Thirty-three years of valiant resistance and perseverance of the Islamic Republic

Abu Dharr


Thirty-three years ago this month the world was witness to the fall of a Shah and the rise of an Imam. The Shah was Persian by culture, American by loyalty. The Imam was Persian by culture, Islamic by persuasion. The Muslims of the world along with the imperialist victims of the world rejoiced at this turn of events. Ever since that time Uncle Sam and his nephew Cohen have been playing their cards against the Imam and the Revolution. How valiant and patient the sons and daughters of that revolution have been throughout all these years! Had all the forms of warfare and conspiracies and out-and-out lies been leveled against another revolution, it would have been on its knees by now.

Today, the Islamic Revolution in Iran is standing tall. It has developed its skills, advanced its technology, and extended its infrastructure to a degree that has finally brought the imperialist-Zionist club of nations out into the open in their war preparations, which are being set in motion as this article goes to press. The spreadsheets in the US and Europe inform us that there are 15,000 US combat ready troops in a slaphappy Kuwait: at least two army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit. The Pentagon has two aircraft carriers prowling regional waters: the USS Carl Vinson and the USS John Stennis. There are reports of a third aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln steaming toward the Persian Gulf, as of this writing. These and their strike groups are sharking their routes between their home base and the Persian Gulf.

The hot line between Washington and Tel Aviv is sizzling with blood-and-guts coordination plans. The word is out that the twin cities of Washington and Tel Aviv are gunning for Iran. Not to be left out of this imperialist-Islamic buildup of tension and threats the Qatari collaborator Sheikh Hamad Aal Thani (the Qatari Foreign Minister) and the Saudi sycophant Sa‘ud al-Faisal (the Saudi Foreign Minister) were in Washington last month listening to President Barack Obama and probably signing on to any future outbreak of hostilities. Their conversations remain a tightly guarded secret. Thanks to you, Islamic Iran, for showing the rest of the world who these toady officials in Arabia are and to whom they owe their allegiance.

Then we had, during this past month, the British Prime Minister David Cameron flying into Arabia to sell handsome amounts of weapons to the scared-to-death Saudi rulers. He held talks with King ‘Abdullah and his Crown Prince Nayef. This war scenario which comes to us from Washington and Tel Aviv is exactly what the military-industrial-banking complex needs. Thank you, Islamic Iran, for blowing the Islamic camouflage off the Anglo-American sheikhs in Arabia — and beyond.

You, the sons and daughters of the Revolution, with your dedication and tireless efforts have built your own state. You are showing the rest of us the way. It is your devotion to Islam as it was meant to be that is causing cracks in the Yahudi-Yankee edifice. Not all is rosy and peachy between the Israeli Knesset and the US Congress. The US budget has been bleeding for the better part of the past 33 years of the Islamic Revolution. The US Congress realizes that the America now owes more than it makes in a given year. And the hatchet men are out to chop off financial appropriations that are non-essential: there are plans for sequestration. This means that dollar-addicted Israel will have to be put on notice that it cannot expect to receive the generous amounts of cash infusions that it is addicted to. And this is resulting in a flare-up of behind-the-scenes tension between an America that no longer can supply and an Israel that needs more and more.

Little does the public eye notice that Israel is leading the charge, and the US is being pricked into combat position, a situation it is not ready for after its battles in Afghanistan and Iraq. The relationship between Yahudi-firsters in Washington and the Bible supremacists in Tel Aviv must be on thin ice when we hear that both sides called off “Austere Challenge 12” which was supposed to have been the largest war exercise ever between the US and Israel. Thank you, the persevering sons and daughters of the Islamic Revolution, for having shown us (those of us whose eyes are open) how flimsy and vulnerable the relationship is between the chicken hawks in Washington and their roosters in Tel Aviv.


People without prejudice — Muslims and non-Muslims — have watched your revolution grow from infancy into manhood. These people saw how the imperialists and Zionists targeted, via their agents, the scholars of Islam Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahhari, Ayatullah Seyyed Muhammad Hussein Beheshti, Ayatullah Ashraf Isfahani, Ayatullah Dastagheib, and many other great scholars of Islam were assassinated by “Persian” fifth-columnists. Yet the Revolution survived. Next, Iran’s soldiers became the target of the same enemies. And after eight long and bloody years and after hundreds of thousands of martyrs the Islamic Revolution survived. Now, the same enemies are targeting the scientists. You, the sons and daughters in your principled defense of the Islamic Revolution, exposed the cowards and showed us how they fight. When they lose at the battlefield they turn to assassinations and random killings.

The historical Islamic Revolution demonstrated to us the lengths to which the Zionists and imperialists will go to “frame” and “entrap” Muslims to justify a worldwide war that they say may continue for over a hundred years (a Freudian slip of the tongue that the Islamic Revolution may be around for a hundred years or more). You, the class of shuhada’, enlightened us as to the depth of hate and the visceral hatred that lurks in the bosoms of Euro-American-Israeli officials who cannot tolerate an independent Islamic state acquiring peaceful nuclear technology, when they themselves say that it is the right of all states.

You, the leaders of the Islamic State under the guidance of Imams Khomeini and Khamane’i, have stimulated our thoughts as to the real nature of our enemies and the enemies of oppressed people in the world. You educated us in these 33 years about enemies who hide behind a gloss of civilization but in their hearts they are anything but civilized. These enemies, as we all celebrate these bittersweet 33 years of revolution, may very well be planning a mass casualty attack of some sort against innocent people that will be blamed on Muslims.

They may even be thinking about some type of cyber-attack that may paralyze some society’s infrastructure in a way that is equivalent to a natural catastrophe or national emergency. They may be planning some type of disruption in the energy sector of the producers and consumers of petroleum. Their own man-made economies are teetering on the brink in Europe and in America. They are very adept at triggering a trans-Atlantic crisis that the world itself will suffer from.

You the leaders, the martyrs, the scholars, the soldiers, the scientists, and the devotees of Islam, have changed the geopolitical landscape of the world; whether you know it or not. You snatched the masks off the faces of political hypocrites and removed the gloves off the hands of financial thieves exposing their finger prints on crimes. And at the end of this line we and all the world can see how civilized these shayateen are: they urinate on dead Muslim bodies, they desecrate the Qur’an, they ridicule the Prophet (pbuh), they sexually assault the innocent, they commit every crime in the Book and none of our rulers from the filthy rich of Arabia to the dirt poor of Africa are able to speak truth to power the way you have done in Islamic Iran.

In all these years, an unspoken question lies deep down inside every astute Muslim, and that question is: will the imperialist US or Zionist Israel attack Islamic Iran? You have been answering that question for 33 years. And your answer in Allah’s (swt) words is:


They [the committed Muslims] were told: ‘But everyone is against you, be heedful of the danger’. And this [scenario] boosted their faith and commitment; and they [the committed Muslims] answered back: Suffice it that Allah is on our side, and He is the best confidant (3:173).


Pull quotes:
Today, the Islamic Revolution in Iran is standing tall… You, the sons and daughters of the Revolution, with your dedication and tireless efforts have built your own state. You are showing the rest of us the way. It is your devotion to Islam as it was meant to be that is causing cracks in the Yahudi-Yankee edifice… Not all is rosy and peachy between the Israeli Knesset and the US Congress.

