Feature

  • Political Comment - Islamic Political Awareness 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Comment

    “And do not incline towards, nor rely upon, those who are bent on evildoing lest the fire should touch you” [Hud-113]

    The coup that Kais Saied carried out was not a surprise except for those whose vision was clouded, and thus, decided to incline towards the transgressors thinking they were entrusted with the fate of the Ummah, or even sincere in the event of antagonism. Although Allah has warned us against inclining towards the transgressors, trusting them, and confiding in them with history proving their malice and betrayal whenever their interests were at stake, the children of the Ummah and those who claim being her representatives continue to be stung from the hole of their enemies over and over again, as if oblivion were their second nature and acquiescence to the evildoers and the rules of Kufr were their fate.

    Some Muslims thought well of al-Sharif Hussein who in turn had thought well of the British. Hence, he conspired with them against the Ottoman State but after the British had achieved their aim, they turned on al-Sharif Hussein and threw him in jail. The Muslims were also buoyant when they thought the Arab armies would come to liberate Palestine but instead, they handed Palestine to the Jews on a silver platter. The sequence of inclining towards the evildoers continued unabated. Some Muslims in Egypt had thought that supporting the revolution of the Free Officers would be good for Muslims; but no sooner the officers had seized the reins of power and tighten their grip on the state’s apparatuses than they turned on their supporters and threw them in jail. Indeed, it is only natural for such a consequence to be the fate of those who do not adopt Shari'ah as the foundation of their comportments and standpoints.

    When the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was concocted, a group from our people in Palestine thought it would liberate Palestine and throw the Jews in the sea; hence, they hastened to support it with funds and manpower and turned it into a legitimate representative of the Palestinians, until this organisation ended up relinquishing Palestine to the Jews and turned into a watchdog for their entity and the godfather for recognising and normalising ties with it.

    In recent years, inclining towards the evildoers has become evident in pivotal events such as the ones taking place decades ago. When America backed the so-called Arab Spring revolutions, many Muslims thought that America had abandoned the collaborating rulers and that she had really decided to liberate the Muslims from their oppressors and enslavers. Hence, the masses rebelled against the rulers with the leaders of the rebels receiving funds and weapons from certain intelligence agencies affiliated to other collaborating regimes in the regions to confront the oppression of those rulers while embracing their own rulers’ armies and apparatuses of oppression for protection and mortgaging their decisions to them. But once the masses were disowned by them, they were left without any cover and became an easy prey for the regimes they had rebelled against.

    In some countries, some activists thought the time was opportune to ride the wave of those revolutions and accede to power in order to implement Shari'ah in a gradual manner; yet again, those activists thought well of the remnants of those regimes and their hard nucleus and trusted them, only to fall into their traps by allowing them to seize the reins of power but keeping hold of the real power. They provoked disturbances against them until they portrayed them as failures and unable to govern; then they turned against them and threw them in jail after they had undermined the Ummah’s confidence in their abilities and in the system of Islam whose slogans they had hoisted when they were in office.

    Today, the same scenario is unfolding in Tunisia, and in a more acute manner, namely the conspiring of Tunisian political forces, including al-Nahda, to pave the way for the return of the eradicationalist secularists to take control of the state, despite the ability of the former to have maintained the reins of power in their hands without any contest; hence they colluded with those secularists and backed them, and when the latter had succeeded in controlling the state, they turned on everyone and everything, restoring the Egyptian scenario; and each time, they were bulwarked behind the Kufr constitution which al-Nahda took part in drafting and propagating.

    Dear Muslims

    How long is this scene going to continue in Muslim lands, as if Muslims, especially the activists from among them, were stupid and naïve, unable to appreciate the religious responsibility and fate of the Ummah, and incapable of perceiving the ropes of politics and the schemes of the colonialists and their surrogates, and as if their foes were shrewder and more eloquent?

    Dear Muslims

    Is it not high time we perceived that political awareness is a prerequisite for success in political work, and that Shari'ah is its foundation and the tool regulating it, and that without Shari'ah, the Muslims would be lost and would squander all the efforts and sacrifices the Ummah has made in resources, blood and sincere children?

    The Kuffar proposed power and authority to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ under their terms and conditions, but he categorically refused. Hence, they besieged and conspired against him, and incited the Arabs against him. However, it only strengthened his perseverance and certitude, and it never weakened his resolve, until the support of Allah was bestowed on him. Thus, he became mighty after his powerlessness and impregnable after being subjected to cruelty, violence and disillusionment. And when the people of al-Raji’ betrayed Asim ibn Thabit and those with him and besieged them, they pledged that if they surrendered, they would not kill them. Asim replied “As for me, I would never come under the covenant of a Kafir”; and then he fought until he was killed. As for the Sahaba who were with him, especially Khubayb ibn Adiy and Zayd bin al-Dathinnah, they accepted the covenant of the Kuffar who went on to betray them and sold them to the people of Makkah who killed them. Moreover, we have in the Bay’ah of al-Ridwan the best parable of steadfast, resolute, and unyielding standpoints; the pleasure of Allah the Almighty on the Sahaba was linked to their pledge to die for the sake of Allah, after the Messenger of Allah felt that the Kuffar were going to betray him with Uthman. Allah says: “Indeed, well-pleased was Allah with the believers when they pledged their allegiance to you under that tree.” [al-Fath-18]

    This is how the Qur’an and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ teach us how not to incline towards the evildoers, lest hellfire touches us. This is how the Muslims working towards resuming the Islamic way of life should conduct themselves. They must neither accede to power under the terms and conditions of the Kuffar, nor come under the covenant of a Kafir. They should rather persevere and wait until Allah decides to grant them victory.

    “But Allah will perfect His Light, even though the disbelievers detest it” [As-Saf-8]

    Hizb ut-Tahrir                                                                                                                                                                   22 Thil Hijjah 1442h
                                                                                                                                                                                               1 August 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

     


      

  • Political Observation - The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam & the Conspiracy Against Egypt and Sudan 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam & the Conspiracy Against Egypt and Sudan

    On 22 July 2021, the Ethiopian National Security Affairs Advisor to the Prime Minister and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gedo Andargachew, announced that “the Nile was a river, and now it is a river and a lake.” He triumphantly added that “the Nile has indeed become ours.” The announcement came as Ethiopia marked the first anniversary of completing the first phase of filling the Renaissance Dam thanks to the rainfalls as claimed by the Ethiopian leaders. This Ethiopian announcement also came one day after the failure of the tripartite summit in which the African Union was a mediator. And despite the building of the dam having severe consequences on the water and food security of Egypt and Sudan, the Egyptian and Sudanese governments handled the issue in a complacent manner. In a press briefing, the director of the Nile Water Department in Sudan’s Ministry of Irrigation, Abdel Rahman Saghiroun, said that the level of water flow in the Blue Nile had returned to its normal levels after Ethiopia completed the second filling of the Renaissance Dam, and that the dam Ethiopia had been building no longer controlled the flow of water in the Blue Nile. Cairo for its part said it was monitoring the situation.

    The agreement over the Declaration of Principles on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) was a legitimisation of an illicit action undertaken by Ethiopia; then it was legitimised with the collusion of Egypt and Sudan. Sudan’s decision, under British pressure, to relinquish the Benishangul province came with the stipulation that Ethiopia would not build any dams or alter the flow of the Nile’s waters to Egypt and Sudan. In order to sidestep this historic agreement, Ethiopia set about building the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam a few kilometres from Sudan’s border in 2011 at the cost of $5 billion, which could reach $8 billion on completion of the project. This represents a major threat as it could cause a major flood in the region should the dam collapses due to natural or technical causes, or if it were targeted by the enemies of Muslims, knowing that a reduced quota for Sudan and Egypt from the Nile waters will have a significant impact on the production of electrical energy and on agricultural produce in both countries.

    The collusion of Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and Abdul Fattah al-Burhan with Ethiopia on building the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is corroborated by the contribution by some Egyptian personalities and entities in bankrolling the construction of the dam ,such as Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris in particular, who is one of major investors in this project, in addition to several banks in Egypt, the UAE, Saudi, "Israel", Italy, China, and other countries.

    As for Abdul Fattah al-Burhan, despite Ethiopia’s persistence until the last moment on carrying out the second filling and on classifying the issue as a domestic matter, with total disregard to the strategic threat posed to the control of the Nile’s waters, he announced during his meeting with the European Union’s (EU) Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, Annette Weber, that dialogue was the only way to tackle the issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam; then Sudan's Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources concluded that the second filling did not affect the flow of water in the Blue Nile and that it had returned to its normal levels.

    Moreover, the threats issued by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abie Ahmed to retaliate against any military aggression because of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam indicates that he has been given Western protection for his actions which threaten the lives of the Muslims in Egypt and Sudan.

    All this indicates the presence of an American process in the preparation of both a political and economic investment, as well as an initiation of the Ethiopian role in East Africa and the Horn of Africa due to its closeness to the Gulf region and international maritime routes and due to the necessity to control them to confront the Belt and Road Initiative and regulate China’s excessive expansion in Africa. Additionally, Ethiopia’s role is linked to tightening the grip on Egypt and Sudan from beyond their borders and not rely solely on the domestic US influence, despite the collusion of al-Sisi’s regime in handling the issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the issue of the two Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir, which he surrendered to Saudi with the aim of turning the maritime route between Saudi and Egypt into an international route overseen by international law which is represented by the US rather than the people of the region. Hence, the project of the Ethiopian dam is an American plan designed to control the fate of Egypt and Sudan and prevent any moves towards union between them in the long-term as this would undermine the US and Western strategic interests, especially after the Arab Spring revealed the threat of popular standpoints and the accentuated willpower of the people of the region to gain independence and break free from the shackles of American influence. What also proves that the issue has been concocted for these purposes is Russia’s standpoint and her refusal to back Sudan’s and Egypt’s calls for internationalising the issue by moving it to the Security Council. Russia rejected the Egyptian request and proceeded with America by stressing the need to settle the issue via the African Union. Prior to this, America appointed an official envoy to the Horn of Africa to oversee the struggle and regulate the disputes. She also backed Saudi mediation between Egypt and Ethiopia and praised, and maybe instructed, Saudi businessman Mohammed al-Amoudi for having deposited $500 million in gold in the Ethiopian treasury.

    Besides, the American discourse has not changed since Biden took office. Successive statements in the past four months have been stressing the importance of Ethiopia’s regional security and unity. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, for his part, stressed the importance of continuing the regional dialogue to settle the the Renaissance Dam dispute. Moreover, America has been exerting pressure on al-Sisi to lower the tone of his speeches in which he has threatened a military solution, and to forge ahead with the political solutions, with the aim of effecting the Dam project, by urging him to release several prominent political prisoners as demanded by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. This prompted al-Sisi to retract from the military solution by announcing that Egypt was merely seeking her right to the waters of the Nile. The resumption of the conspiratorial political solutions, with continued silence of Muslims over them and their lack of action to remove the collaborators and establish their state, is now threatening their sustenance, life, and future.

    17 Thil-Hijjah 1442h
    27 July 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Comment - Tunisia Crisis 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
     
    Political Comment - The Governance Crisis in Tunisia 
     
    Following the widespread popular protests in several Tunisian cities against the government and al-Nahda Movement with the deteriorating economic situation amid the rampant coronavirus pandemic and the ravaged political situation by rifts between the president, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament, Tunisian President Kais Saied decided on Sunday 25 July 2021 to freeze parliament, revoke the immunity of all parliamentarians, dismiss Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and assume personally all executive powers. 
     
    Kais Saied took the decision soon after he had met security and military leaders at the presidential Carthage Palace, and after he had harnessed the resentment of the masses against the government of Mechichi and its mishandling of the coronavirus file. President Kais Saied wanted to pave the way for involving the army in the political crisis. Hence, he handed the coronavirus file to the army instead of the health minister who was dismissed following the scenes of chaos at the vaccination centres lacking medical supplies. Moreover, President Kais Saied has been for some time hampering the efforts of parliament to establish the Tunisian Constitutional Court, lest it should initiate a constitutional undertaking to remove him; such state of affairs reflects the severity of political polarisation, the plotting and the factional conspiring at the expense of the masses. 
     
    The Tunisian presidency announced on its official Twitter page that President Kais Saied “had taken these decisions after consulting the Prime minister and the Speaker of Parliament, according to Article 80 of the Constitution… to protect the entity of the homeland, and the security and independence of the country, and to secure the normal process of the state.” The Speaker of Parliament, Rashed al-Ghannouchi, for his part accused President Kais Saied of carrying out “a coup against the revolution and the constitution,” and called on the supporters of al-Nahda and the masses to take to the streets and protect the state institutions and the achievements of the “revolution”.   
     
    In order to perceive the nature of the Tunisian domestic struggle, which is no more that a reflection of the foreign jostling and influence, and a clash of interests between the conventional colonial power represented by France and its successor represented by the US, conducted through lowly domestic tools, it is imperative to indicate that the cause of the Tunisian crisis lies in America’s endeavour to confer on Germany a leading political role at the expense of France following Britain’s exit from the European Union, while France has been striving to mobilise the European states behind her by shuffling the deck, stirring up trouble, deepening the rifts, and heightening tension in the countries of the southern Mediterranean basin which has been evoking the fears of the European states from immigration and terrorism, such as erupting the Tunisian tussles, inciting the Algerian masses and her agents in Algeria to bring the situation back to square one, especially after she had failed in amassing the support of a weighty number of European states to hold a Russo-Franco-German summit to tackle the Russo-European relationship in isolation of American volition, and after she had been dealt a series of painful blows by the US in Chad, Mali, Algeria, Libya, and the Eastern Mediterranean, which were designed to threaten France’s economic interests and her international, continental and regional standing, and inevitably undermine the confidence of the French masses in their leadership, and enable America to regulate  French and European policy according to her interests while bulwarking her chieftainship and unilateral dominion over the international situation. 
     
    This American manoeuvring had a direct impact on the French and American areas of influence, including the recent events of Tunisia. The standpoint of Tunisian President Kais Saied was expected as a plan, contained in an “absolutely top secret” document dated 13 May and sent to Kais Saied’s chief of staff at the Carthage Place Nadia Akacha, was leaked to Middle East Eye in which one of the President’s collaborators called for a soft coup which would lead to concentrating all powers in the hands of the President of the Republic. According to international data pertinent to the Franco-American relationship and information revealing that President Kais Saied received instructions from France, in addition to the leaked reports exposing Kais Saied’s relationship with the CIA, the decision of Kais Saied to stage a constitutional coup was most probably inspired by France with the aim of mobilising the European states behind her so that she may disrupt America’s endeavour to confer a leadership role on Germany and preserve the remnants of her areas of influence and interests in Africa and Europe, especially with regards to NATO and its control over European security, knowing that Kais Saied’s action came three days after his meeting with Secretary of State at the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne, and that Tunisia received an aid package from France following the coup in support of Kais Saied. 
     
    However, there are several signs indicating that the US has not been absent from the scene; in fact, her overseeing of the Tunisian top brass -who colluded with President Kais Saied in staging the soft coup via the AFRICOM forces, and her support of the Tunisian armed forces with billions of dollars since 2011, indicates that she is laying a trap for President Kais Saied and his Francophile cronies to either muzzle them or uproot them from power altogether through dialogue or the armed forces, whom she harnessed in the past to topple President Zein Al-Abideen in total oblivion of the French. The signs of the American lurking were reflected in the Turkish standpoint opposing the decisions of President Kais Saied lest the crisis should have a knock-on effect on Libya and Algeria and in Prime Minister Hicham Mechichi’s call for a cabinet meeting, as well as the call of the parliamentary group leader of Dignity Coalition, Seifeddine Makhlouf, for an emergency parliamentary session to adopt a motion calling for the removal of the Head of State due to his violation of the constitution and exposing the country to the threat of domestic strife. The signs were also evident in Tunisia’s domestic reactions, especially those of al-Nahda and the calls of former President and US agent, Monsef al Marzouki, on the masses to reject the coup. 
     
    Hence, Kais Saied, with the backing of France, is not expected to succeed in seizing the reins of power and removing his opponents, even though America is endeavouring to liquidate the remnants of the Arab Spring, including al-Nahda on which the US has unleashed the Emirates to weaken it, downsize its role and alienate it from the political scene at a later stage, as part of her campaign to destroy all those who hoist the banner of Islam, such the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nahda, which has abandoned several axiomatic Islamic rules for the sake of preserving its partisan achievements; America aims from all this to establish an unadulterated secularism at the political, societal and partisan levels in the Muslims’ lands, so that the only role assigned to the “Islamic” movements will be to serve the collaborating regimes and act as their mount and safety valve, and as a crane for Western values. 
     
    Dear Muslims in Tunisia,
      
    Your three top officials have revealed their bad blood and rottenness, and unleashed their hunger for power, set about jostling for it and exploiting you as fuel for their conspiracies, whims, and adventures, which Allah forbid, could lead to a bloodbath. 
     
    Their depravity sunk to the level of seeking support from foreign ambassadors and placing the causes of the struggle, its outcomes and solutions before them, in a barefaced scene highlighting the extent of decline within the political milieu and its detachment from you, and outlining the extent of their loyalty to the West, its culture, and its interests. 
     
    What we can conclude from the ferocity of the struggle between the political powers, whose thought, behaviour and history of their men, are witness to their affiliation to the West, especially France and the US whose former Secretary of Defence, Mark Thomas Esper, signed a ten-year deal with Kais Saied to upgrade US-Tunisian relations amid the silence of the rest of the political forces and the so-called representatives of Islam, is that the unfolding events are but a struggle within the camp of the collaborators who are acting as watchdogs for the interests of the colonialists, and that any  outcomes of this crisis at the hands of those mercenaries will be but an agreement between the clique of thieves, the traders in religion and politics and the investors in the “revolutions” and the blood of the innocents, through the slogans of religion, nationalism, patriotism, and democracy. 
     
    Therefore, we call on our people in Tunisia to shun the political milieu and reject its political outcomes. They ought to meet the politicians who do not belong to this Ummah with contempt and ridicule, and adopt the implementing of Shari'ah as their criterion for appraising the performance of the rulers, until Allah the Almighty bestows upon us a pious ruler and an Islamic State, which will uproot falsehood and its people, and the influence of the colonialist Kuffar from our lands altogether and for good.   
     
    “O you who believe! Respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.” [al-Anfal-24] 
     
    16 Thil Hijjah 1442h 
    26 July 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     

     

  • Afghanistan: US Withdrawal & Turkey’s Role 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Afghanistan: US Withdrawal & Turkey’s Role

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced on 14 June 2021 during a press conference before heading to Brussels to partake in the NATO summit that Turkey was “the only credible country to administer the situation in Afghanistan soundly.” Before this, Turkish defence minister Hulusi Akar was quoted by Hürriyet Daily News as saying: “What are our conditions? Political, financial, and logistical assistance. If these are available, we can stay at Hamed Karzai international airport. We are waiting for the answer regarding our conditions.”

    It is common knowledge to political observers of Turkish affairs that although President Erdoğan is independent of the US, he has nevertheless been practising politics according to his perception of the rules of engagement and the orientation of the US, and according to his perception of international relationships and the margins of reproachments, understandings, and differences; he has been exploiting the fissures in international relations to achieve nationalistic, economic and political gains, while averting the wrath of the US, and maintaining his gains at the plane of the relationship with Russia and the regional states to avoid the threats that may affect Turkey and consequently undermine his domestic popular base.

    In this context, it is imperative to realise that Turkey has not directly taken part in the war in Afghanistan and has contented herself, despite being a NATO member state, with the task of securing Kabul airport, offering humanitarian aid, investing in some projects and training Afghan domestic forces. The Turkish army has refused to be involved in any offensive military operations or any direct military operation.
    Hence, Turkey is attempting through her role within NATO and her presence in Afghanistan to emphasise her importance to America and her political and military ability to execute NATO’s tasks and substantiate its continuance in carrying out international missions, while Europe has been attempting to distance herself from such ventures. This fits into the framework of Erdoğan’s perception of America’s aims behind withdrawing from Afghanistan, paving the way for the Taliban to control the border crossings with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Iran, and of her desire to keep Afghanistan a hotbed of tension and a threat to China and the Belt and Road Initiative, as per the “Pivot towards Asia” theory devised by Hilary Clinton in 2011 to engross China and Russia in Central Asia by inducing them to jostle for it.

    Hence, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan represents a security challenge to China which shares a border with the pocket of the Badakhshan Wilaya, which has recently fallen into the hands of the Taliban; this poses a security threat to China with the presence of pro-Taliban Islamic movements aspiring to salvage the Uyghurs from Chinese oppression in Xinjiang province, which is at the heart of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

    This was corroborated in President Joe Biden’s recent speech where he described China as the biggest strategic threat to the US in the next 20 years. It also fits into the framework of Erdoğan’s vision of the interests Turkey could achieve in exchange for securing Kabul airport, establishing contact with the Taliban, and possibly, gaining a share in Afghan reconstruction contracts. All this falls within the sphere of the Turko-American understanding which is built on the principle of exchanging, harnessing and investing in the areas of common interest, despite their differences over other files. This understanding on Afghanistan is designed to induce rivalry and tension between Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and India, which America has encouraged to invest in Afghanistan. This is why the Taliban’s advance targeted the northern borders i.e., Tajikistan, which is adjacent to the Chinese borders, and Turkmenistan, which is adjacent to Iran, which, together with Russia, Turkey, and Qatar has recently been attempting to mediate between the Afghan government and the Taliban. This Turko-American course and understanding have materialised despite America’s manoeuvring to exert pressure on Erdoğan through the Taliban’s objection to the presence of Turkish troops in Afghanistan, especially as Erdoğan needs to mellow his relationship with Biden, lest the latter should target him and destroy his efforts and economic and political gains which enhance the chances of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the forthcoming elections.

    America is expected to instruct Qatar to soften the Taliban’s stance on Turkish presence in Afghanistan to maintain NATO’s presence and using Turkish impartiality towards Afghanistan’s diverse ethnic and religious groups, thus enabling control of the Afghan society while thwarting the covetous designs of China and Russia to gain a central role in the Afghan equation.

    Turkey had insisted that Hungary and Pakistan should also stay in Afghanistan because despite being a NATO member state, Hungary does not have the clout and influence to compete with her. Turkey does not fear Pakistan’s presence in the Afghan file and views her presence as imperative since she has enjoyed significant influence in Afghanistan at popular, tribal, and military intelligence levels since 1979, not to mention her role in establishing the Taliban in 1993 at the behest of America herself.

    This is why Russia is averse to the Turkish role in Afghanistan. Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov stated that “Turkey’s plans to secure Kabul airport after America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan violated the agreements concluded with the Taliban.” This is because Russia does not welcome increased Turkish influence in Central Asia adding to her existing influence such as in Azerbaijan and gaining more leverage, or exerting more pressure on Russia, such as her cooperation with Ukraine. Russia wants a relationship of cooperation and mellow atmospheres rather than a rivalry with Turkey. She also wants to shift Turkey from the position of being her equal and to keep her in need of her help in confronting the West or at least neutralise her. Turkey however wants to corroborate her role and break the siege that America and Russia are attempting to impose on her beyond her borders. This is what Erdoğan expressed on Friday 26 June 2021: “If Turkey failed to establish a strong security belt abroad, they would not allow us to enjoy our stability in our homeland.” Turkey is attempting to monopolise the energy supply routes from Central Asia to Europe, including the energy routes from Afghanistan; this is why America allowed the Taliban to control the whole of Afghanistan and backed its accession to power in 1996.

    Turkey hopes to have influence over the pipelines and transport routes within the framework of her designs to become the most important energy centre in Europe, following the major oil discoveries in three onshore wells, the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey is also likely to offer her technological abilities in extracting Afghan oil, especially since the Taliban are vehemently attempting to seize eight oil wells in the northern province of Sar-e Pol currently being exploited by the Afghan government.

    2 Thil Hijjah 1442h
    12 July 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org  

  • Political Observation Saudi-Emirati Rift 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation -The Saudi-Emirati Rift

    The Saudi-Emirati rift has resurfaced yet again, and this time it has revolved around the Emirates’ wish to increase its production quota within the OPEC Plus Group. As Saudi and Russia refused to approve this increase, the Emirates insisted on increasing its quota from 3.2 to 3.8 million barrels per day.

    The UAE has also rejected the Russo-Saudi proposal to increase production gradually by 400,000 barrels per day each month, from the date of the agreement concluded in April 2020, until 2022, and insisted on increasing its market quota amid the market’s demand for oil and the rise of the price to over $70 per barrel. However, Saudi, with the backing of Russia, not only rejected the Emirati proposal but went a few steps further by imposing a host of economic sanctions on the Emirati free zones, such as imposing tariffs on Saudi-destined Emirati goods totalling $10 billion. Saudi has also suspended the movement of Saudi travellers to the UAE and called on Saudi nationals in the UAE to return home. This Saudi decision is set to cause major losses to the UAE which welcomes about 2 million Saudi tourists each year who spend generously in the property and commercial markets in the Emirates.

    Some observers might think that this recurrent “economic” rift between Saudi and the Emirates could jeopardise the close relationship between Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed to whom America has assigned a host of joint tasks to serve her interests, as was the case with the siege they imposed on Qatar, the constant pressure being exerted on Turkey, the pursuit of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the war on Yemen with the plans to divide it into a north for the Houthis and south for the Southern Transitional Council (STC).

    In fact, the Saudi-Emirati rift should be perceived in the context of the previous squabbles between the two countries, especially in respect of the economic rivalry between them which reached its peak when prince Mohammed bin Salman enacted several openness policies, persisted in ensconcing a tourism economy to rival the UAE and pursued a domestic policy of openness under the theme of entertainment with the planned city of NEOM on the Red Sea to rival Abu Dhabi in every aspect. Earlier this year, Riyadh issued a surprising resolution stipulating the need to relocate the regional offices of foreign companies operating in the Gulf to Saudi by the year 2024, with 25% of these companies’ workforce to be Saudi nationals; otherwise, they would lose their contracts with the Saudi government. This decision has dealt the UAE a heavy blow and has bluntly informed foreign companies of the need to relocate to Saudi should they wish to win contracts totalling billions of dollars in the largest markets of the Gulf region.

    As for the political aspect of the rift, it is indicated by the displeasure of Abu Dhabi of the reconciliation between Riyadh and Doha that took place last January after three years of diplomatic estrangement between Qatar on the one hand, and Saudi, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt on the other. It is also indicated by the decision of the Emirates to withdraw from the joint war on Yemen in 2019, without prior consultation or coordination with Saudi; this evoked the wrath of Saudi since the two countries constituted the backbone of a regional military coalition that had conducted the struggle in Yemen and flexed its muscles in other places.

    The American silence over this Saudi-Emirati rift means that America is pleased with this scenario and supports what Saudi has undertaken considering that she represents the vehicle of cultural change towards secularism in the Gulf region due to her Islamic and demographic weight, and towards breaking the religious taboos in the face of normalising relations with "Israel", liquidating the issue of Palestine, curtailing the Islamic Da’awah in general, deepening and justifying the secularisation of Islam by drying up its conventional sources such as Salafism, unlike the Emirates, whose rulers have imposed secularism on society but failed to influence the rest of the Gulf residents with it.

    Hence, Saudi rulers are not only seeking through the 2030 plan to diversify the economy and incentivise foreign companies to invest in Saudi, but to also link this endeavour to generating systemic cultural, intellectual and behavioural changes which would be more liberal such as lifting the restrictions imposed on women, opening cinemas and organising singing and dancing concerts under the guise of the necessity of such openness to succeed in the economic plans and in attracting multinationals and foreign investment.
    This is the policy of America which hinges on changing the Aqeedah of the Muslims through distorting its concepts and destroying its cornerstones with a smear campaign that casts doubts on its foundations and propagates Western concepts such as democracy, freedoms, philosophy, humanities and the scientific approach. This plan also seeks to drive a wedge between the behaviour of Muslims and their Aqeedah and its criteria through imposing the Western lifestyle and social behaviour on Muslims and their life’s systems, by driving them towards adopting a liberal and consumerist lifestyle, which with time, will make them lose their spiritual link to their Aqeedah and their adherence to the Shari'ah rules under the guise of economic growth and modern life.

