Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Saudi Sectarianism: A Disease Characterized by Hardening of the Categories
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Is Turkey the Trojan Horse, or is it the Saudi Islamists?




The flotilla of humanitarian aid sponsored by the government of Turkey was attacked in international waters by Israeli pirates equipped with the latest technology Washington can offer to its sea wolf client in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. This lowdown Israeli crime on the high-seas against a humanitarian convoy of foodstuffs, medicines, building materials, toys, etc. should ring the bells of Canterbury and the Vatican. But gone are the days when there was a “Christian” conscience in those two citadels. Zionism cloaked in Judaism has occupied the religious territories of Europe and America. Nothing much can be expected from an ailing America and an expiring Europe who have for centuries now been in a progressive chock-hold by the Zionist political class.
The issue of Israel hence is a Zionist/“Jewish”-Islamic issue par excellence; Christianity has been effectively domesticated by evangelical Christians and secular politicians who report to their Zionist spiritual and financial bosses respectively. With what is called the Christian world for all intents and purposes recruited to the cause of Zionist Israel there can be no expectation that the regime in Washington and the regimes in Europe will do anything at all to bring justice to the Holy Land. That is why this issue is now an Islamic issue that will inevitably clash with those Zionists who have not only hijacked Judaism, but are trying to wave it as a historical document of statelessness to rationalize their land larceny and now their sea piracy against innocent people who are trying to eke out a living or others who are helping them survive.
This brings us to the ramifications of Israeli piracy on the high-seas in international waters. The Turkish government has been catapulted into the limelight because its citizens were killed by Israelis — without Israeli second-thoughts or apologies. Many impassioned Muslims want to conclude that Turkey is an Islamic state! Hold your horses. Turkey is a secular republic. Its constitution is not derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
It does have a ruling party that carries within it Islamic sympathies, Islamic tendencies, and Islamic dreams. In particular, the president, the prime minister, and the foreign minister would love to see Turkey become an Islamic state. But facts on the ground are not to be confused with fellow feelings and aspirations. Both Turkey and Israel still have full diplomatic missions in each other’s capitals. The Turkish military class enjoys a camaraderie of sorts with the Zionist military class. Joint military exercises between Turkey and Israel have been as routine as military exercises come. There is also a tourist industry thriving on both sides of this relationship. Turkey also has its inordinate number of Freemasons who are lodged into all aspects of Turkish civil and military institutions.
All these commonalities between Turkey and Zionist officials have been on a downward spiral ever since the Islamic trend in Turkey was voted into office eight years ago. This tells us that there is a will in Turkey to break away from its recent history of Europeanization. Add to that a popular groundswell of millions of people resuming their Islamic identity, their Islamic culture, and their Islamic self-determination. This fixed and persistent intent or purpose has to be nurtured and supported so that it can break loose from the Masonic, Zionist, and kafir establishmentarians who have been calling the shots in Turkey ever since it disavowed its Ottoman past.
We do not believe that the American and Zionist presence in Turkey is asleep at the wheels. They are monitoring very closely the Islamic “New Turks” who are inching their way away from Washington and Tel Aviv. Necmettin Erbakan’s students who are now carefully steering Turkey in an Islamic direction will need all the help they can get. And the only significant help they can get will be from the Islamic State and the Islamic Movement. The time-frame that Turkey is in at this juncture is equivalent to labor-pains. But once the Islamic newborn arrives it will be a decisive factor in the politics of the region, and dare we say in the map of the world.
Turkey, when it was the Ottoman State in its final decades, was called the “sick man of Europe.” So, by European confession, Turkey belongs to Europe, but only when it is sick. When it is healthy Europe disclaims it. When the Ottoman Turks were defeated in the First World War, the whole Muslim world was wide open for all colonial powers of the time. To reverse engineer this whole process, Islamic Turkey has to come back to the Islamic fold, and that is what is happening now. We want everyone who reads these lines to think outside of the box. And in so doing we should visualize, post haste, a corridor of officials shuttling between Istanbul and Tehran. This is no time to be foot-dragging on the issue. Even though the Islamic figures in Turkey are cautiously and slowly advancing toward an Islamic reign, their internal opposites and external enemies are busy trying to figure out how to undo a latent Islamic form of self-determination. It will not be easy to immediately synchronize Turkey and Iran in their foreign policy decisions, but it is not hopeless. And our Islamic minds should not stop here; Syria and Iraq have to be brought into a political and eventually a military bloc that will, in time, amass millions of committed Muslims in their jihadi spirit to liberate Palestine from the kleptocrats of Zion. Simple arithmetic will put the population base of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria at well over 200 million committed and combat-ready Muslims. Before that day arrives, there will have to be many odds and ends that have to be sorted out. But it can be done.
David Ben-Gurion, the first prowling prime minister of the Zionist entity along with his worldwide Zionist connections and supporters conceived of “Israel” as a nation-state secured by the grand-periphery: Turkey, Iran, and Ethiopia. These were the non-Arab nation-states that had their nationalist antagonisms with the Arabs. He also relied upon “minorities” (religious and ethnic) within the Arab sea of people to help with “Israel’s security”. If Ben-Gurion were to rise from his grave today he would see his strategy marching in reverse. Two out of the three pillars of Israeli security, namely Iran and Turkey, have become or are becoming the primary threat to Israeli national security. The minorities that at one time were offered a pool of recruitment for intelligence and other dirty missions are no longer what they used to be. As for that sea of Arabs that surrounded the occupiers of Palestine, the only barrier between them and the impending assault on the Zionist state is the non-representative governments — junkyard dogs of the Israeli gangsters. These tyrannical governments, though, are living on borrowed time. Ben-Gurion’s sea of Arabs will burst the official banks, and when that happens we can comfortably say good riddance to that political pathogen that defrauded the world of its Holy Land, that is, Israel.
There are snippets of news here and there saying that the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is thinking about joining a future flotilla into Ghazzah. A good idea; a better idea is to have other officials from Muslim countries join him, although we know they are more interested in their comfort zone at home than to be concerned with the plight of almost two million starving Palestinians in Ghazzah. How about prominent members of the Islamic Movement and State in the world accompanying Mr. Erdogan to Ghazzah? Is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi (who always invokes his desire for shahadah) ready to join Mr. Erdogan? There are many prominent members of the Islamic Movement, are they prepared to join Mr. Erdogan? Or do they think that this is a Zionist conspiracy? The Zionist conspiracy is their long-lasting paranoia about anyone who steps forward and wants to do something to help the Palestinians who are dying while “purist Islamists” rationalize their inactivity by “deep thoughts” about a Zionism that immobilized them into bystanders and viewers.
Behind this Islamic suspicion and mistrust lies the mother of all suspects — Saudi Arabia. Two centuries or so ago, the ancestors of those who currently rule over Arabia were at war with the ancestors of those who rule in Turkey and Iran today. The crying call out of Arabia by the Wahhabi fanatics of that time was that the Iranians were Shi‘i kafirs, and the Turks were Sufi kafirs. We wonder whether the rulers in Arabia today hold that to be true. And if they do, it would explain to us why the regime(s) in Arabia are looking obliquely while humanitarians from all over the world are trying to throw a life-saver to the poverty drowning inhabitants of Ghazzah.
The people of Ghazzah are neither Sufis nor Shi‘is, some of them even have an affinity with the religious lords of Arabia. And look who is helping!
Wa-Allahu a‘lamu haythu yaj‘alu risalatahu: And Allah knows best where to place His missive (6:124).
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Al Azhar Fatwa and Amman Message

After a long period of discussion, the Fatwa was announced on July 6, 1959 and was summarized as follows:
1) Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab (school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so.
2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al- Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought.
Today, both Sunni and Shi'a students study at and graduate from the Al-Azhar University.
Amman Message
The Amman Message (Arabic: رسالة عمان) is a statement which was issued on 9 November 2004 (27th of Ramadan 1425 AH) by King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein of Jordan, calling for tolerance and unity in the Muslim world.[1] Subsequently, a three-point ruling was issued by 200 Islamic scholars from over 50 countries, focusing on issues of: defining who a Muslim is; excommunication from Islam (takfir), and; principles related to delivering religious edicts (fatāwa).[2]
Content
The Amman Message was delivered in Amman as a Ramadan sermon by Chief Justice Sheikh Iz-al-Din al-Tamimi in the presence of King Abdullah II and a number of Muslim scholars.[3] According to a report issued by the International Crisis Group, "The sermon stressed the need to re-emphasise Islam's core values of compassion, mutual respect, tolerance, acceptance and freedom of religion."[1] The next year, in July 2005, an Islamic convention brought together 200 Muslim scholars from over 50 countries who issued a three-point declaration (later known as 'Three Points of the Amman Message').[2] This declaration focused on:[4]
1. The recognition of eight legal schools of thought (madhāhib) and the varying strains of Islamic theology viz.
1. Sunni Hanafi
2. Sunni Hanbali
3. Sunni Maliki
4. Sunni Shafi'i
5. Shia Ja`fari
6. Shia Zaidiyyah
7. Ibadi
8. Zahiri
Further the recognition of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought.
1. The forbiddance from pronouncing disbelief upon (or excommunicating) others recognized as Muslims
2. The stipulations placed as preconditions to the issuing of religious edicts, intended to prevent the circulation of illegitimate edicts
Explaining why the message was issued, King Abdullah stated: "[W]e felt that the Islamic message of tolerance was being subjected to a fierce and unjust attack from some in the West who do not understand Islam's essence, and others who claim to be associated with Islam and hide behind Islam to commit irresponsible deeds."[5]
1. ^ a b c "Jordan's 9/11: Dealing With Jihadi Islamism", Crisis Group Middle East Report N°47, 23 November 2005
2. ^ a b c "SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER THE RT HON TONY BLAIR MP" (04/06/07), British Embassy in Bahrain
3. ^ "Jordan issues the 'Amman Message' on Islam". Embassy of Jordan - Washington, DC. http://www.jordanembassyus.org/new/pr/pr11092004.shtml. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
4. ^ The Amman Message summary - Official website
5. ^ "King Abdullah calls to end extremism". Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885839539&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Retrieved 2007-08-15.
Fatwa's of the ulama
Following is the list of individual & organizations who have issued fatwa in relation of Amman Message (as per official website listing)[1]:
http://ammanmessage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=60 FATWAS OF THE 'ULAMA
'மார்க்கக் கடமைகளுக்கிடையே ஓற்றுமையும் ஒருமைப்பாடும் இன்றியமையாத தேவையாகும்'

Fatwa on Shia Ithna Asharia and Zaidi Madhabs
ஷீயா இஸ்லாமிய சட்டவியலை பயன்படுத்த அனுமதியுண்டு – எகிப்திய முப்தி அறிவிப்பு
இஸ்லாமிய உம்மாவுக்கு மிகவும் அவசியமான ஷீயா இஸ்லாமிய சட்டவியலை உபயோகிக்க அனுமதி உண்டு என எகிப்திய மாபெரும் முப்தியான அலி கோமா அறிவிப்பு செய்துள்ளார்.
ஷீயா – சுன்னிகளுக்கிடையிலான இணக்கப்பாடு என்பது ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட இஸ்லாமிய சித்தாந்தப் பிரிவைப் பின்பற்றுபவர் தமது சித்தாந்தத்தைக் கைவிட வேண்டும் என அர்த்தமாகாது என அந்த மூத்த சுன்னி ஆலிம் கூறினார்.
முஸ்லிம்களுக்கிடையிலான ஒற்றுமை மற்றும் ஒருமைப்பாடு என்பன பற்றிய முக்கியத்துவத்தை வலியுறுத்திய கலாநிதி அலி கோமா, 'ஒற்றுமையை முன்நோக்கி செல்வது உலகம் முழுவதிலுமுள்ள ஒவ்வொரு இன, சித்தாந்தப் பிரிவின் முஸ்லிம்கள் அனைவர் மீதும் சுமத்தப்பட்டுள்ள கடமையாகும்' எனவும் கூறினார்.
இஸ்லாமிய உலகைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் ஒற்றுமை ஒரு அடிப்படை கோட்பாடாகவும் இன்றியமையாத தாகவும் விளங்குகின்றது. 'மார்க்கக் கடமைகளுக்கிடையே ஓற்றுமையும் ஒருமைப்பாடும் இன்றியமையாத தேவையாகும்' என அவர் மேலும் வலியுறுத்திக் கூறினார்.
தீவிரவாதக் கருத்துகளையும் மதப்பிரிவினைவாதத்தையும் கண்டித்த அவர், அவை இஸ்லாமிய சித்தாந்தப் பிரிவுகளுக்கிடையிலான உரையாடல் மற்றும் இணக்கப்பாட்டு முயற்சிகளை சிதறடித்துவிடும் எனவும் கூறினார்.
எகிப்திய 'தாருள் பத்வா' (மார்க்கத்தீர்ப்பு இல்லம்) அலுவலகத்தில் எகிப்துக்கான ஈரானியத் தூதுவர் செய்யத் முஜ்தபா இமானியை சந்தித்தபோது, அல் அஸ்ஹர் மற்றும் ஏனைய இஸ்லாமிய நிறுவனங்களின் உலமாப் பெருமக்கள், இமாமிய்யா மற்றும் ஸைதி உட்பட அனைத்து இஸ்லாமிய சித்தாந்தப்பிரிவினதும் பிக்ஹ் அறிவுப் பொக்கிஷங்களையும் பயன்படுத்திக்கொள்வது தவறாகாது என்பதை மீண்டும் மீண்டும் வலியுறுத்தி வந்துள்ளனர் என்றும் அவர்களது பெறுமதிமிக்க, வளமான சிந்தனைகள் நிராகரிக்க முடியாதவை எனவும் கலாநிதி கோமா கூறினார்.
முன்னைநாள் அல் அஸ்ஹர் அதிபர் ஷேய்க் மஹ்மூத் ஷல்தூத் அவரகளின் ஷீயா சார்பான மார்க்கத்தீரப்பை எடுத்துக்காட்டிய முப்தி அவர்கள் இஸ்லாமிய உம்மா ஒப்புயர்வற்றது. முஸ்லிம்கள் ஒரே கிப்லாவை நோக்கி தொழும்வரை ஷீயா சுன்னிகளுக்கிடையிலான எவ்வித வேறுபாடும் கிடையாது என்றார்.
'இஸ்லாத்தின் எதிரிகள் முஸ்லிம்களின் ஒற்றுமை, ஒருமைப்பாடு என்பவற்றை வெட்டியெரிய தருணம் பார்த்திருக்கின்றனர். ஷீயா சுன்னி பேதங்களை ஏற்படுத்துவதற்கான காரணிகளை அவர்கள் தேடுகின்றனர்.' எனவே அவர்களது சதித்திட்டங்கள் குறித்து ஒவ்வொருவரும் அவதானமாக இருக்க வேண்டும் எனவும் முப்தி அலி கோமா கூறினார்.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The “ Shia Crescent ” Revisited

By Rannie Amiri
19 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org
“If pro-Iran parties or politicians dominate the new Iraqi government, a new ‘crescent' of dominant Shia movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon could emerge, he [King Abdullah of Jordan] said, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies. ”
The Washington Post , 8 December 2004 .
Zakaria: “You spoke a couple of years ago about the danger of a Shia crescent, meaning the Shias in Iran , a Shia-dominated government in Iraq , presumably Shias in the Gulf. Do you regret having made that comment?”
King Abdullah: “No, well, that's not what I said. What I said is I was worried about members – certain members – of the Iranian government using an agenda to create the perception of a Shia crescent, because the last thing that we need in this part of the world is a conflict between Sunnis and Shias. And so when I raise the alarm bell, I saw a political strategy that would as an endgame have the Sunnis and Shias at each other's throats ... the fault line between Shias and Sunnis goes from Beirut all the way to Bombay and it's a catastrophic subject to play with. In my view, I felt that there was an agenda out there that was going to try and push it in that respect, and also raising the alarm bell that that cannot happen.”
– Excerpt from Fareed Zakaria's interview with King Abdullah II in Davos , Switzerland , 29 January 2010 .
Although Jordan's reigning monarch had the dubious distinction of being the first to publicly articulate the fears of Arab dictators over the rise of the region's Shia Muslims – perceived as the emergence of a “Shia crescent” – it had no doubt been in their collective conscience ever since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
It was not just a geographic designation but a warning that King Abdullah had issued after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. It spoke of the consequences of a string of countries where the Shia were either the majority and held power (Iraq and Iran), were of a sizable minority in close proximity (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states – with the exception of Bahrain, where they constitute an overwhelming majority but are nevertheless not in power), formed a plurality (Lebanon), or maintained close ties with Iran (Syria, although technically run by Alawis). Without a doubt, his comments belied a racism consistent with the Arab Shias' historical discrimination at the hands of both religious and secular Sunni Arab rulers.
Three seminal events
Punctuating the apprehensions of King Abdullah II, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and the royal families from the Gulf countries to Morocco were three seminal events:
First was the return of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to Iran and the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It stoked fears that what had led to the toppling of a Western-backed tyrant would soon find its way to their borders. The internal fallout was the ostracization of the Arab world's Shia Muslims who were now regarded as “fifth columnists” for Iran – a non-Arab Shia country.
Indeed, in a 2006 interview with Al-Arabiya TV, Mubarak deliberately conflated Arab Shias with Iranians and questioned their fidelity: “ There are Shias in all these countries (of the region), significant percentages, and Shias are mostly always loyal to Iran and not the countries where they live.”
Second was the 2004 fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the end of Ba'ath party rule, both of which had persecuted and brutally suppressed the country's Shia population for decades.
Third was the integration of Hezbollah into Lebanon 's political structure and the widespread popularity of its leader, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah. After nearly two decades of occupation, Hezbollah forcing the Israelis to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 and battling them to a draw in the July 2006 war made Nasrallah one of the most admired leaders in the Middle East . The silence of the region's heads of state while Lebanon came under relentless Israeli bombardment in 2006 was in contrast to the support both he and Hezbollah had found on the Arab street.
Unbalanced power
The “traditional balance of power” which Abdullah so feared was in jeopardy of being “altered” as a result of the above events betrays a history of deep political and socioeconomic marginalization of the Shia. Detailing it is beyond the scope of this article, but readers are referred to The Arab Shi'a: The Forgotten Muslims by Graham E. Fuller and Rend Rahim Francke (Pelgrave Macmillin, 2000) for further reference.
So is Abdullah's concern for maintaining the “traditional balance of power” simply a hope for the continued domination of the Sunni Muslim political elite over the Shia? Is this what he feared would be “altered” by the end of Saddam Hussein's despotism? Rather than hope for a brighter future for all Iraqis, apparent regret over a more equitable redistribution of power speaks volumes.
The recent explanation and clarification of his original remarks this past January was not only disingenuous, but continues to fuel misconceptions and stereotypes:
“I was worried about members ... of the Iranian government using an agenda to create the perception of a Shia crescent.”
The one who created and promulgated the “Shia crescent” concept was King Abdullah himself, as his 2004 statement clearly describes (down to the exact geography). Blame should not now be placed on the Iranian government. Doing so indicates that he has yet to forsake sectarianism as a political tool.
“ ... the fault line between Shias and Sunnis goes from Beirut all the way to Bombay and it's a catastrophic subject to play with.”
Abdullah is again keen on underlining the “fault line” between Muslims, this time extending it all the way to India . Even more telling is why he believes it to be such a “catastrophic subject.”
Should the Arab Shia be prohibited from freely airing their grievances and demanding accountability for past injustices? Stopped from speaking out against the crimes perpetrated against them under Saddam (in which many in the Arab world were complicit)? Prevented from attempting to lift the heavy hand of institutionalized discrimination levied against them in Saudi Arabia ? Barred from seeking an end to their disenfranchisement in Bahrain – where they make up at least 70 percent of the population yet constitute no part of the government or security services? Forbidden from asking why the language of sectarianism was used to justify and amplify the carnage in north Yemen ?
To open this subject and deal with it forthrightly and with justice would indeed be “catastrophic” to the regimes mentioned, and for all those who instigate, support, or benefit from these practices.
“I felt that there was an agenda out there that was going to try and push it in that respect, and also raising the alarm bell that that cannot happen.”
Unfortunately the people who have been pushing a sectarian agenda have been a handful of Middle East dictators and monarchs, specifically King Abdullah II of Jordan, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, the Al-Khalifah family in Bahrain, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, and President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen. Each of these countries – Jordan , Saudi Arabia , Egypt , Bahrain , Morocco , and Yemen – are guilty of fanning sectarian flames.
In Aug. 2009, Jordan put six Shia Muslims on trial in a military court “for promoting Shia ideology.” And both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have recently been harshly criticized by Human Rights Watch for overtly discriminatory practices toward, and torture of their Shia citizens.
Even the desperate people of Gaza have suffered as a consequence; it was the Arab regimes who abandoned Gaza 's Palestinians while Israel imposed its inhumane siege on them, and one of the main reasons was Iran 's vocal support for Hamas.
Why Mid-East leaders promote sectarianism
So why do these leaders promote sectarianism?
To answer this, one must have some familiarity with the Shia ethos.
Ingrained in the fifth school of Islam is the notion of resistance against despotic rule and rulers. This dates back to the epic battle fought on the plains of Karbala , Iraq by the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, Hussain, against the tyrannical reign of the caliph Yazid ibn Muawiya in the year 680 A.D. Outnumbered by the tens of thousands, Hussain and his small band of followers fought bravely but were brutally massacred. The “tragedy of Karbala ” as it known continues to serve as inspiration to the Shia; endowing them with the belief that standing up to oppression and injustice, no matter how great or at what odds, is an act of faith.
The events of Karbala were recalled by Khomeini in the 1979 Revolution deposing the Shah and even by anti-government protestors after Iran 's June's elections. Although it would be incorrect to conclude that Shias are in a continuous state of revolt against the established order of the state, their 1991 uprising against Saddam in aftermath of the first Gulf War, Hezbollah's battles against the militarily superior Israeli Army in the 1990s and 2006, and the recent clashes between Zaidi Shia rebels and the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia, are all viewed with a leery eye by the Sunni political class in the Middle East.
The aforementioned regimes therefore believe that if a “Shia crescent” was to take shape and become reality, their authority, power and influence might be swept aside by the people as quickly as was the Shah's.
They also believe that if Arab Shias were accorded fair and equal rights, given the full benefits of citizenship, not treated as fifth columnists, not conflated with “Persians” and accorded the same dignity and religious liberties as all other citizens, domestic harmony would exist and render ineffective the use of sectarianism to further anti-Iranian sentiment.
If they did forsake it, attention could instead be paid to more pressing issues such as education, economic development, combating corruption, ending poverty and resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
One is left to wonder, though, whether these leaders believe it best to purposely ignore these critical needs in favor of conjuring up fictitious crescents, lest it unmask their own incompetence in real governance.
Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.
