Unforgivable Saudi crimes

by Zafar Bangash August, 2013 The House of Saud continues to cause immense damage to the Ummah. Their wrath is especially reserved for women and expatriate workers. They do not want women to be seen, only used by lecherous Saudi men. The worldwide Muslim Ummah faces a serious dilemma vis-à-vis the Saudi rulers. They have been in occupation of the Arabian Peninsula since 1932 when they invaded the Hijaz with the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah and declared their desert kingdom. While claiming to be governed by the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the noble Messenger (pbuh), the fact that they call themselves a kingdom ruled by a king goes against the basic tenets of Islam and the teachings of the Qur’an. The noble Messenger (pbuh) and his illustrious successors never called themselves kings or princes. Nor did they allow hereditary rule as is imposed in “Saudi” Arabia. This is one, albeit major, problem. The other is the wholesale destruction of the historical sites of Islam under the guise of expansion of the Haramayn (Makkah and Madinah) as well as modernization to make room for the ever-growing number of pilgrims. Muslims worldwide look at this vandalism in stunned silence and appear helpless to prevent such destruction. Is it necessary to build five-star hotels or open McDonald’s restaurants and Starbucks coffee shops by demolishing the home of Khadijah (ra), the noble Messenger’s (pbuh) beloved wife and companion for 25 years, and the house of his friend Abu Bakr Siddiq (ra)? Entire mountains are being wiped out to make way for steel and concrete monstrosities called modern buildings. On what authority do the Saudis indulge in such vandalism? There is also another aspect of the Saudi conduct inherited from their bedouin tradition that has nothing to do with Islam: the total control of women to the point of locking them out of life altogether. Women must be covered head to toe, must be accompanied by a male guardian if they wish to go outside the home and they cannot drive cars. Saudi court preachers argue that if they were allowed to drive, it would encourage promiscuity. Perhaps the Muslim women that drive cars elsewhere in the Muslim world are all promiscuous! Are Saudi men really all that pious?

In 2010, a Saudi preacher came up with a ludicrous solution to the dilemma of women not driving. Obviously they must be driven by a male relative. Often, such a relative is not available (Saudi men are bone lazy and do little or no work). Most Saudi families have chauffers; these are all expatriate men. Since they are not related to women they are required to drive, a Saudi preacher suggested that if the dirver were to drink the breast milk of the woman, he would become like her son (what if the woman is not married?). This raised questions about the method of consuming such milk: through the bottle or straight from the source! One female Saudi commentator wrote: instead of going into such convoluted arguments, why not allow the women to drive? Saudi women, more than half the population, constitute only 17% of the workforce. According to the 2009 Global Gender Gap Report, Saudi Arabia ranks below such other Muslim countries as Kyrgyzstan, Gambia and Indonesia. Activist Wajeha al-Huwaider compares the condition of Saudi women to slavery. If a widowed woman wishes to remarry, she must seek the permission of her son! Saudi preachers have also made other idiotic suggestions like ziwaj al-misyar (marriage while traveling). What this means is that a man can take a temporary wife because he is away from home. The “temporary wife” has no rights afforded to a wife in a normal marriage contract. She stays at her parents’ house and is visited by the “temporary husband” at his convenience. This practice has become quite common in Saudi Arabia where men take additional wives without telling their “regular” wives (most Saudi men have more than one wife, often three or four; the founder of the Saudi kingdom, Abdulaziz ibn Saud had 23 wives from whom he sired 37 children!). Since “temporary wives” stay at their parents’ homes, this saves the man embarrassment in front of his “regular” wives. The fatwas dished out by Saudi court preachers are meant to keep women under control and give men a license to indulge in every obnoxious behavior. Can the Muslim Ummah remain silent or indifferent in the face of such crimes committed in the name of Islam?

Egypt-and-Iran-why-different-outcomes

by Zafar Bangash August, 2013 In Egypt the Ikhwan failed within one year while in Iran, the Islamic movement has established a government that is still in place and going strong. Why? The Ikhwan made the mistake of working within the system while Imam Khomeini understood that the existing system had to be demolished. Egypt and Iran are two very important countries. Developments in either affect the entire region. Consider the military coup against the elected president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi. Despite his faults — and there were many — the manner in which the US-Zionist-aligned military overthrew Mursi’s government raises serious concerns among Muslims and even non-Muslims that believe in respecting people’s rights and how power is exercised. The July 3rd military coup has taken Egypt back to square one. In fact, the old jahili system was never abolished. The ouster of former dictator Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 was merely cosmetic since remnants of the old regime remained fully entrenched in all major institutions: the military, police, interior ministry and the judiciary, to name a few. These remnants had the full backing of the business class, which had been the principal beneficiary of the old system.

In this column we repeatedly questioned the Ikhwan’s wisdom of operating within the old system. It was also unrealistic to assume that just because the Freedom and Justice Party, political wing of the Ikhwan, won the election that it would be allowed to implement its policies freely. Mursi and by extension the Ikhwan’s approach was flawed on many counts — not the least of which was to work within the old system. No luxury class in any society has ever given up its privileges voluntarily. These have to be taken away, by force if necessary, to ensure fairness and justice in society.

Let us compare this with Iran. On August 4, Dr. Hassan Rohani will be sworn in as president of Iran after his victory in the June 14 elections. Unlike Egypt, there is no threat of a military coup against Dr. Rohani, despite the fact that Iran’s military is arguably stronger than Egypt’s. How has Iran become coup-proof while Egypt like almost every other Muslim country suffers at the hands of the military?

The Islamic movement in Iran led by Imam Khomeini clearly understood the nature of the imposed order in society. The Imam was absolutely clear: the Shah and all the institutions he had built were illegitimate and had to be uprooted. Nor did the Imam overlook the fact that such measures would arouse the wrath of the imperialist powers that would attempt to undermine the Islamic Revolution and the fledgling Islamic State. Thus, the masses had to be prepared for the long hard struggle ahead, as the Prophet (pbuh) had done in Makkah and Madinah. The Imam purged the military of the corrupt top brass and put them on trial for crimes against the Iranian people. Concurrently, the Sepah was established as a revolutionary force that prevented the military from carrying out a coup. Iran’s military was deployed to its primary function: defence of the borders, not to lord over people’s representatives.

In Egypt on the other hand, the Ikhwan and Mursi assumed that if they played within the existing system and surrendered to US-Zionist interests, they would be allowed to complete their term in office. The haste with which the military overthrew Mursi surprised even seasoned observers. It was assumed that the military would allow sufficient time for Mursi to fail — he was set up to fail by the entrenched old guard — and people would automatically turn against him. This would have happened had he been given enough time but it seems Egypt’s imperialist and Zionist masters got impatient and decided to strike.

This brings us to the question of clarity of thought in the Islamic movement. Most leaders of Islamic movements fail to analyze the socio-economic and political order in society properly. They assume that there is nothing wrong with the prevailing system; and all that is needed is for good, honest men to run it more efficiently. Events in Egypt have once again exposed the fallacy of such thinking and the price the Ikhwan have had to pay. This scenario will no doubt repeat itself in every Muslim society where such faulty thinking prevails. True leadership sets a directional course, and inspires and guides people toward achieving it. When the collective energies of even a small number of ordinary people are harnessed for the achievement of a pre-set goal, the results are often spectacular. This is what the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh) teaches us. When even highly qualified people fail to take account of these simple facts, they end up paying a heavy price. This explains why the Ikhwan have failed in Egypt and why the Islamic movement succeeded in Iran. If Muslims care to reflect, they would easily understand this basic point. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

The Ummah’s tragedy: ‘Court Ulama’ | AhlulBayt Islamic Mission (AIM)

The Ummah’s tragedy: ‘Court Ulama’ | AhlulBayt Islamic Mission (AIM)

