History of Mid-East peace talks

In the more than 45 years since the Middle East war of June 1967, there have been many peace plans and many negotiations.

Some of these have been successful, including those between Egypt and Israel and Israel and Jordan, but a settlement has still not been reached in the core conflict - the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Here are the main peace proposals since 1967 and what happened to them.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, 1967

Resolution 242 was passed on 22 November 1967 and embodies the principle that has guided most of the subsequent peace plans - the exchange of land for peace.

The resolution called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force".

The resolution is famous for the imprecision, in English, of its central phase concerning an Israeli withdrawal - it says simply "from territories". The Israelis said this did not necessarily mean all territories, but Arab negotiators argued that it did.

It was written under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, under which Security Council resolutions are recommendations, not under Chapter VII, which means they are orders. Many peace proposals refer to 242. Resolution 338 is usually linked to it. This called for a ceasefire in the war of October 1973 and urged the implementation of 242 "in all its parts".

Camp David Accords, 1978

Image captionUnder Jimmy Carter (C), the US oversaw the first Arab-Israeli peace treaty

There were several peace plans following the 1967 war, but nothing happened until after the 1973 Yom Kippur or October War. There followed a new mood for peace, as shown by a historic visit to Jerusalem by the Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, in November 1977.

US President Jimmy Carter capitalised on the new mood and invited President Sadat and the Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, for talks at the presidential retreat at Camp David near Washington. The talks lasted for 12 days and resulted in two agreements.

The first was called A Framework for Peace in the Middle East. It laid down principles for peace, expanding on resolution 242, set out what it hoped was a way of resolving what it called the "Palestinian problem", agreed that there should be a treaty between Egypt and Israel and called for other treaties between Israel and its neighbours. The weakness of the first agreement was the section on the Palestinians. The plan aimed to set up a "self-governing authority" in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to eventual "final status" talks, but the Palestinians were not party to the agreement.

The second accord was the The Camp David framework for the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. This followed in 1979, after an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. This was the first recognition of Israel as a state by a major Arab country. The talks probably stand as the most successful negotiations in the whole peace process. The treaty has lasted, and it substantially strengthened Israel's position. However the peace between Egypt and Israel has not been warm. President Sadat was himself later assassinated.

The Madrid Conference, 1991

This conference, co-sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union, was designed to follow up the Egypt-Israel treaty by encouraging other Arab countries to sign their own agreements with Israel.

Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were invited as well as Israel and Egypt. The Palestinians were also represented, but as part of a joint delegation with Jordan and not by Yasser Arafat or other leading figures in the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), to whom the Israelis objected.

The conference eventually led to a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994, but correspondents say this probably would have happened anyway. Israeli talks with Syria and Lebanon took place after Madrid but have since stalled, complicated by border disputes and, more recently, the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah militants.

The Palestinian track soon gave way to secret talks that led to the Oslo agreement.

Oslo Agreement, 1993

Image captionIsrael and the PLO came to terms, but Oslo's promise was not realised

The Oslo negotiations tried to tackle the missing element of all previous talks - a direct agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, represented by the PLO. Its importance was that there was finally mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO.

The talks took place in secret under Norwegian auspices and the agreement was signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993, witnessed by President Bill Clinton. The PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, shook hands.

The Oslo Agreement stipulated that Israeli troops would withdraw in stages from the West Bank and Gaza, that a "Palestinian Interim Self-Governing Authority" would be set up for a five-year transitional period, leading to a permanent settlement based on resolutions 242 and 338.

The agreement spoke of putting "an end to decades of confrontation and conflict" and of each side recognising "their mutual legitimate and political rights".

Therefore, though not stated explicitly in the text, the implication was that a state of Palestine would one day be set up alongside Israel.

There was an exchange of letters in which Yasser Arafat stated: "The PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." Yitzhak Rabin said: "The Government of Israel has decided to recognise the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people."

Hamas and other Palestinian rejectionist groups did not accept Oslo and launched suicide bomb attacks on Israelis. There was opposition within Israel from settler-led groups. Oslo was only partially implemented.

Camp David, 2000

Various attempts were made (including at Taba in 1995, Wye River in 1998 and Sharm el-Sheikh in 1999) to speed up the withdrawal and self-government provisions of Oslo. Then in 2000, President Bill Clinton sought to address the final status issues - including borders, Jerusalem and refugees - that Oslo had left aside for later negotiation.

