A FORUM TO EXCHANGE VIEWS AND IDEAS
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Palestine, Syria, Yemen and the Bani Saud
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
‘Is ISIL really ‘Sunni’? Not at all’
By Kevin Barrett
The Western media describes ISIL – the ultra-extremist terrorists destabilizing Iraq and Syria – as “Sunni militants.”
Headlines read: “Sunni Islamist Militants Seize Mosul.” “Sunni militants capture northern Iraqi town.” “Iraq Army Tries to Roll Back Sunni Militants’ Advance.”
The corporate media casts the fighting in Iraq as a Sunni vs. Shia conflict. The Sunni side, according to these reports, is led by ISIL – a group that was expelled from al-Qaeda for being too extreme.
But is ISIL really Sunni?
Many experts say “no.” Some question whether ISIL has a right to call itself an Islamic group at all.
In an interview with Truth Jihad Radio, Islamic scholar Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas Abd al-‘Alim Islam) questioned ISIL’s Islamic credentials: “A lot of so-called jihad (such as ISIL’s) is not rooted in Islam. Especially if you look at who’s funding it, who’s supporting it, who’s behind it. Western powers have a long history of using jihadists and Islamists to further their own imperial ambitions. In terms of the foot-soldiers, they may think they are fighting for Islam. But if you look closer, you find they’re furthering the cause of the enemy.”
Dr. Morrow pointed out that much of ISIL’s behavior is patently un-Islamic. He said that the ISIL terrorists love to film themselves committing war crimes that are forbidden by Islam: “They are very proud to commit atrocities. They film it. They upload it to the internet. They have their own websites.”
Dr. Morrow commented on the notorious video showing a Takfiri terrorist eating a dead soldier’s liver: “This is what Hind (an enemy of the Muslims) did. You’re not following the sahaba, you’re not following the Prophet. You’re following the polytheists who were fighting the Prophet when you start cannibalizing corpses. And there was another video of a poor Muslim sister who was strangled to death. I mean, who goes around strangling women to cries of Allahu akbar?”
Continuing the habit of vaunting their un-Islamic atrocities, ISIL terrorists recently posted internet videos showing themselves murdering 1,700 captured Iraqi army soldiers. They have also reportedly killed dozens of Sunni imams who refuse to swear allegiance to ISIL. And they are killing Shia Muslims indiscriminately.
If these terrorists are Sunni Muslims, why are they systematically violating the tenets of Sunni Islam?
In fact, ISIL appears to be far outside of Sunni Islam. The kind of “Islam” espoused by the ISIL Takfiris is an extreme version of the Salafi-Wahhabi school of thought. These people reject the five major Islamic madhhabs (schools of thought) including the four Sunni ones. If you reject all four Sunni madhhabs, how can you call yourself Sunni?
In fact, the extreme Salafi-Wahhabis, including the ultra-extreme ISIL, have broken with mainstream Islam as it has existed for fourteen centuries. By jettisoning the established Islamic madhhabs, and stepping outside of Islam as it has always been understood, they have entered a very dangerous territory in which they feel they can just make up the rules as they go along. So they make up such rules as: “It is okay to rape Christian and Shia women. It is okay to eat the internal organs of dead enemies. It is okay to marry ‘jihad brides’ for sex and divorce them after 30 minutes. It is okay to crucify Christian holy men. It is okay to strangle women to death. It is okay to mass-murder civilians. It is okay to mass-execute prisoners of war.”
No Sunni in history would recognize this as Sunni Islam.
Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharajite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. (The Kharajites were an ultra-radical group that rejected early versions of both Sunni and Shia Islam and stepped outside of the Islamic community - hence their name, which means “those who step outside.”) Hamid argues that the ultra-radical groups destabilizing Pakistan, Syria and Iraq have indeed stepped outside of Islam, and are making war on Islam and Muslims on behalf of Zionism and imperialism.
But isn’t it true that many Sunni Muslims in Iraq support ISIL?
Yes and no. It is true that some ordinary Iraqis from Sunni backgrounds have joined ISIL’s insurrection in Iraq. But these are mainly pro-Saddam revanchists, not religiously-oriented Sunni Muslims. Saddam Hussein, of course, was a radical secularist whose idols were Stalin and Hitler. Saddam’s Ba’ath party was anti-religious and pro-secularist; Saddam’s hatred of the Islamic Awakening was so extreme that he launched a war on the Ayatollah Khomeini’s new Islamic Republic in hopes of preventing the rebirth of Islam. So to call the Saddam Hussein supporters who are joining with ISIL “Sunnis” is misleading. Saddam’s forces, like ISIL, are opposed to Islam in both its traditional Sunni and Shia forms.
The full name of Sunnism is “the people of the Tradition of the Prophet and the consensus of the community” (ahl as-sunnah wa l-jamaʻah). Eating the livers of dead enemies is not part of the Tradition of the Prophet – it is the tradition of the enemies of the Prophet. And such behavior is obviously not approved by the consensus of the Muslim community.
The Tradition of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is one of inclusion, tolerance, mutual respect, and the forging of alliances between people of different tribes and religions. The original Muslim community, whose founding document is the Constitution of Medina, consisted of Christians, Jews and Muslims living together and sharing power and obligations on an equitable basis.
The real Sunna (Tradition) holds to reason and persuasion, and uses violence only as a last resort. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his Family and Companions preached peacefully for 12 years, despite atrocious persecution, before God finally authorized them to fight back in self-defense.
The real Tradition of the Prophet respects knowledge so much that “the ink of the scholar is more precious than the blood of the martyr.” And the consensus of the Islamic community is that the work of 14 centuries worth of Islamic scholarship – the five major Islamic madhhabs, both the four Sunni madhhabs and the Shia Ja’fari madhhab – collectively represents mainstream Islam. All Sunni Muslims have tremendous respect for Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, who founded the main Shia madhhab. The terrorists who reject this tremendous scholarly achievement, and want to kill everyone who disagrees with them, are far outside of normative Sunni Islam.
So why does the Western mainstream media insist on calling anti-Sunni, anti-Shia groups like ISIL “Sunni”?
Perhaps the problem is laziness. Since ISIL has a special hatred for Shia Muslims, the simplest way to portray them is to paint the situation as an alleged Sunni vs. Shia conflict. By defaulting to this lowest-common-denominator description, the media absolves itself from the duty of explaining, in detail, what is actually going on.
But it is also possible that the corporate media is intentionally misreporting the situation. The extreme-Zionist neoconservatives launched the US invasion of Iraq in order to break up that country, and the Middle East as a whole, by inciting ethnic and sectarian strife. The “Sunni vs. Shia” meme was created and spread by the Occupiers through a wave of false-flag terrorism. Perhaps the media is trumpeting that meme in order to propagate it.
In any case, the world’s Sunni Muslims are being slandered every time the media calls ISIL “Sunni.” It is time for Sunnis to reject this mischaracterization of their religion. Perhaps Sunni Muslims should file a class action lawsuit against the media outlets that are spreading this calumny.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Saudi-Zionist alliance against Muslims exposed
by Tahir Mustafa
January, 2014
There is much in common between the Saudis and the zionists. Both are illegal regimes occupying holy lands. Their secret alliance has now been exposed. Muslims must take appropriate steps to confront this phenomenon.
Two illegitimate usurper regimes, one led by Zionists in the Holy Land and the other by Najdi Bedouins in the Arabian Peninsula, have been forced by rapidly changing developments to expose their long-maintained secret ties. Not only Muslims but also many fair-minded non-Muslims recognize the illegitimacy of the Zionist pariah regime in the Holy Land. The Saudis, however, have been able to conceal their true identity by claiming to be “defenders of the Haramayn,” the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. If so, they have a strange way of claiming this on the one hand while being totally subservient to US imperialism and Zionist racism on the other.
It was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who several months ago mentioned the Zionist-Saudi alliance in the context of confronting Islamic Iran. He had talked of the Arabian regimes but given Saudi Arabia’s size and importance, it was clear, he was talking about the regime in Riyadh. Egypt, the other major player on the Arabian scene, had long embraced the Zionist regime publicly.
Two policy failures have forced the secret relationship between Riyadh and Tel Aviv to come out into the open: Saudi-Israeli policy in Syria and their policy of trying to isolate Islamic Iran in the region. Both have unraveled as a result of developments beyond their control. The Saudis in particular are not only furious at their longtime patron, the US, but also in panic because Washington has established contacts, however tenuous, with Islamic Iran.
Among a series of contacts between the Saudis and the Zionists, the latest was a brief encounter between Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal and former Israeli ambassador to Washington (1992– 1996), Itamar Rabinovich, in Monaco in mid-December. According to an Israeli radio report, Turki publicly shook hands with Rabinovich at the World Policy Conference. Their contacts have progressed so far that Rabinovich took the unusual step of inviting Turki to deliver a speech before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.
Turki reportedly declined the offer — what would he say to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine? — but the fact that the offer was made indicates their relations are deep and have been established for a long time. The offer also shows the degree of trust they have in each other. Rabinovich is an expert on Syria policy and clearly he was planning to engage the former Saudi spy master more deeply although the current Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan is more deeply involved with the Zionists.
Both regimes have been critical of US policy on Syria and Washington’s rapprochement with Tehran. The Zionists have been blunt to the point of being obnoxious, as is their wont. The Saudis have been more diplomatic with their American masters in public but no less vehement in their denunciation of America opening up to Tehran.
The Saudis sense a perceptible shift in US policy in the region. President Barack Obama made this known when he announced a policy shift toward the Asia-Pacific region to confront the rising power of China. The Saudis clearly see this as indication of their reduced importance to the US. Further, Obama shocked the Saudis when he refused to launch a military strike against Syria last summer in what is now known as a carefully orchestrated plan by Bandar. This was a personal slap in the face of Bandar and public humiliation of Saudi Arabia that was long believed to be America’s indispensable ally in the region.
Soon thereafter, Bandar announced that henceforth, the kingdom would go it alone in Syria without coordinating its policy with Washington. The result has been the creation of what is called the “Islamic Front,” a grouping of six or seven different rebel factions that has taken on the Western-backed, Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to several reports, the Saudi-backed and financed Islamic Front fighters have overrun FSA positions and taken over their weapon stockpiles from depots near the Turkish border. The FSA chief Salim Idriss is also reportedly on the run.
The Saudis are determined to sabotage the Geneva II conference on Syria that is scheduled for January 22. Saudi-backed groups are putting forward conditions for participation that would almost certainly wreck the chances of holding a conference. The Syrian government has also said it will only attend if there are no pre-conditions. This is what Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League envoy had announced when the date of Geneva II was made public in November.
Syrian government forces have been making steady progress recently as rebel groups fight each other. This has weakened them considerably. Further, their barbaric practices have repelled most Syrians. They do not want the Bashar al-Asad regime to be replaced by people indulging in beheadings and cannibalism. Such behavior is no bar to the Saudis; they want al-Asad removed regardless of the price the Syrian people may have to pay. Already millions of Syrians are refugees and the UN has asked for $6.5 billion in emergency aid otherwise these people will face virtual starvation. Conditions in refugee camps whether in Lebanon or Jordan are appalling. Recent snowstorms, unusual for the region, have added to the refugees’ woes.
The plight of refugees, however, is not something that bothers the Saudis. Instead, they welcome it because it garners more sympathy for the Syrian people, which Saudi Arabia can blame on the Asad regime. It is interesting to note that even US Secretary of State John Kerry has announced that he might meet Syrian rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. Did the US not invade Afghanistan to get rid of al-Qaeda or was that just a ruse to invade the mountainous but mineral-rich country?
The mastermind of the Saudi-Zionist alliance is Bandar. During his long tenure as Saudi ambassador to Washington, he cultivated close links with the neocons, especially the Zionists. His lavish parties were well known for booze and scantily clad women (one wonders what the Saudi ministry responsible for “enjoining good and preventing vice” would say about such conduct or is it permissible if one of the Saudi royals indulges in it?).
Soon after it became clear that the US would not attack Syria as the Saudis had hoped and planned for, Bandar went to the Jordanian port city of Aqaba to meet director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Tamir Pardo. The aim was to coordinate Saudi-Israeli policy on Syria and Iran. This information was leaked by a source within the Saudi embassy in Amman, Jordan, indicating that within the Saudi ruling circles, there are strong differences.
It needs recalling that when the plot to stage the uprising in Syria was hatched in a Paris café in February 2011, Bandar attended it together with the US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and US Undersecretary of State Jeffrey Feltman. Naturally a number of Syrian opposition figures were also involved. Both Shapiro and Feltman are Zionists and staunchly pro-Israel. The received wisdom at the time was that the Asad regime would collapse within a matter of months if not weeks.
Bandar has been making other moves as well, since the US refusal to attack Syria last August. He reportedly met with French President Francois Hollande when he visited Tel Aviv to meet Netanyahu. According to the Lebanese website, al-Hadath, Bandar proposed common policy on Iran’s nuclear policy to try and sabotage any deal with the US. Further, Bandar proposed the strengthening of Saudi defences (read, the Saudis would purchase more weapons, this time from France). This must have been music to Hollande’s ears since the French economy is struggling and any cash inflow would be welcome.