Syria in the US-Saudi-Israeli prism

by Zafar Bangash Events in Syria are not entirely based on domestic factors. There are three other conflicts underway that are all being played out through the struggle in Syria. No conflict in any society anywhere in the world is entirely due to internal factors. There are always external players that exploit internal divisions to advance their own agendas. This is even more so in Syria that lies at the confluence of numerous political fault lines and where the interests of many powers collide. While at a superficial level, it can be said that the Syrian people were motivated by the same desire as people elsewhere in the Muslim East — Tunisia, Egypt et al. — to seek freedom and have a greater say in governance, it would be wrong to assume that this was entirely a domestically inspired movement. Enough evidence exists, courtesy of Syrian opposition sources, to confirm that the plot was hatched outside Syria, to wit, in Paris under the auspices of the Americans, Israelis and Saudis in February 2011. Events in Syria must be understood against the backdrop of three other conflicts: the Israeli-Saudi struggle against Iran for regional influence; US-Russian power struggle for regional domination, and the US-Iran struggle for ideological influence. In all three arenas, the US and its allies have suffered setbacks. Turkey and Qatar have also joined the US-Saudi-Israeli nexus against Syria, and by extension Iran. The Syrian opposition’s offer of talks with Damascus, albeit with caveats, is proof that some of them have understood the regional dynamics. They have come to realize who wields the most power and influence in the region. It is not Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Ankara or Washington; it is Tehran. And Islamic Iran can be relied upon to play the role of honest broker, unlike the duplicitous Americans and devious Saudis. The plot to weaken the resistance front against Zionist Israel has ended up weakening the gang of conspirators and the setback they have suffered in Syria will unravel their other devilish plots as well. Let us start with Russia’s role in the Syrian crisis. By refusing to cede control of Syria that would have turned the Mediterranean into an American lake, Moscow served notice that there will be no repeat of the Libya scenario. Both Russia and China felt betrayed by the manner in which a UN no-fly zone resolution on Libya was turned into a shooting rampage decimating Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s forces and infrastructure. Once the US-NATO war was unleashed, there was little that Moscow or Beijing could do to stop it. Unlike Libya however, Syria is of great interest to Russia. There is a 40-year long relationship; Syria is the biggest importer of Russian arms in the region and there is a Russian naval base at Tartus. Russia had too much to lose and it refused to roll over at the UN leading to the use of three vetoes against US-sponsored resolutions that would have authorized a NATO attack on Syria. China, too, sided with Russia. Next came the US-Saudi-Israeli nexus that wanted to cut an important arm of the resistance front against Zionist Israel. For its own reasons that we need not go into here, Syria has been an important pillar of the resistance front. Without its cooperation, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad could not have been helped to maintain their resistance against Zionist aggression. Turkey and Qatar joined this axis for their own reasons. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan fancies himself as the “new leader” of the Muslim world and the Turkish model as an example for other Muslim countries to emulate. Both the US and Israel have also been peddling this line. Tiny Qatar has, by getting so deeply involved in the Syrian crisis, projected itself on the world stage but it is likely to come up against the harsh reality of global politics and its bubble will be punctured sooner rather than later.

Turkey has run into serious problems domestically as well as regionally with its Syria policy and in recent weeks, it has become more circumspect in its pronouncements about Syria. The strident demands from Ankara for Bashar al-Asad to resign have been toned down. In fact, the ruling party is facing stiff resistance not only from other opposition parties in Turkey but also from the Turkish people that see the government’s Syria policy as a failure bordering on the disastrous. Zionist Israel’s animosity toward the Islamic Republic is well known. It has made no secret of its evil intentions toward Tehran and to strike it if it could. The Zionists, however, know that any such misadventure would result in serious blowback for which even these arrogant aliens in the Holy Land are not prepared. Thus, they joined the conspiracy to undermine and overthrow the Asad regime so that Iran would lose an important regional ally. The Zionists tried their hand first against Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2006 and were soundly defeated. Then they went after the softer target of Hamas in Gaza in December 2008–January 2009, and again they were unsuccessful. Their latest foray into Gaza last November also ended in failure. In fact, it exposed them to Hamas and Islamic Jihad rocket attacks that for the first time reached Tel Aviv. Should the Zionists make another mistake, more sophisticated rockets will be used in the next go around. If the Zionists are unable to defeat Hamas in a vulnerable enclave like Gaza, what chance do they have against Iran’s dedicated Revolutionary Guards that will make minced meat of the pleasure-loving Zionists. That brings us to the tribal-ruled Saudi Arabia, the perennial troublemakers of the Muslim world. Prior to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Saudis had donned the mantle of leaders of the Muslim Ummah, at least in matters religious. The fact that the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah were in Saudi Arabia added to their aura although they had nothing to do with it. The Islamic Revolution in Iran exposed their fraudulent Islamic credentials. Initially, the Saudis went along with the rest of the Ummah in “welcoming” the Islamic Revolution but their true intentions were soon exposed in two developments: support for Iraq’s attack on Iran in September 1980 and soon thereafter the creation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), bringing together the tribal sheikhdoms on the western shores of the Persian Gulf. Some dubbed the GCC as the Gulf Conspiracy Council. The Saudis have also chafed at the fact that Iraq, far from falling under the US umbrella despite being liberated from the clutches of Saddam Husain has become an ally of Iran. This has undermined Saudi influence even further hence their full throttled spouting of anti-Shi‘i venom and the murderous campaign of suicide and car bombings in places like Syria, Iraq and Pakistan. Saudi financing of terrorist operations in Syria is part of their effort to undermine al-Asad and by extension Iran. They have also dropped their mask and become open allies of Zionist Israel. They were always subservient to the US but their open alliance with the Zionists to oppose Islamic Iran has exposed them even more.

Let us finally consider the US-Iran struggle for ideological influence in the region. Behind all these moves in the region — whether in Syria, the Zionist regime’s wars against Hizbullah and Hamas or US attacks on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) — was the intended Western-Israeli attack on Islamic Iran. We must consider why the US is so obsessed with Islamic Iran. There are two reasons behind this. First, Islamic Iran is the only legitimate government in the region and is implacably opposed to the Zionist regime in occupied Palestine. Both the US and Israel know that the Arabian regimes were never serious in their opposition to Zionism. Their rhetoric was meant to camouflage their impotence and to hoodwink their own populations into believing that they were serious about liberating Palestine. Only Islamic Iran is serious and since the Zionists control the US, Washington’s rulers have been led by the nose to undermine Islamic Iran for the sake of Zionist Israel.

Iran’s real “sin” is that it has challenged the global order that was crafted by the victors of the Second World War. Iran has broken out of that stranglehold and refuses to abide by US or Israeli demands. Both Washington and Tel Aviv know that this poses a serious challenge to their exploitative policies because if allowed to succeed, it would influence the thinking of other people as well — both Muslim and non-Muslim — and help them launch campaigns to free themselves from the yoke of US imperialism. For more than 30 years, the US has been involved in a relentless campaign to undermine Islamic Iran through sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, wars and every kind of other illegal means. Despite all these pressures, Islamic Iran has stood its ground and not compromised on its principles. Instead, all these challenges have strengthened its resolve and given it more self-confidence. The US can clearly see that as a consequence of Iran’s successful experiment, increasing numbers of Muslims have turned to Islam to find solutions to their problems. The US attempt to destabilize the Asad regime — admittedly not democratically elected but one that is not without some degree of internal support either — is part of the ongoing campaign to destroy the Islamic Republic. Washington’s warlords have repeatedly suffered defeats in their nefarious plans and their conspiracy in Syria is also coming to naught. Unlike previous wars, the Afghan and Iraq wars have bankrupted America. Both US President Barack Obama and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have admitted that war is not an option for the US in Syria. This is quite an admission from an arrogant self-proclaimed superpower that was used to getting its away in the world. In the ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of people, the US and its allies have lost. There is a new world order in the making that is centered around Tehran. Muslims everywhere would do well to understand this reality and adjust their thinking accordingly. As Allah says in His noble Book, “O you who are securely committed to Allah, if you help the cause of Allah, He will give you victory and fortify your [advancing] resolve.” (47:07). What better deal do Muslims want from the Creator and Sustainer of all the worlds? March, 2013

Consequences of Qardhawi seditious stances

Head of the so-called Union of Muslim Ulama in Qatar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qardhawi has launched a new wave of Iranophobia and Shiaphobia.

While demanding the Sunni youths to be dispatched to Syria to fight on the side of the opposition, Qardhawi claimed that the Iranians intend to kill the Sunnis through pre-planning. The Egyptian Qardhawi residing in Qatar used an insulting language against the leader of the anti-terrorist Lebanese Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and called him the devil Hassan and Hezbollah as the party of the Satan. Meanwhile the Saudi Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Muhammad Al-Sheikh voiced his support for the unfounded and biased remarks of Qardhawi against Lebanese Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Living in Qatar for some years, Sheikh Qardhawi has actually turned into a court mullah who has obtained with the support of Aljazeera TV network a status in political circles and the media. The Fatwas of this extremist mullah are aimed at aggravating differences between the Shiites and Sunnis within the framework of the western governments' policy of Iranophobia and Shiaphobia. Unfortunately Qardhawi has been entrapped by the Zionist regime and western governments to ignite sectarian wars in the Islamic states and strengthen the fake Israeli regime. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the main supporters of the armed groups in Syria who are seeking to overthrow the government of Bashar Assad.

The armed terrorists are fighting the Syrian army within the framework of the policies of the Zionist regime and its western supporters for eliminate Syria from the forefront of resistance against the Zionist regime. Sheikh Qardhawi is one of those who legitimize the measures of terrorists in Syria whereas they are actually destroying the country and the Syrian nation under the pretext of freedom-seeking. Representing the western governments, the extremist armed groups have entered Syria and committed many crimes some of which have been revealed by independent media. Following the failure of terrorist groups in Syria, Qardhawi and the biased and hostile scholars like him are seeking to deceive more youths with their illogical Fatwas and send them to Syria to shed more blood. The Fatwas are in full compliance with the demand of the western states in a manner that Qardhawi has become known as the Sheikh of NATO. He also assured the Zionist regime that the Takfiri groups in Syria pose no threat to the regime.

Leader of the Islamic revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei in his speech on the day of Mab'ath or the ordainment of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA) emphasized on distancing from discord and the necessity of unity among Muslims. Addressing the reciters and memorizers participating in the 30th international Qur’an Competitions, the leader stressed that one of the important commands of the holy Qur’an to Muslims is preservation of unity and solidarity and said: "Any throat or tongue that calls Muslims to unity is a divine throat and any throat that calls on Muslims and Islamic denominations to fight one another is the throat of Satan." Ayatollah Khamenei added: "One of the Qur’anic commands to Muslims is that they should stick to the rope of Allah all together and avoid disunity. In contrast to this command, there is the colonial teach and method whose aim is to create discord among the Islamic Ummah and intensify sectarian prejudices." The leader said that certain Muslim governments have been deceived and are playing in the enemy's ground. He reiterated: "Unity among Muslims is an urgent necessity.” Leader of the Islamic Revolution said that bloodshed, blind terrorism and the resulting tragedies, and creating opportunities for the usurper Zionist regime are among the consequences of discord among the Islamic Ummah. He added: "Today is the day of a great test for Muslims and Islamic governments, and Muslim nations should be completely vigilant." Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the wave of Islamophobia and stressed: "The Western enemies have unsheathed their swords against Muslims; so the Islamic Ummah should strengthen the factors that contribute to its internal power and capabilities. One of the most important factors in this regard is unity, solidarity and concentration on commonalities." The seditious statements of Qardhawi have widely echoes among Islamic states. The Friday leader of holy Najjaf Seyyed Sadreddin Qabanchi said that instead of inviting Muslims to unity Qardhawi invites them to sedition and his remarks are unacceptable in Islam. The United Ulama Council of Greater Syria in a statement declared as null and voids the so-called Fatwa issued by the controversial Qardhawi sanctioning the killing of fellow Muslims. The council added that Qardhawi’s instigation for bloodshed in Syria is far from the principles of religion, Hadith and practice of the holy Prophet of Islam. The statement declared that the conduct of Qardhawi as the head of the International Muslim Union has questioned the union's credibility. The Algerian daily Al-Watan severely criticized the stances of Qardhawi and wrote: "Sheikh Qardhawi who has several times released Fatwas on the Arab revolutions has no religious sanctity to us anymore, for; he has impudently abused his religious status in the service of Qatari regime's diplomacy.” The Algerian newspaper seriously criticized Qardhawi for his resort to provocative Fatwas aimed at creating sedition in the Arab states. Al-Watan added: "The peace birds which Qardhawi was supposed to lay on the ground flew up and instead of them eagles of war landed.” Regarding Qardhawi’s role in the Syrian crisis, the Algerian daily writes: "The forces of Al-Nusra front who fight the Syrian army always laud the provocative role of Qardhawi.” The British Daily Telegraph in a report on the biased and seditious remarks of Qardhawi wrote: "By inviting the Sunnis for war against the Alavis and Shiites in Syria, Qardhawi showed that he is seeking to intensify religious tensions all over the Middle East.” These are just part of reactions to the seditious remarks of the Egyptian Sheikh who considers permissible the killing of women and children for being Alavi. But are these hostile Fatwas compatible to the Islamic teachings? Which part of the holy Qur’an and the holy Prophet’s practice and behavior says that if a group does not think like us they should be killed? In his entire life the holy Prophet respected the life of those who lived under Muslim conquest but did not embrace Islam as long as they did not resort to arms. The Islamic ruler was mandated to preserve their life just as the life of Muslims. Which Qur’anic ayahs allow Qardhawi to dub the Alavis as worse than the Jews and Christians and shedding their blood Halal? What Qardhawi says about Iran and Shiites is unfounded and results from his hostility towards Shiites. Before becoming an anti-Shiite Sheikh he attended the assembly for proximity of Islamic schools and praised the Lebanese Hezbollah and the status of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah in countering the Zionist regime. The reality is that differences among Islamic denominations do not cause discord and separation. The Assembly for proximity of Islamic schools was shaped on this idea, for; there are far more commonalities among various religious factions rather than differences. Qardhawi and the Wahabbi mullahs who consider discord among Muslims as their goal are well aware of this point. Therefore they try to introduce the Shiite ideas improperly to the Islamic communities and by distorting the Shiite books they inculcate the lie that the Shiites have no faith in the holy Qur’an. Just like the western regimes portray Islam as promoter and spreader of violence, Qardhawi and the Wahabbis try to create a negative picture of the Shiites. With this propaganda, they want with the aid of Saudi and Qatari rulers to distract attentions from the realities in the Islamic world and push forward their objectives. The objectives that the western governments pursue in the Islamic lands especially in the Middle East are implemented by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and confirmed by Qardhawi.

The Ummah’s tragedy: court ulama

by Zafar Bangash July, 2013 The ulama are supposed to be inheritors of the Prophets but only if they adhere to the divine commands. When they fall for worldly temptations, they become a curse. This is what appears to have happened to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a well-known alim, who has now joined the hate-spewing Saudis in spreading sectarianism. ‘Ulama are supposed to be successors to the Prophets (Å). Since no more prophets will come to guide humanity, the role of the ‘ulama has assumed great importance. If they adhere to the Qur’an and the Sunnah, they are a blessing for the Ummah; should they fall for temptations of the dunya, they become a curse. Who is unaware of the Pakistani politician Fazlur Rahman, a Deobandi maulana, whose antics and corruption are legendry? They have caused havoc in Pakistan. But in the hierarchy of ‘ulama, Fazlur Rahman is a minor figure. Much more serious is the role of figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian ‘alim who has a television program on the Qatari-owned al-Jazeera with a following of some 60 million people worldwide. At a rally in Doha, Qatar on June 1, Shaykh al-Qaradawi called upon “Sunni” Muslims from around the Muslim East to go to Syria and fight against Hizbullah, which had joined the battle for Qusayr in support of Syrian government forces. Al-Qaradawi alleged that “the Shi‘is [meaning Iran and Hizbullah] wanted to exterminate the Sunnis.” He went on to denounce Hizbullah as the “Party of Shaytan [Satan].” Not surprisingly, the Saudi Grand Mufti, Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Aal al-Shaykh welcomed al-Qaradawi’s call since Saudi Arabia is in the forefront of fomenting sectarianism in the Ummah. This is the only game they know and since the Saudi rulers and court ‘ulama cannot justify on the basis of Islamic principles their illegitimate rule over the Arabian Peninsula, they want to entangle Muslims in disputes that dissipate their mental and physical energies. One is constrained to ask, when did the Saudis or Shaykh al-Qaradawi ever call upon Muslims in the Muslim East or anywhere else to go to Occupied Palestine to help liberate their Palestinian brothers and sisters from decades of Zionist oppression and occupation? Iran, Hizbullah and Bashar al-Asad’s government are the only players that have confronted US-Zionist hegemony in the region. While every Muslim, indeed every human being that cares for human rights and dignity must support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, the issue is no longer about the rights of the Syrian people. Thousands of mercenaries from neighbouring countries backed and armed by the Saudi, Qatari, Jordanian, Turkish, American and Zionist regimes have flooded into Syria to advance the imperialist-Zionist Anglo-Wahhabi agenda. Their aim is to undermine the resistance front against imperialist-Zionist hegemony. When their direct military assault failed, they unleashed sectarianism to divide Muslims in a conflict that has already claimed thousands of lives in Syria. Shaykh al-Qaradawi has lent his considerable weight to this perfidious campaign. As Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World, Malaysia, wrote, “He was among the earliest public figures to endorse NATO’s airstrikes over Libya. In the middle of last year he even opined that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came back today, he would support NATO. This earned him the derisive moniker ‘NATO Mufti’ among some Arab commentators.” Imagine a noted Muslim scholar maligning the noble Messenger (pbuh) in this manner! Contrast this with the joint appeal by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamed and former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in May calling for an end to sectarian fighting and killings.

Regrettably, Muslim history is replete with examples of some scholars standing against injustice while others endorse it. Soon after the Khilafah was subverted into monarchy, the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid rulers punished those scholars — Imams Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi‘i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal — who refused to endorse their illegitimate rule, but those who went along with the corruption were richly rewarded with worldly goods and positions (read that: hush money). Shaykh al-Qaradawi and many in the Arabian Peninsula have also succumbed to the lure of political partronage from those who prefer to make tawaf around the White House instead of the Ka‘bah. Living in palatial homes lined with carpets and plush sofas and a bevy of servants at their call, these scholars have forgotten the Islamic duty of al-amr bi-al-ma‘ruf wa-al-nahy ‘an al-munkar. Instead, they are actively promoting munkar. Neither the Saudi nor Qatari rulers are legitimate; they have usurped power and authority in rebellion against Allah’s (swt) commands and are subservient to the power of global kufr. It is their shameless and treacherous behavior, and not the level of Islamic scholarship, that ought to determine how obedient ordinary Muslims should be to the errant recommendations of scholars who have never acquired a level of comfort with cogently analyzing things that matter. Muslims have paid a terrible price for such faulty thinking in the past and cannot afford any more disasters. Instigating hatred among Muslims to advance the illegitimate rulers’ agenda is not only shortsighted, it is also mean spirited and ultimately disastrous for the Ummah. The blood of innocent Muslims will be as much on the hands of these scholars as it is on those who pull the trigger. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Intensifying the proxy war in Syria

