Bani Saud unfit to manage Hajj affairs

by Zafar Bangash October, 2015 The Saudis cannot be left to manage the affairs of Hajj. They are unfit physically and mentally to discharge this great responsibility. It should be taken over by a group of learned scholars backed by properly trained professionals. The massive casualties during this year’s Hajj have far surpassed similar casualties in previous years. They have rekindled debate about the Bani Saud management—or mismanagement—of Hajj and its related activities. They started even prior to formal Hajj ceremonies when on September 11, a large construction crane collapsed into Masjid al-Haram causing 115 deaths and 398 injuries. Strong winds and rainstorm were blamed for the tragedy without addressing the question of why the most sacred mosque in Islam has been turned into a huge construction site with tens of cranes dotting the skyline assaulting the spiritual ambience in such a grotesque way. The hujjaj had not yet overcome the shock of the Haram deaths when an even greater calamity struck at the Jamarat site in Mina on September 24. Initially, the Saudis mentioned 310 deaths gradually revising it upward to 717 dead. The last official figure released by the Saudi regime is 769 dead and some 934 people injured. These bear no resemblance to reality. For instance, on September 28, Pakistani diplomats said Saudi officials had given them photographs of 1,100 dead pilgrims from which to identify their own citizens. Indian diplomats have also corroborated these figures.

What this indicates is that the Saudis have indirectly admitted that at least 1,100 pilgrims died. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said on September 28 that the bodies of over 700 African pilgrims had been buried in Saudi Arabia. He mentioned this in the context of Tehran’s demand that the bodies of its pilgrims be returned to Iran. President Hassan Rouhani cut short his trip to the UN General Assembly in New York and returned to Tehran the same day to receive the bodies of Iranian pilgrims but the Saudis created a hurdle and failed to live up to their obligations. The head of Iran’s Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization, Saeed Ohadi said that 464 Iranian pilgrims had been killed in the stampede at Mina. This is the largest number of casualties of any country. Earlier, he had said that a total of 228 Iranians were confirmed dead with 27 wounded and 248 Iranians still unaccounted for. Among those missing were about 200 Iranian diplomats that prompted Ali Akbar Velayati, former foreign minister and advisor to the Rahbar on International Affairs, to say that the Mina tragedy was highly “suspicious”. He said that the Saudi regime works closely with the Zionist regime and hinted that the diplomats could have been kidnapped. The Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei issued a strongly worded statement warning the Saudis of a “harsh” response from the Islamic Republic if the bodies of Iranian pilgrims were not returned immediately.

The questions everyone is asking are: how many pilgrims have died and what responsibility does the Saudi regime bear? Also, how did the tragedy occur? It is unacceptable for the Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abd al Aziz al-Sheikh to declare that this was an “Act of God” and the officials bear no responsibility. The Saudi Health Minister Khalid al-Falih has also tried to blame the pilgrims by saying they “did not follow instructions.” The latest casualty figure, as gleaned from a statement by the Saudi Deputy Health Minister Hamad bin Muhammad al-Duweili is 4,173 dead and hundreds perhaps several thousand still missing. True to form, other Saudi officials immediately denied the report without saying what the actual figure was. Foreign diplomats have complained of lack of information and access to hospitals or other facilities to get a true picture of their pilgrims’ plight. How did the tragedy—not the first in Saudi-controlled Arabia—occur beyond the self-serving statements of Saudi officials blaming pilgrims? Reports from survivors at the stampede site have mentioned the arrival of Saudi deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. The security forces immediately blocked off two streets to allow the Saudi ‘royal’ and his huge entourage to pass through. Also, all exit gates from the Jamarat site were blocked resulting in pilgrims being forced to return the same way they had entered causing a massive crush as other pilgrims were coming in. Who gave the order to shut off the exit routes and why? King Salman bin Abd al Aziz has ordered an inquiry into the stampede. What credibility would such an inquiry have when the Saudi grand mufti has already exonerated officials with the flourish that it was an “Act of God”. The Saudi health minister went even further; he blamed the pilgrims. Perhaps the pilgrims had a death wish!

There is a long list of such tragedies under Saudi control. On November 4, 1979, the Saudi regime brought French and Moroccan commandos to attack and killed 230 people, mostly Saudis that had sought refuge inside al-Masjid al-Haram. They carried out another slaughter on July 31, 1987, when Saudi security forces shot and killed 402 Iranian pilgrims for participating in the bara’at min al mushrikeen march in Makkah. Allah has expressly forbidden even arguments in the precincts of the Haram much less killing anyone (2:197). The other horrific episode was the death by suffocating of 1426 pilgrims in a tunnel on April 17, 1990 when the Saudis block off its exit. The reason? Some prince was passing nearby! These recurring tragedies raise serious questions about the administration and management of Hajj. Unfortunately there is lack of understanding among many Muslims about the Haramayn—the two holy cities of Makkah and al-Madinah. They do not belong to the Najdi Bedouins. They are the common heritage of the entire Muslim Ummah, hence they should be administered by a competent authority of ulama from all schools of thought. Muslim professionals specializing in crowd control, traffic management and flow should assist them. Additionally, Muslims specializing in urban planning should plan the cities of Makkah and al-Madinah as well as how Mina and Arafat are to be developed. The current Saudi practice of building massive structures without regard to pilgrims’ safety and security must stop immediately. Such structures have only added to the problem. The greatest problem, however, is the illegal occupation of the Haramayn by the Najdi Bedouins. If they do not give up their control voluntarily, then the global Islamic movement has to take other measures to rescue the two holy cities from their clutches. Nothing less would do, for the safety of the hujjaj as well as the larger Muslim Ummah.

Hujjaj deaths due to Saudi incompetence

by Zafar Bangash October, 2015

The Bani Saud have once again shown they are totally incompetent and callous. The horrific deaths of 4,173 pilgrims in Mina on September 24 is proof of their crimes. They should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. The Saudi regime has become synonymous with death and destruction, especially for the hujjaj (pilgrims). Those planning to go for Hajj or Umrah often go mentally prepared for some disaster to strike. While such awareness is part of a Muslim’s belief, this year the traditionally incompetent and callous Saudis surpassed their own pathetic record. It was reflected in the horrific death of some 4,000 pilgrims in Mina on September 24. This is by far the worst disaster to strike the hujjaj in living memory. While the Saudi regime and its apologists have admitted to more than 770 deaths, the real death toll is 4,173, according to Hamad bin Muhammad al-Duweili, Deputy Health Minister of Saudi Arabia, as reported on September 29 although the Saudi regime quickly denied the figure. When the news first emerged, the Saudi regime mentioned a figure of 310 deaths, not 300 or 350. Perhaps the 310 figure was meant to lend authenticity to their claim. Informed observers were convinced this figure would soon be surpassed but nobody had imagined it would reach 4,000, much less exceed it.

