The Ummah’s tragedy: court ulama

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

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

Intensifying the proxy war in Syria

by Zafar Bangash July, 2013 With the takfiri mercenaries suffering repeated military defeats in recent weeks (they never had any mass support), they and their foreign sponsors have resorted to the most vicious form of sectarian hatred in Syria. With rebel forces on the run in the 27-month long proxy war in Syria, their foreign sponsors have panicked. Led by the US and aided and abetted by Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey, the so-called Friends of Syria met in Doha, Qatar on June 22 and pledged more weapons to the rebels. While US Secretary of State John Kerry said they still preferred a political solution to the conflict, their decision to supply more lethal weapons would hardly advance the cause of peace. American officials, however, have always spoken from both sides of their mouth and it is no different in the case of Syria. Only a few weeks earlier, Kerry had urged Russia to convene another conference in Geneva to work out a negotiated settlement to the Syrian conflict. What happens to Geneva-II after Doha? American and British commandos have been training Syrian rebels in Jordan where large stockpiles of weapons are stored for possible use against the Syrian army. Under the guise of conducting military exercises, the real purpose was, and has been for quite some time to train the mercenaries so that they are better able to fight. In recent weeks, the Syrian army has made major gains especially in the strategic town of al-Qusayr with the help of Hizbullah fighters. Located near the Lebanese border, the town has great strategic importance since most of the weapons and mercenaries from Lebanon transited through al-Qusayr. After two weeks of intense fighting, the rebels fled. They had occupied the town for nearly two years destroying it completely. The Syrian army is now closing in on Aleppo to flush the mercenaries from there. The foreign sponsors of the mercenaries see their plans for turning Syria into an imperialist-Zionist outpost unraveling, hence the hurried meeting in Doha.

Nothing demoralizes fighters more than successive defeats. Since they do not enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people — this was evident from the first day the mayhem was unleashed in March 2011 in a non-descript town like Dar‘a rather than any major city — they are now resorting to more brutal tactics. These are signs of desperation. If people do not join them, their policy is to torture and kill them. Car-bombings, killing leading religious figures like the 84-year-old Shaykh Sa‘id al-Buti in the masjid together with scores of worshippers as well as publicly beheading supporters of President Bashar al-Asad, are standard rebel tactics. They have now turned to cannibalism. By ripping open the body of a dead Syrian soldier and chewing his organs, Abu Sakkar, a well-known rebel commander has shown the rebels’ true face. The video was aired on a rebel website with vows to continue. Such barbarism was witnessed in the Battle of Uhud when Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan ripped open the body of Hamzah (ra) and chewed his liver in a fit of rage. Muslims then and Muslims now condemn such acts of barbarism and the desecration of dead bodies. Such acts have nothing to do with Islam or its values; this is a return to the days of jahiliyah. This is not the only act of sacrilege perpetrated by the rebels. They slit the throats of children of their opponents and even descecrated the grave of Hujr ibn ‘Adi (ra), a well-known companion of the Prophet (pbuh) who was killed by the Umayyad king, Mu‘awiyah. According to reports, Hujr’s (ra) body was still intact after nearly 1,400 years. He was executed on the orders of Mu‘awiyah because he (Hujr) had objected to the vilification of Imam Ali (a) and Ahl al-Bayt from the minbar. This was a policy instituted by Mu‘awiyah because of his hatred of the family of the noble Messenger (pbuh). Muslims that go berserk and believe it is justifiable to kill fellow Muslims because they criticize some of the Sahabah, have been silent about this sacrilege against the grave and body of a well-known Sahabi. Is it alright to indulge in such behavior if it is perpetrated by people they support? The ongoing mayhem in Syria has exposed a number of players and their true character. First, those leading the so-called Syrian National Council (SNC) have little or no support inside Syria. Most of them reside abroad in five-star hotels or palaces provided by the corrupt Arabian rulers. The regimes supporting rebel fighters who have flooded in from neighboring as well as distant countries, are unrepresentative and tribal dictatorships: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. Those calling themselves republican — Turkey, Egypt, etc. — are subservient to the US. The latest addition is President Mohamed Mursi of Egypt. He has disappointed many people both inside Egypt as well as outside by the manner in which he has surrendered to the most oppressive monarchies and to imperialist-Zionist interests. The same goes for Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan. He is already facing a blowback; Mursi will not escape that fate either. While we do not hold any brief for Bashar al-Asad and fully support the right of the Syrian people to have their own representative government, the issue in Syria has gone beyond that. It is an imperialist-Zionist project whose principal aim is to undermine the resistance front against Zionist aggression and occupation, and ultimately push for regime change in Iran. From their affiliations and statements, members of the SNC have exposed themselves as US-Zionist puppets. Those calling for US/NATO intervention should ponder over the plight of Afghanistan, Iraq and especially Libya. Since when has the US or Zionist Israel been friends of the Muslims? What is underway is no longer about the rights of the Syrian people. If the SNC thinks it has mass support in the country, it should participate in next year’s presidential elections and prove it. Destroying Syria to turn it into an imperialist-Zionist outpost will serve the interests of neither the Syrian people, nor of the SNC. Syria is being turned into a hellhole from which only the Israelis will benefit.