The Saudis’ open embrace of Zionists reflects their desperation. It should, however, alert all sincere Muslims to the true nature of this regime. The question that Muslims must ask is, whether the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah can be left in the hands of Zionist allied Saudis. If Masjid al-Aqsa is under the direct occupation of the Zionists, Makkah and Madinah are under the indirect occupation of the Zionists since the Saudis are their close allies.
How long will Muslims tolerate this state of affairs to continue?
The phenomenon and politics of sectarianism
by Zafar Bangash
January, 2014
Sectarianism is projected in some quarters as the greatest challenge facing Muslims when the vast majority of Muslims want unity in the Ummah. Who is stoking the flames of sectarianism?
Sectarian discourse and sectarian induced violence seem to have become major problems facing Muslims today. There are killings in the name of one sect or another in different parts of the Muslim world. Muslims are told that sectarianism is a historical problem that cannot be overcome. Such assertions fly in the face of empirical evidence that posits a completely opposite proposition: most Muslims support unity. For instance, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that two thirds of Muslims worldwide want to “unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate [khilafah].”
While framed in theological terms, sectarianism is essentially a political weapon used by certain vested interests to advance their narrow agenda since they lack a legitimate basis to justify their position or continued hold on power. Like nationalism, sectarianism is also used to whip up mass hysteria. Without justifying it, there are at least some positive aspects to nationalism. For instance, people in one geographical area, ie a country, can be mobilized to stand up against a rival country in the name of patriotism and protecting the “national interest.”
Nationalism’s limitation is that by its very nature it is confined to people living in a certain geographical area. Thus, on the basis of nationalism alone, Pakistanis for instance cannot have the motivation to help the people of Palestine or any other place where there is human suffering. The same applies to other situations. The Afghans cannot appeal to Muslims elsewhere to help them on the basis of nationalism. But, this can be overcome if the discourse is framed in Islamic terms.
Thus, the people of Pakistan can be motivated to help their fellow Muslims in Palestine or Chechnya in the name of Islam. The Pakistanis may not necessarily go there physically — although some have done so — but their sympathies can be aroused and financial donations solicited to help alleviate the suffering of oppressed Muslims in other parts of the world.
The above examples have nothing to do with sectarianism. The people of Palestine and Chechnya follow different schools of thought from those in Pakistan. The common bond between them is Islam. Problems arise when some people — usually rulers of some countries that lack legitimacy — resort to sectarian discourse whose purpose is to create hatred for a particular group or party. Raw sectarianism is often camouflaged by using Islamic terminology.
To understand this better, let us look at Syria. For nearly three years, a war has raged there that can be traced directly to outside forces, primarily the Zionists, imperialists and the Saudis. This can be narrowed further; the imperialists have pulled back somewhat because they have realized that what may replace the current regime led by Bashar al-Asad may turn out to be even worse if al-Qaeda-linked takfiris grab power. The Saudi-Zionist alliance, however, is hell-bent on creating instability and continuing the violence.
The Zionists can hardly appeal to Muslims by claiming to be friends of the Syrian people. No Muslim with even a limited understanding of the nature of Zionism and its oppression and persecution of the Palestinians will accept the Zionists as friends and allies. Enter the Saudis. While they lack legitimacy, they have often used their alleged support for “Muslim” causes elsewhere to polish their ugly image. In the 1980s, they sent thousands of Arabians to fight in Afghanistan. It was not to help the Afghans but to get rid of their own troublesome youth, demanding fundamental rights that were threatening regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Many Arabian fighters returned to create problems for regimes in their home countries once the Afghan war ended.
The Saudis are playing an even more sinister game in Syria. They can hardly claim to be helping the Syrian people to gain their legitimate rights when the Saudis suppress their own people and do not allow women to even drive cars (in Syria, women are allowed to fly planes!). Nor can the Saudis claim that they are supporting the “Sunni majority” in Syria when the Saudi rulers did not support the overwhelmingly Sunni population of Egypt after the Egyptian military overthrew a legitimately elected government last July. Instead, the Saudi regime openly backs the military coup in Egypt. This has left them dangerously exposed in their alleged claim of supporting “Sunni” Muslims.
In Syria, however, the Saudis have played the sectarian card effectively. Accusing the Bashar al-Asad regime of being ‘Alawi (the ‘Alawis are an offshoot of Shi‘ism), the Saudis and their tribal allies in the region have whipped up sectarian tensions and created massive problems in the Ummah. The regime in Syria is neither ‘Alawi, nor Shi‘i or Sunni. It is not a religious-based government at all. There are Sunni ministers in the government as there are Shi‘i ministers. There are Christians and yes, there are ‘Alawis in the cabinet but none of them is committed to any particular sect. There are men as well as women in government but they are all secularists. Their overriding loyalty is to the secularist nationalist Ba‘th party system and their position in it.
The Saudis are using sectarianism in Syria to whip up hatred against the regime, which it wants to overthrow. This is part of its pro-Zionist policy and is also meant to secure an extension of its own existence that looks increasingly shaky given current trends in the region as well as internal developments in the kingdom. There is much discontent in the kingdom with nearly 30,000 political prisoners languishing in horrible conditions in various prisons. The Syrian crisis, however, is a recent phenomenon. The Saudis have used sectarianism as a tool in such places as Pakistan and Lebanon for many years and more recently in Iraq with deadly consequences.
In the backdrop of Saudi-induced sectarianism is fear of the rise of Islamic Iran on the political landscape as a major player. True, Iran is a predominantly Shi‘i country but it has not launched a sectarian crusade to brand non-Shi‘i Muslims as kafirs. Nor has Iran encouraged the killing of Sunnis anywhere. In fact, Iran has tried hard, within its means, to create understanding among Muslims of different schools of thought. The Tehran-based Majma‘ al-Taqrib bayna al-Madhahib al-Islamiyyah regularly brings together scholars of different schools of thought to promote Muslim unity. It can be argued that this has not eliminated sectarian-induced conflicts but it is not for lack of trying. It is a lot easier to create fitnah (sedition) than to establish peace and harmony.
It would be appropriate to reflect on some areas of the Muslim world where sectarian tensions have been running high. Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria immediately come to mind. Add to that Bahrain and we can begin to form a picture that these are countries with populations predominantly of one sect but also with a sizeable population of the other. Thus, while Pakistan is predominantly Sunni, there is also a sizeable Shi‘i population there. In Lebanon’s complex confessional pot pouri, the Shi‘is are more than the Sunnis but with a significant Christian population, the political landscape is more complicated. In Iraq the Shi‘is constitute an absolute majority who were denied basic rights for decades. Unfortunately, since the rise to power of a Shi‘i dominated government, peace has not been restored. Bahrain is overwhelmingly Shi‘i ruled by a tiny minority “Sunni” family clique.