Eyewitnesses have narrated the sequence of events. The disaster occurred at 9 am local time. Pilgrims traditionally try to complete the first day of stoning ritual as early as possible to be able to shower and change from the ihram (two pieces of unstitched cloth) that they don for the three days of Hajj, into regular clothes. During the three days in ihram, they cannot shower or change clothes. They set out from Mina to Arafat and spend the day there in supplications and ibadat. Before offering Maghrib salat, they begin the short journey to Muzdalifah to offer Maghrib and Isha salat together and then spend the night there under the open sky. The pilgrims also collect pebbles for the next three days of stoning the devils in Mina. Immediately after Fajr salat, they head back to Mina for the first of the three-days of stoning of the Shayateen (devils). Rush on the first day of stoning the biggest Shaytan is heaviest because every pilgrim is heading for the same ritual. This is also the day that disasters frequently occur. Saudi Health Minister Khaled al-Falih blamed the pilgrims for the tragedy. “If the pilgrims had followed instructions, this type of accident could have been avoided,” he said, without explaining what those instructions were apart from blocking their passage. What happened and why has been pieced together from eyewitness accounts. They reported that two streets leading to the stoning site were blocked off. Saudi policemen closed all the gates except one leading to the stoning site creating a bottleneck. Further, the policemen held their arms creating a human chain further restricting the area for pilgrims to move in the scorching heat (it was 46 degrees centigrade in Mina!). Also, pilgrims were directed into small alleys through which other pilgrims, also directed by Saudi policemen, were coming to the stoning site. The Saudi regime and the police have not explained why the other gates were closed. There have been reports (in the Lebanese daily Al-Diyar, for instance, as well as from Nigerian pilgrims) that Saudi deputy Crown Prince and Defence Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s presence in Mina caused the tragedy. He was travelling with a security detail of some 350 personnel. A video has also emerged of his presence there just prior to the stampede. Whenever a Saudi ‘royal’ appears anywhere, the surrounding streets are immediately blocked off. The policemen do not give any reason why they are blocking the streets nor do they bother to inform pilgrims further back not to keep moving toward the bottleneck. Pilgrims remain in the dark about what is happening. While the Saudi regime called the story of blocking streets for ibn Salman as “inaccurate”, it did not deny his presence in Mina. Further, it is customary for the king to receive ‘dignitaries’ in Mina [Hajj is supposed to obliterate all distinctions of class or status yet the Bani Saud reinforce it by their antics]. Whenever any ‘dignitaries’ are moved through Mina, traffic is blocked for them. This naturally causes problems for pilgrims because they cannot move to their intended destination. Muhammad bin Salman has become a symbol of disaster for the Saudis as well as pilgrims. It is under his command as defence minister that the Saudi regime has continued its murderous assault on Yemen even in the sacred months—Dhul Qa‘adah and Dhul Hijjah and the attacks are likely to continue in Muharram. Even the mushriks of Makkah of the Prophet’s (saws) time had more regard for the sacred months but not the uncouth Bedouins from Najd. This year’s Hajj has been an unmitigated disaster from the beginning. It started with the crane disaster in al-Masjid al-Haram, the most sacred site in Islam, on September 11 when a huge construction crane collapsed killing 115 people and injuring 398 others. This was followed on September 17 by a fire in a 1,500-room hotel in Aziziya where mercifully no pilgrims died but several suffered burns and other injuries. This was followed by the largest disaster in living memory of Hajj pilgrims: more than 4,000 pilgrims dead and hundreds injured. Several hundred, perhaps a thousand are still missing and unaccounted for including hundreds of Iranian diplomats. The Saudis have refused to provide any information about them leading Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, advisor on foreign affairs to the Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei, to call the Mina deaths “suspicious.”

For several years now, the Saudi regime has embarked on a furious construction binge in the name of “providing better facilities” for hujjaj. What they mean by better services in unclear but if the disasters are anything go by, the hujjaj would be better off without such “services”. The Masjid al Haram in Makkah resembles a huge construction site these days. It will remain this way for the foreseeable future under the Najdi Bedouins that have embarked on a 30-year construction spree (more like demolition derby) that will allow nothing to stand in its way: mountains or historical sites dating back to the early days of Islam are being dynamited or bulldozed. The Najdi Bedouins consider nothing sacred except their own primitive artefacts. There are giant cranes everywhere, their long arms hanging over the Haram courtyard like the scaffolding of a hangman’s noose. And it was one of these cranes that brought death to more than 100 pilgrims inside the Haram on September 11. The crane tipped over and collapsed inside the Haram crushing the pilgrims to death. The most sacred space on earth was splattered with blood, an act of supreme sacrilege. The regime’s official explanation was that there were strong winds and the contractor, the Bin Laden Group (does that ring a bell?) did not adhere to proper operating procedures. Who is responsible for their supervision? The regime has ordered members of the group not to leave the kingdom until an inquiry is completed. Its other projects have also been suspended.

The regime has said one million riyals ($270,000) compensation would be paid to each dead victim’s family and half that amount to the injured. Is that enough compensation; more importantly, could these deaths have been avoided? The Saudi regime would say, as they have done in the past over such tragedies, it is God’s Will. But what about those that make decisions about the kind of work that has been undertaken and the giant cranes that assault the spiritual ambience of the Haram? The decision to expand the Haram was made in 2008. It is a $200 billion project that would span 30 years. Yet even such lavish outlays would not alleviate the problem of pilgrim congestion because the entire approach is flawed. Even non-Muslim architects working on the project have pointed this out without visiting Makkah or Madinah. Anyone with even limited understanding of crowd management would point out that the first requirement is to have open space for people to be able to move. Building huge structures, as the Saudis have done all around the Haram and in Mina, only add to the problem. The steel, concrete and glass structures being built around the Haram consist of five- or even seven-star hotels, huge shopping plazas where western gadgets, jewellery, fast food and other junk items are sold. These structures are owned by members of the ruling family. They did not purchase the land from the original owners; they simply confiscated it. Further, these structures are not being built with their money. The ever-obliging court ulama have issued fatwas—what else is new—that they can take money from the Bait al Maal because they are providing services to the pilgrims! This is grand larceny compounded by the fact that rich pilgrims are gouged by attracting them to stay in these over-priced hotels. The idea being promoted is not to have a spiritual experience but to indulge in the worst kind of materialism and showmanship. The purpose of Hajj is to shun materialism and obliterate class differences but the Saudis are pushing Muslims in the opposite direction. The theft of land and resources is one dimension of the problem. More serious is the fact that historical monuments are or have been wiped out. This is a loss that can never be recovered.

