Egyptian Referendum's Message for Morsi

An excerpt of an interview with Mohammad Ali Mohtadi, an expert on regional affairs

What is your assessment of Egypt's constitutional referendum following the announcement of the results?

Based on the reports, only 33% of those who were eligible to vote participated in this referendum and 63.8% of them voted positively to the constitution. This number of participants is low for a constitution and if those who held this referendum had considered this matter, they should have provided more opportunities so that consensus would be created among different political groups with regard to the constitution. But apparently the government of Mr. Morsi acted hastily in writing the constitution and immediately holding the referendum. 

What was the reaction of the opposition to this referendum?

The opposition held demonstrations in Tahrir Square to protest against Mr. Morsi's constitutional draft. They first said that they would not participate in the referendum, but when they felt that the government was insisting on holding this referendum, they changed their position and announced their participation with their negative votes. This change of position had its impacts and some of the protesters did not participate in the referendum. That is why the number of positive votes was higher.

What was the composition of the votes?

While in a city like Cairo the majority voted negatively to the referendum, in remote areas, like Upper Egypt where there is a high illiteracy rate, the referendum received the highest number of votes. This shows that the majority of the people who voted for the constitution could basically not read it. Their motivation for agreeing with this constitution was solely religious and not based on an expert analysis.

What are the views of the opposition groups with regard to the results of the referendum? 

What is certain is that the government of Mr. Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Salafis of Egypt insist that this constitution is adopted and legitimate and must be the basis of affairs. So, elections should then be held for new members of parliament and institutions should be established and move towards normalization of the situation in the country. The opposition does not agree with this path. They have emphasized that they will continue their popular movement and peaceful demonstrations to eradicate the constitution. They believe that many rules have been violated in this referendum, including holding it on two days with one week apart, whereas it should have been done in one day throughout all of Egypt. They also reiterate that the judiciary did not supervise this referendum. 

How do you predict the political approach of the Muslim Brotherhood will be after the adoption of the constitution?

The future approach of the Muslim Brotherhood depends on several elements, some of which are related to Egypt’s domestic issues and some to the regional situation and international powers. There is no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood, as an important movement, has a popular base. In addition, the Muslim Brotherhood is the most important organized group among the political factions which are present in the cities and villages. But there is one point and that is that power in Egypt is still in the hands of secret forces and power centers. It means that the security apparatus which had gained power with Anwar Sadat's presidency and later during Hosni Mubarak's tenure is still powerful. The revolution in Egypt has not been able to eliminate or even weaken this system.

What is the opposition's perspective of their future activities and what will their strategy be?

The position taken by these groups indicates that their struggle to undo the constitution will continue. They believe that numerous cases of violations have happened which questions the credibility of this referendum. In my opinion, their decision is to continue their opposition to the constitution. It appears that their opposition is to the constitution, but in fact they are unsatisfied with the situation which was created after the revolution in Egypt. They believe that national unity must be created in the country and no group must take hold of power and consider itself the majority.

Of course, there are different opposition groups. Perhaps the majority are the youth who gathered in Tahrir Square and started the revolution. But numerous academics, intellectuals, and members of the middle-class are also among the opposition. Naturally, some of the officials of the former regime have also entered these groups and anonymously enflame the fire of differences within Egyptian society. 

It does not seem that foreign forces agree with each other on the future of Egypt. Perhaps some of them prefer the present disorder to continue. The economic situation is also very dire. As you know, a huge amount of Egypt's income is gained through tourism, which, at the present time, has stopped due to social insecurity and other social problems. Foreign investments have also decreased and Egypt is moving towards receiving loans from foreign countries. 

Nevertheless, Egypt's conditions are very fragile and dangerous. We must wait and see what impacts the developments will have on the future of Egypt.

Imam Khomeini and Islamic Awakening

A month before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in1979, a reporter asked Imam Khomeini in Paris: Do you think that Iran’s events might be felt in Turkey? He Imam answered: the sacred movement of Iran is Islamic and hence it is natural for Muslims throughout the world to feel its impact.

The current awakening in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, and Libya, and earlier the driving of the Zionists out of Lebanon by the Islamic Resistance, and revival of the Palestinians' uprising in the usurped lands on the undefeatable principles of jihad and martyrdom, have unnerved the big powers.

The victory of the Islamic revolution of Iran led by Imam Khomeini showed to the oppressed nations of the world that with trust in God, steadfastness and reliance on the dynamic teachings of Islam one can overcome the most powerful regimes. Yahya Abdul-Aziz Jammeh the former Gambian president referred to the Islamic Revolution as the finest model for all Muslim states for liberation from the yoke of colonialism.

Imam Khomeini by reviving the practicability of Islam and its laws in Iran actually invited the ummah to rediscover its identity so that the hegemony of foreign powers in the economic, political and military fields could be broken. He said: Hopefully, world Muslims would comprehend their problems and by forging solidarity on the basis of Islam get rid of the colonialists. The basic option is that the Muslim nations and governments should try to get rid of their intellectual dependence on the West and strive to regain their culture and originality. He thus promoted scientific self-sufficiency and self-reliance without depending on foreign powers.

The Islamic movement of the Iranian people with its emphasis on spirituality and spread of Islamic culture breathed moral and spiritual identity into Muslim societies. Member of the scientific board of Iran's Imam Hussein University Dr. Hassan Ali Akbari says: despite the West's efforts to ignore Imam Khomeini’s thoughts, today world nations have become better aware of the Imam’s prophetic words.

The uprisings sweeping the Arab world are indicative of this fact. Imperialism is certainly on its last legs and so is Zionism. Once the Zionists had dreamt of a 'Greater Israel' spreading from the River Nile in Egypt to the River Euphrates in Iraq, but thanks to Imam Khomeini’s thoughts, this dream has been shattered and turned into a nightmare. The Late Imam had called for the eradication of the cancerous tumour called Israel.

Today more and more nations are demanding the end of Israel, as is evident by the slogans of the people of Egypt and other countries. In other words, the current of awakening is the real demand of humanity. This current needs a brave and scholar standard barrier and Imam Khomeini initiated this movement in the world. The Imam’s words stemmed from the genuine precepts of Islam and the natural language of the human being. Any person with commonsense who ponders over Imam Khomeini’s words, will naturally be inspired by them.

The campaign against oppression for restoration of the dignity of self-respect of nations and regaining of their rights were all inspired by Imam Khomeini. We keep alive the path of Imam Khomeini which according to the present Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, is the ever-lasting truth.

Israel’s operation Cloud Pillar in Gaza and the anti-Iranian campaign

 Vitaly Bilan

A strange war

Debates are still raging in both the Israeli and the regional media as to why it was necessary to expend so much energy and resources on operation Cloud Pillar and mobilize 75,000 reservists (7.5 times more than during Molten Lead, the IDF’s last operation in Gaza) just to enter a very hasty and far from triumphant truce with Hamas.