Iran: The Price of Resistance

By Chandra Muzaffar

28 January, 2012


European Union foreign ministers have agreed to a full-fledged embargo on all imports of Iranian crude oil. Towards this end, various measures will be adopted gradually from 23 rd January to 1 st July 2012 . In December 2011, the US Congress (with a 100 to 0 vote in the Senate) presented a mandatory sanctions package to President Obama which starting June 2012 will prohibit any third-country banks and companies from dealing with Iran's Central Bank. Both the EU and US moves, it is alleged, are aimed at pressurising Iran to stop its so-called ‘nuclear weapons' programme through the emasculation of its oil exports which account for more than 80% of its national revenue.

Nuclear Weapons Programme

The first question we should ask is: Does Iran have a nuclear weapons programme? The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) --- its mischievous attempt to raise doubts about Iran 's nuclear energy programme notwithstanding--- admits in its November 2011 Report that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. Incidentally, every nuclear installation in Iran has been inspected hundreds of times by the IAEA making them the most thoroughly inspected nuclear facilities on earth! Even the US 's own classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 2011--- which the well-known investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, had exposed in May 2011--- states quite clearly that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons and had in fact halted such a programme way back in 2003. NIE 2011 in a sense reiterates what is contained in NIE 2007.

Of course, Iran continues to enrich uranium up to the 20% level required for the production of medical isotopes. This is far below the 85% plus necessary to manufacture a nuclear bomb. Every major leader in Iran has emphasised over and over again that they have no intention of making a bomb. They regard it --- rightly--- as haram (or prohibited in Islam).

Because its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes--- medical research and electricity---- the Iranian government agreed to a nuclear fuel swap deal initiated by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010 which would have seen Iran shipping low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for fuel for a research reactor. The Western powers and Israel rejected the deal.

Their rejection underscores the stark hypocrisy that surrounds the entire issue of Iran 's nuclear programme. If it is nuclear weapons that they are concerned about why didn't they accept a deal that would have, to a large extent, curbed any clandestine move by Iran to produce such weapons? Or, are certain Western powers and Israel against Iran producing nuclear energy even for peaceful purposes --- a right that Iran possesses as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

It is important to raise these questions for two other reasons. One, the countries that are most vocal in demanding that Iran terminate its uranium enrichment programme are all nuclear weapon states. The US has an arsenal of more than 5000 nuclear warheads while Israel, an undeclared nuclear state---- the only nuclear weapon state in West Asia and North Africa (WANA)--- has perhaps between 200 and 400 warheads. Two, countries such as the US, Britain, France and even Israel had no qualms about assisting Iran to launch its nuclear programme in the fifties when it was under the Shah, Reza Pahlavi. US President, Dwight Eisenhower, saw it as an “atoms for peace” enterprise. One does not have to second guess why they were all so enthusiastic about the Shah's nuclear energy programme---- because the dictator was their gendarme in that corner of WANA, protecting their strategic, political and oil interests with all his brutal might.

Why did the West and Israel change their attitude towards Iran 's nuclear programme? Was it because an Islamic Revolution had occurred in Iran in 1979? Was Islam the decisive factor? Islam per se was not the major reason for the change in attitude. After all, the West counts as its allies a number of countries that view themselves as ‘Islamic States' and subscribe to a somewhat narrow, exclusive idea of Islam and Muslim identity. Saudi Arabia , Qatar and most of the Gulf Sheikhdoms would be outstanding examples. Colluding and collaborating with these states and other Islamic movements has never been a problem for the centres of power in the West.

Independence

The real reason why the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear programme became anathema for the West and Israel was because of Iran 's defence of its independence and integrity in the face of US and Western hegemony. The Islamic Republic under the guidance of its charismatic leader Ayatollah Khomeini was not prepared to submit to US dominance or acquiesce with Israeli arrogance. From the outset --- from 1979 itself--- Iran was determined to manage its own destiny which is why it nationalised oil and strengthened its self-reliance.

In an earlier period--- in 1953 to be exact--- another Iranian leader, this time a highly principled secular democrat, Mohammad Mosaddegh, had also sought to assert Iranian independence and sovereignty by nationalising oil. This incurred the wrath of the British and American elites whose companies dominated the local oil industry. With the help of their intelligence services, they managed to oust Mosaddegh from his Prime Ministership and restore full authority to the Shah.

Others in WANA, at different times and in different circumstances, have also paid the price for resisting dominance.Gamal Nasser in Egypt, HouriBoumediene in Algeria, Hafiz Assad in Syria, Yasser Arafat in Palestine (and other Palestinian freedom fighters), Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, had all at some point or other in their lives refused to yield to hegemonic power. Today, there are leaders like Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon , Khalil Meshal in Palestine , and Bashar Assad in Syria who continue to resist Israeli power and US hegemony and are therefore targeted by Tel Aviv and Washington.

It is appropriate to observe at this juncture that resistance to US hegemony has had a longer and perhaps more tragic history in parts of Latin America . From Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti to Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez,Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa these and other illustrious leaders have unflinchingly opposed attempts by the US elite to subjugate the people of Latin America and subordinate the continent to the whims and fancies of its northern neighbour. Indeed, today there is a new determination in Latin America to strengthen the independence of individual states and of the region as a whole through cooperation and collective action that is both innovative and dynamic.

There is no doubt at all that it is Iran 's refusal to be subservient to the US , Israel and their allies, its readiness to resist, that has incensed the powers-that-be. It explains why they are going all out to emasculate the Iranian economy, manufacture mass disaffection with the government and, at the right moment, engineer a regime change. The excuse they are using for this manipulation is of course Iran 's unproven nuclear weapons programme. In the scenario that is unfolding before our eyes, there are shades of the build-up that led to the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein 2003.

Targeting Iran

While Iran's desire to remain independent has been a prominent feature of the nation's personality since the Revolution 33 years ago, there must be situations and circumstances that are more current and contemporarywhich have given rise tothisobsession in Tel Aviv and in certain Western capitals with the targeting and taming of Iran.What are these situations and circumstances? There are many. We shall highlight some of them.

1. In the wake of the Arab uprising, the Israeli elite has become extremely apprehensive about the state's security and its future. It is afraid that popular movements sweeping through WANA would eventually challenge the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. Though Israel's protector, the US, has sought assurances from some of the Islamic parties that have come to power that they will not question the Israeli presence, the Israeli elite regards the increasing influence of states and movements in WANA that are firmly opposed to Israeli suppression of Palestinian rights--- the most powerful of which is of course Iran--- as a huge threat to Israel's very existence. This is why it wants its protector, buttressed by its European allies, to castrate Iran immediately.

2. This fear has increased dramatically in recent months with the economic decline of its protector and the economic crisis embroiling various European states. Israel knows that the US 's decline is part of a general decline which in a sense is irreversible and would therefore want its protector to act decisively against Israel 's foes like Iran now when the US still has the military muscle rather than wait until it is too late. For the US elite itself, the most serious implication of its decline is its loss of control over WANA, the world's major oil exporting region which is, at the same time, of tremendous geostrategic significance. When hegemonic powers are losing their dominance, do they not become more bellicose in attempting to perpetuate their power and privilege? Should we be surprised when they turn against other actors on the ascendancy who are perceived as the cause of their decline?

3. For both the US and Israeli elites and European leaders allied to them, it is Iran which is the lynchpin of the challenge to their hegemony over WANA. Iran maintains a tried and tested link to the Syrian leadership and to the Hezbollah in Lebanon . Hamas is also to a certain degree part of this link which in broad terms constitutes the resistance to US-Israel hegemony. As the fulcrum of this resistance, Iran has displayed remarkable tenacity--- a tenacity which is now expressing itself in its ability to take on US drones and US spies and to openly challenge US military power. Similarly, the Syrian crisis, orchestrated to a large extent by external forces, has revealed the resilience of the Bashar Assad government. Likewise, in defending Lebanon against the Israeli assault in 2006, the Hezbollah showed that it possesses both strategic depth and immense courage which in the end thwarted the Israeli agenda. Both Israel and the US are determined to not only break the link of resistance but also to crush each of the component elements of the link.

4. What has strengthened their determination to act against Iran in particular is the situation in Iraq . The Israeli and US elites had hoped that the conquest of Iraq would help to create a new environment in WANA which would reinforce their grip over oil and strengthen their geostrategic position in the region through a subservient leadership in Baghdad eager to do their bidding. Given Iraq 's importance, the Baghdad leadership, they reckoned, would succeed in shaping an atmosphere in the region conducive to Israel even if it were at the cost of Palestinian self-determination. However, things have not worked according to plan. WhileUS and British companies have managed to secure lucrative oil deals, Israeli and US elites have failed to gain political control over Iraq . A nation that is politically unstable, socially chaotic and deeply divided along sectarian lines, there is endless jockeying for power among contending groups. In the midst of this maelstrom, most of the groups within the majority Shia community seem to have gravitated towards Shia Iran . Shia affinity has undoubtedly smoothened the forging of political ties across the Iraq-Iran border. Recent political developments in Iraq indicate that the influence that emanates from these ties is considerable. It is this that annoys and angers the Israeli, US and British elites. Their political defeat in Iraq which is a major setback for them in WANA and beyond is one of the primary reasons why they are now training their guns on Iran .

5. Iran 's influence over Iraq has also riled some regional actors. The monarchical elite in Saudi Arabia , with its Wahabi orientation, often manifests an almost visceral hatred towards the Shia sect. Some Saudi leaders regard it as their duty to defend the Sunni majority against the rising Shia tide. They are not alone in perceiving growing Shia influence and power --- in Iraq , in Syria through the Alawite elite, in Lebanon via Hezbollah, and in Bahrain--- as a mortal threat to the Sunnis. The Qatari leadership and even some Turkish politicians and intellectuals have begun to ring the alarm bells. The latter, it is said, are backing some hard-line Sunnis in Iraq . These anti-Shia sentiments which are spreading quite rapidly in WANA have heightened the antagonism towards Iran . They have strengthened the hand of the US and Israel and their European allies as they prepare to move against the Iranian Republic .

6. For the US curbing Iran 's influence goes beyond WANA. Iran has become close to Russia in the last couple of years. The relationship is strategic and economic especially since they have overlapping interests in Central Asia and the Caspian region. Russia itself is re-asserting its power in Eastern Europe , Central Asia , West Asia and South Asia , much to the chagrin of the US . That is why it is uneasy about a Russian-Iranian nexus developing in the future.

7. Of even greater significance to the US 's hegemonic agenda is the relationship between Iran and China . Largely economic in nature, China imports 9% of its oil and 15% of its gas from Iran . China has massive investments in the oil and gas industry in Iran , and is helping to upgrade its infrastructure in general. Since access to energy is critical for China 's development, the US which is determined to contain China , is keen on exercising control over China 's sources of energy supply. What this means is that curtailing Iran 's oil and gas exports may in fact be part of a larger agenda whose principal goal is the containment of China , the nation that the US and the West view as the most formidable challenge ever to their centuries old dominance.

8. Iran 's expanding ties with various Latin American countries also irks the US . Countries such as Cuba , Venezuela , Nicaragua , Ecuador , Bolivia and Brazil , among others have become good friends of Iran in recent years. Most of these states are opposed to US dominance over Latin America . A couple of them have become very critical of Israeli occupation of Palestine . Since Venezuela and Ecuador are also major oil exporters, the US is worried that the ties that Iran , also an important oil exporter, is forging with them could enhance their collective clout in the global economy to the detriment of the US . This is yet another reason why the US sees Iran as a challenge to its hegemonic power.

9. It is not just because of Iran 's ties with oil exporting states in Latin America or its export of oil to China that oil is also a factor that explains the targeting of Iran . As one of the top five oil exporters in the world, Iran is an attractive destination for a lot of oil companies especially from the US --- a country which has been excluded from Iran 's petroleum sector for more than three decades. According to petroleum experts there are oil and gas fields that have yet to be explored fully. There is also money to be made from infrastructure investments. US and other Western oil firms are hungering to go in--- just as they moved into Iraq after the invasion in 2003.

10. A final factor that is responsible for this fixation with Iran is perhaps the position of the US dollar. The dollar, needless to say, is one of the most crucial pillars of US global hegemony. This is the reason why any attempt to redefine its role as the world's principal reserve currency elicits an immediate response from US financial and political circles. In the last few years Iran has been steadily distancing itself from the US dollar in its trade transactions. At the end of December 2011, it signed an agreement with China that states that the Iranian rial and the Chinese yuan would be used in bilateral trade. In early January 2012, Iran made a similar arrangement with Russia , the rial and the rouble replacing the US dollar. Iran and India are holding discussions on moving out of dollar settlements. Trading in gold is an option they are considering. These moves by Iran have assumed great significance because others, including US allies, are abandoning the dollar in some of their bilateral trade arrangements. Japan and China , for instance, have announced that they will trade in yen and yuan.Because Iran is perceived as one of those nations pushing hard for the abandonment of the dollar, the US has her in its sights. It has been suggested that one of the reasons why the US decided to invade Iraq in 2003 was because Saddam Hussein had switched from the dollar to the euro for the sale of his country's oil.

Suffering; Mistakes

The ten points elaborated here prove that the US and its allies have zero tolerance for any challenge, however minor, to US hegemonic power or to the position of Israel . Those who resist their power and position will pay the price. In the last 30 odd years, Iran has paid the price of resistance in hundreds of ways. Less than a year after the Islamic Revolution, a war was imposed upon Iran --- a war led by the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, on behalf of all the Gulf Sheikhdoms, a number of other Arab states, the US, Britain, certain other Western governments, and even the Soviet Union. Though Iran 's adversaries had different motives, their common objective was to crush the Revolution which they saw as a challenge to their interests. A million lives were lost on both sides of the divide in the eight year war which emasculated the Iranian economy and sapped the nation's energy. In June 1981, a vicious bombexplosion wiped out some top political leaders, a huge number of parliamentarians, and leading figures in the Judiciary. This, and other subsequent terrorist attacks, it is alleged,were master-minded by a militant group operating from Iraq called the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. In recent years the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme has been subjected to a cyber- attack and four of its scientists have been assassinated. And for decades, Iran has been under US economic sanctions which have had a negative impact upon its development programme.

Indeed, very few countries have been subjected to the pain and suffering that Iran has gone through in the last 33 years. The perseverance and fortitude of the Iranian people, as we have alluded to, is awe-inspiring. And yet, an objective analysis of Iran 's response to hegemony would suggest that Iranian leaders and activists have also made serious mistakes. From the perspective of international law and diplomacy, it was clearly wrong of Iranian students to seize the US Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 and hold its occupants hostage for 444 days. Storming the British Embassy in the nation's capital on 29 November 2011 was also a foolish act for which Iran 's Minister of Foreign Affairs has apologised. Likewise, allegations of foul-play in the June 2009Presidential Election could have been better handled. The Iranian authorities should have countered those allegations by demonstrating their commitment to total electoral transparency and accountability. The language that the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sometimes employs on matters of grave international significance is intemperate and injudicious. However difficult the situation maybe, there is no need to deliberately provoke or irritate one's enemies. As a case in point, though Ahmadinejad's oft-quoted remarks about Israel were distorted and twisted by the Western media and politicians, the Iranian President could have adopted a more mature yet principled stance vis-à-vis the Jewish state.

Hegemonic Agenda

Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Muhammad Khatami, proved that it was possible to defend Iran 's independence and dignity without being unduly confrontational. He sought to meet the challenge of hegemony by insisting upon dialogue among civilisations and the politics of inclusiveness. Khatami was prepared to talk to the US leadership. But instead of welcoming the offer of dialogue, US President, George Bush Junior, chose to castigate Iran as part of an “axis of evil.”

The demonization of Iran proves yet again that regardless of whether the target adopts a confrontational or conciliatory approach, the hegemon will continue to pursue its agenda. It is an agenda that has a power and potency of its own. In the context of WANA, Israel , it is so apparent, is the driving force behind US hegemonic power.

Making people everywhere aware of this and what its consequences are is one of the most urgent tasks at hand. This task is perhaps a little less difficult today compared to the past for two reasons. One, as we have stated a number of times before, US helmed hegemonic power is declining. People are becoming much more critical of US's global role now. Two, the citizens of WANA in particular are acutely conscious of what hegemonic intervention can lead to after witnessing the chaos and catastrophe that have befallen Iraq and Afghanistan . They are also beginning to sense--- after the initial euphoria---- that Libya may also be heading towards calamity. Foreign intervention they know is not the solution. It is the problem.

Immediate Measures

While mass consciousness building about the danger of hegemony as the ultimate repudiation of human dignity will take time, we could propose some immediate measures thatshould be taken to avert military strikes against Iran and to prevent a war in WANA. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) grouping could through the UN Security Council suggest a new nuclear deal which would allow Iran limited uranium enrichment under strict supervision within a larger treaty signed by all the states in WANA and other leading powers that pledges to create a nuclear weapon free zone in the region within a certain time-frame. The manufacture, storage, saleand distribution of other weapons of mass destruction should also be prohibited. As the formulation of such a treaty begins in earnest, all sanctions against Iran should also be lifted. There are other challenges notably the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state and the status of Israel , which should also be resolved at the same time.

Is there still time to persuade the powers-that-be to consider proposals like this? Or is it already too late in the day? Is the hegemon--- or is Israel--- about to strike?

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of lobal Studies at UniversitiSains Malaysia .

Malaysia .

27 January 2012

Is music prohibited in Islam?

The sections of this article are:

1- Is music prohibited in Islam?
2- The definition of the Psalm or Psalms.
3- Does this mean that we (Muslims) must play music while we pray?
4- Did Allah Almighty or Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prohibit music?
5- Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him allowed music.
6- Conclusion.
7- My notes on music and music videos that use foul language and sinful acts.

Some Muslims believe that Music is prohibited/sinful in Islam. According to Islam: Music that leads to sinful acts such as drugs, sex, violence, etc... is absolutely sinful in Islam. But otherwise, how would it be sinful when Allah Almighty Himself allowed it to Prophet David peace be upon him?

Narrated Abu Musa: "That the Prophet said to him 'O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the musical wind-instruments of the family of David.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues of the Qur'an, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 568)"

Let us look at Noble Verse 4:163 "We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms."

Let us look at Noble Verse 17:55 "And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms."

In the above Saying (Hadith) and Noble Verses, we clearly see that Allah Almighty did send the Book of Psalm to Prophet David peace be upon him. We also see that Allah Almighty called that Book a gift. If Allah Almighty allowed David peace be upon him and his followers to sing and play music, then how could we then claim that music is sinful and prohibited?

The definition of the Psalm or Psalms:

First let us define what the word "Psalm" or "Psalms" mean:

A collection of sacred poems forming a book of canonical Jewish and Christian Scripture.

Often capitalized [Middle English, from Old English psalm, from Late Latin psalmus, from Greek psalmos, literally, twanging of a harp, from psallein to pluck, play a stringed instrument]
First appeared before 12th Century

A sacred song or poem used in worship; especially : one of the biblical hymns collected in the Book of Psalms

From the America Online Dictionary.

Does this mean that we (Muslims) must play music while we pray?

I was asked this question before. My answer is: No, that is not what I am suggesting! In Islam, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was inspired the instructions that taught us how to pray. Muslims do not sing nor play music while they pray, and it is prohibited to play music or sing while praying to Allah Almighty in Islam. But the point I am trying to make is, if Allah Almighty allowed music and songs to be played to people before us, then what gives us the right to prohibit music now?

Did Allah Almighty or Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prohibit music?

There is not a single Noble Verse in the Noble Quran that prohibits music. In fact, music and songs are allowed in the Noble Quran as we saw above. Some Muslims however claim that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did prohibit music. Well, the section below actually proves the otherwise from the Sayings of Prophet Muhammad himself.

Muslims must also remember that when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him reached the Holy City of Madina from the Holy City of Mecca with his best friend Abu Bakr; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him, the Muslims played music and sang the famous Islamic song "Talaa El-Badru Alayna" which means "The full moon had come upon us."

The music that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prohibited was the one that the infidels used to play which involved sexual activities by the women. It was part of the pagan Arabs' custom, and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him wanted to prevent Muslims to be anywhere near that type of music, because it was a sinful music; a music that led to sinful activities.

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him allowed music:

From Bukhari Volume 2, Book 15, Number 70:

Narrated Aisha:
Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) came to my house while two girls were singing beside me the songs of Buath (a story about the war between the two tribes of the Ansar, the Khazraj and the Aus, before Islam). The Prophet (p.b.u.h) lay down and turned his face to the other side. Then Abu Bakr came and spoke to me harshly saying, "Musical instruments of Satan near the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ? " Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) turned his face towards him and said, "Leave them." When Abu Bakr became inattentive, I signaled to those girls to go out and they left. It was the day of 'Id, and the Black people were playing with shields and spears; so either I requested the Prophet (p.b.u.h) or he asked me whether I would like to see the display. I replied in the affirmative. Then the Prophet (p.b.u.h) made me stand behind him and my cheek was touching his cheek and he was saying, "Carry on! O Bani Arfida," till I got tired. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked me, "Are you satisfied (Is that sufficient for you)?" I replied in the affirmative and he told me to leave.

This same Hadith is reported to us again in Sahih Muslim:

Book 004, Number 1942:

'A'isha reported: The Messenger of Allah (way peace be upon him) came (in my apartment) while there were two girls with me singing the song of the Battle of Bu'ath. He lay down on the bed and turned away his face. Then came Abu Bakr and he scolded me and said: Oh! this musical instrument of the devil in the house of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) turned towards him and said: Leave them alone. And when he (the Holy Prophet) became inattentive, I hinted them and they went out, and it was the day of 'Id and negroes were playing with shields and spears. (I do not remember) whether I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) or whether he said to me if I desired to see (that sport). I said: Yes. I stood behind him with his face parallel to my face, and he said: O Banu Arfada, be busy (in your sports) till I was satiated. He said (to me): Is that enough? I said: Yes. Upon this he asked me to go.

