Has Stephen Schwartz Spoken Justly About ‘Wahhabism’?

“…They hate the spiritual side of Islam, or Sufism, as much as Protestants grimaced at the worship of saints and miracles in the Roman church.”

- Stephen Schwartz, Terror and Islam

Exactly eleven days after the attacks of September 11, a UK based journal called The Spectator carried a cover story by Stephen Schwartz, a self appointed anti-“Wahhabi” expert, called “Ground Zero and the Saudi Connection.” In it, Schwartz states the following about “Wahhabism”: “Above all, they hate ostentatious spirituality, much as Protestants detest the veneration of miracles and saints in the Roman Church.”

In another article entitled “Terror and Islam,” Schwartz, a sufi convert to the Naqshbandi cult, is quoted as saying: “Above all, they hate the spiritual side of Islam, or Sufism, as much as Protestants grimaced at the worship of saints and miracles in the Roman church.”

It is indeed true that Salafis do not respect “ostentatious spirituality” with the meaning of pretentiousness and flamboyance. Since Schwartz has taken it upon himself to speak so much about “Wahhabism”, it is a shame he did not read some of the works written by Salafi scholars. Had he done so, he would have come across the many volumes of books they have written regarding the subject of tazkiatun-nafs (purification of the soul).

Upon reflection of these statements, one wonders if Schwartz has actually ever picked up the Quran, as the whole Quran, from its beginning to its end, contains different kinds of exhortations to understand and implement tawhid (true monotheism), and the strongest admonitions to shun polytheism. Saint worship, including calling upon dead people, as practiced by a great number of Sufi groups, is from the most obvious contradictions to a person’s belief in Islam.

Furthermore, in an article published by The National Review called “Liberation, Not Containment: How to win the war on Wahhabism,” Stephen Schwartz compared “Wahhabism” to Nazism. In the same article, he also manages to compare it to “Italian fascism.” Not to be outdone by his own self, he proceeds to compare it to “Soviet Communism” because “it recruits cadres worldwide.” Lest he be accused of minimizing the perceived condition of the “Wahhabis”, he then compares it to “Japanese militarism” because “it is utterly ruthless”!!

It seems that Schwartz’ severe hatred for “Wahhabism” has lead him away from objective journalism and into a childish frenzy of baseless insults.

Exposing his lack of understanding, Schwartz refers to “Wahhabized fringe groups like the Taliban and Hezbollah,” even though the straying Hezbollah are Iranian backed Shiites and the Taliban are Deobandi Sufis. In speaking about an “anti-Wahhabi war,” he says, “Only in a world where Wahhabism has been crushed can we hope for the survival of world peace, and of a legitimate, peaceful Islam.”

Feigning to care about the fate of Islam and the Muslims, Schwartz confirms his journalistic ineptitude and lack of integrity by firstly muddling up the creed of the contemporary Qutbist ideology of Osama Bin Laden with that of the orthodox Salafi creed, and thereafter, concluding that the “anti-Wahhabi war” should be fought in Saudi Arabia, “where the enemy is”: “The war against terrorism, too, must be fought where the enemy is, and that means the Islamic countries. Wahhabism has declared a war to the death against us, as the Nazis and Communists did. And we must fight Wahhabism to the death, to secure not only our survival but that of Islam itself as a great religion and civilization. Bin Laden and his Saudi backers threaten to bring the world of Islam crashing down in flames as Hitler did Berlin. But just as we liberated the Germans from Hitler and the Japanese from Tojo, we can liberate the world’s Muslims from Bin Laden and his Saudi accomplices.”

Due to these unbalanced statements, Schwartz can not be considered an objective critic of “Wahhabism” by any means, nor should he be reffered to as an authority on Islam in general.

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Stephen Schwartz, Terror and Islam, CJEE (Chrétiens et Juifs Pour un Enseignement de l’Estime), September 25, 2001. (www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/JIHAD/Terror_and_Islam.htm).

Stephen Schwartz, Liberation, Not Containment: How to win the war on Wahhabism. The National Review, November 30, 2001.

It should be kept in mind that the publication which Schwartz has written for is the same National Review which called for examining the possibility of destroying Islam’s holiest city, Mecca, as a deterrent. After one of its readers suggested the nuking of Makkah, or at least Baghdad, Tehran, Gaza City, Ramallah, Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli, and Riyadh, editor and television talking head Rich Lowry affirmed the following: “Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again few people would die and it would send a signal. Religions have suffered such catastrophic setbacks before.” Continuing, he said, “And as a general matter, the time for seriousness – including figuring out what we would do in retaliation, so maybe it can have some slight deterrent effect – is now rather than after thousands and thousands more American casualties.” (The National Review, Rich Lowry, The Corner, 03/03/2002.)

This is also the same publication that carried an article by the same notorious Ann Coulter who said regarding the Muslims, that America had been “invaded by a fanatical murderous cult” and should therefore “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” (This is War: We should invade their countries, Ann Coulter (The National Review, September 13, 2001.)

Do ‘Wahhabis’ Like Osama Bin Laden?

“So my advice to al-Masari, al-Faqih, Bin Laden, and all those who traverse their way is to leave alone this disastrous path, and to fear Allah and to beware of His vengeance and His anger, and to return to guidance and to repent to Allah for what has preceded from them…”

- Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, Saudi Arabia

Long before today’s journalists had even heard of the word Qutbist or Khawarij, the orthodox, senior Salafi scholars throughout the Muslim lands had warned the people about the threat of ideological terrorism and what would necessarily emanate from it.

Warning about the evils of Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and Qutbism in general, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, a professor at the Islamic University of Madina said:

“Those who set off the explosions in the Kingdom admitted with their own mouths, that they were affected by the Jamaa’atut-Takfir (one of the Egyptian Qutbist groups) and that they were from the group of Osama Bin Laden and al-Masari, and they were spreading their literature. Osama Bin Laden – who taught this man? Who educated him about the Shariah (Islamic laws)? He is a businessman, this is his field of specialization… they admitted, as we said, with their own mouths, we saw it and read it in the newspapers, and I have it here with me recorded with their own voices, that they were affected by some of the people of takfir (from the Qutbist groups) of Afghanistan.

The majority of our youth that returned from the jihad in Afghanistan to our country were affected, either by the ideology of the Ikhwan (the group al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) in general, or by the revolutionary, takfiri ideology. So they left us believing that we were Muslims, and they returned to us believing that we were disbelievers. So with that, they saw us as being disbelievers, the rulers, and the scholars, not to mention the common folk. They labeled the (Saudi) state apostate, and they rendered the major scholars apostate. They admitted this with their own mouths. They declared the scholars to be disbelievers, and mentioned specifically the two Shaykhs, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz and Shaykh Muhammad Bin al-Uthaymin, may Allah preserve them. They mentioned their connection with al-Masari and Osama Bin Laden. Did they get this from the scholars of Salafism? No! Rather they got it from the people of takfir.”

As such, it becomes clear for all to see that this revolutionary ideology of Qutbism was something new and imported to the lands of the “Wahhabis”, and it is a call which is in direct confrontation with the call of the Salafis/“Wahhabis”. The “Wahhabis” have been the first to be expelled from the fold of Islam by the Qutbists.

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

The British based Muhammad al-Masari (Mohammed al-Massari) was the founder of the Saudi Arabian wing of Hizb At-Tahrir (The Party of Liberation) in Saudi Arabia, one of the most light-headed of activist groups which has arisen in this century. Al-Masari set up the CDLR (The Committee for the Defence of Legitimate Rights), which was refuted by Shaykh al-Uthaymin, one of the great Salafi scholars of this century. Al-Masari reviled Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (and thus, “Wahhabism”), calling him a “simpleton, and not a scholar” only because he centered his call around tawhid (true monotheism) and following the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him security), as opposed to calling people to insurgency. Ironically, al-Masari, Bin Laden and others who follow this revolutionary ideology are somehow still being linked to “Wahhabism”!

