Post by Anas Sadhiq.

‘Is ISIL really ‘Sunni’? Not at all’

By Kevin Barrett

The Western media describes ISIL – the ultra-extremist terrorists destabilizing Iraq and Syria – as “Sunni militants.” Headlines read: “Sunni Islamist Militants Seize Mosul.” “Sunni militants capture northern Iraqi town.” “Iraq Army Tries to Roll Back Sunni Militants’ Advance.” The corporate media casts the fighting in Iraq as a Sunni vs. Shia conflict. The Sunni side, according to these reports, is led by ISIL – a group that was expelled from al-Qaeda for being too extreme. But is ISIL really Sunni? Many experts say “no.” Some question whether ISIL has a right to call itself an Islamic group at all. In an interview with Truth Jihad Radio, Islamic scholar Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Ilyas Abd al-‘Alim Islam) questioned ISIL’s Islamic credentials: “A lot of so-called jihad (such as ISIL’s) is not rooted in Islam. Especially if you look at who’s funding it, who’s supporting it, who’s behind it. Western powers have a long history of using jihadists and Islamists to further their own imperial ambitions. In terms of the foot-soldiers, they may think they are fighting for Islam. But if you look closer, you find they’re furthering the cause of the enemy.” Dr. Morrow pointed out that much of ISIL’s behavior is patently un-Islamic. He said that the ISIL terrorists love to film themselves committing war crimes that are forbidden by Islam: “They are very proud to commit atrocities. They film it. They upload it to the internet. They have their own websites.” Dr. Morrow commented on the notorious video showing a Takfiri terrorist eating a dead soldier’s liver: “This is what Hind (an enemy of the Muslims) did. You’re not following the sahaba, you’re not following the Prophet. You’re following the polytheists who were fighting the Prophet when you start cannibalizing corpses. And there was another video of a poor Muslim sister who was strangled to death. I mean, who goes around strangling women to cries of Allahu akbar?” Continuing the habit of vaunting their un-Islamic atrocities, ISIL terrorists recently posted internet videos showing themselves murdering 1,700 captured Iraqi army soldiers. They have also reportedly killed dozens of Sunni imams who refuse to swear allegiance to ISIL. And they are killing Shia Muslims indiscriminately. If these terrorists are Sunni Muslims, why are they systematically violating the tenets of Sunni Islam? In fact, ISIL appears to be far outside of Sunni Islam. The kind of “Islam” espoused by the ISIL Takfiris is an extreme version of the Salafi-Wahhabi school of thought. These people reject the five major Islamic madhhabs (schools of thought) including the four Sunni ones. If you reject all four Sunni madhhabs, how can you call yourself Sunni? In fact, the extreme Salafi-Wahhabis, including the ultra-extreme ISIL, have broken with mainstream Islam as it has existed for fourteen centuries. By jettisoning the established Islamic madhhabs, and stepping outside of Islam as it has always been understood, they have entered a very dangerous territory in which they feel they can just make up the rules as they go along. So they make up such rules as: “It is okay to rape Christian and Shia women. It is okay to eat the internal organs of dead enemies. It is okay to marry ‘jihad brides’ for sex and divorce them after 30 minutes. It is okay to crucify Christian holy men. It is okay to strangle women to death. It is okay to mass-murder civilians. It is okay to mass-execute prisoners of war.” No Sunni in history would recognize this as Sunni Islam. Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharajite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. (The Kharajites were an ultra-radical group that rejected early versions of both Sunni and Shia Islam and stepped outside of the Islamic community - hence their name, which means “those who step outside.”) Hamid argues that the ultra-radical groups destabilizing Pakistan, Syria and Iraq have indeed stepped outside of Islam, and are making war on Islam and Muslims on behalf of Zionism and imperialism.

But isn’t it true that many Sunni Muslims in Iraq support ISIL? Yes and no. It is true that some ordinary Iraqis from Sunni backgrounds have joined ISIL’s insurrection in Iraq. But these are mainly pro-Saddam revanchists, not religiously-oriented Sunni Muslims. Saddam Hussein, of course, was a radical secularist whose idols were Stalin and Hitler. Saddam’s Ba’ath party was anti-religious and pro-secularist; Saddam’s hatred of the Islamic Awakening was so extreme that he launched a war on the Ayatollah Khomeini’s new Islamic Republic in hopes of preventing the rebirth of Islam. So to call the Saddam Hussein supporters who are joining with ISIL “Sunnis” is misleading. Saddam’s forces, like ISIL, are opposed to Islam in both its traditional Sunni and Shia forms. The full name of Sunnism is “the people of the Tradition of the Prophet and the consensus of the community” (ahl as-sunnah wa l-jamaʻah). Eating the livers of dead enemies is not part of the Tradition of the Prophet – it is the tradition of the enemies of the Prophet. And such behavior is obviously not approved by the consensus of the Muslim community. The Tradition of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is one of inclusion, tolerance, mutual respect, and the forging of alliances between people of different tribes and religions. The original Muslim community, whose founding document is the Constitution of Medina, consisted of Christians, Jews and Muslims living together and sharing power and obligations on an equitable basis. The real Sunna (Tradition) holds to reason and persuasion, and uses violence only as a last resort. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his Family and Companions preached peacefully for 12 years, despite atrocious persecution, before God finally authorized them to fight back in self-defense. The real Tradition of the Prophet respects knowledge so much that “the ink of the scholar is more precious than the blood of the martyr.” And the consensus of the Islamic community is that the work of 14 centuries worth of Islamic scholarship – the five major Islamic madhhabs, both the four Sunni madhhabs and the Shia Ja’fari madhhab – collectively represents mainstream Islam. All Sunni Muslims have tremendous respect for Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, who founded the main Shia madhhab. The terrorists who reject this tremendous scholarly achievement, and want to kill everyone who disagrees with them, are far outside of normative Sunni Islam. So why does the Western mainstream media insist on calling anti-Sunni, anti-Shia groups like ISIL “Sunni”? Perhaps the problem is laziness. Since ISIL has a special hatred for Shia Muslims, the simplest way to portray them is to paint the situation as an alleged Sunni vs. Shia conflict. By defaulting to this lowest-common-denominator description, the media absolves itself from the duty of explaining, in detail, what is actually going on. But it is also possible that the corporate media is intentionally misreporting the situation. The extreme-Zionist neoconservatives launched the US invasion of Iraq in order to break up that country, and the Middle East as a whole, by inciting ethnic and sectarian strife. The “Sunni vs. Shia” meme was created and spread by the Occupiers through a wave of false-flag terrorism. Perhaps the media is trumpeting that meme in order to propagate it. In any case, the world’s Sunni Muslims are being slandered every time the media calls ISIL “Sunni.” It is time for Sunnis to reject this mischaracterization of their religion. Perhaps Sunni Muslims should file a class action lawsuit against the media outlets that are spreading this calumny.

Saudi Arabia–Israel–America (S.I.A.): Transforming the Arab Spring into an Arab Inferno

By Mohamed Khodr

From the Qur’an: 2:11-12 “And when they are told, “Do not spread corruption on earth,” they answer, “We are but improving things”! Oh, verily, it is they, they who are spreading corruption but they perceive it not?” “No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever”. –J. Michael Straczynski “There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit”. –Napoleon Bonaparte For reference: S.I.A.: Saudi Arabia – Israel – America G.C.C.: Gulf Cooperation Council consisting of six nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman. In reality the G.C.C. should be renamed the A.I.G.C.C: the “American Israeli Gulf Collaboration Council” (Author’s Note: I deliberately left out Egypt’s turmoil and the S.I.A. sponsored and paid for military coup against democracy due to the already long length of the article)

Finally the three Abrahamic faiths, as represented by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States (S.I.A.), are unified, not as peace bearers but as war mongers against the Christian and Muslim Palestinians in the Holy Land as well as spreading death and devastation across the Arab and Muslim world who dare resist their hegemony. The Christian U.S. and the “Muslim” Saudi Arabia are supporting Israel in its ethnic cleansing of Christianity and Islam from the Holy Land. This is occurring while the entire Christian and Muslim world are intimidated into silence. It really is a small Jewish after all. Every nation the S.I.A. alliance hasintervened in either politically, economicallly, or military has become a devastated failed state that has been embroiled in a civil or sectarian war, a mass refugee problem, political fragmentation and instability, economic depression, and terrorism. Not a day goes by in such countries like Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan,, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Tunis, Somalia, and now the newly created South Sudan, where deadly wars, terrorism. and car bombs are not carried out by Israel or Saudi Arabia to incite sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, especially in Iraq and Lebanon, as well as assassination do not occur. The civilian populations, mainly women and children, are the primary victims of such conflicts. Map of Gulf Cooperation Council (G.C.C.) Nations. Much wealth to destroy life, little wealth to save life. Map of Gulf Cooperation Council (G.C.C.) Nations. Much wealth to destroy life, little wealth to save life. While Saudi Arabia and the other G.C.C. have and are using their enormous wealth and economic leverage, along with their old new ally, Israel, to pressure the U.S. to do launch wars in the Middle East, especially now against Iran; not once, not once did they ever consider using such leverage to llift Israel’s 7 years deadly siege of Gaza where 1.8 million Palestinians are dying from lack of shelter, cold weather,, hunger, lack of drinkable water, thirst, disease, and lack of fuel for their electric plant thereby allowing sewage to fill the streets. Gaza’sentire infrastructure has been destroyed by Israel thus hospitals, schools, clinics, churches, and mosques were destroyed. Not even the sanctity of the dead in a cemeteries escaped Israel’s tanks. What kind of subhuman animals are the Israelis who would deliberately run tanks over cemetery graves? If they can disturb the peace of the dead why would anyone expect them to respect peace with the living? Photo of a Palestinian youth searching for his mother’s grave in Gaza after Israeli tanks destroyed the cemetery. From the New Yorker Magazine. A young man looks for his mother’s grave in a cemetery in Beit Lehia that was destroyed by Israeli tanks in January 2009. A young man looks for his mother’s grave in a cemetery in Beit Lehia that was destroyed by Israeli tanks in January 2009. This barbaric nation is called a “civilized democracy” by western government out of fear and greed of Jewish power and wealth respectively; while the world pays the price for its terrorism, including the American people. [See "Truth About the Talmud" to better understand that Israel is simply following the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud. Saudi Arabia has used its considerable oil and economic leverage to push the U.S., in concert with Israel, to destroy Middle East nations; yet not once did it ever consider using such leverage to deliver one loaf of bread, some water, and medicines to the besieged 1.8 Million starving freezing Gazan children, much less to lift the deadly siege of Gaza, or even push for an independent Palestinian state.

What the Middle East is left with is corrupt cowardly dictators; in effect, Israeli American doormats. Despite a century of western lies, betrayals, coups, assassinations, wars, invasions, colonization, occupation, persistent war crimes and ethnic cleansing, the greatest tragedy of all -- the Theft and Sale of Palestine to the Jews; the creation of a new Middle East with new nations, new boundaries, and installed dictator puppets; the current cabal of Arab tyrants in the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, the rest of the G.C.C., Jordan, and Morocco have sold their faith, their people, their land and resources; to serve as regional doormats and collaborators in the service of their masters: Israel and the United States The U.S. has always had a hypocritical selective ouble standardapproach to Arab dictators depending on whether they serve her immediate or long term interests in the region as well as their stand on Israel. It is totally immaterial to the U.S. if such dictators are committing a holocaust against their own people, if they're America's doormat they good pro western puppets. Not all Dictators are created equal. Some we love, others we kill. It depends. Not all Dictators are created equal. Some we love, others we kill. It depends. Please Watch this Video of Saudi Arabia’s close collaboration with Israel in planning an attack against Iran. While the Arab Spring was turned into an Arab inferno through the intervention of the S.I.A. nations; the G.C.C. nations immediately squashed any freedom protests, not by force, but by bribes. Bloomberg News reported that Saudi Arabia spent $130 Billion to bribe its people into quiet submission, which worked, for now. The other G.C.C. nations spent over %100 Billion to bribe their people out of an Arab Spring mentality. America’s Interests in the Middle East. The core issue for the U.S. in the Middle East is: STABILITY – Both Political and Economic. Political stability involves U.S. support of murderous puppet tyrants and dictators. Economic stability, not only for the U.S. economy but for the world’s economy, which is energy driven hence the importance of the Persian Gulf oil. 1. Protect cheap Oil and other Corporate interests in the region. 2. Serve and Protect Israel even if it means paying and dying for her wars. 3. Protect the “stability” and status quo of puppet dictator doormats, especially the monarchies, ensuring their total collaboration and collusion in the American Israeli hegemony in the region. 4. Protects the vital water lanes for shipping via the Strait of Hormuz, Bab Al Mandab, and the Suez Canal. 5. Maintain several military bases in the region, especially in the GCC countries. 6. Work overtly or covertly to remove, assassinate, or damage through cyber-terrorism any regime or party opposed to U.S. Israeli interests. As has been pointed out, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been a Jewish run enterprise for the last century. The most important element in the powerful and enormous success of Jewish Power in the U.S. is an ignorant population disconnected and disinterested in foreign affairs.: “Most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant. That is an unhealthy condition in a country in which foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued. And it makes it much more difficult for any president to pursue an intelligent policy that does justice to the complexity of the world.” –Dr. Zbignew Brzenski ; former National Security Director under President Jimmy Carter. Post 9/11, the Jewish Neocons and the Jewish owned media have successfully indoctrinated the American people that Muslims hate America for its multiple freedoms thereby distracting them from the real reason which is its insane pathetic Israel run foreign policy in the Arab and Muslim world.

Here’s the truth from the Pentagon itself: “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy”. –Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force “On Strategic Communication“, September 2004 The CATO Institute issued a much earlier report on on December 17, 1998, titled: “Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record” that states: “A strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. President Bill Clinton has also acknowledged that link…. This paper fills that gap by citing many examples of terrorist attacks on the United States in retaliation for U.S. intervention overseas. The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating–and potentially catastrophic–terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas”.. Similarly on the issue of foreign policy in the Middle East, in particular the Israeli Palestinian conflict, which to the entire Arab and Muslim world is the primary and root cause of animosity to the U.S. Government, not the American people, no matter how much Israel and its Zionist allies in the U.S. dismiss and distract from this truth. In an article in Haaretz, October 6, 2010, titled; “Clinton: Mideast peace can undercut global terror threat”, Former President Clinton is quoted speaking of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would take away much of the motivation for terrorism around the world….It will take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away.…It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done.” Notice that U.S. politicians wait until they leave office before having the courage to speak up about Israel, for while in office they’re under the strong grip of AIPAC and Jewish campaign contributions. The U.S. stands accused by the world but especially the Arab and Muslim world of being the enabler, political and financial supporter, latest weapons gifter, and defense lawyer for the most condemned, despised, rogue, murderous, illegal and immoral nation on earth – ISRAEL Jewish Power over U.S. politics, economy, foreign affairs, and military policy has long been an unquestioned established fact in Washington D.C. Here is Secretary of State John Foster Dules speaking in 1957 about Jewish Power. “I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews….terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen …. I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don’t approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country” –Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in February 1957 (Donald Neff’s book: “Fallen Pillars” page 99) Currently AIPAC wrote legislation for Congress sponsored by the Jewish Senator from New York, Sen. Charles Schumer, that incredibly commit the U.S. to a war on Iran should Israel attacks Iran. While the U.S. has several defense treaties with nations around the world that commits the U.S. to join that nation should it be attacked; here the U.S. is committing itsel to an OFFENSIVE War against a sovereign nation, Iran, if Israel attacksi it. This wil be the first time the U.S. would join a foreign naiton to attack another nation with no reason or rationale. In an article titled; “Congress Must Not Cede its War Power to Israel“, December 27, 2013, Sheldon Richman, V.P. of the Future of Freedom Foundation, argues forcefully that the U.S. Congress not outsource its war power act to a foreign naiton, Israel. In the article he quotes a letter from Gary Sick, former national security advisor to Carter, Reagan, and Bush and an expert on Iran, he sent to Sen. Charles Schumer denouncing the legislation as dangerous to the U.S. that must be stopped. ONLY when the American people become aware enough and angry enough that a small foreign nation that they’ve subsidized to the tune of over $1 Trillion of their taxes will be thrown out of their national government’s influence and interests will America be truly free. A Zionist free America will mean justice and independence not only for the Palestinians and will go a long way to eliminating terrorism in the Middle East and against the U.S. and Europe. It’s up to the American people to decide if they wish to live in a Zionist Occupied nation or be free of that evil albatross. Israel’s Interests in the Middle East: “Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.” (Iron Wall, p. 316)

–Moshe Dayan, former Israeli Defense Minister Still true to this day. From the Oden Yinon Plan: “Greater Israel: ”The Zionist Plan for the Middle East”. 1982 “The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation… This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.” –The Oden Yinon Plan 1982( Yinon Plan” Please watch this Important Video that explains the Oden Yinon Plan for Dividing the Middle East and creating a Greater Israel. To the Zionists such a plan would allow for the creation of Greater Israel which stretches from the Nile river in Egyptto the east, the Lebanese LItani river to the north, to the Euphrates river in Iraq to the west, along with the annexation of Palestine, Jordan, and large parts of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. With such a goal one can understand why Iraq was invaded, Syria is being destroyed, Lebanon is constantly bombed and occupied, and why Egypt’s democracy was overthrown to install a submissive military dictator. After all this dictator has joined Israel in the deadly starving siege of Gaza. This Map was drawn by Theodore herzl, founder of Zionism, more than a century ago. This Map was drawn by Theodore herzl, founder of Zionism, more than a century ago. Zionist Israel will not rest until its “Greater Israel” goal is achieved. It will fight the Arabs and Muslims to the last American dollar and soldier. Saudi Arabia’s Interests: (Same for G.C.C., states, Jordan, and Morocco): S.A. has Five Main Objectives: Self-Preservation, at any cost, of Family Monarchies under the protection of the U.S. and the military bases they host. Serve as Puppet Regimes to U.S. interests, which mean Israel’s interests. Embezzle and Steal the national wealth for personal debauchery. Repress and Oppress their citizens into total submisin. Collaborate and Pay Israel and U.S. to destroy any threat to the Monarchies from any Arab or Muslim nation. Like its allies Saudi Arabia has a double standard when it comes to which regimes are allowed to survive. It’s funding radical Islamist terrorist in Sria to spread “democracy” while simultaneously sending troops to crush peaceful protests against the tyranny of Bahrain’s king and demanding freedom and democracy. cARTOONbahrainKINGFIFTHFLEET King of Bahrain carrying the U.S. Fifth Fleet which is based in Bahrain; while its CENTCOM is based in Qatar. The U.S. has military bases in all of the G.C.C. nations as well as other Arab countries.. Saudi Arabia is the Chief Spponsor of Terrorism in and out of the Middle East. For decades its been known in the West that Saudi Arabia, mainly, but along with other G.C.C. nations are the main supporters, organizers, and financial suppliers of ‘TERRORISM” in and out of the Middle East. In the Guardian, December 5, 2010, titled; ”WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists”; we find a memo from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that highlights the Gulf states’ failure to block funding for groups like al-Qaida, Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiban. From the article we read: “Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton. “More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, and LeT and other terrorist groups,” Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan”. “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” she said. Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates”. In an article in the British paper The Independent titled; “Mass murder in the Middle East is funded by our friends the Saudis”, December 8, 2013 we read: “Everyone knows where al-Qa’ida gets its money, but while the violence is sectarian, the West does nothing”, In an article in Haaretz detailing the Israeli-Saudi “cooperation” to attack Iran titled: “Sunday Times: Israel, Saudi Arabia cooperating to plan possible Iran attack’, November 17, 2013, we read: “Saudis would allow Israel use of air space and provide drones, rescue helicopters and tanker planes, report says”. Sudan and Yemen: Partitioned by the S.I.A. The Yinon/S.I.A. Plan e\\\\r the Oden Plan for Partitioning Arab states has succeeded in two nations: Sudan and Yemen Sudan: Partitioned into Sudan 9north) and South Sudan. With Israel’s and U.S. direct economic and military assistance to the rebels fighting for an independent South Sudan, the new nation of South Sudan was created. The President of South Sudan’s first foreign trip was to Israel to publicly thank Israel for their long time support of their cause. “I am very moved to be in Israel and to walk on the soil of the Promised Land, and with me are all South Sudanese people. Israel has always supported the South Sudanese people. Without you, we would not have arisen”—said President Kiir to President Shimon Peres of Israel. However, South Sudan is now embroiled in a civil war for power where thousands have been killed and over 150,000 refugees have fled their homes. A failed western created state meant to pressure and limit any opposition from Sudan or Egypt in the future either through direct conflicts or its ability to manipulate the flow of the Nile River into the two nations where the river is the vital source for all life. The long course of the Nile River that is the only source of water for several countries. The Nile means life or death for the Sudan and Egypt. The long course of the Nile River that is the only source of water for several countries. The Nile means life or death for the Sudan and Egypt. YEMEN: The End of One Nation, the beginning of Partition to Six Provinces Saudi Arabia has always looked at Yemen on its southern border as a demographic and military threat able to destabilize the tyrannical royal regime. The courageous young Yemenie men and women joined the Arab Spring by their nationwide relentless protests to remove the S.I.A. supported military dictator whose ruled Yemen for 33 years, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who in response killed and injured thousands of Yemenie civilians, including children. A United Yemen divided by the S.I.A. to remove a historical southern threat to Saudi Arabia. This unrealistic division will increase not decrease civil and sectarian violence. A United Yemen divided by the S.I.A. to remove a historical southern threat to Saudi Arabia. This unrealistic division will increase not decrease civil and sectarian violence. The G.C.C. intervened and developed a peaceful transition plan of power from Saleh to his Vice President. Since then Yemen has been immersed in conflicts throughout the country from the north to the south. Some of it sectarian, a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, while in the South a strong secessionist movement arose; while terrorists used car bombs and assassinations to overthrow the transitional government. A National Dialogue Conference that failed to unify the many different agendas of ideological and tribal parties finally accept the U.N. plan to divide Yemen into Six semi-uatonous provinces. This plan was endorsed by the U.S., i abia and the other G.C.C. nations. This is a catastrophic plan for Yemen, a nation of tribes who’ve had a long history of violent conflicts between them. This plan will only increase violence, wars, and terrorism over sovereignty, territory, oil, water resources, electrical distribution, access to food and health care, disagreement over international aid, and over the certain economic unfair distribution over federal funds. There will be violence, death, and mass expulsions of northerners from South Yemen and vice versa. Properties of northerners and southerners will be illegally seized in both areas. There is still the thorny issue of writing a Constitution, the role and powers of the federal government and the six provincial governments. Will these leaders be appointed or elected> The plan only calls for a Parliamentary vote and a Presidential signature. The populace has no electoral say in this plan and thus withoutpopular support it is doomed to fail sooner or later. I predict that in due time the Yemenie people will rise again demanding an end to this corrupt and violent prone plan and a return to a unified nation. All the while Obama, the illegal Drone warmonger, massively increased his beloved ‘DRONE WAR” in Yemen that has killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Please Wat this Video on Obama’s illegal Drone War on Yemen leading to civilian deaths and mass anger against the Yemen Government and the U.S. Yemenie members of victimized civilians have come to the U.S. pleading for a stop of these Drones and warning the U.S. that such is having a counterproductive effect where more youths are joining militant groups. But the U.S. knows best how to bomb Arab nations and introduce chaotic deadly democracy in the region. Al Qaeda is becoming more powerful in Syria and Iraq while the Taliban are gaining the upper hand in Afghanistan and will surely return to power in Afghanistan as a whole or a divided naiton. These drones are operated by isolated soldiers ten thousand miles away who simply watch a video screen to make the decision to attack or not. These men and women are uninformed as to the culture, customs, or traditions of tribes in Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Thus the tribal custom of firing guns into the air during a wedding celebration is interpreted as an attach thus resulting in drone bombs dropped on innocent civilians in wedding parties. There seems to be an addiction to drone bombing of weddings in the 3 nations since so many have ben bombed with scores of innocent civilians, including children, being killed. The U.N. has called such drone attacks “illegal”. “The United Nations experts express “serious concern”about US drone attacks in Yemen, December 26, 2013″ “UN human rights experts on Thursday expressed “serious concern” about lethal drone attacks allegedly conducted by US forces in Yemen, that resulted in civilian casualties this month”. Where is the Muslim Oil Wealth Going? Certainly not to the Muslim poor, hungry, sick and dying refugees around the world. Despite the enormous wealth of Saudi Arabia and other G.C.C. countries, their expenditure on desperate Muslim refugees around the world is pitifully small, shamefully so. According to the United Nations the G.C.C. Sovereign Wealth Funds which are assets from investments alone in 2012 was $1.8 Trillion, amounting to 34 percent of the entire world’s SWF’s. Yet the G.C.C. rulers treat such national wealth as their private spending money to use as they please, mainly on lavish expensive gifts such as private jets, yachts, cars, jewelry; and vacation pleasures such as prostitution, drugs, and alcohol. In Islam all wealth is a gift from God and belongs to God. Every Muslim male or female who have wealth above a certain minimum is obliged to give a certain portion to the poor and needy. This is a form of social justice. No Muslim is allowed to hoard wealth and not spend on the needy. From the Qur’an: 9:34 “Those who hoard the gold and silver, and do not spend them in the cause of GOD, promise them a painful retribution” It seems these wealthy G.C.C. rulers and families have abandoned Islam, forgotten their duty to God, have lost fear of God, and perhaps have been blinded by worldly wealth that they’ve lost sense of the Day of Judgement. The two photos below tell the tragic story between incomprehensible wealth spent by Prince Talal Bin Waleed, a Saudi prince, on a DIAMONE laden car (He also owns a car made of gold) and a Syrian refugees deprived and abandoned by the enormous wealth of Arab Muslims Sheiks in the G.C.C. A Diamond laden Mercedes Car owned by one Saudi Prince. Without any shame, empathy, or adherence to Islam, the G.C.C. countries sent pittance to aid Syria’s While 2 million Syrian refugees are left in the cold, without food, water, and medicines. The cost of the Diamond Car alone can save them. While 2 million Syrian refugees are left in the cold, without food, water, and medicines. The cost of the Diamond Car alone can save them. refugees who are freezing in the cold showy mountains, with no shelter, clothes, blankets, food, water, or medicines. Over half of the Syrian refugees outside and inside the country are children. These are the pledged amounts only, much is still undelivered. Saudi Arabia’s total donation: $130 Million Qatar’s total donation: $103 Million Bahrain’s total donation: $20 Million Kuwait’s total donation: $324 Million United Arab Emirates: $320 Million Compare these amounts to amounts donated by the U.S. and U.K.; although like most donors they’ve not yet paid the entire emount. United States: $818 Million United Kingdom: $463 Million Source: The Guardian, September 6, 2013 Although the wealthy Arabs and Muslims have shirked their religious and humanitarian responsibility to the most desperate of refugees, the Syrian refugees with over half of them being children, let us all do our part yo dsbr yhrm. You can donate through the UNHCR, UNICEF, Doctors without Borders,Islamic Relief USA, Save the Children, Mercy Corps, You can visit this CNN site for a more detailed listing of agencies and how to help the Syrian refugees. Please HELP and God bless you. This Video is produced by the UNHCR on the Syrian Children Crisis in Refugee Camps. G

சவூத் குடும்பம் ஏன் ஈரானைப் பயப்படுகின்றது-வெறுக்கின்றது?

முதலாவது காரணம் மார்க்க ரீதியிலானது. சவூதி அரேபியாவின் உத்தியோகப்பூர்வ (முறைமைப்பட்ட) மதம் வஹ்ஹாபிஸமாகும். இந்த கடுமுனைப்பான உச்சநிலை திரிபுக் கொள்கையின்படி, ஷீஆ இஸ்லாம் என்பது சகித்துக் கொள்ள முடியாத ஒரு மத மாற்றமாகக் காணப்படுகிறது. இஸலாமிய 'மத நம்பிக்;கை அற்றவர்களாக'க் கணிக்கப்படுபவர்கள் ஷீஆக்கள் மாத்திரமல்லர். சுன்னிகள் உட்பட, வஹ்ஹாபி அடிப்படை வாதக் கோட்பாட்டிற்கு ஒத்திருக்காதவர்களெனக் கருதப்படும், எல்லா வடிவங்களைக் கொண்ட முஸ்லிம்களும், அத்தோடு கிறிஸ்தவர்களும், ஏனைய மதங்களைச் சார்ந்தவர்களும்- அனைவரும், அவ்வாறே 'மத நம்பிக்;கை அற்றவர்களாக'வே கணிக்கப்படுகிறார்கள்ளூ மேலும் அவர்கள், ஈவிரக்கமில்லாமல் தாக்கப்படுகின்றார்கள்- மரணத் தறுவாய் அளவுக்குக் கூட. உருக் குலைந்த வஹ்ஹாபி நம்பிக்கையின்படி, ஷீஆ முஸ்லிம்கள் 'மத நம்பிக்;கை அற்றவர்களுள்' மிகவும் மோசமானவர்கள். இதனாற்றான், முக்கியமாக வஹ்ஹாபி கொள்கைவாதத்தினால் உந்தப்பட்ட, சிரிய அரசுக்கு எதிரான ஆயுதக் கோஷ்டிகள் (இவர்கள் தக்ஃபீரிகள் என்ற பெயரைக் கொண்டும் அழைக்கப்படுகின்றார்கள்), சிரியா சண்டையில், ஷீஆக்களையும் நெருங்கிய உறவுள்ள அலவிகளையும் மிகவும் காட்டுமிராண்டித்தனமான வன்முறைகளுக்குள் ஆட்படுத்துகின்றனர். வரலாற்றுக் காரணங்களினால் இன்று இந்த பிரதேசத்திலும் உலகிலும், ஈரான்தான் ஷீஆ இஸ்லாத்தின் மத்தியத் தலமாக விளங்குகிறது. இதனால், சவூதிகளின் பகைமைக்கு மத்தியத் தலமாக விளங்கும் தகுதியையும் ஈரான்தான் பெற்றுக் கொள்கிறது. இரண்டாவது காரணம், ஈரானின் இஸலாமியப் புரட்சியைப் பின்னோக்கிச் செல்கின்றது. 1979ல் ஈரானியப் புரட்சி வெற்றி கண்டு, அமெரிக்காவின் ஆதரவுடன் ஆட்சியில் அமர்ந்திருந்த சர்வாதிகாரி முஹம்மத் றிஸா ஷா பஹ்லவி தூக்கி எறியப்பட்ட போது, அந்தக் குழப்பம் பிரதேசத்திலிருந்த எல்லா எதேச்சதிகார ஆட்சியாளர்களையும் பீதி கொள்ளச் செய்தது. ஏனெனில், அடக்குமுறை ஆட்சிகளுக்கெதிராக மற்ற மக்களும் கிளர்ந்தெழுவதற்கான உணாவுரீதியான தாக்கத்தை அந்தப் புரடசி வழங்கியது. இதனாற்றான், சவூதி ஆட்சியாளர்கள் உடனடி பதில் நடவடிக்கையாக 1980 ஆரம்பத்தில் பாரசீக வளைகுடா பாதுகாப்பு உடன்படிக்கையை உருவாக்கினார்கள், இதில் மற்ற முடியாட்சிகளான குவைத், கதர், பஹ்ரைன், ஐக்கிய அரபு அமீரகம், ஓமான் என்பனவும் இடம் பெற்றன.

உண்மையில், ஈரானுடனான சவூதி ஆட்சியாளர்களின் விரோதப் போக்கு, ஈரானியப் புரட்சியின் பின்னர் இன்னும் தீவிரமாகியே காணப்படுகிறது. செயல் மூலம் அதிகளவுக்கு நிரூபித்துக் காட்டப்பட்டிருக்கும் ஈரானின் ஜனநாயக தகுதிச் சான்றுகள், தனது எதேச்சதிகாரத்திற்கு உலை வைக்கும் ஓர் அச்சுறுத்தல் என சவூத் குடும்பம் காண்கிறது. பிரதேசத்தில் ஈரானின் அரசியல் செல்வாக்கு வளர்கின்ற அளவுக்கு தங்கள் இருப்பிற்கான ஓர் அச்சுறுத்தல் இருப்பதாக சவூதி ஆட்சியாளர்கள் பயப்படுகிறார்கள். மேற் குறிப்பிட்டவாறு, பிரதேசம் எங்குமே ஈரானின் கரம் காணப்படுகிறது எனச் சந்தேகப்படும் பிரிட்டனுக்கான சவூதித் தூதுவரின் கூற்று, (அதே நேரம் அவ்வாறில்லை யென்ற போதிலும்), ஈரான் பற்றி சவூத் குடும்பத்திற்கு இருக்கும் சித்தப் பிரமை கொண்ட மனோ பாவத்தை விளங்க வைக்கிறது. மூன்றாவது காரணம், பெருமளவுக்கு லௌகீகம் சம்பந்தப்பட்டதாகும். ஆயினும், ஒரு வேளை அதுதான் சவூத் குடும்பத்தின் இறுதியான அக்கறை யாயிருக்கலாம்: அஃது, எண்ணெய் மற்றும் வாயு பொருளாதாரம் பற்றிய அதிமுக்கிய பிரச்சினை. ஓபெக்கின் 12 உறுப்பினர் நாடுகளுள் முன்னணியில் இருக்கும் மூன்று உற்பத்தியாளர்கள் சவூதி அரேபியா, ஈராக், ஈரான் ஆகிய நாடுகளாகும். அதிக முக்கியத்துவம் வாய்;ந்தது, ஈரானின் பிரம்மாண்டமான வாயு வளம். இது இன்னும் ஒரு பொருளாதார வளமாகப் பயன்படுத்தப்படவில்லை. இயற்கை வாயு என்பது அடுத்த நூற்றாண்டில் எதிர்காலத்தைய எரிபொருளாக விளங்கப் போகிறது. குழாய்களின் மூலம் எடுத்துச் செல்வதற்கும், கிடைக்கும் சக்தி அளவைப் பொறுத்தவரையிலும், இது அதிக பயன்பாட்டுத் திறன் வாய்ந்த ஓர் ஆற்றல் வளமாகத் திகழ்கிறது. சுற்றுச் சூழலைப் பொறுத்தவரையிலும், இயற்கை வாயு எண்ணெய்யை விட மிகச் சுத்தமான எரிபொருள். இது எரிவதனால் மிக குறைந்த தீங்குகளைக் கொண்ட உபபொருட்களையே தருகிறது. பூமியின் மீது அறியப்பட்ட மிகப் பெரிய அளவிலான இயற்கை வாயு சேமிப்புத் தளம் பார்ஸ் படிநிலம்தான்ளூ இதனை ஈரான்தான் கைவசம் வைத்திருப்பதாகக் கணிக்கப்படுகிறது. வர்த்தகத் தடைகள் அகற்றப்படுவதன் வாயிலாக ஈரானின் சர்வதேச உறவுகள் இயல்புநிலையை அடையுமானால், அந்நாடு இப்போதை விடவும் வல்லமை மிக்க உலகளாவிய ஆற்றல் வள நாடாக மாறும் சாத்தியம் உண்டு. குறிப்பிடத்தக்க விதத்தில் வணிகத் திறனுடனான முக்கியத்துவம் என்னவென்றால், (ஓபெக் உறுப்பினர் அல்லாத) ரஷ்யாவுடன் ஈரானும் ஐரோப்பியச் சந்தைக்கான தேவைகளைப் பூர்த்தி செய்வதில் முதன்மை நிலையைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்ளும்.

அடக்கி வைக்கப்பட முடியாத மனிதத் தேவைகள் காரணமாக மாறாமல் எகிறும் இந்த முன்னேற்றத்தை, தனக்கான ஓர் அவசரமான அச்சுறுத்தலாக சவூத் குடும்பம் காண்கிறது. சவூதி அரேபியாவில் எண்ணெய் நிறையவே கிடைக்கின்றதுளூ இயற்கை வாயு மிகக் குறைவாகவே கிட்டுகின்றது. எனவே, ஆற்றல் உற்பத்தி நாடு என்ற வகையில், சவூதியின் வணிகத் துறை முக்கியத் தகைமை தேய்வுறுகின்ற அதே வேளை, ஈரான் அதன் விசாலமான இயற்கை வாயுப் படிவங்களின் காரணமாக மேலும் வளர்ச்சியடையும். .சவூதிக் கண்ணேட்டத்தின் பிரகாரம், எப்படியாவது ஈரான் தனது சாத்தியக் கூறான ஆற்றல் செல்வத்தை வளர்ச்சி அடையச் செய்ய முடியாமல், எல்லா வழிகளிலும் தடுத்து நிறுத்தப்பட வேண்டும். சவூதி அரேபியா கடன் வாங்கிய கால எல்லைக்குள் வாழ்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறது. அதன் எண்ணெய் சேமிப்பை முடிவில் ஈரானின் வாயுச் செல்வம் விஞ்சி விடும். ஏற்கனவே, சவூதி ஆட்சியாளர்கள் தங்கள் நாட்டில் இளைஞர்களின் எண்ணிக்கை அதிகரித்து வருவதாலும் அவர்கள் வேலை வாய்ப்பு அற்று இருப்பதாலும், எப்போது வெடிக்கும் என்று சொல்ல முடியாத ஜனத் தொகை 'டைம் பொம்'மின் மீது உட்கார்ந்து இருக்கிறார்கள். இது வரைக்கும், எண்ணெய் ஏற்றுமதியால் கிடைக்கும் நாட்டின் பொதுநிதிக் கொடுப்பனவுகளைக் கொண்டு அதனை ஈடு கட்டி வருகின்றார்கள். அதுவும் சொற்ப காலத்திற்குள் முற்றுப் பெற்று விடும். சவூதியின் எண்ணெய்ப் பொருளாதாரம் முற்றுப் பெற்று, ஈரான் ஒரு முன்னணி நாடாகத் திகழும் வகையில் இயற்கை வாயுக்களின் புதிய உலகளாவிய ஆற்றல் பொருளாதாரம் காரணமாக அது பின் தள்ளப்பட்டால், என்ன நடக்கும்;? பிரதேசத்தில் ஈரானின் அரசியல் செல்வாக்கு மேலும் அதிகரிக்கும்ளூ இறுகிய நிலையடைந்த சவூதி எதேச்சதிகாரிகளின் அதிகாரத்தின் மீதான பிடி தளர்வடைந்து விடும். அமெரிக்காவின் அரசியல் மற்றும் பொருளாதார தலைவிதி, சவூதியினதும் ஏனைய பாரசீக வளைகுடா அரசாட்சிகளினதும் பெட்ரோ டொலர் பொருளாதாரத்துடன் நெருக்கமாகப் பிணைந்துள்ளது. வங்குரோத்து (திவால்) ஆகி;ப் போன அமெரிக்க டொலர், ஏற்கனவே பெரும்பாலும் சவூதிகளும் அவர்களுடன் தொடர்புடைய ஷெய்க்களும் தங்கள் சரக்குகளை அமெரிக்க நாணயத்தில் விற்று, இலாபத்தை அமெரிக்க நிதிக் கருவூதிலத்திற்கு சேர்ப்பித்து டொலருக்கு முட்டுக் கொடுப்பதால், இதுவரை உயிராதரவு பெற்றிருக்கிறது.

ஈரான் அதன் முழுமையான வாய்ப்பு நிலைக்கு முன்னேறி, எண்ணெய்யிலும் மிக முக்கியமாக இயற்கை வாயுவிலும் வர்த்தகம் மேற் கொண்டால், அது பெரும்பாலும் ஐரோப்பிய யூரோ, ரஷ்ய ரூபிள், ஜப்பானிய யென் அல்லது சீன யுஆன் நாணயங்களிற்றான் இருக்கும். அப்படியானால், அது அமெரிக்க டொலருக்கு பேரழிவு நாளாக அமையும்ளூ நீண்ட நாட்களாக அது வீழ்ந்து விடும் என எதிர்பார்த்தபடி நிச்சயமாக வீழ்ந்தே போகும். முடிவில், ஈரானின் தளைகள் அகற்றப்பட்ட அரசியல் மற்றும் பொருளாதாரச் சுதந்திரத்திற்கான சவூத் குடும்பத்தின் ஆழமான கடும் எதிர்ப்பில் வொஷிங்டனும் பங்கு கொள்கிறது. அது மறைபொருளான வஹ்ஹாபி காரணங்களுக்கல்லாமல், அதிமுக்கிய பொருளாதார சுய பாதுகாப்பிற்காகத் தான். எனவேதான், இந்த வாரம் ஃபிரெஞ்ச் வியாபார தூதுகுழு வொன்று கூட்டு வாணிபத்திற்கான சாத்தியக்கூறுகளை ஆராய ஈரானுக்கு விஜயம் செய்த போது, வொஷிங்டனிடமிருந்து பலத்த கண்டனம் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டது. கலவரப்பட்டு போன அமெரி;க்காவின் உள்துறை செயலாளர் ஜோன் கெர்ரி, ஃபிரான்ஸின் உள்நாட்டமைச்சர் லோரன்ட் ஃபெபியஸைத் தொலைபேசியில் தொடர்பு கொண்டு, தூதுகுழுவிற்கான தனது எதிர்ப்பைத் தெரிவித்ததாக அறிவிக்கப்படுகிறது. டொலரை வீசியெறிந்து விட்டு, ஈரான் ஐரோப்பியாவுடன் சுயாதீனமான வர்த்தகம் மேற் கொள்வதைக் காண அமெரிக்கா கண்டிப்பாக விரும்பவில்லை. சவூதிச் சர்வாதிகாரிகளுக்கும் அவர்களின் அமெரிக்கப் போஷகர்களுக்கும், ஈரான் ஒரு பொருளாதாரச் சக்தியாகப் பரிணமிப்பதை அனுமதிக்க இயலாது. அது நேரடியாக சவூத் குடும்பத்தை அரசியல்ரீதியாகவும், பொருளாதாரரீதியாகவும் அச்சுறுத்துவதாக அமைந்துவிடும்ளூ அது மறுபுறத்தில் வொஷிங்டனை அதன் அடித்தளத்திலேயே ஆட்டங் காண வைத்து விடும். மேற் சொன்ன எல்லா காரணங்களுக்காகவும், சவூதி ஆட்சியாளர்கள் அனைத்திற்கும் மேலாக ஈரானை அஞ்சுகிறார்கள். ஸியனிஸ இஸ்ரவேல் அரசையும், கிழக்கு அல் குத்ஸில் (ஜெருசலத்தில்) அது இஸ்லாமிய புனித ஸ்தலங்களைப் பாழ்படுத்தி நாசம் விளைவிப்பதையும் எதிர்த்து, தங்களை இஸ்லாத்தின் பாதுகாவலர்களென சுயமே பிரகடனப்படுத்திக் கொள்ளும் அல் சவூத் குடும்பத்தினர் ஒரு வார்த்தைதானும் பேசியது கிடையாது. அவர்களுக்கிருக்கும் பயமும் விரோதமும், ஈரானுக்கும், அதன் நேச நாடுகளான சிரியா, பஹ்ரைன் மக்கள், ஈராக், எமன், வேறு பலவற்றுக்கும் எதிராக மறைமுகமான யுத்தமொன்றைத் தொடுப்பதற்குத் தான் முனைப்பு கொள்ள வைத்திருக்கிறது. ஈரானை எந்த விதத்திலாவது அடக்கி வைக்க வேண்டும், தடுத்து நிறுத்த வேண்டும், தடைகளை ஏற்படுத்தி முன்னேறாமற் செய்ய வேண்டும் என அவர்கள் விரும்புகின்றனர்ளூ வொஷிங்டனும் புவியியல் அரசியல் தேவைகளுக்காக சவூதியின் பக்கம் சாய்ந்துள்ளது.

ஆயினும், எதிர்வரும் தசாப்தங்களில், உலகளாவிய ஆற்றல் பொருட்களின் தேவைக்கான கட்டமைப்புத் தகடுகள் கடுமையாக நகர்கின்ற போது, சவூதி ஆட்சியாளர்களும் அவர்களின் அமெரிக்கப் போஷகர்களும், தோல்வியை அரவணைக்கும் பக்கத்திற்றான் தாங்கள் இருப்பதைக் காண்பார்கள். சொல்லப் போனால், மிகச் சரியான வழியில் இது அல் சவூதினதும் அமெரிக்க சாம்ராஜ்யத்தின் இறுதி முடிவுக்கு வழி கோலும். அதன் காரணமாக, விரோதமும் தீர்ந்து போகும். பி;ன்குறிப்பு: திரு.கே எனது கட்டுரை பற்;றி ஒரு விமர்சனம் தந்துள்ளார். அதில் அவர், நான் உருவரை செய்துள்ள மூன்று காரணங்களுக்கு மேலதிகமாக நான்காவது அம்சமொன்றை (அதாவது, சட்டப்படியான நிலை குறித்து) கருத்துத் தெரிவித்துள்ளார். அவர் மேலும் கூறுகிறார்: 'ஈரானிய அரசு சட்டப்படியானதாகும்ளூ அதேநேரம், அல் சவூத் சட்டப்படியானதல்ல. இஸலாமியக் குடியரசு ஒரு மக்கள் புரட்சியின் மூலம் அமைந்ததுளூ அங்கு உண்மையான தேர்தல்;கள் நடத்தப்படுகின்றனளூ அது மனிதாபிமான நிலைப்பாடொன்றைக் கொண்டிருக்கிறதுளூ அங்கு உண்மைபூர்வமான இஸ்லாமிய அறிவுப் புலமை காண்ப்படுகிறது. மறுபக்கத்தில், அல் சவூத், பிரிட்டிஷாரின் துணையுடன் பலாத்காரமாக தாம் ஆளும் பகுதியைத் தம் கட்டுப்பாட்டிற்குள் கொண்டு வந்ததுளூ அது முற்றிலும் எதேச்சதிகாரமானதுளூ மனித சமுதாயத்தின் தீது வெறுப்பை உமிழ்கிறதுளூ மனிதர்களுக்கு தீங்கு இழைக்கின்றதுளூ அது போலி வஹ்ஹாபி 'அறிஞர்களை' தன் வசம் வைத்திருக்கிறது - இவர்கள் ஒரு விஷக் கிருமியை விட முஸ்லி;ம் உம்மத்திற்கு ஆபத்தானவர்கள். ஈரானின் வெற்றியை காண்பதற்கும், எல்லா விதத்திலுமான ஸியனனிஸப் பிரச்சாரங்களுக்கு மத்தியிலும் ஈரான் பெற்று வரும் மதிப்பு மரியாதையை உணர்ந்து கொள்வதற்கும், சட்ட விரோத அல் சவூத் அரசு தயாராயில்லை.' மேலதிகக் கருத்திற்காக நான் அவருக்கு நன்றி மொழிகிறேன். அல் சவூத் ஏன் ஈரானை இத்துணை ஆழமாக மறுதலிக்கிறது, சகித்துக் கொள்ள முடியாமலிருக்கிறது என்பதற்கு தகுந்த வாதங்களை முன் வைத்து அழகாகச் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார். அவர் கூறிய மாதிரி, சவூதி ஆட்சியின் குறைகளையும், தலை கீழான தனமையையும், அசிங்கத்தையும் காட்டும் கண்ணாடியாக ஈரான் அதன் முன்னால் நின்று கொண்டிருக்கிறது. கட்டுரையாளர் ஃபினியன் குன்னிங்காம் (1963ல் பிறந்தவர்) சர்வதேச விவகாரங்களைப் பற்றி விரிவாக எழுதியுள்ளார். இவரது கட்டுரைகள் பல மொழிகளிலும் வெளிவந்துள்ளன. இவர் விவசாய ரசாயனத் துறையில் முதுமானி பட்டதாரி. இவர் பத்திரிகைத் துறையில் பிரவேசிக்கும் முன்னர், இங்கிலாந்து கேம்பிரிட்ஜில் ரசாயனத்திற்கான அரச சங்கத்தின் விஞ்ஞான இதழ் ஆசிரியராக பணி புரிந்துள்ளார். மேலும், சுமார் 20 ஆண்டுகள் பெரும் செய்தி ஊடக நிறுவனங்களில் ஓர் ஆசிரியராகவும் எழுத்தாளராகவும் கடமை யாற்றியுள்ளார். அயர்லாந்து பெல்ஃபாஸ்டைச் சேர்ந்த இவர், தற்போது கிழக்கு ஆஃபிரிக்காவில் ஸ்தாபனம் சாராத ஒரு பத்திரிகை யளராக நிலைபெற்றுள்ளார். அங்கிருந்து கொண்டு, இவர் பஹ்ரைனையும் அரபு வசந்தத்தையும் பற்றி, தான் பாரசீக வளைகுடாவில் ஒரு செய்தி நிருபராக இருக்கும் போது கண்ணால் கண்ட அனுபவங்களை அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்டு ஒரு நூலை எழுதி வருகிறார். பஹ்ரைன் முடியாட்சியின் ராணுவம் இழைத்த மனித உரிமை மீறல்களை விமர்சித்து எழுதியதால், இவர் 2011 ஜுpனில் பஹ்ரைனிலிருந்து வெளியேற்றப்பட்டார். இவர் பிரஸ் டீவீயில் சர்வதேச அரசியல் பற்றி இப்போது பத்தி எழுதுகிறார். (தமிழில்: இப்னு புகாரி)

Saudi-Zionist alliance against Muslims exposed

by Tahir Mustafa January, 2014 There is much in common between the Saudis and the zionists. Both are illegal regimes occupying holy lands. Their secret alliance has now been exposed. Muslims must take appropriate steps to confront this phenomenon. Two illegitimate usurper regimes, one led by Zionists in the Holy Land and the other by Najdi Bedouins in the Arabian Peninsula, have been forced by rapidly changing developments to expose their long-maintained secret ties. Not only Muslims but also many fair-minded non-Muslims recognize the illegitimacy of the Zionist pariah regime in the Holy Land. The Saudis, however, have been able to conceal their true identity by claiming to be “defenders of the Haramayn,” the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. If so, they have a strange way of claiming this on the one hand while being totally subservient to US imperialism and Zionist racism on the other. It was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who several months ago mentioned the Zionist-Saudi alliance in the context of confronting Islamic Iran. He had talked of the Arabian regimes but given Saudi Arabia’s size and importance, it was clear, he was talking about the regime in Riyadh. Egypt, the other major player on the Arabian scene, had long embraced the Zionist regime publicly.

Two policy failures have forced the secret relationship between Riyadh and Tel Aviv to come out into the open: Saudi-Israeli policy in Syria and their policy of trying to isolate Islamic Iran in the region. Both have unraveled as a result of developments beyond their control. The Saudis in particular are not only furious at their longtime patron, the US, but also in panic because Washington has established contacts, however tenuous, with Islamic Iran. Among a series of contacts between the Saudis and the Zionists, the latest was a brief encounter between Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal and former Israeli ambassador to Washington (1992– 1996), Itamar Rabinovich, in Monaco in mid-December. According to an Israeli radio report, Turki publicly shook hands with Rabinovich at the World Policy Conference. Their contacts have progressed so far that Rabinovich took the unusual step of inviting Turki to deliver a speech before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. Turki reportedly declined the offer — what would he say to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine? — but the fact that the offer was made indicates their relations are deep and have been established for a long time. The offer also shows the degree of trust they have in each other. Rabinovich is an expert on Syria policy and clearly he was planning to engage the former Saudi spy master more deeply although the current Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan is more deeply involved with the Zionists. Both regimes have been critical of US policy on Syria and Washington’s rapprochement with Tehran. The Zionists have been blunt to the point of being obnoxious, as is their wont. The Saudis have been more diplomatic with their American masters in public but no less vehement in their denunciation of America opening up to Tehran.

The Saudis sense a perceptible shift in US policy in the region. President Barack Obama made this known when he announced a policy shift toward the Asia-Pacific region to confront the rising power of China. The Saudis clearly see this as indication of their reduced importance to the US. Further, Obama shocked the Saudis when he refused to launch a military strike against Syria last summer in what is now known as a carefully orchestrated plan by Bandar. This was a personal slap in the face of Bandar and public humiliation of Saudi Arabia that was long believed to be America’s indispensable ally in the region. Soon thereafter, Bandar announced that henceforth, the kingdom would go it alone in Syria without coordinating its policy with Washington. The result has been the creation of what is called the “Islamic Front,” a grouping of six or seven different rebel factions that has taken on the Western-backed, Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to several reports, the Saudi-backed and financed Islamic Front fighters have overrun FSA positions and taken over their weapon stockpiles from depots near the Turkish border. The FSA chief Salim Idriss is also reportedly on the run. The Saudis are determined to sabotage the Geneva II conference on Syria that is scheduled for January 22. Saudi-backed groups are putting forward conditions for participation that would almost certainly wreck the chances of holding a conference. The Syrian government has also said it will only attend if there are no pre-conditions. This is what Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League envoy had announced when the date of Geneva II was made public in November.

Syrian government forces have been making steady progress recently as rebel groups fight each other. This has weakened them considerably. Further, their barbaric practices have repelled most Syrians. They do not want the Bashar al-Asad regime to be replaced by people indulging in beheadings and cannibalism. Such behavior is no bar to the Saudis; they want al-Asad removed regardless of the price the Syrian people may have to pay. Already millions of Syrians are refugees and the UN has asked for $6.5 billion in emergency aid otherwise these people will face virtual starvation. Conditions in refugee camps whether in Lebanon or Jordan are appalling. Recent snowstorms, unusual for the region, have added to the refugees’ woes. The plight of refugees, however, is not something that bothers the Saudis. Instead, they welcome it because it garners more sympathy for the Syrian people, which Saudi Arabia can blame on the Asad regime. It is interesting to note that even US Secretary of State John Kerry has announced that he might meet Syrian rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. Did the US not invade Afghanistan to get rid of al-Qaeda or was that just a ruse to invade the mountainous but mineral-rich country? The mastermind of the Saudi-Zionist alliance is Bandar. During his long tenure as Saudi ambassador to Washington, he cultivated close links with the neocons, especially the Zionists. His lavish parties were well known for booze and scantily clad women (one wonders what the Saudi ministry responsible for “enjoining good and preventing vice” would say about such conduct or is it permissible if one of the Saudi royals indulges in it?). Soon after it became clear that the US would not attack Syria as the Saudis had hoped and planned for, Bandar went to the Jordanian port city of Aqaba to meet director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Tamir Pardo. The aim was to coordinate Saudi-Israeli policy on Syria and Iran. This information was leaked by a source within the Saudi embassy in Amman, Jordan, indicating that within the Saudi ruling circles, there are strong differences. It needs recalling that when the plot to stage the uprising in Syria was hatched in a Paris café in February 2011, Bandar attended it together with the US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and US Undersecretary of State Jeffrey Feltman. Naturally a number of Syrian opposition figures were also involved. Both Shapiro and Feltman are Zionists and staunchly pro-Israel. The received wisdom at the time was that the Asad regime would collapse within a matter of months if not weeks. Bandar has been making other moves as well, since the US refusal to attack Syria last August. He reportedly met with French President Francois Hollande when he visited Tel Aviv to meet Netanyahu. According to the Lebanese website, al-Hadath, Bandar proposed common policy on Iran’s nuclear policy to try and sabotage any deal with the US. Further, Bandar proposed the strengthening of Saudi defences (read, the Saudis would purchase more weapons, this time from France). This must have been music to Hollande’s ears since the French economy is struggling and any cash inflow would be welcome. The Saudis’ open embrace of Zionists reflects their desperation. It should, however, alert all sincere Muslims to the true nature of this regime. The question that Muslims must ask is, whether the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah can be left in the hands of Zionist allied Saudis. If Masjid al-Aqsa is under the direct occupation of the Zionists, Makkah and Madinah are under the indirect occupation of the Zionists since the Saudis are their close allies. How long will Muslims tolerate this state of affairs to continue?

The Prophet (saws) and Muslim unity

by Zafar Bangash January, 2014

Merely verbalizing love for the noble Messenger (saws) will not bring glory to Muslims; emulating his noble example in practice will. A pre-requisite is to understand the Sirah in its totality, not through anecdotal episodes. There is no Muslim who does not have deep love for the noble Messenger (pbuh). This is Allah’s (swt) command to His faithful servants articulated in the majestic Qur’an. Muslims express their love for the Prophet (pbuh) in many different ways based on their level of understanding and commitment. Closely related to this is the aspect of unity among Muslims. Again, this is spelled out very clearly in the noble Book. Muslims are referred to as one Ummah (21:92; 23:52) with all its varied and important implications. In a set of ayat, the Qur’an says, O you have become firmly committed [to Allah]! Be on guard [against Allah’s corrective justice] as is due to Him, and do not pass on before you have surrendered yourselves to Him [become Muslims]. And hold fast, all together, to the bond with Allah, and do not separate from one another. And remember the blessings that Allah has bestowed upon you; how, when you were enemies, He brought your hearts together, so that through His blessings, you became brethren… (3:102–103).

Allah (swt) is addressing the committed Muslims (the category referred to as al-ladhina amanu in the Qur’an) telling them “…to hold fast to the bond of Allah and do not separate from one another.” He is also reminding them that previously, they were enemies but Allah (swt) brought their hearts together. Allah (swt) does not say He made them all of one ethnicity or language. Instead, He says their hearts were reconciled and brought together. This was done through the exemplary personality of the noble Messenger (pbuh) who was sent as a mercy to all the worlds (21:107). It was his mercy and grace that brought the warring tribes of Madinah together. His was a gentle personality that preferred compassion and justice instead of retribution. This was demonstrated at the time of Makkah’s liberation when all his former enemies and tormentors stood trembling before him. He could have ordered their execution but he chose instead to forgive them. He administered justice with compassion, and compassion with justice to all and sundry. His noble personality combined in it all the elements in perfect balance. He was chosen by Allah (swt) to be the last and final messenger to deliver His final message to all humanity. As a result of his exemplary character, he converted the savage tribes of the Arabian Peninsula into the best of human beings in a short span of 23 years. Muslims truly became one Ummah above tribe or class distinctions under the leadership of the noble Messenger (pbuh). His success has forced even non-Muslims (Alan Hart, for instance) to admit that he was the most brilliant leader humankind has ever known.

But we must ask: what has happened to the two billion Muslims today that hardly register on the global scene? Muslims are so badly divided along national, tribal and sectarian lines that the concept of the Ummah appears non-existent. Where is the Muhammadi Ummah, raised as the “best community” that is supposed to be a model for all humanity (3:110)? True, there is much external interference in Muslim societies but that is to be expected. The Muslims’ enemies are not there to foster unity among them but we must examine the Muslims’ own conduct. Why have some Muslims embarked on campaigns of denunciation of fellow Muslims as kafirs and even resorted to wholesale slaughter? Does declaring everyone we disagree with a kafir serve the interests of Islam and Muslims? Did the noble Messenger (pbuh) ever indulge in such behavior? Possibly, those involved in the indiscriminate killing of Muslims and non-Muslims through car and suicide bombings as well as gruesome beheadings also read the Qur’an and may even insist they love the noble Messenger (pbuh). On what basis do they justify their behavior then? Suppose these groups were to kill all the people they disagree with; would that establish justice and peace in society? Those Muslims that claim to be faithful to their social contract with Allah (swt) — that is, have made a faith-commitment to Him — must evaluate their behavior in light of the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). Allah (swt) reminds us of our base social reality in His glorious Book: we were divided and disunited, and our psychological makeup was one of enmity and hostility yet through His ni‘mah (favor and prerogative), we became brothers and friends (3:103; 49:10). The attitude of some contemporary Muslims has reverted back to that of pre-Islamic peoples where dog-eat-dog attitude and the law of the jungle prevailed. Muslims will have to make the transition from a fragmented understanding of the Qur’an, and the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh) to the consolidated meanings with all its socio-political implications to assume their rightful place in the world as the “best community.” Racism, tribalism and sectarianism have no place in this higher calling. No people in history have ever achieved progress through wholesale slaughter. True, they may have achieved temporary success but were quickly overpowered by others with more refined values. In these troubled times, only Muslims can provide the kind of leadership the errant humanity needs. That, however, will only be realized if Muslims are true to their din as explained in the noble Book and as exemplified by the noble Messenger (pbuh).