Image captionAt Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak (L) and Yasser Arafat (R) failed to agree

The talks took place in July between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. There was no agreement. However, the negotiations were more detailed than ever before. Correspondents say the basic problem was that the maximum Israel offered was less than the minimum the Palestinians could accept.

Israel offered the Gaza Strip, a large part of the West Bank, plus extra land from the Negev desert, while keeping major settlement blocks and most of East Jerusalem. It proposed Islamic guardianship of key sites in the Old City of Jerusalem and contributions to a fund for Palestinian refugees.

The Palestinians wanted to start with a reversion to the lines of 1967, offered the Israelis rights over the Jewish quarter of the Old City and wanted recognition of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees.

The failure at Camp David was followed by a renewal of the Palestinian uprising or intifada.

Taba, 2001

Although he was about to leave office, Bill Clinton refused to give up and presented a "bridging proposal" which set up further talks in Washington and Cairo and then Taba in Egypt. These talks were not at the top level, but differences were narrowed without being overcome. There was more flexibility on territory and it was reported by EU observers that Israeli negotiators accepted the concept of East Jerusalem being the capital of a Palestinian state.

A statement afterwards said that "it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues". The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, fighting an election campaign, said that "nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon". He said that he could not commit a subsequent government to what he called the "ideas" coming out of the talks. With the election of Ariel Sharon in February 2001, time ran out.

Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

Image captionThe building of Jewish settlements on occupied land is a key issue in the talks

After the failure of bilateral talks and the resumption of conflict, the Saudi peace plan presented at an Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002 went back to a multi-lateral approach and in particular signalled a desire by the Arab world as a whole to put an end to this dispute.

Under the plan, called the Arab Peace Initiative, Israel would withdraw to the lines of June 1967, a Palestinian state would be set up in the West Bank and Gaza and there would be a "just solution" of the refugee issue. In return, Arab countries would recognise Israel. The plan was re-endorsed by another Arab summit in Riyadh in 2007.

Its strength is the support given by Arab countries to a two-state solution. Its weakness is that the parties have to negotiate the same issues on which they have failed so far.

Roadmap, 2003

The roadmap is a plan drawn up by the "Quartet" - the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It does not lay down the details of a final settlement, but suggests how a settlement might be approached. It followed efforts made by US Senator George Mitchell to get the peace process back on track in 2001.

The plan was preceded by an important statement in June 2002 by President George W Bush who became the first US president to call for a Palestinian state. It proposed a phased timetable, putting the establishment of security before a final settlement. It is designed to create confidence, leading to final status talks.

• Phase 1: Both sides would issue statements supporting the two-state solution, the Palestinians would end violence, act against "all those engaged in terror", draw up a constitution, hold elections and the Israelis would stop settlement activities and act with military restraint
• Phase 2: Would see the creation, at an international conference, of a Palestinian state with "provisional borders"
• Phase 3: Final agreement talks

The road map has not been implemented. Its timetable called for the final agreement to be reached in 2005. It has largely been overtaken by events, but remains a reference point for negotiations.

Geneva Accord, 2003

While official efforts foundered, an informal agreement was announced in December 2003 by Israeli and Palestinian figures - Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of Oslo, on the Israeli side, and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo on the other.

The Geneva Accord reverses the concept of the roadmap, in which the growth of security and confidence precede a political agreement, and puts the agreement first, which is then designed to produce security and peace.

Its main compromise is that the Palestinians effectively give up their "right of return" in exchange for almost the whole of the West Bank, though there could be a token return by a few. Israel would give up some major settlements such as Ariel, but keep others closer to the border, with swaps of land in Israel for any taken in the West Bank. Palestinians would have the right to have their capital in East Jerusalem, though with Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall in the Old City.

Another unofficial agreement was one drawn up by a former head of the Israeli Shin Bet internal security service, Ami Ayalon, and a former PLO representative in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh. This envisaged a return to the 1967 lines, an open city of Jerusalem and an end to the Palestinian claim to a right of return to former homes.

Annapolis, 2007

Image captionAnnapolis envisioned a full peace deal by the end of 2008

Late in his second presidential term, US President George W Bush hosted a conference at the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland aimed at relaunching the peace process.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas took part in talks along with officials from the peace-making Quartet and more than a dozen Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Syria. This was seen as significant as they do not officially recognise Israel.

