The Syrian Conflict: Qaradawi's Incitement To Violence

By Chandra Muzaffar 03 June, 2013

Countercurrents.org Any human being who abhors violence and bloodshed would be shocked by remarks made by a leading religious personality, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, on the 1st of June 2013. At a rally in Doha, he urged Sunni Muslims in the region to go to Syria and fight the Bashar al-Assad government and its supporters, the Hezbollah and Iran. He regarded it as a “jihad.” He claimed that Iran and the Hezbollah want to exterminate, to “devour” the Sunnis. Between Sunnis and Shias, he insisted, there was no common ground. Qaradawi’s remarks came in the midst of the ongoing critical battle between Syrian government forces and rebels for control of the key border town of Qasair. The Lebanese based Hezbollah is helping government forces. A large number of foreign militants are fighting on the side of the rebels. Inciting Sunnis to fight Shias will only escalate a bloody conflict that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives. Religious leaders in particular should lend their moral weight to efforts to achieve a political solution. They should be imploring all sides to cease fighting immediately. Besides, Qaradawi should know that the conflict in Syria is not a simple Sunni-Shia clash. It is rooted in the larger politics of hegemony, Israel and the tussle for power among regional actors. It began as a peaceful protest against Assad’s authoritarian rule in March 2011. Assad reacted with harsh reprisals. Within a couple of weeks, groups and individuals from some neighbouring countries started to supply arms to a segment of the protesters perhaps at the behest of the centres of power in the West and Israel who have always sought to eliminate the Assad government which in the context of its close ties with both Hezbollah and Iran is seen as a challenge to their control and dominance of the region. Indeed, Iran, Hezbollah and the Assad government constitute the only organised, sustained resistance to the US-British-French and Israeli attempt to perpetuate their hegemonic hold over West Asia and North Africa (WANA). It was Hezbollah, it will be recalled, that drove Israel out of Lebanon from 2000 onwards, and in 2006, thwarted its diabolical design to gain control over Lebanon. It is this party, Hezbollah( the party of God) that Qaradawi in his Doha speech described as “the party of shaitan ( satan).” Because these forces of resistance happen to be Shia, close allies of the Western powers in WANA who happen to be Sunni, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are trying very hard to project the resistance as a Shia attempt to dominate the region. As a result, the more significant issues of Western hegemony, resistance within WANA and the role of Israel which continues to occupy the Golan Heights in Syria, are all submerged in a cleverly contrived Sunni-Shia narrative. Of course, Sunni-Shia differences have existed for a long while and have on occasions coloured politics in the region in the past. But it was only after the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which represented a major challenge to Western hegemony and Israeli interests that these differences have been accentuated and manipulated mainly by US ally, Saudi Arabia, to divide Sunnis from Shias. It is against this backdrop that we should view Qaradawi’s remarks. There was a time when he had a positive attitude towards Sunni-Shia rapprochement. But when some Western states began to re-assert their power in WANA in the midst of the Arab uprisings, Qaradawi appeared to legitimise their role. He was among the earliest public figures to endorse NATO’s air strikes over Libya. In the middle of last year he even opined that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came back today, he would support NATO. This earned him the derisive moniker ‘NATO Mufti’ among some Arab commentators. It is Qaradawi’s legitimisation of Western hegemony by invoking religious authority that makes his role so perfidious. What is worse, he has been appealing to sectarian religious sentiments which pit Muslim against Muslim, which have led to murders and massacres on a massive scale, in order to perpetuate the interests of both regional actors and global powers. It is a glaring example of the crude abuse of religion by someone who dons the garb of religion. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). Malaysia.

Custodian Of The Custodian Of The Custodian

By Chandra Muzaffar 21 August, 2012 Countercurrents.org

Muslims and Muslim governments are angry with Bashar al-Assad. They hold him responsible for the massacre of thousands of people, many of them innocent civilians, in Syria. They want him to go. It is true that Bashar’s army has killed a lot of people. It has used excessive force --- as I have pointed out in a number of articles before this. Anyone with a conscience would condemn the mindless violence that has bloodied Syria in the last 17 months. But Bashar’s violence is only one side of the story. The armed rebels opposed to him have also massacred thousands. How else can one explain the fact that almost one-third of the 17,000 people killed so far in the conflict are from the army and related security agencies? The rebels are not only well equipped with a range of weapons and communication apparatus but are also supported by logistical routes developed by the CIA and intelligence provided by Mossad. Their weapons are delivered through “a shadowy network of intermediaries, including the Muslim Brotherhood,” and “are paid for by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.” Since April 2012, hundreds, perhaps even a few thousand, militants, some linked to Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, from Iraq, Libya, Tunisia and Jordan have crossed over into Syria to fight the Bashar government in what they perceive as a “jihad.” It is reported that out of 200 rebels captured in Aleppo recently, 70 were foreign fighters.

The mainstream media in most Muslim majority states have not highlighted these aspects of the Syrian conflict. Neither have they subjected to scrutiny the authenticity of the news they carry on the conflict and the sources of the news items. As a case in point, the Houla massacre of 25 May 2012 was widely publicised all over the world as an example of the brutal, barbaric character of the Bashar government. Scores of children were allegedly butchered by his militia. A picture of a large number of dead children “wrapped in white shrouds with a child jumping over one of them” was offered as proof of the heinous crime. The picture was actually from the war in Iraq in 2003. The photographer himself, Marco Di Lauro of Getty Images, came out in the open to expose the fabrication. In fact, the Houla massacre itself was “committed by anti-Assad Sunni militants, and the bulk of the victims were members of the Alawi and Shia minorities, which have been largely supportive of the Assad”, according to the leading German daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). Houla is not the only case. A Christian nun, Mother Agnes-Mariam de la Croix of the St. James Monastery has published on the monastery’s website, an account of armed rebels gathering Christian and Alawi hostages in a building in the Khalidiya neighbourhood in Homs, and blowing it up with dynamite. The rebels then put the blame for the crime upon the Syrian army. There is also the story of Zainab al-Hosni, allegedly abducted by government forces and burnt to death. A few weeks later, Zainab appeared on Syrian television to nail the lie about her. The most widely quoted source for the alleged atrocities committed by the Syrian government is of course the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) which is a one man operation run by a Rami Abdul Rahman from Coventry, England. His statistics have been challenged on a number of occasions by Syrian analysts who have shown why his reporting is unreliable.

It is disappointing that most Muslim governments and NGOs are oblivious to all this and focus only upon Bashar’s wrongdoings. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at its emergency summit held in Mecca on 14 August 2012 reflected this biased approach to the Syrian conflict by condemning only the government while exonerating the armed rebels. A few states such as Algeria, Kazakhstan and Pakistan called for a balanced statement from the summit that would also apportion blame upon the armed opposition but their plea was ignored. Worse, Syria which was suspended from the OIC at the summit was not even invited to the meeting and given a chance to defend itself. It was denied the most elementary principle of natural justice. It is a right that is fundamental to Islamic jurisprudence. Why has the Muslim world as a whole, especially its elites and its intelligentsia, adopted such a blatantly biased and starkly unjust position on Syria? Is it because many are ignorant of what is really happening in that country, given the orientation of the mainstream media? Or is it because Muslims revere the Saudi monarch so much --- he is after all the custodian of the two holy mosques--- that they are convinced that in seeking the elimination of Bashar al-Assad he is doing what is morally right? Or is it because many Muslim elites are beholden to Saudi wealth --- and Qatari largesse ---- that they are prepared to acquiesce in their wishes? Or is it also because of certain sectarian sentiments that Muslims appear to be incensed with the Bashar government? It is these sentiments that I shall now explore. For many months now a segment of Sunni ulama (religious elites) in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and certain other states have been attacking Bashar as an Alawite leader who is oppressing the Sunni majority. Since Alawites are a branch of Shia Islam, the target has been Shia teachings and the Shia sect. Given the standing of these ulama, their vitriolic utterances have succeeded in inflaming the passions of some Sunni youth who view Bashar and his circle as infidels who should be fought and defeated at all costs. Even the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has now joined the bandwagon and accuses Shias of theological deviance and malpractices. It is important to observe in this regard that in the context of Syria there is no rigid Shia-Sunni dichotomy. The Sunnis given their numerical strength dominate the army, the public services and the private sector. Some of the most critical positions in Syrian society are held by Sunnis. The Grand Mufti of Syria for instance is a Sunni of the Shafie doctrinal school. Indeed, sectarian, or for that matter, religious affiliation has very little weight in society. In many ways, Syria is a society that has sought to de-emphasise religious and sectarian loyalties and nurture a notion of common citizenship. Since the beginning of the conflict, it is the Western media that have been preoccupied with the so-called Sunni-Shia divide and appear to be deliberately stoking sectarian sentiments. The Arab media has followed suit.

The way in which Sunni-Shia sentiments are now being manipulated convinces me that geopolitics rather than sectarian loyalties is the motivating force. If sectarian loyalties are really that important, how does one explain the close ties that the Sunni Saudi elite enjoyed with the Shia Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, in the sixties and much of the seventies? Was it because the Shah was the gendarme of the US and the West in the Persian Gulf and an ally of Israel? Was this the reason why the Saudis could get along so well with the Iranian elite? Isn’t it revealing that it was only when the Shah was ousted in a popular revolution in 1979 and the new Islamic leaders of Iran rejected American hegemony over the region and challenged the legitimacy of the Israeli entity, that Saudi relations with Iran took a turn for the worse? Saudi animosity towards the new independent minded Iran was so great that it bankrolled the Iraqi instigated war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. The primary goal of that war was to strangulate Iran’s Islamic Revolution at its birth. The war brought together a number of pro-US Arab states with the notable exception of Syria. Needless to say the US and other Western powers aided and abetted this anti-Iran coalition. It was during this time that anti-Shia propaganda was exported from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan and other parts of South and Southeast Asia. Groups within the Shia community also began to respond to these attacks by churning out their own anti-Sunni literature. In spite of the relentless opposition to it, Iran, much to the chagrin of its adversaries in the region and in the West, has continued to grow from strength to strength, especially in the diplomatic and military spheres. One of its major achievements is the solid link it has forged with Syria, on the one hand, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon, on the other. It is the most significant resistance link that has emerged --- resistance to Israel and US hegemony--- in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) in recent decades. Israel, the US and other Western powers such as Britain and France, and actors in WANA like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, are worried. The Iran helmed resistance has increased their apprehension in light of five other related developments. One, Iran’s nuclear capability. Though Iranian leaders have declared on a number of occasions that they regard the manufacture and use of a nuclear bomb as haram (prohibited), there is no doubt that the country’s nuclear capability has been enhanced considerably in recent years. Two, the inability of Israel to defeat Hezbollah and gain control over Lebanon which it regards as its frontline defence. This was proven again in 2006 and today Hezbollah is in a more decisive position in Lebanese politics than it was six years ago. Three, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and the introduction of electoral democracy which has led to the rise of Shia political power. Shia political elites in Iraq are by and large inclined towards Iran, which the US sees as a huge setback for its hegemonic ambitions in the region. Four, the Arab uprisings, especially those that are mass based, like in Tunisia and Egypt, have raised questions about the shape of democratic politics in the region in the coming years. Will it give rise to the emergence of Islamic movements that challenge the legitimacy of Israel, US hegemony and the role of feudal monarchies in WANA? Or, would it be possible to co-opt the new Islamic actors into the status quo? Five, how will all these changes unfold in a situation where US hegemony is declining? How will Israel and the other states in WANA that are dependent upon US power for the perpetuation of their interests fare when the US is no longer able to protect them as it did in the past?

For Israel in particular all these developments in WANA portend a less secure neighbourhood. Total control and predictability are crucial elements in Israel’s notion of security. It is because of its obsession with security that guarantees control over its neighbourhood that it is determined to break the link between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah. It reckons that if Bashar is ousted that link would be broken. This was obvious in the conversation between Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Russian President, Vladimir Putin, as reported by the respected Jewish journalist, Israel Shamir. Netanyahu made it clear that Israel preferred “the Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and the elimination of its army.” Bashar’s successor ---- after his ouster--- he stressed “must break with Iran.” Netanyahu gave the impression that Israel was in a position to “influence the rebels.” Since this is Israel’s agenda for Syria, all the moves and manoeuvres of states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to eliminate Bashar would be very much in line with what Israel wants. Any wonder then that both Israeli leaders and its media welcomed the suspension of Syria from the OIC. In this regard, Israel would have been thrilled to read a pronouncement by Al-Qaradawi in May 2012, widely reported in the WANA media that “If the Prophet Muhammad was alive today, he would lend his support to NATO.” More than endorsement from within the region, what Israel has always been confident about is the patronage and protection of the US and most of Europe. On Syria, and in the ultimate analysis, on Iran, the Israeli political and military elites know that the centres of power in the West share its diabolical agenda. Indeed, it is Israel that determines the US’s position on critical issues pertaining to WANA. It is the tail that wags the dog. Israel’s relationship with a major Arab state like Saudi Arabia, (with whom it has no formal diplomatic ties) on the one hand, and the US, on the other, tells us a great deal about who is in charge of who. The Kenyan- American scholar, Professor Ali Mazrui, once described the Saudi-US nexus this way: the problem with the custodian of the Holy Mosques is that there is a custodian of the custodian. If I may add, since it is Israel that decides US foreign policy in WANA, it may not be inaccurate to say that there is a custodian of the custodian of the custodian. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). Malaysia.

Syria… the new Israel?

by Abu Dharr April, 2013 The war on Syria is in reality a battle for survival by the House of Saud that has poured billions into the conflict. Ultimately, however, the Saudis will fail, resulting in their demise. With all the doom and gloom scenarios being painted about Syria, this writer is cautiously optimistic. The Syrian quagmire may not come to a conclusive end tomorrow or the day after, but when it does finally wind down, it will be on terms favorable to Islamic self-determination. That, as far as facts on the ground are concerned, appears almost certain. Two years ago, in the wake of the people’s movements in North Africa, the Syrian people joined the requiem. Some of them sincerely wanted and demanded a representative government and others (the more influential with Euro-American linkages) wanted to grab state power in pursuit of pre-planned (outside) agendas. The Syrian government, hitherto known for its shrewd survivalist calculations and moves, nervously reacted by dispatching its military to put down what the Syrian government reckoned were juvenile events in the southern city of Dar‘a and then firecracker bursts in Homs and its surrounding areas. Obviously, the security-inebriated Ba‘thi officials in Damascus did not read the pulse of their own people correctly. They fell into the trap that was laid for them by those who studied and researched Syria and sectarianism well. And the Syrian security-obsessed personnel continue to be deluded by their military “advantage,” which is reducing Syria to rubble. What began as a low-level protest movement two years ago has escalated into a full-fledged civil war with around 80,000 killed, one million refugees leaving Syria, a couple of million at least who are internally displaced, and historical cities turned into ghost towns. What caused a more-or-less peaceful civic movement in the south and north of the country to spiral out of control and turn into guerrilla warfare and a war-by-proxy? The unspoken answer to that is Saudi Arabia. As much as this is a Syrian civil war, this is also a Saudi Arabian war of destiny. Saudi Arabia — as much as the mainstream media want to conceal this fact — is the main intruder into internal Syrian affairs. Billions of “Saudi” dollars have been set aside for financing mercenaries and guns-for-hire who are tasked with decapitating the Syrian regime. Other billions of “Saudi” dollars are allocated for satellite TV stations, the print media, and everything else between ink and airwaves to propagandize for the Syrian “opposition.” The Saudi regime brings to the Syrian civil war its backups, representatives, and proxies. Saudi intrusion into Syria comes with such outfits as Jund al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusrah, with al-Qaeda types, and with the Persian Gulf nephews and nieces of Saudi Arabia such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, et al. A document leaked a few months ago shows a Saudi interior ministry letterhead with a proposal to release over 2,000 death-row detainees in Saudi Arabia (Egyptians, Yemenis, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.) who would go to Syria and fight alongside the Saudi sponsored militant units. The enticement was not only to have their death sentences commuted, but also the Saudi government would pay a lifelong monthly subsidy to support their families! The question here is: why is Saudi Arabia going all the way to ensure that the Syrian regime does not pull through this civil war? The answer is so obvious that many observers cannot see it! The fact is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has succeeded in welding together policies and politics that the Saudi officials miscalculate and consider to be threatening. While the Saudis were sleeping on their laurels, their neighbors in Iran were out in the field doing their homework and building their infrastructure. Saudi Arabian rulers-by-whim-and-instinct woke up after 30 years of an anti-Iranian American sponsored strategy to the reality of an “Iranian regional power.” The Islamic Republic of Iran has made it very clear to the Saudi royals that they seek friendly and neighborly relations with the Kingdom. This message has been communicated through numerous channels. Still, the Saudi ruling clan was terrified to realize that its clout was diminishing in the Palestinian arena, in the Arabian domain, and in the Islamic sphere — areas where hitherto criticizing Saudi Arabia was taboo. The American handlers of these late-sleeping Saudis convinced the paranoid ruling class in Riyadh and Jeddah that Iran is a “threat.” And easily convinced they were. So they signed on to a strategy that would pump into the Euro-American military banking complex mountains of cash. To sweeten the pot, Syria was turned into the killing fields that prove to public opinion the canard that Islamic Iran is the real danger — a danger, by admission of many Saudi sponsored politicians and pulpiteers that, in their own words, surpasses Israel and Zionism. We all know the mainstream media myth about Saudi Arabia being the custodians of the two holy places of Makkah and Madinah. If Saudi Arabia is the custodian of any two things, they are imperialism and Zionism. For the record, there are two Saudi islands that are occupied by the Israeli Zionists. No one dare mention this because that would add Saudi Arabia to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt whose territories are occupied by the Israeli Zionist regime. Israel occupies Saudi territories while the Saudis occupy some Islamic movements. The silence of some Islamic movements about Saudi Arabia is as deafening as the silence of the Saudis about Israeli occupation of their own lands. The Islamic level of awareness is growing and the Saudi rulers are feeling the heat. Therefore, to them, the Syrian crisis is a make-or-break issue. If they have it their way (the American-Israeli way), they will have snatched victory from the only serious and studious contemporary strategy to liberate Palestine. One example of the Saudi opposition to enlightenment and the spread of knowledge comes from the prominent Saudi in-religious-apparel Sheikh, ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak. He said that elections are haram (forbidden), they are alien to the Muslims, and they amount to mimicking the kafirs! This is how his logic goes: elections are a means of equating scholars with illiterates, and men with women; and (according to him) this equality is contrary to intellect and al-shar‘ (divine law)! For the record, this Saudi “scholar” also has his own twitter account. So he tweets saying: Adopting an electoral system to decide who will become president or who will become a member of any decision-making body is a haram (prohibited) matter. This (election) crept upon the Muslims via the kafirs! He tells us that assigning such decision-making positions is the function of ahl al-halli wa-al-‘aqd (legislators) and people in power!! But how do these legislators and people in power get to their positions, this scholar does not tell us! He says that this is not up to normal people to decide. This is the same scholar who issued a fatwa saying that the Ka‘bah should be demolished and then rebuilt in a way that makes it impossible for men and women to be in close proximity (or the intermixing of the sexes as he would word it) during the Hajj. If Saudi America flaunts scholars like this who issue fatwas to destroy the Ka‘bah and rebuild it lest the pilgrims there be subjected to their obsession with sex, then it would follow quite naturally that the same Saudi America would have that class of clergymen issue fatwas to destroy a whole country like Syria and rebuild it to fit within their futuristic dreams for perverted sex, voluptuous women, and filthy wealth. The Saudi regime is as errant as the Syrian regime. The Syrian regime misunderstood and miscalculated the temperament of its own people. The Saudi regime misunderstood and miscalculated the temperament of the Muslims at large. Their propaganda has bought them some time. But time is not on their side. They are playing on the victimhood of the Syrian people much like the Syrian regime was playing on the steadfastness of the Syrian people. At this point in time when the fuse has already been lit it is too late to tell the Syrian people, “Stop! Can’t you see what has happened to you? You have been hijacked by imposters. You have no representative government and you have no representative opposition.” To all Muslims of conscience and honor, not duped by Saudi mischief and money, listen in, And a Day on which a dhalim [offender] will bite his hands [in despair], exclaiming, “O, would that I had stayed the course with the Apostle [of Allah]! O, Woe unto me! Would that I had not taken so-and-so as an intimate ally! Indeed, he [in this context, the Saudi-Syrian false dichotomy] led me astray from the consciousness [of Allah] after it had come to me!” For [thus it is]: Satan is ever a betrayer of man (25:27–29). Pull quote: As much as this is a Syrian civil war, this is also a Saudi Arabian war of destiny… Billions of “Saudi” dollars have been set aside for financing mercenaries and guns-for-hire who are tasked with decapitating the Syrian regime.