The phenomenon and politics of sectarianism

by Zafar Bangash January, 2014 Sectarianism is projected in some quarters as the greatest challenge facing Muslims when the vast majority of Muslims want unity in the Ummah. Who is stoking the flames of sectarianism? Sectarian discourse and sectarian induced violence seem to have become major problems facing Muslims today. There are killings in the name of one sect or another in different parts of the Muslim world. Muslims are told that sectarianism is a historical problem that cannot be overcome. Such assertions fly in the face of empirical evidence that posits a completely opposite proposition: most Muslims support unity. For instance, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that two thirds of Muslims worldwide want to “unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate [khilafah].” While framed in theological terms, sectarianism is essentially a political weapon used by certain vested interests to advance their narrow agenda since they lack a legitimate basis to justify their position or continued hold on power. Like nationalism, sectarianism is also used to whip up mass hysteria. Without justifying it, there are at least some positive aspects to nationalism. For instance, people in one geographical area, ie a country, can be mobilized to stand up against a rival country in the name of patriotism and protecting the “national interest.” Nationalism’s limitation is that by its very nature it is confined to people living in a certain geographical area. Thus, on the basis of nationalism alone, Pakistanis for instance cannot have the motivation to help the people of Palestine or any other place where there is human suffering. The same applies to other situations. The Afghans cannot appeal to Muslims elsewhere to help them on the basis of nationalism. But, this can be overcome if the discourse is framed in Islamic terms. Thus, the people of Pakistan can be motivated to help their fellow Muslims in Palestine or Chechnya in the name of Islam. The Pakistanis may not necessarily go there physically — although some have done so — but their sympathies can be aroused and financial donations solicited to help alleviate the suffering of oppressed Muslims in other parts of the world. The above examples have nothing to do with sectarianism. The people of Palestine and Chechnya follow different schools of thought from those in Pakistan. The common bond between them is Islam. Problems arise when some people — usually rulers of some countries that lack legitimacy — resort to sectarian discourse whose purpose is to create hatred for a particular group or party. Raw sectarianism is often camouflaged by using Islamic terminology. To understand this better, let us look at Syria. For nearly three years, a war has raged there that can be traced directly to outside forces, primarily the Zionists, imperialists and the Saudis. This can be narrowed further; the imperialists have pulled back somewhat because they have realized that what may replace the current regime led by Bashar al-Asad may turn out to be even worse if al-Qaeda-linked takfiris grab power. The Saudi-Zionist alliance, however, is hell-bent on creating instability and continuing the violence. The Zionists can hardly appeal to Muslims by claiming to be friends of the Syrian people. No Muslim with even a limited understanding of the nature of Zionism and its oppression and persecution of the Palestinians will accept the Zionists as friends and allies. Enter the Saudis. While they lack legitimacy, they have often used their alleged support for “Muslim” causes elsewhere to polish their ugly image. In the 1980s, they sent thousands of Arabians to fight in Afghanistan. It was not to help the Afghans but to get rid of their own troublesome youth, demanding fundamental rights that were threatening regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Many Arabian fighters returned to create problems for regimes in their home countries once the Afghan war ended. The Saudis are playing an even more sinister game in Syria. They can hardly claim to be helping the Syrian people to gain their legitimate rights when the Saudis suppress their own people and do not allow women to even drive cars (in Syria, women are allowed to fly planes!). Nor can the Saudis claim that they are supporting the “Sunni majority” in Syria when the Saudi rulers did not support the overwhelmingly Sunni population of Egypt after the Egyptian military overthrew a legitimately elected government last July. Instead, the Saudi regime openly backs the military coup in Egypt. This has left them dangerously exposed in their alleged claim of supporting “Sunni” Muslims. In Syria, however, the Saudis have played the sectarian card effectively. Accusing the Bashar al-Asad regime of being ‘Alawi (the ‘Alawis are an offshoot of Shi‘ism), the Saudis and their tribal allies in the region have whipped up sectarian tensions and created massive problems in the Ummah. The regime in Syria is neither ‘Alawi, nor Shi‘i or Sunni. It is not a religious-based government at all. There are Sunni ministers in the government as there are Shi‘i ministers. There are Christians and yes, there are ‘Alawis in the cabinet but none of them is committed to any particular sect. There are men as well as women in government but they are all secularists. Their overriding loyalty is to the secularist nationalist Ba‘th party system and their position in it. The Saudis are using sectarianism in Syria to whip up hatred against the regime, which it wants to overthrow. This is part of its pro-Zionist policy and is also meant to secure an extension of its own existence that looks increasingly shaky given current trends in the region as well as internal developments in the kingdom. There is much discontent in the kingdom with nearly 30,000 political prisoners languishing in horrible conditions in various prisons. The Syrian crisis, however, is a recent phenomenon. The Saudis have used sectarianism as a tool in such places as Pakistan and Lebanon for many years and more recently in Iraq with deadly consequences. In the backdrop of Saudi-induced sectarianism is fear of the rise of Islamic Iran on the political landscape as a major player. True, Iran is a predominantly Shi‘i country but it has not launched a sectarian crusade to brand non-Shi‘i Muslims as kafirs. Nor has Iran encouraged the killing of Sunnis anywhere. In fact, Iran has tried hard, within its means, to create understanding among Muslims of different schools of thought. The Tehran-based Majma‘ al-Taqrib bayna al-Madhahib al-Islamiyyah regularly brings together scholars of different schools of thought to promote Muslim unity. It can be argued that this has not eliminated sectarian-induced conflicts but it is not for lack of trying. It is a lot easier to create fitnah (sedition) than to establish peace and harmony. It would be appropriate to reflect on some areas of the Muslim world where sectarian tensions have been running high. Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria immediately come to mind. Add to that Bahrain and we can begin to form a picture that these are countries with populations predominantly of one sect but also with a sizeable population of the other. Thus, while Pakistan is predominantly Sunni, there is also a sizeable Shi‘i population there. In Lebanon’s complex confessional pot pouri, the Shi‘is are more than the Sunnis but with a significant Christian population, the political landscape is more complicated. In Iraq the Shi‘is constitute an absolute majority who were denied basic rights for decades. Unfortunately, since the rise to power of a Shi‘i dominated government, peace has not been restored. Bahrain is overwhelmingly Shi‘i ruled by a tiny minority “Sunni” family clique. But how does one explain the lack of sectarianism in places like Turkey, Azerbaijan or Kuwait? Turkey has a sizeable Alevi (‘Alawi) and Shi‘i population (about 15%), Azerbaijan is an overwhelmingly Shi‘i country while Kuwait has a sizeable Shi‘i (about 20%) population. Kuwait’s example is instructive because it follows the same Wahhabi ideology that the Saudis subscribe to from whence it emerged in the 18th century yet there has been no sectarian conflict in Kuwait. We also have the curious phenomenon of sectarian tensions arising in places like Malaysia, Indonesia and South Africa. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world almost all of them Sunnis following the Shafi‘i school of thought. There are only a few thousand Shi‘is there at best. The same applies to Malaysia and South Africa. The question is: why has sectarianism reared its ugly head in these places? The same question may be asked about Egypt where days before his ouster from power, President Mohamed Mursi had indulged in crude sectarian rhetoric. Some Shi‘is were publicly lynched when the Shi‘is in Egypt are no more than a few hundred thousand in a population of some 80 million. It needs recalling that Egypt was at one time a predominantly Shi‘i country under the Fatimids and al-Azhar University was established by them more than 1,000 years ago! In Indonesia, Malaysia and South Africa, Saudi agents have deliberately created a sectarian crisis as part of their attempt to keep the Ummah divided. After all, neither place has a significant Shi‘i population and in South Africa, the total Muslim population itself is miniscule compared to the country’s overall population. There are, however, some maulanas that have close links with the Saudis through such Saudi front organizations as the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) whose representatives frequently visit South Africa disbursing largesse (the US has declared WAMY a terrorist organization). In both Indonesia and Malaysia, the regimes are behind the anti-Shi‘i campaign although there are also strong voices raised against stoking sectarianism. Leaders of the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) as well as many leading academics and intellectuals have spoken out forcefully against sectarianism and warned against the negative consequences of this campaign. It is interesting to note that there was no sectarianism in Pakistan until the early-1980s when the Islamic Revolution in Iran succeeded. This was a deliberate policy pursued by the Americans, British and Israelis as well as some segments of the Pakistani establishment. Their aim was to prevent the influence of the Islamic Revolution from spreading into Pakistan. Given strong cultural and linguistic affinities between the two countries, the latter was a natural arena for accepting the revolutionary fervor sweeping Iran. Yet under a carefully crafted policy, promoted by some segments of the Pakistani establishment, anti-Shi‘i sentiments were allowed to flourish. Unfortunately the Pakistani Shi‘is also played a negative role and inadvertently helped the “Sunni” extremists. Those Shi‘i scholars (like Syed Arif Hussaini Shaheed), who were striving to create understanding between the two communities, were eliminated. This not only exacerbated Shi‘i-Sunni tensions but also allowed space for more narrow-minded sectarian Shi‘is to emerge. When the struggle against the Soviets was raging in Afghanistan, extremist “Sunni” outfits were promoted in both countries to confront the Red Army. This, however, could not remain confined to Afghanistan since much of the ideological indoctrination was coming from Saudi Arabia via Pakistan. Helped by Saudi funds, many madrasahs sprang up in Pakistan and in its tribal belt. The students who emerged from these madrasahs carried the narrow-minded strain of Wahhabi sectarian ideology that denounces every non-Wahhabi a kafir. Unfortunately some otherwise respectable scholars also lent their weight and prestige to this divisive campaign. The late maulana Abu al-Hassan Nadvi (d. 1999) was one of them as was his close associate Manzoor Ahmen Naumani. Both scholars succumbed to the temptation of petrodollars and despite their learning, embarked on a sectarian crusade that has caused immense damage to the Ummah. While the two Indian maulanas waxed eloquent against Shi‘ism, they never mustered the courage to say a word against Hindu fascism or the mistreatment of Muslims in India that continues to this day. In a telling episode in the early-1990s, Indian security forces raided Nadvi’s madrasah in Luckhnow following a tip that Kashmiri mujahideen were sheltering there. The security forces broke down dormitory doors, smashed furniture and beat up many of the tullab (students). No Kashmiri was found there. The Indian government offered a mere 200,000 rupees (approx. $4,000) as compensation and the maulana kept mum despite some Muslim leaders in India urging him to take a stronger stand against such acts of state terrorism. Disturbing as the rise of sectarianism is, there are important voices being raised against it. Last August, a conference in Kuala Lumpur attended by academics and scholars from different schools of thought presented persuasive arguments against sectarianism. Similar efforts elsewhere, for instance in Turkey in November and early last month in Pakistan, point to the fact that ‘ulama and Islamic activists are taking steps to confront the menace. In Turkey, an 11-point agenda was agreed upon while in Pakistan a nine-point agenda was unanimously agreed by ‘ulama that represented major sects — Deobandi, Barelvi, Ahl-e Hadith and Jafari schools of thoughts. The Pakistani meeting was convened under the auspices of the Punjab Auqaf and Religious Affairs ministry in Lahore. Important as these steps are, more persistent efforts are needed to isolate and thus weed out the extremists that constitute a tiny minority but grab huge publicity because of their violent acts. The government of Pakistan has a major responsibility in confronting the menace of sectarianism otherwise it will tear the fabric of society apart in which there will be no winners.