Amir Butler
Stephen Schwartz has been one of the most vocal and aggressive critics of Saudi Arabia and Wahabiism. He has cast himself as an expert on the movement of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and has become the go-to guy for neoconservative comment on the Saudi kingdom.
In addition, Schwartz provided evidence to a congressional hearing into the much-maligned movement.
Amir Butler subjects Schwartz's writings to scrutiny and finds a disturbing ignorance and a reliance on the texts and ideas of a universally-debunked pseudo-Islamic cult.
In an interview at Booknotes.org, after unleashing a tsunami of lies and slander, Stephen Schwartz threw down a gauntlet of sorts:
LAMB: They’re saying why are we relying on Stephen Schwartz to tell us all this stuff?
SCHWARTZ: If they think this is lies, let them challenge what I`m saying.
LAMB: Has anybody tried?
SCHWARTZ: No. No.
LAMB: Nobody has challenged this book?
SCHWARTZ: They don’t challenge this book, no. They challenge - they make outrageous statements about me but they don’t challenge the book, no.
It’s time to challenge Stephen Schwartz’s book, his writings on Islam, his qualifications to speak on the religion and, more importantly, his motivation for writing and speaking so extensively about the subject of Wahabiism and Saudi Arabia.
In the words of Clifford Geertz writing in the NY Review of Books, Stephen Schwartz is a "strange and outlandish figure". With beginnings as an anarchist-Trotskyist (calling himself "Comrade Sandalio"), Schwartz later became the obituary writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. From there, according to Geertz's article, he became a cheerleader for Reagan's war in Grenada, before finally moving to Sarejevo where he worked as a freelance journalist of some description. At other times, he has been described as a "New Age Rightist" and as an "internationally recognized surrealist poet" who had found the philosophers stone of class struggle. The only consistency in Schwartz's career has been the frequent ideological shifts that have characterised it. Since September 11, this "strange and outlandish figure" has risen from the relative obscurity of writing obituaries for the San Francisco Chronicle and as a freelance hack in Sarejevo to holding court in such publications as Frontpage Magazine, Weekly Standard and the National Review.
Indeed, it only takes a cursory viewing of Stephen Schwartz's contribution to Frontpage Magazine to understand where Schwartz's obsession lies. With titles such as "Saudi Stench", "Saudi Spinning", "Saudi Mischief in Fallujah", "Wahabi Fireworks", "The Dysfunctional House of Saud", "Saudi Arabia in Crises", and "Saudi Extremism in High Places", it is obvious that Schwartz has cast himself as something of an expert on Saudi Arabia and its state ideology. By doing so, he seems to have found what years writing snappy obituaries for dead Californians never gave him: some sort of notoriety and standing as the go-to guy for comment on Saudi Arabia and Wahabiism.
Whilst Schwartz has written prolifically on the subject, his case against Saudi Arabia is made most completely and in most detail in his recently published book, "The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror". As a result of his new-found profile as an expert on Wahabiism, he testified before a 2003 congressional hearing on the “influence” of Wahabiism in the United States.
Despite the fact that Schwartz represents himself as an expert on Saudi Arabia, its political situation and its guiding ideology, he has never visited the country and admits as much in the introduction to his book. How can someone seriously write tens of thousands of words on a subject with which he has no first-hand knowledge or exposure? The same question should also be asked about the basis upon which Schwartz comments on Wahabiism the Islamic reform movement founded by Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab. It speaks volumes that although Schwartz writes extensively about the subject he neither quotes any of the texts of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, nor references any statements of the Sheikh, his students or his followers. Is it the work of a serious journalist to critique one of the world’s major religious movements without ever referencing anything that this movement itself writes or states? Is it acceptable that someone can write a book impugning the character and mission of a long-dead scholar without ever referring to what that scholar himself said or wrote? Of course not.
