On The Dependence of M. Ibn Salman on Mercenaries:
An Overview on the Link among Armies, Wealth, and Authority
Published in November 13, 2017
Translated by: Ahmed Fathy
Firstly: about Islam:
Within Islam (i.e., the Quran), fighting is allowed ONLY in cases of self-defense and thus deemed jihad fighting for God's sake, especially to restore absolute religious freedom and to stop religious persecution. Accordingly, we assert the following points.
1- fighting for God's sake can NEVER be combined with fighting for spoils, money, and invasion. Within the Quranic Chapter 8, revealed after the battle of Badr (when believers of Yathreb city-state attacked a trade caravan of the Qorayish tribe to restore their confiscated money), God asserts the way spoils are distributed and prohibits making worldly possessions or spoils as reason for fighting; see 8:1-2 and 8:41-69. When those early believers forgot this important lesson and were defeated in the battle of Uhud because many of them sought worldly possessions or spoils; see 3:152. Hence, the Quranic sharia laws impose that believers perform jihad with their money for God's sake and NOT to fight for loot or spoils.
2- Jihad fighting of self-defense for God's sake is voluntary and not obligatory; those who are reluctant to participate are punished by being prevented from the honor of engaging into self-defense fighting in the future; see 9:83-84. Likewise, donating money for fighting for God's sake is voluntary and never obligatory; those who are reluctant to donate money in such endeavors are punished by being prevented from the honor of engaging into self-defense fighting in the future; see 9:53-54.
3- Within the above freedom, the Quran urges true believers to engage into self-defense jihad fighting (with their souls and money) to eliminate religious persecution and to face aggressors for the sake of God in return for Paradise in the Hereafter; see 2:214, 3:142, 9:14-16, 9:111, 61:4, and 61:10.
4- Many of the weak ones in Arabia during Muhammad's lifetime converted to Islam only in terms of peaceful behavior while enjoying absolute religious freedom to the extent that they worshipped 'holy' mausoleums, drank wine, and gambled; see 22:30 and 5:90-91. Those weak ones were very reluctant to engage into self-defense fighting and God has urged them to engage into it and severely rebuked them for disobedience; see 8:65, 4:84, and 9:38-41. This is the same stance of the hypocrites; see 9:42-55, 9:81, and 9:86-99. Hypocrites in Yathreb used to be stingy and never to donate for self-defense jihad endeavors, and God has threatened and rebuked them severely; see 9:67, 9:81, 63:7, 47:38, and 57:7-11.
5- The Qorayish tribe in Mecca hated Islam for economic reasons (see 56:82) though this tribe knew that the Quran is the Truth (see 28:75) and it attacked and persecuted early believers inside Mecca to force them to forsake Islam (2:217).
6- Despite of the above point, the early believers achieved military victory and this caused peace (i.e., Islam in terms of peaceful demeanor) to reign in Arabia as wars stopped when the Qorayish tribe saw that its economic and political interests entailed concerting to Islam (i.e., peaceful behavior). Once Muhammad died. The Qorayish tribe managed to restore its control over Arabs within the rule of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs. In fact, The Qorayish tribe managed to convince rebellious, furious, hungry, and belligerent desert-Arabs who hated its control and rule to channel their force to invade other nations for looting and spoils and to guarantee their entering into 'paradise' by forcing conquered nations to choose to convert to Islam, to pay tribute/taxes to keep their faith and be ruled by Arabs, or to be massacred! This has been the Satanist equation to convince desert-Arabs to join Arab armies and troops to invade other countries within the reign of the caliphs Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman. This led to unprecedented military victory and Arab conquests led to the emergence of the very first Arab empire. Later on, Desert-Arabs rebelled against the corrupt caliph Othman and assassinated him and they fought against one another within the first Arab civil war during the reign of the caliph Ali.
