Showing posts with label Catherine Shakdam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catherine Shakdam. Show all posts

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Yemen’s Muslim Brotherhood Remains the Biggest Obstacle Towards Peace


YEM2344


The elephant in the room that no one wishes to directly address Yemen’s Muslim Brotherhood, also known as Al Islah party has become the single biggest impediment to peace. Unlike many of its political counterparts who remain willing to compromise to see an end to the violence and bloodshed, the Brotherhood has adopted a contrarian attitude, choosing instead to pursue socio-political hegemony by actively foiling peace negotiations, promoting divisions and sectarianism while carrying out acts of senseless violence against civilians to better play into the anti-Saudi narrative within Yemen proper.

And though no one is under any impression that Yemen’s war has not been the scene of atrocious abuses by all warring factions – each caught in the rationale of their own respective ‘legitimacy’, Al Islah proved to be rather radically odious and callous in how it has inflicted pain onto Yemen … all in the name of political survival and a heightened sense of entitlement.

Very much the poisoned well many came to drink to in view of leveraging their position, Al Islah has plotted against Yemen so that its men could eventually rise themselves to the very height of power and claim the very seat which for decades has eluded them – the presidency it needs to be said is Al Islah’s end-game. Or rather the platform upon which its ‘practitioners’ intend to use to mould Yemen to their image: one of radicalism, bigotry, misogyny, and socio-economic nihilism.

A remnant of the former regime’s political, social, and religious hierarchy, Al Islah has already proven it is willing to sacrifice however many men, women and children is required to see manifest its ambitions. In Taiz such rationale has manifested in Al Islah’s unholy alliance with Al Qaeda and many of its offshoots, all the while utilising its contacts to both Ansarallah and President Abdel Rabbo Mansour Hadi’ supporters to prevent the formulation of any resolution to the overdrawn military stand-off.

A former stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood the city of Taiz has long become centrestage to a destructive powere struggle in between the many factions which laid claims on Yemen. As war has ravaged the impoverished nation the southern city of Taiz has become somewhat of a perfect representation of the complexity of Yemen’s war. At the heart of it all is Al Islah – a dangerous power-broker with links to Terror and a well-documented propensity to play out those connections to better arm wrestle officials into complying with their wishes.

Let us not forget that Sheikh Abdel Majeed Al Zindani, who, since 2004 has been listed by the United States as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist”, still accounts among Al Islah’s most senior leaders.

Made strong by the chaos which war created, Al Islah has oftentimes, since late March 2015, flaunted its ties to Al Qaeda, mainly on social media, but somehow few ever clued up to the ramifications of such an admission of collusion in narrative and politics … not even Hadi felt he ought to create distance.

For a lack of support within Yemen, Hadi has often turned and leaned on Al Islah to prop up his fading base and thus hold on to the title he well knows is as hollow as his claim of return to the presidential helm.

The Muslim Brotherhood first emerged in Yemen in the 1960s and 1970s, when UN-sanctioned Abdel Majeed al-Zindani – the founder of the Brotherhood’s branch in Yemen -led a group of clerics to establish a religious schooling system in northern Yemen. When Yemen united in 1990 the group then decided to reinvented itself a coalition by opening its ranks to like-minded individuals, all seating on different places within the spectrum of religious radicalism. Saudi Arabia designated Al Islah as a terrorist organization in 2014.

The risk today is that the Brotherhood through its medium: Al Islah will attempt a re-enactment of the 1980s Jihadist movement which eventually led to the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the subsequent rise of the Taliban.

By limiting our analyses to the actions of Saudi Arabia’s war coalition, Ansarallah and to some extent the Southern Transition Council we are truly closing our eyes to the very serpent which patiently awaits to strike.

For the beant chasm laid out in between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis both parties remain committed to brokering an acceptable peace. The same cannot be said of the Muslim Brotherhood since the faction’s very existence is articulated around the formulation of an enemy and the need to wage war against that enemy – might it within or without.

Today the Brotherhood is playing the populist card, hiding itself behind a convenient narrative of false morality, nationalism, and calls for reparation in the face of disturbingly rampant human rights violations.

Tawakkul Karman, a long-time member and poster child of the Brotherhood has often used her fame to argue against any and all rapprochement between warring factions on the basis, she claims, their will is not that of the ‘people’.

A well-oiled dogmatic machine the Brotherhood should not be discounted … as often in times of great unrest it those who can best hold on to order and efficiency who will ultimately seize power.

Yemen’s Muslim Brotherhood exists today in political suspension as it awaits to see what fate will strike its opponents. To look away now would be to condemn Yemen to the fate which befell Afghanistan … hopefully this time around we will learn from History and not allow for another pocket of radicalism to claim territories to its name.

Catherine Shakdam is a research fellow at the Al Bayan Centre for Planning & Studies and a political analyst specializing in radical movements. She is the author of A Tale of Grand Resistance: Yemen, the Wahhabi and the House of Saud. She writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Sunday, February 17, 2019

US silent as 7-year-old boy brutally murdered by Saudis

Catherine Shakdam
When will Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism be called to account for its human rights abuses? This question is posed by UK-based journalist Catherine Shakdam in her article for Citizens for Truth, titled: “US silent as 7-year-old boy brutally murdered by Saudis”.
Recently in his State of the Union speech, US President Donald Trump referred to terrorism and its ideologues by unjustly pointing a politically charged finger at Iran, despite the fact that it is Saudi Arabia which is systematically pushing the envelope of all things perverse.
If the US wishes to hate Iran by virtue of its political and institutional choices, one cannot stop Washington from doing so, but then let us be honest about where the contention lies.
It is an undeniable fact that Saudi Arabia’s policy methodical exportation of terrorism.
Iran did not write the handbook on terrorism, Saudi Arabia did, quite literally actually if we consider that since the mid-Seventies Riyadh has spent billions of dollars per year in promoting its heretical views, known as Wahhabism, by vomiting pages of sectarianism and grand calls for genocide across our academic institutions and various other platforms: mosques, Islamic centers, charitable organizations, etc.
A report by the Henry Jackson Society in 2017 established that “Saudi Arabia has, since the 1960s, sponsored a multi-million dollar effort to export Wahhabism across the Islamic world, including to Muslim communities in the west…. In the UK this funding has primarily taken the form of endowments to mosques and Islamic educational institutions, which have in turn played host to extremist preachers and the distribution of extremist literature. And influence has also been exerted through the training of British Muslim religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in a number of the UK’s independent Islamic schools.”
As Hassan Minhaj, the now famous stand-up comedian so eloquently put it during his show, Patriot Act, “Saudi Arabia is basically the boy band manager of 9/11/2001. They didn’t write the songs, but they helped get the group together.”
I would argue that by virtue of its cult, that is, Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia most definitely helped compose the symphonies terrorism’s militants are so fervently playing out against their designated enemies; that would be all of us, by the way.
Wahhabism exists in the rejection of the proverbial ‘“others,” those Muslims it feels it must annihilate to better profess its devotion to the cult’s teachings.
If I’d dare, I would say, and this is to put it mildly, Wahhabism serves as proof that evolution missed a few bad genetic mutations along the way. Wahhabism belongs to the darkest pages of our history, alongside the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.
Our collective silence and our state officials’ unwillingness to clearly articulate the dangers Saudi Arabia’s fascist worldview poses has emboldened its zealots to the extent they now feel compelled to commit acts of religious genocide in plain sight.
