A FORUM TO EXCHANGE VIEWS AND IDEAS
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
சவூத் குடும்பம் ஏன் ஈரானைப் பயப்படுகின்றது-வெறுக்கின்றது?
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Unforgivable Saudi crimes
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Syria in the US-Saudi-Israeli prism
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
External powers destabilizing al-Asad regime in Syria
By Tahir Mustafa
Haytham Manna‘, not a lightweight in Syrian opposition circles, has taken a principled position, despite losing relatives in the current situation, to be skeptical of any opposition member that gets its marching orders and weapons from Washington, Paris, Istanbul, or Riyadh (through its Arab League surrogates).
It is now well established that foreign powers are deeply involved in destabilizing the regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. Such interference is not confined merely to anti-regime propaganda, although it plays a significant role by presenting misleading reports about civilian casualties to stoke anti-regime sentiment. The tribal-owned network, al-Jazeera, is in the forefront of such propaganda reinforcing the belief that it is working according to a US-Zionist-Saudi script that was agreed upon in Paris as early as February 2011. Recent reports that US forces have been sighted near the Jordanian-Syrian border give credence to the regime’s assertions that it is facing armed attacks from gangs as well as foreign mercenaries. Creation of the Syrian Free Army (SFA) is part of the same plot to provide cover to US-Israeli attacks inside Syria while claiming that defected soldiers are carrying out such attacks. Their number remains relatively small.
Where the foreign powers, including Turkey, miscalculated was in assuming that the Asad regime, like those in Tunisia and Egypt, would collapse quickly. They also made the mistake of assuming that once uprisings are staged in one part of the country — north near the Jordanian border because of easier smuggling of weapons — they would quickly spread to other areas including the capital Damascus. This has not happened. Not only has the regime been able to withstand the pressure, no uprisings have occurred in the two most important cities: Damascus and Aleppo. In fact, massive rallies have been staged in support of the regime that both al-Jazeera and the Washington Post presented as being anti-regime. Such reporting can hardly enhance their credibility.
Haytham Manna‘, chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, admitted in an interview with Mandiaal Nieuws (December 9) that people in Damascus and Aleppo are waiting on the sidelines because they are not clear about who or what would follow if Bashar al-Asad were ousted from power. Manna‘’s concern springs from the deep divisions that exist within the ranks of the opposition. The Syrian National Council (SNC) claims to represent all opposition groups and to speak on behalf of all the Syrian people but it has little support inside Syria. Led by Burhan Ghalioun, a Paris-based university professor, its members are mainly Syrian intellectuals in exile. The SNC was cobbled together in Istanbul at the beginning of October. The group held its first congress in Gammarth, north of Tunis, on December 16–18 to agree on a clearer strategy but little came out of the meeting despite its symbolic importance; it coincided with the first anniversary of the Tunisian uprising.
“We need to unite the opposition and make it stronger,” Ghalioun told the AFP news agency. This was a clear admission that the opposition is disunited. It did not help the SNC when a day earlier (December 15) another group of Syrians meeting in Istanbul, announced the formation of the National Alliance. Turkey is beginning to assume the role of headquarters of all Syrian opposition groups. “We need to emerge from this congress with a higher level of organization, clearer targets and more momentum,” Ghalioun said. These appear to have eluded the congress because despite claiming to have agreed to co-ordinate with the Free Syrian Army, the rebels — comprising a tiny minority — are pursuing their own agenda. It is this free for all that has frustrated the emergence of a coherent opposition strategy or how to pursue it. As Manna‘ pointed out, who will replace Asad? The opposition has no clue and this is what makes most Syrians reluctant to join them.
While Syrian opposition groups go through the motions of holding “grand” congresses, “extraordinary” meetings and other high sounding get-togethers, their net result is marginal. This explains why they are so dependent on outside help. The SNC in particular has called for UN intervention although it has stopped short of asking for armed intervention as in Libya, aware of the consequences that would follow. Besides, foreign, mainly Western powers know that Syria is no pushover, unlike Qaddafi’s Libya. The Syrian army and establishment have remained largely intact. There have been no defections of prominent members of the Syrian ruling elite. Defections from the army are small despite the Western media giving them great prominence and presenting them as large.
Perhaps realizing that Asad’s departure was not imminent, the Arab League tried to change its stance. After issuing threats to the Syrian regime to comply with its demands, it has now adopted a more conciliatory approach. The Arab League has never achieved anything in its entire tortuous existence. It is a conglomerate of potentates and tyrants that do not allow any freedom to their own people so how can they expect Asad to comply with their demands. On December 19, Syria signed an agreement with the Arab League to allow foreign observers into the country. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallam said the League had accepted a number of demands put forward by Damascus that included prohibition on visits to military bases or installations. In return, Syria agreed to an immediate end to firing on protesters and allowing League observers to oversee implementation of the agreement.
While opposition groups within Syria are willing to accept the agreement that would end the violence and usher in political reforms even if Asad remained in power, those residing outside are adamant that Asad must go. It is such divisions that have led many Syrians to conclude that opposition groups are incapable of offering them a better alternative to the present set-up. They are also unhappy with foreign-based groups whom they accuse of working at the behest of their foreign sponsors that have no interest in seeing a stable and peaceful Syria. In fact, they feel external powers have their own agenda to engulf Syria in turmoil.
Given that a meeting of Syrian opposition figures had taken place in Paris last February at which plans were agreed to launch an uprising against the Asad regime, gives credence to people’s skepticism. Those present at the Paris meeting included Syria’s former vice president, Abdul Halim Khaddam; Saudi security advisor, Bandar bin Sultan; US Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman; US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro; and chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, Haytham Manna‘. The line-up of participants is revealing. It was not a meeting of Syrian opposition groups per se but such troublemakers as the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even representatives of the Hariri clan from Lebanon were present.
At the Paris meeting the Saudis and the Americans pushed for smuggling weapons into Syria from Jordan to launch the uprising. Manna‘ was opposed to the idea and so concerned about its consequences that he immediately sent word to the tribal elders in Deraa, his home town, asking them not to allow any weapons to be smuggled in or used in the uprising. Manna‘ rightly feared that it would result in another Hama-type massacre as happened in 1982 and end in similar failure. Manna‘ is no softy. He belongs to a family with a long history of opposition to the regime. His father has spent many years in jail; his brother was killed in the uprising last August but he can see clearly what others are refusing to see. He does not want Syria to emerge with an even worse situation than it currently has.
While the Deraa elders accepted Manna‘’s advice, this did not prevent others from resorting to armed attacks. There have been numerous instances of masked gunmen appearing suddenly and firing indiscriminately at protesters before disappearing. They have also attacked police and other security personnel. While the BBC World Service never tires of reminding its readers about UN estimates of 5,000 people killed in nine months, it fails to mention that these include at least 1,100 security personnel. This is a very large number of police and soldiers to die at the hands of “peaceful” protesters. Further, the figure of 5,000 dead is quite arbitrary. This is based on claims made by opposition spokesmen without providing proof. True, one cannot belittle the number of civilian deaths, it must also be borne in mind that there are external players that want to destabilize Syria as part of the larger plan to undermine the resistance front against Zionist Israel. Manna‘ describes this as “negative intervention,” saying it “destroys but does not create.”
The concern that Syrian opposition figures abroad are working to the US-Israeli game plan is not unfounded. After all, for the US, survival and protection of Zionist Israel takes precedence over all other considerations. If the Asad regime were destroyed, it would deal a severe blow to the resistance front and both the Palestinians and Hizbullah would be exposed to grave danger. Some Syrians argue that their interests cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the Palestinians or Hizbullah. They must explain why they deserve any support or sympathy if they are willing to act as stooges of the US-Zionist duopoly financed by the Saudis?
Manna‘ has been quite clear about why he opposes the Syrian National Council. “I don’t know where it will take us…” He also fears foreign military intervention in Syria and wants change to come about from within. “We want the revolution to be an authentic realization of the people,” and he does not want to see the blood of the people “to be traded or sold — not in Washington, and not in any Arab capital whatsoever.”
Haytham Manna‘, not a lightweight in Syrian opposition circles, has taken a principled position, despite losing relatives in the current situation, to be skeptical of any opposition member that gets its marching orders and weapons from Washington, Paris, Istanbul, or Riyadh (through its Arab League surrogates).
It is now well established that foreign powers are deeply involved in destabilizing the regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. Such interference is not confined merely to anti-regime propaganda, although it plays a significant role by presenting misleading reports about civilian casualties to stoke anti-regime sentiment. The tribal-owned network, al-Jazeera, is in the forefront of such propaganda reinforcing the belief that it is working according to a US-Zionist-Saudi script that was agreed upon in Paris as early as February 2011. Recent reports that US forces have been sighted near the Jordanian-Syrian border give credence to the regime’s assertions that it is facing armed attacks from gangs as well as foreign mercenaries. Creation of the Syrian Free Army (SFA) is part of the same plot to provide cover to US-Israeli attacks inside Syria while claiming that defected soldiers are carrying out such attacks. Their number remains relatively small.
Where the foreign powers, including Turkey, miscalculated was in assuming that the Asad regime, like those in Tunisia and Egypt, would collapse quickly. They also made the mistake of assuming that once uprisings are staged in one part of the country — north near the Jordanian border because of easier smuggling of weapons — they would quickly spread to other areas including the capital Damascus. This has not happened. Not only has the regime been able to withstand the pressure, no uprisings have occurred in the two most important cities: Damascus and Aleppo. In fact, massive rallies have been staged in support of the regime that both al-Jazeera and the Washington Post presented as being anti-regime. Such reporting can hardly enhance their credibility.
Haytham Manna‘, chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, admitted in an interview with Mandiaal Nieuws (December 9) that people in Damascus and Aleppo are waiting on the sidelines because they are not clear about who or what would follow if Bashar al-Asad were ousted from power. Manna‘’s concern springs from the deep divisions that exist within the ranks of the opposition. The Syrian National Council (SNC) claims to represent all opposition groups and to speak on behalf of all the Syrian people but it has little support inside Syria. Led by Burhan Ghalioun, a Paris-based university professor, its members are mainly Syrian intellectuals in exile. The SNC was cobbled together in Istanbul at the beginning of October. The group held its first congress in Gammarth, north of Tunis, on December 16–18 to agree on a clearer strategy but little came out of the meeting despite its symbolic importance; it coincided with the first anniversary of the Tunisian uprising.
“We need to unite the opposition and make it stronger,” Ghalioun told the AFP news agency. This was a clear admission that the opposition is disunited. It did not help the SNC when a day earlier (December 15) another group of Syrians meeting in Istanbul, announced the formation of the National Alliance. Turkey is beginning to assume the role of headquarters of all Syrian opposition groups. “We need to emerge from this congress with a higher level of organization, clearer targets and more momentum,” Ghalioun said. These appear to have eluded the congress because despite claiming to have agreed to co-ordinate with the Free Syrian Army, the rebels — comprising a tiny minority — are pursuing their own agenda. It is this free for all that has frustrated the emergence of a coherent opposition strategy or how to pursue it. As Manna‘ pointed out, who will replace Asad? The opposition has no clue and this is what makes most Syrians reluctant to join them.
While Syrian opposition groups go through the motions of holding “grand” congresses, “extraordinary” meetings and other high sounding get-togethers, their net result is marginal. This explains why they are so dependent on outside help. The SNC in particular has called for UN intervention although it has stopped short of asking for armed intervention as in Libya, aware of the consequences that would follow. Besides, foreign, mainly Western powers know that Syria is no pushover, unlike Qaddafi’s Libya. The Syrian army and establishment have remained largely intact. There have been no defections of prominent members of the Syrian ruling elite. Defections from the army are small despite the Western media giving them great prominence and presenting them as large.