The house of the Prophet’s beloved wife Khadijah (ra) in Makkah has been razed and replaced with public toilets. How can the Najdi Bedouins get away with such disrespect and why do the Muslims remain silent? Dar al Arqam at the foot of Mount Safa, where the Prophet (saws) taught his companions for 12 years, has been treated with a little less indignity; it has been levelled and replaced with the Hilton Hotel. Nearly 95 per cent of Makkah’s 1,000-year-old buildings have been destroyed during the past 20 years, according to the Gulf Institute in Washington DC. The Najdi Bedouins’ vandalism destroying Islamic heritage sites is unparalleled. Unfortunately most Muslims have paid scant attention to such destruction. The vast majority have remained ignorant of this fact as well as their significance. Those Muslims that have some awareness have either been silenced by buying them off or the more vocal ones have been marginalized. Inside the Arabian Peninsula, they are thrown in jail; outside, the Najdi Bedouins pay huge sums to buy media outlets or their loyalty so that they would not raise such issues. Facts, however, are stubborn things. Such information is seeping out. The Independent of London has been particularly good about it. There are also occasional articles in other newspapers such as the New York Times. This needs to be highlighted more frequently in order to mobilize global opinion against such destructive practices. Once destroyed, Islamic heritage sites cannot be replaced. Muslims that have had an opportunity to perform Hajj—and it is becoming increasingly difficult because of over-pricing as well as the Saudis’ imposition of a quota system completely contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an—have experienced other problems. Deaths of pilgrims have become a common occurrence. Last month’s deaths in Haram when the crane collapsed as well as the deaths in Mina were not the first and will not be the last. The Najdi Bedouins’ incompetence is compounded by their callousness and absolute bloody-mindedness. The Qur’an categorically states that there should be no lewd speech, wicked conduct or quarrelling during pilgrimage (2:197) yet the Najdi Bedouins have slaughtered hundreds of pilgrims in Makkah during Hajj. On Jul 31, 1987, more than 400 Iranian hujjaj many of them women, were mercilessly gunned down or trampled to death when Saudi soldiers opened fire on them. What was the pilgrims’ crime to deserve such fate? They were participating in the Bara’at min al-mushrikeen march as commanded by Allah in the noble Qur’an (9:03). There have been other horrific events. On January 12, 2006, 346 pilgrims were killed at the foot of the Jamarat Bridge when they came to perform the stoning of the Shaytan rites. More than 1,000 others were injured. The stampede occurred only a few days after 76 hujjaj were killed when the building they were staying in collapsed. Such stampedes are common as evidenced by the fact that two years earlier, another 250 pilgrims were crushed to death. And in February 2011, 145 pilgrims, most of them Pakistani women, were crushed to death at the same site for stone throwing rites. The September 24 deaths have surpassed all these disasters with its death toll of 4,173 and counting. In 1990, there was a similar disaster in a tunnel between Makkah and Mina. More than 1400 pilgrims suffocated inside when the Saudi policemen blocked the exit from the tunnel because some prince and his entourage were passing by. In the 25-year period, it seems nothing has changed. As part of their explanation about the Mina disaster, the Saudi regime also indulged in racism. Yes, the Najdi Bedouins are quite racist. They accused the African pilgrims of not following “instructions”. The regime’s spokesmen have not explained what instructions were issued and how they failed to abide by them. Eyewitnesses have said they were forced into narrow congested alleys. There was movement in both directions. Surely, the pilgrims did not choose to go into those alleys to be suffocated; they were ordered to go in there. Again, the regime has not explained why the gates were closed and why pilgrims were forced into the alleys. Eyewitness accounts lend credence to reports of the arrival of Muhammad bin Salman in Mina. This would account for the gates’ closure and indeed closure of several nearby streets so that ‘his royal highness’ could pass without hindrance. This is typical of Saudi behaviour. Even when the disaster struck, it took more than two hours for rescue teams to arrive. The few Saudi policemen with protruding bellies just stood there, looking at the carnage without lifting a finger to help the injured. Other pilgrims helped those that were injured and gave them water to drink.

There was only a small contingent of rescue workers that came and instead of helping the injured to save their lives, they started picking up the dead bodies. This reflects their complete lack of management and rescue skills. The standard operating procedure after any accident, such as a road accident, is to tend to the injured and leave the dead alone. The dead cannot be helped but if the injured do not get timely help, they may also die. This is precisely what happened in Mina: the Saudi rescue teams busied themselves with picking up bodies of the dead. The aftermath of the disaster has been marred by equally callous behaviour of the Saudis. Dead bodies were dumped into trucks as if they were garbage. Little effort was made to ensure proper name tags on bodies for easy identification later. Egyptian pilgrims have confirmed that the Saudi policemen insultingly demanded of them to go and identify some bodies to determine whether they were Egyptians. People looking for loved ones or friends were provided little help. The regime set up a telephone helpline but those that called have reported that it was a waste of time. They got little or no information. Pilgrims made the rounds of hospitals and the morgue outside Mina in search of loved one but were given no information. Even Muslim countries’ consular officials found the Saudis quite unhelpful. As a consequence of the latest disaster to strike the pilgrims, there are renewed calls for taking the management of Hajj affairs from the hands of the Saudi regime. These should be administered by a committee of competent ulama from different Muslim countries, as suggested by Hizbullah Secretary General Shaykh Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah. The Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei of Iran declared three days of mourning and said the Saudi regime must accept full responsibility for the latest disaster. He also demanded that the Saudi regime should offer an apology for its failure to protect the pilgrims.

