When I read this article from the New York Times on teasing, I was reminded with an incident that occurred on my last class before the Eid holiday…
Instead of speaking about the class topic, hospital pharmacy, our teacher began with a comment on the low attendance and how we, as Saudis, do not show enough commitment to science and education. He talked for a few minutes about his experience as a college student in the UK, and then continued to criticize those who undermine the achievements of the West simply because they are “infidels.” At lest those infidels have contributed something to humanity, he added. He asked: what did we contribute to the world? What did Najd contribute to the world?
I was sitting at the end of the left side of the classroom. When the teacher asked that question, I jokingly said: “terrorism?”
Some students laughed, while others did not take my remark very well. They looked at me angrily and said: what the hell do you mean? The teacher ignored what happened and finished what he was saying. As soon as he finished, one of the angry students asked for a chance to speak. He repeated his question to me about what did I mean by saying “terrorism.” Before I was able to respond, the teacher said “let’s not talk about this,” and he moved to talk about something else. In one hand I was ready to answer and wished that the teacher would give me the chance, but on the other hand I understood the teacher’s position in trying to avoid what could result in a heated debate.
After the class, I was standing with some friends in the hallway talking about our plans for the Eid holiday when I heard someone shouting my surname from the other end of the hallway. I looked at the source of the sound, and sure enough, it was one of the angry students. He asked the same question: what did you mean by what you said? I told him it was just a joke, and I’m sorry if it was insensitive or anyone felt offended, but it certainly was not my intention to offend.
That was not enough for him. He repeated the same question, followed by another one: how dare you insult my region and my people? I told him again it was a joke and no offense was intended. He was not convinced and kept raising his voice. I told him, look, although this was just a joke, but it didn’t come from nowhere, and I’m willing to discuss this with you if you want.
He did not seem to understand. I told him: well, I think that terrorism that invaded the world and our own country in recent years is linked to the ideology that came out of Najd. That enraged him even more, but one of his friends pulled him away while he was still shouting and repeating the same things on how dare I talk like that about his region and now his religion.
The drama was over, but later some of my classmates who happen to know me better told me that they get the joke but alas they did not agree with me on linking terrorism to Wahhabism. I was surprised how they firmly refused to admit that at least some of the Wahhabi teachings can be considered extreme and call for hate of the other. We agreed to disagree and left it there.
I thought that we rarely get to discuss politics and religion in class, but once in a blue moon you get a chance like this and you are shocked by how shallow, chauvinistic and politically ignorant your fellow students can be. One week later I was reading the book Kingdom Without Boarders when I found this piece by Madawi al-Rasheed: “Saudis not only reject the term Wahhabiyya, but also argue that linking it to terrorism is a false accusation based on jahl (ignorance of religion in Saudi Arabia).” I guess then that I should not have been surprised.
Saudi Jeans 
Sounds to me like your British (or just British educated?) professor was being a bit of a jerk though — the value of a culture can’t be measured in the number of neat inventions.
Too bad he did not have guts enough to let the conversation continue! Good for you on speaking your mind though.
Ohh boy …where do I start !
1- The west, during its dark ages, hailed from the knowledge of the the Islamic golden age from thinkers like Alhazen, Averroes, Geber, Avicenna, etc. who non of them are Arab, not to mention Najdi…. why cant we do the same in our dark age !?
2- Unfortunately, Najdis’ are dominant in all sectors in the nation since its birth, most critically in the legitimation and jurisprudential sectors since they are the upholders of the Wahabbi creed. (P.S. I’m Najdi)
3- Ahmed, you shouldn’t go into this sensitive issue in such settings (specially in my Alma mater, KSU), and to back your arguments and stump opposers may I suggest reading (الصواعق الالهية في الرد على الوهابية) authored ironically by Sulaiman bin Abdulwahab, the founder’s older brother.
Boyd R. Jones
I don’t think that professor was being a jerk. I guess that what he tried to communicate was that we’re not putting any effort except in labeling people rather than doing something useful.
anyways, that professor reminded me of a one who taught me in collage and whom we like to call (professor hate everything). He’s influenced by Transcendentalism a lot, and spends half the lecture criticizing our society and the world we live in. of course we didn’t mind cause we agreed with him.
