Dear Kim,
Before writing to you, I have watched three of your episodes on Wahabism and two on the USA/Iranian conflict as listed below.
I have to admit, I feel that you have come to a conclusion and there is nothing that one could say to convince you perform a fresh, independent, balanced and in depth research.
I don't intend to comment on each and every thing you said, as I disagree with quite few. Instead, I will touch root causes that I humbly believe are leading you to making inaccurate conclusions. Nevertheless, I highly appreciate your appreciation for the religion of Islam and the muslims.
My first advice is as follows:
Like you, I am against Islamic extremism. I also want to find a solution for it. As you know, Islam is being harmed by radical parties such as ISIS, Al Qaeda and others. But, to find a solution, we need to research, analyse and diagnose before making conclusions.
Bernard Lewis in his beautiful book "Islam in History" lists academic reasons why most of the western historians wrongly understood Islam. To be successful, he finds it absolutely necessary for researchers to live in the Islamic countries and speak their islamic language (Arabic). Otherwise, they would have to relay on conclusions made by others, which is risky.
I hate to assume but listening to you, I tend to believe that you have reached conclusions:
1- Withou visiting Saudi Arabia.
2- Without having a credible dialogue with neither the Saudi politicians nor their religious clerics to understand their point of view.
I liked what you did with the Palestinian issue. As you rightly mentioned after that trip, it's hard to see the truth until you live what Palestinians are experiencing every day.
I also loved your balanced approach to the Uyghur Muslim's crisis. To me, your the first to consider the official Chinese government's side to the story.
But for some reason, I failed to sence any attempt on your side to listen to Saudi Arabia's government and religious clerics side of the story.
Seems to me, somebody has made a remarkable job of convincing you not to verify what you have read or heard about Saudis. Verification is absolutely necessary and without it, researchers fail.
I have also sensed that you haven't searched the rise of Shi'ite Islam in Iran as you have searched the rise of wahabism in Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, you wouldn't have described Shi'ite sect as peaceful.
Peace can't be a trait of a sect that teaches salvation being in hating the first three Khalifs of Islam and hating vast majority of the 120,000 early Muslims or the companions of the prophet Mohamed, may peace and blessing of Allah be upon him. Peace can't be a trait of sect that teaches revenge. The fact that Tehran (capital of Iran) remains to be the only capital in the Muslim world, if not in the entire world, that has no Sunni mosque for its 2 million Iranian Sunnis living in Tehran alone is a clear sign of how intolerable the Iranian Shi'ite sect has always been. Furthermore, the fact that all Sunni majority cities in Iran are spread, scattered and located on the edges (close to the border) is another sign of Sunnis fleeing violent death on the hands if Safawai Shi'ite.
I am surprised that you don't know this. If you do, then I am totally surprised that you consider them peaceful.
You need to research Shi'ite Iranian history much more carefully before comparing them to wahabis. Iran was 90% Sunni before the war mongering Safawis show up and force people to convert!!
My second advice is as follows:
Wahabis and Salafis consider all muslims who don't follow the monotheism taught in Quran as infidels. Mohamed Ibn Abdul-Wahab was rightly considering muslims who were worshiping graves and trees as infidels. Our prophet was the first to teach that Islam is against worshipping objects or people. Therefore, it's not strange if salafis or wahabis say we are the true muslims.
Trust me Kim, wahabis are academically very much western in adopting a strictly factual and unapologetic approach. They can't accept baseless philosophies. When it comes to monotheism and worshipping, they demand black and white evidence. Thats is why their message have been spreading very fast among enlightened western people and western women. If Al Qaeda and ISIS had not come to western countries rescue, wahabi Islam would have spread significantly. Trust me, this ideology doesn't need Saudi money to spread. It depends on it's inner strength of logic.
You are right in describing wahabis as not following any specific four Sunnni sects. Instead, they follow the most authentic views among them. But did you know that the followers of the four Sunnis sects used to pray in different mosque and never mixed? Did you know that ever since wahabis showed up, Sunnis from all 4 sects pray together side by side in the same mosque? This is a simple example for showing why and how they attract followers.
There are many other facts that are absent to you that could definitely make you change your conclusions drastically if you meet and hear official Saudi Arabia government and clerics.
My third advice is as follows:
The only Muslim cleric I know who justifies suicide attacks is the Egyptian Yousuf Al Qaradawi, who is a key member of Muslim brotherhood, taking shelter in Qatar (not Saudi Arabia) and is wanted by the Egyptian government. By the way, Qaradawi happens to be very close to the Shi'ite Iranian regime's heart.
All terrorist parties have branched off Muslim brotherhood and not wahabism. You will realise this after you meet Saudis.
You said that wahabism calls for violent killing of infidels! This is a news to me. Can you refer me to one such literature?
My fourth advice is as follows:
Coming to the Iranian issue, I suggest you study their history more carefully. Shah of Iran was not a puppet the last 10 years of his ruling. His interviews are there all over YouTube and this is an example:
https://youtu.be/imil1iIpIYA
He was the one who pushed the west to offer more competitive prices for oil. That's why he was removed in 1979, the year the foreign oil companie's contracts expired and were subject to renewal after an expected stringent negotiations from shah.
After the revolution, oil prices dropped rock bottom and the current Iranian regime has always kept it low.
Before the revolution, Iranian economy was ahead of Turkey and South Korea. Today, Iranian economy is behind Vietnam! It's safe to assume that Under Shah, Iran would have been ahead of Japan and Korea.
Hope that the above convince you to do a more balanced and in depth study. Until then, I will treat your views as thoughts.
Thank again.
