zainab, Imam Sadiq, Imambargah Waliul Asar, Imambargah Irania, Jamia Dawarul Haq, Arabic Darul Islamia Uloom Toheed Sunnah, Jamatul Islamia, Masjid al Toheed, Ahle Toheed and Madrassa Ansaria Ahle Hadees. He added that these madrassas did not reveal how much money they received and who gave it to them.

Easy to spot the Saudis funding lion's share as several of the madrassas are ahle-hadees(sub-continental name for Wahabi) or salafi.
 
image.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom