A Case for extirpating Wahabism

By Izeth Hussain

Verily God will not change the condition of men, till they change what is in themselves. – Koran – Sura 13 verse 14.

The main purpose of this article is to point out that there might be a case for action by Muslims, as well as non-Muslims constituting the international community as a whole, towards extirpating Wahabism and all its clones from off the face of the earth. I choose the word "extirpating" advisedly to mean a process of rooting out so that Wahabism will never ever again manifest itself on this earth. I have been provoked into arguing this case by the anti-Shia hate campaign for which our mosques have been misused over several weeks. I cannot see the slightest justification for this hate campaign. We have a small community of Shias in the form of the Borahs who have always had excellent relations with our Sunni Muslims consisting of the Moors, the Malays, and the Memons, and also with non-Muslim Sri Lankans. In addition there are a few hundred non-Borah Shias here, who took to Shi-ism mainly because they were enthused by Iran’s 1979 Revolution. They could be the target of the Wahabi hate campaign. But, as far as my enquiries reveal, they have not been aggressively pushing a Shia agenda nor have they been using unethical methods to increase their ranks.

What, then, is the explanation for the entirely gratuitous and utterly irrational anti-Shia hate campaign that has been sustained for several weeks, desecrating our mosques in the process? The question is an important one, because the answers to it could constitute some of the reasons why Wahabism should be extirpated. Part of the explanation is the intolerant and totalitarian mind-set of the Wahabis. They hold that not only non-Muslims but professing Muslims such as the Sunnis and the Shias – in short all those who don’t abide by Wahabi tenets – are in reality non-Muslims and should therefore be put to the sword. But according to the well-entrenched belief system of all non-Wahabi Muslims the shahada – the confession of faith that there is only one God and Mohammed is his Prophet – suffices to make a person a Muslim, and that is not something that should be questioned. The fierce fanatical intolerance of the Wahabis means that they cannot live in peaceful accommodation with other Muslims. They have been busy dismantling Sunni Islam in Sri Lanka, now they want to eliminate Shi’ism, and next they will want to destroy the Sufi orders that have traditionally structured orthodox Islam in Sri Lanka. Only the Kharijites of early Islam showed a like intolerance. They were quickly banned by other Muslims. It is time to ban the Wahabis.

Another part of the explanation is that the Islamic religious establishment here is under foreign influence, more precisely foreign control. Everyone knows that the spread of Wahabism in recent times is a manifestation of the might of the petro-dollar. Therefore the creation of a Shia problem in Sri Lanka, where there are no rational grounds for it at all, can be seen as something that is being done in promotion of a foreign agenda. So-called Shia-Sunni conflicts are raging in the Middle East, about which I must make a clarification. They are in reality majority-minority conflicts in which secular interests are involved and not sectarian conflicts between two different versions of Islam. The projection of those conflicts as sectarian might be seen as part of a program to demonize Shi’ism and Iran – which could lead according to some to the nuclear bombing of Iran, something devoutly wished for by the Zionists, Neocons, and Islamophobic groups. All that may be speculative. What is definite is that the Islamic religious establishment here has to put itself in the clear about the possible charge that it is serving a foreign agenda. That has to be done by showing that there are clear rational grounds for the anti-Shia hate campaign.

I come now to the question of action by Muslims as well as non-Muslims towards the extirpation of Wahabism and its clones. Why is this necessary? I have already given above one reason: the totalitarian intolerant outlook of Wahabis which means that as soon as they have the upper hand they will want to extirpate every other form of Islam, a process that we can see taking place right now under our noses in Sri Lanka. The other reason is that Wahabism is evil. I take seriously the hadith in which the Prophet foretold with stunning prescience the manifestation of the Horn of the Devil in the Najd – from where Mohammed Abdul Wahab hailed. In Islamic theological terms Wahabism is the work of Iblis. In secular terms, I mean by evil the drive to get joy by harming and destroying. I can substantiate that definition by many examples from art-works – notably cinema and fiction – but that is not necessary here.

I will substantiate that definition by showing what Wahabism has meant in actual practice. In an earlier article I have argued that at the very core of Wahabism there is nonsense, shown in confusion over the distinction between acts of veneration that are reserved for humans, including saints, and acts of worship that are reserved for the deity. It should be beyond dispute that out of well over a billion Muslims who engaged in acts of veneration towards saints not even one was guilty of polytheism. That is why Mohammed Abdul Wahab himself held that none of them would be consigned to eternal hell-fire, which would be the fate only of those who continued after him to engage in what he regarded as saint worship. But how can a practice that was sanctioned in orthodox Islam for 1,200 years become something that merits eternal hell-fire after Mohammed Abdul Wahab? That surely establishes, beyond dispute, that at the very core of Wahabism there is nonsense. It is arguable, however, that while the Wahabis believe sincerely that saint-worship is going on they are entitled to destroy certain tombs and other monuments. But what about the destruction of cultural artefacts that have been proudly preserved over many centuries, which have not even the remotest connection with polytheism? I think that attests to the destructive evil that is at the core of Wahabism.

The evil drive for taking joy in harming and destroying that is at the core of Wahabism is seen at its most striking in the horrors perpetrated by the IS: enforced marriage, the selling of females as sex slaves, concubinage, mass executions and indiscriminate massacres, the wholesale destruction of cultural artefacts and cultural sites, and so on. On this subject the world of Islam must face up to some inconvenient ugly facts. The whole of that world, including Saudi Arbia, have unequivocally condemned the IS as unIslamic. How, then, can we explain the ugly fact that the recruitment drive of the IS has been spectacularly successful in many parts of the Islamic world, and that those recruits are Wahabi devotees? Furthermore the IS declares that it is strictly practising the tenets of Wahabism unlike Saudi Arabia. Its educational system, it claims, is wholly Wahabi, in proof of which it shows that the text-books used in IS-run shools are the same as in Saudi Arabia.