At first glance it does look strange, to say the least. The right-wing Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, which has cultivated a “hawkish image,” agreed in exchange for a ceasefire to open border crossings with the Gaza Strip, ease the movement of people and goods, and allow freedom of movement in the so-called “security zone”. And it did so knowing full well that both the Palestinian and the Arab Street will consider it a crushing defeat of the Zionist regime.

Netanyahu may offer any number of excuses, as he did at the joint press conference with Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak in Jerusalem on November 21, or he may get the state-controlled media to roll out counter-propaganda. But it will not convince the average Israeli voter, who, according to the polls, was willing to spend more time in bomb shelters just to crush Hamas.

The popular explanation for the government’s actions is that the military campaign was forced on Netanyahu, and he did everything he could to avoid it.

That is hard to believe, of course, knowing how keen the current Israeli prime minister’s political instincts and ability to maneuver between the raindrops are. The more so since, despite operation Cloud Pillar’s outward weakness, it was by and large a success.

After all, the chief objective of the military campaign in Gaza was not to take out Hamas, which is currently in disarray, but to test a number of elements that would be involved in a war with Israel’s much more serious enemy and main “headache” — Iran. While simultaneously “mopping up” the pro-Iranian elements in Gaza, of course.

“Mopping up” Iran’s rear area

I have said previously in the pages of New Eastern Outlook that, as a result of the “revolutionary” events in Syria, Hamas, which until recently was a monolith, has in fact become a mosaic structure consisting of groups aligned with regional forces that sometimes are in opposition to one another. I have also written that in recent years Qatar, sometimes alone and sometimes working through Egypt, is trying to “privatize” Hamas and other influential forces in Gaza.

Obviously, if the choice is between two evils, a “Qatari” Gaza currently looks more attractive than an “Iranian” Gaza. Therefore, the IDF’s military operations during operation Cloud Pillar looked like a “mopping up” of pro-Iranian figures and not a declared war on terror.

The assassination of al-Qassam Brigades commander Ahmed Jabari, which essentially began the military operation, is an eloquent example of that. The fact that the man killed was involved in the abduction of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit is doubtless an added “electoral bonus” for the Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu coalition in the parliamentary elections coming up on January 22.

But that was not the main factor here. Nor was it the fact that Jabari headed Hamas’ military wing, Gaza’s police forces and air defenses, or that he was Islamic Jihad’s propaganda chief. The main thing is that he was Tehran’s man.

Persistent rumors flying around Gaza suggested that the al-Qassam Brigades were preparing an armed coup to unseat the Strip’s current leadership led by the “renegade” Ismail Haniyeh, who has recently been openly declaring a pro-Qatari policy. That was particularly evident during the sensational October visit to Gaza by Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Incidentally, Israel decided to intimidate Haniyeh himself by firing on his villa, probably thinking that he had not yet come to a final decision about whom to side with.

All things considered, the job of clearing pro-Iranian elements out of Gaza can be considered a success. Israel’s situational ally — Qatar — can now safely use the “tamed” Hamas (and evidently its military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, as well) in its ambitious plans to restructure the Greater Middle East. Primarily in Syria.

And after operation Cloud Pillar, Israel will be able to count a “passage” through Iran’s rear areas as a plus.

Successes and “dizziness with success”

Israeli propaganda calls improvements to defense and warning systems one of the main differences between this operation and previous ones. The Iron Dome tactical missile defense system has been much discussed. It is designed to protect against rockets at ranges from 4 to 70 km, and it proved 87% effective during the military operation by shooting down a total of 421 rockets fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip.

Moreover, an improvement to Iron Dome cut the number of interceptor missiles needed in half. The second achievement of the current Israeli government is improved relations with US President Barack Obama, which have not been exactly rosy in recent years.

An important plus for Israel has undoubtedly been progress in conducting information warfare, one of its biggest weaknesses. A specially trained team of Israeli “virtual warriors” fought the Arab “virtual street” quite successfully in the social networks.

Progress has clearly been made. Israel can also consider the anti-Iranian “training exercises conducted under near combat conditions” a positive achievement. In this regard, after feeling frustrated during the first few days of the truce with Hamas, the Israeli press began featuring more “gung ho” rhetoric. There has been wild praise for Iron Dome, the stoutheartedness of the home front, the courage those living in the south, the tremendous discipline of the Israelis, etc. After Cloud Pillar, Israel can beat Iran with one hand tied behind it.

However, it would do well to let things cool down somewhat. After all, although the Israelis have always been successful in war, throughout their modern history they have essentially only fought their “cousins” — the Arabs.

The mentality of the Persians differs greatly from that of the Arabs, despite the fact that they have a religion in common. They differ militarily, as well. And Israel’s “dizziness with success” may play a very cruel joke on it.

Vitaly Nikolayevich Bilan holds a Candidate of Science (History) degree and is an expert on the Middle East. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.

