The Australian newspaper has been running a campaign against Griffith University for accepting a little bit of Saudi Arabian money.

Their campaign is not credible. Throw in the word Wahabbism and you can fan the flames of xenophobia (and hopefully sell a few newspapers too.)

Then I began to wonder if News Corp had or has any Saudi shareholders.

One assertion is that Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and his Kingdom Holding Company at one stage held 6 to 7 percent in News Corp. That is serious wahabbist billions. Does anyone know if it is true?

Maybe an investigative journalist from the Australian could track it down and do an exposé.

If I were technologically competent I suppose I could check the share register but alas I am a technological cretin.

Good GRIEF John....

All that we have been saying about the naivity of the Left in its deluded defense of 'poor discriminated muslims' (as they see them)
is here, PROVEN by yourself!

Mate.. you truly need an education on Islam, its history and its methods. Particlularly how they love to be loved by the silly "Left"..which is a total contradiction of their own faith principles.

Marxists are usually atheists agreed? In Islamic terms, they are the lowest of the low. 'idolaters' so to speak, of which the Quran says:

"slay them wherever you find them"

but while this was uttered at a particular time and context, the principle still applies, though the 'slaying' is restrained by other forces...unless of course, you happen to be an open idolator in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi money is aimed at one thing, Advancing Arab Islamic interests. How you can 'not' see this, is evidence of your lack of understanding of Islam and history. (seriously)

Lets take an example.

1/ Ka'b bin Al Ashraf. a political enemy of Mohammad.

PROBLEM. "ka'b composed mocking poetry about Mohammad, and after Mohammad executed the nobility of the Quraysh after a battle, which outraged Ka'b, he started discussing with them about removing Mohammad."
SOLUTION. Send a hit squad to deceptively murder him by night.(no public trial, no investigation..nope..just plain simple 'murder'.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436

Your problem is, you cannot connect such indcidents in Mohammads day, to events in ours. But when you consider THIS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

who was "murdered" by Mohammad Buyeri for his 'maligning Allah' .. the very same reason Ka'b was murdered, and taken from the example of Mohammad the so called prophet himself...who is said to be "The best of all mankind" well.. go figure.

The Marxist/Leftist mindset, due to it's atheistic reference point, simply cannot 'get' the reference point of Islam, and many Muslims who seek to emulate their prophet.

BOAZ_David

I'm not quite sure what relevance your comment has to my initial post.

If Islam is per se evil, then News Corp is in trouble if my conjecture about Saudi money holding six to seven percent of the company is correct. Of course Islam is no more inherently evil than Christianity and News Corp is not in trouble (just as Griffith university has nothing to fear from receiving a pittance from the wahabbis.)

It was US money and Western arms that supported Bin Laden in his fight against the Russian invaders. I guess that makes the US accomplices to evil. The Christian allies of the islamists are more to blame than anything you could pin on the Left.

Passy “I am a technological cretin.”

Oh you are much too modest Passy.

From reading your posts and articles, your “cretinism” extends far beyond just technology; into the realms of political and social commentary and, I am sure, many other areas too.

So Saudi money is aimed at one thing, Advancing Arab Islamic interests.

How unusual.

Better send it all back - and all that nasty oil as well.

John....

<<Of course Islam is no more inherently evil than Christianity>>

You want a stand up gloves off nose to nose debate about that ? :)

If you can show me where Jesus, the founder of and rule giver of 'Christianity' ordered his enemies to be killed by hit squads, if he hacked off feet and hands of living prisoners, if he claimed that "God told Him" he can have 'any believing woman' for a permanent or temporary wife, (code for sex toy).. if you can show me that he authorized his disciples to fight for him, and rape their dead victims widows...if he authorized marraige to, sexual consumnation with, and divorce of prepubescent female children...and when you can show me that Jesus taught "If your enemy punches you in the face, kill him" (or just cut off his head).....

yep.. and heaps more.....then I'll believe your claim. Until then. PLEASE don't insult and vilify Christianity with such ludicrous and unsubstantiated, wild, inaccurate and incorrect statements.