Perhaps realizing that Asad’s departure was not imminent, the Arab League tried to change its stance. After issuing threats to the Syrian regime to comply with its demands, it has now adopted a more conciliatory approach. The Arab League has never achieved anything in its entire tortuous existence. It is a conglomerate of potentates and tyrants that do not allow any freedom to their own people so how can they expect Asad to comply with their demands. On December 19, Syria signed an agreement with the Arab League to allow foreign observers into the country. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallam said the League had accepted a number of demands put forward by Damascus that included prohibition on visits to military bases or installations. In return, Syria agreed to an immediate end to firing on protesters and allowing League observers to oversee implementation of the agreement.
While opposition groups within Syria are willing to accept the agreement that would end the violence and usher in political reforms even if Asad remained in power, those residing outside are adamant that Asad must go. It is such divisions that have led many Syrians to conclude that opposition groups are incapable of offering them a better alternative to the present set-up. They are also unhappy with foreign-based groups whom they accuse of working at the behest of their foreign sponsors that have no interest in seeing a stable and peaceful Syria. In fact, they feel external powers have their own agenda to engulf Syria in turmoil.
Given that a meeting of Syrian opposition figures had taken place in Paris last February at which plans were agreed to launch an uprising against the Asad regime, gives credence to people’s skepticism. Those present at the Paris meeting included Syria’s former vice president, Abdul Halim Khaddam; Saudi security advisor, Bandar bin Sultan; US Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman; US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro; and chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, Haytham Manna‘. The line-up of participants is revealing. It was not a meeting of Syrian opposition groups per se but such troublemakers as the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even representatives of the Hariri clan from Lebanon were present.
At the Paris meeting the Saudis and the Americans pushed for smuggling weapons into Syria from Jordan to launch the uprising. Manna‘ was opposed to the idea and so concerned about its consequences that he immediately sent word to the tribal elders in Deraa, his home town, asking them not to allow any weapons to be smuggled in or used in the uprising. Manna‘ rightly feared that it would result in another Hama-type massacre as happened in 1982 and end in similar failure. Manna‘ is no softy. He belongs to a family with a long history of opposition to the regime. His father has spent many years in jail; his brother was killed in the uprising last August but he can see clearly what others are refusing to see. He does not want Syria to emerge with an even worse situation than it currently has.
While the Deraa elders accepted Manna‘’s advice, this did not prevent others from resorting to armed attacks. There have been numerous instances of masked gunmen appearing suddenly and firing indiscriminately at protesters before disappearing. They have also attacked police and other security personnel. While the BBC World Service never tires of reminding its readers about UN estimates of 5,000 people killed in nine months, it fails to mention that these include at least 1,100 security personnel. This is a very large number of police and soldiers to die at the hands of “peaceful” protesters. Further, the figure of 5,000 dead is quite arbitrary. This is based on claims made by opposition spokesmen without providing proof. True, one cannot belittle the number of civilian deaths, it must also be borne in mind that there are external players that want to destabilize Syria as part of the larger plan to undermine the resistance front against Zionist Israel. Manna‘ describes this as “negative intervention,” saying it “destroys but does not create.”
The concern that Syrian opposition figures abroad are working to the US-Israeli game plan is not unfounded. After all, for the US, survival and protection of Zionist Israel takes precedence over all other considerations. If the Asad regime were destroyed, it would deal a severe blow to the resistance front and both the Palestinians and Hizbullah would be exposed to grave danger. Some Syrians argue that their interests cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the Palestinians or Hizbullah. They must explain why they deserve any support or sympathy if they are willing to act as stooges of the US-Zionist duopoly financed by the Saudis?
Manna‘ has been quite clear about why he opposes the Syrian National Council. “I don’t know where it will take us…” He also fears foreign military intervention in Syria and wants change to come about from within. “We want the revolution to be an authentic realization of the people,” and he does not want to see the blood of the people “to be traded or sold — not in Washington, and not in any Arab capital whatsoever.”
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Imam Khamenei's Message to Hajj Pilgrims 2011
The spiritual spring of hajj has arrived with its freshness, purity and God-given grandeur and majesty, gathering again the faithful and eager hearts like butterflies encircling the Ka'bah of Divine Unity and Islamic solidarity.
In the name of Allah, the All-beneficent, the All-merciful
All praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and may blessings and greetings be to the Master of creatures, Muhammad al-Mustafa, and his immaculate Family and his Companions.
The spiritual spring of hajj has arrived with its freshness, purity and God-given grandeur and majesty, gathering again the faithful and eager hearts like butterflies encircling the Ka'bah of Divine Unity and Islamic solidarity.
Camped at Mecca and Mina, Arafat and Mash'ar are the fortunate human beings who, having responded to the call of "proclaim the Hajj to all the people", are being honored with the hospitality of the munificent Lord. Here is the blessed House and the source of guidance from which the manifest signs of divinity radiated, and here is where a canopy of safety is set up.
Wash your hearts in the water of piety, humility and God's remembrance. Open the inner eye to the lights of the Divine signs. Embrace the spirit of submission and dedication, which are the hallmarks of the true servant-hood. Keep on refreshing in your hearts, the memory of that patriarch, who, in willing compliance, led his Ishmael to the scene of sacrifice, thus showing us the real path of attaining the friendship of the Glorious Lord, and the manner of traversing it with a resolve infused with faith, and an intent imbued with sincerity.
The station of Abraham is one among these manifest signs. The footprint of Abraham, Peace Be upon Him, by the side of the Holy Ka'bah, is only a symbol of the station of Abraham. The station of Abraham is his station of dedication and self-sacrifice, his fortitude and resistance to personal desires, and fatherly feelings, as well as against the domination of unfaithfulness, polytheism, and Nimrod, the tyrant of the time.
Today these two paths of deliverance lie open before each of us individuals belonging to the Muslim Ummah. Determination, courage and firmness of resolve on part each one of us, can advance us towards the same goals to which mankind has been invited by the Divine envoys, from Adam to Muhammad, with the promise of dignity and felicity in the world and the Hereafter, for those who take this path.
It will be worthy of the Hajj pilgrims at this great assembly of the Islamic Ummah to address the most important issues of the Islamic world. The uprisings and revolutions in some Islamic countries are at the head of these issues. The events that have taken place in the Islamic world in the interval between the previous and the present Hajj pilgrimages can change the destiny of the Islamic Ummah; these events speak of a bright future accompanied with dignity and progress, both material and spiritual. Dictators and 'corrupt' regimes, allied with foreign powers, have been overthrown in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, and the stormy waves of popular uprisings in some other countries threaten to bring down the castles of wealth and power.
This new chapter in the history of our Ummah reveals certain truths, which are all manifest signs of divinity, and give us vital lessons. These truths should be taken into account by Muslim nations in all their calculations.
First, a young generation has emerged from the heart of these nations, after decades of political subjugation to foreign powers; with its admirable self-confidence, it is ready to face dangers, confront dominant powers, and is determined to change the status-quo.
Second, despite the authority and efforts of secular rulers and their overt and covert measures to curtail the influence of religion in these countries, Islam, with its conspicuous and impressive presence, has become the guiding principle of popular expression and sentiment. Like a fountainhead, it has given vitality and freshness to the rallies and activities of the millions. The mosques and minarets, Islamic slogans and calls of Allahu Akbar, are all clear indications of this fact, and the recent Tunisian elections provide clear evidence for this claim. Without doubt, free elections in any Islamic country will result in nothing but what happened in Tunisia.
Moreover, as revealed for all by this year's events, God Almighty has placed such a force in the resolve and determination of nations, that no power whatsoever, can withstand it. With this God-given power, nations can change their destiny and taste God's help.
During the last decades, arrogant powers, led by the United States, had reduced regional states to a state of subjugation through their political and security ploys. They thought they had opened an obstacle-free highway for their rising economic, cultural and political domination over this sensitive part of the world. But now, they are the primary target of disgust and hatred of the region's nations. To be certain, the governments and powers emerging from these revolutions, will never submit to the disgraceful inequalities of the past; the political geography of the region will be drawn by these nations, which will hopefully result in their dignity and complete independence.
The crafty nature of the hypocritical Western powers has become all too clear for the people of these countries. The US and Europe made their utmost efforts to retain their pawns in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, each of them in a particular way. But when they were forced to give in to the resolve of the nations, they cast a wily and cunning smile at the triumphant public.
There are further precious facts and manifest Divine signs embedded in the regional events of the past year, which are not hard to discern for reflective minds.
Nevertheless, the entire Islamic Ummah and especially the revolutionary nations stand in need of two basic elements:
First, the continuity of their stance and avoidance of slackness in their resolve. In the Holy Qur'an, God almighty addresses Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him). He says: "Be steadfast, just as you have been commanded, [you] and whoever has turned [to God] with you; and do not overstep the bounds (11:112)" and elsewhere He tells the Prophet: "Be steadfast, just as you have been commanded (42:15)." Prophet Moses, Peace Be upon Him, is quoted as telling his people: "Turn to God for help and be patient. The earth indeed belongs to God, and He gives its inheritance to whomever He wishes of His servants, and the outcome will be in favor of the God-fearing. (7:128)"
At the present, the most significant aspect of God-fearing for these rising nations is not to stop in their auspicious movement, and not to be complacent. This is the most important part of being pious; whoever is pious, is rewarded with a "favorable outcome."
Second, vigilance against the plots and gimmicks of arrogant international powers, who have suffered a setback from these uprisings and revolutions. They will not stand idle. They will reenter the arena with all their political, financial and security ploys to reestablish their influence in these countries. Their policies are the carrot and stick, and deceit. Experience has shown there are some among the elite who are susceptible to these gimmicks. Fear, greed or negligence prompt them to serve the enemy. The vigilant eyes of the youth, intellectuals and religious scholars, should be watchful.
The biggest danger that threatens unfaithful and arrogant powers is the intervention and influence of the new political systems in these countries, they will do their utmost to see that these new systems do not take on an Islamic and democratic identity. All concerned people in these countries and all those who cherish their homeland's honor, dignity and progress, should work hard to ensure the establishment of a complete and perfect Islamic and democratic character. In this regard, the role of the constitutions will be prominent.
National unity and official recognition of sectarian, tribal and ethic differences, are a precondition of future success.
The brave revolutionary nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, as well as other nations, should know that the only way they can free themselves from the oppression and guile of the United States and other Western powers is the establishment of a balanced global power conducive to their interests. Muslims should take themselves to a level that is equal to where world powers currently stand in order to solve their differences and problems with these world powers. This cannot be achieved except with the cooperation, understanding and solidarity of Islamic countries. This was an unforgettable advice of the great Imam Khomeini.
For months on, the United States and NATO dropped bombs on Libyan people, making Gaddafi, a vicious dictator, an excuse. Gaddafi was someone who was considered their close friend prior to the uprising of the Libyan people. They used to coddle him, steal the wealth of Libya through his hands, and press or kiss his hand in order to dupe him. Following the people's uprising they made him an excuse to destroy the entire infrastructure of Libya. Which state could stop the tragic massacre of the Libyan people and destruction of the country at the hands of NATO? Until the claws and fangs of the bloodthirsty and barbaric Western powers are not broken such dangers will remain conceivable for Islamic countries. Their safety from such dangers is not possible except by transforming the Islamic world into a powerful pole.
Today, the West, the United States and Zionism are weaker than ever before. Economic troubles, successive failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, deep-running public outrage in America and other Western countries, with its daily widening scope, the struggles and sacrifices of the people of Palestine and Lebanon, the daring popular uprisings in Yemen, Bahrain and some other countries under the influence of the US - all these are a good omen for the Islamic Ummah especially for revolutionary nations. Faithful men and women throughout the Islamic world particularly in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, should make the most of this opportunity for the formation of an international Islamic power-block. The vanguard and the elite of the uprisings should place their trust in Almighty God, and with reliance on his promise of help adorn the new chapter in the history of the Islamic Ummah, with their lasting achievements; thus, earning God's approval and fulfilling the prerequisites of His help.
May Peace Be upon God's righteous servants!
Seyyed Ali Hossaini Khamenei
29 Dhul Qa'adah, 1432
5 Aban, 1390
27 October, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Muslim East: revolutions and counter-revolutions
Power is not given up voluntarily, at least not by those who have usurped it by force in the first place. The Muslim East (Middle East) is witnessing unprecedented uprisings by peoples that were hitherto considered too apathetic to move. There was a sense of resignation until, that is, the uprising in Tunisia sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, the street vendor who could not take the public insults of a female police officer any longer, changed everything. His act set the entire Muslim East ablaze; the flames are still raging. How many dictators will ultimately be consumed is still uncertain but a clearer understanding of the reality is crucial.
Long entrenched dictators can be dislodged from power; that is often the easy part. It is not the dictators but the system that maintains them in power that must be better understood. Dictators do not rule in a vacuum; they represent the tip of the iceberg. The ingredients that make up this iceberg are the military, the police, the bureaucracy, the political parties (the ones permitted to operate), judges, courts and a vast network of patronage in which businessmen and politicians develop close relations to help sustain the system and the dictator in power. Since everyone’s personal interests are tied to the system, it is not so easy to dismantle. In fact, the system would often sacrifice the individual in order to dissipate public anger and help stabilize and situation. Tunisia falls into this category.
Let us consider specific examples. Both in Tunisia and Egypt, two long-serving dictators — Zine el-Abidine and Hosni Mubarak — were driven from office within a short period. Yet it would be wrong to assume that the systems that sustained them have also gone. In both countries, vested interests are fighting back to subvert gains made by the people. The military appears to be the first but not the only line of defence. There is another, more invidious factor at work: withdrawal of capital from society, leaving protesters and the disadvantaged even more vulnerable. This is evident in both countries.
Billions have been taken out of each country and there is little likelihood that this money would be returned as long as the political environment remains uncertain. Moneyed classes are also linked with foreign financial interests. In fact, they often work in tandem to advance each other’s interests. Foreign governments, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and foreign banks withhold capital at the most critical juncture to force governments to tailor their policies to suit external players. If money is given it comes with powerful strings attached. It is during times of upheavals that governments most urgently need cash because production is disrupted while workers still have to be paid. These are the people that live from one weekly wage to the next.
Further, many societies especially Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan, are also dependent on tourism for revenue that dries up in times of political turmoil. Why would foreign tourists wish to visit a country engulfed in riots? Naturally, it affects the livelihood of that segment of society that services the tourist industry. Under such conditions, it becomes easier to turn one group of people against another. This has been attempted in Egypt where government-sponsored thugs, disguised as street vendors, were unleashed against the protesters camped in Tahrir Square accusing them of undermining their livelihood. Revolutionary fervor in the absence of power and authority to make decisions can take people only so far. This is the dilemma facing the young protesters in Egypt. They understand the challenges facing them but appear powerless on many issues. It would be unrealistic to assume that they will gain their rights without further sacrifices and vigilance against subversion.
This is the story of the revolutionaries. There are also counter-revolutions underway in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. After overcoming the initial shock of losing two dictators in rapid succession, especially Mubarak of Egypt who was viewed as the lynchpin of the colonial occupation of the Muslim East, the Saudis were able to formulate a counter-revolutionary strategy. Their first line of attack was Bahrain where they dispatched troops to crush the people’s aspirations. This has largely been successful. They are also deeply involved in Yemen where President Ali Abdullah Saleh, badly injured in a missile strike on his residence on June 3, is undergoing treatment in a Riyadh hospital. He refuses to relinquish power and the Saudis do not appear keen to nudge him out. In contrast, the Saudis are actively involved in undermining regimes in Libya and Syria with Western help and to plant their own agents in power.
The reasons for undermining the regimes in Libya and Syria are not the same. In Libya the aim is to subvert Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s plans to break loose of the Western economic and financial stranglehold, especially in Africa. This is seen as a threat to Western economic hegemony that could inspire people elsewhere to emulate his example and hasten collapse of the West’s financial system. Syria does not pose a financial threat but it is part of the resistance front against Zionist colonialism. Israel’s weakening would undermine Western strategic and military dominance in the region. In both Libya and Syria, the Saudis are acting as Western Zionist agents by financing anti-government rebels.
While there is no single theory that fits all Middle Eastern uprisings, the struggles of peoples in these lands are not only for fundamental rights. There are also external players involved in manipulating local grievances in order to advance their own agenda. This is most clearly evident in Libya and Syria where the people’s legitimate grievances are being exploited for Western political and geo-strategic purposes. In Bahrain, the situation is reversed: the people’s legitimate demands are being suppressed in order to maintain the rule of a corrupt monarchy subservient to the West.
Long entrenched dictators can be dislodged from power; that is often the easy part. It is not the dictators but the system that maintains them in power that must be better understood. Dictators do not rule in a vacuum; they represent the tip of the iceberg. The ingredients that make up this iceberg are the military, the police, the bureaucracy, the political parties (the ones permitted to operate), judges, courts and a vast network of patronage in which businessmen and politicians develop close relations to help sustain the system and the dictator in power. Since everyone’s personal interests are tied to the system, it is not so easy to dismantle. In fact, the system would often sacrifice the individual in order to dissipate public anger and help stabilize and situation. Tunisia falls into this category.
Let us consider specific examples. Both in Tunisia and Egypt, two long-serving dictators — Zine el-Abidine and Hosni Mubarak — were driven from office within a short period. Yet it would be wrong to assume that the systems that sustained them have also gone. In both countries, vested interests are fighting back to subvert gains made by the people. The military appears to be the first but not the only line of defence. There is another, more invidious factor at work: withdrawal of capital from society, leaving protesters and the disadvantaged even more vulnerable. This is evident in both countries.
Billions have been taken out of each country and there is little likelihood that this money would be returned as long as the political environment remains uncertain. Moneyed classes are also linked with foreign financial interests. In fact, they often work in tandem to advance each other’s interests. Foreign governments, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and foreign banks withhold capital at the most critical juncture to force governments to tailor their policies to suit external players. If money is given it comes with powerful strings attached. It is during times of upheavals that governments most urgently need cash because production is disrupted while workers still have to be paid. These are the people that live from one weekly wage to the next.
Further, many societies especially Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan, are also dependent on tourism for revenue that dries up in times of political turmoil. Why would foreign tourists wish to visit a country engulfed in riots? Naturally, it affects the livelihood of that segment of society that services the tourist industry. Under such conditions, it becomes easier to turn one group of people against another. This has been attempted in Egypt where government-sponsored thugs, disguised as street vendors, were unleashed against the protesters camped in Tahrir Square accusing them of undermining their livelihood. Revolutionary fervor in the absence of power and authority to make decisions can take people only so far. This is the dilemma facing the young protesters in Egypt. They understand the challenges facing them but appear powerless on many issues. It would be unrealistic to assume that they will gain their rights without further sacrifices and vigilance against subversion.
This is the story of the revolutionaries. There are also counter-revolutions underway in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. After overcoming the initial shock of losing two dictators in rapid succession, especially Mubarak of Egypt who was viewed as the lynchpin of the colonial occupation of the Muslim East, the Saudis were able to formulate a counter-revolutionary strategy. Their first line of attack was Bahrain where they dispatched troops to crush the people’s aspirations. This has largely been successful. They are also deeply involved in Yemen where President Ali Abdullah Saleh, badly injured in a missile strike on his residence on June 3, is undergoing treatment in a Riyadh hospital. He refuses to relinquish power and the Saudis do not appear keen to nudge him out. In contrast, the Saudis are actively involved in undermining regimes in Libya and Syria with Western help and to plant their own agents in power.
The reasons for undermining the regimes in Libya and Syria are not the same. In Libya the aim is to subvert Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s plans to break loose of the Western economic and financial stranglehold, especially in Africa. This is seen as a threat to Western economic hegemony that could inspire people elsewhere to emulate his example and hasten collapse of the West’s financial system. Syria does not pose a financial threat but it is part of the resistance front against Zionist colonialism. Israel’s weakening would undermine Western strategic and military dominance in the region. In both Libya and Syria, the Saudis are acting as Western Zionist agents by financing anti-government rebels.
While there is no single theory that fits all Middle Eastern uprisings, the struggles of peoples in these lands are not only for fundamental rights. There are also external players involved in manipulating local grievances in order to advance their own agenda. This is most clearly evident in Libya and Syria where the people’s legitimate grievances are being exploited for Western political and geo-strategic purposes. In Bahrain, the situation is reversed: the people’s legitimate demands are being suppressed in order to maintain the rule of a corrupt monarchy subservient to the West.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Has the Arab Spring wilted before its blossom?
Zafar Bangash
Expectations for rapid change in the Muslim East have not materialized despite two long-entrenched dictators in Tunisia and Egypt respectively being driven from power in quick succession. What has prevented change in places like Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria, that the people in Tunisia and Egypt were able to achieve in short order? Are conditions in these societies so different than in Tunisian and Egypt to frustrate change? Let us be clear: there are few representative governments anywhere in the Middle East. The two examples in the region are those of Turkey and Islamic Iran. The other wall-to-wall Middle Eastern dictatorships have managed to fight off challenge to their rule, which General Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were unable to do.
At the outset we must acknowledge the undoubted courage of the people participating in the uprisings. They managed to shed their fear of the dreaded security forces. Fear has been a powerful instrument in the hands of all oppressors throughout the ages. There is also no doubt that the ubiquitous security and intelligence forces have acted with absolute ruthlessness to crush any attempt at dissent. But this was also the case in Tunisia and Egypt. Thus, in order to understand fully what is afoot we need to look a little deeper. Both in Tunisia and Egypt, the militaries refused to obey the dictators’ orders to open fire on unarmed civilians. When the police forces failed to quell the protests, the dictators were forced to flee. The credit for all the uprisings belongs to the people of Tunisia who were the first to take a stand. Their example has been emulated by people elsewhere.
We must also recognize that the conditions in each society are not identical. Further, there is external interference both in support of the dictators as well as against them. Again, this represents a curious paradox. For instance, in the case of Libya and Syria, external powers are actively backing the people’s movements. In Libya, the West led by Britain, France, Italy and the US, has gotten involved directly. They have now overstepped their original dubious mandate given by the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to prevent the Libyan government from attacking the rebels from the air. The Libyan government immediately declared a ceasefire and offered to negotiate with the rebels but the West was not interested. Since the March 17 no-fly resolution, Western planes have bombed Libyan ground formations, their equipment, oil installations and even residential areas. At the end of April, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s house was attacked killing his youngest son and three grandchildren. How does this advance enforcement of the no-fly zone? This was an act of cold-blooded murder perpetrated by Western forces. NATO attacks on residential areas have continued unabated as reported in this edition of the Crescent International. While Western forces have not intervened in the same manner in Syria, there is active support for the rebels there and money and guns are being supplied by the Saudis, Lebanese and Israelis.
