Feigning innocence: the politics of demonization

by Fahad Ansari October, 2012 The blasphemous US-produced movie, while denounced by US officials, is still defended on the basis of free speech. History, however, shows that publishing racist, anti-religious tracts has been punished. Julius Streicher, publisher of a racist, anti-Jewish tabloid, Sturmer, was hanged after a military trial at Nuremberg accused of aiding and abetting the slaughter of Jews. He was not a member of the Nazi party nor was he in Hitler’s military. On 16 October 1946, Julius Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg after being convicted by an International Military Tribunal for crimes against humanity. Streicher was not a member of the Nazi military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust or the invasion of any country. He was the publisher of a tabloid newspaper, Der Stürmer, which for 22 years denounced Jews in the most crude, vicious, and vivid ways. Despite its increasing popularity, the newspaper was even condemned by many Nazi leaders at the time and Streicher was brought before the German courts on several occasions. Despite Der Stürmer not being an official arm of the Nazi government, Streicher’s pivotal role in inciting loathing and hatred of Jews was considered significant enough to include him in the indictment of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In essence, the prosecutors took the line that Streicher's incendiary speeches and articles made him an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews. The world said “Never Again.” Never Again to genocide; Never Again to ethnic cleansing; Never Again to concentration camps; Never Again to the systematic demonization of the “other” which inevitably led to the atrocities of the Holocaust. Yet, almost 90 years after Der Stürmer was first published, the world appears to be suffering from a bout of collective amnesia. In recent years, the rising tide of anti-Muslim hysteria has drowned out all voices of reason and reminders from history. Camouflaged in the rhetoric of anti-terror, counter-extremism, and freedom of speech, the rank hatred and loathing of Muslims and Islam has become the acceptable face of racism today, as exemplified by the recent condemnations of the demonstrations in the Muslim world against the virulently inflammatory and Islamophobic film, The Innocence of Muslims. The film, produced by an Egyptian Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is graphically Islamophobic and portrays the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a fool, a philanderer, a womanizer, a homosexual, a child abuser and a religious fake (nastaghfir-allah). His followers are portrayed in the film as savage killers hungry for wealth and bent on killing women and children. The film resulted in mass demonstrations throughout the Muslim world and attacks on diplomatic missions in several countries resulting in several deaths. Reminiscent of the Rushdie fatwa over two decades ago, a Pakistani minister placed a $100,000 bounty on Nakoula’s head, going as far as to publicly request assistance from the Taliban and al-Qaeda to kill him. Critics of the demonstrations present themselves as proponents of absolute free speech and argue that Muslims should not be offended by criticism of their religion. One of their more crass arguments is that the production is so shoddy and substandard that Muslims should carry themselves above it. This belittles the actual sentiment behind the insults which should be judged according to their content and the intention of the offender and not how articulate the insult may or may not be. In fact, from its first issue, Der Stürmer was also directed to that lowest common denominator that Hitler thought the proper target of propaganda. Heinz Preiss, a young scholar who attached himself to Streicher after 1933, becoming his court historian, accurately described Streicher's intent, Since he wanted to capture the masses, he had to write in a way that the masses could understand, in a style that was simple and easy to comprehend. He had recognized that the way to achieve the greatest effect on an audience was through simple sentences. Writing had to adopt the style of speaking if it were to have a similar effect. Streicher wrote in the Stürmer the way he talked… The worker who came home late at night from the factory was neither willing nor able to read intellectual treatises. He was, however, willing to read what interested him and what he could understand. Streicher therefore took the content from daily life and the style from speech. He thus gave the Stürmer its style, a style which many intellectuals could not understand, but which fundamentally was nothing but the product of his own experience gained over the years. As with the demonization of Muslims today, Streicher regularly published cartoons and stories about Jewish involvement in cases of alleged sexual criminality, murder and intolerance with the same allegations endlessly repeated. Innocence of Muslims must be seen in this context — the latest in what has become a regular and routine attack in the media on Muslims, Islam and the Prophet of Islam (pbuh), designed not to stimulate intellectual debate and understanding but simply to incite hatred against the followers of Islam. From Rushdie’s Satanic Verses to the Danish cartoons to Qur’an burnings and the daily sensationalist anti-Muslim headlines and op-eds, the freedom being sought is not one to criticize or to express oneself but one to insult and abuse. The writer, producer and distributor of the film, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian based in the US who originally identified himself as an Israeli-Jew, using the pseudonym “Sam Bacile,” and said that he collected $5 million from Jewish friends to fund the movie. The alleged Bacile told the Wall Street Journal that he made the film to expose “Islam as a hateful religion” and also described Islam as a “cancer.” It is quite clear that Nakoula deliberately intended to not just stoke up hate against Muslims but by identifying himself as an Israeli Jew, was determined to exploit existing divisions between Muslims and Jews. It is not Muslim “intolerance” that the world should be condemning today but Western tolerance of those who seek only to abuse, insult and demonise and thereby foster the climate which facilitates genocide. The reaction from the Muslim world is a reasonable and understandable one. In retrospect, nobody would dare criticize Jewish communities in the 1930s had they rioted against publications such as Der Stürmer if the ultimate effect was that it would have prevented the Holocaust, even if those riots led to the loss of scores of innocent lives. The current reaction stems from a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Muslim world to take any meaningful action against such abuse leaving it to the mob to seek vigilante justice in whatever form it can. In the West, the authorities and the courts will protect what they hold to be sacred from similar abuse through injunctions and prosecutions and so the public anger and feeling is appeased. A few examples will suffice. In the same week as Muslims have been condemned for not tolerating free speech, Azhar Ahmed, a Muslim teenager in Britain was convicted of sending a “grossly offensive communication” after posting a message on his Facebook page that “all soldiers should die and go to hell.” He awaits sentencing for the comments which the judge described as “derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory.” Meanwhile in France, a court banned French magazine Closer from re-publishing or distributing photographs in France of the Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Kate, sunbathing topless. The injunction was granted at the same time that another French magazine Charlie Hebdo published a new series of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for no other reason than to insult and offend Muslims. When Muslims complained, they were told that freedom of expression was a fundamental right. In September 2011, British fashion designer John Galliano was convicted for making “public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity” after making anti-Semitic comments in public. On the same note, Holocaust denial remains a crime in several European countries. In September 2010, the Advertising Standards Agency in the UK banned an ice cream company from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line “immaculately conceived.” The ASA said that the advert “was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics” and “likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith.” The ASA banned another advert for the same company (Antonio Federici) in July 2009 that showed a priest and a nun appearing as if they were about to kiss. The War on Terror has seen several Muslims in the UK and US, such as Ahmed Faraz and Tarek Mehanna, sentenced to lengthy spells in maximum security prisons for no greater offences than publishing books and articles critical of Western foreign policy and promoting the political and military aspects of Islam. No freedom of expression for these young Muslims. In contrast, there is no such procedure in the Muslim world or in the Western world to protect the sensitivities of Muslims, thereby leading to the type of angry demonstrations that we are witnessing. One can predict that were no systems in place to address public anger in the West about insults to things the public holds sacred, there would be similar large scale demonstrations, and these would not be limited to elements of the far right. Muslims are denied such protection. They are insulted and abused, mocked and ridiculed, demonised and ostracised and told to get over it. Until such time as the governments of the world are prepared to offer similar protection to Muslims as it does to others, they should expect such angry reaction from the masses. “Never Again” should not be hollow rhetoric but state policy, and for all communities.