However the Palestinian group Hamas, which had won parliamentary elections and taken control of the Gaza Strip, was not represented. It declared it would not be bound by anything decided.

A joint understanding was issued by the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to engage in negotiations with the goal of a full peace deal by the end of 2008. They agreed that implementation would wait until confidence-building measures outlined in the "Roadmap" had been met.

Regular meetings took place between Mr Olmert and Mr Abbas, during which their teams exchanged maps of possible border solutions, but failed to reach agreement. Mr Olmert said his offer was the most generous ever made to the Palestinians - international supervision of Jerusalem's holy sites, the symbolic return of a few thousand Palestinian refugees and reportedly Israeli withdrawal from 93.7% of the West Bank, plus the equivalent of 5.8% of its area from Israel in a land swap. Mr Abbas's team said it produced a map which offered to let the Israelis keep 1.9% of the West Bank in exchange for land in Israel.

The talks came to an abrupt halt with Israel's military offensive in Gaza in December 2008. This coincided roughly with the end of Mr Olmert's time in office and his replacement by Benjamin Netanyahu, who took several months even to back publicly the concept of a Palestinian state.

Washington, 2010

Image captionBarack Obama believed the 2010 talks could produce an agreement within a year

After taking office, US President Barack Obama was quick to try to restart the peace process. Contact between Israel and the Palestinians resumed in May 2009, after a hiatus of 19 months, in the form of indirect "proximity talks" through US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.

In November 2009, Mr Obama persuaded Mr Netanyahu to agree to a 10-month partial freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank, which the Israeli leader hailed as "the first meaningful step towards peace". But Mr Abbas said it did not cover East Jerusalem and that he wanted a guarantee of a Palestinian state based on 1967 lines.

After months of hard diplomacy, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Abbas had agreed to "re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues" and that they believed the talks could "be completed within one year".

The talks, also attended by President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, began in Washington on 2 September 2010. Expectations were low and deadlock was reached within weeks.

The Israeli and Palestinian leaders met just once more, at Sharm el-Sheikh, before Israel's settlement construction freeze expired on 26 September and the talks were suspended. US negotiators subsequently failed to persuade Mr Netanyahu's coalition government to renew the moratorium, or to convince Mr Abbas to resume negotiations without an end to all settlement activities on occupied territory.

Muslims in Sri Lanka are self-alienating themselves from the mainstream community – Dr Ameer Ali

By A Special Correspondent

Dr. Ameer Ali

In an interview with Ranga Jayasuriya appearing in Ceylon Today, Dr. Ameer Ali, a prominent Islamic scholar and a former adviser on Muslim Affairs to former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's Government, and an academic at the Faculty of Management and Governance of Murdoch University, has said that Muslims in Sri Lanka are self-alienating themselves from the mainstream community.

Dr Ali said the crucial issue for the Muslim community in Sri Lanka is to decide whether they want to be Muslims of Sri Lanka or Muslims in Sri Lanka.

He said since the 1970s, there has been the development of orthodox Islam, something new to this country and this orthodox brand of Islam was the result of the economic opportunities created in the Middle East. Many issues had come up due to the new brand of imported Islam. Things that had been accepted for so long have now been questioned.

Muslims who went there for job opportunities came back with a different mindset, influenced by the religious perception of the Saudis and other neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, this resulted in Muslims in this country isolating themselves from the mainstream society, in terms of their dress, their values and their practices.

He cited several examples of self-inflicted alienation which was widening the gap between Muslims and other communities, primarily the Sinhala Buddhist community. Stressing that the vast majority of Buddhists were not fanatics and a vast majority of Sinhalese were not racists, he said a minority, who is very vocal and is trying to grab attention should not be allowed to take the country in the wrong direction.

As far as the Muslims were concerned, he said that this self-alienation amongst them was a new development and it was time for them to engage in self-introspection, sit back and take stock, and decide where they have gone wrong.

Responding to a question on how Muslims were alienating themselves from the mainstream, Dr Ali said he can pin-point several developments.

Firstly, although there were separate Buddhist schools, Tamil schools and Muslim Schools, the Muslim schools were operating on a different calendar. He said he had not seen any country other than Sri Lanka where they closed schools during the fasting month. This differentiation was driving a wedge between the Muslim community and others, and ironically, it was in fact disadvantaging Muslims.

