What is the difference between Saudi Arabia and ISIS?

Question: What is the difference between Saudi Arabia and ISIS?

Answer: ISIS hasn’t yet been elected to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council.

ISIS and Saudi Arabia’s near-identical punishments for a host of crimes are rooted in Wahhabi doctrine.

…in Saudi Arabia… public use of capital and corporal punishment remains common. The kingdom has carried out 15 beheadings in the first 20 days of 2015 and executed a total of 87 people in 2014.

-middleeasteye.net

It makes no sense at all that the United Nations made Saudi Arabia the head of the Human rights committee.

 

It does, however, help explain why I am happy that President Trump has announced that he is cutting US funding to the United Nations by over 50%. (The US currently spends over 10 billion dollars on the UN.)

If the United Nations are concerned about the revenue cut then they should ask Saudi Arabia to make up the funds. Saudi Arabia are already spending an estimated US $100 billion spreading their Wahhabi version of Islam so they have plenty of cash to throw around, in fact, TEN times what the US is currently giving to the UN.

Products of Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools and mosques have often been incited to political violence against non-Muslims.

The Saudis have been arrogantly indiscreet about spending to promote Wahhabism. For example, a 2005 Freedom House report reviewed some of the extremist literature provided to the public by Saudi-funded institutions and concluded that it poses “a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself.” The monarchy has also given multiple and generous grants to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the most aggressive and effective Islamist organization in the United States.

Australia recognises Saudi Arabia as an extremist threat.

• In 2007, the Australian government turned down a Saudi request to send funds to the Islamic Society of South Australia to help build a new mosque. “Obviously we don’t want to see any extremist organisation penetrate into Australia,” explained then-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Eight years later, Saudi diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks affirmed the kingdom’s intense interest in influencing Islamic politics in Australia.

• In 2008, the Saudis offered to finance construction of a mosque and Islamic cultural center in Moscow, prompting three Russian Orthodox groups to write an open letter to then-King Abdullah suggesting that his kingdom lift its ban on churches.

• In 2010, Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre turned down Saudi funding for a mosque on the grounds that the Saudi kingdom lacks religious freedom.

• In July, reeling from multiple attacks over 18 months that killed 236 people on French soil, Prime Minister Manuel Valls mused about prohibiting foreign funding of mosques “for a period of time to be determined,” provoking an intense debate.

These one-off responses may satisfy voters but they had almost no impact. That requires something more systematic – legislation.

Brat’s proposed bill, H.R. 5824, the “Religious Freedom International Reciprocity Enhancement Act,” makes it unlawful for “foreign nationals of a country that limits the free exercise of religion in that country to make any expenditure in the United States to promote a religion in the United States, and for other purposes.”…

To “promote a religion” includes funding “religious services, religious education, evangelical outreach, and publication and dissemination of religious literature.” Should funding proceed anyway in defiance of this bill, the U.S. government can seize the monies.

The bill needs more work: it omits mention of religious buildings, offers no criteria for seizure of property, and does not indicate who would do the seizing. But it offers an important beginning…

Americans cannot abide aggressive unilateral actions by Riyadh (or, for that matter, Tehran and Doha) exploiting their oil bonanza to smother the secularist principles basic to Western life. We must protect ourselves

-counterjihadreport.com

Saudi money is aready being used to fund New Zealand mosques and to send Imams to New Zealand. We need a law like this to be created as soon as possible. It is not an anti-Islam law it is an anti-extremist law.

Why should a country that allows no religious freedom and has more in common with ISIS than it does with peaceful Muslims like the Ahmayydia sect be allowed to infiltrate our society? Saudi Arabia’s long-term goal is to take away our secular and religious freedom. You cannot fight a threat like that with tolerance. We need action and we need it now.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

61%