Feigning innocence: the politics of demonization

by Fahad Ansari October, 2012 The blasphemous US-produced movie, while denounced by US officials, is still defended on the basis of free speech. History, however, shows that publishing racist, anti-religious tracts has been punished. Julius Streicher, publisher of a racist, anti-Jewish tabloid, Sturmer, was hanged after a military trial at Nuremberg accused of aiding and abetting the slaughter of Jews. He was not a member of the Nazi party nor was he in Hitler’s military. On 16 October 1946, Julius Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg after being convicted by an International Military Tribunal for crimes against humanity. Streicher was not a member of the Nazi military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust or the invasion of any country. He was the publisher of a tabloid newspaper, Der Stürmer, which for 22 years denounced Jews in the most crude, vicious, and vivid ways. Despite its increasing popularity, the newspaper was even condemned by many Nazi leaders at the time and Streicher was brought before the German courts on several occasions. Despite Der Stürmer not being an official arm of the Nazi government, Streicher’s pivotal role in inciting loathing and hatred of Jews was considered significant enough to include him in the indictment of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In essence, the prosecutors took the line that Streicher's incendiary speeches and articles made him an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews. The world said “Never Again.” Never Again to genocide; Never Again to ethnic cleansing; Never Again to concentration camps; Never Again to the systematic demonization of the “other” which inevitably led to the atrocities of the Holocaust. Yet, almost 90 years after Der Stürmer was first published, the world appears to be suffering from a bout of collective amnesia. In recent years, the rising tide of anti-Muslim hysteria has drowned out all voices of reason and reminders from history. Camouflaged in the rhetoric of anti-terror, counter-extremism, and freedom of speech, the rank hatred and loathing of Muslims and Islam has become the acceptable face of racism today, as exemplified by the recent condemnations of the demonstrations in the Muslim world against the virulently inflammatory and Islamophobic film, The Innocence of Muslims. The film, produced by an Egyptian Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is graphically Islamophobic and portrays the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a fool, a philanderer, a womanizer, a homosexual, a child abuser and a religious fake (nastaghfir-allah). His followers are portrayed in the film as savage killers hungry for wealth and bent on killing women and children. The film resulted in mass demonstrations throughout the Muslim world and attacks on diplomatic missions in several countries resulting in several deaths. Reminiscent of the Rushdie fatwa over two decades ago, a Pakistani minister placed a $100,000 bounty on Nakoula’s head, going as far as to publicly request assistance from the Taliban and al-Qaeda to kill him. Critics of the demonstrations present themselves as proponents of absolute free speech and argue that Muslims should not be offended by criticism of their religion. One of their more crass arguments is that the production is so shoddy and substandard that Muslims should carry themselves above it. This belittles the actual sentiment behind the insults which should be judged according to their content and the intention of the offender and not how articulate the insult may or may not be. In fact, from its first issue, Der Stürmer was also directed to that lowest common denominator that Hitler thought the proper target of propaganda. Heinz Preiss, a young scholar who attached himself to Streicher after 1933, becoming his court historian, accurately described Streicher's intent, Since he wanted to capture the masses, he had to write in a way that the masses could understand, in a style that was simple and easy to comprehend. He had recognized that the way to achieve the greatest effect on an audience was through simple sentences. Writing had to adopt the style of speaking if it were to have a similar effect. Streicher wrote in the Stürmer the way he talked… The worker who came home late at night from the factory was neither willing nor able to read intellectual treatises. He was, however, willing to read what interested him and what he could understand. Streicher therefore took the content from daily life and the style from speech. He thus gave the Stürmer its style, a style which many intellectuals could not understand, but which fundamentally was nothing but the product of his own experience gained over the years. As with the demonization of Muslims today, Streicher regularly published cartoons and stories about Jewish involvement in cases of alleged sexual criminality, murder and intolerance with the same allegations endlessly repeated. Innocence of Muslims must be seen in this context — the latest in what has become a regular and routine attack in the media on Muslims, Islam and the Prophet of Islam (pbuh), designed not to stimulate intellectual debate and understanding but simply to incite hatred against the followers of Islam. From Rushdie’s Satanic Verses to the Danish cartoons to Qur’an burnings and the daily sensationalist anti-Muslim headlines and op-eds, the freedom being sought is not one to criticize or to express oneself but one to insult and abuse. The writer, producer and distributor of the film, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian based in the US who originally identified himself as an Israeli-Jew, using the pseudonym “Sam Bacile,” and said that he collected $5 million from Jewish friends to fund the movie. The alleged Bacile told the Wall Street Journal that he made the film to expose “Islam as a hateful religion” and also described Islam as a “cancer.” It is quite clear that Nakoula deliberately intended to not just stoke up hate against Muslims but by identifying himself as an Israeli Jew, was determined to exploit existing divisions between Muslims and Jews. It is not Muslim “intolerance” that the world should be condemning today but Western tolerance of those who seek only to abuse, insult and demonise and thereby foster the climate which facilitates genocide. The reaction from the Muslim world is a reasonable and understandable one. In retrospect, nobody would dare criticize Jewish communities in the 1930s had they rioted against publications such as Der Stürmer if the ultimate effect was that it would have prevented the Holocaust, even if those riots led to the loss of scores of innocent lives. The current reaction stems from a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Muslim world to take any meaningful action against such abuse leaving it to the mob to seek vigilante justice in whatever form it can. In the West, the authorities and the courts will protect what they hold to be sacred from similar abuse through injunctions and prosecutions and so the public anger and feeling is appeased. A few examples will suffice. In the same week as Muslims have been condemned for not tolerating free speech, Azhar Ahmed, a Muslim teenager in Britain was convicted of sending a “grossly offensive communication” after posting a message on his Facebook page that “all soldiers should die and go to hell.” He awaits sentencing for the comments which the judge described as “derogatory, disrespectful and inflammatory.” Meanwhile in France, a court banned French magazine Closer from re-publishing or distributing photographs in France of the Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Kate, sunbathing topless. The injunction was granted at the same time that another French magazine Charlie Hebdo published a new series of cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for no other reason than to insult and offend Muslims. When Muslims complained, they were told that freedom of expression was a fundamental right. In September 2011, British fashion designer John Galliano was convicted for making “public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity” after making anti-Semitic comments in public. On the same note, Holocaust denial remains a crime in several European countries. In September 2010, the Advertising Standards Agency in the UK banned an ice cream company from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line “immaculately conceived.” The ASA said that the advert “was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics” and “likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith.” The ASA banned another advert for the same company (Antonio Federici) in July 2009 that showed a priest and a nun appearing as if they were about to kiss. The War on Terror has seen several Muslims in the UK and US, such as Ahmed Faraz and Tarek Mehanna, sentenced to lengthy spells in maximum security prisons for no greater offences than publishing books and articles critical of Western foreign policy and promoting the political and military aspects of Islam. No freedom of expression for these young Muslims. In contrast, there is no such procedure in the Muslim world or in the Western world to protect the sensitivities of Muslims, thereby leading to the type of angry demonstrations that we are witnessing. One can predict that were no systems in place to address public anger in the West about insults to things the public holds sacred, there would be similar large scale demonstrations, and these would not be limited to elements of the far right. Muslims are denied such protection. They are insulted and abused, mocked and ridiculed, demonised and ostracised and told to get over it. Until such time as the governments of the world are prepared to offer similar protection to Muslims as it does to others, they should expect such angry reaction from the masses. “Never Again” should not be hollow rhetoric but state policy, and for all communities.

Mursi attempts independent foreign policy for Egypt

by Ayman Ahmed October, 2012 President Mohamed Mursi’s attempt to follow an independent foreign policy for Egypt does not sit well with the Americans who want only subservient rulers in the Muslim world. A course correction seems to be underway in relations between Egypt and the US. Arguably the most important country in the Muslim East, Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi is trying to chalk out an independent foreign policy moving out of the shadow of US and Zionist domination. Only time will tell whether this will succeed but recent developments point toward a determined bid by the new president to restore some semblance of dignity to the long-suffering and humiliated people of Egypt. Dr. Mursi’s quest started with visiting China and Iran in August even before going to the US. It did not sit well in Washington that had expected the new Egyptian president to show greater subservience to the Americans who believe that as financiers of Egypt’s economy for decades, they deserve more gratitude. If this was not enough to irk the US, Dr. Mursi proposed a Syria Contact Group at the Makkah summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (August 15–16) that pointedly excluded the US and its Western allies. To the horror of the Americans, the Contact Group is not only limited to regional countries but also includes Iran that the US and allies have been trying to isolate for decades without much success, as was witnessed at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran in August. Aware that Egypt is in need of financial help at this critical juncture because of 18 months of turmoil that scared away tourists and halted much business activity, Washington has been trying to woo the new Egyptian government. Its foreign exchange reserves have dropped to $15 billion, about half what they were before the uprising began early last year. On September 9, a high level delegation of American businessmen accompanied State Department and White House officials to meet Prime Minister Hisham Qandil in Cairo. At the meeting, American business leaders promised to invest in Egypt’s economy. This was meant to keep Egypt tied to American purse strings. The visit had followed other developments. One was the declaration by US President Barack Obama that he would consider waiving $1 billion of Egypt’s $3 billion debt. The Egyptians of course were asking for the entire amount to be written off. Further, the US said it would support Egypt’s bid to acquire a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Discussions were underway between Egyptian and American officials about debt relief when these were abruptly suspended by the US on September 18. The massive demonstrations that erupted in Cairo in the aftermath of the blasphemous US-made anti-Islam movie seem to have irked the Americans. On September 11, demonstrators in Cairo scaled the walls of the US embassy and pulled down the US flag amid chants of “Death to America.” While no American official was harmed, the persistent nature of the demonstrations that quickly spread to Libya where US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi on the night of September 11–12, appeared to have really upset US officials. Embassy staff members were evacuated from Cairo amid fears for their safety. A day after the protests erupted and then spread to most parts of the Muslim world, Obama told the Spanish language Telemundo TV (an affiliate of the American station NBC), “Egypt was not an ally of the US.” He said it was not an enemy either but the statement was clearly meant to send a message to Egypt that the US expected greater subservience from the Egyptians who had been receiving handouts for decades. The Americans felt President Mursi had not done enough to condemn the violent protests. His condemnation of the blasphemous video as well as the violence during an official visit to Brussels on September 13 was considered by the Americans as too little, too late. It seems the Americans are using Egypt’s financial difficulties as a way to exert pressure and force Egypt to toe the US line. Whether Dr. Mursi will be forced to surrender to the US, only time will tell, but there are other signifcant developments. For instance, Qatar announced in August that it will invest $18 billion in Egypt over a decade. This was followed by an announcement from Saudi Arabia that it would provide a $4 billion loan. Turkey has also announced a $2 billion loan and said Turkish Airlines will increase flights to Cairo. A delegation of Kuwaiti government and business leaders were also in Cairo to consider investment opportunities. The real test for President Mursi will be whether he can resist American pressure and blackmailing tactics. He will be able to overcome these problems if he shows true leadership and mobilizes the people to sacrifice material comforts in return for dignity and honour. These demand a price but only those that have the support of the people will be able to bear it, as has been shown by Islamic Iran for more than 33 years. The challenges facing Egypt cannot be minimized. With a population of some 85 million and massive unemployment, people need food not platitudes. This is where true leadership stands apart from mere politicians that cater to the whims of the people. Egypt has immense potential. It has a highly educated population and historically Egypt has played a leading role in the Muslim world. It was only in the last 30 years that it accepted subservience to imperialism and Zionism and thus lost its prestigious position to upstarts like Saudi Arabia and more recently Qatar. Even Syria claimed one up on Egypt because the former refused to surrender to US-Zionist machinations until it had secured its rights over the Golan Heights. Egypt, on the other hand, surrendered the Sinai Peninsula that remains demilitarized to this day for a fistful of dollars. Help from the US never comes without strings attached. Often, the price demanded is very high. For instance, Egypt has been forced to abandon the Palestinian people because of the Camp David Accords, which turned Egypt into a virtual colony of the US. Further, the US has cultivated close links with the Egyptian military thereby undermining civilian authority. This will be one of the most important challenges facing the new Egyptian government. If Dr. Mursi is really serious about moving out of the deathly embrace of Uncle Sam, he must develop closer links with Islamic Iran and learn from its experience. He will have to confront the demons of sectarianism that are not far away. In Egypt, the Saudi-backed extremists will try to make life difficult for him. How he navigates his way around these hurdles will determine his level of success. Dignity and honour, however, are priceless commodities; no price is too high to pay for them but to achieve them requires true commitment. “Honour and dignity belong to Allah and His Messenger and those truly committed to Allah…” (63:08).