Once again in Bukhari, this event is recorded:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 268:

Narrated Aisha:
That once Abu Bakr came to her on the day of 'Id-ul-Fitr or 'Id ul Adha while the Prophet was with her and there were two girl singers with her, singing songs of the Ansar about the day of Buath. Abu Bakr said twice. "Musical instrument of Satan!" But the Prophet said, "Leave them Abu Bakr, for every nation has an 'Id (i.e. festival) and this day is our 'Id."

And then in Bukhari, another Hadith relates a connection between musical instruments and the family of David (saw). Further evidence that, indeed, the Psalms were musical in nature:

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 568:

Narrated Abu Musa:
That the Prophet said to him' "O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the musical wind-instruments of the family of David .'

And on one final note, I thought the following Hadith can also be used in the matter. The Hadith relates of how the adhan came to be, and how the Prophet's companions suggested the use of musical instruments such as the horn or bell like the People of the Book. Now although the Prophet ultimately approved the use of the human voice, there is no mention that the Prophet chastised his companions for suggesting musical instruments for the adhan. And if the Prophet was so very much against musical instruments, then why would his companions dare to suggest the use of such sinful things in the call to prayer????

From Muslim Book 004, Number 0735:

Ibn Umar reported: When the Muslims came to Medina, they gathered and sought to know the time of prayer but no one summoned them. One day they discussed the matter, and some of them said: Use something like the bell of the Christians and some of them said: Use horn like that of the Jews. Umar said: Why may not a be appointed who should call (people) to prayer? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: O Bilal, get up and summon (the people) to prayer.

DOES ISLAM PROHIBIT MUSIC?

For years I was confused on this point.

You see many Muslims who have not bothered to ACTUALLY READ THE QURAN and HADITHS classify most music as "haram"!

Look at the "Action Items" published on one Salafy site:

"Get rid of those Michael Jackson CD's (please see my [Osama Abdallah] notes regarding the likes of the Michael Jackson CDs after the conclusion section below)

"If you had a large music collection as a kafir, have a collection just as large, but instead fill your library with Islamic audio tapes and lectures.

"Think about how many hundreds or maybe even thousands of dollars you've spent on music cd's and tapes that you could now spend on a home Islamic library.

"Replace any kafir aerobic exercise video tapes with recorded drum sounds, such as African drums, etc. . . . http://muttaqun.com/music.html

What is the basis for the "music prohibition"?

UNSUPPORTED BY THE QURAN

The "music banners" have cited the following ayahs in support of a "music prohibition": 31:6, 17:64, 53:57-62.

NONE OF THESE AYAHS SAYS A WORD ABOUT MUSIC!

031.006
YUSUFALI: But there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales, without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.

PICKTHAL: And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from Allah's way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery. For such there is a shameful doom.

SHAKIR: And of men is he who takes instead frivolous discourse to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery; these shall have an abasing chastisement.

017.064
YUSUFALI: "Lead to destruction those whom thou canst among them, with thy (seductive) voice; make assaults on them with thy cavalry and thy infantry; mutually share with them wealth and children; and make promises to them." But Satan promises them nothing but deceit.

PICKTHAL: And excite any of them whom thou canst with thy voice, and urge thy horse and foot against them, and be a partner in their wealth and children, and promise them. Satan promiseth them only to deceive.

SHAKIR: And beguile whomsoever of them you can with your voice, and collect against them your forces riding and on foot, and share with them in wealth and children, and hold out promises to them; and the Shaitan makes not promises to them but to deceive:


053.057
YUSUFALI: The (Judgment) ever approaching draws nigh:
PICKTHAL: The threatened Hour is nigh.
SHAKIR: The near event draws nigh.

053.058
YUSUFALI: No (soul) but Allah can lay it bare.
PICKTHAL: None beside Allah can disclose it.
SHAKIR: There shall be none besides Allah to remove it.

053.059
YUSUFALI: Do ye then wonder at this recital?
PICKTHAL: M arvel ye then at this statement,
SHAKIR: Do you then wonder at this announcement?

053.060
YUSUFALI: And will ye laugh and not weep,-
PICKTHAL: And laugh and not weep,
SHAKIR: And will you laugh and not weep?

053.061
YUSUFALI: Wasting your time in vanities?
PICKTHAL: While ye amuse yourselves?
SHAKIR: While you are indulging in varieties.

053.62
YUSUFALI: But fall ye down in prostration to Allah, and adore (Him)!
PICKTHAL: Rather prostrate yourselves before Allah and serve Him.
SHAKIR: So make obeisance to Allah and serve (Him).

Actually, the Quran APPROVES music! THATS RIGHT:

039.075
And thou wilt see the angels surrounding the Throne (Divine) on all sides, singing Glory and Praise to their Lord. The Decision between them (at Judgment) will be in (perfect) justice, and the cry (on all sides) will be, "Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!"
If music is so wrong, why do Allah's angels "sing" to the Almighty!

THE AHADITH ARE IN CONFLICT

Even the hadith collections are in conflict on this point:

Compare:

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 69, Number 494v:

Narrated Abu 'Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari:
that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection."

With:

Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 72:

Narrated Aisha:
Abu Bakr came to my house while two small Ansari girls were singing beside me the stories of the Ansar concerning the Day of Buath. And they were not singers. Abu Bakr said protestingly, "Musical instruments of Satan in the house of Allah's Apostle !" It happened on the 'Id day and Allah's Apostle said, "O Abu Bakr! There is an 'Id for every nation and this is our 'Id."

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 268:

Narrated Aisha:
That once Abu Bakr came to her on the day of 'Id-ul-Fitr or 'Id ul Adha while the Prophet was with her and there were two girl singers with her, singing songs of the Ansar about the day of Buath. Abu Bakr said twice. "Musical instrument of Satan!" But the Prophet said, "Leave them Abu Bakr, for every nation has an 'Id (i.e. festival) and this day is our 'Id."

Muslim, Book 004, Number 1938:
'A'isha reported: Abu Bakr came to see me and I had two girls with me from among the girls of the Ansar and they were singing what the Ansar recited to one another at the Battle of Bu'ath. They were not, however, singing girls. Upon this Abu Bakr said: What I (the playing of) this wind instrument of Satan in the house of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and this too on 'Id day? Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Abu Bakr, every people have a festival and it is our festival (so let them play on).

Muslim, Book 004, Number 1940:

'A'isha reported that Abu Bakr came to her and there were with her two girls on Adha days who were singing and beating the tambourine and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had wrapped himself with his mantle. Abu Bakr scolded them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) uncovered (his face) and said: Abu Bakr, leave them alone for these are the days of 'Id. And 'A'isha said: I recapitulate to my mind the fact that once the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) screened me with his mantle and I saw the sports of the Abyssinians, and I was only a girl, and so you can well imagine how a girl of tender age is fond of watching the sport.

Now if music and musical instruments are so bad, why did the Prophet (pbuh) tell Abu Bakr "Let the show go on!"?

The "music prohibition" is yet another instance in which the Salafy have committed bidah by innovating prohibitions NOT FOUND IN THE QURAN!

Say, "Who prohibited the nice things God has created for His creatures, and the good provisions?" Say,"Such provisions are to be enjoyed in THIS life by those who BELIEVE. Moreover, the good provisions will be exclusively theirs on the Day of resurrection." We thus explain the revelations for people who know." QURAN, 7:32

Say "Do you see that which God has provided for you, you make some of it Unlawful (Haram) and some of it Lawful (Halal)?" Say "Did God allow you to do this? Or do you tell lies about God?"
QURAN, 10:59

The "music prohibition" is a fiction, that finds scant support even in the various ahadith collections.