by Zafar Bangash July, 2013 With the takfiri mercenaries suffering repeated military defeats in recent weeks (they never had any mass support), they and their foreign sponsors have resorted to the most vicious form of sectarian hatred in Syria. With rebel forces on the run in the 27-month long proxy war in Syria, their foreign sponsors have panicked. Led by the US and aided and abetted by Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey, the so-called Friends of Syria met in Doha, Qatar on June 22 and pledged more weapons to the rebels. While US Secretary of State John Kerry said they still preferred a political solution to the conflict, their decision to supply more lethal weapons would hardly advance the cause of peace. American officials, however, have always spoken from both sides of their mouth and it is no different in the case of Syria. Only a few weeks earlier, Kerry had urged Russia to convene another conference in Geneva to work out a negotiated settlement to the Syrian conflict. What happens to Geneva-II after Doha? American and British commandos have been training Syrian rebels in Jordan where large stockpiles of weapons are stored for possible use against the Syrian army. Under the guise of conducting military exercises, the real purpose was, and has been for quite some time to train the mercenaries so that they are better able to fight. In recent weeks, the Syrian army has made major gains especially in the strategic town of al-Qusayr with the help of Hizbullah fighters. Located near the Lebanese border, the town has great strategic importance since most of the weapons and mercenaries from Lebanon transited through al-Qusayr. After two weeks of intense fighting, the rebels fled. They had occupied the town for nearly two years destroying it completely. The Syrian army is now closing in on Aleppo to flush the mercenaries from there. The foreign sponsors of the mercenaries see their plans for turning Syria into an imperialist-Zionist outpost unraveling, hence the hurried meeting in Doha.

Nothing demoralizes fighters more than successive defeats. Since they do not enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people — this was evident from the first day the mayhem was unleashed in March 2011 in a non-descript town like Dar‘a rather than any major city — they are now resorting to more brutal tactics. These are signs of desperation. If people do not join them, their policy is to torture and kill them. Car-bombings, killing leading religious figures like the 84-year-old Shaykh Sa‘id al-Buti in the masjid together with scores of worshippers as well as publicly beheading supporters of President Bashar al-Asad, are standard rebel tactics. They have now turned to cannibalism. By ripping open the body of a dead Syrian soldier and chewing his organs, Abu Sakkar, a well-known rebel commander has shown the rebels’ true face. The video was aired on a rebel website with vows to continue. Such barbarism was witnessed in the Battle of Uhud when Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan ripped open the body of Hamzah (ra) and chewed his liver in a fit of rage. Muslims then and Muslims now condemn such acts of barbarism and the desecration of dead bodies. Such acts have nothing to do with Islam or its values; this is a return to the days of jahiliyah. This is not the only act of sacrilege perpetrated by the rebels. They slit the throats of children of their opponents and even descecrated the grave of Hujr ibn ‘Adi (ra), a well-known companion of the Prophet (pbuh) who was killed by the Umayyad king, Mu‘awiyah. According to reports, Hujr’s (ra) body was still intact after nearly 1,400 years. He was executed on the orders of Mu‘awiyah because he (Hujr) had objected to the vilification of Imam Ali (a) and Ahl al-Bayt from the minbar. This was a policy instituted by Mu‘awiyah because of his hatred of the family of the noble Messenger (pbuh). Muslims that go berserk and believe it is justifiable to kill fellow Muslims because they criticize some of the Sahabah, have been silent about this sacrilege against the grave and body of a well-known Sahabi. Is it alright to indulge in such behavior if it is perpetrated by people they support? The ongoing mayhem in Syria has exposed a number of players and their true character. First, those leading the so-called Syrian National Council (SNC) have little or no support inside Syria. Most of them reside abroad in five-star hotels or palaces provided by the corrupt Arabian rulers. The regimes supporting rebel fighters who have flooded in from neighboring as well as distant countries, are unrepresentative and tribal dictatorships: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. Those calling themselves republican — Turkey, Egypt, etc. — are subservient to the US. The latest addition is President Mohamed Mursi of Egypt. He has disappointed many people both inside Egypt as well as outside by the manner in which he has surrendered to the most oppressive monarchies and to imperialist-Zionist interests. The same goes for Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. He is already facing a blowback; Mursi will not escape that fate either. While we do not hold any brief for Bashar al-Asad and fully support the right of the Syrian people to have their own representative government, the issue in Syria has gone beyond that. It is an imperialist-Zionist project whose principal aim is to undermine the resistance front against Zionist aggression and occupation, and ultimately push for regime change in Iran. From their affiliations and statements, members of the SNC have exposed themselves as US-Zionist puppets. Those calling for US/NATO intervention should ponder over the plight of Afghanistan, Iraq and especially Libya. Since when has the US or Zionist Israel been friends of the Muslims? What is underway is no longer about the rights of the Syrian people. If the SNC thinks it has mass support in the country, it should participate in next year’s presidential elections and prove it. Destroying Syria to turn it into an imperialist-Zionist outpost will serve the interests of neither the Syrian people, nor of the SNC. Syria is being turned into a hellhole from which only the Israelis will benefit.

Mursi joins the US-zionist-Saudi crusade in Syria

by Ayman Ahmed July, 2013

President Mursi has succumbed to US-Saudi-zionist pressure and joined the crusade in Syria. Since becoming president, he has badly mishandled Egypt’s affairs and with a bankrupt economy, he has embarked on a policy that will have serious repercussions for the country’s future. In recent days, many observers have found Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi’s behavior quite erratic. Whether this is forced upon him by circumstances and/or powers that be or reflect his own thinking is difficult to tell but instead of showing leadership he has succumbed to the forces of darkness that are leading him down a blind alley. His latest antics come amid shrill calls from the US and its Western allies to devise plans to send heavy weapons to the mercenaries in Syria that have already caused havoc in the country. On June 13, President Barack Obama alleged that the Syrian government was guilty of using “chemical weapons” — Obama’s red line — and that he was authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to arrange for arms shipments to the rebels. The same day, a conference of some 70 religious scholars was held in Cairo, Egypt. Was it a coincidence or choreographed to provide an Islamic crutch to what is a Western crusade against another Muslim country? Convened by the International Union of Muslim Scholars, a body headed by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and generously funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it was attended by some 70 court ‘ulama from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf monarchies. These so-called ‘ulama have never had the tawfiq to utter one word of condemnation against Zionist crimes inflicted on the long-suffering Palestinians but they waxed eloquent in support of the Syrian people and the mercenaries fighting there. The conference attendees were shown a crude video, most probably doctored, to highlight “crimes” perpetrated by the Syrian army against the people. Even if true, there is no shortage of crimes being perpetrated by both sides in Syria. Recently a horrible video appeared on YouTube, uploaded by the rebels, in which one of the Saudi-Zionist-American-backed mercenaries ripped open the body of a dead Syrian soldier and chewed upon his liver. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin was so appalled by this that he publicly chastised British Prime Minister David Cameron at a June 16 press conference in London telling him, “Do you want to arm people that eat their enemies’ organs?” Cameron offered the lame excuse, “Not all of them do it.” How many cannibals would it take for the West and their Arabian puppets to stop arming such beasts? The website for Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s organization ran a statement claiming the Cairo meeting was designed to “show the real face of Iran, the Asad regime and Hizbullah,” in reference to the allegation that Islamic Iran and Hizbullah’s backing is keeping Bashar al-Asad’s government in power. There is no proof of Iran’s direct military involvement in Syria although Tehran has made no secret of its political backing for al-Asad as part of the resistance front against Zionist aggression. Hizbullah did support the Syrian army to liberate al-Qusayr in May but that came two years after the mercenaries had occupied the border town and perpetrated terrible crimes against civilians, many of them Lebanese. On the other hand, it is well documented that at least 40,000 mercenaries from 27 countries are operating in Syria. Regimes supporting such mercenaries or allowing them to use their territory to cross into Syria are in clear violation of international law — yes, the one crafted by the West itself that is so often invoked against those that challenge Western hegemony — and thus are perpetrating war crimes. Such violations, however, have not bothered the West’s human rights crusaders because they are determined to overthrow al-Asad even if the mercenaries they are supporting indulge in acts of cannibalism. In fact, such acts advance the West’s long-standing agenda to depict Islam in the most negative light. Barring a few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide have recoiled in horror at such behavior. It reminds them of the barbaric practice of Abu Sufyan’s wife Hind in the Battle of Uhud when she ripped open the body of Hamzah (ra), the Prophet’s uncle, and chewed upon his liver. Are the mercenaries in Syria any better? More crucially, those backing them are following in the footsteps of Abu Jahal, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. Back to the days of jahiliyah!