Amongst the ideological figureheads of the Khawaarij, al-Masari and his likes operate at a doctrinal level, inciting the common people against the rulers, by publicizing their faults, shortcomings and sins, in order to effect a revolution.

Al-Masari’s statement that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab (i.e. “Wahhabism”) “was a simpleton, and not a scholar” can be found in his declaration which he issued from London entitled, “A Clarification from the Chief Spokesman for CDLR” (23/3/1995). Refer to al-Qutbiyyah (p. 204).

Abul-Hasan Maalik, In Defense of Islam, T.R.O.I.D. Publications 2002, p. 97.

“The Qutbists of Arabia echoed the beliefs and misconceptions of Qutb and were preaching his extremist doctrines to the youth – with the claim that Saudi Arabia does not judge by the Islamic legislation. Takfir of the rulers was ripe amongst the movement’s youth – and was justified by the same doctrinal misconceptions that Qutb first propagated decades ago. Saudi Arabia is the only country that has Islamic legislation, even though it is not perfect, and is actually built upon the foundation of tawhid (true monotheism). (This is) a reality that is being denied by Qutb’s modern day disciples within the Saudi Kingdom. The Qutbists of Arabia were in fact declared “the Neo-Kharijites” (Khaarijiyyah ‘Asriyyah) by Shaykh al-Albani in 1997, and their extremist doctrines refuted by the likes of Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin, Shaykh al-Fawzan and others, all of whom affirmed that the country does in fact rule by the Shariah – even though there may be shortcomings therein – and that it is obligatory to preserve and maintain the peace and sanctuary therein.”

From Salafi Publications’ commentary on the Guardian’s November 1, 2001 article, entitled “Is this the man who inspired Bin Laden?” www.salafipublications.com, Article ID : GRV070025

Does Osama Bin Laden Like the ‘Wahhabis’?

In an interview which appeared in the takfiri/jihadi magazine Nida’ul Islam, Bin Laden performs unrestricted takfir (declares them to have left the fold of Islam) upon the present day Muslim governments:

“At the same time that some of the leaders are engaging in the major acts of disbelief, which takes them out of the fold of Islam in broad daylight and in front of all the people, you would find a fatwa (verdict) from their religious organisation. In particular, the role of the religious organisation (i.e. the Salafi scholars) in the country of the two sacred mosques (i.e. Saudi Arabia) is of the most ominous of roles, this is overlooking whether it fulfilled this role intentionally or unintentionally, the harm which eventuated from their efforts is no different from the role of the most ardent enemies of the nation.”

Continuing in his reference to the presence of the organization of Salafi scholars in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden terms the Standing Committee for Issuing Religious Verdicts “an idol to be worshipped aside from God.”

When considering this, one wonders how it can possibly be understood that Bin Laden and his followers are “Wahhabis” as is being repeatedly mentioned in the media!

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Nida’ul Islam, November, 1996, 15th issue.

Are ‘Wahhabis’ a Dangerous and Treacherous People?

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymeen of Unaiza, Saudi Arabia, also affirms this orthodox belief. Prior to his passing away, he gave some advice to a Salafi community in the British city of Birmingham, via tele-link from Saudi Arabia. Speaking about several different topics, he had the following advice for the Salafi youth of Great Britain regarding interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims:

“…Likewise I invite you to have respect for those people who have the right that they should be respected, from those between you and whom there is an agreement. For the land in which you are living is such that there is an agreement between you and them. If this were not the case, they would have killed you or expelled you. So preserve this agreement, and do not prove treacherous to it, since treachery is a sign of the hypocrites, and it is not from the way of the Believers.

And know that it is authentically reported from the Prophet that he said, “Whoever kills one who is under an agreement of protection will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.”

Do not be deceived by the sayings of the foolish people who say, ‘Those people are not Muslims, so their wealth is lawful for us.’ For I swear by Allah – this is a lie; a lie about Allah’s Religion, and a lie that Islamic societies (hold this to be true).

So we may not say that it is lawful to be treacherous towards people whom we have an agreement with. O my brothers. O youth. O Muslims. Be truthful in your buying and selling, and renting, and leasing, and in all mutual transactions. Because truthfulness is from the characteristics of the Believers, and Allah – the Most High – has commanded truthfulness,

“O you who believe – keep your duty to Allah,
and be with the truthful.”

And the Prophet encouraged truthfulness and said, “Adhere to truthfulness, because truthfulness leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise; and a person will continue to be truthful, and strive to be truthful, until he will be written down with Allah as a truthful person.”

And he warned against falsehood, and said, “Beware of falsehood, because falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to the Fire. And a person will continue lying and striving to lie until he is written down with Allah as a great liar.”

O my brother Muslims. O youth. Be true in your sayings with your brothers, and with those non-Muslims whom you live along with – so that by your actions, you will be inviters to the religion of Islam – in reality. And indeed, how many people first entered into Islam because of the behaviour and manners of the Muslims, and their truthfulness, and their being true in their dealings.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

al-Bukhaaree (no. 3166)

Regarding dealings with non-Muslims, Allah said:

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who are just.” (Quran 60:8)

Quran 9:119

al-Albaanee, Saheeh al-Jaami’ as-Sagheer (no. 4071)

Shaykh al-’Uthaymeen on Interacting With non-Muslims in Western Countries, Tele-link (28th July 2000, Birmingham UK); Article ID : LSC010001 (www.salafipublications.com).

What do Wahhabis Think About 9/11?

“…The terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing; this is not permissible and Islam does not allow it in any form whatsoever. Islam frees itself from this action…”

- Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee, Saudi Arabia

Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee is one of the more senior scholars of the city of Medina, Saudi Arabia. Shortly after the events of September 11, he was asked by a group of Salafi youth in Toronto, Canada, to advise the Muslims as to what their position should be regarding the terrorist attacks. After a short preliminary speech, the lecturer at the Islamic University of Medina recited the following verse from the Quran:

“Thus We have made you a just and most balanced nation, that you may be witnesses over mankind (on the Day of Judgement), and the Messenger be a witness over you.”

“Hence, Islam is a balanced and moderate way, and it does not enter into negligence on the one hand, nor exaggeration or extremism on the other. It is balanced in between (these two extremes)… In addition, Islam encourages equity and justice amidst both Muslims and non-Muslims.

“Verily, Allah enjoins justice, the doing of good, and giving to kith and kin; He forbids all shameful and prohibited deeds, and oppression. He admonishes you, that you may take heed.”

Continuing in his address, Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee spoke about the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), saying: “And he also forbade those fighting in jihad from killing women, children, the elderly and the ascetics who are devoted to worship, as well as forbidding the cutting down of trees and so on – despite the fact that the associates of these categories of people may be involved in fighting with the Muslims.

Based upon what has preceded, then we say; that which we believe and hold as our religion concerning what happened to the World Trade Centre in America – and in Allah lies success – is that the terrorist attacks that took place and what occurred of general (mass) killing; this is not permissible and Islam does not allow it in any form whatsoever. Islam frees itself from this action…

So Islam does not allow them (these deeds), nor do Muslims perform them, and the true followers of Islam – which is balanced and moderate – they free themselves from these actions and from those who performed them…

In this centre, there were nothing but innocent non-Muslims and Muslims from all the various parts of the world, of different races. They had material possessions and assets in these buildings, and so all of this is impermissible; this is oppression upon both Muslims and non-Muslims. Even if people (who were responsible) claim that they had valid reasons for perpetrating this; this is not the correct way.

It is obligatory upon the Muslims in this country and elsewhere, and upon the students of knowledge, to explain that this action is free from Islam, and that Islam is free from these actions. I request them to make clear this issue, with certainty – and to be truthful when they explain this issue – without compromising the religion of Islam, and without giving a bad impression of Islam.

And we say, to whomever has justice and fairness amongst the non-Muslims, that they should reflect upon this matter, and not take it out on innocent Muslims and Arabs, for there are millions of them in the United States. They should also not accept everything from the media without question. It is desirable for the American people to understand that Islam does not support these affairs, and that they should not use the media in order to ascribe these actions to Islam. And the Muslims in those areas should participate in explaining that these affairs are not from Islam…

May Allah guide us to what He is loved and pleased with, and may He raise the rank of the Prophet, and that of his family and companions, and grant them peace.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Quran 2:143

Quran 16:90

Shaykh Saalih as-Suhaymee on the WTC Attacks, taken from: www.salafipublications.com, Article ID: CAF020008. Originally from a recorded tele-link from www.troid.org.

Do ‘Wahhabis’ Support Acts of Terrorism?

“…Hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent…”

- Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, Saudi Arabia

The late Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz, the former Mufti (verdict giver) of Saudi Arabia, made the following comment about acts of terrorism: “From that which is known to anyone who has the slightest bit of common sense, is that hijacking airplanes and kidnapping children and the like are extremely great crimes, the world over. Their evil effects are far and wide, as is the great harm and inconvenience caused to the innocent; the total effect of which none can comprehend except Allah.

Likewise, from that which is known is that these crimes are not specific to any particular country over and above another country, nor any specific group over and above another group; rather, it encompasses the whole world.

There is no doubt about the effect of these crimes; so it is obligatory upon the governments and those responsible from amongst the scholars and others to afford these issues great concern, and to exert themselves as much as possible in ending this evil.”

In specific reference to the Egyptian Qutbist group which eventually saw some of its members become associated with al-Qaeda, Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz was asked, “What is the verdict concerning Jamaa’atul-Jihaad (The Jihad Party of Egypt) and co-operation with them?”

He answered, “…They are not to be co-operated with, nor are they to be given salutations (salaam). Rather, they are to be cut off from, and the people are to be warned against their evil, since they are a tribulation and are harmful to the Muslims, and they are the brothers of the Devil.”

In his book al-Irhaab (Terrorism), Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali spoke about the iniquity of those who spread corruption in the earth: “And certainly, I say without doubt, that these kinds of people, May Allah guide them, divert people from the path of truth in the way they act towards people. And no one is safe from their evil in their lands, except those who are a part of their party of which destroys, and does not build, corrupts much, and does not rectify.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

Kayfa Nu’aalij Waaqi’unal-Aleem (p. 113, 114), from: www.salafipublications.com Article ID: MNJ140002.

From the cassette (no. 11) recorded in the month of Thul-Hijjah 1409H (1987CE) at at-Taw’iyyatul-Islaamiyyah.

Shaykh Zayd al-Madkhali, al-Irhaab (Terrorism) (p. 12, 13).

Do ‘Wahhabis’ Support Suicide Bombings?

“…So what we hold is that those people who perform these suicide (bombings) have wrongfully committed suicide, and that this necessitates entry into the Hellfire, and Allah’s refuge is sought; and that this person is not a shahid (martyr)…”

- Shaykh Muhammad Bin Saalih al-’Uthaymeen, Saudi Arabia

Were we to limit the definition of terrorism to “last resort tactics that the weak use against the strong”, as mentioned by John V. Whitbeck, then Ingrid Mattson’s statement that the Salafi scholars “have denounced terrorism and denounced in particular the acts of September 11″ certainly holds true, especially when considering that “those statements are available publicly,” as she said.

Shaykh Muhammad Bin Saalih al-’Uthaymeen was asked the following concerning attacking an enemy by blowing oneself up, “What is the ruling regarding acts of jihad by means of suicide, such as attaching explosives to a car and storming the enemy, whereby he knows without a doubt that he shall die as a result of this action?”

Shaykh al-’Uthaymeen responded by saying, “Indeed, my opinion is that he is regarded as one who has committed suicide, and as a result he shall be punished in Hell, for that which is authenticated on the authority of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace), “Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself, then certainly he will be punished in the Fire of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever.”

However, one who is ignorant and does not know, and assumes his action was good and pleasing to Allah, then we hope Allah forgives him for what he did due to an erroneous judgement, even though I do not find any excuse for him in the present day. This is because this type of suicide is well known and widespread amongst the people, so it is upon the person to ask the people of knowledge (the religious scholars) regarding it, until right guidance is made distinct from error for him.

And from that which is surprising, is that these people kill themselves despite Allah having forbidden this, as He said in the Quran:

“And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you.”

And many from amongst them do not desire anything except revenge upon the enemy, by whatever means, be it halal (permissible) or haram (forbidden). So they only want to satisfy their thirst for revenge.

We ask Allah to bless us with foresight in His religion and action(s) which please Him. Indeed, He is all-Powerful over all things.”

Elsewhere, Shaykh al-’Uthaymeen commented specifically about the suicide bombings which take place in Palestine: “This is what is found from the practice of the Jews with the people of Palestine – so when one of the Palestinians blows himself up and kills six or seven people, then in retaliation, they take sixty or more. So this does not produce any benefit for the Muslims, and does not benefit those amongst whose ranks explosives are detonated.

So what we hold is that those people who perform these suicide (bombings) have wrongfully committed suicide, and that this necessitates entry into the Hellfire, and Allah’s refuge is sought; and that this person is not a shahid (martyr). However, if a person has done this upon misrepresentation, thinking that it is permissible, then we hope that he will be saved from sin. But as for martyrdom being written for him, then no, since he has not taken the path of martyrdom.”

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

al-Bukhaaree (no. 5778)

Quran 4:29

Kayfa Nu’aalij Waaqi’unal-Aleem (p. 119, 120)

Taken from Shaykh al-’Uthaymeen’s explanation of Riyaadus-Saaliheen (1/165-166).

Does the Creed of ‘Wahhabism’ Differ From That of Orthodox Islam?

Salafism/“Wahhabism” is continually portrayed in the media as being a foreign, unsound creed that is based upon irrational precepts which contradict common sense. We are led to believe that Salafism is an erroneous creed which leads to extremism and terrorism. We are told that Salafism is unsuitable for these times, and that it differs from “mainstream” Islam. As such, we are led to believe that it is not genuinely Islamic in its nature.

This situation is compounded by the fact that those journalists who had only heard about Islam prior to September 11 have now suddenly become experts in religion and are writing newspaper articles about Islam and Salafism. Their major claim which is repeatedly mentioned is that Osama Bin Laden is a “Wahhabi”, only because he was born in Saudi Arabia. This one-dimensional viewpoint overlooks the fact that not everyone who lives in Saudi Arabia is Salafi (“Wahhabi”) in belief and methodology, just as not everyone who lives in England is a member of the Anglican Church.

Therefore, the reader is invited to examine the main beliefs of the “Wahhabi”/Salafi creed for themselves, and to carefully consider whether the depiction of the Salafi creed they have been given is an accurate one or not. Are the fundamental beliefs of a Salafi Muslim contradictory to mainstream Islam, or do they in actuality represent and defend the true conventional beliefs of the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace)? Are these beliefs something illogical, extreme and unsuitable for these times, or do they in actuality appeal profoundly to mankind’s natural instinct on a universal basis?

In order to come to an accurate understanding of the world-view of “Wahhabism”, it is necessary to examine the crux of the orthodox “Wahhabi” creed…

- abridged from the book: The ‘Wahhabi’ Myth

 

The British tabloid The Mirror described Salafism as a “fundamentalist sect favoured by extremist supporters of Bin Laden.” From: Hijacker has Bin Laden Links, The Mirror, August 31, 2002.

Sky News reported that Salafism “is not the mainstream Islamic view.” From: Salafi’s (sic) Links To Terror, Sky News, August 30, 2002.

When reporting about Osama Bin Laden, the media repeatedly write or mention the words “Saudi born Bin Laden.” This is not a universal procedure that is followed for other figures, which makes one wonder what the intent is behind this practice. Surely, it would be more appropriate and relevant to current affairs to say, “the Saudi exiled Bin Laden” instead, as he has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship.