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.