But how does one explain the lack of sectarianism in places like Turkey, Azerbaijan or Kuwait? Turkey has a sizeable Alevi (‘Alawi) and Shi‘i population (about 15%), Azerbaijan is an overwhelmingly Shi‘i country while Kuwait has a sizeable Shi‘i (about 20%) population. Kuwait’s example is instructive because it follows the same Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis subscribe to from whence it emerged in the 18th century yet there has been no sectarian conflict in Kuwait.
We also have the curious phenomenon of sectarian tensions arising in places like Malaysia, Indonesia and South Africa. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world almost all of them Sunnis following the Shafi‘i school of thought. There are only a few thousand Shi‘is there at best. The same applies to Malaysia and South Africa. The question is: why has sectarianism reared its ugly head in these places? The same question may be asked about Egypt where days before his ouster from power, President Mohamed Mursi had indulged in crude sectarian rhetoric. Some Shi‘is were publicly lynched when the Shi‘is in Egypt are no more than a few hundred thousand in a population of some 80 million. It needs recalling that Egypt was at one time a predominantly Shi‘i country under the Fatimids and al-Azhar University was established by them more than 1,000 years ago!
In Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa, Saudi agents have deliberately created a sectarian crisis as part of their attempt to keep the Ummah divided. After all, neither place has a significant Shi‘i population and in South Africa, the total Muslim population itself is miniscule compared to the country’s overall population. There are, however, some maulanas that have close links with the Saudis through such Saudi front organizations as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) whose representatives frequently visit South Africa disbursing largesse (the US has declared WAMY a terrorist organization).
In both Indonesia and Malaysia, the regimes are behind the anti-Shi‘i campaign although there are also strong voices raised against stoking sectarianism. Leaders of the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) as well as many leading academics and intellectuals have spoken out forcefully against sectarianism and warned against the negative consequences of this campaign.
It is interesting to note that there was no sectarianism in Pakistan until the early-1980s when the Islamic Revolution in Iran succeeded. This was a deliberate policy pursued by the Americans, British and Israelis as well as some segments of the Pakistani establishment. Their aim was to prevent the influence of the Islamic Revolution from spreading into Pakistan. Given strong cultural and linguistic affinities between the two countries, the latter was a natural arena for accepting the revolutionary fervor sweeping Iran. Yet under a carefully crafted policy, promoted by some segments of the Pakistani establishment, anti-Shi‘i sentiments were allowed to flourish. Unfortunately the Pakistani Shi‘is also played a negative role and inadvertently helped the “Sunni” extremists. Those Shi‘i scholars (like Syed Arif Hussaini Shaheed), who were striving to create understanding between the two communities, were eliminated. This not only exacerbated Shi‘i-Sunni tensions but also allowed space for more narrow-minded sectarian Shi‘is to emerge.
When the struggle against the Soviets was raging in Afghanistan, extremist “Sunni” outfits were promoted in both countries to confront the Red Army. This, however, could not remain confined to Afghanistan since much of the ideological indoctrination was coming from Saudi Arabia via Pakistan. Helped by Saudi funds, many madrasahs sprang up in Pakistan and in its tribal belt. The students who emerged from these madrasahs carried the narrow-minded strain of Wahhabi sectarian ideology that denounces every non-Wahhabi a kafir.
Unfortunately some otherwise respectable scholars also lent their weight and prestige to this divisive campaign. The late maulana Abu al-Hassan Nadvi (d. 1999) was one of them as was his close associate Manzoor Ahmen Naumani. Both scholars succumbed to the temptation of petrodollars and despite their learning, embarked on a sectarian crusade that has caused immense damage to the Ummah. While the two Indian maulanas waxed eloquent against Shi‘ism, they never mustered the courage to say a word against Hindu fascism or the mistreatment of Muslims in India that continues to this day.
In a telling episode in the early-1990s, Indian security forces raided Nadvi’s madrasah in Luckhnow following a tip that Kashmiri mujahideen were sheltering there. The security forces broke down dormitory doors, smashed furniture and beat up many of the tullab (students). No Kashmiri was found there. The Indian government offered a mere 200,000 rupees (approx. $4,000) as compensation and the maulana kept mum despite some Muslim leaders in India urging him to take a stronger stand against such acts of state terrorism.
Disturbing as the rise of sectarianism is, there are important voices being raised against it. Last August, a conference in Kuala Lumpur attended by academics and scholars from different schools of thought presented persuasive arguments against sectarianism. Similar efforts elsewhere, for instance in Turkey in November and early last month in Pakistan, point to the fact that ‘ulama and Islamic activists are taking steps to confront the menace. In Turkey, an 11-point agenda was agreed upon while in Pakistan a nine-point agenda was unanimously agreed by ‘ulama that represented major sects — Deobandi, Barelvi, Ahl-e Hadith and Jafari schools of thoughts. The Pakistani meeting was convened under the auspices of the Punjab Auqaf and Religious Affairs ministry in Lahore.
Important as these steps are, more persistent efforts are needed to isolate and thus weed out the extremists that constitute a tiny minority but grab huge publicity because of their violent acts. The government of Pakistan has a major responsibility in confronting the menace of sectarianism otherwise it will tear the fabric of society apart in which there will be no winners.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Syria in the US-Saudi-Israeli prism
Consequences of Qardhawi seditious stances
Head of the so-called Union of Muslim Ulama in Qatar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qardhawi has launched a new wave of Iranophobia and Shiaphobia.
While demanding the Sunni youths to be dispatched to Syria to fight on the side of the opposition, Qardhawi claimed that the Iranians intend to kill the Sunnis through pre-planning.
The Egyptian Qardhawi residing in Qatar used an insulting language against the leader of the anti-terrorist Lebanese Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and called him the devil Hassan and Hezbollah as the party of the Satan.
Meanwhile the Saudi Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Muhammad Al-Sheikh voiced his support for the unfounded and biased remarks of Qardhawi against Lebanese Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Living in Qatar for some years, Sheikh Qardhawi has actually turned into a court mullah who has obtained with the support of Aljazeera TV network a status in political circles and the media. The Fatwas of this extremist mullah are aimed at aggravating differences between the Shiites and Sunnis within the framework of the western governments' policy of Iranophobia and Shiaphobia.
Unfortunately Qardhawi has been entrapped by the Zionist regime and western governments to ignite sectarian wars in the Islamic states and strengthen the fake Israeli regime. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the main supporters of the armed groups in Syria who are seeking to overthrow the government of Bashar Assad.
The armed terrorists are fighting the Syrian army within the framework of the policies of the Zionist regime and its western supporters for eliminate Syria from the forefront of resistance against the Zionist regime.
Sheikh Qardhawi is one of those who legitimize the measures of terrorists in Syria whereas they are actually destroying the country and the Syrian nation under the pretext of freedom-seeking. Representing the western governments, the extremist armed groups have entered Syria and committed many crimes some of which have been revealed by independent media. Following the failure of terrorist groups in Syria, Qardhawi and the biased and hostile scholars like him are seeking to deceive more youths with their illogical Fatwas and send them to Syria to shed more blood.
The Fatwas are in full compliance with the demand of the western states in a manner that Qardhawi has become known as the Sheikh of NATO. He also assured the Zionist regime that the Takfiri groups in Syria pose no threat to the regime.
Leader of the Islamic revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei in his speech on the day of Mab'ath or the ordainment of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA) emphasized on distancing from discord and the necessity of unity among Muslims.
Addressing the reciters and memorizers participating in the 30th international Qur’an Competitions, the leader stressed that one of the important commands of the holy Qur’an to Muslims is preservation of unity and solidarity and said:
"Any throat or tongue that calls Muslims to unity is a divine throat and any throat that calls on Muslims and Islamic denominations to fight one another is the throat of Satan."
Ayatollah Khamenei added: "One of the Qur’anic commands to Muslims is that they should stick to the rope of Allah all together and avoid disunity. In contrast to this command, there is the colonial teach and method whose aim is to create discord among the Islamic Ummah and intensify sectarian prejudices."
The leader said that certain Muslim governments have been deceived and are playing in the enemy's ground. He reiterated: "Unity among Muslims is an urgent necessity.”
Leader of the Islamic Revolution said that bloodshed, blind terrorism and the resulting tragedies, and creating opportunities for the usurper Zionist regime are among the consequences of discord among the Islamic Ummah. He added: "Today is the day of a great test for Muslims and Islamic governments, and Muslim nations should be completely vigilant."
Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the wave of Islamophobia and stressed: "The Western enemies have unsheathed their swords against Muslims; so the Islamic Ummah should strengthen the factors that contribute to its internal power and capabilities. One of the most important factors in this regard is unity, solidarity and concentration on commonalities."
The seditious statements of Qardhawi have widely echoes among Islamic states. The Friday leader of holy Najjaf Seyyed Sadreddin Qabanchi said that instead of inviting Muslims to unity Qardhawi invites them to sedition and his remarks are unacceptable in Islam.
The United Ulama Council of Greater Syria in a statement declared as null and voids the so-called Fatwa issued by the controversial Qardhawi sanctioning the killing of fellow Muslims. The council added that Qardhawi’s instigation for bloodshed in Syria is far from the principles of religion, Hadith and practice of the holy Prophet of Islam.
The statement declared that the conduct of Qardhawi as the head of the International Muslim Union has questioned the union's credibility.
The Algerian daily Al-Watan severely criticized the stances of Qardhawi and wrote: "Sheikh Qardhawi who has several times released Fatwas on the Arab revolutions has no religious sanctity to us anymore, for; he has impudently abused his religious status in the service of Qatari regime's diplomacy.” The Algerian newspaper seriously criticized Qardhawi for his resort to provocative Fatwas aimed at creating sedition in the Arab states.
Al-Watan added: "The peace birds which Qardhawi was supposed to lay on the ground flew up and instead of them eagles of war landed.” Regarding Qardhawi’s role in the Syrian crisis, the Algerian daily writes:
"The forces of Al-Nusra front who fight the Syrian army always laud the provocative role of Qardhawi.”
The British Daily Telegraph in a report on the biased and seditious remarks of Qardhawi wrote: "By inviting the Sunnis for war against the Alavis and Shiites in Syria, Qardhawi showed that he is seeking to intensify religious tensions all over the Middle East.”
These are just part of reactions to the seditious remarks of the Egyptian Sheikh who considers permissible the killing of women and children for being Alavi. But are these hostile Fatwas compatible to the Islamic teachings?
Which part of the holy Qur’an and the holy Prophet’s practice and behavior says that if a group does not think like us they should be killed? In his entire life the holy Prophet respected the life of those who lived under Muslim conquest but did not embrace Islam as long as they did not resort to arms.
The Islamic ruler was mandated to preserve their life just as the life of Muslims. Which Qur’anic ayahs allow Qardhawi to dub the Alavis as worse than the Jews and Christians and shedding their blood Halal?
What Qardhawi says about Iran and Shiites is unfounded and results from his hostility towards Shiites. Before becoming an anti-Shiite Sheikh he attended the assembly for proximity of Islamic schools and praised the Lebanese Hezbollah and the status of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah in countering the Zionist regime.
The reality is that differences among Islamic denominations do not cause discord and separation. The Assembly for proximity of Islamic schools was shaped on this idea, for; there are far more commonalities among various religious factions rather than differences. Qardhawi and the Wahabbi mullahs who consider discord among Muslims as their goal are well aware of this point.
Therefore they try to introduce the Shiite ideas improperly to the Islamic communities and by distorting the Shiite books they inculcate the lie that the Shiites have no faith in the holy Qur’an.
Just like the western regimes portray Islam as promoter and spreader of violence, Qardhawi and the Wahabbis try to create a negative picture of the Shiites. With this propaganda, they want with the aid of Saudi and Qatari rulers to distract attentions from the realities in the Islamic world and push forward their objectives.
The objectives that the western governments pursue in the Islamic lands especially in the Middle East are implemented by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and confirmed by Qardhawi.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Ummah’s tragedy: court ulama
Intensifying the proxy war in Syria
Mursi joins the US-zionist-Saudi crusade in Syria
by Ayman Ahmed
July, 2013
President Mursi has succumbed to US-Saudi-zionist pressure and joined the crusade in Syria. Since becoming president, he has badly mishandled Egypt’s affairs and with a bankrupt economy, he has embarked on a policy that will have serious repercussions for the country’s future.
In recent days, many observers have found Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi’s behavior quite erratic. Whether this is forced upon him by circumstances and/or powers that be or reflect his own thinking is difficult to tell but instead of showing leadership he has succumbed to the forces of darkness that are leading him down a blind alley. His latest antics come amid shrill calls from the US and its Western allies to devise plans to send heavy weapons to the mercenaries in Syria that have already caused havoc in the country.
On June 13, President Barack Obama alleged that the Syrian government was guilty of using “chemical weapons” — Obama’s red line — and that he was authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to arrange for arms shipments to the rebels. The same day, a conference of some 70 religious scholars was held in Cairo, Egypt. Was it a coincidence or choreographed to provide an Islamic crutch to what is a Western crusade against another Muslim country? Convened by the International Union of Muslim Scholars, a body headed by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and generously funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it was attended by some 70 court ‘ulama from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf monarchies. These so-called ‘ulama have never had the tawfiq to utter one word of condemnation against Zionist crimes inflicted on the long-suffering Palestinians but they waxed eloquent in support of the Syrian people and the mercenaries fighting there.
The conference attendees were shown a crude video, most probably doctored, to highlight “crimes” perpetrated by the Syrian army against the people. Even if true, there is no shortage of crimes being perpetrated by both sides in Syria. Recently a horrible video appeared on YouTube, uploaded by the rebels, in which one of the Saudi-Zionist-American-backed mercenaries ripped open the body of a dead Syrian soldier and chewed upon his liver. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin was so appalled by this that he publicly chastised British Prime Minister David Cameron at a June 16 press conference in London telling him, “Do you want to arm people that eat their enemies’ organs?” Cameron offered the lame excuse, “Not all of them do it.” How many cannibals would it take for the West and their Arabian puppets to stop arming such beasts?
The website for Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s organization ran a statement claiming the Cairo meeting was designed to “show the real face of Iran, the Asad regime and Hizbullah,” in reference to the allegation that Islamic Iran and Hizbullah’s backing is keeping Bashar al-Asad’s government in power. There is no proof of Iran’s direct military involvement in Syria although Tehran has made no secret of its political backing for al-Asad as part of the resistance front against Zionist aggression. Hizbullah did support the Syrian army to liberate al-Qusayr in May but that came two years after the mercenaries had occupied the border town and perpetrated terrible crimes against civilians, many of them Lebanese. On the other hand, it is well documented that at least 40,000 mercenaries from 27 countries are operating in Syria. Regimes supporting such mercenaries or allowing them to use their territory to cross into Syria are in clear violation of international law — yes, the one crafted by the West itself that is so often invoked against those that challenge Western hegemony — and thus are perpetrating war crimes. Such violations, however, have not bothered the West’s human rights crusaders because they are determined to overthrow al-Asad even if the mercenaries they are supporting indulge in acts of cannibalism. In fact, such acts advance the West’s long-standing agenda to depict Islam in the most negative light. Barring a few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide have recoiled in horror at such behavior. It reminds them of the barbaric practice of Abu Sufyan’s wife Hind in the Battle of Uhud when she ripped open the body of Hamzah (ra), the Prophet’s uncle, and chewed upon his liver. Are the mercenaries in Syria any better? More crucially, those backing them are following in the footsteps of Abu Jahal, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. Back to the days of jahiliyah!
The Cairo conference and those attending it had a nefarious agenda: to stoke sectarian conflict in the Ummah. They declared the anti-government struggle in Syria as “jihad” and urged “Sunni Muslims” from all over the world to join it. But making such declarations at a conference attended by a mere 70 court ‘ulama including the Shaykh of al-Azhar Ahmed al-Tayeb, who is known to be a decent person, would not get much traction; nor would Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s website help advance the cause of the “jihadi mercenaries.” A more direct approach was deemed necessary to reach a wider audience. The next day, on Jumu‘ah, a direct appeal was made to the masses at salat al-jumu‘ah. Saudi preacher Mohammed al-‘Arify used his guest sermon at a central masjid in Cairo to harangue thousands of worshippers to not only support the mercenaries in Syria but to join them by enlisting in “jihad.” It was al-‘Arify who had earlier issued a call for Muslim girls to join what he referred to as jihad al-munakahah in Syria. What this means is that Muslim girls should go to Syria to service the sexual needs of mercenaries fighting there. Unfortunately some gullible girls from Tunisia and other places have joined what is essentially a prostitution racket to advance the Zionist-imperialist agenda in the region. Worse still, those that call themselves ‘ulama are advocating such conduct.
Even Masjid al-Haram, the sacred House of Allah (swt) in Makkah has not been spared. Sheikh Sa‘ud al-Shuraym, using the minbar of Masjid al-Haram on Jumu‘ah urged Muslims to help the Syrian rebels “by all means” possible. He even broke down while making the appeal, whichwas broadcast live on several Arabian TV channels. How many times has any Saudi preacher made an appeal to help the Palestinians, much less shedding tears for them? Muslims struggling for their legitimate rights elsewhere, in Kashmir or Afghanistan, for instance, should not entertain any illusions that a Saudi preacher would ever pray for them much less ask for material help.
In the desert kingdom, use of the two sacred masjids — Masjid al-Haram and al-Masjid al-Nabawi — or indeed any other masjid, for political sermons is strictly forbidden. Talking rituals is the order of the day. The House of Saud is terrified lest some independent-minded shaykh might emerge and take its members to task for corruption or lewd behavior. Pre-approved khutbahs are handed to them to deliver from all the masjids in the kingdom. The abuse of the minbar to vilify fellow Muslims revives memories of the dark days of the Umayyad rulers when they instituted the policy of cursing Imam ‘Ali (a) and the Prophet’s (pbuh) family, the Ahl al-Bayt (nastaghfir-allah).
After participating in the khutbah crusade, the preachers assembled in Cairo, feasted on rice and lamb, and then rested for a while, as is their wont, before invading the presidential palace to harangue Mursi to join their campaign. Seeing Saudi- and Qatari-backed preachers and smelling riyals, Mursi could not resist the temptation. Egypt is suffering from a severe financial crisis making him vulnerable to petro-dollars and riyals. He succumbs to whoever comes with offers of cash for his cash-strapped country.
After his meeting with the preachers on Friday night, Mursi addressed thousands of supporters in a Cairo stadium the following day for a “Free Syria” rally. Some of the religious preachers from the conference were also present. Mursi announced cutting all relations with Damascus. He said Egypt was closing its embassy and withdrawing its Charge d’Affaires from Damascus while he demanded the Syrian ambassador leave Cairo. Mohamed Seif al-Dawla, a former advisor to Mursi recalled that after Israel attacked Syria in May, he had demanded the closure of the Zionist embassy in Cairo. Instead, Mursi has shut down the Syrian embassy!
Just over a year earlier, Mursi had announced the formation of a four-member Contact Group to resolve the Syrian crisis peacefully. He had made the appeal at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation meeting in Makkah. He reiterated the same call at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran a couple of weeks later. The quartet, according to Mursi would comprise Egypt, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. With his support base at home shrinking and under US-Saudi-Qatari pressure, Mursi has abandoned his own plan to resolve the Syrian crisis through dialogue. Instead, he has joined the Anglo-Wahhabi-Zionist-imperialist crusade. He even demanded that a no-fly zone be imposed over Syria in the manner of Libya. Russia has made clear it will not support any such move and would veto any resolution presented in the UN Security Council.
It is depressing to note that those calling themselves ‘ulama resort to tactics that are bound to deepen existing fissures in the Ummah. Exactly a century ago, the British had injected the poison of nationalism to create divisions between the Ottoman Turks and Arabian chiefs. While these tribal chiefs did not get independence, their betrayal led directly to the implantation of the Zionist entity in Palestine. Today, sectarianism is being promoted in order to safeguard the Zionist entity from the growing awareness in the Ummah, especially the Muslim East. The Arabian chiefs will pay a heavy price for such treachery. In any case, their days are numbered and sooner rather than later, they will be consigned to the dustbin of history where they rightly belong.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Imam Khomeini: the battle for hearts and minds
by Afeef Khan
June, 2013
One of the essential pre-requisites for leadership is to set a directional course and motivate people to follow it. This is what Imam Khomeini (ra) achieved and brought about the Islamic revolution in Iran.
Imam Khomeini won the battle for Muslim hearts and minds. America and the Zionists lost. He feared Allah (swt) and had no fear of presidents, princes, shahs, and any other human rivals to Allah (swt). He won because he had the clarity of conviction that translates into the ability to lead, in short, to be an imam.
The function of leadership is to produce transformational change. Effective leaders accomplish this by setting a directional course, aligning large groups of people to that course, and by motivating them to hold themselves accountable for their commitments of learning through action and deliberation. In the past 250 years for Muslims, no Islamic leader did this better than Imam Khomeini. True, there have been leaders of Islamic movements, but he was the only one to achieve success as a true imam. But this was no accident.
Setting a new direction is fundamental to leading. A new directional course requires intellectual clarity. This is the greatest gift an imam can offer to his hungry Muslim constituencies: having the confidence to know what to do in any given situation, having the confidence to engage in a rational process that allows the best ideas to dominate, and that does not require the validation of other human beings, especially those who have divided, in a binary way, the world into inferiors and superiors where the inferiors always require the endorsement of the self-declared superiors. This is how imperialists and Zionists look at the world, driving a wedge into the natural human tendency to co-associate. In point of fact, all human beings are inferior and Allah (swt) is their superior and as such all actions are to be validated according to Allah’s (swt) revealed reference points for humanity: the Qur’an and the prophetic precedent. Truth requires no human approval and it certainly needs no behavior of a preferred class to authenticate it. Truth is self-evident to anyone who thinks about it. Human activity is to be judged by Allah’s (swt) criterion of right and wrong, and right and wrong does not “rise” to the level of palatability by the “standard” and behavior of those who hold temporal power or prominence.
Setting a directional course creates a sense of urgency, produces an overall vision to strive for along with a strategy to get there, and satisfies the needs and rights of important constituencies in society. The Imam lived his entire life with a sense of urgency. All of us who remember Imam Khomeini know that in his executive capacity as head of state, he came out and immediately connected domestic oppression and degradation to its global counterpart in Washington, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, and Riyadh. Throughout his scholarly career and when he stepped onto the world stage, he rejected all Western ideological and philosophical ruminations, and thereby marginalized any governmental implementations based on these theories in the East and the West as being inconsistent with Allah’s (swt) command, the Prophet’s (pbuh) counsel, and the people’s liberation.
He showed his people that capitalism and communism were cut from the same cloth, and thus he was the first modern leader to break from the ideological stranglehold the West held over ideas that translated into representative political institutions whose goal was to satisfy the needs of all the people, and not some special interests. The full force of his lifelong resistance culminating in a decade of rule over an Islamic state showed all people that divinely inspired universal principles of social justice are fundamentally incompatible with the Western discourse and practice of governance, despite the high-sounding rubric of democracy, free markets and globalization. As a world leader with a vision, he even advised, in vain, Mikail Gorbachev, to liberate his people from the obvious problems besetting all Western societies in their dissociation from God.
Often when Muslims are queried about the one major problem in their societies, they say it is education, usually of a scientific, professional or technological nature, that is, medicine, engineering, information technology, environmental science, etc. Few Muslims, although this is changing, will point to unresponsive political institutions and impotent rulers. Imam Khomeini was not similarly confused. He knew that he had to separate the coordinated activities of his people from dead-end pursuits. He knew that an Islamic directional course would clarify what kind of education is essential and what kind is irrelevant. He wanted his people in particular, and all Muslims in general to understand that they need not look too far away to Oxford, Harvard, and even al-Azhar (in the depleted state it is in because of the legacy of Egyptian autocracy), that knowledge and wisdom come from the fountainhead of Allah’s (swt) guidance. The Imam did not initiate a policy to go out and build scores of universities so that his people could put a man on the moon; indeed he put his people on a collision course with those power structures who thrive on creating human conflict so that they can dominate. In this task, the nascent Islamic event in Iran found itself alone. It had no choice but to rely on Allah (swt). And in this process, it discovered and released its innate human potential.
Today’s Islamic society in Iran and the Muslims of the world are the beneficiaries of the Imam’s directional course, paved as it is with the fluid lives of hundreds of thousands of shuhada’. Islamic Iran in now world class in nuclear medicine and bridge building; its managed health care approaches, especially those directed at low-income households and villages, are now being studied and implemented across the world; its literacy rates, for both men and women, are among the highest in the world, now exceeding many advanced countries; it is one of nine countries in the world to indigenously build its own satellite and rocket technology with the result that it is the first Muslim country to independently put its own satellite into orbit. It is the only country in the modern world to not only survive a 30-year economic siege, but to show expansion when the rest of the world is in recession. Equivalent sanctions between the two world wars effectively crippled Germany leading to the emergence of Nazism. Not so with Islamic Iran. And there are many other achievements to come as the people come to grips with their capacities and their God-given promise.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Syria… the new Israel?
by Abu Dharr
April, 2013
The war on Syria is in reality a battle for survival by the House of Saud that has poured billions into the conflict. Ultimately, however, the Saudis will fail, resulting in their demise.
With all the doom and gloom scenarios being painted about Syria, this writer is cautiously optimistic. The Syrian quagmire may not come to a conclusive end tomorrow or the day after, but when it does finally wind down, it will be on terms favorable to Islamic self-determination. That, as far as facts on the ground are concerned, appears almost certain.
Two years ago, in the wake of the people’s movements in North Africa, the Syrian people joined the requiem. Some of them sincerely wanted and demanded a representative government and others (the more influential with Euro-American linkages) wanted to grab state power in pursuit of pre-planned (outside) agendas. The Syrian government, hitherto known for its shrewd survivalist calculations and moves, nervously reacted by dispatching its military to put down what the Syrian government reckoned were juvenile events in the southern city of Dar‘a and then firecracker bursts in Homs and its surrounding areas.