The relevance was probably not as clear as intended.

FOOD_4_THOUGHT

http://www.amislam.com/standard.htm
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/wahhabi.html

Wahabi money, comes with 'strings' attached.

Dear Passy,

If you google (like I did), 'Prince Alaweed bin Talal - News Corp,'
you'll come up with several websites that will confirm your suspicions.

There is definitely Saudi money in News Corp.

You were spot on.

Check it out!

Passy,
Yes its true they are putting billions and billions into univesitys.
When I get time I will post the figures. Also billions into other areas

Boaz,
By all means debate the comparative evils of ALL religions.

Philosophising about interpretations of obscure texts is utterly meaningless when facts can speak so much louder than words.

http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1137511050

Of the 250 million who died violently during the 20th Century alone, guess who was involved in about 200 million of those deaths?

Foxy and Passy,
The news about Prince Alaweed bin Talal investing in News Corp is about 4 years old and was done to help Murdoch avoid a takeover by the likes of John Malone's Liberty Media. Not quite the sinister conspiracy that some may like to believe it is.
He only recently converted his 3% (of non-voting shares) into around 5% of voting shares. I think Murdoch owns about 27%.

Passy,

November 26, 1997 Prince al Waleed bin Talal, a nephew of Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia, has bought 5% of News Corporation, which owns News International, publishers of The Sun and The Times.

Sep 08, 2005 Rupert Murdoch received an important show of support from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi investor. The Saudi prince, a long-time shareholder, converted his non-voting shares in News Corp to a 5.46 per cent stake of the voting shares and said he might buy more 'if the situation warrants', media reports said.
RIYADH, 25 January 2008 — James Murdoch, chairman and CEO, Europe andAsia, News Corporation

Fri, 2008-01-25 James Murdoch has met with Arab media magnet PrinceAlwaleed in Riyadh. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal holds a 5.7% votinstake in News Corp and is the second largest individual shareholder.James Murdoch: sealed the deal with Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi billionaire. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is reportedly launching two English-language satellite TV channels in the Middle East.News Corp is planning a film channel, potentially called
Fox Movies, and a drama channel, according to US entertainment paper Variety.The free-to-air satellite channels are to be launched later this year in partnership with Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, A 24-hour movie channel, tentatively dubbed Fox Movies, will launch in May. The second channel, whose sked will be largely filled with U.S. skeins, will launch in or around November.

Friday March 14 2008 James Murdoch: sealed the deal with Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi billionaire.

Who is Rupert Murdoch? According to CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS:
MURDOCH IS THE WAR MONGER, THE NEOCONSERVATIVE, THE OIL IMPERIALIST, THE INTIMIDATOR, THE NEWS EDITOR, THE BUSH SUPPORTER, THE BUSH FAMILY EMPLOYER, THE MIXER OF BUSINESS AND POLITICS, THE NEW YORK CITY POLITICAL BOSS, THE DEFENDER OF REPRESSIVE REGIMES, THE APOLOGIST FOR DICTATORSHIPS, THE PROPAGANDIST FOR DICTATORS, THE ENABLER OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS, THE HIDER OF MONEY IN COMMUNIST CUBA, THE UNION BUSTER, THE CORPORATE TAX EVADER, THE LOVER OF OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS, THE ABUSER OF TAX LOOPHOLES I have plenty information!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Passy,

A little bit of Saudi Money? It was $1.3 million dollars. And the VC said they could decide how the money was spent. And he said he would keep it a secret.

BOAZ is absolutely right when he says that the Whabis are diametrically opposed to almost all of the beliefs you hold sacred. And even worse, they are seeking to export those ideas to our country.

You say throw in the word Wahabism and you fan the flames of xenophobia. Do you have any idea about true xenophobia? Go to Saudi if you want a lesson. You obviously know nothing about Wahabism; indeed you seem to think it’s a creation of the neo cons. How naïve you are. These people are Islamic fundamentalists and they are looking to radicalise our moderate Islamic population. It is no mistake that 20 of the suicide bombers on 9/11 were from Saudi.

Wahabism is as far from leftist politics as it is possible to be, yet you support them. What kind of cretin are you? I think Col got that one right.

BTW,

There is no evidence that the US ever gave Bin Laden ANY money at all. I would say once again that the majority of funds went to the coalition of organisations led by Ahmed Shah Masood. They were later known as the northern alliance and they assisted in driving out the Taliban. They now form the larger part of the ANA fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

You say >> “The Christian allies are more to blame than the left (for wahabism?).”

Do you mean the same lefties who actually supported the communists? Do you mean the left that refused to believe the evidence that the Soviets were butchers who were universally hated by their people and only retained power through brutal suppression? Those lefties?

I've come across an interesting article:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23619067-27702,00.html

It's in, The Australian, April 30, 2008, by Jill Rowbotham, "Exercise Extreme Caution."

It states, "Griffith University's embarrassment over a sweetheart funding deal with the repressive Saudi Arabian Government, with a $100,000 donation in the bag and potentially $1.37 million more to follow, has highlighted a growing disquiet in some quarters over sources of financing for Islamic studies.

A source of criticism blew up when it was revealed Griffith Islamic Research Unit Director Mohamad Abdala had sought the Saudi funding."

It seems that the university may be considering returning the donation already received, and not pursuing any further donations from the Saudi Government.

It may be as you suggested Passy, a storm in a teacup.

We'll have to wait and see what develops.

".. the same lefties who actually supported the communists?"

I wonder who financed the Bolshevik revolution in the first place, and why? Maybe the same people who funded the Nazis!

And who kept the Soviet economy afloat through the Kruschev era by secretly buying Caspian oil through Iranian oilfields at market prices?

(Hint - it wasn't those evil lefties).

Arab petrodollars are everywhere, particularly in commercial ventures.
They are as sinister as the Sovereign Wealth Funds run by certain countries that buy up everything they can in countries such as ours.

I find it more interesting that the Singapore government owns more commercial assets in this country than our own Government does and also runs the internal telecommunication network inside Government House.

Wobbles

I’m not sure who it is you think financed both Hitler and the Bolsheviks. I’ll be looking forward to seeing your evidence on that.

To somehow suggest that the US deliberately kept the Soviet Union afloat by secretly buying oil is ridiculous. You forget the Cuban missile crisis almost saw the beginning of WW3. And it was Kennedy and Johnson at the helm during most of the Khrushchev period. Neither were noted right wing reactionary types.

I too find it disturbing that foreign governments can buy so much of our commercial and strategic assets. I was pleased when Rudd told the Chinese that they couldn’t buy the mining companies and assets they were seeking. I think the foreign investment review board has an important role to play in our national security.

Nevertheless this does not take away from the fact that the Saudis have been liberally spreading around their money in an attempt to instill their fundamentalist strain of Islam on moderate Islamic communities across the world. If we are to successfully live together with muslims we must make sure that they are of moderate political persuasion. We must help fight the malign influence of fundamentalists. Otherwise it just won’t work.

Foxy,

The real story is that the VC not only courted the Saudis, he promised them some control over how the money was spent, And he was going to keep it quiet.

Dear Wobbles

I also find it MOST disconcerting that the Singapore Government owns so much of our infrastructure.

Optus sattelites is one I worry about. As I recently had some chats with a mate who was in charge of the defense aspects of Optus B1 and B3, I can assure you at least of the following:

An Australian citizen must be on the various official bodies controlling them, and on deck in the tracking stations, such that our defense interests are not compromised. To me its probably the weakest insurance we have, but a little is better than none.

Imagine if our government suddenly wished to change the coverage area of the defense transponders on the sattelite, and this was picked up by or had to go through the Singapore Government, which might be 'leaky'. Intelligence bodies read VOLUMES into any slight alteration of satellite coverage..which never happens without a reason.

Saudi money could achieve mannnny things.. influencing curriculums, choice of lecturer.. and so on.. very dangerous stuff to me.

Accepting money for the right reason is not wrong as the money is for education then accept it .The Saudi people are great people but a wrong move the saudi's made was building on sand as a great storm will wipe there hard work away .Investing in education the Saudi have seemed to place there money in a rock solid investment that a storm will not move.David H.

Mattermotor,

I'll try to make this easy to understand. The ONLY education that Saudi money is used for is to educate suicide bombers and their sympathisers in the wahabist interpretation of the Koran.

They aren't using this money to teach science or english or any other useful subject. They use it to teach the Koran in the manner that the fundamentalist wahabist imams of Saudi find appropriate.

Its called conversion or missionary work and they have a lot more money and a far more radical agenda than the Mormons.

But you just pretend its about buying school supplies for the kids and training new maths teachers if it makes you feel better.

I'm sure the saudis are literally quaking in their boots in their fear of your biblical storm washing away those who build their house in the sand. Terrified even. Who knew we had amongst us someone who could predict the future.

Dear Paul,

What proof do you have that the Saudi money is going to be used for extremist studies, suicide bombers et cetera?

From what I've read it seems that even the faculty members of the Islamic Studies Centre at Griffith University are suggesting that the money be returned so as not to give the studies centre a 'bad name.'

They want to encourage the teaching of 'moderates' in Islamic Studies - not fundamentalism.

Do you know something that the media doesn't, something concrete that supports your claim - or is this simply your opinion on the subject?

Foxy,

Between 1975 and 2002, Saudi Arabia spent $70 billion in overseas aid, building 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges, and almost 2,000 schools in non-Islamic countries.

In September 2002, Canadian intelligence indicated that Saudi charities were still supplying al-Qaeda with between $1 million and $2 million a month. U.S. Department of Treasury general counsel David Aufhauser later testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security that Saudi Arabia is "in many cases ... the epicenter" of terrorist financing.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-9877/Follow-the-Saudi-money-can.html

According to a former official who spoke under the condition of anonymity, al-Haramain ( a Saudi charity ) operated in Cambodia under a "dual agenda"--along with financial aid and humanitarian services, the organization brought in "personnel who did not seem to have connections to established humanitarian organizations, but who were instead linked to political Islam ... associated with terrorist or political activities." U.S. and Cambodian intelligence found that some of the aid workers had spent time in Afghan training camps or had been affiliated with extremist movements in Arab countries.

It turns out that the system of federal subsidies to university programs of Middle East Studies (under Title VI of the Higher Education Act) has been serving as a kind of Trojan horse for Saudi influence over American K-12 education. http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2007/07/k-12-and-saudi-money.html

I agree there is NOW every likelihood that the money may be given back. Alternatively they might spend the money as they see fit. The difference is that this is after the VC has been caught out telling the Saudis he would let them decide how the money was spent. After telling them he could keep it quiet.

That’s the profoundly disturbing part.

Yes they say they want to teach moderate Islam, but then they go and take money from a group dedicated to spreading fundamentalist Islam. WTF

If you don’t believe that the Saudis have been involved in financing terror it won’t matter what other links I post

Dear Paul,

Why should I disbelieve what you're saying?

Your arguments are valid, well argued, and make a great deal of sense.

Thank You for clarifying the matter for me.

Much appreciated.

Paul and other conservatives. Aren't the Saudis the neocon's and the conservative right in general very best Arab friends and allies?

It confuses me that the left are accused by some of you of 'supporting' Wahabbism when obviously the conservatives are as thick as thieves with Saudi Arabia and say not a word against their human rights violations or lack of political freedom. You squeal about evil Islam, rattle sabers in Iran's direction, invade Iraq yet go on kissing tours in Saudi Arabia.

Why was Iraq the great evil and not Saudi Arabia? As pointed out the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Egyptian. Another great friend who helps us upright Christian nations do the dirty work and interrogates our prisoners.

There was no law that women were to be veiled in Iraq. The universities were secular. In Iran women can drive cars, go to universities and only need to cover their hair. No black chadors.

The left are not apologists for fundamentalists, Islam or Christian. The conservative right is. When it suits their own purposes they suddenly go all mushy and start making pro democracy noises supposedly to 'help' the poor oppressed citizens. I haven't heard a peep about removing the wahabbi royalty and freeing the Saudi citizens.

If a university cannot accept money from Saudi Arabia, and yes that is a legitimate premise, it also cannot accept money from Catholic groups or any other religious group.

The problem with right wing conservatives is that they can't think for themselves, whether an argument is actually logical or consistent. It always comes down to emotive language and name calling.

yvonne my thoughts exactly,
America and Britain have been great patrons to the Saudi dynasty from the time of the establishment of its hegemony in the Peninsula, subsequently resulting in billions upon billions of dollars in arms flowing into the region with the quelling of any dissidence that didn't complement Western oil interest's. It seems the unwaivering support for barons, imperialists and fascists is less of an important issue...

In relation to the funding I believe it was in the amount of $100,000, furthermore;

"The Saudi Government imposed no restriction or demand on the use of the funds it donated to Griffith's Islamic Research Unit. The university followed standard practices in sourcing and accepting this donation, which has been on the public record since the day it was made."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2226078.htm

I fail to see anything sinister with the funding, i just hope that the university remains free from being influenced by any external interests and that critical judgments and evaluations pertain strongly to the issue.

Storm? meet the teacup

Yvonne said:

"yet go on kissing tours in Saudi Arabia."

Peachy jumps in and agrees....

SO DO I !

in fact.. what I sooooo don't get is why the "Left" is supportive of things which are clearly not in our interests, (the Dean Mighell anti racism rally in Brunswick) where the only interests served are those of either the union movements left wing. NOR...do I get the 'Right's being in bed with the Elite Saudi's etc...

OH WAIT... no, I actually do 'get' it... the issue is best illustrated by the Malaysian phenomenon of the Economically 'rich' infidel Chinese, being in bed with the Politically powerful Malays (Muslims.)

It's all about 'Lets get rich together'.

Arjay opened up a theme with his thread about resources. "We sell coal and natural gas to the Chinese for a song, while we pay through the nose"

Again.."rich, powerful Australians, in bed with 'rich powerful chinese" and it's to our detriment.

Blair supressed investigation into the 'Saudi Arms deal' because clearly too many powerful British companies were implicated.

I think this might be best described as "Incestuous nobility cross fertilization"

the "left" has the wrong target. Instead of supporting the Muslims and attacking those criticizing Saudi funding...they should join the rest of us who condemn both Left AND Right for selling us out to powerful interests.

How in the blazes...does supporting Saudi funding of Islamist enclaves in left wing universities help anyone...even the Left?

Yvonne,

Says >> “ I haven't heard a peep about removing the wahabbi royalty and freeing the Saudi citizens.”

This is because the Saudis people themselves are mostly wahabists. The Saudi royals made a pact with the wahabist imams. Getting rid of the monarchy would only result in another theocracy in the Middle East.

You seem to be suggesting that Iraq (as it was under Saddam) and Iran are two countries that lefties should support. Is that what you are saying?

The left, particularly the feminist left, who are silent on fundamentalist Islam are the apologists. See Germaine Greer try and explain why FGM is ok; and how ,really, it’s comparable to breast augmentation.

The left, in its RABID hatred of the US cannot bring itself to criticise Islamic groups which also hate the US. They seem to think that they have more in common with the Islamists, which is astounding.

It is not acceptable to receive money to promote fundamentalist Islam. I don’t think its ok to accept money from fundamentalist Christians either and I’m sure you would be the first to complain if the exclusive brethren were looking to fund their own program at a Uni.

The problem is that the Vice Chancellor suggested that the Saudis could have a say in how the money is spent, and that he would keep it quiet if they wanted. Why would he try and keep it quiet? Because he knew it was something unacceptable.

We don’t need more fundamentalist Islamists in this country. Griffith Universities Islamic department has a mission to teach MODERATE Islam. That needs to be carefully protected because the Saudis have had much success promoting their particular virulent sect of Islamism.

Peachy,

The anger in Muslim and academic circles follows revelations by The Australian that the Queensland university asked the Saudis for a $1.37 million grant, of which it received $100,000, and offered to keep elements of the funding deal secret. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23607799-5013404,00.html

Paul, your dislike of left of the spectrum in politics and feminism sound very, very personal. It makes it difficult for you to actually understand questions or understand what is stated by anybody who you deem to come from that spectrum.

If it makes any difference to you, the only political party I ever joined was the Liberal Party. The ALP I've always considered to be 3 parties, whichever faction is the biggest bully gets to call the shots.

Do you realize that the USA is not made up of a citizenry that is only right wing conservative? There is a difference between disliking, or suspicion of the motives, of foreign policy of any nation and 'hating' a country.

So, when you hear 'anti' USA viewpoints from anybody it does not equate to being RABID left wing hating America, but questioning the motives of Conservative US POLICY.

What is the difference to you between Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Tibet, Zimbabwe or even Dafur? Why was it rational to 'free' Iraq, but not any of the other countries/regions? Egypt and Pakistan are arguably dangerous breeding grounds for terrorism yet continue to be very good 'friends' with the USA. Iraq's dictator was no more appalling than any number of rulers who the West happily continue to be allies with.

Are you saying that the Saudi people are happy because they are all(??) followers of Wahabbism? Saudi Arabia is no less a theocracy than is Iran. The majority Iranians are Shia Muslims and chose to become a theocracy.

You are ridiculous and offensive with your statement re FGM and feminism. FGM is a disgusting violation inflicted on women to please men. No feminist supports FGM on any grounds. It is MALE perpetrated and demanded violence on women. If all men refused to marry any woman who was cut the practice would stop overnight.

Regarding the Saudi money going to Australian Universities. It is directly the cause of CONSERVATIVE politics insisting that universities become not publicly funded places of independent research and teaching, but money making businesses that created this situation.

Yvonne,

You say >> “No feminist supports FGM on any grounds”

Germaine Greer “Female genital mutilation had to be considered in context, she wrote, and might be compared with breast augmentation in the West.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Greer

You say “Are you saying that the Saudi people are happy because they are all(??) followers of Wahabbism”

What a ridiculous thing to say. I haven’t mentioned happiness anywhere. What I said, and it is really quite simple, is that you won’t get rid of Wahabism in Saudi by over throwing the house of Saud. Your point that they are already basically a theocracy backs this up.

As regards Uni funding I agree there should be more from gov’t. I don’t, however, agree that this absolves the Griffith VC in ANY WAY. He knew what he was doing was not right. He would well have known that the Saudis have been involved in missionary type work, which is always incompatible with independent research and teaching. To then allow the Saudis to direct where the money would be spent and to keep it quiet for them is unacceptable.

Do you deny that anti Americanism is rife in leftist politics? Do you deny that many leftists (even if you aren't one yourself) hope that we and the US lose in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

You say “ Iraq's dictator was no more appalling than any number of rulers who the West happily continue to be allies with”

Who are you referring to?

Busy At the moment about 85 billion into unis and many many other projects.
http://www.halaljournal.com/
You need to join to read it all