The question that has to be faced by the islamic world is not whether there is a nexus between Wahabism and the IS. The question rather is whether or not it is the IS, not Saudi Arabia, that practices Wahabism in its full-blown authentic form. That question can be resolved only by showing whether or not characteristic IS practices, such as sex-slavery, have their sanction in the actual writings of Mohammed Abdul Wahab. If that is the case, the Islamic world has no alternative to moving towards the total extirpation of Wahabism from off the face of the earth, now and for evermore. Saudi Arabia has to be persuaded to abandon Wahabism. In this matter there is a convergence of interest between the West and the Islamic world: the former in ending the threat of IS terrorism, the latter in saving Islam from Wahabism. I must emphasize in conclusion that my anti-Wahabist advocacy has behind it the might and majesty of orthodox Islam, which was established in its full form around 1200 AD and has held sway over the greater part of the Islamic world since then. The apologists of Wahabism have behind them mainly the might of the petro-dollar. The eventual outcome is certain.

izethhussain@gmail.com

Saudi Arabia: On the Brink of Disintegration

The chaos, which its diabolical authors have brought to a number of Arab countries cynically calling it “the Arab Spring”, demonstrates that the process has not been completed and yet some other Middle East countries will fall under its bloody millstone. Arising quite suddenly in Tunisia (that more or less successfully escaped the spring winds), the chaos, backed up by the Western armed forces, moved to the formerly prospering Libya, which, currently, has ceased to exist as a whole state having fallen apart into three separate regions – Tripoli, Cyrenaica and Fezzan. The latest news reported by the global media evidence that the terrorist organisation, the Islamic State (IS), is planning to turn the Libyan territory in its own “jumping board” for penetrating and attacking European countries. In the north of Africa, only Egypt has held its ground; due to the enormous political experience of the Egyptian people and the determination of its army, it managed to remedy the situation in the very heart of the Arab world.

The situation is even worse in the Persian Gulf region where Bahrain at some point was occupied by Saudi troops, and that alone helped to suppress the violent riots of the Shiah who, according to different estimates, comprise over 70 to 80% of the population. But the fire of the riots is not extinct and from time to time its sparks serve as a reminder by burning Manama suburbs.

The situation is awful in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The first two states fell victim to unprovoked aggression on the part of the USA, resulting in the loss of national identity and destruction of infrastructure. As the proverb goes, one fool makes many, and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, blinded by their incredible wealth and incorrect analysis of the situation in the region, wished to establish a regime in Damascus, which would be obedient to them. Until now, the Syrian people have been in hell fighting with countless mercenaries and defending their right to live and solve their own problems on their own, Syrian soil. The country is divided into parts, many cities and settlements have been demolished, several million Syrian nationals have left their homeland and are seeking asylum in other countries. But the Riyadh Wahhabi leaders are still not satisfied with that, and their task is to establish their own regime in Damascus, which would be obedient only to them, no matter if Syria continues to exist as a single state or is divided into several “subcomponents”.

However the logic of the history of the so-called “Arab Spring” is as follows: the point currently at issue is whether Saudi Arabia itself will exist within its previous borders or there will be several states in the Saudi territory, in compliance with the map of former lieutenant-colonel Ralf Peters. In this regard, it should be recalled that in June 2006 Ralf Peters, retired lieutenant-colonel working in the US National Military Academy, published prospective borders of the national states of the Greater Middle East in his article “Blood Borders” in the Armed Forces Journal. R.Peters’ last assignment was to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence in the US Department of Defense. He is one of the most well-known Pentagon authors and has published numerous works on strategy in US military and foreign policy editions. Though the aforementioned map does not reflect the Pentagon’s official point of view, it was used in educational programs for senior military officers of the NATO Defense College and could be quite easily used, alongside other maps, by the National Military Academy and military specialists in the sphere of planning.

At this very complicated period of its existence, possibly the most dangerous one since the moment when Saudi Arabia was created by Abdulaziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud (Ibn Saud), its current leaders do not display any skills, far-sightedness and political thinking. Moreover, they are doing everything possible in order that the earlier artificially created monarchy could be divided into several parts. Evidently, due to feeble mind and old age, the current Saudi King Salman ibn Abdulaziz Al Saud and his son Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, the youngest Minister of Defense in the world, have been involved in three wars simultaneously or, as one may say, have begun a three-front war.

It is common knowledge backed by history, for example if we look at the history of Europe, that a state may succeed only if it leads one war and it will lose on two fronts. In 1870-1871, Prussia (Germany) only crushed France and imposed on it heavy war indemnity taking military actions on one front. However, during the World War I and World War II, Germany, which was already united by these times, undertook military actions on two fronts and was heavily defeated in both wars, with the impacts of those losses visible to this today. We might be absolutely astounded by the unreasonable behavior of the present Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel – if we were unaware of the fact that the German territory is still occupied by American troops and many American military bases are located there.

But it seems that Europe is too far from Saudi Arabia as the present Saudi leaders do not know the rudiments of history. Not surprisingly, due to this very fact they have got involved simultaneously in three complicated and cruel wars. The first war is, of course, the Syrian conflict, which has occurred and is being continuously fomented by the Saudis, who have spent hundreds millions of dollars on the creation and generous financing of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, etc. At first glance, it may seem strange that these terrorist organisations just occasionally subject the Saudi regime to mild criticism for derogation from the norms of “real Islam”, but they do not go any far than that. For some reason, the terrorists do not take any military actions against the Saudis, though the terrorists, tempered in battle, need no more than three days to quickly cross the desert regions near the Saudi-Iraqi border in their Toyota trucks and occupy the main oil-bearing region of Al Hasa on the Persian Gulf shore. However that does not happen and the terrorists, for no reason whatsoever, do not leave the Syrian and Iraqi territory and prefer to die as a result of effective bombing by the Russian Military and Space Forces. Evidently, the Saudi leaders have generously sponsored not only the terrorists’ military activities but their death as well. But, given the low oil prices, the Saudi treasury will run empty earlier or later, and what will the enraged terrorists do then?

