Flying Royals Drowning Lambs

Appalling. That’s how I feel when I look at the condition of the Muslims in the Middle-East. Its very difficult to believe that the Arabs of the Peninsula had once conquered the known world 1400 years ago. How could these nomad Bedouins crush the mighty empires of Persia and Rome? The “How” is more important in the last question because when you look at their descendants you will find traces of anything but that of warriors who took on the world head on.

Let me cut to the point straight away. The monarchs of the Arab world are weak, greedy, dependent (on US) and in totality utterly incompetent to be the leaders of a people who once held the civilizational torch guiding mankind from darkness to light. It seems that the torch has turned into a dilluminator, guiding mankind from light towards dark dungeons of arrogance, ignorance and war-mongering.

Lets see the political reality of this important oil rich Arab Muslim country named after its conqueror, Saudi Arabia. Its rich in oil and gold. Its an important strategic partner for the US and the country is above all very dear to Muslims across the world because it is home to the cities of Makkah and Madinah, the two holiest places in all of Islam. Muslims in general feel very uncomfortable talking about the Country which is symbolically the center of the Islamic world. Talking about the Saudi misdeeds and injustices feels like spitting at the sun.

Saudi Royals have on the other hand keep working hard to make it easy to come out in the open about them. True, no country is a land of angels, and we cant expect miracles from the governments who rule us. We can or we cant choose our leadership is not the main focus o his thread. Neither is it to judge whether th ability to choose is better or worse than the natural outcome of power struggle. The main point is, what drives the policies of a country and what are its objectives.

The Saudis may hit back asking why a non-Saudi guy (like me) should have the audacity to critically examine Saudi Government, especially when the citizens themselves are very happy with their government. More importantly, what difference will it make to the Saudis what opinion I have of them? None at all actually. That’s right, no matter how much me and other bloggers bash the Saudi government, it wont change a thing. Here is why. The concept of “Independent” “Sovereign” “Nation State” is the philosophical mountain behind which hides the governments of the present world, in different shapes, forms, colors and shades. The independent nation state answers to no body but itself, which naturally forces the state to adopt policies that protect ethnic, sectarian, cultural, linguistic and religious biases. Let me explain.

We know that the single biggest problem in the world is the Palestinian occupation by the European Zionists. The Muslim world expects the richest Muslim country in the world to do something about it, diplomatically and maybe even militarily to defend the lives of innocent people in Ghazza specially. But why should the Saudis risk their “sovereignty” over the Palestinian issue? On the other hand, Saudis are dependent on the US for their very existence because they fear that the Palestinians might collude with Iraqis and Yemenis to take control of the Arabian Peninsula. If not them, then surely Iran will take over Saudi Arabia, is the fear that has been silently taught on the streets on Arabia so that the common people will blindly throw their weight behind the Royals’ strategy to rely on western powers to keep the sheikhs in power. To save the ethnic Saudis from such a dishonorable position where they must work to earn a living for a change, we see the unfolding of different fronts. The ethnical front is the war against the fearsome rebellious militant Palstinians and the dirt poor Yemenis. The sectarian front is the threat of shii Iran. The linguistic and cultural threats are the Asians who work mostly menial jobs. With all these threats (or evils) facing the Saudi Arabian Society, who could blame them for taking the kind of stance they have taken recently.

The Arabian Peninsula has been active in the regional strategy since 2011 in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. First, they bank rolled the militants who started the civil war in Syria to dislodge Bashar. Till date 500,000 people died and the war is far from over as Russia and Iran have come in full support to defend the madman Bashar. Then came Egypt. Saudi petro dollars were channeled to the mass murderer Sisi who lead a bloody coup to take over power in Cairo.
Then came Bahrain. Saudis marched into the country to crush the rise of Arab Spring in Manama. Innocent people were bulldozed and the people brutally silenced by Saudi guns. Next, Yemen, the cradle of Arab civilization. Saudis not only bombed the Yemeni villagers but they forced a shut down of food and medicine to starve the people eto submission when their guns failed to conquer Yemeni pride. Yemen did not give up, even though it is now like Ethiopia in the 80’s.
Next Qatar, the super rich Arab state and the home of Al Jazeera.

Qatar is the only Arab country in the Peninsula which rivals the Saudis diplomatically in the region and beyond. Doha hosts among others, the Taliban, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood leadership. Moreover, the Saudis suspect Qatar to have informal strategic relationship with Iran. To strengthen the Saudi diplomacy, US President Trump visited the country for the Islamic Arab Summit where 55 muslim countries also took part. It was another way of showing the world that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, is the leader of the Muslim world as a state.

Saudis have more than just a few points to demand their presumed superiority in the Muslim world. It has the world’s largest reserve of oil, it is the closest Arab ally of the US, it employs millions of South Asian Muslims making the Kingdom a very important source of foreign currency for countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and India. Above all, it has the spiritual, religious and traditional supremacy over the vast majority of Muslims simply by default due to the location of Makkah and Medina in their geo-political government. Its an unwritten law amongst Muslims, who believe that, who ever has authority in Makkah and Medina must therefore also be the supreme leader of the Muslim Ummah. The fact that the Saudis never ever claimed to be the leader of the Ummah doesn’t really matter, average Muslim will hold the Saud family in high esteem as long as the custodianship of the two sacred masjids are with that tribe.

When the Sharifs of Makkah betrayed the Ottomans, Muslim thinkers and leaders in South Asia remained mostly silent for fear of speaking against the family that administers the two sacred mosques. Muslims just didn’t get it then and they still suffer from that old disease. The unjust rulers loose their right to the title of Imamah (leadership) over the Ummah, is as sacred as faith and belief in God, as its Wahy (revelation) from God to Nabi Ibraheem and confirmed by the Majestic Quraan to Nabi Muhammad (sallillahu alihi wa aalihi wa sallam).

Are we Muslims naïve or just un-intelligent when it comes to our Deen (system of Life) I keep asking myself. We read in the Noble Quraan that God chose us to be Witness over all mankind, alternative meaning, to spread justice on earth, and to stand firm against any obstacle that hinders the progress of kindness, generosity, liberty, morality, honesty, sincerity, truthfulness and general goodness amongst people. Muslim men and women face the task that holds the key to their ultimate destination, to support all that is good and to resist all that is evil, a concept that strikes at the very foundation of the Jahilii (nationalistic, fascist, tribal) society currently in place in so many countries where Muslims live in overwhelming majority.

Advertisements

Iran US Nuke Deal – Why Are Iranians Smiling So Much?

In the week when the US normalised relations with two of its historic foes – Cuba and Iran, the global media gave wall-to-wall coverage to the deal between the US and Iran, describing it as a historic deal that potentially changes the global political landscape. The accord was announced on Tuesday 14 July by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the European Union’s Policy Chief Federica Mogherini in a joint statement in the Austrian capital. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the deal a “win-win” solution to end “an unnecessary crisis and open new horizons for dealing with serious problems that affect our international community. I believe this is a historic moment.” US President Barak Obama, in a White House briefing described the deal as: “Today after two years of negotiation the United States together with the international community has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The details of the deal show Iran capitulated to every US demand and in effect abandoned its nuclear programme. Under the terms of the deal, Tehran agreed to remove two-thirds of its centrifuges, reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium to a fraction of what would be needed to make a bomb and halt the use of advanced centrifuges for 10 years. Iran also promised not to build a new heavy water reactor for 15 years and will modify the core of its heavy-water plutonium reactor at Arak, while its spent fuel — a key component of a potential bomb — will be shipped outside of the country. On top of this Iran would allow UN inspectors round-the-clock access to nuclear sites.

The US President confirmed the series of sanctions would be gradually lifted — providing Tehran with access to between $100 billion and $150 billion in frozen funds — only after Iran demonstrates it is abiding by its commitments under the agreement and would be reimposed if Iran was caught cheating. He also reiterated that Washington reserved the right to use force to prevent Iran from obtaining a bomb. The US Congress now has 60 days in which to consider the deal, though Obama said he would veto any attempt to block it.

After over a decade of negotiations and after developing a nuclear programme, Iran submitted itself to US terms, not even defending any aspect of its nuclear programme. Despite this agreement taking so long which included lots of extensions, the deal is really the culmination of more than a decade of careful diplomacy, with much of it behind the scenes. This nuclear deal was just one part of US-Iran normalization of relations.

Throughout both the 20th and 21st century Iran and US have maintained ties despite periods of animosity. The Shah was America’s man in the Middle East and whilst Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini considered the US the devil, Iran always sold oil to the US and never fully cut ties. After the Grand Ayatollah’s death and the emergence of Ali Khamenei, on all the key issues be it Saddam Hussain, the Iraq invasion and the Afghan invasion both the US and Iran worked closely together. But it was the invasion of Iraq which began in 2003 which bled the US dry that the US desperately needed Iran.

When the Arab Spring reached Syria, the US was seriously worried about developments in the Middle East. It was here the US needed Iran to play a central role in extricating the US and saving it from being defeated. Iran responded by making all its proxies join in the US constructed political system in Iraq. This then allowed US forces to concentrate on the insurgency in central Iraq. Sayyid Ali as-Hussayni al-Sistani brought Sadr, Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Da’wah factions together to form the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) that gained a large number of parliamentary seats in the 2005 elections. The group similarly won substantial seats in the 2010 parliamentary elections. Without Iran, the US would never have resolved the quagmire of Iraq. The US and Iran are so close in Iraq that when ISIS overran the Iraqi government in the Anbar province Iranian forces along with Shi’ah militia coordinated air attacks with Iranian ground attacks. But it is in Syria where US-Iranian interests directly converge, both see the al-Assad regime as the future of the country despite the public outcry for his removal. The US has had no problem with Iran propping up Bashar al-Assad as both are in agreement on this. In fact the US and Iran have been in agreement on much of the Middle East for a very long time despite their public rhetoric to the contrary.

Since 1979 Iran gained much support from the global Ummah for its stance against the US and the Jewish entity. Its support for Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine gained it much notoriety when the groups took on the Jewish entity in many wars and made her bleed. But Iran has abandoned the Ummah for its national interests and now sees working with the US as the best way for it to maintain its influence in the region. This has been the dream of many clerics in Iran for decades, despite the constant rhetoric from Tehran. As a regional power, with a guerrilla force in the shape of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Iran is a power that both Saudi Arabia and Israel fear. Iran has every capability to bleed the US dry in the Middle East, but rather then turning the screws against the occupying forces in the region, Iran’s leaders decided to look the other way for strategic national interests. The Jewish entity’s criticism of the deal centers around it being America’s instrument in the Middle East, but now the US has her Persian ally as her main instrument in the Middle East.