How not to fall for the fake “free” media

by Waseem Shehzad October, 2012 Muslims need to develop greater sophistication in determining the validity of alternate media, especially outlets like Al Jazeera. Many media outlets project themselves as the so-called alternate critical sources of news in the world today. In reality, most are not really critical and certainly cannot be considered as alternate. Media outlets directly linked with or dependent on the US-imposed imperialist global order are no longer trusted as sources of news. Even within the US, people are losing trust in media outlets that market Washington’s official policies. A survey published by Gallup in September 2011 found 55% of Americans do not trust the fairness and accuracy of the US media. This necessitates the creation of alternate sources to fill the trust and fairness deficit that has emerged globally. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the agenda and concepts behind the so-called critical and alternate media outlets today. Al-Jazeera myth Unsophisticated media literacy skills of a large number of people makes them think that if a certain media outlet criticizes the establishment occasionally, it must be honest, fair and credible. This assumption is flawed. Simple criticism does not mean that a certain media outlet offers a genuine alternative. Let us take al-Jazeera as an example. While most Muslims and others assume that al-Jazeera is truly an alternative source of news, a closer look at its track record reveals that in many instances it is as wedded to promoting the establishment’s views as the others. True, al-Jazeera has produced some critical and alternate journalistic works; it is also true that in many aspects, before it fired most of its Islamic editorial staff during the 2003 Iraq war, al-Jazeera revolutionized journalism in the Muslim East. However, when it comes to strategic issues, al-Jazeera is no different than its mainstream peers that propagate the US designed secular and materialistic perspective on global issues. When security forces of the popularly elected government of Hamas prevented the US-backed militias of Mohamed Dahlan from overthrowing the Palestinian government in Gaza, al-Jazeera, like all other news sources, presented events in Gaza as a “coup d’ état” by Hamas. During the 2009 US-instigated riots in Tehran, al-Jazeera’s perspective and rhetoric was no different than the al-Jazeera or CNN. The Islamic government in Iran was demonized and all vandalism and violence in Iran was legitimized through the narrative of “fraudulent elections.” Finally, the 2010–2011 uprisings in the Muslim East totally exposed al-Jazeera as a channel financed and managed by the un-elected Qatari tribal regime for the strategic interests of its paymasters. Al-Jazeera’s constant focus on and exaggeration of events in Syria and its skimpy coverage of uprisings in Bahrain and the Saudi-ruled Arabian Peninsula have exposed its true nature. Coverage of Islamic awakenings further revealed al-Jazeera to be no different than CNN, which is customized for Middle Eastern audiences by forces imposing the current oppressive global order. Al-Jazeera represents a tailored concept and methodology of Western secularism and hedonism. Myth of western media freedom Many people living in countries with Western-backed authoritarian regimes that read, listen and watch Western media or its affiliates naively assume that there is genuine freedom of speech and opinion in the West. Yes, it is true that to a certain degree media in the US and many other Western countries appear freer than media outlets in Morocco or Bahrain, but it has less to do with actual freedom, and more to do with the sophistication of the oppressive systems of governance in the West. Tactical criticism in Saudi-occupied Arabian Peninsula is not allowed because the Saudi regime is too weak, discredited and despised; it is, therefore, much more vulnerable even to basic forms of criticism. The US government is not as weak and it has some support, especially among the ignorant masses. Therefore, tactical criticism does not harm US strategic interests internally or externally. However, as the US power started to decline sharply since 2001, even Washington and its allies resorted to crude tactics of media censorship. The expulsion of Octavia Nasr from CNN in 2010 and the recent closure of PressTV in the UK are clear examples of these oppressive tactics now being replicated by Western imperialist regimes. Key concepts in media battle The general concept of the apparent media freedom today is that criticism is allowed as long as it is tactical and does not offer an alternative to the imposed global order. Currently almost all media outlets criticize the economic policies of the IMF, the World Bank and the US government. It is fine to criticize the current global financial system as long as one does not present an alternative financial system such as the Islamic model or talk about alternate institutions to the current global financial set up. Criticism of Western democracy is tolerated as long as no alternative is prescribed. It is fine to criticize the illegitimate US-installed autocratic regimes worldwide as long as no alternative model beyond the secular/materialist framework drawn up by the US is offered. Criticism of Mahmoud Abbas is absolutely in order but Hamas must not be presented as a viable alternative. Criticizing secular dogma is acceptable but an Islamic system of governance must not be presented as an alternative. Wearing Che Guevara t-shirts is mainstream fashion today because his views are no longer considered a strategic threat even though Che Guevara fought and probably killed US security personnel. Try wearing a t-shirt with an image of Hassan Nasrallah or Khalid Meshaal and walk in the streets of North America or Western Europe and see what happens. Unlike Che’s ideology, their Islamic vision offers a concrete socio-political solution to hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide who aspire to establish an Islamic system of governance in their societies. Media outlets must be examined based not on their criticism of certain policies but how deep and rational their criticism is and whether its agenda offers an alternative to the system or policies it criticizes. The unfortunate reality is that in many parts of the world Western corporate concepts of journalism frame the nature of discourse. The public is made to believe that media must be “neutral.” Neutral media is not only nonexistent, but also impossible. Every media organization has editorial policies that are based on the ideas of people, states, and societies that run them. The media in Europe and US are secular and propagate post-Renaissance values and dogmas. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this as long as these media outlets openly proclaim that they follow a certain agenda and the information they feed to people is derived from an ideology they see as the best form of governance for humanity. They should also make a reasonable attempt to present the opposite side to their ideas. People everywhere must improve their media literacy skills in order to tell apart authentic alternative news sources from fake ones.

How the foreign-backed conspiracy to overthrow Asad is failing in Syria

by Crescent-Online.net

October, 2012 What has upset foreign conspirators the most is the resilience of the Asad regime. It has lasted 21 months of incessant attacks from inside and out and there are no signs that it is about to collapse. Dubai, Crescent- online October 11, 2012, 00:00 EST The only certainty in war is its uncertainty. As any general, no matter how brilliant, would testify, the best-laid plans are quickly rendered useless by the vagaries of war. This is even more so in internal conflicts where there are far too many variables to make accurate predictions or plans. This thesis is best illustrated by events unfolding in Syria, especially over the last four months. The conspiracy against Bashar al-Asad's regime was hatched in February 2011 in a Paris cafe. The conspirators included in addition to some members of the Syrian opposition, Jeffrey Feltman, an American arch-Zionist, Dan Shapiro, US ambassador to Israel, Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi Security chief and currently the kingdom's intelligence chief, as well as a representative of Saad Hariri, the playboy and former Lebanese prime minister. According to this plan, the uprising was to be launched in Deraa, a small town in the middle of nowhere. Deraa was chosen because of its proximity to the Jordanian border from where weapons were to be smuggled in. Both the conspirators and Syrian opposition groups were misled by the ease with which Colonel Muammar Qaddafi was overthrown in Libya. It was assumed that like Qaddafi, Asad too would be disposed of in a matter of months if not weeks. The tiny Emirate of Qatar also quickly signed on. Flushed with billions of gas dollars, Qatar is punching way above its weight in regional politics. Initially, Turkey, the most important regional player, was reluctant to jump into the fray. The Turks thought because of their importance, they could persuade Asad to do what they wanted him to do. In May 2011, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Damascus and in a meeting with President Bashar al-Asad, gave him what was essentially a list of demands. Asad gave him a polite hearing but was not going to accept foreign dictation. When Asad refused to comply with Turkish demands, perhaps drawn out with Saudi help (the Saudis cannot stand the Asad clan or the Alawites although for the record Asad is not Alawite but Sunni although that is neither here or there), the Turks took offense and joined the anti-Asad alliance. Weapons started to flood into Syria from Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. The French, Americans, British, and Turks also provided logistical support as well as intelligence. The Saudis and Qataris offered to buy any senior civilian or military Syrian official willing to defect. There have been few takers. Brigadier Manaf Tlas is the highest ranking military officer to defect. The foreign conspirators faced another problem. The Syrian National Council they cobbled together out of exiled Syrians has no support inside Syria. Further, Syrian opposition groups inside the country detest these rank opportunists whose only ambition seems to be to get their hands on as much foreign cash as possible while people inside the country die. What has upset foreign conspirators the most is the resilience of the Asad regime. It has lasted 21 months of incessant attacks from inside and out and there are no signs that it is about to collapse. Instead, the foreign conspirators are beginning to panic. Saudi King Abdullah in particular is greatly worried. As the crisis drags on, he feels it will make life more difficult for him in the kingdom where the succession battle is already intensifying with the first generation of Saudi royals heading to their graves. He has mooted a Yemeni-style transition in Syria. He would be content with Tlas taking over from Asad. This is the other version of the Davutoglu plan whereby he said on October 7 that Turkey would accept Farouk el-Sharaa replacing Asad. These proposals clearly point to the fact that the military option, a la Libya, is not viable in Syria. There are other worries as well. The influx of a large number of foreign mercenaries into Syria is causing great concern for the Saudis, Jordanians and Americans. The Americans have already had a blowback in Benghazi when ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by a Libyan terrorist outfit that was trained and armed by NATO to overthrow Qaddafi. There is also disagreement on how to proceed. A meeting between the intelligence chiefs of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France and the US in Turkey last month failed to produce a clear plan of action. This was followed on October 10 by a meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan and the Qatari Emir, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani in Doha, Qatar. This too failed to produce any tangible result because Qatar wants to intensify the war in Syria while the Saudis want a face-saving way out. Of course, Qatar has no army to speak of; it can only provide soccer players that only know how to swing in a night club but cannot handle guns. While the Saudis are getting cold feet, Qatar continues to punch above its weight. Next week it is convening another meeting of Syrian opposition groups to try and unite them. It may be easier to convince the mice to work with cats that Syrian opposition groups to work together. As Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution in Doha said: "It's all a bit of a mess." Yes, indeed, it is, and all of their own making. They have nobody but themselves to blame. Those playing with fire are likely to get their fingers burnt.

