Graphic By: Jen Hight

Dr. William Ochsenwald is a Professor of History at Virginia Tech; he has visited and lived in many parts of the Middle East, including Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Palestine/Israel. He is the author of various works and served as the president of the Society for Gulf Arab States from 1996-1998.

Dr. Ochsenwald began his talk by speaking about the origins of the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia. He explained that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia began in a cooperation agreement with tribal leader Muhammad ibn Sau'd and Islamic puritan Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab believed that Muslims had corrupted themselves with innovations--many of which made them infidels--and engaged in a violent spread of his beliefs. Abdul Wahhab's ideology became known as Wahhabism, or Wahhabi Islam. Dr. Ochsenwald argued that Wahhab's radical desire to reshape Saudi society into his vision of a more pure Islam free of innovations left a lasting impression on the history of the Saudi Kingdom.

Dr. Ochsenwald then explained that, under the first Saudi Kingdom influenced by Wahhabi ideology, the ullema, or clerics, had become weapons of the regime and aided in this spread of Wahhabi ideology. He proceeded to explain that, in the past 10 years, a number of reforms slowly made their way into the Saudi Kingdom causing a more pragmatic and liberal approach to take root by the Saudi royal family. The reforms taken by the Saudi Kingdom include the creation of Majlis al-Shura, or the "council of discussion," an advising body to the Saudi King which has even recently included a Shi'a member. Dr. Ochsenwald argued that Wahhabis such as Osama bin Laden emphatically rejected such reformation, and this resulted in his radicalism and extremism. The speech was concluded by a discussion concerning slow liberal changes which have been in effect throughout the Saudi Kingdom in response to the horrible attacks of 9/11, such as the creation of elected Municipal Councils.

Many questions were taken from the floor for about 15 minutes. One student asked whether the average Saudi opinion agreed with the radical al-Qaeda or with the reforms of the Saudi royal family. Dr. Ochsenwald answered that there is no freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia, so it is hard to know exactly what Saudis think, yet a study by Zogby International found that there is growing opposition to al-Qaeda in the Saudi Kingdom, but not necessarily support of the Saudi royal family. Another student asked about the relationship between the growing civil war in Iraq and its effects on Saudi Arabia. Dr. Ochsenwald responded that most Saudis want the United States out of Iraq and that some Saudis even snuck across the borders of Syria en route to Iraq to fight against American soldiers.

A very important question was asked by one student, who asked why Osama bin Laden hates the United States. Dr. Ochsenwald responded that, in his opinion, the main impetus of such hate, which is clear throughout the writings of Osama bin Laden, is U.S. support of the Saudi Royal Family. Dr. Ochsenwald described this as the "main instigator" of Osama bin Laden's hate towards America and even argued that the Israeli-Palestinian issue came much later, only to draw greater sympathy from Muslims across the world.

Dr. Charles McClellan, Chairman of the Department of History, asked the final question of the night; it concerned whether or not current U.S. policy is working to stop al-Qaeda and terrorism across the world. Dr. Ochsenwald responded that U.S. policy is working, but it is not enough. He further described U.S. public diplomacy to the Middle East as extremely and totally ineffective. Dr. Ochsenwald explained that, "Democracy in the Middle East at gun-point does not work as a general rule"; furthermore, he criticized the U.S.'s use of what he called "brute force because we can."

I believe that Dr. Ochsenwald presented a fair, balanced look into Saudi history of the past 300 years. Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab has been the driving force behind Islamic extremism and radicalism for the past few centuries. Imam Abu Zahra wrote this in describing the earliest Wahhabi conquests in Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islami:

"The Wahhabis did not restrain themselves to proselytism only, but resorted to warmongering against whoever disagreed with them on the grounds that they were fighting innovation (bid`a), and innovations are an evil that must be fought, and it is obligatory to command good and forbid evil?heir brutality did not stop there but they also came to whatever graves were visible and destroyed them also. And when the ruler of the Hijaz regions caved in to them they destroyed all the graves of the Companions and razed them to the ground."

