Well, was he speaking as a cleric, or as an official government spokesperson, or just giving his personal opinion?
He was speaking as a member of the Saudi government. From the article:
"This statement shows the real face of the Saudi government," says Saudi dissident Ali Al-Ahmed of the Saudi Institute, based in Washington.
Al-Ahmed says that while Saudi officials — including Sheik Luhaidan — publicly oppose jihad in Iraq, privately some send a different message.
"He is telling Saudis it's OK to go to Iraq and kill Americans and Iraqis and they won’t be punished for doing that," says Al-Ahmed...
...Luhaidan confirmed those were his words, saying in Arabic, "Yes, this is my voice."
But the sheik said what he really meant was that it's not worth it for young Saudis to go to Iraq and that the Iraqis are capable of fighting on their own.
Since there have been so many Saudi insurgents in Iraq, either he's lying or they all simultaneously 'misinterpreted' his message.
Either way it's not acceptable and the Iraqi foreign minister and prime minister should both be objecting, and asking for our help in so objecting
The relationship between the Saudi government and the US government is extremely close. They are our "most important allies" in the Middle East, after all. Our government has sacrificed American interests in favor of Saudi interests.
If our government had to choose between Saudi interests and Iraqi interests, who would they choose? I'm sure the Iraqi government doesn't want to find out.
It's not clear to me that the Saudi Institute is automatically to be trusted in its judgements, because they're a partisan interest group. One we might support, but that's what they are. This is one Saudy government official, six months ago, quoted as saying something and then backpedaling. And apparently it was in private, which may well have been a non-official government function.
U.S. Congressmen, Senators, judges, and even cabinet officials sometimes say things that aren't supported by the government as a whole. I need to see more evidence that this was an official Saudi government official issuing an official Saudi government edict before I can take this as anything but one person who said something and then felt the need to backpedal when he was confronted on it.
In Mary's world, if you hold a government job and say something stupid, then you're speaking for the government. If you say something that condemns terrorism, then it's only in your private capacity and therefore it doesn't count.
He said this while talking in a mosque. The video doesn't show the circumstances of the occasion, i.e., whether he was preaching or speaking with a group.
What he said is obnoxious and is not Saudi policy. I think, and I'm sure Mary agrees, that he should be stripped of his job title. There are, perhaps, political reasons why he can't be fired summarily. For instance, because he represents a major group of hardliners who need to be keep in the equation in order to be changed.
If our government had to choose between Saudi interests and Iraqi interests, and both were equally egregious or justifiable, who do you think they would they choose?
There are, perhaps, political reasons why he can't be fired summarily. For instance, because he represents a major group of hardliners who need to be keep in the equation in order to be changed
He needs to keep the equation in order to be changed? What does that mean?
It means that Luhaidan represents a strong element within Saudi society. But tossing him out of the political discourse, that entire element gets shut out and the gov't ends up talking only with the people who agree with it. They're avoiding the Echo Chamber.
The hardline conservatives need to have a place in the discussion, even if they're wrong. Especially when they're wrong. They cannot be simply ignored, as if they and their opinions were worthless.
Either way it's not acceptable and the Iraqi foreign minister and prime minister should both be objecting, and asking for our help in so objecting.
Curious though: do you think they have? He said this last October. Was there any response from the appropriate parties?
He was speaking as a member of the Saudi government. From the article:
"This statement shows the real face of the Saudi government," says Saudi dissident Ali Al-Ahmed of the Saudi Institute, based in Washington.
Al-Ahmed says that while Saudi officials — including Sheik Luhaidan — publicly oppose jihad in Iraq, privately some send a different message.
"He is telling Saudis it's OK to go to Iraq and kill Americans and Iraqis and they won’t be punished for doing that," says Al-Ahmed...
...Luhaidan confirmed those were his words, saying in Arabic, "Yes, this is my voice."
But the sheik said what he really meant was that it's not worth it for young Saudis to go to Iraq and that the Iraqis are capable of fighting on their own.
Since there have been so many Saudi insurgents in Iraq, either he's lying or they all simultaneously 'misinterpreted' his message.
Either way it's not acceptable and the Iraqi foreign minister and prime minister should both be objecting, and asking for our help in so objecting
The relationship between the Saudi government and the US government is extremely close. They are our "most important allies" in the Middle East, after all. Our government has sacrificed American interests in favor of Saudi interests.
If our government had to choose between Saudi interests and Iraqi interests, who would they choose? I'm sure the Iraqi government doesn't want to find out.
U.S. Congressmen, Senators, judges, and even cabinet officials sometimes say things that aren't supported by the government as a whole. I need to see more evidence that this was an official Saudi government official issuing an official Saudi government edict before I can take this as anything but one person who said something and then felt the need to backpedal when he was confronted on it.
He said this while talking in a mosque. The video doesn't show the circumstances of the occasion, i.e., whether he was preaching or speaking with a group.
What he said is obnoxious and is not Saudi policy. I think, and I'm sure Mary agrees, that he should be stripped of his job title. There are, perhaps, political reasons why he can't be fired summarily. For instance, because he represents a major group of hardliners who need to be keep in the equation in order to be changed.
If our government had to choose between Saudi interests and Iraqi interests, and both were equally egregious or justifiable, who do you think they would they choose?
He needs to keep the equation in order to be changed? What does that mean?
The hardline conservatives need to have a place in the discussion, even if they're wrong. Especially when they're wrong. They cannot be simply ignored, as if they and their opinions were worthless.
That why, while the gov't increases it acceptance of Sufis, opens dialogue with the Shi'a, or takes the religious police down a peg, they need to show the zealots that their voices are still important. That's why Al-Luhaidan isn't summarily fired.
Yes, it's politics. But it's necessary politics.