( 15 ) : part 3
CHAPTER II: Analysis of the Struggle between the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the KS

CHAPTER II: Analysis of the Struggle between the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the KSA:


The Struggle between the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the KSA: a struggle between two Salafist political creeds:




1- The Najd Brothers during the reign of King Abdul-Aziz were Bedouin military force that knew little religious knowledge within Sunnite Wahabism. Juhayman Al-Otaybi was an isolated Salafist Wahabi-cultured man whose influence was limited and whose knowledge was not deep enough in comparison to members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights who based their opposition on full knowledge of Wahabi ideology and jurisprudence. Hence, supporters and members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights were scholars and students of Wahabism and then became adepts to the thought adopted and propagated by Dr. Al-Masaary. Thus, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights represented the top of the intellectual confrontation within the struggle of Sunnite Wahabi fundamentalism against the Saudi regime. The dilemma of such Salafist opposition movement was that it shared a common background with the KSA: the Salafist, Wahabi ideology. Hence, both the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the KSA assert their belonging to Wahabism and both depend on writings of its imams: Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Ibn Abdul-Wahab. Yet, deep intellectual analysis of the Salafist struggle for power and authority between the opposition and the Saudi regime would not have emerged if it had not been for the emergence of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, as it used such deep intellectual analysis to oppose and attack harshly the KSA, a Wahabi Salafist theocracy, and it had to find an intellectual Wahabi fundamentalist basis to such opposition against the Saudi regime      


2- Thus, we can say here that the struggle of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights against the KSA was essentially a struggle between two Salafist ideas, notions, or schools of thought; i.e., the struggle between a theologian/scholar who claimed he represents sharia, on the one hand, and a ruler who claimed he represents the current power and authority under the banner of sharia, on the other hand. Thus, the arena for such conflict or struggle is to confiscate power, authority, and wealth as well as people of Arabia. This is the scramble to loot: for the sake of transient possessions of this world, and NOT for the sake of religion, of course. Such struggle for the transient things which are valueless in the Hereafter is typical of human beings as a bad habit throughout history, and oppressed, impecunious, weak people pay heavy prices for such a bad habit. Of course, the struggle for loot and power might be secular; i.e., it does not raise religious mottos or banners. Such struggle is worse when the two foes/sides struggling for loot and power use creeds in political conflict to gain power, authority, and wealth. The latter type is the kind of struggle between the Wahabi KSA and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. This type is doing grave injustices to God, His religion, His prophet Muhammad, as well as to people in general, when both warring sides use Islam as a banner or a motto to serve their purposes and reach their ends, while both sides have nothing to do with real Islam (i.e., the Quran alone, as per Quranists) and they contradict it. Within real Islam, the Quran, the Paradise dwellers will be the pious ones who did not want corruption or superiority on earth: "That Home of the Hereafter – Paradise – We assign it for those who seek no superiority on earth or corruption. And the outcome is for the pious" (28:83).   


3- To understand the cultural and religious background of the struggle between the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the Saudi royal family, we repeat here that the ruling system in the Sunnite religion usually makes the scholar/theologian and clergymen of all sorts as subservient to rulers and representatives of Sunnite sharia under the guidance of a caliph/ sultan/ ruler as one of his retinue. On the contrary, within the Shiite religion ruling system crystalized in the 20th century, the imam / theologian / scholar is above all rulers and is made holy as a sanctified person representing religion/sharia within Shiite traditions. It is other way around in the history of Sunnite religion and ruling system; rulers were always above imams/ clergymen in most cases, and even sultans used to persecute and imprison scholars who oppose views/policies adopted by rulers. This occurred in history as in cases of scholars like Abou Hanifa, Ibn Hanbal, Malik, and Ibn Taymiyya. Moreover, Sunnite Wahabism has no extremism typical in the Shiite religion as regarding sanctifying dead and living, ancient or contemporary imams / scholars. 


4- When Ibn Abdul-Wahab emerged as a revolutionary scholar who oppose harshly religious staples and notions of his era, which were mostly Sufi and Shiite ones, his alliance with M. Ibn Saud drew the policies and ruling systems of Al-Saud royal family, while giving the posts of scholars and all religious positions in general to Al-Sheikh family, who were descendants of Ibn Abdul-Wahab. Hence, since Al-Sheik family confiscates all religious authority and posts in the KSA, no opposition movements ever came out of their family. All opposition movements came from outside Al-Sheikh family. But the Wahabi opposition of both the Najd Brothers and Al-Otaybi lacked deep Salafist knowledge and theorization to support their stances; unlike the case of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights whose members and supporters in the 1990s delved deep into Wahabi ideology and Salafist thought to reinforce their views and stances against the KSA, and they surpassed the schools of thought of all Wahabi scholars of Al-Sheikh who served the Saudi State.


5- Once Prophet Muhammad died, the history of early Muslims knew early, gradually, and soon enough tyrannical rule, leading to monarchy and inherited kingdoms based on conquests by the sword as the only source of legitimacy of rule, with empires carrying the names of those who established it: such as the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, the Ayyubids, the Ottomans, etc. In such Sunnite empires or caliphates, rulers were seen as sole owners of lands and those living on it, and they were seen as having absolute power to do whatever they want without questioning: to grant, give, confiscate, imprison, punish, kill, forgive, wage wars, etc. and the same applies to governors ruling regions or cites under such caliph/ ruler/ sultan. This applies to the famous Umayyad vizier Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef in the first century A.H. until any ottoman governor in the thirteenth century A.H. Such rulers, or rather tyrants and despots of the Middle Ages, had many people helping them to rule and govern, among them were scholars of Sunnite sharia, poets o propaganda, soldiers within a military army, judges, etc., and the main and sole sharia and political creed in that case was absolute obedience to rulers, based on deliberate misunderstanding of the following Quranic verse: "O you who believe! Obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you…" (4:59). Ancient scholars felt that ''those in authority among you…'' to mean rulers / caliphs / sultans. This understanding was certainly wrong; the phrase simply means those experts in their fields, as we conclude from this verse in the same Quranic chapter four: "When some news of security or alarm comes their way, they broadcast it. But had they referred it to the Messenger, and to those in authority among them, those who can draw conclusions from it would have comprehended it…" (4:83). This verse shows clearly the meaning of people of certain knowledge or expertise in certain specialties. Obeying the messenger means the message itself: the Quran, because obeying mortals is linked solely to obedience of God by obeying His Quranic teachings. Shura in the Quran means direct democracy in the terms of our modern age of today, and it certainly contradicts injustice, tyranny, and despotism, which are grave crimes per Islam as far as the Quran is concerned; God made Moses' Pharaoh an imam followed by all unjust tyrannical self-deified rulers who claim their ownership of lands and souls of their subjects: "Pharaoh proclaimed among his people, saying, "O my people, do I not own the Kingdom of Egypt, and these rivers flow beneath me? Do you not see?" (43:51). Early Muslims in the first century A.H. sadly returned soon enough to the Middle-Ages culture of tyranny once Prophet Muhammad died in Yathreb after he ruled its dwellers using direct democracy. Such tyranny that lasted for about 14 centuries contradicts Islam (i.e. the Quran alone: Quranism) and made early Muslims follow the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh as they distorted the meaning of 4:59 to mean obedience to rulers, after God and Muhammad, without questioning. Scholars of creed lived and supported such climate of despotism and tyranny. If one of them would protest or revolt – as Sunnite scholars usually represent the man-made sharia dominated in order to serve rulers – rulers would persecute, imprison, or kill him, and he would become a victim. Rulers would enlist the aid of other obsequious scholars against such a revolting protesting scholar to try him in sharia courts, as was the case with Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya.          


6- Such state of affairs used to exist when Arab empires were strong: the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Mameluke, etc., but things got complicated in eras of weakness during the Ottoman Empire, especially in the deserts of Arabia, where legitimacy was based on conquests by the sword whereas sharia laws dwindled and levels of knowledge of scholars were superficial at the time. This was the case in Najd before the Wahabi/Salafist call emerged. The Salafist KSA made religious scholars retrieve their high rank and stature, by making legitimacy of the Saudi rule based on both the sword of Abdul-Aziz and writings of Wahabi sharia authored by Ibn Abdul-Wahab.         


7- The first and second Saudi States collapsed, and Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud re-established what he believed to be the kingdom of his forefathers using both the conquests by the sword and Wahabism/Salafism; he formed, trained, taught, and used the Najd Brothers to achieve his goal, but they soon enough militarily revolted against him in the name of Wahabi sharia and began the very first Wahabi opposition movement against the KSA. The Wahabi fundamentalist opposition movement of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights delved deep into Salafist ideology and Wahabi thought to found deeply the bases of their opposition and war against the Wahabi Salafist Saudi State. Both types of Salafism of the KSA and of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, as an opposition movement, reflect indeed the real political struggle for power, authority, and wealth. Both sides claim they have and confiscate Salafist legitimacy. The Saudi royal family claim it has the legitimacy of conquests by the sword and the obedience of rulers as per Sunnite Wahabi religion, whereas the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights claim the legitimacy of scholars, in the manner of 20th century Shiites explained above, that claim they exclusively represent sharia laws and use it to declare the KSA authority as illegal and illegitimate to politically control it as well as its Saudi citizens. This CHAPTER II of PART III analyzes the struggle and conflict between the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the KSA.


The views of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights concerning the KSA and its legitimacy:


  The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights saw that the legitimacy of the Saudi State is centered only in adopting and applying Salafist thought. The unknown author of the book titled ''The Earthquake of Al-Saud Family'' writes the following: (… The founder of the third current KSA, Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, was in Kuwait when he told himself that he must re-establish the kingdom of his forefathers, and he attempted in vain to conquer Riyadh under this motto, but he failed … he succeeded only when he used the motto of renewal of Wahabi call and by sending preachers all over Arabia to spread such motto … When he made Riyadh his capital an main headquarter, he raised the banner of religion as a strong major force to defeat both Ibn Rasheed and Al-Sharif Hussein…) (1). The same meaning was repeated in Publication No. 20 in Nov., 1994, under the title: ''You Have the Right to Know'', when legitimacy of the KSA was said to be not based on free direct elections, a coup, a political party endeavor, or any achievement, but when Salafist sharia and legitimacy when Abdul-Aziz raised the banner of Ibn Abdul-Wahab when he conquered Riyadh, after he failed when raised the banner of retrieving his ancestors' kingdom, and under religious mottoes he defeated both Ibn Rasheed and Al-Sharif Hussein.   


A commentary refuting the above views of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights concerning Abdul-Aziz:


1- The real reason behind initial failure of Abdul-Aziz to conquer Riyadh was that he headed an army sent by ruler of Kuwait, Mubarak Al-Sabah who wanted Riyadh to be under Kuwaiti rule, and that was why dwellers of Riyadh, including Al-Sheikh family members, fought fiercely against this army headed by Abdul-Aziz. But when he infiltrated Riyadh with 40 men to conquer it from within by making his men chant the slogan that sovereignty is for God and then to the son of Al-Saud, he managed to conquer it by the legitimacy of the sword. 50 years ago, Ibn Al-Rasheed conquered Riyadh and took it from Al-Saud and made his men chanting the same slogan: sovereignty is for God and then to Ibn Al-Rasheed. Thus, legitimacy in the culture of Najd meant at the time conquest by the sword, and this had nothing to do with Salafism or Wahabism.


2- Because Abdul-Aziz conquered Riyadh and other regions later, he deserved to be king, a fact acknowledged by his own father, Abdul-Rahman, and his sons, paternal brothers of Abdul-Aziz. Thus, the third KSA was spared conflicts, disputes, and rivalry that led to the collapse of the second KSA before. Abdul-Aziz became king and his brothers and relatives shared some measure of authority as per his permission under his rule and as per their participation in conquests. 


3- Abdul-Aziz made use of the Najd Brothers, after inculcating into them Wahabi teachings, to establish his kingdom, but they were surprised when Feisal Al-Daweesh conquered Hael but Abdul-Aziz appointed a prince of his family as the governor of Hael. Tensions began to form between Abdul-Aziz and the Najd Brothers' leaders; Al-Daweesh wanted to rule Najd where his tribe was located, Ibn Bajad wanted to rule Hejaz as his tribe controlled routes leading to it, and Ibn Heithlein wanted to rule Hejaz as well where his tribe was located. Abdul-Aziz quelled their rebellion with the sword and reminded them that he owed the nothing as he taught and trained them to serve his purpose of retrieving the kingdom of his ancestors and he had the right to chastise them by the sword if they ever thought again of rebelling against him, as he said in 1930 to Al-Daweesh that as long as they received their share of spoils and loot and the like, they have no right to complain about anything, especially that they were no kings before he trained and taught them to serve him (2). Hence, the sword was used to make them serve Abdul-Aziz and he would not have hesitated to punish them by it as well if they did what made them deserve punishment. This is asserted by Hafiz Wahba when he writes that Abdul-Aziz would tolerate anything and become lenient toward anyone except when it came to his dominance and hegemony and his full control over governors ruling under him (3).


4- When Ta'if Conference was held in 1932, the affluent ones and the Wahabi scholars requested from King Abdul-Aziz to rename his kingdom as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the KSA) as per the same pattern when past empires were named after the family name of the rulers: the Abbasids and the Ottomans, etc. and they had written their request in a discourse similar to the way to address an Ottoman sultan: (… People gathered here request H.R.H. and his majesty the King to fulfill their wish to change the current name of the kingdom from The Najd and Hejaz Kingdom into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as H.R.H. the King was the one to unify such regions of Arabia by the sword …). Of course, King Abdul-Aziz would have named his kingdom as the Arabian Kingdom, but Wahabi scholars and clergymen in that conference were bent on adhering to Salafist jurisprudence and ruling system as pertaining to their subservience to the rulers and to urge him to assert by such name his ownership of the land and people dwelling on it. Strangely, Abdul-Aziz as a king was more liberal and coping with the modern age than his scholars, but he agreed to their request to name the kingdom as the KSA, but ordered in the same royal decree the writing of a constitution (4), but this did not happen during his reign. King Abdul-Aziz ruled lone as per Salafist notions and traditions of making rulers own the land and people dwelling on it as he conquered them by the sword. When administration became complicated when oil was discovered in the KSA, he applied administrational changes as fitting his circumstances and cultural climate. He created ministries in the way we have tackled in a former chapter within paragraphs about King Saud. We conclude here that King Abdul-Aziz ruled within the legitimacy of conquests by the sword, acknowledged at the time by both the Wahabi scholars and the Najd Brothers.


5- Legitimacy of King Abdul-Aziz was linked to another one: retrieving the kingdom of his forefathers, as he refused to go beyond territories ruled by his ancestors in the first and second Saudi States. He refused to conquer Kuwait and Yemen when he had the chance, and even Philby, as we have mentioned in a former chapter, blamed him for it, but King Abdul-Aziz assured him that Saudis never ruled Yemen, but he had the right to conquer Jizan, Najran, and Aseer, and he wanted nothing from Yemenis but to let him have such regions, and so they did and he was content to settle that matter by negotiations (5). King Abdul-Aziz had another hard time to negotiate borders with Jordan, and he adamantly refused to extend his expansions to include fertile area in the south of Iraq, a point of contention between the Najd Brothers and King Abdul-Aziz, as they wanted to go on with Wahabi military jihad forever, as they never understood the logic of King Abdul-Aziz that he wanted only territories ruled decades ago by his ancestors. His reluctance about jihad to conquer more lands was criticized by both the unknown author of the book titled ''The Earthquake of Al-Saud Family'' and members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. We conclude then that King Abdul-Aziz raised the motto of retrieving ancestral kingdom not only when he conquered Riyadh in 1901 but all his life and during all his conquests, and even during negotiations about borders with Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Yemen, and he never tried to annex lands never ruled by his family before. Even this issue of ancestral rule is still invoked within the conflict between Qatar and the KSA about borders now, as we write this book (2000 A.D.).       


6- In sum, legitimacy of the KSA and King Abdul-Aziz approved by Al-Sheikh family and other scholars is based on conquest by the sword to get back ancestral right of ruing certain regions that formed the first and second Saudi States, and not based on Wahabism in itself; even Ibn Abdul-Wahabi never mentioned such view in his writings.


7- And we analyze below this topic from the Salafist point of view.


The sharia of Al-Masaary and criticizing Ibn Abdul-Wahab:


1- It seems that Al-Masaary felt that his proofs about undermining the Wahabism-based legitimacy of the KSA were weak, and he was bound to attack, criticize, and undermine Ibn Abdul-Wahab himself in the writings of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights 


2- When Al-Masaary did just that in one publication of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, everybody inside the KSA protested, not just Ibn Baz and all high-rank scholars who issued a statement against Al-Masaary, but also many supporters of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Thus, Al-Masaary had to eat his words and to claim that this was not his own opinion, but a forged document, by the Saudi policemen, passed off as one of the publications of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights to defame it and to tarnish its reputation inside the KSA. 


3- Accordingly, this publication criticizing Ibn Abdul-Wahab did not appear online or in print later on when Al-Masaary collected them together; he retained only his letter of disowning the 'forged' publication in Publications Nos. 43 and 44 in 1995, accusing scholars of being weak and ignorant liars to resort to such vicious ploys of forgery. He accused Saudi policemen of forging lies to defame him as part of the incessant war between the KSA and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. This led Ibn Baz and other high-rank scholars to issue a statement to attack Al-Masaary and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Al-Masaary asserted that the stance of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights regarding Ibn Abdul-Wahab was that he was a great reformist who made intellectual jihad for the sake of the truth, and that criticizing the KSA when comparing it to pre-Umayyad caliphs had nothing to do with Ibn Abdul-Wahab and the very first KSA; he asserted that he only meant to criticize Sunnite scholars who defend tyrant Saudi rulers of these days.      


4- Of course, justifications of Al-Masaary were not deemed convincing and most Saudis thought that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights hated and undermined Ibn Abdul-Wahab and not only the very first KSA, and thus, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights lost many supporters and lost its credibility inside the KSA, as such intellectual contradictions incurred condemnation; how come the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights would quote Ibn Abdul-Wahab and at the same time criticize him as well as the very first KSA he participated in establishing?