The West’s policy toward Libya and Syria stands in sharp contrast to its behaviour in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In all three cases, the West has not only maintained a studied silence but has actually supported suppression of peaceful protesters. This is most shocking in the case of Bahrain where peaceful protesters including women and children have been attacked and killed. Even medical personnel have not been spared because they treated those that had been injured during the protests. Entire neighbourhoods have been placed under curfew while armed thugs of the regime have gone about arresting and dragging youth from their homes as well as vandalising their properties and cars. Even masjids have been destroyed and copies of the Qur’an desecrated. Women have been raped. Such crimes have evoked little reaction from the West or its human rights organizations that are quick to denounce those they do not like. Why the double standards?
Saudi Arabia managed to both crush the meek attempts at uprising as well as bribe others into silence. The Saudi regime has also used its court ‘ulama’ to issue “fatwas” to declare uprisings against the ruler as “haram”. One is forced to ask: what ayat of the Qur’an or what hadith of the noble Messenger (pbuh) support such contention? If per chance, this is true, then why has the Saudi regime joined in the assault on Qaddafi’s regime and why is it supporting the uprising in Syria?
So we see that there is more at work than meets the eye. Many of these dictators quickly re-adjusted their policies once they had overcome the shock of the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak. In fact, it is known that Saudi king Abdullah was upset with US President Barack Obama for allowing the overthrow of Mubarak who was a major lynchpin of the US-crafted order in the region. After Mubarak’s removal, the new dispensation in Egypt announced on May 26 that the Rafah crossing with Ghazzah would be opened so that the long-besieged and oppressed Palestinians can get much needed supplies of food, medicine and cement and steel to rebuild their homes.
It is clear that rulers like Qaddafi, the two Abdullahs and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen will fight back to retain power. Saleh also has the support of the Americans because he is seen as a bulwark against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Whether there is any substance to this claim is open to debate but Saleh has convinced the Americans that he is their man to fight the al-Qaeda “menace”. Thus, while the regimes are fighting back, the West’s hypocrisy stands exposed as does the brutal nature of these regimes. Finally, the lack of leadership of all these movements is a major cause for concern. They can and are being manipulated. That is why Islam lays so much emphasis on leadership.
While one must extend every support to the people’s movements in these countries, it must be admitted that change will not come about easily or without huge cost. The dictators are fighting back and will show no respect for people’s rights or lives. They never have in the past; why should they behave differently now that they are fighting for their lives?
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Arabia Without Sultanism
The Arab streets everywhere are now teeming
with popular demands for real change.
By Kaveh Afrasiabi
The late Fred Halliday, a keen observer of the laboratory of Middle East politics, once at the tender age of 28 penned an impressive book titled Arabia Without Sultan,
in mid-1970s. Years later, Halliday, who was a friend of this author,(1) once told me that he no longer subscribed to a bulk of his analysis in that book -- that was written from a Marxian perspective and vested undue hope in the leftnationalist movements ‘from the blow’ to topple the western- backed sultanist regimes in the oil region of Persian Gulf.
Still, Halliday clung to his historical materialist view that the narrow elites of those oil sheikhdoms and their fragmentary legitimation due to the profound social stratifications and unjust hierarchies and exclusionary politics were bound to experience significant jolts sooner or later and that it was simply a matter of time before the winds of change traversed the semi-closed waters of Persian Gulf and reached them too in the contemporary context of “post-cold war era.” Nearly 40 yrears later, Halliday’s astute predictions appear to be somewhat exonerated by the prospects of an Arabia without Sultanism that is a shade different from the type of wholesale regime change foreseen by him, for in both the Persian Gulf region and the wider Arab world we are witnessing the dawn of a new era where the volcanic rupture of mass movements for democracy, as in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, may culminate less in outright regime change and more in incremental, albeit significant, democratization, understood as a process of institutional change portending the wresting away of concentrated power in the monarchical hands and into the representative hands of assemblies, councils, etc., altogether featuring a rapid metamorphosis, or said otherwise re-inventing, of those regimes along inclusionary and participatory lines. Enough hand-picked and rubber-stamped “consultative” councils or assemblies, and limited and exclusionary elections that defy the elementary meaning of true elections with genuine impact on the reified and antiquated status quo aptly perpetuated by the praetorian guards and foreign powers. The Arab streets everywhere are now teeming with popular demands for real change, and in the case of Arabia’s sultans this means the end of business as usual mandating drastic measures to make the necessary adjustments that may be painful to the ruling families and their system of patronage keenly cultivated throughout their political systems, yet inevitable if they want to prevent a massive revolution from the below.
King Abdullah II Of Jordan 10 Year Anniversary Celebration
Thus, the cabinet changes and shuffling of government personalities, witnessed nowadays
in several Arab monarchies, go hand in hand with the reluctant nods from the top to the popular demands for accountability, anti-corruption and nepotism, independence and democracy (within limits). After decades of development without liberalization, the stage is now set to close the gap and sail through the turbulent channels of change that dictate the abrogation of big chunks of monarchical power and privilege in favor of “people’s power.” Spelling doom for the future of dynastic Sultanism, the current trend is toward a new political narrative that indicates the acidic mixture of democratic institutions, such as effective, representative parliaments and an independent judiciary, with the relics of the past, above all the monarchies.
Sheikh Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, King of Kuwait
The irony of conservative monarchies, forced into the uncomfortable position of initiating self-reform as a result of intensifying pressures from the below, is incomprehensible save through the intricate lenses of democratization in tune with the intricacies of local customs and traditions. In the new Arabia without Sultanism the sultans can survive only by being the grave diggers of their own sultanist power and authority, that is nowadays the focus of popular anger seeking a more diffuse and participatory political system. Whether or not the co-habitation remains temporary depends on multiple factors, chiefly the balance of forces and the ability of rulers to re-invent themselves as stakeholders in the movement for change, rather than as simply the targets of those changes.
In the case of Bahrain, where the embattled ruler has put the crown prince in charge of mapping a new course of action to appease the revolting population, now squarely in possession of the Pearl Square in Manama, this would mean power-sharing with the hitherto disenfranchised Shiite majority who yearn for citizen input and equal rights. The Sunni-led order, backed by Saudi Arabia and US power, is no longer tenable and nothing can prevent the winds of change that drift in the direction of a future coalition of Sunnis and Shiites running the government and controlling its various branches including its legislative and judicial branches. Without doubt, Bahrain’s foreign behavior and its present allegiances to US power will not remain immuned from the important domestic changes gripping the country, no matter what the degree of US’s unhappiness over these developments ringing “chaos” and “insecurity” for US’s vested interests in the region. A corresponding diminishing role and influence of US power in Bahrain is inserted in the scripts for change, albeit in a subtle way that will likely become more pronounced in the future as the internal dynamics of change shows is foreign ramifications. The US may end up keeping its naval headquarters and bases in Bahrain, but will likely come under increased pressure and scrutiny that will, in turn, put certain limits on the conduct of US military power, e.g., the US will no longer be able to take for granted that Bahrain will be a passive observer of any action against the neighboring Iran. Instead, the “new Bahrain” may consent to continuing US military presence on the condition that it will refrain from any unilateral action against Iran or any other regional player. This would clearly represent a net loss for the hitherto unfettered US military movement and power projection in the region, but one that the US may have to bite the bullet and accept, as still a better alternative than pushing the status quo ante to a reluctant population to no avail. The end-game may be not just the decline but the evaporation of US, and altogether
western, hegemony in the region, but the intermediate future bespeaks of a mixed narrative that is wrought with the tensions of an odd coupling, the strange bedfellows of monarchy and democracy.
with popular demands for real change.
By Kaveh Afrasiabi
The late Fred Halliday, a keen observer of the laboratory of Middle East politics, once at the tender age of 28 penned an impressive book titled Arabia Without Sultan,
in mid-1970s. Years later, Halliday, who was a friend of this author,(1) once told me that he no longer subscribed to a bulk of his analysis in that book -- that was written from a Marxian perspective and vested undue hope in the leftnationalist movements ‘from the blow’ to topple the western- backed sultanist regimes in the oil region of Persian Gulf.
Still, Halliday clung to his historical materialist view that the narrow elites of those oil sheikhdoms and their fragmentary legitimation due to the profound social stratifications and unjust hierarchies and exclusionary politics were bound to experience significant jolts sooner or later and that it was simply a matter of time before the winds of change traversed the semi-closed waters of Persian Gulf and reached them too in the contemporary context of “post-cold war era.” Nearly 40 yrears later, Halliday’s astute predictions appear to be somewhat exonerated by the prospects of an Arabia without Sultanism that is a shade different from the type of wholesale regime change foreseen by him, for in both the Persian Gulf region and the wider Arab world we are witnessing the dawn of a new era where the volcanic rupture of mass movements for democracy, as in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, may culminate less in outright regime change and more in incremental, albeit significant, democratization, understood as a process of institutional change portending the wresting away of concentrated power in the monarchical hands and into the representative hands of assemblies, councils, etc., altogether featuring a rapid metamorphosis, or said otherwise re-inventing, of those regimes along inclusionary and participatory lines. Enough hand-picked and rubber-stamped “consultative” councils or assemblies, and limited and exclusionary elections that defy the elementary meaning of true elections with genuine impact on the reified and antiquated status quo aptly perpetuated by the praetorian guards and foreign powers. The Arab streets everywhere are now teeming with popular demands for real change, and in the case of Arabia’s sultans this means the end of business as usual mandating drastic measures to make the necessary adjustments that may be painful to the ruling families and their system of patronage keenly cultivated throughout their political systems, yet inevitable if they want to prevent a massive revolution from the below.
King Abdullah II Of Jordan 10 Year Anniversary Celebration
Thus, the cabinet changes and shuffling of government personalities, witnessed nowadays
in several Arab monarchies, go hand in hand with the reluctant nods from the top to the popular demands for accountability, anti-corruption and nepotism, independence and democracy (within limits). After decades of development without liberalization, the stage is now set to close the gap and sail through the turbulent channels of change that dictate the abrogation of big chunks of monarchical power and privilege in favor of “people’s power.” Spelling doom for the future of dynastic Sultanism, the current trend is toward a new political narrative that indicates the acidic mixture of democratic institutions, such as effective, representative parliaments and an independent judiciary, with the relics of the past, above all the monarchies.
Sheikh Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, King of Kuwait
The irony of conservative monarchies, forced into the uncomfortable position of initiating self-reform as a result of intensifying pressures from the below, is incomprehensible save through the intricate lenses of democratization in tune with the intricacies of local customs and traditions. In the new Arabia without Sultanism the sultans can survive only by being the grave diggers of their own sultanist power and authority, that is nowadays the focus of popular anger seeking a more diffuse and participatory political system. Whether or not the co-habitation remains temporary depends on multiple factors, chiefly the balance of forces and the ability of rulers to re-invent themselves as stakeholders in the movement for change, rather than as simply the targets of those changes.
