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.

A new Western crusade: this time against Libya

By Zafar Bangash

The West’s attack on Libya is yet another crusade launched against a Muslim country on the pretext of protecting its people. Pope Urban II would be pleased to learn that his disciples are still marching on as good “Christian soldiers” against another group of “heathens” in the Muslim world nearly a thousand years after his sermon on Mount Clermont. Colonel Muammar Qaddafi does not have to be our favourite tyrant but like Saddam Husain of Iraq, he has enjoyed Western support for decades. Western multinationals salivate at the prospect of consuming his sweet crude. Now they can have their belly full.

Interestingly, too, the UN Security Council was pressed into service to pass a resolution (#1973), imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya on March 17, ostensibly to “protect” the Libyan people. Twenty years ago, a similar no-fly zone was imposed on Iraq but without even the formality of going through the motion of a Security Council resolution. An estimated 1.5 million Iraqis were killed as a result of sanctions and the Western-imposed no fly zone. On May 12, 1996, when Leslie Stahl of CBS 60 Minutes program asked Madeleine Albright, then US ambassador to the UN, whether the death of 560,000 children was worth the price for ousting Saddam from power, the latter, without hesitation, said it was! Would it be any different in Libya?

Let us look at the lineup of countries attacking Libya: the US, Britain, France, Italy and Canada. Italy repudiated its friendship treaty with Libya and US President Barack Obama said Qaddafi had lost his legitimacy. Did Qaddafi ever have legitimacy; if yes, when and how did he lose it? If not, why were the same Western powers eager to deal with him before the recent troubles? Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had visited Qaddafi in his tent in March 2004. The Libyan dictator also received former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008. Qaddafi famously referred to her as “that black woman.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi both hosted Qaddafi in their capitals a few months before the uprisings started in the Middle East. So what has changed to make Qaddafi the bad boy of the Middle East again so quickly?

True, like Saddam, Qaddafi has had a rocky relationship with the West. From being the West’s darling to mad dog and then back into their good books, he has been through many ups and downs. Qaddafi’s current pariah status has nothing to do with the West’s argument of “humanitarian intervention” to save Libyan lives. Since when have Western rulers become concerned about the plight of Libyans or Muslims? If they do not care for the lives of their own friends — look at how the children of poor families are being sacrificed in Afghanistan and Iraq — why should they care about Libyans?

We need to understand what is afoot in Libya. Despite claims to the contrary, Western troops are already operating on the ground in Libya under the cover of “protecting” Western diplomats but actually providing training to the rebels. Even with the deeply flawed no-fly resolution that does not authorize attacks on Libyan ground forces or armored columns such as tanks, that is precisely what Western bombers are doing. This is creeping occupation of Libya as the world’s attention is diverted to the nuclear disaster in Japan. What might be the reason for the latest Western crusade?

Libyan oil, much coveted by the West because of its low sulphur content, has already been mentioned. Similarly, the US has frozen about $32 billion in Libyan assets under Executive Order 13566. Libya’s frozen assets represent a significant portion of its wealth, according to the Washington Post (March 23, 2011). “In 2009, Libya had a gross domestic product of $62 billion; its sovereign wealth fund is estimated at $40 billion and its central bank reserves at $110 billion. The European Union has added the central bank, the wealth fund and three other Libyan institutions to its sanctions — two weeks after the US action [of February 25],” according to the Post. Britain, not to be left behind, has seized more than $19 billion in Libyan assets.” The looting of Libya has begun in earnest by thieves that have honed their robbing skills over centuries.

Neither Qaddafi nor a successor regime — whatever its shape or color — will ever see this money again. Americans have a habit of stealing others’ wealth, whether by freezing their assets or robbing them through direct invasion and occupation. The US froze $40 billion of Iranian assets in 1980 and barring a few million the rest have been usurped. The Saudis have invested more than one trillion dollars in the US economy. They, too, are not likely to see any of this, especially given the precarious state of the US economy.

But the West’s crusade has another, more sinister purpose. Libya will serve as a beach-head for Western penetration into sub-Saharan Africa that is rich in minerals. Chad, Niger and Sudan have vast mineral deposits that the West covets. This also fits into the election of Obama as president of the United States in 2008. With a black man in the white house, the people of Africa as well as African Americans at home would not be too concerned if the US were to attack and occupy parts of Africa. After all, nobody would accuse Obama of racism. The American establishment has had it all neatly figured out.

A hint to the permanence of Western military intervention was given by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates when he said there was no definite answer about the duration of the Libyan campaign. But he did reveal what was afoot. “Let’s just call a spade a spade,” he said in what a no-fly zone over Libya would entail. “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy air defences. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone.” A closer look at what Gates said reveals that there is no end in sight. Let us also recall the statement of Dick Cheney, former US vice president about the “war on terror”. He said it may last 50 to 100 years. We can now begin to get a glimpse into the thinking of Western policy-makers.

Wars necessarily create humanitarian crises. There are already nearly 100,000 refugees trying to flee Libya. These include Egyptians, Tunisians, Algerians and citizens of sub-Saharan African countries as well as poor Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis. The West would use their plight as a pretext to send in “humanitarian” aid and workers. Then their “protection” would be used as a pretext for sending in large numbers of ground troops. Libya would once again be colonized directly.

We can see also that while the no-fly zone resolution was authorized by the UN Security Council, the military operations have been taken over by France and Britain and placed under NATO command. Thus, NATO powers have, once again, set themselves up as “authoritative judges of the world common good.”

Libyans clamoring for Western support to help them topple Qaddafi will rue that day when they wake up. Foreign intervention has never brought liberation to any people. Horace Campbell, Professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University and currently working on a book on AFRICOM has said: “US involvement in the Libyan bombing is being turned into a public relations ploy for AFRICOM (US Africa Command). AFRICOM is fundamentally a front for US military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. US military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give AFRICOM credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention. No African country has agreed to let AFRICOM onto the continent. It has 1,500 people operating out of Stuttgart, Germany. If Libya is indeed partitioned, that new state could provide a base for AFRICOM.”

Libyans must wake up before they end up in even worse shape than they are under Qaddafi, however bad he may be. There are better ways to seek liberation than foreign help. It always comes with long strings attached and ends up enslaving rather than freeing people.

The Left, Secularism and Islam

by nahida the Exiled Palestinian


The aftermath of Arab Revolutions; will it create a change of perception and a breakthrough of understanding amongst the Western Left?

The progressive and liberal left in the West find it hard to fathom an amalgamation between religion and politics. For them, religion and politics simply do not mix. As a person who have lived most of her adult life in the West, it is somehow uncomplicated to grasp why the secular left has arrived and got stuck in this cul-de-sac, in their way of thinking, in terms of looking-at and perceiving the world, fragmented, disconnected and boxed in.

The background of those who advocate this separation has its roots mostly in the Judaeo-Christian heritage; they have carried an understandable luggage of suspicion, hatred and contempt towards religion. In their history religions were used as tools of oppression, control, backwardness, division, and suppression of human freedom and intellect, something that we as Muslims didn’t experience.

The hierarchical system within the Church gives very little power and freedom of thinking to the individual at the bottom of the “pecking order”. The collusion of the Church for example with extremely violent and oppressive establishments is witnessed even today. The inexplicable wealth of the church hierarchy leaves those at the bottom of the socioeconomic structure feeling alienated and disfranchised.

As for the Judaic heritage, just a scratch at the surface would divulge an incredible amount of racist elements within the Talmudic texts that would surely put off anyone with the slightest sense of justice, respect to human dignity and human equality.

What the Left fails to appreciate however, is the entirely distinct reality, history and experience of religion for people in the Middle East.

We have watched demonstrators gathering at mosques, imams discussing the demonstrations in sermons and Friday prayer was chosen as the time to gather for the most impressive demonstrations.

Ignoring or dismissing the organic social structure and the immense role of religion ( i.e. Islam) in those countries reflects intellectual laziness if not total intellectual paralysis and blindness.