Acquiring political power: on whose terms and conditions?

by Dr Perwez Shafi In Part 1 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi examines the peculiar evolution of Sunni political thought and its crippling impact on the contemporary Islamic movement. There are various aspects of Muslim awakening and changes that cannot be explained easily, logically and rationally. Observing the awakenings and changes, some uncomfortable questions arise: 1. How come certain personalities (civil or military) or families are able to rule in Muslim countries for so long? Why do those in power and those who oppose them rely only on violence and force? 2. Is there anything peculiar in their historical evolution that makes them prone to feudal and authoritarian rule? 3. Why is the US and the West supporting those who propose and push for awakening and Islamic changes in the Muslim world? 4. Why, in countries where changes have occurred, is there a business-as-usual relationship with the West and its corporations? 5. Why do Muslims keep falling into the trap of the US and the West, which simultaneously declare them as friends in one breath and terrorists in the next depending on their interests? 6. Why is the Western response to these awakenings and changes different in the Sunni world compared to others? And in turn, why is the Muslims’ response in general similar to that of the West? 7. Why have the revolutionaries not challenged Western domination of their societies, Western values and the global capitalist economic model? 8. Do Muslims have the intellectual clarity about their objectives and means to achieve them? In other words, is their intellectual worldview capable of initiating and generating awakening, mobilizing and organizing, and being led by muttaqi leadership, so as to achieve the objectives and goals by means which are also consistent with the Islamic view? 9. And finally on whose terms and conditions is political power acquired? Answers to these questions are contained in the worldview especially in political thought spread over the entire history of Islam. If Muslims have intellectual clarity about their worldview — their objectives and the means to achieve them — which is consistent and free of contradictions then one can answer all of the above questions. However, that is not the case. Lack of clarity shows ideological confusion that prevents Muslims from identifying their real enemy, forcing them to compromise at every turn on objectives and means, and still resigned to the fact that no meaningful change can occur without the consent of the West. Unfortunately this state of affairs regarding lack of clarity in worldview can be observed in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, the Gulf sheikdoms and now in Syria. If one takes a holistic and systemic approach to Muslim political thought and particularly Sunni political thought we discover where the problem lies. This writer and the Crescent International magazine have consistently stayed above sectarian considerations but if the problem lies in the ideology of a particular sect then simply ignoring or condemning it is not enough. Any attempt at Muslim unity will not be successful unless the problem is identified at the root of the particular sectarian ideology. This requires moral courage, intellectual honesty and awakening to deal with Sunni political thought — as the majority in the Muslim world adheres to it — that is a source of political confusion and contradiction in ideas and practices, hence a taboo subject even among revolutionaries. Phase I Change in the direction of Islam, decline and decay The above conclusion was drawn from the historical evolution of Sunni political thought, which can be divided into two phases. In the first phase up to the advent and domination of Western colonialism in the Muslim world by about the 17th century, Sunni political thought and worldview were stuck in tribalism, jealousy and competition to acquire political power; and authoritarianism. The pristine principles of Islam, which would have eliminated these vices, were never allowed to be practiced from the beginning. The change in the direction of Islam took place soon after the death of our beloved Prophet (pbuh). A number of mushrik leaders were killed in various battles waged against the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions. However, Abu Sufiyan survived till the liberation of Makkah and to save his skin he and his family reluctantly became Muslims. The Prophet’s (pbuh) attitude toward his enemies after they became Muslims was always cordial and kind. But in Abu Sufiyan’s case, the Prophet (pbuh) would turn his face away whenever he appeared and did not maintain close relations with him due to his severe opposition to Islam. Soon after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh) to heavenly company, Abu Sufiyan’s family and children acquired important positions in the Islamic State through nepotism and started consolidating their new found power. Thus, what Abu Sufiyan failed to achieve in direct confrontation with the Prophet (pbuh) he was able to achieve from within the Islamic fold. Abu Sufiyan’s children and grandchildren twisted key Islamic teachings in politics and governance of the Islamic State which enabled them to concentrate more power and somehow to acquire legitimacy. Through deceit, intrigue and open warfare, Mu‘awiyah became the absolute ruler of the Islamic State. He acquired the title of “Scribe of the Revelation” when in fact he never benefitted from the Prophet’s (pbuh) company for a single day. Within a year of the liberation of Makkah, the final wahy completed the message of Islam, followed by the death of the Prophet (pbuh). By distorting the teachings of Islam, Abu Sufyan sought to achieve two objectives — legitimacy for himself by generating fake hadiths and suppressing original ones, bestowing on himself and his cronies Islamic titles such as radiya allahu ‘anhu, changing the meaning of key Quranic ayat to suit his purpose, and deprived most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) dearest friends and families of their rightful and legitimate position. Those that opposed him were persecuted. Thus illegitimacy, instinctive reliance on force to counter any argument against their illegitimacy and persecution became the norm and part and parcel of Sunni political thought since that time. Most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) beloved Sahabah were not only deprived of their right to propagate true Islamic teachings by exposing the distortions and deviations but when they insisted, they were banished to far away lands, imprisoned, or poisoned leaving the field wide open to the power hungry clan of Abu Sufiyan to propagate their own imperial vision. Instead of the Islamic State, hereditary rule became the defining feature of political structure and ideology. When political and governance issues became strictly off limits to the public, they were confined to performing religious rituals. The great emphasis on rituals, devoid of any exhilarating and liberating feeling and spirit, became the norm which has continued to this today. The Islamic rules of acquiring political power and maintaining it were never allowed to gain a foothold. Vices of tribalism, mutual jealousy, the quest to grab power, persecution and authoritarianism became entrenched in Sunni political ideas, structure and practice. As a result, the Sunni political system based on Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas dynasties was never able to gain legitimacy. However, in the process they permanently eclipsed the true and egalitarian teachings of Islam in critical areas. In Islam the definition of politics was to acquire power in a legitimate manner as prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah (that is, masses select one for responsibility based on taqwa rather than anyone proposing or imposing himself and acquiring power by brute force or guile). The exercise of power was related to the maintenance of social justice, through a framework of collective decision-making to serve humanity. Thus, acquiring power by illegitimate or immoral means and spending immense financial resources are strictly forbidden. In short, Islam was reduced to rituals and practiced in an individual capacity. These unhealthy and illegitimate developments changed the direction of Islam permanently while its just, universal and egalitarian spirit was extinguished. Illegitimacy separated the interests, norm, values and belief system of the masses from power-hungry elites. For instance, military training has not been part of any Sunni society precisely because the elites’ illegitimacy leads them to distrust the masses. Thus illegitimacy, persecution and authoritarianism became the hallmark of Sunni political thought and structures. As a result, promotion of a new imperialistic version of religion in the name of Islam became the norm, which was maintained by coercion and persecution. In this version, Islam was deliberately reduced to a religion where rituals, devoid of spirit, gained paramount importance while their connection to the overall Islamic system was cut off. Values like the rule of law and social justice were abandoned from the early days. This version of Islam, mired in oppression, which Muslims follow without thinking or reflection even today is the basic reason why Muslims are unable to distinguish between friend and foe or between rightful, pious and legitimate leaders of a Muslim society and power-hungry opportunists; or how to legitimately acquire and exercise political power for the benefit of the masses. The door to intellectual pursuit, the right of pious and legitimate imams to lead the nascent Islamic society, and the door to ijtihad gradually became closed as imams, ‘ulama, scholars and the Muslim masses that supported them were persecuted. For this reason creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture, improvement in warfare techniques and equipment, explosion in scientific study and research methodologies, study of Greek and Roman ideas of rationalism, etc. To be sure, these intellectual developments were because of Islam, not due to Sunni political structures and systems or guidance, or funding and encouragement from Sunni governments represented by hereditary authoritarianism. It is not necessary to resolve all theological issues of early Muslim history to present as evidence in support of what has been said above. Rather decline and decay of Muslim civilization as recorded by Muslim and non-Muslim historians and scholars itself is a debilitating empirical evidence of illegitimacy and authoritarianism. Whether one agrees and accepts historical facts or rejects them, their effect has been devastating for the Muslim world. No one can deny the divisions, infighting, decline, decay and disintegration resulting in domination by others that had been going on for centuries up until the advent of Western colonialism. It was the great Islamic and political scholar Dr. Kalim Siddiqui who guided this writer during his dissertation to look first for decline and decay of Muslim civilization as evidence of distorted and dysfunctional Sunni political thought. Most of the muttaqi imams and ‘ulama with deep knowledge of Islam and capable of leading the society were brutally suppressed; others were bought or coerced to join authoritarian courts and governments and granted vast perks and benefits. The few that chose to challenge illegitimate rulers were poisoned or murdered as a warning to others. Some went into the countryside or faraway places to quietly spread and preach Islamic knowledge, emphasizing Sufism albeit without addressing burning political issues. Islam spread to Central Asia and the Indo-Pakisan subcontinent through these ‘ulama or Sufis and not by secular kings or warriors. Strong evidence of this is found in the desolate and barren mausoleums of famous and powerful kings and warriors of Muslim history where only stray dogs roam while ordinary people, millions of them, throng the mausoleums of the ‘ulama and Sufi saints. But in general they abandoned politics and implicitly accepted bifurcation: let the kings and warriors rule while they concentrated on preaching Islam and providing healing to the suffering masses through spirituality. While these depoliticized ‘ulama and Sufis provided great service to humanity in their individual capacity, they were no match against the organized power, logistics and resources of the state. Muttaqi leaders were there but they were not able to function as leaders of state. With time, persecution and bifurcation, the quality and number of muttaqi leaders also declined. And hence, this depleted Islamic society could not provide an effective Islamic or practical response to the onslaught of Europeans with superior scientific knowledge, better organizational and mobilizing capacity, and a spirit filled with adventurism, curiosity, greed and seeking domination of others. Pull quote: …creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture… [and] explosion in scientific study and research methodologies... Part 2 In Part 2 of his analysis on the paralysis afflicting Muslim political thought, Dr Perwez Shafi examines the stifling influence of colonialism and neo-colonialism. In Part 2 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi looks at how colonialism and neo-colonialism have kept Islamic political thought from evolving