Rethink history: undo sectarianism

by Abu Dharr 



 Sectarianism exists on both sides of the divide. It is imperative to understand the root problems to overcome it, urges Abu Dharr.

Sectarianism is a hard nut to crack. This is so because each sectarian today (and this applies equally to Sunnis and Shi‘is) is calcified within centuries of self-righteousness that feeds on the other’s self-unrighteousness as it is perceived from each side of the sectarian divide. To illustrate this simple fact we shall take those two words that for sectarians justify their superiority. One of them is the word Ahl al-Bayt. In the “Shi‘i” sectarian understanding of history this refers to a select line of descent from the Prophet (pbuh). And here we have a variety of “Shi‘i” schools of political thought that identifies a line of the Prophet’s (pbuh) progeny who are the only Ahl al-Bayt, or the only ones qualified to stand in for the Ahl al-Bayt heritage. We shall spare ourselves the details that are to be found in this area between and among those who belong to the assorted narratives that fall under the title of Shi‘i. This type of transmitted understanding cannot comfortably accommodate the Prophet’s (pbuh) statement, “Salmanu minna Ahl al-Bayt: Salman is one of us — Ahl al-Bayt.” Salman [the Persian] was not from the Prophet’s lineage of descent.

On the other hand we have sectarians who come from the Sunni calcified traditions belonging to generations of Muslims who absented their minds from the political realm altogether. They speak highly of some sahabah while either barely mentioning other equal sahabah or neglecting some others of them altogether. Possession of power or lack thereof seems to have influenced such sectarians who belong to this narrative of history. In the course of Islamic history there were sahabah who took issue with other sahabah and in the trickle-down of information about such events the ones who had no power had no sahabah aura to them. Who can deny the fact that Abu Dharr is a sahabi? But because power did not play to his advantage as he took issue with the financial and economic privileges and refractory of certain other sahabis he does not occupy a prominent position within the pantheon of sahabah. Others who were in the mold of Abu Dharr in his and later generations do not fit the honorific of sahabah or tabi‘een. To name a few: ‘Amir ibn ‘Abd Qays, Kumayl ibn Ziyad, Zayd ibn Sawhan, al-Hasan al-Basri, and the list goes on.

If this is straining your memory of history, who is it that offers Imam ‘Ali, Imam al-Hasan, and Imam al-Husayn the honorific of sahabah? Sectarianism has made it impossible for some sahabah to belong to Ahl al-Bayt and for some from Ahl al-Bayt to be identified as prominent sahabah! Many committed Muslims of conscience and action have been shunted by this sectarianism that lives on. Power figures in the Umayyad regime capitalized on this sectarian dichotomy and got away with the unspeakable: they destroyed the Ka‘bah, they laid waste to Madinah, and they even killed with their own justification the Prophet’s (pbuh) grandsons. That justification for murder and mayhem has not been exposed and repudiated by today’s Muslims simply because the sectarian construct survives up until this very day, making it unlikely for Qur’anic common sense to prevail. As a result, powerless people lived in fear. The dynasties were not concerned with Allah’s (swt) power and authority as much as they were concerned with their political survival and any sectarian slant that served their purpose.

Why should anyone with a Qur’anic and Prophetic mind be unable to see Umayyad and ‘Abbasid power-mongers pursuing their own agendas and giving them an air of legitimacy by invoking whatever blank sanctity to their version of events? The tragedy of Karbala in particular should be an eye opener and a call to freedom of conscience and thought away from the sectarianism that surrounded it — by friend and foe alike. In plain language the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid rulers were dunya-centered. In lay language: they were in it for the money and for power. The Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said,

Ma al-faqru akhsha ‘alaykum; wa lakin akhsha ‘alaykum al-dunya, an tunafisuha kama tanafasaha al-ladhina min qablikum, fa-tuhlikukum kama ahlakat-hum: It is not poverty that I fear bearing down on you; [rather] fear that the dunya [the desire for wealth and material possessions] will bear down on you; [I fear that] you will compete materialistically as those in times past did. At that time the dunya will ruin you as it ruined them.

It is this dunya that has brought us to where we are today: no din priorities, no hot-pursuit of knowledge, no soul-clinging to justice, no intra-Islamic tolerance, and no self-confidence resulting from altruism.

Even during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) the Quran was revealed to adjust and correct committed Muslims. Listen and learn,

[Hence], O you who are securely committed [to Allah’s power and authority], when you embark on a [military] task in Allah’s cause, use your discernment, and do not — out of a desire for the fleeting gains of this worldly life — say to anyone who offers you the greetings of peace, “You are not a person of commitment,” for with Allah there are gains abundant… (4:94).

There was in the time of Allah’s Prophet (pbuh) those who thought they were committed Muslims and wanted people to think that they were committed Muslims. But Islamic commitment is ascertained by behavioral evidence and a transparent social character. After our beloved Prophet (pbuh) passed away the revelation of the Qur’an ended and it is left up to us — the carriers of this meaningful Qur’an — to examine and evaluate policies and politicians in particular. You will notice that during the Prophet’s (pbuh) lifetime when revelation was still in progress there were numerous ayat to evaluate military efforts. Look at Badr’s evaluation in Surah al-Anfal, Uhud’s evaluation in Surah Aal ‘Imran, and al-Khandaq’s evaluation in Surah al-Ahzab, etc. In this close reading of the Qur’an we observe how Allah (swt) reconstructs those critical times and retraces what they did from a position beyond their “selves” and their “lives”. If in that process they made mistakes, He points them out,

…[remember what you felt] when they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when [your] eyes became dim and [your] hearts came up to [your] throats, and [when] most conflicting thoughts about Allah passed through your minds… (33:10).

All this and much more for those who follow Allah’s words carefully and thoughtfully is in the Qur’an concerning that first and unique generation of committed Muslims. But none of this was meant to give them a halo of infallibility; even they knew that they were not self-righteous and holier-than-thou.

Sectarianism has made it impossible for some sahabah to belong to Ahl al-Bayt and for some from Ahl al-Bayt to be identified as prominent sahabah! Many committed Muslims of conscience and action have been shunted by this sectarianism that lives on.

It is a sad comment to say that the Umayyad and other dynasties were to use the qualities of that humble generation around the Prophet (pbuh) with all its imperfections yet with all its selflessness and sacrifices to legitimize their usurpation of power and then cast that into the sectarian mold that we still suffer from today. From here on in, it was the regimes and dynasties that would evaluate and assess individuals and people. When committed Muslims were wrong in the time of Allah’s Prophet (pbuh) the faultless Qur’an would tell them directly and objectively that they were wrong and that they had to correct themselves. And with the Prophet’s (pbuh) leadership they did.