This inability to explore and understand what is really happening in those countries with a fresh and unbiased mindset can lead to erroneous analysis, conclusions and decisions, worse, it might flare up misplaced fears, apprehension, suspicion and even hatred against those who are actually on their side; the side of the oppressed majority.


It’s absurd to continue reading reports insisting that the Arab revolutions witnessed today are “secular” revolutions. This repeated mantra -by MSM as well as progressive media- becomes more meaningless as we look at live broadcasts and pictures of millions of Egyptians, Tunisians, and Libyans praying even at the darkest hours of their demonstration when viciously attacked by army killing machines.





This dismissal of the role of Islam in the revolution, while ignoring its centrality and importance to people in the ME becomes even more absurd as we examine polls coming from those countries:

Just an example:
In their response to the question: “Is it good or bad that Islam plays a large/ small role in politics?”

The survey “finds that Muslim publics overwhelmingly welcome Islamic influence over their countries’ politics. In Egypt, Pakistan and Jordan, majorities of Muslims who say Islam is playing a large role in politics see this as a good thing, while majorities of those who say Islam is playing only a small role say this is bad for their country. Views of Islamic influence over politics are also positive in Nigeria, Indonesia, and Lebanon.”






Why is it important for the “Western Left” to explore, understand, and accept these facts?


As long as the Left fails to come to terms with these facts, severe ethical problems would arise:
When good-intentioned “lefties” offer us THEIR “Secular-State Answer” to OUR problems; they bypass every thread of logic and commonsense.

By doing so, they actually juxtapose and transfer on us their own problems (living a lie of freedom, under a façade of democracy), their own history (struggling against the grip hold of their religious institutions), their own experiences (with their priests and rabbis), their own luggage (with the oppression from the religious hierarchy). They carry all this luggage, that Muslims don’t have and never had, then they project it on them, and try to impose their SOLUTIONS upon Muslims who have lived a very different encounter of history, an entirely different reality, with a totally different experience with regards to religion!

Contrary to the West, in the Arab world our experience with religion was and remains, for the most part, positive, constructive, energizing, enlightening and even liberating.

Furthermore, the revolutions that we witness today, were revolutions against Secular regimes with Secular, Liberal and Westernized DICTATORS who have strangled, oppressed, tortured and worked systematically against the wishes of the Arab people for decades. These regimes have silenced any call for reform or change under the pretext of fighting "Islamists" and keeping Islam away from politics.

In our “Eastern World”, historically, and up until recent times, where our region was plagued with colonialism, religion has managed to intertwine beautifully with politics, religion has formed the moral foundation and ethical backbone of the political arena.
Through the moral code inherent in Islam, the world of politics was protected against corruption and misuse of power.
Religion, as manifested by Islam was viewed by many as a natural and organic safeguard against the rise of egoistic fraudulent and oppressive rulers.

Despite the existence of a minority of “Imams of the Sultan” as we call them (those who sell their principles for the sake of the $ Dinar), throughout our history, Muslim scholars and Imams took a leading role in Liberation Movements from invading and imperialistic powers, and in opposing repressive tyrannical regimes; they have stood by the people; defending the weak, sharing with the needy, and working for the liberation of the oppressed.

By following Madeline Albright's call to Muslims that they would be accepted as part of political groups if they "are prepared to be part of a secular government", by insisting on secularism in countries where Muslims are a majority, and by insisting on supporting Muslim only if they separate religion and politics, the progressives fall into a paradoxical and very detrimental position; denying the other that which you call for, i.e. freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

Secularizing the Islamic world against the will of its people is nothing but another form of thought imperialism.



















Posted by nahida the Exiled Palestinian at 10:33:00 AM

Non-Islamic democracy is impossible in the Arab world

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many westerners are quite gloomy about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, following the historic revolutions that have taken (and are taking) place in several Arab countries. They are worried that true democracy in Arab lands might bring to power Islamic democrats who would seek to reconcile human rights, civil liberties with the Islamic rulings. In other words, they dread seeing the Islamization of democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Khalid Amayreh

Many westerners are quite gloomy about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, following the historic revolutions that have taken (and are taking) place in several Arab countries. They are worried that true democracy in Arab lands might bring to power Islamic democrats who would seek to reconcile human rights, civil liberties with the Islamic rulings. In other words, they dread seeing the Islamization of democracy.

Some of these critics are quite ignorant of the truth about the Arab world and Islam, and with a good reason. Decades of anti-Islam incitement, spearheaded by Zionist circles, more or less succeeded in tarnishing the image of Islam in many western countries, portraying it as tyrannical and anti-democratic.

Others are quite malicious. They know that the re-adoption of Islam, even the reinstitution of the Islamic political authority, is the "natural way" for Muslim people. After all, Islam has always been the soul of Arabs, and asking them to abandon Islam, in favor of imported western ideas and ideals, would be tantamount to asking them to abandon their human and cultural identity.

Many, probably most, westerners seem to lament the demise of despicable tyrants such as Hosni Mubarak, Zeinulabedin Bin Ali. Some are expressing consternation about the imminent downfall of Muammar Qaddafi, the eccentric Libyan dictator who has impoverished and murdered his people in order to appease his megalomaniac tendencies.

There is of course a clear and large amount of hypocrisy in the Western approach toward reforms in the Muslim world. The West, which is not a monolithic power, backed and shielded Arab dictators for years, fearing that true democracy in the Arab world would bring to the forefront a new breed of elected leaders who are more or less unfriendly to western, especially American interests in this part of the world.

Nonetheless, western hypocrisy goes much deeper. For while people anywhere in the world should have the natural right to choose their leaders freely, Muslims are not supposed to choose leaders who are viewed as opposed to Zionist Nazism or American imperialism.

There is also conspicuous moral and logical inconsistency in American and even European stand on Arab and Israeli democracy. According to this inherently duplicitous western view, it is perfectly fine if Jews in Israel elect Nazi-like parties such as Habayt Hayuhedi (the Jewish home), Shas, National Union, and politicians like Avigdor Liberman and Benyamin Netanyahu, that adopt clear-cut fascist formulas. On the other hand, however, Muslims must be constantly warned against Islamic parties whose political formulas are actually very much similar to those of Christian democratic parties in West.

We are not denying the fact that there are some extremist Islamic groups, such as al-Qaeda that should be fought relentlessly as long as they behave the way they do.

However, viewing a billion and a half Muslims with different cultures and ways of thinking, as carbon copies of a tiny, fanatical group is both illogical and unfair.

Yes, the west may encourage Arabs and Muslims to show genuine concern for human rights and civil liberties. This kind of interference is innocuous and harmless. But we Muslims don't like to be told to refrain from electing Islamic parties. After all, we are Muslims, and telling us to not elect Islamic parties is tantamount to telling us to give up Islam itself and adopt another religion.

It should be clear to all that Arabs, like everyone else, have the right to elect their governments and leaders freely according to their conscience. Moreover, for the sake of mutual understanding and constructive future relations between a democratic west and a democratic Arab world, the former would have to give up some of its cultural arrogance and accept the timeless truism that people may thoughtfully and sincerely hold different views and lead different ways of life.

After all, God created us different when He could have created us identical.

I said that whether the West likes it or not, Islam has always been and continues to be the zeitgeist (spirit of the times) throughout the Arab world. Hence, it is an expression of intransigence or perhaps ill will on the part of some western circles to warn Muslims in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia against electing parties with an Islamic agenda.

The Muslims of Egypt have the right to elect a Muslim democratic party just as Christians in Germany have the right to elect a Christian democratic party.

As I mentioned above, there is a heavy legacy of misunderstandings, rumors and canards about Islam in the west, some dating back to the ancient hostilities between Islam and the west while many of the recent misunderstandings have been disseminated by Zionist circles, especially through the media over which Zionist lobbies have quite an influence.

