Comments on: Investigating Al-Rajhi Bank http://xrdarabia.org/2007/07/26/investigating-al-rajhi-bank/ Informed comment and commentary about Saudi Arabia, reform, and its relations with the US Wed, 23 May 2012 19:37:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: John Burgess http://xrdarabia.org/2007/07/26/investigating-al-rajhi-bank/comment-page-1/#comment-3321 John Burgess Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:07:46 +0000 http://xrdarabia.org/2007/07/26/investigating-al-rajhi-bank/#comment-3321 Thanks for the additional information. Thanks for the additional information.

]]> By: Wendell Belew http://xrdarabia.org/2007/07/26/investigating-al-rajhi-bank/comment-page-1/#comment-3320 Wendell Belew Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:32:58 +0000 http://xrdarabia.org/2007/07/26/investigating-al-rajhi-bank/#comment-3320 I worked closely with Glenn Simpson on this article. We provided access to IIROSA leadership and extensive documentary material. Earlier today I sent the following comments to Glenn, some of which do not deal with my client (an association of Islamic charities) but with some glaring but relatively few problems I had with the article. Dear Glenn, I thought you might like to have some initial comments about your article. We can talk later today to discuss them in detail. As is usually the case with lengthy pieces like this one, many of my comments may have been addressed in material that you originally submitted but which was cut by your editors. Anyway, here goes - You use the offensive term “Wahhabism” to describe the Al Rajhi family's religious belief. This is a term the people you describe do not use and find offensive when it is used by others. It is roughly equivalent to using “Mohammedan” instead of “Muslim”. While the term is widespread, like many racial and religious slurs, it is never used to self-describe conservative Salafis from the Najd like the Al-Rajhi family. Your article refers to the “golden chain” material without mentioning the numerous times in which US and other courts have ruled that the document is not probative. You mention the Treasury allegations about Al-Haramain without mentioning – or linking to the OMB Watch document as I specifically requested – the serious flaws in the Treasury designation process. I realize that this is not an article about “process” but to write allegations about links to al-Qaeda without any balance is unworthy of the normal journalistic standards of the Journal. With regard to Al-Haramain, Oregon, you fail to mention that the criminal indictment against the organization was dismissed or even to provide a link to your earlier more complete article on the subject. You imply that al-Buthi and Al Haramain were indicted for supporting al-Qaeda when that was not the case at all. There are no terrorism related charges in the indictment. The facts – and the excellent coverage given to this matter by the Washington Post – establish without any doubt that the funds in question were intended to be and were in fact administered by the Russian government and not any terrorist organization. You state as fact rather than as an allegation a connection between an Virginia charity that had previous connection to IIRO and the Al-Rajhi family. As you note, the US government staged a widely-promoted “raid” five year ago that has not led to any criminal action. I realize that this article is about why the US government does not like Al-Rajhi and not whether those beliefs are justified. I also realize that you are dealing with complicated material that must be summarized to some extent. However, there is widespread evidence that American intelligence and policies with regard to financial support of terrorism are seriously flawed. I believe that you are selectively relying on US government allegations (some of them many years old) without cautioning your readers about concerns – and the basis for these concerns – that those allegation may not be factually based. Again, I am sure that the material that you submitted to your editors addressed many of my concerns . I look forward to working with you on future articles that explore these important matters. Regards, Wendell I worked closely with Glenn Simpson on this article. We provided access to IIROSA leadership and extensive documentary material. Earlier today I sent the following comments to Glenn, some of which do not deal with my client (an association of Islamic charities) but with some glaring but relatively few problems I had with the article.

Dear Glenn,

I thought you might like to have some initial comments about your article. We can talk later today to discuss them in detail. As is usually the case with lengthy pieces like this one, many of my comments may have been addressed in material that you originally submitted but which was cut by your editors. Anyway, here goes -

You use the offensive term “Wahhabism” to describe the Al Rajhi family’s religious belief. This is a term the people you describe do not use and find offensive when it is used by others. It is roughly equivalent to using “Mohammedan” instead of “Muslim”. While the term is widespread, like many racial and religious slurs, it is never used to self-describe conservative Salafis from the Najd like the Al-Rajhi family.
Your article refers to the “golden chain” material without mentioning the numerous times in which US and other courts have ruled that the document is not probative.
You mention the Treasury allegations about Al-Haramain without mentioning – or linking to the OMB Watch document as I specifically requested – the serious flaws in the Treasury designation process. I realize that this is not an article about “process” but to write allegations about links to al-Qaeda without any balance is unworthy of the normal journalistic standards of the Journal.
With regard to Al-Haramain, Oregon, you fail to mention that the criminal indictment against the organization was dismissed or even to provide a link to your earlier more complete article on the subject. You imply that al-Buthi and Al Haramain were indicted for supporting al-Qaeda when that was not the case at all. There are no terrorism related charges in the indictment. The facts – and the excellent coverage given to this matter by the Washington Post – establish without any doubt that the funds in question were intended to be and were in fact administered by the Russian government and not any terrorist organization.
You state as fact rather than as an allegation a connection between an Virginia charity that had previous connection to IIRO and the Al-Rajhi family. As you note, the US government staged a widely-promoted “raid” five year ago that has not led to any criminal action.

I realize that this article is about why the US government does not like Al-Rajhi and not whether those beliefs are justified. I also realize that you are dealing with complicated material that must be summarized to some extent. However, there is widespread evidence that American intelligence and policies with regard to financial support of terrorism are seriously flawed. I believe that you are selectively relying on US government allegations (some of them many years old) without cautioning your readers about concerns – and the basis for these concerns – that those allegation may not be factually based.

Again, I am sure that the material that you submitted to your editors addressed many of my concerns . I look forward to working with you on future articles that explore these important matters.

Regards,

Wendell

]]>