Robert Spencer in his Emory Wheel commentary does NOT know about what he's talking. He does not KNOW Islam or JIHAD. He only knows to look through Muslim literature in order to find inflammatory, controversial, and polemic topics.
Citing Muslim scholars doesn't present a context or explanation for Jihad. Nor does it establish the conceptual foundation upon which JIHAD exists in Islam. Why doesn't Spencer do this?
Imam Taqidin an Nabhani (rha), the grandson of sheikhul Islam Yusuf an Nabhani (rha) and a prominent and preminent Islamic legal scholar and leader, provided groundbreaking legal scholarship on the matters of Islamic governance, politics, Islamic constitutionalism, etc. in the latter 1/2 of the 20th century CE. He explained the meaning of jihad from its doctrinal origin and conceptual foundation in today's reality.
Allah (SWT) fulfilled his promise to mankind by providing a final messenger and a book of revelation which would be preserved indefinitely. The final messenger of Allah, Muhammad (saaw), successfully completed his mission of carrying the message of God to mankind through the Muslim people. Now the onus is upon the Muslim people to carry the message of God to the rest of mankind indefinitely. It can be carried individually. Yet it is best carried with the assets, resources, and protection of a society and state.
During the time of Muhammad (saaw), Muhammad (saaw) established treaties with nonMuslims which stipulated the permission of Muslims to explain Islam to people. Many nonMuslim tribes and kingdoms permitted it and they were not fought (Christian Abysinnia, Jewish Yemen, Oman region, etc.) But other tribes and kingdoms signed treaties but thereafter killed Muslim preachers in violation of their treaties. Still others simply killed the original diplomatic emissaries such as the Christian Ghassani king and their ally the Roman empire; or expelled the diplomatic emissaries in disgrace as in the Persia empire. After these openly violent violations of established relations in specific political circumstances, these various military conflicts resulted in warfare. Warfare was the last option after basic diplomacy was openly violated. This is where warfare comes in regarding the Muslim world: as part of a state's necessary response or preemption to open warfare and conflict.
But Jihad does not mean warfare. The arabic word for fighting is: qitala, and the word for war is: harb. Jihad means exertion, striving, maximum effort. (Incidently, does America actually wage "war" on illiteracy, or "war" on cancer, or "war" on poverty? )
Jihad is directly tied to carrying the message of Islam: called da'wah of Islam. Jihad is the effort required to remove the obsticals that impede the message and dawah of Islam. That effort can be financial, diplomatic, intellectual, political, and material. Material effort does not necessarily require combat. It can simply be an arms build up, or military maneuvers as the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) carried out several times. Or it can be marches, protests, media campaigns, etc.
This concept of Jihad renders it essential to Islam.
As for the warfare aspect of jihad, it is a disciplined, calculated effort based on the highest moral and ethical standards. It is not a melee or orgy of violence and destruction.
Ironically, or perhaps not surprisingly, the more ritewing bigots such as Robert Spencer and Michael Savage repress Muslims, spread lies and slander, attack mosques and assault Muslim women ( because they're too cowardice to attack men), support internment and torture of 1000s Muslims, call for killing millions of Muslims indiscriminately, and even call for lynching Muslims, the more they resemble the historical circumstances of the Persians, Romans, and Ghassanis. Conversely, its the good Americans of all races and religions that stand up for the right of Muslims to be Muslims and to explain Islam that insure peaceful relations and mutual compassion.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Al-Sistani in Iraq: Retirement and End of Islam, or Personal Failure?
These days, ayatullah al Sistani is only taking religious questions. For the Muslim conscious of Islam's political nature, it is too little and too late, and may Allah forgive al Sistani.
Sadly, Muslims with too little knowledge to derive interpretative rulings from texts (ie. who are not mujtahideen) but enough awareness and comprehension to discern the "path" of Muhammad (saaw) and his family from that of scholars who have sold out Islam, or have forfeitured their duties as "inheritors" of the prophets, or have otherwise become confused or mistaken in their rulings and direction, are forced to reevaluate their commitment to scholars and their leadership when they have demonstratively failed on such overt terms as al Sistani has by saying 'such and such scholar can be accepted on matters of ibaadat (laws of worship), or perhaps nikah (marriage laws) but not much else (or there is polite silent omission of anything else if one is that muchmerciful). Shockingly, and perhaps this demonstrates his honest attrition and humility thus revealing the merit of his piety and character, al Sistani has voluntarily done this to himself. If only more scholars would do so.
It is unbecoming for peon Muslims (such as this author) to publicly berate otherwise good scholars for their juristic failures. It is only appropriate to address the weakness in the interpretation and scholarship, rather than attacking the scholar. That, unless they have made their failures public in leadership for millions and demonstrated a publicly hurtful an unjust example for the Muslim world.
This is why the juristic and hence political leadership of al Sistani has been so painful for those conscious and conscientious Muslim observers of the tragedy of Iraq.
In the 8th of September 2006 edition of the Asia Times (online), Mark Spengler, an otherwise insightful and informed journalist, gets it wrong with his article titled: "Ayatullah al-Sistani and the End of Islam".
On the contrary, the "retirement" of al Sistani is a blessing for the future of Islam in Iraq, if its not to late in coming.
How now?
Spengler identifies al Sistani as the example of "traditional" Islam, as in that that shapes all aspects of life, from istinja (purification after bodily functions) to organizing societal affairs by ahkam shar`a (divine laws). To him, al Sistani's self imposed exile is the end of Islam as a traditional way of life as he sees it. This follows the universal trend of all religion's subjugation to the secular modern way of life as Spengler sees it. But Spengler's observations focus too narrowly on al Sistani as a wholistic model's failure and misses al Sistani's own conceptual and juristic legal adoptions and their individual failures.
Al Sistani adopted a juristic position on wilayat (governance) contrary to the Jafari school of fiqh as upheld normally by Qom and Tehran scholarly leadership. His position was most definitely contrary to the 4 Sunni schools of fiqh as found in any major Sunni juristic institution and in most Sunni political parties, let alone the Sunni political leadership in Iraq. Al Sistani's position on wilayat is: wiliyat is not the duty nor responsibility of ulama, or the fuqaha (legal scholars), or the believers, until the arrival/return of the Mahdi. This position enabled him to avoid any clash with Saddam's secular Baathist regime whose characteristics were to simply murder any leader or potential leader who took political positions contrary and not submissive to their own. During the time of Saddam's regime, one might forgive al Sistani that his position was truly the lesser of two evils: to be apolitical or completely follow Saddam.
It is worth noting that many Sunni scholars adopted similar apolitical legal positions.
However, al Sistani did not revisit that decision upon the invasion and occupation by the American coalition. Or if he did, he did not derive an interpretation which addressed the new circumstances facing the believers in Iraq. This juristic and political failure of al Sistani snowballed into one failure after another. While al Sistani was right to avoid meeting and therefore showing deferrence to American occupational rule, he failed to develop and lead the Shia to become a force, even over 2 or 3 years, which could expel the foreign occupation. (One might note that such a Shia force theoretically could have taken a nonviolent methodology to result in American expulsion- a methodology which believers from the Sunni and Shia communities would willingly have supported in unity). Consequently, Al Sistani's position meant he failed to unite with, support, or even verbally commend the proper Sunni resistance against the occupation. (As any good leader commends good behavior to reenforce it). And while a legal authority himself (ie. he is not obligated to follow anyone), he failed to realize that the overall enemy of the believers, the American coalition, used his own political position to divide the Muslims and further entrench themselves as well as to massively injure al Sistani's Sunni brethren. Failing to reevaluate his position after the obvious injury to society thereof was a colossal failure of al Sistani. As well, al Sistani's failure to even side with Muqtada al Sadr's resistance to American rule, though he did secure Sadr's immunity from America at the expense of 100s of Sadr's forces, sealed the absolute division, the blatent breach of divinely ordained brotherhood, between all Shia leadership and the overall Sunni Muslim community that upheld the cause of resistance.
The al Sistani position, that he wouldn't even reconsider his juristic position and support Shia believing forces fighting America, let alone show solidarity with Sunni leadership, was the most public division between believing Muslims of Iraq that any community could take. It completely undermined all Sunni efforts to reach out to Shias. It undermined Sadr's efforts at resistance. It played right into the hands of the American occupiers. It enboldened the warped deviant Sunni elements of Al Qaida/extremism to conclude all Shia were supporters of the occupation and therefore enemies of Islam, incorrectly but logically from their deviant scholarship, making Shia blood halal.
It is of little consequence that Shia juristic and political leadership in Qom and Tehran had been petitioning al Sistani for years to reevaluate his position given the new circumstances facing Muslims in Iraq. Their efforts were too late to block the American backed secular Shia and Sunnis from formulating the Iraqi constitution, empowering themselves with American and militia power. They were too late to block the deviant (ie. haram and fitan) but logical (ie. based on real and circumstantial evidence) political and military position of the extreme Sunni resistance which from the moment at Karbala could justify outright attacks on Shia targets.
Nontheless, al Sistani's departure from open leadership is not the end of traditional Islam. Spengler misses that from the Sunni perspective, a diverse community of legal scholarship enables different and competing ideological (hence juristic and political) guidance and leadership through reinterpretation of the divine texts to seek solutions. Shia scholarship under al Sistani failed to progress by reevaluating legal adoptions (such as wiliyat) to meet the new reality of American occupation and an opportunity to unite with Sunni leadership as a unifying effort for believers in Iraq and the Muslim world at large.
And Allah knows best.
Sadly, Muslims with too little knowledge to derive interpretative rulings from texts (ie. who are not mujtahideen) but enough awareness and comprehension to discern the "path" of Muhammad (saaw) and his family from that of scholars who have sold out Islam, or have forfeitured their duties as "inheritors" of the prophets, or have otherwise become confused or mistaken in their rulings and direction, are forced to reevaluate their commitment to scholars and their leadership when they have demonstratively failed on such overt terms as al Sistani has by saying 'such and such scholar can be accepted on matters of ibaadat (laws of worship), or perhaps nikah (marriage laws) but not much else (or there is polite silent omission of anything else if one is that muchmerciful). Shockingly, and perhaps this demonstrates his honest attrition and humility thus revealing the merit of his piety and character, al Sistani has voluntarily done this to himself. If only more scholars would do so.
It is unbecoming for peon Muslims (such as this author) to publicly berate otherwise good scholars for their juristic failures. It is only appropriate to address the weakness in the interpretation and scholarship, rather than attacking the scholar. That, unless they have made their failures public in leadership for millions and demonstrated a publicly hurtful an unjust example for the Muslim world.
This is why the juristic and hence political leadership of al Sistani has been so painful for those conscious and conscientious Muslim observers of the tragedy of Iraq.
In the 8th of September 2006 edition of the Asia Times (online), Mark Spengler, an otherwise insightful and informed journalist, gets it wrong with his article titled: "Ayatullah al-Sistani and the End of Islam".
On the contrary, the "retirement" of al Sistani is a blessing for the future of Islam in Iraq, if its not to late in coming.
How now?
Spengler identifies al Sistani as the example of "traditional" Islam, as in that that shapes all aspects of life, from istinja (purification after bodily functions) to organizing societal affairs by ahkam shar`a (divine laws). To him, al Sistani's self imposed exile is the end of Islam as a traditional way of life as he sees it. This follows the universal trend of all religion's subjugation to the secular modern way of life as Spengler sees it. But Spengler's observations focus too narrowly on al Sistani as a wholistic model's failure and misses al Sistani's own conceptual and juristic legal adoptions and their individual failures.
Al Sistani adopted a juristic position on wilayat (governance) contrary to the Jafari school of fiqh as upheld normally by Qom and Tehran scholarly leadership. His position was most definitely contrary to the 4 Sunni schools of fiqh as found in any major Sunni juristic institution and in most Sunni political parties, let alone the Sunni political leadership in Iraq. Al Sistani's position on wilayat is: wiliyat is not the duty nor responsibility of ulama, or the fuqaha (legal scholars), or the believers, until the arrival/return of the Mahdi. This position enabled him to avoid any clash with Saddam's secular Baathist regime whose characteristics were to simply murder any leader or potential leader who took political positions contrary and not submissive to their own. During the time of Saddam's regime, one might forgive al Sistani that his position was truly the lesser of two evils: to be apolitical or completely follow Saddam.
It is worth noting that many Sunni scholars adopted similar apolitical legal positions.
However, al Sistani did not revisit that decision upon the invasion and occupation by the American coalition. Or if he did, he did not derive an interpretation which addressed the new circumstances facing the believers in Iraq. This juristic and political failure of al Sistani snowballed into one failure after another. While al Sistani was right to avoid meeting and therefore showing deferrence to American occupational rule, he failed to develop and lead the Shia to become a force, even over 2 or 3 years, which could expel the foreign occupation. (One might note that such a Shia force theoretically could have taken a nonviolent methodology to result in American expulsion- a methodology which believers from the Sunni and Shia communities would willingly have supported in unity). Consequently, Al Sistani's position meant he failed to unite with, support, or even verbally commend the proper Sunni resistance against the occupation. (As any good leader commends good behavior to reenforce it). And while a legal authority himself (ie. he is not obligated to follow anyone), he failed to realize that the overall enemy of the believers, the American coalition, used his own political position to divide the Muslims and further entrench themselves as well as to massively injure al Sistani's Sunni brethren. Failing to reevaluate his position after the obvious injury to society thereof was a colossal failure of al Sistani. As well, al Sistani's failure to even side with Muqtada al Sadr's resistance to American rule, though he did secure Sadr's immunity from America at the expense of 100s of Sadr's forces, sealed the absolute division, the blatent breach of divinely ordained brotherhood, between all Shia leadership and the overall Sunni Muslim community that upheld the cause of resistance.
The al Sistani position, that he wouldn't even reconsider his juristic position and support Shia believing forces fighting America, let alone show solidarity with Sunni leadership, was the most public division between believing Muslims of Iraq that any community could take. It completely undermined all Sunni efforts to reach out to Shias. It undermined Sadr's efforts at resistance. It played right into the hands of the American occupiers. It enboldened the warped deviant Sunni elements of Al Qaida/extremism to conclude all Shia were supporters of the occupation and therefore enemies of Islam, incorrectly but logically from their deviant scholarship, making Shia blood halal.
It is of little consequence that Shia juristic and political leadership in Qom and Tehran had been petitioning al Sistani for years to reevaluate his position given the new circumstances facing Muslims in Iraq. Their efforts were too late to block the American backed secular Shia and Sunnis from formulating the Iraqi constitution, empowering themselves with American and militia power. They were too late to block the deviant (ie. haram and fitan) but logical (ie. based on real and circumstantial evidence) political and military position of the extreme Sunni resistance which from the moment at Karbala could justify outright attacks on Shia targets.
Nontheless, al Sistani's departure from open leadership is not the end of traditional Islam. Spengler misses that from the Sunni perspective, a diverse community of legal scholarship enables different and competing ideological (hence juristic and political) guidance and leadership through reinterpretation of the divine texts to seek solutions. Shia scholarship under al Sistani failed to progress by reevaluating legal adoptions (such as wiliyat) to meet the new reality of American occupation and an opportunity to unite with Sunni leadership as a unifying effort for believers in Iraq and the Muslim world at large.
And Allah knows best.
Friday, September 08, 2006
An OPEN Eye to the Origins of "Islamofascism"
Who espouses the term "Islamofascism" and where did it originate?
Stephen Schwartz, a devotee and writer for the Weekly Standard, THE primary neocon periodical funded by Rupert Murdoch and founded by Bill Kristol, former VP Dan Quayle chief of staff and the same GOPer who founded the PNAC which gave us American imperialism post Cold War and the Bush Doctrine and the invasion/transformation of Iraq plan, claims to be the first to use the "Islamofascism" analogy in the Neocon Weekly Standard.
Do you know who Stephen Schwartz is?
He is an Jewish American who converted to Islam in the 1990s into a sufi sect called the Naqshbandi/Haqqani sufi order. He apparently is a follower of the Islamic Supreme Council of America's leader, Kabbani, the appointed leader from Haqqani. Haqqani(the global sect leader) and Kabbani (the American leader) believe they are the true Muslims and the rest of the Muslims in America and the scores of Muslim groups and their movements throughout the world are deviants, mostly because they disagree with them and refuse to pay allegiance to Haqqani.
Those Muslim groups that compete with the sect are targetted for political and intellectual repression, if not physical repression. This is partially motivated by the unwillingness of these groups to submit to Haqqani's sectarian supremacy and bow to him in allegiance to his reign. But since the Naqshbandi-Haqqani order is a tiny sect of little significance within the Muslim world, they have buddied up to any governments that will ally with them and work to turn them against the majority of Muslims. Of the most supportive Muslim governments, the sect considers itself allied with the Uzbekistan ruler Islam Karimov. (This is largely due to the fact that the Naqshbandi order originated in the Uzbek Fergana valley region.)
Haqqani and Kabbani have paid homage to Karimov, as has Schwartz. One will find Schwartz, the allegedly unoffical mouthpiece of Kabbani, actually calling for and supporting Karimov's violent military and government repression of nonviolent Muslim groups in Uzbekistan in his Weekly Standard articles. Kabbani, the American emissary of Haqqani, regularly advises Bush, Cheney, Rice, and other officials on strategies towards the Muslim world. Kabbani has publicly attacked every Muslim group in America, levelled allegations of nearly every mosque in America (except his) of being terrorist fronts and full of extremists. It is quite reasonable to conclude that the Bush administration's venomous rhetorical attack on Muslims in America and abroad has been supported by Kabbani, if not directly coordinated with his group.
Schwartz, as a Haqqani/Kabbani follower, berates and seeks repression of all Muslim groups , ecspecially nonviolent groups, who differ from his sectarianism. Given Schwartz is the most influential Muslim writer/journalist in Washington, beyond the liberal Newsweek editor Fareed Zakariya, Schwartz's agenda is apparently heard by Neocon strategists seeking to bolster domestic political outcomes and worldwide propaganda campaigns. This lends to the weight of his diatribes against fellow Muslim groups. But Schwartz's prominence emerges from his devotion to and utility for the Neocon political worldview and world agenda ie. he's a tool. The Weekly Standard publishes his articles since they coencide with the Neocon worldview and political agenda. Given this is an election year, fellow neocons at the Washington Times, Washington Post, WSJ, New York Times, World Net Daily, FOX News, and the legions of rite wing punditry have united and utilized this term to create a common enemy which they can tie to Nazi Germany and stir a common fear and bias towards.
Hence the rise of the term "Islamofascism".
Stephen Schwartz, a devotee and writer for the Weekly Standard, THE primary neocon periodical funded by Rupert Murdoch and founded by Bill Kristol, former VP Dan Quayle chief of staff and the same GOPer who founded the PNAC which gave us American imperialism post Cold War and the Bush Doctrine and the invasion/transformation of Iraq plan, claims to be the first to use the "Islamofascism" analogy in the Neocon Weekly Standard.
Do you know who Stephen Schwartz is?
He is an Jewish American who converted to Islam in the 1990s into a sufi sect called the Naqshbandi/Haqqani sufi order. He apparently is a follower of the Islamic Supreme Council of America's leader, Kabbani, the appointed leader from Haqqani. Haqqani(the global sect leader) and Kabbani (the American leader) believe they are the true Muslims and the rest of the Muslims in America and the scores of Muslim groups and their movements throughout the world are deviants, mostly because they disagree with them and refuse to pay allegiance to Haqqani.
Those Muslim groups that compete with the sect are targetted for political and intellectual repression, if not physical repression. This is partially motivated by the unwillingness of these groups to submit to Haqqani's sectarian supremacy and bow to him in allegiance to his reign. But since the Naqshbandi-Haqqani order is a tiny sect of little significance within the Muslim world, they have buddied up to any governments that will ally with them and work to turn them against the majority of Muslims. Of the most supportive Muslim governments, the sect considers itself allied with the Uzbekistan ruler Islam Karimov. (This is largely due to the fact that the Naqshbandi order originated in the Uzbek Fergana valley region.)
Haqqani and Kabbani have paid homage to Karimov, as has Schwartz. One will find Schwartz, the allegedly unoffical mouthpiece of Kabbani, actually calling for and supporting Karimov's violent military and government repression of nonviolent Muslim groups in Uzbekistan in his Weekly Standard articles. Kabbani, the American emissary of Haqqani, regularly advises Bush, Cheney, Rice, and other officials on strategies towards the Muslim world. Kabbani has publicly attacked every Muslim group in America, levelled allegations of nearly every mosque in America (except his) of being terrorist fronts and full of extremists. It is quite reasonable to conclude that the Bush administration's venomous rhetorical attack on Muslims in America and abroad has been supported by Kabbani, if not directly coordinated with his group.
Schwartz, as a Haqqani/Kabbani follower, berates and seeks repression of all Muslim groups , ecspecially nonviolent groups, who differ from his sectarianism. Given Schwartz is the most influential Muslim writer/journalist in Washington, beyond the liberal Newsweek editor Fareed Zakariya, Schwartz's agenda is apparently heard by Neocon strategists seeking to bolster domestic political outcomes and worldwide propaganda campaigns. This lends to the weight of his diatribes against fellow Muslim groups. But Schwartz's prominence emerges from his devotion to and utility for the Neocon political worldview and world agenda ie. he's a tool. The Weekly Standard publishes his articles since they coencide with the Neocon worldview and political agenda. Given this is an election year, fellow neocons at the Washington Times, Washington Post, WSJ, New York Times, World Net Daily, FOX News, and the legions of rite wing punditry have united and utilized this term to create a common enemy which they can tie to Nazi Germany and stir a common fear and bias towards.
Hence the rise of the term "Islamofascism".
Monday, June 13, 2005
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Muslim Analysis: America Spreads Democracy Thin
This is the claim Bush and his supporters have put forth as evident of the political events over the past months. What are their claims?1)Iraqi elections are sign of developing democracy in Iraq2)Election in Palestine and the call for peace from Abbas is sign of democracy3)Mass protests for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon are signs of democracy4)Saudi govt announcement that there will be municipal elections in varoius cities are a sign democracy spreading5)Egyptian president Mubarak's claim that Egyptian elections will allow for more than one candidate are signs of democracy. First, elections are not solely the process of democracy. Communism has elections within the Communist party. Islam allows for elections within the Ahlil Hall wal Aqd as well as general elections for Majlis ash Shura members if not for the caliph himself. Basically, electing a representative or executive- a few or one to represent or carry out the duties of another or many- is as old as human society. In Islam its called wakila- representation. So elections are not reserved for democracy alone. Second, mass marches are not solely representative of democracy. Every major political cause in the 20th century included marches, whether it was democracy, communism, fascism, Islam. So marches are not specifically signs of democracy. Third, the actual events referred to all have particular factors which call into question the veracity of sovereign people or genuine ideological movements directly tied to America's leadership.
1)The Iraqi elections: the Iraqi people are under occupation by a military and imperial force that undermines the political sovereignty and authority of the Iraqi people. That force set up the elections, shaped the political circumstance preceding and during the elections, and is a measureable force in shaping politics in Iraq. Hence, if democracy is independent representative government by a certain people, then the Iraqi elections certainly were not a development of democracy. Rather, they were a development of imperial occupation shaping politics in an occupied nation. 2)Again, while there was definitely an election in Palestinian territory that resulted in a new government, the territory of Palestine is in effect occupied by Israel and the political sovereignty of the Palestinian people is determined by Israel which chooses to allow the Palestinian people to elect their own government. In effect, the Palestinian people are not independent of any foreign occupying power, just as the Iraqi people, and therefore their election is measurably shaped by Israel (through Israel's assasinations of various Palestinians, diplomatic mandates, direct occupation: check points, embargoes, control of all ports, relations with the rest of the world). So the Palestinian election may have placed into office a representative minister, but the Palestinian people were occupied by Israel and denied truly independent self determination, political sovereignty and authority to shape their political affairs. 3)The mass marches and protests for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon were not a result of an idea, they were the reaction to the assasination of Rafiq Hariri. The assasination itself, an enormous bombing which affected buildings a mile away, were the modus operandi of American operatives during the civil war in Lebanon. while most likelyAmericans did not carry out the bombing themselves, they very likely had operatives do so for their interests. The death of Harriri has served to galvanize the same forces that America supported during the Lebanese civil war- Christians, Druze, Sunni nationalists- which suggests American intervention directly or indirectly. Thus, assasinating a national figure to galvanize supporters for an imperial interest- withdrawl of Syria- could be deemed a development of democracy in Lebanon, but speaks to the morality an ideological deficiency of democracy. More likely, galvanizing long time allies in a nation is not representative of democracy. However, if the withdraw of occupation and the allowance for independent governance IS a development of democracy, then cases 1 and 2 are as stated, not representative of democracy and 3 may be. However, Shia factions in Lebanon have recently held marches in favor of Syrian occupation, which suggests that the views of the American allies in Lebanon are not representative of all the people nor even of the majority of the people. 4)The Saudi elections were officially planned back in the mid 1990s and therefore not reflective of America's spread of democracy today. 5)The Mubarak claim for greater representation in the elections is merely a procedural development based on his personal whim and not a shift in authority from him to the Egyptian people. Moreover, Egyptians see his plan is to use a wider electorate to appear to be legitimate while pushing the election of his son as the new PM. Thus, his claim appears to be a ploy for his political legacy. Ultimately, the claim that these 5 events are representative of America's spread of democracy in the Muslim world are more representative of American pursuit of regional interests while compromising the political sovereignty and authority of the Muslim people there.
1)The Iraqi elections: the Iraqi people are under occupation by a military and imperial force that undermines the political sovereignty and authority of the Iraqi people. That force set up the elections, shaped the political circumstance preceding and during the elections, and is a measureable force in shaping politics in Iraq. Hence, if democracy is independent representative government by a certain people, then the Iraqi elections certainly were not a development of democracy. Rather, they were a development of imperial occupation shaping politics in an occupied nation. 2)Again, while there was definitely an election in Palestinian territory that resulted in a new government, the territory of Palestine is in effect occupied by Israel and the political sovereignty of the Palestinian people is determined by Israel which chooses to allow the Palestinian people to elect their own government. In effect, the Palestinian people are not independent of any foreign occupying power, just as the Iraqi people, and therefore their election is measurably shaped by Israel (through Israel's assasinations of various Palestinians, diplomatic mandates, direct occupation: check points, embargoes, control of all ports, relations with the rest of the world). So the Palestinian election may have placed into office a representative minister, but the Palestinian people were occupied by Israel and denied truly independent self determination, political sovereignty and authority to shape their political affairs. 3)The mass marches and protests for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon were not a result of an idea, they were the reaction to the assasination of Rafiq Hariri. The assasination itself, an enormous bombing which affected buildings a mile away, were the modus operandi of American operatives during the civil war in Lebanon. while most likelyAmericans did not carry out the bombing themselves, they very likely had operatives do so for their interests. The death of Harriri has served to galvanize the same forces that America supported during the Lebanese civil war- Christians, Druze, Sunni nationalists- which suggests American intervention directly or indirectly. Thus, assasinating a national figure to galvanize supporters for an imperial interest- withdrawl of Syria- could be deemed a development of democracy in Lebanon, but speaks to the morality an ideological deficiency of democracy. More likely, galvanizing long time allies in a nation is not representative of democracy. However, if the withdraw of occupation and the allowance for independent governance IS a development of democracy, then cases 1 and 2 are as stated, not representative of democracy and 3 may be. However, Shia factions in Lebanon have recently held marches in favor of Syrian occupation, which suggests that the views of the American allies in Lebanon are not representative of all the people nor even of the majority of the people. 4)The Saudi elections were officially planned back in the mid 1990s and therefore not reflective of America's spread of democracy today. 5)The Mubarak claim for greater representation in the elections is merely a procedural development based on his personal whim and not a shift in authority from him to the Egyptian people. Moreover, Egyptians see his plan is to use a wider electorate to appear to be legitimate while pushing the election of his son as the new PM. Thus, his claim appears to be a ploy for his political legacy. Ultimately, the claim that these 5 events are representative of America's spread of democracy in the Muslim world are more representative of American pursuit of regional interests while compromising the political sovereignty and authority of the Muslim people there.
Muslim Analysis: The Back Door to Darfur- Looking at all the Angles
Bismillahir Rahmanir RahimAll praises are due to Allah, peace and blessing upon the Prophet Muhammad.What is the conflict in Sudan? For how long has their been strife, war, suffering in Sudan? Who are the perpetrators and why do they do it?Today, the vast majority of suffering, destruction, and conflict continues in the Darfur region of Sudan. But why has it occurred?GEOGRAPHY:Sudan has a population of 34 million, consists of 2 million squ miles, is the largest nation in Africa, and borders 9 other nations. 70% of the population is Muslim while the rest consist of Christian and animists. The two major ethnic groups are the Arabs and Africans.Darfur is the western most state of Sudan. It borders mostly Chad, with its northern most tip bordering Libya and its southern tip bordering the Central African Republic. It is a largely flat arid to semi arid desolate region of Sudan outside of the large Nile river valley, which renders it lacking in water sources. The main mountain range is in the west: Jabal Marrah, and some in the south. In the southern region of Darfur are major oil contracts awarded by the Khartoum govt to Swedish and Chinese oil firms. More exploration is expected given Sudan is said to have some 600 million barrels in resevoirs. The Darfur people consist of several tribes who live be either substantive farming and agriculture or nomadic shepherding. The primary tribe of African ethnicity (language, race), the Zaghawi tribe, consist of members who live in both Sudan and Chad, and who dominate the Chadian govt; they are largely an agricultural people. Other agricultural tribes include: Agua, Fur, Massalit, Fulata. They are located most in the central and western regions of Darfur. The largely nomadic and Arab tribes include: Banu Hilba, Zuraiqat, Habania. They live in both the northern region and in the southern region of Darfur. Both ethncities in the Darfur region are largely Muslim despite the widespread presence of western missionaries. CONVENTATIONAL ANALYSISThe conventional observation claims the conflict to have been from a culmination of events, including the drought of 2001 which caused the nomadic people of the north to move southward into the central and western agricultural regions. The central and western regions of Darfur are said to be in the greatest strife. Observers note the conflict to be between the two lifestyles and to have escalated into ethnic divisions regardless of their common nationality and religion. Apparently, when the nomadic people began to venture into the agricultural regions, conflict ensued. The agricultural, African tribes formed militias to defend their lands and people. They formed the JEM: Justice and Equality Movement and the SLA/M: Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement which began their efforts largely in Feb 2003. Some of the Arab and nomadic tribes historically already composed militias called the Janjaweed. The conventional observations assert that in 2/03, the SLA and JEM initiated their rebellion/insurgency and declared they wanted to defend their property and people and to advance the development of their region which has been neglected by the Khartoum govt. The Janjaweed did not form into any particular political movement and did not offer any motivations. Conventional observations have asserted the Khartoum govt has basically allied with the Janjaweed and used them as irregular forces to drive out the tribes proportedly tied to the SLA and JEM. Sudanese military aircraft are said to provide air support to Janjaweed forces on civilian populations. Vast numbers of civilians have sought refuge in Chad, near the western most border of Darfur near Chad, and around urban areas.
What was presented earlier consists of the information and observations void of the geo-political motivations of all the various players in that particular region. The earlier observations usually ignore the strategic interests such world powers as America have in taking one side or the other and ignores any clandestine or subversive motivations of foreign powers. Insha Allah, I will present a brief history and an analysis of the conflict in Sudan and the likely motivations of the region's players.STRATEGIC HISTORYThe Sudanese region has been a part of the Muslim world for centuries. Islam spread to the various regions of Sudan's Darfur apparently in the 18th century CE. The Fur tribe formed a sultanate (independent rule) consisting of several tribes and located in central Darfur. While Islam was not carried through out the southern regions of Sudan due to various regions, and the southern region of Sudan had a tenous and dark period during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries, the people of Sudan, Muslim and nonMuslim, have been a part of the Muslim Ummah. During the colonial era (1890s-1950s), the British ruled the northern portions of Sudan, aided in its development, and favored the Arab people over the southern African people. While The British began their imperial rule in the 1890s, they did not gain complete control over the Darfur region until the 1910s.In contrast, the nonMuslim south was left largely undeveloped, all Arab and Egyptian ties were forcibly cut, Islamic religion, culture, and Muslim economic ties were forcibly ended by the British. Instead, Christian missionaries were permitted widespread influence and aid.While still part of the British empire, in 1930, the British were preparing the southern Sudanese to be seperate from the northern people (who consisted of Arabs AND Africans, both Muslim and nonMuslim tribes). They apparently planned to make southern Sudan part of Kenya. (This in turn would enable the British several strategic advantages, such as access to central Africa from Kenya). Aiding the British, American missionaries in Uganda (bordering Sudan's southern region) and southern Sudan played a role in development of and the spread of Christianity.
STRATEGIC HISTORYWhile there was some effort to reunite Sudan with Egypt, this was ended when Egypt did not reciprocate the plan. Moreover, when the Sudanese parliement under the British rule of Sudan finally ratified independence from Britain in early 1956, all efforts were made NOT to reunite Sudan with Egypt. Just prior to independence, southern Sudanese military forces (under northern officers) mutinied in Aug 1955. Their mutiny was suppressed by the Khartoum govt but several southern mutineers continued their rebellion from desolate regions of the south. The southern rebels formed the Anya Nyu, a rebel group wiht 5000-10000 forces. Several nations aided the southern rebels, including Israel, Uganda, Kenya. Israel trained Anya recruits and equipped them. In 1971, Joseph Lagu helped unite the southern rebels by forming the SSLM- Southern Sudanese Liberation Movement. Anya Nyu joined the SSLM but formed the bulk of their military. At the Addis Ababa 1971 conference, Sudanese president Numeiri awarded the SSLM much of what they wanted: autonomy granted the southern regions, ruled by a president (governor) selected by the national president on the recommendation of a southern assembly, and a Sudanese southern military manned 50% by southerners of the Israeli trained Anya Nyu and 50% from the north.Some years later, after Numeiri disbanded the southern regional assembly and redistricted the southern region, and Numeiri began implementing shari`ah law throughout Sudan, the SPLA/M (Sudanese People's Liberation Army/Movment) emerged from the remnants of the Anya Nyu and SSLM and continued their rebellion. After a set of coups, the general Bashir coup succeeded and has ruled hte north since 1989. Since then, Bashir first waged war against the SPLA then has negotiated peace with it. This April 2004, Khartoum signed a new peace accord with the SPLA that provided the same autonomy, a southern military with 50/50 forces, but also a split of oil revenues AND the right for the south to secede if they so choose to. Bashir originally allied with the NIF then led by Hasan Al Turabi, a proponent of an Islamic state in Sudan. However, of the past 6 years, Bashir has pushed al Turabi out of office, placed him under house arrest for 2 years, and recently filed charges of insurrection likely to bring a 10 years sentence for the 72 yr old leader. His Popular Congress party was recently banned. After 1955, America had an ever increasing role in Sudan through both supporting the southern rebels as well as gaining closer ties with the Khartoum govt. In the 1950s and 60s, Israel and Britain were regiona; adversaries of America that regularly supported coups and rebellions against American puppet regimes and vis versa America. America aided the Free Officers Movement (FOM) to come to power in a coup in Egypt in the mid1950s. Soon after, Israel allied with Britain and France against the FOM-run Egypt to take over the Suez canal. America joined with the USSR to force the triumvirate to withdrawl. To no surprise, The new Sudan- itself born of BRitish empire- turned away from unification from Egypt (which was Britain's original aim) but kept its southern region. The Numeiri govt turned the direction of Sudan away from its British ties and linked it with the USSR. Until the Bashir regime, the southern rebels were supported by Britain and Israel. During the Bashir regime, the rebels were supported by America directly as well as through clandestine aid through Uganda.
STRATEGIC ANALYSISSudan has been the target of American pressure since at least 1989. During the Numeiri govt, America wanted the Khartoum to cave into greater autonomy for hte south and greater secularization throughout.America has pushed the Bashir regime in the same direction. Bashir has capitulated by removing the influence of the Islamic parties in Khartoum, imprisoning and weakening al Turabi, PC, and the NIF.Reports indicate that in 2000, Bashir allowed for the FBI and CIA to scower Sudan for any so called terrorists connected to Al Qaeda. Bashir also pushed through several secularizing amendments, effectly ending the role of shari`ah in Sudan. In order to end American pressure, Bashir has complied with American aims so far by allowing the south a 50/50 oil revenue sharing with the southern region eventhough they compose less than 50% of the population and consist of less than 33% of the nation, and secularization of Sudan throughout. . But America aims for more than that. 9/11, the NEO CONS, and DarfurSoon after 9/11, former democratic pres. candidate Wesley Clark got in contact with Pentagon contacts who told him the Bush administration wanted to wage war on a list of countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Libya. Clark said publicly that America planned to wage a war that appeared like imperialism. In 1/04 and 2/04, the Emirate paper al Khareej reported US asst secy Armitage requested of the US Senate appropriations for a 75,000 military for $100 million and over 5 years $660 million to serve in Sudan. Former US pres Carter admonished America's role in Sudan as wanting to continue conflict by aiding rebellion. Just this June 204, sec state Powell said there will be no peace for Sudan until the Darfur is settled. Similarly to the Indonesian conflict in East Timor where Indonesia's military fomented strife of questionable objectives which justified UN, American, and Australian intervention and the secussion of East Timor from Indonesia, Bashir appears to be walking the same path, perhaps even intentionally. The strife in Darfur- driving out millions of Muslims and killing 1000s provides a justification for western forces to engage in further intervention. The SLM and JEM appear to have seperatist intentions and the Bashir govt has offered nothing but an extreme response incapable of solving the long standing problems. Instead, Bashir further pushes the likely intervention and/or separatist agenda for the Darfur rebels. Moreover, the Bush neo-con agenda apparently seeks to reshape the Muslim world and further weaken any Muslim nations with the potential for liberation from American influence.
As the events in the Darfur region continue to unfold, America's role there should be closely examined. As mentioned previously, one of the primary tribes in Darfur, the Zaghawa, also have members in Chad, including the Chadian president Idris Deby. In fact the Zaghawi dominate the Chadian govt eventhough they constitute around 1% of the population. Deby has allied himself with America in the War against Terror and is financed in part by the Pan Sahel Initiative, a US-EU Command program for equipping and empowering Sahel nations. Chad also enjoys new oil wealth from its recent completion of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline. Former Chadian ambassador to America, Ahmat Soubiane, recently made a major indictment of the Chadian president Deby (for which Deby fired him- Soubiane remains in America under political asylum from Deby) as equipping the Darfur rebel groups and having his elite guards advise, train, and engage with the Darfur rebels against the Khartoum govt. Deby is able to do this with Sahel financing. In addition, Khartoum has claimed Eritrea is assisting the Darfur rebels as well. Deby has also consolidated his control of Chad by appointing his family members to finance minister of the Chad central bank and his nephew to prime minister. America appears to intend to continually break apart Muslim nations and weaken their central govts by aiding groups that are distinct or differ from the Muslim majority ( the Darfur rebels against the Arab Khartoum govt), including the SPLA (manned mostly by Christian and animist Dinka tribe and others). America did this by supporting the mainly Christian East Timor independence from Indonesia, and for over 100 years supported the Lebanese Christians in Lebanon. However, America supports the integrity of nations that repress Muslim minorities, like the Indian govt in Kashmir, the Uighurs in western China, and the Chechen people in Russia. Most likely (and may Allah forbid this), the Darfur will become a semiautonomous region in Sudan similar to the Kurdish region in Iraq and the southern Sudan. America's military is too preoccupied in Iraq and central Asia to mount a major mission in Sudan. However, it will likely use the African Union's (AU) (formerly the OAU) new military initiative , financed by America and the EU, to intervene in Sudan and enforce the Darfur autonomy. Recently, the UN reported 3000 Darfur civilians have been killed in the fighting and 600,000- 1 million have been displaced. And the matters continues to unfold...
Ahmat Soubiane of Chad Makes Remarks as Council for Foreign Relations meetings in Apr 2004http://www.cfr.org/projects.php?id=391US military considered but downplays its direct role in Sudanhttp://www.sudan.net/news/posted/8860.htmlDarfur Rebel groupshttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/darfur.htmAU military into Sudanhttp://splmtoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1210
Pan Sahel Initiativehttp://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/14987.htm
State Dept's Pan Sahel Initiative (PSI) has sent 10th Special Forces troops into Pan Sahel nations, Mali, Chad, Niger, Mauritania. This places American forces working directly with the Chadian govt supporting the Darfur rebel forces, if not training the Darfur rebels themselves. http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Pan-Sahel_InitiativeThis url has several AP and other legit. news sources reporting on the presence of US spec forces training and working in Chad among other nations. While the PSI budget is around 7 million and is reported to grow to $120+ million in 5 years, the likely classified State dept and Pentagon funds could bulge this budget to over 10-20 million or more annually. Thus, America is very likely fomenting the Darfur rebellion which spurned what on the surface appeared to be an inordinantly violent Khartoum response. And Allah knows best. Insha Allah, continuing examination of the matter.
What was presented earlier consists of the information and observations void of the geo-political motivations of all the various players in that particular region. The earlier observations usually ignore the strategic interests such world powers as America have in taking one side or the other and ignores any clandestine or subversive motivations of foreign powers. Insha Allah, I will present a brief history and an analysis of the conflict in Sudan and the likely motivations of the region's players.STRATEGIC HISTORYThe Sudanese region has been a part of the Muslim world for centuries. Islam spread to the various regions of Sudan's Darfur apparently in the 18th century CE. The Fur tribe formed a sultanate (independent rule) consisting of several tribes and located in central Darfur. While Islam was not carried through out the southern regions of Sudan due to various regions, and the southern region of Sudan had a tenous and dark period during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries, the people of Sudan, Muslim and nonMuslim, have been a part of the Muslim Ummah. During the colonial era (1890s-1950s), the British ruled the northern portions of Sudan, aided in its development, and favored the Arab people over the southern African people. While The British began their imperial rule in the 1890s, they did not gain complete control over the Darfur region until the 1910s.In contrast, the nonMuslim south was left largely undeveloped, all Arab and Egyptian ties were forcibly cut, Islamic religion, culture, and Muslim economic ties were forcibly ended by the British. Instead, Christian missionaries were permitted widespread influence and aid.While still part of the British empire, in 1930, the British were preparing the southern Sudanese to be seperate from the northern people (who consisted of Arabs AND Africans, both Muslim and nonMuslim tribes). They apparently planned to make southern Sudan part of Kenya. (This in turn would enable the British several strategic advantages, such as access to central Africa from Kenya). Aiding the British, American missionaries in Uganda (bordering Sudan's southern region) and southern Sudan played a role in development of and the spread of Christianity.
STRATEGIC HISTORYWhile there was some effort to reunite Sudan with Egypt, this was ended when Egypt did not reciprocate the plan. Moreover, when the Sudanese parliement under the British rule of Sudan finally ratified independence from Britain in early 1956, all efforts were made NOT to reunite Sudan with Egypt. Just prior to independence, southern Sudanese military forces (under northern officers) mutinied in Aug 1955. Their mutiny was suppressed by the Khartoum govt but several southern mutineers continued their rebellion from desolate regions of the south. The southern rebels formed the Anya Nyu, a rebel group wiht 5000-10000 forces. Several nations aided the southern rebels, including Israel, Uganda, Kenya. Israel trained Anya recruits and equipped them. In 1971, Joseph Lagu helped unite the southern rebels by forming the SSLM- Southern Sudanese Liberation Movement. Anya Nyu joined the SSLM but formed the bulk of their military. At the Addis Ababa 1971 conference, Sudanese president Numeiri awarded the SSLM much of what they wanted: autonomy granted the southern regions, ruled by a president (governor) selected by the national president on the recommendation of a southern assembly, and a Sudanese southern military manned 50% by southerners of the Israeli trained Anya Nyu and 50% from the north.Some years later, after Numeiri disbanded the southern regional assembly and redistricted the southern region, and Numeiri began implementing shari`ah law throughout Sudan, the SPLA/M (Sudanese People's Liberation Army/Movment) emerged from the remnants of the Anya Nyu and SSLM and continued their rebellion. After a set of coups, the general Bashir coup succeeded and has ruled hte north since 1989. Since then, Bashir first waged war against the SPLA then has negotiated peace with it. This April 2004, Khartoum signed a new peace accord with the SPLA that provided the same autonomy, a southern military with 50/50 forces, but also a split of oil revenues AND the right for the south to secede if they so choose to. Bashir originally allied with the NIF then led by Hasan Al Turabi, a proponent of an Islamic state in Sudan. However, of the past 6 years, Bashir has pushed al Turabi out of office, placed him under house arrest for 2 years, and recently filed charges of insurrection likely to bring a 10 years sentence for the 72 yr old leader. His Popular Congress party was recently banned. After 1955, America had an ever increasing role in Sudan through both supporting the southern rebels as well as gaining closer ties with the Khartoum govt. In the 1950s and 60s, Israel and Britain were regiona; adversaries of America that regularly supported coups and rebellions against American puppet regimes and vis versa America. America aided the Free Officers Movement (FOM) to come to power in a coup in Egypt in the mid1950s. Soon after, Israel allied with Britain and France against the FOM-run Egypt to take over the Suez canal. America joined with the USSR to force the triumvirate to withdrawl. To no surprise, The new Sudan- itself born of BRitish empire- turned away from unification from Egypt (which was Britain's original aim) but kept its southern region. The Numeiri govt turned the direction of Sudan away from its British ties and linked it with the USSR. Until the Bashir regime, the southern rebels were supported by Britain and Israel. During the Bashir regime, the rebels were supported by America directly as well as through clandestine aid through Uganda.
STRATEGIC ANALYSISSudan has been the target of American pressure since at least 1989. During the Numeiri govt, America wanted the Khartoum to cave into greater autonomy for hte south and greater secularization throughout.America has pushed the Bashir regime in the same direction. Bashir has capitulated by removing the influence of the Islamic parties in Khartoum, imprisoning and weakening al Turabi, PC, and the NIF.Reports indicate that in 2000, Bashir allowed for the FBI and CIA to scower Sudan for any so called terrorists connected to Al Qaeda. Bashir also pushed through several secularizing amendments, effectly ending the role of shari`ah in Sudan. In order to end American pressure, Bashir has complied with American aims so far by allowing the south a 50/50 oil revenue sharing with the southern region eventhough they compose less than 50% of the population and consist of less than 33% of the nation, and secularization of Sudan throughout. . But America aims for more than that. 9/11, the NEO CONS, and DarfurSoon after 9/11, former democratic pres. candidate Wesley Clark got in contact with Pentagon contacts who told him the Bush administration wanted to wage war on a list of countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Libya. Clark said publicly that America planned to wage a war that appeared like imperialism. In 1/04 and 2/04, the Emirate paper al Khareej reported US asst secy Armitage requested of the US Senate appropriations for a 75,000 military for $100 million and over 5 years $660 million to serve in Sudan. Former US pres Carter admonished America's role in Sudan as wanting to continue conflict by aiding rebellion. Just this June 204, sec state Powell said there will be no peace for Sudan until the Darfur is settled. Similarly to the Indonesian conflict in East Timor where Indonesia's military fomented strife of questionable objectives which justified UN, American, and Australian intervention and the secussion of East Timor from Indonesia, Bashir appears to be walking the same path, perhaps even intentionally. The strife in Darfur- driving out millions of Muslims and killing 1000s provides a justification for western forces to engage in further intervention. The SLM and JEM appear to have seperatist intentions and the Bashir govt has offered nothing but an extreme response incapable of solving the long standing problems. Instead, Bashir further pushes the likely intervention and/or separatist agenda for the Darfur rebels. Moreover, the Bush neo-con agenda apparently seeks to reshape the Muslim world and further weaken any Muslim nations with the potential for liberation from American influence.
As the events in the Darfur region continue to unfold, America's role there should be closely examined. As mentioned previously, one of the primary tribes in Darfur, the Zaghawa, also have members in Chad, including the Chadian president Idris Deby. In fact the Zaghawi dominate the Chadian govt eventhough they constitute around 1% of the population. Deby has allied himself with America in the War against Terror and is financed in part by the Pan Sahel Initiative, a US-EU Command program for equipping and empowering Sahel nations. Chad also enjoys new oil wealth from its recent completion of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline. Former Chadian ambassador to America, Ahmat Soubiane, recently made a major indictment of the Chadian president Deby (for which Deby fired him- Soubiane remains in America under political asylum from Deby) as equipping the Darfur rebel groups and having his elite guards advise, train, and engage with the Darfur rebels against the Khartoum govt. Deby is able to do this with Sahel financing. In addition, Khartoum has claimed Eritrea is assisting the Darfur rebels as well. Deby has also consolidated his control of Chad by appointing his family members to finance minister of the Chad central bank and his nephew to prime minister. America appears to intend to continually break apart Muslim nations and weaken their central govts by aiding groups that are distinct or differ from the Muslim majority ( the Darfur rebels against the Arab Khartoum govt), including the SPLA (manned mostly by Christian and animist Dinka tribe and others). America did this by supporting the mainly Christian East Timor independence from Indonesia, and for over 100 years supported the Lebanese Christians in Lebanon. However, America supports the integrity of nations that repress Muslim minorities, like the Indian govt in Kashmir, the Uighurs in western China, and the Chechen people in Russia. Most likely (and may Allah forbid this), the Darfur will become a semiautonomous region in Sudan similar to the Kurdish region in Iraq and the southern Sudan. America's military is too preoccupied in Iraq and central Asia to mount a major mission in Sudan. However, it will likely use the African Union's (AU) (formerly the OAU) new military initiative , financed by America and the EU, to intervene in Sudan and enforce the Darfur autonomy. Recently, the UN reported 3000 Darfur civilians have been killed in the fighting and 600,000- 1 million have been displaced. And the matters continues to unfold...
Ahmat Soubiane of Chad Makes Remarks as Council for Foreign Relations meetings in Apr 2004http://www.cfr.org/projects.php?id=391US military considered but downplays its direct role in Sudanhttp://www.sudan.net/news/posted/8860.htmlDarfur Rebel groupshttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/darfur.htmAU military into Sudanhttp://splmtoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1210
Pan Sahel Initiativehttp://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/14987.htm
State Dept's Pan Sahel Initiative (PSI) has sent 10th Special Forces troops into Pan Sahel nations, Mali, Chad, Niger, Mauritania. This places American forces working directly with the Chadian govt supporting the Darfur rebel forces, if not training the Darfur rebels themselves. http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Pan-Sahel_InitiativeThis url has several AP and other legit. news sources reporting on the presence of US spec forces training and working in Chad among other nations. While the PSI budget is around 7 million and is reported to grow to $120+ million in 5 years, the likely classified State dept and Pentagon funds could bulge this budget to over 10-20 million or more annually. Thus, America is very likely fomenting the Darfur rebellion which spurned what on the surface appeared to be an inordinantly violent Khartoum response. And Allah knows best. Insha Allah, continuing examination of the matter.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
They Call me Usama
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. I seek protection in Allah from Shaytan the rejected one. I praise Allah and pray for peace and blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad. The name 'USAMA' may seem ominous or villianous or conjure hatred and enmity among those who were hurt and suffered on September 11, 2001, but it is far greater than the man that made it so enduring and outrageous to the world today. In fact there are many humble, pious, honorable 'Usama's through history. Perhaps the most beloved is Usama bin Zaid (ra). The Prophet Muhammad (saaw) called him 'his beloved': habibi. He was the son of Zaid bin Harith (ra), the freed slave of Muhammad (saaw) . Zaid was given to Muhammad (saaw) as a gift from his wealthy wife Khadija (raa) when Zaid was still a boy. Instead, Muhammad (saaw) freed him and adopted him as his own son. For the longest time, Zaid was known as Zaid bin Muhammad (Zaid the son of Muhammad). Muhammad (saaw) treated Zaid as his son and Zaid treated Muhammad (saaw) as his father, defending him when he was attacked, helping him when he was injured, supporting him in the worst of times. Zaid was among the first few people to accept Islam and was one of Muhammad (saaw) 's his closest confidantes throughout his life. When Zaid married and had a son, he named him Usama. Muhammad (saaw) loved Zaid as a son and he loved Usama as if he was his grandson, calling him 'his Habibi'. Usama bin Zaid (ra) was known to have the greatest piety and strength and was respected for his purity of heart and mind. This is the beloved story behind the name Usama for the Muslim world. All the adventures and good deeds of Usama bin Zaid (ra) and the love the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) had for him uplifted the love him among the Muslim people and encouraged Muslim parents to name their children Usama for 1400 years. God willng, purity of heart and mind, piety, strength to do good and stand against evil: hat is why the name 'Usama' will remain. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)