5- The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights asserted once more its deep veneration and respect of Ibn Abdul-Wahab and quoted his writings to declare the third current KSA as an un-Islamic State ruled by infidel apostate rules as it rules not using Islamic sharia as defined by Ibn Abdul-Wahab, in Publications Nos. 16 and 22 in 1994. Hence, stances of the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights fluctuated between disowning or defending contradictory views vis-à-vis Ibn Abdul-Wahab and that made it lost much of its credibility. 


6- After many members left the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights when Saad Al-Faqeeh left it, Al-Masaary controlled it fully, and he authored and published his seminal book titled "The Decisive Proofs of the Illegitimacy of the KSA", which was a revised edition of a former book of his titled ''The Decisive Proofs of the Apostasy of the KSA''. In the revised version, Al-Masaary attacked again Ibn Abdul-Wahab within his virulent attack of the KSA and its first State founded within the alliance or pact between Ibn Abdul-Wahab and M. Ibn Saud. There is a chapter in his book titled ''The Very First KSA: Queries Raised about Legitimacy'', where Al-Masaary tried to prove the illegitimacy of the first Saudi State as a one ruled by infidels and apostates as it separated itself from the legitimate Ottoman rule and because it allied itself to the British 'infidels'. Between the lines, Al-Masaary tries to praise Ibn Abdul-Wahab after criticizing him, but he describes him as a scholar with limited scope of intellect regarding understanding sharia texts. Al-Masaary accused Ibn Abdul-Wahab of copying and summarizing Ibn Al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya without forming new, innovative, creative ideas and notions, as he never thought of that; he was merely an active sort of political activist somehow. Even before scholars confiscate religious affairs and Al-Saud confiscate rule within the very first KSA, Al-Masaary writes that Ibn Abdul-Wahab reduced his call to be a regional racist one, but he never doubted his loyalty to slam and that he never allied himself to the British 'infidels', as he forsook political life in his old age because the Saudi ruler at the time allied himself to the British. Of course, this last claim was a fabrication by Al-Masaary to assert his bias against the third current KSA that has lost its legitimacy in his view (6). Al-Masaary contradicts himself when he writes that the legitimacy of the Ottoman caliphate; he is thus unwittingly opposes Wahabism, as the Ottomans were worshipping Sufi saints, this is the creed the Turks converted to when Sufism was practiced under the banner of Islam, and this was the religion against which Ibn Taymiyya and his school of thought and disciples revolted during the Mameluke era and against which Ibn Abdul-Wahab protested during the last decades of the Ottoman era. Hence, when Al-Masaary would admit to the so-called legitimacy of the Ottoman caliphate, and it embraced a creed refuted by Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Al-Qayyim, makes Al-Masaary an enemy of both ancient scholars as well as Ibn Abdul-Wahab, despite his heavily quoting them as the betters and the masters of Ibn Abdul-Wahab. Hence, Al-Masaary and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights fell into flagrant contradiction. He had better criticize Ibn Abdul-Wahab in a more convincing, to-the-point manner within the Sunnite Salafist methodology itself if he had talked about how Ibn Abdul-Wahab quoted in a distorted manner the words and notions of both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Al-Qayyim and he would have compared their words and his. Thus, he would have discovered what we and others have; the fact that Ibn Abdul-Wahab was a Salafist dwarf when compared with Ibn Taymiyya despite the time gap between them. Of course, the Salafist extremist Al-Masaary would not in a hundred years criticize Ibn Abdul-Wahab and his school of thought from a Quranist point of view to show how Wahabism contradicts the Quran; as he is far from the Quranic guidance in the first place.


7- Al-Masaary and scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights had ulterior motives within their criticizing and undermining Ibn Abdul-Wahab and his thought; they stick to another fundamentalist creed that they deem high above Wahabism. They resented the fact that Ibn Abdul-Wahab readily placed himself as subservient of the Saudi prince, thus setting the rule of placing scholars under rulers, a stance refused and rejected by Al-Masaary and the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Their view is the other way around; scholars represent sharia and they are above any rulers and sultans, thus unwittingly imitating the Shiites. Al-Masaary and the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights never liked to imitate Ibn Abdul-Wahab in being subservient to the Saudi royal family and helping them to own lands and people living on them; rather, they aimed to place themselves high above all rulers and sultans, especially the Saudi royal family. If Ibn Abdul-Wahab placed himself in service of the Saudi family, he is unfit to be their imam. If Al-Sheikh family members, descendants of Ibn Abdul-Wahab, serve and live off Al-Saud family, they can go to hell.        


8- Hence, Al-Masaary and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights differed in their Salafist Sunnite fundamentalist thought from both the traditional Wahabism and the Wahabi opposition movements of Al-Otaybi and the Najd Brothers, as both sanctified Ibn Abdul-Wahab, which has been the stance of formal high-rank scholars subservient to the KSA, as all of them were Wahabi brethren. Let us discuss below the difference between traditional Wahabism of scholars, representative of sharia, in service of political authority and the Wahabi fundamentalism that rebelled against such notion and makes rulers submitting to scholars who represent sharia, as called for by Al-Masaary and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. 


Between the fundamentalism of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and traditional Wahabism:


1- Al-Masaary and members the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights undermined Ibn Abdul-Wahab after quoting from his words what would serve their purpose of harshly attacking and undermining the KSA and its scholars.


2- The unknown author of the book titled "The Earthquake of Al-Saud Family" saw that King Abdul-Aziz managed to crush the Najd Brothers and their revolt and to unify the KSA and to spread security and peace within it, and this led him to turn into a tyrannical ruler under an un-Islamic motto of ''sheikhs knows best''. He criticized King Abdul-Aziz because he never cared about events occurring beyond the Saudi borders and never thought about establishing an Islamic Empire; rather, he insisted on the concept of a country and a nationality under Al-Saud family, as rulers knows best and expect blind obedience while addressing advice to rulers must be in secret and discreetly via mediators from sheikhs and scholars, like Ibn Baz for instance, because within such concepts, it is forbidden to criticize or advise rulers in public. Of course, such notions were embraced and propagated by Wahabi scholars in service of Al-Saud family. This author asserts that this was the state of affairs until King Feisal welcomed into the KSA the Egyptian MB members who fled Egypt to avoid persecution of the secular, Leftist Egyptian President Abdul-Nasser. As per this author, the MB members exchanged ideas and notions with Wahabi opposition figures; the former renewed their 'pure' Wahabi faith and the latter learned organization and the generality of the call to all Muslims worldwide in all the political, social, cultural, and religious aspects (7).  Hence, a rift existed from now on between traditional Saudi Wahabism of formal scholars serving the KSA and the fundamentalist Salafist opposition movement that hated the KSA and sought to topple the Saudi regime one day. Hence, the terrorist MB members, in our opinion, influenced to a great extent the establishment of the Wahabi opposition in the 1990s.       


3- Typically, Al-Masaary in his book ''The Decisive Proofs of the Illegitimacy of the KSA'' criticizes traditional Wahabism to make Sunnite fundamentalism of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights rise high above it, in a discourse filled with lewd terms and sarcasm as well as declaring others as apostates. He asserts that traditional Wahabi scholars focused on demolishing mausoleums and mosques with tombs while overlooking what he deemed as the core of Islam: to disown all tyrant rulers and polytheists, as per Wahabi notions in the writings of Ibn Abdul-Wahab.


4- In the 9th chapter of his book, Al-Masaary under the title ''The KSA Is the Tomb of scholars and Prison of Preachers'' accuses Saudi scholars serving the KSA of deceiving Muslim nations by giving a sharia cover or coloring to all acts of the Saudi government in return for money, gifts, and luxurious living. Such corrupt scholars disregard and overlook the fact that the KSA has laws that oppose and contradict Wahabi sharia, and yet, such scholars talk constantly about ruling in the name of God and His sharia. In his opinion, such scholars ignore sharia texts of jurisprudence related to rulers; they focus only on hadiths and notions of fiqh related to blind obedience to rulers. Moreover, they ignore realities of life at our times that pose many challenges to traditional Wahabism. Al-Masaary thus contradicts the writings of Ibn Abdul-Wahab and creeds of the Najd Brothers, as he does not consider countries whose people worship toms and saints as polytheistic countries of apostates, though such worship of the dead and their tombs is deemed as polytheism as far as Wahabism is concerned (8). Thus, Al-Masaary contradicts himself and he discards the important notions deemed as core Wahabism in order to serve his purpose of reaching power, authority and wealth by becoming ruler of Arabia one day. This is the purpose of all fundamentalists like the terrorist MB members among others, as they want to reach such goal by any means even if they would discard traditional Wahabism that serves rulers.    


5- Al-Masaary endeavored to convince readers that the KSA is ruled by apostates and infidels because it allies itself to the West and man-made laws, thus forsaking sharia laws and encouraging usury banks and failing to apply the principle of ''the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'' properly (9). Thus, Sunnite fundamentalism of Al-Masaary differs a lot from Salafist Wahabism.


6- Typically, Al-Masaary quotes Ibn Baz to prove his views contradictory, as he serves the KSA and the Saudi family and discards core of Wahabism. He mocked the fact that Ibn Baz had once declared the Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel-Nasser, as an infidel and apostate, because he did not apply sharia laws, while the same applies to the KSA that does not apply sharia laws and rely on man-made laws: (… Ibn Baz declared vociferously that any State which does not rule using God's sharia and God's Word in the Quran is an unjust, corrupt one of pre-Islamic era, as he concluded that Muslims should disown such a state and deem it as an enemy and not an ally, until it believes in God alone and apply His sharia. Of course, we do not quote Ibn Baz as trustworthy scholar, for he is nothing of the kind, but we quote him sot prove his inconsistency before readers … his words about Abdel-Nasser applies now to Al-Saud royal family …) (10).


7- The only point shared by both traditional Wahabism and fundamentalism formed by Al-Masaary is to easily declare others as infidels and apostates. He used above views of Ibn Baz against Abdel-Nasser to oppose and attack Al-Saud family. Beforehand, he used quotes from writings of Ibn Abdul-Wahab to declare the ruling family members as infidels and apostates. Ibn Abdul-Wahab himself easily declared others as infidels and apostates in the manner typical if Ibn Taymiyya. Al-Masaary in his writings has widened the scope of declaring others as infidels and apostates, as he insists on declaring all Arab and Muslims rulers, kings, and presidents as infidels and apostates because they do not apply sharia laws. Al-Masaary here contradicts himself; as in previous writings, he tolerates those who worship tombs and dead saints, unlike traditional Wahabism. Yet, Al-Masaary has widened the scope of declaring others as infidels and apostates to serve purposes of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights in fighting the KSA, by declaring as apostates all who oppose his views, Muslims and non-Muslims rulers and non-rulers alike (11).


8- Declaring others as infidels and apostates entails allowing looting and bloodshed of apostates as called for before by Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Abdul-Wahab, as the latter allied himself to Al-Saud family under the motto of conquering by the sword and raisin the motto of ''Blood for blood and destruction for all enemies!'' during military Wahabi jihad to unify regions under the banner of Wahabism, thus murdering and massacring the innocent Muslims after declaring them as infidels, polytheists, and apostates and confiscating their lands and possessions. 

9- Al-Masaary approves this Wahabi jihad in the 5th chapter of his boo, under the title ''Sharia Ways and Unifying Muslims'', as he favors incessant jihad to re-establish caliphate as religious duty, and he praises the Najd Brothers who revolted military against King Abdul-Aziz when he stopped their jihad within Iraqi borders. Al-Masaary resented the fact that the KSA signed in 1931the Kellogg–Briand Pact, after King Abdul-Aziz and the UK vanquished and killed off the Najd Brothers. Al-Masaary writes the following about the KSA: (…This vicious State is ruled by infidels and apostates who signed a pact that prevents jihad, and it is a grave crime against Islam (i.e., Wahabism, of course) to stop jihad to spread Islam (i.e., Wahabism, of course) all over the globe, and thus, the Saudi state prevents a religious holy duty of fighting infidels, polytheists, and apostates…) (12). This means that Al-Masaary agrees to the logic of the very first Saudi State of the duty to fight all those deemed infidels, polytheists, and apostates, and he attacks King Abdul-Aziz for his prevention of Jihad assumed by the Najd Brothers. Yet, he saw that the first, second, and third Saudi States as illegitimate. This is another piece of evidence that he manipulates Wahabi notions to fight and undermine the KSA by choosing and quoting views to serve this purpose, thus writing contradictions. His sole end here is to place scholars above the stature and authority of rulers.     


The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights monopolizing sharia to control the Islamic world:


1- We have written about how the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights undermines the legitimacy of the KSA as it does not apply Salafist Wahabi sharia laws as it claims and that Al-Masaary criticized the first Saudi State and the distorted Saudi Wahabism in the 20th century and used Wahabi notions to undermine and refute the stances of the KSA because the Saudi rulers adopt political creed of blind obedience to rulers by all scholars and the subjects, unlike the creed of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights about rulers serving under scholars of sharia, which in fact is the views of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, even if such views contradict and oppose everyone's opinions. We explain this further below.  


2- The unknown author of the book titled ''The Earthquake of Al-Saud Family'' writes that intellectual preparation started years before the establishment of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, as pioneers of reform focused on two main topics: to convey the message of reform to the nation in an effective manner, and to establish organizations to apply Sunnite Hisbah (i.e. inquisition) on the nation and rulers. This means that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wanted ardently to attract and win citizens inside the KSA to its side to apply its political project; the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights would apply Hisbah on both rulers and the nation, thus making itself an authority high above both, and no one would call it to question, as if this is divine right or deputization in the name of sharia!


3- In the West regimes, the people are the source of authorities and elect their representatives in such balanced authorities within an atmosphere of transparency and political and intellectual freedoms, so as not to allow one authority to rise above the other, and the people supervise and watch closely over the three authorities (the judiciary, legislative, and executive ones) by freedom of the press and media and NGOs. 


4- As per the Quran, Prophet Muhammad ruled Yathreb by Shura, which means in our modern terminology direct democracy without representatives, and God has ordered him to apply Shura: "It is by of grace from God that you were gentle with them. Had you been harsh, hardhearted, they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them, and ask forgiveness for them, and consult them in the conduct of affairs…" (3:159). This means that Yathreb dwellers were the source of authority of Muhammad as a ruler of this city-state; if they had dispersed away from him, he would have lost authority and protection against the Meccan persecution. Sadly, once Muhammad died, early Muslims were gradually transformed into tribal, monarchical military rule for the first time by the Umayyad Dynasty and to theocracies of the Abbasids and the Fatimids until the Ottomans, and eventually European colonial powers occupied Muslims' countries by making use of the weakness, backwardness, deterioration, degeneration, and tyranny of the Ottomans. This proves that Al-Masaary resorted deliberately to contradictions when he praises in his book the Ottoman Empire that collapsed in Turkey in 1924 and calls for its revival, and he attacks the KSA for separating itself from it at one point.


5-For the sake of such revival of the Ottoman Empire, Al-Masaary and the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights base their ideology on the notion that they are the sole owners of the right to fully control the State in Arabia, with its lands and citizens, by Hisbah that will be applied to both the nation and rulers. And the next step for the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights would be conquering regimes of all Arab countries and the Islamic world to unify them under one caliphate ruled by Al-Masaary as a caliph, as opposed to the West 'infidels', thus repeating the Sunnite Salafist notion of dividing the world into two camps: camp of peace and Islam and camp of war and infidels. Further details on this will be tackled later on in this book.    


6- The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights saw that sharia is teachings of Ibn Taymiyya in the first place and then Ibn Abdul-Wahab in the second place. Sharia of Ibn Taymiyya entails murdering Muslims for numerous trivial reasons and even for mere differences in views regarding faith, acts of worship, jurisprudence, etc., as this would make a man apostate deserved to be murdered brutally and his possessions confiscated, even if such a man is a Sunnite scholar! This is frightening! Scholars within the Ibn Taymiyya school of thought would order the murder of such 'apostates' without trial even if they repented! Other apparently less extremist Sunnite Wahabis of the 20th century, like the terrorist MB members and theologians Sayed Sabek in his book titled ''Fiqh Al-Sunna'' and Abou Bakr the Algerian in his book titled ''Methodology of Muslims", repeat the same views! The application of such sharia of Ibn Taymiyya school of thought is a catastrophe leading to indiscriminate murders and bloodshed, and even if members of the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights would apply such notions, they would liquidate one another in case they would differ in religious views! The crux of the matter is the crisis of Sunnite Salafist Wahabism: it entails a thorough revision before calling for its applications. Such revisions is made impossible to apply because most of the notions within Sunnite Salafist Wahabism contain contradictions and illogical views that cause disputes and conflicts, along with contradictory hadiths authored by known and unknown persons who had ascribed it falsely to Prophet Muhammad after his death. Any Salafist scholar could not possible deny a hadith and declare it does not relate to Prophet Muhammad, especially when such a hadith is quoted by ancient scholars centuries ago. Hence, both the Wahabi terrorist MB members and the Wahabi members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights rely on slogans and mottoes as well as meaningless phrases like ''application of Islamic sharia'', "Islam is the solution", "Hisbah", ''honored sharia'', without agreeing upon what notions are deemed within sharia and what are not. It is a grave error to deem such man-made views as divine sharia, which found exclusively in the Quran, because human beings commit errors and mistakes and have their own prejudices and biases. Ancient scholars created their schools of thought fit for their eras filled with injustices and tyranny of despots and governors; thus, their schools of thought would never fit the modern age of ours, and we thank Almighty God that the KSA does not apply the dangerous Wahabi sharia to the letter! 


7- The political creed of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights is to place itself high above rulers and citizens as the sole representative of faith and sharia and reserving to itself the right to perform Hisbah without being called to question by anyone else. The unknown author of the book titled "The Earthquake of Al-Saud Family" asserts that the letter of demands and the memo of advice were together a good first step, and he demanded the formation of a group of Wahabi scholars to choose/formulate laws and members of the Shura Council as well as to annul all secular, man-made laws that contradict Wahabi sharia. Another mission of such group was to apply Hisbah: to watch over people's dress codes, behavior in streets, work capacity and efficiency... etc. to fire all corrupt officials in the government of the KSA and to hold the accountable and try them in courts, even if they are ministers within members of the Saudi family. This group must re-build Saudi media and military army within sharia laws and adjust external policies to be based on enmity toward the West. Such group would be pioneers of reform and never would be questioned by anyone else!    


8- The unknown author of the book titled "The Earthquake of Al-Saud Family" asserts that all Saudi citizens should be mobilized to join the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights to apply justice and equality and to fight corruption after the failure of attempts of the memo of advice and letter of demands: (… The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights managed to convey its message of reform to all Saudi citizens with its details to appeal to the nation … and it is high time to tackle other complicated issues, and certainly pioneers of reform in the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights could manage all critical complicated issues …). He means here the Hisbah of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, but the dominant culture in the KSA would not tolerate any committee independent from the Saudi royal family, and the pioneers of reform realized this fact, but (… also realized the need to apply such concept within a group trusted by all people in an acceptable framework to cooperate to help the oppressed and the weak …). We conclude here that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights raises the motto of helping the oppressed and the weak to deceive the masses and to reach its ultimate goal: absolute tyrannical theocratic rule under concept of Hisbah over rulers and people, high above the Saudi throne. This is similar to the Shiite notion of placing the scholar above politics and rule and all rulers and governors, as we will tackle below.


The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights was influenced by the Shiite traditions, creed, and political movements:


1- Despite the fact that declaring Shiites as polytheists and apostates is a shared point between traditional Wahabism and rebellious fundamentalism of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, its supporters and members were influenced by the Shiite traditions especially the principles of ''the guardianship of scholars or jurists'' and the principle of ''Taqiyya'' (i.e., pretending to deny one's religious beliefs to avoid censure and/or persecution), as members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights show empty mottoes, regarding the oppressed and applying reform etc., and hide the ulterior motive of seeking power, authority, and wealth. Thus, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights has its own sharia and declares people outside its circle as infidels and apostates, as the case with Saad Al-Faqeeh and his supporters who left the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights.    


2- Using Taqiyya, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights uses a mélange of issues and topics in a contradictory manner to hide its ulterior motive of seeking absolute power, authority, and wealth under the claim of divine deputization as the sole body representative of sharia. And we give the following example: Statement No. 9, on the Saudi role in Yemen and how the Saudi family members ignored to consult the citizens, attacks the Saudi government as it got involved in supporting separatist communists in Yemen. The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights asserts the right of the Saudi nation to be consulted and to participate in decision-making process and to hold rulers accountable and put them to question. Such words and notions are OK, but they are used manipulatively as a mélange of ideas to deceive readers, and we discover this as we go on reading Statement No. 9: (…The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights sees that it is the duty of its scholars, thinkers, and the cultural elite boost the conditions of the KSA by applying Hisbah on rulers on behalf of the nation …). Of course, this tyranny did not deceive the Saudis. In Publication No. 15 in 1994, titled "Rule and Sovereignty with Sharia and the Nation", the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights write the following: (… Yemen events passed and the Saudi nation has the right to put to question those involved in supporting communists … as policies that adopt sharia entail that rule and sovereignty should follow both the Islamic sharia and the will of the nation … who has the right to apply Hisbah on rulers if they fail to deliver …)


3- This does not imply that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights truly believe that people is the source of all authorities; as among proofs cited by Al-Masaary to declare the KSA as ruled by apostates and infidels is holding Ta'if Conference in 1989 about crisis of Lebanon: (… heretic notions of such conference are so many; we give an example here; they said that people is the source of all authorities, and we cannot accept this heretic notion of the so-called democracy authored by the West infidels … it is as if the people are deities to legislate for themselves … since the KSA held such conference of heresies on Saudi lands, we see that scholars could not protest against such notions of apostasy in the land of monotheism!) (13). It is clear that Al-Masaary saw that the principle "people is the source of all authorities'' as part of apostasy and heretic notions, thus making members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights contradict themselves!  


The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights considered itself the sole representative of sharia and the nation!


1- Al-Masaary writes in Publication No. 15 the following: (… It is among the essentials of the sharia politics that authority is derived from sharia to people …), and this indicates that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights considered itself as the sole representative of sharia laws, people, and the nation as well!


2- The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wanted to represent the nation based on their misinterpretation of this Quranic verse: "And let there be among you a community calling to virtue, and advocating righteousness, and deterring from evil. These are the successful." (3:104). In our Quranist point of view, we see that this verse means all the nation and citizens inside a given country and NOT a single group within society, and the evidence to support our view here is the context of this verse within its preceding and following verses: "And hold fast to the rope of God, altogether, and do not become divided…" (3:103), "And do not be like those who separated and disputed after the clear proofs came to them; for them is a great punishment." (3:105). Hence, these verses are dressed to the whole Muslims society and not special group of it. All Muslims, male and female, share this responsibility; see 9:71 and 103:3. This copes with direct democracy of Quranic Shura lost deliberately by early Muslims who formed the tyrannical caliphate ruling system that caused the emergence of Shiite religion and the Sunnite religion with their many doctrines and countless hadiths and traditional accumulated notions. Of course, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Abdul-Wahab as well as the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights follow the footsteps of such Arab ancestors in trying to restore theocratic Middle-Ages tyranny to struggle for power, authority, rule, and wealth. Thus both theocratic Shiites and Sunnites have one aim: to control the nation and to monopolize power and wealth and to crush dignity of citizens in the name of sharia and Islam, and the real Islamic sharia in the Quran is innocent of such Sunnite-Shiite crimes.       


3- The concept of ''the nation'' for Al-Masaary is confined solely to his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights that deputized itself as representative of God! Manipulating the name of sharia, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wanted to apply Hisbah on both rulers and citizens to check they apply sharia to the letter, thus imitating Shiite inquisition and Taqiyya to deceive people and own them as well as owning religion! This is the ulterior meaning of the sentence we quote from Publication No. 15 (… It is among the essentials of the sharia politics that authority is derived from sharia to people …).  


4- Of course, such views of Al-Masaary copes with political Salafist creed of all caliphs (pre-Umayyads, Umayyads, Fatimids, Abbasids, etc.) about the deified ruler/sultan rule by faith and sharia and who was the shepherd and his subjects as the sheep of cattle who obey him blindly and he owned them to the extent that he would kill one-third of them to reform the remaining two thirds! Thus, it is a 'heretic' notion to Wahabi Salafists in general, and members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights in particular, that people would be the source of all authorities. Thus, members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights deceive the readers with the words ''people'', ''nation'', ''absolute justice'', etc.   


The Sunnite Hisbah and the claim of absolute justice:

Firstly: the notion of the Sunnite Hisbah:


1- Hisbah means literally ''accountability; it is a Sunnite concept similar to ''inquisition''. Hisbah for Al-Masaary means simply that the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights will be placed high above the Saudi authority, rulers, and citizens as per the Iranian model of Ayatollah or Khomeini guiding rulers and governors. The same applies to the case when a member of the terrorist MB member reaches the presidency in any country; he would be loyal and submissive to the supreme MB guide. This is political Hisbah of Al-Masaary who plays on words to deceive readers to cover his political ambition to monopolize power, rule, authority, and wealth instead of the Saudi royal family.     


2- Al-Masaary authored a book titled ''Judging Rulers'', with a dedication to the leaders of the Najd Brothers: (… This book is dedicated to the great Hisbah jihadists Sheikh Sultan Ibn Bajad, prince of the Otaybah tribe, and Sheikh Feisal Al-Daweesh, prince of the Mateer tribe, who applied Hisbah with the sword on the tyranny British agent of Arabia Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud …). In this book, Al-Masaary tackles the Sunnite fundamentalist notion of divine deputization in political rule of theocracy to apply absolute justice of sharia.


3- We have refuted such notion elsewhere in our Quranist articles and books; but we briefly say here that such Sunnite false and un-Islamic notion is based on the erroneous understanding of the verb ''to judge'' in the Quranic context. Sunnite, Salafist, MB, and Wahabi understanding of this term is: to rule politically. This is a grave error. The literal meaning of the term in the Quran is simply to judge as in courts and judicial systems: "…If they come to you, judge between them, or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they will not harm you in the least. But if you judge, judge between them equitably. God loves the equitable." (5:42), "…Those who do not judge according to what God revealed are the unbelievers." (5:44), "…Those who do not rule according to what God revealed are the evildoers." (5:45). "…Those who do not judge according to what God revealed are the sinners." (5:47). "…So judge between them according to what God revealed…" (5:48). "And judge between them according to what God revealed…" (5:49). Hence, the phrase ''judge between'' is within the context of judicial trials or settling disputes and does NOT mean ''to rule over'' people within a political sense. The same sense applies to the following verses: "…And when you judge between people, judge with justice…" (4:58). "When they entered upon David, and he was startled by them, they said, "Do not fear. We are two disputants; one of us has wronged the other; so judge between us fairly, and do not be biased, and guide us to the straight way."" (38:22). This means that Salafists who distort the meaning of the Quranic term ''to judge between people'' into ''to rule over people'' are deliberately distorting the Quran to serve their political and theocratic purposes. They forget that there is no notion of clergy in Islam (i.e., the Quran alone).     


Secondly: Islamic notion of Shura (consultation):


1- We have explained in elsewhere in our books and articles that the concept of Shura in the Quran means that the nation is the source of all authorities and all power and that prophet Muhammad has been ordered to apply Shura in the Quran as he was the ruler of the Yathreb city-state. We have explained before that Shura was a religious duty for all Muslims in a given society, just like the religious duties of performing prayers and paying zakat: "And those who respond to their Lord, and pray regularly, and conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and give of what We have provided them." (42:38). The duties of Shura, performing prayers, and paying zakat cannot be done by someone instead of someone else. Hence, Shura in Islam means direct democracy of citizens expressing their views themselves without representatives within a parliament. Like prayers performed in mosques, Shura in the Yathreb city-state used to be in mosques where men and women gathered together like a political assembly to discuss topics related to ruling Yathreb. Some men used to avoid attending such gatherings and God has warned against such avoidance: "The believers are those who believe in God and His Messenger, and when they are with him for a matter of common interest, they do not leave until they have asked him for permission. Those who ask your permission are those who believe in God and His Messenger. So when they ask your permission to attend to some affair of theirs, give permission to any of them you wish, and ask God's forgiveness for them. God is Forgiving and Merciful." (24:62)


2- Early Muslims observed the religious duty of Shura during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad, and no further Quranic rebuke revealed after 24:62; on the contrary, we conclude that the gatherings were so big that conspiring secretly within them has been rebuked by God in the Quran see 58:8-11.


3- Some historical accounts during the period of pre-Umayyad caliphs tell us that Shura gatherings went on for while in the Yathreb mosque using the call for congregational prayers. Yet, all this was lost once the Umayyads made their theocratic hereditary monarchical rule, imitated by all successive caliphates like the Abbasids and Fatimids, etc. What proves this historical point is the fact that authors of historical books and books of hadiths and biography purportedly ascribed to Prophet Muhammad ignored to register and record in their books any sermons delivered by Muhammad or any minutes of any Shura councils during his lifetime. In fact, such writings of hadiths, biography, and jurisprudence were written in the early Abbasid era and later eras and not before that, and they are falsehoods and lies that fill countless volumes and tomes to serve the purposes of political and theocratic tyranny of despots and political clergymen and scholars who sought power or sought to please sultans in return for money. Sadly, Al-Masaary repeats the same ancient lies and falsehoods in his book titled ''Judging Rulers'' to lend the scholars of his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights an authority high above any rulers.


Absolute justice as defined by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights:


1- Al-Masaary claims that absolute justice could never be applied in this transient world unless via the dominance of Sunnite, Wahabi sharia! This is utter nonsense! Anyone who reads books of Sunnite mythology, falsehoods, jurisprudence (i.e., fiqh), differences, contradictions, extremism, and bloodshed would easily realize that 1) it is a religion of injustice and violation of human rights, and 2) it lacks any innovative, creative thinking in both fields of fiqh and politics. Most of Sunnite books focus on corporeal punishments, purification of body and things and other items, sex, trade dealings, and persecution and oppression of women and slaves. Sunnite books rarely contain anything about the relation between rulers and the ruled subjects, except in some margins in few book that tackled the notion that it is 'natural' for rulers to be tyrannical despots who represent divine right to rule, who deserve blind obedience by people, and who own lands and souls and everything and had the right to kill one third of the population to reform the two remaining thirds! Hence, we can hardly expect any justice within books of the oppression- and injustice-based Sunnite religion. To imagine that Al-Masaary and his members and supporters of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights want ardently to apply this unjust and oppressive Sunnite sharia in the name of the nation and Islam makes one shudder with fear and indignation!  


2- Typically, it is a bad habit of all fundamentalists, especially Sunnite Wahabis and particularly Al-Masaary and the members and supporters of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, to talk on behalf of or in the name of the ''Islamic nation'', as if they knew the views of 1.5 billion Muslims on the globe! Such 1.5 billion Muslims never authorized anyone to talk on their behalf. Hence, both Al-Masaary and his members and supporters of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights seem to be on drugs and imagine things within hallucinatory sessions to please themselves!


3- Al-Masaary says that absolute justice could never be applied in this transient world, and this is true; it will be applied only in the Hereafter in the Day of Judgment by Almighty, Omniscient God; see 40:16-20. Absolute justice entails a never-erring Being who is All-Knowing; and all human being commit mistakes and have their own biases and prejudices, and they can be deceived, as occurred to Prophet Muhammad himself when the Quran rebuked him for a mistake in judging a case because some facts of this case were not mentioned to him; see 4:105:115.


4- Hence, absolute justice could never be applied in this transient world even during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad who applied Quranic sharia as best as he could in the Yathreb city-state without seeking worldly ambition. With the passage of centuries, things got mixed up and overlapped among the worldly ambitions and religious terms and seeking the Hereafter, as we discern from the words of Al-Masaary in this quote: (… There is no doubt that there is no absolute justice except through Islam within the dominance of sharia; otherwise, absolute justice would not be completely applied …) (14). We translate his words as follows: he falsely promises readers to provide absolute justice if he would rule over Arabia, because sharia consists only of his own views; this is a lie to attract and win the masses in the KSA to his side and to undermine the Saudi government. Hence, Al-Masaary insults both the nation of Arabia and Islam violated as always by both Al-Masaary and all Wahabi in general in the opposition or subservient to the Saudi State, for the sake of transient glory of the world's power, authority, rule, and wealth, while  forgetting all about the Hereafter and eternal life.


Between the Saudi royal family's claim of owning the State and the claim by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights of owning sharia and religion:


Firstly: between the deified caliph and the deified religious scholars who assume guardianship of faith and jurisprudence:


1- Overt, superficial look would make readers feel that Al-Masaary and his fellows of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wanted ardently to revive Salafists' middle age, when a caliph ruled with absolutism, tyranny, and despotism doing whatever he liked without being put to question. This is shown as Al-Masaary laments the loss of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 despite the fact that it was the worst caliphate witnessed in Muslims' history for four centuries. In the modern age, the West knew principles of freedom and justice, while simultaneously Ottoman governors spread corruption on earth in the name of 'Islamic' caliphate. The cons of the Ottoman caliphate were deliberately overlooked by Al-Masaary and his fellows of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights; hence, the superficial look would see that the call to revive caliphate meant simply to promote the Ottomans and their ruling system. Yet, the deeper look that delves into things asserts something else; Al-Masaary and fellows of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wanted ardently to establish their own more tyrannical State in comparison to the Ottomans. This is strange in our modern age of human rights and democracy, because the sharia of Al-Masaary and fellows of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights grants absolute power monopolized by a caliph in the name of 'divine' Wahabi sharia and would stop all councils or parliaments to deny nation's right to be the source of all authorities. Worse than the previous items, Al-Masaary and fellows of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights would make scholars higher above all rulers and governments in power and authority; this is sheer theocracy in its worst forms and utmost corruption, more than the Saudi regime itself.      


2- Such extremist stances of Al-Masaary and fellows of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights against the KSA resulted from naming the kingdom after the Saudi royal family as the founder of it had legitimacy of the conquests by the sword to own and control lands and souls, and such traditional centuries-old notion was countered by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights with another traditional centuries-old notion of all rulers and nations submitting to scholars as representatives of divine sharia. Let us discuss below the two notions from the point of view of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights.


Secondly: the Saudi royal family's claim of owning the land and all persons and things in it:


1- We discern bitterness in the views of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights in its writings and analyses. Publication No. 5 in 1994 tackles the arrest of Dr. Hussein Mashhour, the scientist of physics who got his Ph.D. thesis from the USA after being taught in the UK, and who came from the south of the KSA. Let us quote an excerpt: (… The mentality of possession within the Saudi ruling family shows the class distinction nature in Arabia; all of citizens in view of the royal family are mere ''things'' or ''subjects'' owned by this family, apart from foreign ''things'' owned because they reside in the KSA among working classes of all other nationalities …). This discourse asserts that Prince Sultan controlled education sectors despite the fact he was uneducated. When Prince Salman received a delegation from the teachers of King Saud University to beseech him to release Al-Masaary from prison as he was a great scientist in nuclear physics, Prince Salman refused, saying that he never cared about the degrees of people who oppose the KSA. The same applies to Dr. Hussein Mashhour: he was a mere 'thing' possessed among colored ''subjects'' from the south of KSA.   


2- In Publication No. 12 in 1994, Al-Masaary sarcastically and bitterly questions the ownership of the Saudi royal family to the lands and people living on it: (… Are we better than other nationalities?! We are the only citizens on the globe to be owned personally by their rulers who trade with our fate and lands …).


3- In Publication No. 15, the topic tackled is the big insult or humiliated to be ascribed to the Saudi family within the Saudi nationality, as names of nationalities must be derived from countries and not names of persons or a certain family name, and Al-Masaary compares this humiliation to other names of other Arab and Islamic countries and nationalities. Of course, the same discourse denounces the denaturalizing of Bin Laden without fair trial to him in absentia and without any sharia proof or civil legal basis.  This is the very first time we read the writings of Al-Masaary a reference to civil man-made laws in a positive way, as long as it would serve the purposes of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. 


4- In Publication No. 17 in 1994, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights tries to interpret the event of establishing the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs by the KSA: Al-Saud and the Saudi government (… with their mentality of possessing and enslaving people as things owned by the Saudi king thought that the citizens would applaud the establishment of such a governmental body to serve Islam, as if the royal family cares for the opinion of their owned ''subjects'' …). 


5- In Publication No. 9, we read the following: (… What would you think of those who deal unjustly with people, humiliating, despising, and insulting them as if they were ''things'' owned by the royal family? …).