Mursi joins the US-zionist-Saudi crusade in Syria

by Ayman Ahmed July, 2013

President Mursi has succumbed to US-Saudi-zionist pressure and joined the crusade in Syria. Since becoming president, he has badly mishandled Egypt’s affairs and with a bankrupt economy, he has embarked on a policy that will have serious repercussions for the country’s future. In recent days, many observers have found Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi’s behavior quite erratic. Whether this is forced upon him by circumstances and/or powers that be or reflect his own thinking is difficult to tell but instead of showing leadership he has succumbed to the forces of darkness that are leading him down a blind alley. His latest antics come amid shrill calls from the US and its Western allies to devise plans to send heavy weapons to the mercenaries in Syria that have already caused havoc in the country. On June 13, President Barack Obama alleged that the Syrian government was guilty of using “chemical weapons” — Obama’s red line — and that he was authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to arrange for arms shipments to the rebels. The same day, a conference of some 70 religious scholars was held in Cairo, Egypt. Was it a coincidence or choreographed to provide an Islamic crutch to what is a Western crusade against another Muslim country? Convened by the International Union of Muslim Scholars, a body headed by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and generously funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, it was attended by some 70 court ‘ulama from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf monarchies. These so-called ‘ulama have never had the tawfiq to utter one word of condemnation against Zionist crimes inflicted on the long-suffering Palestinians but they waxed eloquent in support of the Syrian people and the mercenaries fighting there. The conference attendees were shown a crude video, most probably doctored, to highlight “crimes” perpetrated by the Syrian army against the people. Even if true, there is no shortage of crimes being perpetrated by both sides in Syria. Recently a horrible video appeared on YouTube, uploaded by the rebels, in which one of the Saudi-Zionist-American-backed mercenaries ripped open the body of a dead Syrian soldier and chewed upon his liver. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin was so appalled by this that he publicly chastised British Prime Minister David Cameron at a June 16 press conference in London telling him, “Do you want to arm people that eat their enemies’ organs?” Cameron offered the lame excuse, “Not all of them do it.” How many cannibals would it take for the West and their Arabian puppets to stop arming such beasts? The website for Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s organization ran a statement claiming the Cairo meeting was designed to “show the real face of Iran, the Asad regime and Hizbullah,” in reference to the allegation that Islamic Iran and Hizbullah’s backing is keeping Bashar al-Asad’s government in power. There is no proof of Iran’s direct military involvement in Syria although Tehran has made no secret of its political backing for al-Asad as part of the resistance front against Zionist aggression. Hizbullah did support the Syrian army to liberate al-Qusayr in May but that came two years after the mercenaries had occupied the border town and perpetrated terrible crimes against civilians, many of them Lebanese. On the other hand, it is well documented that at least 40,000 mercenaries from 27 countries are operating in Syria. Regimes supporting such mercenaries or allowing them to use their territory to cross into Syria are in clear violation of international law — yes, the one crafted by the West itself that is so often invoked against those that challenge Western hegemony — and thus are perpetrating war crimes. Such violations, however, have not bothered the West’s human rights crusaders because they are determined to overthrow al-Asad even if the mercenaries they are supporting indulge in acts of cannibalism. In fact, such acts advance the West’s long-standing agenda to depict Islam in the most negative light. Barring a few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide have recoiled in horror at such behavior. It reminds them of the barbaric practice of Abu Sufyan’s wife Hind in the Battle of Uhud when she ripped open the body of Hamzah (ra), the Prophet’s uncle, and chewed upon his liver. Are the mercenaries in Syria any better? More crucially, those backing them are following in the footsteps of Abu Jahal, Abu Lahab, Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. Back to the days of jahiliyah!

The Cairo conference and those attending it had a nefarious agenda: to stoke sectarian conflict in the Ummah. They declared the anti-government struggle in Syria as “jihad” and urged “Sunni Muslims” from all over the world to join it. But making such declarations at a conference attended by a mere 70 court ‘ulama including the Shaykh of al-Azhar Ahmed al-Tayeb, who is known to be a decent person, would not get much traction; nor would Shaykh al-Qaradawi’s website help advance the cause of the “jihadi mercenaries.” A more direct approach was deemed necessary to reach a wider audience. The next day, on Jumu‘ah, a direct appeal was made to the masses at salat al-jumu‘ah. Saudi preacher Mohammed al-‘Arify used his guest sermon at a central masjid in Cairo to harangue thousands of worshippers to not only support the mercenaries in Syria but to join them by enlisting in “jihad.” It was al-‘Arify who had earlier issued a call for Muslim girls to join what he referred to as jihad al-munakahah in Syria. What this means is that Muslim girls should go to Syria to service the sexual needs of mercenaries fighting there. Unfortunately some gullible girls from Tunisia and other places have joined what is essentially a prostitution racket to advance the Zionist-imperialist agenda in the region. Worse still, those that call themselves ‘ulama are advocating such conduct. Even Masjid al-Haram, the sacred House of Allah (swt) in Makkah has not been spared. Sheikh Sa‘ud al-Shuraym, using the minbar of Masjid al-Haram on Jumu‘ah urged Muslims to help the Syrian rebels “by all means” possible. He even broke down while making the appeal, whichwas broadcast live on several Arabian TV channels. How many times has any Saudi preacher made an appeal to help the Palestinians, much less shedding tears for them? Muslims struggling for their legitimate rights elsewhere, in Kashmir or Afghanistan, for instance, should not entertain any illusions that a Saudi preacher would ever pray for them much less ask for material help. In the desert kingdom, use of the two sacred masjids — Masjid al-Haram and al-Masjid al-Nabawi — or indeed any other masjid, for political sermons is strictly forbidden. Talking rituals is the order of the day. The House of Saud is terrified lest some independent-minded shaykh might emerge and take its members to task for corruption or lewd behavior. Pre-approved khutbahs are handed to them to deliver from all the masjids in the kingdom. The abuse of the minbar to vilify fellow Muslims revives memories of the dark days of the Umayyad rulers when they instituted the policy of cursing Imam ‘Ali (a) and the Prophet’s (pbuh) family, the Ahl al-Bayt (nastaghfir-allah). After participating in the khutbah crusade, the preachers assembled in Cairo, feasted on rice and lamb, and then rested for a while, as is their wont, before invading the presidential palace to harangue Mursi to join their campaign. Seeing Saudi- and Qatari-backed preachers and smelling riyals, Mursi could not resist the temptation. Egypt is suffering from a severe financial crisis making him vulnerable to petro-dollars and riyals. He succumbs to whoever comes with offers of cash for his cash-strapped country. After his meeting with the preachers on Friday night, Mursi addressed thousands of supporters in a Cairo stadium the following day for a “Free Syria” rally. Some of the religious preachers from the conference were also present. Mursi announced cutting all relations with Damascus. He said Egypt was closing its embassy and withdrawing its Charge d’Affaires from Damascus while he demanded the Syrian ambassador leave Cairo. Mohamed Seif al-Dawla, a former advisor to Mursi recalled that after Israel attacked Syria in May, he had demanded the closure of the Zionist embassy in Cairo. Instead, Mursi has shut down the Syrian embassy! Just over a year earlier, Mursi had announced the formation of a four-member Contact Group to resolve the Syrian crisis peacefully. He had made the appeal at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation meeting in Makkah. He reiterated the same call at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran a couple of weeks later. The quartet, according to Mursi would comprise Egypt, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. With his support base at home shrinking and under US-Saudi-Qatari pressure, Mursi has abandoned his own plan to resolve the Syrian crisis through dialogue. Instead, he has joined the Anglo-Wahhabi-Zionist-imperialist crusade. He even demanded that a no-fly zone be imposed over Syria in the manner of Libya. Russia has made clear it will not support any such move and would veto any resolution presented in the UN Security Council. It is depressing to note that those calling themselves ‘ulama resort to tactics that are bound to deepen existing fissures in the Ummah. Exactly a century ago, the British had injected the poison of nationalism to create divisions between the Ottoman Turks and Arabian chiefs. While these tribal chiefs did not get independence, their betrayal led directly to the implantation of the Zionist entity in Palestine. Today, sectarianism is being promoted in order to safeguard the Zionist entity from the growing awareness in the Ummah, especially the Muslim East. The Arabian chiefs will pay a heavy price for such treachery. In any case, their days are numbered and sooner rather than later, they will be consigned to the dustbin of history where they rightly belong.