A seven-year-old child was brutally beheaded in Medina the week of January 27 because he was a Shia Muslim, or follower of the school of jurisprudence of the Prophet of Islam’s Ahl al-Bayt or Blessed Household that heretical Saudi Arabia has labeled an act of apostasy, a crime punishable by death.
In the streets of Saudi Arabia, a heretical Wahhabi cab driver branded the boy Zakaryia Bader al- Jaber and his mother as infidels and mutilated and killed the innocent boy. Witnesses to the crimes recalled how the man broke the window of his car before grabbing the boy by the back of his shirt to then drive shards of glass through his neck to decapitate him.
If not for the cries of outrage of rights activists across social media, demanding for media silence to be broken, it is unlikely any of us would have ever heard of such an abominable crime.
An apologist for the Saudi media labeled the cab driver a madman, but the issue is not one of mental illness but rather one of hyper and unfettered Wahhabist heresy. Saudi Arabia has bred itself into a cultish frenzy in order to shed the blood of the innocents – as happened on a mass scale in Syria and Iraq.
Zakaryia is but one victim among many. Truth be told, the Wahhabi heretics have been at war with most Muslims, especially the followers of the Prophet’s Ahl al-Bayt for decades if not centuries.
Saudi Arabia’s education system encourages children to hate all non-Wahhabis, most of all Sh’ia Muslims.
In a study published by the Institute for Persian Gulf Affairs, Bayan Perazzo writes, “The general contempt of Shi’a Muslims in Saudi Arabia is by no means a hidden phenomenon. Religious publications under the regime, school materials, and many of the Saudi court clerics are very brazen about their disdain for Shi’as.”
In a damning report against Saudi Arabia in 2017, Human Rights Watch slammed Riyadh for its systematic denigration of Shi’a Muslims by its clergy and the ruling Wahhabi minority, stressing that such actions were not only discriminatory but hateful. It noted: “Government religious clerics often refer to Shi’a Muslims using derogatory terms such as rafedha or rawafedh, meaning “rejectionists,” and stigmatize their Islamic beliefs and practices.
In view of these facts, how much more are the Americans willing to tolerate from their so-called strategic ally?
An innocent child lies dead, for the simple reason that his mother recited the salawaat or standard form of salutation for the Prophet of Islam and his blessed progeny!
For him there will be no widespread outrage and no words of comfort will be offered to his grieving family for in Saudi Arabia to hail of another faith is to forfeit one’s right to breathe freely. On those truths American officials have seldom commented. And indeed, how does one justify the brutal murder of the innocent, or is it what we call strategic thinking these days?
A 7-year old Shi’a Muslim boy was brutally slaughtered in-front of his mother in the holy city of Medina in the shadows of the sacred shrine of Prophet Mohammad (blessings of God upon him and his progeny).
Where is the media outcry? Why was he killed? The authorities must answer and investigate
The gruesome video scene resembles murder in Karbala of the 6-month infant Ali Asghar while in the arms of his father Imam Hussain (AS) by the heartless infidel Hormala ibn Kahel. Abdullah.
My guess is that the murderer will get away with his crime as I guess is the case with the other crimes committed in Saudi Arabia against Muslims, especially the Shi’a. Until when is Washington prepared to witness such crimes and continuously trades with this brutal regime?