Islamic revolution at 36

by Zafar Bangash February, 2015 How the Islamic revolution in Iran has survived for 36 years despite unrelenting aggression from imperialist and Zionist powers is inspirational. It is the commitment of the people of Iran to Islam and the taqwa of its muttaqi leadership. Given so much turmoil in the world, especially in the Muslim East (aka the Middle East), there is one country in the region — Islamic Iran — that stands out as a beacon of light and stability. Despite decades of illegal Western-imposed sanctions that are still in place, external invasion and massive internal sabotage, it is truly remarkable that the Islamic State is not only standing but making good progress. Other countries would have collapsed long ago. What accounts for Iran’s stability and progress? It would be wrong to assume that just because it is endowed with huge oil and gas wealth, it is able to weather the storm. After all, other oil producers — Iraq, Libya, even Syria and Saudi Arabia — are gripped by turmoil. Iraq has been devastated by repeated invasions and sanctions. Islamic Iran, too, has been subjected to this kind of aggression, ironically even from Iraq, yet it stands strong. Libya is completely broken; there is no government to talk of. Syria is engulfed in a war instigated and financed from abroad. It has been able to withstand this grand conspiracy thanks to the support it has received from Hizbullah (Iran’s ally) and Iran itself. And the artificial Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite being described as an “island of stability” by US President Barack Obama (January 28) — Saudis beware, remember Jimmy Carter’s fateful words about declaring the Shah’s regime as an “island of stability” in late 1977 — is teetering on the brink. Its survival is no longer assured and it is not only because it just lost a king or that the new one is also old and suffers from dementia. Its internal contradictions are catching up.

What accounts for Iran’s stability and progress? It can be summed up in one word: Islam. Iran has embarked on the Islamic path to address the needs of its people as well as establish a system in which the downtrodden and the oppressed are treated fairly. True, Islamic Iran is not perfect; there never has been or will be a perfect state but it is far better than almost all others. Unlike Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, Iran’s adherence to Islam is not superficial. There is a genuine commitment to live up to Islamic ideals. It is evident in the simplicity of its leaders, starting with the Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei, that trickles down all the way to the lowest level. Taqwa (the active self-consciousness of Allah’s (swt) power-presence) flows from the top; when the leaders are muttaqi, they inspire those below to emulate their example. And wealth is not concentrated in the hands of a rapacious few at the top. In every other Muslim society, taqwa exists largely among the poor, downtrodden masses (or whatever their understanding of it) but it does not spread to those at the top. Instead, there is concentration of wealth in their hands at the top. This creates resentment and, therefore, instability in society. It is not surprising that few Muslim societies have any stability; Turkey and Malaysia can be cited as exceptions but in a limited sense.

Two other remarkable aspects of Islamic Iran are its total independence from foreign influence or interference, and no external debt. Measured on any scale, these are absolutely outstanding achievements. Western predatory powers do not tolerate any country exercising independent judgment; they use their massive military muscle to beat the recalcitrant country back into line. They have tried this with Islamic Iran as well for nearly four decades but have failed miserably. Similarly, by not being part of the international financial system — Iran is not a member of the Bank of International Settlements, an institution dominated by international banksters and thieves — it has skillfully avoided the capitalist financial fraud perpetrated regularly to impoverish others while accumulating wealth in the hands of the few. Only adherence to true Islamic principles enables people to withstand such pressure. Iran is the embodiment of such values and a model for other Muslims to emulate, if only they can take off their sectarian blinkers.

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.

Unforgivable Saudi crimes

by Zafar Bangash August, 2013 The House of Saud continues to cause immense damage to the Ummah. Their wrath is especially reserved for women and expatriate workers. They do not want women to be seen, only used by lecherous Saudi men. The worldwide Muslim Ummah faces a serious dilemma vis-à-vis the Saudi rulers. They have been in occupation of the Arabian Peninsula since 1932 when they invaded the Hijaz with the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah and declared their desert kingdom. While claiming to be governed by the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the noble Messenger (pbuh), the fact that they call themselves a kingdom ruled by a king goes against the basic tenets of Islam and the teachings of the Qur’an. The noble Messenger (pbuh) and his illustrious successors never called themselves kings or princes. Nor did they allow hereditary rule as is imposed in “Saudi” Arabia. This is one, albeit major, problem. The other is the wholesale destruction of the historical sites of Islam under the guise of expansion of the Haramayn (Makkah and Madinah) as well as modernization to make room for the ever-growing number of pilgrims. Muslims worldwide look at this vandalism in stunned silence and appear helpless to prevent such destruction. Is it necessary to build five-star hotels or open McDonald’s restaurants and Starbucks coffee shops by demolishing the home of Khadijah (ra), the noble Messenger’s (pbuh) beloved wife and companion for 25 years, and the house of his friend Abu Bakr Siddiq (ra)? Entire mountains are being wiped out to make way for steel and concrete monstrosities called modern buildings. On what authority do the Saudis indulge in such vandalism? There is also another aspect of the Saudi conduct inherited from their bedouin tradition that has nothing to do with Islam: the total control of women to the point of locking them out of life altogether. Women must be covered head to toe, must be accompanied by a male guardian if they wish to go outside the home and they cannot drive cars. Saudi court preachers argue that if they were allowed to drive, it would encourage promiscuity. Perhaps the Muslim women that drive cars elsewhere in the Muslim world are all promiscuous! Are Saudi men really all that pious?

In 2010, a Saudi preacher came up with a ludicrous solution to the dilemma of women not driving. Obviously they must be driven by a male relative. Often, such a relative is not available (Saudi men are bone lazy and do little or no work). Most Saudi families have chauffers; these are all expatriate men. Since they are not related to women they are required to drive, a Saudi preacher suggested that if the dirver were to drink the breast milk of the woman, he would become like her son (what if the woman is not married?). This raised questions about the method of consuming such milk: through the bottle or straight from the source! One female Saudi commentator wrote: instead of going into such convoluted arguments, why not allow the women to drive? Saudi women, more than half the population, constitute only 17% of the workforce. According to the 2009 Global Gender Gap Report, Saudi Arabia ranks below such other Muslim countries as Kyrgyzstan, Gambia and Indonesia. Activist Wajeha al-Huwaider compares the condition of Saudi women to slavery. If a widowed woman wishes to remarry, she must seek the permission of her son! Saudi preachers have also made other idiotic suggestions like ziwaj al-misyar (marriage while traveling). What this means is that a man can take a temporary wife because he is away from home. The “temporary wife” has no rights afforded to a wife in a normal marriage contract. She stays at her parents’ house and is visited by the “temporary husband” at his convenience. This practice has become quite common in Saudi Arabia where men take additional wives without telling their “regular” wives (most Saudi men have more than one wife, often three or four; the founder of the Saudi kingdom, Abdulaziz ibn Saud had 23 wives from whom he sired 37 children!). Since “temporary wives” stay at their parents’ homes, this saves the man embarrassment in front of his “regular” wives. The fatwas dished out by Saudi court preachers are meant to keep women under control and give men a license to indulge in every obnoxious behavior. Can the Muslim Ummah remain silent or indifferent in the face of such crimes committed in the name of Islam?

