Saudi-Zionist alliance against Muslims exposed

by Tahir Mustafa January, 2014 There is much in common between the Saudis and the zionists. Both are illegal regimes occupying holy lands. Their secret alliance has now been exposed. Muslims must take appropriate steps to confront this phenomenon. Two illegitimate usurper regimes, one led by Zionists in the Holy Land and the other by Najdi Bedouins in the Arabian Peninsula, have been forced by rapidly changing developments to expose their long-maintained secret ties. Not only Muslims but also many fair-minded non-Muslims recognize the illegitimacy of the Zionist pariah regime in the Holy Land. The Saudis, however, have been able to conceal their true identity by claiming to be “defenders of the Haramayn,” the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. If so, they have a strange way of claiming this on the one hand while being totally subservient to US imperialism and Zionist racism on the other. It was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who several months ago mentioned the Zionist-Saudi alliance in the context of confronting Islamic Iran. He had talked of the Arabian regimes but given Saudi Arabia’s size and importance, it was clear, he was talking about the regime in Riyadh. Egypt, the other major player on the Arabian scene, had long embraced the Zionist regime publicly.

Two policy failures have forced the secret relationship between Riyadh and Tel Aviv to come out into the open: Saudi-Israeli policy in Syria and their policy of trying to isolate Islamic Iran in the region. Both have unraveled as a result of developments beyond their control. The Saudis in particular are not only furious at their longtime patron, the US, but also in panic because Washington has established contacts, however tenuous, with Islamic Iran. Among a series of contacts between the Saudis and the Zionists, the latest was a brief encounter between Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal and former Israeli ambassador to Washington (1992– 1996), Itamar Rabinovich, in Monaco in mid-December. According to an Israeli radio report, Turki publicly shook hands with Rabinovich at the World Policy Conference. Their contacts have progressed so far that Rabinovich took the unusual step of inviting Turki to deliver a speech before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. Turki reportedly declined the offer — what would he say to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine? — but the fact that the offer was made indicates their relations are deep and have been established for a long time. The offer also shows the degree of trust they have in each other. Rabinovich is an expert on Syria policy and clearly he was planning to engage the former Saudi spy master more deeply although the current Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan is more deeply involved with the Zionists. Both regimes have been critical of US policy on Syria and Washington’s rapprochement with Tehran. The Zionists have been blunt to the point of being obnoxious, as is their wont. The Saudis have been more diplomatic with their American masters in public but no less vehement in their denunciation of America opening up to Tehran.

The Saudis sense a perceptible shift in US policy in the region. President Barack Obama made this known when he announced a policy shift toward the Asia-Pacific region to confront the rising power of China. The Saudis clearly see this as indication of their reduced importance to the US. Further, Obama shocked the Saudis when he refused to launch a military strike against Syria last summer in what is now known as a carefully orchestrated plan by Bandar. This was a personal slap in the face of Bandar and public humiliation of Saudi Arabia that was long believed to be America’s indispensable ally in the region. Soon thereafter, Bandar announced that henceforth, the kingdom would go it alone in Syria without coordinating its policy with Washington. The result has been the creation of what is called the “Islamic Front,” a grouping of six or seven different rebel factions that has taken on the Western-backed, Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to several reports, the Saudi-backed and financed Islamic Front fighters have overrun FSA positions and taken over their weapon stockpiles from depots near the Turkish border. The FSA chief Salim Idriss is also reportedly on the run. The Saudis are determined to sabotage the Geneva II conference on Syria that is scheduled for January 22. Saudi-backed groups are putting forward conditions for participation that would almost certainly wreck the chances of holding a conference. The Syrian government has also said it will only attend if there are no pre-conditions. This is what Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League envoy had announced when the date of Geneva II was made public in November.

Syrian government forces have been making steady progress recently as rebel groups fight each other. This has weakened them considerably. Further, their barbaric practices have repelled most Syrians. They do not want the Bashar al-Asad regime to be replaced by people indulging in beheadings and cannibalism. Such behavior is no bar to the Saudis; they want al-Asad removed regardless of the price the Syrian people may have to pay. Already millions of Syrians are refugees and the UN has asked for $6.5 billion in emergency aid otherwise these people will face virtual starvation. Conditions in refugee camps whether in Lebanon or Jordan are appalling. Recent snowstorms, unusual for the region, have added to the refugees’ woes. The plight of refugees, however, is not something that bothers the Saudis. Instead, they welcome it because it garners more sympathy for the Syrian people, which Saudi Arabia can blame on the Asad regime. It is interesting to note that even US Secretary of State John Kerry has announced that he might meet Syrian rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. Did the US not invade Afghanistan to get rid of al-Qaeda or was that just a ruse to invade the mountainous but mineral-rich country? The mastermind of the Saudi-Zionist alliance is Bandar. During his long tenure as Saudi ambassador to Washington, he cultivated close links with the neocons, especially the Zionists. His lavish parties were well known for booze and scantily clad women (one wonders what the Saudi ministry responsible for “enjoining good and preventing vice” would say about such conduct or is it permissible if one of the Saudi royals indulges in it?). Soon after it became clear that the US would not attack Syria as the Saudis had hoped and planned for, Bandar went to the Jordanian port city of Aqaba to meet director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Tamir Pardo. The aim was to coordinate Saudi-Israeli policy on Syria and Iran. This information was leaked by a source within the Saudi embassy in Amman, Jordan, indicating that within the Saudi ruling circles, there are strong differences. It needs recalling that when the plot to stage the uprising in Syria was hatched in a Paris café in February 2011, Bandar attended it together with the US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and US Undersecretary of State Jeffrey Feltman. Naturally a number of Syrian opposition figures were also involved. Both Shapiro and Feltman are Zionists and staunchly pro-Israel. The received wisdom at the time was that the Asad regime would collapse within a matter of months if not weeks. Bandar has been making other moves as well, since the US refusal to attack Syria last August. He reportedly met with French President Francois Hollande when he visited Tel Aviv to meet Netanyahu. According to the Lebanese website, al-Hadath, Bandar proposed common policy on Iran’s nuclear policy to try and sabotage any deal with the US. Further, Bandar proposed the strengthening of Saudi defences (read, the Saudis would purchase more weapons, this time from France). This must have been music to Hollande’s ears since the French economy is struggling and any cash inflow would be welcome. The Saudis’ open embrace of Zionists reflects their desperation. It should, however, alert all sincere Muslims to the true nature of this regime. The question that Muslims must ask is, whether the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah can be left in the hands of Zionist allied Saudis. If Masjid al-Aqsa is under the direct occupation of the Zionists, Makkah and Madinah are under the indirect occupation of the Zionists since the Saudis are their close allies. How long will Muslims tolerate this state of affairs to continue?

The Prophet (saws) and Muslim unity

by Zafar Bangash January, 2014

Merely verbalizing love for the noble Messenger (saws) will not bring glory to Muslims; emulating his noble example in practice will. A pre-requisite is to understand the Sirah in its totality, not through anecdotal episodes. There is no Muslim who does not have deep love for the noble Messenger (pbuh). This is Allah’s (swt) command to His faithful servants articulated in the majestic Qur’an. Muslims express their love for the Prophet (pbuh) in many different ways based on their level of understanding and commitment. Closely related to this is the aspect of unity among Muslims. Again, this is spelled out very clearly in the noble Book. Muslims are referred to as one Ummah (21:92; 23:52) with all its varied and important implications. In a set of ayat, the Qur’an says, O you have become firmly committed [to Allah]! Be on guard [against Allah’s corrective justice] as is due to Him, and do not pass on before you have surrendered yourselves to Him [become Muslims]. And hold fast, all together, to the bond with Allah, and do not separate from one another. And remember the blessings that Allah has bestowed upon you; how, when you were enemies, He brought your hearts together, so that through His blessings, you became brethren… (3:102–103).

Allah (swt) is addressing the committed Muslims (the category referred to as al-ladhina amanu in the Qur’an) telling them “…to hold fast to the bond of Allah and do not separate from one another.” He is also reminding them that previously, they were enemies but Allah (swt) brought their hearts together. Allah (swt) does not say He made them all of one ethnicity or language. Instead, He says their hearts were reconciled and brought together. This was done through the exemplary personality of the noble Messenger (pbuh) who was sent as a mercy to all the worlds (21:107). It was his mercy and grace that brought the warring tribes of Madinah together. His was a gentle personality that preferred compassion and justice instead of retribution. This was demonstrated at the time of Makkah’s liberation when all his former enemies and tormentors stood trembling before him. He could have ordered their execution but he chose instead to forgive them. He administered justice with compassion, and compassion with justice to all and sundry. His noble personality combined in it all the elements in perfect balance. He was chosen by Allah (swt) to be the last and final messenger to deliver His final message to all humanity. As a result of his exemplary character, he converted the savage tribes of the Arabian Peninsula into the best of human beings in a short span of 23 years. Muslims truly became one Ummah above tribe or class distinctions under the leadership of the noble Messenger (pbuh). His success has forced even non-Muslims (Alan Hart, for instance) to admit that he was the most brilliant leader humankind has ever known.

