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

Muslim East: revolutions and counter-revolutions

Power is not given up voluntarily, at least not by those who have usurped it by force in the first place. The Muslim East (Middle East) is witnessing unprecedented uprisings by peoples that were hitherto considered too apathetic to move. There was a sense of resignation until, that is, the uprising in Tunisia sparked by the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, the street vendor who could not take the public insults of a female police officer any longer, changed everything. His act set the entire Muslim East ablaze; the flames are still raging. How many dictators will ultimately be consumed is still uncertain but a clearer understanding of the reality is crucial.



Long entrenched dictators can be dislodged from power; that is often the easy part. It is not the dictators but the system that maintains them in power that must be better understood. Dictators do not rule in a vacuum; they represent the tip of the iceberg. The ingredients that make up this iceberg are the military, the police, the bureaucracy, the political parties (the ones permitted to operate), judges, courts and a vast network of patronage in which businessmen and politicians develop close relations to help sustain the system and the dictator in power. Since everyone’s personal interests are tied to the system, it is not so easy to dismantle. In fact, the system would often sacrifice the individual in order to dissipate public anger and help stabilize and situation. Tunisia falls into this category.

Let us consider specific examples. Both in Tunisia and Egypt, two long-serving dictators — Zine el-Abidine and Hosni Mubarak — were driven from office within a short period. Yet it would be wrong to assume that the systems that sustained them have also gone. In both countries, vested interests are fighting back to subvert gains made by the people. The military appears to be the first but not the only line of defence. There is another, more invidious factor at work: withdrawal of capital from society, leaving protesters and the disadvantaged even more vulnerable. This is evident in both countries.

Billions have been taken out of each country and there is little likelihood that this money would be returned as long as the political environment remains uncertain. Moneyed classes are also linked with foreign financial interests. In fact, they often work in tandem to advance each other’s interests. Foreign governments, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and foreign banks withhold capital at the most critical juncture to force governments to tailor their policies to suit external players. If money is given it comes with powerful strings attached. It is during times of upheavals that governments most urgently need cash because production is disrupted while workers still have to be paid. These are the people that live from one weekly wage to the next.

Further, many societies especially Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan, are also dependent on tourism for revenue that dries up in times of political turmoil. Why would foreign tourists wish to visit a country engulfed in riots? Naturally, it affects the livelihood of that segment of society that services the tourist industry. Under such conditions, it becomes easier to turn one group of people against another. This has been attempted in Egypt where government-sponsored thugs, disguised as street vendors, were unleashed against the protesters camped in Tahrir Square accusing them of undermining their livelihood. Revolutionary fervor in the absence of power and authority to make decisions can take people only so far. This is the dilemma facing the young protesters in Egypt. They understand the challenges facing them but appear powerless on many issues. It would be unrealistic to assume that they will gain their rights without further sacrifices and vigilance against subversion.

This is the story of the revolutionaries. There are also counter-revolutions underway in places like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. After overcoming the initial shock of losing two dictators in rapid succession, especially Mubarak of Egypt who was viewed as the lynchpin of the colonial occupation of the Muslim East, the Saudis were able to formulate a counter-revolutionary strategy. Their first line of attack was Bahrain where they dispatched troops to crush the people’s aspirations. This has largely been successful. They are also deeply involved in Yemen where President Ali Abdullah Saleh, badly injured in a missile strike on his residence on June 3, is undergoing treatment in a Riyadh hospital. He refuses to relinquish power and the Saudis do not appear keen to nudge him out. In contrast, the Saudis are actively involved in undermining regimes in Libya and Syria with Western help and to plant their own agents in power.

The reasons for undermining the regimes in Libya and Syria are not the same. In Libya the aim is to subvert Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s plans to break loose of the Western economic and financial stranglehold, especially in Africa. This is seen as a threat to Western economic hegemony that could inspire people elsewhere to emulate his example and hasten collapse of the West’s financial system. Syria does not pose a financial threat but it is part of the resistance front against Zionist colonialism. Israel’s weakening would undermine Western strategic and military dominance in the region. In both Libya and Syria, the Saudis are acting as Western Zionist agents by financing anti-government rebels.

While there is no single theory that fits all Middle Eastern uprisings, the struggles of peoples in these lands are not only for fundamental rights. There are also external players involved in manipulating local grievances in order to advance their own agenda. This is most clearly evident in Libya and Syria where the people’s legitimate grievances are being exploited for Western political and geo-strategic purposes. In Bahrain, the situation is reversed: the people’s legitimate demands are being suppressed in order to maintain the rule of a corrupt monarchy subservient to the West.

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?

Closer look at the uprisings in the Islamic East

By Zafar Bangash

Since the first stirrings of revolt erupted in Tunisia on December 17, 2010, the entire Islamic East has been engulfed in civil uprisings. Two tyrants — General Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and General Hosni Mubarak — have been swept from power. Other dictators are feeling the heat to varying degrees. The uprisings have been described variously as “pro-democracy movements”, the “Arab Awakening” or even “revolution”. Absent from all these is mention of any Islamic movement. In the West this is greeted with much relief. While Muslims make up the overwhelming majority of Islamic East’s population, the West does not want Islam to have anything to do with shaping the socio-political order in these societies. Similarly, Islamic parties — al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon, al-Nahdah and others — are either banned or seldom mentioned as having played any role in the uprisings. This, however, is only one dimension of the problem.

The more important question is whether these uprisings can be characterized as revolutions. At one level, perhaps they could be, insofar as new methods of protest, such as twitter and facebook, are being utilized for mass mobilization. Additionally, in almost all countries, the youth are in the vanguard. This, too, is a new phenomenon but it would be simplistic to get carried away with this. The youth can and have offered great impetus to movements in all countries; they usually do but in the current uprisings, they are not following any particular leader or ideology. At one level this may be considered a blessing since an identifiable leader can be arrested and the movement dealt a blow but one should not fall for romanticism. In the real world, there are certain requirements that must be in place for a movement to succeed. It is not enough to get rid of a tyrant or be content with a change of faces. What follows next is equally, if not more important. Thus we need to have a better understanding of certain basic rules.

First, let us be clear about the phenomenon of revolution. While the word revolution has great romantic appeal, the minimum requirement for any movement to be called revolutionary is that it overthrows the existing order and replaces it with a new, radically different one. This has not happened either in Tunisia or Egypt where old-time dictators have been removed from power but the old order is still in place and does not appear to be in any danger of collapse. The Egyptian military, an important pillar of the old regime, is fully in control. The newly appointed foreign minister, Nabil al-Araby, endorsed the Saudi invasion and occupation of Bahrain in order to crush the people’s uprising there. The state of emergency remains in place; the border with Gaza remains sealed and even the old pharaoh, Hosni Mubarak, who presided over decades of torture, is living comfortably in his opulent villa in Sharm al-Shaikh. So what has changed in Egypt?

The same is true of other countries — Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — where uprisings are underway. With the exception of Bahrain and Jordan, there are no identifiable leaders or movements leading these protests. In Bahrain, the movement is led by the ‘ulama while in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (IAF) is in the lead but its demands are modest. The IAF has not demanded abolition of the monarchy; it is only calling for resignation of the prime minister and curtailment of some of the king’s vast powers. These can hardly qualify as revolutionary demands much less leading to any revolutionary change.

Muslims must understand that the systems in their societies are constructs imposed by colonial occupiers. These are not designed to serve the interests of the people. The ruling elites in every Muslim society barring Islamic Iran are all subservient to the West. Unless Muslims strive to dismantle these systems completely as happened in Iran in 1979, their desire for change will not be realized. For change to occur, certain conditions must be met. There must be an Islamic movement led by charismatic muttaqi leadership that will give a directional course to the movement. All energies of the people must be channeled toward the goal of not only overthrowing the old order but also replacing it with an Islamic order. Such a movement can have no parochial, tribal or national interests. Further, the movement and leadership must not be dependent on any outside powers, such as the US, Britain, France etc. In Egypt, for instance, the new regime is still pursuing old policies and the movement that forced the removal of Mubarak is too consumed by internal, purely nationalistic issues to worry about the plight of the Palestinians. This nationalistic trend is worrying. Similarly, the rebels in Libya want the West to help them against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s forces. Since when has the West supported people’s yearning for freedom and fundamental rights? If Qaddafi is overthrown, the Libyan people may find themselves entering a period of direct colonialism once again.

While one must applaud the courage and dedication of the youth and other segments of society in the Islamic East for rising up against their tyrannical rulers, there is still a long way to go before they will taste true freedom. This will not come about by espousing nationalistic slogans or accepting servitude to the West, regardless of how much they may hate their present rulers. The ruling oligarchies in the West are not their friends; they are nobody’s friends, not even their own people whom they oppress and exploit. No amount of wishful thinking can change this reality.

Muslims struggling for dignity and freedom must have a much clearer understanding of the reality both in their own societies and of the global setup if they are to achieve success in their undoubtedly genuine struggles. Nothing comes easy. This is what we learn from the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh). Muslims should not harbor any illusions about the price that freedom demands.

Uprisings for dignity sweep the Islamic East

Zafar Bangash

The unthinkable has happened in Egypt. The masses have consigned Hosni Mubaak, the most brutal Middle Eastern despot, to the dustbin of history. This became possible only because people shook off the fear that had paralysed them for 30 years. They have also crossed another important landmark: they refused to be provoked by the thugs unleashed by the regime. This would have provided the regime the pretext to unleash its massive firepower and crush the uprising as happened in Algeria 20 years earlier.

Protests have now spread to other parts of the Middle East with people rising up against long-time rulers in Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Libya, Algeria, Djibouti and Morocco. The response of the regimes has been equally brutal but people have not been cowed down. If earlier, people kept their heads down and their voices low against state brutality, now they are standing firm and defying the regimes’ shock troops.

Sometimes, seemingly insignificant events can assume global proportions. It was the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, an unemployed university graduate (not the first in Tunisia) that sparked the uprising forcing the Tunisian dictator general Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali to flee on January 14. According to reports, Ben Ali has since suffered a stroke in exile in Jeddah and is in a coma. If true, he deserves the fate but it would have been better if he were put on trial, something he denied tens of thousands of people during his brutal rule, and face the consequences for his crimes.


The uprising in Tunisia encouraged the Egyptians also to rise up, with protests quickly spreading to other countries as well. This in turn has caused immense panic in the desert kingdom of Saudi Arabia where the ailing old monarch, King Abdullah seems to have lost nerve completely. He is also upset with US President Barack Obama for “abandoning” Mubarak. Abdullah now feels the heat of the desert spreading.

But it is the change in Egypt that has great significance because the country is a leading player in the Islamic East. While influenced by the example of the intrepid Tunisians that surprised everyone, there was an Egyptian element as well involved. Last June, the Egyptian police beat to death Khalid Sa‘id, a 27-year-old internet buff. His crime? He had obtained a video of the police smoking dope that he wanted to post on the internet. He never lived to do so. There were sporadic protests against the killing but the spark was provided when Wael Ghoneim, a young Google executive opened a Facebook account in the name of Khalid Sa‘id, saying “We are all Khalid Sa‘ids”. This mobilized the Egyptian people who felt they had enough of tyranny and would not put up with any more humiliation.

Western commentators have tried to spin the uprisings in terms of people hankering for bread, lower food prices and jobs. While there is some truth to such assertions, what they have deliberately ignored is that the people’s uprising was and is for dignity and honour. They refuse to put up with the humiliations they have been subjected to for decades by their cowardly rulers that are completely subservient to the Zionists and the Americans. The people have said and continue to proclaim loudly that they are fed up with corruption, cowardice and the craven attitude of their rulers.

The rulers’ cowardice and treachery can be gleaned from the following episode. Even as Mubarak was teetering on the brink, he signed an executive order on February 8 prohibiting entry of Palestinians from Ghazzah even if they had valid visas. Similarly, hundreds of Palestinians were stranded at Cairo airport and other locations in Egypt unable to return to Ghazzah. The border was opened — but only one way into Ghazzah — on February 20 to allow the Palestinians to return home. The military regime has refused to lift the Zionist-imposed illegal siege of Ghazzah despite the Egyptian people wanting such restrictions ended. They must continue the struggle not only to demolish all pillars of the old regime completely but also break the siege of Ghazzah and reject the unjust peace imposed on them by the Americans and the Zionists if they are to achieve true dignity.

It must also be emphasized that simply getting rid of despotic rulers will not solve the problems afflicting the region, or indeed the Muslim world. There are systemic problems plaguing Muslim societies. The exploitative systems from the ground up must be uprooted, Iran-style, if people are to achieve true independence. Change will not come about at the hands of the militaries. They are instruments of oppression working to advance the US-Zionist agenda. The officer class in virtually every Muslim country — trained in the West and beholden to it, especially the Americans — is the bastion of nifaq in the local establisment. Unless the militaries are purged of the westoxicated officer class, no meaningful change can occur in the Muslim world.

Some rulers may have been driven from office, others may be running scared because their fragile state structures stand exposed but the struggle for dignity and honour is far from over. There is also the real danger that their struggles will be hijacked by vested interests — as has happened in Tunisia where the trade unions have joined the regime and betrayed the masses — and people may be left out in the cold. It will depend on the sagacity and wisdom of these leaderless movements to stay in the field until they achieve total victory. That will not come about as long as the old state structures are intact regardless of the soothing words uttered by the ruling elite and the military to respect the wishes of the people.

If the people fail to heed this elementary lesson, they would find themselves in the same sorry state that the people of Pakistan are in today after 60 years of broken promises. The struggle and the sacrifices would then all be in vain.

Saudis panic amid unrest in the Islamic East

Zafar Bangash, Reflections

Nowhere is there more concern — and panic — about the rapidly escalating protests in North Africa and the Islamic East than inside the marbled, air-conditioned palaces of Saudi Arabia. While the House of Saud faces no imminent threat like despots in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen or Bahrain, the fear in Riyadh is genuine. The Saudis know their rule is illegitimate. It was the British that installed them in power by carving out a kingdom from the ruins of the Ottoman Khilafah to serve British colonial interests. Now the Americans are protecting them because the Saudis continue to pump oil to satiate the Americans’ addiction to black gold. But America has lost its clout on the global stage, thanks to its wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US and its Arabian lickspittle can no longer dictate to the world.

The Saudis’ real concern is not only America’s loss of clout; their worry is that Uncle Sam ditched a long-time trusted ally Hosni Mubarak so casually. The Saudis may be cowards but they are not fools. They understand what is afoot. If the Americans can discard Mubarak whose regime was a major bulwark against the rising tide of Islam and loyal ally of the Zionist State of Israel, what chance do the pleasure-loving Saudis have if protests erupt in the kingdom? The Americans might abandon them just as quickly, oil or no oil. Further, the Saudis now feel alone in standing against the emerging power of Islam.

While there is little prospect of a Tunisian, Egyptian or Libyan style uprising in Saudi Arabia — most Saudis are bone lazy — it is the possibility of a palace intrigue that the Saudis worry about. True, a protest is planned for March 11 in Riyadh but it is unrealistic to assume anything significant would come out of it. Saudi society is far too tightly controlled and the religious establishment has been completely compromised to offer an alternative to the corrupt and decrepit monarchy. It is, however, developments elsewhere, especially in Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain that worry the Saudis so much. With Mubarak gone, the Saudis feel dangerously exposed. And to this end, to placate any hint of frustration in the people, the Saudi King on his return from a convalescense holiday in Morocco has offered up over $10 billion to his people in various economic concessions like the government of Algeria and Syria. The ailing and aged King Abdullah (he is 87 and suffering from multiple ailments) feels the Americans have betrayed their Arabian allies.

Uprisings in Yemen and Bahrain also have a direct bearing on Saudi Arabia. The kingdom shares borders with both. With Yemen, it is 1,100 miles long and many Yemenis — including the Bin Ladens — hail from there. Instability in Yemen can easily spill over into the kingdom. This explains the Saudis’ attack on the Houthis last year in one of the Forbidden Months, even if it was badly bungled, and exposed the Saudi military’s incompetence. Bahrain is even more problematic. The tiny Gulf State has a Shi‘i majority ruled by a Sunni minority. Bahrain is linked to the kingdom by a 15-mile causeway that is used by the Saudis not merely to drive across and enjoy Bahrain’s nightlife, but for a more serious purpose: in case of unrest the Saudis would rush in troops to Bahrain to contain it. It is better to fight their battle for survival in the streets of Manama than in Riyadh or Jeddah.