But when errant regimes and dynasties took over the leadership of Muslims they began to use opinions of some live-and-let-live scholars to justify their credibility and rationalize their legitimacy. Facilitating this whole process was the sectarian divide. The opposition to dynastic and autocratic rulers came from many who initially identified with Imam ‘Ali. So they had to be labeled. And labeled they were. Money and power back then acted like money and power do today. Establishments and governments can label the most honest person around as a weirdo, a goof-ball, or as may be more understood in today’s political climate an anti-Semite — and lo and behold that tag sticks like white on rice! This happens to almost all opposition forces in history. In our time we have the pejorative of “socialist” or “communist,” we have the derisive of “subversive” or “radical,” and in the Islamic sphere we have the derogative “Shi‘i” or “Ikhwani” just to name a few. But it should be clear to the discerning.

We know that this exposition may have touched on some raw nerves. But we have no choice but to speak the truth with the kind heart of brothers who seek justice,

There has now come to you an admonition from your Sustainer, and a cure for all [the ill] that may be in men’s hearts, and guidance and grace to all who are committed [to His power and authority] (10:57).

House of Saud heads into the dustbin of history?

Yusuf Dhia-Allah

Opposition to the House of Saud is growing among all segments of the population. How long can it last in power?

Reality is quickly catching up with inbuilt contradictions in the policies pursued by the House of Saud. While presenting itself as champions of the “Sunni” world — a claim hotly contested by the overwhelming majority of Sunnis because of the Saudis’ narrow and extremist interpretations — its policies are becoming increasingly untenable. For instance, the Saudis have made much noise about their support for the “Sunni’” uprising against the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. It has also used the sectarian card to justify its invasion of Bahrain to prop up the minority Khalifa family in power where the majority population is Shi‘i, as is that in the Eastern province of the Arabian Peninsula.

But this is where the contradictions have caught up with them; the populations in both Tunisia and Egypt are overwhelmingly Sunni so Muslims ask: how could the self-proclaimed champions of Sunnis (the Saudi rulers) be giving refuge to dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and how could they have supported the brutal dictator and US-Zionist agent Hosni Mubarak for so many years? Both Ben Ali and Mubarak brutalized their Sunni populations for decades. The Saudis’ claims are becoming exposed at the same time as their policy against the Asad regime in Syria is crumbling. Despite sending hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of arms and buying any Syrian willing to defect from the government or the army, the Saudi and Qatari financed rebels have not had much success.

Reality is quickly catching up with inbuilt contradictions in the policies pursued by the House of Saud. While presenting itself as champions of the “Sunni” world — a claim hotly contested by the overwhelming majority of Sunnis because of the Saudis’ narrow and extremist interpretations — its policies are becoming increasingly untenable.

In fact, the July 18 attack in Damascus that killed four top security officials was the direct result of Saudi involvement. While it dented the Syrian regime’s image and shook it somewhat, the terrorist act also stiffened its resolve to deal with the US-Zionist-Saudi-backed terrorists with an iron fist. The regime’s response was swift and brutal: the rebels were first flushed out of Damascus and later dealt with in Aleppo where they are still being pounded. The plot to cause the regime’s collapse failed. It still has enough staying capacity and firepower to deal with such blows. Similarly, foreign players — mainly Russia and China — are not prepared to allow the fall of the Asad regime, thereby creating another Libyan-style situation in Syria. Russia has the most to lose if the regime is overthrown by armed insurrection. It would lose its only naval base at Tartus in the Mediterranean.

These developments have caused nightmares in Riyadh hence King Abdullah’s panicked call for a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (previously called Organization of the Islamic Conference – OIC) in Makkah on August 15–16. While the OIC meeting was ostensibly called to deal with the Syrian crisis — Syria was expelled from the OIC — there was another, more serious matter bothering the ailing and aged king: how to deal with sectarian tensions in the region?

It is interesting to note that while the Saudis are the principal instigators of sectarianism in the Muslim world they suddenly felt compelled to address it. At the OIC Makkah summit, the Saudi king called for establishing a Centre in Riyadh for dialogue among the different Schools of Thought in Islam. Has the Saudi king, in his twilight years, finally realized that sectarianism is a double-edged sword and could just as easily work against him? His regime has used sectarianism with deadly effect against others. Is it too difficult to figure out that the horrible sectarian killings in Pakistan — of which there have been far too many in recent weeks and months — are the direct result of the poisonous ideology being spread from the Arabian Peninsula that has infected Pakistani society through the influx of Saudi petrodollars? True, sectarian killings also serve the interests of the Pakistani elite, hence no effective measures against sectarianism have been taken but the fact is that such extremism has come on the gravy train from Riyadh that has liberally financed madrasahs, which produce the primitive savages doing the sectarian killings.

But sectarianism is beginning to haunt the Saudis as well. In Bahrain the majority is Shi‘i and is demanding civil and political rights. Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province is also overwhelmingly Shi‘i and the region that produces the bulk of kingdom’s oil. Yet the population there suffers massive discrimination in jobs, lack of economic opportunities as well as discrimination in areas of social and political representation. The regime, however, faces a dilemma. Hitherto, it had given a free hand to the court ‘ulama to indulge in whatever sectarianism they wanted. Reining them in now would become a problem since the regime already faces many other challenges not the least of which is the increasing assertiveness of people to demand their rights, the rising tide of Islamic awakening in the region and that inevitable challenge for which there is no cure: old age of the senior princes.

Senior Saudi princes are shuffling to their grave in rapid succession. King Abdullah is nearly 90 years old although one would be hard pressed to tell this from his pitch black beard and moustache, thanks to generous use of Grecian formula. One wonders why at his age, Abdullah is so concerned with his looks, especially his beard, when his bones must also now be withering away? The crisis of succession is looming large and it cannot be discounted that a civil war may break out among the hordes of princes vying for power and control.

There is, however, an even more serious challenge facing the regime: opposition to the House of Saud appears to have transcended the sectarian divide. The Hijaz, where the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah are located, has always been opposed to the literalist interpretations of the Najdis whom they consider uncouthed and unsophisticated desert bedouins. But opposition to the ruling family is now becoming widespread even in the regime’s heartland, Riyadh.

While the regime has attempted to present opposition to its policies as being instigated by the Shi‘is, it has failed to explain why there are more than 30,000 political prisoners in the kingdom, the overwhelming majority of them Sunnis? Further, many people ask why should decisions be made by a small coterie of Saudi princes and the rest of them, more educated than the rulers, be excluded from this process?

Success of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and to a lesser extent in Libya has given Saudi youth new ideas about freedom. At least 60% of them are under 20 years old. Widespread corruption and the rulers’ extreme laziness have resulted in 40% of Saudis living in poverty despite the regime taking in $360 billion annually in oil revenues. At least 70% of the people cannot afford to own a home and women are prohibited from driving cars. Most of the back-breaking menial jobs are performed by foreign workers that account for 90% of the private sector work force while unemployment among the 20–24 year-old Saudis stands at nearly 40%.

