‘Is ISIL really ‘Sunni’? Not at all’

By Kevin Barrett

The Western media describes ISIL – the ultra-extremist terrorists destabilizing Iraq and Syria – as “Sunni militants.” Headlines read: “Sunni Islamist Militants Seize Mosul.” “Sunni militants capture northern Iraqi town.” “Iraq Army Tries to Roll Back Sunni Militants’ Advance.” The corporate media casts the fighting in Iraq as a Sunni vs. Shia conflict. The Sunni side, according to these reports, is led by ISIL – a group that was expelled from al-Qaeda for being too extreme. But is ISIL really Sunni? Many experts say “no.” Some question whether ISIL has a right to call itself an Islamic group at all. In an interview with Truth Jihad Radio, Islamic scholar Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas Abd al-‘Alim Islam) questioned ISIL’s Islamic credentials: “A lot of so-called jihad (such as ISIL’s) is not rooted in Islam. Especially if you look at who’s funding it, who’s supporting it, who’s behind it. Western powers have a long history of using jihadists and Islamists to further their own imperial ambitions. In terms of the foot-soldiers, they may think they are fighting for Islam. But if you look closer, you find they’re furthering the cause of the enemy.” Dr. Morrow pointed out that much of ISIL’s behavior is patently un-Islamic. He said that the ISIL terrorists love to film themselves committing war crimes that are forbidden by Islam: “They are very proud to commit atrocities. They film it. They upload it to the internet. They have their own websites.” Dr. Morrow commented on the notorious video showing a Takfiri terrorist eating a dead soldier’s liver: “This is what Hind (an enemy of the Muslims) did. You’re not following the sahaba, you’re not following the Prophet. You’re following the polytheists who were fighting the Prophet when you start cannibalizing corpses. And there was another video of a poor Muslim sister who was strangled to death. I mean, who goes around strangling women to cries of Allahu akbar?” Continuing the habit of vaunting their un-Islamic atrocities, ISIL terrorists recently posted internet videos showing themselves murdering 1,700 captured Iraqi army soldiers. They have also reportedly killed dozens of Sunni imams who refuse to swear allegiance to ISIL. And they are killing Shia Muslims indiscriminately. If these terrorists are Sunni Muslims, why are they systematically violating the tenets of Sunni Islam? In fact, ISIL appears to be far outside of Sunni Islam. The kind of “Islam” espoused by the ISIL Takfiris is an extreme version of the Salafi-Wahhabi school of thought. These people reject the five major Islamic madhhabs (schools of thought) including the four Sunni ones. If you reject all four Sunni madhhabs, how can you call yourself Sunni? In fact, the extreme Salafi-Wahhabis, including the ultra-extreme ISIL, have broken with mainstream Islam as it has existed for fourteen centuries. By jettisoning the established Islamic madhhabs, and stepping outside of Islam as it has always been understood, they have entered a very dangerous territory in which they feel they can just make up the rules as they go along. So they make up such rules as: “It is okay to rape Christian and Shia women. It is okay to eat the internal organs of dead enemies. It is okay to marry ‘jihad brides’ for sex and divorce them after 30 minutes. It is okay to crucify Christian holy men. It is okay to strangle women to death. It is okay to mass-murder civilians. It is okay to mass-execute prisoners of war.” No Sunni in history would recognize this as Sunni Islam. Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharajite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. (The Kharajites were an ultra-radical group that rejected early versions of both Sunni and Shia Islam and stepped outside of the Islamic community - hence their name, which means “those who step outside.”) Hamid argues that the ultra-radical groups destabilizing Pakistan, Syria and Iraq have indeed stepped outside of Islam, and are making war on Islam and Muslims on behalf of Zionism and imperialism.

But isn’t it true that many Sunni Muslims in Iraq support ISIL? Yes and no. It is true that some ordinary Iraqis from Sunni backgrounds have joined ISIL’s insurrection in Iraq. But these are mainly pro-Saddam revanchists, not religiously-oriented Sunni Muslims. Saddam Hussein, of course, was a radical secularist whose idols were Stalin and Hitler. Saddam’s Ba’ath party was anti-religious and pro-secularist; Saddam’s hatred of the Islamic Awakening was so extreme that he launched a war on the Ayatollah Khomeini’s new Islamic Republic in hopes of preventing the rebirth of Islam. So to call the Saddam Hussein supporters who are joining with ISIL “Sunnis” is misleading. Saddam’s forces, like ISIL, are opposed to Islam in both its traditional Sunni and Shia forms. The full name of Sunnism is “the people of the Tradition of the Prophet and the consensus of the community” (ahl as-sunnah wa l-jamaʻah). Eating the livers of dead enemies is not part of the Tradition of the Prophet – it is the tradition of the enemies of the Prophet. And such behavior is obviously not approved by the consensus of the Muslim community. The Tradition of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is one of inclusion, tolerance, mutual respect, and the forging of alliances between people of different tribes and religions. The original Muslim community, whose founding document is the Constitution of Medina, consisted of Christians, Jews and Muslims living together and sharing power and obligations on an equitable basis. The real Sunna (Tradition) holds to reason and persuasion, and uses violence only as a last resort. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his Family and Companions preached peacefully for 12 years, despite atrocious persecution, before God finally authorized them to fight back in self-defense. The real Tradition of the Prophet respects knowledge so much that “the ink of the scholar is more precious than the blood of the martyr.” And the consensus of the Islamic community is that the work of 14 centuries worth of Islamic scholarship – the five major Islamic madhhabs, both the four Sunni madhhabs and the Shia Ja’fari madhhab – collectively represents mainstream Islam. All Sunni Muslims have tremendous respect for Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, who founded the main Shia madhhab. The terrorists who reject this tremendous scholarly achievement, and want to kill everyone who disagrees with them, are far outside of normative Sunni Islam. So why does the Western mainstream media insist on calling anti-Sunni, anti-Shia groups like ISIL “Sunni”? Perhaps the problem is laziness. Since ISIL has a special hatred for Shia Muslims, the simplest way to portray them is to paint the situation as an alleged Sunni vs. Shia conflict. By defaulting to this lowest-common-denominator description, the media absolves itself from the duty of explaining, in detail, what is actually going on. But it is also possible that the corporate media is intentionally misreporting the situation. The extreme-Zionist neoconservatives launched the US invasion of Iraq in order to break up that country, and the Middle East as a whole, by inciting ethnic and sectarian strife. The “Sunni vs. Shia” meme was created and spread by the Occupiers through a wave of false-flag terrorism. Perhaps the media is trumpeting that meme in order to propagate it. In any case, the world’s Sunni Muslims are being slandered every time the media calls ISIL “Sunni.” It is time for Sunnis to reject this mischaracterization of their religion. Perhaps Sunni Muslims should file a class action lawsuit against the media outlets that are spreading this calumny.

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.

Blessed are the revolutionaries (for they are the peacemakers)

by Abu Dharr


This solar month — the Persian Bahman and the Gregorian February — marks 32 years since the culmination of the Islamic spirit of change that swept away the decrepit regime of the great grandson of Cyrus the great, his majesty, the now six-foot under, king-of-kings Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It was one of those rare moments in history when a tyrant felt the volcanic wrath of his own people and realized that its lava was decomposing his autocracy. May he dwell with his fellow tyrants in the bowels of the netherworld.


And into the land of Iran came the Imam of our time, Imam Khomeini. Those were truly epic days that swept the Islamic and oppressed areas of the world with an unforgettable euphoria borne of centuries of hope and generations of sacrifices. And just when Imam Khomeini was putting an Islamic form of government into order all hell broke loose: the Zionist cabal and its imperialist enablers gave marching orders to the Iraqi regime to declare war against the newborn Islamic leadership and populace in Iran. The Iraqi regime would, on behalf of the USA and Israel bear the brunt of the military onus of the war. The Arabian petro-rich sheikhdoms would carry the financial burden of the war against Islamic Iran, while most of the rest of the nation-states in Arabdom would chip in their psychological and informational “talents” to augment this combined war-effort against the Islamic Republic that was still virtually in its cradle.

Skipping the details of those eight years of the combined regional and international policies and strategies against the Islamic Republic in Iran the war ended without a clear winner or loser as far as official records reflect. The Islamic side of that war resulted in nearly one million martyrs and disabled war veterans. Casualties on the anti-Islamic side were comparable. The total cost of the war was tremendous, mind-boggling, and prohibitive. But what began to happen after the war ended was in itself mysterious and miraculous. The regime in Iraq that launched the fatal war — on orders and with incentives from its masters in Washington and by-extension Tel Aviv — was to become the enemy of all its hitherto supporters, financiers, and enablers.



In a move that can only be described by the word “divine entrapment” the blood soaked politicians in Baghdad decided to annex Kuwait. From here on the fury and wrath of Arabian brothers (al-ashiqqa’ al-‘arab), who barely a few months earlier were embracing and kissing the Iraqi dictator, became his mortal enemies. This too was with the blessings of American imperialists and Israeli Zionists.

-The Shah
At the beginning of 1991, the Iraqi regime that had been artificially inflated into a southern European nation-state as a reward for its war of aggression against Islamic Iran was now cut back to its original size — just another failing Arabian nation-state. And for the coming decade the Iraqi regime would become the cause of a nightmarish national hemorrhage that bled the Iraqi population into the final act that commenced in March 2003. During all these nationalist years of Ba‘thi rule, the Zionist-American plan was to defeat the Islamic Republic in Iran, first by an all-out military attack in 1980. When that failed, they tried to bleed the Islamic Republic of Iran by a thousand economic cuts. And we can only say that it is the care of Providence that saw the Islamic Republic through all those years of war-making and hate-mongering.




And as the regional world around the Islamic Republic was falling apart, the sons of the Islamic Revolution, the followers of the Imam, and the revolutionaries of no compromise were working on building up their hard won Islamic State. A new generation of young and dedicated Muslims was hard at work — behind the scenes — on putting together an independent infrastructure that does not rely on a world, which showed its true colors during the infant years of the Islamic Revolution. Thus, the Islamic State was building itself from scratch, while Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the other toadies of imperialist Washington and Zionist Tel Aviv were slugging it out verbally and militarily.

While the Arabian sheikhs were spending much money and time under their bedsheets in the red district areas of London, Bangkok, and Paris, the Islamic ‘ulama’ in Islamic Iran were concentrating on putting their internal house together. The Islamic leadership in Iran can be proud of itself (in an innocent way of course) of their accomplishments. They now have a heavy industry base; they developed their own military industry. They have made major strides in many fields of every kind of technology. They have become exporters of civilian and military products. They don’t have their wealth tied up in capitalist and Zionist financial institutions.

Truly speaking, after three decades, the Islamic leadership in Iran has succeeded in “coming of age.” They have advanced so much that the talk of the town now in America, Europe, and their Zionist enclave is what they call Iran going nuclear. The steady progress of the dedicated and silent workers throughout the past three decades in Islamic Iran has brought the Zionist skeleton out of the Israeli closet, and their political language now is stuck on “what to do with Iran”. From time to time the Zionist cowards threaten a military strike against Iran… And with words of silence they intimate that such a war would have consequences that defy all their social models and war scenarios. Such a war of aggression by Zionist wimps will definitely redo the map of the whole area with the likelihood that the Zionist regime will experience its Samson’s moment.

I speak not to the crybabies — the western pussycats who want the nightlife of the Shah’s days to come back to Iran and who find self-fulfillment in imitating all things Western, but to the guarded revolutionaries and the hard-working and anonymous sons of the revolution who, even though they may not know it, have scared the daylights out of the Zionist-imperialist duo. Their toil and productive work throughout the last three decades is driving a wedge between Washington and Tel Aviv. To be more precise, the cracks are beginning to show in the military and political establishments inside the Zionist beast. Even the foreign minister from Tel Aviv, Avigdor Lieberman, known for his racist ranting, shows caution when it comes to unleashing an Israeli war against Islamic Iran because he knows the aftermath will be devastating to the Yahudi national interest.

Why do you think the Zionists are afraid of Islamic Iran? Because they know that Iran is not Saudi Arabia; Iran is not Egypt; and Iran is not any of their minions. If war breaks out, the Zionist house will go up in fire with tens of thousands of missiles landing everywhere in their enclave. Urban centers will burn and strategic areas will be in flames. The Lod International Airport, knowing the way Israelis conduct war, will become a legitimate target. Their ports will become military targets in Haifa and Yafa. The Zionists may think of turning to their best kept secret: the neighboring rulers in Egypt and Jordan, among others, for air and sea access to the outside world. This will only hasten the simmering revolutions in these adjacent countries. One study by the Saban think tank in Washington, DC puts the number of Israeli casualties if such a war breaks out, at around 800,000.


Add to the gradual erosion of the Israeli racist state the growing polarization between secular and religious Jews. And throw into the mix the prejudice and counter-prejudice represented by Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews having two separate Rabbinical authorities that represent them. Many young Israelis do not want to serve in the armed forces either because they are secular and liberal and do not understand why their regime is stretching the Israeli nation-state into other people’s territories (i.e., where the Palestinians live in the West Bank and Ghazzah), or because they are religious Jews and cannot in good faith fight for a Zionist state that does not represent the Torahic teachings. Score one for them. The previous president of Israel, Moshe Katzav (an Iranian Jew, of all ethnicities) was recently found guilty of rape. Now how does that fit in anyone’s mind — a biblical Israel whose president is a fornicator?!

Another very important development that is beginning to sink into the commercial and corporate mind of the Euro-Americans is “at what cost Israel”. At the end of the day it is the money and the profits that run the political show at both ends of the Atlantic. And if Israel is becoming a serious economic liability and the loss of business in the Muslim world far outweighs the petty gains coming from a puny Israel, then the simple mercantile and investment conclusion would be “to hell with Israel”. These words are not yet uttered in public. They are said behind closed doors. It is only a matter of time before they become official policy. That is of course if the sneaky Israelis do not come up with a spectacular dangerous undertaking à la 9/11.

Whatever happens in the near future, you the sons of the Islamic Revolution with your Islamic Leader today and with all the martyrs who gave their lives — not for nationalism or sectarianism — have moved regional and world politics into its current position. Keep up the good work and feel secure that the Almighty will remain on your side as long as you remain on His. “And it is due upon us to support the committed Muslims” (30:47).

The new, emerging global order

Editorials, Zafar Bangash
http://www.crescent-online.net

Nature abhors a vacuum, especially a political vacuum. New players emerge to fill it in. The global order established by the victors of the Second World War is not only crumbling, it is almost dead; only its last rites need to be performed. Into this vacuum has stepped in more confident and assertive new players: Iran, Turkey, Brazil and Venezuela. There are others on the scene: China, Russia and to a lesser extent India but just like the declining power they hope to replace, they too are predatory in nature and act much like the fading “superpower”.

The demise of the old global order began with the decline of the self-proclaimed “sole superpower”: the US. Two decades earlier, Washington had no rivals and leading hawks, better known as neo-conservatives (neocons), boldly proclaimed that America should not allow any power — friend or foe — to emerge to challenge its global dominance. Its hegemonic stranglehold was to be maintained through massive military spending and endless wars. These policy prescriptions were outlined in a document called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The neocons asserted that like the 20th century, the 21st century too must belong to America. To ensure this, the US must use lethal military force pre-emptively.



The end of the Cold War should have ushered in peace; instead the US has continued massive military spending, outstripping every other country’s budget. Today, its annual military spending at $750 billion, disingenuously referred to as the “defence” budget, is more than the rest of the world’s total military spending combined. The neocons got their wish: exorbitant military spending and endless wars, but they have run up against the steely determination of people not willing to bow to others. America’s first mistake was to invade Afghanistan, not to conquer but “liberate”, in American mythology. The overthrow of the Taliban was easy; after losing a mere 13 soldiers despite killing tens of thousands of innocent Afghans, butchered by 1,000-pound bombs dropped from a height of 40,000 feet, the Taliban were driven from power. The apparently easy victory puffed up US military and political planners so much that they started to believe in the myth of US invincibility. Plans formulated before George W. Bush entered the White House were now implemented. Iraq was the next target on the neocons’ wish list because of its vast oil reserves and existential threat to Israel’s security. Syria, Iran and Pakistan were to be sorted out next. All this was also intended to ensure Zionist Israel’s dominance in the region.

The only trouble with this scenario was that unknown to the Americans, both the Iraqis and the Afghans turned out to be far tougher and more resilient adversaries than they had imagined. Nine years later, Afghanistan has turned out to be the biggest disaster the US military has faced, even eclipsing Vietnam in terms of spending. The two wars have cost more than $2 trillion and rising; the crashing US economy is only being kept alive by massive borrowing.

The neocons’, most of them Zionists, wish for endless war has been fulfilled but at the cost of bankrupting the US. Its chances of recovery are slim. On the global stage the US no longer carries much weight. This is what the bold nuclear deal by Turkey, Iran and Brazil indicates. A number of South American countries are also now thumbing their noses at the US, something unthinkable merely a decade ago.



But the real change is in the assertiveness of Turkey, Iran and Brazil. The credit for this goes to Islamic Iran. Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also shown that bold leadership energizes people. He has won the respect and admiration of Muslims and indeed other people worldwide because of his bold stand against Zionist gangsterism.

This is how it should be. Courageous leadership can change the political landscape quickly. What is needed is for these countries to challenge the global order at a more strategic level. Anachronistic institutions like the UN Security Council must be abolished. It is unacceptable for five countries, all of them ruling with failed Western ideologies, to decide how the rest of the world should conduct itself.

The de jure new order must become de facto. Muslims must take the lead to implement a fairer and more equitable world order free from exploitation and oppression. A better world is possible.

Neocons beat drums of war against Islamic Iran By Zafar Bangash

The drums of war are once again getting louder in Washington. Led by the Zionist cabal and its neocon allies, American warmongers are itching for another war, this time against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not satisfied with the blood-letting in Afghanistan and Iraq — two wars that have almost bankrupted America — the cabal and its allies are prepared to fight to the last American soldier to advance the agenda of their favourite country: Zionist Israel.

The cast of villains is all too familiar: Bill Kristol, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Norm Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Ken “cakewalk” Adelman, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and a host of others that were responsible for pushing America into war against Iraq in 2003. They did so by peddling the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). During testimony before the US Senate on November 8, 2002, Perle had boldly proclaimed that Iraq’s oil would pay for US war costs. Others, like then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had predicted the war would last no more than two weeks and in any case, all American soldiers would be home in “less than six months.” Seven years later and a million Iraqi and 4,400 American dead, US troops are still there.

Just as those lies were lapped up and eagerly peddled by a pliant media in 2002-2003, even more fantastic lies are being spun against Islamic Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. On June 27, for instance, when CIA Director Leon Panetta estimated that it would take Iran approximately two years to build a nuclear bomb if it made the decision to do so (emphasis ours), the rightwing Wall Street Journal immediately pounced on this twisting the statement. The Journal proclaimed in a bold headline on June 29: “Iran stands barely two years from an atomic bomb that could target Israel, Europe and beyond.” The Zionists have peddled another, equally fantastic lie: Iran will make the bomb within a year. This they have claimed repeatedly since 1996. There are other variants of the same lie.

Similarly, o-vert racism is at work now as it was in the case of Iraq: other people’s lives are not worth a dime. The only lives that matter are those of the Zionists even if there is no apparent threat to them from anyone except themselves. It is not bombs and bullets that threaten the illegal Zion-ist entity; it will implode because of its own inner contradictions. The writing is on the wall. The Zionist entity is deeply racist and caste-ridden: the Ashkenazi Jews from Europe and North America sit at the top of the caste pyramid; Russian and East European Jews are next followed by the Sephardim and the Falashas. Palestinian Arabs — the only rightful inhabitants of the land — are treated as “fifth-class” citizens and denied even basic rights. Because of these inner contradictions and the oppressive environment, many young Jews are fleeing the country; they, especially those from Eastern Europe and Russia, who are essentially economic migrants, do not believe Israel is the promised utopia.

Unable to staunch the flow of young blood from occupied Palestine, the Zionists and their Washington allies want to have their death wish of perpetual wars. Since the Zionist entity can only survive by evoking fear and invoking the non-existent threat to its survival, they believe wars will delay the day of reckoning.

The Zionist warmongers and their neo-con allies also have their clients in the US Congress — Zionist occupied territory, according to Pat Buchanan, the conservative commentator. Nearly a third of the Republican members of the US House of Representatives, for instance, have signed onto a resolution, HR 1553, that provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran. The resolution, publicly discussed and circulated by its lead sponsor, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) for months, states that Congress supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force”. This is nothing short of a declaration of war against a country that has not threatened the US or anyone else. If launched, it would constitute a war crime.

There are many walking in lock step with the drumbeat of war, including US President Barack Obama who signed into law additional new sanctions against Islamic Iran on July 1. These are in violation of and go beyond UN Security Council resolution 1929, passed on June 9 that while imposing additional sanctions, specifically called for renewed negotiations with Tehran. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced on July 25 that the Islamic Republic of Iran was willing to enter into broad-based discussions about its nuclear program at the end of Ramadan (after September 10). On July 26, the EU and Canada also announced additional sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Canada wields little influence in Tehran; its annual trade is barely $312 million — less than peanuts — but its action reflects the virulent racism at work against the Islamic Republic. Irwin Cotler, a Canadian member of parliament and former justice minister, leads the campaign peddling the lie that President Ahmedinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map”. Cotler is a well-known Zionist.

Both Russia and China have rejected additional US sanctions although their statements lack credibility because they look for their own interests and will not stand up for principles. Their vote in the Security Council was proof of this: they voted for an illegal resolution. Iran is entitled under NPT rules (to which it is a signatory) to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Nobody has been able to provide any evidence that it has diverted any of its low-grade uranium for military purposes. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a body subservient to the US and the West in general, has not provided any proof beyond vague allegations against Iran.

There are other developments as well that point to US-Zionist collusion in stoking the flames of war. Soon after last June’s Security Council resolution, US, German, British and Israeli warships and submarines entered the Persian Gulf. On June 18, nuclear-armed Israeli submarines passed through the Suez Canal in a visible show of force and threats. The Egyptian regime’s acquiescence in such illegal acts of aggression points to Zionist-Egyptian-Saudi-American collusion in fighting Islamic revival and self-determination. On July 16, the Times of London reported that two Israeli missile class warships had also sailed through the Suez Canal and deployed into the Red Sea in preparation for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Last month, the Israeli Air Force conducted long-range exercises in the US and tested a missile defence shield at a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean. And on July 26, the Israeli daily, Haaretz, reported that Israeli Mossad chief, Meir Dagan had secretly visited Saudi Arabia for talks on Iran.

Despite such provocative acts and open threats, Israeli firsters like Bolton, the hawkish former US ambassador to the UN during the Bush era, has proposed that outsiders can “create broad support” for a strike against Iran by framing it as an issue of “Israel’s right to self defense”. Bolton’s defence of “pre-emptive strike” was augmented by the terrorist acts of CIA-backed and financed Jundullah that launched attacks inside a mosque in Zahedan on July 15. At least 27 worshippers were killed and scores injured when two suicide bombers exploded themselves. Jundullah claimed responsibility for the attacks saying they were in retaliation for the June 13 hanging of their leader, Abdulmalek Rigi. Rigi was captured last February while flying from Dubai to Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital, to meet Richard Holbrooke, the US point man for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2007, Brian Ross of the US television network, ABC, had said that Jundullah was financed and trained by the CIA.

Not everyone, however, shares the neocons’ enthusiasm for war. US military leaders have warned that an attack against Iran could be catastrophic to US national security interests and could engulf the Middle East in a “calamitous” regional war. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has argued, “Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels.” Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has expressed his own reservations about an attack, saying, “Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome. In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”

Will the Zionist cabal and its neocon allies be constrained by such warnings? If history is any guide, it is unlikely. They do not care for the interests of the US or anyone else; their mission is to carry out the Zionist agenda. On June 8, 1967, for instance, the Israelis had bombed the USS Liberty killing 34 American sailors and wounding 71 others in broad daylight in the Mediter-ranean during Israel’s onslaught on Egypt. Was Israel called to account? The entire episode was hushed up despite American military personnel being deliberately targeted and killed by the Zionists. They and their US allies have become far more powerful and bolder since then.

However, despite being at the height of their power and military advantage, they have to come to terms with a reality they have never had to deal with before: the impact of Islamic self-awareness on the future existence of the Zionist Israeli State. As America and Israel have begun to lose their grip on the Arab and Muslim world, the most immediate political and military problem in the world today is that the State of Israel is dying. Ordinarily, for the Muslim world in particular, and the larger world in general, this would not be such a bad thing. But the Zionist monsters have threatened to take the whole world with them if their “security” is compromised in any way. In addition to open threats against the Europeans who have been trying to warm up to Iran for economic and energy reasons, the Israelis have been sending subliminal messages to all the power centers in the world.

To the American president, they have shown with the “White House Party Crashers” incident that they can breach the chief executive’s security anytime they want. Through their powerful lobbies, they have shown that they own the US Congress, and further by selling staging technology to the Chinese in the early 1990s for their ICBMs, they are showing the Ameri-cans, should they even think of getting out of line, that they can bring other parts of the world up to military parity in a hurry. With the successful forging of passports, they have shown the Euro-peans that all the effort and finances they have put into improved security measures are useless. Gilad Atzmon, the famous Israeli rejectionist, argues that the credit crunch is in fact a Zio-punch to the world financial system. And finally to would-be third world power centers, they have shown through food and energy speculation — when wheat and corn prices shot up by over 100% and when oil prices jumped to $150 per barrel — that they can bring them to their knees without hardly flinching.

But all of these signals, causing panic among their Western sponsors, are having no impact on resurgent Muslims. The Israelis know that they cannot handle a conventional war against Islamic Iran or even against Hizbullah. In the event of a war, military analysts suggest that the sheer volume and accuracy of Hizbullah’s M600 and Iran’s Shahab-3 surface-to-air and surface-surface missiles will overwhelm Israel’s air defenses (anti-missile missle systems such as the Patriot) and disrupt their air force bases.

This means that Israel, in order to survive, will have to use nuclear weapons. This is problematic for several reasons. First of all Iran has Russian and Chinese citizens working on their nuclear and energy facilities — killing them may initiate a world war. Second, if Israel cares about its own cities as much as it says, it would never nuke Gaza or Southern Lebanon. The resulting nuclear fallout would be pretty devastating. In fact, Israel possesses all those atomic bombs because it insists on keeping the rest of the world in a constant threat. Again, according to Gilad Atzmon, “…and this is the crux of the matter. We are dealing here with a lethal collective that is driven by deadly psychosis against humanity…”

Contrary to whatever its image-manufacturing spin machine in the media says, most Israelis-in-the-know are aware that Israel’s security zone is shrinking. As more Islamic representative governments take over in the surrounding sea of Muslims (Turkey and Iran are examples; Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon are not far behind), they are likely to come together on a common cause to push the Zionist cancer into the sea. For Israel to have any hope of short-term survival, it must pull America into its war on Iran. America has no stomach for another war in the Islamic East; to draw it in, not only does the Islamic Republic have to be demonized as the genesis of a worldwide takeover of Christendom by an Islamic caliphate, but a catalytic event on the order of 9/11 is required.

Recall that during the buildup to Oslo, the State of Israel’s foot dragging and behind-the-scenes intrigue was seen as the major obstacle to peace in the Holy Land and world opinion began to turn against it — then the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center occurred in 1993. Oslo was finished. After Durban I, the conference against racism in 2001, the State of Israel was labeled a racist, settler, apartheid state, and again favorable world opinion for Israel crumbled — then 9/11 coincidentally occurred and Israel once again escaped the retributive justice of the world community. And now after the Mavi Marmarra incident, Israeli impetuousness that thumbs its nose at any international standards of behavior has once again isolated Israel in world opinion.

World opinion, especially in Europe and America, has historically been Israel’s greatest asset. And so the time is right for another engineered 9/11 that is blamed on the Muslims of Iran. Look for either an attack on US soil — of a biological or chemical variety on some US city, or a limited yield nuclear explosion at some place like Disney World — or a Gulf of Tonkin-style attack on a US warship that kills hundreds of US soldiers in the Persian Gulf.

Despite warnings of dire consequences from think tanks such as Brookings Institution’s Saban Centre and Oxford Research Group relating to an attack on Iran, the Zionists and US neocons appear determined to plunge the US into another war. America is already on the verge of bankruptcy; its military has been badly mauled in Iraq and Afghanistan but the Zionist cabal wants to see more American servicemen die, all ostensibly to save the sinking ship of Zionism.

"Al-Ghadir" and its Relevance to Islamic Unity

Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahhari
Translated by Mojgan Jalali


The distinguished book entitled "al-Ghadir" has raised a huge wave in the world of Islam. Islamic thinkers shed light on the book in different perspectives; in literature, history, theology, tradition, tafsir, and sociology. From the social perspective we can deal with the Islamic unity. In this review the Islamic unity has been dealt with from a social point of view.

Contemporary Muslim thinkers and reformists are of the view that unity and solidarity of Muslims are the most imperative Islamic exigencies at the present juncture when the enemies have made extensive inroads upon the Islamic community and have tried to resort to different ways and means to spread the old differences and create new ones. We are aware that Islamic unity and fraternity is the focus of attention of the Holy Legislator of Islam and is actually the major objective pursued by this Divine religion as firmed by the Qur'an, the "Sunnah", and the history of Islam.

For this reason, some people have been faced with this question: Wouldn't the compilation and publication of a book such as "al-Ghadir" which deals with the oldest issue of differences among the Muslims- create a barrier in the way of the sublime and lofty objective of the Islamic unity?

To answer this question, it is necessary first to elucidate the essence of this issue, that is, the Islamic unity, and then proceed to examine the role of the magnum opus entitled "al-Ghadir" and its eminent compiler 'Allamah Amini in bringing about Islamic unity.

Islamic Unity

What is meant by the Islamic unity? Does it mean that one Islamic school of thought should be unanimously followed and others be set aside? Or does it mean that the commonalties of all Islamic schools of thought should be taken up and their differences be put away to make up a new denomination which is not completely the same as the previous ones? Or does it mean that Islamic unity is in no way related to the unity of the different schools of Fiqh (jurisprudence) but signifies the unity of the Muslims and the unity of the followers of different schools of Fiqh, with their different religious ideas and views, vis-a-vis the aliens?

To give an illogical and impractical meaning to the issue of the Islamic unity, the opponents of the issue have called it to be the formation of a single Madhhab, so as to defeat it in the very first step. Without doubt, by the term Islamic unity, the intellectual Islamic 'Ulama' (scholars) do not mean that all denominations should give in to one denomination or that the commonalties should be taken up and the different views and ideas be set aside, as these are neither rational and logical nor favorable and practical. By the Islamic unity these scholars mean that all Muslims should unite in one line against their common enemies.

These scholars slate that Muslims have many things in common, which can serve as the foundations of a firm unity. All Muslims worship the One Almighty and believe in the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s). The Qur'an is the Book of all Muslims and Ka'abah is their "qiblah" (direction of prayer). They go to "hajj" pilgrimage with each other and perform the "hajj" rites and rituals like one another. They say the daily prayers and fast like each other. They establish families and engage in transactions like one another. They have similar ways of bringing up their children and burying their dead. Apart from minor affairs, they share similarities in all the aforementioned cases. Muslims also share one kind of world view, one common culture, and one grand, glorious, and long-standing civilization.

Unity in the world view, in culture, in the civilization, in insight and disposition, in religious beliefs, in acts of worship and prayers, in social rites and customs can well turn the Muslim into a unified nation to serve as a massive and dominant power before which the big global powers would have to bow down. This is especially true in view of the stress laid by Islam on this principle. According to the explicit wording of the Qur'an, the Muslims are brothers, and special rights and duties link them together. So, why shouldn't the Muslims use all these extensive facilities accorded to them as the blessing of Islam?

This group of 'Ulama' are of the view that there is no need for the Muslims to make any compromise on the primary or secondary principles of their religion for the sake of Islamic unity. Also it is not necessary for the Muslims to avoid engaging in discussions and reasons and writing books on primary and secondary principles about which they have differences. The only consideration for Islamic unity in this case is that the Muslims- in order to avoid the emergence or accentuation of vengeance - preserve their possession, avoid insulting and accusing each other and uttering fabrications, abandon ridiculing the logic of one another, and finally abstain from hurting one another and going beyond the borders of logic and reasoning. In fact, they should, at least, observe the limits which Islam has set forth for inviting non-Muslims to embrace it:

"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner... "(16: 125)

Some people are of the view that those schools of fiqh, such as, Shafi'i and Hanafi which have no differences in principle should establish brotherhood and stand in one line. They believe that denominations which have differences in the principles can in no way be brothers. This group view the religious principles as an interconnected set as termed by scholars of Usul, as an interrelated and interdependent set; any damage to one principle harms all principles.