This move was a privilege the Muslims gained in 1950, because Sir Razik Fareed, who was a leader, an activist, but not an educationist, asked for this concession, and the then government consented. At that time, the Muslims thought that it was a good thing that they could fast without other obligations. But, in the current race for economic opportunities, when the Muslim schools are closed, other schools are operating. When others are closed, Muslim schools are operating said Dr Ali.

Understandably enough, the government was arranging things like refresher courses and training courses when the majority of the teachers are on holiday, but when the majority of schools are closed, Muslim schools were operating. The Muslim community was losing due to this arrangement. It was time for the Muslim community to decide whether they should continue with this arrangement.

Secondly, Muslims were saying they have a long history and they have contributed a lot. That is history. All communities have done the same. The Tamils, and Sinhalese and Christians want to see it happening now. How are the Muslims behaving? Are they intermingling with others, asked Dr Ali.

Take one example he said; the Kandy Perehara. Of course, although it originated as a religious event, it had become more than that now; it was now a national festival. It is an occasion that attracts millions of tourists and television viewers. While there were Havadies by the Hindus, Merlm by the Hindus, he asked where his Muslim brothers were? How were they contributing to a national event?

Thirdly, he asked, on Independence Day, why Muslims could not hoist the national flag in front of our mosques and schools and other institutions. He contended that these simple things can send a positive message to the wider community.

In response to a question on whether there was a recent effort by some segments of Muslims to highlight their differences with other communities and not so much to do with historical similarities, Dr Ali said “I have one observation. When I went to the Eastern Province, in Kattankudy, they have planted date palms to decorate the roadside. My question was, what is the connection between date palms and Kattankudy or date palms and Sri Lanka?. Why do you spend millions of rupees to make it look like Arabia? I could see that already half of the trees had died. I told the Muslims to go to Tissamaharama and see what has been planted there: Tamarind trees, which are shady and bearing fruit. Are we living in this country or are we living in Arabia?” he asked.

Dr Ali then spoke about cattle slaughter. He stated that it is not the halal issue. Halal was a trillion dollar industry in the world. He urged anyone with any humaneness to see the way the cows were being slaughtered. He said he had seen the way cows were dragged into the slaughter house. He asked how anyone could tolerate such a practice. A call for a ban on cattle slaughter had to be seen in this context and Muslims should sit back and take stock on this issue.

He cited another very glaring example of differentiation. This was the black dress that is covering the whole female body, except the eyes, which is alien to Sri Lanka. This attire has nothing to do with Islam, whereas it was misconstruing Islam.

It is confrontational and Muslims were voluntarily alienating themselves. He went on to say that Muslims were suffering from an image problem, which they needed to address.

He said there was no need for Muslims to make a statement by getting their women to dress like this or practice other extreme measures which were not real Islamic practices, and were confrontational like the Burka. While Muslim women in the 70s wore sarees, it was the misreading of Islamic scriptures that had led to the current situation. Muslims in Sri Lanka needed more enlightened leadership to overcome these confrontational attitudes.

When asked whether banning of the Burka would be an appropriate action, his view was that the confrontational problem could not be solved by banning it. His said banning would make matters worse as people would react much worse and it would provide additional fuel to extremists. Extremism he said should be countered through education, which should be done by Muslims themselves.

Responding to a question on recent anti-Muslim propaganda and the general, rather liberal interpretation that a peaceful Muslim minority has come under the threat of hegemonic Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, Dr Ali expressed his opinion that some of these events were due to a revival of religion all over the world and its consequences.He said Buddhist revival was not a unique phenomenon, as there was the rise of the Christian right in the Bible belt of America, which wields a strong influence on the American legislature, the revival of Islam in the Middle East and the rise of Hinduism in India.

In his opinion, religion was coming back after one hundred years of rationalism, during which we thought religion had been forced backstage. We believed that everybody would be happy in a materialistic society. And subsequently, there was the rise of Marxism, which had been dominant in some parts of the world in the past 75 years.

But, since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, religion had made a comeback as a strong force in some of those countries, for instance, in Poland. And even under communism, sects such as the Falun Gong in China were increasingly active below the radar. Therefore, this is a worldwide trend. The emptiness in the people's minds has been filled by religion. In the same line of events, he witnessed a revival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Such revivals sometimes provided avenues for less moderate people belonging to all religions to become more vociferous, than others who were moderate minded.