Mursi attempts independent foreign policy for Egypt

by Ayman Ahmed October, 2012 President Mohamed Mursi’s attempt to follow an independent foreign policy for Egypt does not sit well with the Americans who want only subservient rulers in the Muslim world. A course correction seems to be underway in relations between Egypt and the US. Arguably the most important country in the Muslim East, Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi is trying to chalk out an independent foreign policy moving out of the shadow of US and Zionist domination. Only time will tell whether this will succeed but recent developments point toward a determined bid by the new president to restore some semblance of dignity to the long-suffering and humiliated people of Egypt. Dr. Mursi’s quest started with visiting China and Iran in August even before going to the US. It did not sit well in Washington that had expected the new Egyptian president to show greater subservience to the Americans who believe that as financiers of Egypt’s economy for decades, they deserve more gratitude. If this was not enough to irk the US, Dr. Mursi proposed a Syria Contact Group at the Makkah summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (August 15–16) that pointedly excluded the US and its Western allies. To the horror of the Americans, the Contact Group is not only limited to regional countries but also includes Iran that the US and allies have been trying to isolate for decades without much success, as was witnessed at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran in August. Aware that Egypt is in need of financial help at this critical juncture because of 18 months of turmoil that scared away tourists and halted much business activity, Washington has been trying to woo the new Egyptian government. Its foreign exchange reserves have dropped to $15 billion, about half what they were before the uprising began early last year. On September 9, a high level delegation of American businessmen accompanied State Department and White House officials to meet Prime Minister Hisham Qandil in Cairo. At the meeting, American business leaders promised to invest in Egypt’s economy. This was meant to keep Egypt tied to American purse strings. The visit had followed other developments. One was the declaration by US President Barack Obama that he would consider waiving $1 billion of Egypt’s $3 billion debt. The Egyptians of course were asking for the entire amount to be written off. Further, the US said it would support Egypt’s bid to acquire a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Discussions were underway between Egyptian and American officials about debt relief when these were abruptly suspended by the US on September 18. The massive demonstrations that erupted in Cairo in the aftermath of the blasphemous US-made anti-Islam movie seem to have irked the Americans. On September 11, demonstrators in Cairo scaled the walls of the US embassy and pulled down the US flag amid chants of “Death to America.” While no American official was harmed, the persistent nature of the demonstrations that quickly spread to Libya where US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi on the night of September 11–12, appeared to have really upset US officials. Embassy staff members were evacuated from Cairo amid fears for their safety. A day after the protests erupted and then spread to most parts of the Muslim world, Obama told the Spanish language Telemundo TV (an affiliate of the American station NBC), “Egypt was not an ally of the US.” He said it was not an enemy either but the statement was clearly meant to send a message to Egypt that the US expected greater subservience from the Egyptians who had been receiving handouts for decades. The Americans felt President Mursi had not done enough to condemn the violent protests. His condemnation of the blasphemous video as well as the violence during an official visit to Brussels on September 13 was considered by the Americans as too little, too late. It seems the Americans are using Egypt’s financial difficulties as a way to exert pressure and force Egypt to toe the US line. Whether Dr. Mursi will be forced to surrender to the US, only time will tell, but there are other signifcant developments. For instance, Qatar announced in August that it will invest $18 billion in Egypt over a decade. This was followed by an announcement from Saudi Arabia that it would provide a $4 billion loan. Turkey has also announced a $2 billion loan and said Turkish Airlines will increase flights to Cairo. A delegation of Kuwaiti government and business leaders were also in Cairo to consider investment opportunities. The real test for President Mursi will be whether he can resist American pressure and blackmailing tactics. He will be able to overcome these problems if he shows true leadership and mobilizes the people to sacrifice material comforts in return for dignity and honour. These demand a price but only those that have the support of the people will be able to bear it, as has been shown by Islamic Iran for more than 33 years. The challenges facing Egypt cannot be minimized. With a population of some 85 million and massive unemployment, people need food not platitudes. This is where true leadership stands apart from mere politicians that cater to the whims of the people. Egypt has immense potential. It has a highly educated population and historically Egypt has played a leading role in the Muslim world. It was only in the last 30 years that it accepted subservience to imperialism and Zionism and thus lost its prestigious position to upstarts like Saudi Arabia and more recently Qatar. Even Syria claimed one up on Egypt because the former refused to surrender to US-Zionist machinations until it had secured its rights over the Golan Heights. Egypt, on the other hand, surrendered the Sinai Peninsula that remains demilitarized to this day for a fistful of dollars. Help from the US never comes without strings attached. Often, the price demanded is very high. For instance, Egypt has been forced to abandon the Palestinian people because of the Camp David Accords, which turned Egypt into a virtual colony of the US. Further, the US has cultivated close links with the Egyptian military thereby undermining civilian authority. This will be one of the most important challenges facing the new Egyptian government. If Dr. Mursi is really serious about moving out of the deathly embrace of Uncle Sam, he must develop closer links with Islamic Iran and learn from its experience. He will have to confront the demons of sectarianism that are not far away. In Egypt, the Saudi-backed extremists will try to make life difficult for him. How he navigates his way around these hurdles will determine his level of success. Dignity and honour, however, are priceless commodities; no price is too high to pay for them but to achieve them requires true commitment. “Honour and dignity belong to Allah and His Messenger and those truly committed to Allah…” (63:08).

Acquiring political power: on whose terms and conditions?