If the Salafys want to abstain from music, they are free to do so. But don't tell the rest of Islam that the "music prohibition" is THE WORD OF ALLAH! It Isn't!

Conclusion:

Music is not prohibited in Islam. Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran allowed music and inspired it upon David peace be upon him. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him didn't prohibit music unless it was used for sinful activities. Otherwise, music is allowed. It's been proven by science that music relaxes the mind and helps the person to gain energy and refresh himself. Most production plants in the industrial countries allow their workers to play music while working to helping them gain more energy.

Allah Almighty created music so we can use it in a positive and Islamic way to help us ease some of the burden of life from us. Even animals enjoy good music. In the Middle East, some people have their horses dance beautiful dances on music in many of the rural areas while they're celebrating.

My notes on music and music videos that use foul language and sinful acts:

As I said above, music that leads to sinful acts such as drugs, sex, violence, etc... is absolutely sinful in Islam. But sometimes the song is still very nice in rhythm and yet still contains some bad things in it. Personally, I believe that if the words in the song are ignored and the person only enjoys the music and rhythm of the song and it doesn't cause him to do any of the evil things that I mentioned, then in my opinion (only) that song and music is lawful.

Personally I have about 100 American music CDs at home. Many of the songs that I love contain bad language in them. I personally don't pay attention to that language; especially that it's usually buried under the loud guitar sound. That music never causes me to do evil things. I only listen to them because I love the rhythm and the music.

Now as to music videos where Michael Jackson for instance holds his groin while singing, I believe that these types of videos should not be watched especially when children are around. But personally I watched them and still would. But I wouldn't put any video with this type of bad graphics while kids are around.

Please be advised that this is only my personal preference and opinion. I could be terribly sinning here. My advice to you, especially for those who live in the West and 90% of the younger people's music does contain bad things in it anyway, is to try your best to ignore these bad things, and just enjoy the song and the music of it without enjoying the evils contained in it. I hope this makes sense.

And may Allah Almighty forgive me if I am violating what is righteous.

Are majority Muslim countries truly independent?

Zafar Bangash, Reflections




Given that there are 56 “Muslim” nation-states, all members of the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Conference, the question may raise some eyebrows. Each country also has defined borders, a government headed by a king, amir, president, prime minister or even a general. Further, there is a cabinet, a standing army, national airline (or two), a national flag, and even an anthem for each country. Do these not represent independence?


We must define the term “independence” accurately to fully grasp the Muslim world’s current situation. Possessing territory, having a government, army, etc, do not necessarily mean independence. The term independence must be viewed more broadly. Neo-Marxist writers — Hans Singer, Raúl Prebisch, Paul A. Baran, Paul Sweezy, Andre Gunder Frank, Theotonio Dos Santos et al — have written extensively about dependency theory demonstrating how difficult it is for a society to break out of this cycle. We need not go into the details of dependency theory but suffice it to say that the natural resources and cheap labour of dependent societies are exploited to enrich wealthy societies (in reality, these enrich the top 1% of society as the Occupy Wall Street Movement has so clearly shown!). The elite in rich societies actively perpetuate a cycle of dependency through economic, political, social, cultural, banking, and financial policies. Societies that attempt to break out of the dependency cycle are coerced back into the fold through sanctions and/or the use of military force. The price exacted for trying to break loose is exceedingly high.


Even societies that go through a revolution — Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc — show how difficult it is to throw off the yoke of dependency. Most countries in Africa gained “independence” from colonialism in the 1960s but they are still dependent on the colonial masters for survival. Africa is gripped by mass starvation even though it is a resource-rich continent, due largely to the manufactured nation-state conflicts managed by Western powers (read that: starvation policies) coupled with their structural adjustment programs (read that, slavery to debt), which regard material resources in the ground to be more valuable than human resources on the ground. African countries have been trapped into a spider web-type relationship from which they cannot escape. Institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are used to reinforce dependency on the colonial powers. Colonel Muammar Qaddafi of Libya paid the price with his life for attempting to break the Western stranglehold on Africa by proposing to establish an African Monetary Fund as well as an African Central Bank. More resources and capital have been sucked out of Africa into the West after “independence” than during direct colonialism.


Let us, however, return to our discussion of majority Muslim countries. Are they free to formulate their own economic, political, military, cultural or social policies? Even societies that are not financially dependent on the West suffer from the dependency syndrome. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates offer good examples. These are artificial constructs that were created by Britain to serve its interests. While financially secure, they are still subservient to the West when formulating political, social, cultural, military or educational policies. Even in the economic field, these countries cannot formulate policies to benefit their own people. Saudi Arabia pumps excessive amounts of oil far beyond its needs because it must serve US and Western interests. This keeps the price of oil low depriving producers of much-needed income while transferring wealth to the West. For every dollar drop in the price of oil, producers lose $1 billion per day. On the political front, few majority Muslim countries can stand up to Zionist Israel. Instead they are aligned with US/Zionist aggressors against the Palestinian people.


Flags and national anthems aside, what is the solution to the problem facing Muslim societies? Any attempt to answer this question merely through economic analysis will not yield the correct answer. Muslim societies are unable to formulate their own policies to serve the interests of their people precisely because they are not independent. For true independence, they must first undergo an Islamic revolution to overthrow the colonial imposed order. Iran has shown how this is done. For more than 30 years, Western “experts” and “pundits” have been predicting the collapse of the Islamic system. What they fail to understand is that an Islamic revolution changes the very nature of society and renders it impervious to sanctions and boycotts. As the Noble Qur’an states so eloquently: “Allah does not alter the condition of a people until they change their attitude” (13:11).


It is through this consummate change — a clean break from the exploitative milieu created by fear of temporal power to an Islamic system that fosters confidence by reliance only on the Sustainer of the worlds — that Muslims will gain true independence. Until then, Muslims will only delude themselves into believing they are independent.


Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

External powers destabilizing al-Asad regime in Syria

By Tahir Mustafa

Haytham Manna‘, not a lightweight in Syrian opposition circles, has taken a principled position, despite losing relatives in the current situation, to be skeptical of any opposition member that gets its marching orders and weapons from Washington, Paris, Istanbul, or Riyadh (through its Arab League surrogates).

It is now well established that foreign powers are deeply involved in destabilizing the regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. Such interference is not confined merely to anti-regime propaganda, although it plays a significant role by presenting misleading reports about civilian casualties to stoke anti-regime sentiment. The tribal-owned network, al-Jazeera, is in the forefront of such propaganda reinforcing the belief that it is working according to a US-Zionist-Saudi script that was agreed upon in Paris as early as February 2011. Recent reports that US forces have been sighted near the Jordanian-Syrian border give credence to the regime’s assertions that it is facing armed attacks from gangs as well as foreign mercenaries. Creation of the Syrian Free Army (SFA) is part of the same plot to provide cover to US-Israeli attacks inside Syria while claiming that defected soldiers are carrying out such attacks. Their number remains relatively small.


