The Crisis in Iran

1.What has caused the current crisis leading to huge demonstrations on the streets of Tehran?

The crisis has been caused by the outcome of the elections which took place on June 12th 2009.
The results of the elections were announced on June 13th 2009 by the Interior Minister Sadiq Mahsouli. He confirmed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been re-elected to a second term after gaining 62% of the votes. Leading reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi gained a mere 33%. Mahsouli added that the turnout approached 85%, with a little more than 39 million of 46.2 million eligible voters casting their ballots. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei immediately issued a statement in which he praised the turnout and called on the public and the challengers to support the winner.

The European Union and several western countries expressed concern over alleged irregularities during the vote, and some analysts and journalists from the United States and European based media voiced doubts about the authenticity of the results.
Mousavi issued a statement saying, “I’m warning that I won’t surrender to this charade,” and he urged his backers to fight the decision as well as to avoid committing acts of violence. Protests, in favor of Mousavi and against the alleged fraud, then broke out in Tehran.
In essence the Western world and the opposition reformist candidates oppose the outcome of the elections.

2.Is there any truth in the claims?

A number of irregularities have been reported and some electoral engineering cannot be rules out. However the resounding silence from powerful figures like Rafsanjani and Larijani is a strong indication that the election results and claims of fraud are not compelling enough. The claims that the election was rigged will be difficult to verify – if there is an investigation. The final vote breakdown gives Ahmadinejad a huge margin of 11 million votes which even in a re-count will be very difficult to change.

Without an investigation it is difficult to decide if there was any vote engineering. However it is difficult to see how Ahmadinejad could have stolen the election by such a huge margin. To achieve such a feat he would have needed the cooperation of a large number of teams to have rigged polling booths. The risks involved would have been huge as Ahmadinejad has many powerful enemies who would have jumped on the opportunity to use this to their advantage. Mousavi after five days submitted his complaints to the Guardian council, however the mechanics of electoral fraud that he claims robbed him of Iran’s presidency have still not materialised.

What makes the claims of the defeated reformists much weaker is Ahmadinejad’s attendance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit a few days after the disputed election result. This would not have been possible without the agreement of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei and other heavy weights in the regime.

The first Friday sermon after the election will in all likelihood bring to an end any possibility of continued demonstrations and a re-election. The supreme leader in his Friday sermon at Tehran University rebuked Mousavi for not accepting the election result and for allowing the demonstrations to take place. This in effect was a public endorsement of the election result by Iran’s supreme body.

Currently the defeated reformists candidates claim the entire election is against the sentiments of Iranians, the majority of whom opposed incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his policies but whose will was thwarted by a falsification of the electoral results by an unpopular and dictatorial ruler who made it appear that he had won the election massively rather than lost it.

3.How much of the struggle is between the conservatives and reformists?

The conservatives rose to prominence for engineering the infamous Islamic revolution in 1979. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reportedly one of the masterminds behind the embassy hostage crisis in 1979 where the American embassy was taken over in support of the Iranian Revolution. Iran went through a period of international isolation by the international community, this led to the trust between Iran and the West reaching unprecedented lows. The death of Ayatollah Rahullah Khomini led to a number of clerics calling for an end to the international isolation and re-engagement with the West. Such calls for reform were led by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami and such calls continue to cause a fault line in Iranian politics.
Mohammad Khatami withdrew as candidate from the election race and placed his support behind Mousavi in order to ensure reformist votes were not fractured. This election was a battle between the conservative candidate who believes in the Islamic revolution and the reformist candidate who believes Iran needs to move away from the Islamic revolution and begin engaging with the West. Currently the Iranian regime and its key organs are controlled by the conservatives.

The days after the election result has led to many demonstrations which have called for reform. For some time it seemed that Mousavi might be able to call for an uprising in Tehran. But the moment passed when Ahmadinejad’s security forces on motorcycles intervened. And that leaves the West with its worst-case scenario: a democratically elected anti-liberal.

The Western media have given the electoral dispute much coverage and have presented it as the next colour revolution. Whilst both leading candidates represent opposite sides to where Iran should be going, the lines between them are today much blurred as both groups have been pursuing similar pragmatic policies.

Barack Obama’s interview with CNBC’s John Harwood was very telling: “The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States.”

Whilst in the past the demarcation between the reformists and conservatives was very clear, today this is not the case as both are pursuing similar polices. Whilst there are individuals from both groups who despise each other this is more personal rather then the conservative/reformists axis. Hence the despising of the reformist Ali Akbar Rafsanjani is more due to his corruption rather than him being a conservative.

4.The Western Media are reporting a revolution is in the making, is this the case?

The Western media have engaged in reporting that can only be considered over reporting and very biased coverage. The idea of a revolution in the making has come from Western reporting with slogans such as the twitter revolution, the Ipod generation, face book revolution, blog revolution and green revolution. Western coverage of the elections is rooted in the old axis of standing against the Islamic revolution and supporting the reformists who want a free and liberal Iran. The West has engaged with Iran on this basis and continues to do so.

The myth the Western world follow is that the fall the shah was due to a mass movement of people demanding liberalisation. If such a group of reformists are supported by the West they would become majority and rule the country. Western reporters believe that anyone who listens to beyonce owns an iPod, has a blog and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Such individuals can be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to Western journalists, diplomats and intelligence services. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are to speak to Westerners. It is from such people Westerners receive the information that a revolution is on hand. However such people are not the majority. Most Iranians are poor and unable to afford an Ipod let alone a phone and are content with Ahmadinejad’s fiery anti Western rhetoric.

The defeated candidates also used the polls to prove their case. Almost all polls conducted predicted Ahmedinijad to lose the election. He had a dismal term and very few of his previous campaign policies never materialised, unemployment is at all time highs and Iran’s energy infrastructure is crumbling. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned at the election result. The US based Strategic Forecasting – the intelligence agency reported: “A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to poll, the numbers turned out quite different.”

Abbas Barzegar, reporting for The Guardian, has described the Western reaction to the election results as evidence of wishful thinking. Western journalists, Barzegar argued, ‘have been reporting primarily from the wealthier areas of the greater cities, ignoring the wide support Ahmadinejad enjoys in poor and rural communities.’

However Iran-Western relations are changing and were first initiated by the Bush government. Iran continues to cooperate with the US and protect its interests. In Iraq Tehran continues to extend support to the leader of SCIRI, Ayatollah Hakim and the Badr Brigade who have become the lynchpin of US plans for Southern Iraq. In Afghanistan, Iran runs extensive reconstruction and training programs in Kabul, Herat and Kandahar. Thus far, Iran has successfully prevented American embarrassment in both countries. Whilst Western reporting is still restricted to the historical distrust Barack Obama plans to commence direct engagement with Tehran within the coming weeks.

5.Are the demonstrations evidence against the Islamic revolution and Islam itself?

Many Iranians in 1979 mobilised together to bring an end the rule of the Shah. His failed economic policies and authoritarian rule became the unifying factor between, reformists, Marxists, socialists, students, professors and anarchists. However the Islamic revolution brought nothing in terms of economic development, Khomeini began a process of securing his grip on the whole nation and exiled, assassinated and arrested many of those who brought him to power. The disastrous 8 year war with Iraq consumed the Iran economy creating even more poverty than prior to the revolution.

The Iran economy has long relied on its Oil and energy sectors. Iran has the world’s largest gas field, the world’s largest gas reserves after Russia and the world’s largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. However Iran’s 1940’s constructed energy infrastructure is crumbling and inflation and unemployment is rampant and out of control. Ahmadinejad came to power on back of many economic promises that have not materialised. He has attempted to deal with this through a massive public spending programme and subsidised oil and gas – such subsidies are not sustainable. In 2007 due to massive mismanagement of the economy Ahmadinejad began the rationing of gas which caused riots.

The demonstrations that have filled the news stories of the West represent those who want change due to Ahmadinejad’s economic failure. He has reneged on all his economic promises and created an economic bomb that will go off very soon. The election victory is seen by many in Iran as a continuation of such failed policies. Ahmadinejad has done nothing for the 3 million unemployed. While the catalyst for these demonstrations was an election, the election issues were the economy and unemployment. The Western media continues to propagate the demonstrators represent Iranian public sentiment, they fail to see the economic legacy that haunts the country or a very important issue that day by day is becoming even clearer – the demonstrations are simply supporters of candidates who were massively defeated.

Foreign Embassies in Muslim Lands

The US plans to build a huge embassy in Islamabad that will rival the recently completed US embassy in Baghdad. Historically, such foreign embassies were used by the colonial powers to destroy the Khilafah. Today, they continue this work by wreaking havoc in the affairs of the Ummah. Allah (swt) has commanded us to deal with other states in a specific manner and He has ordered us to admit foreign ambassadors into Muslim lands by giving them diplomatic immunity ONLY in their capacity as an ambassador and for the mission they were sent. The foreign embassies as they currently operate are haram and must be rejected by the Ummah. We must explain the reality of foreign embassies to our fellow Muslims, especially family members living in the Muslim world so that they may be aware of the danger they pose to our lands.

Last week, the media reported that the United States is planning to build a massive embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. According to the Miami Herald, “the plan calls for the rapid construction of a $111 million new office annex to accommodate 330 workers; $197 million to build 156 permanent and 80 temporary housing units; and a $405 million replacement of the main embassy building.” This project is in addition to the reconstruction of the consular buildings in Lahore and Peshawar. Jonathan Blyth, director of external affairs at the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations in Washington, said in his comment about the project, “For the strong commitment the U.S. is making in the country of Pakistan, we need the necessary platform to fulfil our diplomatic mission. The embassy is in need of upgrading and expansion to meet our future mission requirements.” Khurshid Ahmad, a member of Pakistan’s upper house of parliament for Jamaat-e-Islami said, “This is a replay of Baghdad. This [Islamabad embassy] is more [space] than they should need. It’s for the micro and macro management of Pakistan, and using Pakistan for pushing the American agenda in Central Asia.”

Khurshid was referring to the gigantic US embassy in Iraq that opened in January of this year. According to FoxNews, the embassy is 104 acres which is approximately the size of 80 football fields! Like a small city in the United States, it includes a cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities and houses 1,000 employees in 6 apartment blocks. The International Crisis Group said about the embassy, “The presence of a massive U.S. embassy – by far the largest in the world – co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country.”

The Muslim lands are littered with foreign embassies. While on the surface, these embassies may appear to be simple buildings upon which diplomats are housed, they are more often than not, used as a tool for foreign powers to gain access to the region, gather intelligence, spread secular-Capitalist values and exert political influence. As the role that these embassies play in the Muslim lands today becomes clearer, it is important to remember their involvement in abolishing the Uthmani Khilafah.

Role of Foreign Embassies in Destroying the Khilafah

When Britain and France lost hope in defeating the Islamic State through military force (i.e. the Crusades), they took a different direction and attacked the Islamic Ummah by using Western thoughts to shake her confidence in Islam. To achieve their aims, the Colonial powers turned towards an intellectual struggle. In 1625 they moved their base of operations from Malta to Beirut while also establishing a presence in Istanbul. The English and French embassies worked energetically with American institutions, such as the predecessor to the American University of Beirut (namely the Protestant College) in order to advance their objectives. The English and French embassies in Istanbul, Damascus, Beirut and Cairo worked actively in destroying the Khilafah.

For example, between 1912-1913 the European embassies assisted in creating nationalist parties such as the Decentralization Party in Cairo and the Reform Committee in Beirut. Between 1915-1916, Jamal Pasha, the Commander of the Uthmani Army in Syria seized documents from the French consulate in Damascus, proving that some Arab youth were perpetrating treason against the Khilafah by acting on the guidance of France and on the orders of Britain. The foreign embassies in the Khilafah worked at all levels of society, especially on the political and intellectual mediums to attract the youth, military and government personnel to secular-Capitalist thoughts. This effort had its intended effect – the hearts and minds of some of the Muslims became enchanted with the secular-Capitalist culture, while the general population of the Muslims began to doubt the suitability of Islam in the current age. These efforts were an important factor amongst others that led to the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924.

Foreign Embassies in Muslim Lands Today

While it is clear that in the past foreign embassies have played a pivotal role in shaping the thoughts and ideas of many of the sons and daughters in the Ummah, the present day situation has not changed. For example:

• Azerbijan - In April 2005, the leader of the pro-government Motherland Party, Fazail Agamali, expressed his discontent with the US ambassador’s trips to the country’s regions, where he met activists of opposition parties. Faizal said, “This is not in line with the mandate of an ambassador, causes concern and brings about unpleasant talks and rumours.”
• Egypt - In May 2006, Egyptian lawmakers accused the US ambassador Francis Ricciardone of interfering in Egypt’s domestic affairs. MP Kemal Ahmed quoted Ricciardone as saying, “The US has interests and pays money to the Egyptian government, which must work to achieve those interests.” The US embassy denied making these comments. However, in March 2005, David Welch, American Ambassador to Egypt announced that $1 million would be granted to Egyptian NGOs that had ideas for democracy-building activities. The grant was a part of the Greater Middle East Partnership Initiative by the US which proposed a more active US involvement in Egypt.
• Lebanon - Last month, the Head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary block, MP Mohammad Raad, said that US ambassador Michele Sison was meddling in the formation of the ruling majority election lists.
• Kenya - Last month, US ambassador Michael Ranneberger was accused by the Kenyan MPs of “behaving like a governor” by mobilizing the youth across the country and bypassing the MPs.

The Hukm Sharai on Relations with Other States

With the insurmountable evidence supporting the notions of plotting and interference by foreign embassies and ambassadors in Muslim lands, one may ask what the hukm sharai is regarding relationships between the Islamic state and with other countries. The Islamic State’s relations with other states are built upon four considerations:

1. States in the current Islamic world are considered to belong to one state and therefore every effort should be expended to unify all these countries into one state.
2. States that have economic, commercial, friendly or cultural treaties with the Khilafah are to be treated according to the terms of the treaties.
3. States with which we do not have treaties, imperialist states and those states that have designs against the Khilafah are considered to be potentially belligerent states. All precautions must be taken towards them and it would be wrong to establish diplomatic relations with them.
4. With states that are actually belligerent states, a state of war must be taken as the basis for all dispositions with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war existed – with or without an actual armistice – between the Muslims and all their subjects are prevented from entering the State.

With respect to foreign ambassadors in Muslim lands, they are excluded from the rules of Islam being implemented upon them as they would be given diplomatic immunity in their role as an ambassador and for the mission that they were sent. This Islamic opinion is based on the actions of RasulAllah (saw) which is narrated by Abu Wa’il who said:

“This one [Ibnul Nawwaha] and Ibnu Uthal had once come to the Messenger of Allah (saw) as envoys of Musaylima the liar and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to them: ‘Do you bear witness that I am the Messenger of Allah?’ They said: ‘We bear witness that Musaylima is the Messenger of Allah.’ Upon this the Messenger of Allah(saw): ‘If I were to kill an envoy I would strike your necks.’ Since then, a tradition has been established stipulating that the envoy does not get killed.” [Ahmad]

This Hadith indicates that it is forbidden to kill the envoys that are dispatched from non-Muslim countries or subject them to any punishment related to their role as envoys. However, this is exclusively applicable upon those who have the capacity of an envoy, such as the ambassador. As for those upon whom the capacity of an envoy does not apply, (i.e. Consul, Commercial Attaché, etc) they would not have immunity because they do not have the capacity of an envoy.

Furthermore, if the foreign ambassadors were to commit actions that go beyond the role of an ambassador such as murdering, stealing, propagating kufr concepts or trying to divide the Ummah, then they would be held accountable and a punishment determined by a judge would be issued upon them.

As for the foreign embassy buildings themselves, they operate today on the premise that the land upon which the buildings exist is a part of their land of origin. In other words, the US embassy in Pakistan for example, will be considered “American soil.” This implies that the laws from which the embassy originate will be implemented in that embassy. In the Muslim lands it is haram (forbidden) to have a set of rules or laws that take precedence to Allah’s سبحانه وتعالى Hukm

Sharai based on His revelation:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
“Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed, then they are the Kafiroon.” [Al-Maaida, 5:47]

As a result, it is haram to allow such foreign embassies to exist in our lands. The very thought of them should provoke our anger and outrage even more than the thought of bars selling alcohol in Muslim lands. When we read in the news about foreign embassies and ambassadors in our lands, we should remind ourselves of the roles they have played in destroying the Khilafah and the initiatives they currently lead to destroy any semblance of Islam in the Muslim lands. If we have family in the Muslim world that is employed by foreign embassies, we must discuss with them the Hukm Sharai. We should also explain the history and the current context of these embassies and ambassadors so that they will see them for what they really are and be aware of the ploys and tactics that are continually used to inflict damage on the Ummah.

May Allah (swt)allow us to see the truth for what it is and the falsehood for what it is.

تِلْكَ آيَاتُ اللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِالْحَقِّ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَ اللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ يُؤْمِنُونَ
“These are the Ayat of Allah, which We recite to you with truth. Then in which speech after Allah and His Ayat will they believe?” [Al-Jaathiya, 45:6]

Obama’s speech in Egypt

Wednesday, 03 June 2009

When the European conqueror Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt as part of his quest for world domination, he told the people: “You will be told that I came to destroy your religion; do not believe it … I have more respect than the Mamelukes for your God, His Prophet, and the Koran” and many more sweet words besides.

Barack Obama’s speech in Egypt has been hailed by some as a new direction in policy towards the Muslim world. Although this appears a seemingly positive gesture towards the Muslim world, the actions of his government appear every bit as ruthless as the Bush administration. He differs only to the extent that, unlike Bush who spoke with frank hatred, he uses ‘soft power’ and personal charm to cover his intentions. Instead of the rhetoric, let us look at the facts:

On Pakistan: In his first few months in office, Obama’s administration has succeeded in creating 3 million refugees by pushing the corrupt Zardari regime to launch a war in Swat. Even before he took office he declared Pakistan the most dangerous place on earth, and said he would even bomb Islamabad if he had to. His whole policy in the region is driven by trying to secure America’s foothold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and fighting a popular insurgency – except he has decided to sacrifice Pakistan’s soldiers instead of American ones. We have even seen evidence of dirty tricks of the sort used by the CIA in Iraq or Central America, to instil hatred and division between Muslims and Obama has continued US drone attacks in Pakistan.

On Palestine: Obama boasts he wants to see the ‘road-map’ implemented towards securing a Palestinian state. People seem positive because he seeks to challenge the Israeli politicians who oppose this. However, what people forget in this propaganda about the ‘road-map’ is that this so-called Palestinian state will be little more than a glorified prison camp, where the guards are Palestinian instead of Israeli – because if they did not keep Israel’s security to a standard it is happy with, it will simply invade again.

On supporting Israel: Obama appointed, Rahm Emanuel, the son of an Israeli Irgun terrorist, as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel has said that Obama did not need his influence to “orientate his policy toward Israel”. This is true because before he was elected, Obama said “We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defence relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defence programs”. Moreover, he went further than any US President saying, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” His response to Israel’s massacre in Gaza was “America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.”

On Guantanamo Bay and torture: Obama has promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and most people had expected the military tribunals to end. However, many of the Guantanamo prisoners will remain imprisoned elsewhere, and he has decided to continue with the very controversial military tribunals. Although he has made a lot of rhetoric of the CIA being banned from using torture, he has decided not to prosecute anyone who carried out torture in the past, and he has not ruled out using evidence gained through torture in other parts of the world.

On imprisonment without trial: In May 2009 Obama went on record supporting indefinite detention without trial in the USA. He used very Bush-like language saying there are some “very dangerous people” where there is not enough evidence to convict, so they needed to be locked up.

On Supporting tyrants and criminal rulers in the Muslim world: Obama is as supportive of the tyrants and criminal rulers in the Muslim world as any of his predecessors. In his recent BBC interview he described Mubarak, the Pharaoh of Egypt, who tortures and represses his opponents saying “he’s been a stalwart ally to the US… he’s been a force for stability and good in the region”. He also praised Mubarak’s “sustained peace with Israel” which included blockading the people of Gaza from getting help and humanitarian relief.

Muslims should not be deceived by Obama’s words. The United States of America is a Capitalist state. Its institutions are geared towards maintaining America’s power around the world, even if they have to exploit others in the process; they are geared to crush any competitor to America in the world, even if it means people have to live under occupation and tyranny. So regardless of whether it is Bush, Obama or anyone else, fundamental US interests and policies will never change.

The real reason why Obama is making these gestures is to improve America’s image as it is both economically and morally bankrupt. Its economic system has been exposed as a fragile house of cards, ready to collapse at any time. Despite their promises of creating wealth to relieve poverty, they have made poverty a reality for billions. Its superior moral tone about its political system – democracy and human rights – has been exposed as nothing more than lies, as it killed, imprisoned and tortured people without limit.

What Obama is trying to do is a desperate attempt to thwart the rise of an alternative and rival in the Muslim world. The CIA predicted that by 2020 the world would see the emergence of a new Khilafah State in the Muslim world. This would be a state that would not create the terror unleashed by the United States, but a state that would end occupation and bring stability and security in the Muslim world. It is a state that would have an economic system to help end poverty and bring tranquillity to the world. It is a state that would uphold the Shariah of Allah (swt), the dignity of His Messenger (saw), and the well being of its citizens.

What is required by Muslims all over the world is to continue working, following the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), to remove the corrupt rulers that the Western leaders court, and re-establish the leadership for the Muslim Ummah, the Khilafah State, once again.

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

“Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion – the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: ‘They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me. ‘If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked” [Translated meaning of the Quran 24:55 ]

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Britain

11 Jumada al-Thani 1430 / 4 June 2009

Q&A: The Conflict in Sri Lanka

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question:

On 19/5/2009 speaking on state television Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared victory against the Tamil Tigers. He said, “Our motherland has been completely liberated from separatist terrorism.” The state television also broadcasted images of the Tamil Tiger leader’s body after it was recovered from the battlefield. “A few hours ago, the body of terrorist leader (Velupillai) Prabhakaran, who ruined this country, was found on the battleground,” army Chief Gen. Sarath Fonseka told state television. In his victory speech the President Rajapaksa was anxious to strike a reconciliatory tone with Tamil people. He said, “Our intention was to save the Tamil people from the cruel grip of the (rebels). We all must now live as equals in this free country.”

What is the reality of the conflict in Sri Lanka? Is it a local or regional conflict or an international conflict? In who’s favor was the result of this conflict? Is it possible to say that the conflict in the island has come to an end or not?

Answer:

To answer these questions we shall say:

1- The Sri Lankan conflict has often been portrayed as a protracted conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the militant movements of Sri Lankan’s Tamil population. However, in reality the conflict is a classic Anglo-American struggle to control the strategic waterways of Sri Lanka and has been fought with the aid regional proxy powers such as India and Pakistan.

2- Sri Lanka’s importance lies in its location. It is situated about 19 miles off the southern coast of India thus overlooking one of the most important sea routes between West Asia and South East Asia. It is separated from the Indian subcontinent at its narrowest point by 22 miles of sea called Palk Strait. America has for sometime desired to control the Palk Straits and to make it part of Pentagon’s military foot print. This will spur America to dominate the Indian Ocean and cut off vital oil supplies from the Middle East and Africa to China, as well as to thwart China’s naval expansion westward.

Immediately, after September 11 2001 attacks, the then US defence secretary Rumsfeld embarked on initiatives to bolster further the ties between Sri Lanka and the US. The control of Palk Straits would also hurt India’s sea supply route to its eastern states and may necessitate traversing around Sri Lanka to reach these states thereby increasing the journey time and making it a very expensive alternative route. A reduction of influence of the Palk Straits would also hurt India’s ambitions to become a regional naval power and limit its naval expansion plans eastwards. It is for these very reasons that China established military ties with the Sri Lankan government and supplied it with military equipment.

It is also important to note that a decline in Indian influence over the Palk Straits would also affect British interests in the region. For hundreds of years Britain has sought to dominate the Indian Ocean to keep open sea routes located in the region to supply goods to far Eastern markets. American hegemony over the Indian Ocean and the Palk straits would hurt both Britain and Europe. Hence the control of Sri Lanka is of immense importance to the US and will enable it to curb the threat of China and limit British and European influence in South East Asia and the Far East.

3- The roots of the conflict lie in the disenfranchised Tamil population that was brought over by the British from India’s Tamil Nadu region to work on the coffee and tea plantations thereby transforming the island into a major tea producer. However, the majority Buddhist Sinhalese community disliked Britain’s preferential treatment of the mainly-Hindu Tamils. The independence of Sri Lanka in 1948 only accentuated the bitterness between the two communities, as successive Sinhalese governments stalled on promises to grant the Tamils who resided in the North of the country greater political rights. Disappointed by these turn of events, Tamils lost faith in their political leaders as well as the Sri Lankan political process that blocked every attempt to accommodate them. During this period a number of militant groups sprung up. The most prominent of them was The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam commonly known as the LTTE or the Tamil Tigers, which was formed in 1976 and headed by its founder, Velupillai Prabhakaran. Its aim was to create an independent Tamil state named Tamil Eelam in the north and the east of the island. It was only in the 1980s that the LTTE grew in popularity, especially after the failed attempt in 1983 of Tamil legislators to push through reforms for their people.

However, the LTTE quickly became infiltrated by British, Indian and US agents- leading to infighting and confrontation with other militant groups. In the 1980s Britain pushed India to support both LTTE and the Sri Lankan government in response to the growing American influence in Sri Lanka. Eventually, India under the pretext of preventing Tamils in India joining the Tamils in Northern Sri Lanka to create a separate homeland directly intervened in the conflict, especially when the Indian Congress ruling party realised that the Sri Lankan army was close to wiping out the LTTE. The intervention of India was continued in the form of a political face of it, and in the form of help to the Tigers from behind a curtain, On July 29, 1987, Indian involvement led to a peace accord signed between Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi Sri Lankan President Jayewardene. Under this accord, the Sri Lankan Government made a number of concessions to Tamil demands, including devolution of power to the provinces and the establishment of an Indian Peace Keeping Force in return for stopping support to Tamil insurgents.

4- Indian occupation of parts of Sri Lanka backfired and led to a humiliating withdrawal of Indian troops. America exploited the negative sentiments against India to cement its relations with the LTTE as well as the Sri Lankan government. But America gave preference to the latter. Thereafter, America’s relations with the Sri Lankan government grew stronger and reached a new level of cooperation in the days after the attacks of September 11 2001. America now gave Sri Lankan government the green light to pursue the fight against LTTE as part of the global war on terrorism. In return America sought to establish strong military and economic ties with Sri Lanka. In June 2002, Washington held discussions Colombo on a far-reaching Access and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that would enable US warships and aircraft to use facilities in Sri Lanka. In July 2002, President Bush met with then-Sri Lankan Prime Minister Wickremesinghe at the White House and pledged U.S. support for peace and economic development in Sri Lanka. The United States and Sri Lanka signed a new Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) in 2002.An immediate casualty of this newfound relationship was Britain which found itself increasingly isolated for two primary reasons. First, the congress party in India had been replaced by the pro-American BJP, which was reluctant to adopt an aggressive policy towards Colombo. Second the Sri Lankan government was now under the influence of America. Thus Britain resorted to supporting the LTTE until its demise this year.

5- However, it was not until the election of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s in November 2005 that America finally got a Sri Lankan government in place that wholeheartedly supported the destruction of LTTE. In fact Rajapaksa’s was elected based on his promise to defeat the LTTE. Rajapaksa formed pacts with the hardline Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna party and extremist Buddhist monks. America openly welcomed his re-election. “We remain committed to maintaining the historically close ties between our two countries,” a press release from the US Department of State in Washington DC said. Adam Ereli, deputy spokesman for the US Department of State said: “The United States looks forward to working with President Rajapaksa as he confronts many significant and immediate challenges.” America through Rajapaksa and his brother who is Chief of army staff embarked on a campaign to uproot LTTE. Sensing the change in Colombo Britain, India and Europe did their utmost to prevent Rajapaksa’s government to wipe out the LTTE.

6- America provided Rajapaksa’s military with vital equipment by instructing Pakistan to help Sri Lanka. In March 2006, Sri Lankan authorities had sought Multi-Barrel Rocket Launcher System (MBRLS) and other advanced weapons from Pakistan when Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa visited Pakistan. In May 2008 that Sri Lankan Army Chief Lt-Gen Fonseka came to Pakistan and finalised a deal as per which Pakistan sold 22 Al-Khalid tanks to Sri Lanka in a deal worth over US$100 million. General Fonseka also gave a shopping list of weaponry worth about US$65 million to the Pakistani military authorities. On Jan 19, 2009, in a meeting between Pakistani Defence Secretary Lt-Gen (retd) Syed Athar Ali and his visiting Lankan counterpart Gotabhaya Rajapakse in Rawalpindi, the two countries had agreed to enhance cooperation in military training, exercises and intelligence sharing regarding terrorism.

7- As the Sri Lankan army made vital battle field gains against the LTTE, Britain her proxy India and Europe sought reconciliation between Rajapaksa’s government and the LTTE. Their aim was to protect LTTE from being destroyed. America would occasionally join Britain and Europe in encouraging Rajapaksa to support a ceasefire and engage in peace talks-but this was only lip service. Hence a familiar pattern emerged-Britain and India would voice concern for Tamil civilians caught up in the conflict and advocate reconciliation. In response Rajapaksa’s would reject such overtures. In fact in the latter days of the conflict Britain, Europe and India repeatedly called for a ceasefire and encouraged worldwide demonstrations by mobilising the Tamil diaspora to protest against Rajapaksa government’s killing of civilians. The Sri Lankan government ignored such please and through US assistance via Pakistan managed to crush the LTTE-a militant organization that controlled vast swath of land in the north, ran its own police force, boasted of its own navy and air force.

The defeat of the LTTE means that British and Indian influence in the North of the country has been marginalized and now gives America the opportunity to consolidate her stranglehold over Sri Lanka and establish a permanent military presence in the country. It also allows America to control the Palk Straits and wield her naval power in the Indian Ocean to counter the Chinese threat. Furthermore, America can use Sri Lanka to pressurise India -given that the congress party has returned to power for another 5 years-to follow its policies for the region. However, a lot depends on Rajapaksa’s ability to repair relations with the Tamils and accommodate their political concerns. America has already voiced support for such an endeavour and has earmarked vital aid via the IMF to Rajapaksa’s government to accomplish such a task. A stable Sri Lanka is vital for American interests, and given the history of the region, Britain and her surrogate India will be looking to re-establish themselves in Sri Lanka. The Anglo-American struggle may have subsided for now, but it is certainly not over.

28 Jumada al-thanni 1430
23/5/2009

The Islamic State: Organisation Chart

Caliphate Organisation Chart

Download Org Chart

Overview

Executive Assistants (Mu’awin ut-tanfeedh)

The Treasury (Bait ul-Mal)

Treasury Revenues Division

Treasury Expenditures Division

The Provinces (Wiliyat)

Judiciary (Qadaa’)

Government Departments (Dawa’ir)

Department of Information (Da’irat ul I’laam)

Department of Military (Da’irat ul-Harbiyya)

Department of Industry (Da’irat us-sina’a)

Department of Internal Security (Da’irat ush-shu’oon id-dakhiliyya)

Department of Foreign Affairs (Da’irat ush-shu’oon il-kharijiyya)

Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah)

Book Riview: The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State

Media conditioning tends to play havoc when trying to judge a book by its cover. I always thought the book ‘Catch-22′ by Joseph Heller would be a complex spy thriller, with the protagonist stuck in a no-win save-the-world-or-save-the-girl type situation. After all, that’s how the pundits always frame the term ‘catch-22′. In fact I continued to believe that even after reading 1/3 of the book – before I finally realised it was a satirical book about a crazy guy.

The same conditioning applies to the use of the term ‘Islamic State’. When thought of in its historical narrative, we automatically assume ‘The Rise and Fall’ of the Islamic State. Read the title closely though (I’m sure you’ve already re-read it). Yes, your eyes don’t deceive you, it reads ‘The Fall and Rise‘ of the Islamic State.

Wow, so a book talking about the rise of the Islamic State, coming from someone described in many circles as one of the leading intellectuals of our time? I had to go buy it.

I’m not really up for a detailed review of the book, it would take me too long to think up all those pithy statements that would make it sound like a real review. In summary though, if you want a penetrating and concise answer to why Muslims around the world call for a restoration of the Islamic State, when in the perception of Western minds this is equated with medieval barbarisms – then you should read this book.

Noah Feldman has the scholarship (and the honesty) to know that the history of the Islamic State is not one where a civilisation is only characterised by stonings and amputations. The shari’yah is the law for Muslims, and how sad it is, that law for Muslims only exists in the narrow gallows of punishments? So Feldman at least begins with the correct premise: that the call for the Islamic State, is the call for shar’iyah – this is the call for law itself. Incidentally, this is what Feldman was attacked for in the New York Times Magazine for indirectly promoting Islam as the basis of a political order.

Anyways, the book is divided into three main parts: What Went right? Decline and Fall; and Rise of the New Islamic State.

Again read the book, if you want to know all the details. What I want to concentrate on though is a very common theme that transcends over the whole book – which is the discussion of the role of the ‘ulema in the Islamic State.

As the book describes, for what went initially right, was that the ‘ulema maintained their central role as the guardians of shar’iyah. This seems like a well known point, but we often lose sight of a very distinguishing fact of the Islamic State – that the State is subservient to the shar’iyah, and not the shar’iyah being subservient to the State. In Feldmans words the ‘ulema were the ‘gatekeepers’ of the shar’iyah. Ultimately this meant the State was kept in check by the ‘ulema. Any volition by the State not according to the shar’iyah would be answerable to the ‘ulema, who in effect were the counterbalance to the State.

Next the book continues with Feldmans analysis of why the Islamic State declined. Continuing with the discussion of the ‘ulema, Feldman postulates that the specific steps the Ottomans took with the Tanzimat reforms and the establishment of the Mecelle, led to the resounding loss of power for the ‘ulema. For while the Tanzimat reforms were then viewed in a positive light to modernise the Ottoman State, nobody apparently had the prescience to realise that it took the role of understanding the shar’iyah away from the ‘ulema and had given it to the State. The codification of Islamic Law, would mean that judges from the non-scholarly class would be heirs to legislation. Eventually, this allowed the likes of the Young Turks to grow, whose fruits bore the likes of Kemal Attaturk (may Allah curse him). With the ‘ulema no longer in the position of acting as a counterbalance, the final death blow to the Islamic State was given by Attaturk in 1924.

In the final part of the book, Feldman takes a look at both Saudi Arabia and Iran, two states with a functioning ‘ulema class, neither of which are really Islamic though (my words). He seemingly also gives a great deal of currency to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as an example of an Islamic group working for the return of the Islamic State. I may disagree here, but he raises an interesting point. The MB may advocate for the supremacy of the shar’iyah, but are they advocating for the elevation and the supremacy of the ‘ulema? In Feldmans view, this is seemingly not the case since such groups have inadvertently also assumed the role the ‘ulema, since they have now become the ‘gatekeepers’ of the shar’iyah. The book pretty much concludes with the question of the role of the ‘ulema still in debate for the foreseeable Islamic State.

Overall, the book has really got me thinking. Despite our admiration for the ‘ulema, we don’t tend to think of them as an entity with any real power. They have become religious figureheads, overseeing our ‘otherworldy’ affairs. In contrast view the recent turmoil in Pakistan, where there had been uproar over the dismissal of the Chief Justice Iftikar Choudhary – a man who holds the law in one hand and the panic of the goverment in the other. Rarely would you see such consideration given for the ‘ulema. Who sadly no longer hold any noble positions in society, with no approbation or even esteem for their diminished roles.

Its strange given that the ‘ulema were men who did not command armies, have huge wealth at their disposal, and rarely did they hold government posts. Yet they carried incredible eminence in the Islamic State. They were the heirs of the Prophets, the guiding light for the Ummah and the restraint that held down hands of the rulers. There is no comparable class of people in any other society or civilisation. One that we pray is brought back to its rightful place with the return of the Islamic State.

Recent Developments in Somalia

Q&A: Recent Developments in Somalia
This is a translation of an Arabic article

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question:
Sheikh Shareef Ahmad has become the president of Somalia, so does this indicate the resurgence of the Shar’iah courts as they were two years ago. If it is so, why is the al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement opposed to them though they a part of the courts or at least very cloase to them? Has in the meantime Sheikh Shareef changed and the al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement is trying to sideline him, does this mean that the al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement is a sincere and dedicated force?

Answer:
Yes, Sheikh Shareef Ahmad is not what he used to be. He was the head of the Islamic courts in the past, and has now come to head the country. He was earlier fighting the greedy foreign kafir colonialists and was talking about implementing the Islamic Shariah, but his politicalacumen and awareness was very weak, just like most of the Islamic militant movements have. Therefore the sincere ones or al-Mukhlisoon sent him a delegation advising him against negotiating with the government of Abdullah Yousuf who was an American agent.

He was also advised not to negotiate wih the US, either directly or even through American agents or under the auspises of the United Nations or even the African Union…all of these are loyal to America, rather they are all America’s hands which it manipulates at will. The delegation also advised him remain opposed to the kuffar colonialists…it is another matter that he did not heed the advice and negotiated with th government of Abdullah Yousuf in Khartoum under the aegis of the UN, Arab League and the African Union.

Anyway, now he is in power, after the destruction of Ethiopia and expulsion of Shareef from Somalia to Kenya and later to Djibouti, he became the president of the Somalian Liberation Front (Djobouti Wing) when the Islamin courts were split and remained so in Asmara and Djobouti, despite both of these countries being loyal to the West…! During this period the Sheikh indulged in direct and indirect negotiations until he came to the position of becoming the head of the Somalian government which is not very different to that of Abdullah Yousuf-thanks to the blessings of America, the West and their agents…the events have now come to be as follows:

1. At the end of 2006 when the Islamic courts were defeated at the hands of the Ethipian forces which were in turn backed by America to subdue Somalia on its behalf, Shareef went into exile to Kenya where he met the US Ambassador in the presence of US intelligence officials.

2. After the split of the Islamic courts into two factions, Sheikh Shareef led the Djibouti faction and began to negotiate with Abdullah Yousuf’s government and with Ethiopia until he signed the Djibouti agreement on 26th October, 2008 C.E.

3. The agreement was reached under American patronage and after acceptance by Ethiopia, this was because the Ethiopian forces had incurred huge losses and wanted to withdraw, but at the same time they wanted to save their face; i.e. through an agreement to that effect.this is why after the treaty was signed, Ethiopia began issuing statements about withdrawal of its troops.
The French news agency (AFP) reported on 28th November, 2008 that Ethiopia will pu;; out its troops from Somalia by the end of the year and this was confirmed through two official letters addressed to the African Union and the United Nations. AFP reported Waheedi Bella, the Ethiopian foreign ministry spokesman saying: “We have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate for Ethiopia to keep its forces in Somalia. We have accomplished our task and are proud of this achievement, but the hopes that we pinned on the international community have been frustrated”. Bvut the same spokesman before the treaty had remarked to AFP on 24th November, 2008 and said: “It (the treaty) follows the Ethiopian direction of troops withdrawal in aphased manner.”

Indeed Somalia is important for Ethiopia, not only in the context of fighting America’s proxy war, but because it is Ethiopia’s neighbour and occupied its Oghadin region during wars in 1977 and 1978 which somalia wants to regain, but has failed to do so. Therefore Ethiopia wants a regime in Somalia which will not be hostile to it and which will not demand the Ogaden terrritory. Moreover Ethiopia serves US interests in the horn of Africa and it was America that sent the Ethiopian troops into Somalia and the same US asked it to withdraw from thereafter the Djobiuti accord on 26th October, 2008 when it atlast found what it was looking for, in the person of Sheikh Shareef.

4. America has seen that Sheikh Shareef is better equipped to confront the Mujahideen because of his Islamic past. The Americans also understand that Ethiopia being an African country cannot remain in the midst of the Islamists for long, thus it was more suitable for the US to employ one of the Islamists to play this role. Hence America worked on Sheikh Shareef and its agents and Sudan and Kenya, especially of Sudan were able to overwhelm him, Hasan Makki, a political expert observes: “The Sudanese government expalined to Sheikh Shareef that it was not possible for him to overcome the Ethiopians, nor it was possible for him to work with the international community, as if he did not exist for them. Therefore Sheikh Shareef began to heed such advices, after all, he was educated in the Sudanese educational institutions.” He adds: “The Sudanese mediation played a major part in these (Djibouti treaty) deliberations.”
Thus America had won over Shareef to the extent that he began to sing in America’s praise. In an interview with Voice of America’s Somalian branch on 20th February, 2009, he described American policies in Somalian as being positive right since the start of the negotiations until the present time, and added: “We hope these efforts fructify.”!!

5. Sheikh Shareef became Somalia’s president winning a majority votes of the same parliament which was elected in Abdullah Yousuf’s term! Now the next step was the appointment of a prime minister, where again America played a major role. Omar ‘Abd alRasheed Sharmarki, a US- resident, and a moderate according to US standards. He had held various positions at the UN and was also the Somalian ambassador to Washigton during Abdullah Yousuf’s period. He is the son of a former Somalian president Abdirashid Ali Shermarke.

6. America was keen that Omar ‘Abd alRasheed Sharmarki should be the primeminister due to the fact he had earlier lived in the US, he was not involved in the civilwar because he was away from it and far away in the US and this placed in a position of better acceptability to the comon man in Somalia.

It may be pertinent to mention that such is the usual norm of the colonialist powers; whenever they would find a man who has the potential to effectively serve their interests and agenda, they would replace their existing agent with their niw-find who could serve them better. Thus America abandoned Abdullah Yousuf who had now been worn-out and exposed as a traitor to Somalia, so the US forced him to resign on 29th December, 2008 C.E and had him expelled from Mogadishu to Muscat (Oman). He had earlier ruled Ponteland region of Somalia from 1998 until 2004 when he was declared president. He later took refuge in Yemen.

7. America believes that it has consolidated its hold over Somalia by bringing Sheikh Shareef, who has an Islamist past in the Shariah courts which enjoyed populr support during its rule, as the president; and by having Omar ‘Abd alRasheed Sharmarki, who was not involved in the civil war which makes him more acceptable to the masses, as the prime minister. However, its hopes have faltered, it has now become clear that this regime is not very different to the earlier ones except in outward appearance.
Speaking with all optimism about the present regime, the real difference between the former regime and the present one is that while Abdullah Yousuf knowingly served American interests and he did so on purpose, the present one led by Sheikh Shareef is unwittingly doing so while beliveing that he is doing good for Somalia! We had hoped that Sheikh Shareef would remain alert about the intrigues and consipracies of the kuffar colonialists just as he had been earlier. We still hope that Allah willing, he will return to his earlier self.

8. In light of what this governement stands exposed of. The Muslims especially the al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement have continued to resist it even more intensely.The al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement has split from both (Asmara & Djibouti factions of) the Islamic courts after the Asmara accord in September 2007 C.E and accused them both hobnobbing with the secularists and abandoning Jihad in the path of Allah سبحانه وتعالى
The al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement has decalred its intention of waging jihad against Ethiopia and the United States to recover the entire lost territories in the Horn of Africa. It also intends to establish the rule of Islam which overides petty nationalism etc. The US State Department has issued a statement decalring the al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement to be a separatist, extremist and violent outfit with many of its members to the al-Qaeda organisation. [Chines NewsPage: 18.03.08].

The US had arrested its former leader Ismail ‘Arali in mid 2007 in Djibouti and sent him to the Guantanamo Bay prison. It had also chosen the movement of Mukhtar Abd al Rahman “Abu Zubair” and Mukhtar Rabbou “Abu Mansour” as its official spokesman. [al-Arabia: 22.12.2007]. this official spokesman responded to the US State Department saying: “Our relationship with al-Qaeda is the relationship that one Muslim has with another, the essence of which is loyalty, to keep away from kuffar and reach all Muslims and love them.” He said that “the movement is pleased and happy that it been placed by the US in the list of terror.” A statement issued by the movement on 5th April, 2008 said: “We are fully aware that we are not targeted for being Somalians, but because we carry the concept of jihad as it is generally understood which does not recognise either imanginary boundaries or what is known as the ‘Global Order”.
The al-Shabab Mujahideen Movement has been successful in controlling many of Somalia’s cities and towns and is in effective control of more territory than the government. What is apparently clear about this movement is that it sencerely and truthfully fights the kuffar colonialists… but there is weak point as we mentioned earlier, and which is true of most Islamic militant organisations, which is the lack of political awareness. We pray to Allah سبحانه وتعالى that this movement persists in its strong stance against the kuffar colonialists.