Egypt-and-Iran-why-different-outcomes

by Zafar Bangash August, 2013 In Egypt the Ikhwan failed within one year while in Iran, the Islamic movement has established a government that is still in place and going strong. Why? The Ikhwan made the mistake of working within the system while Imam Khomeini understood that the existing system had to be demolished. Egypt and Iran are two very important countries. Developments in either affect the entire region. Consider the military coup against the elected president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi. Despite his faults — and there were many — the manner in which the US-Zionist-aligned military overthrew Mursi’s government raises serious concerns among Muslims and even non-Muslims that believe in respecting people’s rights and how power is exercised. The July 3rd military coup has taken Egypt back to square one. In fact, the old jahili system was never abolished. The ouster of former dictator Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 was merely cosmetic since remnants of the old regime remained fully entrenched in all major institutions: the military, police, interior ministry and the judiciary, to name a few. These remnants had the full backing of the business class, which had been the principal beneficiary of the old system.

In this column we repeatedly questioned the Ikhwan’s wisdom of operating within the old system. It was also unrealistic to assume that just because the Freedom and Justice Party, political wing of the Ikhwan, won the election that it would be allowed to implement its policies freely. Mursi and by extension the Ikhwan’s approach was flawed on many counts — not the least of which was to work within the old system. No luxury class in any society has ever given up its privileges voluntarily. These have to be taken away, by force if necessary, to ensure fairness and justice in society.

Let us compare this with Iran. On August 4, Dr. Hassan Rohani will be sworn in as president of Iran after his victory in the June 14 elections. Unlike Egypt, there is no threat of a military coup against Dr. Rohani, despite the fact that Iran’s military is arguably stronger than Egypt’s. How has Iran become coup-proof while Egypt like almost every other Muslim country suffers at the hands of the military?

The Islamic movement in Iran led by Imam Khomeini clearly understood the nature of the imposed order in society. The Imam was absolutely clear: the Shah and all the institutions he had built were illegitimate and had to be uprooted. Nor did the Imam overlook the fact that such measures would arouse the wrath of the imperialist powers that would attempt to undermine the Islamic Revolution and the fledgling Islamic State. Thus, the masses had to be prepared for the long hard struggle ahead, as the Prophet (pbuh) had done in Makkah and Madinah. The Imam purged the military of the corrupt top brass and put them on trial for crimes against the Iranian people. Concurrently, the Sepah was established as a revolutionary force that prevented the military from carrying out a coup. Iran’s military was deployed to its primary function: defence of the borders, not to lord over people’s representatives.

In Egypt on the other hand, the Ikhwan and Mursi assumed that if they played within the existing system and surrendered to US-Zionist interests, they would be allowed to complete their term in office. The haste with which the military overthrew Mursi surprised even seasoned observers. It was assumed that the military would allow sufficient time for Mursi to fail — he was set up to fail by the entrenched old guard — and people would automatically turn against him. This would have happened had he been given enough time but it seems Egypt’s imperialist and Zionist masters got impatient and decided to strike.

This brings us to the question of clarity of thought in the Islamic movement. Most leaders of Islamic movements fail to analyze the socio-economic and political order in society properly. They assume that there is nothing wrong with the prevailing system; and all that is needed is for good, honest men to run it more efficiently. Events in Egypt have once again exposed the fallacy of such thinking and the price the Ikhwan have had to pay. This scenario will no doubt repeat itself in every Muslim society where such faulty thinking prevails. True leadership sets a directional course, and inspires and guides people toward achieving it. When the collective energies of even a small number of ordinary people are harnessed for the achievement of a pre-set goal, the results are often spectacular. This is what the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh) teaches us. When even highly qualified people fail to take account of these simple facts, they end up paying a heavy price. This explains why the Ikhwan have failed in Egypt and why the Islamic movement succeeded in Iran. If Muslims care to reflect, they would easily understand this basic point. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

The Ummah’s tragedy: court ulama

by Zafar Bangash July, 2013 The ulama are supposed to be inheritors of the Prophets but only if they adhere to the divine commands. When they fall for worldly temptations, they become a curse. This is what appears to have happened to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a well-known alim, who has now joined the hate-spewing Saudis in spreading sectarianism. ‘Ulama are supposed to be successors to the Prophets (Å). Since no more prophets will come to guide humanity, the role of the ‘ulama has assumed great importance. If they adhere to the Qur’an and the Sunnah, they are a blessing for the Ummah; should they fall for temptations of the dunya, they become a curse. Who is unaware of the Pakistani politician Fazlur Rahman, a Deobandi maulana, whose antics and corruption are legendry? They have caused havoc in Pakistan. But in the hierarchy of ‘ulama, Fazlur Rahman is a minor figure. Much more serious is the role of figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian ‘alim who has a television program on the Qatari-owned al-Jazeera with a following of some 60 million people worldwide. At a rally in Doha, Qatar on June 1, Shaykh al-Qaradawi called upon “Sunni” Muslims from around the Muslim East to go to Syria and fight against Hizbullah, which had joined the battle for Qusayr in support of Syrian government forces. Al-Qaradawi alleged that “the Shi‘is [meaning Iran and Hizbullah] wanted to exterminate the Sunnis.” He went on to denounce Hizbullah as the “Party of Shaytan [Satan].” Not surprisingly, the Saudi Grand Mufti, Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Aal al-Shaykh welcomed al-Qaradawi’s call since Saudi Arabia is in the forefront of fomenting sectarianism in the Ummah. This is the only game they know and since the Saudi rulers and court ‘ulama cannot justify on the basis of Islamic principles their illegitimate rule over the Arabian Peninsula, they want to entangle Muslims in disputes that dissipate their mental and physical energies. One is constrained to ask, when did the Saudis or Shaykh al-Qaradawi ever call upon Muslims in the Muslim East or anywhere else to go to Occupied Palestine to help liberate their Palestinian brothers and sisters from decades of Zionist oppression and occupation? Iran, Hizbullah and Bashar al-Asad’s government are the only players that have confronted US-Zionist hegemony in the region. While every Muslim, indeed every human being that cares for human rights and dignity must support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, the issue is no longer about the rights of the Syrian people. Thousands of mercenaries from neighbouring countries backed and armed by the Saudi, Qatari, Jordanian, Turkish, American and Zionist regimes have flooded into Syria to advance the imperialist-Zionist Anglo-Wahhabi agenda. Their aim is to undermine the resistance front against imperialist-Zionist hegemony. When their direct military assault failed, they unleashed sectarianism to divide Muslims in a conflict that has already claimed thousands of lives in Syria. Shaykh al-Qaradawi has lent his considerable weight to this perfidious campaign. As Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World, Malaysia, wrote, “He was among the earliest public figures to endorse NATO’s airstrikes over Libya. In the middle of last year he even opined that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came back today, he would support NATO. This earned him the derisive moniker ‘NATO Mufti’ among some Arab commentators.” Imagine a noted Muslim scholar maligning the noble Messenger (pbuh) in this manner! Contrast this with the joint appeal by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamed and former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in May calling for an end to sectarian fighting and killings.