As a result, those who believe in this principle are of the view that when, for instance, the principle of "imamah" is damaged and victimized, unity and fraternity will bear no meaning and for this reason the Shi'ah and the Sunnis cannot shake hands as two Muslim brothers and be in the same rank, no matter who their enemy is.

The first group answers this group by saying: "There is no reason for us to consider the principles as an interrelated set and follow the principle of "all or none". Imam 'Ali ('a) chose a very logical and reasonable approach. He left no stone unturned to retrieve his right. He used everything within his power to restore the principle of "imamah", but he never adhered to the motto of "all or none". 'Ali ('a) did not rise up for his right, and that was not compulsory. On the contrary, it was a calculated and chosen approach. He did not fear death. Why didn't he rise up? There could have been nothing above martyrdom. Being killed for the cause of the Almighty was his ultimate desire. He was more intimate with martyrdom than a child is with his mother's breast. But in his sound calculations, Imam 'All ('a) had reached the conclusion that under the existing conditions it was to the interest of Islam to foster collaboration and cooperation among the Muslims and give up revolt. He repeatedly stressed this point.

In one of his letters (No.62 "Nahj al Balaghah") to Malik al-Ashtar, he wrote the following:

"First I pulled back my hand until I realized that a group of people converted from Islam and invited the people toward annihilating the religion of Muhammad(s). So I feared that if I did not rush to help Islam and the Muslims, I would see gaps or destruction which calamity would be far worse than the several-day-long demise of caliphate."

In the six-man council, after appointment of 'Uthman by 'Abdul-Rahman ibn 'Awf, 'Ali ('a) set forth his objection as well as his readiness for collaboration as follows:"

You well know that I am more deserving than others for caliphate. But now by Allah, so long as the affairs of the Muslims are in order and my rivals suffice with setting me aside and only I am alone subjected to oppression, I will not oppose (the move) and will give in (to it)." (From Sermon 72, "Nahj al- Balaghah").

These indicate that in this issue 'Ali ('a) condemned the principle of "all or none". There is no need to further elaborate the approach taken by 'Ali ('a) toward this issue. There are ample historical proofs and reasons in this regard.

'Allamah Amini

Now it is time to see to which group the eminent 'Allamah, Ayatullah Amini - the distinguished compiler of the "al-Ghadir" - belonged and how he thought. Did he approve of the unity of the Muslims only within the light of Shi'ism? Or did he consider Islamic fraternity to be broader? Did he believe that Islam which is embraced by uttering the "shahadatayn" (the Muslim creed) would willy-nilly create some rights for the Muslims and that the brotherhood and fraternity set forth in the Qur'an exists among all Muslims?

'Allamah Amini personally considered this point - i.e. the need to elucidate his viewpoint on this subject and elaborate whether "al-Ghadir" has a positive or a negative role in (the establishment of) Islamic unity. In order not to be subject to abuse by his opponent - be they among the pros and cons - he has repeatedly explained and elucidated his views.

'Allamah Amini supported Islamic unity and viewed an open mind and clear insight. On different occasions, he set forth this matter in various volumes of the "al-Ghadir'. Reference will be made to some of them below:

In the preface to volume I, he briefly mentions the role of "al-Ghadir" in the world of Islam. He states: "And we consider all this as service to religion, sublimation of the word of the truth, and restoration of the Islamic 'ummah' (community)."

In volume 3 (page 77), after quoting the fabrications of Ibn Taymiyah, Alusi, and Qasimi to the effect that Shi 'ism is hostile to some of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Household of the Prophet) such as Zayd bin 'Ali bin al-Huseyn, he notes the following under the title of "Criticism and Correction":

"These fabrications and accusations sow the seeds of corruption, stir hostilities among the 'ummah', create discord among the Islamic community, divide the 'ummah', and clash with the public interests of the Muslims.

Again in volume 3 (page 268), he quotes the accusation leveled on the Shi'ahs by Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida to the effect that "Shi'ahs are pleased with any defeat incurred by Muslims, so much as they celebrated the victory of the Russians over the Muslims." Then he says:

"These falsehoods are fabricated by persons like Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida. The Shi'ahs of Iran and Iraq against whom this accusation is leveled, as well as the orientalists, tourists, envoys of Islamic countries, and those who traveled and still travel to Iran and Iraq, have no information about this trend. Shi'ahs, without exception, respect the lives, blood, reputation, and property of the Muslims be they Shi'ahs or Sunnis. Whenever a calamity has befallen the Islamic community anywhere, in any region, and for any sects, the Shi'ahs have shared their sorrow. The Shi'ahs have never been confined to the Shi'ah world, the (concept of) Islamic brotherhood which has been set forth in the Qur'an and the 'sunnah' (the Prophet's sayings and actions), and in this respect, no discrimination has been made between the Shi'ahs and the Sunnis."

Also at the close of volume 3, he criticizes several books penned by the ancients such as "Iqd al-Farid" by Ibn Abd al-Rabbih, "al-Intisar" by Abu al-Husayn Khayyat al-Mu'tazili, "al Farq bayn al-Firaq" by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, "al-Fasl" by Ibn Hazm al-Andulusi, "al-Milal wa al-Nihal" by Muhammad ibn Abdul-Karim al-Shahristani "Minhaj al-Sunnah" by Ibn Taymiah and "al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah" by Ibn Kathir and several by the later writers such as "Tarikh al-Umam al-Islamiyyah" by Shaykh Muhammad Khizri, "Fajr al Islam" by Ahmad Amin, "al-Jawlat fi Rubu al-Sharq al-Adna" by Muhammad Thabit al-Mesri, "al-Sira Bayn al-Islam wa al-Wathaniyah" by Qasimi, and "al- Washi'ah" by Musa Jarallah. Then he states the following:

"By quoting and criticizing these books, we aim at warning and awakening the Islamic 'ummah' (to the fact) that these books create the greatest danger for the Islamic community, they destabilize the Islamic unity and scatter the Muslim lines. In fact nothing can disrupt the ranks of the Muslims, destroy their unity, and tear their Islamic fraternity more severely than these books."