I understand your professor’s desire in not continuing the debate. I myself forget sometimes that the walls have ears. he would’ve lost his job if he spoke his own opinion. I can only pray that my tendency to speak my mind in front of my students would not cost me my job :)
I have to admit that I know very little about shikh Muhammad ibin Abdulwahhab and whatever I know did not come from objective resources but was actually mentioned in our own textbooks which are biased in some way cause you all know that history is written by victors. However, I think that he managed to bring Islam back to life again, the problem is, people are following wahhabism as strictly as when it first started. Shikh Muhammad had to be strict because people fell back to jaheliah again, but why are we still being extremists to this day?
Islam is supposed to be flexible. suitable for every age and every place, but when we keep forcing the same restrictions on every little thing even though there’s little possibility of people falling back to wrong again, then I’d say wahhabism followers are truly responsible for the hardships we face today.
there I’m done. I couldn’t express myself more clearly, but I think this should do for now.
Too bad you did not have the chance to show terrorism like what your Shiate brothers show in Iraq after the fall of Saddam regime. Maybe if the Saudi’s regime falled, we will wetniess the kind of terroresom your people have!
برأيي أن ماقلته لم يكن طرفة بقدر ماكان رأيك الشخصي، أحيي فيك شجاعتك لولا تغليفك لها بالطرافة :)
Anti-Irani ….. your post is not worth dignification by responce but someone has to ……the issue is not Shia or Sunnah – Wahabbisim doesn’t represent either – bigotry is forbidden in both – your name reflects your character, a xenophobic.
Yeah, Wahabis are as Sunni as much as Ismailis are Shia. Both the sects are fringe extreme
And Ahmat was being a jerk for dealing a low blow like that based on his proffs inferiority complex….just kidding,
Really, why so serious?
Well, terrorismo is not a new phenomenon. Actually the word itself was created to describe the terror of a State against civil population, later it was turned to define the anachist actions against the State and later one towards the nationalist movements (IRA, ETA…) only the latest wave of it, was assumed by islamist terrorists…
The wahabbi ‘ideology’ is nothing either original. To put God and Religion above all questions is something all religions I know have done at one point.
The problem is not of course Islam, as some conservative Westerners like to think, but people like your collegue who aren’t able to think rationally and are not used to dissent or open debate, elements that are not precisely promoted in the Magic Kingdom, whatever the King says that no one is above criticism. For the moment there seems to be freedom, as long as you don’t use it too much. Good luck Ahmed!
The reason the student got angry at you , is that you are a Shee’i and honestly that comment coming from you would be offensive to all sunni saudis
If you were a sunni he would have reacted differently ofcourse.
Hmm. I’m not a Saudi. I’m a Muslim who has spent learning Islam alhamdulillah. And though ur friend did not respond properly to you, what he was saying was true.
The so-called Wahhabism has not spread terrorism. The ideological influence for terrorism is mainly Sayyid Qutb and people like them. The Ikhwanul Muslimeen.
Look into websites like http://www.thewahhabimyth,com
http://www.salafimanhaj.com
There are some well-researched articles on this subject.
I agree with your friends. For someone who claims that he promotes peace and civilized dialogue that was really stupid and offensive. I can think of quite a few terms that are’nt so pretty that can be thrown at Eastern region Shia’. How would you feel about that kind of generalization?
To me, what constitutes shallowness is labeling another person as being shallow. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. To each, his own.
If a white American called a group of black people “nigers”, he will be beaten up to death, but if this word came from another black person, it will be consider as a joke. the same is in your case, since you’re a shia, your joke was not tolerated by some students.
But let me ask you a question Ahmed, would you accept it if someone in your class said that “Saudi Shia people are loyal to Iran not to their country” and he claimed that was only a joke?
Ahmed and Saudcha Arabcha, one of the students did raise this exact point when he was arguing with me. He asked me: “What would you do if said all the Shia beliefs are false and deviant?” I said: “Be my guest. I’m not easily offended and your opinion on Shia will not affect me or make me change my beliefs.” As for the “Saudi Shia people are loyal to Iran not to their country,” yes, it is actually a joke.
I Dont think the guy’s reaction was appropriate. However, neither was the joke. Its not like you were serious about it. I get the humor in it but I think thats the very thing that everyone is fighting against and indeed it is a very sensitive topic and since humor is a mature defense mechanism to accept the unacceptable …..so by Joking about it somehow opens the door to a lot of unwanted controversy…..I just think that such a joke is only acceptable among people who would understand it in the sarcastic and ugly truth way rather than the accusatory tone.