However, this movement is politically more aware than the Hizb Islami which is also opposed to the regime of Sheikh Shareef and is composed of 4 separate movements of which the Somalian Liberation Movement (Asmara faction) led by Hassan Tahir Aweys is more prominent, while the other three are: Kamponi Militia, Islamic Front and the Farouq Militia. The Webpage of the al-Shabab movement, “Gorenje” (A webpage considered close to the al-Shabab movement), asked Hassan Tahir Aweys on 24th January, 2009 as to why is still lived in the Eritrean capital Asmara, Hassan Aweys replied that they (Eritreans) are like what al-Najashi was to the early Muslims!! This is him!!

We pray to Allah سبحانه وتعالى for all Islamic movements to be sincere and dedicated to Allah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and that they become fully aware for the conspiracies and schemings of the kuffar who try to deceive Islam and conceal their evil designs more than they reveal,

قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاء مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ
“They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse.” [TMQ al-Imraan: 118]

Those who seek their support or provide support to them, they shall indeed be clear losers and this fact is amply proved.

Obama’s new strategy and the defeated America!!!

During the past few weeks, the American-serving media has been spreading propaganda and diverting the world’s attention away from the true situation in Afghanistan. Obama and other U.S. officials have been announcing a new military and political strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region, which they claim will be a positive and important step forward for the entire world. In actuality, these policies are doomed to failure and are only an escalation of Bush’s murderous agenda.

However, those who know America inside out and are aware of its imperialistic policies and its foul desire to devour the world. People have learned that they should never expect good and compassion from America. Additionally, the people of the world have begun to invest less and less trust in the charming words and idle promises of American officials. Therefore, the people of the world must be discerning, resilient, and slow to follow America’s greatest charmer yet.

The Afghan Mujahid nation has always known that there is no positive message or promise for Afghanistan and its people in Obama’s rhetoric, desires, and election. This is because on the first day of his election, Obama showed his commitment for the continuation and extension of Bush’s war-mongering policies by saying that he would send more troops to Afghanistan and would further intensify the ongoing war there. However, it was the Western media which relentlessly and falsely publicized Obama’s directions and policies as something that would save America’s current failing military and its economic crises and would restore America’s image after its isolation in the world as a result of Bush’s hated policies.

When on Obama presented his military plan under the name of a new strategy for Afghanistan and the region that he will be sending extra troops to Afghanistan, will be opening a new front against the courageous tribes and will be using all his power to prevent the establishment of an Islamic system in Afghanistan and the growth of religious ideology, he proved that the American leadership is still too stubborn to willingly put an end to the current invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Obama’s strategy of hostility made it clear that this time America intends to make Afghanistan accessible to a number of its neighbours to directly interfere in it under the pretext of contacts and communication and provide them the opportunity to divide Afghanistan and its people on the basis of region, religion and language.

From the point of view of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Obama’s new strategy has already been tested to a great extent before him by Bush, who despite of his seven years of terror, conspiracies and schemes, did not succeed in weakening the morale of the current jihad under the leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, or gain the support of the Afghan nation, or give authority and legitimacy to the Kabul puppet administration at least inside Kabul.

Now by the Grace of Allah, the Mujahideen are in control of a large part of the country, and the Afghan nation is a supporter and exponent of the resistance and jihad against the invaders, it would be a clear proof and also evidence of Obama’s lack of knowledge and ignorance if he still hopes of victory and progress in Afghanistan by pressing the failed strategy of sending several thousand more troops or with the pledge of crushing the tribes.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan tells the Obama’s new administration in no uncertain terms that the Afghan people will not rest and will not stop jihad and resistance as long as a single invading soldier remains in Afghanistan. Perhaps it will be the historical courage and honour of the Afghan nation that the invaders will face eternal defeat at their hands, God willing.

Slumdog Muslim

8 oscars, 14 golden globe nominations, world wide recognition and appreciation, resultant media frenzy. The media frenzy created waves all over the world.

Slumdog millionaire brought the harsh reality of a particular country (India) on to the widescreen with elegance, and shocked the audiences with its larger than life cinematic experience. Slumdog Millionaire earned critical acclaim from the biggest media houses and gained unparalleled publicity for its bold picturisation, powerful screenplay and strong message by addressing issues that still dominate India, although India would like to forget such issues or hide it behind its glittering Capatalist aspirations and dreams.

Child labour, poverty, beggary, slums, high illiteracy rate, police brutality, racial discrimination and more importantly the hindu-muslim tensions ever since India got independence in 1947. Director Danny Boyle used a plot revolving around the protagonist, Jamal Malik, a ‘muslim’ kid born and brought up in the poverty of Mumbai, India and goes through some unforgettably disturbing experiences in life .

It was precisly this reason that some Hindu activists in India; drowned in the fanatical emotion of nationalism, saw the movie as being Pro Muslim and came out in large numbers to protest against it.

Blogs, forums, and some websites were full of hatred and disgust shown by such people and some changed the title of the movie to ‘Slumdog Muslim’ to express their anger.

Ironically but truly ‘Slumdog Muslim’ neither sounds absurd nor abstract.

In fact, ‘Slumdog Muslim’ is also a film that’s still in production. The production of this epic began exactly 85 years ago. The production team however started planning this film, its storyline and its cast and crew years before hand. The planning was intense and involved a number of conferences, meetings and political calculations.

The producers of this films are the western powers. The directors are western and arab politicians and leaders. The story writers are the members of parliament and the biased media.

Hence unlike Slumdog Millionaire, this film titled ‘Slumdog Muslim’ is still in production. Its one of its kind indeed. The story writers and directors of this film are busy writing the continuing story line every day. Everyday a new plot is created, a new scene is shot with a new villian; and a new trailor is filmed and watched by millions of people around the world on the news channels. Special screenings and previews of this film are watched in the political cinemas and the next shot or sequence is discussed and debated; sometimes privately but often publicly to make the audience feel they are part of the plot.

Unlike Slumdog Millionaire which had only one Jamal Malik, in this movie there is more than one Jamal Malik. Probably hundreds and thousands of Jamal Maliks. Unlike Slumdog Millionaire this movie is not just about India but other countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Uzbekistan and Pakistan.

There are probably hundreds of Jamal Maliks that represents each one of these countries. There are Jamal Maliks on the streets of Pakistan suffering the consequences of political corruption. There are Jamal Maliks in the slums of Bangladesh. There are Jamal Maliks resisting the occupation in Palestine.

In this film there are Jamal Maliks who beg to survive just another day and protect themselves from the bloody hands of the occupying forces.

‘Slumdog Muslim’ began filming on the day the Muslim Ummah was made a ‘slumdog’ by the dismemberment of the Islamic State. It was this Islamic State – Khilafah State, that gave the ummah its honour and glory. It was the 3rd of March 1924, exactly 85 years ago when the directors of the movie shot the first official scene of this movie. There were no heroes but only villains such as Mustapha Kemal, Sharif Hussain of Makkah, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud and the other agents of the colonialists.

The truth is that every Muslim will be a slumdog without the just Islamic system that would give him his honour back.

On the whole the Muslim Ummah will be treated like a slumdog at the hands of corrupt and selfish western power till the film comes to the climax.

But there is a major problem with this movie. Since the producers and directors of the movie did not fix the climax of the film for their own selfish reasons, as a result they are unable to bring the film to an end. Now they have realised that the climax is out of their hands. The climax looks more and more likely to be shaped by the heroes of this film themselves.

85 years on, the film is being produced and made everyday, Slumdog Muslim is the film that portrays the real situation that the Ummah is in today.

The following are some of the scenes of this film:

1920 British Mandates to Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine. French Mandate to Lebanon and Syria.

1921 ‘Abdullah recognised as Amir of Transjordan, Faisal made King of Iraq.

1924 Abolition of the Khilafah.

1926 Ibn Sa’ud proclaimed King of Hijaz.

1926 Sheikh Sa’id moved against Mustapha Kamal in 1926 with arms

1927 British recognition of independent Ibn Sa’ud’s Kingdom.

1930 Britain terminates Mandate in Iraq and sponsors Iraq’s membership of League of Nations.

1932 Ibn Sa’ud’s Kingdom named Saudi Arabia.

1933 King Faisal of Iraq dies and is replaced by his son Ghazi.

1934 War between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, ended by British mediation with border changes favouring Saudi Arabia.

1936 Beginning of Arab revolt in Palestine.

1937 Peel Commission proposes partition in Palestine.

1939 Anglo-Turkish Treaty. White Paper on Palestine.

1940 Rashid Ali government formed in Iraq.

1941 British military intervention in Iraq, overthrowing Rashid Ali’s government.

1942 British impose Wafd Party government on King Faruk. Jews demand Jewish state.

1945 Arab League pact signed in Cairo.

1947 Creation of Pakistan and India

1948 The creation of the illegal state of Israel

1971 The bloodshed in East Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh

1995 Bosnia war

1990 Gulf war

1992 The destruction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, India by Hindu mobs

1995 Chechnya massacre

2003 Occupation of Afghanistan

2005 Occupation of Iraq

2009 Islamic Lands continue to be divided into more than fifty secular nations.

Just as with Jamal in ‘Slumdog millionaire’ some aspects are in our control and other aspects beyond us. Whether we follow the guidebook of life, the Quran or not is within our control, whether we strive to work for its implementation by the establishment of a true Islamic state is also in our sphere of control. When will we hit the jackpot and become ‘millionaires’ and regain our security, independence, authority, justice and tranquility is beyond our control, this will happen only when Allah (swt) decides. However there is a difference here, for us it is not about ‘if’ its about ‘when’ – as we are promised this victory by the Almighty and His (swt)’s Messenger (saw). What remains is for us all to seriously work for it.

Allah (swt) says:

“Allah has promised those amongst you who believe and work righteous deeds, that he will indeed grant them inheritance of power in the earth, as he granted it to those before them; that he will establish in authority their Deen, which he has chosen for them, and that he will change their state from a state of fear into a state of security and peace. They will worship me alone and not associate partners with me, and those who reject faith after this, they will be the rebellious and the wicked” [TMQ An-Noor :55]

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal extracted that Huthayfah said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The Prophecy will remain amongst you as long as Allah wills, then Allah will lift it when he wishes, then it will be a Khilafah Rashidah (i.e.: The first four Khalifahs) on the method of the Prophecy, it will remain for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he wills, then it will be a hereditary leadership (i.e.: the Abbasid and Ummayid dynasties etc.) for as long as Allah wills then he will lift it when he so wills. Then there will be a tyrannical rule (i.e.: all the current Kufr regimes of the Muslims) for as long as Allah wills, then he will lift it when he so wills, then there will be a Khilafah Rashidah on the method of the Prophecy, then he kept silent.” [Musnad Imam Ahmed 4/273]

Abdullah al-Hindi

3 March: Dark days for the Ummah since the destruction of the Khilafah

The 3rd of March is a date that is etched into the history of the Muslim Ummah as one of its darkest days ever. It was on this date in the fateful year of 1924 CE that the last vestige of legitimate Islamic rule was ended. The office of Khilifah was abolished by the treacherous Mustafa Kamal and the Muslim Ummah has since then been plunged in to darkness and humiliation. Thus any trace of the Uthmani Khilafah was extinguished as the 101st Khaleefah of Islam, Abdul Mejid II was exiled from the now secular Republic of Turkey.

His banishment from the land of Anatolia with little more than a suitcase and some cash was the beginning of the humiliation that the Muslim world has suffered to this very day. With what was described as the shield of the Muslims by the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم – now in exile, the Ummah was set to be subjected to numerous tragedies that would involve against it murderous wars, foreign occupation, economic strangulation, political manipulation as well as a cultural colonialism that sought to distance the Muslim world from the concept of Islamic ruling and the obligation of living under the Khilafah.

With the sole legitimate leadership of the Muslims, the Khilafah, destroyed the lands of Islam were divided in to numerous statelets and disputed territories. These new entities were established along the lines of ethnicity, sectarianism and racism by the colonialist powers of the day in an attempt to ensure that Muslim Ummah would never rise again. Nationalism that was nurtured by the colonialists in the run up to the destruction of the Khilafah helped to ensure that these new entities would remain at loggerheads, never to think of uniting again. In addition, the blessed land of Palestine was occupied, its inhabitants dispersed so as assuage the West’s guilt and a great injustice was committed in establishing the state of Israel. Any attempts to replicate the power of a unitary leadership of the Muslim world were replaced by pathetic and impotent bodies such as Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). These organisations were designed to perpetuate disunity and division as they preserved the borders and barriers betweens Muslims that the colonialists had established. These states have never had the interests of Islam and the Muslims at heart. This can be seen to this day, as the OIC and Arab League issue countless resolutions on issues such as Palestine and Iraq without ever actually doing anything to change the status quo. These resolutions are but lip service by the insincere leaders of these entities to the cause of Islam, designed solely to pacify their Muslim populations into thinking that Islam cannot solve the Ummah’s problems.

These rulers have committed far more heinous crimes against the Muslims than simply issuing empty resolutions. Western colonialism put in place a motley crew of dictators, monarchs, autocrats and downright puppets that have served their colonial masters in a manner more loyal than their own populations. Successive rulers have betrayed the interests of Muslims. With their brutality and lack of self-respect seemingly having no limits, the Muslim rulers are falling over themselves in an attempt to please. For example, Qatar today hosts the largest airstrip in the Middle East, to be used exclusively by the US Air Force to bomb Muslim lands and control the skies of the Middle East. Bahrain, which previously hosted the naval forces of the British Empire, now serves as the base for the US Navy’s 5th Fleet. Almost every nation in the Muslim world today has facilitated the military aims of the various colonial at some point. Present day Pakistan, in a clear contradiction of General Musharraf’s own motto of “Pakistan First”, is engaging in a war with his own people whilst compromising the sovereignty of the country in allowing US troops to act with impunity. Deploying his powerful military not to defend Muslims from aggression, he has made the Pakistani Armed forces nothing more than mercenaries. They are forced to act as mercenaries by the regime for some paltry economic aid for a corrupt government whilst the blood and honour of their brothers and sisters is violated on a global scale. Due to these tyrannical rulers the armies of the Muslim world have been held back, shackled to their bases, unable to come to the aid of their brethren in Chechnya, the Balkans, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else that conflict rages.

Since the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924 there has been an assault on the resources in the Muslim lands. Starting with the 100-year contracts signed with western oil companies to drill for oil in the 1930’s, lucrative contracts are being signed by western agencies for natural resources that rightfully belong to the Ummah. The most recent of which have been the colonial style Production Sharing Agreements (PSA’s) for Iraqi oil. These agreements mean that Iraq oil will be privatised, ending up in the hands of foreign, mostly US, oil companies. In addition to this, these agreements spell out that these oil companies will make up to a massive 75% profit on the oil, with 65 of Iraq’s roughly 80 known oil fields being offered to these companies for exploration. In the words of Dick Cheney during his time as Haliburton CEO in 1999 who said, “By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies.” Even the wealth that has been generated has not been utilised by the rulers for the benefit of the people or to secure long-term independence and self-sufficiency. A lack of investment in education, employment and technological infrastructure means that billions of dollars are wasted on importing resources, which could be developed at home. It is shocking that Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer, can only produce 57% of the nation’s daily petrol consumption due to a lack of refineries.