In the case of Bahrain, where the embattled ruler has put the crown prince in charge of mapping a new course of action to appease the revolting population, now squarely in possession of the Pearl Square in Manama, this would mean power-sharing with the hitherto disenfranchised Shiite majority who yearn for citizen input and equal rights. The Sunni-led order, backed by Saudi Arabia and US power, is no longer tenable and nothing can prevent the winds of change that drift in the direction of a future coalition of Sunnis and Shiites running the government and controlling its various branches including its legislative and judicial branches. Without doubt, Bahrain’s foreign behavior and its present allegiances to US power will not remain immuned from the important domestic changes gripping the country, no matter what the degree of US’s unhappiness over these developments ringing “chaos” and “insecurity” for US’s vested interests in the region. A corresponding diminishing role and influence of US power in Bahrain is inserted in the scripts for change, albeit in a subtle way that will likely become more pronounced in the future as the internal dynamics of change shows is foreign ramifications. The US may end up keeping its naval headquarters and bases in Bahrain, but will likely come under increased pressure and scrutiny that will, in turn, put certain limits on the conduct of US military power, e.g., the US will no longer be able to take for granted that Bahrain will be a passive observer of any action against the neighboring Iran. Instead, the “new Bahrain” may consent to continuing US military presence on the condition that it will refrain from any unilateral action against Iran or any other regional player. This would clearly represent a net loss for the hitherto unfettered US military movement and power projection in the region, but one that the US may have to bite the bullet and accept, as still a better alternative than pushing the status quo ante to a reluctant population to no avail. The end-game may be not just the decline but the evaporation of US, and altogether
western, hegemony in the region, but the intermediate future bespeaks of a mixed narrative that is wrought with the tensions of an odd coupling, the strange bedfellows of monarchy and democracy.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Closer look at the uprisings in the Islamic East
By Zafar Bangash
Since the first stirrings of revolt erupted in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, the entire Islamic East has been engulfed in civil uprisings. Two tyrants — General Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and General Hosni Mubarak — have been swept from power. Other dictators are feeling the heat to varying degrees. The uprisings have been described variously as “pro-democracy movements”, the “Arab Awakening” or even “revolution”. Absent from all these is mention of any Islamic movement. In the West this is greeted with much relief. While Muslims make up the overwhelming majority of Islamic East’s population, the West does not want Islam to have anything to do with shaping the socio-political order in these societies. Similarly, Islamic parties — al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon, al-Nahdah and others — are either banned or seldom mentioned as having played any role in the uprisings. This, however, is only one dimension of the problem.
The more important question is whether these uprisings can be characterized as revolutions. At one level, perhaps they could be, insofar as new methods of protest, such as twitter and facebook, are being utilized for mass mobilization. Additionally, in almost all countries, the youth are in the vanguard. This, too, is a new phenomenon but it would be simplistic to get carried away with this. The youth can and have offered great impetus to movements in all countries; they usually do but in the current uprisings, they are not following any particular leader or ideology. At one level this may be considered a blessing since an identifiable leader can be arrested and the movement dealt a blow but one should not fall for romanticism. In the real world, there are certain requirements that must be in place for a movement to succeed. It is not enough to get rid of a tyrant or be content with a change of faces. What follows next is equally, if not more important. Thus we need to have a better understanding of certain basic rules.
First, let us be clear about the phenomenon of revolution. While the word revolution has great romantic appeal, the minimum requirement for any movement to be called revolutionary is that it overthrows the existing order and replaces it with a new, radically different one. This has not happened either in Tunisia or Egypt where old-time dictators have been removed from power but the old order is still in place and does not appear to be in any danger of collapse. The Egyptian military, an important pillar of the old regime, is fully in control. The newly appointed foreign minister, Nabil al-Araby, endorsed the Saudi invasion and occupation of Bahrain in order to crush the people’s uprising there. The state of emergency remains in place; the border with Gaza remains sealed and even the old pharaoh, Hosni Mubarak, who presided over decades of torture, is living comfortably in his opulent villa in Sharm al-Shaikh. So what has changed in Egypt?
The same is true of other countries — Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — where uprisings are underway. With the exception of Bahrain and Jordan, there are no identifiable leaders or movements leading these protests. In Bahrain, the movement is led by the ‘ulama while in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (IAF) is in the lead but its demands are modest. The IAF has not demanded abolition of the monarchy; it is only calling for resignation of the prime minister and curtailment of some of the king’s vast powers. These can hardly qualify as revolutionary demands much less leading to any revolutionary change.
Muslims must understand that the systems in their societies are constructs imposed by colonial occupiers. These are not designed to serve the interests of the people. The ruling elites in every Muslim society barring Islamic Iran are all subservient to the West. Unless Muslims strive to dismantle these systems completely as happened in Iran in 1979, their desire for change will not be realized. For change to occur, certain conditions must be met. There must be an Islamic movement led by charismatic muttaqi leadership that will give a directional course to the movement. All energies of the people must be channeled toward the goal of not only overthrowing the old order but also replacing it with an Islamic order. Such a movement can have no parochial, tribal or national interests. Further, the movement and leadership must not be dependent on any outside powers, such as the US, Britain, France etc. In Egypt, for instance, the new regime is still pursuing old policies and the movement that forced the removal of Mubarak is too consumed by internal, purely nationalistic issues to worry about the plight of the Palestinians. This nationalistic trend is worrying. Similarly, the rebels in Libya want the West to help them against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s forces. Since when has the West supported people’s yearning for freedom and fundamental rights? If Qaddafi is overthrown, the Libyan people may find themselves entering a period of direct colonialism once again.
While one must applaud the courage and dedication of the youth and other segments of society in the Islamic East for rising up against their tyrannical rulers, there is still a long way to go before they will taste true freedom. This will not come about by espousing nationalistic slogans or accepting servitude to the West, regardless of how much they may hate their present rulers. The ruling oligarchies in the West are not their friends; they are nobody’s friends, not even their own people whom they oppress and exploit. No amount of wishful thinking can change this reality.
Muslims struggling for dignity and freedom must have a much clearer understanding of the reality both in their own societies and of the global setup if they are to achieve success in their undoubtedly genuine struggles. Nothing comes easy. This is what we learn from the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh). Muslims should not harbor any illusions about the price that freedom demands.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Role of Saudi Arabia in the Islamic world. (An Analysis which must be read)
The Hijaz region which is recognized today by the name of Saudi Arabia is exemplary and unique in many regards. The Holy Kaaba is present on this piece of land due to which the greatness of this land is non comparable to any other land. The Holy Kaaba is referred to as "Baitullah" (The house of Allah) in Quran. The esteemed city of Mecca is present in Hijaz and inside it is the House of Allah. A vast area on the land of Mecca is known as "Haram" (sacred land). In Hijaz the desert of Arafah is present, the land of Mashhar, the valley of Mina, Safa, Marwa and Zamzam is also there.
In Hijaz is the birth place of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s) and it has on the Mount of Noor, the Cave of Hira. Hijaz is the land of Revelations and the station of descending of Quran. It is the land of Prophethood and Messengers. It has the sacred shrine of the greatest of all Prophets and it is the Medina of Prophet (s.a.w.s). It has place of birth and burial of the Progeny of Prophet (s.a.w.s). The companions of Prophet (s.a.w.s) have spend their lives on this land and the grave of the Doyen of Martyrs , Hamza is also present on this land.
The completion of the chain of Prophets has happened on this land. It is also the land of miracles. The greatest of all civilizations in history was evident on this land. The elegant face of just governance was seen on this land by the people living in ignorance. It is the land of arousing of Prophets, place of migration, the place of circumbulation of Prophets, the ground of holy crusade, the tombs of martyrs, the place of sacrifice of Ismail, the place of struggle of Hajar, the station of examination for Ibrahim, the footsteps of Fatema (s.a), the place of upbringing of Hasnain (a.s), the place of Ali (a.s), the asset of Islam and the Qiblah of Muslims. In entire history the land of Hijaz has been the centre of attention for humanity and even today it is the centre of attention and will remain till the day of judgement.
The Qiblah of Muslims
Every year millions of Muslims gather in Mecca and Medina for delivering the obligatory rituals of Hajj. For doing Umrah and paying homage to the shrine of Prophet (s.a.w.s) hundreds of thousands of Muslims travel to this land. Every Muslim has this longing desire in his heart to visit the House of Allah in Mecca and pay homage to the shrine of Prophet (s) at least once in his lifetime. The hearts of Muslims irrespective of where they live are always present in Hijaz. Today more than 1 billion Muslims offer their prayers facing this land and consider the remembrance of Mecca and Medina as worship. And they also consider any talks and discussions about Mecca and Medina as sacred.
The centre of Muslim nation (Muslim Ummah)
All this was done as part of divine wisdom. Allah (s) selected Mecca for Kaaba and commanded Ibrahim, the friend of Allah to migrate towards this land, then got his house constructed here by the hands of his Friend (Ibrahim).
Then through this leader of mankind (Ibrahim) invited people for Hajj and later selected the land of Mecca as the birth place for his beloved Prophet (s.a.w.s). He (s.w.t) descended the Quran on this land and established the House of Allah as the Qiblah for Muslims instead of the Aqsa Mosque.
This land was declared as the centre of earth, centre of humanity and centre for the followers of Islam. He also made this as the centre of worship so that the Muslim nation should have one centre around which they gather. They should become one unified nation (Ummah) to follow truth, to stand against the enemies of Allah, to spread the name of Allah, to disgrace infidelity and by abstaining the path of misguidance they should remain firm on the path of righteousness.
The land of miracles
Allah has extracted this land out from sovereignty of tribes and communities making it public for all Muslims so that every Muslim has freedom to come to this land. According to George Jordac that land which due to its air and water was not beneficial for any person, it was neither useful for settlement or for comfort living, it was neither appropriate for business nor for tourism, the vastness of this dreadful desert could only be measured by imaginations, where everything is restless and even the sand particles do not remain stationary in one place, the scorching desert of this land has made its residents nomadic, where a single drop of water does not comes down from the skies for years in a stretch, not a single straw of grass grows out of earth and the residents of this land were barbaric, wild, blunt and uncivilized but Allah (s) selected this land for the greatest and biggest of all miracles. It was selected for such a Prophet and a constitution which in a short span of time subjugated the entire world and from where a ever growing civilization from human history got manifested.
The Land of Revolution
According to Ameerul Momineen (a.s) Allah (s) aroused his last Prophet in these rocky mountains and sand deserts who granted the entire world an immortal constitution of life by his ethics and values. The sand and dry air weather of Hijaz has the ability to dominate the world. It contains the ability to transform barbarism into civilization and discords into unity. This land has the strength to transform bloodshed into peace and develop an environment of spirituality instead of materialism. This Qiblah of Muslim has full power present in it to bend down the necks of entire humanity in front of truth and righteousness. But all these are not the effects of its dust, its sandy desserts or its rocky mountains; these are not the achievements of the Bedouins and camel herders of this land but instead all these are due to Islam, Quran and Holy Prophet else this land has seen the era of ignorance as well. Human being were buried alive here, movement of bloodshed was there and such level of tyranny and oppression was present which was never seen on any other part of earth.
The two sides of the Land of Hijaz
There are several ups and downs in the land of Hijaz, the era of ignorance has passed from here, the most ignorant children of Adam has spend their lives here, purest of human beings have also opened their eyes on this land, Hijaz was a temple of idol worship as well as the centre of monotheism, it has been the place of Satanic visits and also the station for descending of Angels, Abul Jahl and Abul Lahb were born on this land but also Mohammad and Ali, the evil tree was also year whereas the pure tree is also here, the tyrants and assassinators were here but also martyrs and oppressed, the liver chewer Hind and his family has been settled here whereas the family of Doyen of Martyrs Hamza was also here, there were companions as well as polytheists, there were believers as well as hypocrites, there was progeny of Prophet (s.a.w.s) and also enemies of Ahlulbayt (a.s), there were Jews as well as crusaders of Islam present, there was an environment of barbarism and an Islamic government was also established on the same land, there was kingship as well the Caliphate, the shadow of Taghoot (devils) has been here and also the system of Imamate.