Secondly: how the special concept of Islamic jihad differs from the faulty one common among people today:
1- Thus, the Arabs who fought against one another for loot for centuries before Islam stopped their belligerence only temporarily shortly before Muhammad's death, who died after seeing them entering into peace in groups (see the Quranic Chapter 110). Once Muhammad died, Qorayish restored its control over Arabia and unified and convinced Arabs to return to their old ways of raiding and looting within a Satanist religious ideology of fighting for loot, while falsely raising banners of Islam. Such Arab military forces threatened the Byzantines and the Persians at the time and an Arab empire emerged within disobeying the Quran and the emergence of earthly man-made Sunnite and Shiite religions that contradict the Quran.
2- Hence, Arabs returned to their old ways of mobilizing as soldiers into an army led by rulers for the sake of loot, money, wealth, authority, and power by using any racial, nationalistic, or religious ideology. Powerful, strong rulers satisfy their soldiers by sharing spoils and wealth with them, and this makes their soldiers serve them with loyalty and devotion. In contrast, weak, affluent, and corrupt rulers are controlled by powerful military leaders who may confiscate wealth, authority, and power and might assassinate weak rulers.
3- This rule mentioned above applies to theocratic caliphates from Abou Bakr to the Fatimids and the Ottomans and to dynasties from the Ayyubids to the Saudi royal family members, and from Andalusia to the Middle East.
Thirdly: some examples from history:
1- The so-called 'wise' four pre-Umayyad caliphs manipulated religious banners to commit the crimes of Arab conquests; the caliph Omar was just and fair only toward Arabs and unjust toward non-Arabs. When the caliph Othman became corrupt and deprived Arabs of spoils and money, they rebelled against him and assassinated him later on. This means that army soldiers and fighters must have shares of wealth that would satisfy them.
2- The Umayyad caliphate had its armies from among Arab tribes to continue the Arab conquests and to fight against its foes and rivals inside the Arab empire. Strong Umayyad caliphs satisfied their soldiers and fighters with lots of money gifts and other presents and they had stricken a balance between the two major factions of Arab tribes (i.e., the Adnanites and the Qahtanites). When such a balance was lost and the Qahtanites felt they were wronged and suffered injustices, they joined the rebels who managed to bring about the collapse of the Umayyad caliphate.
3- The army of the Abbasid caliphate had mostly soldiers from the Qahtanites and some Persian soldiers and many Persian military leaders and some Arab military leaders; strong Abbasid caliphs managed to strike a balance among soldiers in authority and money gifts. When the two brothers and rivals Al-Ameen and Al-Maamoun, sons of the caliph Harun Al-Rasheed, engaged into war by proxy, Al-Maamoun as the victorious caliph lost the balance by favoring the Persian soldiers and military leaders and he excluded Arabs. The balance was temporarily regained by the Abbasid caliphate Al-Motassim who introduced Turkish soldiers and military leaders. When the weak, corrupt, and affluent Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil relied ONLY on Turkish soldiers and military leaders, they assassinated him. This caliph was succeeded by many affluent, corrupt, and weak caliphs who were controlled by Turkish soldiers and military leaders who assassinated, dethroned, and plucked the eyes of many caliphs with hot iron! Turkish tribes and military leaders established their own independent domains and states away from the weak Abbasids; e.g., the Tulunids, the Ikhshidids, and the Seljuks. Armies and military troops at the time included only Turkish soldiers and military leaders. In each of such states, a powerful military leader would emerge and establish it and then his affluent, corrupt, weak successors would be controlled by the Turkish military leaders.
4- The Fatimids of North Africa established their theocratic Shiite caliphate and formed an army and military troops of Shiites who fought bravely in the banner of the Shiite religion to conquer and annex Egypt and the Levant. When the Fatimid caliphs became weak, corrupt, and affluent, the religious ideology waned and the caliphs were controlled by strong and powerful military leaders.
