Al Azhar Fatwa and Amman Message

After a long period of discussion, the Fatwa was announced on July 6, 1959 and was summarized as follows:

1) Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab (school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so.

2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al- Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought.

Today, both Sunni and Shi'a students study at and graduate from the Al-Azhar University.


Amman Message
The Amman Message (Arabic: رسالة عمان‎) is a statement which was issued on 9 November 2004 (27th of Ramadan 1425 AH) by King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein of Jordan, calling for tolerance and unity in the Muslim world.[1] Subsequently, a three-point ruling was issued by 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries, focusing on issues of: defining who a Muslim is; excommunication from Islam (takfir), and; principles related to delivering religious edicts (fatāwa).[2]

Content

The Amman Message was delivered in Amman as a Ramadan sermon by Chief Justice Sheikh Iz-al-Din al-Tamimi in the presence of King Abdullah II and a number of Muslim scholars.[3] According to a report issued by the International Crisis Group, "The sermon stressed the need to re-emphasise Islam's core values of compassion, mutual respect, tolerance, acceptance and freedom of religion."[1] The next year, in July 2005, an Islamic convention brought together 200 Muslim scholars from over 50 countries who issued a three-point declaration (later known as 'Three Points of the Amman Message').[2] This declaration focused on:[4]

1. The recognition of eight legal schools of thought (madhāhib) and the varying strains of Islamic theology viz.
1. Sunni Hanafi
2. Sunni Hanbali
3. Sunni Maliki
4. Sunni Shafi'i
5. Shia Ja`fari
6. Shia Zaidiyyah
7. Ibadi
8. Zahiri

Further the recognition of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought.

1. The forbiddance from pronouncing disbelief upon (or excommunicating) others recognized as Muslims
2. The stipulations placed as preconditions to the issuing of religious edicts, intended to prevent the circulation of illegitimate edicts

Explaining why the message was issued, King Abdullah stated: "[W]e felt that the Islamic message of tolerance was being subjected to a fierce and unjust attack from some in the West who do not understand Islam's essence, and others who claim to be associated with Islam and hide behind Islam to commit irresponsible deeds."[5]

1. ^ a b c "Jordan's 9/11: Dealing With Jihadi Islamism", Crisis Group Middle East Report N°47, 23 November 2005
2. ^ a b c "SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER THE RT HON TONY BLAIR MP" (04/06/07), British Embassy in Bahrain
3. ^ "Jordan issues the 'Amman Message' on Islam". Embassy of Jordan - Washington, DC. http://www.jordanembassyus.org/new/pr/pr11092004.shtml. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
4. ^ The Amman Message summary - Official website
5. ^ "King Abdullah calls to end extremism". Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885839539&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Retrieved 2007-08-15.

Fatwa's of the ulama

Following is the list of individual & organizations who have issued fatwa in relation of Amman Message (as per official website listing)[1]:
http://ammanmessage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=60 FATWAS OF THE 'ULAMA

'மார்க்கக் கடமைகளுக்கிடையே ஓற்றுமையும் ஒருமைப்பாடும் இன்றியமையாத தேவையாகும்'