Regrettably, Muslim history is replete with examples of some scholars standing against injustice while others endorse it. Soon after the Khilafah was subverted into monarchy, the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid rulers punished those scholars — Imams Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi‘i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal — who refused to endorse their illegitimate rule, but those who went along with the corruption were richly rewarded with worldly goods and positions (read that: hush money). Shaykh al-Qaradawi and many in the Arabian Peninsula have also succumbed to the lure of political partronage from those who prefer to make tawaf around the White House instead of the Ka‘bah. Living in palatial homes lined with carpets and plush sofas and a bevy of servants at their call, these scholars have forgotten the Islamic duty of al-amr bi-al-ma‘ruf wa-al-nahy ‘an al-munkar. Instead, they are actively promoting munkar. Neither the Saudi nor Qatari rulers are legitimate; they have usurped power and authority in rebellion against Allah’s (swt) commands and are subservient to the power of global kufr. It is their shameless and treacherous behavior, and not the level of Islamic scholarship, that ought to determine how obedient ordinary Muslims should be to the errant recommendations of scholars who have never acquired a level of comfort with cogently analyzing things that matter. Muslims have paid a terrible price for such faulty thinking in the past and cannot afford any more disasters. Instigating hatred among Muslims to advance the illegitimate rulers’ agenda is not only shortsighted, it is also mean spirited and ultimately disastrous for the Ummah. The blood of innocent Muslims will be as much on the hands of these scholars as it is on those who pull the trigger. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Are majority Muslim countries truly independent?

Zafar Bangash, Reflections




Given that there are 56 “Muslim” nation-states, all members of the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Conference, the question may raise some eyebrows. Each country also has defined borders, a government headed by a king, amir, president, prime minister or even a general. Further, there is a cabinet, a standing army, national airline (or two), a national flag, and even an anthem for each country. Do these not represent independence?


We must define the term “independence” accurately to fully grasp the Muslim world’s current situation. Possessing territory, having a government, army, etc, do not necessarily mean independence. The term independence must be viewed more broadly. Neo-Marxist writers — Hans Singer, Raúl Prebisch, Paul A. Baran, Paul Sweezy, Andre Gunder Frank, Theotonio Dos Santos et al — have written extensively about dependency theory demonstrating how difficult it is for a society to break out of this cycle. We need not go into the details of dependency theory but suffice it to say that the natural resources and cheap labour of dependent societies are exploited to enrich wealthy societies (in reality, these enrich the top 1% of society as the Occupy Wall Street Movement has so clearly shown!). The elite in rich societies actively perpetuate a cycle of dependency through economic, political, social, cultural, banking, and financial policies. Societies that attempt to break out of the dependency cycle are coerced back into the fold through sanctions and/or the use of military force. The price exacted for trying to break loose is exceedingly high.


Even societies that go through a revolution — Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc — show how difficult it is to throw off the yoke of dependency. Most countries in Africa gained “independence” from colonialism in the 1960s but they are still dependent on the colonial masters for survival. Africa is gripped by mass starvation even though it is a resource-rich continent, due largely to the manufactured nation-state conflicts managed by Western powers (read that: starvation policies) coupled with their structural adjustment programs (read that, slavery to debt), which regard material resources in the ground to be more valuable than human resources on the ground. African countries have been trapped into a spider web-type relationship from which they cannot escape. Institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are used to reinforce dependency on the colonial powers. Colonel Muammar Qaddafi of Libya paid the price with his life for attempting to break the Western stranglehold on Africa by proposing to establish an African Monetary Fund as well as an African Central Bank. More resources and capital have been sucked out of Africa into the West after “independence” than during direct colonialism.


Let us, however, return to our discussion of majority Muslim countries. Are they free to formulate their own economic, political, military, cultural or social policies? Even societies that are not financially dependent on the West suffer from the dependency syndrome. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates offer good examples. These are artificial constructs that were created by Britain to serve its interests. While financially secure, they are still subservient to the West when formulating political, social, cultural, military or educational policies. Even in the economic field, these countries cannot formulate policies to benefit their own people. Saudi Arabia pumps excessive amounts of oil far beyond its needs because it must serve US and Western interests. This keeps the price of oil low depriving producers of much-needed income while transferring wealth to the West. For every dollar drop in the price of oil, producers lose $1 billion per day. On the political front, few majority Muslim countries can stand up to Zionist Israel. Instead they are aligned with US/Zionist aggressors against the Palestinian people.


Flags and national anthems aside, what is the solution to the problem facing Muslim societies? Any attempt to answer this question merely through economic analysis will not yield the correct answer. Muslim societies are unable to formulate their own policies to serve the interests of their people precisely because they are not independent. For true independence, they must first undergo an Islamic revolution to overthrow the colonial imposed order. Iran has shown how this is done. For more than 30 years, Western “experts” and “pundits” have been predicting the collapse of the Islamic system. What they fail to understand is that an Islamic revolution changes the very nature of society and renders it impervious to sanctions and boycotts. As the Noble Qur’an states so eloquently: “Allah does not alter the condition of a people until they change their attitude” (13:11).


