You’re 36, you’re beautiful, and you’re mine!

by Abu Dharr February, 2015 The Islamic revolution in Iran turns 36 this month. To survive in a cruel world dominated by greedy barons and vultures is a remarkable achievement. Islamic revolutions don’t come easy. Islamic revolutions are not the products of political negotiations. And Islamic revolutions are not cheap. This basic understanding has escaped the aging leaders of Islamic movements in Arab and non-Arab countries. This has been a difficult lesson to learn. What attests to this are the past four to five years of upheavals, internecine warfare, and mass arrests and detentions of Islamic activists from the Islamic sunrise in Indonesia to the Islamic sunset in Morocco and Algeria. Libya is a failing state; Somalia is a failed state; Tunisia is an unfulfilled state; Egypt is a frustrating state; Sudan is a fledgling state; Turkey is a fluctuating state; and Iraq and Syria are factionalized states. We can go on and on describing such states as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Nigeria just to name a few. But there is one state that stands out; and that state is the Islamic State in Iran. This Islamic resourceful ingenuity has withstood the test of time. Enemies came at it from all directions. There were the internal seculars and sectarians, there were the external Zionists and imperialists; there were wars and assassinations. You can say that the same forces that have been at work against the Islamic movements in Egypt (the deep state), in Tunisia (the secular parties), in Libya (the combination of seculars and sectarians), in Turkey (the military), etc; all these and others were busy hatching their plots and deploying their forces to defeat the Islamic Revolution in Iran and they were all defeated, hands down!

Even the sanctions and economic warfare could not change the course of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The Islamic Revolution continues to build its infrastructure not giving in to shoddy upper class lifestyles or to the gratification that comes from the contemptible consumerism across the Gulf in Dubai, Doha, Dammam and other markets of materialistic acquisitions and indulgences. Granted, there are individuals and even identities within Islamic Iran who want to “break loose” from the distinct discipline and societal self-restraint that are requisites of an Islamic practical paradigm. The Qur’an and the Prophet (pbuh) teach us that every society shall have its malcontents, mutineers, and munafiqs. The Islamic Revolution in Iran triumphed over the large-scale threats it endured from them with patience and purpose. Not only was the Islamic Revolution successful in affixing Islam to Iran, it went a step further and secured a forward Islamic base in Lebanon. Hizbullah is the natural extension of Islamic Iran onto the borders of occupied Palestine. For anyone who is not afraid to listen to the truth, Hizbullah — the projection of the Islamic Revolution hundreds of miles away — is the only force that has put the fear of God into the Zionist occupation. Zionist civilian and military personnel are scared stiff of Hizbullah and the Islamic resistance. Some of us may need a memory boost: prior to the Islamic Revolution and Hizbullah, the Arabian regimes and their client, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), were flourishing failures who limped from one setback and defeat to another. Then came the no-nonsense Islamic combatants, hailing from a history that understands martyrdom and jihad to show the cowards of Zion midday stars and nocturnal nightmares.