But we must ask: what has happened to the two billion Muslims today that hardly register on the global scene? Muslims are so badly divided along national, tribal and sectarian lines that the concept of the Ummah appears non-existent. Where is the Muhammadi Ummah, raised as the “best community” that is supposed to be a model for all humanity (3:110)? True, there is much external interference in Muslim societies but that is to be expected. The Muslims’ enemies are not there to foster unity among them but we must examine the Muslims’ own conduct. Why have some Muslims embarked on campaigns of denunciation of fellow Muslims as kafirs and even resorted to wholesale slaughter? Does declaring everyone we disagree with a kafir serve the interests of Islam and Muslims? Did the noble Messenger (pbuh) ever indulge in such behavior? Possibly, those involved in the indiscriminate killing of Muslims and non-Muslims through car and suicide bombings as well as gruesome beheadings also read the Qur’an and may even insist they love the noble Messenger (pbuh). On what basis do they justify their behavior then? Suppose these groups were to kill all the people they disagree with; would that establish justice and peace in society? Those Muslims that claim to be faithful to their social contract with Allah (swt) — that is, have made a faith-commitment to Him — must evaluate their behavior in light of the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). Allah (swt) reminds us of our base social reality in His glorious Book: we were divided and disunited, and our psychological makeup was one of enmity and hostility yet through His ni‘mah (favor and prerogative), we became brothers and friends (3:103; 49:10). The attitude of some contemporary Muslims has reverted back to that of pre-Islamic peoples where dog-eat-dog attitude and the law of the jungle prevailed. Muslims will have to make the transition from a fragmented understanding of the Qur’an, and the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh) to the consolidated meanings with all its socio-political implications to assume their rightful place in the world as the “best community.” Racism, tribalism and sectarianism have no place in this higher calling. No people in history have ever achieved progress through wholesale slaughter. True, they may have achieved temporary success but were quickly overpowered by others with more refined values. In these troubled times, only Muslims can provide the kind of leadership the errant humanity needs. That, however, will only be realized if Muslims are true to their din as explained in the noble Book and as exemplified by the noble Messenger (pbuh).