Where the foreign powers, including Turkey, miscalculated was in assuming that the Asad regime, like those in Tunisia and Egypt, would collapse quickly. They also made the mistake of assuming that once uprisings are staged in one part of the country — north near the Jordanian border because of easier smuggling of weapons — they would quickly spread to other areas including the capital Damascus. This has not happened. Not only has the regime been able to withstand the pressure, no uprisings have occurred in the two most important cities: Damascus and Aleppo. In fact, massive rallies have been staged in support of the regime that both al-Jazeera and the Washington Post presented as being anti-regime. Such reporting can hardly enhance their credibility.


Haytham Manna‘, chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, admitted in an interview with Mandiaal Nieuws (December 9) that people in Damascus and Aleppo are waiting on the sidelines because they are not clear about who or what would follow if Bashar al-Asad were ousted from power. Manna‘’s concern springs from the deep divisions that exist within the ranks of the opposition. The Syrian National Council (SNC) claims to represent all opposition groups and to speak on behalf of all the Syrian people but it has little support inside Syria. Led by Burhan Ghalioun, a Paris-based university professor, its members are mainly Syrian intellectuals in exile. The SNC was cobbled together in Istanbul at the beginning of October. The group held its first congress in Gammarth, north of Tunis, on December 16–18 to agree on a clearer strategy but little came out of the meeting despite its symbolic importance; it coincided with the first anniversary of the Tunisian uprising.


“We need to unite the opposition and make it stronger,” Ghalioun told the AFP news agency. This was a clear admission that the opposition is disunited. It did not help the SNC when a day earlier (December 15) another group of Syrians meeting in Istanbul, announced the formation of the National Alliance. Turkey is beginning to assume the role of headquarters of all Syrian opposition groups. “We need to emerge from this congress with a higher level of organization, clearer targets and more momentum,” Ghalioun said. These appear to have eluded the congress because despite claiming to have agreed to co-ordinate with the Free Syrian Army, the rebels — comprising a tiny minority — are pursuing their own agenda. It is this free for all that has frustrated the emergence of a coherent opposition strategy or how to pursue it. As Manna‘ pointed out, who will replace Asad? The opposition has no clue and this is what makes most Syrians reluctant to join them.


While Syrian opposition groups go through the motions of holding “grand” congresses, “extraordinary” meetings and other high sounding get-togethers, their net result is marginal. This explains why they are so dependent on outside help. The SNC in particular has called for UN intervention although it has stopped short of asking for armed intervention as in Libya, aware of the consequences that would follow. Besides, foreign, mainly Western powers know that Syria is no pushover, unlike Qaddafi’s Libya. The Syrian army and establishment have remained largely intact. There have been no defections of prominent members of the Syrian ruling elite. Defections from the army are small despite the Western media giving them great prominence and presenting them as large.


Perhaps realizing that Asad’s departure was not imminent, the Arab League tried to change its stance. After issuing threats to the Syrian regime to comply with its demands, it has now adopted a more conciliatory approach. The Arab League has never achieved anything in its entire tortuous existence. It is a conglomerate of potentates and tyrants that do not allow any freedom to their own people so how can they expect Asad to comply with their demands. On December 19, Syria signed an agreement with the Arab League to allow foreign observers into the country. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallam said the League had accepted a number of demands put forward by Damascus that included prohibition on visits to military bases or installations. In return, Syria agreed to an immediate end to firing on protesters and allowing League observers to oversee implementation of the agreement.



While opposition groups within Syria are willing to accept the agreement that would end the violence and usher in political reforms even if Asad remained in power, those residing outside are adamant that Asad must go. It is such divisions that have led many Syrians to conclude that opposition groups are incapable of offering them a better alternative to the present set-up. They are also unhappy with foreign-based groups whom they accuse of working at the behest of their foreign sponsors that have no interest in seeing a stable and peaceful Syria. In fact, they feel external powers have their own agenda to engulf Syria in turmoil.


Given that a meeting of Syrian opposition figures had taken place in Paris last February at which plans were agreed to launch an uprising against the Asad regime, gives credence to people’s skepticism. Those present at the Paris meeting included Syria’s former vice president, Abdul Halim Khaddam; Saudi security advisor, Bandar bin Sultan; US Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman; US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro; and chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, Haytham Manna‘. The line-up of participants is revealing. It was not a meeting of Syrian opposition groups per se but such troublemakers as the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even representatives of the Hariri clan from Lebanon were present.


At the Paris meeting the Saudis and the Americans pushed for smuggling weapons into Syria from Jordan to launch the uprising. Manna‘ was opposed to the idea and so concerned about its consequences that he immediately sent word to the tribal elders in Deraa, his home town, asking them not to allow any weapons to be smuggled in or used in the uprising. Manna‘ rightly feared that it would result in another Hama-type massacre as happened in 1982 and end in similar failure. Manna‘ is no softy. He belongs to a family with a long history of opposition to the regime. His father has spent many years in jail; his brother was killed in the uprising last August but he can see clearly what others are refusing to see. He does not want Syria to emerge with an even worse situation than it currently has.


While the Deraa elders accepted Manna‘’s advice, this did not prevent others from resorting to armed attacks. There have been numerous instances of masked gunmen appearing suddenly and firing indiscriminately at protesters before disappearing. They have also attacked police and other security personnel. While the BBC World Service never tires of reminding its readers about UN estimates of 5,000 people killed in nine months, it fails to mention that these include at least 1,100 security personnel. This is a very large number of police and soldiers to die at the hands of “peaceful” protesters. Further, the figure of 5,000 dead is quite arbitrary. This is based on claims made by opposition spokesmen without providing proof. True, one cannot belittle the number of civilian deaths, it must also be borne in mind that there are external players that want to destabilize Syria as part of the larger plan to undermine the resistance front against Zionist Israel. Manna‘ describes this as “negative intervention,” saying it “destroys but does not create.”


The concern that Syrian opposition figures abroad are working to the US-Israeli game plan is not unfounded. After all, for the US, survival and protection of Zionist Israel takes precedence over all other considerations. If the Asad regime were destroyed, it would deal a severe blow to the resistance front and both the Palestinians and Hizbullah would be exposed to grave danger. Some Syrians argue that their interests cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the Palestinians or Hizbullah. They must explain why they deserve any support or sympathy if they are willing to act as stooges of the US-Zionist duopoly financed by the Saudis?


Manna‘ has been quite clear about why he opposes the Syrian National Council. “I don’t know where it will take us…” He also fears foreign military intervention in Syria and wants change to come about from within. “We want the revolution to be an authentic realization of the people,” and he does not want to see the blood of the people “to be traded or sold — not in Washington, and not in any Arab capital whatsoever.”

The failures of democracy in the West offer hope for Islamic movements everywhere

Iqbal Siddiqui, Perspectives


Every four years the world watches the political soap opera of the US presidential elections with a combination of amusement, bemusement and incredulity as the world’s most powerful nation, and the supposed flag-bearer of democracy, lays open its true nature. Although the polls are not due for over a year, the formal process began months ago, with Barrack Obama having announced the start of his re-election campaign in April. The contest among potential Republican candidates is in its early stages, but already the world is laughing at the ignorance and ineptitude of some of the candidates, particularly Rick Perry and Herman Cain, who have been guilty of many more appalling gaffes than have been seen around the world. At the same time, there is a pervading sense of fear that such a candidate could actually make it to the White House, considering that George W. Bush was actually elected twice and Obama is unlikely to be allowed to be re-elected. For many, the state of American politics has long been convincing evidence for the case against democracy. The problem is that this evidence is hardly new and yet little seems to have changed, in either the US or the rest of the world.