History reveals that after the four Caliphs the system of kingship started. After Bani Umayyah the taste of power intoxication was enjoyed by Bani Abbas as well. The Ottoman Turks have also governed this land and after them the accursed shadow of Britain also hovered over this region whose evil traces are still present.
The accursed shadow of English over the world
Amongst the nations of world several communities have done oppression and cruelty over other weak communities but amongst all the cruel nations the English community has proved itself to be the most cruel. Greed, Avarice and looting is the distinguished trait of this community.
The crown of looting the entire world is on its forehead. Whenever the English got any clue of wealth and assets present on any land they adopted every crime to loot it; it is as if looting and robbery is in their veins. Hence where there was need to fight they got into battles and where ever treachery was required they acted with deceit. If there existed a need to create dissension and discord they even did not refrain from it. They entered in some places in the name of trading and in some other places with the excuse of settling down. This is the only community whose ancestors have looted all the five big continents, captured their lands and made the local residents of those lands as their slaves.The English have brutally crushed every obstacle coming in their way of loot and arson. These tyrants did not even leave religion aside specifically the hatred they possessed from the very beginning against the religion of Islam. They have tried every possible way for damaging Islam. In the "Salibi" (Christian Crusade) war entire Europe started a sequential battle in united form against Muslims and in this the British were always in forefront.
From 1189 to 1192 the English king Philip II lead the "Salibi" battle but after being defeated by Salahuddin Ayub came down to treachery.
After this the British never sat comfortably and everyday they devised some conspiracy or some new operation against Muslims. In year 1600 Queen Elizabeth issued an order to start trading inside India. With deception, tricks, oppression and tyranny by 1857 entire India had come under the control of Britain and the flag of these sea pirates was flying over the land of Indian subcontinent. The name sake Muslims , the foolishness of Hindu rulers and the simplicity of Indians has played a significant role in this.
The cradle of the centre of Muslims
After establishing their dominance and control over India the arrogant butchers enhanced their efforts to besiege the centre of Muslims. At that time all the Muslim countries were under Ottoman rulership due to which the Ottoman empire was considered as the super power of that time. The British could not tolerate this super power for a single moment. After being defeated in the "Salibi" battle the conspiracies of treachery and deceit were being worked out to break the Ottoman government. In order to achieve this purpose Britain deployed its spies in different columns of the Ottoman empire whose task was to arouse different tribes and communities against the central government. These spies worked with full dedication and one of its examples is the famous British spy Lieutenant Colonel Edward Lawrence Thomas.
After the first world war when the conspiracy for breaking the Ottoman Empire was decided then as its first step Colonel Lawrence was sent to Arab regions under Ottoman government so that he can arouse the people against the central government and pursue them for a rebellion. Lawrence learnt Arabic language, adopted Arabic culture, understood and took benefits from the strengths and weakness of Arabs. He united various rebellion tribes and with the help of British army he made them fight against the Ottoman government and eventually was successful in this goal. The union of British Pan Arabism and the ideology of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab together broke into pieces the Ottoman Caliphate thereby establishing a British favouring tribe over its every regional part.
Just like other areas the land of Hijaz was also the centre of attention for Britain because these arrogant thieves were well versed with the significance and importance of this land. They were well aware about the spiritual strength present inside Mecca and Medina. They knew that the two "Haram's" (sacred mosques) of Mecca and Medina are the centre for Muslims across the world. Since it was essential to subjugate this centre for the sake of overcoming Islam Britain supported the ruling tribe of the progeny of Saud in Najd so that the Ottoman dominance over Hijaz can be obliterated. For this heavy blood battles were fought between Arabs and Turks and devastating battles amongst Arabs as well. In these battles two British spies played a significant role. Thomas Lawrence was active in the camp of Shorafa Hashmi and Wiliam Shakepeare in the camp of the Progeny of Saud. The main task of both these spies was to make the rebellion Arab tribes active against the Ottoman government.
William Shakespeare was killed in one of the battles and in his place Britain deployed another spy by the name Harry Saint John Briger Philby. Saint John expressed himself as Muslim and kept his name as Abdullah. He strengthened the Saud family and kept them hopeful on British promises. Hijaz had the governance of Shorafa but due to presence of Lawrence this area was considered as the region under support of Britain. In 1928 a covenant was made between Britain and the Saud family which stated that Britain will not become an obstacle in the way of overpowering Hijaz. In 1932 Britain formally handed over the Hijaz region to the Saud family and the foundations of a new Sultanate was laid which was named as Saudi Arabia.
The History of Aale Saud
The progeny of Saud in reality is from the children of Saud bin Mohammad bin Makran. In 1735 Saud bin Makran first time took over an island and got settled there. This tribe from then kept on spreading and was in the forefront for breaking the Ottoman government.
They have been fighting battles with various other tribes where they were victorious in some and got defeated in some others. The other most supportive element after Britain for the Saud family to come into power were the specific Islamic thoughts of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab from 1703 to 1792. After Saud bin Makran his son Mohammad bin Saud became his successor. At that time the Saud family was not so strong in comparison with other tribes.
In 1744 Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab was removed out of Ayaina after which he met Mohammad bin Saud in Dariya . They were both happy after meeting each other because they were both in need of each other. Thus a covenant was made between them by which both will unite to capture the region of Najd and its surrounding areas. The religious authority will be with Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab and the political authority will remain with Mohammad bin Saud. In order to strengthen this covenant Mohamed Saud also married the daughter of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab.
They both with the help of each started to overcome different cities and tribe of Najd region one by one. Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab issued a verdict that if all the Muslims at that time do not accept his thoughts and ideology then they are infidels and it is permissible as well as obligatory to assassinate them. As a consequence open killing of Muslims started and at some places people would show resistance and other places they would accept. They were all authentic Muslims but instead of following the specific Hambali visions of Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab they were following the other Imams of religion.
The specific visions of Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab later became the foundations of Wahabi sect which is the common religion in Saudi Arabia. The family of Saud and the followers of Abdul Wahab accomplished many successes in a short period of time. Almost the entire region of Najd came under their control; the terror of their army spread everywhere; whichever city they visited they invited people towards their ideology and on denials they would loot everything and kill the individuals.
They would behead Muslims and leave the bodies on streets unburied. According to them all other Muslims are polytheists and infidels hence all the assets of other Muslims are permissible and legitimate for them.
The rise of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
After establishing complete control over Najd Aale Saud turned towards Hijaz and captured Mecca in 1806 but in 1819 the Egyptian army attacked and got freedom for Hijaz from the hands of the family of Saud.
After this for once again capturing Hijaz Aale Saud and the followers of Abdul Wahab who were termed as "Ikhawanul Tauheed" (Monotheism Brotherhood) attacked several times and in 1932 Britain handed over the keys of Hijaz completely to Aale Saud. From that time till date Hijaz became part of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia or "المملکة العربیة السعودیہ" (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) after becoming a kingdom had its first commander Abdul Aziz ibne Abdur Rahman bin Fasil. Soviet Union was the first to accept this government made under the name of Saudi Arabia.
The British favours and blessings
This is how the government of Saudi came into existence at the centre and Qiblah of Muslims. This authority was given to Aale Saudi in return for their services for breaking the great centre of Muslims, the Ottoman Empire. Such kind of favours, blessings and gifts of Britain are found in abundance. The British have always rewarded and compensated those Muslims with authority and power who have revolted and done betrayal against their own nation, community, religion and ideology. The countries and governments gifted by British have never been the basis of any goodness for Muslims.
In 1957 in the Battle of Plessey as a reward for treachery against Nawab Sirajud Daulah the British made Mir Jafar as the governor of Bengal province. Mohammed Ali was made the governor of Deyal as a return for his betrayal against the Karnataka government. The treacherous beings like Mir Qasim and Najmud Daulah were made Nawabs and governors in India as gifts by East India Company. Mir Sadiq and Puranya who betrayed the Lion of Mysore Tipu Sultan were also promised with high order gifts. The majority of Arab Rulers are the outcome of British friendship and treachery with Islam and Muslims.
The three foundation pillars of Saudi government
The kingdom of Aale Saud has three foundation pillars:
1. The family of Aale Saud
2. The visions (Ideology) of Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab
3. Britain
These three elements are established even today with one change that Britain has been replaced by America. In 1943 America established political relationship with Saudi Arabia. The new government of Aale Saud which came into power in 1932 took some time to resolve internal issues. It took a long time for them to get support of other tribes, besiege other opponents and organizing other administrative issues. At this time oil was not discovered in Saudi Arabia hence the only source of income were the Hajj Pilgrims and visitors to the House of Allah. In 1945 at the time of second world war Saudi Arabia officially handed over its sea ports to Britain and America. Though prior to this American and British companies had discovered oil in Saudi Arabia which economically strengthened the government. The Aale Saud prior to 1940 along with taking control over internal issues also started establishing relationship with other nations and slowly started to move towards that purpose and objective which formed the basis for existence of the unity of these three elements (Aale Saud, Abdul Wahab and Britain).
One of the targets amongst these objectives was to take leadership of Islamic world in their hands (Saudi). Certain factors after the second world war got them very close to this objective. One was the victory of alliance in the war i.e. victory of America and Britain, second the wealth from oil and third was the Zionist establishment of an usurped state by Israel on the land of Palestine.
The role of Malik Faisal
Faisal bin Abdul Aziz was the most successful ruler in achieving these objectives amongst all the rulers of Aale Saud. In 1964 Faisal bin Abdul Aziz got Saud bin Abdul Aziz out of power and took control of the throne , though during the time of Saud bin Abdul Aziz also the actual power was with Faisal only.
Faisal was a very capable person. He was born in 1905 and in 1960 he was made the governor of Riyadh. Faisal was having the command of all the battles that took place during this period. He was also a courageous warrior along with being a clever politician. During the era of Saud bin Abdul Aziz he was also the crown prince (Wali Ahad), also the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. In this period he sped up the development work for the country. He established factories, schools and more than all this he managed foreign policies in more active manner. Faisal was formally selected as the king of Saudi Arabia in 1964. He already had command over all the affairs. After strengthening the nation from inside he started to pay more attention towards the Islamic world. He played a deep role in the Palestinian matter. He participated in the battles against Israel and fulfilled his long time desire of leading Arab nations. The leadership of Arab nations prior to this was with Egypt but during the era of King Faisal with money power Saudi visited all the Muslim nations and in fact he is the first Saudi ruler who visited Turkey in 1966. Similarly he got Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt on his side.
During the Arab Israel battle in 1973 King Faisal became a hero when he cut off the oil supply to the nations supporting Israel. On one side where the Muslim world ranked him as a hero for this step on the other hand it created panic in the Western world. With the efforts of Faisal organisations for Arab nations were formed, conferences were held and it was due to his efforts that the conference for Leadership of Islamic nation was arranged.
At this time America left Saudi Arabia for its support for Palestine and opposition to Israel turning towards strengthening Iran and giving Iran the role of a regional policeman. The Shah of Iran also taking benefit from the situation in order to please America and West started delivering oil to Israel and all other Western countries. Saudi Arabia was successful in establishing its position at the Political level in the world which means the relations were now well mended with other governments and rulers. The wealth of oil enhanced this work further within the poor Muslim nations.
The dream of Religious and Political Leadership of the Islamic world
The political leadership of Aale Saud was not sufficient because the political activities and impacts had no role played by the followers of Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab. They were just supervising the religious affairs in the country whereas their long time desire was leadership of Muslim world. Thus the way they came out of Najd; Aale Saud together with the followers of Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahab captured Hijaz and other regions similarly for the leadership of Islamic world together they started activities.
Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahab had some specific thoughts though he was himself not the owner of these thoughts instead in this matter he was the inheritor of the famous 7th Hijri century anthropomorphism personality Ibne Taymiya. The original name of Ibne Taymiya is Taqī ad-Dīn Abu Abbās Ahmad ibn Abd al-alīm ibn Abd as-Salām Ibn Taymiya al-Harrānī but he is recognized by his title Taymiya ibn Harrani. Though on his outward side he was of Hambali school of thought but practically he was not limited to any specific school of thought. He denies many established thoughts and beliefs of Islam. This person is also given the title of reformer in Muslims. According to him he wants to purify Islam from those things which according to him is not Islam. These thoughts were first confined to intellectual and religious circles and several discussions regarding rejections and acceptance of these were done from 7th Hijri century to 12th century. Majority of Islamic scholars rejected these thoughts but in the 12th century Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab started to promote these thoughts and also brought them out of visionary domain into the political world. It is due to this reason that these thoughts and teachings are known as Wahabism. One big and significant specialty about this school is the followers of this ideological school have understood Islam based on their own specific research principles and they do not accept other methods of research. They consider all other sects other than them as out of Islam and declare them as infidel. They impose their specific thoughts and style on other by force rather than by logic and proofs because Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab has spread these thoughts using the sword of Aale Saud. Thus spreading this religious school of thought has become the part and essential element of this.
The formula of unification by force
The newly formed government by the name of Saudi Arabia in 1936 took more support of three things for the sake of taking control of leadership of Muslim Ummah. One was the sanctity of Mecca and Medina, second the income from oil and third from Wahabi thoughts. The Saudi ambassadors instead of establishing leadership by accepting the visionary differences amongst Muslims took advantage from their original style of imposing their visions and thoughts over the Muslim world.
The religious counsellors thought that till the time different sects and schools of research are present amongst Muslims unity cannot be established amongst them. This is the same thought under its pretext today America has firmly intended to impose the new world order across the globe. According to America until unless the world has one culture (Western culture), one style of governance (Democracy) and one economical system (Capitalism) the dream of global leadership cannot be fulfilled. Hence for unifying the world it essential to unite them by weapon power the practicalities of which are witnessed by the entire world today. Saudi Arabia has also attempted to spread their thoughts by wealth and weapons and Muslims are suffering as an outcome of this.
The correct way of unifying Ummah (nation)
In history the leadership of Muslims has been always with those who had control of Mecca and Medina. First it was Bani Umayyah ,then Bani Abbas and then the Ottomans. If Aale Saud would have taken benefits from being the care taking authorities of Mecca and Medina and would not have tried to impose their thoughts on Muslims today their fame and acceptance in the Muslim world would have been much higher. Today sectarianism would have been less in Muslims, bloodshed and transgression would not have existed, and Muslims in various nations and specifically in Pakistan would be living a peaceful life like in the old times, Muslim would not be killing other Muslim, Muslims would not be beheading other Muslims, Al Qaeda and Taliban would not have existed, Pakistan would not have been the victim of crisis, Israel would not have usurped Palestine, American occupation of Muslim nations would not have happened, the NATO army would not be assassinating Muslims in Afghanistan, the blood of Muslims would not have been so cheap in Iraq, Islam would not be defamed globally, terrorism in the name of religion would not have existed, human assassination forces would not have been made, the West would not have got an excuse against Islam, America would not have got excuse for interfering in Pakistan.
If the policy of King Faisal was continued in Saudi Arabia and the united power of entire Muslim world would have been used against Israel; and if the wealth of Muslim nations and oil was not robbed by Western dacoits then today Israel would not have been so strong.
The centre of Islam is the place of refuge for America
When Aale Saud was united with Britain their dream was the leadership of Arab world which got fulfilled but from the time they have tied their noose with America instead of being a centre of Arab world it has become a refugee camp of America. From the sacred houses of Allah instead of message of peace and security the message of sectarianism and discord gets broadcasted.
Instead of unity and brotherhood the verdicts of declaring Muslim sects as Infidels is being relayed. The wealth from oil of Saudi Arabia instead of being used for poor Muslims is used to strengthen West. The blood thirsty forces are being formed by using the wealth of Aale Saud. Instead of respecting Muslims they are being humiliated in Mecca and Medina. The land which was spreading light and which has enlightened the world; today the flames of fire of sectarianism and discord is coming out from the same land. The caravan of Hijaz which the entire world and the oppressed people of the world eyed upon has itself become a part of tyrannical aggression.
The Role of Aale Saud in Palestine
Britain has devised the conspiracy of defeating the Ottoman Caliphate towards the end of 19th century itself and in order to achieve this goal the first step which was taken was to start rebellion in Palestine against the Ottoman Caliphate. They aroused the commander of Mecca by making him their fan and convinced him to start revolt against the Ottoman Caliphate as a result of which Palestine went out of the hands of Turkish government.
The Role of Britain in the Zionist usurpation of Palestine
In 1917 Britain by taking advantage of the negligence of Russians took complete control of Palestine and from that time itself the work of establishing a Jewish state started on this land. During the first World War itself the Jewish got into an agreement with Britain and America that a Jewish state will be established in Palestine at the end of war. The British on one side were conspiring to settle Jews in Palestine and on the other hand they had kept Arabs busy by arousing them against the Ottoman empire. Hence on this basis whatever was happening in Palestine the Arabs were completely negligent and ignorant about it. They were fighting their independence battles and during this period several Arab governments were separated from Ottomans and separate independent Arab countries established amongst which the government of Aale Saudi got in place in Najd and Hijaz.
The second war supported a lot the disgraceful dreams of Zionist. The entire world was busy with the incidents of the war and the Arabs enjoying the power of their newly wed kingdoms. On Friday, 14th May 1948 at 5 pm, at the time of Asr, Britain official handed over the first Qiblah of Muslims and Palestine to Zionists declaring the name of this state as Israel. After few minutes of establishment of Israel the then President of America, Henry Truman accepted its existence. You should be aware that Truman is the same person who gave orders to drop Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan as an outcome of which hundreds of thousands were swallowed by death. By the time the Arabs got the news of formation of Israel it was late and the birds have pecked the farms already but still they fought three battles against Israel in which they got defeated. Though these battles were less for Palestine and more for their own protection and in these battles the fundamental role was played by Egypt and Syria. Lebanon and Jordan also participated in these battles whereas some Arab nations provided aids to them.
Saudi Arabia is the richest country in the Islamic world and also a claimant of Islamic leadership. It is unimaginable that Saudi remains unconcerned with the Palestinian issue in fact it was foreseeing the plan for its leadership of the Muslim world in this issue. Thus the Saudi kings participated in this battles to the extent of financial contributions. They also supported Palestine to raise this issue in international organizations on the political front.
The courageous step by Malik Faisal
In the matter of Palestine the prestigious role played by Saudi Arabia was during the era of Malik Faisal. During the 1973 Arab Israel war under the leadership of Malik Faisal the oil producing Arab nations decided to cut off oil supply to the Western nations supporting Israel and America.
Thus on 17th October 1973 Malik Faisal sent a threatening message to American President Nickson that if America does not refrain from supplying latest technology arms to Israel we will stop supplying oil to America and its united alliance. Some nations suggested to completely block oil supply to which some others opposed after which it was agreed to first cut off 5% and then later 10% oil supply. But when American ignored this warning and kept on continuing to supply arms to Israel then Malik Faisal ordered to cut down the oil supply. The winter of 1973 was painting the picture of hell for American and Israelis. At this time Iran was handed over the task to protect American interests in the Middle East. In order to fulfil the deficit of Arab oil supply the Iranian Emperor Raza Shah Pahalvi on the orders of America increased its oil production. Due to this step of Arabs the prices of oil shot sky high but Iran in that year increased the oil supply to all Western nations including Israel and earned tremendous profit. On these earnings the Iranian emperor raised the slogan of development and reformation which was strongly opposed by Imam Khomeini (r.a) and other scholars. Iran at that time was considered as the defender of American interests in Middle East. It is the same role which after the Islamic Revolution in Iran was taken away from Iran and handed over to Saudi Arabia.
This step of Malik Faisal made him a hero in the entire Islamic world and his status in the Arab world became equivalent to Abdul Nasser. The Muslims developed hopes for the freedom of Palestine. It was the first time in history when oil was used as a weapon. This step was ringing danger bells in the entire world and specifically within Europe and America. America without caring about the dangers from these warnings of Arab nations kept on supplying arms to Israel and along with this also started working on plans to tackle this new danger.
The American eyes on Arab oil
America got a good realization of this weapon of Arabs and they also understood that the weight of Arab oil is heavier than the explosive weapons of America. Thus from that they started conspiracies and planning to grab this weapon from Arabs and determined to punish those who intended to use this weapon. The pressure of Malik Faisal was more as compared to others. America and Europe brought Malik Faisal on a two road junction which was to either support Palestine or to remain in the circle of American friends. The defeat in the war on one side, the discords and separations within Arab nations on the other hand and the American pressure together left its effects on Malik Faisal.
The snake should die and the staff should also not be broken
For the Saudi ruler to leave aside the Palestinian issue was equivalent to washing off hands from Islamic world leadership. And to break relations with America would be near to disseminating his kingdom. Thus to preserve both the status he adopted a new policy with the help of Western advisors. As an outcome of which the revolutionary segment from Palestinian groups were sidelined and against it support was continued to be given to communist groups within Palestine. It is due to this reason that the relationship of Malik Faisal remained very tense with leaders like Yasir Arafat till the end. In fact King Hussain of Jordan was aroused by King Faisal against Yasir Arafat. This way Malik Faisal remained as the Hero of Muslims and also left opposition of America.
The returns from America and Message to Arab Rulers
America despite of all this was very merciless on Malik Faisal. This softness of Malik Faisal did not extinguish the fire of anger burning inside America. It did not change its intention for punishing those who started this innovation of using oil as a weapon. Thus on 25th March 1975 the Royal Family Prince Faisal bin Saad bin Aziz murdered Malik Faisal. It should be remembered that this murderer prince was resident in America for several years. In this way America delivered a message to Arab rulers that they should never dare to use oil as weapon in support of Palestine.
Khalid bin Abdul Aziz sat on the throne in Saudi government after Malik Faisal. He remained on the throne of the kingdom from 1975 to 1986. King Khalid had more religious orientation as compared to previous rulers. During the era of King Khalid the Saudi governance system came completely under the control of America. America promised big aids and support to Saudi on the condition to leave support for Palestine. It was during the era of King Khalid that the distance between the leaders of Palestine and Saudi Arabia kept on increasing.
One significant Historical event
One significant historical event took place in the Middle East and Islamic world during the era of rulership of this King which disturbed the entire political geography of Middle East.
It made the Arabs restless, it shook the pillars of these Arab states which were formed as a result of their rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. This event was the occurrence of Islamic Revolution on the land of Iran which toppled the throne of an American biased emperor in Iran. This revolution created a hurricane amongst all the rulers loyal to America in the region. This was due to the fact that this was a people's revolution which shivered the non public governments.