In responding to a question on whether Wahhabis and the rising Islamic militant rhetoric in the East has had an impact in places like Kattankudy where allegedly, large scale overseas funding from Middle Eastern countries was fuelling a foreign brand of Islamic revival, Dr Ali said there were no statistics on the funds that come from Saudi Arabia. He said he did not think they are institutionally funding Wahhabism, however, a lot of private funds were coming in.

He said there were 58 mosques in Kattankudy and that he had been to one of the Mosques to pray and there had not been even 20 people in it. The whole Mosque had been nearly empty. He questioned the need to build more mosques when the existing mosques were empty. His view was that those who returned from the Middle East as preachers wanted to build mosques and introduce a brand of Islam which was not consistent with the ancient and traditional Islamic practices in Sri Lanka.

He agreed that the brand of Islam that is imported from Saudi Arabia was intolerant in its teachings and it was increasingly becoming intolerant of others. In the history of Islam, it had been very tolerant. In Moghul India, the palace of Akbar was full of non-Muslims. This new brand is a misrepresentation of Islam and its scriptures.

He however did not see a conflict between the moderate Islam and its ultra-conservative brand in Sri Lanka, but agreed that there was a clash between liberal Islam and orthodox conservative Islam in other countries.

In the world arena, he stated that there were three poles of contention. There were the Saudis with their intolerant Islam; the Turks with a very tolerant outlook of Islam, and there were the Iranians with their Shia Islam. There was a confrontation among these three forces for the hegemony of Islam.

- Asian Tribune -

Consequences of Qardhawi seditious stances

Head of the so-called Union of Muslim Ulama in Qatar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qardhawi has launched a new wave of Iranophobia and Shiaphobia. Consequences of Qardhawi seditious stances

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - While demanding the Sunni youths to be dispatched to Syria to fight on the side of the opposition, Qardhawi claimed that the Iranians intend to kill the Sunnis through pre-planning. The Egyptian Qardhawi residing in Qatar used an insulting language against the leader of the anti-terrorist Lebanese Hezbollah Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and called him the devil Hassan and Hezbollah as the party of the Satan. Meanwhile the Saudi Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Muhammad Al-Sheikh voiced his support for the unfounded and biased remarks of Qardhawi against Lebanese Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Living in Qatar for some years, Sheikh Qardhawi has actually turned into a court mullah who has obtained with the support of Aljazeera TV network a status in political circles and the media. The Fatwas of this extremist mullah are aimed at aggravating differences between the Shiites and Sunnis within the framework of the western governments' policy of Iranophobia and Shiaphobia. Unfortunately Qardhawi has been entrapped by the Zionist regime and western governments to ignite sectarian wars in the Islamic states and strengthen the fake Israeli regime. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the main supporters of the armed groups in Syria who are seeking to overthrow the government of Bashar Assad. The armed terrorists are fighting the Syrian army within the framework of the policies of the Zionist regime and its western supporters for eliminate Syria from the forefront of resistance against the Zionist regime. Sheikh Qardhawi is one of those who legitimize the measures of terrorists in Syria whereas they are actually destroying the country and the Syrian nation under the pretext of freedom-seeking. Representing the western governments, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the extremist armed groups have entered Syria and committed many crimes some of which have been revealed by independent media. Following the failure of terrorist groups in Syria, Qardhawi and the biased and hostile scholars like him are seeking to deceive more youths with their illogical Fatwas and send them to Syria to shed more blood. The Fatwas are in full compliance with the demand of the western states in a manner that Qardhawi has become known as the Sheikh of NATO. He also assured the Zionist regime that the Takfiri groups in Syria pose no threat to the regime. Leader of the Islamic revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei in his speech on the day of Mab'ath or the ordainment of Prophet Mohammad (SAWA) emphasized on distancing from discord and the necessity of unity among Muslims.