Fatwa on Shia Ithna Asharia and Zaidi Madhabs

ஷீயா இஸ்லாமிய சட்டவியலை பயன்படுத்த அனுமதியுண்டு – எகிப்திய முப்தி அறிவிப்பு
இஸ்லாமிய உம்மாவுக்கு மிகவும் அவசியமான ஷீயா இஸ்லாமிய சட்டவியலை உபயோகிக்க அனுமதி உண்டு என எகிப்திய மாபெரும் முப்தியான அலி கோமா அறிவிப்பு செய்துள்ளார்.
ஷீயா – சுன்னிகளுக்கிடையிலான இணக்கப்பாடு என்பது ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட இஸ்லாமிய சித்தாந்தப் பிரிவைப் பின்பற்றுபவர் தமது சித்தாந்தத்தைக் கைவிட வேண்டும் என அர்த்தமாகாது என அந்த மூத்த சுன்னி ஆலிம் கூறினார்.
முஸ்லிம்களுக்கிடையிலான ஒற்றுமை மற்றும் ஒருமைப்பாடு என்பன பற்றிய முக்கியத்துவத்தை வலியுறுத்திய கலாநிதி அலி கோமா, 'ஒற்றுமையை முன்நோக்கி செல்வது உலகம் முழுவதிலுமுள்ள ஒவ்வொரு இன, சித்தாந்தப் பிரிவின் முஸ்லிம்கள் அனைவர் மீதும் சுமத்தப்பட்டுள்ள கடமையாகும்' எனவும் கூறினார்.
இஸ்லாமிய உலகைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் ஒற்றுமை ஒரு அடிப்படை கோட்பாடாகவும் இன்றியமையாத தாகவும் விளங்குகின்றது. 'மார்க்கக் கடமைகளுக்கிடையே ஓற்றுமையும் ஒருமைப்பாடும் இன்றியமையாத தேவையாகும்' என அவர் மேலும் வலியுறுத்திக் கூறினார்.
தீவிரவாதக் கருத்துகளையும் மதப்பிரிவினைவாதத்தையும் கண்டித்த அவர், அவை இஸ்லாமிய சித்தாந்தப் பிரிவுகளுக்கிடையிலான உரையாடல் மற்றும் இணக்கப்பாட்டு முயற்சிகளை சிதறடித்துவிடும் எனவும் கூறினார்.
எகிப்திய 'தாருள் பத்வா' (மார்க்கத்தீர்ப்பு இல்லம்) அலுவலகத்தில் எகிப்துக்கான ஈரானியத் தூதுவர் செய்யத் முஜ்தபா இமானியை சந்தித்தபோது, அல் அஸ்ஹர் மற்றும் ஏனைய இஸ்லாமிய நிறுவனங்களின் உலமாப் பெருமக்கள், இமாமிய்யா மற்றும் ஸைதி உட்பட அனைத்து இஸ்லாமிய சித்தாந்தப்பிரிவினதும் பிக்ஹ் அறிவுப் பொக்கிஷங்களையும் பயன்படுத்திக்கொள்வது தவறாகாது என்பதை மீண்டும் மீண்டும் வலியுறுத்தி வந்துள்ளனர் என்றும் அவர்களது பெறுமதிமிக்க, வளமான சிந்தனைகள் நிராகரிக்க முடியாதவை எனவும் கலாநிதி கோமா கூறினார்.
முன்னைநாள் அல் அஸ்ஹர் அதிபர் ஷேய்க் மஹ்மூத் ஷல்தூத் அவரகளின் ஷீயா சார்பான மார்க்கத்தீரப்பை எடுத்துக்காட்டிய முப்தி அவர்கள் இஸ்லாமிய உம்மா ஒப்புயர்வற்றது. முஸ்லிம்கள் ஒரே கிப்லாவை நோக்கி தொழும்வரை ஷீயா சுன்னிகளுக்கிடையிலான எவ்வித வேறுபாடும் கிடையாது என்றார்.
'இஸ்லாத்தின் எதிரிகள் முஸ்லிம்களின் ஒற்றுமை, ஒருமைப்பாடு என்பவற்றை வெட்டியெரிய தருணம் பார்த்திருக்கின்றனர். ஷீயா சுன்னி பேதங்களை ஏற்படுத்துவதற்கான காரணிகளை அவர்கள் தேடுகின்றனர்.' எனவே அவர்களது சதித்திட்டங்கள் குறித்து ஒவ்வொருவரும் அவதானமாக இருக்க வேண்டும் எனவும் முப்தி அலி கோமா கூறினார்.