6- In Publication No. 135, Al-Masaary urges that citizens must get rid of the epithet ''Saudis'', as people of Arabia are not to be owned by l-Saud family members, with the exception of policemen and security national guards and scholars: they are truly Saudis in the sense of serving Al-Saud family. 


7- In Publication No. 28 in 1994, he Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights sees that the mentality of owning people is the basis of corruption and bribery and stealing money from the State Treasury to the pockets of the royal family members by money gifts, confiscation of lands, salaries, commissions, confiscation of trade and the like, and thus public state money is stolen.


8- This interpretation by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights was repeated, as the Saudi family own the State, the lands, and the citizens in a provocative way, derived from Salafist thought, which led the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights to have a strong reaction in the opposite direction. Hence, the contradiction in the stances of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights lies in the fact that it faced such Salafist notion of rulers' ownership with another Salafist notion no less worse than it: sharia represented in scholars who rise high above all authority of rulers, as the case in Iran, as the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wanted ardently to embody sharia to place itself above all Saudi authority and citizens.  


Thirdly: Quranic/Islamic sharia has nothing to do with the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights:


  We briefly talk here about the essence of Quranic sharia, the only true sharia in Islam as per Quranists, as opposed to Sunnite Wahabi sharia manipulated by fundamentalists who deceive the masses in order to reach power, authority, and wealth by claims of applying sharia and refusal to accept the existence of civil laws. We summarize this topic in the following points.


1- Man-made civil laws begin with a constitution setting the main principles of a given country and its legislative objectives and how authorities (legislative, judiciary, and executive ones) are managed and distributed within certain statutes as well as philosophy of rule, economy, the relation of society with religions, the parliament, laws application and setting, role media, political systems, etc. as far as interests of citizens and their country are concerned, and this is the legislative objectives in the Quranic sharia applied by Prophet Muhammad in the Yathreb city-state, a brief era whose bright light went off in the tyrannical eras of oppression and injustice of the so-called caliphate.    


2- We must bear in mind that legislative Quranic verses are less than 200 verses with repetitions of certain divine commands included. Such legislative Quranic verses are the real and only Islamic sharia; most of them revolve around details of how Islam cares for the rights of family, society, and individuals. Hence, the God in the Quran deliberately leaves ample room for human beings to set laws coping with needs of their age, within higher values and objectives of Quranic/Islamic legislation that include facilitation, justice for all, absolute freedom of faith and creed, equality for all, Shura and political participation of all which is similar to direct democracy in our modern-age terms, which is higher above than the widespread parliament-representatives type of democracy of today. Hence, within such basis, man-made civil laws could be set and be considered ''Islamic'' as long as they are set via people's will and agreement and as long as they are set in a way without contradicting the Quranic legislative objectives and higher values. Hence, the West democracies are the nearer application to the true Islamic sharia in the Quran. Thus, Sunnite and Shiite sharia laws, and other man-made ones ascribed falsely to Islam, that helped to establish ancient Sunnite and Shiites caliphates contradict the true Islamic sharia in the Quran. Evidence: the rise of tyranny, oppression, injustices, and corruption in all such caliphates throughout history of Muslims.    


3- All tyrant rulers/ sultans/ caliphs used to raise the banner of sharia to justify their oppression, despotism, and injustice. But history tells us about certain few instances of real piety of judges and fewer instances of piety of rulers, despite the fact that the judicial systems of Middle-Ages Muslims overlap and did not distinguish between divine laws in the Quran and man-made ones in fiqh, and thought of the two as one divine source of sharia laws; a grave error. In fact, man-made innovative thinking in jurisprudence and interpretations of the Quranic verses reflect mentalities of their inventors and their dominant culture in their eras and NOT Islam per se, in addition to the catastrophe of fabricating hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad centuries after his death. This made room for ancient scholars to add, remove, exclude, and include anything they liked and led to the emergences of countless doctrines and school of thoughts under the three main banners of Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi creeds, with differences between every generation of scholars. It is not surprising to read the phrase "scholars varied in their views of that subject" so frequently in Sunnite books and tomes, for instance. It is laughter-inducing to see scholars of our age making such vastly different and contradictory views as divine sharia and legislation; as if such human beings' views were infallible and irrefutable. It is a grave insult to God by them to ascribe and annex such views to His religion of Islam: the Quran alone.           


4- Such vast differences even within a given doctrine have resulted in the overlapping between legislation and personal favored opinions of the judges within the Middle-Ages judicial systems of Muslims, instead of applying justice as much as they could, judges would find themselves before so many contradictory fiqh views to choose from! Hence, most judges were extensions of tyranny and corruption of caliphs and sultans whose caliphate and all their statesmen were corrupt and unjust. History tells us of few instances when just judges were persecuted and killed by rulers because they tried to apply justice. 


Fourthly: the injustice of the fundamentalist Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, even before it would reach power and rule:


1- Fundamentalists never care to modernize fiqh (jurisprudence) to make it cope with modern age and to correct the countless mistakes of ancient imams and scholars by using the Quran as the only criterion; instead, they raise banner of ''sharia'' to deceive the masses to reach their only real political goal: to rule within a theocracy.


2- Human rights organizations as well as international law specialists of American-Arab origin in the West have showed loops, weaknesses, and shortcomings of the sharia judicial systems of the KSA as they lived for a while inside it to study things within a closer look, and the American Foreign Office report about human rights in the KSA contain a section about the lack of public fair trials within sharia courts (15).


3- Liberty Organization serious report about sharia judicial courts in the KSA and its shortcomings and loops has the title "Judicial Chaos and Absolute Authority of Princes", and it seems to be prepared by Shiite activists inside the KSA; the report begins with criticizing Liberty itself and its reports as they ignore deliberately the blight and suffering of Shiites and confined themselves to information provided by Al-Masaary and his Committee of defending Legitimate Rights, which praises persecution of Shiites inside the KSA. The introduction of the Liberty report indicates how information provided by Al-Masaary about Shiites was biased against the Saudi Shiite citizens, providing incorrect image about state of affairs inside the KSA. The report accuses the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights of being a political party representing one group for one purpose, and not representative of all Saudi citizens, and that their information has nothing to do with human rights but sectarian and political ambitions and ends. After such an introduction, criticizing Liberty and the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights, the report gives an image of the despicable conditions of sharia courts inside the KSA within these points: lack of moral value and esteem of the Saudi judicial system, chaos of the judicial system, restrictions of the judicial system, and violations of the of the judicial rights by people in power and authority, especially royal princes. This report reinforces its claims with respected transparency and realistic citation of events and occurrences to prove these claims, and then Liberty ends the report by apologizing for readers because it trusted the dubious figure of Al-Masaary and the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights, and then a Shiite organization translated the report into Arabic and published it online (16).


4- Readers of such Liberty report would wonder at the care of Shiites to apply justice for all Saudi citizens in the KSA within reforms of the judicial systems whereas Al-Masaary ignores this point totally despite its being worthy of discussion and criticism. We conclude from all writings of the the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights that its sole aim was to apply Hisbah (inquisition) on rulers an citizens as Al-Masaary thought of himself as the embodiment of sharia laws and he would apply his ''absolute justice'' as he called it, despite the fact that his the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights is prejudiced against Saudi Shiites.   


5- We have noticed that in the letter of demands, reforms of the judicial system was an essential demand, but the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights deemed this demand as to abolish all civil courts and to retain and establish Salafist sharia courts alone – criticized by Liberty report – and thus, the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights confiscates talking in the name of sharia and aimed to control the Saudi judicial system to undermine and defeat its foes (i.e., the Saudi royal family members and men subservient to them) and to enable itself to apply Hisbah on all without anyone daring to criticize it or to put it to question so as not to be deemed an apostate!


6- Yet, to abolish civil courts and to replace them with Salafist sharia courts means that the members of the Committee of defending Legitimate Rights have to come up with innovative, creative ideas to cope with the modern age and its varied and many complications in the administrational, economical, financial, social, and political aspects, and such innovative thinking cannot be found in writings of Salafist imams from Ibn Taymiyya to Ibn Abdul-Wahab.  Wahabi scholars failed before to do this during the reign of King Abdul-Aziz after oil discoveries led to modernization and complications that entailed introducing new experts in all aspects, civil courts included, and the queries posed here are as follows: how such innovative, creative thinking be possible by the likes of Ibn Baz who denied that the Earth revolves around the sun and insisted, based on his Salafist mentality, that it is the other way round?! How such innovative, creative thinking be possible by Al-Masaary and his mentality that declares everyone as apostates and his views that are contradictory?!


A general overview of the contradiction of the sharia of Al-Masaary:


1- Al-Masaary contradicts himself in his personal views about any topic and he would write one opinion in one place and would write the exactly opposite opinion in another place. Al-Masaary has changed his views a lot when he was an ordinary Salafist Wahabi person and after he has become a fundamentalist who drove away his allies like Saad Al-Faqeeh because they disagreed with his opinions. Anyway, Al-Masaary always accuses his foes of being infidels and apostates who had forsaken Islam, and he pick and choose from ancient scholars' views as per what would serve his argument, considering himself as the only person who confiscates the right to talk about sharia laws, his own Al-Masaary sharia!   


2- We have discerned that even stances of Al-Masaary prove contradictory; he praises Ibn Baz at one point in Statement No. 2 in 1993 and at another point of the same statement, he attacks Ibn Baz harshly for his being in service of the Saudi royal family. Al-Masaary asserts his adherence to the creed of Sunnites regarding obedience to rulers and that his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights refutes any attempt to cast doubt on its loyalty to Wahabi sharia, and yet, he authored a book to undermine the legitimacy of the KSA and to demand that his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights would control the Saudi State in the name of sharia!


3- When human rights organizations commissioned Al-Masaary to write reports about conditions inside the KSA, he had provided doubtful information that lacked many items and ignored and overlooked 1) Saudi Shiites and their plight, 2) transgressions of Saudi religious policemen, and 3) corrupt judicial courts, and he called for more restrictions to be applied by the Saudi religious police on personal freedoms. It is strange that a hater of Shiites like Al-Masaary would adopt the Shiite notions of Taqiyya (hiding one's true stance or opinion) and guardianship of jurists and scholars whose authorities are above all rulers. He often quoted words of famous Shiite imams, and yet, he would also quote Sunnite scholars calling to punish Shiites by putting them to death as apostates as per Wahabi notions he embraces (17).


4- Despite the fact that Al-Masaary has found protection in London and the British laws that prevented his being deported upon Saudi requests, in his writings, he accuses the West laws and countries of pertaining to infidels and apostates and being based on 'heretic' un-Islamic notions. Al-Masaary resented in his writings the existence of international law, deeming it as crusaders' sharia of the Devil! These double standards of Al-Masaary cast doubts on his stances and views on all topics; he forgets that in the West he found protection and freedoms that made it easy for him to turn a church into a mosque.   


5- When Al-Masaary rejects international law in his writings and books, he unwittingly discards human rights that enabled him to seek political asylum in the UK. He even cites as a proof of the KSA as a country ruled by apostates that it attended international conferences and gatherings about human rights. Hence, Al-Masaary manipulates human rights for his purposes and resented that its organizations defend his foes in creed, like Shiites, as he links freedom of expression and of belief to sharia restrictions; i.e., his views of Al-Masaary sharia to control people and their opinions (19).


6- Al-Masaary accuses his foes among formal Saudi scholars that they would choose erroneous views of ancient scholars that contradict real sharia laws, whereas his views and that of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights symbolize sharia laws! Al-Masaary accuses Ibn Abdul-Wahab of copying and summarizing views of ancient scholars while claiming that he purified religion from deviated thought or notions as per his own limited understanding of views of ancient scholars of the Middle Ages selected by Ibn Abdul-Wahab in his writings (20); yet, Al-Masaary overlooks the fact that he has adopted the same method and that he considers his views as divine sharia!


7- Suffice it to say that Al-Masaary admits in the blurb of the 4th edition of his book titled "The Decisive Proofs of the Illegitimacy of the KSA" that it is a revised edition; this means that he has removed, corrected, and changed some of his former ideas and added new ones, and this shows that his modulated opinions are not deemed divine sharia at all (found in the Quran exclusively as we have said before many times) and that his opinions could be refuted and faced from other sources or the same sources he used; let us quote an excerpt from the introduction of his above-mentioned book: (… This book is a revised version of our previous book titled ''The Decisive Proofs of the Apostasy of the KSA'' which had the biggest amount of details about sharia violations in systems, statutes, and laws of the Saudi State, but this book had its shortcomings that lessened its influence and benefit and people rejected it because of them, and we saw the importance of revising it thoroughly and adding new paragraphs from other sources like the memo of advice and writings of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights …)    


8- Hence, Al-Masaary sharia in his writings merely consists of select passages and views of previous writers/authors that have nothing to do with our modern age, which entails from Muslims of today to create new fiqh (jurisprudence) to cope with our era, guided with the Quran: the true tradition of Prophet Muhammad. Such a mission requires lots of time and efforts, without any sort of political ambitions to reach power. It is a crime and a sin to sue the name of Islam in political endeavors or struggles, and to stop such crime is the very first item of intellectual and political reform. 


9- Al-Masaary and his likes of those who sought power, rule, and authority cannot possibly provide innovative, creative thinking in elucidating true tenets and facts of Islam, found exclusively in the Quran. Al-Masaary and his likes cannot do this and do not love to do it in the first place; Al-Masaary and his fellows of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights are distorting Islam and manipulating its name as a raised banner to falsely justify their power-seeking ambitions. It is a crime that the West media, and Arab media later on, would call such deceivers as 'Islamists'. All haters of Islam use such a false term and so do superficial Muslims who do not realize the contradiction and the vast abyss between Wahabism and Islam (i.e., the Quran alone). We hope that our book here would elucidate this fact to clear the name of Islam and Muhammad, whom God has sent as a mercy of humankind and NOT to terrorize humankind.    


10- We personally tend to think that Al-Masaary and his likes pose a veritable danger more than the one posed by the KSA; it is easy to attack those who assume rule and to hold them accountable and responsible for all negative things and injustice, but such rulers would compromise in order to keep the throne and then die eventually, unlike those who harbored destructive thought taking Islam as a façade. Destructive thought tends to outlive its authors, and it deceives the masses who ignore real Quranic facts and faith tenets and hate unjust rulers. Such ignorance and hatred are manipulated by Al-Masaary and his likes, and their destructive thought outlives them and outlives unjust rulers. To exemplify this, rulers who persecuted Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Ibn Taymiyya died and were forgotten, whereas the destructive schools of thought of such scholars linger until now in their books and by those who revive such schools now, as no one before us, Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, dared to refute and criticize their schools, proving from within the Quran that they contradict the Quran. In sum, Al-Masaary and his likes are more dangerous than unjust rulers; the masses might think of them as heroes struggling against injustice, but they are in fact doing grave injustices to people, to Islam, and to God Himself.    


11- We feel extremely sorry because most people do not understand this!



The contradiction of Al-Masaary in his call to reform ''the committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'':


Firstly: on the Saudi reforms linked to the demands of the opposition movements:


1- When King Abdul-Aziz conquered Hejaz, he readily sent the Najd Brothers away from it and back to Najd, where they belonged, and they revolted against him. He established a less extremist sort of religious police with fewer powers named the squads of ''the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice'', fully controlled by the KSA. He established sort of parliamentary councils in Hejaz cities in 1924, as Hejaz was more modernized and open to the world in comparison to Najd. Scholars loyal to him in Ta'if urged him to rename his kingdom as the KSA to make it belong to his family of Al-Saud, and he agreed to their suggestion and ordered the writing of a constitution, which did not happen at all during his reign. He only chose his successor, the Crown Prince, and coped with the Salafist thought in naming a caliphate after its founder as people supporting him admired him very much as a great man who in the modern age managed to build a kingdom from scratch, and we detect this admiration from the lines written by historians and scholars who supported him and requested he would name his kingdom as the KSA.


2- In fact, the political mentality of King Abdul-Aziz preceded the dominant culture if his age; he realized the importance of introducing social changes and items of modernization gradually, and he used to say: "All in good time…", and he made gradual changes to cope with the closed minds of the Najd Brothers and to make people accept such changes easily within the dominated cultural climate in Arabia, which was based on traditions, Salafism, and ultraconservatism, especially in Najd. Let us take into our consideration that once he got rid of the Najd Brothers with the aid of GB, and after defining borders and settling this affair with all neighboring countries, he had to rest and enjoy his gains and victories after unifying most of Arabian territories and restoring the ancestral kingdom. Within such circumstances and conditions, it was easily accepted by his contemporaries that he would name his kingdom as the KSA, but after about 60 years, Al-Masaary saw that such appellation as heresy and apostasy (21), and this shows he did not understand the cultural climate of King Abdul-Aziz, as many Bedouins saw that he had the legitimate right of conquest by the sword to rename Arabia as the KSA. 


3- Yet, reminding the Saudi rulers of the urgent need to apply reform is a very good thing done by all opposition movements, and done excellently first by Nasser Al-Saeed, whose influence and endeavors are undeniable as King Feisal had to introduce some reforms while he was the Crown Prince and Head of the Cabinet. After the terrorist action of Juhayman Al-Otaybi was put to an end, King Khaled had to order hastily the writing of a constitution and the establishment of the Shura council and local regional councils promised by King Feisal shortly before his assassination. Opposition fundamentalist movements after the Gulf War led King Fahd to introduce more reforms on all legislative and consultative bodies and to control all Salafist trend men when he controlled fully all Saudi religious institutions, established the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, and reformed the system of the religious police.  Hence, all Saudi reforms were resulting from the endeavors of opposition movements to raise political awareness of citizens. Let us discuss in more detail such reforms and the stance of the fundamentalist opposition movements toward them.   


Secondly: reforming religious bodies, especially ''the committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'':


1- Reforms of ''the committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'' began with King Fahd who dismissed its head Abdul-Aziz Ibn M. Al-Sheikh and appointed in his place Dr. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saeed in 1990.  Al-Sheikh was dismissed because he made his religious policemen stop some American soldiers to force them to apply laws of ''the committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice''. The new head, Dr. Abdul-Aziz Al-Saeed, graduated from the Cairo-based Al-Azhar University and was bent on reform and to face old traditional ways within the religious police by introducing limited organizational changes to lessen their transgressions and violations. He introduced a law permitting Saudi citizens to compel religious policemen to how their ID cards first before they take any measures and allowed citizens the chance to submit complaints against religious policemen in cases of transgressions.