The Cairo conference and those attending it had a nefarious agenda: to stoke sectarian conflict in the Ummah. They declared the anti-government struggle in Syria as “jihad” and urged “Sunni Muslims” from all over the world to join it. But making such declarations at a conference attended by a mere 70 court ‘ulama including the Shaykh of al-Azhar Ahmed al-Tayeb, who is known to be a decent person, would not get much traction; nor would Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s website help advance the cause of the “jihadi mercenaries.” A more direct approach was deemed necessary to reach a wider audience. The next day, on Jumu‘ah, a direct appeal was made to the masses at salat al-jumu‘ah. Saudi preacher Mohammed al-‘Arify used his guest sermon at a central masjid in Cairo to harangue thousands of worshippers to not only support the mercenaries in Syria but to join them by enlisting in “jihad.” It was al-‘Arify who had earlier issued a call for Muslim girls to join what he referred to as jihad al-munakahah in Syria. What this means is that Muslim girls should go to Syria to service the sexual needs of mercenaries fighting there. Unfortunately some gullible girls from Tunisia and other places have joined what is essentially a prostitution racket to advance the Zionist-imperialist agenda in the region. Worse still, those that call themselves ‘ulama are advocating such conduct. Even Masjid al-Haram, the sacred House of Allah (swt) in Makkah has not been spared. Sheikh Sa‘ud al-Shuraym, using the minbar of Masjid al-Haram on Jumu‘ah urged Muslims to help the Syrian rebels “by all means” possible. He even broke down while making the appeal, whichwas broadcast live on several Arabian TV channels. How many times has any Saudi preacher made an appeal to help the Palestinians, much less shedding tears for them? Muslims struggling for their legitimate rights elsewhere, in Kashmir or Afghanistan, for instance, should not entertain any illusions that a Saudi preacher would ever pray for them much less ask for material help. In the desert kingdom, use of the two sacred masjids — Masjid al-Haram and al-Masjid al-Nabawi — or indeed any other masjid, for political sermons is strictly forbidden. Talking rituals is the order of the day. The House of Saud is terrified lest some independent-minded shaykh might emerge and take its members to task for corruption or lewd behavior. Pre-approved khutbahs are handed to them to deliver from all the masjids in the kingdom. The abuse of the minbar to vilify fellow Muslims revives memories of the dark days of the Umayyad rulers when they instituted the policy of cursing Imam ‘Ali (a) and the Prophet’s (pbuh) family, the Ahl al-Bayt (nastaghfir-allah). After participating in the khutbah crusade, the preachers assembled in Cairo, feasted on rice and lamb, and then rested for a while, as is their wont, before invading the presidential palace to harangue Mursi to join their campaign. Seeing Saudi- and Qatari-backed preachers and smelling riyals, Mursi could not resist the temptation. Egypt is suffering from a severe financial crisis making him vulnerable to petro-dollars and riyals. He succumbs to whoever comes with offers of cash for his cash-strapped country. After his meeting with the preachers on Friday night, Mursi addressed thousands of supporters in a Cairo stadium the following day for a “Free Syria” rally. Some of the religious preachers from the conference were also present. Mursi announced cutting all relations with Damascus. He said Egypt was closing its embassy and withdrawing its Charge d’Affaires from Damascus while he demanded the Syrian ambassador leave Cairo. Mohamed Seif al-Dawla, a former advisor to Mursi recalled that after Israel attacked Syria in May, he had demanded the closure of the Zionist embassy in Cairo. Instead, Mursi has shut down the Syrian embassy! Just over a year earlier, Mursi had announced the formation of a four-member Contact Group to resolve the Syrian crisis peacefully. He had made the appeal at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation meeting in Makkah. He reiterated the same call at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran a couple of weeks later. The quartet, according to Mursi would comprise Egypt, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. With his support base at home shrinking and under US-Saudi-Qatari pressure, Mursi has abandoned his own plan to resolve the Syrian crisis through dialogue. Instead, he has joined the Anglo-Wahhabi-Zionist-imperialist crusade. He even demanded that a no-fly zone be imposed over Syria in the manner of Libya. Russia has made clear it will not support any such move and would veto any resolution presented in the UN Security Council. It is depressing to note that those calling themselves ‘ulama resort to tactics that are bound to deepen existing fissures in the Ummah. Exactly a century ago, the British had injected the poison of nationalism to create divisions between the Ottoman Turks and Arabian chiefs. While these tribal chiefs did not get independence, their betrayal led directly to the implantation of the Zionist entity in Palestine. Today, sectarianism is being promoted in order to safeguard the Zionist entity from the growing awareness in the Ummah, especially the Muslim East. The Arabian chiefs will pay a heavy price for such treachery. In any case, their days are numbered and sooner rather than later, they will be consigned to the dustbin of history where they rightly belong.

Syria, Iraq and the politics of sectarianism

by Zafar Bangash June, 2013

Failure of the western-backed rebels in Syria has resulted in increased sectarian tensions in Iraq from where the bulk of the mercenaries flooded into Syria. Many have returned and sectarianism is the tool used to divide Muslims by playing on their emotions. Recent reports indicate that Syrian government forces are making steady progress against foreign-backed armed groups. Rebel forces have been pushed out of many towns and villages including al-Qusayr, bordering Lebanon, where many Lebanese live. This has forced the Islamic resistance group, Hizbullah to protect civilians from rebel attacks. Hizbullah’s defensive stand has been misrepresented as involvement in the Syrian conflict to shore up the government of Bashar al-Asad. Even if true, this would be perfectly legitimate since Syria is a sovereign country and the government has every right to seek help from whatever quarters it deems necessary to defend itself. Under International Law, supporting rebel groups — whether internal or mercenaries that have flooded into Syria — is illegal. Sending mercenaries into another state constitutes a war crime. This, however, has not deterred countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan to send mercenaries into the country, nor has it deterred the US and its allies from sending in material help. This is one dimension of the problem. Closely related to the Syrian conflict are events in Iraq. As part of the foreign-instigated mayhem in Syria, many mercenaries from Iraq flooded into the country to destabilize it. It was assumed that the government in Damascus would fall in a matter of months if not sooner. They were joined by mercenaries from other countries including many from Europe. If these people had gone to Afghanistan to fight American and NATO occupation forces, they would immediately be denounced as terrorists. In Syria, they are called freedom fighters! Beyond such hypocrisy, the escalating sectarian violence in Iraq is the direct result of successive defeats the rebels have suffered in Syria. Hundreds of mercenaries have gone back to Iraq. If they cannot defeat the government in Syria, then they can resume their dastardly acts in Iraq where sectarian tensions have simmered for several years, thanks to US policy. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has also not handled the situation properly. If it is serious about confronting sectarian violence, then it cannot take sides. If Sunnis are attacked, as their masjids have been, and many innocent people killed in recent weeks, then the government has a responsibility to not only condemn such attacks but to also take immediate steps to apprehend the culprits. The Iraqi government cannot play favourites. If it is not right to attack Shi‘is — as it is not — then it is equally unacceptable to attack Sunnis. The government of Iraq must represent all the people, not just a particular sect. This is also good policy and would increase support for the central government in Baghdad. Sectarianism has become a vicious tool in the hands of those opposed to the reassertion of Islamic self-determination. In fact, it has been deliberately instigated as part of the US-Zionist-Saudi plot to undermine Islamic awakening movements or target those governments they do not like. In the past, nationalism was used but when internal conflict has to be instigated, nationalism is not much help. Sectarianism is a much more powerful tool because it plays on people’s emotions and ignorance. Creating bridges of understanding is a long, painstaking process; destroying such bridges merely requires planting doubts. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are susceptible to being aroused on emotional issues and led to behave in a manner that is completely contrary to the teachings of Islam. Sectarianism was instigated and used by US occupation forces in Iraq. Prior to the US invasion, sectarianism was not a major factor in Iraqi society. Intermarriages were common; 30% of Iraqi couples had intermarried across the sectarian divide. This was perhaps not witnessed in any other Muslim country. Iraq also has some of the most important centres of learning for both Shi‘is and Sunnis. Masjids and great centres belonging to both schools of thought co-exist side by side. If Najaf and Karbala represent the two major cities greatly revered by Shi‘is (no less by Sunnis) because they house the tombs of the great Imams, then there are also centres and masjids where such Sunni-revered personalities as Imam Abu Hanifah and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir Jilani are buried. It was, therefore, natural and to the credit of the people of Iraq to have developed such good understanding between the followers of the two schools. It was a master stroke on the part of the Americans and their Saudi puppets to destroy such understanding by instigating sectarianism in Iraq. The government in Baghdad had to be kept in a state of limbo in order to make it dependent on the US military. When the Iraqis refused to go along and did not agree to the extension of American military presence beyond the December 2011 deadline, it had to be taught a lesson. Sectarianism was the one tool that could be used to destabilize Iraq. There was also another factor: instigating sectarianism helped keep the larger Muslim Ummah that is predominantly Sunni away from Islamic Iran, a predominantly Shi‘i country. In fact, behind all the US-Saudi-Zionist moves lies the plan to keep the rest of the Ummah detached from the influence of Islamic Iran because the latter is viewed as undermining US-Zionist hegemony in the region. The same policy was used to much more deadly effect in Syria. The mayhem there has helped deepen divisions among Muslims through sectarianism, thereby threatening to tear the fabric of the Ummah apart. When we look even 10 years back, there were no such sectarian tensions, at least not on the scale witnessed today. The simple question Muslims must ask is: whose purpose does it serve to instigate sectarian divisions in the Ummah? It certainly does not serve the interests of Muslims. Committed Muslims — ‘ulama, academics, students and activists — must, therefore, strive to address this issue and prevent its poison from spreading. A mere 100 years ago colonial powers had injected the poison of nationalism in the Muslim East to divide it, thereby facilitating the implantation of the Zionist entity in Palestine. Today sectarianism is being used to undermine Islamic self-determination in order to protect the Zionist entity that is on the verge of collapse because of inner contradictions and the rising tide of Islamic self-assertion. Muslims have an obligation not to fall into this trap.

Respecting differences

by Zafar Bangash June, 2013

The tendency among some Muslims to insist that their particular understanding of Islam is the only correct way has caused numerous problems. These are compounded by rigidity leading to unnecessary conflict when Muslims should be tolerant of different approaches. Every Muslim sincerely and consciously commits to the One God — Allah (swt) — the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last and final messenger for all humanity, and the Qur’an as the revealed word of Allah (swt) to guide humanity till eternity. Problems arise in the Muslims’ selective understanding and application of Qur’anic teachings and the role of the noble Messenger (pbuh) in their lives. This is further complicated by some Muslims’ insistence that their particular understanding is the only legitimate way to interpret and implement Islam in real life. When such attitudes harden into fanaticism, it leads to disunity among Muslims and divisions in the Ummah. Many different approaches can be identified but the most serious differences exist among those Muslims that are striving to establish Islamic states in their societies. Is there only one way to achieve this? Often adherents of different approaches seem to think theirs is the only correct way and all others are wrong. Our readers know where we stand. Our position is clear from our writings in this magazine as well as from our other works such as the tafsir of the noble Qur’an by Imam Muhammad al-Asi or the books we have produced on the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). But we also take the position that no matter how strongly we may disagree with other Muslims’ point of view we do not exclude them from the fold of Islam or from adding their views to the larger ferment of Islamic ideas. Denouncing other Muslims as kafirs has regrettably become fashionable among some groups (the takfiris). They go further: based on such denunciation, they think it is permissible to kill the Muslims so identified. Such behavior has no sanction in the Qur’an or the Sunnah and the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). There are a few conditions in which killing others (anyone) is permitted: three of these include engagement on the battlefield, treason, and the murder of an innocent person. In the latter case, the Qur’an stresses forgiveness over revenge. So how did Muslims end up with this strange takfiri ideology that is spreading like a virus in the Ummah? A closely related phenomenon is that of sectarianism. It is used to create hatred against a targeted group of Muslims to justify acts of violence against them — including killing them. Muslims would do well to identify the forces that are pushing them toward sectarian warfare: imperialism and Zionism. True, different sects have always existed among Muslims but their differences never took on the virulent form it has taken on today. Whose interest does it serve for Muslims to fight each other? Let us be blunt: some Muslims that call themselves Sunnis are busy instigating hatred against other Muslims that carry the Shi‘i label. This is most clearly visible in places like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. The launch of this campaign can be traced to the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, a Shi‘i majority country, in 1979. Iran’s success exposed the fraudulent claims of the puppet Arabian regimes to being Islamic. The only way they could undermine Islamic Iran was by playing up the sectarian card. Regrettably, some Sunni ‘ulama including those that have built a reputation for learning have also joined this campaign. Changes in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have led them to describe these as the “Shi‘i project.” When a tyrant like Saddam Husain was in power in Iraq, many of these ‘ulama remained silent. Today, they seem to have fallen for the lure of comfortable living under the patronage of petro-rulers and joined their vicious sectarian game. Instead of urging Muslims to confront imperialism and Zionism and their local agents in the Muslim world, they are busy pushing Muslims into the flames of sectarianism. We have no doubt that committed Muslims will ultimately triumph over the imperialists, Zionists and their munafiq agents in the Muslim world, as promised by Allah (swt) in the noble Qur’an (47:07, 61:13), but before that victory is achieved, Muslims would have paid a terrible price in life and blood. Committed Muslims have an obligation to properly understand the global reality and take the necessary steps to guard against all such schemes aimed at dividing them. Such divisions only serve the agenda of a more and more desperate West, whose policies have failed. Leading Muslim institutions, such as al-Azhar in Egypt, have a responsibility to come out clearly against such attempts at creating divisions and work for social and religious harmony among Muslims. Al-Azhar has a rich history of working to bring Muslims together. The legacy of Shaykh Mahmoud Shaltut needs to be revived and built on. Now is the time to do it. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Imam Khomeini: the battle for hearts and minds

by Afeef Khan June, 2013

One of the essential pre-requisites for leadership is to set a directional course and motivate people to follow it. This is what Imam Khomeini (ra) achieved and brought about the Islamic revolution in Iran. Imam Khomeini won the battle for Muslim hearts and minds. America and the Zionists lost. He feared Allah (swt) and had no fear of presidents, princes, shahs, and any other human rivals to Allah (swt). He won because he had the clarity of conviction that translates into the ability to lead, in short, to be an imam. The function of leadership is to produce transformational change. Effective leaders accomplish this by setting a directional course, aligning large groups of people to that course, and by motivating them to hold themselves accountable for their commitments of learning through action and deliberation. In the past 250 years for Muslims, no Islamic leader did this better than Imam Khomeini. True, there have been leaders of Islamic movements, but he was the only one to achieve success as a true imam. But this was no accident. Setting a new direction is fundamental to leading. A new directional course requires intellectual clarity. This is the greatest gift an imam can offer to his hungry Muslim constituencies: having the confidence to know what to do in any given situation, having the confidence to engage in a rational process that allows the best ideas to dominate, and that does not require the validation of other human beings, especially those who have divided, in a binary way, the world into inferiors and superiors where the inferiors always require the endorsement of the self-declared superiors. This is how imperialists and Zionists look at the world, driving a wedge into the natural human tendency to co-associate. In point of fact, all human beings are inferior and Allah (swt) is their superior and as such all actions are to be validated according to Allah’s (swt) revealed reference points for humanity: the Qur’an and the prophetic precedent. Truth requires no human approval and it certainly needs no behavior of a preferred class to authenticate it. Truth is self-evident to anyone who thinks about it. Human activity is to be judged by Allah’s (swt) criterion of right and wrong, and right and wrong does not “rise” to the level of palatability by the “standard” and behavior of those who hold temporal power or prominence. Setting a directional course creates a sense of urgency, produces an overall vision to strive for along with a strategy to get there, and satisfies the needs and rights of important constituencies in society. The Imam lived his entire life with a sense of urgency. All of us who remember Imam Khomeini know that in his executive capacity as head of state, he came out and immediately connected domestic oppression and degradation to its global counterpart in Washington, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, and Riyadh. Throughout his scholarly career and when he stepped onto the world stage, he rejected all Western ideological and philosophical ruminations, and thereby marginalized any governmental implementations based on these theories in the East and the West as being inconsistent with Allah’s (swt) command, the Prophet’s (pbuh) counsel, and the people’s liberation. He showed his people that capitalism and communism were cut from the same cloth, and thus he was the first modern leader to break from the ideological stranglehold the West held over ideas that translated into representative political institutions whose goal was to satisfy the needs of all the people, and not some special interests. The full force of his lifelong resistance culminating in a decade of rule over an Islamic state showed all people that divinely inspired universal principles of social justice are fundamentally incompatible with the Western discourse and practice of governance, despite the high-sounding rubric of democracy, free markets and globalization. As a world leader with a vision, he even advised, in vain, Mikail Gorbachev, to liberate his people from the obvious problems besetting all Western societies in their dissociation from God. Often when Muslims are queried about the one major problem in their societies, they say it is education, usually of a scientific, professional or technological nature, that is, medicine, engineering, information technology, environmental science, etc. Few Muslims, although this is changing, will point to unresponsive political institutions and impotent rulers. Imam Khomeini was not similarly confused. He knew that he had to separate the coordinated activities of his people from dead-end pursuits. He knew that an Islamic directional course would clarify what kind of education is essential and what kind is irrelevant. He wanted his people in particular, and all Muslims in general to understand that they need not look too far away to Oxford, Harvard, and even al-Azhar (in the depleted state it is in because of the legacy of Egyptian autocracy), that knowledge and wisdom come from the fountainhead of Allah’s (swt) guidance. The Imam did not initiate a policy to go out and build scores of universities so that his people could put a man on the moon; indeed he put his people on a collision course with those power structures who thrive on creating human conflict so that they can dominate. In this task, the nascent Islamic event in Iran found itself alone. It had no choice but to rely on Allah (swt). And in this process, it discovered and released its innate human potential. Today’s Islamic society in Iran and the Muslims of the world are the beneficiaries of the Imam’s directional course, paved as it is with the fluid lives of hundreds of thousands of shuhada’. Islamic Iran in now world class in nuclear medicine and bridge building; its managed health care approaches, especially those directed at low-income households and villages, are now being studied and implemented across the world; its literacy rates, for both men and women, are among the highest in the world, now exceeding many advanced countries; it is one of nine countries in the world to indigenously build its own satellite and rocket technology with the result that it is the first Muslim country to independently put its own satellite into orbit. It is the only country in the modern world to not only survive a 30-year economic siege, but to show expansion when the rest of the world is in recession. Equivalent sanctions between the two world wars effectively crippled Germany leading to the emergence of Nazism. Not so with Islamic Iran. And there are many other achievements to come as the people come to grips with their capacities and their God-given promise.