The Godsend of American Hostility Written by Ali Quli Qarai

Tuesday, 15 June 2010 12:23

The Islamic Republic has been in Washington’s crosswires since the revolution of February 1979 overthrew its client regime of the so-called Shahanshah (the king of kings). Putting an abrupt end to US influence over America’s most priceless geo-political “possession” in the region, the Islamic revolution made Iran emerge as the greatest challenge to long-term American influence in the region and the Muslim world. Three decades later, as we are about to enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, the challenge has not receded or lessened. Rather it has grown more formidable with time, as the Islamic Republic advances in experience and strength, at times faltering but evolving resolutely towards rational horizons, while the US sinks deeper into the quagmire of its super-problems, domestic and international. The United States, as represented by different administrations from Carter to Obama, has never been able to reconcile itself to the Islamic regime, whose foundational principles and policies continue to be viewed by its political gurus and ruling elite as the greatest potential threat to US influence over the Muslim world and perhaps to America’s global hegemony as the world’s biggest military power. Despite the passage of three decades, the Islamic regime has been unflagging in its condemnation of US military adventurism, in particular the adventures of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in its opposition to US policies in the region, especially its gross support of Israel and its aggressions against Palestinians and neighbors. All the major political and military moves, conceived by the United States in relation to the region, as well as all the labors of the intelligence and media agencies, have been aimed to reverse the setbacks to American influence occasioned by the establishment of the Islamic regime: - The all-round US support for Saddam Husain’s 8-year war against Iran, - the drama of the Gulf war of 1991 and the consequent entry and establishment of American military bases in the Persian Gulf region, - the massive effort, lasting for a generation, by US intelligence agencies and outfits to destabilize the Islamic regime through support for Iranian terrorist outfits and political groups opposed to the Islamic regime, - the hostile propaganda and psychological warfare, also lasting for a generation, by the main-current US and Western media against the so-called “clerical regime,” - the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, aimed to encircle Iran, and the false-flag operation of 9/11 which served as the justification for these military adventures, - presenting the issue of Uranium enrichment by Iran to the world opinion as involving a unique danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons and threat to international security, and UN Security Council economic sanctions based on the related perceptions and propaganda…. Ironically, most of these moves have had the direct or indirect result of strengthening the Islamic republic politically, militarily and technologically, making Iran more self-reliant and self-confident than ever before in almost every conceivable aspect. Somehow, call it failed ingenuity or stupidity, the hostility of the past US administrations has hardly ever failed to work except in favour and to the advantage of this country and its Islamic regime. By contrast, the US support for its “friends”, especially Israel, which is America’s “special friend” has never failed to work to the detriment of the Zionist regime. America’s financial and military support for Israel has made it so dependent on US “support” that the continued existence of Israel is unconceivable without it. The aggressions and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Zionist governments during the last six decades of Israel’s ignominious history would have been impossible without America’s military and moral support. American support for Israel has left both countries politically and morally bankrupt. The biggest existential threat to Israel comes not from its enemies, but from its own character which has been so hideously shaped by America’s material and moral “assistance” and the fatal reliance of the Zionist regime on US “friendship” and “support,” as if the US were the God of Zionism. Undoubtedly, in these facts of global dimensions there is a bright lesson for America’s friends and foes, especially the Iraqis, the Afghans and the Pakistanis: America’s hostility and enmity are the greatest gifts that any nation may enjoy in moral and material terms, and its friendship and support are the biggest plague and curse that may alight on any nation! --- Ali Quli Qarai is an Iranian scholar, formerly the editor of Al-Tawhid, a quarterly journal of Islamic thought and culture. Among his published works is a translation of the Quran.

The Imam’s life and legacy

June 3rd marks the 21st anniversary of Imam Khomeini’s passing into heavenly company. Amid his many achievements was the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, establishing the first Islamic state in modern times. We reproduce an abridged version of Zafar Bangash’s foreword in the latest book, Imam Khomeini: A Leader of Principle and Purpose, published by Crescent International for the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought.

Three factors are essential for the Islamic movement to bring about change in society: an accurate understanding of the situation in which it operates; clarity about the goal it wishes to pursue; and, the process through which this would be achieved. This is also the lesson we learn from the Sirah of the noble Messenger of Allah (r) when he proclaimed the message of Islam, first in Makkah and later in Madinah. He was absolutely clear about the jahili nature of society in Makkah, indeed the entire Arabian Peninsula and beyond, and refused to compromise with it. He set out to challenge and demolish it and replace it with a system based on Islamic principles and values.