While Muslims are not obliged to imitate or copy certain western aspects of democracy, there is nothing wrong in having learning and borrowing from the rich and long western experience of democracy.

Having said that, however, it should be sufficiently clear that Muslims are under no obligation to copy or adopt anything that is incompatible with the principles of our faith.

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

Blessed are the revolutionaries (for they are the peacemakers)

by Abu Dharr


This solar month — the Persian Bahman and the Gregorian February — marks 32 years since the culmination of the Islamic spirit of change that swept away the decrepit regime of the great grandson of Cyrus the great, his majesty, the now six-foot under, king-of-kings Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It was one of those rare moments in history when a tyrant felt the volcanic wrath of his own people and realized that its lava was decomposing his autocracy. May he dwell with his fellow tyrants in the bowels of the netherworld.


And into the land of Iran came the Imam of our time, Imam Khomeini. Those were truly epic days that swept the Islamic and oppressed areas of the world with an unforgettable euphoria borne of centuries of hope and generations of sacrifices. And just when Imam Khomeini was putting an Islamic form of government into order all hell broke loose: the Zionist cabal and its imperialist enablers gave marching orders to the Iraqi regime to declare war against the newborn Islamic leadership and populace in Iran. The Iraqi regime would, on behalf of the USA and Israel bear the brunt of the military onus of the war. The Arabian petro-rich sheikhdoms would carry the financial burden of the war against Islamic Iran, while most of the rest of the nation-states in Arabdom would chip in their psychological and informational “talents” to augment this combined war-effort against the Islamic Republic that was still virtually in its cradle.

Skipping the details of those eight years of the combined regional and international policies and strategies against the Islamic Republic in Iran the war ended without a clear winner or loser as far as official records reflect. The Islamic side of that war resulted in nearly one million martyrs and disabled war veterans. Casualties on the anti-Islamic side were comparable. The total cost of the war was tremendous, mind-boggling, and prohibitive. But what began to happen after the war ended was in itself mysterious and miraculous. The regime in Iraq that launched the fatal war — on orders and with incentives from its masters in Washington and by-extension Tel Aviv — was to become the enemy of all its hitherto supporters, financiers, and enablers.



In a move that can only be described by the word “divine entrapment” the blood soaked politicians in Baghdad decided to annex Kuwait. From here on the fury and wrath of Arabian brothers (al-ashiqqa’ al-‘arab), who barely a few months earlier were embracing and kissing the Iraqi dictator, became his mortal enemies. This too was with the blessings of American imperialists and Israeli Zionists.

-The Shah
At the beginning of 1991, the Iraqi regime that had been artificially inflated into a southern European nation-state as a reward for its war of aggression against Islamic Iran was now cut back to its original size — just another failing Arabian nation-state. And for the coming decade the Iraqi regime would become the cause of a nightmarish national hemorrhage that bled the Iraqi population into the final act that commenced in March 2003. During all these nationalist years of Ba‘thi rule, the Zionist-American plan was to defeat the Islamic Republic in Iran, first by an all-out military attack in 1980. When that failed, they tried to bleed the Islamic Republic of Iran by a thousand economic cuts. And we can only say that it is the care of Providence that saw the Islamic Republic through all those years of war-making and hate-mongering.




And as the regional world around the Islamic Republic was falling apart, the sons of the Islamic Revolution, the followers of the Imam, and the revolutionaries of no compromise were working on building up their hard won Islamic State. A new generation of young and dedicated Muslims was hard at work — behind the scenes — on putting together an independent infrastructure that does not rely on a world, which showed its true colors during the infant years of the Islamic Revolution. Thus, the Islamic State was building itself from scratch, while Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the other toadies of imperialist Washington and Zionist Tel Aviv were slugging it out verbally and militarily.

While the Arabian sheikhs were spending much money and time under their bedsheets in the red district areas of London, Bangkok, and Paris, the Islamic ‘ulama’ in Islamic Iran were concentrating on putting their internal house together. The Islamic leadership in Iran can be proud of itself (in an innocent way of course) of their accomplishments. They now have a heavy industry base; they developed their own military industry. They have made major strides in many fields of every kind of technology. They have become exporters of civilian and military products. They don’t have their wealth tied up in capitalist and Zionist financial institutions.