by Dr Perwez Shafi In Part 1 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi examines the peculiar evolution of Sunni political thought and its crippling impact on the contemporary Islamic movement. There are various aspects of Muslim awakening and changes that cannot be explained easily, logically and rationally. Observing the awakenings and changes, some uncomfortable questions arise: 1. How come certain personalities (civil or military) or families are able to rule in Muslim countries for so long? Why do those in power and those who oppose them rely only on violence and force? 2. Is there anything peculiar in their historical evolution that makes them prone to feudal and authoritarian rule? 3. Why is the US and the West supporting those who propose and push for awakening and Islamic changes in the Muslim world? 4. Why, in countries where changes have occurred, is there a business-as-usual relationship with the West and its corporations? 5. Why do Muslims keep falling into the trap of the US and the West, which simultaneously declare them as friends in one breath and terrorists in the next depending on their interests? 6. Why is the Western response to these awakenings and changes different in the Sunni world compared to others? And in turn, why is the Muslims’ response in general similar to that of the West? 7. Why have the revolutionaries not challenged Western domination of their societies, Western values and the global capitalist economic model? 8. Do Muslims have the intellectual clarity about their objectives and means to achieve them? In other words, is their intellectual worldview capable of initiating and generating awakening, mobilizing and organizing, and being led by muttaqi leadership, so as to achieve the objectives and goals by means which are also consistent with the Islamic view? 9. And finally on whose terms and conditions is political power acquired? Answers to these questions are contained in the worldview especially in political thought spread over the entire history of Islam. If Muslims have intellectual clarity about their worldview — their objectives and the means to achieve them — which is consistent and free of contradictions then one can answer all of the above questions. However, that is not the case. Lack of clarity shows ideological confusion that prevents Muslims from identifying their real enemy, forcing them to compromise at every turn on objectives and means, and still resigned to the fact that no meaningful change can occur without the consent of the West. Unfortunately this state of affairs regarding lack of clarity in worldview can be observed in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, the Gulf sheikdoms and now in Syria. If one takes a holistic and systemic approach to Muslim political thought and particularly Sunni political thought we discover where the problem lies. This writer and the Crescent International magazine have consistently stayed above sectarian considerations but if the problem lies in the ideology of a particular sect then simply ignoring or condemning it is not enough. Any attempt at Muslim unity will not be successful unless the problem is identified at the root of the particular sectarian ideology. This requires moral courage, intellectual honesty and awakening to deal with Sunni political thought — as the majority in the Muslim world adheres to it — that is a source of political confusion and contradiction in ideas and practices, hence a taboo subject even among revolutionaries. Phase I Change in the direction of Islam, decline and decay The above conclusion was drawn from the historical evolution of Sunni political thought, which can be divided into two phases. In the first phase up to the advent and domination of Western colonialism in the Muslim world by about the 17th century, Sunni political thought and worldview were stuck in tribalism, jealousy and competition to acquire political power; and authoritarianism. The pristine principles of Islam, which would have eliminated these vices, were never allowed to be practiced from the beginning. The change in the direction of Islam took place soon after the death of our beloved Prophet (pbuh). A number of mushrik leaders were killed in various battles waged against the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions. However, Abu Sufiyan survived till the liberation of Makkah and to save his skin he and his family reluctantly became Muslims. The Prophet’s (pbuh) attitude toward his enemies after they became Muslims was always cordial and kind. But in Abu Sufiyan’s case, the Prophet (pbuh) would turn his face away whenever he appeared and did not maintain close relations with him due to his severe opposition to Islam. Soon after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh) to heavenly company, Abu Sufiyan’s family and children acquired important positions in the Islamic State through nepotism and started consolidating their new found power. Thus, what Abu Sufiyan failed to achieve in direct confrontation with the Prophet (pbuh) he was able to achieve from within the Islamic fold. Abu Sufiyan’s children and grandchildren twisted key Islamic teachings in politics and governance of the Islamic State which enabled them to concentrate more power and somehow to acquire legitimacy. Through deceit, intrigue and open warfare, Mu‘awiyah became the absolute ruler of the Islamic State. He acquired the title of “Scribe of the Revelation” when in fact he never benefitted from the Prophet’s (pbuh) company for a single day. Within a year of the liberation of Makkah, the final wahy completed the message of Islam, followed by the death of the Prophet (pbuh). By distorting the teachings of Islam, Abu Sufyan sought to achieve two objectives — legitimacy for himself by generating fake hadiths and suppressing original ones, bestowing on himself and his cronies Islamic titles such as radiya allahu ‘anhu, changing the meaning of key Quranic ayat to suit his purpose, and deprived most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) dearest friends and families of their rightful and legitimate position. Those that opposed him were persecuted. Thus illegitimacy, instinctive reliance on force to counter any argument against their illegitimacy and persecution became the norm and part and parcel of Sunni political thought since that time. Most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) beloved Sahabah were not only deprived of their right to propagate true Islamic teachings by exposing the distortions and deviations but when they insisted, they were banished to far away lands, imprisoned, or poisoned leaving the field wide open to the power hungry clan of Abu Sufiyan to propagate their own imperial vision. Instead of the Islamic State, hereditary rule became the defining feature of political structure and ideology. When political and governance issues became strictly off limits to the public, they were confined to performing religious rituals. The great emphasis on rituals, devoid of any exhilarating and liberating feeling and spirit, became the norm which has continued to this today. The Islamic rules of acquiring political power and maintaining it were never allowed to gain a foothold. Vices of tribalism, mutual jealousy, the quest to grab power, persecution and authoritarianism became entrenched in Sunni political ideas, structure and practice. As a result, the Sunni political system based on Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas dynasties was never able to gain legitimacy. However, in the process they permanently eclipsed the true and egalitarian teachings of Islam in critical areas. In Islam the definition of politics was to acquire power in a legitimate manner as prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah (that is, masses select one for responsibility based on taqwa rather than anyone proposing or imposing himself and acquiring power by brute force or guile). The exercise of power was related to the maintenance of social justice, through a framework of collective decision-making to serve humanity. Thus, acquiring power by illegitimate or immoral means and spending immense financial resources are strictly forbidden. In short, Islam was reduced to rituals and practiced in an individual capacity. These unhealthy and illegitimate developments changed the direction of Islam permanently while its just, universal and egalitarian spirit was extinguished. Illegitimacy separated the interests, norm, values and belief system of the masses from power-hungry elites. For instance, military training has not been part of any Sunni society precisely because the elites’ illegitimacy leads them to distrust the masses. Thus illegitimacy, persecution and authoritarianism became the hallmark of Sunni political thought and structures. As a result, promotion of a new imperialistic version of religion in the name of Islam became the norm, which was maintained by coercion and persecution. In this version, Islam was deliberately reduced to a religion where rituals, devoid of spirit, gained paramount importance while their connection to the overall Islamic system was cut off. Values like the rule of law and social justice were abandoned from the early days. This version of Islam, mired in oppression, which Muslims follow without thinking or reflection even today is the basic reason why Muslims are unable to distinguish between friend and foe or between rightful, pious and legitimate leaders of a Muslim society and power-hungry opportunists; or how to legitimately acquire and exercise political power for the benefit of the masses. The door to intellectual pursuit, the right of pious and legitimate imams to lead the nascent Islamic society, and the door to ijtihad gradually became closed as imams, ‘ulama, scholars and the Muslim masses that supported them were persecuted. For this reason creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture, improvement in warfare techniques and equipment, explosion in scientific study and research methodologies, study of Greek and Roman ideas of rationalism, etc. To be sure, these intellectual developments were because of Islam, not due to Sunni political structures and systems or guidance, or funding and encouragement from Sunni governments represented by hereditary authoritarianism. It is not necessary to resolve all theological issues of early Muslim history to present as evidence in support of what has been said above. Rather decline and decay of Muslim civilization as recorded by Muslim and non-Muslim historians and scholars itself is a debilitating empirical evidence of illegitimacy and authoritarianism. Whether one agrees and accepts historical facts or rejects them, their effect has been devastating for the Muslim world. No one can deny the divisions, infighting, decline, decay and disintegration resulting in domination by others that had been going on for centuries up until the advent of Western colonialism. It was the great Islamic and political scholar Dr. Kalim Siddiqui who guided this writer during his dissertation to look first for decline and decay of Muslim civilization as evidence of distorted and dysfunctional Sunni political thought. Most of the muttaqi imams and ‘ulama with deep knowledge of Islam and capable of leading the society were brutally suppressed; others were bought or coerced to join authoritarian courts and governments and granted vast perks and benefits. The few that chose to challenge illegitimate rulers were poisoned or murdered as a warning to others. Some went into the countryside or faraway places to quietly spread and preach Islamic knowledge, emphasizing Sufism albeit without addressing burning political issues. Islam spread to Central Asia and the Indo-Pakisan subcontinent through these ‘ulama or Sufis and not by secular kings or warriors. Strong evidence of this is found in the desolate and barren mausoleums of famous and powerful kings and warriors of Muslim history where only stray dogs roam while ordinary people, millions of them, throng the mausoleums of the ‘ulama and Sufi saints. But in general they abandoned politics and implicitly accepted bifurcation: let the kings and warriors rule while they concentrated on preaching Islam and providing healing to the suffering masses through spirituality. While these depoliticized ‘ulama and Sufis provided great service to humanity in their individual capacity, they were no match against the organized power, logistics and resources of the state. Muttaqi leaders were there but they were not able to function as leaders of state. With time, persecution and bifurcation, the quality and number of muttaqi leaders also declined. And hence, this depleted Islamic society could not provide an effective Islamic or practical response to the onslaught of Europeans with superior scientific knowledge, better organizational and mobilizing capacity, and a spirit filled with adventurism, curiosity, greed and seeking domination of others. Pull quote: …creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture… [and] explosion in scientific study and research methodologies... Part 2 In Part 2 of his analysis on the paralysis afflicting Muslim political thought, Dr Perwez Shafi examines the stifling influence of colonialism and neo-colonialism. In Part 2 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi looks at how colonialism and neo-colonialism have kept Islamic political thought from evolving out of the dictatorship, autocratic paradigm. Phase II – European disintegration of the Muslim Ummah Phase two of Muslim history began when European colonialists were knocking at the door of the Muslim world around the 17th century to exploit its riches, and its defective political structures complicated by a weak and crumbling ideology. The Muslims’ diplomatic skills were unable to sense all dimensions or any long-term implications; their militaries were disorganized, divided and loyalties were for the highest bidder. Scientific and economic or industrial infrastructures were non-existent. While the Muslims were declining, the Europeans were the ascendant. It was not as if the European colonialists conquered the Muslim world after a good fight; rather, due to their decline and decay Muslims were barely conscious when the Europeans appeared like a mugger and robbed them. There was a qualitative difference between phase I and II. In phase I, as long as the masses did not challenge the rulers directly on political and governance issues they were largely left alone and creativity was allowed to flourish in other areas. The Europeans were driven by the same fear of illegal occupation and exploitation and they knew full well that once this sleeping giant (the masses) woke up their days of exploitation would be over hence they went one step further than mulukiyah. While the kings left the Muslim society as a single cohesive and socially strong body, the Europeans went about methodically dividind and disintegrating the Muslim Ummah to permanently cripple it. This was done first by dividing the Ummah along racial, ethnic, linguistic, economic and religious fault lines. These were further widened and exacerbated. Where they did not find any fault lines they created them. In the Arabian Peninsula, to weaken the Ottoman Khilafah from within, the British Empire promoted one Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab as a social and religious “reformer” of Islam in the late-18th century. In Confessions of a British Spy, the British agent Hempher has described in detail how Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was guided, exploited, funded and propped up by the British imperialists. The result is obvious and devastating. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s so-called reforms were turned into the sect of Wahhabism whose main target was to eradicate all historical and physical traces left by the Prophet (pbuh) and to reinforce the imperial version of their predecessor mulukiyah in the name of Islam. They hoped that the gullible and illiterate Muslim masses would not notice the great and systematic destruction of their Islamic and spiritual heritage in the midst of glittering five-star western hotels surrounding the Ka‘bah in Mak-kah and al-Majid al-Nabawi in Madinah. Similarly, in 19th century Persia, the British imperialists propped up Baha-ullah, who invented the Bahai faith to break Muslim unity. Nowadays both Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism and the Bahai faith are strongly supported by Western colonialists. In the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent the British imperialists had a field day during their 200-year occupation making every section of society dysfunctional by imposing a different identity and outlook, infusing it with either an inferiority or superiority complex. After the War of Independence in 1857, the British realized the danger of Hindu-Muslim unity that might liberate the country from the yoke of British colonialism so they embarked on inculcating nationalism among Hindus as well as Muslim communities. Later they created political parties — the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League — which divided the interests of both communities and led to the division of the sub-continent a hundred years later into two separate countries — India and Pakistan. But the British were not content with division only at the national level. Muslims had to be further divided from within. After the 1857 War of Independence, the Hanafi school of thought was further sub-divided. From the Orientalist reading of the Qur’an, they came up with inquisitive questions to “clarify” certain aspects of the Prophet’s (pbuh) personality and mission. The British encouraged heated debates among the ‘ulama’ whose respective positions crystallized into two major sub-schools of thought who later founded their headquarters in Deoband and Bareli, directly and indirectly, with British help. These groups are now known as Deobandis and Barelvis respectively. Deobandis were further divided into a number of other groups. On one extreme there is the passive Tablighi Jamaat that shuns jihad and politics, which in and of itself is a political decision, while on the other extreme are tribal people like the Taliban who are inspired by Saudi Wahhabism and routinely carry out suicide bombings to eradicate “shirk” taking place at various mausoleums. In addition, the British also promoted Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani who elevated himself to make a claim to prophethood in the late 19th century (nastaghfir-allah). After Wahhabism took hold in the Arabian Peninsula at the religious level, the British colonialists recruited Saudi tribes who used to roam the vast expanse of the desert in Najd robbing and looting Hajj caravans. In the early 20th century, the Saudi robbers and Sharif Husain of al-Hijaz agreed through various letters with the British to undermine the Ottoman Khilafah by launching a revolt. In turn, the British promised them power in the Arabian Peninsula. Both were paid huge sums of money. These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. The tragedy during the colonial phase was not so much the division and disintegration of the Muslim Ummah from within, rather its acceptance and internalization by the Muslims themselves. Whatever muttaqi leadership existed was further marginalized by the colonialists either through persecution, political intrigue or by turning it into an institution of peeri-mureedi (relationship of absolute domination of saint over his disciple). In addition, the colonialists encouraged the turning of mausoleums of ‘ulama’ and saints into shrines where ignorant and illiterate people would pray and worship, often bordering on shirk. On the other hand, the colonialists used the Deobandis and Wahhabis as a tool to keep attacking Barelvis resulting in constant low level warfare. The masjids and religious institutions were economically relatively independent with large agricultural lands and significant income derived from such holdings. The concept of running masjids on charity and dole was non-existent in phase I but in phase II the colonialists gradually stripped the