The process for this change was the mobilization of a group of people that were totally committed to bringing change in society regardless of the price they would have to pay. And they did. At the end of the life of the noble Messenger of Allah (r) on earth, Islam had not only spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula, but an Islamic state had also been established and consolidated. It started in Madinah but expanded both east and west ultimately encompassing the entire Arabian Peninsula during his lifetime. The Prophet’s (r) successors expanded the Islamic domain to virtually the entire known world, spreading as far as Central Asia and China and into parts of Europe. This is the model Muslims have followed throughout history.

In the Muslims’ contemporary history, there have been numerous movements that have struggled to bring about change in their respective societies. Some have subsumed their struggle under the label of nationalism while others have openly proclaimed that they wish to implement Islamic laws in society, yet with the exception of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, none of the other movements has succeeded. What sets the Islamic movement in Iran apart from others, such as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon (Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt and Jamaat-e Islami in Pakistan or movements inspired by their thought and method? Numerous reasons can be advanced for the lack of success of these movements — and there are elements of truth in all of them — but it needs emphasizing that no movement succeeds without struggle and sacrifice. It is not in the sunnah of Allah (Â) to not test His faithful servants: this was the case with all the Messengers and Prophets of Allah (Å) and continues to be the case with those that have made a faith-commitment to Allah (Â). He makes clear in the noble Book:

Do people think that when they say, “we make a faith commitment to Allah,” that they would not be tested with trials and tribulations? Lo! We tested those who were before you. Thus Allah distinguishes those that are sincere [in their commitment to Him] and those that merely feign and lie [about their commitment] (29:2–3).

Thus challenges and trials and tribulations are part of the struggle that committed Muslims must endure in order to achieve the goal of implementing Islam in society. Both the Ikhwan and the Jamaat-e Islami were endowed with charismatic leaders although they did not achieve the stature of Imam Khomeini. The Ikhwan and the Jamaat also had well-thought-out programs but because they frequently made erroneous assumptions, success eluded them and continues to do so today.

What we can say with confidence is that Islamic movements cannot gain power by participating in elections organized under the prevalent jahili systems in Muslim societies. The experience of the Ikhwan (in Egypt), the Jamaat (in Pakistan), the Islamic Salvation Front (in Algeria) and many others that operate as Islamic political parties confirms this. Some may cite the successes of Hamas and Hizbullah to assert that participation in electoral politics under existing systems can bring positive results. It needs pointing out that their conditions are rather different. Their lands and societies are under direct foreign military occupation. They are forced to make difficult choices. Should they deal with the external enemy or tackle the internal situation first? The choices facing them are not pleasant and both carry grave risks.

The news of Imam Khomeini’s death on June 3, 1989 was marked by extreme grief both in Iran as well as outside. Millions of people in Iran participated in his funeral procession in Tehran while tens of millions of others around the country were grief-stricken. While an estimated three million people had welcomed the Imam on February 1, 1979 when he returned from 15 years in exile, more than 10 million people participated in his funeral prayers in Tehran in the scorching summer heat. The authorities in Iran had to urge people from outside Tehran not to come because facilities in the capital were stretched to breaking point. The scenes at his funeral, as witnessed on television, were heartbreaking.

What these demonstrated clearly was that the Imam lived in people’s hearts. He had earned their trust and confidence through self-sacrifice and denial of worldly pleasures. He was bold and courageous but above all, he had unshakable faith in Allah (Â) and His promised help. The people knew that he was a leader of exceptional qualities but he lived a life that was very close to that of ordinary people in Iran. They also knew that he had no personal ambitions in life beyond adhering to the commands of Allah (Â) and eliminating injustice from the face of the earth. These are the attributes of a truly great leader. This, however, is only one dimension of his multifaceted personality.

Imam Khomeini came from a deeply intellectual tradition. From a very early age, he was immersed in the study of ‘irfan (gnosis) and mysticism. His interest in fiqh was aroused much later. It was clear even in his early life that he was deeply troubled by the injustices in society and he reflected on the causes of such malaise. He began to raise and discuss these issues at a relatively young age despite being quite junior in the hierarchical structure of the ‘ulama in Iran. But he was careful not to overstep his authority in the presence of senior figures. It was later when he had reached a more senior position that he began to express his views more forcefully, leading to his arrest by the Shah’s regime and ultimately exile from Iran in 1963. Exile, however, did not deter him from speaking out, and thus he attracted large audiences. There was a yearning among people searching for a leader with courage, knowledge and charisma. They found their ideal in Imam Khomeini.