Given these grim statistics and coupled with the looming crisis of succession, Saudi Arabia is waiting to explode. What will emerge following this explosion is difficult to speculate now but there is near certainty that the kingdom is heading for turbulent times.

How to deal with the fitnah of Al Saud

by Zafar Bangash

Muslims worldwide must develop a better understanding of the true nature of Al Saud and not fall for their poisonous propaganda

The Muslim world is beset by myriad problems ranging from illegitimate oppressive regimes ruled by dictators and tyrants to massive corruption, mismanagement and extreme inequalities in every society. Almost all ruling elites are also subservient to the West. In its war on Islam and Muslims, the West, led by the US, has murdered countless innocent civilians, their numbers running into the hundreds of thousands, with the connivance of these very Muslim rulers. These problems are serious enough; what Muslims have paid little attention to is to identify the root cause behind their plight. In particular, some regimes more than others, have been eager proponents of advancing imperialism and Zionism’s nefarious agenda against Muslims. The House of Saud, which controls the Arabian Peninsula, tops this list. Readers paying close attention would have noticed that we have not used the name “Saudi” Arabia for the land that was named the Arabian Peninsula by the noble Messenger (pbuh) himself. It is not a piece of real estate that a family from Najd can lay claim to. In any case, the House of Saud, a band of marauding thieves from the backward outpost of Dar‘iyyah in Najd, used to attack and pillage pilgrims’ caravans going for Hajj before the British discovered their murderous skills. The Saudi hordes were recruited for the British colonial enterprise in the Muslim East.

In the early part of the last century, the House of Saud served the British; since the Second World War they have accepted the US as master. To comprehend this relationship and what devastation it has caused to the Ummah, let us consider some basic facts. The House of Saud has deposited nearly $1 trillion in US banks, money that does not belong to it. This money is used by the US to make weapons that are used against innocent Muslims in different parts of the world ranging from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan toYemen and Somalia. The US also gives these weapons to the Zionist regime to slaughter the hapless Palestinians. Muslims, however, should not be surprised by US behaviour; it is an avowed enemy not only of Muslims but of all the oppressed people in the world. Muslims should look closely into the conduct of the House of Saud, which, not coincidentally, claims to follow Islam.

Instead, this family of thieves has caused immense damage to Islam. It specializes in creating sectarian divisions among Muslims. It has peddled its narrow extremist ideology and imposed it on Muslims in distant lands by using petrodollars to finance madrasahs in places like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. The narrow-minded extremists that have emerged from these madrasahs have cause havoc in the Ummah through suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. The ongoing terrorist campaign in Pakistan, Iraq andSyria is the direct result of this extremist ideology spawned by the Saudis and actively financed by them. The US and the Zionist regime are active promotors and enablers of this campaign. It should now be clear that al-Qaeda, which had deep roots in the Saudi desert kingdom, is part of the US campaign to re-colonize the Muslim world. The mayhem in Syria is the direct result of al-Qaeda operations, actively encouraged by the US and Israel and financed by the House of Saud.

The reason why most Muslims have failed to grasp the true nature of the House of Saud is because the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah are located in the Arabian Peninsula, most particularly the Hijaz. Muslims have immense respect and regard for these two holy places. This is natural and this is how it should be but it is a grave error to transfer the sanctity, love and respect Muslims have for the two holy cities to the ruling family in the Arabian Peninsula. This family of thieves is busy destroying the historical sites of Islam in the name of “development” and “progress.” Instead of preserving Islamic heritage sites, the House of Saud has deliberately wiped them out and replaced them with steel and concrete monstrosities designed by Westerners who have no regard or respect for Islam or the sanctity of its historic sites.

The House of Saud’s role as agents of Zionism and imperialism has now been fully exposed with events in Syria. What is underway in Syria is an attempt by external forces — the US, Israel, the House of Saud as well the Gulf sheikhdoms — to destroy the weakest link in the resistance front against Zionist Israel. Despite purchasing billions of dollars in weapons — $60 billion from the US and $10 billion from Germany in the last few months — the House of Saud has never fired a single shot in defence of Islam or Muslims. Instead, all these weapons have been used against Muslims to advance the agenda of imperialism and Zionism.

The House of Saud and their court ‘ulama oppress women — they are not allowed to drive cars, for instance, nor leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian — mistreat domestic servants to the point of torture, and extract basically slave labor from desperate foreign workers, who in some cases are not paid for months. There are at least 30,000 political prisoners in the kingdom. People have no say in how their affairs are conducted or how decisions are made.

The question Muslims must ask is: how should we confront the Saudi fitnah? First, it is vital to be properly informed of its true nature and role. Muslims must not extend their respect for the Haramayn (the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah) to the House of Saud. It deserves no respect from human beings, let alone Muslims. Muslims must make every effort to highlight the destruction of Islamic historic sites underway in Makkah and Madinah and mobilize global opinion against such vandalism. Such destruction must be stopped. Saudi court ‘ulama have made no secret of their plans to destroy the green dome over the Prophet’s (pbuh) rawdah (grave) in al-Masjid al-Nabawi and move the grave elsewhere (nastaghfirullah). Even the Sahabah (close Companions of the Prophet (pbuh)) did not dare think of such acts yet the barbaric savages from Najd are openly taking about it!

Muslims must boycott preachers trained in Saudi madrasahs and not give them any position in their masjids or Islamic schools. Even if the Saudis come with offers of money, these should be rejected outright. Such poisoned gifts will bear poisonous fruit. Similarly, Muslims must refuse to welcome into their masjids Saudi preachers from Makkah and Madinah donning an aura of spirituality when in fact these people are active promoters of the hate-filled ideology of the House of Saud. It is time to take drastic steps against these hate-mongers and not provide them an opportunity to distort the message of Islam or peace and security of the Ummah by creating sectarian divisions.

The Anglo-Wahhabi-zionist war on Syria goes into high gear

by Tahir Mustafa 



 The Anglo-Wahhabi-zionist mafia is determined to prevent a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Syria by flooding the country with weapons and al-Qaeda terrorists.

The tribal-owned network, al-Jazeera has dubbed it the “War in Syria.” Its news broadcasts run this banner on the screen while reporting on Syria. This tries to create the impression that there are two clearly identifiable sides in the conflict: one comprises the opposition groups while the other consists of government forces. This is a grossly simplistic and inaccurate projection of the far more complex reality on the ground. True, there are myriad groups battling government forces but they are neither independent nor have support of the Syrian people. The overwhelming majority is made up of mercenaries financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar — two “shining examples” of democracy in the Muslim East — and aided and abetted by the US, Israel, the Hariri clan in Lebanon and an odd assortment of US allies from Europe. Nor is the uprising in Syria as spontaneous as those that occurred in Tunisia andEgypt. The Syrian uprising has multiple layers and numerous players. Its roots can be traced as far back as 2005, according to the Washington Post (April 16, 2011) when a number of Syrian opposition figures were recruited by the George Bush administration. He funded their activities in an attempt to overthrow theBashar al-Asad regime. Many of the characters currently promoted as spokespersons for the Syrian opposition — primarily from the Syrian National Council (SNC) that is projected as the main group — have been on US payroll for many years. They have deep links with the most hawkish rightwing and Zionist groups within the US establishment.