However, a number of recent factors appear to offer more concrete prospects of Muslims finally growing out of the easy myths of democracy. One is the economic crisis of Western capitalism and the various responses to it. In the US and other western countries — long the beneficiaries of the injustices of world capitalism, even though many people in all countries were individually victims of it — the growth of the anti-capitalist sentiment partially represented by the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements is a sign that the impact of the economic crisis on the lives of ordinary people is having a political impact. The fact that at least some of the protestors are expressing anger not only at the exploitative and profiteering policies of the capitalist elites, but also at the political classes that kow-tow to them, may well have consequences for the nature of politics in many of these countries. Some of these consequences can be foreseen, such as the efforts of the political leaders to provide populist distractions such as spectre of a threat from Iran. Others will no doubt take us all by surprise. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that some of the gloss of democratic politics will be tarnished in the process, although predicting the end of democracy would be grossly premature.


In some European countries, meanwhile, the consequences of the economic crisis on the standing of democracy and democratic politics is taking a far more direct form. In Italy, the democratically-elected government has been replaced by a government consisting entirely of technocrats — professional “experts” with no political background or electoral backing. The problem is that the expertise of these technocrats is all rooted in the same capitalist assumptions and policies that have created the present crises. The IMF and other similar international institutions have a long record of imposing strict economic policies on developing countries in spite of the interests and desires of their people. One of the justifications for this was that it was such capitalist policies that made possible the benefits of democracy and the economic strength of western countries. Few expected ever to see developed European countries seeing their democratically-elected governments replaced by unelected technocrats determined to impose hardline policies dictated by capitalist elites. In Greece, the government was pressured to accept similar prescriptions by the leaders of Europe, with considerable evidence suggesting that the Greek military was preparing to take power under a coup if civilian politicians failed to accept the necessity of such measures, a prospect that was taken very seriously indeed considering that it is less that 40 years since the overthrow of the US-backed, right-wing military dictatorship and the establishment of democratic government. There are genuine fears that similarly drastic measures may have to be taken in countries such as Spain, Portugal and even France if economic conditions in those countries fail to improve.


Such developments in western countries are bound to have an impact on people’s perceptions of the myths on which democratic polities depend, not least the idea that regular elections ensure that governments are primarily answerable to the ordinary people rather than any other interest groups.


And this is bound also to have a knock-on impact on developments in other parts of the world, for example the Arab world, currently is the midst of the so-called “Arab Spring”. This political upheaval represented in this easy catch-all phrase is taking very different forms in different countries, from the supposed democratization in Tunisia, resulting in the victory of the En-nahda Islamic movement in elections in October, to the civil war encouraged by the West in Libya, to the attempts of the political elite in Egypt to manage the process of change to ensure that their interests are not affected. All, however, have two things in common: firstly, that the powers of the West are desperately trying to manipulate events to their own purposes; and secondly, all are being presented as popular movements in support of pro-Western democratic movements, which aim to establish governments whose only ambition is to be part of the Western sphere of influence.


Current developments in Egypt suggest that ordinary people in these countries are less than happy with this prospect. As Egyptians struggle to achieve real freedom, rather than the model offered by the West, the fact that democracy is facing new challenges even in the countries that have hitherto been its supposed shining models, can only make it easier for a counter-democratic discourse to emerge, offering a genuine Islamic alternative as a model for the entire Muslim world. Of course, the problems within the West are not sufficient; numerous other factors will also be essential, not least the vision and leadership offered by Islamic leaders in Egypt and elsewhere. Nonetheless, the fact that the model of democracy is suddenly looking a lot less stable and appealing than it previously appeared can only be a step in the right direction. As so often before, political realities on the ground may be providing concrete and convincing evidence of truths that the words of intellectuals and leaders have long failed to convey.

Islamic concept of legitimacy

As mass popular movements sweep the Muslim East (aka Middle East) predatory Western powers and their local satraps are involved in desperate attempts to hijack them. They are offering the same failed systems in a new garb. Since the overwhelming majority in the region is Muslim, it is natural that they would want a social order connected to Islamic principles that represent and ennoble their unique identity. The people’s uprisings have made clear what they do not want: the old decrepit order. What they want instead and what shape the new order would take is as yet unclear.


Both in Tunisia where elections were held on October 23 and in Egypt where mass protests erupted again as Crescent went to press (before the November 28 election date), attempts are underway to keep the political process on a secularist track and Islam at bay to prevent its shaping the order in society. It is argued that Islam has no solutions to contemporary problems. We need to confront this argument and expose the forces behind such thinking but first let us understand the concept of legitimacy in Islam and how it is derived.


It is not the majority that confers legitimacy; Islamic legitimacy comes from divine commands. If the overwhelming majority in society, for instance, decides to kill the minority or to institute cannibalism would that make such acts acceptable? Based on Western notions of democracy, this would be perfectly legitimate but not in Islam. Let us go further. From the Islamic point of view, every Prophet of Allah (a) had legitimacy because he received the message from on high even if the people to whom it was delivered did not accept it. Islamic legitimacy is not contingent upon people’s acceptance or rejection but on following the commands of Allah (swt).


We must also have a clearer understanding of Islam. The Qur’an refers to it as deen, meaning a way of life. Thus, Islam encompasses more than the set of rituals that people perform as part of their religious obligation. Unlike other religions, Islam offers a complete set of principles that guides every adherent through life. It has rules for every aspect: social, political and economic. This is not mere theory; Islamic principles have been put into practice and have produced results that are far superior to any other system.


The West’s greatest claim to superiority has rested on its ability to produce vast amounts of goods to satisfy people’s needs. The financial tsunami sweeping North America and Europe and the realization among people that their ruling elites have lied to them and robbed them of their livelihood has finally exposed this myth. If Western-style democracy and capitalism have failed their own people, why should others buy into them? But that is precisely what is being offered to Muslims in the Muslim East. Not only the ruling elites, that are beneficiaries of the old corrupt order, but also some leaders of Islamic movements have fallen for this fraud. It is tragic and depressing to hear otherwise intelligent and sincere leaders of Islamic movements talk about the virtues of secularism.


When Muslims embark on creating political systems in their societies, they must be clear about what they want. For a system to be legitimate and enjoy the support of the masses, it must be based on Islamic principles of which the most fundamental is justice. Without justice, there can be no peace or security in society.


We must also understand one other point: not everyone is created equal. Some are strong, others are weak; some are tall, others are short. The same applies to wealth and health. Yet such power differentiations must not be used to exploit or oppress the weak and poor. Unlike the Western system where the rich and, therefore, the powerful use their privileges to amass great wealth and power and deprive others of their basic rights, Islam regulates the use of power.


Unfortunately, in most Muslim societies too, the rich and powerful exploit the weak and poor. Western powers prop up the corrupt elites so that they institute policies beneficial to the West even if they are detrimental to the interests of their own people. Thus, Saudi Arabia must pump excessive amounts of oil, far beyond its own needs, to satiate America’s thirst. For toeing Washington’s line, the illegitimate House of Saud is kept in power. The same holds true for the city-states on the western shores of the Persian Gulf and regimes elsewhere in the Muslim East. The way out of this mess is not to apply the failed Western model but to create a system based on the values of Islam. It is only then that Muslim societies can be truly liberated.


Without Islam, no regime in the Muslim world can claim legitimacy regardless of the number of elections it holds. If the people desire a life of dignity and honour, they must continue to agitate and resist until they have established an Islamic system of governance.