There are many dimensions of Imam Khomeini’s personality. It is regrettable that apart from Professor Hamid Algar, perhaps the greatest authority on the Imam, there have not been many scholars that have paid adequate attention to the Imam’s intellectual contribution in numerous fields. Most Muslims around the world became familiar with the Imam’s writings and works through the pioneering efforts of Professor Algar and through the writings of the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui in the Crescent International. In Tehran, there is also an Institute established for the Compilation of the Works of Imam Khomeini. While it has done some good work, it is largely confined to literature in Farsi and perhaps some material in Arabic. The English works produced by the Institute are of questionable quality.

What is needed is a team of dedicated researchers to concentrate on the writings and declarations of Imam Khomeini to make the rest of the world aware of them. There is a great deal about his intellectual contribution that is unknown to most people. Unless these works are properly researched, analysed and discussed, the world would remain unaware of Imam Khomeini’s contribution in many fields. Even his widely known achievement — leading the Islamic movement to bring about an Islamic revolution in Iran — is not properly understood; even many Muslims do not understand and hence do not appreciate it fully. Some of it is undoubtedly the result of negative propaganda in the western media, and even within the Muslim world financed and supported by such regimes as those in Saudi Arabia or Iraq under Saddam. The West’s animosity toward the Imam is based on the loss it suffered in Iran. He overthrew the West’s favourite puppet and demolished the Western-imposed exploitative order there. This was a major blow to Western interests. This the West could not tolerate, hence the incessant hostile propaganda and negative portrayal of the Imam. They could hardly be expected to extol his virtues. The Islamic State of Iran continues to be viewed with great hostility even today precisely because it refuses to surrender to the West, unlike other regimes in the Muslim world.

The western media’s hostile propaganda is one dimension of the problem. In fact it is confirmation of the fact that the Imam had embarked on a course that was viewed by imperialism and Zionism, the two leading sources of zulm in the world today, as a challenge to their exploitative and anti-human policies. But what explains the hostility of such states as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq under Saddam? These bastions of Arabism are illegitimate entities that were created by western colonialists to serve their interests. The Imam’s successful struggle against the Shah, who was in the mould of all these other rulers, by bringing about an Islamic revolution exposed them completely. This was especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia whose rulers had wrapped themselves in the mantle of custodians of the Two Holy Cities. Muslims worldwide were forced to ask: how could the custodians of the Haramayn be subservient to the kafirs, especially the US, a sworn enemy of Islam?

The hostile propaganda against the Imam was confirmation that his mission was dedicated to the service of Allah (Â). But such propaganda does not fully explain the lack of knowledge among Muslims and other people about the Imam’s immense contribution in such diverse fields as the understanding of the Qur’an, hadith, ‘irfan, fiqh, theology, Muslim political thought, etc. In any case, we should not give too much credit to the Saudis and their ability to influence events in the Muslim world. What is truly lacking is the will and a well-thought-out plan to study the Imam’s contribution. This is an area that awaits serious consideration and attention.

The Islamic Republic commemorates the Imam’s anniversary each year. Guests are invited from all over the world. Papers are presented and conferences held. The commemoration ceremonies culminate in a huge rally at the Imam’s mausoleum in the Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery. Why has a committee of scholars not been appointed and provided facilities to undertake serious research into the writings and thought of the Imam? It serves little purpose to produce numerous volumes of questionable quality and assume that this is all that is required. True, people continue to have deep attachment to the memory of the Imam more than two decades after his departure from this world but his intellectual contribution is of a much higher order and needs to be addressed at the proper level.

This would provide important lessons for the global Islamic movement. It is through the process of learning from our successes as well as failures that we would be able to better tackle the challenges confronting us.