It is through this consummate change — a clean break from the exploitative milieu created by fear of temporal power to an Islamic system that fosters confidence by reliance only on the Sustainer of the worlds — that Muslims will gain true independence. Until then, Muslims will only delude themselves into believing they are independent.


Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Tehran conference puts people’s uprisings in proper Islamic context

By Zafar Bangash

The First International Conference on Islamic Awakening held in Tehran on September 17 and 18 was a grand affair. There were more than 700 delegates from 84 countries representing all shades of opinion and thought in the Ummah. There were leaders of almost all Islamic movements, current and former government officials — presidents, vice presidents, prime ministers and ministers — as well as academics, political activists and journalists at the conference.

Reflecting the great importance the Islamic Republic of Iran attached to the conference, the Rahbar of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei himself addressed the opening session of the conference (see pp. 27–33 for his opening address). President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Attorney General Ayatullah Sadegh Larijani, Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani and Conference Chairman, Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati (a former foreign minister) accompanied the Rahbar as he entered the hall to loud cheers and was ushered to the stage. As the Rahbar took his seat on the stage, the others walked down to the conference floor to take theirs.

In his wide-ranging address, the Rahbar touched on several important points. He paid rich tribute to the courageous people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and other places where Muslim masses are involved in struggles to regain their dignity and honour. The Rahbar urged them not to be discouraged by the undoubted challenges they will face and also warned them against the beguiling smiles of the satanic powers that had kept them in bondage by propping up corrupt dictators for so long. He urged the Muslim masses to remain on the scene until they had achieved their objectives.

Naturally not all 700 delegates could have been given the platform to speak but leaders of some of the leading movements were asked to address the conference. Other participants were accommodated and recognized by being invited to sit on the platform for each of the four daily sessions. Leading conference delegates were divided into five committees to tackle various issues and report back to the conference on the final day. Before the concluding address of President Ahmadinejad on the final day, the conference chairman, Dr. Velayati, read out the Conference declaration. Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi, also addressed the conference on the morning of the second day.

In his address, President Ahmadinejad talked about the common bonds of humanity and its quest for peace based on justice. He emphasized that all human beings are created equal but it is because of Shaytan and the imprisonment of humans by carnal desires based on the distinction of race, color or birth that they have been chained. Such people, he asserted, will never taste true freedom. Iman (faith-commitment) was in the nature of human beings and no society would achieve true happiness based on shirk. Describing freedom as the greatest gift bestowed upon humanity by Allah (Â), President Ahmadinejad asserted that no society could have peace and happiness without freedom. He also pointed out that all prophets were sent with the same message of tawhid (oneness of Allah – Â), and that their mission was one: to establish justice in society that could only come about through divine rule.

President Ahmadinejad asked whether the seven billion people in the world are happy today and if not — as they clearly are not — then what are the reasons for their unhappiness? He placed the blame squarely on the mismanagement of global governance by the predatory powers led by the US. If there were proper management of world affairs, there would be justice and peace, he insisted. There would be no mass starvation and there would not be endless wars to plunder the resources of the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In referring to the current uprisings and Islamic awakening in the Muslim world, he said it was not helpful for Muslims to be quarrelling among themselves. He extended a hand of friendship to the people of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and all other countries and said that Islamic Iran was willing to help them in whatever way possible. His call was greeted with resounding cries of Allahu Akbar and prolonged applause.

In addition to recognizing the contribution of speakers at the conference, the plenary sessions and committee meetings were held to address the following:

1. develop historical, conceptual and theoretical foundations of Islamic awakening;

2. recognize prominent players in the Islamic Awakening;

3. identify challenges and threats facing the Islamic Awakening;

4. identify goals and objectives of the Islamic Awakening; and

5. clarify the outlook and future prospects of Islamic awakening.


Mindful of their responsibilities as a single Ummah, the participants expressed their sympathy and solidarity with the drought-stricken people of Somalia and underlined the Islamic imperative of mobilizing humanitarian assistance to help them. The valiant struggle of the people of Palestine facing Zionist aggression was also recognized and the continued occupation of al-Quds (the Holy Land) was seen as a great affront to Islam and the worldwide Muslim Ummah. A clear distinction was made between what is referred to as “Western-style democracy” in which vested interests manipulate the system to their advantage and the representative system of Muslims backed and supported by the will of the people. Muslims have their own system of governance distinct from the West.

The conference participants resolved to establish a permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Awakening Conference in Tehran that would be headed by Dr. Velayati as its first Secretary General. The Secretariat will hold consultations with Muslim activists and welcome any input through email, letters or any other means to promote the legitimate aspirations of Muslims.

This important conference for the first time brought Muslims from divergent backgrounds and outlooks onto a single platform and urged them to work toward the common goal of achieving honor and dignity in society. It will go a long way toward making Muslim strugglers more confident, secure in the knowledge that they are not alone in their quest. The world is certainly on the threshold of major changes in which Muslims for the first time in many decades will be in the driving seat. It will certainly usher in a more just and fair world than what we have hitherto experienced.

Time is running out in the Muslim East

Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

The Islamic Arab East has fire in its belly. The popular mood is: “fa-al-yasqut al-nizam — down with the regime.” Masses of people are breaking the fear barrier and expressing their century-old, pent-up feelings. Some dictators have been toppled, others are teetering, and still others are trying to change laws and make amends before they, too, are swept away by the people’s fury. It all began in Tunisia when a vendor, out of desperation, set himself on fire because the police denied him a permit to sell vegetables to make a living. That one act in a cauldron of seething popular resentment and frustration set off a chain of events that began in Tunisia, immediately followed by Egypt, and then spread to other countries whose people have had it with playboy Pharaohs and tin-pot tyrants along with their drooling luxury classes.

Ever since then, the media has focused attention on this life-sized event. Some media refer to it as the Arab Spring; others call it the Islamic Awakening. Whatever one’s choice of words, the dust has not settled yet. In this popular movement, what is unmistakable is the beginning of the unraveling of the old imposed political order on the Islamic peoples in that geographic area of the world. And the chances are that in a few months, at most a couple of years, other populations will erupt and bring down their own IMF-World Bank sponsored regimes. Already, Greece, Spain and Portugal have witnessed popular protests that threaten the stability of governments in Athens, Madrid, and Lisbon.