Their statements are given much prominence in the media, which has waged a relentless campaign against the Syrian government. Not only the Qatari-owned al-Jazeera and Saudi-owned al-Arabiya channels that carry little credibility, have peddled endless lies, but a number of Western outlets have also deliberately lied about events in Syria. Every atrocity, no matter who the perpetrator, is immediately blamed on the regime. The Houla massacre of May 25 is just one example of this campaign of lies. The BBC, considered by many as a venerable institution, published a photo of hundreds of dead children wrapped in white shrouds with a child jumping over one of them. It claimed these were children massacred by Syrian forces in Houla. The photographer, Marco Di Lauro of Getty Images had to personally intervene to say this was a picture he had taken after US forces massacred children in Iraq in 2003. It took the BBC four days before Chris Hamilton, its social media editor, issued an apology. The BBC had picked up the image from the notoriously unreliable Syrian opposition groups. In any case, most of the victims of the Houla massacre were Alawis or Shi‘is and had their throats slit, a signature mark of al-Qaeda or the equally thuggish Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Have Western media outlets stopped using Syrian opposition sources for news? Perish the thought. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a one-man show run from a clothing store in Coventry, England, is the main source of news about Syria in most media outlets. Run by Rami Abdulrahman, whatever stories he dishes out are immediately lapped up by a compliant lapdog media that wants to project the Syrian regime in negative light. To be fair to SOHR, it is not the only unreliable source of news. Last year, the story of a gay girl in Damascus, run allegedly by one Amina Abdallah Arraf al-Omari grabbed headlines for several weeks. She became the “poster girl” for Western do-gooders as well as opposition groups in Syria until the hoax was exposed in June 2011 by its perpetrator: Tom MacMaster, an American student in Scotland. Then there was the story of Zainab al-Hosni who had disappeared from her home in September 2011. Her relatives claimed the regime’s forces had abducted her. Opposition sources added their own spice claiming the regime wanted her brother but unable to find him, they grabbed Zainab instead to put pressure on the family to surrender the man. When a charred female body was found, the mother claimed it was Zainab’s. The regime was roundly condemned by the West as well as opposition groups for its brutality. No amount of denial by the regime could convince people that it was not responsible for the crime. A few weeks later, a dazed Zainab appeared on Syrian television to narrate that she had run away from home to escape beatings by her brothers. She hid with relatives in a village and was completely oblivious of the stories swirling around her “torture” and “death.” Can other horror stories be any more accurate?

Beyond the media war is a convergence of forces that appear determined to bring about regime change in Syria. Mass murder of civilians and killing of top government officials is part of this campaign. The larger the number of deaths, the more propaganda mileage the opposition and its masters squeeze from them. Into this toxic brew have flooded al-Qaeda operatives forever in search of killings and suicide bombings. Their funding comes from Saudi Arabia while the Americans, the Zionists and the Turks are providing logistical support.

The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Hariri clan in Lebanon are all part of the destabilization plot in Syria whose ultimate aim is not only regime change but also the breakup of Syria into ethnic and confessional enclaves. The war on Syria is also part of another installment in the long-running war against Islamic Iran that was subjected to a brutal eight-year (1980–1988) war waged by then President Saddam Husain of Iraq. The entire confederacy of Arabian client regimes backed the Iraqi tyrant; the only exception was Syria. Saudi Arabia had pumped $26 billion into the Iraqi war effort, as admitted by Ghazi al-Ghoseibi, Saudi ambassador to Britain in the 1980s. Other Gulf sheikhdoms contributed their own billions or sold oil on behalf of Iraq, unable — and never have been — to wage war themselves. Western powers provided intelligence and military hardware. Despite eight years of war, the confederacy of kufr was unsuccessful in destroying the only Islamic state of our times.

The Zionist State then tried to destroy Hizbullah in July–August 2006 only to get a bloody nose and flee Lebanon with its tail between its legs. The aim was to weaken the resistance front and destroy one of its arms. The next attempt was made against Hamas in Gaza in December 2008–January 2009. This, too, failed. The war on Syria is a far more serious affair in which many interests, parties and policies are involved. If the Syrian regime can be brought down, a US-Zionist-Saudi client regime would be installed in Damascus dealing a serious blow to the resistance front against Zionist Israel. This is essentially meant to open the way for the war on Islamic Iran that the US and its allies have been itching for, for decades.

The Syrian crisis has also successfully neutralized the gains people made in the Muslim East (aka the Middle East) to oust long-entrenched dictators from power. The House of Saud could feel the heat and feared a similar fate awaiting them in the desert kingdom. It may still come about but for now, the tide has been somewhat contained. The longer the Syrian crisis drags on, the greater will the divisions in the Ummah be. The Saudis are notorious for stoking sectarian divisions. They are masters at it and regrettably, most Muslims are susceptible to such negative propaganda. Its poisonous effects will continue to debilitate the Ummah for decades.

The cast of characters in the Syrian opposition and their Western sponsors have been exposed in a detailed article by Charlie Skelton in the British daily, the Guardian on July 12, under the title: “The Syrian opposition: who's doing the talking?” It should be compulsory reading for those who want to understand how the long arm of the CIA, Mossad and other nefarious organizations and characters involved for many years in plotting the overthrow of the Asad regime, work. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking)

Skelton names the characters. The Syrian National Council (SNC) is presented as an umbrella group of Syrian opposition but it has little support inside Syria. That does not bother those claiming to be its leaders or spokespersons or their foreign sponsors. The name of the game is to create the illusion of an opposition group that will do the West’s bidding. Haytham Manna, a respected opposition figure and representing the Local Coordination Committee inside Syria has denounced the SNC as a front for Washington.

Bassma Kodmani, a member of the executive bureau and head of foreign affairs in the SNC, has twice attended Bilderberg conferences (2008 and 2012), according to Skelton. She has also worked for the Ford Foundation in Cairo (2005) and has strong connections with the French intelligence service, the DGSE, holding the position of research director at the Académie Diplomatique Internationale, headed by Jean-Claude Cousseran, a former head of the DGSE. With such credentials, it is not surprising she rejects any dialogue with the regime and has repeatedly called for foreign intervention in Syria. In September 2006, theCouncil on Foreign Relations appointed her executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative.

Bilderberg is a secretive group of powerful political, financial and other figures that meet in secret and make plans to install people as leaders in various countries worldwide. It also reportedly supports the idea of a world government. Some leading figures in the Bilderberg group include members of European royal families, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcraft and Peter Sutherland (chairman ofGoldman Sachs). The Bushs, and prime ministers — past and present — are also members of this secretive group that shuns media publicity. What are they so afraid of if their activities are legitimate?