Syria, Iraq and the politics of sectarianism

by Zafar Bangash June, 2013

Failure of the western-backed rebels in Syria has resulted in increased sectarian tensions in Iraq from where the bulk of the mercenaries flooded into Syria. Many have returned and sectarianism is the tool used to divide Muslims by playing on their emotions. Recent reports indicate that Syrian government forces are making steady progress against foreign-backed armed groups. Rebel forces have been pushed out of many towns and villages including al-Qusayr, bordering Lebanon, where many Lebanese live. This has forced the Islamic resistance group, Hizbullah to protect civilians from rebel attacks. Hizbullah’s defensive stand has been misrepresented as involvement in the Syrian conflict to shore up the government of Bashar al-Asad. Even if true, this would be perfectly legitimate since Syria is a sovereign country and the government has every right to seek help from whatever quarters it deems necessary to defend itself. Under International Law, supporting rebel groups — whether internal or mercenaries that have flooded into Syria — is illegal. Sending mercenaries into another state constitutes a war crime. This, however, has not deterred countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan to send mercenaries into the country, nor has it deterred the US and its allies from sending in material help. This is one dimension of the problem. Closely related to the Syrian conflict are events in Iraq. As part of the foreign-instigated mayhem in Syria, many mercenaries from Iraq flooded into the country to destabilize it. It was assumed that the government in Damascus would fall in a matter of months if not sooner. They were joined by mercenaries from other countries including many from Europe. If these people had gone to Afghanistan to fight American and NATO occupation forces, they would immediately be denounced as terrorists. In Syria, they are called freedom fighters! Beyond such hypocrisy, the escalating sectarian violence in Iraq is the direct result of successive defeats the rebels have suffered in Syria. Hundreds of mercenaries have gone back to Iraq. If they cannot defeat the government in Syria, then they can resume their dastardly acts in Iraq where sectarian tensions have simmered for several years, thanks to US policy. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has also not handled the situation properly. If it is serious about confronting sectarian violence, then it cannot take sides. If Sunnis are attacked, as their masjids have been, and many innocent people killed in recent weeks, then the government has a responsibility to not only condemn such attacks but to also take immediate steps to apprehend the culprits. The Iraqi government cannot play favourites. If it is not right to attack Shi‘is — as it is not — then it is equally unacceptable to attack Sunnis. The government of Iraq must represent all the people, not just a particular sect. This is also good policy and would increase support for the central government in Baghdad. Sectarianism has become a vicious tool in the hands of those opposed to the reassertion of Islamic self-determination. In fact, it has been deliberately instigated as part of the US-Zionist-Saudi plot to undermine Islamic awakening movements or target those governments they do not like. In the past, nationalism was used but when internal conflict has to be instigated, nationalism is not much help. Sectarianism is a much more powerful tool because it plays on people’s emotions and ignorance. Creating bridges of understanding is a long, painstaking process; destroying such bridges merely requires planting doubts. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are susceptible to being aroused on emotional issues and led to behave in a manner that is completely contrary to the teachings of Islam. Sectarianism was instigated and used by US occupation forces in Iraq. Prior to the US invasion, sectarianism was not a major factor in Iraqi society. Intermarriages were common; 30% of Iraqi couples had intermarried across the sectarian divide. This was perhaps not witnessed in any other Muslim country. Iraq also has some of the most important centres of learning for both Shi‘is and Sunnis. Masjids and great centres belonging to both schools of thought co-exist side by side. If Najaf and Karbala represent the two major cities greatly revered by Shi‘is (no less by Sunnis) because they house the tombs of the great Imams, then there are also centres and masjids where such Sunni-revered personalities as Imam Abu Hanifah and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir Jilani are buried. It was, therefore, natural and to the credit of the people of Iraq to have developed such good understanding between the followers of the two schools. It was a master stroke on the part of the Americans and their Saudi puppets to destroy such understanding by instigating sectarianism in Iraq. The government in Baghdad had to be kept in a state of limbo in order to make it dependent on the US military. When the Iraqis refused to go along and did not agree to the extension of American military presence beyond the December 2011 deadline, it had to be taught a lesson. Sectarianism was the one tool that could be used to destabilize Iraq. There was also another factor: instigating sectarianism helped keep the larger Muslim Ummah that is predominantly Sunni away from Islamic Iran, a predominantly Shi‘i country. In fact, behind all the US-Saudi-Zionist moves lies the plan to keep the rest of the Ummah detached from the influence of Islamic Iran because the latter is viewed as undermining US-Zionist hegemony in the region. The same policy was used to much more deadly effect in Syria. The mayhem there has helped deepen divisions among Muslims through sectarianism, thereby threatening to tear the fabric of the Ummah apart. When we look even 10 years back, there were no such sectarian tensions, at least not on the scale witnessed today. The simple question Muslims must ask is: whose purpose does it serve to instigate sectarian divisions in the Ummah? It certainly does not serve the interests of Muslims. Committed Muslims — ‘ulama, academics, students and activists — must, therefore, strive to address this issue and prevent its poison from spreading. A mere 100 years ago colonial powers had injected the poison of nationalism in the Muslim East to divide it, thereby facilitating the implantation of the Zionist entity in Palestine. Today sectarianism is being used to undermine Islamic self-determination in order to protect the Zionist entity that is on the verge of collapse because of inner contradictions and the rising tide of Islamic self-assertion. Muslims have an obligation not to fall into this trap.