masjids of these resources and forced them to live off charity. Thus, as Western-educated classes emerged, the masjids lost their vitality and instead of producing ‘ulama’ and learned scholars capable of leading society they started producing simpleminded mu’adhdhins, qaaris and maulvis, who with little or no self-esteem were relegated to perform simple rituals at birth or death. While the obscurantist religious establishment had little dynamism or knowledge of world sciences or capability of leading society, they performed an important and valuable function of keeping Islam alive at the most basic level and provided solace to the masses in that dark and hopeless era of colonialism. Neo-colonial phase The neo-colonial phase is not much different from the colonial phase except it is more intensified form of westernization, filled with deception while creating the illusion of independence. In the neo-colonial phase, starting after World War II, more than 50 or so countries were carved out of the single Muslim Ummah as a result of managed “national struggle” for independence marked by installation of local rulers; but intellectual, political and economic independence remained elusive. These so-called “Third World countries” were integrated into the global capitalist system whereby these countries at the economic level provide ready markets for Western goods and services, and as a source of raw material. But this required the local political and economic elites to be subservient to the West, the result of which was the suppression of their own populations. Since the victors of the Second World War wrote history as well as arrogated to themselves the right to set up global institutions like the UN, the World Bank, IMF, etc. in their own image to rule the world, Muslim countries were also made part of these illegitimate and illegal institutions by using local elites. Through these institutions the West gets any decision approved for its benefit and interest while giving the illusion of legitimacy. The rest of the suffering humanity merely uses these institutions as a forum to air their frustrations and to seek more Western aid for survival. During the colonial period, the West’s mission was to “civilize” humanity; in the neo-colonial phase the mission has morphed into spreading “democracy” and democratic values, norms and a belief system as the only sanctified ideology. In Western conception, the Greek word demo means human. Now the context has changed drastically. It now means that after the Renaissance (14th–17th centuries) and Industrial Revolution (1730–1850s), man has become the master of his own destiny through science and technology and has progressed and elevated to such heights that he no longer wishes to live or be constrained by Allah’s (swt) teachings, guidance and plan. In other words, God occupying the highest position in cosmological hierarchy has been replaced by man himself. In this context, Western democracy, not bound by divine order, is shirk of the highest order. In fact, democracy per se even from the Greek times — direct rule by the people — has never been practiced anytime in history. This is admitted even by Western political scientists and philosophers. In fact they shun it by calling it “mob rule” and don’t trust the raw human instinct. What is actually practiced is more precisely plutocracy — rule by the rich and wealthy class. Plutocracy controls the establishment providing a strong center and direction to the political system while capitalism serves as its economic engine. All other institutions work for or in tandem with the state. There is consensus among Western elites within society of the efficacy of this political philosophy and its associated structures. Plutocracy, democracy or any other philosophy has nothing to do with human values. In this dehumanizing system the rich can become richer only by exploiting the poor and their labor. The highest value of capitalism is “profit maximization,” a euphemism for greed and exploitation leading to inequality, class warfare and concentration of almost all the wealth in the hands of the less-than-1% plutocrats. That is why protest movements by 99% of the masses in the US is being waged, calling for human and egalitarian values. Political parties and elections are cosmetic and inconsequential in nature and their purpose is only to lure and keep people into the political system by them believing that “change is possible” when each party actually represents different shades of the same philosophy. Thus, deception and illusion are at the root of democracy whereby plutocracy can rule in the name of the masses; but in this departure from God, the interests, desires, and benefits accrued to each class are different and separated by a wide gulf. Since the West has 150 years of experience with population conditioning according to its requirements, even a highly exploitative system manages to survive despite its obvious imperfections. The ultimate goal or value of democracy is to make all human beings slaves of the rich and powerful. In contrast to mature plutocracies, the ex-colonial recently-independent states (whether ruled by military or civilians) have no strong center or establishment with a firm and deep-rooted philosophy. They are characterized as “weak states” as each institution — the military, bureaucracy, judiciary, executive and parliament — acts as different power centers with which the US and other imperialist powers maintain independent yet direct relationships. If any institution does not toe the US line it is checked by other institutions. The elite in Muslim states are trained in the West; they have inculcated Western values, norms, belief system and lifestyles. Their personal and collective interests are the same. If they refer to Islam at all, it is invoked only to fool the masses. The West allows no choice or alternative to native elites in choosing their political ideology. Their job is to keep their countries dependent on the West — materially and psychologically — while the local economies must be kept open for exploitation and integrated within Western markets. If the disease of westernization had infected only the secular elites, it would be understandable. Tragically, the entire religious establishment is also afflicted by it despite their knowledge of Islam. In the neo-colonial phase, the religious establishment has undergone greater transformation and actually started participating in the so-called democratic process without realizing that it is a deception. It contradicts the goals and means of Islam yet they adopt and participate in it in hopes of achieving Islamic goals of social justice, equity and the liberation of humanity from slavery. For religious, political and non-political parties, the short cut to power appears deceptively attractive and within reach. Under Western influence, they have come to believe the goal is to win an election (that is generally rigged by the military anyway). They assume that upon coming to power, Shari‘ah would be “imposed” resulting in the creation of an Islamic state. Their version of the Islamic state can still co-exist with the West, remain economically integrated with the global capitalist system, and maintain a politically subservient relationship. This is an elitist top-down approach and is seriously flawed because it is not able to differentiate between means and objectives or between the Islamic and Western democratic systems. It seems not to bother them that this simplistic, naïve and deceptive model is against the Shari‘ah and the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). The noble Messenger (pbuh) did not win or opt for election or grab power by other means before implementing Islamic principles in society. The Sirah teaches us that by propagating and practicing Islam in all its dimensions (not focusing on one or the other aspect) he transformed the social structure of the tribal jahili society into an Islamic society. Once this social transformation had taken place, the road to the Islamic state opened by itself. Thus the goal of the Islamic movement is not to construct an Islamic state but to transform the social base of the ignorant society into an Islamic society; the Islamic state will then be the logical end result of such transformation. This is the bottom-up approach and from the Sirah it can be characterized as Islamic Revolution. In the neo-colonial phase, one of the most important catalysts for change are the ‘ulama’ and the institutions they have established. Ironically, they are also a major obstacle to change and the emergence of muttaqi leadership. One of the major reasons is that most of the Sunni ‘ulama’ and their establishments are heavily financed by the Saudi regime. Such funding ensures that the ‘ulama’ and their establishments keep following the obscurantist and deviant Sunni political thought where Mu‘awiyah and Yazid are praised and where nowadays attempts are underway to rehabilitate even Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who gained notoriety for disfiguring the body of Hamzah (d) by chewing on his liver after the latter was martyred in the Battle of Uhud. The Prophet (pbuh) was greatly anguished by such disrespect for the dead, made all the more shocking because Hamzah was his uncle and close friend, the two being close in age. Friendship with and dependence on the West/Zionists is considered essential, and support for the Saudi monarchy flourishes in line with continuation of the mulukiyah/monarchical dynasties. If Saudi petrodollars keep the ‘ulama’ and “official” Sunni worldview on the path of praising the worst enemies of the Prophet (pbuh) and ignore or abandon those loved by the Prophet (pbuh), then the prospects for change are dim. Thus, muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue. For confusing goals and means, the religious elites and their political parties are continuously failing. Yet they do not want to allow change in their methodology or learn any lessons from the Sirah. But when one realizes that this democratic worldview of the religious establishment was superimposed on the decadent Sunni political thought of the mulukiyah, worldly challenges cannot be surmounted by using a crude mixture of both mindsets. Given this theoretical background to clarify Islamic goals and the means to achieve them through historical evolution, it enables us to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this article about recent developments in the Muslim world. Specifically, Egypt represents the best case in which a political party backed by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has made impressive gains in elections in the Muslim world; Turkey is another but dissimilar example. To be sure the Muslims’ yearning for independence from foreign domination and the awakening is genuine. But the US has been busy taming the MB and turning the transition away from its revolutionary spirit to bureaucratic changes in such a way that its leaders are given some government posts yet the real power is retained by the military and the old establishment, which ultimately means the US. The sequence of events themselves reveals the story of compromises and adjusting to “reality” by the MB, followed by the principle stated in parenthesis as discussed above (see paragraphs below). One year after the awakening of the Muslims started, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns earlier this year met with the MB’s high-ranking Deputy General Guide Khairat al-Shater, (the powerful presidential candidate before being disqualified by the Elections Commission on flimsy grounds). Burns promised financial aid of more than $20 billion from the IMF and the Gulf sheikhdoms if the peace treaty with Israel continued to be honored. The MB quickly agreed to maintain the status quo. The MB’s statements to the contrary were merely for public consumption (strategic compromise for tactical support, unable to distinguish between friend and foe). Two days before the presidential election, the judiciary and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), effectively ruling Egypt since president Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power in February 11, 2011, struck and cancelled the parliamentary elections already won by the MB who protested but to no avail so far (keeping in check one institution by using another). Shortly after becoming president and before Hillary Clinton arrived in Cairo, Muhammad Mursi visited Saudi Arabia on July 11 to answer demands by a Saudi academic close to the monarchy who wrote an article in the London-based al-Hayat newspaper titled “What the Gulfies want from Brotherhood’s Mursi?” He asked Mursi to provide public assurances on four major concerns of the Gulf sheikhdoms: 1. MB members and networks present in the sheikhdoms will not be used to interfere in their internal affairs; 2. support them against Iran; 3. to have strong relations with Saudi Arabia and its neighbors than with democratic Turkey; and 4.keep aloof from internal factional politics of Palestinians even though Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB. Within a week Mursi complied with all the demands through his statements. While in Saudi Arabia he affirmed Egypt’s policy of belonging to the “moderate Sunni” camp as he assured the Saudi monarch of Egypt’s strategic alliance with his country, as well as lending support to the regional balance of power in direct reference to the challenge posed by Iran to the Gulf monarchies. Like former Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf’s policy of “Pakistan first” Mursi assured his Saudi hosts that Egypt will continue to maintain an Arab first foreign policy approach rather than taking Turkish democratic germs too far. As demanded, Mursi also promised to maintain the same distance with Palestinian factions but more importantly he promised to side with Saudi and Israeli intelligence and security apparatuses against the Palestinian resistance (local elite not independent in their domestic as well as foreign policies but ultimately subservient to the US and its local Saudi agents; their narrow interest to gain political power at any cost forces them to act against their own brethren and side with the imperialist West and oppressive forces). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt to meet President Mursi. After the meeting, Clinton declared that the US “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.” The following day Clinton met with head of SCAF, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi and prodded him to go along with the civilian set up and declared that the US would like to see the Egyptian military return to a “purely national security role.” In return, the military was also promised billions more in aid (US dealing independently with weak multiple power centers). The same corrupted Sunni political thought superimposed by the Western democratic model is unable to differentiate between friend and foe in Syria. All Muslim countries have ruthless dictators and Syria is no exception. But at least Syria has taken a consistently strong anti-Israel stand for the last four decades and supported various Palestinian resistance factions. That reason alone is sufficient not to destabilize the Asad regime which the US, Israel, Saudis and other sheikhdoms are trying hard to do. This raises another question. Why in Syria, as in Libya, the opposition instead of launching a public protest campaign as in Yemen and Bahrain, has suddenly resorted to armed struggle from the beginning? The reliance on violence and force is built-in to the Sunni political though stoked by Western, Saudi and Zionist arms and mercenaries. In Sunni political paradigm there has never been peaceful transfer of power since Mu‘awiyah came to power. One must either use overwhelming force to subdue rivals or prepare to be subdued and slaughtered; there is nothing in between and certainly there are no rules and regulations nor precedent. If the opposition wants to air their grievances they could certainly launch public protests like in Bahrain or Yemen rather than instinctively rely on overwhelming force. This all or nothing proposition is to keep rivals at bay. That is why ruthless dictators and their dynastic rule last for decades. This political mindset still prevails today (instinctive reliance on using overwhelming force against rivals is the secret of dictator’s longevity). In electoral politics, no country appears to have had as much success as Turkey, yet it has accepted US hegemony, its global and regional agenda, and maintained friendship with Israel, never challenging Washington’s strategic interests. The US has, therefore, felt comfortable in holding up Turkey as a democratic role model for other Muslim countries to emulate, if they ever get rid of their US-backed dictators. After a decade of experience with the Turkish religious political party approach, the US feels confident in managing the transition to democratic order in Egypt as well. At the other end, the US is ready to use oppression and persecution in Bahrain rather than respect human rights because toppling of the feudal monarchy would directly threaten its strategic interests (which country is allowed to have change and which is to be blocked depends on US strategic interests). The US/Zionists have no qualms in supporting those opposition forces from any group or ideology including al-Qaeda or known terrorists who want to overthrow any government not friendly to the West (the criteria is whether terrorist use serves US interests). Conclusion It is evident through historical evolution that the sectarian Sunni political thought as seen through the actions of the so-called “moderate Sunni” states is corrupt, decadent and needs re-evaluation and reform. The humiliation of decline and decay of Muslim states is obvious; one must, therefore, challenge the assumptions of its paradigm. It is not enough simply to acquire cosmetic political power, the real question is on whose terms and conditions: whether on Sunni-Western-Zionist terms and conditions with a democratic façade while remaining subservient to US/Zionist interests or on one’s own terms and conditions relying on the revolutionary spirit of the masses that must first be transformed into a dynamic Islamic society. Only a genuine Islamic movement, not a religious political party, can accomplish this task and only then it can go in an independent and Islamic direction. But the precondition is to challenge basic assumptions of our decadent worldview that has remained stagnant since mulukiyah’s times superimposed with Western democratic values and norms. As the Qur’an declares, “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they are willing to change their attitude…” (13:11). Hence, the condition of a society does not change until it changes what is inside its heart. In other words, change in the worldview and mindset will lead to change in worldly conditions. We must cleanse the original historical contradictions introduced in Sunni Political thought to evolve to a higher paradigm of Muslim political thought. These reforms will take us to a true convergence point in time and history, to the time when the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode, when sectarianism and mutual hostilities did not exist. The next logical step would be an open declaration of abandonment and rejection of the so-called “democracy” and short-cut democratic model to political power. Without both these changes, internalized and acted upon, violence will continue and any other kind of revolution may be possible but not an Islamic Revolution. Note in the above Qur’anic ayah that it takes a longtime to change and internalize and reform the existing defective and contradictory worldview within our hearts but once it is done through debate and an open mind, a very short time is needed to change the outer worldly conditions. This sense of timing is demonstrated from the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). Pull quotes: These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. …muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue.

House of Saud heads into the dustbin of history?

by Yusuf Dhia-Allah October, 2012 Opposition to the House of Saud is growing among all segments of the population. How long can it last in power? Reality is quickly catching up with inbuilt contradictions in the policies pursued by the House of Saud. While presenting itself as champions of the “Sunni” world — a claim hotly contested by the overwhelming majority of Sunnis because of the Saudis’ narrow and extremist interpretations — its policies are becoming increasingly untenable. For instance, the Saudis have made much noise about their support for the “Sunni’” uprising against the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. It has also used the sectarian card to justify its invasion of Bahrain to prop up the minority Khalifa family in power where the majority population is Shi‘i, as is that in the Eastern province of the Arabian Peninsula. But this is where the contradictions have caught up with them; the populations in both Tunisia and Egypt are overwhelmingly Sunni so Muslims ask: how could the self-proclaimed champions of Sunnis (the Saudi rulers) be giving refuge to dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and how could they have supported the brutal dictator and US-Zionist agent Hosni Mubarak for so many years? Both Ben Ali and Mubarak brutalized their Sunni populations for decades. The Saudis’ claims are becoming exposed at the same time as their policy against the Asad regime in Syria is crumbling. Despite sending hundreds of millions of dollars worth of arms and buying any Syrian willing to defect from the government or the army, the Saudi and Qatari financed rebels have not had much success. In fact, the July 18 attack in Damascus that killed four top security officials was the direct result of Saudi involvement. While it dented the Syrian regime’s image and shook it somewhat, the terrorist act also stiffened its resolve to deal with the US-Zionist-Saudi-backed terrorists with an iron fist. The regime’s response was swift and brutal: the rebels were first flushed out of Damascus and later dealt with in Aleppo where they are still being pounded. The plot to cause the regime’s collapse failed. It still has enough staying capacity and firepower to deal with such blows. Similarly, foreign players — mainly Russia and China — are not prepared to allow the fall of the Asad regime, thereby creating another Libyan-style situation in Syria. Russia has the most to lose if the regime is overthrown by armed insurrection. It would lose its only naval base at Tartus in the Mediterranean. These developments have caused nightmares in Riyadh hence King Abdullah’s panicked call for a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (previously called Organization of the Islamic Conference – OIC) in Makkah on August 15–16. While the OIC meeting was ostensibly called to deal with the Syrian crisis — Syria was expelled from the OIC — there was another, more serious matter bothering the ailing and aged king: how to deal with sectarian tensions in the region? It is interesting to note that while the Saudis are the principal instigators of sectarianism in the Muslim world they suddenly felt compelled to address it. At the OIC Makkah summit, the Saudi king called for establishing a Centre in Riyadh for dialogue among the different Schools of Thought in Islam. Has the Saudi king, in his twilight years, finally realized that sectarianism is a double-edged sword and could just as easily work against him? His regime has used sectarianism with deadly effect against others. Is it too difficult to figure out that the horrible sectarian killings in Pakistan — of which there have been far too many in recent weeks and months — are the direct result of the poisonous ideology being spread from the Arabian Peninsula that has infected Pakistani society through the influx of Saudi petrodollars? True, sectarian killings also serve the interests of the Pakistani elite, hence no effective measures against sectarianism have been taken but the fact is that such extremism has come on the gravy train from Riyadh that has liberally financed madrasahs, which produce the primitive savages doing the sectarian killings. But sectarianism is beginning to haunt the Saudis as well. In Bahrain the majority is Shi‘i and is demanding civil and political rights. Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province is also overwhelmingly Shi‘i and the region that produces the bulk of kingdom’s oil. Yet the population there suffers massive discrimination in jobs, lack of economic opportunities as well as discrimination in areas of social and political representation. The regime, however, faces a dilemma. Hitherto, it had given a free hand to the court ‘ulama to indulge in whatever sectarianism they wanted. Reining them in now would become a problem since the regime already faces many other challenges not the least of which is the increasing assertiveness of people to demand their rights, the rising tide of Islamic awakening in the region and that inevitable challenge for which there is no cure: old age of the senior princes. Senior Saudi princes are shuffling to their grave in rapid succession. King Abdullah is nearly 90 years old although one would be hard pressed to tell this from his pitch black beard and moustache, thanks to generous use of Grecian formula. One wonders why at his age, Abdullah is so concerned with his looks, especially his beard, when his bones must also now be withering away? The crisis of succession is looming large and it cannot be discounted that a civil war may break out among the hordes of princes vying for power and control. There is, however, an even more serious challenge facing the regime: opposition to the House of Saud appears to have transcended the sectarian divide. The Hijaz, where the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah are located, has always been opposed to the literalist interpretations of the Najdis whom they consider uncouthed and unsophisticated desert bedouins. But opposition to the ruling family is now becoming widespread even in the regime’s heartland, Riyadh. While the regime has attempted to present opposition to its policies as being instigated by the Shi‘is, it has failed to explain why there are more than 30,000 political prisoners in the kingdom, the overwhelming majority of them Sunnis? Further, many people ask why should decisions be made by a small coterie of Saudi princes and the rest of them, more educated than the rulers, be excluded from this process? Success of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and to a lesser extent in Libya has given Saudi youth new ideas about freedom. At least 60% of them are under 20 years old. Widespread corruption and the rulers’ extreme laziness have resulted in 40% of Saudis living in poverty despite the regime taking in $360 billion annually in oil revenues. At least 70% of the people cannot afford to own a home and women are prohibited from driving cars. Most of the back-breaking menial jobs are performed by foreign workers that account for 90% of the private sector work force while unemployment among the 20–24 year-old Saudis stands at nearly 40%. Given these grim statistics and coupled with the looming crisis of succession, Saudi Arabia is waiting to explode. What will emerge following this explosion is difficult to speculate now but there is near certainty that the kingdom is heading for turbulent times.

The two opposite poles of the global Islamic movement

Abu Dharr

Deep down inside the recesses of the , there is what one may call a dichotomy — two mutually exclusive subclasses of the worldwide Islamic movement. One of them is centered on Islamic Iran and the other around what is today called “Saudi” Arabia. This animation is so intense and profound but no one wants to express it in public. It is limited to the inner circles of the inner circles of the polite and well-educated members of the worldwide Islamic movement. In a sense, the active and informed Muslims who belong to one or the other branch of this umbrella Islamic movement are alienated from each other because their individual organizational hierarchies have to answer to either one of these two divergent and many times mutually exclusive official umpires. Currently there is a detente between the government in Arabia and the government in Persia; both, of course, affirming in strong terms their Islamic credentials. But are they both legitimate points of reference for the larger Islamic movement in the world? Our humble but strong opinion is an emphatic NO. We say this with the support of facts on the ground and the record that speaks for itself.

In the first demonstration of facts, there is the Islamic political willpower in Iran that has, in word and in deed, taken on the imperialist and Zionist superstructure of kufr and shirk, and their combined might. Because of this, the loudmouths and bullhorns of racist Zionism and socioeconomic class imperialism are frothing at the mouth. Their corporate media fumes with the same, now tiresome, innuendo against the leadership of the Islamic state in Iran because of its self-willed and unwavering opposition to both militarist and political Zionism. This fearless and daring position by the Islamic leadership in Iran should remind every active Muslim who knows his history of the Yahudi forerunners (of today’s Zionists) in Arabia 14 centuries ago — the same ones who were also seething with rancor and conconcting countermoves against the Prophet (pbuh) when Islamic self-rule was on the rise in Arabia at the time.

Contrast Islamic Iran with the official Saudi sponsorship of a grand plan to reconcile the dispossessed Palestinians with their Israeli overlords. The official Saudi creatures and their unofficial Egyptian and Jordanian tools are what they call the “moderates”. And, who said there are no “moderate Muslims”? The real power-brokers in Arabia and its extensions into Egypt and Jordan among other countries along with that strain of the Islamic movement that answers to royal Riyadh are all showing excessive and compulsive concern with a slowly-but-surely consolidating front that will eventually move all the Muslims from Central Asia to the Mediter-ranean in a wave of military determination to pluck the regime of Zionist Israel out of existence. The American hegemon who went into Iraq and Afghanistan, giving both Israel and Saudi Arabia a decade of wiggle time, is beginning to pack his bags and gradually but surely moving out of Iraq and eventually out of Afghanistan. We call forth the wits and wisdom of this long paralyzed branch of the Islamic movement that has been sheltered and weltered by the financially obese and mentally anorexic Saudis to open its eyes and see the light!

This past month the top news item from Arabia concerned the $60 billion dollar military contract that the Saudi halfwits signed with the American military-industrial-banking complex. What an insult to every living and thinking Muslim everywhere! Are the Muslims in Arabia so brainless as to be unable to begin to build a military industry of their own? Let them begin with manufacturing their own guns and bullets and then proceed from there to manufacturing their own tanks and aircraft. This is also an insult to the larger Muslim population of the world; do the Saudi statesmen and representatives not believe that the 1.8 billion Muslims in the world are capable of initiating their own military industry that will free them from being dependent on their enemies for purposes of self defense? And at the end of the day all these weapons purchases will end up injecting much needed cash into the corporate coffers of weapons manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics, Grumman and Northrop among others as well as the predatory policies of imperialist occupation and invasion forces — the ones that occupy Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan to be precise. We can almost hear their chief executive officers say behind closed doors “Thank God for Saudi Arabia”. Of course, Saudi Arabia returns the thanks to the US by making sure that its contingent of the worldwide Islamic movement does not forget that the USA [and even Israel] are Ahl al-Kitab!

Contrast this Saudi capitalist cash-cow with an independent Islamic Iran that has crossed the rubicon on its way to becoming the first independent Islamic nuclear powerhouse in the world. The quality and quantity of enriched uranium in Iran this coming year will be enough for the Islamic Republic to kiss all Western offers of “uranium exchanges” good-bye.

Step by step, there is a serious behind-the-scenes Euro-American discussion and at times argument to factor in Iran as the up-and-coming undisputed regional power in the “Middle East” and to factor out Saudi Arabia as the undisputed last-ditch stand by the old-school of political imperialist political thought that seeks to prevent Iran from becoming the acknowledged regional superpower. We have to remind the pre-Imam Khomeini “Shi‘i” faithful that these audacious and resolute strides are not attributable to a “theological” or “historical” superiority that some diehards never tire of expressing to the outside world. No indeed; it is the result of the hard work of the sons of the revolution who never forgot the eight years of imposed war and all the characters involved in those eight years, including the war financiers — the crude oil Arabians.

Listen, O sons of the broad Islamic movement in the world! If we were to rip this whole issue to its bare bones we could agree, I hope, to see that there is a real core conflict that puts the Islamic Republic of Iran on one side and the Zionist regime of Israel on the other. The rest are, let us say, “fillers”. The number one supporter of racist Israel is the United States of America. Any run-of-the-mill Muslim knows that. And the number one supporter of Islamic Iran is Syria, in the shaping up of the not-too-distant firestorm between an Israel of Zionism and an Iran of Islam.

In the distorted view of things within the Saudi sponsored wing of the Islamic movement the Americans turn out to be Ahl al-Kitab and nasara while the Syrians turn out to be kafirs and zindiqs. Before this begins to strain the minds of the indoctrinated Saudi types, would it not be fair if we were to look at how the Ahl al-Kitab American officials came down on all the Islamic fringes that are under the Saudi umbrella. Washington even went as far as demanding the Saudi embassy in Washington, DC close down its religious department which employed scores of da‘is and is said to have had a budget of scores of millions of dollars annually. The American Ahl al-Kitab officials are going to the Arabian nation-states — tribal states to be more precise — and to other Islamic countries and rearranging their educational curricula, seeing to it that all Qur’anic ayat and Prophetic hadiths mentioning Yahud in a negative way are deleted from textbooks.

Can we compare that to a country that has accommodated Palestinian fighters and Hizbullah to the detriment of Israel? Don’t rush to conclusions; no one here is trying to paint a rosy picture of the Syrian regime, we know it has its own agenda against Islamic self-determination in Syria and it should be addressed at the appropriate level. But in the larger scheme of things, the Islamic Republic in Iran has managed to deploy specific Syrian tactics to help with a groundswell program that intends to place all their common resources and assets into the up-and-coming fight with the Zionist tormentors of the Holy Land and its original population.

If the leading light and the momentous policies come from Islamic Iran then what is the Saudi Arabian government’s problem with a free trade agreement between Tehran and Damascus? Why are the Saudi national security functionaries so upset with Tehran and Ankara raising their economic ties to higher and unprecedented levels? Why do we sense nervousness in the Saudi financed Arabian media when Islamic Iran declares that it will begin to refine its own petroleum? One would think that the Saudi lords would feel a pinch of ardor and eagerness to do the same; but no, the Saudi officials are downright resentful and begrudging.

The Saudi royalists are hoping against hope that the Euro-American economic measures against certain banks belonging to the Islamic Republic will pay off. But the brave leadership in Iran called upon the people to adopt a “resistance economy”. And when Wall Street and Western economies have been gripped by structural problems such as inflation, unemployment, currency erosions, recessions looming into depressions, the economy in Iran with all its loopholes has weathered these troubled economic times with relative success. According to some sources, when the American economy in the past two years has been in a free-fall the overall economy of the Islamic State has grown by about one-third.

Its economy is strong enough to make Russia think twice before it decides to cancel a $13 billion S-300 missile system deal. If Islamic Iran’s economy were not doing well Russia would not have had second thoughts about canceling that deal, especially when it is prodded to do so by the US on generous terms. Add to this Islamic Iran’s policies that nudged Syria — its strategic ally — to acquire the Yakhnut surface-to-sea advanced missiles. The Israeli leadership tried in vain to persuade the Russians to call the deal off. No success.

Sure, Islamic Iran buys advanced military technology just as the Saudis do; but the difference is that in Islamic Iran there is an advanced military industry that will make buying weapons from foreign sources obsolete in another decade or so; while in American Saudi Arabia the plan for buying foreign military hardware goes on and on and on and may continue for another century if the status quo continues.

Is he who moves along, head beneath, more apt to be guided [the contemporary Saudi establishment] or he who walks composed on a path [head-up] straightforward [the current Islamic government in Iran]?

The total transformation of the Ummah requires more than just political success

by Iqbal Siddiqui July, 2012 The confirmation on June 24 that Muhammad Mursi, the candidate representing the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, had been elected President of Egypt, has a certain air of inevitability. The Ikhwan has been established as the country’s main opposition movement for over half a century, and has been subject to official persecution for most of that time. Only its popularity and credibility among Egypt’s people has enabled it to survive numerous attempts to damage, destroy or marginalise it, and now to emerge stronger than ever before. And it was this same factor which made many of its leaders, activists and supporters confident throughout Egypt’s turbulent recent months that the Ikhwan would emerge in a position of strength once the babble of conflicting voices and messages from politicians and commentators was set aside and the Egyptian people given the opportunity to have their say. The context and implications of the Ikhwan success in Egypt are discussed elsewhere in this issue of Crescent International. The reaction among Islamic activists outside Egypt will probably be one of caution, recognising the significance of the success, but warning also that the challenges of power will be very different from those of opposition, and that numerous forces both within and outside Egypt will be doing their best to ensure that the Ikhwan are unable to fulfil the hopes that the country’s Muslims have for them. Already we have seen, in the few days between the final round of polling and the delayed announcement of the results, Egypt’s ruling generals taking extra powers for themselves specifically to ensure that Mursi’s hands are tied. Some commentators will probably also (and still) doubt the political vision and strategy of the Ikhwan’s leadership, particularly given that Mursi is not one of its established intellectual and political leaders, who were not permitted to take part in the elections. Such scepticism is perhaps understandable, and may yet be vindicated, as Mursi and his supporters face up to the realities of trying to rule Egypt from within the strict limitations imposed by the military establishment, with no doubt the tacit approval of the Western powers who claim to have championed democracy in Egypt. The powers that be in the West must have known that the Ikhwan would emerge in a powerful position in any even vaguely representative political process, as they did even in the pseudo-elections that took place under the Mubarak regime. Their calculation has evidently been that it was no longer practical to try to thwart this reality, and therefore their best bet would be to permit it while ensuring as far as possible that their key interests were protected, even though some element of Islam would have to be accommodated in some spheres of Egyptian public life. The continuing dominance of the military is no doubt a part of the West’s strategy. The new government can also expect to come under intense pressure to ensure that the US’s regional geopolitical interests are not challenged. In return, elements of “moderate Islam” in domestic Egyptian affairs will perhaps be officially tolerated — although still attacked through channels such as the international media, human rights organizations, etc. — in the hope that the Islamic movement will prove less popular in power, however restricted, than they always have in opposition. This strategy reflects a realization on the part of the West that many Muslims, including activists in the broader Islamic movement, still fail to grasp. This is that the objects of the establishment of Islam go far beyond the purely political — the establishment of Islamic states — and so require much more than political power, however achieved. The “total transformation” of Muslim societies represented by Islam (to use a phrase coined by the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui) requires the individual and collective internalization and realization of the Islamic vision and Islamic values at all levels and in every sphere of society. This is impossible without Islamic political institutions and order; Islamic government within an Islamic state is an essential element of this process. But it is not the be all and end all. The achievement of political power is neither an essential prerequisite for beginning this process of transformation, nor proof of its completion or success. Rather it is merely a step in the process, which may be achieved early, providing the Islamic movement with invaluable powers and tools to facilitate and accelerate the broader transformation of society, as has proved to be the case with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, or may in other circumstances come later in the process, as a result of groundwork done in other areas. Either way, it is merely a step on the journey, not an end in itself. The hegemonic West has been forced by the Islamic commitment and aspirations of Muslim peoples to accommodate Islamic parties within their power structures. They hope that Muslim aspirations can be satisfied by Islamic-ish governments within non-Islamic states, thus enabling the Islamic transformation of Muslim societies to be limited to spheres in which the key interests of the hegemonic powers are not threatened. This is the context in which the successes of Islamic parties in countries such as Turkey, Tunisia and now Egypt must be seen. What Muslims must realize is that these successes are just minor steps toward the broader objectives of the Islamic movement. The total transformation of Muslim societies requires progress in many areas and spheres simultaneously, of which the political sphere is only one, albeit an important, even crucial, one. Having achieved a limited degree of power in Egypt, the Ikhwan now faces opportunities, challenges and obstacles very different to anything it has confronted before. Its enemies, and those of Islam more broadly, will hope that they will be able to cripple it and in the process do immeasurable damage to the broader Islamic movement. While supporting our brothers and sisters in Egypt as best we can, not least by reminding them of their responsibilities and warning them of the dangers they face, we must also maintain the broader perspective, in order that the historic vision, aspirations and progress of the Islamic movement is not limited to the merely political and cannot be damaged by the short-term vicissitudes of current affairs.

