Saudi Breakthrough! Jihadists Reformed!! Al Qaeda Members Promise No More Jihad*!!!

*on the Arabian Peninsula, that is.

Saudi Crackdown on Terrorists Bears Fruit

I can't be sure, but this sounds like the terrorist rehabilitation program I wrote about in "Jihad Rehab" (August 22, 2007). "The New York Sun" article, "1,500 Qaeda Members Freed After Counseling," quotes Muhammad al-Nujaimi, a man on the special committee to reform jihadists in the Saudi kingdom:

"The committee has met around 5,000 times to offer counseling to 3,200 people, who were accused of embracing the takfir ideology. The committee has successfully completed reforming 1,500 people," which sounds like wonderful news.

I'm underwhelmed by this achievement. The terrorists promised to lay off their violent ways - on the Arabian Peninsula. There's not much on the Arabian Peninsula, except Saudi Arabia.

In other words, the kingdom whose people provided most of the 9/11 hijackers and many of the foreigners who have been jailed in Iraq for trying to overthrow the Iraqi government, now has extracted a promise from members of a terrorist group that they will not attack Saudi Arabia.

This is a great accomplishment?!

For the House of Saud, I suppose so. For all the rest of us infidels and insufficiently-Islamic people, not so much.

---

Miscellany

I always dig up more facts than I use, when writing these posts. This time, I have an unusually big pile of stuff that didn't quite fit into the body of the post: and some of the pieces are too interesting to file or forget -

Saudi Sensibilities

Saudi Arabia is a marvelous kingdom. Its foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, hadn't wanted to go to the peace conference at Annapolis. He knew that there might be at least one Jew there, and al-Faisal did not want to be forced into a position where he might have to shake the Israeli prime minister's hand.

Patriotism can make people do personally repugnant things: Saud al-Faisal said he'd go to the Annapolis conference anyway, to see about getting back territory that Israel has held since 1967.

Takfir?!

There isn't all that much on Takfir ideology on the Web. I take what I find on Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but that's where I found the least suspect/most detailed discussion. Here's how the Wikipedia article on Takfir started:

"In Shia terminology, "takfir" is the practice of crossing the arms when standing upright during salat (or takattuf, called qabd by Sunnis).

"In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer (تكفير) is the practice of declaring unbeliever or kafir (pl. kuffār), an individual or a group previously considered Muslim. The act which precipitates takfir is termed the mukaffir."

1967 and Unintended Consequences

The year 1967 shows up quite often in Middle East news. That's the year when the Arab world rose as one and drove the Jews into the sea. That was the original idea. What actually happened is that Israel refused to cooperate, pushed back, and held some territory it deemed to be strategically or tactically important.

There are more delicate ways of describing the Six Day War, but that seems to be the gist of it.

Another Resource

There's an interesting discussion of Takfir ideology and other ideas in Jordan, at "The Jordanian Regime Fights the War of Ideas."

I found this at the Hudson Institute: Center on Islam, Democracy, and the Future of the Muslim World. What caught my eye was the word "and" in the title. In this context, that's a very hopeful word.

Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and other bastions of the the world as it was a millennium ago may not be Islam's best representatives. The Center on Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World discusses an exciting development in Islam, which the organization claims got more serious attention after the 9/11 attack.

The Center seems to believe that Islam, and the social/political reforms that started with the Magna Carta in Europe, can exist side-by-side. The leap from tribal mores and autocratic regional authority to the 18th century philosophies of systematic thinking and individual rights is huge. However, I think that there are people in the Muslim world with the brains and the guts to make the leap.

Pakistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Nuclear Weapons

Here's something to think about.

Pakistan has

• Nuclear Weapons
• Missiles that can carry nuclear weapons
  (the Ghuari has a range of perhaps 1,500 kilometers, or 1,000 miles)
• Muslim tribes in its outland whose leaders sometimes support the Taliban, and sometimes are the Taliban

Granted, Pakistan may not have nuclear devices much more powerful than the 25 to 36 kiloton devices they had in 1998. That's not much, compared to the 100 megaton H-bombs that turned islands into craters in the Pacific.

But let's remember that the bomb that made Hiroshima famous was a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb.

So, what if some collection of suicide bombers managed to kill Bhutto, convince some of Pakistan's leadership that the Taliban / Al Qaeda version of Islam was right, and kill the rest?

We'd have a bunch of jihadists who wouldn't have to bother with developing nuclear weapons: They'd have them in stock. With the missiles to deliver them.

Pleasant dreams.

Just What's Going On With "Jihad Watch?" Censorship?

This is getting interesting.

About censorship: "Jihad Watch banned again" (September 4, 2007).

Taking a look around Jihad Watch, I think I'm beginning to understand the problem. Jihad Watch doesn't approve of Islam, and therefore is a hate group. At least, by the standards of some segments of American society.

Jihad Watch's post, "Iraq: Misunderstanders of Islam continue with creation of "Islamic Cabinet"" (September 4, 2007), makes it very clear that they do not agree with the mainstream view that Islam has been hijacked by terrorists.

Jihad Watch rejects the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the jihadists are the Islamic equivalent of one of, say, the KKK with its cross-burnings.

For those without a knowledge of American culture in the 20th century, the KKK said they were Christians who were protecting their faith (and racial purity). Quite a few Christians, particularly Catholics, didn't agree: at all.

Back to Jihad Watch: I doubt that their identification of all Islam with the jihadist faction is accurate; but so far, there's been a remarkable lack of fuss raised by Muslims, regarding what is supposed to be a hijacking of their faith.

The matter certainly can be debated, and I am very concerned that a point of view is being banned.

I will admit that I have a personal stake in this. I express views in this blog that probably do not meet with the approval of

• The likes of Jihad Watch
  ("If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic, GET A GRIP!")
• Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud
  ("Saudi Arabia: Non-Islamic Religious Items Verboten")
• Keith Ellison
  ("Rep. Ellison's Misconstrued Reichstag Remarks")

One way or another, somebody's going to get around to wanting me banned from the blogosphere, because I have an unapproved viewpoint.

I lived with political correctness in academia. I'd rather not see the same sort of censorship become common in the blogosphere.