Respecting differences

by Zafar Bangash June, 2013

The tendency among some Muslims to insist that their particular understanding of Islam is the only correct way has caused numerous problems. These are compounded by rigidity leading to unnecessary conflict when Muslims should be tolerant of different approaches. Every Muslim sincerely and consciously commits to the One God — Allah (swt) — the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the last and final messenger for all humanity, and the Qur’an as the revealed word of Allah (swt) to guide humanity till eternity. Problems arise in the Muslims’ selective understanding and application of Qur’anic teachings and the role of the noble Messenger (pbuh) in their lives. This is further complicated by some Muslims’ insistence that their particular understanding is the only legitimate way to interpret and implement Islam in real life. When such attitudes harden into fanaticism, it leads to disunity among Muslims and divisions in the Ummah. Many different approaches can be identified but the most serious differences exist among those Muslims that are striving to establish Islamic states in their societies. Is there only one way to achieve this? Often adherents of different approaches seem to think theirs is the only correct way and all others are wrong. Our readers know where we stand. Our position is clear from our writings in this magazine as well as from our other works such as the tafsir of the noble Qur’an by Imam Muhammad al-Asi or the books we have produced on the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). But we also take the position that no matter how strongly we may disagree with other Muslims’ point of view we do not exclude them from the fold of Islam or from adding their views to the larger ferment of Islamic ideas. Denouncing other Muslims as kafirs has regrettably become fashionable among some groups (the takfiris). They go further: based on such denunciation, they think it is permissible to kill the Muslims so identified. Such behavior has no sanction in the Qur’an or the Sunnah and the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). There are a few conditions in which killing others (anyone) is permitted: three of these include engagement on the battlefield, treason, and the murder of an innocent person. In the latter case, the Qur’an stresses forgiveness over revenge. So how did Muslims end up with this strange takfiri ideology that is spreading like a virus in the Ummah? A closely related phenomenon is that of sectarianism. It is used to create hatred against a targeted group of Muslims to justify acts of violence against them — including killing them. Muslims would do well to identify the forces that are pushing them toward sectarian warfare: imperialism and Zionism. True, different sects have always existed among Muslims but their differences never took on the virulent form it has taken on today. Whose interest does it serve for Muslims to fight each other? Let us be blunt: some Muslims that call themselves Sunnis are busy instigating hatred against other Muslims that carry the Shi‘i label. This is most clearly visible in places like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. The launch of this campaign can be traced to the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, a Shi‘i majority country, in 1979. Iran’s success exposed the fraudulent claims of the puppet Arabian regimes to being Islamic. The only way they could undermine Islamic Iran was by playing up the sectarian card. Regrettably, some Sunni ‘ulama including those that have built a reputation for learning have also joined this campaign. Changes in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have led them to describe these as the “Shi‘i project.” When a tyrant like Saddam Husain was in power in Iraq, many of these ‘ulama remained silent. Today, they seem to have fallen for the lure of comfortable living under the patronage of petro-rulers and joined their vicious sectarian game. Instead of urging Muslims to confront imperialism and Zionism and their local agents in the Muslim world, they are busy pushing Muslims into the flames of sectarianism. We have no doubt that committed Muslims will ultimately triumph over the imperialists, Zionists and their munafiq agents in the Muslim world, as promised by Allah (swt) in the noble Qur’an (47:07, 61:13), but before that victory is achieved, Muslims would have paid a terrible price in life and blood. Committed Muslims have an obligation to properly understand the global reality and take the necessary steps to guard against all such schemes aimed at dividing them. Such divisions only serve the agenda of a more and more desperate West, whose policies have failed. Leading Muslim institutions, such as al-Azhar in Egypt, have a responsibility to come out clearly against such attempts at creating divisions and work for social and religious harmony among Muslims. Al-Azhar has a rich history of working to bring Muslims together. The legacy of Shaykh Mahmoud Shaltut needs to be revived and built on. Now is the time to do it. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