The second Saudi Arabia front comprises the unsuccessful military actions in Yemen where barefoot Houthis rebels are not only putting up adequate resistance to the Saudis and their satellites but also inflicting significant damage on them. This being the case, when the rebels are armed with rifles alone. Since March 26, Saudi Arabia, supported by military air forces of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, has been carrying out a military air operation against the rebels using the most advanced arms supplied from the United States. The coalition was also joined by Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan. According to UN data, 2,795 civilians died and 5,324 were wounded during escalation of the conflict. At that, Riyadh is widely using the USA banned weapons – cluster bombs. This was reported by the American organisation, Human Rights Watch, which insists on conducting a most thorough international investigation of the fact.

Experts are asking quite a reasonable question: what will happen when Iran supplies modern weapons to the rebels (as all the Saudi media are loudly sounding the alarm of these prospects). It will happen, sooner or later. In these circumstances, Yemen will easily regain the disputed territories that now form part of the Saudi provinces Najran, Jizan and Ha’il. Therefore, all the southern part of the modern Saudi Arabia will become the territory of Yemen, as was in the old times, and that might serve as the catalyst for disintegration of the whole kingdom.

The third front, on which the Saudis are fighting without any success, is the ill-thought-of tactics of decreasing oil prices. In this case, the Riyadh leaders blinded by their wealth and seeking to take possession of the whole of the global market, decided to oust the major oil-producing states like the USA, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Norway from the market. As the time goes on and the competitors do not leave the oil market, the world is gradually becoming accustomed to low prices. But this, firstly, has struck a blow to the finances of Saudi Arabia, originally regarded as “the fat cat”. Now its economy is beginning to experience certain difficulties caused by the low prices, the enormous expenses of making war in Syria and Yemen and expenses of supporting large social payments and subsidies. There is a strain on the balance of payments and spending of state funds. The things have gone so far that there are rumours of privatization of the “sacred cow” – Saudi Aramco, the major donor of the economy.

It would seem that in these conditions, cutting external and non-core expenses (military operations expenses, financing terrorist organisations) and focusing on the economy would be a solution. However, the Saudi leaders, taking the bit between their teeth, are seeking a solution in yet new adventures. Some media reported that Saudi Arabia has taken the decision to start a land operation in Syria in the nearest future without waiting for the support from the other allies, as brigade General Akhmed al Asiri informed. This would be the case while the Saudis haven’t even succeeded in Yemen.

It is possible that Washington is deliberately drawing the Saudis into all kinds of adventures in order that changes in the state structure in the Arab Peninsula will occur sooner. There are up to $ 1 trillion worth of Saudi Arabia state funds stored in American banks, plus about half trillion dollars of private deposits. If Saudi Arabia falls apart it is almost impossible that any Saudi nationals will dare to make financial claims against Washington. The people who will be heads of the new states will be undoubtedly grateful to the United States and will need their assistance and supervision. For example, if the representative of the Hashemite delegation, the now ruling King of Jordan Abdallah II heads Hejaz, as his ancestors did for many centuries, and becomes the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, he will evidently retain good feeling towards Washington and its rulers.

Beyond any doubt, the new adventures and ill-conceived external and domestic initiatives, where the authorities resort to repressions and numerous executions in order to calm down the people, only serve to draw the historical outcome and the “Arab Spring” in the Arab Peninsula closer. It is possible that we will be witnesses to the situation where the last son of the great ibn Saud, who in olden days created Saudi Arabia, will become the last king of the desert monarchy in the Arab Peninsula.

Victor Mikhin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
https://journal-neo.org/2016/02/24/saudi-arabia-on-the-brink-of-disintegration/

US Anti-terror Iraq Campaign: From Propaganda to Battlefield

Alwaght- “America does not help solve the world’s problems, but it must hold the strings of these problems to run towards the national interests.” By these words the godfather of the US foreign policy Henry A. Kissinger has described the reality of the way Washington deals with the global crises.

The strategy that Kissinger has talked about is fully in compliance with his country’s practical positions on the crises that are sweeping the West Asia region and specifically Iraq, a country the US has invaded under the pretext of existence of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), however, later Washington has apologized for that, saying that there were no such weapons developed in the country. Years later, the US withdrew forces from Iraq by force of the Iraqi resistant groups. It left for Iraq a legacy of devastation, as it immersed the nation in a sectarian conflict which to date has taken lives of tens of thousands of the Iraqis, in addition to looting reserves of one of the world’s oil-richest countries.

At the present time, Washington is attempting to re-enter Iraq through the window of ISIS terror group and under the excuse of backing the Iraqi army and helping the country recapture the city of Mosul. Such a pretext is considered by many Iraqis as an attempt for covert occupation because deployment of US forces to Iraq would need the country’s parliament approval, as the Iraqi government has not so far given any consent for the American forces to be deployed to the country, according to sources of the Iraqi parliament.

The American game cards become obvious as the country spreads chaos in the region of the West Asia, and as Washington weakens the regional countries whether through supporting the terror organizations or supporting those who act against terrorism, namely supporting everybody in the face of everybody. Washington supports an array of regional warring parties against each other. For example it backs ISIS terror group against both the Iraqi and Syrian armies, as it seeks creating gaps between the Iraqi army and the Public Mobilization Forces. It also endorses the Kurds in the face of the Sunni tribes and the Public Mobilization Forces, the tribal forces against the Public Mobilization Forces and ISIS, the so-called Free Syrian Army, Jaysh al-Islam, al-Nusra Front and Ahrar ash-Sham versus the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) along with the Kurdish Democratic Union Party versus the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government, and vice versa.

The US policy intends to realize Washington’s interests through two major instruments, the goal of which is to push the region into the stage of comprehensive destruction should Washington fails to gain a full control of it. The first instrument is the direct targeting as it was the case with invasion of Iraq and now with targeting the country’s infrastructure under the guise of the US-led international coalition as well as battle against ISIS terror organization. For example, the city of Ramadi was demolished by 80 percent as a result of the US forces’ operations and before that when the city was held by the terror group. Due to a previously-designed plan, the city fell in ruins, just like Japan’s Hiroshima. The destruction was primarily aimed at the civilians, according to an Iraqi field source. The Iraqi flag is not raised on top of any building due to the massive size of destruction caused by the American forces who were targeting the civilians, the same source maintained. “We don’t find any reason for this silence by the Human Rights organizations or by the UN or even by the (Iraqi) government while a large number of the families have lost their lives as a result of the deliberate US’ bombing. They got caught between the rock and the hard place, namely between ISIS and the Americans”, the source added. Why the battles which were fought by the Pubic Mobilization Forces in Baiji, Jurf Al Nasr and Amirli have not left such a devastation? The answer looks easy. Washington seeks undermining of Iraq while the army, the Mobilization forces and the tribes are going to great lengths to protect their country at an expensive price. The second instrument is concerned with targeting Iraq indirectly through backup of the terror groups, as well as fueling the sectarian disputes with the intention of implementing US’ split project which eyes weakening the region’s countries. It is specifically through watching this policy that we can find a delineation for Washington’s paradoxical policy concerning obliteration of the terror group ISIS. While some American circles note that the time has come to put an end to the terror organization, others say that the battle would take several years to end. Both sides are right when it comes to watching through Washington’s viewpoint. Should the Iraqis approve of the US-intended Iraq partition plan, the terror group would exit as quickly as it entered the country by capturing Mosul in 2014, but if they reject the three-regions split plan, the terror organization would not leave Iraq before it keeps holding ground for several years.

The Ramadi experience was highly painful due to the large size of resultant demolition as well as the large numbers of the civilian victims who lost their lives by the US fighter jets’ firepower. This experience must not be repeated in the upcoming battle of Mosul which the Public Mobilization Forces insist to take part in despite the American “veto.” The absence of the popular forces in the oncoming battle would bring the country grave consequences as Washington seeks seizing the triumphs and partitioning the country.

That is how Washington wants to implement Kissinger’s theory of holding the strings of the global problems. This is the same strategy on the basis of which the American Empire was established through destroying lives of 12 million red Indians. Washington is intending to adopt the same strategy this time in West Asia through shedding bloods of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Arabs.

Preparing for the Collapse of the Saudi Kingdom

It can’t last. The U.S. better get ready.

By Sarah Chayes, Alex de Waal, and Defense One

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Reuters)

For half a century, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the linchpin of U.S. Mideast policy. A guaranteed supply of oil has bought a guaranteed supply of security. Ignoring autocratic practices and the export of Wahhabi extremism, Washington stubbornly dubs its ally “moderate.” So tight is the trust that U.S. special operators dip into Saudi petrodollars as a counterterrorism slush fund without a second thought. In a sea of chaos, goes the refrain, the kingdom is one state that’s stable.

But is it?

In fact, Saudi Arabia is no state at all. There are two ways to describe it: as a political enterprise with a clever but ultimately unsustainable business model, or as an entity so corrupt as to resemble a vertically and horizontally integrated criminal organization. Either way, it can’t last. It’s past time U.S. decision-makers began planning for the collapse of the Saudi kingdom.

In recent conversations with military and other government personnel, we were startled at how startled they seemed at this prospect. Here’s the analysis they should be working through.

Understood one way, the Saudi king is the CEO of a family business that converts oil into payouts that buy political loyalty. They take two forms: cash handouts or commercial concessions for the increasingly numerous scions of the royal clan, and a modicum of public goods and employment opportunities for commoners. The coercive “stick” is supplied by brutal internal-security services lavishly outfitted with American equipment.

The United States has long counted on the ruling family having bottomless coffers of cash with which to rent loyalty. Even accounting for today’s low oil prices, and even as Saudi officials step up arms purchases and military adventures in Yemen and elsewhere, Riyadh is hardly running out of funds.

Still, expanded oil production in the face of such low prices—until the February 16 announcement of a Saudi-Russian output freeze at very high January levels—may reflect an urgent need for revenue as well as other strategic imperatives. Talk of a Saudi Aramco IPO similarly suggests a need for hard currency.

A political market, moreover, functions according to demand as well as supply. What if the price of loyalty rises?

It appears that is just what’s happening. King Salman had to spend lavishly to secure the allegiance of the notables who were pledged to the late King Abdullah. Here’s what played out in two other countries when this kind of inflation hit. In South Sudan, an insatiable elite not only diverted the newly minted country’s oil money to private pockets but also kept up their outsized demands when the money ran out, sparking a descent into chaos. The Somali government enjoys generous donor support, but is priced out of a very competitive political market by a host of other buyers—with ideological, security, or criminal agendas of their own.

Such comparisons may be offensive to Saudi leaders, but they are telling. If the loyalty price index keeps rising, the monarchy could face political insolvency.

The Saudi ruling elite is operating something like a sophisticated criminal enterprise.

Looked at another way, the Saudi ruling elite is operating something like a sophisticated criminal enterprise, when populations everywhere are making insistent demands for government accountability. With its political and business elites interwoven in a monopolistic network, quantities of unaccountable cash leaving the country for private investments and lavish purchases abroad, and state functions bent to serve these objectives, Saudi Arabia might be compared to such kleptocracies as Viktor Yanukovich’s Ukraine.