The whispering of Satan and negligence from Israel
The Americans faced humiliation in this revolution due to which the flames of revenge were blazing in the hearts of Americans. Americans got the attention of Arabs that your enemy is not Israel but this Islamic Revolution. They should do some planning to save their power and authority rather than securing Palestine. They should forget the Al Aqsa Mosque and be concerned about the protection of their thrones.
These scared Arabs after being inspired by America abandoned Palestine and joined hands amongst each other to fight Iran. The world desirous Saddam was made ready to attack Iran and the Arabs were determined to provide any form of support to Saddam. All the aids which were being given to Palestinian groups and emigrants were now diverted towards Saddam for blocking the Islamic Revolution. This way Palestine, Qods and Masjid Al Aqsa vanished from the priority list of Aale Saud. During this period Israel got the opportunity to establish its control, to enhance its relation with the world, to develop a position in international organizations and to strengthen its warfare machinery. After this Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia started a new series of conspiracies in the Middle East under the pretext of attempts for peace in the region. In 1987 , Anwar Sadat from Egypt formally accepted Israel and also did an agreement with it.
With the involvement of American President Jimmy Carter the most disgraceful and evil agreement in history took place between Anwar Sadat and Zionists at Camp David. All Arab nations apart from Lebanon and Syria abstained from all support to Palestine and instead started to support and give aids to Saddam. The leadership of this phase was with Saudi Arabia. Israel took advantage of this period and attacked Lebanon capturing Beirut. The non concernedness about Palestine went to its peak at this time. In 1982 after King Khalid when Iran Iraq war was in its teenage and the oil business of Saudi was shining King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz was crowned on the throne of Saudi Arabia. Tankers of unrefined oil were despatched from Saudi towards Europe and America and in return bundles of dollars were coming from them towards the land of Hijaz. These bundles of dollars from which one portion at one time was being spent on Palestine now in the era of the Custodian of "Harmain" (two sacred mosques) was increased several times to be spent in supporting Saddam Hussain. The relationship between America and Saudi Arabia during the era of King Fahd went to its ideal point. In this era the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was declared as the most favourite government in the world for America.
The conspiracy for acceptance of Israel
In 80's the Pharoahic nation formally presented this suggestion to all Arab leaders for accepting the existence of Israel. In the Moroccan city of Fas all the Arab rulers present in the Arab leaders conference passed this suggestion. The 80's and 90's can be termed as the era of boycott of Palestine by the Arabs. During this period all Arab nations made attempts in their own individual way to improve their relationship with Israel. Some openly whereas some secretly accepted the existence of Israel.
It was during the era of Malik Fahd that on his invitation American forces entered and were stationed in an island like place.
After the end of Iran Iraq war the American supported Saddam attacked and captured Kuwait. King Fahd for liberation of Kuwait and for his security formally invited America for an attack on Iraq due to which America along with its united alliance started an operation by the name Desert Storm and this way the land of Hijaz became a camp for American forces. The ignorance of Palestinians by Arabs and specifically Aale Saud resulted into Yasir Arafat who was communist leader of Palestine joining hands with Saddam Hussain. As an outcome of these discussed services Europe and West accepted the leadership of Saudi Arabia for Arabs instead of Egypt and efforts were started to make Aale Saud as the policeman of Middle East. After Israel the role of Arab nations has been next significant after in the differences and bloody encounters between different Palestinian groups. The stand of Arabs towards Palestine gradually became the same as that of America and Europe. During this period formal meetings were held between Saudi authorities and Israeli Zionists in which agreements were made to adopt a common Arab Zionist strategy for Palestine. Those who were making maps for liberation of Palestine at one time are now occupied in making plans for accepting Israel. All the Arab nations under the leadership of Saudi Arabia are every day occupied with Israel in dialogues, compromises and in pursuit of ways for accepting the existence of Israel.
Aale Saud after looking at the results and taking lessons from Egypt and Anwar Sadat's acceptance of Israel is acting with precaution. Every other day in Middle East a new conspiracy is announced under the name of compromise and peace. Along with the suggestion of King Fahd for compromising with Israel other similar plans and conspiracy have come forward from Malik Abdullah as well. As an example in 2002 the Middle East Peace roadmap plan which was presented by America had full support of Arab alliance of America along with its Western alliance. This map was made only after taking Saudi Arabia into confidence. The actual purpose behind this plan was to accept the existence of Israel without giving any sort of distinction to Arabs and Palestinians. In 2007 the Annapolis conference that took place in Annapolis in the American state of Maryland for compromise between Israel and Palestine was attended by the Arab American supporters also along with the Western supporters of America. In order to make this conference successful Saudi Arabia did everything possible.
The attempts for giving protection to Israel
In this disgraceful conference attempts were made for unconditional acceptance of Israel. In this Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan played full role. When he was crown prince King Abdullah specifically presented a suggestion to resolve the Arab-Israel conflict which was named as Arab Israel Peace Agreement.
It should be remembered that whenever the scale of Palestine went up in the usurped Palestine and Israel faced severe difficulties and crisis right at that instance the Arab leaders and specifically Saudi Commanders made efforts for compromise and negotiations. The entire world knows that the current Arab leaders do not possess the ability to resolve the Arab Israel conflict and neither do they have any respect in front of Europe, America and Israel. The question that comes up is when this is the status of Arab governments then why do they repeatedly give suggestions in the name of peace, compromise when they are themselves also aware about their status in front of Israel and America. The answer to this is that these Arab nations are not invited for compromises or for the protection of Palestine but instead they used to get Israel out of crisis, to weaken the resistance of Palestinian groups and to eradicate the pressure on Israel. In last 30 years approximately 50 suggestions for compromises have come forward in majority of which Arab states and specifically Saudi is involved.
Cooperation with Israel to curb Intifadha
As an example in 1987 the movement which started in occupied Palestine under the name of Intifadha shook the roots of Israel. At that time also the Western and Arab supporters of Israel in order to end this movement manipulated in the name of dialogues.
At that time the existence of Israel was in danger but under the pretext of compromise Israel was protected. In 2000 another big movement started in the occupied Palestine against Israel which could be given the name of second Intifadha. This movement strengthened to the extent that global analytics rang the danger bells of eradication of Israel. And again here as well to save Israel and to crush the Intifadha the Arab suggestions of compromise demonstrated its effects.
The new chapter of treachery of Aale Saud against Palestine, Qods and Masjid Al Aqsa got unveiled in 2008 when Saudi commander King Abdullah arranged a "Peace of Culture" Conference at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. In this conference rather than inviting scholars and intellectuals of different faith and cultures political personalities from seventy nations participated in it amongst which George Bush, Tony Blair, Shimon Perez, Livni, King Abdullah and other leaders like him participated who are not concerned with any religion or culture. The objective of this conference was not to establish dialogues between scholars of different faiths and cultures instead it was a conspiracy from Arab and some Muslim states for the acceptance of Israel. During this conference the Zionist Foreign Minister Livni Tzipi during her speech condemned Quran recitation in Muslim countries and gave this evidence that by studying Quran hatred towards Jews gets developed in the hearts of Muslims. No one present there replied to these disgraceful remarks by her. King Abdullah along with Saudi delegation was the chairman of this conference. In this conference George W Bush declared attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as a religious obligation. In this gathering King Abdullah , George Bush and Shimon Perez drank alcohol on the dining table and cheered drinks for peace.
The current Saudi government in its exterior supports Palestinians verbally in the matter of Palestine but practically they act on the agenda set by Israel. In the last Arab leaders summit first time formally Israel and Zionists were not included amongst the enemies of Arab community. On this step Israeli government officially expressed their gratification for King Abdullah.
On the basis of American dictation Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and U.A.E are busy in declaring Iran as the real enemy of Arabs. The fresh task delegated by America is that apart from Iran and Syria all other Arab nations should also accept the existence of Israel. Saudi Arab has been handed over the responsibility for creating an environment for this task.
In the Straits of Tiran the two Islands of Tiran and Sanafir are since long under the control of Israel. Saudi Arab never demanded the return of these Islands and never brought up this issue at an international level. The ex Zionist Prime Minister Isaac Rabin declared these islands as highly significant for the survival of Israel. The issue of occupation of these islands was not discussed in any agreement and not even in the Camp David agreement. The reason behind this is that a secret agreement has been made between Saudi and Zionist governments that Israel will not carry out any operation against Saudi and in return these two strategic islands will remain with Israel forever.
The role of Aale Saud in the GAZA war
The pinnacle of treachery with Palestine by Arab leaders is the 22 days battle of Gaza.
In this battle the Zionist butchers got Gaza under complete siege and then dropped bombs from air and land on the thirsty and starving Palestinians; the number of bombs dropped on the Palestinians were much more than those dropped in the World War. In this dreadful historic tyranny and public assassination both Israel and Arab leaders had equal share. Even before the battle Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arab and Mahmoud Abbas together started to arouse the Zionist leaders to attack Gaza. In a meeting held between Israel and this Arab gang in Sharm Al Sheikh in Egypt the details of this battle were agreed. In the siege of Gaza Egypt played the most crucial role which was discussed in the previous issue of this magazine. Egypt sealed its border with Gaza completely due to which during the barbaric bombing of Israel the only route for supply of food and medical aid got blocked. Jordan played the role of American Apache during this war in order to keep the Arab nations silent.
Saudi and U.A.E provided fuel to Israel war aircrafts and also opened doors of their weapons depot for the Zionists. Shimon Perez explicitly said in a conference that Arab leaders demanded from us attacks on Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. The Zionist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni expressed in a similar way that the Arab leaders do not at all like the effects and involvement of Iran in Lebanon and Palestine.
In accordance to them Hizbullah and Hamas are the Iran supportive groups. In order to prevent the increasing effects and involvement of Iran in Middle East the Arabs made a pact with us that if we can obliterate Hizbullah and Hamas then all Arab nations will sign on the peace treaty accepting the existence of Israel. Similar expressions have been seen from other sources as well.
On the other hand the Arab community (mass public) and Muslims extended their full support to Palestine and big protests and rallies were organized in support of Hizbullah and Hamas but the government of Saudi imposed all sorts of restrictions on the Saudi people for organizing any form of protests and rallies in support of Palestinians. In entire Saudi only in the Qatif region the Shia Muslims carried out demonstrations in support of Palestine and opposition to Israel and these demonstrations were also brutally crushed by the Saudi government. They arrested the demonstrators in big numbers and they even sentenced death statements to some for this crime. It should be remembered that in the battle of Gaza 1135 Palestinians were martyred and approximately 5500 were wounded amongst which majority were women and children.
As a recent step for encountering Hamas the Saudi government with the support of Israel has formed a group of extremist individuals with Wahabi ideology by the name of "Ansar-e-Jundullah" (The supporters of Allah's Army). This group following the style of Taliban declared Gaza as an Islamic emirate and appointed Abdul Latif Moosa Al Amr Al Maroof Abul Noor Al Muqaddasi as Ameerul Momineen (Commander of Faithful). This group started an armed uprising against Hamas in Gaza but in encounters with Gaza police many of their extremists got assassinated and their leader Abdul Latif Moosa also was killed. This is not the last step of Aale Saudi against Palestine and Palestinians but in fact this series of shameful betrayals and treachery is on going. We will see in the coming days what all the Arab governments under the leadership of Saudi commanders will do and how forward they go. The upcoming days for the Arab Muslims will be days of tough examination.
In the forthcoming issues we will throw light on the role of Saudi Arabia in other Muslim countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)