The Muslim world has indeed seen destruction, devastation and calamity for the past 83 years. However, the signs of awakening for the return of the Khilafah are now clear for all to see. The proof of this can be seen in the growing gulf between the rulers and the ruled; the speeches and Khutbahs in universities and mosques throughout the Muslim world that call for a sincere and rightly guided Khaleefah to lead the Ummah; witness the mass demonstrations against the bombing and killing of innocent Muslims by US and UK forces in Karachi, Jakarta, Hebron, Dhaka and other places; the increasingly brutal methods and oppression that the regimes are forced to use to quell the desire for political change such as in Egypt and Uzbekistan. It can also be seen by the actions of the colonial powers who realise that the rulers they imposed upon the Muslim world have no support and no legitimacy, hence they are forced to resort to occupying Muslim lands and cementing their presence through military bases. The global reawakening for Khilafah can also be seen in the desperate and pathetic attempts by the regimes and their scholars, who they have bought for a cheap price, to malign, slander and attack the idea of Khilafah. They lie by saying that the Khilafah cannot be established in the modern age, that Islam and politics do not mix, that sectarian differences are too great, that the western powers are too powerful and that the Ummah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم can never be unified. All of the efforts of the enemies of Islam will be in vain for Allah سبحانه وتعالى has promised the believers that the Khilafah will return on the method of the Prophet and there is no power or might other than Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

Fatwa: The Zionists must be targets, and their blood must be shed as the blood of our brothers is being shed in Palestine”.

Many Islamic sites with forums which identify with the Global Jihad, reported that Awad Al-Qarni, a senior Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric, published a fatwa calling for attacks on Israeli interests worldwide “in response to the slaughtering which the Occupation is perpetrating in the Gaza Strip”

Awad Al-Qarni states in his fatwa: “I am publishing a religious ruling according to which all Israeli interests and anything which has an Israeli affinity, constitutes a legitimate target for the Muslims wherever it may be”. He added “The Zionists must be targets, and their blood must be shed as the blood of our brothers is being shed in Palestine”.

Awad Al-Qarni Also stated that: “If not for the laxity of the Arabs and the involvement of some of the Arab governments in this conspiracy, the Zionists would not dare to perpetrate this slaughter”.

Awad Al-Qarni has a Ph.D. in Islamic traditional law. He is employed as a lecturer at the King Khaled University in Saudi Arabia, as well at as other educational centers in the Kingdom. He is considered to be one of the harshest rivals of modernization and secularism in the Saudi arena and he frequently voices his radical opinions at the conferences which he attends, in his essays and his publications.

Israel’s massacre in Gaza proves beyond doubt that the treacherous Muslim rulers must be removed

Sunday, 04 January 2009 00:26 Adnan Khan

Israel finally launched its ground offensive in Gaza after carpet bombing the strip indiscriminately, slaughtering and massacring hundreds. Many across the world – Muslim and non-Muslim have watched in horror as Israel continued to churn out lies and as pictures of Israeli bombardment beamed around the world. Even the usual pro-Israeli influential elements within the global media have been unable to defend Israel as images of dead bodies dumped outside hospitals were beamed around the world.

The response by the Ummah to the events of Gaza globally has shown that after undergoing centuries of decline the ummah has responded as one body. The outpouring of emotion and the demonstrations around the world show that although geographically Muslims are dispersed around the world they viewed Israel’s massacre in Gaza as against a section of the Ummah and not as Palestinians or foreigners.

This shows that the Ummah has responded as one body to the attacks and we also see this has also been the case with the general onslaught the West has been leading against Muslims since 9/11.

Muslims currently all over the world are reacting as one body to the onslaught against their brothers and sisters.

This treachery of the rulers has reached a new watershed as their collaboration has been in open rather then in secret. Only 20 years ago many thinkers and scholars in the Muslim world could not sense the treachery of the Muslim rulers. However, after the first Gulf war, which was perpretrated under the pretext of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, both the American animosity and the complicity of the Muslim rulers became evident. Not only did the Gulf regimes lose credibility for allowing the American troops bases in the Hijaz and other places, but so too the Islamic scholars who justified the war. Muslims could sense the gulf between themselves and the rulers.

The role of the rulers been completely exposed; Egypt has been exposed by Israel’s most respected daily paper, Haaretz, of being informed of the attack days before it was carried out. The Arab rulers rather then sending their armies have instead attempted to attack Iran for its so called support of HAMAS. All the rulers in the Muslim world have done nothing other then attack HAMAS for causing the crisis and this has now proven to all that Israel can only carry out such attacks due to the treachery of the Muslim rulers. We have now reached a point where the fault line between the rulers and the Ummah is bigger than ever.

If we look at the recent history of the Muslim world and the relationship between the people and the rulers, we can see that this relationship has become tenuous and now the Muslims hold concepts and sentiments that fundamentally contradict that of the Muslim rulers. This gulf was not present for most of the last century.

We have witnessed how Jamal Abdul Nasser enjoyed the strongest relationship with the people. He was seen as the Arab saviour due to his wresting of the Suez Canal from the British and his stand against Israel. The Muslims believed that Jamal Abdul Nasser was reflective of them.

The Muslims hailed Yasser Arafat as one of the lions of Islam. Arafat managed to enlist hundreds of thousands of young Arab men to his rallying call for Jihad against the Israeli occupiers.

The Muslim Ummah until the late 1980’s were oblivious to the actions of King Fahd and the other Gulf rulers due to their economic prosperity and the influence of the Saudi backed scholars and movements.

The relationship between the rulers and the ruled in the Muslim world was always weak; people were apathetic to their failings for a whole host of reasons. The chasm was initially masked due to the relative strength of Arab nationalism and other ideas such as Ba’athism and Socialism. In some of the Gulf States, economic prosperity masked the underlying chasm. This was the case until 9/11. The attacks on the twin towers brought to the forefront that Muslims have a completely different view to how life should be organised relative to the West. When Muslims from the west were found fighting alongside the Taliban this sent shockwaves around the Western world, as such Muslims who were born in the West placed their loyalty with the Ummah rather then the nation they were born in. The subsequent war in Iraq and the complacency of the rulers proved to many that the Muslim rulers share virtually nothing with the Ummah.

The question that needs to be asked is: if the values the Ummah wants to live by are different to the values that are implemented over them then why do the Muslims continue to abide by these values and allow the rulers who implement them to rule over them? The answer to this is that the rulers in the Muslim world do not maintain their power by sharing a close affinity with their people, but rather through brutal methods of force and torture in order to subjugate the masses. This point is well established and does not need explanation. This has been the case for many years now and is not a new development.

Today the Muslim rulers are in political chains; trapped between subservience to an ever demanding America and the West and fear of removal by their own people. Only this week online news reports quoted unidentified diplomatic sources as saying that Egyptian authorities have arrested a number of high-ranking army officers and put military police on high alert following signs of growing resentment within the army over the way President Hosni Mubarak has handled the current situation in Gaza.

With this in mind the following points should be remembered as we move forward:

• - The Ummah globally needs to beware that the treachery of the rulers continues without shame. The Muslim rulers are deceiving the Ummah by allowing demonstrations, protests and vigils. Such actions are not enough. Muslims globally must push the rulers with all ability to mobilise the armies to fight.

• - At the same time the Ummah should expose the treachery of the rulers for not doing actions which will save the Ummah and push the armies of the Muslim world to remove such traitors. The armies will only move if they feel the Ummah globally is against such rulers who are now a liability.

• - The armies of the Muslim world themselves are part of the Ummah. They feel the problems of the Ummah. Most of the Arab rulers actually gain their legitimacy by having the army on their side and without them they are useless. A strong message needs to be sent to the armies that its time for change, which requires the removal of the rulers.

• - Muslims in the West should also be careful in working with non-Muslim groups. Many Socialist and lefty organisations are attempting to respond to Israel’s massacre making their view the best organised response in the face in injustice. It should be remembered such movements are calling for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and lobbying Western governments who created Israel and continue to collaborate with them to solve the problem they created.

• - Whilst Muslims are forced to accept the legitimacy of Israel, Israel on the other hand is never condemned for not accepting a state for Muslims. An independent Palestine in reality is a jail for Muslims and unfortunately many Muslims have fallen prey to this. Israel never disengaged from Gaza, it simply relocated its settlers to seized West Bank land to strengthen its hold on the territory. It redeployed to new positions so it could re-enter Gaza at will. It has ensured it controls Gaza’s airspace and coastline, movement within and between Gaza and the West Bank and virtually all other aspects of Muslim lives. Since HAMAS’s January 2006 electoral victory Israel has falsely labelled HAMAS a terrorist organization, cut off all outside aid, imposed a crippling economic embargo, imprisoned 1.5 million Muslims in isolation, inflicted devastating human suffering and stepped up oppression in an all too familiar pattern: repeated incursions, killings, targeted assassinations, mass arrests, incarcerations and torture.

Mobilising the armies to fight is the only duty of the rulers in response to the massacre of Gaza. Otherwise they betray Allah, His Messenger, and the Believers.

Wednesday, 31 December 2008 14:39

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Mobilising the armies to fight is the only duty of the rulers in response to the massacre of Gaza. Otherwise they betray Allah, His Messenger, and the Believers.

Since Saturday afternoon 27/12/2008 Israel has been brutally bombing regions in Gaza from the air. The people of Gaza have been resisting the aggression with their bare chests, carrying their souls on their palms, in bravery that has few comparisons. Many were martyred and hundreds have been wounded. The planes of the enemy patrol the airspace in security, without the fear of being brought down by a missile or of facing an enemy plane, because the rulers in the Muslim lands have placed a ‘curfew’ on our armies and our aircrafts, and have made them to be only for display and decoration! Thus the planes of the yahood have free reign over Palestine as they bomb men and stones, without fear of any harm!

These rulers committed a grave sin when they transferred the issue of Palestine from being an Islamic issue to being an Arab issue and than a Palestinian one. Now they stand by as neutral spectators, nay as spectators biased to the enemy. When the enemy inclines to aggression, as in the current massacre of Gaza, these rulers monitor the intruder aircraft, prepare the dead and wounded, and then compete with one another in expressing sorrow and in condemnation of the aggression. All these rulers co-operated in the boycott of Gaza, whether silently or openly, and now they all express their sorrow and condemnation. Even the ruler of Egypt from whose castle, on the eve of the aggression, (the Israeli foreign minister) Livni threatened and promised the attack on Gaza, and on the next day the shelling and bombing of Gaza began, only for this ruler (Mubarak) to express his sorrow and condemnation towards  the aggression!

In reality these rulers have no shame, not from Allah, His Messenger (saw) nor the believers. They besieged the Gaza strip before the enemy did. They wanted the people of Gaza dead, not alive; hence they refused to open the border crossings when they had the breath of life, and then agreed to open it after the people were killed. And today they call for meetings in which they will ’search’ for a response to the massacre, as if the needed response is unknown! At times they call for meetings of summits, then for foreign ministers, and at times for the Arab League Council…and this is their usual habit. They meet, eat and drink, then issue a statement, and this suffices the followers of shaytaan as the ‘best’ fight! But that is not all. They further go, in shame and disgrace, to the Security Council, seeking a resolution for the support of Palestine from the very states who established the Jewish state and supported it in its usurpation of the blessed land of Palestine. Indeed, evil is what they judge.

The required response to the massacre of Gaza is known. It does not require meetings or gatherings for discussion. Nor is the required response to get a resolution from the states that established and supported the Jewish state. The response, and the only response, is to mobilise the armies to fight and to gather all those able as soldiers in them. This is the only response. The rulers know this but they are hollow pieces of wood propped up who have mastered the art of deception and misguidance.  The curse of Allah be on them! How they are perverted!

O Muslims,
Beware of the rulers deceiving you, such that you think a demonstration, protest or vigil which they allowed you is enough. They alone are not enough. You must push the rulers with all your power and ability to mobilise the armies to fight.

O Soldiers,
Do you not desire one of the two great things (martyrdom or victory)? How does the killing of your brothers intensify whilst you remain in your barracks? Is a ruler who has sold his deen for the world, nay for the world of others, able to prevent you for assisting you brothers?

Allah Allah O Soldiers! Hizb ut-Tahrir calls you to the honour of the world and the hereafter: victory for Allah and a near conquest, or Jannah whose width is that of the heavens and Earth, prepared for the righteous.

{ قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمُ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُؤْمِنِينَ }
“Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and bring them to disgrace and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of a believing people.” (al-Taubah: 14)

This is how the support to the people of Gaza must be, and this is how the response to the massacre of Gaza must be, and this is how the boycott must be lifted from them, and this is how Allah will heal the breasts of a believing people.

{ إِنَّ فِي هَذَا لَبَلاَغًا لِقَوْمٍ عَابِدِينَ }
“Indeed, in this there is a message for those how worship Allah.” (al-Anbiya: 106)
Hizb ut-Tahrir
1 Muharram 1430 AH
28 December 2008 CE

Israel, a Morally Bankrupt State led by Psychopaths

2008 by kawther.salam

The stinking smell of a conspiracy, a disaster, a political plan is behind the Israeli “war” against the population of Gaza. The Israeli military “Operation Cast Lead” did not begin as a result of adduced “self defense” against Palestinian rockets, which appear to be made and shot for the most part in Israel itself or distributed by the employees of Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin, the Israeli intelligence system, to collaborators within the Palestinian resistance.
It also has nothing to do with the primitive, home made rockets of the Palestinian resistance, or because Hamas had ended the weak truce after six month of continuous Israeli blockade against one million and a half persons in the concentration camp of Gaza. And it also has nothing to do with Israel wanting to free the Israeli-French war criminal Gilad Shalit captured by Hamas.

Nobody showed the hundred tons of explosives which the Israel Air Force dropped on the police stations and civilian offices in Gaza, leading to the death of over 300 civilian and police, and the injury of over 1000 persons, hundreds of them in critical condition. The western media has manipulated the information so that everyone believes that the Israeli destruction and ethnic cleansing of a nation is some kind of “self defense”, that Israel is some kind of “victim”.
The world is not so naïve to believe that Israeli intelligence Chief Yuval Diskin, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will be able to hide the purpose of their abject crimes against the population of Gaza and their will to massacre hundreds, or even thousands, in order to win the coming Israeli elections with scenes of bodies without heads, and legs without foots of the Palestinian victims in order to placate the blood-thirsty masses of Israel.