Increasingly, Saudi citizens are seeing themselves as just that: citizens, not subjects. In countries as diverse as Nigeria, Ukraine, Brazil, Moldova, and Malaysia, people are contesting criminalized government and impunity for public officials—sometimes violently. In more than half a dozen countries in 2015, populations took to the streets to protest corruption. In three of them, heads of state are either threatened or have had to resign. Elsewhere, the same grievances have contributed to the expansion of jihadist movements or criminal organizations posing as Robin Hoods. Russia and China’s external adventurism can at least partially be explained as an effort to re-channel their publics’ dissatisfaction with the quality of governance.

For the moment, it is largely Saudi Arabia’s Shia minority that is voicing political demands. But the highly educated Sunni majority, with unprecedented exposure to the outside world, is unlikely to stay satisfied forever with a few favors doled out by geriatric rulers impervious to their input. And then there are the “guest workers.” Saudi officials, like those in other Gulf states, seem to think they can exploit an infinite supply of indigents grateful to work, whatever the conditions. But citizens are now heavily outnumbered in their own countries by laborers who may soon begin claiming rights.

For decades, Riyadh has eased pressure by exporting its dissenters—like Osama bin Laden—fomenting extremism across the Muslim world. But that strategy can backfire: Bin Laden’s critique of Saudi corruption has been taken up by others, and it resonates among many Arabs. And King Salman (who is 80, by the way) does not display the dexterity of his half-brother Abdullah. He’s reached for some of the familiar items in the autocrats’ toolbox: executing dissidents, embarking on foreign wars, and whipping up sectarian rivalries to discredit the demands of Saudi Shiites and boost nationalist fervor. Each of these has grave risks.

The U.S. keeps getting caught flat-

footed when purportedly solid countries come apart.

There are a few ways things could go, as Salman’s brittle grip on power begins cracking.

One is a factional struggle within the royal family, with the price of allegiance bid up beyond anyone’s ability to pay in cash. Another is foreign war. With Saudi Arabia and Iran already confronting each other by proxy in Yemen and Syria, escalation is too easy. U.S. decision-makers should bear that danger in mind as they keep pressing for regional solutions to regional problems. A third scenario is insurrection—either a nonviolent uprising or a jihadi insurgency—a result all too predictable given episodes throughout the region in recent years.

The United States keeps getting caught off-guard when purportedly solid countries come apart. To do better this time, U.S. military and intelligence officials should at the very least, and immediately, run some rigorous planning exercises to test different scenarios and potential actions aimed at reducing codependence and mitigating risk. They should work hard to identify the most likely, and most dangerous, regional outcomes of a Saudi collapse—or the increasingly desperate efforts of its rulers to avoid one. And above all, they should abandon the automatic-pilot thinking that has been guiding U.S. policy to date.

“Hope is not a policy” is a hackneyed phrase. But choosing not to consider alternatives amounts to the same thing.

Sarah Chayes is the author of Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens National Security and Corruption in America—And What Is At Stake, forthcoming in August from Knopf.

Alex de Waal is the executive director of the World Peace Foundation and a research professor at Tuft University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

No Hunger Games in Gaza but real hunger: Oscars goodie bag offers trip to illegally occupied Palestinian territor

BY AHT STAFF

Sponsored by the ExploreIsrael travel company, a whitewashing trip sparks calls for Oscar nominees to reject "Israel propaganda".

“Mazel Tov on your Oscar nomination! ExploreIsrael.com would like to invite you and your plus-one on a 10-day all inclusive VIP trip to Israel. Including first class airfare, 5 star hotel, security detail, executive car service ... and all the falafel you can eat!”

So reads a voucher being offered to Oscar nominees in the best actor/actress, best supporting and director categories as part of the notorious Oscar goodie bags.

The inclusion of such a trip for Oscar elites is a transparent attempt by the Israeli government to sweeten the image of the country and sell Israel as a desert paradise, not a repressive colonial state.

Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967 and continues to build Jewish-only settlements while not only denying rights and basic resources to Palestinians, but actively attempting to push them from the land through home demolitions, confiscation of goods, no urban planning, few municipal services and arbitrary detention. It is an occupation and it must be said loud and clear.

In an 8 February press release from the Tourism Ministry, a statement from Levin reads:Israeli Tourism Minister Yariv Levin recognizes the impact of a Hollywood VIP trip on hearts and minds, especially as Israel increasingly looks like a pariah state.

"These are the most senior people in the film industry in Hollywood and leading opinion-formers who we are interested in hosting here in Israel so that they will experience the country first hand  and not through the media. If they do indeed accept the invitation, their visit will have enormous resonance among millions of fans and followers, including social media. The very fact that they are considering visiting Israel places the option in the public discourse in the social and professional circles in which the stars move."

Levin certainly doesn’t mention it by name, but it seems clear that Israel is feeling the hurt from a ten-year Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The hope that attendees will “experience the country first hand” instead of through the media suggests Israel is concerned about the bad press and negative attention it is receiving, just as Palestine is ascending to the global level. Recent developments include a Palestinian embassy in Brazil, the flying of a Palestinian flag outside the U.N. headquarters in New York, and the granting by the U.N. of Palestine as a non-member observer state.

The Palestinian Authority has also brought Israel up on war crime convictions in the international criminal court at the Hague, primarily for its 2014 assault on Gaza that left over 2,000 civilians dead.

Co-founder of the BDS movement Omar Barghouti wrote a scathing response to the Oscar’s decision to include the Israel trip in their goodie bags, and urged the celebrities to come out in support of the cultural boycott of Israel—just as Roger Waters, Elvis Costello and Lauryn Hill before them.

“There are no Hunger Games in Gaza but there is real hunger, and it is induced by years of Israeli occupation and siege. We hope Oscar nominees will take the moral path of rejecting this free propaganda gift from Capitol while its brutal troops and settlers burn and colonize our District 12,” Barghouti writes, referring to the popular Hollywood film the Hunger Games.

Later on, he elaborates on the Israeli campaign of facts-on-the-ground, which asserts Israeli dominion over Palestinian lands by putting Israelis in those places, thus making it harder to dispute Israeli sovereignty.

“The proposed tour sets out to create the impression that occupied East Jerusalem, including the Old City, is part of Israel despite the fact that the UN, including the US, recognizes it as occupied Palestinian territory. This comes at a time when Israel is accelerating its ethnic cleansing and killing of Palestinians in Jerusalem and entrenching its colonialism and apartheid policies,” adds Barghouti.

And a quick look on ExploreIsrael.com—the Brooklyn based travel company run by Orthodox Jews offering the Oscars gift—reveals the company to be working on the part of erasing Palestinian claims of ownership to the land.

For example in the “Lets explore!” section of its website, there is a listing for the City of David attraction complete with tagline “The Bible come to life.” The only problem is the City of David is a manufactured tourist attraction, based on a few First Temple artifacts, and built entirely within the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan.

The settler group Elad, with enormous outside financial backing as well as compliance of the Israeli Antiquities and Nature and Parks Authorities, has taken over hundreds of Palestinian homes for the development of their tourist attraction. Street signs, put up by the group, make no mention of the Palestinian neighborhoods, nor do they read in Arabic despite the fact that it is supposedly an official language of the state.

Elad uses archaeology, whether real or fabricated, to openly push out the Palestinian residents of Silwan. The Jerusalem municipality demolishes homes constantly and in an absurd but horrifyingly true turn of events, Elad was unable to push a single Palestinian family from the newly built, multi-million dollar City of David visitor center. So the family, in order to enter and exit their home, must walk through an attraction something like Disney World, past often violent settlers and ignorant tourists. Their mistake? Being Palestinian.

ExploreIsrael.com also lists a shooting range in the Jewish-only West Bank settlement of Gush Etzion as something to do while in Israel. No mention is made of the fact that the settlement is illegal under international law, or as Barghouti writes, both the U.N. and the U.S. recognize it as occupied Palestinian territory.

“If you don’t want to do hard core, anti-terror training, there is also paintball here,” the website reads.

Let’s hope the Oscar celebrities don’t like paintball.

 Hollywood

Takfiri preachers interpret Quran based on own interests

Takfiri preachers interpret Quran based on own interests
The Secretary-General of the World Union of Resistance Scholars, Shaykh Maher Hammoud, said that the Lebanese Takfiri preacher, Ahmad al-Assir, interprets verses of the Quran based on his own interests.

Shaykh Maher Hammoud likened Ahmad al-Assir to the ISIL Takfiri terrorists who interpret the Quran in the wrong way in order to serve their own agenda.

He said al-Assir has no understanding of true Islam and that the Takfiri preacher and his followers are ignorant about Islam.

Security forces in Lebanon on August 15 arrested al-Assir, a fugitive extremist figure who had been wanted for his role in fueling sectarian violence in the Arab country.

He was detained while trying to leave the country for Egypt in disguise.

A staunch supporter of the ISIL terrorist group, al-Assir had been on a wanted list since June 2013 after clashes between his Takfiri followers and the Lebanese army claimed the lives of 18 soldiers in the southern city of Sidon.

Following the deadly two-day clashes, Lebanese forces swarmed al-Assir’s headquarters, but he managed to get away along with several of his followers.

The Imam’s ijtihad on the Islamic state

'The Imam’s great contribution was that he moved beyond the traditional Shi‘i political thought to urge establishment of the Islamic government even in the absence of the Twelfth Imam. This was revolutionary at several levels, the most important of which was that it went against 1,300 years of Shi‘i theology.' by Tahir Mustafa

As Muslims worldwide commemorate the late Imam’s 27th anniversary, we reflect on some of his greatest achievements, among them his ijtihad on Islamic government. The late Imam Khomeini, whose 27th anniversary will be commemorated on June 3 with ceremonies in many parts of the world, was a towering personality of the last century. It would be no exaggeration to say that he had the most profound impact on global politics by bringing about a revolution that was completely Islamic in nature. In fact, almost every event since February 1979 when the Islamic Revolution achieved total victory over the forces of darkness and oppression led by the Shah of Iran, can be traced to the movement led by the late Imam. Equally remarkable is the fact that the Imam was at the advanced age of 77 when he led the Islamic movement in Iran to victory. The late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui — a great admirer and supporter of the Imam — described the Islamic Revolution as that point in the struggle of the Islamic movement when it completely overwhelms the forces of oppression, demolishing the old order to usher in a new order based on the teachings of Islam. This is what occurred in Iran after a year of relentless struggle in which an estimated 80,000 people were martyred. Unlike other revolutions, the Islamic Revolution in Iran was completely peaceful in the sense that no violence was resorted to for the overthrow of the old order. The Western-backed established order was the one that used excessive force to crush the people’s aspirations for change. It needs emphasizing that despite appeals by his supporters to either use force against the Shah’s soldiers or compromise with him, the Imam stood firm. He had unshakable faith in Allah (swt) and was confident that ultimately the committed Muslims will triumph. It needs recalling that unlike revolutions in other places like Russia or China, the Islamic Revolution in Iran did not come about when the old order had been weakened by wars or internal turmoil. The Shah’s regime was seen as one of the strongest bastions of Western imperial domination. Only a few months prior to the start of the Islamic Revolution, then US President Jimmy Carter had described Iran under the Shah (November 1977) as an “island of stability” in a sea of turbulence. The Islamic revolutionary tide swept the so-called island of stability into the dustbin of history. It did more: the Islamic Revolution irrevocably changed the global political landscape. Those willing to remove their sectarian blinkers would be able to see that despite decades of illegal sanctions, the Islamic Republic of Iran is the only country in the region — indeed one might venture to add, the whole world — that is truly independent and has gained strength and influence. This also explains the imperialists and Zionists’ relentless and vicious propaganda against the Islamic Republic. American exceptionalists may take issue with the claim about Iran being the only truly independent country but they should note that the US is virtually a Zionist colony. Numerous American academics have expressed concern about this reality. The Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei drew attention to the imperialists’ enmity toward Iran in his address at the commencement ceremony for graduates at Imam Husayn Military Academy in Tehran on May 23. “The main cause of all these enmities and fabrication of pretexts is [Iran’s] defiance of istikbar [a Qur’anic term used for arrogant and hegemonic powers],” the Rahbar said. It must be noted that unlike any other Muslim leaders, the Rahbar often uses Qur’anic terms and references to explain global reality. This is the hallmark of a true Islamic personality that is grounded in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). It also highlights the fact that the Rahbar is a faithful student of the late Imam Khomeini who was deeply spiritual and surrendered totally to Allah (swt). The imperialists and Zionists and their regional puppets, like the Najdi Bedouins cut from the same cloth as the Shah of Iran, have also come out openly against the Islamic Republic. They allege that by strengthening its defences such as building an indigenous missile program, Iran is destabilizing the region. They also falsely accuse Tehran of having a military nuclear program when in fact, its nuclear portfolio is completely peaceful and within its right. Most of the accusers — the US, Zionist Israel et al. — are themselves nuclear powers yet they shamelessly hurl allegations against Iran. “Were the Iranian people ready to surrender, they [the arrogant powers] would have glossed over [Iran’s] missile development and nuclear energy and they would have made no mention of human rights,” said the Rahbar. He said US officials have admitted that Iran’s refusal to submit to bullying tactics by the arrogant powers is due to its firm adherence to Islamic ideology. The Rahbar then reiterated that “steadfastness,” “defiance of the enemy,” and “safeguarding the revolutionary and Islamic identity” are the main factors of the strength of the Islamic establishment and the Iranian people. The strength and power of the Islamic Republic emanate directly from its adherence to Islamic principles. The Islamic system of governance established by the late Imam Khomeini after the victory of the Islamic Revolution is what gives strength and power to the valiant people of Iran. It is also Islam that enables them to make great sacrifices. Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the affairs of the Muslim East (aka the Middle East) would see that there is utter chaos and confusion in many countries. Islamic Iran is the only stable country that has weathered all the challenges — internal sabotage, external invasion and sanctions — and come out stronger. While not educated in the West and having had little contact with it, the late Imam Khomeini fully understood the injustices inherent in the Western system. This has come to be acknowledged by many fair-minded Western writers as well. We witness this for instance in the manner in which Senator Bernie Sanders has come out against the corrupt system in the US. Similarly, the British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has also exposed the injustices inherent in the British system and policies. If Muslims want to rid themselves of this unjust imposed system, why should that be such a bad idea?

The Imam showed great wisdom in understanding the imposed global order. His solution was to mobilize the Muslim masses of Iran to rise up against this corrupt order so that at least one part of the Ummah — in Iran — would become truly independent, live according to Islamic principles and be a model for other Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Since 1979, Islamic Iran has tried to present this model in the most difficult circumstances. Since the abolition of the khilafah — although it had been reduced to a mere shell by the time Mustafa Kemal delivered the final blow in 1924 replacing it with a secular system in Turkey — Muslims have been struggling to re-establish the Islamic system of government. Attempts in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna through al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon (Muslim Brotherhood — MB), and by Maulana Abu al-‘Ala Maududi who established the Jamaat-e Islami in hopes of ushering the Islamic State have not yielded the desired results. Only Imam Khomeini succeeded in establishing the Islamic order in society. Even in Iran, prior to the Imam’s movement, there were several other uprisings especially against British interference culminating in the Constitutional movement of 1905–1907 as well as the uprising against the Shah in 1951–1953. Those movements, however, suffered from the weakness that the ‘ulama had not made the ideological leap to establish the Islamic state in the absence of the Twelfth Imam. Their struggle was largely confined to addressing specific issues without addressing the fundamental need to overthrow the illegitimate Western-backed monarchy to establish the Islamic state. The Imam’s great contribution was that he moved beyond the traditional Shi‘i political thought to urge establishment of the Islamic government even in the absence of the Twelfth Imam. This was revolutionary at several levels, the most important of which was that it went against 1,300 years of Shi‘i theology. Not surprisingly, the traditional Shi‘i ‘ulama in Najaf (where the Imam was living in exile) did not view his ijtihad on political thought and the Islamic state with favor. In fact, many of them actively opposed it (there is still opposition to the Imam’s ijtihad in some traditional Shi‘i circles). It was the body of younger ‘ulama as well as the masses in Iran that responded to the Imam’s call. One of the Imam’s remarkable qualities was that he reached out to ‘ulama of all schools of thought — Sunni and Shi‘i — and encouraged them to struggle for truth and justice. This is the hallmark of a great Islamic scholar. Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the people of Iran have paid a huge price in life and blood but they have withstood all pressures, both internal and external. While it was expected that imperialists and Zionists would spare no effort to undermine the Islamic Republic because it challenged the colonial imposed order, what is revealing is that the success of the Islamic Revolution also exposed the puppet regimes in the Muslim world. Their hatred of the Islamic Republic is now visible even if initially they were able to camouflage their hatred in sophistry. The Najdi Bedouins’ vicious propaganda against Islamic Iran is ample proof of their hatred of Islam. They have by their own conduct also exposed themselves as agents of imperialism and Zionism. As part of their propaganda, the proxy regimes in Muslim countries that are subservient to imperialism and Zionism have branded the Islamic Revolution as “Shi‘i.” This is meant to detach the “Sunni” majority in the Muslim world from the Islamic Revolution but they have failed to offer a “Sunni” alternative. The “Shi‘i” label is meant to play on the sectarianism of ill-informed Muslims. If the Da‘ish takfiri model of an “Islamic” state is all that these so-called “Sunni” regimes can offer then the Muslim world faces a very serious problem. In the context of the Islamic Revolution, Muslims must keep in mind the ayah of the noble Qur’an in which Allah (swt) warns Muslims during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), “…And if you turn away [from Allah], He will cause other people to take your place and they will not be the likes of you” (47:38). In his explanation, Ibn Kathir narrates that the companions of the Messenger (pbuh) were surprised to hear this ayah and asked him who these people were that would replace them (the Arabs)? The noble Messenger (pbuh) put his hand on the shoulder of Salman al-Farsi (ra) standing beside him and said, they will belong to his people. It must be noted that Ibn Kathir is considered one of the more conservative mufassirs of the Qur’an. As the Arabians have abandoned Allah’s (swt) din, the progeny of Salman al-Farsi (ra) have grasped the message of the noble Qur’an and are trying to implement it in their lives. The Islamic Revolution brought about by Imam Khomeini is the fulfillment of the Qur’anic ayah and the explanation offered by the noble Messenger (pbuh). No amount of hateful propaganda can detract from this fact. Pull quote: The Imam’s great contribution was that he moved beyond the traditional Shi‘i political thought to urge establishment of the Islamic government even in the absence of the Twelfth Imam. This was revolutionary at several levels, the most important of which was that it went against 1,300 years of Shi‘i theology.

The spread of Wahhabism, and the West’s responsibility to the world

In 2013, the European Union declared Wahhabism the main source of global terrorism. But it's not just a “Middle East problem”; it is our problem, too.

BY KAREN ARMSTRONG

 

François Hollande’s declaration of war against Isis (also known as Islamic State) was, perhaps, a natural reaction to the carnage in Paris but the situation is now so grave that we cannot merely react; we also need sustained, informed and objective reflection. The French president has unwittingly played into the hands of Isis leaders, who have long claimed to be at war with the West and can now present themselves as noble ­resistance fighters. Instead of bombing Isis targets and, in the process, killing hapless civilians, western forces could more profitably strengthen the Turkish borders with Syria, since Turkey has become by far the most important strategic base of Isis jihadis.

We cannot afford to allow our grief and outrage to segue into self-righteousness. This is not just the “Middle East problem”; it is our problem, too. Our colonial arrangements, the inherent instability of the states we created and our support of authoritarian leaders have all contributed to the terrifying disintegration of social order in the region today. Many of the western leaders (including our own Prime Minister) who marched for liberté in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacre were heads of countries that, for decades, have backed regimes in Muslim-majority countries that denied their subjects any freedom of expression – often with disastrous results.

One of these regimes is Saudi Arabia. Despite its dismal human rights record, the kingdom has been central to western foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1970s and western governments have therefore tacitly condoned its “Wahhabisation” of the Muslim world. Wahhabism originated in the Arabian peninsula during the 18th century as an attempt to return to the pristine Islam of the Prophet Muhammad. Hence, Wahhabis came to denounce all later developments – such as Sufism and Shia Islam – as heretical innovations.

Yet this represented a radical departure from the Quran, which insists emphatically that there must be “no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256) and that religious pluralism is God’s will (5:48). After the Iranian Revolution, the Saudis used their immense wealth to counter the power of Shia Islam by funding the building of mosques with Wahhabi preachers and establishing madrasas that provided free education to the poor. Thus, to the intense dismay of many in the Muslim world, an entire generation has grown up with this maverick form of Islam – in Europe and the US, as well as in Pakistan, Jordan and Malaysia.

In 2013, the European Union declared that Wahhabism was the main source of global terrorism. It is probably more accurate, however, to say that the narrowness of the Wahhabi vision is a fertile soil in which extremism can flourish. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Wahhabi chieftains did indeed conduct violent military expeditions against the Shia but, during the 1930s, the Saudi kingdom abandoned military jihad and Wahhabism became a religiously conservative movement. Today, some members of the Saudi ruling class support Isis but the Grand Mufti has condemned it in the strongest terms. Like Osama Bin Laden, Isis leaders aim to overthrow the Saudi regime and see their movement as a rebellion against modern Wahhabism.

Military action in Syria will not extirpate Islamist extremism elsewhere. In order to be fully successful, President Hollande’s campaign must also include a review of domestic policy. France has signally failed to integrate its Muslim population. Most of the terrorists responsible for the atrocities of 13 November appear to have been disaffected French nationals. So, too, were the Kouachi brothers, who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and Amedy Coulibaly, who hijacked the Jewish supermarket in January. All three lived in notoriously deprived suburbs of Paris and – evoking France’s colonial past – were of Algerian and Malian descent. Psychiatrists who have investigated people involved in the 9/11 plot and in subsequent attacks have found that these terrorists were not chiefly motivated by religion. Far more pressing has been the desire to escape a ­stifling sense of insignificance. Powerless at home, many of them alienated by the host culture, young Muslim men in the West are attracted by the strong masculine figure of the jihadi and the prospect of living in a like-minded community, convinced that a heroic death will give their lives meaning. 

As they debate the feasibility of British air strikes in Syria, some MPs have insisted that they must be accompanied by negotiation and diplomacy. Again, these cannot be conducted in a spirit of superior righteousness. There must be a recognition that the West is not the only victim of Muslim extremism. We seem curiously blind to this. Far more Muslims than non-Muslims have been killed by Isis, yet this is rarely mentioned. Two weeks before the Charlie Hebdo atrocities in January, the Taliban murdered 145 Pakistanis, most of them children; two days after it, Boko Haram slaughtered as many as 2,000 villagers in Nigeria. Yet, compared with the Paris attack, the media coverage in the West was perfunctory. There has been little acknowledgment that the refugees whom many would seek to exclude from Europe have experienced the horrors we saw in Paris on a regular basis in Syria or Iraq. Already we seem to have forgotten that more than 40 people in Beirut were killed by two Isis suicide bombers on 12 November.