Zionist, Arabian rulers aligned against Islamic Iran

It was David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, who in a moment of candor let it slip that the Arabian regimes were Israel’s first line of defence. These Arabian regimes vehemently protested this, calling it a “slur” that sullied their reputation. In 1948, the Arabian rulers presented themselves as champions of the Palestinian cause and vowed to liberate the Holy Land to prove their Arabism and manhood. Sixty years later, their mask has fallen off and they have come out openly against the Palestinians. They are in fact active partners in Zionist crimes. Prior to the launch of Israel’s onslaught on Ghazzah on December 27, 2008, Egypt’s Minister of Intelligence, Omar Sulaiman had told a visiting Israeli security official to attack and eliminate Hamas, the Islamic movement that serves as the elected government in Ghazzah.

To understand the Arabian regimes’ open alliance with Israel, and open hostility to the Islamic State of Iran, one must consider their origins. Not one of these regimes is legitimate. Most are colonial, primarily British creation to advance Western imperial designs. Even before the Zionist entity was planted in Palestine, the British had created such nation-states as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq by dividing the Middle East while the French carved Lebanon out of Syria. The division was carried out in the name of Arab nationalism to drive the Ottomans from the region. It is interesting to note Arab nationalism’s utility as a weapon against Islam. Yet Arab nationalism was a necessary precursor to Zionist nationalism, hence Ben Gurion’s statement that the Arabian regimes are Israel’s “first line of defence.”

While the Arabian regimes fought several wars against Israel, these were not wars of choice or liberation; they were imposed by Israel in its relentless drive for expansion and colonization. In addition to Syria’s Golan Heights, Israel also occupies Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula under the rubric of a US-brokered demilitarized agreement. Husni Mubarak, the Egyptian Pharaoh, does not mind this as long as he gets $1.5 billion bakhsheesh from the Americans to line his own pocket and those of his cronies.

The regimes in Jordan and Saudi Arabia are even greater monstrosities. Based on tribalism, both are subservient to the Americans and British. The two ruling families also claim spurious religious sanctity — the one in Jordan claims to be descendants of the Prophet (s), while the Saudis claim custodianship of the Two Holy Cities of Makkah and Madinah — in order to mask their illegitimacy. If they possessed any religious legitimacy, they would be the first to support Islamic causes such as the liberation of Palestine from Zionist clutches as well as aligning themselves with Islamic Iran in its struggle against US-Western aggression and subversion.

The reality is very different. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt have joined hands with the Zionists to fight Iran’s influence in the region. Zionism has found a willing partner in Arab nationalism to fight Islam. Their ugly faces have been unmasked but since they lack self-respect, they are not embarrassed to be seen in the company of such unsavory characters as the Zionists. The Jordanians have for decades acted as Zionist agents alerting them to any moves by Arabian regimes. This was most clearly witnessed in October 1973 when Egypt was planning to attack Israeli forces across the Suez Canal occupying Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. King Hussain personally flew to Tel Aviv to alert Israeli leaders of the planned attack 48 hours before the Egyptian forces moved. In their arrogance, the Zionist rulers thought Egypt would not dare. Then Egyptian ruler, Anwar Sadat did not intend to liberate the Sinai Peninsula; he merely wanted to shake the status quo in order to secure some money from the Americans for his bankrupt regime.

The Sinai remains demilitarized and out of Egyptian control. In the process, the Egyptians have even abandoned the pretence of helping the suffering Palestinians. Relentless propaganda has turned many Egyptians against the Palestinians. The Mubarak regime is so tight with the Zionists that last June Israeli submarines armed with nuclear missiles sailed through the Suez Canal to enter the Indian Ocean in a show of force against Iran. David Schenker, writing for the Zionist magazine, Commentary (August 4, 2009), gloated over the fact that Israel was not alone in “confronting” Tehran. “These latest naval deployments also suggest that the warning to Iran extends beyond the Israelis. By granting canal access to the warships now, Cairo too is signaling its concern. In fact, lately Egypt’s Mubarak regime has been demonstrating an increasingly public identification with the nascent coalition against Iran,” wrote Schenker. He could have added, “led by Israel.”

Zionist Israel: the root cause of Middle East conflict

Long before the Zionist entity was planted in the heartland of Islam, like a dagger thrust into its heart, turmoil had erupted in the Middle East. This land, once a solid bloc under Ottoman rule, was parcelled into nation-states to serve British and French colonialists’ political, economic and geostrategic interests. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and later Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had never existed in history; they are colonial creations and serve their interests. The establishment of the Zionist entity was possible only after the creation of these non-entities: Israel’s first line of defence, in the infamous words of David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister.