out of the dictatorship, autocratic paradigm. Phase II – European disintegration of the Muslim Ummah Phase two of Muslim history began when European colonialists were knocking at the door of the Muslim world around the 17th century to exploit its riches, and its defective political structures complicated by a weak and crumbling ideology. The Muslims’ diplomatic skills were unable to sense all dimensions or any long-term implications; their militaries were disorganized, divided and loyalties were for the highest bidder. Scientific and economic or industrial infrastructures were non-existent. While the Muslims were declining, the Europeans were the ascendant. It was not as if the European colonialists conquered the Muslim world after a good fight; rather, due to their decline and decay Muslims were barely conscious when the Europeans appeared like a mugger and robbed them. There was a qualitative difference between phase I and II. In phase I, as long as the masses did not challenge the rulers directly on political and governance issues they were largely left alone and creativity was allowed to flourish in other areas. The Europeans were driven by the same fear of illegal occupation and exploitation and they knew full well that once this sleeping giant (the masses) woke up their days of exploitation would be over hence they went one step further than mulukiyah. While the kings left the Muslim society as a single cohesive and socially strong body, the Europeans went about methodically dividind and disintegrating the Muslim Ummah to permanently cripple it. This was done first by dividing the Ummah along racial, ethnic, linguistic, economic and religious fault lines. These were further widened and exacerbated. Where they did not find any fault lines they created them. In the Arabian Peninsula, to weaken the Ottoman Khilafah from within, the British Empire promoted one Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab as a social and religious “reformer” of Islam in the late-18th century. In Confessions of a British Spy, the British agent Hempher has described in detail how Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was guided, exploited, funded and propped up by the British imperialists. The result is obvious and devastating. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s so-called reforms were turned into the sect of Wahhabism whose main target was to eradicate all historical and physical traces left by the Prophet (pbuh) and to reinforce the imperial version of their predecessor mulukiyah in the name of Islam. They hoped that the gullible and illiterate Muslim masses would not notice the great and systematic destruction of their Islamic and spiritual heritage in the midst of glittering five-star western hotels surrounding the Ka‘bah in Mak-kah and al-Majid al-Nabawi in Madinah. Similarly, in 19th century Persia, the British imperialists propped up Baha-ullah, who invented the Bahai faith to break Muslim unity. Nowadays both Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism and the Bahai faith are strongly supported by Western colonialists. In the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent the British imperialists had a field day during their 200-year occupation making every section of society dysfunctional by imposing a different identity and outlook, infusing it with either an inferiority or superiority complex. After the War of Independence in 1857, the British realized the danger of Hindu-Muslim unity that might liberate the country from the yoke of British colonialism so they embarked on inculcating nationalism among Hindus as well as Muslim communities. Later they created political parties — the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League — which divided the interests of both communities and led to the division of the sub-continent a hundred years later into two separate countries — India and Pakistan. But the British were not content with division only at the national level. Muslims had to be further divided from within. After the 1857 War of Independence, the Hanafi school of thought was further sub-divided. From the Orientalist reading of the Qur’an, they came up with inquisitive questions to “clarify” certain aspects of the Prophet’s (pbuh) personality and mission. The British encouraged heated debates among the ‘ulama’ whose respective positions crystallized into two major sub-schools of thought who later founded their headquarters in Deoband and Bareli, directly and indirectly, with British help. These groups are now known as Deobandis and Barelvis respectively. Deobandis were further divided into a number of other groups. On one extreme there is the passive Tablighi Jamaat that shuns jihad and politics, which in and of itself is a political decision, while on the other extreme are tribal people like the Taliban who are inspired by Saudi Wahhabism and routinely carry out suicide bombings to eradicate “shirk” taking place at various mausoleums. In addition, the British also promoted Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani who elevated himself to make a claim to prophethood in the late 19th century (nastaghfir-allah). After Wahhabism took hold in the Arabian Peninsula at the religious level, the British colonialists recruited Saudi tribes who used to roam the vast expanse of the desert in Najd robbing and looting Hajj caravans. In the early 20th century, the Saudi robbers and Sharif Husain of al-Hijaz agreed through various letters with the British to undermine the Ottoman Khilafah by launching a revolt. In turn, the British promised them power in the Arabian Peninsula. Both were paid huge sums of money. These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. The tragedy during the colonial phase was not so much the division and disintegration of the Muslim Ummah from within, rather its acceptance and internalization by the Muslims themselves. Whatever muttaqi leadership existed was further marginalized by the colonialists either through persecution, political intrigue or by turning it into an institution of peeri-mureedi (relationship of absolute domination of saint over his disciple). In addition, the colonialists encouraged the turning of mausoleums of ‘ulama’ and saints into shrines where ignorant and illiterate people would pray and worship, often bordering on shirk. On the other hand, the colonialists used the Deobandis and Wahhabis as a tool to keep attacking Barelvis resulting in constant low level warfare. The masjids and religious institutions were economically relatively independent with large agricultural lands and significant income derived from such holdings. The concept of running masjids on charity and dole was non-existent in phase I but in phase II the colonialists gradually stripped the masjids of these resources and forced them to live off charity. Thus, as Western-educated classes emerged, the masjids lost their vitality and instead of producing ‘ulama’ and learned scholars capable of leading society they started producing simpleminded mu’adhdhins, qaaris and maulvis, who with little or no self-esteem were relegated to perform simple rituals at birth or death. While the obscurantist religious establishment had little dynamism or knowledge of world sciences or capability of leading society, they performed an important and valuable function of keeping Islam alive at the most basic level and provided solace to the masses in that dark and hopeless era of colonialism. Neo-colonial phase The neo-colonial phase is not much different from the colonial phase except it is more intensified form of westernization, filled with deception while creating the illusion of independence. In the neo-colonial phase, starting after World War II, more than 50 or so countries were carved out of the single Muslim Ummah as a result of managed “national struggle” for independence marked by installation of local rulers; but intellectual, political and economic independence remained elusive. These so-called “Third World countries” were integrated into the global capitalist system whereby these countries at the economic level provide ready markets for Western goods and services, and as a source of raw material. But this required the local political and economic elites to be subservient to the West, the result of which was the suppression of their own populations. Since the victors of the Second World War wrote history as well as arrogated to themselves the right to set up global institutions like the UN, the World Bank, IMF, etc. in their own image to rule the world, Muslim countries were also made part of these illegitimate and illegal institutions by using local elites. Through these institutions the West gets any decision approved for its benefit and interest while giving the illusion of legitimacy. The rest of the suffering humanity merely uses these institutions as a forum to air their frustrations and to seek more Western aid for survival. During the colonial period, the West’s mission was to “civilize” humanity; in the neo-colonial phase the mission has morphed into spreading “democracy” and democratic values, norms and a belief system as the only sanctified ideology. In Western conception, the Greek word demo means human. Now the context has changed drastically. It now means that after the Renaissance (14th–17th centuries) and Industrial Revolution (1730–1850s), man has become the master of his own destiny through science and technology and has progressed and elevated to such heights that he no longer wishes to live or be constrained by Allah’s (swt) teachings, guidance and plan. In other words, God occupying the highest position in cosmological hierarchy has been replaced by man himself. In this context, Western democracy, not bound by divine order, is shirk of the highest order. In fact, democracy per se even from the Greek times — direct rule by the people — has never been practiced anytime in history. This is admitted even by Western political scientists and philosophers. In fact they shun it by calling it “mob rule” and don’t trust the raw human instinct. What is actually practiced is more precisely plutocracy — rule by the rich and wealthy class. Plutocracy controls the establishment providing a strong center and direction to the political system while capitalism serves as its economic engine. All other institutions work for or in tandem with the state. There is consensus among Western elites within society of the efficacy of this political philosophy and its associated structures. Plutocracy, democracy or any other philosophy has nothing to do with human values. In this dehumanizing system the rich can become richer only by exploiting the poor and their labor. The highest value of capitalism is “profit maximization,” a euphemism for greed and exploitation leading to inequality, class warfare and concentration of almost all the wealth in the hands of the less-than-1% plutocrats. That is why protest movements by 99% of the masses in the US is being waged, calling for human and egalitarian values. Political parties and elections are cosmetic and inconsequential in nature and their purpose is only to lure and keep people into the political system by them believing that “change is possible” when each party actually represents different shades of the same philosophy. Thus, deception and illusion are at the root of democracy whereby plutocracy can rule in the name of the masses; but in this departure from God, the interests, desires, and benefits accrued to each class are different and separated by a wide gulf. Since the West has 150 years of experience with population conditioning according to its requirements, even a highly exploitative system manages to survive despite its obvious imperfections. The ultimate goal or value of democracy is to make all human beings slaves of the rich and powerful. In contrast to mature plutocracies, the ex-colonial recently-independent states (whether ruled by military or civilians) have no strong center or establishment with a firm and deep-rooted philosophy. They are characterized as “weak states” as each institution — the military, bureaucracy, judiciary, executive and parliament — acts as different power centers with which the US and other imperialist powers maintain independent yet direct relationships. If any institution does not toe the US line it is checked by other institutions. The elite in Muslim states are trained in the West; they have inculcated Western values, norms, belief system and lifestyles. Their personal and collective interests are the same. If they refer to Islam at all, it is invoked only to fool the masses. The West allows no choice or alternative to native elites in choosing their political ideology. Their job is to keep their countries dependent on the West — materially and psychologically — while the local economies must be kept open for exploitation and integrated within Western markets. If the disease of westernization had infected only the secular elites, it would be understandable. Tragically, the entire religious establishment is also afflicted by it despite their knowledge of Islam. In the neo-colonial phase, the religious establishment has undergone greater transformation and actually started participating in the so-called democratic process without realizing that it is a deception. It contradicts the goals and means of Islam yet they adopt and participate in it in hopes of achieving Islamic goals of social justice, equity and the liberation of humanity from