Another shady character in the SNC caste is Radwan Ziadeh, director of foreign relations for the group that is based in Turkey. He is senior fellow at the Washington think tank, the US Institute of Peace (USIP). It is involved in anything but peace. “The USIP Board of Directors is packed with alumni of the defence department and the National Security Council; its president is Richard Solomon, former adviser to Kissinger at the NSC,” according to Skelton in the Guardian. Together with Washington rightwingers, Ziadeh has called for military intervention in Syria.

The caste of villains is long. These include SNC spokesman Ausama Monajed and SNC member Najib Ghadbian. Monajed frequently appears on television presenting himself as a “media commentator” and calling for military intervention. He has close links with officials from the former George Bush administration. Almost all American rightwing think tanks and Zionist groups support the opposition SNC to overthrow the Asad regime. They are also linked with the British-based group, Movement for Justice and Development that WikiLeaks cables showed has been receiving generous funding from the US State Department long before the eruption of the Arab Spring. The money has been used to set up so-called independent television channels as well as fake, one-man organizations presenting themselves as opposition groups. They carry fancy titles but are ultimately no more than fronts for American rightwing or Zionist organizations that want to shape the Muslim East to serve their agenda and protect the Zionist State of Israel.

The hysterical media campaign, sabotage and bombings as well as the bogey of Syria’s “chemical weapons” are all meant to destabilize Syria, force members of the Syrian establishment to defect and pave the way for direct Western military intervention. So far all such attempts have failed as was witnessed in the aftermath of the killing of top security officials and occupation of some neighbourhoods in Damascus. The same strategy has been used in Aleppo. The more outrageous the operation, the stronger will be the regime’s response. This is precisely what the US-NATO-Zionist-Wahhabi alliance wants as part of its destabilization strategy.

The cabal of foreign powers do not want a peaceful outcome to the conflict. They are determined to bring down the government by force. So far Russia and China have resisted such attempts and refused to go along with the Western plan for another regime change, a la Libya.

Amid all the doom and gloom, a ray of hope emerged when Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Ali Akbar Salehiannounced on July 25 that he was inviting Syrian opposition groups not involved in acts of terror to come toTehran to meet Syrian officials. He insisted that a peaceful resolution to the conflict was possible and that opposition groups desirous of such an outcome should make the trip. Whether they will take the offer, or they will be permitted to do so by the terrorists operating in Syria under the cover of the Free Syrian Army aided by CIA-Mossad-Saudi funded SNC is difficult to tell.

Naked power grab by Egyptian generals

by Zafar Bangash 

It was unrealistic to expect that the military in Egypt would simply roll over and hand power to the elected representatives of the people.

The latest coup against the people was carried out in two steps: first through the “Supreme” Constitutional Court stacked with Hosni Mubarak cronies that disqualified more than 100 members of the People’s Assembly (Egyptian parliament) on June 14; and then through an amended constitutional document issued by the military on June 17. It dissolved parliament and assumed wide ranging powers through the amended constitutional document. It was the second day of polling in the presidential race and the men in uniform signaled that they intended to remain in full control regardless of the election result. The coup also had the blessings of the US despite tepid criticism from the US State Department. Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime in occupied Palestine also welcomed the move. They all felt the people of Egypt were taking democracy too seriously.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), that became the governing body after the former dictator Hosni Mubarak was ousted in February 2011, amended the constitutional document that was first issued in March 2011. The original document had stipulated the temporary nature of the military’s involvement in political affairs and was agreed upon after discussions with numerous political players representing a broad range of opinion in the country.

Under the amended constitutional document, no election for a new parliament can be held until a permanent constitution is written. The body that will draft the constitution will be appointed by the military, the previous one appointed by the elected parliament, was disbanded through an earlier judicial plot. Despite this, the generals still have veto power over the text of any new constitution. With the parliament dissolved — so much for the generals’ respect for people’s wishes — they have also stripped the president of any executive authority. He has been reduced to an administrative functionary whose job will be to carry out the orders of the military without any say in decision-making. Thus, the president will be held accountable for failing to show results if the policies do not work but he will have no input in formulating those policies. The president has also been stripped of the title of commander in chief of the armed forces. After all, what do civilians know about military affairs? These weighty matters are best left to the bright stars of the military. The president will also have no say in the appointment of senior commanders. Similarly, the military’s budget will not be subject to civilian oversight. It must be nice to be a general in Egypt, or indeed in any other Muslim country.

Like their counterparts in Pakistan and Turkey, for instance — and with an equally dismal record of defending the country’s borders against external enemies — the military in Egypt is more like a business enterprise. It owns factories, businesses and other commercial interests. Nearly 80% of all provincial governors are also from the military as are a number of judges. Talent clearly is the monopoly of the military top brass. Those that don’t get it will never get it but the musclemen have made clear that civilians had better get used to the fact that the revolution is over and that it is back to business as usual even if Mubarak is no longer in power. His horrible legacy continues. It would be unrealistic to assume that the military that has been at the helm of affairs for more than 60 years would meekly return to its barracks.

What is astonishing and depressing is that seasoned members of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, the most organized political party in the country, also fell for the military’s charm offensive after Mubarak’s ouster. What they overlooked — or deliberately ignored — was that the military has its own institutional interests. If the military did not come out with guns blazing when millions of Egyptians were packing Tahrir Square, it was not because they had any regard for civilian lives. The military top brass knew that any misadventure — fighting an enraged public — would have sparked a total revolution in which the military would be defeated and their wings clipped permanently, as happened in Iran in 1978–1979. Instead, they decided to sacrifice the hated figure of Mubarak hoping this would pacify most if not all the people and over time, the military will resume business as usual. That is exactly what has happened.

Events in Egypt once again show the pitfalls of working through colonial imposed systems in Muslim societies. Regardless of how peacefully members of the Islamic movement work and abide by the most unjust laws, beneficiaries of the old system will not give up power voluntarily. Instead, they will resort to every trick and outright criminal behavior — what better illustrates this than the Egyptian military dissolving the first freely elected parliament — to stay firmly in control of all decision-making processes and monopolize state resources. The military refuses to countenance any oversight of its activities or its budget; they act as a state within a state.

So what should the Ikhwan do in such circumstances? While they have rejected the military’s power grab and brought hundreds of thousands of people into Tahrir Square to express their displeasure saying the gains of the revolution are at risk and “dangerous days” lie ahead, they must take much bolder steps. Merely staying in Tahrir will not make the military lose any sleep. The Ikhwan have strong links with professional syndicates and workers groups; they are also now armed with a popular mandate both in parliament (even if dissolved illegally) and in the presidential polls. They should launch a civil disobedience campaign without resorting to violence to bring the state machinery to a halt. True, the military will use brutal tactics and might also unleash its thugs — the baltagiya — as they did during the three week campaign last year to oust Mubarak. But the Ikhwan leadership will have to remain vigilant. They must not get provoked.

The military must be exposed as a bunch of greedy, power-hungry thugs who should get the boot and be sent back to their barracks. Do the Ikhwan have what it takes to bring about a genuine revolution in Egypt? The next few weeks will tell.