When the Arabian rulers were sleeping at the wheel, these re-embodiments of the sacrifices of Badr and Uhud, Siffin and Karbala’ engaged and gripped the Zionists hiding behind their technological military with a fierce and uncompromising military confrontation that eventually kicked the Israelis out of Lebanon (in 2000), and sapped their morale and arrogance in the heroic defense of Lebanon (in 2006). Imam Khomeini (may he be engulfed in His mercy) as is Imam Khamenei would be proud of these Muhammadi-Husayni warriors who have inflicted serious psychological and military blows upon the Zionist felons and Israeli brigands — those who stole the Holy Land. The spirit of the Islamic Revolution lives on in the valiant warriors and fearless fighters of Hizbullah and the Islamic resistance. The Israelis in the past month after their premeditated attack that killed several brave Hizbullahis near Quneitrah, Syria are worried as they for sure remember Sayyid Hasan Nasrullah’s words from last year when he said that the Golan shall become another confrontational front against the brutal Zionist occupiers. These Hizbullahi personnel were not at the front line of confrontation to “shoot the breeze.” They were there — as they previously were in South Lebanon and Ghazzah — to work out a plan that will draw the snobbish Israeli military into a bleeding confrontation. Thanks to the Hizbullahi legacy of shahadah, the self-admiring Israeli military is mired in bewilderment as to how, when, and where the response of Hizbullah will be?! Last summer, the Israelis were confounded when they saw the fighters of Hamas pop up from beneath the ground and open fire on them from behind, and from one side or another. What if Hizbullah fighters were to pop up from their tunnels beneath the Lebanese-Palestinian borders and commence guerrilla warfare in al-Jalil (the Galilee)? The Israeli head-honchos are particularly alarmed and petrified to have killed an Iranian general who was in the company of those Hizbullahis. Little do the Israelis know, but they are — through their meddling in the internal affairs of Syria and Iraq — setting the stage for a massive people’s war against their military occupation of Palestine. Syria as a civil society has been destroyed. Iraq as a civil society has been devastated. There is no sturdy infrastructure left in either Syria or Iraq. Over 60 million Syrians and Iraqis, due to Zionist inspired policies and strategies, no longer have a society to speak of. The Zionist/imperialist strategy is turning into a stratagem. The unintended consequence of turning Syria and Iraq into failed states will rebound in militarizing their populations. Why would the Syrians and Iraqis, after the virtual destruction of their societies, want to rebuild them when the source of all their problems — the Zionists — can and will destroy them all over again. The virtual destruction of Syria and Iraq is the first step toward the liberation of Palestine. We know that behind the scenes, the Arabian regimes are cheering for Israel. They can’t tolerate an Islamic victory over Zionist aggression and occupation. A pathogen dwells deep down inside their inner-self: it is called chronic failure and spasmodic defeat. They make up for their failures and defeats by rank hypocrisy and insipid statements. We address ourselves now to the Arabian officials borne of defeatism and surrender: 1. Hizbullah is a godsend, betrothed to an Ummah that is still feeling its way. 2. The reputation of Hizbullah is excellent, first rate, and exceptional (don’t allocate a media budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars to extinguish the light of Allah – swt). 3. We remind you, as your red-light-district nights may have taken a toll on you, that Hizbullah kicked the rear of the Zionists and their foot-soldiers out of Beirut in 1982. Hizbullah liberated Lebanon from Zionist occupation in 2000 and Hizbullah incapacitated your idol the Zionist offense force in the Summer of 2006. What did you — the night creatures of Riyadh and Dubai — do for the Lebanese when they were occupied? And for the Palestinians when they are still occupied? What are your accomplishments: Camp David? Oslo? Or is it your pleading and begging the Zionists and imperialists to protect you from Islamic Iran? 4. The Islamic Revolution and the Islamic resistance are noble followers of Imam Husayn (a) who fought the tyrant Yazid. Whose side are you on? Since Karbala’ we have endured persecution, discrimination, and all types of innuendo. Even today you officials in Arabia — high on Zionism and imperialism — never tire of accusing us of “bid‘ah,” “dalalah,” and even “kufr”! We have no time for your nonsense. There is an enemy who has occupied al-Quds and the Holy Land. We dare you to stand with us against that enemy. 5. Was it not we, the followers of the Prophet, the supporters of Imam ‘Ali, and the champions of Imam Husayn (a) who channeled missiles to our Palestinian brothers through Sudan into Egypt so that our Sunni brothers in Hamas and Islamic Jihad are able to defend themselves and potentially go on the offensive against the Zionist military muggers and civilian criminals? Where were you when all of this was happening? In the hotspots of southern Spain? The casinos of Europe, or the red-light districts of Bangkok and Singapore? 6. If this “Sunni-Shi‘i” bug is so entrenched in you, then go ahead and initiate your equivalent of Hizbullah who will take on the Zionist occupation. Or are you beholden to the Zionist interest and are incapable of even accommodating the thought? The Islamic Revolution gave us Hizbullah. The Saudi volition gave us takfiris. Hizbullah fights the Zionists; the takfiris fight the Muslims. Go figure. Thirty-six years is enough time for anyone to wake up; wouldn’t you say? “Then, let all compete as [are willing to] compete for things of high account…” (Qur’an 83:26).

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.

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.