The old war criminal Ehud Barak called in 6.700 reserve soldiers to take part in the ethnic cleansing of the population of Gaza. Lets ask general Barak, how many Palestinians did the State of Israel kill since 1948 until today? How many Palestinians did Barak himself murder while he was a general at the Israeli ministry of war? How many Palestinians did the Israeli troops murder in Gaza and the West Bank since the Al-Aqsa Intifada until now? How many Palestinians did they injure, and arrest? How many military invasions and operations did the Israeli troops do in Gaza itself? How many house did they destroy, how many trees did they cut? Does this huge number of murders, assassinations, destruction, unjust jailing of Palestinians stop the resistance, and protest for their basic right to live as human beings? Do you disgusting criminals ask yourselves these questions during your so-called “security session”?

What is next? Tell us and tell the world what comes next. We are all sick of you and your so-called “security” even if the world keeps silence until now. What will your criminal “state” do if the Palestinians of Gaza do not stop their resistance against your blockade and occupation of the land, the sky and even the air which they breath?

Enough is enough! Killing, murdering, and assassinating will never provide your state and your nation with security. You will never live in peace while you make the Palestinians live injustice.

After all the Israeli military, tanks, air force, were ordered to take part in destruction of Gaza, adducing a supposed “right of self-defense” against rockets which the Israeli intelligence and IDF have either given to Palestinian collaborators, or which they are shooting themselves at Sderot and surroundings and other places in Israel. That not a war, that is a war crime. Logically, what happens between two states and two armies, carrying equivalent weapons can be called a war. What happens when the army of an occupier state bombs and murders dozens, hundreds of resistance fighters in an occupied nation, living besieged in a concentration camp since over 41 years, this is not a war, it is a massacre, a crime of war, genocide and crimes against humanity.

If Israel wants to separate Gaza from the West bank and give it to Egypt after murdering the political activists of Hamas, then this is a clear war crime, a crime against humanity. If Israel planned this massacre so that their Nazi leaders can win the next elections in their country, then this is a clear war crime.
Above this, and given the strong suspicion that the Israeli intelligence, either under Yuval Diskin or in the IDF, gave the rockets to Palestinian infiltrators purporting to work as resistance in Gaza, this is itself the height of criminality.

The nations of the world should stop Israel before they are all crushed by what the Israeli spies from Shabak and Mossad are doing. The alternative is for all peoples to suffer in the future what we Palestinians must suffer, for that is what is written in their books.

Massacre of Children In Gaza

In Pictures: Massacre of Gazan Children

December 30, 2008 PNN -Israeli forces killed two girls in an air attack on Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip early Tuesday. Local sources report that a missile destroyed a house belonging to Talal Hamdan in Beit Hanoun today, killing his two daughters of 12 and 4 years old. A son is reported seriously injured. Yesterday Israeli forces killed four sisters and a four year old boy. Over 40 children have been killed since Saturday. The bodies of two girls, aged four and 11, who were killed in an Israeli air strike in Beit Hanun in the northern Gaza Strip Strip December 30, 2008. Palestinians carry the body of 4-year-old Lama Hamdan during her funeral in the town of Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip December 30, 2008. Palestinians bury the body of 4-year-old Lama Hamdan at Beit Hanoun cemetery in the northern Gaza Strip December 30, 2008. Palestinians mourn beside the bodies of three children in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip December 29, 2008. Three Palestinian children from the Balosha family, of five who were all killed in the same Israeli missile strike, are seen in the morgue before their burial at Kamal Edwan hopsital in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 29, 2008 Palestinian children from the Balosha family, who were all killed in the same Israeli missile strike, are seen in the morgue before their burial at Kamal Edwan hopsital in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 29, 2008. Palestinian women mourn over the bodies of three Palestinian children from the Balosha family, of five who were all killed in the same Israeli missile strike, in the morgue before their burial at Kamal Edwan hopsital in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 29, 2008. A Palestinian man buries the body of 4-year-old Dena Balosha at Beit Lahiya cemetery in the northern Gaza Strip December 29, 2008. A Palestinian man carries the body of his 4-year-old daughter Dena Balosha during the funeral for her and her four sisters in Jabalya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip December 29, 2008. A Palestinian mourner shouts as he lifts the body of a child from the Balosha family, of which three children and two teenagers, were killed in an Israeli missile strike,durng their funeral in the Jebaliya refugee camp, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 29, 2008. A Palestinian man buries the body of 5-year-old Sodqi al-Absi in Rafah cemetery in the southern Gaza Strip December 29, 2008. A Palestinian mourner carries the body of 4-year-old Dena Balosha, foreground, one of five members of the same family including three children and two teenagers who were killed in an Israeli missile strike, during their funeral in the Jebaliya refugee camp, in the northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 29, 2008 The father of Palestinian Dena Balosha, 4, left, one of five members of the same family including three children and two teenagers who were killed in an Israeli missile strike, carries her body during their funeral in the Jebaliya refugee camp, in the northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 29, 2008. bedroom of 5 killed girls Samera Baalusha (34) carries her surving child Mohamad (15 months) while she waits to see the body of her daughter Jawaher Baalusha (aged 4) during the funeral held for her and four of her sisters who were killed in an Israeli missile strike, on December 29, 2008 in the Jebaliya refugee camp, in the northern Gaza Strip Palestinian mourners bury 8 children killed in Israeli air strikes Dec 29 – Palestinian mourners on Monday (December 29) buried 8 children who were killed in Israeli air strikes on Gaza Strip. In the northern Gaza town of Jabalya, hundreds took to the streets to attend a funeral procession for five girls of the same family who were killed in one Israeli strike. In this image taken from APTN video, Palestinian men carry two injured children into hospital after Israeli aircraft struck Hamas security compounds across Gaza in Gaza City on Saturday Dec. 27, 2008. A wounded Palestinian boy is carried by his father following an Israel air strike in Gaza December 28, 2008. A Palestinian boy is carried to al-Shifa hospital following an Israel air strike in Gaza December 28, 2008 A Palestinian security force officer carries a wounded girl into the emergency room at Shifa hospital in Gaza City, Saturday, Dec. 27, 2008. A Palestinian girl wounded in an Israeli missile strike is carried into the emergency area at Shifa hospital in Gaza City, Saturday, Dec. 27, 2008. A Palestinian man carries his wounded child to the treatment room of Kamal Edwan hospital following an Israeli missile strike in Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip, Monday, Dec. 29, 2008. A wounded Palestinian boy is carried by his father at a hospital in Gaza City following an Israeli air strike Children Wounded – Image by Watan News Agency Shifa hospital ICU: a six year old down’s syndrom with brain trauma

Who will ever break the silence on Israel?

Deeply saddening, appalling is indeed the violence in Gaza, as our world leaders have called it. Events which stir our emotions intensely. But more than emotion, we all feel a view, have an opinion as politics doesn’t just conjure feeling, it conjures thought and viewpoints as more than anything its about how we look after mankind in the world we live in. And in this present world we live in, it has to be said not only is the Palestinian conflict one of the most saddening, but is one which conjures the most political voice. For even the most apolitical amongst us, we all have a view about whether those people who claimed their homeland after around 2000 years, were right to do so, or wrong.

I remember some years ago, before I came to Islam, I was travelling in Morocco with a young Jewish girl who told me about how her parents envisaged settling in Israel one day from the UK, as their ultimate dream. At that time all I knew about Israel was, that it was a place in the middle east which came up in the news now and again, but didn’t really know why and I wasn’t that bothered either. When I returned to the UK, I ambled through some news pages in a vague attempt to maybe find out about this Israel. All I read was Israel was suffering at the hands of Palestinians and Palestinians were suffering at the hands of Israelis. Seemed like another classic conflict situation with some sort of history I’d never get but I hoped, as a passing thought, that both sides would meet in the middle somewhere. Thats classic conflict mediation isn’t it, even in marriages, it’s all about meeting somewhere in the middle; compromise. Both sides had to do their bit.

A couple of years later, my attachment to my Muslim brethren, urged me to read up on the history of Palestine and Israel. I read about a group of people homeless in Europe. I read about them set their eyes on a land they not only wanted to live in, but rule over. I read about them coming into Palestine and throwing people out of their homes, bulldozing them down and making people refugees in their own land. I read about bloodshed, I read about their domination, occupation spreading like a infectious disease. I read about their sophisticated missiles and tanks, whose design, manufacture was aided in Britain and America; massacre families, and the resistance of the Palestinians named as terrorism. Palestinians who grew up generation after generation in the muddy squalor of refugee camps in their own land attempted to fight this occupation with whatever they had. I read it all. Then came the wall, the blockades and the intense attacks of the last few days.

This was Israel. This was occupation, domination and suffering to the nth degee whilst the world watched, calling it deeply saddening and terribly appalling, but never wrong.

There have been many demos over the last few days, asking Israel to stop the attacks – and despite news reports saying that they won’t until Hamas does, we must be slightly loopy if we ever believe they will put an end to their agenda which has been ruthlessly undertaken over the past century. And the West – they will never verbalise Israel’s cruelty, as they are the ones who set the cannon loose and gave the go-ahead all those years ago. It’s a silence that will never be broken in Washington or London, and if we don’t own up to this, we continue to leave the suffering Palestinians stranded in a problem which has been sugarcoated and sold to us as a solution through roadmaps and ceasefires.

The solution lies in a place which we don’t always look. Like a action-packed thriller, where the director misguides you into thinking who the killer is, masking the real one in order to create that all breath-taking twist, the Muslims will also face their twist. The realisation that sustainable change can only come from the solution Allah SWT gives us for our politics. Lobbying MPs, pressuring Israel, all these things serve to divert us from the real solution – the armies of the Muslim lands – who did they stand to defend? The thousands and thousands of people, weaponry who make up the Muslim armies – where and for what reason do they stand idle?
Allah SWT will ask the rulers of the Muslim world, where were their ears and their eyes as the missiles fell, one after the other? These rulers we know prefer to shake the hands of the perpetrators than straighten them, in order to keep their seats of power. But Allah Almighty is the owner of the Heavens and the Earth, and it is He who can destroy all 50+ of them and their kingdoms in a fell swoop and one day InshaAllah He will. There will come a day, as Allah SWT has promised where just Islamic rule will return to this Earth and liberate all the oppressed. This is the only solution which can pool together the resources of the Muslim world, and create the unity to enable a resistance which stands to the likes as those of Israel. This is the solution which doesn’t accept a few Palestinian homes being returned, or a few Palestinians being allowed to work – This is the solution which will return an uncompromising rule of law which favours no race, only justice, to the Arabian plains. I pray that we are strong enough to remember this and become part of its return, instead of busying ourselves with fruitless actions which actively ensue its delay.

Source

Analysis: Ethopia, Somalia & the Pirates

Analysis: Ethopia, Somalia & Pirates

The following Q&A is based on a translation of an Arabic article taken from the website of the Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Sheikh Ata Ibn Khaleel Abu Al-Rishta. The original Arabic article can be viewed here.

Background

An Ethiopian official has announced that Ethiopia has decided to withdraw their armed forces from Somalia by the end of this year. This statement comes in the wake of substantially increased piracy activities in the Gulf of Aden along the Somali coastline during recent months, which has increased dramatically in the past few days with the hijacking of a Saudi tanker containing some two million barrels of crude oil onboard.

At the same time, the media carried a statement by Abdullah Yousuf, the transitional President of Somalia wherein he said that Al-Shabaab – Mujahideen Youth Movement of Somalia controls most of the country and that they are on the verge of taking over the capital Mogadishu. Ethiopia, having suffered huge losses in Somalia is only grudgingly staying put for now.

News agencies have broadcast a statement by the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia at the IGAD countries’ foreign ministers’ conference held in Addis Ababa on November 18th 2008 where he said: “I want to stress again and make it very clear that the Ethiopian forces are not prepared to continue to take the costly responsibility indefinitely and it is important to send the correct message to the Somali leaders at this crucial juncture.”

Question

Does this indicate the frustration of the American allies who are fighting on behalf of the US in Somalia and their inability to hold on anymore?

How is the so-called ‘Djibouti Accord’ signed on 26th October 2008 relevant to this issue?

Finally, are such nation groups in a position to influence the organisation technically and militarily, or are the big powers behind them?

Answer

Yes, indeed piracy related activity has increased considerably in the recent past and keeping this in mind, we can note the following:

1. The majority of the ships hijacked have either been European or owned by other countries, but no American ship has so far been hijacked and they continue to work there without any interruption.

News agencies reported on 17th November 2008 a statement by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that the pirates were highly trained and any military action (against them) would only endanger the safety of the hostages.

Commander Jane Campbell, spokeswoman of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet, told the BBC on 18th November 2008 it had warned shipping companies that the US naval presence could “not be everywhere”, adding: “For that reason we have strongly encouraged proactive self-protection measures for the companies.”

She said in another statement reported by Al-Arabiyyah on 19th November 2008 that they do not intend to intervene in the matter since these activities are not of a military nature rather they are criminal activities.

The BBC website reported on 20th November 2008 a statement by the Pentagon spokesman Jeff Morell who said that even if all naval power were to be deployed in the region, the problem would not be solved.

2. There has been a heavy presence of foreign naval warships in the Gulf of Aden and along the Somalian coastline. There are ships from the US Navy Fifth Fleet. NATO which decided last month on 9th October 2008 to send naval forces to the region also has warships. The European Union decided on 10th November to launch a British-led anti-piracy armada off the Horn of Africa called Operation Atalanta. Its mission is to protect water ways south of the Red Sea from Pirate attacks, and will be coordinated at Northwood, Britain’s joint operation headquarters, under the command of Rear Admiral Phil Jones. At least seven ships, including the frigate HMS Northumberland, will take part in the mission.

Even before this latest deployment, a naval task force of between 12 to 15 warships has been deployed in the region as part of Combined Task Force 150 (CTF-150) a multinational coalition against piracy. Despite all these efforts, piracy in the region has increased.

3. We believe that the Europeans and especially the French, rushed rather frantically and responded to the events. You can see them forming one force after another. Also, they were behind the UN Security Council resolution No. 1816 of 2nd June 2008 which allowed naval warships to enter Somali territorial waters to prevent piracy and armed attacks on ships. This was to remain effective for a period of 6 months and could be extended. This UNSC resolution was passed on the initiative of France.

It was reported on 16th November 2008 by the AFP that Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister proposed carrying out air and naval strikes in December in order to protect the region south of the Red Sea, i.e. the Gulf of Aden & the coast line of Somalia from the pirates.

AFP also reported a statement from Rear Admiral Hubert de Gaullier des Bordes, Commander of French naval forces in the Indian Ocean who stressed that piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea had become a real and professional paramilitary force. Germany also called for carrying out military operations in the region. Then on 20th November 2008 the UNSC unanimously passed the resolution at Europe’s behest co-drafted by Britain. This resolution called for penalising those who assist in the spreading of the menace of lawlessness and violence in the Somali territories and coastline including piracy.

4. On 18th November 2008, Al-Jazeera reported that Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, Chairman of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS) Djibouti wing, spoke of his surprise at the increase in the piracy-related incidents despite the presence of fleets of warships of the major powers in the region. The Sheikh added that this ‘mystery’ was beyond comprehension.

