Spreading Saudi Fundamentalism in U.S.

Network of Wahhabi Mosques, Schools, Web Sites Probed by FBI

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 2, 2003; Page A01

On Aug. 20, 2001, Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen, a man who would soon be named a minister of the Saudi government and put in charge of its two holy mosques, arrived in the United States to meet with some of this country's most influential fundamentalist Sunni Muslim leaders.

His journey here was to include meetings and contacts with officials of several Saudi-sponsored charities that have since been accused of links to terrorist groups, including the Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation, which was shut down by U.S. authorities last year.

He met with the creators of Islamic Web sites that U.S. authorities contend promote the views of radical Saudi clerics tied to Osama bin Laden. And among the imams on his travel schedule was a leader of a small religious center tucked into a nondescript office building in Falls Church, the same site used for a time by the spiritual leader of a group of area men indicted in June as suspected jihadists.

On the night of Sept. 10, 2001, Hussayen stayed at a Herndon hotel that also housed three of the Saudi hijackers who would slam an aircraft into the Pentagon the next day, though there is no evidence that he had contact with them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31402-2003Oct1.html

Does anybody care to claim that there ISN'T some organized Wahabi plan against the U.S.?

It will be presented as a positive step, to protect vulnerable individuals from misguided violence.

Many will express sorrow, and there may be some who feel somewhat uncomfortable as co-workers and neighbors are led away.

This site will experience a short flurry of posts of sorrow, some will even be indignant, but the consensus will be that "bothered" is too strong a word.

Do you suggest the U.S. -- under any leadership or lack thereof -- simply ignore an obvious plan to overthrow our democracy?

militant Christian fundamentalists than militant Muslim fundamentalists.

But then again the militant Christian fundamentalists have already overthrown the government, haven't they?

Or we wouldn't be here.

Both worry me in different ways.

Oh, he hasn't come for you yet, but give him time, give him time...

Amazing that some Americans would like the US to be involved in a war of religions. Examine the backgrounds of administration members and realize that religion is used as a power tool. I am old enough to remember the day when anyone with the gumption to declare themselves a non-Christian became an instant pariah. That included Jews who were excluded from many popular social organizations, and God forbid ,anyone who was a Muslim or of Asian religious persuasion.

And are treating us like that. Or they are in such a war, not sure which.

What are some of the techniques you would recommend for rooting out suspected Muslim sympathizers?

I mean, "Muslims!"

I suppose it's only fair there would be an organized 'Wahabi' plan against the US. The US has a number of organized plans against the 'Wahabis', does it not?

Have you been reading alot of stuff by Daniel Pipes lately?

We would help take down their leadership in Saudi Arabia.

We want oil. If that means helping the Wahhabis, then our govt will help the Wahabbis, even if the Wahabbis hate us. If it means attacking the Wahhabis, we will attack them, even if they loved us.

But if we had an organized plan against them somehow, we would have taken down Saudi Arabia instead of the stupid attack on Iraq. (No, I'm advocating attacking SA, but it would be a lot more defensible.)

The Saudi govt is as threatened by the Wahhabists as we are. The Wahhabists see the Saudi govt as American puppets. In fact, our support of the Saudi govt is seen by them as part of our organized plan against them and all of Islam.

Is not exactly a unified entity on this point. Parts of their hierarchy seem to give pretty thorough aid and comfort to this group.

which is why saying "If we had an organized plan against the Wahabbists, we'd be attacking the Saudi govt" is too simplistic.

And it ignores the fact that the Wahhabists hate the Saudi govt, even if they do like some of it's individual members.

They both give aid and comfort and tolerate it vastly more than they should. SA is not our ally and it is very close to being an enemy.

You recognize that there are people in the SA who support the Wahhabists, and you recognize that there are people in the SA who DON'T support the Wahhabists, so why do you continue to link them together with statements like "They both give aid and comfort and tolerate it vastly more than they should" and "SA is not our ally"?

It's not that simple. Get rid of the "they"s. "They" are not a homogenous group. Some of them hate us, and some of them hate the Wahhabists and look to us for protection.

Your post seems to argue that we DO have an organized plan against the Wahhabists, but the idea that the Wahhabists have a plan against the US is just some propoganda from Pipes.

Either I've missed you true intended meaning, or you've missed the contradiction in your argument

The US has an organized plan against anyone living on top of resources we want to get at. Whether they are 'wahhabists' or not irrelevant, except for the task of determining the precise nature of the propaganda to be used against them.

The 'wahhabists' have a plan to get the US the hell out of their neighborhood, for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, countering the above-mentioned US plan (others include re-establishing a modern-day 'caliphate', instituting Sharia law throughout the Middle East, etc...).

I believe the plan of those characterized as 'wahhabists' includes measures to strike at the US 'at home' when possible. That too would be expected, given the lopsided nature of the conflict.

HOWEVER, I think the idea that the 'wahhabists' want to run the United States (territorially) is nonsense, and a 'Pipes-ian' fantasy. I simply do not believe that Osama bin Laden wants to run Wisconsin or Michigan as an Islamic state. That does not mean that they wouldn't execute attacks here if it suited their purposes -- just that they don't want to 'own' it.

Does that clear up what I'm saying?

I agree with your first three paragraphs, but I really don't understand where you got the idea that someone is arguing that "wahhabists" want to run the US. The article isn't saying that, and no one here is either. Pipes may be saying that, but just because he is wrong, that doesn't mean that this article is wrong, or that anyone who speaks up about a "wahhabist plot" is wrong.