I do have to say though its kinda of out of character for you to joke about such sensitive topics but I have to give you the benefit of doubt and just think of it as an experiment to see the different views of people around you. Anyhow, best of luck to you.
Attendance is pretty low in classes in British colleges in the last week before the holidays. There is nothing special about Arab students skipping classes. It is normal student behavior.
I thought it was funny.
What worriues me is the response. I don’t like people who can’t take a funny remark at it’s face value, but immediately go to the furthest extremes, and start discussing, and evaluating, and dissecting as if you had given a two hour speech!
It was just a funny remark, such as will slip out of the mouth of intelligent people from tme to time.
Actually, I think such responses show that, while not nesseccarily connected to the Njed, too many of your compagnions have closed, simplistic and narrow minds.
And to add my ”analysis”: In real life real terrorism stems fom these types of minds.
Scary…
i think your confusing Wahhabism with Salafism.
Ahmed:
I enjoy your dry and cutting sense of humour. I hope that you never lose it, and that you never are forced to suppress it.
I would commend the posting of the Z theory.
I would also note that an afficltion that befalls far too many believers is an inability to see humour in all things, including in the foibles of fellow Saudis and the cultural practices within Islam.
The teachings of the Rasulullah are intended to bring joy to believers, yet for far too many, Islam is mis-understood to be a faith that demands a form of joyless and self-righteous ideological conformity that tolerates absolutely no dissent.
This is lamentable in that a hallmark of Islam historically was a tradition that encouraged ideological debate and dissent, and that positively affirmed humour and gaiety.
Ahmed, I would again encourage you to remain as you are, someone who in fact embodies the best of the nation.
Our problem is not the lack of “free speech” as much as the munificence of “hate speech”, diplomacy and commonsense dictates what to be said to whom, where and when, with emotions checked at the door. For God’s sake Islam was the first to adopt this methodology through ‘علم الكلام’ (dialectic).
The tendency to resort to labeling is evident of a frail argument and a shallow logic, the tragedy is some heinous labels are tolerated over others. The court in Riyadh has convicted a person for calling another a ‘ارهابي’ but we hear all the time labels with degrading connotations such as ‘رافضي، علماني، زنديق، جامي، ديوث’ exchanged in public channels with no consequences.
it depends. one size doesn’t suit all. labels vary. some labels are false and derogatory. like over simplifying issues and using a term that gives a meaning other than the reality.
some other labels are true and required, to identify people.
Christian, Muslim, Jew – aren’t these labels?
Terrorist – is also a label that can be true or false or derogatory.
Rafidhi is also a label that can be true or false.
Calling a person – Son of a black mother, can be derogatory or could be a reference, depending on the context and usage.
I see that Ahmed’s friend wasn’t open to discussion. But I am. I suggest Ahmed starts a new post, and we discuss on the issue of Wahhabism/Salafism, Islam in Saudi Arabia, Sunni and related to that.
I believe that the Islam in its purity is the Salafi path. And i’m ready for a discussion if its open, fair, keeping out emotions.
I have to say I like where you are going with this Z-theory. It brings me joy to see people with a mentality like yours exist .
I think “hate speech” or hatred in general is whats wrong with the world today in many parts . We have zero tolerance for anything thats different from our preconceived perception of the world around us. I do have to say though terrorism can be found in all religions and it knows no geography …..I think its more of a state of mind rather than a way of teaching or belief. When u loose all self inhibition and tolerance and achieve a heightened sense of one’s self against all others….which in essence is kinda of like loosing what makes us human in the first place .
If you research the origins of Terrorism that Muslims commit, you will find it started with your people–the Raafidah Shi’a, in Lebanon during the 1980’s. Nowdays, people who ascribe to the Sunnah have imitated the Raafidah in their evil. That’s where Terrorism came from.
If I were in the class with you, I would have knocked your teeth down your throat for insulting Islaam, because that’s what you did.
Daud? Really?
No sense of humour is the first step towards terrorrism!
I think this has something to do with your sect/regional upbringing. Without Najd and its people, there would be no Saudi Arabia. And yes it’s offensive to link terrorism to Najd. If you don’t like it there, then what the heck are you doing in Najd? Your little town would be a better to practice your humor.
Once at the uni cafeteria, a friend of mine said “9/11 was the best day of my life” so JEAHHH I totally feel for you man…
Because I don’t have anything better to do…
I will nit pick here, the tittle should be “sacred cows”.