On the same day, Al-Jazeera in its programme ‘Meet Today’ quoted Sheikh Omar Iman Abu Bakr, Chairman of the ARS Asmara Wing, said that piracy is the handiwork of the Americans. He said that it is well known that there are a large number of US ships present along the Somali coast and yet piracy continues right under their noses. In fact the pirates are being trained by US forces and they hijack ships laden with goods for Somalia and other places under the eyes of the US.

5. From all these facts, we are able to conclude the following:

Firstly, the Americans have failed to achieve victory in Somalia. The US army failed miserably during its invasion of Somalia in 1993. They were unable to stay for more than 18 months before turning their backs in humiliation. Ethiopia fought a proxy war in Somalia on behalf of the US but like its master it has now abandoned its camps. Hence it is unlikely that the US would win a war in Somalia in the foreseeable future at least.

Subsequent to this defeat, the Americans decided to achieve a diplomatic and political victory through tricky negotiations. They aimed to form a unity regime through make-believe harmony between the government of Abdullah Yousuf and the Islamic Courts. Though the US has succeeded in bringing together the Djibouti wing of the Islamic Courts and Abdullah Yousuf who signed an accord on 26th October 2008, it is unlikely that this treaty would serve its purpose because of the resistance of Al-Shabaab to this infamous accord. Al-Shabaab controls vast portions of Somalia and as Abdullah Yousuf himself has conceded, they are on the verge of entering the Capital itself. It is known that this movement broke away from the Asmara and Djibouti wings of the Islamic Courts after they signed the Asmara Accord in September 2007. Al-Shabaab accused both wings of the Islamic Courts of aligning with the secularists and abandoning Jihad in the path of Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

Thus the US failed to achieve a military victory or even a political victory in Somalia.

Having failed to achieve victory in Somalia, the Americans then decided to focus on controlling the region through the seas. They made the Somali coast and the Gulf of Aden as centres for hijacking international ships especially the European ones, and thus engaging them in these pirate incidents. This, according to the Americans will be Europe’s ‘nightmare’ which will ‘relieve‘ the Americans of their earlier defeat on the Somali soil. The US would then control the horn of Africa through the seas and then proceed on the shores. Thus this piracy facade is in their terms, a ‘creative’ way to get involved in the regional politics of the Middle East.

Subsequently, through this maritime turmoil, they hope to achieve their goal of exercising control over the Bab el-Mandeb in the Gulf of Aden on both sides, i.e. the Yemeni side as well as the Djibouti side. This will in future enable them to have control over Somalia again. Thus having engaged the Europeans in the piracy turmoil, and driving away their navy, they will be in complete control over the land as well as the Red Sea. It must be appreciated that this sensitive region is economically and strategically a vital region since a third of all crude oil as well as one tenth of sea transported goods pass through this region.

Secondly, the US stance on the issue of piracy is that of indifference while the Europeans who have suffered losses are highly concerned. The Americans regard these as merely ordinary criminal acts and not terrorist acts which merit military action. They consider any military action against pirates as either ineffective or undesirable, not only that, they also hold that even if all the countries were to unite, they would not be able to restrict piracy.

This stance of America has also influenced its agents in the region. In the meeting of the five Arabian littoral states (countries with a coast) held in Cairo on 20th November 2008, Egypt tried to assemble a communiqué which referred to respecting Somali territory and its territorial waters during any military operation against piracy. This is diametrically opposed to the French view which supports taking military action beyond international borders and coastlines.

This is the US stance on piracy, as opposed to the Europeans who regard it as a paramilitary activity and as Sarkozy describes it, a real crime, which must be dealt with through comprehensive military action against it during the next month.

Thirdly, America has not shut its eyes with regard to Djibouti. It has tried and continues to try and consolidate its hold there. However, France regards Djibouti as its main centre in the region. Djibouti has the largest overseas French base with more than 2700 French soldiers who can launch land or air operations to the very heart of Africa in order to protect French influence in the region.

France is aware of American designs on Djibouti and has permitted the US to use its old military base Camp Lemonier where America has placed less than a thousand of its soldiers. Through this gesture, France hopes to limit US’s aspirations on Djibouti. However, the Americans have other designs on this base. They hope to expand it to accommodate some two thousand troops under the guise of fighting terrorism. In fact it was under this pretext that they first obtained France’s permission to enter the base.

The newspaper Asharq Alawsat on 28th October 2008 quoted the French Defence Minister as saying that the United States aimed to use this as their rear base to fight terrorism and added that the American presence was not permanent but was linked to fighting terror. He then stressed that the French presence was permanent. This statement indicates that there is a certain amount of apprehension about the French withdrawal and continued American presence in Djibouti. Though the French Defence Minister merely alluded to it, a senior French military official clearly stated in the same newspaper on the same day, “by deploying its forces in Djibouti, America aims to ensure its permanent presence in the horn of Africa in the hotbeds of conflict in Yemen, Somalia and even Sudan.”

Also part of the US agenda is to establish a permanent base in Aden just as Britain once did, so that the US can launch operations to consolidate its influence in Yemen. This is why Yemen is apprehensive of the recent developments. On 18th November 2008, Al-Jazeera reported a statement by Dr Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, the Yemeni Foreign Minister wherein he expressed his concern over the concentration of Western countries naval fleets in the Gulf of Aden under the pretext of fighting piracy. The Yemeni Foreign Minister regarded this presence as a threat to Arab security, and considered the ships deployment as internationalising the Red Sea.

It is this American aspiration on Djibouti and Aden that it has begun to ‘terrorise’ the international and European ships in order to engage them in terms of security and then ease them out of the region or at least reduce their presence.

Thus the issue of piracy is linked to two points – the internal situation in Somalia, and the control over the Gulf of Aden and the Somali coastal region. It must be noted that the US is allowing piracy incidents to occur whilst it is present on the seas as its eyes are set on the horn of Africa. At the same time, Europe is committed to securing its interests and preventing piracy even if that involves taking military action.

We can conclude from all of this that piracy is thriving in the region because of America.

Finally, it hurts to see the Red Sea and the Somali coast becoming a haven for the kufr colonialist nations while the region’s Islamic lands are suffering. At the same, the Muslim regimes around the Red Sea and the Somali coastline have their hands stained with Muslim blood and have merely become tools of the kufr countries in their conflict over the hegemony in the lands, waters and airspace of the Muslims.

Truly, these rulers are akin to beasts and indeed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said the truth when he warned:

«يأتي على الناس سنوات خداعات… وينطق في الناس الرويبضة قالوا وما الرويبضة يا رسول الله قال الرجل التافه يتكلم في أمر العامة»
“The people will be faced with years of deceptions….and the beasts (ruwaibidah) will speak for them. The companions asked him who are the beasts (ruwaibidah), he said: a trivial stupid person will speak on people’s matters.”

Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor (far more dangerous than Bush)

Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially ‘elected’. He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous ‘hope’, ‘change’ and ‘believe’ when they don’t even know what those words are supposed to mean…

Eid-al-Adha Khutba – Please circulate

Eid Khutba – Please circulate

The following is a powerful Khutba that has been prepared to be delivered this Eid al-Adha. Please print it and circulate it to the Khatibs and Imams before Eid Salah. The link to the Urdu version will be uploaded soon.

لبيك اللهم ونحن دون أميـر لبيك اللهم ونحن بلا خلافة
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, though we are without our ruler.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, though we are without the Khilafah.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ، لَبَّيْكَ لا شَرِيكَ لَكَ لَبَّيْكَ، إِنَّ الْحَمْدَ وَالنِّعْمَةَ لَكَ وَالْمُلْكَ، لا شَرِيكَ لَكَ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, Oh Allah! You have no partner,
All praise is only to you, all favours are from You and only You are The Owner of all, You have no partner.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَكَيْفَ لا نُلَبِّيْ, وَقَدْ لَبَّىْ قَبْلَنا الْحَجَرُ وَالشَّجَرُ وَالتُّرابُ وَكُلُّ مَنْ سَمِعَ إِبْراهِيمَ مُنادِياً لِلْحَجِّ فَكانَ عَلَيْهِ الآذانُ وَعَلَيْكَ الْبَلاغُ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, and how can it be other wise when even the mountains, the trees and sands have already responded to your call. Whoever has heard the call of Syeddina Ibrahim (a.s) calling for Hajj, it becomes incumbent upon him to carry the call forward and You Oh Allah, has only to order us!

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ مُجْتَمِعِينَ عَلَىْ صَعِيدٍ واحِدٍ تَتَجَلَّىْ وَحْدَتُنا فِيْ شَعائِرِنا وَمَشاعِرِنا وَحالِنا وَآلامِنا وَلكِنْ فَرَّقَنا حُكّامُنا.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, We have all gathered at the same level and our unity is manifest in our Arkan al Hajj, our oneness is reflected in our common plight, and our unity is demonstrated in our identical sorrows! We are only separated by our rulers!

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَنَحْنُ جُمُوعٌ مُتَفَرِّقَةٌ تَتَجَمَّعُ فِيْ الْحَجِّ وَتَتَفَرَّقُ بَعْدَهُ تَحْتَ دُوَيْلاتٍ ما أَنْزَلَ اللهُ بِها مِنْ سُلْطانٍ تَتَصارَعُ بَيْنَها أَكْثَرَ مِمّا تُواجِهُ عَدُوَّها.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, Oh Allah! We are a gathering of different people united in the Hajj and will again be forced to separate in small countries and sheikhdoms which You Oh Allah! Have not ordained. Though we are one, yet we are forced to return to such countries who fight mostly among themselves rather than fighting their common enemy!

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ دُونَ أَمِيرٍ يُؤَمَّرُ عَلَيْنا أَوْ خَلِيفَةٍ يَرْعَىْ شُؤُونَنا . لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ أَتَيْناكَ مُلَبِّينَ لأَداءِ فَرِيضَةِ الْحَجِّ وَلكِنّا لَمْ نُؤَدِّ بَعْدُ تاجَ الْفُرُوضِ وَالسُّلْطانُ لازالَ لِغَيْرِ الإِسْلامِ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, and we are without a ruler who should lead us and we are without a Khaleefah who could take care of our affairs!

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ نَلْبِسُ مَلابِسَ الإِحْرامِ, مُتَذَكِّرِينَ الْكَفَنَ وَالْمَوْتَ, نَطُوفُ حَوْلَ الْكَعْبَةِ مُتَذَكِّرِينَ, أَنَّ عَلَيْنا أَنْ نَدُورَ مَعَ الإِسْلامِ حَيْثُ دارَ, ذلِكَ أَنَّ الْقُرْآنَ وَالسُّلْطانَ قَدِ افْتَرَقا .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, while we are wearing the Ahram; we are reminded of the Kafan and our death. While we are circumambulating round the Ka’bah, and we realise that we have to actually do so with the land as Dar al Islam, but this is because the Quran and ruling have become separated!

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَنَحْنُ أَشْباهُ أُمَّةٍ, بَعْدَ أَنْ كُنّا خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ, خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنّاسِ فَقَدْ وُلِّيَ عَلَيْنا رُوَيْبِضاتٌ مُتَآمِرُونَ عَلَىْ الإِسْلامِ وَأَهْلِهِ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, we are now merely a reflection of the Ummah, an Ummah which was the best of nations, which You had raised for the betterment of all humanity and now we are ruled over by beasts who have subjugated Islam & Muslims.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَنَحْنُ مُنْشَغِلُونَ بِهُمُومِنا نَشْكُو إِلَيْكَ ضَعْفَ قُوَّتِنا وَما نَزَلَ بِنا مِنْ مَآسٍ وَنَكَباتٍ.لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَحالُنا لَمْ يَخْتَلِفْ عَنِ الْعامِ الْماضِيْ بَلِ ازْدادَ ذُلاًّ وَهَواناً.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, and we are overwhelmed by our distresses & sorrows and we only complain to you about our weakness and the tragedies and disasters that have befallen over us. Oh Allah! We are at Your service, and our predicament is no better than what it was a year ago, our humiliation has only worsened and we are weaker.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَلا زالَتْ فِلَسْطِينُ وَالْعِراقُ وكشمير وافغانستان مُحْتَلَّيْنِ مِنْ قِبَلِ مَنْ لا يَرْقُبُ فِيْ اللهِ إِلاًّ وَلا ذِمَّةً .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, while Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir and Afghanistan remain occupied by those neither regard ties of kinship nor honour their pledged commitments.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَلازالَ الرُّوَيْبِضاتُ يَعْتَبِرُونَ مُشْكِلَةَ الشِّيشانِ بَلْ وُكَلَّ الْمَشاكِلِ الَّتِيْ تُواجِهُها الأُمَّةُ عَلَىْ أَنَّها شَأْنٌ داخِلِيٌّ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, but our rulers look upon the conflict of Chechnya and every other problem faced by the Ummah as their own internal problem and not that of the Ummah as a whole.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَقَدْ غُزِيْنا فِيْ عُقْرِ دارِنا وَقَدِ اغْتُصِبَتْ نِساؤُنا وَقُتِلَتْ رِجالُنا وَيُتِّمَتْ أَطْفالُنا وَانْتُهِكَتْ حُرُماتُنا عَلَىْ مَرْأَىْ وَمَسْمَعِ حُكّامِنا .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, whole we are fighting in the heart of our lands, our women are usurped, our men are butchered, our children are turned into orphans and our sanctities are trampled upon and violated, and yet our rulers look upon all this and not only remain unmoved but entertain our very killers!