Imam Khomeini: the battle for hearts and minds

by Afeef Khan June, 2013

One of the essential pre-requisites for leadership is to set a directional course and motivate people to follow it. This is what Imam Khomeini (ra) achieved and brought about the Islamic revolution in Iran. Imam Khomeini won the battle for Muslim hearts and minds. America and the Zionists lost. He feared Allah (swt) and had no fear of presidents, princes, shahs, and any other human rivals to Allah (swt). He won because he had the clarity of conviction that translates into the ability to lead, in short, to be an imam. The function of leadership is to produce transformational change. Effective leaders accomplish this by setting a directional course, aligning large groups of people to that course, and by motivating them to hold themselves accountable for their commitments of learning through action and deliberation. In the past 250 years for Muslims, no Islamic leader did this better than Imam Khomeini. True, there have been leaders of Islamic movements, but he was the only one to achieve success as a true imam. But this was no accident. Setting a new direction is fundamental to leading. A new directional course requires intellectual clarity. This is the greatest gift an imam can offer to his hungry Muslim constituencies: having the confidence to know what to do in any given situation, having the confidence to engage in a rational process that allows the best ideas to dominate, and that does not require the validation of other human beings, especially those who have divided, in a binary way, the world into inferiors and superiors where the inferiors always require the endorsement of the self-declared superiors. This is how imperialists and Zionists look at the world, driving a wedge into the natural human tendency to co-associate. In point of fact, all human beings are inferior and Allah (swt) is their superior and as such all actions are to be validated according to Allah’s (swt) revealed reference points for humanity: the Qur’an and the prophetic precedent. Truth requires no human approval and it certainly needs no behavior of a preferred class to authenticate it. Truth is self-evident to anyone who thinks about it. Human activity is to be judged by Allah’s (swt) criterion of right and wrong, and right and wrong does not “rise” to the level of palatability by the “standard” and behavior of those who hold temporal power or prominence. Setting a directional course creates a sense of urgency, produces an overall vision to strive for along with a strategy to get there, and satisfies the needs and rights of important constituencies in society. The Imam lived his entire life with a sense of urgency. All of us who remember Imam Khomeini know that in his executive capacity as head of state, he came out and immediately connected domestic oppression and degradation to its global counterpart in Washington, Tel Aviv, London, Paris, and Riyadh. Throughout his scholarly career and when he stepped onto the world stage, he rejected all Western ideological and philosophical ruminations, and thereby marginalized any governmental implementations based on these theories in the East and the West as being inconsistent with Allah’s (swt) command, the Prophet’s (pbuh) counsel, and the people’s liberation. He showed his people that capitalism and communism were cut from the same cloth, and thus he was the first modern leader to break from the ideological stranglehold the West held over ideas that translated into representative political institutions whose goal was to satisfy the needs of all the people, and not some special interests. The full force of his lifelong resistance culminating in a decade of rule over an Islamic state showed all people that divinely inspired universal principles of social justice are fundamentally incompatible with the Western discourse and practice of governance, despite the high-sounding rubric of democracy, free markets and globalization. As a world leader with a vision, he even advised, in vain, Mikail Gorbachev, to liberate his people from the obvious problems besetting all Western societies in their dissociation from God. Often when Muslims are queried about the one major problem in their societies, they say it is education, usually of a scientific, professional or technological nature, that is, medicine, engineering, information technology, environmental science, etc. Few Muslims, although this is changing, will point to unresponsive political institutions and impotent rulers. Imam Khomeini was not similarly confused. He knew that he had to separate the coordinated activities of his people from dead-end pursuits. He knew that an Islamic directional course would clarify what kind of education is essential and what kind is irrelevant. He wanted his people in particular, and all Muslims in general to understand that they need not look too far away to Oxford, Harvard, and even al-Azhar (in the depleted state it is in because of the legacy of Egyptian autocracy), that knowledge and wisdom come from the fountainhead of Allah’s (swt) guidance. The Imam did not initiate a policy to go out and build scores of universities so that his people could put a man on the moon; indeed he put his people on a collision course with those power structures who thrive on creating human conflict so that they can dominate. In this task, the nascent Islamic event in Iran found itself alone. It had no choice but to rely on Allah (swt). And in this process, it discovered and released its innate human potential. Today’s Islamic society in Iran and the Muslims of the world are the beneficiaries of the Imam’s directional course, paved as it is with the fluid lives of hundreds of thousands of shuhada’. Islamic Iran in now world class in nuclear medicine and bridge building; its managed health care approaches, especially those directed at low-income households and villages, are now being studied and implemented across the world; its literacy rates, for both men and women, are among the highest in the world, now exceeding many advanced countries; it is one of nine countries in the world to indigenously build its own satellite and rocket technology with the result that it is the first Muslim country to independently put its own satellite into orbit. It is the only country in the modern world to not only survive a 30-year economic siege, but to show expansion when the rest of the world is in recession. Equivalent sanctions between the two world wars effectively crippled Germany leading to the emergence of Nazism. Not so with Islamic Iran. And there are many other achievements to come as the people come to grips with their capacities and their God-given promise.