Great post and comments.
أحمد .. بعيداً عما إذا كانت مزحة أم لا ، أرى أنها رأيك ولكن بإسلوب آخر.
لنتكلم بواقعية قليلا ..
أولا لا يوجد ما يسمى بالوهابية ، إنما هو مجرد وصف لدعوة الشيخ محمد بن عبدالوهاب في نجد ، وبدأ البعض في إطلاق هذا المسمى على أهل نجد و بدأ البعض الآخر في التطرف بشدة في هذا الوصف لحد بلوغه بهم إلى المذهب !
أما حين نتحدث عن الإرهاب ، فلعلي إفيدك ببعض المعلومات حتى تكون على بينة :)
أول فصول الإرهاب التي واجهتها السعودية كانت حادثه جهيمان العتيبي عام ١٤٠٠ هجري ، وذلك عندما قام بالهجوم على الحرم المكي و إحتلاله مع ٢٠٠ من أصحابه.
وللمعلومية جهيمان درس في مكة في جامعة مكة الإسلامية و من ثم إنقل لجامعة المدينة أيضا وألتقى بـ محمد القحطاني هناك.
والأثنان ليس لهم علاقة بنجد :).
ثاني فصول الإرهاب هو فصل شيعي بحت ، وذلك في عام ١٩٨٥ ميلادية عندما تم ضبط حجاج ( إيرانيين ) محملين بالأسلحة في جمارك جدة ، و حسب تصريحاتهم كانت هذه المتفجرات من الحرس الثوري الإيراني.
أما ثالث فصول الإرهاب فهو أيضاً شيعي بحت ، وذلك عام ١٩٨٧ ميلادية في موسم الحج عندما بدأت مجموعة من الحجاج الإيرانيين ( الشيعة ) بمظاهرات تنديداً بالشيطان ، وكانت في البداية مظاهرات سلمية إلى أن ظهرت السكاكين والسواطير فجأة وأشعلت النيران و ظهرت الأشرطة الحمراء دلالة على الجيش الثوري الإيراني أيضاً.
ونأتي هنا لرابع الفصول الإرهابية ، وهو كذلك شيعي بحت ، في عام ١٩٨٩ ميلادية ، والتي حدث فيها ما يسمى الآن بحادثة الحرم المكي الثانية ، حينما هرّب مجموعة من الحجاج الكويتيين ( الشيعة ) متفجرات إلى الأراضي المقدسة ، وبعدها قاموا بتفجير ” نفق المعيصم ” ، وكانوا ٤ أشخاص ٣ كويتين و سعودي من الأحساء يسمى بعبدالعزيز شمس ( لا أظن أنني أحتاج لأبين لك أنه شيعي ) ، وتم القبض عليهم والتحقيق معهم و أعترفوا بإنضمامهم لحزب الله الشيعي الكويتي الموالي لإيران ، و لا أحتاج لأقول أن أعناقهم تطايرت بعدها بأيام بأمر من فهد بن عبدالعزيز رحمه الله .
و خامسها أيضا شيعي ! ، وهي حادثة الخبر التي وقعت عام ١٩٩٦ ميلادية وراح ضحيتها ١٩ أمريكياً و ٣٧٠ مصاباً ، وكان مهندسها وعقلها المدبر احمد إبراهيم المغسل ، و كذلك إتهم فيها مايسمى بـ بحزب الله السعودي ، ولا أحتاج لأبلغك أن معظم أعضائه من شيعة القطيف في شرق السعودية.
ألى آخر ما جاء في تاريخ الإرهاب في السعودية.
أخيراً أقول لك بالمنطق الحكيم ..
الإرهاب هو شعار عالمي لا يختص بطائقه أو بلد أو دين
أما حين أتحدث بمنطقك الذي استخدمته فأقول :) .. :
الإرهاب ” في السعودية ” هو شيعي بشهادة تفوق ، و بدرجة الإمتياز ، و مع المرتبة الشرفية الأولى أيضا ، ف٤ من ٥ أحداث هي أوائل ما واجهته البلاد يعتبر شيعي صلف لا دخل للسنة أو أهل نجد فيه البته :).
تحياتي لك ، كما أتمنى أن تقوم بترجمة كلامي للإنجليزية حتى يفهم من إلتبس عليه الأمر من حديثك.
و أعود لأقول ..
إنها مجرد مزحة :)
Salams,
I have been reading your blog for some time now and at times I am shocked at your willingness to examine critically the saudi culture with an open mind.