2- The Saudi government gave training courses in 1992 to all religious policemen in their 400 branches all over the KSA to teach them their limits, duties, and missions, as countless complaints of furious citizens were received about their frequent violations and transgressions and their meddling and interference in the personal lives of citizens for no reason whatsoever. Such transgressions were suffered even by some governmental high officials, foreigners residing and working in the KSA, and some Saudi Princes, and King Fahd ordered religious policemen harshly that the KSA would not tolerate extremism any more (22).


3- Yet, Sunnite Wahabi fundamentalist opposition movement whetted the appetite of religious policemen to assert their power in the streets after the Gulf War broke out, and the USA Foreign Office reports on human rights in 1991 tackled in one section the frequent and flagrant violations of human rights perpetrated by Saudi religious policemen: (… Most Saudi citizens are being harassed by extremist fanatical religious policemen who observe and watch closely social behavior like closing down shops during prayers time and dress codes in public places. Some religious policemen transgress the limits of their job by arresting suspects for 24 hours before they turn them to civil authorities, and they harshly beat and verbally abuse incarcerated suspects and extort confessions by means of torture. Most religious policemen carry cudgels to discipline those who do not adhere to their rules, and sometimes this would lead to violence and quarrels in the streets. Some quarrels occurred recently between American soldiers there near their military basis and those religious policemen who wanted force foreigners to apply their rules in public. Yet the Saudi authorities are slow and reluctant in controlling such transgressions that increased after 1991 after the Gulf War broke out …).  


4- This American 1991 report predicting increase incidents of transgressions by religious policemen led the KSA to train them in special courses in 1992, and this shows that many of the religious policemen were influenced by the Wahabi Sunnite fundamentalist opposition movement notions, and king Fahd had to interfere and warn that the KSA would not tolerate any extremism.   


Thirdly: religious bodies and preventing non-Muslims from performing acts of worship:


1- Under the title ''Arbitrary Interference in Personal Affairs'', the American Foreign Office report has accused Saudi religious policemen of attacking houses to search them looking for proofs of non-Islamic rituals performed inside such houses of foreigners and Arabs, a flagrant violation to the freedom of religion of non-Muslims. A decree issued in 1991 to prevent all non-Islamic rituals on the KSA, leading most religious policemen in Oct. 1991 to arrest men and children who held a secret gathering to perform Christian rituals inside a house, as there are no houses of worship to non-Muslims in the KSA, which make non-Muslims pray and perform their rituals in secret (23). This is in contrast to the fact that Al-Masaary and most extremists live in the 'infidel' West countries and enjoy unlimited religious freedom but they hate and conspire against the West.


2- All reports of human rights organizations condemned transgressions of the Saudi religious policemen; the 1999 Amnesty International report mentioned that all non-Muslim foreigners residing in the KSA to work are prevented from praying and performing their rituals in secret, especially Christians, and they got arrested in case of being caught red-handed, accused of proselytizing Christianity in the KSA as Christian books were found with them. As per this report, Saudi religious policemen arrest such people without prior judicial permission and use violence for no reason at all, and the arrested Christians would remain incarcerated for long periods of time without trial or interrogation.


3- Violations and transgressions of Saudi religious policemen would reach Shiite citizens, as per the 1999 report of Amnesty International that mentioned the case of a Shiite imam who died in prison in 1998 because he was tortured to death accused of praying and calling to prayers in ways differed from the Sunnite ways (24).


Fourthly: the contradictions in the stance of Al-Masaary and his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights regarding ''the committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice'':


1- Hence, Saudi extremist fanatical religious policemen were influenced by opposition fundamentalists to become more violent bigots and the KSA tried in vain to reform them. But what were the stances of Al-Masaary and his members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights regarding the Saudi religious policemen and non-Muslims foreigners performing religious rituals inside their houses in the KSA?


2- In Publication No. 8 in 1994, Al-Masaary attacked Prince Salman and Prince Nayef, accused them both of restricting the powers of the Saudi religious policemen, and in Publication No. 13 in 1994, Al-Masaary  attacked the Saudi authorities of giving the green light to enemies of the Saudi religious policemen to take revenge from them. Al-Masaary in Publications Nos. 14 and 32 said that some foes of the Saudi religious policemen physically attacked members of the religious policemen. He asserted in Publication No. 48 in 1995 that many Saudi religious policemen were arrested, and in Publication No. 76, he mentioned that religious policemen arrested some civil policemen accused of being drug-dealers, but Minister of Interior released them soon enough and arrested religious policemen who arrested the civil ones!


3- In Publication No. 67, Al-Masaary criticized forcing Saudi religious policemen, influenced by fundamentalists, to show ID cards to citizens, as this was part of Saudi endeavors to quell and stop the fundamentalist Salafist trend rising within men of the State apparatuses and to marginalize their role inside religious policemen forces. Thus, we conclude that Al-Masaary and the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights defend the extremist trend within Saudi religious policemen. Criticism of Saudi religious policemen came from reports of human rights organizations and Amnesty International that defended before Al-Masaary and his members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights as well as sheikhs like Al-Hawali and Al-Ouda, as well as Shiites, among others.


4- Contradictions of Al-Masaary increased after some members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights left the committee with Saad Al-Faqeeh; his support of Saudi religious policemen contradicts his previous views, and his views are apparently against religious freedoms of belief and performing rituals of non-Muslims inside the KSA, and such views were formulated within certain circumstances through which Al-Masaary passed when some members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights left the committee with Saad Al-Faqeeh, and he used the centuries-old Salafist motto "necessities permit the forbidden things" to justify his views. Let us briefly mention below some of such circumstances that drove him to suddenly change his views from liberal stances to extremist ones.


5- In Jan. 1996, the UK authorities ordered Al-Masaary to leave UK, and in the same month, he declared that all Jews and Christians working inside the KSA must have their own houses of worship in Saudi lands in case his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights would assume rule of Arabia. Such fatwa of Al-Masaary came within circumstances that drove him to resort to Taqiyya (i.e., to declare stances which are not his own to deceive others) and to publish such fatwa in the English-Language London-based newspaper ''Muslim News'': (… Current state of affairs inside the KSA would not allow room for Jewish and Christian workers inside the KSA to perform their religious rituals, but there will be ample room for this when the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights assumes rule in Arabia and would grant minorities all their rights including building churches, performing religious rituals, and drawing marriage contracts as per their own religious rituals as well as full religious freedom and personal freedom for all Christians, Jews, and Hindus, as this is permissible in the Islamic sharia …). Hence, Al-Masaary was addressing the West within such political discourse in his fatwa to make the UK help him to reach power and rule Arabia after he failed miserably to win over the Saudi citizens to his side and despaired to achieve any measure of success in making most Saudi citizens join his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. 


6- Let us bear in mind these events: Al-Masaary wanted to make sure he would be safe and linger more years in London; in March 1996, he suffered the crisis of some members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights leaving the committee with Saad Al-Faqeeh, and the KSA formally asked the UK to deport Al-Masaary in April 1996 and threatened to cut economic ties with the UK and to punish and imprison any Saudi citizens who would read, retain, or distribute propaganda and political writings of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. A terrorist explosion shook Riyadh in April 1996, and the arrested criminals admitted to the fact that they were influenced by ideas propagated by Al-Masaary and Bin Laden, and these criminals were put to death in May 1996. Yet, another terrorist explosion shook the city of Al-Dhahran (25).   Such were the conditions and circumstances that coincide with the fatwa of Al-Masaary about religious freedom in which he did not believe as he shares all notions and ideas of the terrorist Bin Laden. Thus, Al-Masaary had to re-publish a revised version of his book titled "The Decisive Proofs of the Illegitimacy of the KSA", making use of writings of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, but instead of defending the Saudi regions policemen, we are surprised to read the exact opposite in the introduction of his book: (… And lastly, we talk about the Saudi religious policemen who undertake the mission of promoting virtue and preventing vice… in fact, it is an oppressive organization created by Abdul-Aziz after he got rid of the Najd Brothers who applied Hisbah on Abdul-Aziz and the Saudi family and most people in a harsh way regarding dress codes, personal behavior, performance of prayers, growing of beards, and the like… and they blamed Abdul-Aziz for his allying himself to GB and making peace with the Arabian neighboring countries instead of conquering them, as well as his imposing taxes and stopping their jihad so as to keep his kingdom within his control. Of course, the Najd Brothers performed Hisbah in a harsh way made uglier by their lack of deep knowledge of fiqh and Wahabi teachings, their superficial thinking, and their declaring Sufis and Shiites as apostates. The Najd Brothers used to spy on people inside houses and thus violating their privacy and personal liberty. After Abdul-Aziz got rid of the Najd Brothers, he established the religious police to undertake the mission of promoting virtue and preventing vice and apply Hisbah under the supervision of Saudi scholars, who issued a fatwa for Abdul-Aziz to kill the Najd Brothers, and who issued all their subsequent fatwas to serve his purposes, especially that giving advice to rulers must be in secret and discreetly to avoid disputes leading to calamities similar to what happened to the Najd Brothers! Of course, the oppressive Saudi religious policeman uses cudgels to terrorize citizens and have free rein to arrest and discipline them, with exception of Princes in palaces of course, as no one could discipline or question them, using methods of spying on people prohibited in the Quran. Salman Ibn Abdul-Aziz, ruler of Riyadh, has turned Riyadh into an espionage center serving him along with men of the Saudi central intelligence, thus distorting and tarnishing the image of Islam under the banner of reform …) (26). Hence, stances and sharia laws of Al-Masaary change as per changing conditions and circumstances, as he aimed to reach power to rule Arabia.


Between the reforms done by King Fahd and the Hisbah of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights:

Firstly: the opposition of traditional extremist Wahabis against reforms of King Fahd:


1- Le Nouvel Afrique-Asie magazine in its number issued on 31 April, 1992, published an article titled "Wahabis against Saudis" on the relations between the Saudi authorities and formal scholars and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, here's an excerpt from it: (… No agreements could be reached anytime soon between the Saudi royal family and extremist Wahabi London-based scholars, as the latter see that Islamic sharia is not applied to the letter by the KSA. Would troubles and unrest occur inside the KSA? Its princes feel threatened as they consider themselves as the sole guardians of Islam and its holy lands. In contrast fundamentalists see that Islamic sharia is not applied properly inside the KSA, and they make use of every error and mistake committed by the princes… fundamentalists focus on criticizing the corrupt scholars subservient to the KSA and reforms undertaken by King Fahd… as they see that such reforms would bring more man-made laws and not sharia laws, and they rejects the first written constitution. Formal Saudi scholars fear to lose their positions and money if the Saudi family collapsed and if a Shura council would be established to undermine their political power and authority they enjoyed for long… eventually, Ibn Baz urged that most of members of the Shura Council must be from among scholars, so as to face secular trends inside the KSA… there are lines of evidence to support the claim that fundamentalist trends spread within the Saudi religious policemen who attack Saudi Shiites who are declared as apostates… fundamentalists did not hesitate to attack harshly Ibn Baz himself and the formal State scholars, but after long silence on the part of the royal family, King Fahd announced that the KSA would no longer tolerate any form of extremism… the archenemy of Salafist fundamentalists is Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan the Saudi ambassador in the USA who support the KSA policies in allying itself to the USA and to urge princes to meet with pro-Israel Jewish Americans …) (27).


2- We conclude from this excerpt that youth loyal to the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights infiltrated the Saudi religious policemen and that Al-Masaary criticized reforms of King Fahd regarding Shura councils, the constitution, and the regional councils. The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights undermined formal corrupt scholars and gained momentum and support inside the KSA as a result of King Feisal's policies in making Salafist trends rise all over the KSA and the Arab world, an obstacle in the route of all types of reform; even King Feisal could not establish a constitution and a Shura Council before his assassination.     


Secondly: the Constitution reflects the Saudi royal family's claim of owning the land and things and persons in it:


1- The traditional Salafist notion of a monarch owning the land people on it appears between the lines of the Saudi constitution articles and their phrasing; for instance, Article No. 6 asserts that citizens will swear fealty to the king based on Quran and Sunna to obey him for better or worse and in time of prosperity and adversity. This shows blind obedience in the manner of subjects to self-deified kings of the Middle-Ages era! Of course, such notions of swearing fealty and monarchs owning lands and people were rejected for the first time by Nasser Al-Saeed.      


2- Searing fealty is not linked with referendum and elections; as the king is the source of all authorities (judicial, executive, and legislative ones) and not people or the nation, as we conclude from Article No. 44. The king is the one to choose solely the members of the Shura councils and has the power to try its members in courts or to order the dissolution of the Shura Council by royal decree. Moreover, the Shura Council sessions open and close also by virtue of royal orders alone and its members are to submit an annual report of the activities of the Shura Council. Even royal decrees specify regions of local councils and appoint heads of the Shura Council and the local councils, making such heads and members swear fealty to the king and to be loyal to the KSA and Islam, etc. Such absolute power in the hands of the king during all his lifetime makes him never be put to question by anyone, and this is considered to be deification of mortals, as God alone is the One who will not be questioned: "He will not be questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned." (21:23), but it is the salient point of creed and political faith of Shiite and Sunnite theocracies.


3- We conclude then from the Saudi constitution that the king monopolizes all political power even using all his men in the cabinet and the Shura Councils, and subsequently, the king owns the land and the wealth and all the economic aspects inside the KSA, as per Article No. 9 that says that the king owns all Saudi sources of wealth, but he is to ensure safety of private property and will not confiscate it unless by virtue of laws and for the public good (28); this is apparently seems to be a step forward and better than the Salafist notion of absolute despot owning lands and persons on it, but this article allows the king to grant and give money and lands to members of his retinues. 


4- Features of tyranny are very clear in the Saudi constitution, because the king, and not the nation, is the source of all authorities, and this contradicts Islamic justice that goes against the notion of one person monopolizing wealth and power without being questioned; yet, Article No. 8 mentions that rule of the KSA is based on justice, Shura, and equality stipulated by the Islamic sharia. How does such monopoly match real Islamic sharia in the Quran?!


5- Of course, such monopoly matches perfectly with the man-made Wahabi Salafist Sunnite sharia laws adopted partially by the Saudi royal family members as the see fit, harking back to the centuries of tyranny, despotism, and oppression under the caliphate system, when people would kiss the ground under the hands or feet of the Abbasid or Mameluke caliphs/sultans.


6- Despite shortcomings of the Saudi constitution, it is a good first step as the very first written one in the short history of the KSA after a long period of opposing the idea of writing one; it is a leap and a major step on the route to gain more social, political, intellectual, and economic rights and freedoms, away from the tenet of ''sheikhs know best''; and at least people got a chance, stipulated by the constitution, to say whatever they want to say to the king during the Shura Council sessions.


Thirdly: a comparison between Hisbah of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the Hisbah inside the KSA:


1- The rejection of both formal KSA scholars and opposition fundamentalists to the civil laws, Shura Council, and the constitution was not based on their care to gain more freedoms and rights, and subsequently achieve more justice, but was based on 1) hatred and animosity toward anything coming from the West and unknown before by their ancestors, and 2) new reforms would undermine and lessen their stature, authority, and consequently their money. New reforms would be considered harmful to Al-Masaary and the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, as they would undermine their creed of Hisbah. Let us tackle their concept of Hisbah (i.e., inquisition).  


2- Hisbah concept is never mentioned in the Quranic terminology in the Quranic text; it is a Salafist Sunnite traditional notion that briefly means a volunteer who would specify part his effort and time, presumably for God's sake, to check that everyone applies sharia laws, orders, and rules in daily life. Of course, this corrupt concept of inquisition had its political implications, as we will tackle in the points below:


2/1: Hisbah was at first a policemen-like job that was initiated during the Abbasid era and those undertaking such a mission became too powerful during the Mameluke era in Egypt and the Levant, and the Muhtasib  (i.e., in Arabic, the one undertaking Hisbah) was usually chosen from among sheikhs, scholars and prices. Even the historian / scholar Al-Makrizi undertook such a job for some time, roaming bazaars and souks (i.e., markets) to check prices and discipline and punish corrupt ones in public in the streets. This job was not by volunteers; but it was a paid job whose man was chosen by a caliph.

2/2: In the Second Abbasid Era, the Ibn Hanbal doctrine scholars grew too powerful and controlled Iraq; they fabricated a hadith about changing vice or sins by sheer force using one's hands. Under such a motto, some groups of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine scholars controlled streets of Iraqi cities by virtue of the concept of Hisbah, persecuting severely Shiites, Sufis, and the Al-Ashaary doctrine followers in Iraq. Hence, Hisbah gained the meanings of control, hegemony, and dominance over people. 

2/3: During the Mameluke era, sheikhs of Sufism became too powerful and close to sultans, instead of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine followers; thus, the Ibn Hanbal doctrine scholar Ibn Taymiyya and his disciples were persecuted by sheikhs of Sufism and Sufi Mameluke sultans, because Ibn Taymiyya wanted to change the vice called Sufism by sheer force. Sufis had no Hisbah concept; instead, they have a contrary Sufi-creed concept of non-opposition. 

2/4: During the last century of the Ottoman era, M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab emerged to revive the Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya schools, calling for restriction and persecution of Sufis and Shiites inside Arabia and the Arab world, but he himself was opposed and persecuted for a period of time until he allied himself in a pact with M. Ibn Saud to promote virtue an prevent vice by force and to massacre infidels/polytheists (i.e., all non-Wahabis in general) and loot their possessions, enslave their women, confiscate their land lands within conquests.

2/5: Political necessities of the 20th century forced King Abdul-Aziz to curb and then get rid of the Najd Brothers who aimed to apply Wahabism to the letter, including Hisbah concept, as they disciplines and punished those who did not close their shops during prayers time, those men and women who did not adhere to the dress codes, etc. Successors of King Abdul-Aziz modernized the KSA slowly but steadily in a way that would not undermine their confiscation of political power; thus, they stopped interference in personal daily life of Saudi citizens as long as they would not commit gross indecencies in public, in the streets, and as long as they would not criticize Al-Saud royal family, and this measure of 'freedom' contradicts Al-Masaary sharia, of course!   