Addressing the reciters and memorizers participating in the 30th international Qur’an Competitions, the leader stressed that one of the important commands of the holy Qur’an to Muslims is preservation of unity and solidarity and said: "Any throat or tongue that calls Muslims to unity is a divine throat and any throat that calls on Muslims and Islamic denominations to fight one another is the throat of Satan." Ayatollah Khamenei added: "One of the Qur’anic commands to Muslims is that they should stick to the rope of Allah all together and avoid disunity. In contrast to this command, there is the colonial teach and method whose aim is to create discord among the Islamic Ummah and intensify sectarian prejudices." The leader said that certain Muslim governments have been deceived and are playing in the enemy's ground. He reiterated: "Unity among Muslims is an urgent necessity.” Leader of the Islamic Revolution said that bloodshed, blind terrorism and the resulting tragedies, and creating opportunities for the usurper Zionist regime are among the consequences of discord among the Islamic Ummah. He added: "Today is the day of a great test for Muslims and Islamic governments, and Muslim nations should be completely vigilant." Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the wave of Islamophobia and stressed: "The Western enemies have unsheathed their swords against Muslims; so the Islamic Ummah should strengthen the factors that contribute to its internal power and capabilities. One of the most important factors in this regard is unity, solidarity and concentration on commonalities." The seditious statements of Qardhawi have widely echoes among Islamic states. The Friday leader of holy Najjaf Seyyed Sadreddin Qabanchi said that instead of inviting Muslims to unity Qardhawi invites them to sedition and his remarks are unacceptable in Islam. The United Ulama Council of Greater Syria in a statement declared as null and voids the so-called Fatwa issued by the controversial Qardhawi sanctioning the killing of fellow Muslims. The council added that Qardhawi’s instigation for bloodshed in Syria is far from the principles of religion, Hadith and practice of the holy Prophet of Islam. The statement declared that the conduct of Qardhawi as the head of the International Muslim Union has questioned the union's credibility. The Algerian daily Al-Watan severely criticized the stances of Qardhawi and wrote: "Sheikh Qardhawi who has several times released Fatwas on the Arab revolutions has no religious sanctity to us anymore, for; he has impudently abused his religious status in the service of Qatari regime's diplomacy.” The Algerian newspaper seriously criticized Qardhawi for his resort to provocative Fatwas aimed at creating sedition in the Arab states. Al-Watan added: "The peace birds which Qardhawi was supposed to lay on the ground flew up and instead of them eagles of war landed.” Regarding Qardhawi’s role in the Syrian crisis, the Algerian daily writes: "The forces of Al-Nusra front who fight the Syrian army always laud the provocative role of Qardhawi.” The British Daily Telegraph in a report on the biased and seditious remarks of Qardhawi wrote: "By inviting the Sunnis for war against the Alavis and Shiites in Syria, Qardhawi showed that he is seeking to intensify religious tensions all over the Middle East.” These are just part of reactions to the seditious remarks of the Egyptian Sheikh who considers permissible the killing of women and children for being Alavi. But are these hostile Fatwas compatible to the Islamic teachings? Which part of the holy Qur’an and the holy Prophet’s practice and behavior says that if a group does not think like us they should be killed? In his entire life the holy Prophet respected the life of those who lived under Muslim conquest but did not embrace Islam as long as they did not resort to arms. The Islamic ruler was mandated to preserve their life just as the life of Muslims. Which Qur’anic ayahs allow Qardhawi to dub the Alavis as worse than the Jews and Christians and shedding their blood Halal? What Qardhawi says about Iran and Shiites is unfounded and results from his hostility towards Shiites. Before becoming an anti-Shiite Sheikh he attended the assembly for proximity of Islamic schools and praised the Lebanese Hezbollah and the status of Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah in countering the Zionist regime. The reality is that differences among Islamic denominations do not cause discord and separation. The Assembly for proximity of Islamic schools was shaped on this idea, for; there are far more commonalities among various religious factions rather than differences. Qardhawi and the Wahabbi mullahs who consider discord among Muslims as their goal are well aware of this point. Therefore they try to introduce the Shiite ideas improperly to the Islamic communities and by distorting the Shiite books they inculcate the lie that the Shiites have no faith in the holy Qur’an. Just like the western regimes portray Islam as promoter and spreader of violence, Qardhawi and the Wahabbis try to create a negative picture of the Shiites. With this propaganda, they want with the aid of Saudi and Qatari rulers to distract attentions from the realities in the Islamic world and push forward their objectives. The objectives that the western governments pursue in the Islamic lands especially in the Middle East are implemented by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and confirmed by Qardhawi.