An Imam is an Imam — and a non-imam is a non-imam

by Abu Dharr Not to be lost on the handlers and coaches of such troublemakers, the US regime and its flunkies have metamorphosed the MEK into its al-Qa’ida clone with “Sunni-Shi‘i” divergences. We are beginning to see evidence of this in the Tunisian Ansar al-Shari‘ah battlering with the ruling al-Nahdah party. The Muslims miss the decisive character of Imam Khomeini in North Africa. One of Imam Khomeini’s first decisions was to close down the Israeli embassy in Tehran and expel the Zionist enemies from Iran. Compare that with the inability of the “Islamic” leadership in Egypt to break off diplomatic ties with the Israeli Zionist regime, which nowadays is maneuvering to physically occupy al-Masjid al-Aqsa and thwart access to the first qiblah and third haram to all Muslims. It gets worse: the Egyptian Islamic decision makers cannot open the borders between Egypt and Ghazzah. Egypt needs an Imam Khomeini. When Imam Khomeini began building an Islamic state in Iran he demanded justice be done to the fleeing Shah of Iran. The Shah had to beg for residency in different countries until he was finally appended to his American cooperator Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat in Egypt. The Islamic leadership in Iran with Imam Khomeini pursued the Shah until he finally went to his Maker where he will encounter ultimate justice. Correlate that with the official Egyptian inability to pass final judicial judgment on Hosni Mubarak the Pharaoh. Or correlate that with the disability of the Tunisian (Islamic) leadership to pursue and prosecute Zine al-Abidine bin ‘Ali who took refuge in the evil kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why doesn’t the Tunisian government ask for the extradition of Bin ‘Ali to Tunisia to stand in a court of law where he will be answerable for his official presidential conduct and state policies, one of which forced Rachid al-Ghannoushi into exile at the behest of the security apparatus? It turns out that not all exiles are the same. Imam Khomeini was forced into exile by the Shah, but when he came back he sought the Shah and expended all that was necessary to bring him to a court of law. Rachid al-Ghannoushi was forced into exile, but when he came back to his home country he would not or could not pursue Bin ‘Ali, who had forced al-Ghannoushi into fugitive status. Then we have the eight-year war of aggression that was imposed upon the Imam and the Muslims in Islamic Iran. The leadership there did not buckle under those hard times. Imagine if such a war were imposed on any of the leaderships in the countries mentioned above; would they have the stamina to fight to the bitter end? Would they have the popular support to withstand all the trials and tribulations that come from a long and grinding war? The way things look, we seriously doubt it. The Egyptian (Islamic) leadership is not doing what is right and what is obligatory — cutting off diplomatic relations with Zionist Israel — precisely for the reason of avoiding such a war. Here we have it: the Islamic leadership of Imam Khomeini doing what is right and obligatory — come what may; and the “Islamic” leadership of the Ikhwan avoiding doing what is right and obligatory for fear of the consequences. The concept of tawakkul seems to be alien to our brothers in Cairo and Tunisia. Imam Khomeini called a spade a spade, as it were. He did not mince words when he wedged the descriptive marker Shaytani buzurg (the Colossal Satan) on the Washington regime. Compare Imam Khomeini with Mohammad Mursi in their interviews with the Euro-American press. Correspondents from the Euro-American media were scrambling to secure an interview with the Imam. But in Egypt and Tunisia interviews are by the dozen. Imam Khomeini had foreign correspondents stirred up and strained. But in interviews with al-akh Mohammad Mursi he talks to them about his years in the USA and his remarks about the film Planet of the Apes; and we have Shaykh Rachid al-Ghannoushi saying quite frankly that he is not a Khomeini. Thank you — you said it all. And, by the way, how many times have you come to Washington, DC since ascending the seat of power in Tunisia? We have lost count. What a difference between an imam whose base of popularity is the hearts and aspirations of the Muslims — Imam Khomeini — and those who are going along with an American Israeli plan executed through the agencies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al. to try to smother the Islamic awakening that took place between an Imam and an Ummah. And We raised among them leaders who, so long as they bore themselves with perseverance and had faith in Our authority and power messages, guided [their people] in accordance with Our behest… (32:24). Pull quote: One of Imam Khomeini’s first decisions was to close down the Israeli embassy in Tehran and expel the Zionist enemies from Iran. Compare that with the inability of the “Islamic” leadership in Egypt to break off diplomatic ties with the Israeli Zionist regime…

The Syrian Conflict: Qaradawi's Incitement To Violence

By Chandra Muzaffar 03 June, 2013

Countercurrents.org Any human being who abhors violence and bloodshed would be shocked by remarks made by a leading religious personality, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, on the 1st of June 2013. At a rally in Doha, he urged Sunni Muslims in the region to go to Syria and fight the Bashar al-Assad government and its supporters, the Hezbollah and Iran. He regarded it as a “jihad.” He claimed that Iran and the Hezbollah want to exterminate, to “devour” the Sunnis. Between Sunnis and Shias, he insisted, there was no common ground. Qaradawi’s remarks came in the midst of the ongoing critical battle between Syrian government forces and rebels for control of the key border town of Qasair. The Lebanese based Hezbollah is helping government forces. A large number of foreign militants are fighting on the side of the rebels. Inciting Sunnis to fight Shias will only escalate a bloody conflict that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives. Religious leaders in particular should lend their moral weight to efforts to achieve a political solution. They should be imploring all sides to cease fighting immediately. Besides, Qaradawi should know that the conflict in Syria is not a simple Sunni-Shia clash. It is rooted in the larger politics of hegemony, Israel and the tussle for power among regional actors. It began as a peaceful protest against Assad’s authoritarian rule in March 2011. Assad reacted with harsh reprisals. Within a couple of weeks, groups and individuals from some neighbouring countries started to supply arms to a segment of the protesters perhaps at the behest of the centres of power in the West and Israel who have always sought to eliminate the Assad government which in the context of its close ties with both Hezbollah and Iran is seen as a challenge to their control and dominance of the region. Indeed, Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad government constitute the only organised, sustained resistance to the US-British-French and Israeli attempt to perpetuate their hegemonic hold over West Asia and North Africa (WANA). It was Hezbollah, it will be recalled, that drove Israel out of Lebanon from 2000 onwards, and in 2006, thwarted its diabolical design to gain control over Lebanon. It is this party, Hezbollah( the party of God) that Qaradawi in his Doha speech described as “the party of shaitan ( satan).” Because these forces of resistance happen to be Shia, close allies of the Western powers in WANA who happen to be Sunni, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are trying very hard to project the resistance as a Shia attempt to dominate the region. As a result, the more significant issues of Western hegemony, resistance within WANA and the role of Israel which continues to occupy the Golan Heights in Syria, are all submerged in a cleverly contrived Sunni-Shia narrative. Of course, Sunni-Shia differences have existed for a long while and have on occasions coloured politics in the region in the past. But it was only after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which represented a major challenge to Western hegemony and Israeli interests that these differences have been accentuated and manipulated mainly by US ally, Saudi Arabia, to divide Sunnis from Shias. It is against this backdrop that we should view Qaradawi’s remarks. There was a time when he had a positive attitude towards Sunni-Shia rapprochement. But when some Western states began to re-assert their power in WANA in the midst of the Arab uprisings, Qaradawi appeared to legitimise their role. He was among the earliest public figures to endorse NATO’s air strikes over Libya. In the middle of last year he even opined that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came back today, he would support NATO. This earned him the derisive moniker ‘NATO Mufti’ among some Arab commentators. It is Qaradawi’s legitimisation of Western hegemony by invoking religious authority that makes his role so perfidious. What is worse, he has been appealing to sectarian religious sentiments which pit Muslim against Muslim, which have led to murders and massacres on a massive scale, in order to perpetuate the interests of both regional actors and global powers. It is a glaring example of the crude abuse of religion by someone who dons the garb of religion. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). Malaysia.

Custodian Of The Custodian Of The Custodian

By Chandra Muzaffar 21 August, 2012 Countercurrents.org

Muslims and Muslim governments are angry with Bashar al-Assad. They hold him responsible for the massacre of thousands of people, many of them innocent civilians, in Syria. They want him to go. It is true that Bashar’s army has killed a lot of people. It has used excessive force --- as I have pointed out in a number of articles before this. Anyone with a conscience would condemn the mindless violence that has bloodied Syria in the last 17 months. But Bashar’s violence is only one side of the story. The armed rebels opposed to him have also massacred thousands. How else can one explain the fact that almost one-third of the 17,000 people killed so far in the conflict are from the army and related security agencies? The rebels are not only well equipped with a range of weapons and communication apparatus but are also supported by logistical routes developed by the CIA and intelligence provided by Mossad. Their weapons are delivered through “a shadowy network of intermediaries, including the Muslim Brotherhood,” and “are paid for by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.” Since April 2012, hundreds, perhaps even a few thousand, militants, some linked to Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, from Iraq, Libya, Tunisia and Jordan have crossed over into Syria to fight the Bashar government in what they perceive as a “jihad.” It is reported that out of 200 rebels captured in Aleppo recently, 70 were foreign fighters.