The phenomenon and politics of sectarianism

by Zafar Bangash January, 2014 Sectarianism is projected in some quarters as the greatest challenge facing Muslims when the vast majority of Muslims want unity in the Ummah. Who is stoking the flames of sectarianism? Sectarian discourse and sectarian induced violence seem to have become major problems facing Muslims today. There are killings in the name of one sect or another in different parts of the Muslim world. Muslims are told that sectarianism is a historical problem that cannot be overcome. Such assertions fly in the face of empirical evidence that posits a completely opposite proposition: most Muslims support unity. For instance, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that two thirds of Muslims worldwide want to “unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate [khilafah].” While framed in theological terms, sectarianism is essentially a political weapon used by certain vested interests to advance their narrow agenda since they lack a legitimate basis to justify their position or continued hold on power. Like nationalism, sectarianism is also used to whip up mass hysteria. Without justifying it, there are at least some positive aspects to nationalism. For instance, people in one geographical area, ie a country, can be mobilized to stand up against a rival country in the name of patriotism and protecting the “national interest.” Nationalism’s limitation is that by its very nature it is confined to people living in a certain geographical area. Thus, on the basis of nationalism alone, Pakistanis for instance cannot have the motivation to help the people of Palestine or any other place where there is human suffering. The same applies to other situations. The Afghans cannot appeal to Muslims elsewhere to help them on the basis of nationalism. But, this can be overcome if the discourse is framed in Islamic terms. Thus, the people of Pakistan can be motivated to help their fellow Muslims in Palestine or Chechnya in the name of Islam. The Pakistanis may not necessarily go there physically — although some have done so — but their sympathies can be aroused and financial donations solicited to help alleviate the suffering of oppressed Muslims in other parts of the world. The above examples have nothing to do with sectarianism. The people of Palestine and Chechnya follow different schools of thought from those in Pakistan. The common bond between them is Islam. Problems arise when some people — usually rulers of some countries that lack legitimacy — resort to sectarian discourse whose purpose is to create hatred for a particular group or party. Raw sectarianism is often camouflaged by using Islamic terminology. To understand this better, let us look at Syria. For nearly three years, a war has raged there that can be traced directly to outside forces, primarily the Zionists, imperialists and the Saudis. This can be narrowed further; the imperialists have pulled back somewhat because they have realized that what may replace the current regime led by Bashar al-Asad may turn out to be even worse if al-Qaeda-linked takfiris grab power. The Saudi-Zionist alliance, however, is hell-bent on creating instability and continuing the violence. The Zionists can hardly appeal to Muslims by claiming to be friends of the Syrian people. No Muslim with even a limited understanding of the nature of Zionism and its oppression and persecution of the Palestinians will accept the Zionists as friends and allies. Enter the Saudis. While they lack legitimacy, they have often used their alleged support for “Muslim” causes elsewhere to polish their ugly image. In the 1980s, they sent thousands of Arabians to fight in Afghanistan. It was not to help the Afghans but to get rid of their own troublesome youth, demanding fundamental rights that were threatening regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Many Arabian fighters returned to create problems for regimes in their home countries once the Afghan war ended. The Saudis are playing an even more sinister game in Syria. They can hardly claim to be helping the Syrian people to gain their legitimate rights when the Saudis suppress their own people and do not allow women to even drive cars (in Syria, women are allowed to fly planes!). Nor can the Saudis claim that they are supporting the “Sunni majority” in Syria when the Saudi rulers did not support the overwhelmingly Sunni population of Egypt after the Egyptian military overthrew a legitimately elected government last July. Instead, the Saudi regime openly backs the military coup in Egypt. This has left them dangerously exposed in their alleged claim of supporting “Sunni” Muslims. In Syria, however, the Saudis have played the sectarian card effectively. Accusing the Bashar al-Asad regime of being ‘Alawi (the ‘Alawis are an offshoot of Shi‘ism), the Saudis and their tribal allies in the region have whipped up sectarian tensions and created massive problems in the Ummah. The regime in Syria is neither ‘Alawi, nor Shi‘i or Sunni. It is not a religious-based government at all. There are Sunni ministers in the government as there are Shi‘i ministers. There are Christians and yes, there are ‘Alawis in the cabinet but none of them is committed to any particular sect. There are men as well as women in government but they are all secularists. Their overriding loyalty is to the secularist nationalist Ba‘th party system and their position in it. The Saudis are using sectarianism in Syria to whip up hatred against the regime, which it wants to overthrow. This is part of its pro-Zionist policy and is also meant to secure an extension of its own existence that looks increasingly shaky given current trends in the region as well as internal developments in the kingdom. There is much discontent in the kingdom with nearly 30,000 political prisoners languishing in horrible conditions in various prisons. The Syrian crisis, however, is a recent phenomenon. The Saudis have used sectarianism as a tool in such places as Pakistan and Lebanon for many years and more recently in Iraq with deadly consequences. In the backdrop of Saudi-induced sectarianism is fear of the rise of Islamic Iran on the political landscape as a major player. True, Iran is a predominantly Shi‘i country but it has not launched a sectarian crusade to brand non-Shi‘i Muslims as kafirs. Nor has Iran encouraged the killing of Sunnis anywhere. In fact, Iran has tried hard, within its means, to create understanding among Muslims of different schools of thought. The Tehran-based Majma‘ al-Taqrib bayna al-Madhahib al-Islamiyyah regularly brings together scholars of different schools of thought to promote Muslim unity. It can be argued that this has not eliminated sectarian-induced conflicts but it is not for lack of trying. It is a lot easier to create fitnah (sedition) than to establish peace and harmony. It would be appropriate to reflect on some areas of the Muslim world where sectarian tensions have been running high. Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria immediately come to mind. Add to that Bahrain and we can begin to form a picture that these are countries with populations predominantly of one sect but also with a sizeable population of the other. Thus, while Pakistan is predominantly Sunni, there is also a sizeable Shi‘i population there. In Lebanon’s complex confessional pot pouri, the Shi‘is are more than the Sunnis but with a significant Christian population, the political landscape is more complicated. In Iraq the Shi‘is constitute an absolute majority who were denied basic rights for decades. Unfortunately, since the rise to power of a Shi‘i dominated government, peace has not been restored. Bahrain is overwhelmingly Shi‘i ruled by a tiny minority “Sunni” family clique. But how does one explain the lack of sectarianism in places like Turkey, Azerbaijan or Kuwait? Turkey has a sizeable Alevi (‘Alawi) and Shi‘i population (about 15%), Azerbaijan is an overwhelmingly Shi‘i country while Kuwait has a sizeable Shi‘i (about 20%) population. Kuwait’s example is instructive because it follows the same Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis subscribe to from whence it emerged in the 18th century yet there has been no sectarian conflict in Kuwait. We also have the curious phenomenon of sectarian tensions arising in places like Malaysia, Indonesia and South Africa. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world almost all of them Sunnis following the Shafi‘i school of thought. There are only a few thousand Shi‘is there at best. The same applies to Malaysia and South Africa. The question is: why has sectarianism reared its ugly head in these places? The same question may be asked about Egypt where days before his ouster from power, President Mohamed Mursi had indulged in crude sectarian rhetoric. Some Shi‘is were publicly lynched when the Shi‘is in Egypt are no more than a few hundred thousand in a population of some 80 million. It needs recalling that Egypt was at one time a predominantly Shi‘i country under the Fatimids and al-Azhar University was established by them more than 1,000 years ago! In Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa, Saudi agents have deliberately created a sectarian crisis as part of their attempt to keep the Ummah divided. After all, neither place has a significant Shi‘i population and in South Africa, the total Muslim population itself is miniscule compared to the country’s overall population. There are, however, some maulanas that have close links with the Saudis through such Saudi front organizations as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) whose representatives frequently visit South Africa disbursing largesse (the US has declared WAMY a terrorist organization). In both Indonesia and Malaysia, the regimes are behind the anti-Shi‘i campaign although there are also strong voices raised against stoking sectarianism. Leaders of the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) as well as many leading academics and intellectuals have spoken out forcefully against sectarianism and warned against the negative consequences of this campaign. It is interesting to note that there was no sectarianism in Pakistan until the early-1980s when the Islamic Revolution in Iran succeeded. This was a deliberate policy pursued by the Americans, British and Israelis as well as some segments of the Pakistani establishment. Their aim was to prevent the influence of the Islamic Revolution from spreading into Pakistan. Given strong cultural and linguistic affinities between the two countries, the latter was a natural arena for accepting the revolutionary fervor sweeping Iran. Yet under a carefully crafted policy, promoted by some segments of the Pakistani establishment, anti-Shi‘i sentiments were allowed to flourish. Unfortunately the Pakistani Shi‘is also played a negative role and inadvertently helped the “Sunni” extremists. Those Shi‘i scholars (like Syed Arif Hussaini Shaheed), who were striving to create understanding between the two communities, were eliminated. This not only exacerbated Shi‘i-Sunni tensions but also allowed space for more narrow-minded sectarian Shi‘is to emerge. When the struggle against the Soviets was raging in Afghanistan, extremist “Sunni” outfits were promoted in both countries to confront the Red Army. This, however, could not remain confined to Afghanistan since much of the ideological indoctrination was coming from Saudi Arabia via Pakistan. Helped by Saudi funds, many madrasahs sprang up in Pakistan and in its tribal belt. The students who emerged from these madrasahs carried the narrow-minded strain of Wahhabi sectarian ideology that denounces every non-Wahhabi a kafir. Unfortunately some otherwise respectable scholars also lent their weight and prestige to this divisive campaign. The late maulana Abu al-Hassan Nadvi (d. 1999) was one of them as was his close associate Manzoor Ahmen Naumani. Both scholars succumbed to the temptation of petrodollars and despite their learning, embarked on a sectarian crusade that has caused immense damage to the Ummah. While the two Indian maulanas waxed eloquent against Shi‘ism, they never mustered the courage to say a word against Hindu fascism or the mistreatment of Muslims in India that continues to this day. In a telling episode in the early-1990s, Indian security forces raided Nadvi’s madrasah in Luckhnow following a tip that Kashmiri mujahideen were sheltering there. The security forces broke down dormitory doors, smashed furniture and beat up many of the tullab (students). No Kashmiri was found there. The Indian government offered a mere 200,000 rupees (approx. $4,000) as compensation and the maulana kept mum despite some Muslim leaders in India urging him to take a stronger stand against such acts of state terrorism. Disturbing as the rise of sectarianism is, there are important voices being raised against it. Last August, a conference in Kuala Lumpur attended by academics and scholars from different schools of thought presented persuasive arguments against sectarianism. Similar efforts elsewhere, for instance in Turkey in November and early last month in Pakistan, point to the fact that ‘ulama and Islamic activists are taking steps to confront the menace. In Turkey, an 11-point agenda was agreed upon while in Pakistan a nine-point agenda was unanimously agreed by ‘ulama that represented major sects — Deobandi, Barelvi, Ahl-e Hadith and Jafari schools of thoughts. The Pakistani meeting was convened under the auspices of the Punjab Auqaf and Religious Affairs ministry in Lahore. Important as these steps are, more persistent efforts are needed to isolate and thus weed out the extremists that constitute a tiny minority but grab huge publicity because of their violent acts. The government of Pakistan has a major responsibility in confronting the menace of sectarianism otherwise it will tear the fabric of society apart in which there will be no winners.