That some western institutions oppose capital punishment is a common matter, and has an entirely different debate surrounding it. Nevertheless for a reputable newspaper such as the Washington Post to come up with an opening statement that labels Nimir al-Nimer, a man who roused terrorism, as a reform propagandist is an absolute joke.
Nimir al-Nimir is simply the Shiite version of Fares Al-Shuwail, both men encouraged terrorism and gave it an excuse. Those two men provoked and excused the destruction of the government and proved loyal to foreign parties. They were reckless when inciting violence.
Fares al-Shuwail was a Sunni and bid loyalty to Osama bin Laden, and consequentially exempted and delivered fatwas (legal opinion) on killing security force men.
In the same way, Nimir al-Nimir was a Shiite who produced very vivid videos, which renowned newspapers such as the Washington Post and others should have taken the time to watch. In them he says, “Our allegiance is to God, not to our homeland, and for whomever God has anointed for us to follow only,” in reference to Wilayat al Faqih (the Iranian Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists).
In a different video al-Nimir demanded the Iranian Guardianship system to be implemented, not only in Saudi Arabia, but also across the region.
Moreover, al-Nimir , by and large, harbored murderers and militants and incited them further.
What elections could he have been allegedly referring to? Is it the elections rolling in Iran and the co-leaders of the Green Movement, which have been under arrest since 2009? Or is it a Hezbollah inspired democracy, which till today, stalled presidential elections and assassinated members of the political opposition? Or is it motivated by the Iraqi sectarian democracy?
Al-Nimir and al-Shuwail are merely two faces to one coin; one Sunni, and the other Shiite. They both have targeted civil peace. Al-Nimir has videos in which he says, “We will call on separation,” and Fares pursued the destruction of the government. What is the difference then? Both men had adopted the “takfiri” ideology.
Al-Shuwail has charged the government along with all its security forces with treason.
In one of al-Nimir’s videos he says, “I invite Sunnis to convert into Shiite,” Likewise al-Shuwail and al-Qaeda have always asked the Shiite people to convert into Sunnis, so again where is the difference? And where does that leave the fate of the nation’s unity? This is exactly why it is ridiculous to say that al-Nimir’s execution could potentially lead to further sectarian tension, given that all his speeches were based on sectarian incitement, as documented on YouTube.
Just like al-Shuwail was loyal to bin Laden, all Western security intelligence agencies know very well who al-Nimir was.
He was an armed militia leader planning to target Al-Awamiyah, and he has dragged Saudi security forces into clashes that were being taken advantage of by foreign media.
Western security also knows to which Iranian intelligence, (ettelaat), he is affiliated with. They are very aware of how wild al-Nimir could be, and to what extent he could not be trusted. Even the person running his Iranian proxy activity’s agenda “The Source Runner” did not want to directly communicate with him, and referred to using an agent residing in Iran, whom Western intelligence also knows the nationality of!
All that being said, how could we consider al-Shuwail a terrorist and al-Nimir a reform preacher calling for elections? They are both two sides to the same coin of terrorism.
They were both prosecuted, even if they covered up under religious attire, and brought before judiciary justice just as Britain incriminated Abu- Hamza al-Masri, who was later deported to America where he was imprisoned for most of his life. As well, convict Omar Abdel-Rahman, whom was accused of abetting violence!
That is why if any Western parties, especially its revered journalism outlets, are concerned with facts, they should do some digging and truth telling, since it is a part of their job.