Clearly, Schwartz is no more a serious student of Islam than he is a serious journalist or intellectual. Given his failure to base his critique of Saudi Arabia or Wahabiism on any primary source, Schwartz makes frequent mistakes in his writings that belie at times a laughable ignorance of the subject he is addressing. On that score, Schwartz deserves credit because it is a brave man indeed who would make repeated attempts to address subjects about which he is so clearly ignorant. For example, in an article written for the National Review shortly after September 11 ("Liberation, Not Containment"), Schwartz claims that Hezbollah are Wahabis. The fact of the matter, which anyone even remotely familiar with Islam would know, is that Hezbollah are Shi'ites and not even Sunnis, let alone members of the most austere and puritanical of Sunni movements. Furthermore, they are aligned with Iran (a Shi'ite state) and not Saudi Arabia (a Sunni state). Continuing to build the case against himself, Schwartz goes on to draw bizarre comparisons between Wahabiism and "Italian fascism", "Soviet Communism", and even "Japanese Militarism". Indeed, one is left with the impression that either Schwartz doesn’t know what Wahabiism means or he doesn't known what communism, fascism or militarism means (other than being something "bad").
Even in his congressional testimony, Schwartz makes completely nonsensical claims about the nature of the Saudi state. For instance after mentioning the marriage between the families of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab and the family of Ibn Sa’ud, the founder of Saudi Arabia, he goes on to claim: “to this day, these families divide governance of the kingdom, with the descendants of Ibn al-Wahab, known as ahl al-Shaykh, responsible for religious life and the Saudi royal family, or ahl al-Sa’ud, running the state.” Whilst it is true that the current mufti of Saudi Arabia is a descendent of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, the fact is that the vast majority of scholars in the Kingdom – including the major scholars who sit on the various official committees – are not themselves descendents of him. Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Baz, the previous mufti of Saudi Arabia, whose contribution and defining role in the society was without parallel was himself not a member of the Ibn Abdul Wahab family. The dichotomy that Schwartz asserts exists is complete nonsense as a simple look over the family names of the kingdom’s greatest scholars of the last century will attest.
In an interview with National Review Online, Schwartz claimed that Hamas "represents pure Wahhabism". This is in spite of the fact that Hamas are a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwanul Muslimeen) whose scholars have frequently criticised Wahabiism and ignores the fact that many Wahabi scholars have themselves differed with the Muslim Brotherhood as to their methodology. It also ignores the fact that Hamas employ suicide bombings whereas the leading scholars of Saudi Arabia (and therefore Wahabiism) such as the late Grand Mufti of the Kingdom Sheikh Ibn Baz opined that such bombings were not allowed in Islam. In the same article Schwartz then links the atheistic Saddam Hussein with Wahabiism claiming that Saddam "has used Wahhabism to give his regime an Islamic cover". To claim that Saddam whose ideology has been openly and consistently described as a rejection of Islam by Wahabi scholars is using Wahabism is laughable given the many recorded instances of Saddam having tortured and killed Iraqis simply for having been associated with Wahabiism. Not only is Saddam involved with Wahabiism, but Schwartz claims that Washington sniper John Muhammad was also a Wahabi and his capture has "deeply compromised" the movement in America. To claim that Saddam's regime sources its legitimacy from an ideology that considers it to be heretical to the point of apostasy is bizarre, but to then claim that John Muhammad was also a Wahabi or associated with Wahabiism is not only bankrupt of any factual basis but it shows the rank opportunism that underpins Schwartz's treatment of current events: anyone who does anything bad and is Muslim is dishonestly and disingenuously linked with Wahabiism regardless of what the truth may be. In fact, as in the case of Saddam, Schwartz doesn't even care if the person is a Muslim.
A further indication that Schwartz is really not as familiar with the subject matter as he claims is the fact that he uses and spells Arabic words inconsistently. It's a problem that he admits openly in the final sentence in his book where he says: "Inconsistencies in the transcription of Arabic names in English in this book reflect the diversity of sources". Inconsistent spelling of common Arabic words is the hallmark of someone whose familiarity with the subject has not yet led to the development of a consistent set of spellings for Arabic terms. It's that simple. As for the diverse sources that Schwartz has relied upon for his book, then this is a matter to be addressed shortly, but suffice to say the sources he has used are anything but diverse but instead reflect a disturbing reliance on sources associated with a particular ideology.
Of course, it is enough that Schwartz makes no use of Wahabi primary texts or any first hand knowledge of Saudi Arabia to doubt his claimed authority on the subject. However, what should give Schwartz's readers far more cause for concern is a fact that is conspicuous in its absence from any of Schwartz's polemics: that he belongs or at least belonged to a pseudo-Islamic cult that is defined primarily by its aggressiveness towards Wahabiism, Saudi Arabia and the broader American Muslim leadership.
Stephen Schwartz or Sulayman Ahmad Schwartz as he has also called himself is a follower of Hisham Kabbani. Kabbani is a Lebanese migrant who established his own cult based in California, espousing a form of Sufism and charging that all other Muslims who don't accept his leadership are misguided and guilty of "extremism".
Throughout the 1980s, American Muslim organisations were terrorised by Kabbani and his followers who would attempt to hijack their conferences to declare the hitherto unknown Kabbani the supreme leader of all American Muslims. In June 1999, Kabbani followers gate-crashed a meeting between a State Department official and the Islamic Center of Southern California. They hurled abuse at the Muslim leaders and attempted to disrupt the meeting so that it might be cancelled.
In 1995, when the Muslim Students Assocation (MSA) of North America moved to stop Kabbani propaganda being distributed on their national mailing list, Kabbani and his followers managed to shut down MSA-NET by falsely accusing the parent organisation of supporting terrorism. The list was closed for three months before it was reinstated.
In 1998 when the US launched a bombing campaign on Iraq, most Muslim organisations opposed the bombings for obvious reasons. Kabbani on the other hand issued a press release that justified the attack on Iraq as being done for "security reasons" and that the US and her allies acted in the interests of "global security".
In January 1999, Kabbani addressed a closed meeting of the US State Department making a series of amazing claims that remain unsubstantiated to this day. Amongst them: that the ideology of extremism has spread to 80% of the American Muslim population; that many of the Muslim organizations in the United States are, in reality, extremists (except for him); that the Muslim Students Association of North America is in fact being run by extremist ideologies and that these same Muslim students were working with Bin Laden to bring a nuclear holocaust to American cities; and also that Muslim women in Europe were regularly sleeping with government officials to source information for the extremists. As an aside, just as Kabbani has charged that 80% of mosques in America are Wahabi, he likewise made outrageous claims about Malaysian Muslims prompting some Malaysian politicians to demand his deportation following a recent visit.
Naturally, these claims were met with opposition from mainstream Muslim groups. In February, all the major national Islamic organizations in America issued an unprecedented joint-statement condemning Kabbani and his group. Most all the major signatories to this statement have been singled out by Schwartz as now being extremists and covertly supportive of anti-American terror.
For obvious reasons, Schwartz seems reluctant to discuss his membership of this group although his "conversion story" is listed on the Kabbani website. Schwartz is very candid about the role that Kabbani played in his conversion: "I met Shaykh Hisham of the Naqshbandi order,and,within weeks, had made shehadeh". Making "shehadeh" means to bear witness and in this context it means to have made the two testimonies of faith required to become a Muslim -- albeit a Muslim member of an pseudo-Islamic cult.
All of Schwartz's writings on Islam and Saudi Arabia must be understood in this context. He writes from the perspective of a man who has joined an aggressive sect that the majority of the American Muslims view as both heretical and opposed to mainstream Islam. Despite portraying himself as a supposedly objective "journalist" blowing the whistle on Saudi Arabia, Schwartz is a card-carrying member of a religious cult with a long-standing history of decrying all its opponents as "wahabis" and making extraordinary claims about its ideological and political rivals.
The influence that Kabbani has had on Schwartz's thinking is obvious from a cursory examination of just one chapter in his book. In "The Haters of Song", Schwartz writes about the origins of Wahabiism and its principal tenets.
The "diversity of sources" that Schwartz alludes to in the closing sentence of his book is, it appears, not so diverse at all. For instance, Schwartz frequently quotes a certain Kerim Fenari. In this chapter he cites Fenari as the source for a smear on a particular tribe of Arabs found in Saudi Arabia: "An attribute ascribed to the Tamimites in the hadith literature is that of misplaced zeal". Fenari makes this claim in an article entitled, "Puncturing the Devil's Dream about the Hadiths of Najd". The home of this anti-Wahabi polemic is on the website of the Ahlus Sunnah Foundation of America (ASFA); an organization headed by Hisham Kabbani.
Either unwilling or unable to check the veracity of Fenari's claim, Schwartz just parrots it as fact. However the "hadith literature" actually says the exact opposite about the tribe of Tamim: "these people (the Tamimites) would stand firm against the anti-Christ". The purported zeal of this tribe is far from misplaced but rather it is directed at the anti-Christ and his supporters. The same hadith then goes on to mention that this tribe are also in fact the descendents of the Prophet Ismail.
On page 85, Schwartz references az-Zahawi in describing some supposed massacre conducted by Wahabis. The quote that Schwartz attributes to az-Zahawi has been taken directly from the same ASFA website as the above quote from Fenari.
A few pages later, Schwartz lists a series of anti-Wahabi books as evidence of supposedly widespread opposition to the movement. One title that he offers approvingly is .Indian Scimitar on the Najdi's Neck. (Najdi being a reference to a region in Saudi Arabia). However, the collation of this list is not Schwartz's own work but rather he has simply taken the titles from a list published on Kabbani's website. Although he did sanitize the title of one book, changing it from "The Most Violent Jihad" to "The Most Strenuous Jihad"; apparently "violent jihads" are only conducted by Schwartz'ss enemies.
On page 92, he quotes Mateen Siddiqui and describes him as simply an "American Muslim commentator". This is the type of sophistry that characterizes so much of Schwartz's polemics. Siddiqui is not a "commentator", but rather he is the second-in-charge to Hisham Kabbani and is described by their website as being the organisation's Secretary General.
Later in the same chapter, Schwartz goes on to describe the lives of three Sufi leaders, Shirwani, Khas Muhmmad and Yaraghi. All of Shirvani.s biography has been taken from the Kabbani website; all of Khas Muhammad's biographical information including the quote ("God did not send anything to this earth except as a lesson for His servants to learn from") is taken from the Kabbani website; and finally everything about Yaraghi,including the claim that he "trained his murids, who numbered in the thousands" has been taken from this website. Schwartz even mentions these individuals in the same order they appear on Kabbani's site.
It is therefore understandable that Schwartz should push the same anti-Islamic doctrine that Kabbani pushed in the nineties; that his book is essentially a summary of articles that Kabbani has himself published or translated; and that Schwartz should be repeating, chapter and verse, the same ludicrous claims made by Hisham Kabbani about mainstream Muslim organisations.
This reliance on Hisham Kabbani is evident in many other Schwartz articles. However, at no stage does Schwartz disclose his membership of Hisham Kabbani's sect nor his long-standing relationship with the man. Instead, Schwartz offers fawning descriptions of Kabbani whilst portraying himself as merely a journalist reporting the "facts". For instance, in "Saudi Mischief in Fallujah" Schwartz describes Kabbani as "long known for his denunciation of extremism. and that he has a "following throughout the Muslim world". In Surfing Schwartz says of his teacher: "no Islamic leader has been more outspoken, in demanding loyalty on the part of American Muslims to the United States and its democratic polity, than Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Naqshbandi Sufis". In "Wahabis in America", Schwartz describes Kabbani as "an eloquent public opponent of Wahabi efforts to regiment American Muslims" and a man who "fully supports American democratic values, as well as a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict".
This 80% of mosques/Muslims are Wahabis (and therefore assumed to be extremist and potentially dangerous) is a claim that has been made constantly by Schwartz since September 11. In his testimony before congress, Schwartz added that whilst 80% of mosques are run by Wahabis, CAIR assert that 70% of Muslims are satisfied with Wahabiism. This second claim is extremely suspect and with no evidence provided one can only guess upon what basis Schwartz is making this claim. A search through CAIR’s various surveys does find the following references to 70 percent which may be the basis for Schwartz’s spurious claims: 70% was the approximate percentage of Muslims who voted for George W. Bush according to a CAIR survey. Was their vote for George W. Bush a vote for Wahabiism? In another survey CAIR found that 70% of Muslims believed they can practice their religion freely in America. 70% of mosques were also found to provide assistance to low income families in their area. Schwartz testified before congress that “CAIR itself claims that approximately 70 percent of Muslims want “salafism” in their mosques”. On occasions, such as during an interview with Booknotes.org, he has attributed a figure of 69% to CAIR. An internet search for CAIR and “salafism” turns up nothing except Schwartz’s own accusations. A Lexis/Nexis search on these terms turns up nothing as well. Just to be sure, a Lexis/Nexis search of CAIR and 70 finds 37 articles dating from 1979 and none of them refer to anything even close to Schwartz’s claims. A search on CAIR and 69 found no articles at all. So where does Schwartz source his quote from?
Clearly, Schwartz is either a liar or he is genuinely ignorant. Consider some of his claims in a recent television interview. For instance he says, “I mean the Wahhabis really, as I say in my book, they take Mohammed the prophet out of Islam”. Noone – not even the most staunch critics of Wahabiism – has ever claimed that the Wahabis have taken “Mohammed the prophet out of Islam”. Then he says: “There`s also a custom called the Umra which is a lesser Hajj, which individuals make but the Saudis claim they don`t have the facilities for this…”. This is completely ludicrous as any Muslim would testify to. Each year perhaps millions of people visit Mecca to perform umrah. The Saudi Embassy issues umrah visas. There are millions of Muslims around the world who will acknowledge that they have performed Umrah. There are entire books written by Wahabis and non-Wahabis detailing the manner in which Umrah is performed. Finally, Schwartz claims: “I could not make the Hajj because - I could not make the Hajj because I`m not a Wahhabi”. This is completely false as the millions of non-Wahabis would have performed hajj would point out. Schwartz continues, “Wahhabis teach that non-Wahhabi Muslims are not Muslims meaning Sunni Muslims from the rests of the international Muslim community who are not Wahhabis are not Muslims.” Again a lie as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of Muslims who attend hajj are not Wahabi. There were 2+ million pilgrims this year and given that the Saudi government doesn’t allow non-Muslims into Mecca, how can Schwartz possibly much such claims publicly without fear of being laughed at? Does he believe that the rest of the world shares his apparent blinding obsession with Saudi Arabia that they will overlook such obvious nonsense?
In 1999, Schwartz issued his own threats of deportation when he spammed most of Kabbani's US-based critics with an email that speaks volumes. The email was sent from Schwartz.s San Francisco Chronicle email address (the same one he uses in his Kabbani conversion story), and has the frenzied and fanatical tone that is typical of many cult-followers. It provides one of the clearest examples of what lies at the heart of Schwartz.s obsession with Saudi Arabia and Wahabiism. As much as Schwartz may wish his readers to believe that it is the Saudis and the Wahabis who are the real fanatics, it seems obvious from the tone he takes in this email that Schwartz is a fanatic himself. At best, Schwartz's ranting about Wahabi zealotry is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The entire message read:
"This is a direct, sincere message from a recent Muslim convert who works as a leading journalist in the U.S. to all those who have befouled the Internet, my personal e-mail, and communications of my newspaper with threats, insults, lies, and a general stream of garbage directed against Shaykh Hisham and the distinguished Naqshbandi order, in the name of I do not know or care what.
"I will no longer entertain any messages and will no longer accept any form of communication with any so-called Muslim who engages in these attacks on Shaykh Hisham or who attempts to draw me or my newspaper into this swamp of madness.
"To you who come from faraway countries and who misuse American democracy to attack a man of Allah; GO HOME. GET OUT OF AMERICA. IF I RECEIVE ANY MORE THREATENING MESSAGES FROM ANY OF YOU I WILL TURN THEM DIRECTLY OVER TO THE FBI.
"I WILL SIGN COMPLAINTS, AND I WILL PETITION FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE DEPORTATION FROM THE U.S. AND THE REVOCATION OF YOUR RESIDENCE OR CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
"AMERICA IS MY COUNTRY, NOT YOURS. YOU DO NOT BELONG IN AMERICA. YOU HAVE ABUSED AMERICAN FREEDOM. GO BACK TO WHEREVER YOU CAME FROM ON YOUR WAY TO HELL. AMERICA DOES NOT WANT OR NEED YOU AND AMERICA WILL NOT TOLERATE YOU.
"I WILL NOT TOLERATE YOU. I WILL FIND YOU AND HAVE YOU ARRESTED AND DEPORTED.
"THIS IS MEANT WITH UTMOST SERIOUSNESS. I AM DISGUSTED WITH YOUR VICIOUS ATTACKS ON SHAYKH, ON MATEEN SIDDIQUI, ETC. YOU DO NOT ACT LIKE MUSLIMS. YOU ARE ENEMIES OF ISLAM. ISLAM DOES NOT NEED YOU.
"ALL YOU ARE DOING WITH YOUR CAMPAIGN OF ABUSE AND THREATS IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE BAD IMAGE OF ISLAM IN AMERICA.
"SHUT UP AND GO BACK TO THE GARBAGE BINS IN WHICH YOU BELONG-
"YOU ARE INTELLECTUAL TERRORISTS.
"THIS IS WRITTEN FROM SARAJEVO WHERE I AM SUPPORTING THE FREEDOM OF ISLAM AGAINST FASCIST ENEMIES LIKE YOU WAHHABI SCUM WHO SHOULD GO TO MOSCOW OR SERBIA WHERE YOU BELONG-
"ANY FURTHER HARASSMENT WILL BE REPORTED TO THE FBI. AND DO NOT CONTACT THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE EVER AGAIN. I WILL ENDEAVOR TO HAVE YOU BARRED FROM THE CHRONICLE PAGES. FOREVER!
"BISMILLAH IRRAHMAN IRRAHHIM
"SULEYMAN AHMAD SCHWARTZ.
Schwartz's writings on the subject of Wahabiism, Saudi Arabia and indeed Islam in general should be viewed with the same cynicism and scepticism that one would view a Scientologist "objectively reviewing" a critique of the science fiction scribblings of L. Ron Hubbard. To use another analogy with which the ex-Trotskyist Schwartz would himself appreciate, it should be taken as serious as Soviet agitprop critiquing Western capitalism. No serious media organisation should view Schwartz as a credible expert on any topic related to Islam because Schwartz's principle objective is not to inform or convey the truth but rather to push and promote the agenda of the cult to which he belongs. The fact that the thesis he presents in his book is based almost entirely on sources originating with his spiritual guide Hisham Kabbani shows the unfortunate extent to which Schwartz's "journalism" is dictated by his sectarian affiliations.
Stephen Schwartz should be commended for having deceived and hoodwinked a popular media anxious for explanations and insight into the events that took place on September 11. He has gone a long way with very little, but it speaks ill of any media outlet to employ such an obvious charlatan as an “expert” and it is incredibly unfortunate that there has not been a "full disclosure" of Schwartz's connection to a sect that as representative of Islam as Jim Jones’ community was reflective of Protestantism.
Schwartz has made a mockery of the American Congress with his bogus testimony that is in reality not an indictment against the Wahabis at all, but is rather an indictment against Schwartz himself as well as the anti-Islamic elements in the US Administration and Congress that would bring such a fraud into their august chambers.