The Ummah’s tragedy: court ulama

By Zafar Bangash

The ulama are supposed to be inheritors of the Prophets but only if they adhere to the divine commands. When they fall for worldly temptations, they become a curse. This is what appears to have happened to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a well-known alim, who has now joined the hate-spewing Saudis in spreading sectarianism. ‘Ulama are supposed to be successors to the Prophets (Å). Since no more prophets will come to guide humanity, the role of the ‘ulama has assumed great importance. If they adhere to the Qur’an and the Sunnah, they are a blessing for the Ummah; should they fall for temptations of the dunya, they become a curse. Who is unaware of the Pakistani politician Fazlur Rahman, a Deobandi maulana, whose antics and corruption are legendry? They have caused havoc in Pakistan. But in the hierarchy of ‘ulama, Fazlur Rahman is a minor figure. Much more serious is the role of figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian ‘alim who has a television program on the Qatari-owned al-Jazeera with a following of some 60 million people worldwide. At a rally in Doha, Qatar on June 1, Shaykh al-Qaradawi called upon “Sunni” Muslims from around the Muslim East to go to Syria and fight against Hizbullah, which had joined the battle for Qusayr in support of Syrian government forces. Al-Qaradawi alleged that “the Shi‘is [meaning Iran and Hizbullah] wanted to exterminate the Sunnis.” He went on to denounce Hizbullah as the “Party of Shaytan [Satan].” Not surprisingly, the Saudi Grand Mufti, Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Aal al-Shaykh welcomed al-Qaradawi’s call since Saudi Arabia is in the forefront of fomenting sectarianism in the Ummah. This is the only game they know and since the Saudi rulers and court ‘ulama cannot justify on the basis of Islamic principles their illegitimate rule over the Arabian Peninsula, they want to entangle Muslims in disputes that dissipate their mental and physical energies. One is constrained to ask, when did the Saudis or Shaykh al-Qaradawi ever call upon Muslims in the Muslim East or anywhere else to go to Occupied Palestine to help liberate their Palestinian brothers and sisters from decades of Zionist oppression and occupation? Iran, Hizbullah and Bashar al-Asad’s government are the only players that have confronted US-Zionist hegemony in the region. While every Muslim, indeed every human being that cares for human rights and dignity must support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people, the issue is no longer about their rights. Thousands of mercenaries from neighbouring countries backed and armed by the Saudi, Qatari, Jordanian, Turkish, American and Zionist regimes have flooded into Syria to advance the imperialist-Zionist Anglo-Wahhabi agenda. Their aim is to undermine the resistance front against imperialist-Zionist hegemony. When their direct military assault failed, they unleashed sectarianism to divide Muslims in a conflict that has already claimed thousands of lives in Syria. Shaykh al-Qaradawi has lent his considerable weight to this perfidious campaign. As Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World, Malaysia, wrote, “He was among the earliest public figures to endorse NATO’s airstrikes over Libya. In the middle of last year he even opined that if the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came back today, he would support NATO. This earned him the derisive moniker ‘NATO Mufti’ among some Arab commentators.” Imagine a noted Muslim scholar maligning the noble Messenger (pbuh) in this manner! Contrast this with the joint appeal by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamed and former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in May calling for an end to sectarian fighting and killings.

Regrettably, Muslim history is replete with examples of some scholars standing against injustice while others endorse it. Soon after the Khilafah was subverted into monarchy, the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid rulers punished those scholars — Imams Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi‘i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal — who refused to endorse their illegitimate rule, but those who went along with the corruption were richly rewarded with worldly goods and positions (read that: hush money). Shaykh al-Qaradawi and many in the Arabian Peninsula have also succumbed to the lure of political partronage from those who prefer to make tawaf around the White House instead of the Ka‘bah. Living in palatial homes lined with carpets and plush sofas and a bevy of servants at their call, these scholars have forgotten the Islamic duty of al-amr bi-al-ma‘ruf wa-al-nahy ‘an al-munkar. Instead, they are actively promoting munkar. Neither the Saudi nor Qatari rulers are legitimate; they have usurped power and authority in rebellion against Allah’s (swt) commands and are subservient to the power of global kufr. It is their shameless and treacherous behavior, and not the level of Islamic scholarship, that ought to determine how obedient ordinary Muslims should be to the errant recommendations of scholars who have never acquired a level of comfort with cogently analyzing things that matter. Muslims have paid a terrible price for such faulty thinking in the past and cannot afford any more disasters. Instigating hatred among Muslims to advance the illegitimate rulers’ agenda is not only shortsighted, it is also mean spirited and ultimately disastrous for the Ummah. The blood of innocent Muslims will be as much on the hands of these scholars as it is on those who pull the trigger. Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought