Shaykh Hamza Yusuf criticised for endorsing UAE

By

 5Pillars

 

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

The prominent American Muslim scholar Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has been criticised for giving credibility to the United Arab Emirates which has a questionable human rights record and is prosecuting a brutal war against Yemen.

On Wednesday, Hamza Yusuf described the UAE as a country that champions civil society and is “committed to tolerance” in remarks on the sidelines of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies currently taking place in Abu Dhabi.

“The Emirates…is a country that is committed to tolerance; they [even] have a Ministry of Tolerance,” said Yusuf, who is also the forum’s vice president.

“This is a country that is committed to civil society…it is one of the safest countries on the earth, and so at essence, the Emirati people are committed to that message.”

The forum is bankrolled by the UAE. Critics have denounced it as a PR initiative to boost the the country’s image abroad and deflect criticism by human rights groups.

The UAE is also one of the main countries currently blockading Qatar and is in the process of normalising relations with Israel.

Sara Khan will also be addressing the UAE conference

Hiba Zayadin, a Human Rights Watch researcher who focuses on the UAE, told Middle East Eye: “The UAE arbitrarily detains and forcibly disappears individuals who criticise the authorities within the UAE’s borders. Emirati residents who have spoken out critically are at serious risk of arbitrary detention, imprisonment, and torture.”

She added: “Funding a forum for promoting peace in Muslim societies stand in stark contrast to the fact that expressing the slightest degree of sympathy with the Muslim Brotherhood in the UAE could put you at serious risk of detention and abuse.”

Other controversial speakers at the conference include Britain’s Extremism Tsar Sara Khan who is boycotted by many prominent Muslim organisations because of her targeting of Muslim activists. 

Ed Husain, the co founder of the Quilliam Foundation and a former advisor to Tony Blair, is also a speaker at the conference.

On its website, Amnesty International says that the UAE authorities continue to “arbitrarily restrict freedoms of expression and association, using criminal defamation and anti-terrorism laws to detain, prosecute, convict and imprison government critics and a prominent human rights defender. 

“Scores of people, including prisoners of conscience, who were sentenced following unfair trials remained in prison. Authorities held detainees in conditions that could amount to torture and failed to investigate allegations of torture made in previous years…

“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) remained part of the Saudi Arabia-led international coalition engaged in armed conflict in Yemen. Along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE trained, funded and supported forces in Yemen, some of which were under its direct report. 

“These forces engaged in arbitrary and illegal detention practices, including in Aden where they perpetrated a campaign of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances.”

U.S., Israel, Saudi and UAE want to “Syrianize” Iran: Prof. Entessar

By Payman Yazdani

TEHRAN - Commenting on Ahvaz attack Prof. Entessar says U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE’s principal goal is to create chaos in Iran to disintegrate the country.

A terrorist attack during a military parade on people in Ahvaz, southwest Iran left tens of innocent civilians killed and injured.

Hours after the attack Saudi backed Al-ahvazi separatist terrorist group and ISIL claimed the responsibility for the terrorist attack.

To shed more light on the issue we reached out to Prof. Nader Entessar Emeritus of Political Science in University of South Alabama.

Following is the full text of his interview:

Q: Do you see any foreign elements behind this attack?

A: It is too early to identify the real culprits behind the recent terrorist attack in Ahvaz.  I hope that the appropriate authorities in Iran are taking this matter very seriously and conduct a thorough and professional investigation and eschew issuing contradictory and vacuous statements.  Once the investigation is completed, Iran must take swift and decisive action to respond to this heinous terrorist attack.  

Q: Saudi Arabia and UAE didn't condemn the terrorist attack. Why?  

A: These two countries have become sworn enemies of Iran in recent years, and by that, I don't mean just the Islamic Republic but the country of Iran.  Therefore, I was not surprised that they have not condemned the Ahvaz terrorist attack.  Besides, they may indeed be responsible for funding and organizing the terrorist attack.  Thus, they should not be expected to condemn it.

Q: How do you assess the U.S. administration's reaction to the attack which it did not explicitly call the action as a terrorist act?  

A: I did not expect the Trump administration to call the attack a terrorist act.  If you recall, a similar attack occurred last June when a group of Takfiris gunned down innocent Iranians in the Majlis area, the Trump administration seemed to be giddy about it and intimated that Iran had it coming to it.  No terrorist act against Iran will be called a terrorist act by the U.S. administration no matter how dastardly it may be.  

Q: What can be the real goal of the attack perpetrators at this time?

A: The Ahvaz terrorist attack should not be considered an isolated incident.  Here are two interconnected axes operating against Iran today.  One is the Washington axis and the other one is the Saudi Arabia-Israel-UAE axis.  Although they may pursue different tactics against Iran, they have one overall strategy towards Tehran.  Their principal goal is to create chaos in Iran and thus hasten the demise of the Iranian government and even the disintegration of the country.  In short, these two axes want to "Syrianize" Iran by any means necessary.  At times, they may focus on economic strangulation of the country, at other times they may organize terrorist attacks inside the country, while at other times they may rely on a combination of highlighting their soft war strategy with "hard war" tactics.