Saudi Arabia had shut the door on any solution or dialogue needed to save the region and its people from ignition

Israa Al-Fass

Saudi Arabia had shut the door on any solution or dialogue needed to save the region and its people from ignition. The kingdom intended to ignite the situation in more than one country, from Yemen to Libya, Syria, and Iraq, to finally reach Saudi Arabia itself, after committing its crime by killing Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr.

Saudi Arabia did not settle for destroying the bridges of communication that the Islamic Republic of Iran had always put effort to build, but it also sought to lock the door on them and throw away all the keys of diplomacy.

The Execution: A Coincidence or a plot?

Certainly, Al Saud leaders have studied the reactions that will come out after the execution of Sheikh Nimr Baqer Al-Nimr, especially as the Saudi officials have heard from several parts advices and requests on avoiding such a crime. So why is this insistence, and why did they choose this timing in specific?

There is a bond between the alliance that Saudi Arabia announced about lately and the execution decision. The crime was committed. Shorty after, the situation developed and diplomatic ties were cut off, but attention was diverted turning the assaults on the Saudi embassy in Iran into the major crime.

The Saudi kingdom wants to kill and throw accusations on whoever it wants without accepting a condemnation from anyone under the pretext of "sovereignty". So why hasn't Saudi Arabia applied that on itself, and instead intervened in Syria, Iraq, and other countries, neglecting the "sovereignty" there? How come it waged war on every supporter of the government, while executing anyone who opposed Saudi leaders?

Not long ago Iran lost over 500 pilgrims in Mena tragedy during the pilgrimage season, and despite the fact that Saudi Arabia did not offer any cooperation due to that, the Islamic Republic of Iran did not take any provocative step. It only demanded to know the destiny of its people without approaching the diplomatic ties with the kingdom. On the other hand, what Saudi Arabia did instead of justifying its last crime which offended a wide sect of Muslims, was that it cut its ties with Iran, urging other countries to take the same step...  A step that indicated that these insane policies adopted by the Saudi leaders were plotted.

Some opinions considered that Saudi Arabia, which has lost all its cards, still has only one card to wager on, and it is transforming the conflict from a political one into a sectarian one that Al Saud takes its lead and gain control over the region.

Wahhabism and its crimes against Muslim Sunnis

Looking back in history enables us to understand the Saudi concept, but of course it would not serve Saudi Arabia which aims to raise the "Sunni" banner and claim that your only enemy is the "Shiites" and no one else, no matter how much others enslaved and occupied you!

314 "raids" against Muslims - against Sunnis even more than the Shiites- were committed with the establishment of the so called "The First Saudi State". Wahhabi chroniclers themselves exposed the criminal history of their mission which was founded with the Sword of Mohammad bin Saud and concept of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab.   

In a video broadcast on YouTube, the Saudi dissent and intellect Mohammad Al-Masa'ri (former Wahabi) spoke about books being published in Saudi Arabia that documented the beginning of the Wahhabi mission. He spoke about a book for the Saudi chronicler Ibn Ghannam who lived during the period in which "the First Saudi State" was established after a deal between Ibn Saud and Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Mas'ari said: "When we examined the books of Ibn Ghannam, we could not believe what we read, conclusive massacres! They broke into "Saihat" where "polytheists" were located and killed 1500  men, women, and children."

He further clarified that "Saihat" was not a residence for Shiites only but there were Sunnis there also who were exterminated with the swords of Wahhabism.

The reader of Ibn Ghannam and other Saudi chroniclers' books that are republished by "King Abdul Aziz printing house in the kingdom" every while would certainly recognize that the term "polytheists" was applied to the residents of the Arabian Peninsula who did not follow the mission of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab, and the term "Muslims" was used to refer only to his followers.

Ibn Ghannam added in his book that "the Muslims (Wahhabis) have broken into Tharmada' (North Riyadh) once again... but there wasn't any clash because none of its residents stood up in their face, so the "Muslims" destroyed the farms and returned."

The absence of a battle  between the Wahhabi penetrators and the safe Muslim residents did not pass by without the destruction of the town. What urged them to break into Muslim towns and destroy their farms? The answer was in the concept of Ibn Abdul Wahhab who considered that all the people of Najd with no exception were "infidels" and shedding their blood, capturing their women, and ceasing their property were justified... the only Muslim was that who believed in the law that Ibn Abdul Wahhab put.

The Saudi chronicler moved on in quoting the messages of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab.

He said: "Othman bin Mu'ammar - ruler of Uyaynah - was a polytheist infidel, and when the Muslims were certain about that they pledged to kill him after completing his Friday prayer. We killed him while he was in his praying area in the Mosque in Rajab of year 1163 hijri."

The supreme Wahhabi sheikh issued a Fatwa of infidelity against a Muslim leader , so he was killed in his praying area under the pretext of "the call for religion". This was how the Wahhabis released "Takfirism" and legitimized the killing of Muslims in mosques. Since its first establishment, Wahhabism didn't separate between a Muslim and another, as everyone who was outside the circle of Wahhabism was a "polytheist infidel" even if he said "There is no God but Allah"! It was a law issued by their supreme sheikh to later become a daily practice by the Takfiri groups, who found the legitimization to their practices in Saudi history books.

Another Saudi chronicler, Othman Ibn Besher also spoke about the Wahhabi army's war against the Muslim Sunnis. He said: "They waged an attack on the people of Qaseem till the sun set before its time... the Muslims (Wahhabis) attacked them severely, and when they heard about the brave beating they gave in and kneeled so the beating continued on their backs after it was on their chests, so did the stabbing which continued on their back after it was on their throat. The Muslims (Wahhabis) killed a large number of them and assaulted them fiercely, as each Muslim killed 20 of them."

This is how under the name of "Wahhabism" and "Monotheim" which was originated by Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the Saudi followers of Ibn Saud and Ibn Abdul Wahhab accused all Muslims of infidelity.

Looking back at modern history: Under the name of Islam, Saudi Arabia fought Arab nationalism. The book "Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia" for the French author Stephane Lacroix mentioned that Saudi Arabia has used "Islamist" heralds to confront the influence of Jamal Abdul Nasser which was rising in the region, so when the "Arab Voice" radio station was launched during the era of Abdul Nasser, Saudi Arabia launched a station called the "Islam Voice". Moreover, when the Egyptian president back then initiated in reformations in the honorable Azhar, the kingdom established the Islamic University to export Takfirism and summarize the "Islamic state".

Based on all that, it has been evident that throughout history, Al Saud have used the same method to protect their rule and to subject the Muslims to their power, until they reached the phase in which they treated people as if they were only numbers or entourage that have the duty of obedience, or else their bloodshed would be justifiable.

It is history repeating itself today with the Islamic Republic of Iran, for Al Saud were only capable of triggering sectarian incitement after the failure of all their attempts to besiege Iran in compliance with the US orders.   

In parallel, the assassination of Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr was considered going too far with the incitement that Saudi Arabia seeks, and which is the only thing that could ignite fire in the region, a fire that will not harm Saudi Arabia as long as it is harming everyone including Iran.   

Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh