RE: In defence of Saudi arabia*

The Pen Newspaper January 1991

 The article written by Yasha’u Hameed in the Pen entitled “In Defence of Saudi Arabia,” does not only make uninteresting reading but sounds myopic, parochial and indeed provocative. The writer began by beautifully, but briefly, enumerating the good contributions being made by the Saudi government to world progress, scholarship to Muslim students, financial assistance to other Muslim nations, including Palestine, whom he accused Saddam of buying their supports with scud missiles attacks on Israel.

Though one cannot at this juncture state with accuracy the exact amount being spent by the Saudi government in this direction, nevertheless, one can assume that the non-Muslim world today benefits more from the Saudi oil riches, given the massive investments of its petrol-dollar surplus in Euro-Christian and Judo-American economies. Interests and profits generated by these investments are channeled into anti-Islamic activities worldwide. Afterall the natural beneficiaries of these surpluses are supposed to be the Muslim population worldwide. But what happens?

The Eritreans are dying in the hands of the Najibullahs. The John Garangs are giving the Sudanese Muslims tough time and above all, the Palestinians are dying everyday in the hands of the Jews. If the petrol-dollar, generated by the Saudi economy, is rightly utilized, all these problems would never have been with us. We expect more from them.

One point Mr. Abdul Hameed emphasized is the fact that nobody on earth can protect the Saudis from Saddam, except America. I don’t know whether the Americans are genuinely out to protect the interests of the Saudis or their personal interests and those of the multinational oil companies or that of Israel? .

One thing I know is that the Yankees are not out to protect the interests of Saudi Arabia and its neighbours, for these amount to protecting the interests of Muslims and Islam. And Allah (S.W.T.) has clearly warned us against seeking their protection (see Qur’an: 3:28). This is because, Mr. Abdul-Hameed has empathized that there is nothing inherently wrong for the Saudis to invite the Yankees to protect them.

Another mistake the writer made is the contention that the Gulf crisis has nothing to do with religion. This is where I disagree with him most. I see the Gulf crisis as another brand of Zionist expansionism. In the 1940s, Zionism was a movement for the creation of an Israel State but today, i.e., 20s and 21st century, Zionism has reached its peak. It is now a movement for the consolidation of the State of Israel.

We all know that Saddam has the 4th biggest military machine in the Middle east, including Israel. So, there is the growing fear that Israel no longer has the upper hand in the region. And we all know the strategic importance of Israel to the U.S.A. So this military power in the hands of Saddam, poses a very serious threat to Israel and its masters. Since Israel cannot destroy Saddam and his military machine, their masters, i.e., U.S.A., decided to do the job for them.

I think this is the crux of the mater. Indeed, this is what makes it fundamentally a religious issue. Had the crisis been confirmed an Iraq-Kuwait conflict, then there is no way one could interpret it as a religious war.


Mr. Abdul-Hameed, who mistakenly saw the war as having no religious undertone, went ahead and suggested neutrality on the crisis. This is exactly what the Yankees have been advocating throughout the crisis.

This is why they have been paying dearly to keep Israel from directly participating in the conflict. If the Judo-Christian world cannot remain neutral, then the Muslims also cannot afford the luxury of being neutral. It was rightly said that “every spectator is either a coward or a traitor.” Yes! Let us all rise above our ego. We must appreciate the fact that the Gulf crisis is an attempt to recolonise the Muslims and their religion. We should all remember that neocolonialism, like colonialism, is a violent phenomenon and only violence can overcome violence.


*Please see the reference article in page 98