The mainstream media in most Muslim majority states have not highlighted these aspects of the Syrian conflict. Neither have they subjected to scrutiny the authenticity of the news they carry on the conflict and the sources of the news items. As a case in point, the Houla massacre of 25 May 2012 was widely publicised all over the world as an example of the brutal, barbaric character of the Bashar government. Scores of children were allegedly butchered by his militia. A picture of a large number of dead children “wrapped in white shrouds with a child jumping over one of them” was offered as proof of the heinous crime. The picture was actually from the war in Iraq in 2003. The photographer himself, Marco Di Lauro of Getty Images, came out in the open to expose the fabrication. In fact, the Houla massacre itself was “committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants, and the bulk of the victims were members of the Alawi and Shia minorities, which have been largely supportive of the Assad”, according to the leading German daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). Houla is not the only case. A Christian nun, Mother Agnes-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery has published on the monastery’s website, an account of armed rebels gathering Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in the Khalidiya neighbourhood in Homs, and blowing it up with dynamite. The rebels then put the blame for the crime upon the Syrian army. There is also the story of Zainab al-Hosni, allegedly abducted by government forces and burnt to death. A few weeks later, Zainab appeared on Syrian television to nail the lie about her. The most widely quoted source for the alleged atrocities committed by the Syrian government is of course the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) which is a one man operation run by a Rami Abdul Rahman from Coventry, England. His statistics have been challenged on a number of occasions by Syrian analysts who have shown why his reporting is unreliable.

It is disappointing that most Muslim governments and NGOs are oblivious to all this and focus only upon Bashar’s wrongdoings. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at its emergency summit held in Mecca on 14 August 2012 reflected this biased approach to the Syrian conflict by condemning only the government while exonerating the armed rebels. A few states such as Algeria, Kazakhstan and Pakistan called for a balanced statement from the summit that would also apportion blame upon the armed opposition but their plea was ignored. Worse, Syria which was suspended from the OIC at the summit was not even invited to the meeting and given a chance to defend itself. It was denied the most elementary principle of natural justice. It is a right that is fundamental to Islamic jurisprudence. Why has the Muslim world as a whole, especially its elites and its intelligentsia, adopted such a blatantly biased and starkly unjust position on Syria? Is it because many are ignorant of what is really happening in that country, given the orientation of the mainstream media? Or is it because Muslims revere the Saudi monarch so much --- he is after all the custodian of the two holy mosques--- that they are convinced that in seeking the elimination of Bashar al-Assad he is doing what is morally right? Or is it because many Muslim elites are beholden to Saudi wealth --- and Qatari largesse ---- that they are prepared to acquiesce in their wishes? Or is it also because of certain sectarian sentiments that Muslims appear to be incensed with the Bashar government? It is these sentiments that I shall now explore. For many months now a segment of Sunni ulama (religious elites) in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and certain other states have been attacking Bashar as an Alawite leader who is oppressing the Sunni majority. Since Alawites are a branch of Shia Islam, the target has been Shia teachings and the Shia sect. Given the standing of these ulama, their vitriolic utterances have succeeded in inflaming the passions of some Sunni youth who view Bashar and his circle as infidels who should be fought and defeated at all costs. Even the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has now joined the bandwagon and accuses Shias of theological deviance and malpractices. It is important to observe in this regard that in the context of Syria there is no rigid Shia-Sunni dichotomy. The Sunnis given their numerical strength dominate the army, the public services and the private sector. Some of the most critical positions in Syrian society are held by Sunnis. The Grand Mufti of Syria for instance is a Sunni of the Shafie doctrinal school. Indeed, sectarian, or for that matter, religious affiliation has very little weight in society. In many ways, Syria is a society that has sought to de-emphasise religious and sectarian loyalties and nurture a notion of common citizenship. Since the beginning of the conflict, it is the Western media that have been preoccupied with the so-called Sunni-Shia divide and appear to be deliberately stoking sectarian sentiments. The Arab media has followed suit.

The way in which Sunni-Shia sentiments are now being manipulated convinces me that geopolitics rather than sectarian loyalties is the motivating force. If sectarian loyalties are really that important, how does one explain the close ties that the Sunni Saudi elite enjoyed with the Shia Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, in the sixties and much of the seventies? Was it because the Shah was the gendarme of the US and the West in the Persian Gulf and an ally of Israel? Was this the reason why the Saudis could get along so well with the Iranian elite? Isn’t it revealing that it was only when the Shah was ousted in a popular revolution in 1979 and the new Islamic leaders of Iran rejected American hegemony over the region and challenged the legitimacy of the Israeli entity, that Saudi relations with Iran took a turn for the worse? Saudi animosity towards the new independent minded Iran was so great that it bankrolled the Iraqi instigated war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. The primary goal of that war was to strangulate Iran’s Islamic Revolution at its birth. The war brought together a number of pro-US Arab states with the notable exception of Syria. Needless to say the US and other Western powers aided and abetted this anti-Iran coalition. It was during this time that anti-Shia propaganda was exported from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and other parts of South and Southeast Asia. Groups within the Shia community also began to respond to these attacks by churning out their own anti-Sunni literature. In spite of the relentless opposition to it, Iran, much to the chagrin of its adversaries in the region and in the West, has continued to grow from strength to strength, especially in the diplomatic and military spheres. One of its major achievements is the solid link it has forged with Syria, on the one hand, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon, on the other. It is the most significant resistance link that has emerged --- resistance to Israel and US hegemony--- in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) in recent decades. Israel, the US and other Western powers such as Britain and France, and actors in WANA like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, are worried. The Iran helmed resistance has increased their apprehension in light of five other related developments. One, Iran’s nuclear capability. Though Iranian leaders have declared on a number of occasions that they regard the manufacture and use of a nuclear bomb as haram (prohibited), there is no doubt that the country’s nuclear capability has been enhanced considerably in recent years. Two, the inability of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and gain control over Lebanon which it regards as its frontline defence. This was proven again in 2006 and today Hezbollah is in a more decisive position in Lebanese politics than it was six years ago. Three, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and the introduction of electoral democracy which has led to the rise of Shia political power. Shia political elites in Iraq are by and large inclined towards Iran, which the US sees as a huge setback for its hegemonic ambitions in the region. Four, the Arab uprisings, especially those that are mass based, like in Tunisia and Egypt, have raised questions about the shape of democratic politics in the region in the coming years. Will it give rise to the emergence of Islamic movements that challenge the legitimacy of Israel, US hegemony and the role of feudal monarchies in WANA? Or, would it be possible to co-opt the new Islamic actors into the status quo? Five, how will all these changes unfold in a situation where US hegemony is declining? How will Israel and the other states in WANA that are dependent upon US power for the perpetuation of their interests fare when the US is no longer able to protect them as it did in the past?

For Israel in particular all these developments in WANA portend a less secure neighbourhood. Total control and predictability are crucial elements in Israel’s notion of security. It is because of its obsession with security that guarantees control over its neighbourhood that it is determined to break the link between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah. It reckons that if Bashar is ousted that link would be broken. This was obvious in the conversation between Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Russian President, Vladimir Putin, as reported by the respected Jewish journalist, Israel Shamir. Netanyahu made it clear that Israel preferred “the Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and the elimination of its army.” Bashar’s successor ---- after his ouster--- he stressed “must break with Iran.” Netanyahu gave the impression that Israel was in a position to “influence the rebels.” Since this is Israel’s agenda for Syria, all the moves and manoeuvres of states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to eliminate Bashar would be very much in line with what Israel wants. Any wonder then that both Israeli leaders and its media welcomed the suspension of Syria from the OIC. In this regard, Israel would have been thrilled to read a pronouncement by Al-Qaradawi in May 2012, widely reported in the WANA media that “If the Prophet Muhammad was alive today, he would lend his support to NATO.” More than endorsement from within the region, what Israel has always been confident about is the patronage and protection of the US and most of Europe. On Syria, and in the ultimate analysis, on Iran, the Israeli political and military elites know that the centres of power in the West share its diabolical agenda. Indeed, it is Israel that determines the US’s position on critical issues pertaining to WANA. It is the tail that wags the dog. Israel’s relationship with a major Arab state like Saudi Arabia, (with whom it has no formal diplomatic ties) on the one hand, and the US, on the other, tells us a great deal about who is in charge of who. The Kenyan- American scholar, Professor Ali Mazrui, once described the Saudi-US nexus this way: the problem with the custodian of the Holy Mosques is that there is a custodian of the custodian. If I may add, since it is Israel that decides US foreign policy in WANA, it may not be inaccurate to say that there is a custodian of the custodian of the custodian. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). Malaysia.