slavery. For religious, political and non-political parties, the short cut to power appears deceptively attractive and within reach. Under Western influence, they have come to believe the goal is to win an election (that is generally rigged by the military anyway). They assume that upon coming to power, Shari‘ah would be “imposed” resulting in the creation of an Islamic state. Their version of the Islamic state can still co-exist with the West, remain economically integrated with the global capitalist system, and maintain a politically subservient relationship. This is an elitist top-down approach and is seriously flawed because it is not able to differentiate between means and objectives or between the Islamic and Western democratic systems. It seems not to bother them that this simplistic, naïve and deceptive model is against the Shari‘ah and the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). The noble Messenger (pbuh) did not win or opt for election or grab power by other means before implementing Islamic principles in society. The Sirah teaches us that by propagating and practicing Islam in all its dimensions (not focusing on one or the other aspect) he transformed the social structure of the tribal jahili society into an Islamic society. Once this social transformation had taken place, the road to the Islamic state opened by itself. Thus the goal of the Islamic movement is not to construct an Islamic state but to transform the social base of the ignorant society into an Islamic society; the Islamic state will then be the logical end result of such transformation. This is the bottom-up approach and from the Sirah it can be characterized as Islamic Revolution. In the neo-colonial phase, one of the most important catalysts for change are the ‘ulama’ and the institutions they have established. Ironically, they are also a major obstacle to change and the emergence of muttaqi leadership. One of the major reasons is that most of the Sunni ‘ulama’ and their establishments are heavily financed by the Saudi regime. Such funding ensures that the ‘ulama’ and their establishments keep following the obscurantist and deviant Sunni political thought where Mu‘awiyah and Yazid are praised and where nowadays attempts are underway to rehabilitate even Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who gained notoriety for disfiguring the body of Hamzah (d) by chewing on his liver after the latter was martyred in the Battle of Uhud. The Prophet (pbuh) was greatly anguished by such disrespect for the dead, made all the more shocking because Hamzah was his uncle and close friend, the two being close in age. Friendship with and dependence on the West/Zionists is considered essential, and support for the Saudi monarchy flourishes in line with continuation of the mulukiyah/monarchical dynasties. If Saudi petrodollars keep the ‘ulama’ and “official” Sunni worldview on the path of praising the worst enemies of the Prophet (pbuh) and ignore or abandon those loved by the Prophet (pbuh), then the prospects for change are dim. Thus, muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue. For confusing goals and means, the religious elites and their political parties are continuously failing. Yet they do not want to allow change in their methodology or learn any lessons from the Sirah. But when one realizes that this democratic worldview of the religious establishment was superimposed on the decadent Sunni political thought of the mulukiyah, worldly challenges cannot be surmounted by using a crude mixture of both mindsets. Given this theoretical background to clarify Islamic goals and the means to achieve them through historical evolution, it enables us to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this article about recent developments in the Muslim world. Specifically, Egypt represents the best case in which a political party backed by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has made impressive gains in elections in the Muslim world; Turkey is another but dissimilar example. To be sure the Muslims’ yearning for independence from foreign domination and the awakening is genuine. But the US has been busy taming the MB and turning the transition away from its revolutionary spirit to bureaucratic changes in such a way that its leaders are given some government posts yet the real power is retained by the military and the old establishment, which ultimately means the US. The sequence of events themselves reveals the story of compromises and adjusting to “reality” by the MB, followed by the principle stated in parenthesis as discussed above (see paragraphs below). One year after the awakening of the Muslims started, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns earlier this year met with the MB’s high-ranking Deputy General Guide Khairat al-Shater, (the powerful presidential candidate before being disqualified by the Elections Commission on flimsy grounds). Burns promised financial aid of more than $20 billion from the IMF and the Gulf sheikhdoms if the peace treaty with Israel continued to be honored. The MB quickly agreed to maintain the status quo. The MB’s statements to the contrary were merely for public consumption (strategic compromise for tactical support, unable to distinguish between friend and foe). Two days before the presidential election, the judiciary and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), effectively ruling Egypt since president Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power in February 11, 2011, struck and cancelled the parliamentary elections already won by the MB who protested but to no avail so far (keeping in check one institution by using another). Shortly after becoming president and before Hillary Clinton arrived in Cairo, Muhammad Mursi visited Saudi Arabia on July 11 to answer demands by a Saudi academic close to the monarchy who wrote an article in the London-based al-Hayat newspaper titled “What the Gulfies want from Brotherhood’s Mursi?” He asked Mursi to provide public assurances on four major concerns of the Gulf sheikhdoms: 1. MB members and networks present in the sheikhdoms will not be used to interfere in their internal affairs; 2. support them against Iran; 3. to have strong relations with Saudi Arabia and its neighbors than with democratic Turkey; and 4.keep aloof from internal factional politics of Palestinians even though Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB. Within a week Mursi complied with all the demands through his statements. While in Saudi Arabia he affirmed Egypt’s policy of belonging to the “moderate Sunni” camp as he assured the Saudi monarch of Egypt’s strategic alliance with his country, as well as lending support to the regional balance of power in direct reference to the challenge posed by Iran to the Gulf monarchies. Like former Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf’s policy of “Pakistan first” Mursi assured his Saudi hosts that Egypt will continue to maintain an Arab first foreign policy approach rather than taking Turkish democratic germs too far. As demanded, Mursi also promised to maintain the same distance with Palestinian factions but more importantly he promised to side with Saudi and Israeli intelligence and security apparatuses against the Palestinian resistance (local elite not independent in their domestic as well as foreign policies but ultimately subservient to the US and its local Saudi agents; their narrow interest to gain political power at any cost forces them to act against their own brethren and side with the imperialist West and oppressive forces). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt to meet President Mursi. After the meeting, Clinton declared that the US “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.” The following day Clinton met with head of SCAF, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi and prodded him to go along with the civilian set up and declared that the US would like to see the Egyptian military return to a “purely national security role.” In return, the military was also promised billions more in aid (US dealing independently with weak multiple power centers). The same corrupted Sunni political thought superimposed by the Western democratic model is unable to differentiate between friend and foe in Syria. All Muslim countries have ruthless dictators and Syria is no exception. But at least Syria has taken a consistently strong anti-Israel stand for the last four decades and supported various Palestinian resistance factions. That reason alone is sufficient not to destabilize the Asad regime which the US, Israel, Saudis and other sheikhdoms are trying hard to do. This raises another question. Why in Syria, as in Libya, the opposition instead of launching a public protest campaign as in Yemen and Bahrain, has suddenly resorted to armed struggle from the beginning? The reliance on violence and force is built-in to the Sunni political though stoked by Western, Saudi and Zionist arms and mercenaries. In Sunni political paradigm there has never been peaceful transfer of power since Mu‘awiyah came to power. One must either use overwhelming force to subdue rivals or prepare to be subdued and slaughtered; there is nothing in between and certainly there are no rules and regulations nor precedent. If the opposition wants to air their grievances they could certainly launch public protests like in Bahrain or Yemen rather than instinctively rely on overwhelming force. This all or nothing proposition is to keep rivals at bay. That is why ruthless dictators and their dynastic rule last for decades. This political mindset still prevails today (instinctive reliance on using overwhelming force against rivals is the secret of dictator’s longevity). In electoral politics, no country appears to have had as much success as Turkey, yet it has accepted US hegemony, its global and regional agenda, and maintained friendship with Israel, never challenging Washington’s strategic interests. The US has, therefore, felt comfortable in holding up Turkey as a democratic role model for other Muslim countries to emulate, if they ever get rid of their US-backed dictators. After a decade of experience with the Turkish religious political party approach, the US feels confident in managing the transition to democratic order in Egypt as well. At the other end, the US is ready to use oppression and persecution in Bahrain rather than respect human rights because toppling of the feudal monarchy would directly threaten its strategic interests (which country is allowed to have change and which is to be blocked depends on US strategic interests). The US/Zionists have no qualms in supporting those opposition forces from any group or ideology including al-Qaeda or known terrorists who want to overthrow any government not friendly to the West (the criteria is whether terrorist use serves US interests). Conclusion It is evident through historical evolution that the sectarian Sunni political thought as seen through the actions of the so-called “moderate Sunni” states is corrupt, decadent and needs re-evaluation and reform. The humiliation of decline and decay of Muslim states is obvious; one must, therefore, challenge the assumptions of its paradigm. It is not enough simply to acquire cosmetic political power, the real question is on whose terms and conditions: whether on Sunni-Western-Zionist terms and conditions with a democratic façade while remaining subservient to US/Zionist interests or on one’s own terms and conditions relying on the revolutionary spirit of the masses that must first be transformed into a dynamic Islamic society. Only a genuine Islamic movement, not a religious political party, can accomplish this task and only then it can go in an independent and Islamic direction. But the precondition is to challenge basic assumptions of our decadent worldview that has remained stagnant since mulukiyah’s times superimposed with Western democratic values and norms. As the Qur’an declares, “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they are willing to change their attitude…” (13:11). Hence, the condition of a society does not change until it changes what is inside its heart. In other words, change in the worldview and mindset will lead to change in worldly conditions. We must cleanse the original historical contradictions introduced in Sunni Political thought to evolve to a higher paradigm of Muslim political thought. These reforms will take us to a true convergence point in time and history, to the time when the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode, when sectarianism and mutual hostilities did not exist. The next logical step would be an open declaration of abandonment and rejection of the so-called “democracy” and short-cut democratic model to political power. Without both these changes, internalized and acted upon, violence will continue and any other kind of revolution may be possible but not an Islamic Revolution. Note in the above Qur’anic ayah that it takes a longtime to change and internalize and reform the existing defective and contradictory worldview within our hearts but once it is done through debate and an open mind, a very short time is needed to change the outer worldly conditions. This sense of timing is demonstrated from the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). Pull quotes: These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. …muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue.