Obviously, the security-inebriated Ba‘thi officials in Damascus did not read the pulse of their own people correctly. They fell into the trap that was laid for them by those who studied and researched Syria and sectarianism well. And the Syrian security-obsessed personnel continue to be deluded by their military “advantage,” which is reducing Syria to rubble. What began as a low-level protest movement two years ago has escalated into a full-fledged civil war with around 80,000 killed, one million refugees leaving Syria, a couple of million at least who are internally displaced, and historical cities turned into ghost towns.
What caused a more-or-less peaceful civic movement in the south and north of the country to spiral out of control and turn into guerrilla warfare and a war-by-proxy? The unspoken answer to that is Saudi Arabia. As much as this is a Syrian civil war, this is also a Saudi Arabian war of destiny. Saudi Arabia — as much as the mainstream media want to conceal this fact — is the main intruder into internal Syrian affairs. Billions of “Saudi” dollars have been set aside for financing mercenaries and guns-for-hire who are tasked with decapitating the Syrian regime. Other billions of “Saudi” dollars are allocated for satellite TV stations, the print media, and everything else between ink and airwaves to propagandize for the Syrian “opposition.”
The Saudi regime brings to the Syrian civil war its backups, representatives, and proxies. Saudi intrusion into Syria comes with such outfits as Jund al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusrah, with al-Qaeda types, and with the Persian Gulf nephews and nieces of Saudi Arabia such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, et al. A document leaked a few months ago shows a Saudi interior ministry letterhead with a proposal to release over 2,000 death-row detainees in Saudi Arabia (Egyptians, Yemenis, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.) who would go to Syria and fight alongside the Saudi sponsored militant units. The enticement was not only to have their death sentences commuted, but also the Saudi government would pay a lifelong monthly subsidy to support their families!
The question here is: why is Saudi Arabia going all the way to ensure that the Syrian regime does not pull through this civil war? The answer is so obvious that many observers cannot see it! The fact is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has succeeded in welding together policies and politics that the Saudi officials miscalculate and consider to be threatening. While the Saudis were sleeping on their laurels, their neighbors in Iran were out in the field doing their homework and building their infrastructure. Saudi Arabian rulers-by-whim-and-instinct woke up after 30 years of an anti-Iranian American sponsored strategy to the reality of an “Iranian regional power.”
The Islamic Republic of Iran has made it very clear to the Saudi royals that they seek friendly and neighborly relations with the Kingdom. This message has been communicated through numerous channels. Still, the Saudi ruling clan was terrified to realize that its clout was diminishing in the Palestinian arena, in the Arabian domain, and in the Islamic sphere — areas where hitherto criticizing Saudi Arabia was taboo.
The American handlers of these late-sleeping Saudis convinced the paranoid ruling class in Riyadh and Jeddah that Iran is a “threat.” And easily convinced they were. So they signed on to a strategy that would pump into the Euro-American military banking complex mountains of cash. To sweeten the pot, Syria was turned into the killing fields that prove to public opinion the canard that Islamic Iran is the real danger — a danger, by admission of many Saudi sponsored politicians and pulpiteers that, in their own words, surpasses Israel and Zionism.
We all know the mainstream media myth about Saudi Arabia being the custodians of the two holy places of Makkah and Madinah. If Saudi Arabia is the custodian of any two things, they are imperialism and Zionism. For the record, there are two Saudi islands that are occupied by the Israeli Zionists. No one dare mention this because that would add Saudi Arabia to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt whose territories are occupied by the Israeli Zionist regime.
Israel occupies Saudi territories while the Saudis occupy some Islamic movements. The silence of some Islamic movements about Saudi Arabia is as deafening as the silence of the Saudis about Israeli occupation of their own lands. The Islamic level of awareness is growing and the Saudi rulers are feeling the heat. Therefore, to them, the Syrian crisis is a make-or-break issue. If they have it their way (the American-Israeli way), they will have snatched victory from the only serious and studious contemporary strategy to liberate Palestine.
One example of the Saudi opposition to enlightenment and the spread of knowledge comes from the prominent Saudi in-religious-apparel Sheikh, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak. He said that elections are haram (forbidden), they are alien to the Muslims, and they amount to mimicking the kafirs! This is how his logic goes: elections are a means of equating scholars with illiterates, and men with women; and (according to him) this equality is contrary to intellect and al-shar‘ (divine law)!
For the record, this Saudi “scholar” also has his own twitter account. So he tweets saying: Adopting an electoral system to decide who will become president or who will become a member of any decision-making body is a haram (prohibited) matter. This (election) crept upon the Muslims via the kafirs! He tells us that assigning such decision-making positions is the function of ahl al-halli wa-al-‘aqd (legislators) and people in power!! But how do these legislators and people in power get to their positions, this scholar does not tell us! He says that this is not up to normal people to decide.
This is the same scholar who issued a fatwa saying that the Ka‘bah should be demolished and then rebuilt in a way that makes it impossible for men and women to be in close proximity (or the intermixing of the sexes as he would word it) during the Hajj.
If Saudi America flaunts scholars like this who issue fatwas to destroy the Ka‘bah and rebuild it lest the pilgrims there be subjected to their obsession with sex, then it would follow quite naturally that the same Saudi America would have that class of clergymen issue fatwas to destroy a whole country like Syria and rebuild it to fit within their futuristic dreams for perverted sex, voluptuous women, and filthy wealth.
The Saudi regime is as errant as the Syrian regime. The Syrian regime misunderstood and miscalculated the temperament of its own people. The Saudi regime misunderstood and miscalculated the temperament of the Muslims at large. Their propaganda has bought them some time. But time is not on their side. They are playing on the victimhood of the Syrian people much like the Syrian regime was playing on the steadfastness of the Syrian people.
At this point in time when the fuse has already been lit it is too late to tell the Syrian people, “Stop! Can’t you see what has happened to you? You have been hijacked by imposters. You have no representative government and you have no representative opposition.”
To all Muslims of conscience and honor, not duped by Saudi mischief and money, listen in,
And a Day on which a dhalim [offender] will bite his hands [in despair], exclaiming, “O, would that I had stayed the course with the Apostle [of Allah]! O, Woe unto me! Would that I had not taken so-and-so as an intimate ally! Indeed, he [in this context, the Saudi-Syrian false dichotomy] led me astray from the consciousness [of Allah] after it had come to me!” For [thus it is]: Satan is ever a betrayer of man (25:27–29).
Pull quote:
As much as this is a Syrian civil war, this is also a Saudi Arabian war of destiny… Billions of “Saudi” dollars have been set aside for financing mercenaries and guns-for-hire who are tasked with decapitating the Syrian regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)