Truly speaking, after three decades, the Islamic leadership in Iran has succeeded in “coming of age.” They have advanced so much that the talk of the town now in America, Europe, and their Zionist enclave is what they call Iran going nuclear. The steady progress of the dedicated and silent workers throughout the past three decades in Islamic Iran has brought the Zionist skeleton out of the Israeli closet, and their political language now is stuck on “what to do with Iran”. From time to time the Zionist cowards threaten a military strike against Iran… And with words of silence they intimate that such a war would have consequences that defy all their social models and war scenarios. Such a war of aggression by Zionist wimps will definitely redo the map of the whole area with the likelihood that the Zionist regime will experience its Samson’s moment.

I speak not to the crybabies — the western pussycats who want the nightlife of the Shah’s days to come back to Iran and who find self-fulfillment in imitating all things Western, but to the guarded revolutionaries and the hard-working and anonymous sons of the revolution who, even though they may not know it, have scared the daylights out of the Zionist-imperialist duo. Their toil and productive work throughout the last three decades is driving a wedge between Washington and Tel Aviv. To be more precise, the cracks are beginning to show in the military and political establishments inside the Zionist beast. Even the foreign minister from Tel Aviv, Avigdor Lieberman, known for his racist ranting, shows caution when it comes to unleashing an Israeli war against Islamic Iran because he knows the aftermath will be devastating to the Yahudi national interest.

Why do you think the Zionists are afraid of Islamic Iran? Because they know that Iran is not Saudi Arabia; Iran is not Egypt; and Iran is not any of their minions. If war breaks out, the Zionist house will go up in fire with tens of thousands of missiles landing everywhere in their enclave. Urban centers will burn and strategic areas will be in flames. The Lod International Airport, knowing the way Israelis conduct war, will become a legitimate target. Their ports will become military targets in Haifa and Yafa. The Zionists may think of turning to their best kept secret: the neighboring rulers in Egypt and Jordan, among others, for air and sea access to the outside world. This will only hasten the simmering revolutions in these adjacent countries. One study by the Saban think tank in Washington, DC puts the number of Israeli casualties if such a war breaks out, at around 800,000.


Add to the gradual erosion of the Israeli racist state the growing polarization between secular and religious Jews. And throw into the mix the prejudice and counter-prejudice represented by Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews having two separate Rabbinical authorities that represent them. Many young Israelis do not want to serve in the armed forces either because they are secular and liberal and do not understand why their regime is stretching the Israeli nation-state into other people’s territories (i.e., where the Palestinians live in the West Bank and Ghazzah), or because they are religious Jews and cannot in good faith fight for a Zionist state that does not represent the Torahic teachings. Score one for them. The previous president of Israel, Moshe Katzav (an Iranian Jew, of all ethnicities) was recently found guilty of rape. Now how does that fit in anyone’s mind — a biblical Israel whose president is a fornicator?!

Another very important development that is beginning to sink into the commercial and corporate mind of the Euro-Americans is “at what cost Israel”. At the end of the day it is the money and the profits that run the political show at both ends of the Atlantic. And if Israel is becoming a serious economic liability and the loss of business in the Muslim world far outweighs the petty gains coming from a puny Israel, then the simple mercantile and investment conclusion would be “to hell with Israel”. These words are not yet uttered in public. They are said behind closed doors. It is only a matter of time before they become official policy. That is of course if the sneaky Israelis do not come up with a spectacular dangerous undertaking à la 9/11.

Whatever happens in the near future, you the sons of the Islamic Revolution with your Islamic Leader today and with all the martyrs who gave their lives — not for nationalism or sectarianism — have moved regional and world politics into its current position. Keep up the good work and feel secure that the Almighty will remain on your side as long as you remain on His. “And it is due upon us to support the committed Muslims” (30:47).