Roughly speaking, the popular movements in the southern and eastern Mediterranean fit into three broad categories. The first is the spontaneous or self-generated, as in Tunisia and Egypt.

The second is the pre-existing: examples include Yemen and Jordan. Third, there are the contaminated, such as Libya and Syria. Another category, not much in the news as yet, is what can be characterized as the latent — the ones that are not presently in eruption. Included in this last category are such states as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and the tribal states in the Persian Gulf. The only exception in the Persian Gulf is Bahrain, which may be included in the first category above. Much has been said and written about this excitement and the arousal of these peoples who have one thing in common: they all lack representative government and have been forced to live at the survival level for decades.

Up to this point, no Muslim has any objection. But from here on it gets tricky, messy, ugly, and nasty. Some wet-behind-the-ears Muslims are going to feel uncomfortable with what we have to say; but we are not writing for people to enjoy a comfort zone. The truth sometimes stings. So let us go ahead and say it as it is.

The peoples’ movement (let us call it that) took two opposite camps by surprise. Firstly, it caught the imperialists and Zionists off guard. No one with a functioning mind can deny the fact that the loss of Zine el-Abidine Ben ‘Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt is a grand loss for their remote controllers in Tel Aviv. Now Benjamin Netanyahu and company have no slicked-up proxies in the presidential palaces in Tunis and Cairo. The Israeli political establishment is and has been in damage-control mode ever since. Recent leaks indicate they are working through their American channels to ease out Field Marshal Mohamed Husain Tantawi in Egypt who appears too independent for them. Tantawi is not playing the American card in Egyptian internal politics. The Americans want the September elections postponed because they fear a significant Islamic gain in these “early elections”. And the Israelis are experiencing frequent and watery bowel movements simply because they cannot digest the Egyptian main course.

Secondly, the opposite camp that was taken by surprise was the “Islamists” themselves. Up and down the Islamic political spectrum in Egypt no one was prepared for this type of explosion of the popular will. Not that they feel unhappy about what has happened; on the contrary, most members of the Islamic Movement in Egypt are cheerful and excited that the Pharaoh is gone and they have a chance of rearranging Egyptian society in an Islamic way. Hold on, though: we said “most of the members of the Islamic Movement” — because the dumbed down salafi-Saudis had come out last January at the beginning of the popular movement, saying things like: demonstrations are thankless acts (a‘mal ghayr mahmudah), or that they are a bid‘ah. This word bid‘ah must be their favorite recourse to abort any human ijtihad to do the fara’id (Islamic obligations). The poor enlightened sons of the global Islamic Movement do not have the finances to counter the high decibel Saudi voice of bid‘ah with the word ijtihad. And for Muslims who know their history well, it was that time in Islamic history when the mentality of bid‘ah set in that phased out ijtihad.

And since that time the bid‘ah ‘ulama have reigned supreme. Their heirs are the current Saudi ignoramuses who, in the name of bid‘ah forbid their mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives from driving vehicles. Without going off on a bid‘ah tangent here, even the Islamic Movements beyond Egypt were caught by surprise. And now they are in “catch-up” mode. We dare not think of what Egypt would look like if the well-financed Saudi contingent of the Islamic Movement turns the civilizational and cosmopolitan land of the Nile into an Egyptian version of Saudi Arabia! Imagine a salafi king of Egypt! With all the loops and gaps in the literature of the Islamic Movement no one should be surprised if in the years to come we wind up with a Saudi Arabian Egypt.

Now we get to the nerves and bones of the issue. “Sunni” Muslims, generally speaking, cannot concede the natural right of the people in Bahrain to form their own representative government. The majority population in Bahrain is “Shi‘i”. So, why does any Muslim have second-thoughts about the masses of Bahrainis dethroning a king who is an absolute monarch and whose ambassador to Washington is a Yahudiyah? The Bahrainis, every Muslim should say, have all the right in the world to a representative government; and if that representative government wants closer relations with Islamic Iran than with American Saudi Arabia, all the best to them. No Muslim in Indonesia or Algeria should lose any sleep if the Bahraini people were to rid themselves of a king who has prostituted his country to the American Fifth Fleet (literally).

Now we go to a more sensitive issue. “Shi‘i” Muslims, generally speaking, cannot concede the natural right of the people in Syria to form their own representative government. The majority population in Syria is “Sunni.” So, why does any Muslim have second-thoughts about the Syrian masses unseating a regime that has shown its anti-Islamic colors during the course of the last four decades? Only last year it wanted to host a pan-Arab conference on secularism, which was canceled days before it was to be convened, probably because of positive influence coming out of Tehran. The same regime was doing an Ataturk in the past few years by barring Islamic dress code in government schools. The only argument the Syrian government may have is its support for Hizbullah in Lebanon and the myriad Palestinian resistance groups in Damascus, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The Ba‘thi regime in Damascus, in and of itself, would not have gone so far in supporting Islamic liberation orientations had it not been for positive influence from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

But at the end of the day, the government in Damascus rules the Syrian people, not the Palestinians. So, why can’t a reasonable and levelheaded Muslim concede the right of the Syrian people to have a government that represents them? The inability of the Syrian decision makers to be politically inclusive of their own people is what gives Washington and Tel Aviv inroads into a heartsick and fatalistic population. The stubborn and bloody official policies of the political and military establishments in Syria are playing into Zionist and imperialist hands. The more blood that is spilled in Syria, the more years it will take to stabilize that society — that is if the society can survive these polarizing events. The Muslims in Syria, like Muslims elsewhere, do not have an “Islamic political culture”. In this vacuum, the Saudi Wahhabi nutcases will feed their acolytes the venom of sectarianism. And the sectarianism of “Sunnis” will breed the sectarianism of the “Shi‘is” and this will result in the “Iraqization” of all countries that have a “Sunni-Shi‘i” population in them. Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah was on the mark when he said (and I paraphrase him): “if this thing begins here (in Bilad al-Sham) its fires will rage on into Arabia itself.”

If anyone, anywhere needed the good offices of the Islamic Republic of Iran it is here in this context. Only the Islamic Republic of Iran has the credentials and merit to preempt this sectarian fireball from scorching Syria-south and Arabia-north. A reformed Syria with all its anti-Zionist and pro-Islamic potential is much better than an alternative American-Israeli-Saudi friendly regime that sneaks into power via the victimhood of the Syrian people.


Certainly, Allah does not change the [social] condition of a people until they change their attitude (13:11).

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?