I am a convert Muslim, raised in the midwest of America, whose father is Palestinian and whose grandfather lives in Saudia Arabia – and has worked for Aramco for years. Anyhow, after having first been a “salafi”, then a “jihadi” and then finally realizing how ridiculous and Islamically unfounded the whole wahhabi da’wah is, I abandoned the pseudo-salafi dogma.
What comes to my mind about the confrontation:
You should have told your classmates how the fatwas of Ibn ‘Uthaymin help to kill children in ‘Iraq. Or how the wahhabi-pseudo-salafi Nasir Fahd promotes the whole “they kill our children so we should kill theirs” crap! You should have told them how the Wahhabis massacred Muslims of Ta’if, or how they slaughtered Shi’a women and children in Karbala many moons ago as chronicled by Uthman ibn Bashir. Or you should have told them how the wahhabis/Saudis revolted against the Muslim Caliphate only to be crushed later on by Muhammad Pasha then later ally themselves with the British empire – a group of terrorists themselves! Or you should have told them how they destroyed the graves of the Sahaba, killed Yemeni Hujjaj – raiding their pilgrimage caravans, or brought up their son Ibn Ladin who thinks it is perfectly justified to target women and children – even though the prophet Muhammad forbade it – and the Sunni scholars have declared Ijmaa’ t hat it is haraam to do so.
You are certainly right! The Wahhabis have lied on Islam and exported a dogma foreign to the orthodox Sunnic views! Well done!
#Daud
could be islam have nothing to do with violence, but that doesn’t prevent some muslims from being extremely violent, funny enough often when defending their view of the religion.
I like it how people in this thread treat salifism or Wahhibism as this clearly defined thing or group of people.
I lived most of my life in Saudi Arabia and the only time I never heard the term “Wahabism” once in my entire religious education. In fact, I only learned this word from reading foreign press!
And while I wouldn’t have laughed at your joke and perhaps discussed with you why I thought it was wrong, can you blame the guy for getting angry? You might have just called his hometown the root of all evil. I’m disappointed by this part in particular:
———————————————
I thought that we rarely get to discuss politics and religion in class, but once in a blue moon you get a chance like this and you are shocked by how shallow, chauvinistic and politically ignorant your fellow students can be.
———————————————-
So because one guy took offense that you joked about his home region he has become shallow, chauvinistic and politically ignorant?
If a teacher asked me what has Iran given to the world and I said “flogging yourself lol” and some Shia took offense and got angry at me I could think he was ignorant? No, he simply didn’t like how I had belittled his religion.
Also @ Abul Layth :
This part intrigues me:
———————————–
Or you should have told them how the wahhabis/Saudis revolted against the Muslim Caliphate only to be crushed later on by Muhammad Pasha then later ally themselves with the British empire – a group of terrorists themselves!
———————————–
Muhammad Pasha the Ottoman Turk? The same Ottoman Turks who committed the Armenian Genocide?
Tell you what, whenever the death toll caused by Saudi Arabia reaches 600’000-1million. Let me know.
If you think the Ottoman empire was the perfect version or a better version of Islam, then you are delusional.
No offense of course.
I just have few comments on some historical anecdotes mentioned in this thread:
1- Juhaiman was indeed a Najdi from the Otaibi tribe coming from the town of Sajir in the vicinity of modern Riyadh, his father was part of the Ikhwan Army that revolted against King Abdulaziz and later crushed in the battle of Subalah aprox 200 Km from Riyadh. He was also a corporal at the National Guard where Shia’s are not allowed to enlist.
Although he studied in Makkah as many did at that time due to lack of educational institutes elsewhere, he received his fundamental teachings in Riyadh and Qassiem where later he would plan the seizure of the grand mosque.
2- The events that took place in the 80s during various hajj seasons by Iranians are political and strategical in nature and not religious, Iran was then at war with Iraq which was backed by Saudi and hoped a revolt would follow to model the revolution on the Shah in late 70s and thus weakening Iraq’s position.
3- Muhammed Basha was the de facto ruler of Egypt during the decline of the Ottoman Empire and therefore independent from the caliphate hierarchy. He moved his armies north of Arabia to crush the Ikhwan’s ambitions to spread their ideology in Afro-Asia after a plea from the Hanafy Mufti in Makkah who feared for his life to rescue them from the Ikhwan who already killed the Muftis of Shafi’e and Malikie. Makkah at that time was an international cosmopolitan and an educational hub for all sects and schools, where freedoms of thought and practice were protected.