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

West Cannot Support Further Bloodshed in Yemen: UK Analyst

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A political analyst and author based in London highlighted reasons behind the West’s recent pressures on Riyadh to end the protracted war on Yemen, saying the Western community cannot support further bloodshed in the Arabian Peninsula country.

West Cannot Support Further Bloodshed in Yemen: UK Analyst


“The Western community is reaching a point where it no longer wishes to entertain Saudi Arabia’s violence in Yemen and so the pressure has been exerted against the kingdom,” Director of Programs at Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies Catherine Shakdam said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

“This is not to say that the Western community feels in any way, shape, or form different vis-a-vis Yemen - only that it cannot support further bloodshed,” she said, adding, “More importantly, there is a real fear that further violence will generate a fall of dominoes in the region that no Western power is willing to take a chance on.”
Shakdam is an expert commentator and political consultant. Her writings have appeared in Foreign Policy Association and the Guardian among many other media outlets. Catherine is also the co-founder of Veritas Consulting.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim: As you know, the Saudi-led coalition has intensified attacks on Yemen. At least 149 people, including seven civilians, were killed in one of the latest clashes between Yemeni troops and Saudi-backed mercenaries in the western port city of Hudaydah, according to medics and military sources. What is the main reason behind the increased Saudi attacks on Hudaydah? Is it trying to gain some leverage at the negotiating table?
Shakdam: Quite simply to spend the Yemeni Resistance movement’s military capacity so that when a ceasefire is brokered by the Western community, no factions will be able to offer any opposition. Yemen’s ability to fight back and rebuke the Saudi-led coalition’s advances has so far enabled Yemen to retain a sit at the negotiating table. More importantly it has guaranteed Yemen’s political independence.
The Western community is reaching a point where it no longer wishes to entertain Saudi Arabia’s violence in Yemen and so pressure has been exerted against the kingdom. This is not to say that the Western community feels in any way, shape, or form different vis-a-vis Yemen - only that it cannot support further bloodshed.
More importantly there is a real fear that further violence will generate a fall of dominoes in the region that no Western power is willing to take a chance on. With the (P)GCC more or less on shaky ground and a shift in geopolitical alliances, Yemen’s war need to end fast.
But if Yemen’s war is likely to end soon, we need to be very prudent about what it actually means for Yemen. Hudaydah was turned into a graveyard to disappear the Resistance and ultimately limit its reach in post-war Yemen, while other factions - more in tune with Western capitals and Saudi Arabia will benefit from a fresh injection of money and weapons to defend their political positions and claims.
If anything I would say that we are entering the most dangerous and crucial stage of the war in that the Resistance Movement will need to negotiate a clever transition to consolidate its position and relevance as part of Yemen’s political makeup. Abominable war crimes continue to be committed against Yemenis and on that little still is being said. Ultimately, this conflict is bearing heaviest on civilians and until their voices are heard, until all abuses are held into account, I don’t think we will see any real resolution in Yemen.
Yemen’s war continues to be one-sided … with Saudi Arabia raining death on Yemen and Yemen resisting such aggression. There is such an imbalance of power that we cannot really translate Yemen’s conflict into traditional military terms - it resembles more a genocide than a military operation per se.
Tasnim: According to some political experts, the murder of Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi, along with sharply deteriorating humanitarian conditions and growing media attention paid to the war in Yemen, has led to increased pressure on Saudi Arabia to end the war. Recently, Germany urged other European Union member states to follow its example in stopping arms exports to Saudi Arabia. What is your assessment of the international pressures and their influence on the protracted war in Yemen and how do you predict the future of the conflicts?
Shakdam: While we should welcome Western capitals’ newfound criticism vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia we must realize that it has more to do with the fact that the kingdom went too far in its illegality and not so much its taste for blood and criminality. Saudi Arabia made the mistake of targeting a member of the elite - someone who had deep connections and held therefore much influence. It is not the death of one journalist that bothered the West, but that of a member of its ‘establishment’.
I’d like to remind readers that Khashoggi was not a journalist … he was a former intelligence official with very many powerful friendships.
What we are seeing right now is a realization that Saudi Arabia has become a rogue state requiring some reining in. I would compare the situation today with that of Saddam Hussein back in the 1990s when he fell in disfavor with his Western patrons.
Saudi Arabia has committed many grave crimes across the decades and Khashoggi’s murder is hardly the worst offense. And so we must understand that this sudden change has little to do with human rights, freedom of expression or even criminality per se, but concerns that Riyadh is no longer playing by the rules of the game.
Yemen has bled since March 2015 … are we to believe that now Western capitals are waking up to the massacre their weapons have enabled? I very much doubt it.
Tasnim: Some Western countries that claim to be champions of human rights are pursuing double-standard policies on Saudi Arabia's atrocities. What do you think about the roles of Washington and London in the Riyadh regime’s heinous crimes against Yemen?
Shakdam: Absolutely! We are witnessing a clear case of moral relativism, whereas the West is choosing to ignore crimes and abuses on account they are taking place far away from their borders.
It is not much that we have double-standards … we simply have disdain for people and people’s lives on account of geography. There is no equality before the law, no real sense of commonality and equality in our humanity. The real tragedy lies in the promotion of such ethnocentrism and the enshrined belief that might is right. Today, nations’ rights are defined by the hurt they can exact on others. How many countries can claim to stand on human rights issues on principle? Certainly not the United States …
As far as guilt goes of course both London and Washington share in Yemen’s bloodshed. Let us remember that their experts sit in Riyadh’s war rooms. It is not just weapons they are selling to Saudi Arabia but intelligence and military expertise as well. Guilt is in fact running deep.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Who’s Terrorism? The Politics of Terror and Those Terrorists We Label Friends

By Catherine Shakdam



Although ‘terrorism’ has become a term our media, state officials, and politicians have grown accustomed to throw around – an expression, more often than not, of their respective world views, the word has yet to be defined objectively, and more to the point under terms the international community as a whole could get behind.
Terrorism, because of its intrinsec subjective nature sits today a euphemism for political coercion – the covert expression of political thoughts, powers seek to impose through violence and bloodshed while arguing impunity. A political label used to single out those deemed unfit, unworthy, or altogether unwelcomed, the word terrorism has been often grossly misused to reflect opinions as opposed to facts.
Just as beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, terrorism is tied up to one’s subjectivity and political interests.
Admitting to such impartiality in judging what constitutes terrorism, or rather, what makes a group a terrorist entity, does not take away from its nature. Terrorism exists outside moral and ethic. It stands in a space of rationalised violence and crimes to serve hegemonic ambitions. Whomever wields it, stands indeed guilty – particularly those hands which, from behind convenient curtains play patrons to Terror.
The real issue lies not so much in the existence of terrorism – like war, it is a reality the world has had to contend with for as long as memory stretches, but in our inability to recognise Terror for what it is at its core today: a global political tool of oppression, a mean to distort truths, and a weapon used to malign designated enemies by rallying public opinion against them.
Professor Jonathan Matusitz from the Nicholson School of Communication in the United States defines terrorism as follow:
  • It serves ideological or social objectives.
  • It can be committed by governments, non-state actors, or undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments.
  • It reaches more than the immediate target victims and is also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society.
  • It is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).
There are many reasons as to why there is no universal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Angus Martyn in a briefing paper for the Australian Parliament has stated that “The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.”
These divergences have made it impossible to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.
This of course has not hindered political powers from actively and vehemently using the term to justify their aggression against certain groups or nations, and of course rationalise their ideology under the premise that they seek to ‘protect’ communities from the ruthlessness of terrorism.
If the word terrorism lacks consensus in its definition, all agree that it remains a violent expression of one’s socio-political or religious thought. One may consider adding: “against the legitimate expression of a nation’s sovereignty, or a group/community’s independence of thought and/or religion.”
While most decry terrorism, few have had the courage to denounce its real expressions – self-interests, and political opportunism have vastly contributed to such reality. Terrorism for the most part has become self-serving since directed to serve geopolitical ambitions, as opposed to denouncing the crimes it has sowed, and identifying its architects.
The case of the MKO serves a perfect example of such manipulation.
Founded in 1965 as a left-wing Muslim group the Mujahideen-e Khalq, also known as the MKO, MEK or PMOI, the group initially landed its support to Iran’s Islamic revolutionary movement to see the regime of the Shah topple. While the group initially endorsed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s rule in 1979, it soon retracted after its attempt to grab power was vexed.
The nature of the group would then become defined by its willingness to shed blood – to such an extent that its very existence has been tied to its ability to wield violence as a justifiable political argument.
Having admitted to countless assassinations and other acts of violence against Iran and Iranians, the MKO’s propensity to wield Terror to advance its political agenda has been not only excused, but often rationalised on account its terrorism targets Iran, and Iran’s system of governance.
Such determination to see Iran fall has put the MKO on par with Western powers.
In an article published in CounterPunch, Robert Fantina summarises the paradox of world politics in its approach of terrorism most eloquently. He writes: “The MKO was once listed by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, but that designation was removed in 2012. This was a puzzling move when looked at on the surface. According to one report, by early 2016, “…out of the nearly 17,000 Iranians killed in terrorist assaults since the victory of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, about 12,000 had fallen victim to MKO’s terrorist attacks.” Some estimates put that number, and the number of MKO victims, much higher. Should an organization that has killed this many people in one country through terrorist activities not be designated a terrorist organization?”
Protected, funded, and hailed a ‘reasonable’ alternative to Iran’s Islamic Republic, the MKO sits comfortably in Paris, the French capital – a new ally to Western capitals’ hunger for regime change in those regions they seek control over.
The MKO is objectively a terrorist organisation. If anything, by the very tools it has used to exert pressure onto Iran’s sovereignty.
Regardless of what governments, and more to the point: western governments may think of Iran’s politics, one should remember that Iran, as an independent and sovereign nation is as much entitled to its views and fashion of governance than any other nation, and that as such, any and all attacks against its integrity fall within the definition of terrorism.
Acts of terrorism cannot exist in convenient political vacuums – we ought to be systematic in our condemnation and honest in our assessments.
The MKO has been used as a convenient platform to front revolting and criminal policies on account its target: Iran, has been declared fair game by the likes of the United States and its allies. In 2006, Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief spoke at a MKO conference, clearly signaling that the organisation had now powerful patrons and supporters to its cause.
report published by the RAND Corporation, clearly exposes Washington’s ‘complacency’ towards the MKO as it offered the terror group both financial and political protection while it remained in Iraq so that it could stage attacks against neighboring Iran.
The RAND report noted that from the early weeks of the 2003 invasion of Iraq until January 2009, US forces detained and provided security to MKO terrorists to prevent the Iraqi government from expelling them to Iran.
“Among many resulting complications, this policy conundrum has made the United States vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy in the war on terrorism,” the report read.
It also noted that Washington accepted the MKO’s request for a ceasefire and designated its members as civilian “protected persons” under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
“It has proven to be extremely controversial because it appeared that the United States selectively chose to apply the Geneva Conventions to a designated terrorist organization and, further, to grant it a special status,” it added.
Terrorism we may learn remains for it has become a convenient asymmetrical weapon of war, more so in the hands of those who claim to stand for Democracy and Freedom.
Catherine Shakdam is the Director of Programs of the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies and a political analyst specializing in radical movements, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Friday, April 07, 2017

Saudi Arabia Wants to Disappear History and Deny Religious Pluralism




It is with utmost concern that the Baqee Organization learnt of Saudi Arabia’s plans against its own Shia Muslim community as it is preparing to demolish yet another religious historic site in the name of absolutism and intolerance.

Janat ul Baqee ceb97

“We worry the kingdom will desecrate further holy sites and historical relics just as the forefathers of Wahhabism did when they laid waste to the Baqee cemetery in the holy city of Medinah.”

While such developments will likely be lost in the deluge of violence and recent calls for war that have inundated all of our TV screens, the Baqee Organizationmust stress on the links that exist in between Terror, Extremism, and the need to safeguard our historical religious heritage.
Should we allow for regimes such as that of Saudi Arabia to disappear our historical treasures for they speak of a belief system Wahhabism rejects, we stand to lose ourselves all completely to the demons of violent absolutism.
Religious freedom cannot be separated from our right to experience History. The day we fail to recognise that our very sense of self is tied to those memories, those traditions expressed in arts and in stones we stand to lose ourselves altogether.
Our humanity is multitude and should be preserved as such.
The Baqee Organization calls now for the United Nations and all state actors to intervene in preventing yet another crime against History to be carried out.
The region has lost too much of its religious history already for any of us to stand to lose more.
Saudi Arabia’s propensity to wield its axe against those treasures it views as lesser is troubling since it denotes of a genocidal streak.
If we bear in mind that few today can remember of the thriving Christian community of Najran south-west of Saudi Arabia - formerly known as the Hijaz, we may want to reconsider our cavalier position towards those sites that still exist.
Our future, and our very ability to oppose Terror will very much depends on our resolve against Saudi Arabia’s religious intolerance.
UN rapporteurs have urged Saudi Arabia to immediately halt a planned demolition of an entire 400-year-old neighborhood inhabited by the kingdom’s Shia Muslim minority.  
The UN experts warned that the so-called development plan for the historic neighborhood of al-Masora in the village of Awamia in the eastern province of Qatif threatens the historical and cultural heritage of the area with irreparable harm.
They said such a move would lead to forced eviction of 2,000 to 3,000 people from their businesses and residences. 
“The area is of importance not only to local people and the entire cultural landscape of Awamia, but also has national significance for the history and cultural heritage of Saudi Arabia,” said the UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Karima Bennoune.
“The planned demolition would erase this unique regional heritage in an irreversible manner,” she pointed out. 
Masora is considered a historical model of a walled village, including mosques, farms and farmers markets, places of worship for Shia Muslims, ‘Hussainiyats’, and businesses. It has been of great interest for researchers and experts in the fields of heritage and archaeology.
The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston, warned about the ramifications of the demolition on the standard of living of Masora residents.
“If implemented, the plan will remove people from the areas where they live and work, resulting in loss of livelihood and difficulty in securing housing,” he said.
The experts also raised concerns over the lack of “any meaningful consultation” with the residents, and the absence of less damaging alternatives, like restoration.
“The Saudi authorities must take all necessary steps to guarantee cultural rights, including the right to the enjoyment of and access to cultural heritage, and the right to an adequate standard of living, including housing, in accordance with international human rights laws and standards,” the UN experts said in a statement.
“They must halt all ongoing demolition works that do not meet these standards and cancel any planned in the future,” the statement said.
Citizens of Qatif and other oil-rich regions of eastern Saudi Arabia have for long lamented about discrimination against them. International rights campaigners have also called on Riyadh to stop the persecution of members of the Shia community, saying they should enjoy more freedom in expressing their religious beliefs.
WRITER
CATHERINE SHAKDAM
Catherine Shakdam is a political analyst, writer and commentator for the Middle East with a special focus on radical movements and Yemen. The Director of Programs at the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies, Catherine is also the co-founder of Veritas Consulting. She authored Arabia’s Rising - Under The Banner Of The First Imam.

Friday, September 04, 2015

Puritanically Radical, Radically Puritanical: Saudi Arabia’s Religious Cleansing Policy Expands Through ME

“ISIS and, through ISIS, Saudi Arabia has declared war on religious pluralism to impose its own dogmatic and bigoted interpretation of Islam in the Middle East. The real crime against humanity here is being blind and deaf to it,” a religious scholar tells MintPress.

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and head of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars,
Wahhabi Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, prays at the Imam Turki bin Abdullah mosque
during Eid al-Fitr morning prayers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.