I believe, though, that his characterization of Osama bin Laden simply being influenced by Wahhabi doctrines and the Saudi royal family is an overgeneralization. Dr. Ochsenwald does not mention the ideologies of later 20th century Islamic ideologists such as Sayyid Qutb, and Abu `Ala al-Maududi. In fact, Wahhabism is a label which includes an umbrella of sects and movements, many of which have been proven to sponsor and promote terrorism around the world. The doctrines of both Sayyid Qutb as well as Abu 'Ala al-Maududi, which call for violent and Marxist-like global Islamic revolution, are central and key in the understanding of the makeup of modern-day Islamic terrorism. Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a strong proponent of the ideas of Sayyid Qutb.

A minor disagreement I had with Dr. Ochsenwald is that he called Saudi Arabia a Sunni Kingdom. Although Saudi Arabian Wahhabis consider themselves to be the true Sunnis, they do not fit the legal definition of Sunni Muslims as defined by classical and traditional Islam.

The al-Azhar Dictionary of Islamic Terms defines the term Sunni as, "The follower of Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash`ari, or Imam al-Maturidi's codifications of Islamic beliefs."

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, one of the leading authorities of classical Islam, also defined a Sunni Muslim as a follower of the two schools of Islamic theology: the Ash`aris and the Maturidis. The fact of the matter is that Wahhabism considers the Ash`ari and Maturidi schools of Islamic theology to be deviant, and thus cannot be called Sunni simply by the definition of the word. Wahhabis also believe in anthropomorphic and literalist beliefs concerning God's attributes, which are rejected by Sunnis.

I believe the reformation Dr. Ochsenwald described in his lecture is still not truly in place. An important example of the dissent of many within the Saudi Kingdom, as opposed to the ugly face of radical Wahhabism, is in the case of the great Sufi scholar of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Seyed Mohammad Alawi Al-Maliki. Shaykh al-`Alawi al-Maliki was branded a infidel by some of the highest-ranking Saudi clerics, including the imam or prayer leader in the Holy Ka'ba of Mecca, Shaykh al-Sudais. Journalist Stephen Schwartz described him in an article for Frontpage.com a highly neo-conservative online news magazine in an article entitled "Getting to Know the Sufis":

"The dead man, 58-year-old Seyed Mohammad Alawi Al-Maliki, had been blacklisted from employment in religious education, banned from preaching in the Grand Mosque (a privilege once enjoyed by his father and grandfather), and even imprisoned by the Saudi regime and deprived of his passport. That so many Saudi subjects were willing to gather openly to mourn him--indeed, that his family succeeded in excluding Wahhabi clerics from the mosque during the memorial--says something important, not just about the state of dissent inside the Saudi kingdom, but also about pluralism in Islam.

Radical Wahhabis are not only a danger to the United States, but a danger to Muslims as well. Dr. Ochsenwald did not mention the extensive campaign funded by Saudi petrol-dollars to disseminate Wahhabi-literature to U.S. mosques and Islamic organizations. The Wahhabi culture of hate is being spread at a phenomenal pace which not only inspires violence and hate towards non-Muslims in many occasions, but also violence and hate towards non-Wahhabi Muslims as well. Holy relics such as the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad and the blessed graveyard Jannat al-Baqi have been destroyed by radical Wahhabi Puritanism. Mount Uhud, one of the holiest sites of Islam, was almost destroyed recently as well. I hope that non-Muslims understand that not all Muslims agree with the radical and extremist Saudi-Wahhabi ideology of hate.

Numerous letters by various traditional Islamic scholars have condemned both the ideologies of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and Sayyid Qutb. In a letter written by Shaykh Sayyid al-Rifa`i to the Saudi Kingdom entitled Advice to Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd it was written:

"The slaughters and terrible events presently taking place damage the reputation of Islam and play havoc with the Muslims. For example, what happened in Algeria and Egypt or in the Meccan Sanctuary is nothing but the fruit of your graduates and beliefs, and the reading of your publications, all of them built on apostatizing, calling monotheists idolaters, hurling accusations of innovations, and holding the worst opinions of the Muslims."

And,

"Therefore, fear God Most High and do not kill a life which God Most High made sacred, except in justice! And be warned of the causes for remorse and guilt the Day of Woe and Resurrection."

In conclusion I believe that Dr. Ochsenwald's lecture was informative, balanced and enlightening. He is correct in that the 17th-century pact between Muhammad ibn Sau'd and Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab has shaped not only Saudi history but the history of the Middle East and even the world for the past few centuries.