One more History Lesson (nothing new, just a timely reminder about root causes and such like..)

From commenter Mary Madigan on PJM blogpost, here:

Lawrence .... knew evil when he saw it. He agreed with Winston Churchill when he said this about the cult that founded Saudi Arabia:

A large number of Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relation to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of the religious wars. The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practise themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette, and as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and to the whole institution of the pilgrimage, in which our Indian fellow-subjects are so deeply concerned.

T.E. Lawrence(of Arabia), like Churchill hoped to give the more moderate Hashemites control of the Middle East. Like Lawrence and Churchill, most of the Muslim world opposed the absurd idea of giving the Wahhabi cult control of Islam’s holiest places.

So, why did they wind up giving control of Mecca and Medina to genocidal barbarians? They made this bad decision mostly due to the malign efforts of British spy Jack Philby (father of traitor Kim Philby):

Philby secretly began to favour Ibn Saud over Sherif Hussein* as “King of the Arabs”, a difference with British policy, which was promising support for the Hashemite dynasty in the post-Ottoman world. On return Philby completed the crossing from Riyadh to Jeddah by the “backdoor” route, thus demonstrating Ibn Saud was in control of the Arabian highlands, whereas Sherif Hussein could not guarantee safe passage. Later he was awarded the Royal Geographical Society Founders Gold Medal for the desert journey. Back in Jeddah he met with an embarassed Sherif Hussein.

..Philby argued that Ibn Saud was a “democrat” guiding his affairs “by mutual counsel” as laid out in the Koran (Surah XLII. 37), in contrast to Lord Curzon’s “Hussein policy”. British policy on Arab affairs was wracked by rivalries between the Foreign Office and the India Office…

The Sauds proved that they were ‘in control’ of the area by stirring up trouble, then ‘fixing’ it to prove their worth. They’re still doing the same thing. Like Philby, most branches of our government like to pretend that our Saudi allies are ‘moderate’. They like to pretend that our alliance with the very worst elements is beneficial and necessary. While it may be beneficial to a few politicians and bankers, it’s not beneficial to the majority of the worlds population.

_______

* From Ambassador Herzog's speech immediately after the adoption of Resolution 3379 on the "Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination", 10 November 1975:

... Sheriff Hussein, the leader of the Arab world during the First World War, welcomed the return of the Jews to Palestine. His son, Emir Feisal, who represented the Arab world in the Paris Peace Conference had this to say about Zionism on 3 March 1919:

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home... We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East, and our two movements complement one another. The movement is national and not imperialistic. There is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a success without the other."