'Allamah Amini, in the preface to volume 5, under title of "Nazariyah Karimah" on the occasion of a plaque of honor forwarded from Egypt for "al-Ghadir", clearly sets forth his view on this issue and leaves no room for any doubt. He remarks:

"People are free to express views and ideas on religion. These (views and ideas) will never tear apart the bond of Islamic brotherhood to which the holy Qur'an has referred by stating that 'surely the believers are brethren'; even though academic discussion and theological and religious debates reach a peak. This has been the style of the predecessors, and of the 'sahaba' and the 'tabi'un', at the head of them.

"Notwithstanding all the differences that we have in the primary and secondary principles, we, the compilers and writers in nooks and corners of the world of Islam, share a common point and that is belief in the Almighty and His Prophet. A single spirit and one (form of) sentiment exists in all our bodies, and that is the spirit of Islam and the term 'ikhlas,"

"We, the Muslim compilers, all live under the banner of truth and carry out our duties under the guidance of the Qur'an and the Prophetic Mission of the Holy Prophet (s). The message of all of us is 'Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam ... (3:18)' and the slogan of all of us is 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.' Indeed, we are (the members of) the party of Allah and the supporters of his religion.



In the preface to volume 8, under the title of "al-Ghadir Yowahhad al-Sufuf fil-Mila al-Islami", 'Allamah Amini directly makes researches into the role of "Al- Ghadir" in (the establishment of) Islamic unity. In this discussion, this great scholar categorically rejects the accusations leveled by those who said: 'Al-Ghadir' causes greater discord among the Muslims. He proves that, on the contrary, "Al-Ghadir" removes many misunderstandings and brings the Muslims closer to one another. Then he brings evidence by mentioning the confessions of the non-Shi'i Islamic scholars. At the close, he quotes the letter of Shaykh Muhammad Saeed Dahduh written in this connection.

To avoid prolongation of this article, we will not quote and translate the entire statements of 'Allamah Amini in explaining the positive role of "al-Ghadir" in (establishing) Islamic unity, since what has already been mentioned sufficiently proves this fact.

The positive role of "al-Ghadir" is established by the facts that it firstly clarifies the proven logic of the Shi'ahs and proves that the inclination of Muslims to Shi'ism - notwithstanding the poisonous publicity of some people - is not due to political, ethnic, or other trends and considerations. It also verifies that a powerful logic based on the Qur'an and the "sunnah" has given rise to this tendency.

Secondly, it reflects that some accusations leveled on Shi'ism - which have made other Muslims distanced from the Shi'ah- are totally baseless and false. Examples of these accusations are the notion that the Shi'ites prefer the non-Muslims to the non- Shi'i Muslims, rejoice at the defeat of non-Shi'ite Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims, and other accusations such as the idea that instead of going to hajj pilgrimage, the Shi'ahs go on pilgrimage to shrines of the Imams, or have particular rites in prayers and in temporary marriage.

Thirdly, it introduces to the world of Islam the eminent Commander of the faithful 'Ali ('a) who is the most oppressed and the least praised grand Islamic personality and who could be the leader of all Muslims, as well as his pure offspring.

Other Comments on "al-Ghadir"

Many unbiased non-Shia Muslims interpret the "al-Ghadir" in the same way that has already been mentioned.

Muhammad Abdul-Ghani Hasan al-Mesri, in his foreword on "al-Ghadir", which has been published in the preface to volume I, second edition, states:

"I call on the Almighty to make your limpid brook (in Arabic, 'Ghadir' means brook) the cause of peace and cordiality between the Shia and Sunni brothers to cooperate with one another in building the Islamic "ummah."

'Adil Ghadban, the managing editor of the Egyptian magazine entitled "al-Kitab", said the following in the preface to volume 3:

"This book clarifies the Shi'ite logic. The Sunnis can correctly learn about the Shi'i through this book. Correct recognition of the Shi'ahs brings the views of the Shi'ahs and the Sunnis closer, and they can make a unified rank".

In his foreword to the "al-Ghadir" which was published in the preface to volume 4, Dr. Muhammad Ghallab, professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Religious Studies al-Azhar University said:

"I got hold of your book at a very opportune time, because right now I am busy collecting and compiling a book on the lives of the Muslims from various perspectives. Therefore, I am highly avid for obtaining sound information about 'Imamiyah' Shi'ism. Your book will help me. And I will not make mistakes about the Shi'ahs as others have".

In this foreword published in the preface to volume 4 of the "al-Ghadir", Dr. 'Abdul-Rahman Kiali Halabi says the following after referring to the decline of the Muslims in the present age and the factors which can lead to the Muslims' salvation, one of which is the sound recognition of the successor of the Holy Prophet (s):

"The book entitled "al-Ghadir" and its rich content deserves to be known by every Muslim to learn how historians have been negligent and see where the truth lies. Through this means, we should compensate for the past, and by striving to foster the unity of the Muslims, we should try to gain the due rewards".

These were the views of 'Allamah Amini about the important social issues of our age and such were his sound reflections in the world of Islam.

Peace be upon him.