Dubai’s Gulf News reports on remarks by the head of the Saudi Supreme Judiciary Council condemning Usama bin Laden as a ‘preacher of evil and destruction’. The piece also notes that Islamic scholars are the target of Al-Qaeda’s propaganda campaigns.
Bin Laden is the preacher of evil, says Saudi scholar
Mariam Al HakeemRiyadh: Shaikh Saleh Al Laheedan, chairman of the Saudi Arabian Supreme Judiciary Council, has lambasted Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden and second leader Ayman Al Zawahiri.
“Osama is a preacher of evil and destruction while Al Zawahiri is an eccentric, who left for turbulent regions when his country was not accommodative [to] his evil designs,” Al Laheedan said.
…
July:11:2008 - 10:53 | Comments & Trackbacks (4) | Permalink
4 Responses to “Saudi Jurist Condemns Bin Laden”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
July:12:2008 - 05:00
Obedience is a poor choice of words. What if a countries’ rulers are unjust and corrupt? Are we to follow them or anyone else for that matter.
Why not follow universal principles of love and brotherhood and sisterhood instead. People in Saudi are surely treated as subjects. I have experienced such influences and it is like someone who has a big dark cloud hanging over their heads.
A tug of war in the war of obedience. I call on all Saudi people to let go of the rope and just be! There is no need to choose sides of obedience. Follow what feels good and what is filled with love and joy. Once that action is performed all will feel free and not tied to anyone’s dictates.
July:12:2008 - 10:04
According to conservative, traditionalist Muslim scholars (and a lot of hadith) an unjust and corrupt ruler is preferable to fitna, discord and chaos.
I’m afraid your libertarian tendencies don’t mesh very well with that construction!
July:12:2008 - 10:11
Concerning your last statement, I know that is true and I wasn’t kidding when i said I was thinking about becoming a Jew…a mystical one
July:13:2008 - 11:52
According to conservative, traditionalist Muslim scholars (and a lot of hadith) an unjust and corrupt ruler is preferable to fitna, discord and chaos.
Before the 2003 Iraq invasion I recall there was discussion between Iranian Shi’a scholars about whether or not invasion by a non-Muslim Army could be justified if it removed an oppressive tyrant. Last month’s Mecca Preliminary Conference on Inter-Religious Dialogue decided that the definite answer is no. Apparently the very fact that disposing of a tyrant leads Muslims to contest among themselves for leadership is to be abhorred.
This decision does not promote the cause of Arab democracy, as a certain level of discord is usually a part of the democratic process.
As for what Shaikh Saleh Al Laheedan said, he appears to have chosen his words carefully. Has anyone read his full statement?