Stirring anti-Saudi hysteria

Over the past year and particularly since the Paris attacks nearly two weeks ago criticism of Saudi Arabia has increased in volume for its alleged connections to Daesh. These are serious allegations against a US ally in the war against Daesh — a nation that has been very effective in combating terrorism. But as with the growing anti-Islam hysteria, Saudi bashing is long on rhetoric and short on specifics.
A cottage industry has been established since 9/11 in which non-Muslim and non-scholars quote extensively from the Qur’an, usually English translations and out of context, to serve their own anti-Muslim narrative. Commentators on news websites enjoy parading their “knowledge” by quoting the holy book as if the evidence is obvious that Islam is a cult bent on the destruction of the world. True Islamic scholars often struggle with the meanings of the Qur’an’s verses, yet the absurdity of pseudo scholars’ interpretations is lost on the general public.
Evidence to support accusations that Saudi Arabia somehow gave birth to Daesh is much more elusive. Intellectually honest western political pundits acknowledge, albeit reluctantly, that there is no evidence that the Saudi government supports terrorism. WikiLeaks has made that abundantly clear. Western politicians running for office simply ignore that lack of evidence.
Providing evidence that wealthy Saudi donors are contributing vast amounts of money to the coffers of Daesh is equally lacking. Although Hillary Clinton and State Department memos refer to these Saudi donors, none are identified. But if an individual or organization claims loud and long enough that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism then it becomes fact.
Then there are the alleged parallels between Shariah practiced by Daesh and Islamic law practiced in Saudi Arabia. It’s accepted worldwide that governments often abuse their laws for political purposes. Whether one agrees with the implementation of Shariah to dispense justice, the rule of law still must be followed. The Islamic State, Caliphate, or whatever you want to call it in Syria has no rule of law. The New York Times reported the other day that two women were stoned to death following convictions of adultery. Yet Daesh rulers presented no witnesses to their crime. It takes four witnesses to actually see the act to obtain a conviction, which of course is impossible in adultery cases. That’s why there are no executions for adultery in countries that follow the rule of law. When Muslims say this is not Shariah and this is not Islam, they speak the truth. It’s not a perversion of Shariah. It’s not a strict interpretation of Shariah. Daesh murders people only on the pretext of Shariah.
Another example would be a Sept. 24 New York Times report about a gay man reportedly witnessing the execution of another gay man in public. The statements were made in a documentary film about Haj. The Times reports:
“Mohammed describes visiting a market to pick up some things for his mother, only to witness the beheading of a man rumored to be gay. The film then cuts to videotape footage of the scene, stopping just before the executioner’s ax strikes the man’s neck.”
The Times didn’t attempt to verify the accuracy of this statement and whether indeed a public execution took place. There are no public executions in Madinah. They are held in a police station courtyard not accessible to the public. Even when executions were held in public, they were not held in or near a marketplace. And certainly no individual is executed based on rumors. You still need four witnesses to the act. The video, which I have not seen, doesn’t appear to be authenticated. Yet the Times reported this incident as fact, which continues to serve, whether intentional or not, the anti-Muslim agenda with false information.
For all of the flaws in the Saudi justice system, people are not generally executed for adultery, homosexuality or apostasy. I add a qualifier this last sentence only because Saudi Arabia is not big on explaining itself to anybody, but as a Saudi citizen I would be hard pressed to find any instances of an execution for these crimes. What I do know is that Shariah — which is pretty darn clear about its punishments — and how individuals interpret Shariah are two separate things. Critics vilify Shariah when instead they should be critical of governments that abuse it. Making the distinction would weaken their argument that Islam is barbaric.
Then, of course, there is the western boogeyman of Wahhabism, described as “austere,” “puritanical” or “primitive” — whatever pejorative label you want to put on it. To Saudis, it only means practicing Islam, as it was intended by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the exclusion of worshipping idols (this is the most basic explanation I can provide for the uninitiated). It means nothing else.