Here is a look at what is behind this historic deal:
1. Following the agreement the US president immediately delivered a speech in front of the White House allotted to this agreement, he said, “We have reached a historic understanding with Iran over its nuclear program, it would, if carried out prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” He said, “We have reached a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program” and added that “Tehran has fulfilled their duties and opened the way for inspection.” He described the deal “as good and that it meets our core objectives” and said, “Iran accepted an unprecedented type of inspection system and the door to Iran’s enrichment of uranium will be closed, and there will be reduction of the stock of enriched uranium and centrifuge by two thirds.” He also said, “We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon ever, and in return we will gradually reduce the sanctions that we had imposed and that imposed by the Security Council,” and noted that “the negotiations will continue until June to agree on the exact details.” Also stressed that “the nuclear inspectors will have unprecedented influence on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” He said, “For the Iranian people, we are ready to work for the common interests” (American Radio Sawa 02/04/2015)… These statements of the US president shows how keen is the US administration to reach this agreement, and this agreement was in the interest of America, it achieved its objective, and there is no reason for the others to object. He mentioned the position of those who opposed the agreement of the Republicans in Congress and the prime minister of the Jewish entity, Netanyahu. Obama said that he wants to work with Iran under the common interest, i.e. to use Iran to achieve the American projects in the region, he does not want Iran to remain busy with the threats of the Jewish entity, and incitements of the European trio: Britain, France, and Germany, and raising new problems for Iran, allowing it to remain living under the threat of sanctions.
2. Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of low-enrichment uranium (LEU) from 10 thousand kilograms to 300 kilograms at a rate of 3.67% for 15 years, and pledged not to build any new nuclear facilities for the enrichment of uranium for 15 years. It has agreed to reduce the centrifuges by two-thirds bringing it down from the current 19,000 to 6104 under the agreement, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium over the next 10 years. Natanz Facility will be the only facility used for the enrichment of uranium in Iran with decreased amounts. Iran will not enrich uranium at the Fordow Facility for 15 years, instead it will be utilized for nuclear and physics research. Iran is committed to a plan to enrichment and research which it will provide to the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that it will prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb for 10 years. The agreement grants the right to the international observers to monitor the uranium mines and sites of yellow cake manufacturing for 25 years, they also have the right to continuous monitoring of the centrifuges and the stores for 20 years with the freezing of the centrifuges manufacturing.” (Middle East 03/04/2015). Iranian President Hassan Rohani said, “Iran will fulfill all the obligations they have undertaken, provided that the other party fulfills its commitments.” (World Iranian page 3/4/2015). Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, “The lifting of sanctions will be a fundamental step forward. We have stopped following an undesirable path by everyone. Not desirable for the process of nuclear non-proliferation or any other party.” This goes to show that Iran had agreed to halt its activities of increasing uranium enrichment and accepted to bring it down to a minimum, so it cannot produce a nuclear weapon. It also reduced the number of centrifuges to one-third, and it will remain under international control for 25 years. This will be binding throughout this period as stated by its president. What matters to Iran is the lifting of its sanctions, Javad Zarif said, “The sanctions imposed on Iran will end when the procedures that have been agreed upon with the major powers are implemented.”
3. As for the rest of the P5+1 countries it was clear that their role is marginal, the actual negotiations were often taking place between America and Iran only, publicly and secret, and the role of the remaining parties is closer to spectators than that of a role player. Indications show that America has guaranteed its agreement with Iran, and what was left was its production process in stages the rest of the P5+1 states were on the lookout, if they see something they do not like they are left to sulk, leave to calm down and then return to sign or delegate someone to do so on their behalf! This was evident in the positions of ministers of these countries; Lavrov said during a visit to Tajikistan that “the situation is unusual, unprecedented…” and noted that “the significance of the current stage lies in the formulation of a political framework agreement and it has become clear in all its components.” The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Alexander Ukashević said, “Russia does not see an urgent need for the return of its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Lausanne, but what the participants are doing now in the negotiations is to check the initial agreements.”
What appears from the Russians’ statements that the matter was previously planned and ready, what only remains is to sign it, this is why they did not see the need for the Foreign Minister to go back to sign. He was the one who stated that the matter was unusual, referring to US Secretary of State, who met with the Iranians the most, headed by their Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif, for weeks alone, and he intensified the meetings non-stop in the last week of 26/3/2015 till the time for signing at the end of last month. He called the foreign ministers from the rest of the group’s member states to participate in the signing! But before signing day, they left the meeting when they found everything was arranged, and that the United States insists on signing the agreement as is. The French foreign minister left angrily through the back door, and the German foreign minister was about to travel to the Baltic Republics, and the Russians, as mentioned above, did not return, and left his deputy there. The Chinese minister was not concerned with the issue, and the coolness of the British minister overwhelmed, so he did not show his outrage, nor satisfaction, but was waiting for what will happen in the usual English brilliance. But everyone eventually returned to the signing ceremony session, but to save face they began debating what was prepared by America, and they extended the debate to two days, and then signed the agreement without being able to change anything of significance in it.
Russia’s Foreign Minister has said that the agreement between America and Iran was agreed prior to today, signing it now is only a political move, therefore, he did not see the need for his attendance in Lausanne, his deputy signed instead. Thus, the main role in the agreement was between America and Iran.
4. The Republicans who control Congress showed their dissatisfaction with the agreement for partisan opposition reasons and electoral purposes to come. The deal was signed by the Obama administration, despite their opposition so that this administration achieves successes in foreign policy and to be able to use Iran in the implementation of projects and plans in the region. Chairman of the US House of Representatives John Boehner said, “The final agreement standards represent a disturbing difference in comparison with the basic goals set by the White House,” and he said, “The Congress must have the right to fully consider the details of any agreement before sanctions are lifted. The Foreign Affairs Committee in Congress is scheduled to vote on the 14th of this month on a proposal that imposes on Obama’s administration to present the agreement to the Council and then vote on it. However, the Obama administration rejects that and says that the conclusion of such an agreement is part of the powers of the executive authority exclusively and the congressional interference in the matter will create a precedent.
5. As for the position of the Zionist entity, Netanyahu said, “The framework agreement on Iran’s nuclear program threatens the survival of Israel.” knowing that before the announcement of a deal in Lausanne he called for any agreement should oblige a “significant reduction in the nuclear capacity of Iran” and he said “the best agreement would be the one that reduces the nuclear infrastructure. The best agreement will link the lifting of sanctions imposed to Tehran’s nuclear program by changing Iranian behavior”, all of this was materialized in the Lausanne agreement. The extortionate position of Netanyahu is to get more aid and US pledges to protect the Zionist entity, and to confirm his previous position he expressed on this issue for the purposes of the election which he won, and to strengthen his relationship with the Republicans coming to power, as he perceives, in the upcoming US presidential election in 2016. Netanyahu went to America to deliver a speech in Congress at the invitation of the Republicans and spoke to them about the dangers of the agreement with Iran. He knows that the agreement undermines Iran’s capabilities to produce nuclear weapons and knows that Iran is playing a role in the region decreed to them; Iran protects the Syrian regime, which ensures its security on the Golan Heights, and it will occupy the area in internal wars and prevent the unity of the Muslims under one central leadership.
As for Iran, it has waived its programs to increase uranium enrichment and accepted to bring it down to a minimum, so that it cannot produce a nuclear weapon. The number of centrifuges has been reduced to one-third. And will remain under international control for 25 years. It will be committed to it for all the agreed time, this was stated by its president.
What matters to Iran is the lifting of the sanctions and engagement in the region to play its role under the pretext of common interests and achieve a regional supremacy for itself by joining hands with western powers under the supreme leadership of the state which was once dubbed by Iranian clerics as Shaitan-e-Buzurg. The clerics have placed the country´s economic issues before its strategic goals. While many may choose to criticize the Ayatollahs for the treaty, common Iranians will feel less curious since the Ayatollahs had never faltered in delivering fatwas (religious edicts) against the building of nuclear weapons, seen by the religious establishment as unIslamic and against the Holy Law (Shareeah). Iranian clerics can now smile all the way back claiming they got something really big from the international community by giving up what they never wanted (nukes) in the first place anyway!

Omar Mukhtar – the Lion of the Desert, the pride of Muslim Ummah

Lion of the Desert is the dramatic action epic of the struggle of Omar Mukhtar, leader of the Muslim resistance in North Africa in the 1920’s and 30’s, against the imperialism of Mussolini and the Italian army. Despite the challenge of overcoming the fascist Italian war machine with only faith and wisdom, the Muslims led by Mukhtar maintained their resistance and refused to be conquered.

We go back in history to 1862 where a young boy of a poor household was born in a town controlled by the Uthmany Khilafa. This young man was brought under the care and tutelage of one of the Shuyookh in his home town when he was at the ripe age of 16 after the death of his father.
He eventually developed a lifestyle of not sleeping more than 3 hours every night in order to get up to pray to Allah at the last third of the night and recite Qur’an until fajr. He memorized the Qur’an (as all knowledgeable people begin their lives) eventually, and was known to have finished his revisions in its entirety every seven days, regardless of the sufferings he encountered in his life.

His courage and wisdom was pronounced, and was an example for people to follow. This was evident on one of his caravan trails to Sudan as a young man. A lion had deterred the people from entering a particular path. Caravans were veered else where for fear of this lion. To distract this lion, people would resort giving it one of their camels, a most prized possession, so they could pass safely. He learned of this lion during the journey, where upon he consequently took it upon himself to face this crisis head on. Unlike other men in the caravan who were dumbstruck by the situation, he carried his shot gun, rode his horse and went after the lion. He came back with the lion’s head much to everyone’s surprise and due gratitude. This earned him the name “Lion of Cyrenaica.”

An upbringing of courage and upright religiosity had a massive effect on him. His character would not only change the course of his tribe, country and people, but also the world of Muslims in the Post Colonial Era.