An Imam is an Imam — and a non-imam is a non-imam

by Abu Dharr Not to be lost on the handlers and coaches of such troublemakers, the US regime and its flunkies have metamorphosed the MEK into its al-Qa’ida clone with “Sunni-Shi‘i” divergences. We are beginning to see evidence of this in the Tunisian Ansar al-Shari‘ah battlering with the ruling al-Nahdah party. The Muslims miss the decisive character of Imam Khomeini in North Africa. One of Imam Khomeini’s first decisions was to close down the Israeli embassy in Tehran and expel the Zionist enemies from Iran. Compare that with the inability of the “Islamic” leadership in Egypt to break off diplomatic ties with the Israeli Zionist regime, which nowadays is maneuvering to physically occupy al-Masjid al-Aqsa and thwart access to the first qiblah and third haram to all Muslims. It gets worse: the Egyptian Islamic decision makers cannot open the borders between Egypt and Ghazzah. Egypt needs an Imam Khomeini. When Imam Khomeini began building an Islamic state in Iran he demanded justice be done to the fleeing Shah of Iran. The Shah had to beg for residency in different countries until he was finally appended to his American cooperator Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat in Egypt. The Islamic leadership in Iran with Imam Khomeini pursued the Shah until he finally went to his Maker where he will encounter ultimate justice. Correlate that with the official Egyptian inability to pass final judicial judgment on Hosni Mubarak the Pharaoh. Or correlate that with the disability of the Tunisian (Islamic) leadership to pursue and prosecute Zine al-Abidine bin ‘Ali who took refuge in the evil kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why doesn’t the Tunisian government ask for the extradition of Bin ‘Ali to Tunisia to stand in a court of law where he will be answerable for his official presidential conduct and state policies, one of which forced Rachid al-Ghannoushi into exile at the behest of the security apparatus? It turns out that not all exiles are the same. Imam Khomeini was forced into exile by the Shah, but when he came back he sought the Shah and expended all that was necessary to bring him to a court of law. Rachid al-Ghannoushi was forced into exile, but when he came back to his home country he would not or could not pursue Bin ‘Ali, who had forced al-Ghannoushi into fugitive status. Then we have the eight-year war of aggression that was imposed upon the Imam and the Muslims in Islamic Iran. The leadership there did not buckle under those hard times. Imagine if such a war were imposed on any of the leaderships in the countries mentioned above; would they have the stamina to fight to the bitter end? Would they have the popular support to withstand all the trials and tribulations that come from a long and grinding war? The way things look, we seriously doubt it. The Egyptian (Islamic) leadership is not doing what is right and what is obligatory — cutting off diplomatic relations with Zionist Israel — precisely for the reason of avoiding such a war. Here we have it: the Islamic leadership of Imam Khomeini doing what is right and obligatory — come what may; and the “Islamic” leadership of the Ikhwan avoiding doing what is right and obligatory for fear of the consequences. The concept of tawakkul seems to be alien to our brothers in Cairo and Tunisia. Imam Khomeini called a spade a spade, as it were. He did not mince words when he wedged the descriptive marker Shaytani buzurg (the Colossal Satan) on the Washington regime. Compare Imam Khomeini with Mohammad Mursi in their interviews with the Euro-American press. Correspondents from the Euro-American media were scrambling to secure an interview with the Imam. But in Egypt and Tunisia interviews are by the dozen. Imam Khomeini had foreign correspondents stirred up and strained. But in interviews with al-akh Mohammad Mursi he talks to them about his years in the USA and his remarks about the film Planet of the Apes; and we have Shaykh Rachid al-Ghannoushi saying quite frankly that he is not a Khomeini. Thank you — you said it all. And, by the way, how many times have you come to Washington, DC since ascending the seat of power in Tunisia? We have lost count. What a difference between an imam whose base of popularity is the hearts and aspirations of the Muslims — Imam Khomeini — and those who are going along with an American Israeli plan executed through the agencies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al. to try to smother the Islamic awakening that took place between an Imam and an Ummah. And We raised among them leaders who, so long as they bore themselves with perseverance and had faith in Our authority and power messages, guided [their people] in accordance with Our behest… (32:24). Pull quote: One of Imam Khomeini’s first decisions was to close down the Israeli embassy in Tehran and expel the Zionist enemies from Iran. Compare that with the inability of the “Islamic” leadership in Egypt to break off diplomatic ties with the Israeli Zionist regime…