Further, any success by the Bahraini majority may encourage similar protests in the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia that have long been suppressed by the Nejdi tribe from Dar‘iyah. This in turn may spread to the rest of the kingdom and undermine the House of Saud.

Far from welcoming the people’s aspirations for dignified existence, the Saudi rulers stand completely exposed as the enemies of Islam and the Islamic movement. Saudi-linked and financed Islamic organizations should take note: the blood of innocent people killed in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Morocco and Yemen would be on their hands as well if they fail to sever links with the corrupt Saudi royals.

The Saudis view any challenge to the status quo as a direct threat to their survival. In fact, changes in the region are viewed as a gain for Islamic Iran, and its allies: Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas.

People in the Peninsula must grasp the opportunity offered by the uprisings elsewhere. They must also rise above sectarianism to establish a system based on the pristine principles of Islam. They can either walk in the footsteps of the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh) or cling to the jahili practices of the likes of Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab. History will render a very harsh judgement if they fail to rise to the occasion. The choice is theirs.



Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Turbulent times ahead for the Middle East

Palestinians have suffered more than 60 years of Zionist brutality; the latest anniversary of Zionist war crimes in Gaza was commemorated on December 27. This is but one of many problems afflicting the Middle East. There are others looming large in a region that has not seen peace for decades. The implantation of the Zionist entity in the heartland of Islam is the principal source of most of these conflicts and mass dislocations but there are also internal problems plaguing the region.

Two countries in particular, Egypt and Saudi Arabia that are important pillars of the US imperialist agenda are about to enter a period of turbulence whose consequences are difficult to predict. Both have aging rulers whose impending demise is likely to lead to ruthless succession battles. There are no set procedures for orderly transition. True, theoretically the Saudi constitution says the brother next in line will succeed the king (what ayah of the Qur’an or hadith permits this?) The problem is Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Sultan is totally incapacitated while King Abdullah, 87, is currently recuperating from multiple surgeries in the US. Even the third in line, Prince Nayef, is suffering from cancer as are a number of other princes. Some have back problems. Given their age and multiple diseases afflicting the army of children that Abdul Aziz ibn Saud sired — 37 from 22 wives — the kingdom is in for a rough ride. Abdul Aziz, it seems, raided caravans during the day and produced children at night. His nocturnal activities have created unforeseen problems.

Egypt is in even greater trouble. Hosni Mubarak, 82, is also suffering from cancer. He wants his son Gamal to succeed him but that is not so simple. The men around Mubarak have honed their murderous skills by terrorizing opposition groups like the Ikhwan al-Muslimoon and others that dared stand against Mubarak or his party henchmen in manipulated elections. These men, especially people like Omar Suleiman who currently heads the Intelligence Ministry, have no mercy. He has close ties to the Israeli spy agency, Mossad and is clearly their preferred man. Just prior to the Zionist attack on Gaza in December 2008, Suleiman had urged the Israelis to finish off Hamas.

Once the old Pharaoh is gone, these murderous men with oversized ambitions will not be deferential to Gamal Mubarak. They have little reason to, especially when their own ambitions are involved. Following Gamal Abdel Nasser’s death in September 1970, a period of political turmoil ensued until Anwar Sadat consolidated his grip on power. His assassination in October 1981 propelled Mubarak into the top spot but he too faced difficulties despite American and Israeli support.

His departure will create a huge political vacuum in Egypt. This is the result of prolonged dictatorial rule. Mubarak has been in power for 30 years, longer than the rule of his two predecessors combined. Sadat lasted 11 years and Nasser was at the helm for 18. Mubarak has ruled through a state of emergency that was first declared in October 1981 and has been renewed every six months. Thus, Egypt has not known any normalcy. With Mubarak’s death, more turmoil can be expected.

This would result in decline of US influence in the region. As Egypt’s ruthlessly ambitious men — generals and civilians — jostle for power, one of the most important outposts of US imperialism will be destabilised. What will emerge out of this desert storm is difficult to predict but such uncertainty can neither be good for the US nor Israel. The Islamic movement’s ability in Egypt to capitalize on this is an open question. What is certain is that two of America’s most obedient client regimes are heading for turmoil that would further weaken America’s already declining power. That cannot be bad for Muslims.gamal Abdul Naser