In his twenties he was known for his maturity beyond his years as well as his wisdom, for he continued to solve tribal disputes. His people listened to him and took his counsel regardless of village or region he found himself in. His manners were known to be great, for he was eloquent, balanced in his speech, and appealing to those who listened. This uniqueness helped him unite the tribes, and later on gather armies to fend off the colonizers.

His thirties was marked by the dawn of the Colonial Era as it began to spread its cancer to the rest of the world. At the time when the world was being ravaged by European nations, this man stood firm for Islam and faced colonizers with his valor. He fought fiercely against the French with a group called Banu Sanus, who would later be known as the Sanusies. For a brief moment, they also fought the British, who were marked by greed and attempted to conquer their land.

As part of a global feast on the so-called less civilized nations, Italy joined the European nations in causing havoc in the southern part of the hemisphere by colonizing North Africa. It was during this time, this man, in his fifties, gathered his forces in the face of an invasion attack against Libya, his homeland.

To pacify his resistance army, the Italians offered him high ranking positions and wealth. In return, they demanded that he surrender and follow their Colonial decree. He responded in a famous quote saying, “I’m not a sweet bite of a meal anyone can swallow. No matter how long they try to change my belief and opinion, Allah is going to let them down.”

They then offered him to leave his town to live closer to the ruling party complete with a monthly salary, but he again refused by saying, “No, I will not leave my country until I meet my lord. Death is closer to me than anything, I’m waiting for it by the minute.”

This man, whose seventy more years of age had not prevented him from fighting, was the soul of his people’s resistance against hopeless odds. He gave his people hope against an army thousands more than his own, equipped with more modern weapons, airplanes and armoury while he and his men starved in the mountains with nothing on their backs but their rifles and horses. After his firm position, as the Ummah is always in need of such legends to lead the people, people gathered around him. He successfully began to strike the Italians where it hurt. He hit firmly, swiftly, and harshly those who thought occupying Muslim lands, oppressing, imprisoning, and torturing Muslims, was going be effortless.

Another man in his nineties named Abu Karayyim, from the Jalu oasis, had fought with him in the deep south. Hunger and disease eventually decimated his people. The Italians soon stepped up operations by burning and pillaging villages. Women, children and the elderly were not spared. During their weakest point, people were gathered and placed in concentration camps.

The Sanusi, Muhammad az-Zaway, who once fought with him against the French, attempted to persuade him to retreat to Egypt with the rest of those who fought against the French. But, this man refused to turn his back on the enemy knowing well that his chances are dim against a force that was swelling by the minute.

When asked why he continued the fight, he stated that he fought for his religion, and he sought no other than to get the occupiers of his lands. As to fighting, he said that was a fard , regardless of the outcome as victory comes from Allah. He used to refuse any peace talks with the colonizers saying we have nothing but to fight the occupying enemies of Allah.

After countless battles, he was wounded and captured alive. He and his men defended themselves until he and one of his companions were left. At last

his horse was shot dead under him, causing him to fall to the ground. He was shackled and brought to a city called Suluq, where the Italian military post was established.

This man believed Jihad was ordained upon every able Muslim while his homeland was occupied by the colonizers. With his faith, heroism and courage he earned the respect of even his enemies.

The military officer who interrogated him said, “When he came to my office I imagined to see someone like the thousand of murabiteen who I met in the desert wars. His hands were shackeled, he had broken bones caused by fighting, dragging himself barely able to walk. He was a man not like normal men even though the affect that he was apprehended had shown upon him. He stood in my office as we asked him and he answered in a calm clear collective voice. When he gathered to leave, the brightness of his face like a sunshine amazed me and shook my heart. My lips shivered towards the end of the conversation whereby I ordered him back to his cell to stand before a court in the evening.”

He was a legend who was firm in his religion at a time when the leaders of his country emigrated (as they do today ) to surrender to the Italians. The biggest scholars of his time from the Sanusies, who previously fought with him against the French and the British, did not come to his aid in time. Instead, many of them became loyal to the Italians by giving them Muslim lands in exchange for clemency, montly salaries, and freedom from taxation. Such is true for Muslims today.

On the contrary, this man took out his Qur’an, held it, and gave an oath to Allah that he would not stop fighting the occupying oppressors even if it meant fighting them alone until victory had been attained or that he becomes a martyr. In the last twenty years of his life, he led and personally fought in 1000 battles.

When the Italian general made him a final offer to make him their puppet and be allowed to live like the other leaders of his people, he answered, “I shall not cease to fight against thee and thy people until either you leave my country or I leave my life. And I swear by Him who knows whaht is in men’s hearts that if my ands were not bound this very moment, I would fight you with my bare hands, old and broken as I am..”

It was then that the Italian general laughed and ordered him to be hung after a frontal saving face act of a mock trial. Even before the court was in session a rope outside the court house hung waiting him.

His hanging took place before hundreds of tribes in 1931. With the intent to scare the Muslims, the Italians did not succeed in doing this. The opposite had taken place. His hanging shook the entire Muslim world, and numerous resistances took place specifically in North Africa.

May Allah raise his position in paradise.

The Italians took pictures of him in shackles, surrounded by smiling Italian generals, and those who expressed happiness for his hanging. They did not realize that it is those very same shackles and rope hanging around his neck in the hands of his enemies fighting for the sake of Allah that would become the envy of every true Muslim.

The man, whose mug shot spoke his legacy, is none other than Omar AlMukhtar. His legacy will live until the day of judgement, inshallah. With his blood, he drew the stories of victory, he became a legend of the legends, and a guide for those who wanted to live in honor at a time of humiliation.

The surrendered modernists and disbelieving scholars of his time were not imprisoned nor hung. They died a normal death, possibly even in luxury and wealth, under the protection of the occupying Italians. However, they died and their names died with them. Jahannam is the abode of those who ally themselves with the kuffar colonizers over the Muslims. Omar AlMukhtar lived, and fought hard in the days of his life. He was shackled, imprisoned, then hung. But his legacy lives on and paradise, inshallah, is the resort of the martyrs.

Omar AlMukhtar was attached to Allah, depending on Him, and accepting that which Allah had written for him. He asked Allah to become a martyr and this what he has attained, inshAllah.

Ahmad Jibril
Written in the one third end of the night of Oct. 12, 2004

Why Imam Abu Hanifah (RH) was whipped by Caliph Al-Mansur

Imam Abu Hanifah, founder of the Hanafi madhab was not just a jurisprudent. He was something much more than that. We have read much about his intellect, his debating qualities and his well known gift of logic. What we seem to breeze past is an episode in his life that ultimately may have been responsible for his end. It is such an important religious issue that it allowed him to put his life in the line of fire for it´s sake. Lets take a comparative look at it.

Imam Abu Hanifah was a revolutionary. He revolted against the Umayyads and against the Abbasids. he was an underground Mujahid associated with the Zaydi movement, the supporters of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) through his grandson Imam Zayd. Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur imprisoned the Imam after bribery had failed to win the Imam over to his side. Basically, the Caliph offered the Imam the position of Chief Justice of the vast Khilafat, a position which would have been second only to the Caliph himself. Imam refused this lucrative post. Abu Hanifah had understood that by accepting a government job he would be transformed into a faithful employee, a beneficiary of the system and therefore any rebellion against his employer would be hypocritical and equal to backstabbing which the Imam will not want to do.

Caliph Mansur was not a man to take no for an answer, and Imam Abu Hanifah was not about to surrender his religious thoughts to the man whom he wanted to overthrow in favor of the Aliítes. Result was jail, torture, whipping, pain and finally death of the Imam in custody. The life of a true scholar ends in his great fight against those who intend to bend the religion to suit their individual or tribal agendas.

How is the story of the Imamal Atham connected to our present day? The Muslim Arab world has been blessed with many things. It is the land of the Ambiyaa Alihi Salam, it is the land of last Nabi Sallillahialihi wa sallam, it is the land of the Arabic language, and it is the land that produced world rulers like Abu Bakr, Umar I, Usman, ALi and Umar II. This blessed land is also the reservoir for the world´s most important commodity, the basic commodity which fuels the infrastructure of the whole world and its civilization – oil. Without oil the industrial world would come to a screeching halt. The Arab world is the provider of the modern west dominated industrial world as we know it.

The importance of oil to the western world is a matter of life and death. To keep uninterrupted the supply of oil through the waters of the Persian Gulf, the Arabs must be broken into smaller statelets with ruthless kings under complete and absolute control of western governments. A form of upgraded colonization policy has been in place since the end of WWI, to largely serve the interest of the colonial masters abroad. The land of Palestine was stolen from the Palestinians to be given to European Jews, while the Arabs looked on and still simply look on when Gazzans are mercilessly bombed and killed by the Israeli outfits. Arab Muslims have been broken into nations and races as deemed appropriate for control and domination by colonial masters. the Arabs just wont admit it out of pride. Imperialists and their puppet kings use an army of clergy to legitimize colonization of Muslim lands and resources through religious blanket coverage of all their misdeeds.

Imam Abu Hanifah lived during the time of the mighty Caliphates of the Umayyads and the Abbasids, and yet he had to be whipped to death by the order of the Caliph. On the other hand Muslims have now lost their Caliphate, lost their unity, lost their super power status, have been colonized, humiliated, beaten and disgraced, and yet their modern scholars (so-called) are basking under the fame and glory of their personalities patronized by their ruthless dictators. We Muslims are looking at ourselves through the broken mirror. We are not able to find ourselves from the shattered images of ourselves scattered all over the floor. We are looking at fragments and bits and pieces and we think we are happy at just that little tiny glimpse of fake smiles here and there. In reality we are missing the Big picture. What a really big picture it would be if the mirror was not broken…

Taken from Islamic Encyclopedia:

Born in Kufa, (where 12, 000 Yemenis and 8, 000 of the Nizar received state allowances during `Umar’s time), Abu Hanifah, Nu`man ibn Thabit, a descendant of a notable Persian family, grew in an intellectual, scholarly and religious milieu. It is said that he was taken to `Ali in his childhood who prayed for him. Suyuti believed that the following prediction of the Prophet suited none but Imam Abu Hanifah: “If eiman happens to be in the Pleiades, one of the Persians (or “the Persians”) will acquire it.”

As he grew, four Companions of the Prophet were still alive: Anas ibn Malik (who died in 100H.), `Abdullah ibn abi Awfa, Sahl ibn Sa`d al-Saa`idi and Abu al-Fadl `Amr ibn Wasilah. How many he did actually meet is not clear, though Ibn Hajr counts him as a Tabe`i.

He began his career as a cloth merchant which could well have been a family business. However, once he happened to cross Imam Sha`bi. He told him that he could see intelligence and ability in him, and that he should seek knowledge. Those were the days of ‘Ilm Al-kalam (theological science). Abu Hanifah had all the qualities for it: intelligence, logic, debating ability, and a wide and well-spread knowledge. Basra was then the center of intellectual discussions, polemics and debates. Abu Hanifah often visited it for business, and used the opportunity to debate with the scholars and zealots of all kinds of sects that had mushroomed there. He defeated most of them in debates and his fame began to spread. But soon he saw the futility of any efforts among these sects and philosophical or theological schools, where everyone stuck to his guns, logic or no logic. But encounters with them did sharpen his abilities in logic, analysis and analogy.

Built in his honour some years after his death in 767CE,the Abu HAnifa Mosque is located in the Sunni dominated al-Azamiyyah quarter of Baghdad to the northeast of the city

Built in his honour some years after his death in 767CE,the Abu Hanifa Mosque is located in the Sunni dominated al-Azamiyyah quarter of Baghdad to the northeast of the city

Turning to more profitable sciences – the knowledge that the Salaf excelled in – he soon began to attend the circles of Hammad ibn abi Sulayman. His master was the most prominent student of Anas ibn Malik, and several renowned persons from among the Followers (Tabe`iyyun). Hammad’s was a school of thought by itself, which had its roots in the knowledge and methodology of Ibrahim Nakha`ee, ending with `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud who had been sent by `Umar as the first Qur’anic and Fiqh teacher of Kufa. Soon Abu Hanifah won the front seats with Hammad because of his keen intellect and understanding. After a while, when Hammad had to travel to Basra because of the death of one of his relatives, he appointed Abu Hanifah to hold the classes in his absence, which was a huge commendation for Abu Hanifah seeing that Hammad’s circle was the most renowned. When odd questions came, wherein he had heard no opinion from Hammad, Abu Hanifah used his personal knowledge and analogy to arrive at solutions, but kept a record of the questions and answers. They were some sixty. When Hammad came back, he showed him the list. He gave approval to forty of his answers. Thereafter, Abu Hanifah showed exemplary consistency by remaining in his study circle for a whole decade and gained mastery in `Ilm al-Fiqh.

In parallel, he attended to the science of Hadith, and left no Sheikh in Kufa but had taken lessons from him. Abu al-Muhasin, the Shafe`i scholar, has named 93 Hadith Scholars of Kufa and its suburbs alone, from whom Abu Hanifah obtained Hadith.But specialization required training in Makkah and Madinah which were centers of Hadith. `Ata’ ibn Rabah, and `Ikrimah were leading Traditionists at Makkah while Salim and Sulayman ibn `Abdullah dominated the Madinan scene. Abu Hanifah obtained Hadith from all of these persons. Altogether, Abu al-Muhasin has named 319 scholars from whom Abu Hanifah received lessons. Sha`bi, Salama ibn Kuhayl, Abu Is-haq al-Suba`ee, Muharib ibn Wartha, `Awn ibn `Abdullah, Hisham ibn `Urwah, A`mash, Qatadah, Sho`ba, `Asim ibn Sulayman al-Ahwal, were some of the outstanding scholars of those times spread over Kufa, Basra, Makkah and Madinah whose circles Abu Hanifah attended.

The consequence of ambitious interest, keen intellect, studentship of renowned scholars, training in the application of reason, logic and analogy, with no financial restraints for traveling around, which exposed him to different milieus and cultures, was that Imam Abu Hanifah emerged as a matchless Faqeeh that ever appeared in the Islamic world. Once, someone visited Imam Malik. He received him with great respect. When he was gone, he asked his students, “Do you know who this was? It was Abu Hanifah. By Allah, if he wished, he could prove that this pillar is made of gold.”

He was forty when Hammad died. He was the last of the great scholars of the previous generation. The Kufans knew that only Abu Hanifah could take his place. They pressed on him and he accepted to deliver lectures. Soon he attracted the most talented to his circles because none could match his, in excellence from every angle. Indeed, several of the other circles of Kufa closed down because the entire attendance moved to Abu Hanifah’s circle. More, some of his former teachers began to attend his classes. His students represented the whole Islamic world. They were from Makkah, Madinah, Dimashq, Busra, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Isfahan, Tabaristan, Nishapur, Sarkhas, Bukhara, Samarqand, Tirmiz, Herat, and almost every town north of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Abu Hanifah was not merely a “Mujitahid” but a maker of “Mujitahids.”

After a couple of years, when he had trained men like Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn Hasan, Zufar, Hasan ibn Ziyad, who all achieved the status of Mujitahidin with expertise in Law, apart from many others who excelled in other disciplines such as `Abdullah ibn Mubarak, Yahya ibn Sa`eed, Da’ud al-Ta`ee, and many others, he converted his sessions into an academy. He was not merely a mujtahid but a maker of Mujitahideen. In this new academy, a first experience in the Islamic world, newly arising issues were discussed, sometimes for as long as a month, among the jurists and would-be jurists numbering anything between a few dozens to a hundred, a consensus arrived at, and finally, the solution documented. Thousands of difficult problems were solved.

Caliph Mansur was insisting that Abu Hanifah should accept the post of Chief Justice, while he was refusing on grounds that he was not fit for the job. Mansur said, “Of course, you are! You are lying.” Abu Hanifah replied, “If I am lying, then I am disqualified for judiciary.”

Jurisprudence was Abu Hanifah’s main contribution, its codification the first in Islamic History. He did not take up narration of Hadith, there were plenty of Hadith narrators around. For every single expert in Fiqh, there were dozens of Hadith narrators and collectors. Indeed, to be fair, Hadith narration was, and has remained, simpler than achieving mastery over Fiqh. Hadith collection or narration does not require the compiler or narrator to master any discipline. Memory plays an important part, especially, the remembrance of tens of thousands of narrators, along with all of their personal details. But Fiqh requires, apart from a good knowledge of Hadith, a good understanding also of those ahadith, their contexts, a thorough knowledge of the Qur’an, its interpretations, a good grasp of the practices of the Companions, mastery in Arabic language, a good hold on logic, the ability to analyze, analogize, and arrive at conclusions that no other Mujitahid could challenge.

Imam Abu Haneefa gave a ruling in an assembly of A`mash. A`mash was amazed at the answer. He asked, “How did you arrive at this conclusion?” The Imam said, “From a Hadith, which in fact you had narrated to us.” A`mash admitted: “You jurisconsults (fuqaha’) are like doctors, while we, the collectors of Hadith are like pharmacists. We specialize in the texts and transmitters of the Hadith, but you understand their meanings.”

Tarikh Baghdad has quite a few allegations against Abu Hanifah made by his adversaries. A few of them are ridiculous. Some people level the criticism that the Imam did not quote many ahadith, and, draw the conclusion that he was weak in Hadith. This can only come from people who do not know Fiqh, its principles and their application. No Mujitahid can issue any ruling without a thorough understanding of the Hadith. Once Imam Abu Haneefa gave a ruling in an assembly of A`mash. A`mash was amazed at the answer. He asked, “How did you arrive at this conclusion?” The Imam said, “From a Hadith, which in fact you had narrated to us.” A`mash admitted: “You jurisconsults (fuqaha’) are like doctors, while we, the collectors of Hadith are like pharmacists. We specialize in the texts and transmitters of the Hadith, but you understand their meanings.” It is also freely alleged that Imam Abu Hanifah used weak ahadith. They do not know that the narrators that are now being judged by remarks of the scholars about them long in the past, Imam Abu Hanifah and scholars of his time knew them in person. The standards of judgment of the narrators were set much later and the dependence is on others’ written remarks about them. But the early scholars knew the narrators personally. They were their contemporaries, and hence evaluated them differently. Further, in great many cases, Hadith plays a secondary role in Abu Hanifah’s rulings, judgments and conclusions: the Qur’an comes first; a point often missed by his adversaries.

No scholar, no matter how popular, has escaped persecution. Abu Hanifah was no exception. First, the Governor of Iraq ordered Abu Hanifah to accept judgeship of Kufa. He refused and, was subjected to 110 lashes of the whip starting with ten a day, and ten added for every refusal. But when he saw that Abu Hanifah was showing no sign of weakness, he gave up. Abu Hanifah was afraid that the authorities would interfere with court proceedings, and get fatwas issued for political purposes. This was perhaps when he was 42.

Later in 146H, when Ibrahim ibn Hasan (a descendant of `Ali) rebelled against the Abbasids, Imam Abu Hanifah supported his cause and helped him with a big sum. Earlier, when Zayd, the son of Zayn al-`Aabideen rose against the Umayyad’s, Abu Hanifah had helped him too. He believed that the `Alawiyyun deserved Khilafah more than the Umayyads or `Abbasids. When Mansur, the `Abbasid Caliph, came to know of his inclination towards the progeny of `Ali, he invited him to settle down in Baghdad and take up the post of Chief Justice. Abu Hanifah refused. Several meetings took place to persuade Abu Hanifah. On one occasion, Mansur said, “By Allah, you will have to accept the job” The Imam replied, “By Allah, I will not.” Mansur was boiling with anger. He said, “Do you swear upon my oath?” He replied, “Yes, because it is easy for you to break your oath and offer expiation than me.” At one point Abu Hanifah told him that he did not think he was fit for the job Mansur said, “Of course, you are! You are lying.” Abu Hanifah said, “If I am lying, then I am disqualified for the judiciary.” Ultimately, he got him imprisoned. The Imam kept conducting classes from the prison. Mansur did not feel safe from him and his powerful political influence, even when behind the bars. So, one report says he got him poisoned, another, that he died of whip lashes in 150H

Abu Hatim Razi’s son heard his father say that he kept count of the distance he covered on foot during his knowledge journey. It crossed a thousand farsakh (one farsakh = 5 km) in the first seven years, after which he stopped counting. There were innumerable times when he walked between Kufa and Baghdad and between Makkah and Madina. Once he walked from Morocco to Egypt and then continued walking visiting many cities in Palestine, then to Damascus, and then to Antioch in Turkey. He returned walking to Hims in Syria to obtain oneHadith narrated by Abu al-Yaman before boarding a boat in the Euphrates River to return to Baghdad. This was Al-Razi’s first journey when he was 20 years old. He left al-Ray (in Persia) in the year 213H to return in 221H, after seven years of walking. The second journey was undertaken at the age of 47 which lasted 3 years from 242 to 245H. (Safahat min Sabr al-`Ulama, `Abdul Fattah, Abu Ghuddah).

The news of his death spread like wild fire. Hasan ibn `Ammarah, the Judge, washed his body muttering, “By Allah, you were the best of the jurists, best in piety and most devoted to rituals.” There were fifty thousand people at the funeral. But streams of people kept arriving and the funeral Prayers had to be conducted six times. For weeks people kept arriving at his grave to offer funeral Prayers. The Imam had willed that he should be buried in Khayzuran because he thought that that was a piece of land that had not been wrongly confiscated.

When Ibn Mubarak visited his grave, he remarked, weeping, “Abu Hanifah, when Ibrahim ibn Nakha`ee died, he left someone to inherit his position. When Hammad died he left someone to take his position. But when you have died, there is no one to take your place.” He also said, “I never saw anyone more fearful of Allah than Abu Hanifah, whether on trial under the whips or when tried with wealth and property.” Sufyan Thawri said, “In comparison with Abu Hanifah, we were like sparrows against a falcon.” `Ali ibn `Asim said, “If Abu Hanifa’s knowledge was measured against the knowledge of the rest of the scholars contemporary to him, his knowledge would overweigh the rest.” Bishr al-Hafi stated: “No one criticizes Abu Hanifah except an envier or an ignoramus.”

It is narrated that Muhammad al-Baqir told Abu Hanifah during their first meeting in Madinah, “You have altered the religion of my ancestor (Prophet Muhammad) and (the meaning of) his traditions through (the application of) analogy.” Abu Hanifah said, “Allah’s refuge.” Muhammad said, “For sure, you did it.” So Abu Hanifah said, “Sit down in your place, as it deserves you, so that I can sit as it deserves of me to sit, for, you deserved from me as honored position as your ancestor – Allah’s peace be on him – as it was during his life over his Companions.” So he sat down. Abu Hanifah genuflected before him and said, “I’ll place before you three points, reply to me: Is man weaker or woman?” Al-Baqir replied, “Woman.” Abu Hanifah said, “What is a woman’s share (in inheritance).” He said, “To a man two, while to a woman one.” Abu Hanifah said, “This is the saying of your ancestor (Prophet Muhammad). Now, had I altered his religion, then analogy should have ruled that a man should have one share while a woman two, since a woman is weaker than man.” Then he asked, “Is Prayer superior or fasts?” He said, “Prayer is superior.” He said, “This is the saying of your ancestor. Had I altered your ancestor’s rulings, analogy would have said that when a woman comes out of her menstrual cycle, I should rule that she repeats the Prayers but not the fasts.” Then he asked, “Which is more unclean? Urine or sperm?” He (al-Baqir) said, “Urine is more unclean.” Abu Hanifah said, “Had I altered the religion of your ancestor through analogy, I should have ruled that (when dirtied by) urine (one may) wash himself but make ablution (when dirtied by the emission of) the sperm. But, Allah’s refuge that I should alter the religion of your ancestor through analogy.” Muhammad stood up, hugged him, kissed his face, and paid him homage.

No scholar, no matter how popular, has escaped persecution. Abu Hanifah was no exception. The Governor of Iraq ordered Abu Hanifah to accept judgeship of Kufa. He refused and, was subjected to 110 lashes of the whip starting with ten a day, and ten added for every refusal

A brief introduction to Abu Hanifah’s contribution to the most important subject in Islam, the discipline that has saved the Ummah from disintegration, will be offered with the revision of this work, Allah willing. At this point we end with a few anecdotes from a man considered the most intelligent, an extremely pious, a vastly learned, yet a witty person of his time.

Ibn abi Layla, Kufa’s Qadi used to hold the court in the same Mosque in which Abu Hanifah held his classes. Once, as the Qadi was on his way after his session, he came across a woman who said to a man, “Oh you, the son of two adulterers.” He returned with the instruction that the woman was to be brought to him. When she came, he ordered that she be whipped twice: one set of whips for each of the victim’s parents and instructed that she be lashed then and there. When Abu Hanifah came to know, he said the Qadi committed six mistakes:

1. He returned to hear and judge the case while a Judge should not return after he has closed a session and left the place.

2. Scourging (delivery of Hadd) should not take place inside a Mosque, since the Prophet (asws) has prohibited it.

3. He getting her whipped in a standing position, whereas a woman should only be whipped in a sitting position, well-covered.

4. He got her whipped twice, whereas a slanderer should be punished once, no matter how many he or she slanders.

5. Even if someone deserves two sets of lashing, only one should be conducted at a time, the next whipping should await recovery from the first whipping.

6. He took up the case of the woman despite the fact that no one had sued her.

Of course, Ibn abi Layla was upset. He complained to the Governor saying that a young man was interfering in his business. The Governor banned Abu Hanifah from issuing any fatwa. But after some time, he had some difficult problems at hand, needing juridical views, but none could give satisfactory answers. Ultimately, they appealed to Abu Hanifah, and the ban was removed.

A Khariji called Dahhak ibn Qays and a few others rushed into the Mosque in Kufa and threateningly said to Abu Hanifah, “Repent, or we’ll kill you.” Abu Hanifah asked, “Repent for what?” He said, “For having ruled that arbitration is permissible.” (He was referring to `Ali having accepted arbitration during his differences with Mu`awiyyah). Abu Hanifah asked, “Do you want to straightaway kill me, or debate with me?” He said, “OK, I’ll debate.” Abu Hanifah asked, “But, we are bound to disagree, so who would you name to decide if we fail to agree?” He said, “Choose your man.” Abu Hanifah pointed to one of his companions and said, “Will you accept this man to decide between us?” When the Khariji said yes, Abu Hanifah said, “You have accepted arbitration.”

An extremist used to call `Uthman B Affan a Jew. He had a daughter for whom he was having difficulty finding a match. Abu Hanifah asked him whether he could help him out. He said he would be grateful. After some time, he told him that he had found a good match: the candidate was good-looking, smart, well-off, well-connected, etc. The man said, “What could be better than that?” Abu Hanifah told him that everything was alright except that the man was a Jew. He protested, “But how can I give away my daughter to a Jew?” He replied, “Why not, when, according to you our Prophet gave his two daughters to a Jew?” The man repented.

An extremist Shi`ah used to call `Uthman a Jew. He had a daughter for whom he was having difficulty finding a match. Abu Hanifah asked him whether he could help him out. He said he would be grateful. After some time, he told him that he had found a good match: the candidate was good-looking, smart, well-off, well-connected, etc. The man said, “What could be better than that?” Abu Hanifah told him that everything was alright with the man except that he was a Jew. The man protested, “But how can I give away my daughter to a Jew?” He replied, “Why not, when, according to you our Prophet gave his two daughters to a Jew?” The man repented.

A case was brought to him of a cranky man who said to his wife who was on a ladder, “If you went up further, you are divorced three times, and if you came down, you are divorced three times.” Then he felt sorry. Abu Hanifah was approached, he gave the solution, “Let some people physically bring her down from the ladder and place her on the ground.”

Someone gifted him something. Imam Abu Hanifah responded by gifting him something much more expensive. The man said, “If I knew this is how you will respond, I would not have sent you the gift.” Abu Hanifah replied, magnanimously and correctly, “The credit goes to the initiator.”

For ten long years he supported Abu Yusuf financially in order to free him for studies. When Abu Yusuf appreciated his help by saying, “I haven’t come across a man more generous than you,” he would say, “You haven’t seen my teacher Hammad. Had you, you would not say this.” He had reserved a part of his profits for the Muhadditheen contemporary to him. He distributed it among them after every deal resulted in profits, leaving none who was engaged in the study of Hadith.

He left one son, Hammad, who was his equal in piety. He avoided any contacts with the courts. However, his grandson Isma`il, son of Hammad, achieved great fame as a Judge at Basra, appointed by Haroon al-Rasheed. He left behind him thousands of students who learnt from him all that could be learnt. He did not need to, nor perhaps had the time or inclination for writing books, what his students were writing down anyway, not to speak of the compilation of Fiqh rulings of the academy. Yet, we hear from scholars of the past of a few books left by him, though none seems to have survived intact.

Morsi Smiles at Sisi and his Zionist Friends

Egypt’s former president, Mohammed Morsi, along with 105 co-defendants, has been sentenced to death for a prison break during the upheavals of the 2011 revolution. On the ethical level, this trial is a travesty because Morsi did not enjoy due process in a highly politicised trial which Amnesty International described as “grossly unfair” and “a charade based on null and void procedures”.

While I wanted to know if this sentence will be any good for Misr, my blogger friend wrote these words which threw me off guard, `Sisi´s hands are blood stained. Morsis not. We are now the laughing stock of the civilized world´. How true and how deep these words from an average man is ringing loud bells in the ears of other men who are silently watching a nasty as well as a cruel joke unfold before them in the very birthplace of civilization. What could be more ironic I was thinking until I realized that this fanatic race to punish anyone un-secular in the Muslim world is not unique to any particular country, it actually flows through almost all the Muslim countries like a river of contaminated water from a mountain of corruption. I mean no disrespect for any of my Muslim friends, but I do want to call a spade a spade, and the Muslim spade is currently drenching with the blood of injustice, intolerance, corruption, greed and everything else that comes with these lofty value systems managed at the top of the pyramid.

The pyramid structure in the Arab world is lot more complex than in other areas. The injustices committed by those at the top trickle down to the last brick. The image of Misir is now one of dictatorship, brutal military stronghold, authoritarian single eyed regime of a man upon whose orders hundreds of innocent protesters were mercilessly gunned down.

We now see Misir is an example of intolerance. Muslim Brotherhood was pulled down from power because they were leading the country away from the secular block to the Islamic block. Muslim Brotherhood enjoyed 70% popularity, allowing them to amend the constitution based on peoples´demands. Since the vast majority of their voters were rural poor who wanted Islamic shareeah, the Muslim Brotherhood turned out to be the single most significant threat for the secular loyalists whose lifeline depended on generous business concessions from their like-minded commercial partners. I fail to see how a faulty trial can bring any good news for the general people.

Sisi is a typical military dictator, as men like him have surprisingly short memories. The general has forgotten how the Muslim Brotherhood grew to be the single largest political party of the country. Nasserists fail to point out that it was them secular Baathists who elevated the status of the Brotherhood in the country after the killing of Hassan Al Bannah and the unjust and highly controversial hanging of Syed Qutub, former was the founder and the latter was the spiritual-intellectual guide of Muslim Brotherhood. El Sisi is close to adding a third name to the list. The death sentence on Morsi on the one hand will cement the dictator´s grip on power while on the other hand it would create another martyr for the cause especially for the youth who like to rebel against authority.

Will the Egyptian Army really benefit from this sentence? The armed forces were suffering from humiliation from the very day Tahrir Square became a successful revolution. Former president Mubarak and his sons were quickly dispatched to the prisons. This was a blow since Mubarak was considered to be a pride for the forces going back to the 1973 Ramadan War against Israel when Egypt defeated Israel regaining its prestige in the world specially in the Arab and Muslim world. The army was a staunch Mubarak loyalist. With Mubarak in jail the old guard must have been waiting to strike back. This was not limited to the forces only, all other branches of government administration after nearly five decades of Mubarak could not easily accept the whirlwind change of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. It was just too difficult and much too insecure for the Mubarak guard to make friends with the new rulers from the Islamic block.

It could be understood for the defence and administration, but why would this sentence be of any good for the common people who gave support to Tahrir Square revolution? Common people wanted democracy, and they probably still want to live under a democratic government, which does not reconcile with the undemocratic overthrow of the voters´ choice. People lost their right to select the president they deem fit for their republic. The voters were the only authorized persons to decide whether Mursi was good for them or not. It was not a decision that was given to the authorities by the voters. The republic may have taken a wrong turn at the cross roads making the destination confusing for the voters once again. As one Egyptian commented, we are back to square one.

The single greatest beneficiary from the overthrow and the subsequent death sentence of Mursi should be Israel. It has a policy of promoting Arabs and Muslims in general as unfit for democracy and liberalism. May be they are right, or maybe they have lost their minds, but they have been successful in portraying the Arabs, especially Egypt and Syria as countries which need an iron man at the center, no democracy, no liberalism, no social justice is doable for the two. The fact that the rest of the Arab world is´nt much different from this sad portrayal helps the Zionist cause immensely, yet it is basically the closes neighbors of Israel which deserve special praise for dictatorship by its most important military threat.

It copuld be well understood what is bad for Arabs is good for the Zionists, but what is puzzling is why conservative, traditionalist, dynastic monarchy of Arabia is happy at the overthrow of the Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Its also strange that the dynasties of Arabia should have similar desires and targets for the Arab world as like the Israelis. What is the common bond between Israel and the Arab dynasties? It makes heads roll and twist in search for facts on the ground. The recent attack on the Houthi population in Yemen by the GCC led by Saudi Arabia points to a regional geo-political struggle for supremacy in the Arab world strategy. The proxy war between two regional heavy weights may themselves be proxies for two global super heavy weights also running in the race for supremacy over strategic points across the world.