2/6: Al-Masaary sharia of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights includes Hisbah in the vein of the Najd Brothers; the members wanted to check private personal life of all Saudi citizens as well as their beliefs, behavior in public outdoors and indoors, and how they perform rituals and prayers, as per the backward sharia of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Abdul-Wahab that entails murdering those disobedient ones who oppose scholars even if such opposition figures pray regularly!    

2/7: The fundamentalist Hisbah scholars would thus combine all types of authorities in their hands: they would incarcerate, accuse, incriminate, punish, and murder people; Hisbah scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights would like to be legislators, religious policemen, judges, and executioners! The fact that Al-Masaary and the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wanted to meddle and interfere in private life and conscience of people is considered the gravest worst type of injustice and unparalleled tyranny.  


3- Hence, the difference has been shown here between the Constitution of King Fahd and Hisbah of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights; it is the difference between a low pit and a bottomless abyss!



The stance of the Wahabi scholars subservient to the Saudi authorities between the KSA and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights:


  The political creed of scholars subservient to the Saudi State is simply that rulers know best for the general good and interests, and rulers must be blindly obeyed by everyone else. On the contrary, the political creed of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights is that sharia represented by its members would rise above all rulers and should apply Hisbah to both rulers and citizens. Let us examine more closely the stance of the Wahabi scholars subservient to the Saudi authorities between the KSA and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights


Firstly: Ibn Baz:


1- We can briefly say that he was hesitant in his stances despite his final siding to the KSA as Saudi authorities knew how to control him and to restrain him on the right time. But because of his hesitation, as he fluctuated between the Wahabi sharia stances adopted by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and his loyalty to the Saudi royal family, he used to assume the role of the mediator during crises between the KSA and members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights that demanded the release of its supporters from prisons. Because of his hesitation and fluctuation, members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights used to praise and find excuses for him at one point, as he defended its members, and to criticize him harshly at another point when he would side finally with the KSA. Hence, Al-Masaary sharia is filled with contradictions vis-à-vis Ibn Baz. 


2- Ibn Baz was very enthusiastic regarding the letter of demands, supporting it within his letter of recommendation of one page and a half, advising the king and princes to refer the letter of demands to high-rank scholars to discuss implementation of it. With this stance of Ibn Baz, Ibn Otheimein reluctantly and cautiously supported the letter of demands in his turn, as Ibn Baz received the protest committee that delivered the letter of demands and the memo of advice later on, and he promised to meet with its members on a monthly basis. Ibn Baz was the one to prevent aborting the project of the letter of demands, encouraging the committee of protest to write it. Ibn Baz was the one used and manipulated by fundamentalists in many cases and steps (30).


3- When some supporters and members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights were incarcerated in Saudi prisons, Ibn Baz would readily assume the role of the mediator to beseech Saudi authorities to set them free or to alleviate their suffering in cells. But writings of Al-Masaary show that such mediation was for the sake of the Saudi State more that for the sake of members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Let us quote some examples from statements and publications of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Five months after the arrest of fundamentalists inside the KSA, Statement No. 24 in Feb. 1995 asserts that Al-Masaary was promised by Ibn Baz to release the arrested ones shortly, but this did not take place. Ibn Baz wrote a letter recommending the release of Al-Ouda and Al-Hawali, and fundamentalists made use of such recommendation in their struggle against the Saudi State, but princes made other scholars issue a fatwa against both men, and Ibn Baz had to sign this fatwa, and both men were arrested again (31). Their arrest was done for the purpose of forcing them to sign a commitment paper to stop their anti-KSA activities, but both men adamantly refused to sign such a paper. Ibn Baz was sent to them in their cell to convince them to sign, but they verbally attacked him and refused such humiliation, accusing him of being an agent working under the Saudi royal family instead of serving religion, as per Publication No. 38 in 1995. Yet, Ibn Baz mediated to allow families of both men, and families of other arrested men, to visit them in prison cells, as we read in Publication No. 25. Within the struggle of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights against the KSA, its members would distribute audiotapes containing letter of recommendation of Ibn Baz to both sheikhs among Saudi citizens, leading Saudi authorities to arrest those who distribute such audiotapes. Al-Masaary feared that the Saudi State might arrest and incarcerate Ibn Baz himself, as we read in Publications Nos. 17 and 19 in 1994, but this did not take place. When the fugitive sheikh Yahiya Al-Yahiya grew tired of fleeing Saudi authorities, he resorted to the house of Ibn Baz to surrender himself on condition of his mediation to Prince Salman in Riyadh. But after hot debate, the mediation of Ibn Baz was refused by Prince Salman and the fugitive sheikh Yahiya Al-Yahiya was imprisoned. Other sheikhs and scholars got arrested once they got out of the house of Ibn Baz, whose mediation was no longer enough in the eyes of Saudi princes. This means that the favor Ibn Baz found in the eyes of princes had its limits, and Al-Masaary had to admit that Ibn Baz was fully controlled by the Saudi princes. At one point, Saudi policemen prevented students' delegation from meeting Ibn Baz in his house who wanted him to intercede to set some arrested fundamentalists free. Policemen would watch closely his weekly sermons and forums so that no one would dare to send a written question to embarrass the Saudi government. The secretary of Ibn Baz wrote reports about him to the Saudi policemen, and Ibn Baz fired him from his post, as this secretary opposed Sunnite Wahabi fundamentalism. This secretary was rewarded by the Saudi authorities by being appointed by the Interior Minster as the head of the Saudi Wahabi Call Office in Ta'if.   The following piece of information is mentioned in Publication No. 150 in 1998 (32): sheikh Ahmed, one of the sons of Ibn Baz, used to spy on his father's visitors and write reports about them to the Saudi policemen.


4- Eventually, when Al-Masaary began to adopt more extremist stances within his intellectual endeavors and his language and style of writing became too insulting to the Saudi state and rulers, Ibn Baz had nothing but to side with the KSA once and for all for the rest of his lifetime.


Secondly: Ibn Otheimein and Ibn Jibreen:


  Ibn Otheimein preceded Ibn Baz earlier in siding wholeheartedly from the very beginning with the Saudi State; he reluctantly and cautiously supported the letter of demands as he was influenced by Ibn Baz, but when things got complicated in the struggle between Al-Masaary and the KSA, Ibn Otheimein readily and obsequiously supported the Saudi princes and worked hard to please the Saudi authorities Liberty report issued in 1993 in London asserted that Ibn Otheimein  managed to convince 7000 persons to stop their planned sit-in or demonstration against the KSA to protest the arrest of Al-Ouda and Al-Hawali. Publication No. 37 in 1995 by Al-Masaary mentioned that Ibn Otheimein collected donations for the sake of Prince Salman Charity Organization in the time when the KSA confiscated money of charity organizations linked with the Sunnite Wahabi opposition movements. Unlike Ibn Otheimein, Ibn Jibreen began at first to pose as an enthusiastic fundamentalist scholar who participated in the early sessions and movements of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights inside the KSA, but the Saudi authorities pressurized him to stop attending such meetings and sessions, and he had to withdraw. Soon enough, he issued a statement against the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, but Al-Masaary did not criticize him as he knew about his being pressurized by the Saudi authorities, asserting that in his heart, Ibn Jibreen supported and sympathized with the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights (33).


Thirdly: scholars who did not hesitate to support the KSA authorities:


1- Many scholars did not hesitate to readily support the KSA authorities from the very beginning like Salih Fawzan and Salih Al-Sawlan, and members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights were not surprised at such stances, as we read in the writings of Al-Masaary.


2- Abdul-Aziz Al-Askar was a scholar held in high esteem by the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights because of his intelligence, deep knowledge, and connections, but he sued all such features to serve the Saudi royal family members and he distorted the image of both Al-Ouda and Al-Hawali. He was rewarded for his efforts by being appointed in a high religious position in the Saudi police forces, distributing his audiotaped religious sermons for free (34).


3- Al-Leiheidan was the scholar most criticized by the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, as his history consisted of taking money gifts from the king to do his biddings all the time, and he was the one to drive other scholars to issue a statement against the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Al-Masaary admitted that Al-Leiheidan was a knowledgeable, intelligent, strong-minded, adroit, headstrong, and loquacious scholar, who used all such features to serve the Saudi princes and to issue fatwas on their favor at their requests. Members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights claimed that Al-Leiheidan justified countless stances of the KSA by his fatwas in return for money, including stances like arrest of opposition figures and supporters of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Al-Leiheidan attacked verbally and harshly both Al-Ouda and Al-Hawali, and the Saudi State rewarded him for his refusal of the letter of demands by giving him 25 million SR and for his refusal of the memo of advice by granting him a piece of land (35).


Fourthly: Al-Gamia Group:


1- Al-Gamia Group consisted of scholars who sided with the KSA and vehemently and harshly attacked fundamentalism and Al-Masaary and his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. We know from the writings of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights that Al-Masaary considered Al-Gamia Group, headed by Abdul-Aziz Al-Askar, as a cover employed by the Saudi policemen in order to spy on preachers and scholars to write reports on them to see if anyone of them had joined or not the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. Prince Nayef joined Al-Gamia Group, and in Mecca, he delivered a lecture to verbally abuse the arrested fundamentalist sheikhs and scholars. 


2- Members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights asserted that Al-Gamia Group undertook the mission of spreading intellectual propaganda of KSA-friendly type of Salafism within regions and cities where fundamentalist opposition gained momentum and more supporters among the masses. Al-Gamia Group travelled into such regions and cities to deliver lectures sponsored by the KSA, but the masses used to boycott such gatherings and lectures organized by Al-Gamia Group members. In many cases, some people would cut out electricity to spoil such gatherings, and in some others, quarrels would ensue during such gatherings and people would beat one another, leading the Al-Gamia Group lecturer to flee or to get hurt or injured! The Saudi authorities would often interfere and arrest such troublemakers. Al-Masaary depicted such events as part of the mission of Al-Gamia Group to spot and arrest young supporters of the fundamentalist opposition movement, and that it was natural that the masses would be repelled by and feel disgusted by scholars subservient to the KSA, especially when the Saudi policemen would arrest their favorite fundamentalist scholars and sheikhs because of their erudition and both intellectual and tribal ties. Al-Masaary proved his point by asserting that such quarrels occurred in regions that support fundamentalist scholars and sheikhs, like Al-Qassim and Al-Jouf. Moreover, scholars of Al-Gamia Group tried to convince Al-Hawali and Al-Ouda to apologize in writing to be set free, but they adamantly refused.     


3- Naturally, the KSA rewarded Al-Gamia Group scholars by granting them high positions and posts in the governmental bodies and in universities, but we cannot make sure if such news is true or otherwise; we copy here in this point what writings of Al-Masaary and his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, and we do not take such information about intellectual foes of Al-Masaary as verified facts. 


4- In spite of ordinary people's rejection of the lectures delivered by Al-Gamia Group scholars all over the Saudi regions – as per perceptions of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights – Al-Gamia Group scholars were welcome in Kuwait to deliver their lectures there. The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights had to admit this fact but it asserted that Kuwaiti Wahabi fundamentalists rejected such lectures and gatherings and wrote a statement against them to expose the evil intentions of the KSA, proving that Al-Gamia Group scholars violated many sharia laws, as we read in Publication No. 149 in 1998, and we read also that Al-Gamia Group scholars were received warmly by Kuwaitis who arranged their sequence of lectured advocating obedience of rulers and the dangers of sedition and the threat posed by declaring others as apostates, calling people to engage into daily acts of worship instead of hating rulers and declaring them as infidels. 


The features of debate between scholars of the KSA and scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights:


1- Naturally, debate between scholars of the KSA and scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights was centered on the priority of obedience: would obedience be first for scholars, who represent sharia or for rulers who apply it?


2- Debating this issue began once the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights emerged and was criticized by Saudi scholars as its members disobeyed the rulers and hence disregarded Wahabi sharia that entails obedience to rulers. Statement No. 1 in May 1995 asserted that the members and scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights are free thinkers who bear in mind and take into consideration all sharia laws and aims, and that Saudi scholars need evidence from sharia, Sunna, and the Quran to prove the illegitimacy of the endeavors of members and scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, as members always reinforce their views using sharia, Sunna, and the Quran. Hence, hot debate ensued between both sides: one that supports sharia of blind disobedience to rulers and one that calls for sharia evidence to support any political views at hand.  


3- Naturally, debate is the forte and field of the members and scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights as their knowledge of Wahabism surpass all formal Saudi State scholars. Another reason that gave momentum to Al-Masaary was the fat that Saudi State scholars are always accused of being obsequious and dependent on the Saudi authorities for their livelihood, which casts doubt on their fatwas and made them lose popularity among the citizens, who wanted sharia views that prohibits all types of injustices.

   We give below features of this debate between both types of scholars: those of the KSA and those of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights.


1- When some Saudi formal high-rank scholars at first expressed their surprise at the letter of demands, one of them who refused to sign it wondered: "What have all of you left for the Saudi royal family?!" Of course, this question was posed to reflect an important idea: the letter of demands seemed to request that fundamentalists would monopolize rule and supervision of it. Another idea was that scholars were surprised that the notion of divine will that favored Al-Saud with authority, power, and wealth is being undermined by the letter of demands that requests equality. Traditional scholars used to link this verse "God has favored some of you over others in livelihood…" (16:71) with the permanent existence, authority, wealth, and stature of the Saudi royal family! This is a flagrant falsehood insulting to the Quran! (37).


2- Debate grew hotter between the KSA scholars and the members and scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. The notion of obedience was put to question in terms of fundamentalist ideology. Ibn Otheimein once said that if the Saudi king ordered him to stop teaching at the university and to stop issuing fatwas, he would obey his biddings at once. He wanted, as a big well-known high-rank scholar, to set himself as a good example for others in blind obedience to rulers, but scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights mocked his view and made it lose its allure and impact on the masses, as they refuted it in book titled "Aspects of Obeying Rulers within Prohibition of Disobeying God", a title no one can question its content.


3- It was easy for the scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights to refute Ibn Otheimein using theology and fiqh, and using the Quran: "…Obey God and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you…" (4:59) to prove that obeying rulers must be within obeying divine sharia laws when adopted and applied properly by the rulers, and thus, obeying rulers is not absolute in all cases; they are to be obeyed as long as they obey the Quran and sharia. Al-Masaary writes calmly and objectively in Publication No. 85 in 1995 that: (… Those persons disagreeing with us about the legitimacy of the Saudi regime and think of their views as sharia-based fatwas should also deem those who hold different opinions as innovative thinkers who brought new, creative views based on sharia as well …). But Al-Masaary used sarcasm and mockery later on in his discourse: (… And what would be the case if our rulers blindly obey the USA?) (38). The responses or refutations of Saudi State scholars of fundamentalists revolved around notions like ''the KSA is better than other Arab countries'' and ''do not spoil our lifestyle, prosperity, and sense of security". Thus, such scholars reflected their own personal interests that sought to follow the Saudi government to enjoy high stature and positions, money gifts, and a measure of authority over people. In contrast, Al-Masaary and his fellows have their own political ambitions and seek to adhere to sharia evidence or proofs monopolized by them, and they mock the KSA scholars: (… this stance of Saudi scholars tell us that there is no room for divine discourse of God in the Quran and hadiths of the Prophet, because their discourse of paramount importance is that of their rulers who said decisively that ''the KSA is better than other Arab countries''  …) (39), and of course, this response is filled with sarcasm.


4- The scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights tackled an issue of Quranic terminology in an innovative manner never approached before by traditional Wahabi scholars subservient to the KSA, as we read in Publication No. 12 in 1994, as scholars of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights comment on the methods adopted by the Saudi scholars: (… Terms like ''wisdom'', ''general good'', and ''fitna'' are no longer sued by them as found in the Quran and Sunna as understood by the honored ancient scholars, because true meanings of such terms might jeopardize stature of Saudi rulers, and scholars of the KSA have to ignore such meanings understood by Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Al-Qayyim. Fitna for them differs from the meanings we find in the Quran (i.e., either ''religious persecution'' or ''ordeals, tests, and tribulations''): "…In fact, they sunk into fitna…" (9:49), "...Fitna is more serious than murder…" (2:191). Indeed fitna for Saudi scholars means troubles and ordeals derived from criticizing rulers and to permit sins. Even wisdom for them has a meaning different from the one we find in the Quran: "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice…" (16:125), as ''wisdom'' means for Saudi scholars to flatter rulers and be subservient and obsequious to them, as they are more eager to please rulers than to please God. As for the ''general good'' term found in the Sunna, Saudi scholars distort it meaning by their claims that it means: rulers know best about the general good for their subjects. This stance is against sharia laws; rulers are not source of legislation in Islam to permit or to prohibit anything …).


5- Because the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights managed via its statements and publications to tarnish the image of the Saudi rulers, Ibn Otheimein refuted and responded to such views of Al-Masaary in his article in the newspaper ''Al-Moslemoon" (i.e., The Muslims), issue No. 602, in 1417 A.H.: (… If we would imagine for a while that rulers were apostates, this does not follow that we would incite people to rebel and revolt against them, causing chaos and massacres. No doubt that such false steps if ever taken would lead to nothing but destruction to the general good, as corruption and chaos would follow suit; besides, rulers are far too mighty and powerful to be defeated or ousted by such a small group of fundamentalists who aim to bring evil, corruption, and chaos to the KSA. It is very wrong and dangerous to read religious texts partially and with a certain bias and prejudice to prove one's erroneous views harbored beforehand in one's mind …). The response of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights was to remind Ibn Otheimein of his past fatwas about not to befriend 'infidels' (i.e., all non-Wahabis). The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights asserted that demonstrations in Algeria coped with sharia laws, as they are the means to pressurize rulers there. The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights reminded Ibn Otheimein that part of faith tenets is to hate the unjust rulers and to disbelieve in them, as sharia laws entail to fight imams of disbelief. The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights wondered what Ibn Otheimein means by ''general good'', was it related to sharia? What proofs does he have to assert his view? Would it be related to financial good of all Saudis to open brothels inside the KSA to stop rich Saudis to seek brothels in Europe?! This sarcastic question was directed to Ibn Otheimein. Of course, Al-Masaary saw that for Ibn Otheimein to imagine or to propose that rulers were apostates meant that he believes so and convinced by it in his heart.