Iran’s principled stand vindicated in nuclear talks

Thirty-three years of valiant resistance and perseverance of the Islamic Republic

Abu Dharr


Thirty-three years ago this month the world was witness to the fall of a Shah and the rise of an Imam. The Shah was Persian by culture, American by loyalty. The Imam was Persian by culture, Islamic by persuasion. The Muslims of the world along with the imperialist victims of the world rejoiced at this turn of events. Ever since that time Uncle Sam and his nephew Cohen have been playing their cards against the Imam and the Revolution. How valiant and patient the sons and daughters of that revolution have been throughout all these years! Had all the forms of warfare and conspiracies and out-and-out lies been leveled against another revolution, it would have been on its knees by now.

Today, the Islamic Revolution in Iran is standing tall. It has developed its skills, advanced its technology, and extended its infrastructure to a degree that has finally brought the imperialist-Zionist club of nations out into the open in their war preparations, which are being set in motion as this article goes to press. The spreadsheets in the US and Europe inform us that there are 15,000 US combat ready troops in a slaphappy Kuwait: at least two army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit. The Pentagon has two aircraft carriers prowling regional waters: the USS Carl Vinson and the USS John Stennis. There are reports of a third aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln steaming toward the Persian Gulf, as of this writing. These and their strike groups are sharking their routes between their home base and the Persian Gulf.

The hot line between Washington and Tel Aviv is sizzling with blood-and-guts coordination plans. The word is out that the twin cities of Washington and Tel Aviv are gunning for Iran. Not to be left out of this imperialist-Islamic buildup of tension and threats the Qatari collaborator Sheikh Hamad Aal Thani (the Qatari Foreign Minister) and the Saudi sycophant Sa‘ud al-Faisal (the Saudi Foreign Minister) were in Washington last month listening to President Barack Obama and probably signing on to any future outbreak of hostilities. Their conversations remain a tightly guarded secret. Thanks to you, Islamic Iran, for showing the rest of the world who these toady officials in Arabia are and to whom they owe their allegiance.

Then we had, during this past month, the British Prime Minister David Cameron flying into Arabia to sell handsome amounts of weapons to the scared-to-death Saudi rulers. He held talks with King ‘Abdullah and his Crown Prince Nayef. This war scenario which comes to us from Washington and Tel Aviv is exactly what the military-industrial-banking complex needs. Thank you, Islamic Iran, for blowing the Islamic camouflage off the Anglo-American sheikhs in Arabia — and beyond.

You, the sons and daughters of the Revolution, with your dedication and tireless efforts have built your own state. You are showing the rest of us the way. It is your devotion to Islam as it was meant to be that is causing cracks in the Yahudi-Yankee edifice. Not all is rosy and peachy between the Israeli Knesset and the US Congress. The US budget has been bleeding for the better part of the past 33 years of the Islamic Revolution. The US Congress realizes that the America now owes more than it makes in a given year. And the hatchet men are out to chop off financial appropriations that are non-essential: there are plans for sequestration. This means that dollar-addicted Israel will have to be put on notice that it cannot expect to receive the generous amounts of cash infusions that it is addicted to. And this is resulting in a flare-up of behind-the-scenes tension between an America that no longer can supply and an Israel that needs more and more.

Little does the public eye notice that Israel is leading the charge, and the US is being pricked into combat position, a situation it is not ready for after its battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. The relationship between Yahudi-firsters in Washington and the Bible supremacists in Tel Aviv must be on thin ice when we hear that both sides called off “Austere Challenge 12” which was supposed to have been the largest war exercise ever between the US and Israel. Thank you, the persevering sons and daughters of the Islamic Revolution, for having shown us (those of us whose eyes are open) how flimsy and vulnerable the relationship is between the chicken hawks in Washington and their roosters in Tel Aviv.


People without prejudice — Muslims and non-Muslims — have watched your revolution grow from infancy into manhood. These people saw how the imperialists and Zionists targeted, via their agents, the scholars of Islam Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahhari, Ayatullah Seyyed Muhammad Hussein Beheshti, Ayatullah Ashraf Isfahani, Ayatullah Dastagheib, and many other great scholars of Islam were assassinated by “Persian” fifth-columnists. Yet the Revolution survived. Next, Iran’s soldiers became the target of the same enemies. And after eight long and bloody years and after hundreds of thousands of martyrs the Islamic Revolution survived. Now, the same enemies are targeting the scientists. You, the sons and daughters in your principled defense of the Islamic Revolution, exposed the cowards and showed us how they fight. When they lose at the battlefield they turn to assassinations and random killings.

The historical Islamic Revolution demonstrated to us the lengths to which the Zionists and imperialists will go to “frame” and “entrap” Muslims to justify a worldwide war that they say may continue for over a hundred years (a Freudian slip of the tongue that the Islamic Revolution may be around for a hundred years or more). You, the class of shuhada’, enlightened us as to the depth of hate and the visceral hatred that lurks in the bosoms of Euro-American-Israeli officials who cannot tolerate an independent Islamic state acquiring peaceful nuclear technology, when they themselves say that it is the right of all states.

You, the leaders of the Islamic State under the guidance of Imams Khomeini and Khamane’i, have stimulated our thoughts as to the real nature of our enemies and the enemies of oppressed people in the world. You educated us in these 33 years about enemies who hide behind a gloss of civilization but in their hearts they are anything but civilized. These enemies, as we all celebrate these bittersweet 33 years of revolution, may very well be planning a mass casualty attack of some sort against innocent people that will be blamed on Muslims.

They may even be thinking about some type of cyber-attack that may paralyze some society’s infrastructure in a way that is equivalent to a natural catastrophe or national emergency. They may be planning some type of disruption in the energy sector of the producers and consumers of petroleum. Their own man-made economies are teetering on the brink in Europe and in America. They are very adept at triggering a trans-Atlantic crisis that the world itself will suffer from.

You the leaders, the martyrs, the scholars, the soldiers, the scientists, and the devotees of Islam, have changed the geopolitical landscape of the world; whether you know it or not. You snatched the masks off the faces of political hypocrites and removed the gloves off the hands of financial thieves exposing their finger prints on crimes. And at the end of this line we and all the world can see how civilized these shayateen are: they urinate on dead Muslim bodies, they desecrate the Qur’an, they ridicule the Prophet (pbuh), they sexually assault the innocent, they commit every crime in the Book and none of our rulers from the filthy rich of Arabia to the dirt poor of Africa are able to speak truth to power the way you have done in Islamic Iran.

In all these years, an unspoken question lies deep down inside every astute Muslim, and that question is: will the imperialist US or Zionist Israel attack Islamic Iran? You have been answering that question for 33 years. And your answer in Allah’s (swt) words is:


They [the committed Muslims] were told: ‘But everyone is against you, be heedful of the danger’. And this [scenario] boosted their faith and commitment; and they [the committed Muslims] answered back: Suffice it that Allah is on our side, and He is the best confidant (3:173).


Pull quotes:
Today, the Islamic Revolution in Iran is standing tall… You, the sons and daughters of the Revolution, with your dedication and tireless efforts have built your own state. You are showing the rest of us the way. It is your devotion to Islam as it was meant to be that is causing cracks in the Yahudi-Yankee edifice… Not all is rosy and peachy between the Israeli Knesset and the US Congress.