In the 62 years since its creation and numerous wars later, the Zionist entity has engulfed virtually the entire Middle East into flames. Hardly any country in the region has escaped its military aggression. As an expansionist settler colonial entity, it has caused endless suffering and mayhem in the region. But unlike all earlier colonial entities, it is neither viable economically nor politically. Zionist Israel is a parasitical state that thrives on the US body. The US was not Israel’s cash cow from day one. In the first 20 years of Israel’s existence, it was dependent on European support — primarily British and French, and secondarily with money extorted from Germany for holocaust “reparations”. When the holocaust was perpetrated, there was no such entity as Israel yet hundreds of billions of dollars have been sucked by this parasitical state while the real victims of the holocaust have gotten little by way of compensation, according to Professor Norman Finkelstein, the son of holocaust survivors (The Holocaust Industry, 2000).

A glance at some statistics would help clarify Israel’s dependence. Between 1948 and 1968, Israel received $348 million in aid from the US. From 1968 to the present, Israel has received more nearly $150 billion. This figure does not include donations from Zionist Jews that funnel money to their favourite country, again hundreds of billions of dollars. While there are more than 45 million people living in absolute poverty in the US, the billions of dollars shovelled to Israel annually, is never questioned. Members of US congress dare not mention this, otherwise the Zionist lobby would make sure they do not get reelected. The Zionists are master blackmailers. Thus, for all practical purposes, the US is little more than a Zionist colony. Capitol Hill, in the word of American commentator Pat Buchanan, is “Zionist occupied territory.”

It is to the Middle East however that we must return for it is there that Zionist Israel has inflicted the greatest damage, harm and suffering. True, if Zionist Israel were wiped off the world map today, this would not mean the end of all Middle Eastern problems but it would remove a major irritant. The degree of bloodshed and suffering would decline drastically. Since 1948, every war in the Middle East has been waged either directly by Israel against its neighbours or on its behalf by the US and its allies (examples: Iraq-Iran war and the two wars against Iraq). Israel has been responsible for turning millions of Palestinians into refugees; tens of thousands of others have been murdered. The Zionists and their Western allies consider Palestinian and Muslim blood cheaper than water. From the refugee camps of southern Beirut to the slums of Ghazzah, Palestinians live in misery and deprivation. Ghazzah has become the largest open-air prison, much like a Nazi concentration camp of the Second World War.

While Israel has consistently invoked the bogey of an “existential threat” it faces from others — first the Arabian regimes, then the PLO and now Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic Iran — it is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, with 200–500 nuclear warheads. The West led by the US makes hypocritical noises about Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons but maintains deafening silence about the Israeli arsenal. Asked by the veteran journalist Helen Thomas at his first White House press conference after becoming president to name the country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, Barack Obama said he did not want to “speculate”.
It is such hypocrisy and the shielding of Israel from all criticism that heightens anger against Zionist crimes in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere. Israel is the principal, nay the only source of conflict, war and bloodshed in the Middle East. The millions of Palestinians it has uprooted and continues to uproot from their lands, homes and farms and orchards seek an end to such crimes and redress for the injustices inflicted on them. If the world is unable or unwilling to end such barbarism, then the victims are left with no choice but to rise up and defend themselves. If such resistance causes discomfort to the Zionists or the West, so be it. Self-preservation is a basic instinct and the right of all living creatures. How can the Palestinians be deprived of this right?

Israel’s barbarism, however, carries the seeds of its own destruction. Gradually, people worldwide have woken up to the reality that Israel is not a victim but the perpetrator of horrible crimes. Despite the shrill propaganda about anti-Semitism and the holocaust, the world sees Israel through its bulldozing of Palestinian homes and the crushing of Palestinian boys after breaking their bones. Israel’s inner contradictions are catching up with it and its end is not far off.

Elimination of the racist Zionist ideology will be the first step toward bringing sanity and, therefore, peace to the Middle East.