6- The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights asserted in its responses that Ibn Otheimein held wrong views to serve the Saudi government by asserting that no one had the right to incite others to revolt against rulers, using no proofs within sharia laws, causing poor attendance to the lectures and forums of Ibn Otheimein in Al-Qassim region, among other Saudi regions, attended by Al-Leiheidan. The Gamia Group scholars went on spreading the same views of Ibn Otheimein in vain within all their lectures, but people thought that such views were wrong, giving Al-Masaary the chance to refute them in Publication No. 130 in 1997: (… Saudi scholars see that formulating anti-sharia secular laws inside the KSA concerning usury banks and Saudi nationality is Ok, and they overlook and forget the fact that such secular laws are against Sunna and Quran and fiqh, and so is the KSA allying itself to the UN of infidels that reflect injustice and sinning … this is a worst type of tyranny and apostasy, making Saudi rules apostates and infidels, but scholars know this and dare not to express it … But even if they would not dare to declare their rulers as infidels and apostates, how could they allow secular laws to be set instead of sharia laws …) (40). Of course, Al-Masaary refuted all views of Saudi scholars in all his books and managed to convince readers because he delved deep into Salafist schools of thought more than any of his contemporaries.


More contradictions of Al-Masaary and his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights:


1- Contradictions in judging Saudi State scholars: within the margin of such hot debate, many remarks of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights refuted and exposed the hypocrisy and double-standards of the Saudi State scholars. We note that the discourse of Al-Masaary changed its tone gradually from calm, persuasive one to harsh attack and criticism, indicating that true sharia laws and rules of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights changes as per varying conditions and as what would serve its purposes. Let us exemplify this by tackling the stance of Al-Masaary vis-à-vis Ibn Baz and how it varied in different periods of time in the chronological order. In Publication No. 22 in 1994, Al-Masaary analyzed stances of Ibn Baz under the title "Calm down, O sheikh!", and Al-Masaary warned against attacking and criticizing Ibn Baz and praised him and his good traits, but he blamed him for making his brilliant mentality in service of Al-Saud family members, who never allow sharia to interfere in politics, economy, and rule, as if sharia laws were merely for acts of worship. He blamed Ibn Baz for preferring security and safety over dominance of sharia, and that he thought of reform as fitna (ordeals and troubles). He blamed Ibn Baz for thinking well of Al-Saud family members who misguide him along with other scholars, making Ibn Baz fluctuated between supporting the KSA at some points and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights at some other points. In Publication No. 31 in 1995, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights justified the attack on it by Ibn Baz with the fact that Prince Nayef forced Ibn Baz to declare such attacks in return for releasing some political prisoners or to ameliorate their conditions in prison cells, but then, Al-Masaary harshly attacked Ibn Baz, as he had done in his other writings in his books and publications later on, declaring him and other scholars as apostates who forsook Islam, and he quotes Ibn Abdul-Wahab to prove this: (… If you, O sheikh Ibn Baz, do not specify your stance regarding the Saudi regime that fights Islam and its preachers, you will remain a fool and a tool used by Saudi tyrants …). (… Those who think that rulers have the right to set laws and legislations that contradict Islam are apostates, no doubt …). (… All State affairs and matters must be judged by sharia laws; otherwise, those who reserve all power to rulers who disregard sharia laws are cursed apostates …) (41). Of course, Al-Masaary played on words in his discourse to accuse his foes of being apostates and infidels; in fact, the same phrasings and play on words might be easily applied to him in his turn by any scholar, because the issues he raised within Salafist thought are controversial ones. He said to his foes in Publication No. 85 the following words which we have quoted above: (… Those persons disagreeing with us about the legitimacy of the Saudi regime and think of their views as sharia-based fatwas should also deem those who hold different opinions as innovative thinkers who brought new, creative views based on sharia as well …). We remember that within Statement No. 2 of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights in 1993, Al-Masaary blamed Saudi scholars for condemning his views as innovative, creative thinking of men must not be condemned, even if they are wrong, and he quoted fatwas of Ibn Taymiyya to prove this point. Yet, Al-Masaary did not realize that this rule applies to all men and not to him alone; he went on declaring his intellectual foes as apostates who forsook 'Islamic' sharia. We conclude that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights excelled in fiqh debate to refute its foes and to manipulate ideas and play on words as per serving its purposes in the struggle against the KSA, and its Al-Masaary sharia is changeable as per variable conditions.  


2- In dealing with others using peaceful opposition evolving into inciting violence and revolt: concerning putting Abdullah Al-Hudeif:  Al-Hudeif was a supporter of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights who threw nitric acid over the policeman Saud Al-Sherbein to have revenge on him, and then he was arrested with other terrorists and all of them were put to death in Aug. 1995. The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights managed to urge Human Rights watch to protest the putting to death of Al-Hudeif. That was a decisive point in the struggle route between the KSA and the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights; its sharia fashioned by Al-Masaary was influenced by variable conditions and circumstances and by the character of its members, especially Al-Masaary. Let us trace this topic of Al-Hudeif in relation to the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. At the beginning, Statement No. 38 in Aug. 1995 was titled "Bloodshed begins by the KSA: The First Martyr of the Route of Reform", and Al-Masaary in it accused the Saudi government of framing others as some of the arrested ones were imprisoned before the accident of Al-Sherbein, who was merely a policeman accused of verbally abusing God and torturing the innocent in prisons to extort confessions, while Al-Hudeif did not kill him at all; he just threw nitric acid over Al-Sherbein. Al-Hudeif falsely confessed under torture to have killed him, and he was tried in secret, sentenced to be put to death though he killed no one. This sentence was against sharia, as aggressors do not deserve the punishment of being put to death; they were to be imprisoned. In Publication No. 61 in 1995, we read lines of threatening agents of the KSA and rulers among Al-Saud family, written by members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights: (… No previous rulers dared to shed blood except when applying sharia corporal punishment to to put murderers to death and those who raised arms against people, but it is unprecedented to descend to such malicious revenge against Al-Hudeif who did not kill anybody … This is thoroughly unacceptable and unjustified; how come the authorities would put him to death secretly without fair trial and take pride on this by bragging it in newspapers afterwards?! The KSA authorities think they address stupid masses and cowards fooled by false Saudi concept of sharia to be frightened by bloodshed … they feel they bribed judges to remain silent and never to protest lack of trial … the nation must be the judge, the legislator, and the executioner, not a herd of cattle or sheep! … no one would be afraid anymore since innocent blood was shed, as people would talk about such deaths instead of torture in prison cells of arrested innocent ones … this is an act of defiance by the KSA against the citizens who will avenge bloodshed sooner or later … the KSA is not away from examples of violence in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Bosnia, as violence might erupt anytime unexpectedly … this would be dangerous situation as the government is controlled by the whims of idle princes … Salman and Nayef will sink the Saudi regime into veritable series of bloodshed episodes … the Saudi regimes is filled with gaps and loops, unlike other Arab regimes … especially regarding the relation between the ruling system and the Saudi royal family, whose so many princes might be an easy target for revenge and they might be murdered … all Muslims all over the globe sympathize with the reform movement adopted by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and the desire to avenge bloodshed of the innocent ones … the vicious circle of bloodshed has begun, and members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights received countless phone calls from all over the world after the crime of putting Al-Hudeif to death, as the regime wanted to terrorize Saudi citizens, a flagrant violation of human rights … we have new members driven by revenge to join the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, and we have accepted their membership of course …). In Publication No 62, in 1995, we read the response of Al-Masaary regarding the Saudi government statement on putting Al-Hudeif to death, and the publication is titled "Decisive Proofs of Judges' Manipulation of Sharia Laws", as he asserted that the KSA had no right to kill someone who did not commit the crime of murdering anybody; nitric acid does not kill. The response to refute such decision to put him to death took 9 pages of fiqh-jargon-filled discourse, ending up in accusing the KSA authorities of two crimes: shedding innocent blood, of Al-Hudeif, and violating sharia laws. In Publication No. 64 in 1995, we read that thousands of Saudis attended funeral of Al-Hudeif with his family, while KSA judges asserted that those inciting against the regime would be incarcerated and tortured until fundamentalist activities would stop inside the KSA. News came in this publication that the recovered policeman Saud Al-Sherbein had returned to his work and went on interrogating and torturing prisoners to extort confessions from them. Hence, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights tried to incite Sunnite Wahabi fundamentalists to conspire against the KSA and to seek revenge by committing more bloodshed. Two months after putting Al-Hudeif to death, an explosion occurred in Bisha city on 21st of Oct., 1995, and the Saudi authorities announced that this was not a terrorist act motivated by political reasons, but a personal quarrel among a group of citizens. This was not true; victims of the explosion were numerous. Yet, in Publication No. 17 in 1995, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights mentioned that it was a mere accident and not a terrorist act, agreeing for the first time with the KSA stance, so that no one would accuse its members of planning such explosion. Al-Masaary asserted his repeated analyses in Publications Nos. 72 and 73, affirming that such accident reflected the lack of security and safety in the Saudi cities, as any fundamentalist youth might make terrorist explosions in the future to express his frustration and to spite the Saudi authorities anytime as long as streets are not secured and guarded well enough; of course he seemed to incite more explosions to occur. Soon enough, an explosion occurred in Riyadh on 14th Nov., 1995, and destroyed an American building owned by the USA embassy, killing 6 Americans and injuring 60 others, mostly Americans, as a type of warning to the USA and the KSA. When asked about his opinion about such terrorist act, Al-Masaary said that he does not support acts of violence, but he does not condemn this terrorist act, as his mission is to make Saudis aware of the illegitimacy of the Saudi regime, asserting that organizations declaring their responsibility for such terrorism do not exist; this is merely angry frustrated youth expressing discontent for lack of real reforms (42). The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights discussed this terrorist operation, asserting that security is not achieved by oppression and quelling but was done before by expecting blind obedience by the nation to the regime and its scholars, and when doubts cast upon both of the regime and these corrupt scholars, discontent and fury led to such terrorism. Later on, the Saudi authorities arrested the terrorists who perpetrated this crime and their confessions, extorted by torture, were published in newspapers that they were related to Afghans who trained them and were influenced by the thought of Dr. Al-Masaary and the thought of Bin Laden. Al-Masaary criticized severely such false confessions extorted by means of torturing the perpetrators, as he has nothing to do with their crime (43). Of course, we tend to think that the responsibility of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights lies in inciting and not planning such terrorism. We do believe that putting Al-Hudeif to death, and torturing him, was the decisive point that led the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights to stop their peaceful call for reform and opposition by sits-in and to turn their Al-Masaary sharia into inciting of violence against the KSA, and this change in attitude began when policemen, like Saud Al-Sherbein, began to torture supporters of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights in prison cells. This change in the stances of The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights began by psychological war against Saudi regime we have mentioned before (congregational supplication invoking God's wrath on foes, plus visions and dreams of predictions). Writings of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights in Publication No. 9 clearly incited against Al-Sherbein who torture incarcerated ones, and this incitation might have caused accidents to him (car accidents burning his body, plus throwing nitric acid on him) planned by angry fundamentalists, especially that Publication No. 10 announced that the family of Al-Sherbein disowned him after he was exposed by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, and Publication No. 28 asserted that accidents occurred to him were signs of divine retribution. That was part of anti-KSA propaganda within the struggle of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights against the Saudi State. Sadly, once revered, Al-Sherbein tortured in prison Dr. Muhammad Al-Hudeif, brother of Abdullah Al-Hudeif, and no one can prove that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights planned such crimes of revenge or not, as it used rumors a lot to slander the KSA rulers and their men. Let us talk about rumors as a weapon adopted by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights.     


3- Rumors, lies, and falsehoods as weapons of the peaceful opposition of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights: unlike what the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights declared in Publication No. 2 in 1993 that they are scholars with deep knowledge of sharia laws and aims and seeking peaceful change and reforms, when they struggled against the KSA and many of its youthful and elder supporters were incarcerated, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights had to make use of every possible political poly even if telling lies is against sharia laws to which they claim they adhere. Its members aimed at spreading lies, falsehoods, fabrications, and rumors about the Saudi royal family members and princes to spite them and make people hate them more. Hence, Al-Masaary sharia committed this sin so many times until it has become a habit of which members bragged. Here is an excerpt about a message, published in Publication No. 128 in 1997, sent to the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights by one of its agents in Al-Baha region inside the KSA, and Al-Masaary copied it in the Publication No. 128 after omitting some lines so as not to expose the identity of such an agent. This excerpt about this message proves that the endeavors of supporters within a peaceful opposition movement had nothing to do with sharia or religion; rather, they were political endeavors that coped with variable, changeable conditions. Under the title "Message of Al-Baha", Al-Masaary writes the following: (… We have received a long message with useful information from one of our agents and supporters from Al-Baha region, and we have decided to publish parts of it, omitting some parts for security reasons: "… You know all about persecution we pass through in our daily life by the tyrants ruling from Riyadh … the unjust ones who ignore the Quran! People of Al-Baha had their share of injustices, tyranny, and oppression, because they do not accept submission in public or in secret … but our plans are firmly settled because of the inspiration provided by the blessed ideas of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, and conditions will be ameliorated soon enough … I hope my message will reach you safely and not be discovered by the authorities, and I hope my message would find all of you in London safe and sound … we have made a list of names of our supporters and we have forced the authorities not to continue to pest us with spies watching over the people of Al-Baha, as the authorities feared the discontent of the masses now … in our secret meetings, we plan to make the awe and respect of the Saudi regime collapse and vanish … by spreading as many rumors as possible about princes vying for more power and authorities in a sort of internecine war inside the Saudi royal family because of conflicting interests … Callers for reform have become a thorn on the side of Al-Saud family … When superficial reforms are done by the King, we incite people to send complaints to the King, the crown Prince, and other princes, in order to undermine the importance of such useless reforms introduced by the Saudi regime and cast doubt on their utility … we use jokes spread about the royal family to make people lose their fear of Al-Saud family … we propagate rumors deriding all of them in a sarcastic manner, showing them as caring for extravagance and affluence and not about sharia at all … All news of our progress and plans and measure of success we achieve will reach you as soon as possible …as well as news about incarcerated ones in Saudi cells … about supporters who let us down and left us … about lack of security in the streets … we promise to follow your footsteps to achieve all our sublime goals shared by all of us … Please accept my best regards, respects, and wishes … May God help us all!" …). We conclude then that Al-Masaary sharia focused on fighting and resisting the little insufficient reforms done by the Saudi regime and to fabricate slanders, lies, falsehoods, and rumors to undermine supporters of Al-Saud family. This means that the sole aim of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights was to topple the Saudi regime. We are reminded here by the passive stance of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights toward King Fahd's Shura Council based on sharia, Sunna, and Quran, as demanded within the letter of demands. Hence, the aim of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights was not sharia or reform, but to reach power and replace Al-Saud! Thus, anti-KSA propaganda of rumors, lies, slander, and fabricated news would turn one day into bloody confrontations, after the stage of verbal abuse and sexual slanders. This does not conform to the Quranic teachings.


Al-Masaary sharia of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights resorts to verbal abuse and sex scandals:




