Lesser of Two Evils: Is it the Arab Regimes or the Israeli Regime?

The images with the numerous reports of the latest crackdown by the Syrian regime are shocking, showing absolutely no regard for the rights of ordinary people. Throughout the Arab Spring, the Arab regimes have demonstrated the same pattern of brutality towards peaceful demonstrations. The sight of close family members occupying key positions making lucrative trade deals, gives the impression that governments in the Arab world are a family business. If the country is governed like a private fiefdom, the citizens will be regarded as tax-paying tenets at best or as mere slaves, who can be disposed of when they start to make demands; therefore, the regimes will naturally behave like the masters, rather than the servants of the nation.

Unlike the powerful response seen during the initial phase of the Arab Spring, the recent reaction in the Arab world towards the events in Syria has been lukewarm. Perhaps the masses have become desensitised after witnessing gratuitous violence over a sustained period, like we have become accustomed in the West to the Israelis killing the Palestinians or the Americans killing innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with their high-tech drones.  

How to Appoint a Khalif: Oath of Allegiance (Bay’a) or Election?

The milestones, for the process of appointing a leader by the masses, in any system are identical: nomination, selection and affirmation. First, the various candidates are nominated and declared; then the selection process decides the winner from amongst the nominated candidates, who effectively becomes the leader. Finally, the appointed leader affirms this publically through some sort of ceremony, for example, the US President’s inauguration, where the elected President takes an ‘oath’ to uphold the constitution, and start the Presidency. The third stage is merely the confirmation process, to openly declare what has already been decided in the selection stage.

In the tribal society of 7^th century Mecca, the process of nomination and selection was vastly simplified and merged, but the nation states of today, in comparison are far more complex and larger; various candidates will compete for power from amongst the millions of citizens. Hence, the processes are far more formal and structured. When the system is framed, these processes are codified, and the masses agree to obey the leader who is appointed through the selection process, this is where the contract takes place. The obedience of the masses is given to the leader appointed, on the condition that he upholds the constitution, and the laws and values.

This nomination and selection process has varied with time and place; hence, the Prophet (saw) was silent about who should succeed after his demise, and he was also silent about the process of appointing a Khalif; this is reflected in the variations in the appointment of the first four Khalifs, and the subsequent chaos that ensued through the rebellion of Mu’awiyah.

Did Serbia Sacrifice Mladic for EU Membership?

Indeed, the needless massacre of Bosnian Muslims is a fact; the graveyards are still there, with the grieving relatives to testify. I remember the clip shown on the BBC, the Bosnian Muslim men being off loaded from the truck, and then shot in the back like animals. It is difficult to imagine that the ordinary Serbian masses would condone such barbaric acts; and if there is a contrast between the ordinary Serbian masses and the small number of criminals like Mladic, then it proves the point that a few men can tarnish an entire nation, just like a few drops of urine can spoil a glass of milk!

The Serbs as a nation are still unrepentant, one poll shows 40% regard him as a hero, and 51% are against the extradition; perhaps it’s their sense of nationalism and patriotism, combined with a defensive mood after the NATO bombings that prevent them from acknowledging these war crimes. Even individuals who admit the guilt in their hearts are reluctant, to condemn the war crimes and genocide as they would be seen as traitors; it does take a lot of courage to go against popular opinion and express the truth. 

Is Rape ‘Legal’ in the West?

I know the title will cause offence to some, but perhaps it’s time that they learn to swallow their own medicine of ‘free’ speech, that is frequently used to insult Islam and Muslims; and in the spirit of free speech, I am going to elaborate on the title, rather than throw crass insults at an entire group of people. Thus, based on the example of some or even many, I won’t be tempted to class all white males as rapists or serial killers and make the tenuous link to their religious or racial identity. Those who are committed to free speech would be expected to persevere and remain, whereas the bigots and the nasty foulmouthed Islamophobes have probably already exited the room. Anyway, without further ado, let us proceed.  

Everyone knows the bifurcation of, the Muslim terrorists versus the West; just the choice of words implies the latter is the ‘innocent victim’ fighting terrorism. Similarly another division exists, the Muslims as oppressors of women, and the West as the flag bearer of women’s rights. Remember, this women issue was one of the pretexts for the Afghan invasion. However, ironically, the US armed forces are filled with rapists, as their statistics and conduct shows. Who in their right mind would even trust the sick soldiers of Abu-Ghraib to guard their daughters and mothers for a few hours? When you see the behavior and the mindset of these soldiers in the numerous YouTube videos, it makes you cringe with disgust!

Therefore, consider, how many rapists have been found in Al-Qaeda or in any major Islamic movement, against the numerous rapists that fills the US armed forces? Yet, paradoxically the former stands accused of being oppressors of women, and the latter as liberators. The thought is amusing, because no matter how much you verbally demonise or promote, a group or an individual, the deeds will speak louder and expose the paradox. Who remembers the ‘fanatical’ Osama Bin Laden of the media, whose speeches and interviews shows a very calm and a rational person?

Osama Bin Laden and the Moral Paradox

“Despite the religious rhetoric and the bloody means, Bin Laden is a rational man. There is a simple reason why he attacked the US: American Imperialism. As long as America seeks to control the Middle-East, he and people like him will be its enemy”

– (Michael Mann, Incoherent Empire)

The conflict between Osama Bin Laden and the US President, reminds me of the parable of Alexander the Great and a captured pirate, narrated by St Augustine in the “City of God”. The Emperor places the pirate on trial and angrily demanded of him, “How dare you molest the seas?” To which the pirate replied, “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor”. 

If Osama the Pirate was captured and put on trial, one can imagine the eloquent and rational Osama retorting to the simplistic allegations of terrorism, by pointing out that it is a small reaction to the greater terrorism of the state (state-terrorism), which is euphemistically termed as “foreign policy”. The pirate effectively turns the table and puts the emperor on trial, and asks: I kill 3000 in response to your orgy of killing hundreds of thousands, and that makes me a terrorist, whilst your act is somehow moral and lawful, how can that be the case, it is you who should be on trial, but the world is governed by might is right; thus, leaving the emperor speechless.

Death of Usamah Bin Laden: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

The reaction says it all, there is celebration in the streets of New York, whilst silence in the streets of the Islamic world; freedom fighter or terrorist depends on whose perspective. There is no doubt many in the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world (e.g. Latin America), are privately mourning the death of Usamah Bin Laden, seen as a symbol of resistance to Western imperialism. Unlike Saddam Hussein and his ilk, Usamah Bin Laden died fighting like a Mujahid, as the old proverb says, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.      

It is disgusting the way the media constantly highlights the 3000 that perished in 9/11, as if the American and western lives are more valuable than others. The message construed is simple, its Bin Laden and 9/11, there are no other casualties and no other factors. Indeed, the entire narrative is false. They say 9/11 marks the beginning of the conflict, whereas the conflict started from the end of the First World War; the Arabs seeking independence were betrayed (Sykes-Picot treaty) for their support to the Allied forces. Their lands were carved up to suit the interests of the colonialists, who facilitated the migration of the Zionists to Palestine, paving the way for the creation of Israel. Eventually, the Arabs were ‘rewarded’ with Israel and the Palestinian Diaspora (nakba) for their cooperation and service to the colonialists.

Will the Secular Revolution End the Arab-Zionist Regime of Egypt?

The policy makers, commentators and analysts are speculating how far this revolutionary current will go in the Arab world, which was triggered by the tragic suicide of a young Tunisian graduate, Mohammed BouAzizi. It is painful to imagine what this young man was going through moments before he took his life. The cruel irony is he was punished by the police for trying to make an honest living; after failing to gain employment, he committed the ‘crime’ of selling vegetables in the market without a permit.  

The Arab world as a whole is not poor. Many in Tunisia and Egypt are suffering from poverty, but their neighbour, Libya, is soaking in oil-money and Algeria is relatively wealthy. Across the Red Sea, Yemen, Syria, Palestine and Jordan are poor, however Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Abu-Dhabi, and Kuwait are drenched in oil-money. This division between the rich and poor nations is not entirely natural, because the borders were drawn after the First World War by the colonial nations; by that time, oil was discovered which was essential for the armed forces and the navy. Therefore, colonial Britain and France ensured the lands were divided to suit their interests and the US continued to endorse the same policy, because the division of Arab lands also helps to provide Israel with greater security; one of the reasons for the massive military intervention in 1991 to maintain the Kuwaiti borders. For Israeli’s security, the continuous funding of the various Arab-Zionist regimes like Mubarak becomes a necessity for the US. After the decades of funding, naturally the US is reluctant to support the call for his removal.