House of Saud heads into the dustbin of history?

by Yusuf Dhia-Allah October, 2012 Opposition to the House of Saud is growing among all segments of the population. How long can it last in power? Reality is quickly catching up with inbuilt contradictions in the policies pursued by the House of Saud. While presenting itself as champions of the “Sunni” world — a claim hotly contested by the overwhelming majority of Sunnis because of the Saudis’ narrow and extremist interpretations — its policies are becoming increasingly untenable. For instance, the Saudis have made much noise about their support for the “Sunni’” uprising against the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. It has also used the sectarian card to justify its invasion of Bahrain to prop up the minority Khalifa family in power where the majority population is Shi‘i, as is that in the Eastern province of the Arabian Peninsula. But this is where the contradictions have caught up with them; the populations in both Tunisia and Egypt are overwhelmingly Sunni so Muslims ask: how could the self-proclaimed champions of Sunnis (the Saudi rulers) be giving refuge to dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and how could they have supported the brutal dictator and US-Zionist agent Hosni Mubarak for so many years? Both Ben Ali and Mubarak brutalized their Sunni populations for decades. The Saudis’ claims are becoming exposed at the same time as their policy against the Asad regime in Syria is crumbling. Despite sending hundreds of millions of dollars worth of arms and buying any Syrian willing to defect from the government or the army, the Saudi and Qatari financed rebels have not had much success. In fact, the July 18 attack in Damascus that killed four top security officials was the direct result of Saudi involvement. While it dented the Syrian regime’s image and shook it somewhat, the terrorist act also stiffened its resolve to deal with the US-Zionist-Saudi-backed terrorists with an iron fist. The regime’s response was swift and brutal: the rebels were first flushed out of Damascus and later dealt with in Aleppo where they are still being pounded. The plot to cause the regime’s collapse failed. It still has enough staying capacity and firepower to deal with such blows. Similarly, foreign players — mainly Russia and China — are not prepared to allow the fall of the Asad regime, thereby creating another Libyan-style situation in Syria. Russia has the most to lose if the regime is overthrown by armed insurrection. It would lose its only naval base at Tartus in the Mediterranean. These developments have caused nightmares in Riyadh hence King Abdullah’s panicked call for a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (previously called Organization of the Islamic Conference – OIC) in Makkah on August 15–16. While the OIC meeting was ostensibly called to deal with the Syrian crisis — Syria was expelled from the OIC — there was another, more serious matter bothering the ailing and aged king: how to deal with sectarian tensions in the region? It is interesting to note that while the Saudis are the principal instigators of sectarianism in the Muslim world they suddenly felt compelled to address it. At the OIC Makkah summit, the Saudi king called for establishing a Centre in Riyadh for dialogue among the different Schools of Thought in Islam. Has the Saudi king, in his twilight years, finally realized that sectarianism is a double-edged sword and could just as easily work against him? His regime has used sectarianism with deadly effect against others. Is it too difficult to figure out that the horrible sectarian killings in Pakistan — of which there have been far too many in recent weeks and months — are the direct result of the poisonous ideology being spread from the Arabian Peninsula that has infected Pakistani society through the influx of Saudi petrodollars? True, sectarian killings also serve the interests of the Pakistani elite, hence no effective measures against sectarianism have been taken but the fact is that such extremism has come on the gravy train from Riyadh that has liberally financed madrasahs, which produce the primitive savages doing the sectarian killings. But sectarianism is beginning to haunt the Saudis as well. In Bahrain the majority is Shi‘i and is demanding civil and political rights. Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province is also overwhelmingly Shi‘i and the region that produces the bulk of kingdom’s oil. Yet the population there suffers massive discrimination in jobs, lack of economic opportunities as well as discrimination in areas of social and political representation. The regime, however, faces a dilemma. Hitherto, it had given a free hand to the court ‘ulama to indulge in whatever sectarianism they wanted. Reining them in now would become a problem since the regime already faces many other challenges not the least of which is the increasing assertiveness of people to demand their rights, the rising tide of Islamic awakening in the region and that inevitable challenge for which there is no cure: old age of the senior princes. Senior Saudi princes are shuffling to their grave in rapid succession. King Abdullah is nearly 90 years old although one would be hard pressed to tell this from his pitch black beard and moustache, thanks to generous use of Grecian formula. One wonders why at his age, Abdullah is so concerned with his looks, especially his beard, when his bones must also now be withering away? The crisis of succession is looming large and it cannot be discounted that a civil war may break out among the hordes of princes vying for power and control. There is, however, an even more serious challenge facing the regime: opposition to the House of Saud appears to have transcended the sectarian divide. The Hijaz, where the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah are located, has always been opposed to the literalist interpretations of the Najdis whom they consider uncouthed and unsophisticated desert bedouins. But opposition to the ruling family is now becoming widespread even in the regime’s heartland, Riyadh. While the regime has attempted to present opposition to its policies as being instigated by the Shi‘is, it has failed to explain why there are more than 30,000 political prisoners in the kingdom, the overwhelming majority of them Sunnis? Further, many people ask why should decisions be made by a small coterie of Saudi princes and the rest of them, more educated than the rulers, be excluded from this process? Success of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and to a lesser extent in Libya has given Saudi youth new ideas about freedom. At least 60% of them are under 20 years old. Widespread corruption and the rulers’ extreme laziness have resulted in 40% of Saudis living in poverty despite the regime taking in $360 billion annually in oil revenues. At least 70% of the people cannot afford to own a home and women are prohibited from driving cars. Most of the back-breaking menial jobs are performed by foreign workers that account for 90% of the private sector work force while unemployment among the 20–24 year-old Saudis stands at nearly 40%. Given these grim statistics and coupled with the looming crisis of succession, Saudi Arabia is waiting to explode. What will emerge following this explosion is difficult to speculate now but there is near certainty that the kingdom is heading for turbulent times.