5- Other rulers raised the banners of military jihad against the crusaders, like the Zengids who rebelled against the Turkish Seljuks who ruled the Levant and northern Iraq and replaced the Seljuks in the throne of the Levant and northern Iraq and then invaded Egypt. The ruler Nor-Eddine of the Zengids fought and defeated the crusaders' king of Jerusalem Amalric I in Egypt, as both rulers desired to invade Egypt. The Kurdish military leader Saladin ruled Egypt for the Zengids and then rebelled against them to establish the Ayyubid dynasty after the death of Nor-Eddine. Saladin took over lands of the Zengids and he established a strong military army that helped him to defeat the crusaders in the name of jihad. Once Saladin died, the military jihad against crusader waned. Saladin's brother, the sultan Al-Adil, dethroned Saladin's son in Egypt and ruled instead and he ruled the Levant as well, but his military army and troops grew weaker; he had to buy and train Mamelukes (enslaved male youths bought with money and trained as soldiers) in greater numbers more than the one owned by Saladin, as Al-Adil knew that their Kurdish Ayyubid dynasty needed military protection. When Al-Adil died, his sons fought against one another and allied themselves to crusaders who still kept coastal cities in the Levant. Those weak, affluent, corrupt sons of Al-Adil were controlled by their Mameluke military leaders. The Mamelukes assassinated the last Ayyubid sultan, Turan Shah, and they established the Mameluke caliphate instead of the Ayyubid one of their former masters. Mameluke sultans bought so many Mamelukes to serve them and ruled Egypt and the Levant. Mameluke sultans led their armies and military troops themselves and very few Mameluke sultans managed to leave the throne to any affluent, weak sons, as the powerful military leaders among other Mamelukes would be enthroned by the power of their swords and soldiers. This means that military leaders of the military troops and armies confiscated wealth and power during the Mameluke Era.
6- So many Turkish tribes came from the Far East to Asia Minor, the Levant, and Iraq, and the Turks of Asia Minor converted to Sunnite Sufism, which was the dominant religion at the time that was supposed to be 'Islam'. Those Sunnite-Sufi Turks established their military armies and troops under the banner of military jihad against the Byzantines who were weak within their limited stretches of lands in Asia and Europe and their capital, Constantinople. The Turkish leader of these Turkish tribes and armies was Othman, and he established the Ottoman caliphate under the banner of jihad against Europe, and he managed to conquer and annex the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Hejaz (where Mecca is located) and he controlled the Red Sea and most coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Of course, the tribe of this leader/sultan Othman did not include so many soldiers; he had to buy young male slaves (and male children) to be trained as soldiers, in the Janissary army, who were very loyal to him as their sultan who led all their battles as their military leader as well. The Ottomans imposed heavy taxes and tributes on their subjects in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Those military leaders of the Janissary army later on controlled weak, affluent, and corrupt Ottoman caliphs and managed all affairs of the Ottoman caliphate. The Ottoman caliphate was deemed as the sick man of Europe; GB kept it alive for a while and protected it from Russia so that the British (and the French) would manage later on to invade some countries of the Middle-East in the suitable time.
7- These examples from history are repeated within world history of, for instance, China, Europe, and Russia. The same applies to the first and second Saudi states and the third, current Saudi state.
8- Hence, when the Saudi crown-prince M. Ibn Salman has involved his Saudi kingdom within the American plans against Iran, he knows he has no real, reliable military army; he has to imitate the affluent, corrupt, and weak rulers before him by relying on mercenaries imported from the First World countries (like Blackwater mercenaries) or imported from the Third World countries (mercenaries from Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Jordan, or Egypt). M. Ibn Salman will not be satisfied by only allying himself to tyrants within the neighboring countries; they are allies whose loyalty is bought by lots of huge bribes. M. Ibn Salman needs an army of mercenaries to be under his command to prevent the collapse of the Saudi kingdom and to engage into a regional war after taking the green-light from the USA.
Lastly:
1- These questions persist: would armies of mercenaries sacrifice their lives for the sake of an affluent, corrupt, reckless, impetuous, arrogant, and haughty man like the Saudi crown-prince M. Ibn Salman?! Would such armed mercenaries who guard the life of M. Ibn Salman in return for exorbitant fees be content with such money and would not demand more money? Can such mercenaries be trusted to guard the life of M. Ibn Salman if his foes pay them more money? Can such mercenaries have any honor, loyalty, or conscience? The loyalty of any mercenaries (by definition) can be purchased by anyone who pays more money; thus, arms carried by the mercenaries recruited by the Saudi family might be easily pointed at M. Ibn Salman himself.
2- Is not that true? Of course it is true!