  In Publication No. 12, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights accused the KSA scholars of re-defining wisdom away from this Quranic verse: "Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice…" (16:125), as they made wisdom to mean submission to rulers and to flatter and please them instead of God. Does this means that the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights sticks to 16:125? We think that the answer is: of course not. Telling lies, spreading rumors, and fabricating falsehoods and slanders cannot possibly be the application of 16:125. The matter evolved into spread sex scandals and slanders; this is against Islamic sharia in the Quran that punishes those who accuse others of illicit sex without tangible proofs. Of course, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights had no proofs about slander related to illicit sex scandals and/or crimes involving the Saudi royal family; most probably, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights fabricated such rumors and repeated it to pass as 'facts' within minds of Saudi citizens, with the political purpose to make the ruling Saudi family members lose their owe. For example, Al-Masaary accused Maha Al-Seideiry, wife of Prince Nayef, Interior Minister, of being involved in an extramarital relation and cheating her husband with a singer named Khaled Abdul-Rahman, and she used her power to release him out of prison. Al-Masaary used a sarcastic tone to compare putting Al-Hudeif to death and the fate of Khaled Abdul-Rahman who was released shortly after being arrested, within the authority by his 'paramour'. Hence, Al-Masaary knew no bounds in fabricating slanders to undermine the Saudi family members; under the title "Maha Al-Seideiry Madame Minister of Interior", he writes: (… We understand that Nayef is an unjust tyrant, but why would he be a salve of a woman who now fully controls prisons, cares, security guards, and State authorities in her hands at her disposal and service? We wonder very much that Saudi princes claim to be manly enough, while allowing Maha Al-Seideiry to control the KSA …). Some agents and supporters of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights asked Al-Masaary to drop this sensitive groundless subject, but he replied that his purpose was to prove the Saudi regime weak, brittle, and silly and that princes cannot take decisions on anything (44).  Of course, Muslims' history knew many instances of strong women who assumed high authority and power during the reign of Abbasid, Fatimid, and Mameluke caliphs. There are many similar instances in history of the West and the East, not just the Islamic world. This is not something bad in itself within political life to a have a strong woman with political influence and power. One can criticize or praise her policies but not her being a female. It is a crime that Al-Masaary opposition movement that claim to care for 'Islamic' sharia to violate the Quranic teachings of not to accuse anyone, male or female, of illicit sex without tangible proofs that include four eye-witnesses; accusers without proofs must be punished by flogging; see 24:4-5. This is the punishment deserved by Al-Masaary for accusing Maha Al-Seideiry of sexual infidelity without tangible proofs and four eye-witnesses; he violates Islamic sharia in the Quran on purpose and yet dares to claim he speaks in its name! Shame on him!  Al-Masaary sharia fashioned to serve his purposes has nothing to do with Islamic sharia. Al-Masaary commits yet a similar sin of slander of the same type; he accused one prince who holds high position, authority, and power in the KSA of being a ''passive'' or ''bottom'' homosexual man. Al-Masaary repeats such slander many ties in his writings to make readers believe it and he mocked that prince several times (45). Of course, such fabrications lack proofs, but it spread as rumors all over the KSA because of the publications of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights distributed by its agents and supporters inside the KSA. Another type of slanders of Al-Masaary is to accuse his foes of atheism, again without proofs, to make his fabrications as rumors to be spread all over the KSA. He once wrote that King Fahd does not believe that the Quran is the divine revelation, and he claims that the CIA knew of that and of the stance of King Fahd who denies God's existence (46). Thus, here, Al-Masaary wants to create troubles in the Saudi-American relations. In the same vein, Al-Masaary accused high officials in the region of Abha of demanding sexual favors as bribes  from some women by means of embezzlement (47) citing many examples of such incidents (48).  Of course, Al-Masaary uses lewd innuendoes and coarse language in phrasing such fabrications about the Saudi royal family members. In our quoting him below, we have omitted names of the Saudi royal family members, and we apologize for quoting Al-Masaary here, but we have to do this to prove his being a sinner who has no right to talk in the name of Islam or sharia. He writes about a high-position and high-rank Saudi figure: (… This sinner, passive homosexual, deviant, drug-unconscious man trembles in his chair of authority and rule! …). (… how come that his hypocritical dirty alcohol-addict bribe-taker who steals public money and commits fornication despite his old age would be a leader and an imam in prayers?!). (… How dare he, the passive homosexual, describe Chechnya war as an internal Russian affair? This prince of thieves and buggered men should remain silent, or else, he must speak in defense of his own bottom! …). (… This base, mean tyrant spends millions on gambling tables in one night, apart from large sums paid to the whores to spend one night in his bed …). (… We feel sorry to be bound to say that rule inside the KSA is in the hands of passive homosexual slaves and their American masters …). (… This ugly sinner of a prince cannot be beautified by international and local media at all … his sins could not be washed away with all water in all seas on the globe as he disobeys God and allies himself to infidels…) (49). Al-Masaary uses the same lewd, coarse language and discourse in his book titled "The Decisive Proofs of the Illegitimacy of the KSA", as he describes the KSA always in it as ''the corrupt, evil state'', and he describes its king as ''the sinful, tyrant Western agent''. In this book, he describes one of the Gulf monarchs as "the passive homosexual", and he later on at one point verbally abuses the whole Islamic world: (… The decisive proofs of the moral degeneration and the intellectual and political bankruptcy of the   whole Islamic world include the fact that the Saudi regime still lingers despite its being primitive and backward as it is controlled by a corrupt mafia-like family marketing their regime to pass off as 'Islamic' …), and he did not forget to verbally abuse Abou Bakr the Algerian the non-Saudi scholar that allied himself to the KSA: (… We thank the Almighty that we do not suffer the same mental illness of Abou Bakr the Algerian who followed the herd of cattle and sheep of the KSA worshippers … God loves and favors us more than Abou Bakr the Algerian) (50). Thus, Al-Masaary commits the sin of speaking in the name of God to praise himself and abuse Abou Bakr the Algerian, and in the same vein, Al-Masaary accuses high-rank Saudi scholars of being like dogs and curs and agents of the devil (51).  When the British Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, ignored a party held by Arab ambassadors, Al-Masaary writes: (… It seems that Blair realizes the fact that Arab regimes and ambassadors are merely a punch of animals and a herd of cattle, or base creatures that must be kept at bay, and he must be right …). Al-Masaary at one point verbally abused the Saudi ambassador by saying to him: (… You can bite your father's phallus, as Prophet Muhammad once said to one of his foes…) (52). Of course, we Quranists do not believe in Sunna and writings of biography of Prophet Muhammad that contain such coarse language; his only true character and lifetime events are the ones mentioned in the Quran, and God describes him in the Quran that he had great morals; see 68:4. Thus, he could never have uttered such verbal abuse ascribed to him by Al-Masaary and Sunna books. The Quran has ordered Muhammad, and all believers, to speak softly to people in a good way and to avoid nonsensical talk and to say peace to everyone. There is a vast difference and abyss between the divine Quranic sharia and Al-Masaary sharia.


Secondly: Did the Saudi authorities use the same type of discourse?


   We quote comments of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights on a speech delivered by King Fahd that aimed to distort and twist the speech and to defame and tarnish its deliverer. In Publication No. 21 in 1994, under the title "A Reading in the King's Speech", Al-Masaary writes the following: (… Careful repeated readings of Fahd's speech shows the psychological pain and deep anxiety suffered by Fahd, as his speech is filled with weak, brittle defense words to ward off several accusations leveled against him. We feel that his saying ''we are not unjust rulers'' shows his fear of being accused of tyranny and despotism. The phrases "our minds, gates, and houses are open", ''we have no rulers and ruled in the KSA'', and "this is your State, not mine or any prince's" are showing that he is afraid of the accusation of being a dictator. His long phrases about Shura Council and being afraid of accusations of encouraging sins is shown in his words: "the State combats sins and prohibitions". His being afraid of the accusation of replacing sharia laws with secular man-made laws is shown in his phrase: "all our laws comply with Islamic sharia". Another accusation Fahd tried to refute in vain is squandering public money on useless wars: "we have some shortage of money as we have spent large sums on many international armies", "we felt obliged to offer the best we can".  He tried to in vain to refute low public services by condescendingly saying that: "the State was never stingy with its citizens". Fahd negates the accusation leveled at him of the KSA being enslaved to the USA by saying: "we are not slaves of any other country". He tried in vain to defend the judicial system that sentenced many persons to prison by asserting he does not interfere in court rulings. He negates people's fury because of low economic status by asserting that he himself never got bored or annoyed by such phase of stagnation that will not last. He claims he allowed west army forces to settle in Arabia after long thought and for the general good, taking the decision after long prayers performed by him to seek God's guidance. Fahd insisted that media slanders about his family members are not true and that the Saudi State never interferes in the work of high-rank scholars. He tried in vain to explain the usefulness of Shura council and constitution, but he was not convincing to the doubting masses. He felt people hate him and growing sick of him, as he said: "we never wished or expected to be a king one day". Finally we feel bound to say that Fahd apparently reads carefully every word of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, as we have managed to influence his psychological status and that of his family members…). We notice here that Al-Masaary did not use coarse, rude language, because King Fahd did not; on the contrary, King Fahd spoke politely. If the opposite would have happened, Al-Masaary would have seized the chance to attack King Fahd's style. We tend to think that such quotation shows Al-Masaary as losing control and grip of his Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and his ability to influence events inside the KSA. Of course, Al-Masaary sharia of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights changes and varies as per different conditions and circumstances, and declaring others as infidels or apostates is one of the main weapons employed by the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights.   



Between enlightenment and declaring others as apostates in the sharia of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights:


   Al-Masaary declares all his foes and all those who disagree with his opinions and views as infidels and apostates, and this applies to KSA scholars in Publications Nos. 152 to 156 in particular. Al-Masaary declares all Muslim rulers as apostates: (… All rulers who allied themselves to infidels in the West and cooperated with them against Iraq are no longer considered to be Muslims; they are apostates that must be killed and their money confiscated and they must be toppled and dethroned… and we dare Ibn Baz to contradict us here …) (53). It is strange that Al-Masaary who declare others as infidels more that the KSA scholars generally do would also declare himself as more ''enlightened'' and ''tolerant'' than these scholars are. This asserts that Al-Masaary sharia changes as per his whims because of his sole aim to oppose, undermine, and topple Saudi rulers and rule Arabia in their place. During Ramadan 1418 A.H., the Saudi Interior Ministry issued a statement to warn non-Muslim residents inside the KSA against eating, drinking, and smoking in public during daytime of the 30-day month of fasting so as not to ''hurt'' feelings of fasting Muslims, and the statement asserted that violators would be punished. Al-Masaary mocked such fear of ''hurting'' feelings of fasting Muslims while no one cares about hurting citizens'' feeling regarding foreign armies and military bases in Arabia. He refutes the statement as ''vice'' introduced by force to Islamic sharia, citing the following lines of evidence:

A) Prophet Muhammad never warned the Jewish population in Yathreb against eating during daytime.

B) Eating in public or in secret during daytime in Ramadan is a right for all people, Muslims or non-Muslims, and no one had the right to restrict them, as there is no sharia proofs to support restricting them.

C) Imposing such warning on non-Muslims is deemed compulsion in religion.

D) This warning is insulting to Prophet Muhammad, as his biography shows him eating at one time inside the house of a fasting relative of his, in a non-Ramadan day.

E) Imposing such a warning is a betrayal to Muslims as it prevents them from the reward of patience.

  Hence, Al-Masaary moves the pendulum very fast from extremism and fanaticism to tolerance and flexibility, based on the sharia proofs he claims sticking to it. The above item no. (B) is not consistent with divine order to Muslims in the Quranic Chapter Two to fast Ramadan. Ironically, Al-Masaary talks in item no. (C) about the Quranic principle of ''there is compulsion in religion'' despite the fact that this verse along with other 500 verses in the Quran refute the so-called apostasy punishment.   


Changing of the sharia of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights concerning fellows of struggle:


   Al-Masaary and his members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights accused Dr. Saad Al-Faqeeh of being an apostate as he left and deserted the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights after a long period of disputes and intellectual conflicts, as we read in Publication No,. 44 in 1996 and we apologize for the coarse language in this quote: (… The Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights has made a pledge before the nation of Arabia to continue the sharia and political struggle against the evil Saudi regime of apostates of a tyrannical ruler who allies himself to West infidels, uses secular laws instead of the sharia laws, and enables the West infidels to occupy lands of Arabia to humiliate Arabs and steal their wealth before wiping them from the face of the earth. We are to fight such tyrant and rule instead to apply sharia laws in all affairs in our lives in Arabia and to restore rights negated and stolen wealth and to make rule by elections without tribalism and hypocrisy typical of Al-Saud family members and their cronies … we know that it is a long bumpy route ahead of us, and some of us will be lost … and some of us might betray us and join the side of our enemies or might give up the struggle because of their weakness, old age, or change of heart and opinion … some traitors might compromise their faith and tenets and political stances and negotiate with the enemies. For about one year and a half, we could not settle the disputes between us and Dr. Saad Al-Faqeeh who used to control finances of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and headed the editing of its writings to satisfy his ardent desire to control and domination over others, but he refused the principle of Shura consultation and exchange views via open discussions. We tried in vain not to stir his anger and not to provoke him to stop any conflicts inside the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights that has a higher aim, but Al-Faqeeh insisted to be adamant in his stances and fossilized views, and confrontations had to be made. He let us down in many situations … especially the case of deportation of Dr. Al-Masaary … as a lawyer, Dr. Al-Faqeeh threatened not to support us in any case as long as we disagree with his decisions and control … once rejected by us, he left the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights forever, and we warn our supporters against dealing with him as he no longer represents the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. We note that we have written documents and audiotapes proving the following points against Dr. Al-Faqeeh: 1) he refused to admit to the fact that the Saudi regime is ruled and run by apostates and refused to publish writings to that meaning, 2) he kept regular contact with some Saudi princes, thus betraying the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights by communicating with its archenemies, 3) he exposed some of our agents inside the KSA and never cared about their fate in Saudi prisons and refused to give money to the families of the arrested ones, 4) he insisted on employing certain persons never approved by other members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, for suspecting their being spies on us from the British or Saudi apparatuses, 5) he insisted on casting doubts on many members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and their families inside the KSA, and finally, 6) he adamantly refused to spend money of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights on some of its members who needed it, claiming he was saving money for the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights. After long deliberations by the members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, we decided to dismiss him and to suspend his membership in the London headquarters …). It is clear that such accusations leveled by Al-Masaary against his fellow in struggle, Al-Faqeeh, were akin to moral assassination of Al-Faqeeh, and they cast shadows over the personal traits of Al-Masaary; how could he verbally abuse his fellow struggler suddenly after years of joint endeavors inside and outside the KSA?!  Some members of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights tried to reconcile Al-Faqeeh and Al-Masaary, and the former accepted their mediation while the latter refused any type of reconciliation, as we read in Statement No. 45 in 1996: (… While the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights dismissed Dr. Al-Faqeeh and suspended his membership on 4th of March, 1996, Al-Faqeeh was planning to monopolize control and hegemony over the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, confiscating the only key to its headquarters … after his dismissal, he brought the British police to re-gain the headquarters as he claimed the location to be his, and after long debates, the British police told him to resort to British courts to sue the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights  and Dr. Al-Masaary if he had proofs that the location is his … British authorities felt sorry for such divisions inside the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, but stood on our side as we regained the key to the location of our headquarter … some members tried to settle the disputes between Al-Masaary and Al-Faqeeh, especially the father of the former, Sheikh Abdullah Al-Masaary, but negotiations went on for a long time and works of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights were suspended unduly while avoiding media coverage as much as possible… Negotiations failed miserably … facsimile broken down as Al-Faqeeh changed numbers of it and of the phones by notifying the telecom company to stop old numbers … this was deemed a violation against the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights … Dr. Al-Masaary has headed the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, while Al-Faqeeh was irrevocably dismissed … Al-Faqeeh took revenge by verbally abusing the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights in the media, claiming that it is deviated from its original path by some members who tarnished its name and reputation! …). Of course, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights issued a statement in English to the press to justify and explain its stance in April 1996, asserting that it has documents, eye-witnesses, and audiotapes furnished upon request to prove everything in the statement, and in it, the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights asserted that 1) some dismissed members slandered Dr. Al-Masaary and accused him of betraying the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, a false and groundless accusation spread by Al-Faqeeh by fax inside and outside the KSA, 2) such events prove that Al-Faqeeh and his mediators were biased against Al-Masaary and leveled groundless accusations at him, 3) money confiscated by Al-Faqeeh was owned by the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, whose members accused him of theft and dishonesty, 4) the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights and its spokesman, Al-Masaary, was facing a fierce war threatening its very existence, a war fought by Al-Faqeeh among others, and 5) British courts will undertake the cases and help the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights to regain their possessions, headquarter, and money… all agreements previously done with Al-Faqeeh are annulled and we warn our friends against dealing with him …). This shows that Al-Masaary sharia of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights deemed Al-Faqeeh at first as a fellow struggler for God's sake against the evil KSA, but later on, it deemed him a traitor who allied himself to infidels. Al-Masaary sharia accepted mediation of reconciliation at first and then refused to comply with mediators and negotiations, and this shows that Al-Masaary does not accept compromises; his fellow members must be 100% agreeing with his stances and views as the head of the Committee of Defending Legitimate Rights, or else, be deemed a traitor and an apostate as per Al-Masaary sharia. This Al-Masaary sharia is fashioned as per his whims and desires, and it changes as per variable conditions and circumstances to serve the power-seeking Dr. Al-Masaary who sought to be appointed as ruler of Arabia one day. Thus, he contradicts Quranic sharia that advocates justice above all, especially within the Quranic Ten Commandments in the Quranic Chapter six: "…And when you speak, be fair, even if it concerns a close relative…" (6:152), "…Stand firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even if against yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. …" (4:135), and "O you who believe! Be upright to God, witnessing with justice; and let not the hatred of a certain people prevent you from acting justly. Adhere to justice, for that is nearer to piety; and fear God. God is informed of what you do." (5:8). Had Al-Masaary adhered to the Quranic Islamic sharia, he would have acted justly with his foes by balancing and mentioning both their pros and cons, their good qualities and their defects, and then, he would have tackled his point of view of how he excelled and surpassed them. But he saw nothing in his foes except pure evil and he confiscated to himself what he saw as the ''absolute truth''. Such a mentality made him lose more supporters and friends gradually until he stands alone now in his political struggle eventually as we write this.          




1- The only tool owned by Dr. Al-Masaary was his pen, and his writings declared all his foes as apostates and infidels, even his fellow in struggle Dr. Saad Al-Faqeeh. Declaring others as apostates requires murdering them as per the Sunnite Wahabi creed or sharia, which is totally foreign to real Islamic sharia laws in the Quran. We wonder very much what Al-Masaary would have done if he owned an atomic bomb?! No doubt he would have destroyed everything and everyone by it! this shows the veritable danger and threat posed by Wahabism, a creed based on the fundamentalist Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya doctrines and the urgent need to refute and debunk Wahabism from within true Islam and Islamic sharia (i.e., the Quran alone) by Quranism and fellow Quranists; the writings authored by us for more than 20 years since 1977 until now as we write this book in 2000 A.D. revolve around this point.


2- Al-Masaary himself was a victim of this fundamentalist Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya doctrines on which the Wahabi ideology is based; if he had continued his studies in his field of nuclear physics, he would have benefited scientific research outside and inside the KSA, instead of becoming a writer of terror theories and notions of Salafism / Wahabism in his writings that we have analyzed in this chapter. 


3- All this asserts the responsibility of King Feisal who was to blame for accentuating the Wahabi Salafist thought to color lifestyle and policies of the KSA, spreading and propagating Wahabism all over the world, and dwarfing and quelling the secular trends inside the KSA, driving Saudi natural science experts to quit their careers and their homeland to devote their time to use the fundamentalist Salafist thought to fight and undermine the KSA, leading eventually to the result that the KSA has suffered because of Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden, and their likes.  


4- The suffering of Al-Saud family will go on; as such ordeal is derived from the Wahabi ideology, and as long as the royal family links itself and the KSA to Wahabism; i.e., as long as the pact between M. Ibn Abdul-Wahab, founder of Wahabism, and Ibn Saud, the forefather of Al-Saud family, remains valid.


5- Evil doings always turn against the evildoers; this has occurred in the 20th century events in the KSA, as we have written in this book, and the 21st century will bring about more events against the KSA inside and outside it to bring about its collapse as long as the KSA adheres to the Wahabi ideology. Wahabism must be intellectually refuted from within Islam (i.e., the Quran alone) by Quranism and Quranists. Almighty God has sent His prophet, Muhammad, as a mercy to the humankind, but the fundamentalist Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyya doctrinal Wahabi terrorists made 'Islam' a tool to terrorize the humankind. 


6- Until now, these criminals and terrorists do not feel ashamed of themselves and their deeds!


The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century
The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century

Authored by: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour
26th of June, 2001
Cairo, Egypt
Translated by: Ahmed Fathy


We publish here the complete book titled "The Wahabi Opposition Movements in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Twentieth Century", after writing it previously in a series of successive articles before on our website. We authored this book in 2001, and it is published here online after omitting an introductory chapter about Wahabism and its origins and roots; we have omitted this chapter because it repeats what we have written in hundreds of articles about Wahabism, Salafism, and the Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine. We have decided to confine this book to the rest of this research, whose details are summarized in the new introduction, and we consider this research or book as adopting a neutral historical viewpoint of events. Parts of this book have been published before separate