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَقُلُوبُنا كَسِيرَة,ٌ وَأَيْدِينا قَصِيرَة,ٌ وَدُمُوعُنا غَزيرة, نَسْأَلُكَ أَنْ تَكْشِفَ ما بِنا مِنْ عَذابٍ وَظُلْمٍ وَهَوانٍ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, our hearts are broken, our tears are flowing like a stream, our strengths are weak, and we ask You to relieve us of this humiliation, persecution and torture.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَلَمْ نَعُدْ أُمَّةً واحِدَةً تُطِيعُ إِماماً واحِداً فِيْ ظِلِّ إِمامٍ واحِدٍ بَلْ شِرْذِمَةٌ وَغُثاءٌ كَغُثاءِ السَّيْلِ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, though we are not united as one Ummah under one Imam and obeying one Imam rather we are splintered and wayward like the trash flowing on the shores of the seas.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ مارِّينَ بِمَدِينَةِ حَبِيبِكَ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّىْ اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نُواةِ الدَّوْلَةِ الإِسْلامِيَّةِ الأُولَىْ بَلَدِ أَنْصارِ رَسُولِ اللهِ أَبْناءِ النُّقَباءِ الَّذِينَ عاهَدُواْ اللهَ وَرَسُولَهُ عَلَىْ الطّاعَةِ وَأَداءِ الأَمانَةِ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, we have walked past Madeenah, the city of Your beloved Prophet (saw), which was the heart of the First Islamic State and was the place of the Ansar, the pioneers who gave their pledge to You and Your Prophet (saw) to obey and be trustworthy.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَأُمَّةُ حَبِيبِكَ مُحَمَّدٍ بِأَمَسِّ الْْحاجَةِ لِمَنْ يَنْصُرُها وَيُبايِعُها عَلَىْ الصَّبْرِ وَالثَّباتِ لِيُزِيحُواْ طاغُوتَ أَمْرِيكا وَأَعْوانِها لِيَتَوَلَّىْ أُمُورَ الأُمَّةِ خِيارُها مَنْ لا يَخافُ فِيْ اللهِ لَوْمَةَ لائِمٍ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, and the Ummah of Your Prophet (saw) is in dire need of who will protect it and to pledge their bai’ah for patience and steadfastness in order to expel the Taghoot of America and its allies and will take charge of the affairs of the Ummah and protect its interests. Such an Ameer, who will not stoop before the enemy and will not be afraid of the blame of the blamers.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَنَحْنُ مَحْكُومُونَ بِحُكّامٍ غَيْرِ شَرْعِيِّينَ يَقْضُونَ لأَنْفُسِهِمْ ما لا يَقْضُونَ لَنا نَصَّبُواْ أَنْفُسَهُمْ عَلَيْنا وَجَرَّعُونا غُصَصَ الذُّلِّ وَجَعَلُونا أَدْنَىْ الأُمَمِ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, we are subjugated to the illegitimate rulers who apportion to themselves what they do not apportion to us and who have foisted themselves over us and have led us to this level of humiliation and made us the most dishonoured of people.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَنَحْنُ مَحْرُومُونَ مِنْ خَلِيفَةٍ يَسُوسُنا بِالْحَقِّ وَيَحْكُمُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَيُبَلِّغُنا مَبالِغَ الْعِزِّ بِالْجِهادِ.لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ مُصَلِّينَ مُسَلِّمِينَ عَلَىْ خَيْرِ الأَنامِ واقِفِينَ أَمامَ قَبْرِهِ وَالدَّمْعُ يَسِيلُ خَجَلاً وَهَيْبَةً وَإِكْباراً.

Oh Allah! We are at Your service, we are deprived of a Khaleefah who would manage our affairs as they should be, a Khaleefah who would provide us with justice and lead us to jihad so we could again occupy a position of honour & prestige. Oh Allah! We are at Your service, we offer our prayers as Muslims and render our respects at the grave of the Prophet (saw) while our eyes are full of tears because we are ashamed and overwhelmed.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَقَدْ تُرِكَ الأَمْرُ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَالنَّهْيُ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ لا بَلْ أُمِرَ بِالْمُنْكَرِ وَنُهِيَ عَنِ الْمَعْرُوفِ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, but not only ordering the Ma’ruf and preventing the Munkar has been abandoned, rather we are ordered for the Munkar and prevented from the Ma’ruf.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَكانَ ما أَخْبَرَ بِهِ حَبِيبِيْ وَمُهْجَةُ قَلْبِيْ مُحَمَّدٌ صَلَّىْ اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَدْ وُلِّيَ عَلَيْنا شِرارُنا حَمَلُواْ لَنا سِياطاً كَأَذْنابِ الْبَقَرِ قَذَفُواْ فِيْ النّارِ مَنْ أَطاعَهُمْ وَجَلَدُواْ وَقَتَلُواْ وَشَرَّدُواْ مَنْ خالَفَهُمْ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, what ever the Prophet (saw) informed us is the lifeblood of our souls. The worst of our people have been mounted over us as our rulers who lead us by their lashes like herds of cows, who ever follows them, he is lead to the doors of hell, and whoever defies them is lashed and killed.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَقَدْ تَداعَتْ عَلَيْنا الأُمَمُ تَداعِيَ الأَكَلَةِ إِلَىْ قَصْعَتِها ذلِكَ أَنّا أَيْتامٌ دُعِينا عَلَىْ مَوائِدِ اللِّئامِ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, the nations of the world feed over us like easy morsels of food, this is because we are no better than orphans.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَمَلايِينٌ تَنْتَظِرُ تَلْبِيَةَ النِّداءِ وَلَمْ يَمْنَعْها مِنَ التَّلْبِيَةِ الْمالُ وَالْوَلَدُ بَلْ مَنَعَهُمْ حُدُودٌ وَحَواجِزٌ وَصَدُّ طُغاةٍ جَبابِرَةٍ تَحَكَّمُواْ بِالرِّقابِ وَالْعِبادِ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, millions are waiting for the call of jihad, and we are not prevented by a shortage of either the willing youth or wealth, rather we are prevented by the borders and barriers imposed by the menace of Taghoot who have subjugated us.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَقَدْ شُتِمَ نَبِيُّنا وَلَمْ نُحَرِّكْ ساكِناً بَلِ اسْتَقْبَلْنا مَنْ شَتَمَهُ فِيْ آخِرِ مَعْقِلٍ لِلدَّوْلَةِ الإِسْلامِيَّةِ دُونَ خَجَلٍ مِنَ اللهِ أَوِ الْعِبادِ لا بَلْ وَدَعَوْناهُ لِلصَّلاةِ فِيْ جَوامِعِنا .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, our Prophet (saw) has been abused and vilified, yet we are silent, we are not only unmoved, but without any sense of shame, we have welcomed the abusers in the very hearts of the Islamic lands and allowed them in our mosques!

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَلا يَزالُ فِينا فِئَةٌ لِلْحَقِّ عامِلِينَ لِرَبِّهِمْ عابِدِينَ يَصِلُونَ اللَّيْلَ بِالنَّهارِ لإِعْزازِ دِينِكَ وَالتَّضْحِيَةِ فِيْ سَبِيلِكَ وَإِعادَةِ الْحُكْمِ بِما أَنْزَلْتَ وَأَمَرْتَ .
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, Al Hamdu lillah, we still have a group of people who are committed to truth and Haqq, who are working for You, who pray day & night in order to restore honour & prestige to Your deen and to sacrifice themselves in Your path so that the entire world is again ruled by what You have revealed and ordered.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ ساعِينَ فِيْ رِضاكَ مُتَوَكِّلِينَ عَلَيْكَ واثِقِينَ بِجَمِيلِ وَعْدِكَ وَقُرْبِ نَصْرِكَ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, we are exerting all our efforts to gain Your pleasure, we rely only upon You and we fully believe in Your promise of help shortly.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ واقِفِينَ أَمامَ بابِكَ مُحْتَمِينَ بِجَنابِكَ مُوْقِنِينَ أَنَّكَ لا تَرُدُّ دَعْوَةَ عَبْدٍ دَعاكَ سائِلِينَكَ اللَّهُمَّ أَنْ تَفُكَّ عَنّا هذا الْعِقالَ وَتُرِيحَنا مِنْ حُكّامِنا.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, We stand at the doors of Your decisive & Unquestionable superiority, with the hope that You will not turn Your servants away. We pray to You to relieve us from the clutches of our treacherous rulers.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ وَنَحْنُ عَلَىْ يَقِينٍ أَنَّ وَعْدَكَ حَقٌّ وَبُشْرَى نَبِيِّكَ حَقٌّ وَالْخِلافَةُ آتِيَةٌ لا رَيْبَ فِيها وَأَنَّ النَّصْرَ بِيَدِكَ تُؤْتِيهِ مَتَىْ تَشاءُ لِمَنْ تَشاءُ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, we are fully convinced that Your promise is true and the glad tidings of Your Prophet (saw) is true as well, and that the Khilafah is undoubtedly on its way, and that assistance and protection is only in Your hand for whomever You wish and whenever You want.

لبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ، لَبَّيْكَ لا شَرِيكَ لَكَ لَبَّيْكَ، إِنَّ الْحَمْدَ وَالنِّعْمَةَ لَكَ وَالْمُلْكَ، لا شَرِيكَ لَكَ.
Oh Allah! We are at Your service, Oh Allah! You have no partner,
All praise is only to you, all favours are from You and only You are The Owner of all, You have no partner.

Kenya involved in arming South Sudan to fight for secession

By M S Ahmed

The Somali pirates who recently hijacked a ship carrying Russian-made arms and tanks claimed that the weapons were bound for South Sudan. But the Kenyan government was adamant that they had been sent to Kenya, not South Sudan. The BBC World Service announced on October 7 that it had found evidence that the equipment had been intended for South Sudan, as claimed by the pirates. Analysts recalled that Russian-made military equipment had been passed to the Sudanese region through Kenya once before, pointing out that it strongly backs the West’s strategy to break up Africa’s largest country. The West’s current effort to turn Darfur (in West Sudan) into yet another supposedly independent country underlines how determined that strategy is.

The Ukrainian ship, MV Faina, was carrying 33 T-72 Soviet-era tanks and other weapons when it was seized by the pirates. The ship’s manifest, which was published by the BBC, has provided highly embarrassing information. It seems to show that tanks and other weapons were being sent to Kenya’s defence ministry in place of the government of South Sudan. The manifest contains the acronym GOSS, which most people take to mean the Government of South Sudan. As the acronym shows who the buyer is, the Kenyan government argued that it refers to a branch of the Kenyan army, General Ordinance Supplies and Security, not to the government of South Sudan. But, as a report in the Economist magazine on October 11 argued, that “does not necessarily mean that they were not going on to South Sudan.” The report emphasised that Kenya “has no history of using Soviet equipment”, and quoted a Russian source as saying that “the only Russian arms Kenya has bought in recent years have been Kalashnikov rifles for game rangers.”

Other reports (in Jane’s Defence Weekly, for instance) indicate that another hundred T-72 and T-55 tanks may have been shipped to South Sudan through the Kenyan port of Mombasa in the past year. According to analysts, this raises several questions, such as who is paying for the shipments and whether they have all reached Southern Sudan (some of them might still be in Kenya). The Economist quotes Kalonzo Musyoka, the vice-president of Kenya, as saying that the tanks on the Faina are Kenya’s property because the Kenyan taxpayer paid for them.

The report then concludes that, if it is true that Kenya has paid for the tanks and they still reach the Sudanese region, this throws doubt on Nairobi’s role in the conclusion of the peace treaty in 2005 between North and South Sudan. “If true, and the tanks still go through to South Sudan, that would turn Kenya from being the midwife of the peace agreement in Sudan in 2005 into the would-be midwife of an independent and heavily-armed South Sudan, ready to go back to war with Sudan’s Islamist government in Khartoum,” it says. What the report does not add is that Kenya was not mediating between the two sides in order to bring peace to the region but to divide them. Certainly it was cooperating with the US, which was determined then to break up Sudan, and still is. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 laid the basis for such a break-up, as the government of South Sudan now has the right to hold a referendum in 2011 on secession, and to become an independent state if the referendum’s results approve this.

On the issue of who is paying for the arms being sent through Kenya to enable South Sudan’s government to fight for secession after the referendum—or even before it—if Khartoum rejects the results, it is reasonable to conclude that the US and its Western allies are footing the bills. Washington and its allies are certainly paying for the “war against terrorism” which is partly being waged against president Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s “Islamist government” in Khartoum. To its shame, the UN backs the “war on terror”, particularly in the case of Sudan. This explains why Bashir is the only serving president against whom a charge of genocide has been filed by the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was on July 14 that Lui Moreno Ocampo, the ICC’s prosecutor general, filed the charge, to the horror of experts and of analysts, who protested that the charge was an ill-conceived and dangerous move that would throw the country into deeper conflict.

That Western governments are prepared to let arms go to countries where civil war is raging was demonstrated on October 6, when 13 members of France’s political establishment were put on trial over the sale of millions of dollars’ worth of weapons to oil-rich Angola, despite an international arms embargo. Jack Attali, advisor to the current president, Jean Christophe Mitterand, son of former president Francois Mitterand, Charles Pasqua, a former interior minister, and Arkadi Gaydamak, an Israeli politician, are among those accused of helping to facilitate arms sales worth $790 million to Angola between 1993 and 1998.

Le Monde, the French daily, has quoted Jean Charles Marchiani, also on trial, as saying that the arms deals were known at the highest level of government during the Mitterand presidency and that of his successor, Jacques Chirac. The sales were made directly to Angola’s president, Jose Edwardo dos Santos, who is still in office, via a Slovak arms company, ZTS Osos, represented by French businessman Pierre Falcone and Arkadi Gaydamak. The latter, despite being on trial, is determined to remain in Israel, taking advantage of the Israeli law that prohibits the extradition of Israeli citizens to other countries. Israel and the US will certainly be willing to exploit his experience and contacts to send arms to South Sudan to fight for secession. If Gaydamak had a hand in choosing the Ukraine to arrange the sale of arms to Angola, it is not inconceivable that he had something to do with the selection of a Ukrainian ship to carry the arms seized by the Somali pirates to Kenya.

That the current French government and politicians would also have arranged the sale of arms to Angola is indicated by the fact that last May president Nicholas Sarkozy visited dos Santos in Luanda, the capital of Angola, to discuss business opportunities and to allay his concerns about the trial of those who had sold the arms to him. At the time Angola was in the grip of a war that killed an estimated 500,000 people before it ended in 2002. Another indication that the French government was behind the sale of arms is that it has taken ten years to bring the case to court. In fact, one of the allegations examined by Philippe Courroye, the investigating judge, is that French officials used “a parallel diplomacy” to get around sanctions and to gain oil concessions. Angola is known to be the largest oil-producer in Africa.

But Sudan also produces oil, though China holds the concessions; Western governments and oil-companies are interested in recovering them by any means necessary. The French government, politicians and businessmen, however, are not the only operators in Africa and other continents that indulge in corrupt business practices. A report unveiled in Paris on October 17 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found Britain to be the most corrupt operator, and much worse than France. The inquiry that produced this report began in 2006, when the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) decided to drop an investigation into a British company (BAE) over bribery allegations relating to a 48-billion pounds sterling arms-deal with Saudi Arabia, and other cases of alleged corruption. The British government defended the decision, warning that Saudi Arabia might stop co-operating over issues of national security. Even worse, the country’s highest court (the Law Lords) later overturned a court ruling that the SFO had acted unlawfully.

In these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that Western politicians and businessmen are involved in the plan to arm South Sudan in an attempt to implement the US-led program to break Sudan up. The leaders of the southern region have certainly shown great interest in receiving arms in order to prepare their army to fight for secession. As the Economist put it, “Southern politicians have been quite open in their desire to build up a strong army, despite the provisions against re-arming contained in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005, in case they have to return to war with the north.” The fact that those leaders have spent most of their region’s oil-wealth on buying arms is indicated by the strong criticism they have received for spending so little on schools and clinics.

But it is not only South Sudan that the enemies of the country are trying to disrupt. The western region of Darfur is also receiving great attention, to the extent that there is no prospect of peace being restored there. As the head of the UN and African Union peace-keeping force there said, “there is no peace in Darfur and no prospects of peace in the near future, as there are too many interests and too many voices.”

The sad thing is that Muslim countries’ rulers would rather support the US-led war on terror than come to the aid of a Muslim country, in this case Sudan.