The Z Theory ..
عند الحديث عن أصل جهيمان ، كلامك ليس فيه أي شك ، قبيلة عتيبة تعود لساجر في نجد ، لكن تحولة الأساسي حصل في مكه والمدينة أثناء دراسته وخصوصا بعد إلتقائه بـ محمد القحطاني :)
ولا ننسى أن بن لادن كبير إرهابيين العالم ليس من أهل نجد ولا يمت لها بصله ;)
أما بالنسبه لحوادث الثمانينات ، أعتذر منك لكن أرى أنها شيعية سواءا كانت سياسية أم كانت لمجرد المزاح :) ، الموضوع إرهابي و من دولة إرهابية ( شيعيه ) لذلك لا نستطيع محي صفه الشيعيه في الموضوع :).
أما أخيرا بالنسبة لنقطة عدم قدرة الشيعة للإنضمام للجيش الوطني ، فأعلم أن الجيش الوطني له شروط صارمة في تسجيل أعضائه ، و لعلي أفيدك أن الشيعة ( حتى الآن ) لا ينضمون للجيش :) ، والسبب إنتمائهم الصريح لإيران.
تحياتي لك ..
Abul Layth threw up a lot of things there. Vague, half-baked truths, without evidences, that give a picture other than reality.
This just shows that he was never a salafi, nor understood what it was. But rather he was influenced by the terrorist ideology that is commonly known as ‘jihadi’ ideology.
Naming it Salafi doesn’t make it. Glad u did leave it. But u have gone to another extreme of bashing what you see as extreme.
I do not know about nasir fahd – he could be deviant – but Bin Uthaymeen, yea! He is one of the great scholars. So bring ur proof where he has ever allowed the killing of children?
On the contrary u will find only Fatwas that condemn the killing of innocents, whether men, women or children.
As for the kidnapping of Hajj pilgrims.. yes this used to happen… but it was before the rule of King Abdulaziz (i.e. before “wahhabi” rule). Great historians have recorded that King Abdulaziz’s establishment of Sharia brought an end to all these practices.
George Antonius, the famous Arab historian, said,
“We would not be exaggerating if we say that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has today obtained security and safety which has exceeded all of the countries of the world, and the most civilized states are not exempted from this.”
As for revolting against Muslim caliphate, Najd was never ruled by the Ottomans. I see you have only access to my friend the distorted view of history.
Destroying built-up graves, whether they are of Sahabah or anyone else, has been established by the Sunnah. It was a command of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The fundamental of Islam is that worship should be only for God alone, and none whosoever it may be other than Him. So graves and dead saints who are worshiped goes against the very cause for which Islam came.
Refer to these well-research articles:
International Crisis Group’s (ICG) Salafism and terrorism doesn’t mix (an excellent resource, from the Brussels based reputed organization.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2967&l=1
Ideology of terrorism in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/ebook.php?ebook=53
Does Saudi Arabia spread hatred in the UK and the US:
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/ebook.php?ebook=39
thanks Z theory for that input.
Can u tell me the books u got the info/history from.
a @ Z Theory:
I agree with فهد . You can’t treat the attacks in the 80s as purely political. Hell, Iran is run by clerics! Any decision they make has to at least have some Shia religious link to it. Especially if they involve attempted takeovers of religious sites and not governmental ones.
Fahad فهد posts are excellent .. and sheds some light on a very important facts in history .. So that would be a response to Ahamd when he said ” although this was just a joke, but it didn’t come from nowhere.. ”
it certainly did !!
Bin Laden is not najdi! (originally from yemen and never lived in najd)
Ayman Aldawahri is not najdi! (Eygption)
M. Attaa is not Najdi! (Morrocan or from north Africa .. which is certianly nowhere near Najd!!)
The Z theory is not Najdi for SURE!! .. hahaha ( now THAT was a “joke” .. lets see how sport you are Z! ) *wink wink*
and many others terrorists are so remote to back up your claim that most terrorism comes from Najd! or moreover, “what have Najds contributed in this world!”, the main reason you made your lame remark on.
Najd is a geographical place .. it has no other significance!
if a Bangladishi, who happens to adopt Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulwahab’s teachings and instructions, commited a suiside bomb in Dekka, would it still be Najd’s fault ?
Ahmad .. don’t twist the truth just because you can say so ! be honest and a man enough to tell me what would happen if I answered a question while I’m studying in Qateef and surrounded by 95% of shiea students in thier homeland ” what have Qateef contributed to the world?” and said ” bomb attacks and heatrage” !!
I wonder how many students would be “so cool” and laid back (obviously like you!) by my insenstive and lame remark and take it as a .. “joke”! .. let alone leaving class with sound and complete body parts!
My point ..
Some remarks would never be tolerated and taken as a “joke” in certain circumstances!
Stereotyping and labeling ( which you always pretend that you dislike and specially when it’s not based on facts) are always bad and ugly!
And finally ..Get your facts together!
If only I could understand what Fahd was saying… :(
Saudi Lives ..
I’ll try to translate my post to english as soon as possible :) .
I’m really sorry 4 that but my english is not very good in writing.
Fahad
I again commend the words of the Z Theory.
With regard to Mohamed S’s statement: “Any decision they make has to at least have some Shia religious link to it.”
I believe that this is overly broad.
I would tend to assume that the Iranians suffer from the malignancy of an all-powerful ulemaa in much the way that others do.
As such, while the ulemaa in Iran may cloak their words in Islam, I must assume that the Iranian ulemaa is as kleptocratic and power-hungry as our own.
Sorry for the delay people, I just got the chance to respond. I must say that I did not wish to go into the Shia issue here, but since the debate shifted to it then I must address it.
Fahad, I believe that the fact that Juhaiman is Najdi is established now. However you mentioned “تحولة الأساسي”, you mean his transformation/conversion into what? Shia ?
Fahd and Muhammad S, if you attribute the 80’s Events to Shia in general then analogically we agree to some Westerner’s wrong attribution of the tragedy of 9/11 to Islam in general!
We, as educated people who once educated the world, have to be critical in our thought and delve into the underlying issues and not the superficial ones. One should take a subjective approach when identifying terrorism by exploring the claim, method and approach in which it was conducted. Accordingly it was possible to reach a logical conclusion that Alqaieda, ETA, FARC, etc are all terrorist entities. Including the individuals behind the 80’s events. But it would be too simplistic and chauvinistic to accuse the whole Shia ideology with terrorism.
In regards to Shia in Saudi, we see In some foreign countries 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who do not fully integrate with the society and do not even speak the language, yet they enjoy the full rights (and obligations) of that citizenship, and no one can question their loyalty. I believe anyone who is Saudi, Immigrant or naturalized, indigenous or foreign, is by default loyal and patriotic to Saudi Arabia whether Sunni or Shia, Najdi or Jayzany. Shia are our brothers by belief, nationality, culture and language. I have not seen evidence of their loyalty to other than Saudi hence any accusation must be established or punished, especially treason which should not be taken easily in generalization. And remember that in Shari’a الأصل برائة الذمة.
M, when you said “to back up your claim that most terrorism comes from Najd…”, Since I never made such a claim, I assume you were not addressing me although syntaxically it appears so.
Anyhow, I assure you that in fact I am Najdi, even though it has no significance in this issue other than to convey that I have no bigotry towards Najdis :)
Andrew, thank you for you comments.
If Salafiyyah aka Wahabiyyah is extremist then Shiism is every bit extremist, offensive, derogatory and radical version of Islam. It curses the leaders of Sunni Islam aka Abu Bakr etc and blames Ayesha of adultery. Now isnt this ironic that a Shia of this blog is putting the blame of extremist on Salafiyyah? Pretty Funny. Indeed, what you said in the class was a joke, nothing else because you can only joke and nothing more than that.
@ Z Theory and Andrew:
If I agree that pointing the 1980s Iranian terrorist acts to Shia and the 9/11 attacks on Islam “overly broad” will you agree that attributing Terrorism to Wahhabism and Najd equally broad and superficial?
One can Argue that as political as Terrorsim In Saudi from Iran in the 80s.. the same Political atmosphere created Bin Laden in Afghanistan..
All done by using religion and brotherhood attachements..we dance to the tones of political parties that cannot see beyond their own ego.
We use the term “Attack on Islam and Muslims” to rally support.. instead of Attack on X country by Y country. We hold all those who do not believe in our way or our sects.. the faults of others who don’t believe in our side of the fence.
It’s time for the Middle East to see only themselves.. Before a Shia attacks a Sunni, Before a Saudi attacks an Iranian… go back home.. find the flame that lights the hate.. and dowse it!
If we just look past those stupid allegancies.. we will find we are only hurting ourselves. Saudi Shia’s hurt their own by voicing support for Hezb Ullah.. Sunnis hurt themselves by firing up their donations to whoever plays the poor oppressed muslim.
You will see who hurts Palastinans, nobody sees how this struggle can end.. Everybody keeps funding their favorite three-legged dog with hate and funds.. If the world takes it as an action to stop supporting both PLO and Israel.. could you guess what would happen?? both sides will be too broke to continue fighting.. when the people on both sides grow tired and poor enough.. you will see a day of peace in that bucket of sand.
If we see past our leaders, our clerks.. we will find the people that actually suffer without knowing it.. why not hear that silent call.
If the world takes it as an action to stop supporting both PLO and Israel.. could you guess what would happen??
————————————————–
Ummm….Hamas isn’t the PLO.
Better than murdering Saudis who falsify Islam, abandon its traditions, and call permit the murder of women and children. As for the Armenian “genocide” it is historically questionable what occurred. Yes, the same Muhammad Pasha who smoked your takfeeri forefathers!
Uthman ibn Bashir certainly chronicled in his taarikh an najd all of your atrocities oh wahhabi scum! Go swim in the seas of the innocent blood you help to slaughter by denying the lies and keeping the message of Aalis Sa’ud alive.
I only used the PLO because I couldn’t come with any better term to sum up the Palastanian Miltant side.
What I am talking about is preptual war.. the Palastinian-Israeli conflict still goes on without an end in sight.. each year the Palastinain people are more damaged than the one before… can you tell me what did this constent state of war help them?
The Palastinian stuggle became only power play between the Middle East leaders and other powers in the world.. How do you think Israel keeps getting funded while keeping this constent state of war? The way the spend its impossible for their own enconmy to sustain them. The Palastinan side is the same.
Noam Chomsky, posit that a state of perpetual war is an aid to (and is promoted by) the powerful members of dominant political and economic classes, helping maintain their positions of economic and political superiority.
What would happen is that both sides cannot keep up their Military side spending.. Palastinains will have to concetrate on goods and commodities.. while Israel will cut down a lot from it’s Military spending to make ends meet.
What I am speaking about is not something that could happen overnight.. or a fantasy.. you cannot simply cut both sides funds..
But I assure you even if you pay the Palastinains to arm up and acquire weapons… or disarm them from weapons.. If Israel wanted them dead it could start without a care in the world… If Palastinain people disappear from the equation of the Area, Israel will find its self in a bind not having somebody to play victim against to recieve support.
I know that you might disagree with me, but you cannot just fight an enemy you don’t understand and expect to win.
The Z theory
“However you mentioned “تحولة الأساسي”, you mean his transformation/conversion into what? Shia ?”
No, transform from, assumingly, the so-called “Wahhabism” (which is thought to predominates in Najd) teachings, to whatever he may converted to. That’s what I think brother Fahd meant. Please correct me.
“if you attribute the 80’s Events to Shia in general then analogically we agree to some Westerner’s wrong attribution of the tragedy of 9/11 to Islam in general!”
Oh, So why don’t you tell your buddy Ahmad that, when he attributed terrorism to Najd?! Isn’t it the same thing he’s doing? After all, Fahd was just “joking” !! :)
In regard to the loyalty part in your last comment, loyalty to some people is determined by religion, not by passports! 3 of my Shiite colleagues (and they are”Saudis” I might add) admits their loyalty to Iran over Saudi if conflict takes place. Sad, but true!
“I assume you were not addressing me although syntaxically it appears so.”
No Sir, it was obvious that I wasn’t addressing you. Not even (syntactically) !
Good day! :D
1- “I am shocked at your willingness to examine critically the saudi culture with an open mind.”
How else do you want him to “crticically examine” his fellow citizens’ culture ?
Hope not like:
2- “..oh wahhabi scum!”
?!?!
I’m not shocked at all from both quotes, debating with open-mind-ness seems hard for you to do.
My last post was @ Abul Layth.
Mohamed S.
I certainly do not believe that anyone should attribute violence as being intrinsically tied to Najd and that to do so would be broad and superficial.
Equally, I agree that “Wahabism” need not be tied to violence.
However, I do believe that the current dominant ideology has some regrettable tendencies that harm the interest of many of us.