    1 Thil Hijjah 1442h
    11 July 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Biden-Putin Summit & Strategic Stability 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Biden-Putin Summit & Strategic Stability
     

    The Russo-American summit which Biden had solicited was held on 16 June 2021 at the historical Villa La Grange in Geneva. By the time the summit was held, America had implemented further sanctions on Russia intending to rally the allies and partners through the G7, NATO and the EU, in a calibrated political manoeuvre designed to unify the ranks of democratic states and engage in a battle America deemed as “existential” against the “dictatorial regimes”, namely Russia and China in particular. Biden addressed US troops at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, UK by saying: “We’re going to make it clear that the United States is back, and democracies of the world are standing together to tackle the toughest challenges, and the issues that matter most to our future.” He stressed the significance of his first presidential trip by stating: “I believe we’re in an inflection point in world history, a moment where it falls to us to prove that democracies will not just endure, but they will excel as we rise to seize the enormous opportunities in the new age.” The significance of this meeting is heightened by the flurry of accusations America directed at Russia such as threatening the security and stability of Europe by meddling in Ukrainian affairs and backing the separatists, initiating several cyberattacks, abusing human rights in Russia and Belarus, harnessing energy as a strategic weapon to undermine Europe’s energy security, and meddling in US elections and the affairs of democratic states; Biden also described Putin as a “killer without a soul” and Russia as being scared. This was followed by a series of escalations, such as Moscow and Washington’s decision to recall their respective ambassadors, Russia’s deployment of 130,000 troops and hundreds of various weapons within the context of what Russia described as military drills, which Washington exploited to evoke Europe’s fears of war with Russia and to abort any attempt at a rapprochement between Russia and Europe, especially after the virtual meetings between Putin, Macron and Merkel. This prompted Putin to announce that relations between the two countries were at their worst since the Cold War. Biden responded by saying he agreed with Putin’s assessment.

    However, the attitude of the two countries soon changed as the date of the summit approached. Biden announced on the eve of the G7 summit: “We’re not seeking conflict with Russia, we want a stable, predictable relationship. Our two nations share incredible responsibilities, and among them sharing strategic stability”. For his part, Putin exaggerated in singing Biden’s praises, describing him as experienced, level-headed and precise; he told state television that there were issues on which they could work together, such as nuclear disarmament, regional conflicts, and the environment. “And if we could generate a mechanism for working on these issues, we could then say that the summit was not ineffectual.”

    It is common knowledge that Russia has been striving to maintain the momentum of her presence in the equation of world politics, especially in the former regions of her influence, to protect her lebensraum and halt her regression in the face of EU and NATO expansion, and to remain a significant element in the equation of European peace and security. Russia is attempting to persuade America to profit from her rather than take a belligerent stance towards her, and this was corroborated by the statement of Putin at the International Economic Forum in St Petersberg in which he said: “The US is attempting to contain the progress of Russia…. The world should realise the reality that Russia has regained her status and her power,” i.e., acknowledge the significance of her role and respect her position at an international level. It was also corroborated by the military escalation near the Ukrainian border through which Putin sent a message to America that she should not ignore her and exploit her without any returns of favour. The significance of the summit for Putin means that Russia should sit at the table with America as an equal and confirm her role and influence on the European political and security situation. This does not clash with the overall American aims. In fact, this was what America has been seeking to remind Europe of the threats posed by Russia’s rogue behaviour, through the political events taking place during the first months of Biden’s tenure, such as arresting Navalny, mobilising troops on the Ukrainian borders, and quelling the protests in Russia. Hence, during the first month of Biden’s tenure, the White House hastened to invite the Kremlin to hold a presidential summit during the US President’s first overseas trip, which was interpreted diplomatically as being praise for Russia and a response to Putin’s desire to be a “member of the club” and gain “respect on his terms”, especially with the symbolic characteristic of Geneva which hosted the 1985 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev. This narrative was expressed by Biden in his inaugural address by referring to the status of the two states as “two superpowers.”

    It seems America wanted to initiate a fresh relationship between the US and Russia from this summit, based on mutual understanding and on enabling Biden from drawing the outlines of world politics and the relationship with Europe, and reproducing “soft power”, a capitalism that “serves the masses”, and liberal democracy, as well as containing China in exchange for some scraps to feed Putin’s domestic standing. Such consequences have not occurred in a vacuum; they were rather a natural outcome of Putin’s desire to avert a confrontation with Biden and to attempt reaching an agreement with him on the room of differences and understandings, and an inevitable upshot of the sanctions imposed by America and her allies on Russia since she invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, and what they yielded in terms of suppressing Putin’s appetite for being present and achieving foreign victories; America succeeded through the sanctions in reining Putin in and curbing his foreign aspirations that nurtured his domestic dominion, and in making the economic costs of his foreign policy and of maintaining his popular image greater than his personal and nationalistic exploits. One of the examples reflecting such a reality is the protests that erupted in March and April 2021, i.e., in the year of crucial elections of the Duma to be held in September 2021, in addition to America’s persistent carrot and stick policy with Putin; the Biden administration threatened to respond in kind and robustly and to continue financing the plan to wean Europe off Russian energy sources, which led Russia to realise that she would no longer be able to sustain her military spending, especially in the face of financial and economic sanctions targeting her main source of revenue from energy exports, and the growing domestic resentment towards the economic situation and the state’s policy of focusing its attention on upgrading its nuclear arsenal to gain superiority over the US in terms of Hypersonic Systems and strengthen the Russian nuclear deterrent now that it has lost part of its capabilities due to America’s deployment of missile batteries in Eastern Europe. Biden exploited Russia’s woes as a carrot to replace the stick of sanctions by arguing that “Russia would be viewed more favourably by other nations for investment and trade if Moscow respected political rights at home and operated within international norms.”

    Therefore, the purpose of the “strategic stability” announced by the two presidents following the end of the summit could be perceived as a tool to conduct the relationship between the two countries. This could also be elucidated once the new inputs and explanations introduced by America to the classical definition of “strategic stability”, which dates back to the cold war, especially in the wake of the agreement concluded between the two superpowers in Vienna in 1961 when Russia accepted the principle of peaceful coexistence.

    It is clear that America is attempting to deceive the world into believing that the international situation is “multipolar” and “more complicated”. This is reflected in Biden’s statement following the meeting when he said: “I told President Putin that we need to have some basic rules of the road that we all abide by.” This in fact reflects the policy pursued by the US to conceal her crimes and assign the dirty work to others, in addition to generating hotbeds of tension and scarecrows to compel the countries of the world to proceed under her leadership and execute her policies.

    Hence, the purpose of raising the issue of “strategic stability” afresh is not related to regulating nuclear armament, which is a natural and constant issue in the relationship between America and Russia that arises each time one of the sides upgrades their nuclear arsenal, nor is it related to redefining the term to include the issues of cyberattacks, artificial intelligence and drones, but, in the words of the German ambassador Rüdiger Bohn, who was speaking at an International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Roundtable discussion, it is designed to “incorporate and adapt arrangements for new tech and security challenges and security domains”.

    By reading all this, it transpires the presence of two aims for this American strategic vision: the first is disarmament and managing the threats of nuclear weapons which are regulated by international treaties within the framework of international law and its mechanism, such as “inspections, investigations and recordkeeping,” to implement this on the “group of current and future strategic issues” to avert what may undermine the stability of the international situation and America’s centrality. As for the second aim, it entails conveying a message, specifically to China, that political work and activities, and relations with America and the world should be conducted through adhering to the regulations and rules of the world order, which will achieve the US values and serve America’s interests and national security, and will embroil China in the talks pertinent to “strategic stability” and include her in the disarmament treaties, considering that the status of China’s armament policy and the intricacies of its upgrading in terms of delivery systems, capability and range are lacking transparency, according to experts.

    This American trend towards the relationship with Europe and China necessitates perpetuating the state of uncertainty concerning the Russian political comportment. This was clearly expressed by Biden’s call for a “predictable” relationship with Russia, and his description of Russia as a superpower, unlike Obama, who described her as a regional power; Biden however stopped short of expressing confidence the summit would yield a change in Putin’s conduct. The American trends necessitate also launching the war of the models, instituting capitalism in its American liberal democratic format throughout the world, bargaining with Russia to make her return to the “club”, grant her an opinion and conditional and regulated influence through a working agenda determined by the US. In this context, President Biden announced “I also said there are areas where there’s a mutual interest for us to cooperate for our people, Russian and American people, but also for the benefit of the world and the security of the world,” in order to handle the threats to “strategic stability” that guarantees the centrality of the US, contain the conventional rival powers through international treaties which ensconce the traditions and rules of responsible behaviour and criminalise bad behaviour, and specify the mechanisms of reducing the threats, the mechanisms of inspection, verification, and disclosure. This stipulates expanding the system of “international behaviour” emanating from The Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation to include the concept of “strategic stability” through implementing Biden’s tenet stipulating that a growing world power also necessitates mature responsibility.

    26 Thil Qi’dah 1442h
    7 July 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Joe Biden’s Overseas Trip & NATO 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Joe Biden’s Overseas Trip & NATO

    In a statement issued on 3 June 2021, the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, commented on Joe Biden’s trip to Europe by saying the “trip will highlight America’s commitment to restoring our alliances, revitalizing the Transatlantic relationship, and working in close cooperation with our allies and multilateral partners to address global challenges and better secure America’s interests.” She added that “President Biden will affirm the United States’ commitment to NATO, Transatlantic security, and collective defense. NATO leaders will discuss how to orient the Alliance to future threats and ensure effective burden sharing.”

    Before travelling to Europe, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for his part, expounded the aspects of what Biden would tackle in his speech to NATO, indicating the “efforts to adapt the Alliance through the NATO 2030 initiative, making it more resilient and capable of confronting systemic challenges from Russia and the People’s Republic of China and responding to emerging and evolving challenges, including climate change and hybrid and cyber threats.”

    Meanwhile, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters aboard Air Force One that “the United States regards NATO as the foundation for our security — not just in the Euro Atlantic, but worldwide," adding that NATO was “first and foremost, the centre for security and military coordination and collective defense, but it is also a forum for democratic values. It is an alliance of democracies.”

    This US tendency is in total harmony with the remarks of Antony Blinken on the outlines of US foreign policy; he said “The world has changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and as you heard the President say, we have to adjust our strategy to meet the threats of 2021, not 2001, and take on the challenges that now demand our focus and resources.” All this has been reflected in America’s exploiting of Russia’s “provocations” to justify the continuance of NATO, expand its role, and contain the European defence and security policy, such as the huge military drills near the Ukrainian borders. It has also been noted that British and American policies in Europe have been in harmony. Britain has always backed the US standpoint towards NATO despite the evaporation of the reasons for its continuance, and despite America’s harnessing of the organisation to dominate Europe. Margaret Thatcher justified the need for NATO’s continuance by telling the Europeans in 1990: “You do not cancel your home insurance policy just because there have been fewer burglaries in your street in the last twelve months.” Hence. Britain has been providing America with the justifications for NATO’s continuance through her quarrels with Russia from time to time. Observers are aware of America’s tendency to cause France a host of domestic problems and target French interests in the context of rebuking Macron who has called for reviewing Putin’s proposal to make Europe a short and medium-range nuclear missiles free zone, and who was averse to classifying Russia as a NATO enemy, which prompted America to deter him from overstepping his boundaries with his endeavour to make Europe’s security independent of the US.

    America withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty pertinent to European security in order to send shivers down the spine of the EU and to secure control of Europe’s security via NATO, and to incentivise Europe to increase her military spending, and the same time, she vigorously endeavoured to extend the New Start Treaty which threatened Europe’s security directly.

    This American trend was corroborated by the speech of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, which he delivered in December 2020 and in which he debated the meaning of “Europe’s strategic autonomy”, which did not differ from the strategic choice for peace with the usurping entity that the collaborating Arab rulers are calling for. Josep Borrell warned of Europe’s weakness and her collapse while referring to Syria, Libya, the Sahel and Sahara region, and the absence of Europe’s effectiveness as an example. He also warned of “Astana-like” political solutions and went on to express his vision by corroborating the role of NATO, linking Europe’s defence and security future to it, and calling for building European industrial defence capabilities so that Europe may have an effective role within NATO. He also paradoxically corroborated the French vision by saying that no country was really talking about a European army independent of NATO. Borrel went on to define “strategic autonomy” as being related to Europe’s survival and specifically a significant Europe, stressing that it was not a struggle between those championing the chance to compete and curb US dominion, and the majority who fear a speedy US withdrawal.”

    The NATO summit was preceded by the G7 meeting in Britain during which the leaders confirmed their strategic relationship by ratifying a “New Atlantic Charter” that determined the relationship and built the foundations of the transatlantic relationship for the forthcoming period.


    The Charter includes 8 articles linked to Biden’s vision on the “war of the models” and “democratic alliance”, and his struggle to lead the world and amass international support against “autocracies”.

    The first article of the Charter stipulates the following: “First, we resolve to defend the principles, values, and institutions of democracy and open societies, which drive our own national strength and our alliances. We must ensure that democracies – starting with our own – can deliver on solving the critical challenges of our time…” The second article referred to the following: “Second, we intend to strengthen the institutions, laws, and norms that sustain international co-operation to adapt them to meet the new challenges of the 21st century, and guard against those that would undermine them. We will work through the rules-based international order to tackle global challenges together; embrace the promise and manage the peril of emerging technologies; promote economic advancement and the dignity of work; and enable open and fair trade between nations.” These issues were reiterated in the NATO Summit’s closing statement which contained 9 articles expounding the “strategic concept” of the Alliance and listing China within the “concept of strategic threat” based on the new American formula which is built on the “war of models”, a formula NATO leaders pledged to ratify in the next Summit in 2022. They expressed in their statement that the “war of models” would act as a guide for the approach of the Alliance and that it would take into account the changing “strategic environment”, including “Russia’s aggressive actions” and the threats that China poses to the security, prosperity, and common values of NATO member states, as well as international threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and environmental changes.

    We deduce from the details of the nine articles that the American aim from the NATO and G7 summits is restoring the role of the Alliance and attempting to reduce her forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East in its favour, and to project Biden as the leader of the democratic front, and at the same time, reproduce world capitalism in a manner that makes it seem that it is for the sake of the masses.

    We conclude from America’s endeavour to resuscitate the international alliances and NATO in particular, in addition to the remarkable attention given to the Western democratic capitalist system, that America and all Western powers have come to realise that the capitalist ideology is undergoing a regression on the intellectual, political and economic planes; they have also perceived the threats posed by the hybrid Chinese system and the Islamic ideology, as well as the Russian system which is based on hard power. This is why the Biden administration is attempting to attract public opinion through the style of soft power and the liberal democratic capitalist system.

    18 Thil Qi’dah 1442h
    28 June 2021

  • Political Observation - America Resets Situation in Mali 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - America Resets Situation in Mali

    The leader of the military coup in Mali, Colonel Assimi Goïta, announced on Tuesday 25 May 2021 that he had stripped interim President Bah Ndaw and prime minister Moctar Ouane of their competencies, after they had been arrested and taken to Kati military camp near Bamako. The constitutional court announced afterwards that Colonel Assimi Goïta had been appointed President of the state of Mali “to lead the transition process to its conclusion". Goïta for his part announced on state television late on Friday evening that he would appoint a new prime minister from among the members of the alliance that led the protests against former President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita last year. Colonel Assimi Goïta, who led the coup that toppled President Keita on 18 August 2020, accused the President and the prime minister of attempting to sabotage the interim period by forming a new government without consulting him beforehand, although he was in charge of defence and security. He said, “this undertaking indicates a clear intention by the president of the interim period and the prime minister to violate the transitional charter… it has been proven that the intention was to sabotage the transitional process.” He added that he was “obliged to react and strip the president and the prime minister, as well as all the implicated individuals, of their prerogatives”. Colonel Assimi Goïta indicated in a statement aired on state television and read by one of his associates in military uniform that the “transitional process will continue its normal course and the elections will take place in 2022.”

    The UN Mission in Mali, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), African Union, France, US, UK, Germany, and the European Union (EU) issued a joint communiqué in which they “strongly condemned the attempted coup and demanded the immediate and unconditional release of these authorities.” This was a preemptive American manoeuvre aimed at framing the reactions and confine them to the release of the interim leaders and the demands to return to the transitional political process; and this is exactly what happened soon after.

    It seems America was behind goading Colonel Assimi Goïta to remove the interim president, Bah Ndaw, and prime minister Moctar Ouane from the scene in order to contain the popular resentment towards the French presence, and circumvent the manoeuvres of France who had been undermining the role of the putsch’s leaders to consolidate her influence through them. The picture becomes clearer by reading the sharp and tense French reaction to the coup that toppled the interim president and the prime minister; French President Macron was swift in condemning the coup, demanding the immediate release of Bah Ndaw and Moctar Ouane, and calling for the immediate resumption of the normal progress of the transitional period. In an interview with “Le Journal Du Dimanche” (JDD), Macron threatened to withdraw French troops from Mali if the country headed towards “radical Islamism” following a second coup in nine months. He stressed that he had passed a message to West African leaders stipulating that he would not support a country where democratic legitimacy and a political transition process were no longer in force. He also announced during a European summit that the European leaders “strongly denounced the arrest of Mali’s president and his prime minister,” which in his view was “a coup within a coup… which was unacceptable.” He concluded by saying that France was ready “in the coming hours to impose specific sanctions on the individuals involved.”

    French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian for his part was quoted by French news agency as saying that “France condemns strongly the coup that took place Monday in Mali. We demand the release of the president and his prime minister whose safety must be secured, and the immediate resumption of the normal transitional process.”

    France’s endeavour to lure the president of the transitional period and the prime minister was reflected in the collusion of the two men in reshuffling the cabinet and removing some ministers who were loyal to the leaders of the coup. The prime minister tendered his resignation from the new government on 14 May to President Bah Ndaw who reinstated him immediately and requested him to initiate a dialogue with the political class in order to form the forthcoming government. It was clear that France was behind forming the new government after she had weaved strong ties with President Bah Ndaw who had just returned from a Paris summit on Africa’s economy. Two days after his return from Paris on 24 May, he announced the new government, from which two military officers with ministerial portfolios were removed. All this occurred amidst a very tense atmosphere as the opposition, 5 June Movement – Rally of Patriotic Forces (M5-RFP) led by Sheikh Mahmoud Dicko, announced that they would stage a protest on 4 June with the aim of toppling the transitional government and dissolve the National Transitional Council.

    The response of the army leaders was swift; one hour after the new cabinet was announced, interim President Bah Ndaw and prime minister Moctar Ouane were arrested and taken to a military base in Kati. Colonel Assimi Goïta, who was vice-president, announced that what happened was a sabotage of the transitional period because the prime minister and the President formed a new government “without consulting the vice-president.”

    In order to lend legitimacy to the measures they undertook and gain popular support, the leaders of the coup in the military council invited the leaders of the 5 June Movement to Kati hours after the president and prime minister had bee arrested and pledged to appoint a new prime minister from among them.

    This is how Mali’s second coup was carried out as an American step to bulwark the domestic situation against French troublemaking and to discipline France, Mali’s old colonialist master, who wanted to run Mali’s affairs in isolation of America. The US had allowed Russian presence in Mali and some African states to generate friction between her and France who has always objected to classifying Russia as an enemy to NATO, whereas Russia, who did not condemn the coup, saw its entry into Africa as an opportunity for investment and exchanging services with America, and this was inferred by Russia’s decision to veto the sanctions proposed by France against Mali during the extraordinary meeting of the United Nations Security Council held at the request of France.

    America terrified France when she curbed her influence in Chad by doing away with Idriss Déby whom she used to allow to take the French interests into account. And due to France’s repeated attempts to infiltrate America’s agents in Algeria, Mali, and Tunisia, America endeavoured to muzzle her by liquidating those who coordinated with her such as Idriss Déby, and by toppling the Malian president and his cabinet. America is also working on disciplining Tunisia’s president Kais Saied by exposing his attempts to tinker with the structure of the regime and placing him before two options: either executing her agenda, maintaining the structure of the regime, supporting the “democratic transition”, consolidating decentralisation, and compelling France to secure her interests in Tunisia exclusively via the American gates, or face being constitutionally swept away if he continued lending his ears to France.

    President Kais Saied received on 11 May 2021 a telephone call from US Vice-President Kamala Harris, and according to a communiqué issued by the White House, the two sides reiterated the importance of preserving the democratic institutions, upholding the sovereignty of law and combating corruption. Harris also stressed the continued commitment of the US to supporting democracy in Tunisia. According to leaked reports, Kamala Harris’s call came after the Francophone entourage surrounding President Kais Saied had impeded the US Undersecretary of State from meeting President Saied for two days. The US Undersecretary of State had made his request to the presidential office whose director, Nadia Akasha, was in contact with the French and coordinating with them according to confirmed reports. This is what led America to monitor France’s unilateral moves through which she is aspiring to fill the void left by Brexit, besiege her, thwart her manoeuvres, and control the areas of her influence and interests in Africa whose resources represents France’s lifeline.

    21 Shawwal 1442h
    3 June 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

     

  • Unity of the Ummah & State - A Vital Issue 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Unity of the Ummah & State - A Vital Issue

    Ever since its early dawn and throughout its history, Islam has been facing tremendous challenges, and its followers have been subjected to various types of oppression, maltreatment and defamation which even their noble Prophet ﷺ was not spared. However, they faced those challenges with the resoluteness of believing men who were true to their pledge to Allah as they realised that their Deen together with their political and societal unity was a vital issue that determined their fate and the fate of their message towards which they were neither oblivious nor slack. The bloody struggle, which has been accompanying the intellectual struggle ever since the Islamic Ummah and the Islamic State came into being in Madinah and up until today, has been in defence of the vital issues that Islam and its worldwide message has determined. Hence, treating those issues as a matter of life and death was evident and inevitable.

    Due to the magnitude of the issue of Jihad and its role in safeguarding the Aqeedah, Ummah and State, and in conveying the message, it has been decreed as one of the weightiest obligations. Allah says: “Say, “If your parents, your children, your siblings, your spouses, your relatives, the wealth you have acquired, business you worry about, and homes you love, are dearer to you than Allah, and His Messenger, and making Jihad in His way, then wait until Allah brings about His judgment.” Allah does not guide the rebellious people.” [at-Tawbah-24] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said about Jihad: “The head of the matter is Islam, its support is prayer, and its peak is Jihad.” And due to its gravity, Jihad will be ongoing until the Day of Judgement, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Jihad is to be carried on whether the Muslim ruler is good or bad.” Hence, the Muslims never slackened for a moment in defending their vital issues and never hesitated in carrying out a life and death action in every vital issue they faced. When their fate as an Ummah and a State was threatened by the crusades, they tackled the threat with a life and death measure and fought a ferocious war against the crusader Kuffar lasting over 100 years, by the end of which the Islamic Ummah had succeeded in shielding herself against the fatal blow. The Muslims reacted in the same way when the Mongols invaded the lands of Islam. The Ummah deemed the Mongol invasion a threat to her fate and thus took a measure of life and death; the Muslims waged a ferocious war against the invaders and sacrificed their lives until they achieved a decisive victory.

    The unambiguous perception of the threat to the Ummah’s vital issues was prominently on display among Muslims; it was inconceivable for any occurrence threatening their fate to crop up with them failing to respond with what Islam obliged, namely a life and death response. The Islamic Ummah and the Islamic State had always been aware of the vital issues and the measures that were needed for them. However, when the understanding of Islam weakened to the point of deviation, and piety in the hearts weakened to the point where people kept silent over flagrant Kufr, these vital issues were no longer deemed as such, and no life and death measures were taken towards them. Then the threat to their fate arose and Muslims failed to sacrifice their lives at any cost to repel it. Consequently, the Khilafah was destroyed, the system of Islam was removed, and the entire Islamic Ummah faced the threat of extinction.

    The unity of the Ummah and the unity of the State are the most vital issues in Islam. This is reflected in two issues, namely the multiplicity of the Khulafa’, and the on issue of aggressors. It is reported on the authority of Abu Saeed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “When an oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifas, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.” Hence, Islam made the unity of the State a vital issue by prohibiting the multiplicity of Khulafa’ and ordered the killing of those who attempted to generate such a situation unless they retracted. As for the transgressors, Allah says: “And if two groups of believers fight each other, reconcile between them. But if one group aggresses against the other, fight the aggressing group until it complies with Allah’s rule.” [al-Hujurat-9]. Therefore, once the Imamah for the Muslims is established, i.e., whoever is confirmed as the Khalifa of the Muslims, it would be prohibited to rebel against him as this would lead to dividing the Muslims, shedding their blood, and squandering their wealth; the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said “so strike with the sword the one who tries to cause separation in the matter of Muslims when they are united, whoever he be.” Hence, those who rebel against the legitimate Imam are transgressors; they would be given a chance to repent and have their conjectures clarified, but if they persist, they should be fought.

    By prohibiting multiplicity of the State and rebellion against it, and by prohibiting the dividing of the Ummah, the unity of the State and the Ummah have therefore become part of the vital and decisive issues, as the Legislator has decreed the measure towards them as one of life and death. Those who perpetrate such an act should either retract or get killed. The Muslims did execute such a command in their early eras: the era of the rightly-guided Khulafa’, the Umayyad Khilafah and the Abbasid Khilafah - except Andalusia, and they used to consider it one of the most important and critical issues; they never slackened in taking action against any Muslim irrespective of who he was. The established and confirmed reports on this are innumerable. However, when the Khulafa became weak, and when the understanding of Islam declined, they kept silent over secessions of parts of the Muslims’ lands from the body of the Khilafah; thus, the unity of the Muslims was cleaved and some statelets arose, despite the fact that secession from the body of the State is a vital issue necessitating either a retraction and a return to the body of the State or war, irrespective of the toll and material losses. Evidence from the Book and the Sunnah on the unity of the Ummah being obligatory is abundant. Allah says: “And hold firmly to the rope of Allah, all together, and be not divided.” [al-Imran-103]; and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Verily Allah likes three things for you, and He disapproves three things for you. He is pleased with you that you worship Him and associate none nor anything with Him, that you hold fast to the rope of Allah, and be not divided...”.

    Hence, this is a command for the Ummah to hold firmly to the rope of Allah . Moreover, Allah and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prohibited division and rifts since this was the cause of failure, loss of power and the demise of the State. Allah says: “And obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute, lest you falter and lose your courage.” [al-Anfal-46]

    The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Don't differ, for the nations before you differed and perished." As for the Sahaba, they had a general consensus on what Abu Bakr said about the unity of the Muslims being an obligation and about prohibition of having more than one Emir. None of the Sahaba challenged or disagreed with Abu Bakr when he said: “It is forbidden for the Muslims to have two Emirs. If this were to occur, they would differ in their affairs and their rules; their community would be divided, and they would dispute amongst themselves. Then the Sunnah would be forsaken, Bida’ah would arise and Fitnah would intensify; and no one would benefit from this.”

    Islamic history is teeming with events reflecting the value of Muslims’ unity. Here is the Khalifah of the Muslims, Haroun al-Rashid addressing a cloud passing over Baghdad with “Go wherever you wish; you Kharaj will eventually come to me.” When the Muslims were one single majestic Ummah, when one of the limbs suffered, the whole body responded to it with wakefulness and fever, the Abbasid Khalifah al-Mu’tasim mobilised an army to fight the Romans in response to the celebrated cry for help by one Muslim woman “oh my Mu’tasim”. Suffice to also mention the revered position of the Muslims in the international community, even when their Islamic State was at its weakest stage under the rule of the Ottomans and dubbed the “sick man of Europe” by the West. Hence, even during this miserable phase of Muslim history, the Muslims were a force to be reckoned with in the international community due to the unity that encompassed most of the Muslims at that time. One of the missionaries once said that “Europe used to dread the sick man because he had 300 million men ready for Jihad with a snap of his finger.”

    The enemies of Islam realised this at the beginning of the modern era. Hence they plotted and adopted various styles to shatter the unity of the Muslims and dismantle their State. One of the pickaxes of destruction used by the enemy for this purpose was spreading the thoughts of patriotism and nationalism among the peoples of the Islamic Ummah. This led to the collapse of the Islamic Khilafah and enabled the colonialists to seize most of the Islamic lands, fragment them into meagre statelets, and then hand them over to the local watchdogs they had groomed to maintain the fragmentation in service of the colonialists’ interests and according to the policy of divide and rule. Hence, they divided the Islamic Ummah into Arab, Turkish, Kurdish, Persian and Amazigh nationalities. In fact the nationalist notion was the tool the Kuffar used to destroy the Islamic State. Then the Arabic-speaking lands were divided into nation States and homelands, such as Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, among other statelets, on the basis of homelands and nationalities. Then the locals of each statelets became the guardians of this fragmentation by eagerly defending those names and what is dubbed homeland and nationality. The criminal process of deception ended with what we are witnessing nowadays in terms of frail statelets that have weakened the Muslims, torn them into shreds and sowed the seeds of animosity among them. The chauvinism of a Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese, or Iraqi is no less dangerous than the chauvinism of an Arab, Kurd, Turk, Persian, or Amazigh. The success of this process of deception was unparalleled, and this fragmentation was one of the main causes of weakness and frailty, the continued direct and indirect colonialization of the lands, the loss of lives, resources and riches, and the humiliation and submissiveness we are now enduring.

    What ought to be perceived today is that unity on the basis of Islam is the only solution to the weakness, fragmentation and frailty the Ummah is suffering. Unity is the only way towards glory and might, and to rein in the ghoulish powers. Islam is the only path towards freedom and liberation. Hence, it is imperative to unify the ranks, shun our differences, eradicate all forms of fragmentation which colonialism has imposed upon us and dry up its sources, and rise above narrow individualism that descended on Muslims from another culture. It is imperative to make tremendous sacrifices in order to return as we were, one single Ummah and one single State, so that we may regain our grandeur and be witness over humankind, as Allah has wanted her to be: “And so We made you a central nation, that you may be witnesses over humanity, and that the Messenger may be a witness over you” [al-Baqarah-143]; and so that we may regain our status as the best nation sent to humankind: “You are indeed the best nation that has ever been brought forth for mankind: you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and you believe in Allah.” [Aal-Imran-110].

    Some individuals might think that talking of Islamic unity in this current era is implausible and a figment of our imagination due to the palpable reality of the Muslims which is fraught with divisions and differences. The truth is, what made the affairs of this Ummah righteous at the beginning is valid today and at all times to make her affairs righteous again if we were to return and adhere to it, especially as the unity of the Muslims today has become a demand and a necessity imposed by the political challenges, in addition to being a Shari'ah necessity and a vital issue. Hence, it is imperative on every sincere Muslim to perceive that the unity of the Islamic Ummah is a vital issue, and an objective he should strive to achieve. Unifying the Ummah in her thoughts, emotions and systems, unifying her countries within one single entity and smelting them in one single State and under one single authority and one single ruler, such unity according to this concept, is one of the Islamic obligations, just like Salat, Fasting and Jihad. The Muslims would be sinful should they fail to strive assiduously towards fulfilling this obligation, in the same way they would be sinful should they neglect any other Islamic obligation since it is part of the vital issues for the sake of which we ought to sacrifice our lives, wealth, and even our children.

    The Qur’an and the Sunnah are the foundation upon which unity between the Muslims should be built. They must be implemented by Muslims individually and collectively in the State and society. This does not mean that if Muslims failed to implement the Qur’an and the Sunnah of their Messenger ﷺ in their life’s affairs, they would not have to establish unity between them. No. Rather the unity between Muslims is an obligation, and establishing the unity on the basis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah is also an obligation, and neither of the two obligations is a condition for the other. The duty is to work towards establishing this unity and towards implementing the Shari'ah of Allah within this unity. Hence, if the unity is established before implementing Shari'ah, the Ummah would have fulfilled one of the obligations and she would be commanded to fulfil the other obligation.

    The path towards achieving unity is to strive for it by adhering to the pertinent Shari'ah rules and turning them into an overwhelming public opinion among Muslims, capable of exerting pressure on those who are an obstacle to the endeavour to achieve this obligation, and destroying any notion contradicting it. Hence, fraternity between Muslims on the basis of Islam should be the bond between them irrespective of their colour, race and tongue. Allah says: “Indeed the believers are but brethren.” [al-Hujurat-10]; this was revealed in the context of infighting which could take place between the believers: “Hence, if two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them; but then, if one of the two goes on acting wrongfully towards the other, fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to Allah’s commandment; and if they revert, make peace between them with justice, and deal equitably: for verily, Allah loves those who act equitably. Indeed all believers are but brethren. Hence, make peace between your two brethren, and remain conscious of Allah, so that you might be graced with His mercy.” [al-Hujurat-9,10]. Hence, the fraternity of Iman should constantly be observed, and its merits should also be always fulfilled, even as the blood is shed. Islam has forbidden the instigation of strife, disputes and haughtiness, and deemed such acts from Jahiliya, i.e., the days of ignorance. It was reported that Abu Tharr al-Ghifari was angered by his servant so he said to him “o son of the black woman”. This reached the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and upon this he said to him: “Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names? You are a person who still has in him the remnants of the days of Jahiliya”.

    Islam has called for the abolition of all types of regional and patriotic chauvinism since they are the seeds of division among Muslims. Our Messenger ﷺ said: “And whoever calls with the call of Jahiliya then he is from the coals of Hell." A man said: "O Messenger of Allah! Even if he performs Salat and fasts?" So he ﷺ said: "Even if he performs Salat and fasts. So call with the call that Allah named you with: Muslims, believers, worshippers of Allah.” Although the attribute of Muhajireen and Ansar (emigrants and helpers) quarrelling and bragging on its basis was deemed as call of the days of the repugnant Jahiliya. It was reported on the authority of Jabir bin Abdullah  who said: “We were in an expedition and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari (on the buttocks). The Ansari man said, "O Ansari! (ie Help!)" The emigrant said, "O the emigrants! (Help!)." When Allah's Messenger ﷺ heard that, he said, "What is that?" They said, "A man from the emigrants kicked a man from the Ansar (on the buttocks). On that, the Ansar said, 'O the Ansar!' and the emigrant said, 'O the emigrants!" The Prophet ﷺ said' "Leave it (that call) for it Is a detestable thing." Hence, precedence would only be on the grounds of piety. Allah says: “The best among you before Allah is the most righteous.” [al-Hujurat-13] ; and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, or of a non-Arab over an Arab, and no superiority of a white person over a black person or of a black person over a white person, except on the basis of personal piety and righteousness.”

    The Islamic Ummah shares several unifying factors. She shares the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ. She shares her certain, conclusive, and deeply rooted Iman in Allah, His angels, books, and messengers, and the Day of Judgement. She shares the fraternity of Iman despite the presence of all the attempts at destroying this fraternity. She also shares her one and only viewpoint towards life, namely that it is finite and a pathway rather than a permanent dwelling. The Islamic Ummah shares the concept of Halal and Haram being her criterion of actions in life and that her happiness would be achieved by striving to gain the pleasure of Allah.

    She has all the necessary components of unity. She is a youthful nation, vivacious in her thought, blazing with emotions and has her life ahead of her. She is rich in all kinds of faculties, which are huge, formidable and fit for being the benchmark of revival. The Muslims’ lands’ with their prominent geographical location and diverse climates, number of inhabitants and natural resources in terms of waters, arable lands, oil and minerals, are sufficient, together with the magnificent idea that the Ummah embraces, to take them out of poverty and decline and into revival, affluence, and superiority over all other nations and peoples.

    Finally, under the Ummah’s current condition of division into States, parties and groups, the major question facing every Muslim is: how can the Ummah be united and how can she bring herself back from oblivion and the State of division to a State of unity, a united voice, and the revival that everyone is craving?

    First, it is common knowledge that difference and disputes cannot be abolished or removed. Difference is part of the law of the universe, and those who seek to end it are attempting an unattainable objective, which is not even required in the first instance. The difference we are talking about in this context is the one within the sphere of Islam in terms of understanding its texts according to the rules of comprehension approved by the Muslims, i.e., according to what the indications of its texts may contain based on the linguistic and Shari'ah denotations.

    Disparity between people, including scholars, in terms of comprehension is one of the laws of Allah , and difference is an inevitable occurrence because understanding the details of Islam is conjectural with more than one probability and sometimes applying these rules to the pertinent realities after they have been specified could also be subject to difference. This is why the rules of Shurah, leadership, obedience, and the judicial system have been legislated to organise and regulate these differences and to conduct the community as one single unit.

    It is also worth noting that this difference – according to the aforementioned precepts – is a healthy and positive matter rather than negative. Difference and diversity of opinions generates thought, ponderation, research, and innovation. It also generates several options for solving human problems, and enriches the legislative wealth within the Ummah. Difference in understanding generates intellectual activity, which is an essential matter for the Ummah and the guarantor of her revival and progress towards perfection.

    Hence, it is imperative to perceive that achieving the revival of the Islamic Ummah could only be through adhering to the revelation as the single reference point, implementing Islam in the State and society, conducting her collective willpower according to it, organising her life on its basis, and thus bringing her own independent entity into being, namely the Islamic State, to administer her interests and conduct her affairs according to what she believes in. Consequently, the natural domestic stimulus for progress in all aspects of life will be generated.

    This issue is what all the movements, parties and tendencies should be aware of. The point at issue is the Ummah’s awareness of her Islam as an Aqeedah that portrays life in a specific manner, different to Western civilisation that separates religion from life, which is not a point of contention among the Muslims, an Aqeedah that acts as a bond uniting the Muslims and organising their relationship with other nations, which is also not a point of contention, and an Aqeedah linked to all aspects of life, be it in respect of individuals, groups, society or State. And this is also agreed upon among those who believe in the Book and the Sunnah. The criterion of our actions must be Halal and Haram, even if the understandings were varied and multiple. Evidently, Islam can only be implemented through a State, and Jihad is the method to protect the entity of the Ummah and carry the Da’awah to the world. This is how the Ummah will be united.

    The awareness of the movements and parties about this issue is what unites them and unifies their viewpoint towards life, the State and society, and makes their presence a positive asset. Such awareness generates the required intellectual activity, places the Ummah, individuals and groups alike, on the track of unity, liberation and revival, making her progress fruitful. Hence, the unity of the Ummah and State will be the construct of an ideology that has come into being within the Ummah, and thus she surges forward to implement it. The Ummah reserves the right to select the most competent and most righteous to serve her, and to proceed behind him to implement Islam; thus, she will exercise her willpower and establish her political entity and protect it, so that it may represent the entire Ummah and her orientations.

    23 Ramadhan 1442h
    5 May 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Jordan’s Ruling Crisis & National Dialogue 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Jordan’s Ruling Crisis & National Dialogue 
     
    Political parties and forces in Jordan have always resorted to calling for “national dialogue” to tackle public issues and settle their tussles with the ruling authorities, which often tend to fabricate crises and stifle the masses in their livelihood and legitimate freedoms to attract predetermined reactions and demands in the shape of partial and token solutions which absorb the resentment of the masses without touching on the essence of the problem. Soon after, crises and problems tend to proliferate while the opposition forces get caught in a vicious circle until the masses lose hope in generating change, get tamed and succumb to reality. This reality is intensely reflected in the “national” dialogue that took place in Algeria, Libya, and Yemen, which resulted in recycling the crises and the remnants of the collaborating regimes. It is also reflected in the call of the Jordanian Senate’s President, Faysal al-Fayez, for a national dialogue two weeks ago, which he then reduced, before it even started, to the need to amend the election law. Al-Fayez claimed it was a personal rather than an official initiative, which means the step he undertook was exploratory with the aim of paving the way for an official consumerist dialogue which would abort the grumbling of the masses and the “national” opposition forces, knowing that Faysal al-Fayez was once quoted as saying that the Jordanian people were no qualified to lead themselves. 
     
    During his meeting with representatives of political parties and forces, Faysal al-Fayez assumed the role of the opposition by criticising the performance of the regime in order to lure them into the trap of the forthcoming “national dialogue”, which is devoid of any substance, and to trick them into believing that the regime was serious about reform. 
     
    It is true that the call of al-Fayez was met with suspicion and misgivings by the political parties and forces, but the vision put forward by those forces did not deviate from the conventional frameworks contradicting society’s doctrine, despite their attempts to curtail the role of the king and snatch all his competencies, not to mention the fact that their mere acceptance of attending the dialogue has given the regime what it has wanted to bide time and feign reform amidst the societal tension, the fabricated issue of prince Hamza with his brother the king, and the exigencies of the political process pertinent to the “Palestinian issue”. 
     
    Against the backdrop of the regime’s juggling with society and its persistence to transgress, and the futile conventional vision of Jordanian political parties and forces, it is imperative to elucidate the following: 
     
    First: most of the masses in Jordan are Muslims; and a Muslim has no choice but to refer his life’s affairs to the Shari'ah of his Lord. Allah  says: “Now whenever Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to claim freedom of choice insofar as they themselves are concerned: for he who rebels against Allah and His Messenger has already, most obviously, gone astray.”  [al-Ahzab-36]; He   also says: “But no, by your Lord! They do not believe unless they make you a judge of all on which they disagree among themselves, and then find in their hearts no bar to an acceptance of your decision and give themselves up in utter self-surrender.” [an-Nisa-65]
     
    Hence, if the activists and politicians built their political vision on other than the Aqeedah of the masses, such a vision would not be expressive of the masses’ volition. This would rather place the preachers of change in the category of ghoulish regimes oppressing the masses and fighting their doctrines. Those political forces need not bother burdening themselves with the dialogue since the upshots of a dialogue not based on the masses’ viewpoint towards life and towards the interests would be worthless, especially as the ruling crisis could only be defused and the rift could only be healed if the viewpoints of society and its political and material forces towards governance are unified; and the viewpoints of society and its political and material forces could only be unified in a productive and permanent manner if they emanated from the Aqeedah of the Ummah.  Moreover, the “national” opposition forces’ call for constitutional reforms in the context of America’s endeavour to restructure the Jordanian regime to suit the requirements of liquidating the issue of Palestine, has added insult to injury and would never lead to the masses regaining the reins of power as the opposition imagines. 
     
    Second: Any vision devoid of sovereignty to Shari'ah and authority to the Ummah, as well as appointing one single ruler to govern people’s affairs and adopt the laws on the grounds of Shari'ah, regulating the comportment and decisions of the ruler through accountability and the awareness of society and the Mathalim Court, would only lead to consolidating reality, embedding Kufr and corruption, and consolidating the intellectual and political affiliation to the West, because the point at issue is the corruption of the system and not just the rulers, and because the change on the basis of other than Islam means reproducing the system, corruption, and failure.
     
    It would be wrong to say that granting the ruler autonomous power is tyrannical, as may claim, because the ruler in Islam does not rule with his whims and desires, but rather with an opinion emanating from Shari'ah, which is devoid of any tyranny, and because granting the ruler autonomous disposal to adopt opinions and manage people’s affairs is the Shari'ah duty based on Shari'ah evidence, and it is forbidden to deal with such an issue through experiments and reactions, even if it were badly implemented. It would also be wrong to say this because leadership in reality and in practice, even in the democratic systems the opposition is preaching and of which we do not approve, is unilateral and not collective. 
     
    Third: what the forces of the dynamism, the parties, and the politicians have proposed is based on secularism and liberal democracy which have nothing to do with Islam, the religion of the majority in Jordan. In fact, their proposal was devoid of any mention of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet, and was based on the legal and constitutional principles derived from Western systems, as if having the Qur’an and the Sunnah as a reference point were a political crime or an insult that needs to be averted or to distance oneself from. 
     
    What is heart-breaking and earthshattering is the fact that certain activists and political forces present themselves and their vision as being Islamic, or allegedly conformant to Islam. Hence, we remind them of what Allah  says: “Is it a judgment of the time of (pagan) ignorance that they are seeking? Who is better than Allah for judgment to a people who have certainty (in their belief)?” [al-Maida-50]; “Not even a word can he utter but there is a watcher with him, ever-present.” [Qaf-18]. We also remind them of the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in which he said: "He who believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent". They ought to know that they are Muslim politicians and not secularist politicians, or so they should be, and they should not  practise politics like the politicians who are separated from the Aqeedah of their masses; this is because the solution required should be exclusively the Shari'ah solution and not just any solution. They ought to know that he who turns away from remembering Allah “his shall be a life of narrow scope” [Taha-124], and that the masses will not rally around him since he does not express their volition nor their Aqeedah; and this is what the regime perceives perfectly and banks on.
      
    Those who wish to offer advice, generate change, attract the masses, and work towards the Ummah’s revival, let them fear Allah  who says: “and those who go against his order should beware lest a trial afflict them or they receive a painful punishment” [an-Nour-63]
     
    As for the king and his cronies in the ruling institutions, let them take heed from their predecessors, and let them find an answer to the saying of Allah: “And whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed, those are the disbelievers.” [al-Maida-44], and they should be wary of the colonialist capitalist West headed by America who does not take anything into account but her interests, and who offered her most loyal agents, Zein El-Abideen bin Ali, Hosni Mubarak, and Gaddafi, as sacrificial lambs for her Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI). There is no doubt America and the entire West will not help the king, nor will his army, cronies, and security services, behind whom he bulwarks himself against the masses, be able to help him; America will sooner or later make him and his men a scapegoat to liquidate the Palestinian issue and restructure the regime to absorb all the constituents of society, vent its resentment and extinguish its anger. There is no refuge and escape from Allah or His enemies except to Him, and there is no way for the authority to settle unless it is based on the people and their Aqeedah. 
     
    We also remind the people of Jordan that the previous upshots of the charters and national dialogues that contradicted the requirements of religion and Iman, and which we strongly reject, are the cause of the wretched situation Jordan is experiencing today, and whose flames are burning the masses who are evoking the wrath of Allah  by keeping silent over it. it is forbidden to accept what is dictated to them by the rulers and the opposition if it were not Shari'ah and religion; they have no choice and no salvation but by implementing the Shari'ah of Allah   amongst, because it is the Shari'ah duty and the salvation in this life and the hereafter.
     
    “O you who believe, respond to Allah and the Messenger whenever he calls you unto that which gives you life; and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, and that unto Him you shall be gathered.” [al-Anfal-24]  
     
    Hizb ut-Tahrir 18 Shawwal 1442h
    Wilaya of Jordan 30 May 2021  
      
    hizbuttahrir.org 
  • The Political Direction of the Resistance Leaders 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - The Political Direction of the Resistance Leaders 
     
    As the US Secretary of State was visiting the region, the head of Hamas’s politburo, Ismail Haniyeh, told Aljazeera on Wednesday 26 May 2021, that the resistance had “dealt the Deal of the Century a heavy blow, restored the Palestinian issue to the forefront and introduced Al-Quds to the rules of engagement”, adding, “the occupation should catch this message with regard to Al-Quds and the holy sites.” 
     
    Commenting on the international standpoints, Ismail Haniyeh said “we appreciate this relative change in the standpoints of Europe and the US, and we welcome the change and the redress of the standpoint which we believe was wrong in the past.” It is known that the previous standpoint was that of Donald Trump, and the standpoints he said he appreciated and welcomed are pertinent to the “two-state solution”, the only solution expressed by those countries. He further stated: “We would deal positively with any positive change towards the issue and the resistance groups…. If we are concretely offered some projects leading us eventually to ending the occupation, ending the settlements, having Al-Quds as a capital, securing the right to return, liberating the prisoners from the occupation’s jails, we as Palestinians would deal with this positively and frankly.”
     
    The Hamas leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, was more explicit when he said during his press briefing on the same day that “if the world succeeded in exerting pressure on the occupation to withdraw from the West Bank, dismantle the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, withdraw from East Al-Quds, release the prisoners, and end the blockage on Gaza, and if we were allowed to hold our elections in Al-Quds, and establish our Palestinian state over a part of our land, there would surely be a possibility to achieve through this a relatively long-term truce, which will defer the struggle and generate stability in the region.” He further added that “Hamas’s political doctrine was “to remove ‘Israel’ through Jihad and armed struggle; but for the sake of a unified Palestinian position and Palestinian commonalities, and because of the current international will, we said we were ready to proceed with this choice…. today, the international powers have a chance to interpret the upshots of this battle into a political achievement.” 
     
    These statements that the leaders of the resistance have repeatedly issued reflect precisely what the US has been seeking in order to liquidate the issue of Palestine on this basis. This was expressed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken who stated that “President Biden’s focus on relentless, determined, but quiet diplomacy is what got us to where we needed to be, which is to get the violence ended as quickly as possible, to stop more human suffering, and to at least put ourselves in position to make a turn, to make a pivot to building something more positive.” Blinken also stressed that the two-state solution was what Biden endeavoured to achieve and that it was the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, and of course, the only way to give the Palestinians the state to which they’re entitled.” He added: “We have to start putting in place the conditions that would allow both sides to engage in a meaningful and positive way toward two states. If there isn’t positive change, and particularly if we can’t find a way for – to help Palestinians live with more dignity and with more hope, the cycle’s likely to repeat itself, and that is in no one’s interest.”
     
    In light of this alignment between the standpoints of the resistance leaders and the stance of the US administration, it would be imperative to note that although truces and temporary treaties regulated by Shari'ah rules are approved by Shari'ah, shrouding the intention to embrace the collaborating Palestinian Authority and the “peace” process with a “long-term truce”, justifying accepting the two-state solution by a “unified Palestine position” and the “international will”, and separating “Hamas’s political doctrine” from its conduct and the requirements of reality, is worthless from a Shari'ah perspective. It is even tantamount to deception and collusion to liquidate the issue of Palestine for good, because this proposed solution represents the final settlement which will only be concluded within the framework of recognising the right of the usurping entity to exist; in other words, it would only be concluded if 78% of the lands of Palestine were relinquished, the city of Al-Quds divided and the holy sites placed under international administration. This is the very solution proposed by the Palestinian Authority, America, Arab states and international community. 
     
    The critical part of this swindle is the “long-term truce” on the basis of which the leaders of the resistance are attempting to justify their acceptance of the two-state solution. This is why the mole, Mahmoud Abbas, was unequivocal, during his meeting with US Secretary of State, in requesting that the resistance endorse the previous agreements. He said: “We are committed to peaceful popular resistance and we denounce violence and terrorism. We only wish to achieve a political solution through peaceful means between us and Israel,” adding that the Palestinian Authority wanted “to establish a government of national unity, provided Hamas and all other stakeholders adhered to all the legitimate international resolutions and agreements known to everyone,” in addition to the previous demands such as disarming the resistance or placing its cadres under the disposal of the Palestinian Authority, unifying the decision of war and peace under the umbrella of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. These were the prerequisites stipulated by Abbas to achieve national reconciliation, which would in turn lead to the unity of the Authority, standpoints and decisions.
     
    Hence, the Shari'ah duty of the resistance forces is to maintain the equation of deterrence, remain a thorn in the throats of the collaborators and the Zionists, and to meet the political manoeuvring aimed at leveraging the upshots of the war to kick-start the traitorous process with categorical rejection, and not by inviting the enemy and his collaborators to seize the opportunity to exploit the upshots and turn them into a political achievement that serves the Biden administration and cancels the right of the Muslims to the whole of Palestine under the guise of “long-term truce”.   
     
    It would be a crime against Islam, Muslims, the people of Palestine, the blood of the martyrs, and the innocent women and children if the leaders of the resistance were to offer the sacrifices of their children to the US to recycle and turn into political waste in order to exhaust and sedate the Muslims, while the resistance, the people of Palestine, and the Muslims would only reap further confiscation of their lands and holy sites along with the entrenchment of the criminal entity. Their heroic men on the ground would become a tool in the hands of America to beat down Netanyahu and his rightwing herd averse to the two-state solution.
     
    In a nutshell, we say to the leaders of the resistance that Al-Quds and Al-Aqsa are not the only red line, but rather every single inch of Palestine is a red line for which blood and martyrs would be sacrificed. Making Al-Quds the only red line to the exclusion of the rest of Palestinian lands is the purport of the two-state solution, which is nothing but a smoke bomb aimed at obscuring the vision of the Muslims and allowing the usurping entity to seize their land. For the resistance to gain the upper hand, they ought to make the word of Allah the Almighty supreme in their military and political struggle. The supreme word of Allah the Almighty makes it an obligation to end the occupation and its collaborators throughout the whole of Palestine and not just the West Bank and Al-Quds, if not today, then soon, by persevering and constantly preparing for war. Those who succeeded in upgrading the weapons of the resistance from stones and slingshots to explosive belts and now missiles and drones, are capable of continuing the struggle without making any concessions. 
     
    The issue of Palestine is the raison d'être of all the Muslims, and the resistance fighters are a part of the Ummah. Confronting the usurping entity is the duty of the entire Ummah, and irrespective of the Ummah’s shortcomings in performing jihad and liberating Palestine due to her fragmentation, the absence of her state, and the dominion of the West and its surrogates over her, the submissive solutions must never be justified; they should rather be rejected and their brokers must be snubbed. The issue should return to all Muslims. The Crusaders occupied Al-Aqsa for a longer period than this and the Muslims never surrendered it until Salahuddin came and liberated it. 
     
    “O you who have believed, do not betray Allah and His Messenger and do not knowingly be false to the trust that has been reposed in you.” [al-Anfal-27] 
     
    16 Shawwal 1442h 
    28 May 2021
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
  • Turkish Mobster Sedat Peker's Campaign Against AKP & Targeting of Süleyman Soylu 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - Turkish Mobster Sedat Peker's Campaign Against AKP & Targeting of Süleyman Soylu
     
    Turkish official and public circles have in the past few days been rattled by a series of video clips that went viral after they had been broadcast by Sedat Peker who has fled to the Emirates and has been dubbed by Turkish authorities as “a mafia boss”. In the videos, Peker claims the presence of links between icons of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the mafia. This prompted interior minister, Süleyman Soylu, to respond as the video recordings broadcast by Sedat Peker in the past two weeks turned into a matter of public concern for the supporters of the ruling party and the opposition led by the Republican People's Party (CHP), and for other parties opposing Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. 
     
    The accusations are designed to demonise Erdoğan and the AKP by attacking its men and toppling Süleyman Soylu and the police force that stood by President Erdoğan during the events of the failed coup attempt of 2016. Süleyman Soylu is tipped to succeed Erdoğan should the opposition fail in dissuading his party from continuing to bank on him following the defamation against him which has united all the opposition forces in calling for his resignation, especially as he has been the spearhead in confronting domestic conspiracies, dealing the CIA-affiliated movement of Fethullah Gülen a heavy blow, and being instrumental in curbing the deep state represented by the business community and the  political parties. These actions paved the way for Erdoğan to forge ahead with consolidating the powers of the police force and intelligence services while downsizing the influence of the judiciary and the army, which represent a linchpin of the Turkish deep state, through constitutional amendments and the wide-ranging powers he has acquired by turning the parliamentarian system into a republican one, which explains the opposition’s calls for a return to the parliamentarian system. 
     
    The Emirates, which has previously meddled in Turkey’s presidential and mayoral elections, has thrown a fireball inside Turkey through Sedat Peker within the context of the American campaign against the Turkish regime, which aims at recapturing Turkey from the AKP and bringing her back to the club of US-affiliated states after Erdoğan had broken free from the shackles of America’s volition, scuppered the rise of the Kurdish entity, and concluded the S400 missiles deal with Russia. The point at issue is the fate of Turkey rather than merely the fate of Erdoğan. This was expressed by some Senators in the US when they debated the method of dealing with the Turkish file in light of the estrangement between Erdoğan and America and the rapprochement of Erdogan with Russia. They stated that Turkey was “bigger than Erdoğan”; in other words, America considers it imperative to exert pressure and impose sanctions on Turkey to recapture her and include her in the project aimed at weakening the states of the Middle East together with their centralised regimes through federalisation and continuing to dominate them, plunder their resources, and prevent them from achieving progress, revival and liberation.
       
    We have previously elucidated that the US aims to divide Turkey on federal grounds by establishing a unified Kurdish entity stretching from northern Iraq to the Mediterranean via northern Syria, and thus, detonating Turkey’s territory from within and isolating Turkey from her Islamic depth while weakening her and keeping her dependent on the US to secure her economic interests. The Kurdish entity would act as a military base overlooking Central Asia through the Kurdish pocket which would not come into effect except by breaking the land-lock siege imposed on it by the geopolitics of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran by granting it an opening to the Mediterranean Sea in northern Syria. Erdoğan realised this manoeuvre and worked towards thwarting it by impeding the referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan with the help of Iran and by launching Operation Peace Spring which split East Euphrates from its west and prevented the expansion of the Kurdish pocket towards the Mediterranean Sea. 
     
    In fact, tension in Turco-American relations erupted because of America’s persistence in backing Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and its surrogates in Syria and Iraq. The American backing reached the level of supplying Syrian Democratic Forces with tens of thousands of weapon-laden trucks, not to mention the political backing. 
     
    Erdoğan detected the American strategy early when America embraced the aspirations of the masses in the region through its Greater Middle East Initiative, aka the “Arab Spring”, through which she reproduced the regimes to the benefit of the deep state and the remnants of the regimes in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Sudan, and Algeria while exploiting the protests in Lebanon and Iraq to restructure the two regimes in line with the requirements of kick-starting the peace process and regulating Iran and its influence in the region. Erdoğan also perceived America’s approach when she decided to: topple Mohammed Morsi, discard the “Turkish Islamic Model”, sponsor the failed coup attempt of 2016, exert economic pressure on Ankara, and give the Emirates free rein in backing the Turkish opposition forces. Subsequently, America succeeded in driving a wedge within the ranks of the AKP via Ahmet Davutoglu and Ali Babacan, who was viewed by America as a reserve to Davutoglu, especially since he was the engineer of the economic successes achieved by the AKP. 
     
    The new development on the Turkish scene is the escalation in the domestic threats aimed at inciting public opinion against Erdoğan and the AKP by maintaining the economic pressure and introducing new tools to defame Erdoğan, his party, and his ministers. This has been evident with the current issue of Sedat Peker who fled to the Emirates and launched a smear campaign against Erdoğan and his party which impacted Turkish public opinion, and generated support for Ahmet Davutoglu who demanded from Süleyman Soylu to respond to the allegations of Sedat Peker. This compelled Turkey’s interior minister to come out and respond to the campaign of Sedat Peker and those behind him, and expose the political game and its aims, which are not detached from what has been planned for the Middle East, namely weakening Turkey and its central government further through federalisation.
      
    Süleyman Soylu claimed during a programme aired by TRT that Ahmet Davutoglu stated in 2015, when he was prime minister and AKP deputy leader, during a meeting of the executive committee of the party, that the authorities could draft the constitution with the help of the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party. Soylu also mentioned the agreements concluded between Davutoglu and CHP leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, to redraft the constitution on the basis of federalising Turkey. Davutoglu briefed Erdoğan on the proposal but Erdogan rejected it and expelled Davutoglu from the party, according to leaked reports. Subsequently, Erdoğan called a snap election in which the AKP won 50% of the votes. 
     
    During a televised interview, Turkish interior minister Süleyman Soylu attempted to marginalise the UAE-sponsored mobster Sedat Peker, and shift the confrontation towards Ahmet Davutoglu to destroy his political career and prevent him from entering into an alliance with the CHP in future. He also attempted to dispel the rumours and suspicions that were raised against him and against the AKP in order to bulwark the party against the campaign targeting its unity and popularity, and even Turkey and her societal fabric. Erdoğan, for his part, endeavoured to corroborate his alliance with the Nationalist Movement Party by meeting its leader, Devlet Bahçeli.
     
    The US pressure on Erdoğan and the AKP is set to continue unabated through various means such as the media campaign by Sedat Peker, and the Libyan foreign minister’s calls for expelling Turkish forces from Libya, despite Erdoğan’s attempts to deal with America’s policies with extreme flexibility, to the point where he muzzled the Turkish-based Egyptian opposition, sought to bury the hatchet with the Egyptian regime at least for the time being, and decided during the recent war on Gaza to proceed with the project of internationalising the holy sites in Al-Quds al-Sharif by establishing a tripartite committee consisting of the three religions to administer the holy sites. 
     
    14 Shawwal 1442h
    26 May 2021     
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Muslims’ Lives Matter as Much as Palestinians’ 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
     
    Political Observation - Muslims’ Lives Matter as Much as Palestinians’ Lives 
     
    The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The blood of every Muslims is equal, they are one hand against others. The asylum offered by the lowest of them in status applies to them (all), and the return is granted to the farthest of them” and “A Muslim should not be killed in retaliation for the murder of a disbeliever, and a person who has a treaty should not be killed during the time of the treaty.” 
     
    Islamic Jihad Secretary, General Ziyad al-Nakhala, expressed his gratitude to Iran by saying: “We particularly thank the martyr of al-Quds, General Qassim Soleimani, who made every effort to achieve and consolidate this victory. You have been with us in all the battlefields, and you are a partner in achieving this victory, and you will be with us in the liberation of al-Quds.” Ismael Haniyeh for his part praised Qatar, Egypt, Iran, and the UN, while the Beirut-based Hamas senior official, Osama Hamdan, hailed the criminal Bashar Assad and claimed that his regime was the incubator of the “resistance”.  As for Hamas’s overseas politburo chief, Khaled Mashal, he justified his gratitude to the regimes that “backed the resistance”, such as Syria, Iran, Qatar, and Egypt, under the pretext of the Palestinian people’s need for support, claiming that accepting their support did not necessarily mean adopting their intellectual perspectives and political standpoints. Hence, he exonerated the regimes and the rulers of the duty of liberating and supporting Palestine, reduced the issues of the Ummah and her suffering to the issue of Palestine and the plight of her people and their “resistance” whose objective would remain unachievable, no matter how strong it became, without the Ummah at large, and disregarded the fact that the blood of the Muslims being killed at the hands of usurping entity’s leaders are equal to the blood of those being killed at the hands of the criminal leaders who support the enemies of Allah throughout the entire world. He also overlooked the fact that the suffering of Muslims at the hands of the regimes he has praised is more painful than the suffering of the people of Palestine themselves, that the savagery and ruthlessness of those he has praised, such as Bashar Assad, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, and Iran’s rulers, are far more ruthless, brutal and dangerous for Muslims and the people of Palestine than the usurping entity, because they are its protectors and the guardians of the colonialists’ interests, which renders their backing of the resistance groups devoid of the values bestowed upon them by their praise.
     
    Hence, the “resistance” leaders’ praise of the oppressive regimes and despotic rulers is tantamount to jumping over the suffering of the Muslims and exonerating their oppressors whose carnages belie their innocence. The Ummah’s need of a word that shakes the regimes and the thrones of the rulers by the “resistance” leaders is as pressing as the need of the people of Palestine for the Ummah, especially as threatening the regimes to expose them and incite the masses against them by the resistance is more conducive in amassing rightful support, than singing their praises and currying favour with them, which is dishonest. 
     
    The justifications of Khaled Mashal for his praise of the support he receives from the oppressive regimes is deplorable from a Shari'ah and rational perspective. We are not saying you should refuse the support but rather demand it multiplied, forcing them to provide it by inciting the masses against them, not by beseeching and befriending them, since it is the wealth of the Muslims and not a favour from them. We are not saying sever your lifeline for good, but we warn you against washing away the squalor of the rulers and their oppressive regimes with the wealth of the Ummah and the blood of the martyrs that has filled the dry veins of Muslims; and we warn you against taking the shredded bodies of the women and children as shields to protect the collaborators and traitors from their people. 
     
    Your praise of the rulers, wallowed in treason, will not elevate them to the status of Qutuz and Salahuddin, and not even the shoes of the stone-throwing children in Palestine; it will not embellish them in the eyes of the masses or lend them any legitimacy. It will rather remove your own grandeur, place you in their camps, destroy the Ummah’s sympathy towards you and separate you from her and the issue of Palestine. Your praise of the rulers is tantamount to betraying the Muslims, squandering their dignity, and denying their will.
     
    You claimed you were receiving their support unconditionally and they did not make it a condition for you to praise and pay tribute to them for their support. Then why did you volunteer to praise them in a remarkable manner, and that too while at the peak of your popularity among the Ummah, knowing the consequences of your praise on the legitimacy of the regimes and the rulers and its impact on softening the hearts of the Muslims and extinguishing their anger and resentment towards them? Does returning the favour, if we consider their support a favour rather than a duty, justify cajoling the criminals and deriding the lives of the victims they have killed in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen? Your Muslim brethren were expecting you to expose the treason of their rulers and to strip them of the cloak of legitimacy instead of corroborating it by your praise and gratitude. Did Khalil al-Hayya not say in his press briefing following your liberation of the people of Gaza from the collaborating Palestinian Authority that you had procured some earth-shattering secret documents that exposed the treason of the Palestinian Authority and the Arab regimes? So why are you praising the regimes, and why do you want to enter into partnership with the traitorous authority and the PLO? 
     
    Are the masses who shared your pains not worthier of praising and being your true partners than the regimes and the rulers who trade in your issue to derive their own legitimacy from it? Or are your lives more important than the lives of your brethren of the countries whose criminal rulers you are praising? 
     
    Do you not know that helping the children of your Ummah with a word of truth about those collaborators is your true path towards salvation, and is your relief and the relief of your Ummah from enslavement and injustice? It is sheer ignorance and blindness, or even a big lie, for you to see a lifeline in the regimes and the collaborating rulers, while failing to see it in the Ummah, who stands by you and yearns for the moment she will break free from the cowardly rulers that you are showering with praise, to undertake the duty of supporting you and wipe away for good the occupier weighing heavily on your chests. 
     
    The glowing reference that the political leaders of the “resistance” give to the criminal collaborators, at the peak of the support and credibility they have gained through the honourable Jihad and the sweat of the mujahideen on the ground, in addition to the blood of the women and children, and volleys of missiles on Tel Aviv, is tantamount to exploiting the sacrifices, the blood of the martyrs, women and children, and the struggle of the honourable men, for the benefit of the lowliest and most depraved conspirators against Palestine and the Islamic Ummah, and to exonerating those collaborators from treason, slackness and spinelessness. 
     
    What is the difference between Netanyahu and Sharon on the one hand, and Bashar and al-Sisi on the other hand, apart from the difference between the occupying criminals and their watchdog slaves who defend their existence and lick their boots?    
     
    The alleged support of those criminal slayers to the resistance in Palestine is neither a favour nor a virtue, but rather a duty for which they should not expect any praise, unless it is intended to cleanse the collaborators of their crimes and squalor and embellish them in the eyes of the Muslims. 
     
    Have those traitors offered their alleged support to the resistance within the framework of the work towards liberating Palestine or was it merely given for propaganda and within the framework of containing and controlling the resistance to use it as a commodity to bargain with their masters at the White House as Qatar did with the issue of the Taliban, and as Saudi did previously with her backing of the Jihad in Afghanistan?
    If those cowards, who in past threatened to wipe "Israel" off the face of the earth, were sincere in their animosity towards the usurping occupiers, they would fight and remove it from existence. If they were sincere and not traders in Deen and the issue of Palestine, knowing that it represents the heartthrob for Muslims, they would help their brethren of the Rohingya, Uighur and Kashmiris. 
     
    Their alleged support for the resistance is not a virtue but opportunism that is a stain of shame on their faces and the face of everyone propagating their lies, as they assigned the task of liberating Palestine to the besieged armed groups while washing their hands off the duty although they are capable, and they left al-Aqsa and the people of Palestine under occupation and suffering for over 70 years. So, fear Allah and speak in a just manner. 
     
    “O you who believe! Be steadfast in upholding justice, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of Allah, even though it be against your own selves.” [an-Nissa-135]  
     
    12 Shawwal 1442h
    24 May 2021    
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
      
     
  • Political Observation - Warnings of Political Aggression in the Aftermath of the War 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم  
     
    Political Observation - Warnings of Political Aggression in the Aftermath of the War 
     
    No sooner the agreement on ending the Zionist aggression on Gaza had taken effect in the morning of Friday 21 May, after 11 days of shelling that killed 240 persons, mostly women and children in Gaza, than US President Joe Biden announced that the ceasefire brought “a genuine opportunity to make progress.”  
     
    Prior to the ceasefire announcement, the White House had determined the US approach in tackling the “causes of escalation” pertinent to the city of al-Quds, the holy sites, the process of Judaization, and the annexation of the Palestinians’ lands, something for which Germany has also called. In harmony with the US standpoint, and lest the Muslims should muster up courage from the Mujahideen and confine their choices to armed struggle, and in order to circumvent the outcome of the battle and the reversal of aggression, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, said, “only a political solution will bring sustainable peace and end once and for all the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.” The Russian foreign ministry, for its part, said the ceasefire between the Palestinians and "Israel" was important but insufficient, and direct negotiations needed to be initiated.  
     
    In a despicable bargaining with the sacrifices of the people of Palestine and a repulsive trading with their blood, with the hope of washing away the shame of the “sacred” security coordination with the Zionist entity, foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority, Riyadh al-Maliki, said “the Authority would take the case of the Zionist entity’s crimes to the International Court of Justice”, thus, exploiting the blood of children and women for lowly electoral propaganda and using the sacrifices of the Muslims in Palestine as a bargaining chip in the forthcoming futile and submissive negotiations. This represents, together with the deterrence achieved by the resistance, the international pressure and concentrated media coverage on the "Israeli" apartheid system, in addition to the Democrats’ endeavour in America to forestall an urgent arms deal to "Israel", a big stick policy designed to compel  "Israeli" leaders and "Israeli" public opinion to accept the solutions proposed by the Biden administration. At the same time, America offers alliance, normalisation, and major economic agreements, expected to be concluded between "Israel" and the UAE, as a carrot to tempt the Zionist entity to proceed with the “peace” process.  
     
    Hence, America has set about investing in the current realities amidst the divisions between the Zionist leaders and the state of panic in "Israeli" public opinion due to the blows inflicted by the resistance, exploiting them in stirring up the stagnant waters of the “peace process” to completing the stages of liquidating the “Palestinian issue”. In this context, the Deputy White House press secretary, Andrew Bates, when asked about the impact of Rashida Tlaib’s conversation on Biden’s policy, responded: “The president’s approach is informed by American national security interests, the facts on the ground and his long-standing convictions — not domestic political considerations.” This explains the spurious pressure and impartiality expressed by Western media and by Western standpoints, as well as the US pressure on Netanyahu, while maintaining America’s commitment to the security and survival of "Israel".  
     
    In light of these facts, and to avert the flames of reckless and naïve panicky emotions, and in line with the sincere sentiments and blazing emotions based on what our Deen dictates and what the challenges of confrontation with the wicked, scavengers, collaborators and enemies, it is incumbent on us to state frankly that the most dangerous standpoints facing the “Palestinian issue” today are the standpoints of Khaled Mash ‘al, head of Hamas’s politburo abroad, who heralded in the middle of this month his acceptance to join the PLO, partake in the Authority of the “sacred” security coordination with the Zionist criminals, and his readiness to partake in the decision making, and the standpoint of president Erdoğan who was quoted as saying that "at this point, we believe there's a need for a separate arrangement on Jerusalem. To achieve lasting peace and tranquillity in Jerusalem, which contains the indispensable religious symbols of Muslims, Jews, and Christians, everyone must make sacrifices," adding that "In today's circumstances, it would be the most correct and consistent course of action for Jerusalem to be administered by a commission of representatives from the three faiths. Otherwise, it doesn't appear it will be easily possible to achieve lasting peace in this ancient city."  
     
    The precariousness of this issue lies in the fact that they both enjoy a widespread respect and admiration from Muslims, and in the fact that they project themselves as the largest representatives from the religious and patriotic dimensions, and that they present their vision in its quality as an Islamic and realistic one, which would smooth the path towards passing the submissive solutions to liquidate the issue of Palestine at the hands of its own people.   
     
    It would have been more befitting of them and of the Muslim leaders in their various positions, who enjoy the support of the majority of the Ummah, to express the voice of the Ummah, her leaders and the weapons of her mujahideen which have sent shivers down the spines of the Zionists, and the throbbing heart of the Ummah who is yearning to see her armies in the battlefields of honour. They should have banked on their Deen, Ummah and heroes, the chivalrous knights in Gaza, Palestine and throughout Muslims’ lands, rather than the US and her normalising collaborators, and the colluding international community and its institutions.  
     
    The end of this round of the Zionist aggression with its military defeat does not mean the end of the war, and complete victory will not be achieved by merely repelling the aggression and thwarting its aims, but by removing the occupation and wiping it out of existence. The US and the criminal entity have resumed the political war directly and by proxy via their collaborating surrogates in Egypt and Qatar who hosts the leaders of the resistance to contain them and control their progress and options, and via the Authority of the “sacred” security coordination, before the blood of the martyrs has even dried, and before the rubble has been lifted. Muslims ought to realise that the forthcoming battle is a battle of awareness in the first instance, which necessitates thwarting the political conspiracies, and fortifying the Ummah’s immunity and doctrinal fortresses against the gatekeepers of the thrones, ruling devils, and the watchdogs of Western interests in the Muslims’ lands, especially the charlatan sheikhs who lurk around the regimes to justify their treason, and the colonialist Atlantic coastguards from among the partisan militias who  earn their living  through illicit trading in their religion and through political debauchery, and by deriving  their solutions from slimy sources. 
     
    The Muslims and the people of Palestine should preserve the Islamic character of the issue, because had the issue not been Islamic with support throughout the Islamic world, the Zionists would have singled out the Palestinians and uprooted them from their homes. 
     
    As this savage round of Zionist aggression against our people in Palestine has stopped, with the bravery of the resistance soldiers sending a message marked with blood and gunpowder to the usurping entity and its collaborators stipulating that its wars are no longer hunting trips, like its wars with the stables of the foundling Arab rulers, and that it would have to pay a heavy price if it were to dare repeat its aggression against the Muslims, and as the response of the men of the resistance has muzzled their covetous designs, curbed their ghoulish behaviour, terrified their herds, kept them in their ruts, made them forget the whispers of their clergies and their spurious Torahic claims, humiliated their masters and bigwigs, and restored the respect and dignity of the Muslims, we pray to Allah the Almighty to reward the sacrifices of those who have been true to their pledge to Allah, to admit their martyrs to Jannah, heal their wounds, and cloak them with the attire of dignity and glory in this life and the hereafter, to make the goodness run through their hands, and heal the hearts of the believers. 
     
    Dear mujahideen brothers, beware of joining the PLO, which America established through Abdul Nasser to liquidate the issue of the Muslims in Palestine. And beware of partaking in the Authority of the “sacred” security coordination with the usurping entity and effectuating the so-called “two-state solution” over the bodies of the martyrs and the shreds of women and children. Those who wish to take part in the feast of the enemies and their surrogates, let them declare they are in their camps and not part of the brave soldiers whose fingers are on their triggers, and not attribute their squandering of the land and blood of the martyrs to Islam under the guise of compulsion, because the inability of the people of Palestine to achieve liberation is excusable from a Shari'ah perspective, whereas rejecting the surrender of land in the absence of a pressing coercion leading to death and whose reality has not materialised yet is within one’s ability and is inexcusable. 
     
    Hence, do not be dragged into political deception and do not be tempted by Qatari and Gulf cash. Do not be duped by the spurious promises of the Jews and their collaborators, lest you should plunge into the quagmire of treason and betray Allah and His Messenger, the blood of the martyrs, and the innocent women and children. Beware of being led astray by the Muslims’ rulers and the sheikhs of religious subcontracts who issue their fatwas under the guise of interests, even if they shrouded them with the cloak of the Ka’aba. Those who succumb to the will of the “international community” and refer to its arbitration, let them declare that they are part of this rotten community and do not belong to the Ummah of Islam and her combative roots, Jihadi history, and doctrinal and legislative heritage, which must at all times be her only reference point. As for the solution, it is the concern of the Islamic Ummah and not just the people of Palestine; and the path towards the legitimate and fruitful liberation will only pass over the thrones of the collaborating traitorous regimes, when this magnificent Ummah arises and give her leadership to a group of her sincere men, topples her rulers and establishes her State and the Shari'ah of her Lord. Then she will respond to the duty of preparation for battle, remove the borders dividing her lands, prepare for Jihad, reverse the occupation, exact revenge for the blood of her martyrs, and efface the shame with which the lowly rulers have stained her. So let the Muslims embrace the causes of these, as victory will only come from Allah the Almighty. 
     
    Those who, when the people told them: "Your enemies have mustered a great force against you: fear them," grew more firm in their Iman and replied: "Allah's help is all-sufficient for us. He is the best protector.".” [Aal-Imran-173]  
     
    9 Shawwal 1442h
    21 May 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org 
        
     
  • Political Observation - Halting the Aggression on Gaza 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - Halting the Aggression on Gaza
     
    In a briefing for foreign diplomats in "Israel", and in an attempt to generate psychological pressure on the resistance and the people of Gaza, achieve a remarkable success ahead of halting the aggression, and justify his crimes against the Palestinians before over 70 foreign ambassadors to Tel Aviv, the prime minister of the usurping entity said his army could have flattened Gaza as some Western powers did in the Second World War, but it did not, adding that they were merely attempting to hit back at those who attacked "Israel" and that they were carrying out precise operations. He slammed those who criticised "Israel", because of the war, describing their criticism as “the height of hypocrisy and stupidity”, and claiming that such criticism was a “defeat for all democracies.” 
     
    Moreover, in an attempt to amplify the threat of the resistance and amass the approval of domestic public opinion for what he has achieved, he claimed that “the whole of Gaza has basically become an underground city,” and in an implicit warning of the foreign pressures calling for a quick end of the aggression to prevent him from achieving a victory which would help him face domestic public opinion, he said “if the perception is that they gained victory, that is a defeat for all of us,” meaning that if you wanted us to be defeated before Hamas, it would be a defeat for us and for you in favour of the Muslims. He stressed that what was happening was “not merely a question of Israel’s security, it’s a question of our common security,” meaning that he was defending the interests of the West in the region, in a desperate and poor attempt to blackmail the West and incite them against the Muslims in general and the Palestinians in particular.  
     
    Some do not absorb the notion of US pressure on Netanyahu because they get overwhelmed by emotion when reading the current realities and events. Allowing inclinations to dominate the reading of political events, and pursuing a logical style in understanding them, corrupts the opinion and leads away from perceiving the reality and its fallouts. Western policy is based on expediency rather than religion, emotions and morals, even though such aspects tend to nurture this policy. Hence, based on our perception of the Western mentality and the plots and plans of the Kafir West, we can understand the current events and the standpoint of the US in her quality as the unilateral superpower in the international situation. In order  to understand the events taking place in the Palestinian scene, it is also imperative to take into account the U-turn of the Biden administration which represents the decision makers in the US today, and looks after the interests of America and "Israel" in the region, and to link the events to the pertinent or influencing circumstances and implications, such as the fierce tussle taking place in the "Israeli" domestic scene and its fallout on Netanyahu who is facing corruption charges which could lead to  him in jail.  
     
    Observers of the "Israeli" domestic tussle clearly perceive Netanyahu’s aim from the aggression against al-Quds, al-Aqsa, and Gaza through the scathing attack by the media and rival political forces that called for an end to the attack on Gaza and announced that Netanyahu had harnessed this war for personal motives cloaked by the interests and security of "Israel". This has been perceived by the Biden administration whose retraction from some of Trump’s decisions pertinent to dealing with the policy of fait accompli pursued by the "Israeli" government has become conspicuous, a policy that impinges on liquidating the issue of Palestine and heralds a crisis whose expansion will undermine American and Western interests, and the Zionists existence in the long run. This is why the White House stated that America wanted to tackled the “causes of escalation” and that she wanted a “sustainable solution”, but Netanyahu’s policy of swallowing up more lands, Judaizing and controlling the holy sites for reasons related to winning over "Israeli" far-right public opinion is undoubtedly the main cause behind the escalation.  
    Hence, when we say that Netanyahu is being pressurised and targeted, it does not mean that America and the countries of the world support the rights of the Palestinians or that they are aligned with the Muslims, but they rather support the security and survival of "Israel" even though they are averse to some of its policies which undermine its entity as well as the short and long-term Western interests. Biden’s targeting of Netanyahu is corroborated by a host of indications on the ground, such as the Democratic Party’s decision to forestall urgent military aid to "Israel", in addition to the calls of Western powers, Russia, China, Egypt, the Arab League and the Muslim World League to end the war and activate the “two-state” solution. It is also corroborated by the standpoint of the rival "Israeli" political forces, and Netanyahu’s briefing to the ambassadors of the world that included a host of unmistakable domestic and international messages. 
     
    On the domestic plane, Netanyahu attempted to overstate his achievements, as we have mentioned earlier, though he was hoping to achieve a bigger catch such as assassinating Mohammed al-Dayf. As for the international plane, he has sent a message to the international community warning them of the fallout of the pressure exerted on him on how he dealt with the Palestinians and the region. This was reflected in his saying, “if the perception is that they gained victory, that is a defeat for all of us,” which was a flagrant attempt to negotiate with America in the hope of being given the chance to achieve a success to help him overcome his crisis, which proves that America and the West’s calls for ending the war was designed to deprive him from achieving his personal aims, and to influence "Israeli" public opinion by convincing them that military power was useless in imposing a fait accompli, especially with the intensity of the missiles that shelled Tel Aviv and the Jewish settlements, and the endeavour to harness them in portraying the “two-state solution” as a lifeline to the Zionists and their state. However, America did not miss the opportunity to thwart the designs of Netanyahu and the religious rightwing and deprive them of achieving them. She forced Netanyahu to end the war as per the statement of "Israeli" television yesterday, considering that Netanyahu’s failure in imposing his terms on Hamas was a scandalous defeat. 
     
    As for the upshots of this battle, which is most important, Netanyahu failed to achieve a major success in the war on Gaza despite succeeding in disrupting Lapid’s endeavour to form a government; and the only option he has is to play for time, go for a fifth election, and attempt to invest in what may change in "Israeli" public opinion following the wailing and panic caused by the strikes of the Palestinian resistance. He may yield to US pressure and allow Palestinian elections in Al-Quds to take place to please Biden, and at the same time, work on consolidating his domestic alliances and dismantle the front of his opponents, as he did in the previous round of elections.         
    On the Palestinian side, Fatah and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades brought out their operatives from their hideouts to exhibit their weapons in an attempt to save embarrassment and propagate the elections, in preparation for resuming the useless negotiations and the traitorous security coordination, ending their isolation, returning to the Palestinian scene, and resuming their lowly functional role, which represents their ultimate objective. 
     
    As for Hamas and the various resistance groups, the ceasefire declaration has strengthened the standpoint of the resistance. In this context, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her support for holding indirect talks with Hamas pertinent to the struggle in the Middle East. Khaled Mash ‘al for his part had expressed beforehand Hamas’s readiness to take part in the governmental post and the elections, join the PLO and partake in the decision making; this “generosity” and moderation by Mash ‘al was projected at the expense of the tremendous sacrifices and the blood offered by the resistance and the brave children of the Muslims in Gaza and Palestine.   
     
    As for the regional plane, the mutual ceasefire between "Israel" and Hamas on the basis of an Egyptian proposal enhances the Egyptian role in dealing with the resistance movements in Gaza, especially as the Egyptian regime is determined to dispatch two security delegations to Tel Aviv and the Palestinian areas to monitor the implementation of the ceasefire. The UN Secretary General seized the opportunity to praise the role of Egypt and Qatar in reaching a ceasefire agreement in coordination with the UN. Hence, the US administration has succeeded in restoring the respect and weightiness of the tools which will have a role in any future peace talks between "Israel" and the Palestinians, such as the UN, and the Egyptian and Qatari mediators.  
     
    As for the US, she is banking on the fallout of the war on the population of the occupying entity, which will inevitably impact on their standpoint vis-à-vis "Israeli" leaders and politicians, because the point at issue is the steady rise of religious fanaticism in "Israeli" society in the past three decades to the point where political tussle inside "Israel" became confined to bickering within the extremist far-right, and negotiations became dependent on the agenda of this extremist rightwing with which Netanyahu has been bulwarking himself. Hence, the Zionist entity has become devoid of any alternatives upon which America could rely. 
     
    Hence, the American gamble revolves around dismantling Netanyahu’s rightwing alliance, working on "Israeli" public opinion, supporting the preachers of coexistence with the Palestinians, and generating an atmosphere which would allow the leaders of "Israel" to make “painful concessions” without dreading the backlash of their electoral powerbases. Hence, America is attempting, in the face of the Zionist rightwing problematics, to let the settlers suffer and stew in their own juices, to force them to retract from their disproportionate and extremist viewpoints, and by doing so, hope to help "Israeli" leaders in responding to the requirements of liquidating the Palestinian issue in accordance to the American vision.  
     
    Nevertheless, the caravan of useless negotiations is not expected to set off and no progress in the “two-state solution” is expected to be made before "Israeli" elections are held and a clear picture of the impact of the war on "Israeli" public opinion emerges together with the viewpoints of the political forces in "Israel". This is because achieving progress in the negotiations and kick-starting the “peace” process hinges on the ability of America and the West to reduce Netanyahu’s chances of winning and curbing the extremist rightwing agenda, whose fallout on a tense Middle East region threatens to dismantle the entire American and Western colonialist project.  
     
    Nonetheless, the Islamic Ummah is not concerned with the ramifications of the conspiracies perpetrated by the Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority, or the pragmatism of Hamas and the resistance groups. The Ummah has bitter resentment towards the rulers while tremendous support and love for the resistance forces who have rekindled the spirit of Jihad within the Ummah, buried the option of traitorous capitulation despite the collaborators, left a clear and radiant impression in the psyche of the Muslims, unified their standpoint, and evoked in them the yearning for Jihadi leaders behind whom they would fight and shield themselves, and who would efface the stains of humiliation and occupation from existence, with the leave of Allah the Almighty. And we have witnessed this standpoint clearly in the spontaneous celebrations in Gaza and the West Bank when the ceasefire between "Israel" and the resistance groups was announced. 
     
    9 Shawwal 1442h  
    21 May 2021     
        
    hizbutahrir.org 
     
  • Political Observation - Current & Expected State of Affairs on the Palestinian Scene  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - Current & Expected State of Affairs on the Palestinian Scene  
     
    Most “scholars” have called for supporting Palestine through prayer, i.e., Du’a, just like the Sahaba used to do for their mujahideen brethren. Those scholars deal with the issues of the Ummah whenever the bell rings, as if they were responding to the needs of the rulers to absorb the anger of Muslims and ease their tension through a host of peripheral acts that hardly make any difference on the ground. In fact, the Du’a of the Sahaba for the mujahideen took place when the Muslims were performing Jihad of sufficiency, which achieved the objective by being undertaken by some Muslims, and not when Jihad became an individual duty upon every Muslim. When weakened Muslims enter into a state of Jihad and their brethren slumber, reducing the help and support to sheer Du’a, that would be slackness and impotence.
     
    Propagating the notion of supporting Muslims through Du’a instead of supporting them by calling for toppling the regimes, mobilising the entire Ummah and declaring jihad, is but a mockery and provides cover for the failure of the collaborating and conspiring regimes to fulfil their duty. Al-Izz Ibnu Abdul Salam said “He who comes to a place where adultery is widespread and talks to people about the prohibition of usury, he will be a betrayer.”
     
    Now is the time to regain the authority of the Ummah, declare Jihad, talk about Jihad, exhort the masses to perform Jihad, remove any fear from their hearts, encourage them to proclaim the truth, and make them yearn for either victory or martyrdom.
     
    Any talk about of anything other than the Islamic State, the Jihad it will declare and the path leading to it, is tantamount to betrayal of the Ummah and her Deen. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “And the helpless man is the one who follows his own whims then indulges in wishful thinking about Allah.” It has also been reported that Omar Ibnul Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, saw a camel afflicted with mange, so he asked its owner about his neglect in treating it; he said: “we have an old lady making Du’a for its recovery.” Upon this he said: “With the Du’a, would you put a bit of tar?” 
     
    We are not belittling the value of Du’a but it is imperative to consider the causes that addition to Du’a. It is haram to think that Du’a is a method to fulfil one’s needs even if Allah the Almighty responded and the needs were fulfilled because Allah the Almighty has decreed for the universe, humankind, and life, a system according to which they proceed, and He has linked the causes to their effects. Hence, it is imperative to realise that the state of affairs of the Ummah would not change towards revival and liberation from the oppressors and colonialists unless we unified the thoughts leading to liberation and revival. These thoughts are the Islamic Aqeedah, establishing the Islamic State, the bond of Islamic fraternity and Jihad and the work towards turning these concepts into a public opinion that the regimes would not be able to withstand or entrench what contradicts them in terms of secularist, nationalistic and patriotic concepts. We have observed that several youngsters from the Ummah think that if they replied to a tweet, or hit the “like” button after reading a leaflet, or expressed their anguish towards the anguish of another Muslim, they would have come to the aid of their brethren, supported the cause of their religion, and fulfilled what is expected of them and established Islam on earth. This is neither sound nor productive and will never lead to achieving the aim and the objective.   
              
    Hence, those who wish to ascertain their status in the sight of Allah the Almighty should review the position of Allah in their view; and those who wish to know what Allah the Almighty owes to them should review what they owe to Allah.  
     
    Hence, the Muslims should work towards changing the negative environment towards Deen and the Muslims’ issues around them, call the rulers and politicians to account for their slackness whenever and wherever possible, and increase the number of Muslims who do not accept anything other than what Allah the Almighty has revealed. These Muslims should respond to the exhortations of those calling them to Allah and His Messenger, to implement what has been revealed in the noble Qur’an, defend those who stand up to the oppressive authorities in support of his Deen, drain the authorities’ sources of support in their own surroundings and among their neighbours, relatives and friends, so they all rally around those who express their Aqeedah and volition, so that the regimes and their men who boast about their positions and their closeness to the traitorous authorities become isolated like a scabby camel.
     
    Second: This war in Palestine is a war against all Muslims and not just against Gaza and the people of Palestine. Gaza is merely the frontline. When Allenby occupied Al-Quds it was under the theme of colonialism and the crusades. Hence, it is imperative to liberate it in its quality as an Islamic issue, not a humanistic, nationalistic or patriotic issue. "Israel" is not waging war against the Muslims on its own, but with the help of the Western colonialist world. The Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz hoisted the "Israeli" flag on the roof of his office to express his support for killing Muslim children in Palestine. He said “Austria stands by Israel’s side.” As for the Czech president, Miloš Zeman, he ordered the "Israeli" flag to be hoisted at the first courtyard of Prague Castle to express the savagery of the Zionist entity against Muslims in Palestine. German chancellor Angela Merkel, for her part, conveyed her denunciation of the protests in Germany, which has witnessed the spread of “hatred and antisemitism”, and reiterated her solidarity with "Israel". The foundling French president Macron for his part telephoned Netanyahu to offer his condolences for "Israeli" victims and confirmed that the condemnation would be confined to the missiles launched from Gaza. European countries have banned demonstrations against the savage Zionist aggression under the guise of “antisemitism” despite the fact that “antisemitism” is a European phenomenon that the Muslims have nothing to do with in the first place; but it was later attributed to the Muslims to justify protecting the Zionist entity and preventing the Muslims from resisting it.  
     
    Moreover, the Biden administration has approved an arms deal totalling $735 million and involving precision-guided weapons to kill Muslims. Hence, the West will never support the rights of Muslims even if they showered "Israel" with roses.  
     
    The Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority are also part and parcel of the battle against the Ummah because they protect “Israel" from the Muslims and leave the people of Palestine exposed to the most horrendous massacres while providing the Zionist entity with a political cover through issuing spurious political statements, referring the issues of the Ummah to her oppressor, signing normalisation and alliance agreements, about which the UAE ambassador to Washington has barefacedly boasted, and by preventing the Muslims from performing Jihad and instead, engrossing them in demonstrations and protests to vent their anger.
     
    It is only befitting for Muslims to unite under the Islamic Aqeedah and shun every thought emanating from the colonialist enemy and his surrogates in the Muslims’ lands. Their objective should be resuming the implementing of the Shari'ah of their Lord, establish their state, and bulwark themselves with Jihad, which is their only refuge from the oppression of their enemy.  
     
    Third: America’s support for the Palestinian Authority and allowing the Arab regimes to nominally stand by the people of Palestine, is designed to support and strengthen the collaborating forces and embellish their image in the face of the Jihadi tide in the Islamic world as the sound of weapons in the hands of the mujahideen in Gaza and Palestine grows louder and the Muslims’ interaction with this reality intensifies day by day. The Arab regimes and secularist forces are expected to seize the initiative once the battle is over to obscure the achievements of the resistance and Jihadi actions in favour of the traitorous and submissive approach.  
     
    The political value of this battle conducted by America, which has invigorated a Jordanian regime horrified at the notion of the “alternative homeland” and has seen the Palestinian Authority scampering behind the function of guarding the Zionist entity, is reflected in dissuading Netanyahu from investing in the Judaization process and the policy of fait accompli because it impinges on the American agenda for al-Quds, the holy sites, and the “sustainable” solutions for the Palestinian issue, as well as restoring the “two-state solution”, which had faded with the introduction of Trump’s plan and turned into mere media headlines.
     
    This political value is also highlighted in the subterfuge of paving the way for negotiations under such deceptive themes which promise Muslims a fair solution. This new tune by the leaders of Hamas and their penchant to curry favour with Mohammed al-Dayf and Abu Obadiah is designed to regulate their standpoint to the rhythm of the expected political trend of the movement, which was expressed by Khaled Mash ’al, the head of Hamas’s politburo abroad, during an interview with al-Arabi channel aired on 15 May where he said: “once the battle is over, we will organise our Palestinian household, hold elections, open the gates of the organisation, and become partners in the political decision-making, and the leading political institutions.” Hence, if this objective is achieved, the Palestinian Authority will hasten to resume the useless traitorous negotiations to delude and mislead the Muslims, and conclude the negotiations, peace and capitulation in their name. Hence, we remind them of what Omar Ibnul Khattab was reported to have said: “I am no fool and no fool can trick me.” Hence, do not break and completely untwist the yarn which you have spun and made strong.   
     
    Fourth: The issue of Palestine from the river to the sea is the issue of every Muslim, and not just the West Bank, al-Quds, the Gaza Strip and the return of refugees. Our duty is to liberate and recover Palestine no matter how long it would take, since the required solution is what Shari'ah dictates rather than what is reasonably appropriate. Our reference point is the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet, not the Security Council, the UN, international courts and international law, which the West and the Zionists have trampled on with their feet to kill and humiliate our people.  
     
    Deluding us into believing we are weak is disproved by the events on the ground. The balance of power between "Israel" and the popular resistance is uneven in terms of quantity and quality from a material perspective, but "Israel" is not superior in an absolute manner in terms of willpower and other components of power, such as the fighting doctrine, the belief of the soldiers in their cause and their willingness to sacrifice, and incur the political, economic, and societal cost of the battle. This is the Achilles heel of the usurping entity in which it is imperative to invest. Those who derive belief in their cause from historical claims and religious myths that could not occasion a conclusive argument, and  who fight from behind their military arsenal and foreign support, and whose sacrifice is not worthy of taking a life and death standpoint towards it, and who derive their will to defend the cause from the fact that there is no alternative, as is the case with the Zionists, such people cannot resist before an Ummah who cherishes martyrdom for the sake of Allah with full certitude of His reward as much as her enemy cherishes life, not to mention what the Islamic Ummah possesses in terms of weaponry. If the rulers of Saudi and the Gulf States were sincere and took a standpoint against US interests with punitive measures against the West, America would not able to impose any sanctions against them in the same way she does against Iran and Russia. America and the world would not be able to occupy Arab lands under the shade of their consumerist culture which is based on affableness, peace of mind and capitalist lifestyle. It would be useless for them to destroy Saudi, the Gulf, and the Arab states with nuclear weapons as America and the rest of the world would not be able to stomach a long-term oil crisis which would paralyse their economies. The American economy would be significantly damaged and the world would be split since it would be unable to withstand the cost of an unstable oil market, whose supply routes and prices are controlled by Muslims. The world would undoubtedly turn on America if the value of the dollar were to plummet and turn into worthless paper, and if the world financial markets were to collapse.     
     
    Matters would lead to the liberation of the Muslims and the world would acquiesce to their will power and seek to negotiate with them with the leave of Allah. All this would be possible were it not for the treason of the rulers.  
     
    Fifth: the liquidation of the issue of Palestine is underway at the hands of the rulers and the Palestinian Authority. Hence, do not be party to its slaughter and to surrendering an inch of the land under the umbrella of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, or under the themes of reconciliation and national unity, irrespective of the pressures, because without your endorsement, the legitimacy of the Zionist entity before the world would remain non-existent according to its laws, even if all the Arabs and the Muslims were to abandon the Palestinian cause. You have witnessed how the traitorous Arab normalisation and alliance with the Zionist entity was worthless as long as you remained opposed to it. This is why they are eager to lure you into endorsing the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, and this is why they have resuscitated the spurious two-state solution in order to exact your recognition of the criminal entity. This was reflected in the regional and international statements in which, despite their differences, they called for ending the fighting, resuming the negotiations and effectuation the two-state solution. 
     
    They have also worked towards Judaizing al-Quds by expanding it to include about 10% of the West Bank and laying a siege around the Arab areas with settlements in order to isolate them and harass their residents and evict them, and eventually justify their sovereignty over those areas and give the Palestinians a piece of land outside the historical city of al-Quds to deceive them into believing that their capital is al-Quds. As for the holy sites, they would not object to sharing them if they could, as they did with the al-Haram al-Ibrahimi. 
    As for the holy sites, they are the last resort on which America is working with the help of the Muslims’ rulers who aim to justify their cowardice and collusion, and their surrender under the pretext of al-Quds being “a historical heritage for the whole world” under the theme of the new “Abrahamic religion”.  
     
    So be truthful with Allah, adhere to the truth, and Allah is our Lord Supreme, and they have no ally.  
     
    “and if you turn away, He will cause other people to take your place, and they will not be the likes of you.” [Mohammed-38]    
     
    5 Shawwal 1442  
    17 May 2021   
     
    hizbuttahrir.org      
     
  • Implications of Palestinian Scene’s Escalation  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - Implications of Palestinian Scene’s Escalation  
     
    By way of compensating for the state of demoralisation, and in a clear expression of impotence and failure in the possibility of achieving their aims, the wanton occupation forces this morning launched a criminal raid against two Gazan families in the al-Shati refugee camp, turning two women and eight children into shreds, in an attempt to reassure the herds of the savage Zionists, and break the resolve of Jihad and resistance demonstrated by the people of Gaza and Palestine.  
     
    The Zionist air force has intensified its raids on the Gaza Strip in the past two days and today destroyed the al-Jalaa tower, which housed 60 residential flats and offices of several news agencies, in an act of revenge after "Israel" had found itself exposed before the resistance, and sought to delude "Israeli" public opinion into believing they have achieved victory, and give itself the pretexts to retreat whenever necessary to avert failure and disappointment, and to deprive the Palestinians from increasing their credentials of bravery which have made this battle a turning point in the Muslims’ viewpoint towards the frail Zionist entity, and the viewpoint of the herds of this entity towards their own “state” which they have been boasting of its military superiority. 
     
    Hence, the Zionist media put forward that Netanyahu was “about to end the military operation in Gaza and the matter is dependent on Hamas reducing its firepower significantly”, that “the significant strategic strike inflicted on Hamas yesterday allowed Israel to move towards ending the operation”, that “senior army commanders support the decision to end the operation”, and that “the army aims to end the round of fighting as soon as possible for fear of chaos” in the occupied interior. This is what has been put forward by Haaretz, Yediot Aharonot, and other Hebrew websites. Former head of "Israeli" defence force military intelligence directorate Amos Yadlin said for his part that he expected “this battle to stop by the end of the week”, which explains the statement of the White House suggesting that matters were heading towards de-escalation following a telephone call between Biden and Netanyahu. It also explains Egypt’s extensive contacts with the resistance to end the escalation which, without a shadow of a doubt, was instigated by Netanyahu with the head of "Israeli" police admitting that “Netanyahu’s ally, Knesset member Etmar bin Ghafir, was behind igniting the intifada by organising a demonstration by the settlers in Bab al-Amud and provoking the residents of Sheikh Jarrah.” 
     
    However, the main issue lies in the proposed solutions and the pragmatism of the resistance movements’ political wing, which do not reflect the steadfastness of the people of Palestine, their Islamic popular support, and the bravery and sacrifices of the mujahideen on the ground. This leads to the need to elucidate the following: 
     
    First: the political awareness the Muslims need today is to observe the domestic and regional events in conjunction with world politics in order to perceive the real motives behind the current events and their consequences, avoid being exploited and deceived, falling into the political traps and cheap struggle,  undertake the standpoint towards these events from the angle of the Aqeedah, and avoid being overwhelmed by hopes, sentiments and inclinations when reading the realities and events. Hence, the current events in Palestine cannot be isolated from the world politics devised by the US, the power with influence and interests in the region, especially as the issue of Palestine institutes for the interests of America and Western powers in the Gulf region, the maritime passageways of the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal, and the Zionist forward military base, named "Israel", whose security is linked to US national security, in addition to America’s need to dominate the Arab regimes and alienate the people of the region from their Aqeedah which, constitutes the greatest challenge to US and Western culture, from influencing or having a presence in politics. 
     
    This is why America had to initiate, steer and orchestrate the events to safeguard her interests first, and to settle the so-called Arab-"Israeli" struggle with the aim of securing her interests by tackling the Zionist occupation of Palestinian lands, the migration of the people of Palestine, and solving the issue of al-Quds through internationalisation to silence the Muslims and extinguish their anger. 
     
    In this context, the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance document stated: “We will maintain our strict commitment to Israel's security, while we seek to enhance its integration with its neighbours and resume our role as a promoter of a viable two-state solution.”  It added: “We will not give our partners in the Middle East a blank check to pursue policies that contradict American interests and values,” in reference to the policy that Donald Trump pursued vis-à-vis the ghoulish behaviour and frenzy of the Zionists in the region. This means the Biden administration rejects the "Israeli" expansion and its attempts to impose a fait accompli of the Judaization, holy sites, and settlements. In a call to the head of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, Biden underscored his “strong commitment to a negotiated two-state solution as the best path to reach a just and lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” He also stressed the US administration’s aversion to any unilateral actions, such as Jewish settlements, and the eviction of the Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and east al-Quds. This is obviously not an alignment with the Palestinians and Muslims, but because the agenda of Netanyahu and the religious far-right does not constitute a sustainable practical solution in alignment with the viewpoint of the Democratic Party leaders who conduct the US policy today on behalf of the deep state. This is what John Kerry stated towards the end of Obama’s tenure by telling "Israel" unequivocally: “But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace.”
     
    The "Israeli" interest is determined by the US administration and not what Netanyahu and the religious far-right want; and this is also what Antony Blinken reiterated during his testimony before Congress. 
     
    What the US administration is considering today is the “sustainable policy” rather than the policy of fait accompli which was pursued by the Trump administration. Hence, the State Department stated yesterday that Washington was working towards achieving permanent calm. 
     
    The disparity in the vision of the two administrations in America, which reflects the diverse approaches within the decision-making circles, is clearly reflected in what the former head of "Israeli" defence force military intelligence directorate Amos Yadlin, who is also a former head of "Israeli" defence force military intelligence directorate and former military attaché to Washington, said two days ago about Trump giving Israel "an open cheque to everything" because he thought "Palestinians were to blame basically for everything" while describing the Democratic Party as more balanced. 
     
    Second: The illusionary two-state solution summed up in giving the Palestinians an archipelago torn to shreds on a segment of the lands occupied in 1967 lacking the constituents of a viable state, and which the Biden administration is attempting to lean towards, is designed to segregate the Palestinian populations from "Israel" and cancel the right of return as an alternative to Netanyahu’s vision for which he is waging his war in a race against time to export his domestic crisis and boobytrap  Biden’s plan by building more settlements and imposing Judaization and annexation, which will complicate matters and impinge on the ability of the new US administration to contain the ramifications.   
     
    This American vision does not stem from an awakening of conscience nor the support for humanitarian grievance and the right of the Palestinians to freedom, independence, and self-determination. It is rather the path towards salvaging "Israel" and entrenching its existence by preventing it from swallowing up more lands and sacred sites which would threaten to ignite a conflict in the region which would threaten US and Western interests.  
     
    As for Netanyahu’s vision, he expressed it by annexing the Golan Heights and saying “When you start wars of aggression, you lose territory; do not come and claim it afterwards. It belongs to us,” in reference to the lands the Syrians and Palestinians lost in 1967. 
     
    It is worth noting in this context that Netanyahu’s acceptance of the so-called two-state solution is probable from the perspective of separating the major population areas in the West Bank from "Israel" while maintaining sovereignty over the lands and settlements, and Judaizing al-Quds, and this is warranted by some existential issues of the Zionist entity and by the need to maintain the Jewishness of the state. Netanyahu expressed this vision at the end of last year by referring to the unsovereign Palestinian entity, al-Quds and the borders with Jordan, saying: “Let the Palestinians call their entity an empire or a major republic.” This narrative was reiterated by his opponent, Benny Gantz, two months ago as he flirted with the Biden administration. Hence, we could say the notion of the “two-state solution” propagated by the Biden administration is not much different from the agenda of the evangelical American movement and the Zionist rightwing, save for the accessories of the fragmented archipelago for which the Palestinian Authority of Abbas is yearning, which includes internationalising the holy sites and tackling the issue of the Jewish settlements and “east al-Quds” which under deliberation. This was corroborated by US National Security advisor Jake Sullivan who quoted Biden as saying: “I think this is a good thing. I think this is a positive thing. Carry forward this initiative; deepen the cooperation between the countries that have signed the Accords; make real normalization that has taken root; make sure that the seeds that have now been planted actually grow into the full kind of cooperation across multiple dimensions and these relationships can move forward and how that can really help us, really help the United States advance our interests.”
     
    Third: Moving away from the emotions and deception of those with bean-shaped mirrors who amplify and distort matters such as exaggerating the power of the Palestinian resistance to vent the anger of the masses and justify the slackness of the Arab regimes and armies and their disregard of their duties towards Palestine and al-Quds, the people of Palestine. The resistance are still in a state of reaction rather than initiation; they do not have the power to uproot the occupation and liberate the holy sites. The sentimental support of the Muslims to the people of Palestine will remain useless if it is not epitomised by a fruitful physical action which absolves the Muslims from failing to perform the duty of Jihad and uproot the Jewish state for good.  
     
    It is high time the Muslims arose and left the state of reaction behind them. It is high time they took up arms to undo the evils of the barbaric entity. They should not accept humiliation or to remain an easy prey for the wolves of the world and the savage herds of the Jews. 
     
    It is high time for the Muslims in the surrounding countries, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan in particular, to side with their brethren in Palestine during their hardships and tribulations despite their collaborating rulers. This is the clear-cut fact which the heroic youths understood by crossing the borders to help their Palestinian brethren while igniting the fire of exasperation in the hearts of those who banked on the borders of Sykes-Picot that fragment the Muslims. Although the regimes only allowed this happen to justify their slackness and vent the anger of the masses, the Muslim youths nevertheless have sent a message full of implications to the criminal entity, the collaborators and the spineless who have become addicted to defeat, cowardice, and capitulation, stipulating that their end is near and the succour of Allah the Almighty is imminent. 
     
    These events are tantamount to a scandal for the normalisers as "Israel" and its herds have revealed that they reject normalisation and persist on clinging to their lowly character. The intifada of our people in inner Palestine and their fusion with their brethren in the West Bank has revealed to those scurrying for the two-state solution that the people of Palestine from the river to the sea, as well as all the Muslims, would not accept anything less than the liberation of all of Palestine; they only need the pious and sincere leadership to remove the regimes, which are weighing heavily on their hearts, and lead them towards victory and liberation. The demise of the usurping entity is linked to the downfall of the traitorous regimes dubbed the frontline states, which they only confront their masses and the Deen of the Ummah to protect Western interests and the Zionist entity. This is their functional role which is closely linked to their existence and which supplies "Israel" with the means of survival. 
     
    To every dumb Satan from among the scholars and politicians who have not even uttered the word Jihad and instead have called on the international community to intervene, we remind them of Allah the Almighty’s saying: “And do not mix the truth with falsehood, and do not knowingly suppress the truth.” [al-Baqarah-42], and we draw their attention to what the founder of the “Christians United for Israel” organisation, pastor John Hagee, said in America on Wednesday 5 May: “This time in the history of the world, the Christians should not remain idle; this time the righteous should take a stand against evil. Christians and Jews should unite and win the war against anti-Semitism.”
     
    3 Shawwal 1442h
    15 May 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
  • Political Observation - Gaza: Expanding the Confrontation 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - Gaza: Expanding the Confrontation
     
    The "Israeli" army has insinuated that it may extend the scope of confrontation with the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and deployed further troops to its outskirts. It has also announced an increase in its target list. 
     
    As we have previously said, the battle for the Jews is designed to Judaize al-Quds and the holy sites and impose a fait accompli in light of the previous understandings between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. It is also par excellence a personal battle for Netanyahu who wants to export his own crises abroad and disrupt the campaign of his opponent, Yair Lapid, the chairman of the Yesh Atid party and opposition leader in the Knesset. Hence, Netanyahu may opt for a dangerous escapade with no guaranteed outcome as he lacks regional and international cover, and due to the bravery of the people of Palestine and the steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance buoyed by an unprecedented quality. Hence, he may decide to prolong the battle and extend it by sending ground troops into Gaza. The omens of such a scenario are strengthened by the deployed soldiers and the artillery shelling, despite the precariousness of such undertaking, especially if the resistance were to capture "Israeli" soldiers whose impact would be dramatically negative on "Israeli" public opinion and could completely destroy Netanyahu’s electoral credentials.
     
    However, Netanyahu does not have much room for manoeuvre and he can only gamble with prolonging the battle which could give him, from his perspective, a chance to conjure up an achievement on the ground such as assassinating prominent leaders of the resistance and inflicting substantial damage on the people of Gaza and the resistance, so that he may be able to face "Israeli" public opinion.  He may also call a fifth election in an attempt to win a comfortable majority to form a government and avert prosecution, as "Israeli" law only grants him immunity from prosecution if he remains prime minister. Hence, he has been working towards widening the domestic wedge between the Palestinians and "Israelis", particularly by inciting the settlers to attack Palestinians across various cities of occupied Palestine, with 70 locations being the scenes of such attacks. This would ultimately weaken the chances of Yair Lapid in forming a government since he is banking on the votes of the Arab members of the Knesset, and would disenchant his allies from among the "Israeli" political forces and drive them away lest they should lose their electoral powerbases.  
     
    As for the calls for a ceasefire by Europe, Russia, the UN, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Turkey, and America’s calls for de-escalation, they are designed to deprive Netanyahu from achieving his aims, should he be forced to halt the escalation, and take him back to confronting the popular resistance that incites domestic and international public opinion against him. Meanwhile the US is attempting to prevent the UN Security Council from intervening with the aim of implicating Netanyahu, deepening his crisis, and portraying him as a savage beast rather than someone acting in self-defence as he has been trying to tell the world. 
     
    The policy pursued by the US to isolate Netanyahu is reflected in the international standpoints that identify with the dual US standpoint, and in the Pentagon’s decision to withdraw 120 US marines from "Israel", a move that sends several messages to "Israeli" domestic public opinion. The policy is also reflected in the style with which America is dealing with the unfolding events in terms of the White House press briefings and the statements of Secretary of State Blinken who said “We believe Palestinians and Israelis equally deserve to live with safety and security”, in addition to the statements of the US's UN envoy, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who said: “We urge de-escalation to end the ongoing crisis in Israel and Gaza and mourn the innocent lives lost on both sides.” She added: “We recognize Israel's right to defend its people and territory, and we equally believe the Palestinian people need to be able to live in safety and security.” 
     
    Russia for her part slammed the Arab normalisation and called for the two-state solution as per the statement of foreign minister Sergei Lavrov while his deputy, Sergei Vershinin, urged "Israel" to cease all settlement activities in Palestinian lands immediately saying “Moscow has called for respecting the status quo of the sacred precincts in Jerusalem”. This denotes the presence of a serious move by Joe Biden to amend some of Donald Trump’s decisions, and this has been picked up by Russia, Europe, the Arab states, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority, and "Israel". Further pressure was piled on by various international institutions such as the statement of  the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Asad Ahmad Khan, the statements of the UN that it felt sorry for the children killed in Gaza, the standpoint of the Arab states, and the strong statements by Turkey and Iran, in addition to "Israeli" voices critical of Netanyahu for exploiting the issue for domestic political gains, the spiralling cost of the war and escalating tensions in various Palestinian cities, especially in the city of Lod. 
     
    Nevertheless, the Arab and international pressure exerted on "Israel" does not mean they support the Palestinians, but rather that they are attempting to align the events with the political solutions leading to liquidating the Palestinian issue in a manner that would not be impeded by the domestic "Israeli" political outbidding and Netanyahu’s personal calculations. 
     
    As for the pernicious and traitorous standpoint of the Arab regimes, especially the standpoint of the Egyptian regime, towards the "Israeli" aggression against the people of Palestine and the Gaza Strip, it is designed to prevent the Palestinians and the resistance groups from  imposing their willpower while framing their movements and demands, harnessing their resistance to the advantage of their enemies, dissipating their efforts, squandering their gains, dashing  the Ummah’s hopes of achieving liberation, and extinguishing the spirit of Jihad and any glimmer of hope that may rekindle in the Muslims their glories and expose the cowardice of the Arab collaborating regimes. Their stance is also designed to throwing the leaders of the Zionist entity a lifeline while keeping their comportment in check according to the volition of America when they overstep their bounds and impinging on the American agenda and interests, knowing that "Israel" has several precedents for putting its own interests ahead of British, European and American interests.
     
    The abilities of the Palestinian resistance, despite their modest means, have proven that Muslims are capable of crushing the usurping entity, scattering its raging herds, and expelling them with their tails between their legs.
     
    What is required from the armed resistance and the Muslim masses in Palestine, irrespective of the political context of the battle, is to be like thorns in the throats of the traitors and a shield that prevents them from trading in the issue and liquidating it. They should be wary of the chicanery of the Palestinian Authority and the surrounding regimes which aim to turn their blood into a fuel to rekindle the useless negotiations designed to entrench the Jewish entity under any peace formula, be it the so-called two-state solution, or the one-state solution, or self-rule. 
     
    Netanyahu today is waging this battle without an adequate international or regional cover. Hence, the regional and international political settings are in favour of the resistance and summed up in the world’s standpoint vis-à-vis "Israel’s" barefaced violation of international law in respect of al-Quds, the holy precincts, and the unarmed civilians, which impacts the American agenda to internationalise the holy sites, knowing that the Biden administration hoists, somewhat hypocritically, the slogan of international democracy and human rights. America has never previously equated the Palestinian victims and the slain Zionists, and this could only be a warning message to Netanyahu. 
    Hence, the Muslims in Palestine, especially the resistance fighters, should reject the dictates and despicable mediation of the Egyptian regime and snub its pressures that are designed to impose the direction of the battle on the resistance in order to achieve outcomes which are in favour of the expected submissive solutions in line with the US agenda. 
     
    With this backdrop, we can understand the calls for deploying peacekeeping troops to protect the Palestinians as actually being dangerous since they institute the internationalisation of the holy sites and frame and ensconce the political solution as the only option to settle the issue. They are also dangerous since they would lead to preventing the Palestinians and the Muslims at large from seizing the initiative to liberate al-Quds and Palestine in the future while providing protection to the criminal entity.
     
    Dear Muslims!
     
    No matter how much damage the confrontation undertaken by the Palestinian resistance is able to inflict on the cancerous criminal entity, the war will never be balanced, especially as the strikes of the resistance has turned the Jewish entity into a wounded beast, and this is why it has started to intensify its vicious attack on the people of Gaza with utter oblivion to the Muslims and the entire world. The Muslims should drive out their collaborating rulers, whose function is to protect the Zionist entity and the American interest, before expelling the Jewish ambassadors, and rectify the situation by establishing the Islamic State which will remind them of Khaybar and make them forget the whispers of Shaytaan with the leave of Allah the Almighty. 
     
    2 Shawwal 1442h
    14 May 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
  • Political Observation - Updates on the Palestinian Scene 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - Updates on the Palestinian Scene
     
    As Netanyahu has decided on the aggression against Gaza and the resistance movements to intensify their reactions, the tension of the unfolding events increased, especially this evening with "Israel" being dealt a series of heavy and painful blows in its depth at the hands of the resistance movements in Gaza. The resistance targeted Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport in response to the Zionist entity’s shelling of a residential tower block in Gaza, in what seemed to be an exchange of messages between the two sides.  
     
    The resistance groups have targeted Tel Aviv with heavy artillery which led Netanyahu to come out and issue a political communiqué in which he vowed to intensify the attacks on Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He said the battle would go on for days. This was followed by mobilising scores of "Israeli" soldiers to the outskirts of Gaza to intimidate Hamas. Netanyahu and his defence minister have also attempted to amplify their achievements in the hope of rallying domestic public opinion, reassuring the masses and gain their support for their escapade. Netanyahu claimed the "Israeli" army had struck 500 Hamas and Islamic Jihad Targets saying Hamas and Jihad paid and would pay a heavy price for targeting central "Israel"; and this could only mean that he considers the issue to be fateful for him. 
     
    It is imperative to read between the lines of the international and regional statements and reactions in order to perceive the latest developments. The White House said al-Quds should be a place of coexistence, and US President Joe Biden’s administration said last month that Israel’s control of the West Bank was indeed “occupation”. 
     
    It is common knowledge that America’s support for the security of the Zionist entity does not necessarily generate political concord between them. Hence, despite its concern for "Israeli" security, the US standpoint aims at thwarting Netanyahu’s attempts to dominate the Haram Sharif (holy precincts), and then work towards internationalising them in the future. This trend is corroborated by the White House statement in which Press Secretary Jen Psaki said “Jerusalem, a city of such importance to people of faith around the world, must be a place of coexistence”. 
     
    Hence, thwarting Netanyahu’s endeavour will be the gateway for the forthcoming negotiations. It is true America condemns the Palestinian resistance in public, due to US domestic considerations for political parties, leaders, and US public opinion, in addition to considerations related to the real American support and lifeline for "Israeli" security, but she is banking on embarrassing and incriminating Netanyahu, humiliating him domestically, isolating him internationally, and deepening his quandary. She is also hoping to convince the Jewish settlers and the entire religious rightwing to accept the political solutions guaranteeing their security. 
     
    Hence, the US standpoint was expressed by some Democratic lawmakers in America who said they were infuriated by the "Israeli" attack on al-Aqsa Mosque as well as the visit to the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood by European Consuls to listen to the residents plus the EU Representative to "Israel’s" statement that evicting the residents of Sheikh Jarrah was “illegal under international humanitarian law.” For its part, the UN Human Rights Council said "Israel" should not use force against peaceful Palestinian protesters. Moreover, the stance of the Arab regimes and the League of Arab States focused on the issue of east al-Quds and al-Aqsa Mosque in order to frustrate Netanyahu’s attempt to divert the world’s attention away from al-Quds and to the struggle with Hamas to Gaza, in the hope of swaying domestic and world public opinion in his favour and sidestepping his crisis, in addition to flexing his muscles to muster the support of the "Israelis" to show he is capable of safeguarding the security of the criminal entity.
     
    As for the renewed storming of al-Aqsa Mosque from the Bab al-Asbat, it seems that it was to restore the grandeur of "Israel" which was damaged by the modest rocket strikes and the celebrations of Muslims who hailed the resistance of their brethren in al-Quds. 
     
    However, the statements of Netanyahu and Benny Gantz denote their deep concern and anxiety over their future; this was reflected in their speech to the "Israelis", their threats, and the ferocity of their onslaught on Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This is because Netanyahu is perpetrating this aggressive episode with a reduced or even non-existent international cover; the battle seems to be a personal affair rather than a battle for the security of the usurping entity. This has been perceived by America who incited her agents in the Arab countries to launch a scathing attack on "Israel" and invest in the events to embellish their grim image vis-à-vis their masses; and this was reflected in their statements.
     
    The pressure piled up on Netanyahu from the EU and international and regional organisations; hence, this round is expected to be brutal and violent, which has prompted the resistance to react in kind and target "Israeli" sovereignty and the economy of the usurping entity by striking Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion airport on the day of the Zionists’ celebrations extensively. The strikes exposed the shortcomings of the Iron Dome in withstanding the modest rockets of the resistance and dealt a heavy blow to the centre of attention of the "Israeli" mainstream public opinion: their security. "Israeli" schools were closed, the commercial sector paralysed and aviation disrupted; an "Israeli" oil pipeline was damaged with the settlers terrified and several "Israelis" killed and injured.   
     
    As for the calls for calm by the Arab rulers and the US, they aim at bringing Netanyahu back to square one after he decided to escalate the events and militarise the confrontation by moving it to Gaza. Hence, the League of Arab States indicated that the current escalation did not serve any state or any side, in reference to Netanyahu, since the equation of these events is designed to challenge his political future, which the Biden administration wants to curb and topple, as was the case in the mid-nineties during the tenure of Bill Clinton. 
     
    The only other option for Netanyahu is a forward escape and a gamble with a tough battle with Gaza, the omens of which looked dangerous for "Israel" from the onset. This explains the calls for the inner cities to keep the "Israeli" authorities embroiled in quelling unrest to disperse the efforts of the "Israeli" army and hamper its mobilisations against Gaza, or force it to return to al-Quds and tackle the peaceful protests which have gained international legitimacy supported directly and indirectly by the UN, America and the EU, as well as the Arab regimes about whom Netanyahu boasts of his alliance and banks on their support. This scenario embarrasses Netanyahu and gives the Biden administration the pretext before US public opinion to readjust some of Trump’s decisions and rectify the leadership and decision-making mechanism according to US interests. The Biden administration alluded to this when it took office and described it as “sustainable policy” which involves, according to Blinken’s elaboration, restoring “Congress's traditional role as a partner in our foreign policy making.”
     
    Irrespective of the political plane of the unfolding events, our duty today is supporting and backing the Jihadi actions undertaken by the Muslims in Palestine to resist the Judaization process, repel the assault of the enemy and advise them on how to avert the political traps designed to embroil them in a partnership with the collaborators, and on how to rectify their process, reject and thwart the upshots of the traitorous political solutions, and prevent the collaborators and the enemies from achieving the political aims that they have failed to achieve through armed conflict. The duty of the Muslims is also to rebuke and take to account the collaborating rulers who at the behest of their masters at the White House turned from grovellers towards normalisation and alliance with the usurping entity into denouncers of the Zionist aggression against the people of Palestine. Claiming that the Palestinian resistance’s decision to go to war would harm the people of Palestine is sheer stupidity since it is the claim of those who washed their hands of the dependence on Allah the Almighty and banked on the Biden administration and the “international community”, and those who have no confidence in the magnificence and the Aqeedah of this Ummah. Besides, this war has been imposed by Netanyahu and it is imperative to resist it irrespective of its aims. The Mujahideen in Palestine will have fulfilled their duty if they succeed in thwarting Netanyahu’s objective, smashing the haughtiness of "Israel" with what they possess in terms of weapons despite the cowardly stance of the traitorous regimes, deterring the spineless entity, for which history has never recorded a single hero, from shedding their blood and vilifying their sacred precincts, and force the criminal Zionists and their herds of settlers to pay a heavy price for their aggression, thus making their devilish leaders think twice before carrying out an attack against the people of Palestine, especially if the outcomes and knock-on effect of such aggression damage their political future. 
     
    “Fight against them! Allah will punish them by your hands, and will disgrace them, and will succour you against them; and He will heal the hearts of those who believe.” [at-Tawbah-14] 
      
    29 Ramadhan 1442h
    11 May 2021 
     
  • Political Observation - Escalation in al-Quds & All Palestinian Cities 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - Escalation in al-Quds & All Palestinian Cities
     
    Over the last two days, "Israeli" occupation forces have attacked worshippers in al-Aqsa Mosque and its periphery causing hundreds of casualties. The White House expressed its “serious concerns” today on the streak of violence in occupied east al-Quds, amidst an escalation in tensions against the backdrop of the "Israeli" forces’ storming of al-Aqsa Mosque. 
     
    Spokesperson of “al-Qassam Brigades”, the military wing of Hamas, Abu Ubaydah, issued an ultimatum to the "Israeli" forces to withdraw from al-Aqsa Mosque before 18.00 hours today or bear the consequences. This was followed by a barrage of missiles from Gaza targeting "Israeli" positions in Tel Aviv, al-Quds and Gaza’s surroundings. This was condemned by State Department spokesperson Ned Price who stressed that "Israel" reserved the right to defend itself and that the US was fully committed to working towards calming the situation in al-Quds.  
     
    The "Israeli" military escalation against Gaza, together with its  provocative storming of al-Aqsa Mosque, and the expulsion of Muslim worshippers from its compound, is designed to lure the Palestinian factions into an armed struggle and militarising the clashes in order to justify the excessive clampdown, halt the disconcerting popular resistance, break the unity of the masses and their support for their brethren in al-Quds, abort the precedent of rebelling against the criminal entity with regard to seizing Palestinian lands and homes, demonise the Palestinian dynamism, and incite world public opinion against the uprising of the Muslim Palestinian youth to defend their sacred precincts. 
     
    As for the disgraceful and despicable reactions of the rulers to the Zionist aggression against the Muslims and the holy sites, they corroborate yet again and call for the need to intensify the efforts to topple them as they represent the obstacle impinging on the unity of the Islamic Ummah, her strength and her undertaking of the duty of Jihad, and they are the faithful watchdogs of the criminal entity and the cause behind its ghoulish comportment and savagery against our people in Palestine.  
     
    The Arab regimes’ condemnation of the "Israeli" attack against the holy sites, especially by Egypt, Saudi, and the kiosks of the Gulf, and the weighty  diplomatic pressure they have generated, reflect the American desire to internationalise the sacred precincts and snatch them from the Muslims, and consequently thwart Netanyahu’s attempts to impose a fait accompli through implementing Donald Trump’s plan, and reshuffle the pack to sidestep his political crisis, and frustrate his plans to invest in the events to his advantage in forming the cabinet, knowing that although the various political forces in the US agree on protecting and supporting "Israel", they however differ on supporting "Israeli" policies, such as the Democratic Party’s aversion to the fait accompli policy pursued by "Israel" in tackling the Palestinian issue to preserve "Israeli" interests; this is what John Kerry announced when he differed with Netanyahu during Obama’s tenure. And it is in this context we can interpret America’s stance which separates the security of "Israel" from "Israeli" political behaviour and prefers to express her real stance to the Zionist entity in private, and then expound her position at the Security Council which on the surface seems to support the "Israeli" behaviour, whereas in fact it implicates Netanyahu and serves the American agenda pertinent to internationalising the holy precincts. 
     
    This explains the emoting of the state-controlled Arab media outlets, especially Aljazeera, and the inciting of the resistance groups to jump into the fray and terrorise the Zionist residents through media support and sensationalisation, and then harness the fallouts to rabble-rouse "Israeli" public opinion against Netanyahu and mortify him, and to exploit them in generating a suitable climate to internationalise the crisis and revive the project of internationalising the holy precincts. This also explains why the Palestinians have been exhorted to stage protests throughout the country and why the "Israeli" rightwing public opinion supporting Netanyahu’s policy has been unsettled through a host of judgemental statements and commentaries.
     
    The decision to extend the protests, which have reached the region of the Negev in an unprecedented manner, was designed to perpetuate the popular resistance and keep the issue of the hoy precincts alive and persistently warranting a solution. Hence, the regimes in Arab and Islamic countries understood their role, established their stance in light of their reading of the events and international reactions and trends, and upped the ante in their diplomatic campaign. What corroborates the fact that the holy precincts are the heart of the events is the stakeholders’ persistence in linking the events to the issue of the holy precincts, including Hamas’s conditions to halt the escalation. Therefore, the "Israeli" police confronted the protesters in al-Quds and other Palestinian cities with an iron fist, and "Israel" continued the escalation against Hamas specifically and vowed to deal the movement a heavy blow, while Netanyahu sought to lure Hamas into a military confrontation to evoke the security fears of the Zionists, mobilise them, and gain their support to sidestep his political crisis and give himself a chance to retract and save face under the pretext of regional and international pressure should he fail in imposing a fait accompli and in attracting the support of the extremist religious rightwing through usurping the lands and holy precincts of the people of Palestine.  
     
    The Muslims should not concern themselves with the political stance and the proposed pragmatic solutions, nor should they be concerned with the quibbling of the colonialists over the methods of slaughter, aggression, and humiliation they are preparing for Palestine and the sacred sites of the Muslims. The people of Palestine, men and women alike, and all the Muslims, have stood their ground without any cowardice or slackness and represented it in their struggle, heroism and defence of their holy sites, written it with their blood and made their enemy hear it loud and clear with their bare hands, stones and sit-ins, and not with their smartphones and their iftar at the tables of the enemies of Allah, or by resorting to the international community. They have confirmed unequivocally that there should be no surrender of one single inch of the Islamic lands, and no slackness towards their sacred sites, but rather blood for blood, and destruction for destruction, which have prevented the Zionists from imposing their will and compelled them to withdraw from the compounds of al-Aqsa and postpone the judicial file on the eviction of the residents of Sheikh Jarrah, as if they were saying to the Muslims outside Palestine: “Salvage yourselves from the rulers who are the brothers of the Zionists, dust off the humiliation covering the bystanders from among you, and epitomise your support for your brethren and sanctities in Palestine and al-Quds by supporting your Deen, uprooting your regimes which have enslaved you, and establishing your state and the rule of Allah among you.
     
    “O you who believe! If you help the cause of Allah, He will help you, and will make firm your steps.” [Mohammed-7]
     
    28 Ramadhan 1442h
    10 May 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Observation - Turkey-Egyptian Rapprochement 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - Turkish-Egyptian Rapprochement 
     
    There has been much talk recently about the Egyptian-Turkish rapprochement, although this rapprochement has had effects in reality, especially after the visit to Egypt by a Turkish delegation headed by deputy foreign minister Sadat Onal on 5 May 2021. Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said the meeting was conducted in a positive atmosphere and the means that could lead to improving relations between the two sides were debated. Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu indicated that the meeting between the Turkish and Egyptian delegations was exploratory and it had come in response to an invitation by the Egyptian side adding that "discussions will continue on the steps that can be taken to normalise relations in the upcoming period," and that regional issues concerning both countries were also addressed during the meeting, such as Libya, Syria, Iraq and the Eastern Mediterranean. 
     
    The visit came after weeks of statements issued by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan last March. Cooperation with Egypt “may not be at the highest level but directly below, and obviously we hope to pursue this process with Egypt with much more momentum,” he said. As for the recent visit, Erdoğan was quoted as saying on 7 May 2021: ““We are in efforts to re-gain this historical bond with the people of Egypt and to resume anew as brothers and friend rather than brothers and enemies” adding "it would be sad to see them in solidarity with Greece." 
     
    Turco-Egyptian relations turned sour following the coup d’état staged by Abdul Fattah al-Sisi against Mohammed Morsi in 2013, and the standpoint of Erdoğan vis-à-vis the ouster and his fiery statements against al-Sisi whom he dubbed on more than one occasion as criminal. Relations worsened when several members of the Muslim Brotherhood began using Turkey as a media and political platform against the regime of al-Sisi. 
     
    Regardless of the Muslim Brotherhood’s members being present in Turkey and the Egyptian regime dubbing the movement a terrorist organisation, the more important issues on which Egypt and Turkey have differed centre around the Turkish military presence in Libya and the demarcation of the maritime border between Turkey and Egypt, after Turkey announced she had signed a “Maritime Boundary Treaty” with the Libyan Government of National Accord in Tripoli. 
     
    Foreign relations of dependent functional states such as Egypt are not built on national interests in the first place as they may claim; they are rather subject to their functional role which is determined by the influential power, namely the US, as long as her policy does not threaten the ruler and his future, and as long as the ruler is capable of regulating domestic reaction to his collusion with foreign powers, especially as the regimes of the region are by and large dictatorial and their domestic and foreign policies are shaped according to the whims and desires of the ruler whose reign depends on foreign powers. Hence, it would be implausible for the foreign relations of functional states to yield any interests for themselves or for their masses, for all the benefit would go to foreign powers. 
     
    In light of this reality, and as Egypt needs a rapprochement which would be advantageous to the Egyptian regime in terms of halting the media attacks on president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi emanating from Turkey and by the Egyptian opposition which continues to act as a scarecrow undermining his regime, in addition to Turkey’s need to mellow her relations with Egypt in order to secure her presence on the Libyan scene and her interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, based on the political pragmatism Erdoğan practises, healing the rift and  restoring relations between the two countries has turned out to be timely and sensible, especially as America is willing to offer Erdoğan some incentives, such as restoring his ties with Egypt to curb his inclination towards Russia and weaken Russian presence in Libya which has been bolstered by the Turco-Egyptian rift. Moreover, America is still endeavouring to recover Turkey from the grip of Erdoğan and the Justice and Development party (AKP) through various styles and means based on the principle of “Turkey is bigger than Erdoğan”. 
     
    Hence, America continues to cause Erdoğan a host of economic problems to curb his domestic popularity, support the rise of a Kurdish entity in northern Syria and Iraq, and threatens to fragment Turkey on ethnic and nationalistic grounds. She is also attempting to exert pressure on him through Biden’s recognition of Armenia’s genocide and by inciting the domestic opposition forces and supplying them with political ammunition to slam Erdoğan, such as the deteriorating economy and the file of regional and international relations.   
     
    Consequently, Erdoğan has decided to make a U-turn in reviewing his relations with the countries of the region after the Turkish economy, from which he derives his popularity and electoral powerbase, had been compromised due to the American onslaught and the coronavirus pandemic. The U-turn in Erdoğan’s policy occurred when Biden took office and threatened him and his party, and after Erdoğan realised that the file of the Muslim Brotherhood’s return to power in Egypt has been put on ice by America for the time being, as the policy of a “Turkish Islamic model” was no longer a bargaining chip he could rely upon, and that Turkey is facing regional isolation that the opposition is exploiting to chip away at his domestic popularity. Erdoğan wants to nullify the pretexts of his opponents, who accuse him of having squandered Turkey’s good relations in the region after Ahmet Davutoğlu had succeeded in his “zero problems” foreign policy, neutralise Egypt in on the issue of demarcating maritime borders in the Eastern Mediterranean in which Egypt sided with Greece, Greek Cyprus and "Israel", and dissipate France’s reliance on Egypt and Greece in this respect. 
     
    Hence, restoring relations between Egypt and Turkey is in the interest of the rulers within the context of the American interests in the region rather than the interests of the masses. Turkey had paved the way for this rapprochement through a host of meetings between the intelligence services of both countries, which culminated in muzzling the media discourse of the Egyptian opposition based in Turkey, so as to allow the normalisation of ties. 
     
    As for the future of the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey following this rapprochement, Erdoğan and his regime do not present themselves as a guardian of Islam and Muslims in the first place, and do not build their domestic alliances and foreign relations on the basis of the Islamic Shari'ah. Secularism is the cornerstone of his regime despite his political independence, and pragmatism is his political method, whereas expediency is his criterion. This leads us to remind everyone that banking on secularist regimes is a losing bet even if their rulers were independent and brimming with religious sentiment. We should have confidence in Islam, the Ummah, and the state built on the Shari'ah of Allah the Almighty. 
     
    27 Ramadhan 1442h
    9 May 2021  
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Comment - The Unfolding Events in Al-Quds 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Comment - The Unfolding Events in Al-Quds 
     
    The city of Al-Quds has been the scene of several acts of aggression by the soldiers of occupation and Jewish settlers since the beginning of the month of Ramadhan, especially in the neighbourhoods of Bab al-Amud and Sheikh Jarrah whose residents are threatened with eviction for the benefit of the settlers. The attacks against the Muslims in Al-Quds intensified in the last week of the blessed month of Ramadhan.
     
    Several states have expressed their concern and denounced the incidents of Al-Quds, especially in respect of evicting the residents of Sheikh Jarrah from their homes to make way for Jewish settlers. The US called for “calm” in Al-Quds and for avoiding evicting Palestinian families to handover to "Israeli" settlers in reference to the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood. 
     
    State Department spokesperson Jalina Porter told reporters that Washington was “deeply concerned about the potential eviction of Palestinian families in the Silwan neighbourhood and in Sheikh Jarrah, of course, many of whom have lived in their homes for generations. But again, as we have consistently said, it is critical to avoid unilateral steps that would exacerbate tensions or take us further away from peace, and that would include evictions, settlement activity, and home demolitions.”
     
    This American standpoint reveals that although the Biden administration has been seeking a de-escalation in order to allow the issue of keeping Al-Quds as the capital of "Israel" to pass, it has however at the same time profited from this tension on the ground to prove that "Israel" is incapable of protecting the rights of the Palestinians and the right to worship for non-Jews in Al-Quds, generate an international climate pressing for internationalising the sacred precincts, and throw dust in the eyes of the Muslims with regard to "Israel’s" ownership of Al-Quds and adopting it as its capital. However, "Israel" had anticipated this step and set about besieging Al-Quds with settlement belts, focusing on usurping the land, expelling Muslims through the “annexation” law, and demolishing all the monumental buildings adjacent to Al-Aqsa Mosque in order to Judaize the city and seize the sacred precincts. On the other hand, Netanyahu is attempting through these aggressions to gain the support of the parties in favour of such acts so that he may stay in office, with the collusion of the Arab states whose ambassadors and diplomats attended, so disgracefully and humiliatingly, and in the midst of this shameless aggression, an Iftar banquet hosted by the "Israeli" foreign minister, and the collusion of Mahmoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, who had not wished for any Palestinian elections undermining the position of Fatah within the Palestinian Authority to take place; and this is what happened. 
     
    America for her part had been hoping for the Palestinian elections to be a platform for her plans for Al-Quds and regional peace; hence, she exhorted the European states to exert pressure on the Palestinian Authority and the Jewish entity to hold the elections, but they failed. On the other hand, the Jordanian foreign ministry declared on 29 April that it had provided the Palestinian foreign ministry with 14 ratified agreements meant for the people of the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in support of their claim of their lands and property. This manoeuvre by Jordan was viewed as an attempt to absolved itself of blame and wash its hands of the issue’s fallout, but the "Israeli" court refused to accept all the documents submitted by the residents under the pretext that the submissions “arrived late”. 
     
    Through these circumstances and the escalation against the people of Al-Quds by the herds of settlers, who have never intensified their aggression against the courtyards of Al-Aqsa during the last ten days of Ramadhan before, and with the backing of the "Israeli" courts and police forces, it seems clear that the "Israeli" authorities have initiated a host of physical steps in an accelerated manner to complete Judaizing Al-Quds and expelling the Palestinians from its districts, in line with the outcome of Donald Trump’s decision, just like what they did with the Maghrebi Quarter in 1967. The Zionist entity is taking advantage of the political cover provided by the Arab normalisation and alliance, Mohammed bin Salman’s yearning for power and his desire for normalisation, the Palestinian Authority’s craving to resume to recover the legitimacy it has lost due to the divisions among its ranks, the quarrelling of its leaders over the booties, and its failure to exact its false legitimacy through elections. It is also taking advantage of the frailty of the Jordanian regime which has been seeking foreign backing after it had lost its domestic one, especially following the recent saga between the king and his brother Hamza and as the voices calling for stripping the palace of its authorities grew louder.  
     
    Although all stakeholders have hastened to invest in these events, it is however certain that the events in question fall under the Zionist entity’s race against time to impose the realities of Judaizing the city of Al-Quds and deeming it as the perpetual capital of "Israel", forcing this subterfuge as a fait accompli in the face of any anticipated move pertinent to the negotiations, and shoring up Netanyahu’s domestic position in the face of his opponents. This narrative was corroborated by "Israeli" law institutions by announcing that the eviction orders fall within the plans to Judaize the city of Al-Quds, in addition to demolishing the homes of Palestinians and confiscating their lands. It was also corroborated by the call of a host of directed columnists and political leaders such as Iraqi prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, and former Lebanese foreign minister, Gebran Bassil, to establish a transboundary and transreligious “Eastern League” under economic and counterinsurgent themes to withstand the quagmire of “Balkanisation” in which the region has plunged during the “Arab Spring”, to efface the borders and redraw them on nationalistic and sectarian grounds, thus allowing minorities such the Shia, Kurds and Amazigh to demand federal independence, and to remove the deep-seated obstacles to the plans to integrate the Jewish entity within Greater Middle East.
     
    Against the background of all this, escalating and expanding the circle of aggression and confrontation in Al-Quds to include Al-Aqsa Mosque will pave the way for the usurpation of the sacred precincts (Haram Sharif) through their internationalisation by the Muslims, especially as the reaction of the Christians in the city of Al-Quds since the events erupted with the calls of their priests for defending Al-Aqsa, in addition to the denationalisation of the arrests of their followers, serve the notion of the “Abrahamic religion” sponsored by the US, "Israel", and the rulers of the UAE and Saudi in particular, through which they hope to secularise the solution, considering that secularism upholds an indiscriminate standpoint to the three religions according to their allegations. Internationalising the holy precincts and placing them under international custodianship with "Israeli" sovereignty on the ground and Jordanian guardianship of the residents, solving the issue of the refugees through resettlement and the crisis of Al-Quds which impinge on the efforts to generate a political solution, is designed to settle the Palestinian issue once and for all. This will bulwark the usurping entity, secure international protection for it, guarantees the Jewishness of its state, and turns the liberation of Al-Quds into a rebellion against international law and consensus and the price of liberating Palestine would be a confrontation between the Muslims and the entire “international community”.
     
    Although pictures and videoclips recording the clashes and aggression against Al-Quds and its residents calling upon the passion of Muslims, and warranting their pride and chivalry, have been swarming social media, and their echoes reached the four corners of the world, the reaction of the Ummah’s children was confined to the expressions of incapability which neither befit the legacy of the best nation sent to humankind, nor the standpoint Muslims should adopt towards the sanctity, blood and honour of their brethren lingering in prison for decades; nor do they befit the issue that concerns the rights of Muslims and their presence in the usurped city of Al-Quds and its Islamic identity, considering that they are the Ummah of Jihad and that we are in the month of Jihad and victories.
     
    The point at issue is not merely a piece of land usurped by the enemy, but rather an issue of a war whose soldiers are the collaborating rulers and their regimes, and whose commanding officers are the Western powers headed by America and the international institutions. The only path towards waging this war, and there is no other way whatsoever, is by rectifying the situation by establishing the Khilafah and declaring Jihad for the sake of Allah to uphold His word supreme. This is the only path and there is no other. Since Jihad, which is the only legitimate solution, has been forestalled by the rulers, who preferred integrating the Jewish entity into the region to confronting and uprooting it, and who insisted on flocking to the White House, banking on it, and always drawing a blank, it is high time every Muslim sacrificed for the sake of his religion and sanctities, and drew closer to Allah (swt) through an assiduous and serious work towards resuming the Islamic way of life, establishing the Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood, which will mobilise the Muslim youth who are yearning for the rule of their Lord and for exacting revenge from their enemies to liberate their brothers, sisters and sacred precincts, the Muslim youth who neither lacking bravery nor fervour to fulfil that duty. All they need is to devote themselves to seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt) and drawing closer to Him by working towards establishing the Islamic State, and preparing for Jihad and martyrdom. And this is not unusual for the men of Mohammedﷺ(saw)  nor is victory difficult for Allah (swt). The youth of Al-Quds who love Allah and His Messenger have proved that the Muslims’ resolve never withers and that their bravery has exposed the cowardice of the collaborating rulers; had it not been for their treason, the Jews would never have gained a foothold in the Muslims’ lands.
     
    The events continue to prove to the Islamic Ummah that the path towards salvation and liberation from colonialism in all its forms, and towards doing away with humiliation and submissiveness, obliterating the Zionists and their entity, and succouring our people and sanctities, will only pass over the thrones of the oppressors. Hence, we call upon you dear Muslims to carve your way towards victory since you are the men who yearn for the rule of Allah (swt) and Jihad for His sake. 
     
    26 Ramadhan 1442h
    8 May 2021       
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Observation - The Escalation in Al-Quds 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - The Escalation in Al-Quds  
     
    The events of al-Quds have come amidst the preparations for the Palestinian elections which have been impeded by the split of the Fatah movement in the electoral lists, and amidst the efforts of Netanyahu to form a government and his attempt to rally the support of the rightwing and the settlers to accept his government. It is clear that Netanyahu and Abbas are the main beneficiaries of the escalation and the postponement of the elections, in which Hamas is expected to win a share that does not reflect the wishes of Netanyahu and his far-right supporters, with a US administration that does not make Netanyahu’s wishes part of its political considerations, inasmuch as it wishes to see a Palestinian government which  includes representatives of the “Palestinian people” and accepts the previous commitments and agreements, especially the issue of the US embassy in al-Quds and the internationalisation of the holy precincts. This means the escalation, irrespective of the instigating side, is prone for investment since all the stakeholders set about investing in the escalation including Hamas and Jordan, who has no way to appear on the scene except through the custodianship over the Islamic and Christian holy precincts, and the issue of the refugees within the equation of the final solution.   
     
    What is paradoxical in this saga is the Palestinian authority and the Arab regimes’ persistence to bank on the Biden administration which has not retracted from the decisions of Donald Trump on vital issues such as al-Quds, refugees and the two-state solution that the Arab rulers are grovelling for. The  entire world community, which has been urging even the Islamists to embrace the two-state solution in order to exert pressure on the usurping entity, has failed to compel "Israel" to even open the gates of al-Quds and allow the elections of a self- rule authority to take place, let alone impose the rise of a Palestinian state with al-Quds as its capital.
     
    The only solution to tackle this entity is Jihad in order to uproot it altogether. The Arabs alone are capable of achieving this should the sincere will be generated. There is no other way to exact our rights except through Jihad since those who have hoisted the banner of “death to the Arabs” are not an isolated movement in "Israel" but rather a sizable sector with a powerful and weighty representation in the Knesset which is dominated by the far-right settlers who believe in the Torahic allegations and call for the united city of al-Quds as the capital of "Israel"; they do not recognise the Palestinians’ right to the West Bank and call for solving the Palestinian issue outside "Israel" and even getting rid of the Palestinian demographic and expelling those Palestinians to Jordan. The Zionist religious movement has a solid bloc in the current Knesset consisting of 72 extremist religious members out of 120, and the current ongoing rifts in "Israel" nowadays are between extremist fa-right Zionists and not between doves seeking peace in exchange for the land and hawks impeding it, as was the case during the days of the Likud and Labour parties.  
     
    "Israel" today is the same "Israel" which the Arabs concluded peace agreements which nullified the war option and adopted negotiations as a strategic choice. Hence, the sharpest weapon for liberation is Jihad and supporting those resisting the Judaising of al-Quds, rather than supporting the peaceful popular resistance in an unbalanced battle to justify the forthcoming concessions or resorting to the United Nations, or banking on the collaborating rulers who keep kicking the people of Palestine around like a football.      
     
    20 Ramadhan 1442h
    2 May 2021   
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Observation - The Statements of Mohammed bin Salman 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - The Statements of Mohammed bin Salman
     
    Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman says Saudi endorses the Qur’an as a constitution for the kingdom and is 90% in agreement with the Biden administration. He is obviously seeking to combine between paradoxes, namely flirting with the religious institution that has been supporting him and hoisting the Qur’an on the tip of his spear to justify killing those whom he has dubbed as “terrorists” while plotting to abolish the prophetic Sunnah and the remnants of the laws derived from religion to complement the project of obliterating the landmarks of Islam in the kingdom which has never ruled by Islam for one single day in the first instance. Mohammed bin Salman wants to insinuate to his opponents that Biden is pleased with him, considering that the legitimacy of Aal Saud’s rule in general, and Aal Salman in particular, is derived from the pleasure of the US. He has flirted with the masses by reviewing the Saudi economic situation in comparison with other oil-producing countries. If this manoeuvring were to prove anything, it would only prove his doubts and uncertainties about acceding to power, especially as the Biden administration, who had announced the possibility of dealing with him according to US interests, has not completely closed off the issue of Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, which hints at the probability of doing away with him once America has used him up and achieved her designs for Saudi through him, which could include federalising the kingdom and isolating the holy precincts from the areas that are vital to US interests. 
     
    Mohammed bin Salman’s admission that he is 90% in agreement with America strips the Salafist sheikhs of all pretexts to continue throwing dust in the eyes of the masses and urging them to obey those in authority who chose to be slaves to the enemies of Allah, as the 90% agreed upon with America includes fighting Islam, promoting secularism and liberalism, spreading debauchery, and grooming a generation affiliated to Western culture, values and way of life, in line with the international liberal democratic approach embraced by the Biden administration, and which Mohammed bin Salman set about implementing by abolishing the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, embracing the secularist approach, imprisoning or harassing a number of scholars and buying the loyalty of others, and recently amending the educational curricula. 
     
    With respect to Iran, the change in Mohammed bin Salman’s policy was evidently manifest as he shifted from threatening to “take the war to inside Iran” to a conciliatory discourse he expressed during his televised interview by saying “Iran is a neighbouring country, and we aspire to establishing the best of relations with her. We do not harbour any ill feeling towards Iran; we wish her progress and prosperity. We have our interests in Iran and they have their interests with us.”
     
    As for the Yemeni file, Mohammed bin Salman has made a U-turn from his hard-line policy dubbed “Decisive Storm” to an “outstretched hand policy” towards the Houthis, and yet again in response to the Biden approach and the new US policy in Yemen which involves easing the tension with Iran and bringing her gradually out of isolation in a bid to regulate Teheran’s behaviour according to the tempo of Washington’s policy in the region,  in addition to downsizing Turkey’s influence. 
     
    Hence, a host of agreements have been concluded between America and Iran in the past couple of days, including America’s decision to unfreeze Iranian assets totalling $7 billion and release four Iranian nationals in exchange for the release of four dual nationals, namely Morad Tahbaz,  Siamak Namazi, Bagher Namazi and Emad Shargi, by Iran who hopes the step would contribute positively to restoring relations between the two countries, especially as the Biden administration is neither interested in investing in the Iranian nuclear file apart from lending support to the Iranian reformist movement, nor in helping Netanyahu who has been unable to form a cabinet due to the rifts between the "Israeli" rightwing political forces. This intent was interpreted by the progress in the negotiations over the nuclear file and by leaking recordings of Jawad Zarif in which he slammed Gen. Soleimani, the conservative movement, and the security and military forces in Iran, in support of Rouhani and Zarif. 

    Iranian president Hassan Rouhani stated that “leaking a recording of my senior diplomat was designed to cause a rift within the Islamic republic as talks aimed at reviving an international nuclear agreement were ongoing. That voice recording was leaked as the talks were about to be very successful; and this has triggered a rift in Iran.” His statement falls under the political tussle between the reformists and the conservatives who invested in the statements of Zarif to demonise the reformists. In parallel with these developments, America has set about containing "Israel" and regulating its reactions and behaviour vis-à-vis US- Iranian talks by giving Iran and Hamas free rein to launch strikes against "Israeli" targets to deter Netanyahu who was described by some "Israeli" journalists as “being dangerous when facing a crisis”, and through the US-"Israeli" agreement to set up an inter-agency working group to monitor Iranian drones and precision-guided missiles. This evoked the apprehensions of the Republican party and the evangelical rightwing in the US, and John Kerry was subjected to a barrage of criticism in the US Congress after the recording of Zarif was leaked in which he said that John Kerry had informed him that "Israel" launched at least 200 strikes against Iranian interests in Syria. Former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley demanded answers from Kerry and Joe Biden tweeting that “Biden and Kerry have to answer for why Kerry would be tipping off Iran, the number one sponsor of terror while stabbing one of our greatest partners, Israel, in the back.” Hence, Biden is expected to postpone any agreement between Saudi, despite her readiness to normalise her relations with the usurping entity as per the statement of their foreign minister, and "Israel", until the midterm congressional elections next year, to lure the evangelical electoral powerbase and shore up his party in the Senate. 
     
    20 Ramadhan 1442h 
    2 May 2021   
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Intellectual Observation - Relativity of Truth: Fictitious, False & Contradicts Religion’s Certainties 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Intellectual Observation - Relativity of Truth: Fictitious, False & Contradicts Religion’s Certainties

    It is imperative first and foremost to perceive that the notion of relativism and what emanates from it, such as the concept of “differing perspectives”, is one of the foundations and springboards of the modern reading of Islam which aims to fluidise and subvert Islam, and condition it according to reality. It is also imperative to perceive that this philosophy is closely knit with the political context and the American campaign against Islam and Muslims to distort their identity, modify their religion, efface the boundaries between Islam and Kufr and secularise the mentality of the Muslims, alienating them from their religion and the source of their valour which exhorts them to liberate themselves from cultural and military colonialism while motivating them to seize the initiative, lead the world with guidance and make the Shari'ah of Allah sovereign instead of the elitist manmade sovereignty imposed by corrupt doctrines and wanton states.

    The Shari'ah-approved notion of “differing perspectives”, which the preachers of declined values and the champions of reconciliation with Islam’s enemies and congruence with secularism have been attempting to harness and propagate, is restricted to what revelation has brought. Hence, if the text is lucid and conclusive, there should be no Ijtihad or differing opinions; whereas if the text or its ratio legis, i.e., its manat, is doubtful, it is permitted to have various opinions within the probable denotations of the ratio legis and the text, for if the opinion is based on a text, everything it indicates is deemed to be Shari'ah-based. Therefore, even if the understanding of scholars is human, the opinion deduced from the text with their understanding is a Shari'ah-based opinion and it would be prohibited to reject it without a valid argument or under the pretext of being a human understanding. There is a difference between initiating the Shari'ah rule and understanding the text and deducing the rule of Allah from it. For instance, when Allah says: “or you have touched women, and cannot find water, find clean sand,” [an-Nisa-43], this is an initiation of the rule, whereas the saying of al-Shafi’ that touching with the palm of the hand nullifies one’s wudu (ablution), and the saying of Abu Hanifah that it does not nullify it, these are understandings of what the discourse may denote; it is a deduction of the rule of Allah from the text and not an initiation of the rule of “touching”. The understanding of al-Shafi’ and Abu Hanifah cannot be described as the rule of Allah , because the rule of Allah is what the text indicates in a conclusive manner, and the fact that the text carries more than one potential meaning, this does not negate the reality that what Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’ deduced are Shari'ah rules obtained from the text according to the denotation of the expression “you have touched”, which is open to to more than one understanding. And those who reject such opinions under the pretext they are obtained from the understandings of humans, they are in fact forestalling the implementing of Shari'ah; it is imperative to take the rules from humans who must be qualified to understand and deduce them, be it from a Sahabi, a Tabi’i (successor) or those who came after them, and be it from al-Shafi’, Abu Hanifah or others.

    Understanding the texts does not require a prophet or an angel; it rather requires knowledge in the sciences of language and Shari'ah. Those who interpret the texts according to their opinions rather than according to the Shari'ah facts of the Qur’an and the established facts of the Arabic language, since Allah says “We have revealed it an Arabic Quran” [Yusuf- 2], they have then innovated in the language and in religion, because religion is taken from revelation rather than reason, and because language is an issue of a set of expressions whose denotations must not be changed; these have to be taken by way of transmission from those whose statements are an authority in the foundation of the language, such as the pure Arabs, i.e., the Qahtani, or the Arabised Arabs i.e., the Adnanites, up until the fourth century of hijra before the tongue was distorted. It would be wrong for reason and experiment to determine its denotations, since it is an issue of terminology and fixed expressions. Imam Fakhreddin al-Razi wrote: “the way to cognising the language is but through sheer transmission, as is the case with most of the linguistic aspects, or through the deduction of reason from transmission. For instance, if it is transmitted to us that a defined plural includes exception, and that exception means excluding what the expression encompasses, we can then deduce through these two transmissions that the plural forms denote generality. However, this is not within the scope of sheer reason.”

    As for the notion of “differing perspectives” in secularism and liberal democracy, it is unrestricted despite claims otherwise, because it is built on “relative truth”, freedom, and human centrality, which necessitates the centrality of the other. This is because secularism and liberal democracy are philosophically built on “natural law”, i.e., on human centrality, in determining interests and passing judgement on actions and things as being pleasant or repugnant.

    Human centrality necessitates the centrality of the other by virtue of equality, which theoretically, gives the other opinion some consideration, irrespective of soundness and error. The origin of this narrative is Sophistic philosophy and its pioneer is Protagoras. Sophistry overlays the truth with falsehood, raises suspicions in Muslims about their religion, equates Islam with distorted and false religions, leads to fragmenting society and endorses pluralism, compromise and pragmatism, and turns Islam into just another option; and this is what the modernists and the hardcore sophists who believe in hylotheism have adopted.

    The centrality of the other leads inevitably towards compromise, i.e., “concession”, which Aristotle refers to as the golden mean between the two parties and involves the stakeholders conceding part of their stance to reach an agreement between them. Accordingly, some philosophers derived the Social Contract, which involves the transferring of right to a mutually recognised authority according to Hobbes or conceding to the general will according to Rousseau. In this sense, centrality is shifted from revelation to the individual, the state and the masses who consequently become sovereign.

    In fact, the notion of compromise does not tally with doctrinal and moral issues because morals are indivisible and doctrines are built on certitude in either negating or ascertaining, and there is no middle-of-the-road between them. This is also contrary to Islam which attributes determining the interests and passing judgement on actions and things without seeking expediency for itself, and gives centrality to Shari’ah, i.e., revelation.

    Relativism, or “cognitive relativity”, invites on itself a falsehood involving inconsistency and conflict of opposites. It has several schools of thought, such as those who embrace the fact that there is no truth, and those who judge the truth as being multiple; and this is false because truth is conformity to reality, i.e., the conformity of the thought to reality, which to Muslims is one and the same. This is because reality outside the mind is one and if the truth were diverse, it would then be plausible to have a unity of opposites, which is rationally impossible.

    The issue of relativism in respect of truth or in respect of ethics is philosophical; its function is to cause controversy, confusion, and incapacitation, and turn thoughts into riddles and mysteries. Cognitive relativity claims that scientific facts, ethical values, legislative principles, and social and political systems, are all prone to variation and change according to time and place, and thus, what was true yesterday could today or tomorrow turn false. The purpose behind this claim, which was borrowed from sophistic philosophy in ancient times and from the European secularist culture that challenges religion in recent times, is to justify the historicism of knowledge, and confine the Islamic Shari'ah to the era of revelation and sever its links to the present by relying on sophistry, dialectical argument and experimental science, such as quantum mechanics to justify the unity of opposites.

    The sophistic philosophy that produced relativism was refuted by Socrates and the scholars of Islam, but was resuscitated by the Europeans who harnessed it in their struggle against the church and religious thought with the aim of destroying them. It is based on the uncertainty principle and according to the theorist of sophists, Protagoras, it departs from the notion alleging that man is the criterion of all things. In other words, man determines the intellectual and legislative facts, as well as the values, and he reserves the right to amend or annul them, that things do not have one single truth in themselves and the truth of things is determined according to how each individual views it and believes it to be. If he were to judge the existence or the absence of a thing, then his judgement would be related to him rather than to the thing itself; and thus, the world would be sempiternal for those who believe in its sempiternity, and created for those who believe it was created, which implies that passing judgement on the one single thing may differ from one person to another, i.e., the truth is what falls under one’s direct senses rather than the senses of another individual. Consequently, the truth become relative and changes according to the change of individuals, place and time. This is precisely why they do not give weight to reports, heritage, and previous opinions, and do not give the understandings of scholars any consideration. The truth of the matter is that they do not distinguish between passing judgement on the existence of the thing, and passing judgement on its essence or quality; whereas in fact, that which is related to the existence of the thing, as is the case in doctrinal issues, these are conclusive thoughts and established truths; and that which is related to passing judgement on the reality of the thing or its quality, as is the case in Shari'ah rules, these are doubtful and relative thoughts, but nevertheless they remain sound until proved otherwise.

    The issue of relativism is deliberately evoked by the liberal modernists and secularists, and the deniers of the Sunnah in an attempt to induce Muslims into questioning their religion and to dismantle their certitude as part of a dubious campaign tightly linked to the plots of the enemies of Islam and the Muslims. This campaign is designed to place the Muslims before an evil duplicity: either they remove the boundaries between Islam and Kufr, open the floodgates for abusing the religion of Allah and conditioning it with modern European culture, abandon their animosity towards the colonialist Kuffar and criminalise those who resist the regimes affiliated to them; or remain behind the times, regress and disintegrate according to their allegations.

    The Muslims who reiterate the opinions of the modernists on relativism and what it involves in terms of denotations that places the truth in other than Islam on an equal footing with Islam and casts doubt on the truth of Islam, are being driven towards Kufr; Allah says:

    “We have sent you with the truth—bringing good news, and giving warnings. You will not be questioned about the inmates of Hell.” [al-Baqarah-119];

    “But your people rejected it, though it is the truth. Say, “I am not responsible for you.” [al-An’am-66];

    “It is He who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth.” [at-Tawbah-33];

    “Say, “O people, the truth has come to you from your Lord.” [Yunus-108];

    “What is revealed to you from your Lord is the truth.” [ar-Ra’d-1];

    “And say: The truth is from your Lord.” [al-Kahf-29];

    “What We inspired in you, of the Book, is the truth.” [Fatir-31]

    Based on the aforementioned in terms of elucidating the fallacy of relativism and its contradiction with the certainties of religion, it would be possible to refer to the abundant books of the Islamic library, and to the documented sound studies that convey the responses of the scholars to the philosophers and the deviant sects. The Muslim scholars refute the claims of the champions of relativism. For instance, Ibnu Hazm wrote in his book titled Kitab al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa-al-Ahwa' wa-al-Nihal (The Book of Decisive Judgement on Creeds, Desires, and Sects), describing those who champion relativism such as the sophistic sect of al-Indiyah with “The thing does not become true according to he who believes it to be true, and it does become false according to he who believes it to be false. Rather, the things become true by being firmly in existence, irrespective of whether it is believed to be true or false. If it were other than this, it would be existent and non-existent at the same time, which would indeed be implausible.”

    Ibnul Jawzi for his part wrote in his book titled Talbis Ibliss, (The Ruses of Satan)on page 41: “Those are of the sophists’ type; if it is said to them: is your statement sound? They would say it is sound to us and false for our opponents. Upon which we said: your claim suggesting that your statement is sound is refuted, and your acknowledgement that your school of thought is false according to your opponents constitutes an argument against yourself. He who testifies that his statement is false from one aspect has in fact spared his opponent of the burden of proving the falsehood of his school of thought.”

    Moreover, Ibnu Qudamah wrote: “How could sempiternity and creation of the world, the believing and denying of the Messenger, the existence of the thing and its nonexistence, be true? These are subjective matters which do not follow the belief, but rather the belief follows them.

    Ibnu Taymiyah for his part wrote: “It is related that some sophists have made all the doctrines the influencing elements in the beliefs and have not established any fixed truths for the things; sometimes the belief conforms to it and at other times, contradicts it. In fact, they have attributed the truth to everything in which the believer has believed and made the truths subordinates of the beliefs. Such a statement in its generality and non-restrictiveness cannot be attributed to someone with a sound mind.”

    Hence, what some people say regarding relativism leads to refuting the truths of Islam and the firmly established ayat of the noble Qur’an.

    12 Ramadhan 1442h
    24 April 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - The Killing of Chad's President Idriss Déby 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Killing of Chad's President Idriss Déby

    On Tuesday 20 April the Chadian army announced that President Idriss Déby had been fatally wounded. Army spokesperson Gen. Azim Bermando Aguna announced soon after that Idriss Déby "breathed his last defending the sovereign nation on the battlefield”; it was alleged he had been visiting the Chadian troops battling rebels belonging to a group calling itself the Front for Change and Concord in Chad (FACT) in northern Chad near the borders with Libya. According to a report on the Washington Post website, details of Idriss Déby’s killing remained ambiguous.

    The incident occurred amidst a struggle between on the one hand the leader of FACT Mohammed Mahdi Ali, and Yaya Dillo Djérou, the leader of the opposition who was the target of an assassination plot by Idriss Déby two months ago, and on the other hand Idriss Déby who had been loyal to the US, despite maintaining friendly relations with France due to cultural considerations targeting those with Islamic tendencies in Chad and the African continent.

    In order to perceive the context in which the incident took place to get rid of Idriss Déby, it is imperative to indicate that France, and despite her shrinking influence in favour of the US, she still maintains her presence on Chad's political scene and in the Francophone countries of Africa due to the cultural ties and the security and economic interests which she defends through her military bases and some adventurous and ambitious collaborators. It is also imperative to take into account the fact that Germany has been striving to take advantage of Joe Biden’s penchant for cooperation, alliance, and the style of soft power in dealing with the European states, and has been endeavouring to reduce the tension with Russia in order to resume their joint energy projects; this prompted Washington to harass German Chancellor Angela Merkel and demonise her to the advantage of her rivals within her party, and to ignite the Ukrainian front in order to aggravate the negative vibes between Moscow and Berlin. Moreover, France has also exploited Biden’s approach, with Macron attempting to consolidate France’s position in her traditional areas of influence and secure French interests independently from America's shackles, a move to which the Biden administration responded by exerting further pressure and instigating further problems which France could never solve without America’s assistance, such as the issues of Ukraine, the Eastern Mediterranean, Libya, and the rift with Turkey. In addition to all of this, the US removed President Idriss Déby, who was flexible with France in Chad, and routed France’s agents in Tunisia and Algeria, such as divulging the relationship of Tunisian President Kais Saied with France and then exposing his old relationship with the CIA, thus stripping him of his popular support and driving him to visit Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi without any specific agenda and without signing any agreement with Egypt, but merely to seek support and to flirt with America; and upon his return to Tunis, he attempted to lead on the Tunisian army in confronting his opponents through his speeches, visits and repeated incitement of the armed forces.

    Hence, we can perceive in this context the removal of Chadian President Idriss Déby by America in the same manner she pursued Congolese President Kabila whom she had backed and warned his predecessor President Mobuto by threatening to drag him through the streets of Kinshasa should he fail to hand over the reins of power to Kabila who eventually switched camps and pledged his allegiance to France during his visit to Paris, which prompted America to instruct one of his bodyguards to kill him and handed power over to his son.

    America probably did away with Idriss Déby on 20 April hours after it had been announced that he had won a sixth presidential term and appointed his son Mohammed as his successor via the army. She also got rid of Mali’s president a while back to place Macron in a precarious domestic position; French newspaper Le Figaro commented on the loss of Mali by saying “the political coup in Bamako represents a setback for the French operation, and consequently, Paris’s entire strategy should be reviewed.”

    America’s targeting of French interests is designed to rebuke French President Macron, deter him from exceeding his boundaries, especially in respect of NATO and his attempts to free Europe’s security from the shackles of the US, and to rein in the designs of France who had bankrolled an army of mercenaries in Mali, just like she did in the Biafra region when she secretly armed the locals to break away from Nigeria, in an attempt to undermine US influence in Africa at that time.

    However, this does not mean that France is jostling with the US over the international situation because the strength of the superpowers is manifested in their influence on world politics. The US President would only have to issue a statement to attract the attention of the rest of the world in anticipation of what his statement would generate, whereas countries like China, Russia, France and Britain could scream all day without anyone batting an eyelid due to their inability to execute their willpower save within their lebensraums and in a lukewarm manner. Hence, it is America who most probably plotted this coup which led to the demise of her agent Idriss Déby in order to curb France’s influence in Chad, especially as Mohammed Idriss Déby who has succeeded his father in office enjoys a strong relationship with the US; it is also clear that the speed in which he assumed power and in which the pertinent arrangements were executed was designed to circumvent any potential power vacuum and dissuade the French-backed opposition from pursuing the fight and entering the capital N’djamena.

    An interim military council was formed and parliament and the government were dissolved despite the contradiction of these actions to Chad's constitution which stipulates that speaker of parliament assumes power for 45 days should the post of president becomes vacant, and afterwards, general elections would be held. Evidently, the continuance of cancer stricken Idriss Déby in power could whet France’s appetite to oust him. Hence, America carried out this precautionary measure to secure her interests in respect of the Chadian domestic scene and its impacts on Mali, Libya and Sudan, and in respect of Africa as a whole, exactly as she has always resorted to with regard to doing away with her agents in anticipation of their sudden departures, as was the case with the Shah of Iran after he had been diagnosed with cancer, or for reasons dictated by her interests and policies that she devises to deter her opponents or those averse to her policies. The fall of the agents who are even seemingly friendly towards France, such as Idriss Déby, would muzzle the political elites and military forces in the African continent and dissuade them from thinking about having close ties with France at the expense of the US.

    In order to provide the new military council in Chad with a political cover, America instructed the countries of the Sahel and the Sahara to express their total support for the interim phase. This came after the head of the military council and the current Chadian president Mohammed Idriss Déby met the head of the African Union Commission (AUC) and reviewed with him the roadmap of the interim phase, despite the understanding reached between the African states to reject any regime seizing power through a military coup.

    It is true that France mentioned in a statement that she was committed to the stability of Chad and to its regional security, and stressed the importance of a peaceful transfer of power following the demise of president Idriss Déby, but she failed to openly support the interim military council. She merely mentioned that she had been informed that an interim body had been formed to achieve a political transfer of power, whereas the reaction of the US to the new situation was customary, which indicates that the US was behind the issue in its entirety.

     

    10 Ramadhan 1442h
    22 April 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

  • Political Observation - Aims of the Russia-Ukraine Escalation 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Aims of the Russia-Ukraine Escalation

    The Russo-Ukrainian crisis erupted yet again about a month ago after the two countries had traded accusations of violating the ceasefire agreement concluded between them, although violations by both sides have never stopped.

    This latest escalation came after President Joe Biden took office at the White House and upped the ante in his dealings with Russia. It also came ahead of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in the middle of this month, and in light of America’s endeavours to admit Ukraine into NATO, with the Ukrainian president persisting to join at the height of the crisis, due to Germany and France’s previous aversion to Ukraine’s membership.

    It is in this context that the recent escalation between Russia and Ukraine is perceived, especially as America’s strategy to uproot Russia’s influence in Ukraine is not a spur-of-the-moment decision; it was rather expressed during President Jimmy Carter’s tenure by his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote in his book titled “The Grand Chessboard” that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.” It was also expressed vehemently by Russian President Putin who said: “I gave an example of our most recognisable symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. You see, if we continue the analogy, sometimes I think that maybe it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone. But no, he won’t be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he’s chained, they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will be taken over. And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. Perhaps they’ll stuff it and that’s all. Therefore, Crimea is not the point at issue; we are defending our independence, sovereignty, and our right to exist. And this is what we all should realise.”

    This is exactly what America did through the Ukrainian revolution that toppled Russian-affiliated president Yankovic and brought in US agent Viktor Yushchenko. This infuriated President Vladimir Putin who deemed America’s attempts to lure Ukraine as a threat to Russian influence and to him personally, and reacted by annexing the Crimean Peninsula and falling into the trap laid for him by America who had wanted to terrify Europe of the Russian military threat and to impose on Russia a catalogue of sanctions to keep her as an enemy of Europe and NATO and to justify the continuance of the latter. And this is why America’s position vis-à-vis the current crisis was escalatory and inflammatory in favour of Ukraine, unlike the European position which favoured containment of the crisis to avert any aggravation, despite Europe’s stance being in accord with the American position.

    As for Russia, she wants to maintain the status quo and avert the eruption of a new war or a military conflict, especially as she is attempting to rebuild her relationship with the EU via direct contacts with Merkel and Macron. However, she is also attempting to strengthen her position on the ground in order to annex east Ukraine should Europe acquiesce to America’s volition and admit Ukraine into NATO. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Andrey Rudenko, said Russia had “no interest in any conflict with Ukraine”, adding that “the talk of a potential conflict between the two countries is sheer media deception propagated by the Kiev authorities.” He also stressed that his country’s efforts were aimed at implementing the Minsk Protocol under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

    As for her long-term strategy, Russia is banking on fragmenting Ukraine and separating her east and southeast via a referendum, just like she did in Crimea, in order to maintain a strategic position in the Black Sea, while the European states, especially France and Germany who have previously opposed Ukraine’s NATO membership, are attempting to defuse the situation in the hope of nullifying the pretexts of America who has been blackmailing them to abort their joint vital projects such as Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, from which America has recently demanded Germany to withdraw; US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said “the Russian Nord Stream 2 is a bad deal — for Germany, for Ukraine, and for our Central and Eastern European allies and partners,” adding that “the Department is tracking efforts to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and is evaluating information regarding entities that appear to be involved…. As multiple U.S. administrations have made clear, this pipeline is a Russian geopolitical project intended to divide Europe and weaken European energy security. The Biden Administration is committed to complying with that legislation. The Department reiterates its warning that any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks U.S. sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline.”

    On another level, America has been working on consolidating ties between Turkey and Ukraine and to throw Turkey into the morass of the Russo-Ukrainian struggle to sow seeds of tension and strife between Russia and Turkey, especially since Ukraine represents a significant strategic weight for Russia due to a host of ethnic, sectarian, geopolitical and strategic considerations. Orthodox Slavic Ukraine is the first line of defence for Russia. She separates her from the NATO member states. Therefore, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was very cautious when he commented on the need to solve the Russo-Ukrainian crisis through peaceful means, so as to please the US on the one hand, and not upset Russia on the other hand. Erdoğan stated that his role was “not directed towards any other country”, and he was hinting at Russia. He also expressed his willingness to mediate between Russia and Ukraine to gain some bargaining chips with Russia. He said his country hoped that “the escalation in east Ukraine will end as soon as possible and that the conflict will be settled through dialogue on the grounds of the Minsk Protocol.” He also stressed the need to allow the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) to pursue its work in order to achieve stability in the Donbas region, and expounded that Turkey’s main objective was to maintain the Black Sea as an oasis of peace, stability and cooperation, as he realised that an aggravation of the crisis would compel Turkey to fulfil her commitments towards NATO, and thus impinging it significantly on the confidence between him and Putin, and weakening their relationship and their understanding on the Syrian file and the Kurdish issue in particular; and this is exactly what America covets.

    Hence, Ukraine is one of the hotbeds of tension America has been banking on in her targeting of the Russo-Turkish relationship on the one hand, and Europe’s relationship with Russia on the other hand. Inasmuch as forestalling the solutions for the Ukrainian crisis being a Russian strategy on which she is banking to fragment Ukraine, it also serves America’s strategy in orchestrating the relationships between the stakeholders, namely Russia, Europe, and Turkey.

    However, perpetuating the struggle could compel Europe to acquiesce to America’s hellbent desire to admit Ukraine into NATO; this is deduced from the statement of the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, who expressed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the “EU’s member states unwavering support for Ukraine,” adding that “the EU is united in its solidarity with Ukraine,” and that the Russian comportment on the Ukrainian borders was “tantamount to threatening activities that undermined stability.” He also confirmed that he would attend the Crimea Summit” to be held in Kiev on the eve of Ukraine’s celebrations of Independence Day on 23 August.

    The European acquiescence was also reflected in the Baltic states’ support for Ukraine’s calls for “effective help”, and in the closing statement of the NATO’s foreign and defence ministers emergency meeting, which denounced Russian military mobilisation on Ukraine’s borders, and called for supporting US sanctions on Russia who was accused of “pursuing stereotypical behaviour that undermined stability.”

    Irrespective of the traded accusations between the Russians and the Ukrainians in respect of the side that initiated the escalation, the provocations of the Ukrainian authorities against the opposition linked to Russia, shutting down pro-Russian satellite channels, and deploying US and NATO forces in Ukraine, was received by Russia with suspicion, especially as they came after the change of guard at the White House and as Biden began to raise the stakes within the framework of tightening the noose around Putin and his clique, mobilising Europe against Russia because of her annexation of Crimea, on which Ukraine, in collusion with America, is planning to hold a conference in August and use as a pretext to extend Western sanctions on Russia. This warranted an increase of Russian military presence on the Eastern Ukrainian borders in anticipation of any Ukrainian threats against the separatist regions. Trenching upon Russia would weaken her international standing and embolden the countries of the region against her that Russia could never stomach or tolerate; being lenient and lethargic towards the challenges and threats would eventually erode her influence further and invite the crises inside Russia, and this is what the Russians suffered during the tenure of Boris Yeltsin and the Chechen issue. The US strategy in dealing with Russia often results in negative impacts on the Russo-European relationship despite Russia’s repeated attempts to dispel the fears of the Europeans; this is what the US has been exploiting to widen the rift between Europe and Russia on the one hand, and between Russia and Turkey, who is allied with Ukraine, on the other hand. This perhaps explains the US sanctions on Turkey’s defence industry and the green light given to Ukraine to conclude a host of strategic partnerships in the defence industry with Turkey.

    Therefore, the Ukrainian crisis is a continuance of the siege laid on Russia and a direct threat to her lebensraum. Escalation on the western front with Russia is designed to sidestep France and Germany’s attempt to ease tensions with Russia, especially as Germany is still involved with Russia on a host of energy projects designed to reinforce Europe’s dependence on Russia, strengthen their relationship and dispel their security fears, contrary to the wishes of the US who has been striving to generate intensive negative vibes between Europe and Russia instigated by Britain and her agents in eastern Europe, such as the recent expulsion of the Russian diplomats from the Czech republic to justify the continuance of NATO.

    Hence, the focal issue revolves around European security and the role of the US pertinent to it via NATO. In the US Defence Planning Guidance of 1992, it was stipulated that America should endeavour to prevent the emergence of a European defence capability which would wipe out NATO, especially the integrated structure of the Alliance leadership. This is why on the eve of the NATO summit, Ukrainian defence minister alleged in his address before the European Defence Committee at the European Parliament that Russia was preparing to “stockpile nuclear weapons in Crimea” citing the preparatory works for the infrastructure in Crimea that Russia has initiated, which was deemed a direct threat to European security.

    7 Ramadhan 1442h
    19 April 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Saudi Peace Initiative in Yemen & Tinkering with Muslims’ Blood 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Saudi Peace Initiative in Yemen & Tinkering with Muslims’ Blood

    Bin Salman thought that by receiving the green light from America to wage the war of “Legitimacy” in Yemen, after he had conspired to hand Sana over to the Houthis, prevented the Yemeni Congregation for Reform from investing in the Arab Spring, proceeded in dividing Yemen and separating the south with the collusion of the UAE according to the American project, in addition to his belief that he would swiftly settle the battle, he would improve his chances of inheriting the throne from his father.

    It would be imperative to indicate in this context that the issue of the Saudi regime with the “Sunni” is greater than its issue with the “Shia”, who provide the “Salafi” institution hostile to them with the pretext to back Aal Saud, considering that any representation of the “Sunni” world and its religious authority stretching beyond the Saudi leadership is deemed a threat to the Saudi regime which derives its legitimacy from it. This is despite the fact that the regime’s effective backing comes from the US, the inheritor of British influence in the region, and upon whose behalf Aal Saud rule and depend in power through protecting her interests. Therefore, they conspired to topple Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi and labelled the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. They also conspired to let the Houthis dominate Yemen lest the Yemeni Congregation for Reform should extend its influence and set about curbing the authority of religion in the kingdom and establishing a modernist legitimacy compatible with the American initiative based on dismantling the cultural system of the people of the region.

    Bin Salman thought he could settle the battle in Yemen within weeks and use it as a bridge to power, just as Putin did in Chechenia. However, the US extended the war for six years during which hundreds of thousands lost their lives through killing, starvation and infectious disease in order to deepen societal division, split Yemen and harness it for her political agenda for the Horn of Africa and the Bab el-Mandab Strait and subsequently exploit it to blackmail Saudi for liberal openness and material interests, just as Donald Trump did. Bin Salman squandered hundreds of billions of dollars which led to reducing Saudi’s cash surplus by approximately $300 billion, in addition to the political services he offered to the US projects in Egypt and Sudan, and the contributions he made to the regional solution and the oil price war to deplete Russia’s capabilities. All this was in exchange for acceding to the throne.

    As Joe Biden took office and adopted democratic values and human rights as the cornerstone of US foreign policy, and decided to exploit them as a pretext to meddle in the affairs of other states, impose US policies on them through the gates of the bogus human values, end the Yemeni war and call bin Salman to account for assassinating Khashoggi, bin Salman swiftly acclimatised himself with this trend, released the activist Loujain al-Hathloul, though he kept those with Islamic tendencies in detention, and announced his initiative to end the war and bring peace to Yemen via “diplomatic” means. His initiative included easing the siege on the seaport of al-Hudaydah and allowing the reopening of Sana’s airport for a limited number of direct regional and international destinations. The Houthi group rejected this initiative with the backing of Iran who is still using all the cards in her possession to gain America’s pleasure within her own vision of her functional role rather than America’s vision for the current phase and its requirements vis-à-vis the regional solution and the Arab-"Israel" normalisation, which led to aggravating the situation in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

    As a result of the role undertaken by the Houthis in Yemen, and by letting them target Saudi with missiles and drones, they started to think they were a regional force and a tough nut to crack in the equation of political jostling; this induced America to ensnare them in Marib when the Biden administration revoked their designation as a terrorist group and turned a blind eye to their onslaught on Marib. Hence, it allowed Saudi to use her sophisticated weapons to shell the positions and fortifications of the Houthis with immaculate precision, unlike in the previous years of the war, which led to inflicting heavy losses on Houthi forces as they attempted to control the strategic mountainous positions of the Marib governorate. America then went on to tighten the noose around the neck of the Houthis by expanding the battlefront in the areas of Taiz, Ibb, al-Jawf, al-Hujjah and Sa’ada, while she bulwarked the forces of “Legitimacy” to repel the Houthi attack on Marib and force them to dispatch fighting reinforcements that led to weakening their presence in other northern governorates; consequently, Taiz fell to the forces of Legitimacy and was merged with al-Hudaydah, and the tribes turned on the Houthis.

    The US’s tendency to compel the Houthis to comply to American dictates is reflected in the statement of Timothy Lenderking, the U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen, who announced that he had made a proposal for a ceasefire which the Houthis rejected, saying “tragically, and somewhat confusingly for me, it appears that the Houthis are prioritizing a military campaign to take #Marib”.

    This tendency is further corroborated by the US, British, French, German and Italian condemnation of the Houthis constant attacks on the city of Marib and Saudi lands; and all this falls under the attempt to generate a pretext for US and international public opinion and avert embarrassment when dealing with bin Salman, for whom Blinken had announced the need to deal with. It also falls under America’s endeavours to clip the wings of Iran’s surrogates and dwarf their role in the region, loosen the Houthis’ strong ties with Iran and at the same time, strengthen their link with Timothy Lenderking, the U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen, and push the Houthis to engage in the negotiations leading to “generating a political solution to the Yemeni crisis under the auspices of the United Nations” as per UN Security Council resolution 2564, the Gulf States’ initiative and its executive mechanism, the upshots of the Yemeni National Dialogue Conference, one of which stipulates dividing Yemen into governorates within a federal framework.

    Hence, the US, France, Germany, Italy and the UK announced in a joint statement issued by the British Foreign Office that their “renewed diplomatic efforts to end the Yemen conflict, in support of the UN Special Envoy, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the international community, offer the best hope for ending this war.” Therefore, the Saudi initiative indicates that the US has been exerting pressure on the Houthis to end the war. However, the Houthis’ desire to achieve more gains on the ground in Marib and their fear of losing their acquisitions, coupled with their attempt to control the oil and gas resources and to maintain their control of al-Hudaydah seaport in order to use this as a bargaining chip in the final negotiations, all this has tilted the scales of power on the ground in favour of Saudi and contrary to what the Houthis had wished. The Houthis reacted by leaking the telephone conversation indicating America’s collusion with former president Abdullah Saleh on the issue of former al-Qaeda senior operative Anwar al-Awlaki, in order to embarrass the US side and haggle with them over the treacherous role Abdullah Saleh played on behalf of the CIA, in exchange for alleviating US pressure and maintaining their gains. This explains why the Houthis’ spokesperson rejected the US proposal, i.e., the Saudi initiative, deeming it a “conspiracy” and saying that “what the US envoy referred to as a proposal does not contain anything new; it represents the one-year-old Saudi and UN vision. There is no end to the siege nor a ceasefire, but rather a host of token circumventions leading to the return of the sieve in a diplomatic manner.” He added “for the US envoy to propose a plan short of what the UN envoy has proposed is unacceptable. They will achieve through negotiations what they have failed to achieve through the war.”

    It is forbidden to remain silent or partake in the crime perpetrated by the Houthis, Saudi rulers, and Iran who have all embroiled the children of the Ummah in treacherous cheap wars that have depleted their riches and shed their blood. Hundreds of thousands of victims lost their lives and tens of billions of dollars have gone to the coffers of the US and her partners for the sake of bin Salman’s throne and the sectarianism and expediency of the Houthis.

    The US and her partners are calling for an end to the war now that they have filled their coffers with the finances of the Muslims. According to “Middle East Eye”, the value of arms sales exceeded 55 times the humanitarian aid given to the people of Yemen, which is equal to $86.7 billion worth of arms sales and merely $1.56 billion of humanitarian aid, which equates to 1.8% of the arms deals’ value according to reports published in 2015-2016 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI also reported that America sold $65 billion worth of weapons during the war Saudi waged on the Houthis under the tenure of king Abdullah between 2009 and 2016, while the humanitarian aid for same period was $305 million. As for France, she concluded a number of deals with Saudi totalling $11.3 billion and offered $12.3 million in humanitarian aid. Britain for her part sold $4.85 billion worth of weapons and offered $733 million in aid. Meanwhile, the people in Yemen lost their lives due to starvation, infectious diseases and a war waged with the weapons of the Kuffar and the wealth of the Muslims who kept silent over the evildoing and treason of their rulers.

    Dear Muslims! Is there a more poignant reminder than the tinkering of the rulers with your fates? You have no salvation save for the unity that the blessed month of Ramadhan reminds us of every year. Hence, we urge you to work towards achieving your union through the fraternity of Islam and the unity of your entity; and do not be at variance with one another, lest you lose heart and your moral strength deserts you, and respond to Allah and His Messenger when they call you to what gives you life.

    19 Sha’aban 1442h
    1 April 2021  

    hizbuttahrir.org

  • The Sino-Iranian Agreement 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    The Sino-Iranian Agreement

    The memorandum of understanding between China and Iran signed on Saturday 27 March is clearly a continuation of the Go West policy devised by Chinese President Xi Jinping, also known as the Belt and Road Initiative.

    However, this policy involves several steps that need elucidating, including the Chinese influence that is set to achieve an economic interest worth over $400 billion over the next 25 years during which China is guaranteed low-priced imports of Iranian oil and gas.

    According to public data, Iran is in desperate need for huge investments totalling $200 billion in the energy sector alone after all the years of US sanctions and having squandered significant funds in serving America’s initiatives in the region. America’s silence over an agreement of such magnitude reflects her approval amid Iran’s disappointment with the Biden administration despite Iran’s continued contribution to the initiatives of the US, and amid the escalating Sino-American struggle in the context of China’s bid to defend her global economic interests and her adherence to her secluded political and intellectual system which America has been unable to infiltrate, and amid the approaches of the Iranian regime which is facing an electoral battle next May as the political opposition continues to invest in the wretched economic and political situation, and the approaches of the US who relishes the unique and beneficial Chinese initiatives which may seem as escalation and jostling for influence in the Middle East, including the Iranian nuclear file and the Palestinian issue. All this is well known to observers to be in the interests of the US in terms of harnessing China in the “war of models” and turning her into a paper tiger “threatening” the US, thus warranting a tendency to heal domestic rifts and rally the democratic capitalist states and the countries of southeast Asia behind the US. It also turns China into a rival to Europe in the most important regions with European vital interests, namely the Middle East and Africa; this in turn would deepen the Europeans’ dependence on the US. This narrative was expressed by Joe Biden last week when he called on democratic states to face up to China and her intercontinental projects.

    In a nutshell, the Sino-Iranian memorandum of understanding has dealt the European efforts to return to the US-Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 a heavy blow and corroborated the themes America has outlined in respect of the relationship with China, as well as the American vision vis-à-vis the Chinese threats on Europe. The memorandum has also implicitly called on Europe to respond to the American dictates.

    On the other hand, once the memorandum of understanding is implemented, it will enable Iran to get an outlet from the US sanctions and would increase the credentials of the ruling reformist movement in Iran in the May 2021 elections. This explains the scathing attack by the leaders of the conservative movement, such as Ahmadinejad, on the memorandum of understanding.

    The effective and radical role Iran has been playing in serving the American initiative is conspicuous. She has been acting as the scarecrow that has pushed the countries of the region to overtly throw themselves into the embrace of the usurping entity and facilitated its security, economic and military integration into the region. It is also imperative to perceive that the Iranian role will not end with Saudi’s normalisation and with the clipping of the Iranian surrogates’ wings; if anything, the continuance of the Mullahs’ regime on the political scene constitutes an American necessity in the middle-term to continue exerting pressure on the regimes to complete the steps of Arab-"Israeli" integration and the reshaping of the Middle East. This is clearly reflected in the deliberate extension of the diplomatic activity with Iran over the sanctions and in America’s announcement that she intends to add the demands of the allies and partners to any long-term agreement. Hence, any Sino-Iranian agreement may be viewed within the context of rescuing Iran financially, keeping her on the road to recovery and helping her avert collapse, projecting Chinese activity as a geopolitical rival to America and accusing China of helping rogue states such as Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. In addition to the US interests, the memorandum serves the American initiative that calls for liberal democracy, and Western values. This was indicated by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who said “China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable and open international system.”

    Moreover, America’s decision to pave the way for China’s escalation and for what looks like a Chinese invasion of the Middle East and Africa would shore up the policy of alliances that Biden called for during his inaugural address in order to contain the Europeans who were dubbed by the official spokesperson of China’s foreign ministry as “America’s allies” on the one hand, and contain Russia and China on the other; this would enable America to harness all sides to operate within her international initiative to ensure her leadership over them.

    18 Sha’aban 1442
    31 March 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • The New START Treaty 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    The New START Treaty 
     
    The Russo-American New START Treaty on long-range ballistic missiles was signed in 2010 with each side given time to meet its commitments. It expired in 2018 but was extended to 2026 when Biden took office.  
     
    The New START Treaty is an extension of the Start 1 Treaty signed by George Bush Sr and Gorbachev in 1991, and seconded by Start 2, which was not adopted and Start 3 over which negotiations ended in a stalemate. 
     
    The New START Treaty was signed by US President Obama and Russian President Medvedev in 2010 and it aimed at reducing strategic offensive weapons, and giving each country the right to audit the commitment of the other party to the stipulations of the treaty in respect of limiting intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The treaty also stipulated that the two sides would commit themselves to reduce nuclear warheads to 700 intercontinental missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, strategic warheads, 1550 nuclear warheads and 800 sea, air and land launchers.
     
    The New START Treaty falls within the framework of regulating the military relationship between the US and Russia. And although the acquisition of nuclear weapon has become an immunity against wars due to its devastating consequences on all sides, such agreements that America concludes are however indispensable in order to exclude armed conflict completely from the tools of struggle, strip opponents of the chance to benefit from military power, which represents the most significant element for imposing willpower, and confine disputes and rivalries with her opponents to diplomatic activity, the interactants of which she controls in conducting international relations in exploiting the power of her influence in the world and her dominion over international institutions, as well as her economic clout, widespread values, the supremacy of the capitalist system and the dominion of her currency over the world financial system.  
     
    America needs such treaties to reassure the capitalists and preserve the stable environment for investment, which represents the backbone of her economic supremacy. Hence, it is a treaty reflecting reassurance among the countries and masses of the world since the presence of nuclear intercontinental missiles leads to incertitude with the impact of the tension between America and Russia on the world’s US dollar reserves in particular and on world markets. On the other hand, the US benefits from the New START Treaty  by corroborating her leadership role in terms of regulating military relationships and controlling world peace and security, in addition to the need to dissipate the apprehensions of her citizens over Russia’s nuclear weapons; this is why she sought to extend the New START Treaty on long-range missiles, contrary to the treaty on medium-range nuclear missiles, which is pertinent to European security, and from which Donald Trump withdrew to send shivers down the spine of the European Union, ensuring America’s manipulation of Europe’s security via NATO while incentivising the Europeans to increase their military expenditure. This helps America reinforce the European states’ impotence so that she may contain and blackmail them, and ensure they continue to be harnessed to execute her international initiatives and plans. This explains why Donald Trump rebuked Macron when he called for the need to review Putin’s proposal to turn Europe into a safe region from the threats of short and medium-range nuclear missiles through a moratorium on deploying short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. 
     
    18 Sha’aban 1442 
    31 March 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
  • Political Observation - The Giant Container Ship Incident & the Suez Canal Crisis 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Giant Container Ship Incident & the Suez Canal Crisis

    World media outlets reported on Tuesday 23 March 2021 that the giant container ship Ever Green which had set sail from Malaysia, got wedged diagonally in the Suez Canal. This led to blocking the canal and navigation was brought to a halt with more than 300 ships waiting in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean to enter the canal.

    It has been noted that the media have been overdramatising the incident and its impact on world trade, considering that it occurred in one of the most important passages of international maritime shipping. The Canal contributes to the shipping operations of almost 10% of world trade, 8% of liquid gas and one million oil barrels a day, i.e., $10 billion a day.

    This incident was the third in a series of disasters that blighted Egypt within days. It occurred after the train crash and the collapse of the 12-floor building that caused the death of several residents. Although the container ship incident was anomalous according to experts, it was however a heavy blow to president al-Sisi who had turned the project of expanding the Canal into a national landmark and an example of his development leadership in Egypt. Some media outlets quoted the Japanese owner company’s statements suggesting that strong winds and sandstorms were the cause of the incident while the Egyptian meteorological agency announced that the speed of the winds recorded on the day of the incident was no more than 51 kilometres per hour, with the presence of a sandstorm, which is not unusual for the region. Admiral Osama Rabie, Chairman and Managing Director of the Suez Canal Authority, said “the weather conditions were not the main cause that led the ship to get wedged,” adding that “human or technical errors may have been the cause and all these issues will be clarified through the investigation.”

    According to AP News, experts confirmed that it “would have been difficult for 51 km winds to cause the wedging of a 220,000 ton container ship.” Besides, it was not the first incident involving Ever Green; in 2019 it was involved in an incident with a passenger ship at the German seaport of Hamburg and the operating company at that time claimed that high winds were the cause of the incident.

    Despite the presence of some dubious indications surrounding the incident, it has, however, without a shadow of a doubt, been exploited in weakening the domestic and foreign position of al-Sisi and in regulating his regime according to the trends of Joe Biden’s administration which champions the imposing of participatory democracy to vent the masses’ anger. The New York Times reported on the village of Manshiyet Rugola overlooking the wedged ship and the Suez Canal, through which $10 billion worth of commodities pass each day, and quoted an old lady from the village as saying that “one container is enough to satisfy the hunger of the village,” in an indication of the masses’ resentment towards al-Sisi’s governance of the country’s affairs that has led to impoverishing them. Moreover, preparations are underway to conclude a reconciliation between the regime and the opposition, both “Islamic” and secularist, via Turkish mediation. This initiative is dictated by the need to reshape the relations between Egypt and Turkey within the framework of the plans of restructuring the Middle East and the Turkish role in Libya. The incident is also being harnessed to highlight the strategic supply chains through which America is endeavouring to exert pressure on the European states and compel them to reduce their dependence on China within the context of America’s endeavour to magnify China’s threat to Western interests and values, and to exploit the Chinese scarecrow as a pretext to mobilise the countries of the world behind her leadership and entrench her capitalist values and systems in international relations on the basis of the political, economic, and social liberal formula.

    Hence, although the indications do not support the notion suggesting that the incident had been plotted, it has however been exploited to shed light on the policies serving the interests of the US and the trends of the Zionist entity. On the regional plane, especially in respect of what is known nowadays as the “Eastern Mediterranean”, it is common knowledge that the blast that targeted the Beirut harbour last summer, leading to putting the port out of service, was followed with the normalisation of relations between the Emirates and the usurping entity within one year; the first memorandum of understanding signed between the UAE and "Israel" was pertinent to the Emirati company Dubai Ports World and the "Israeli" company DoverTower. The deal involved purchasing and developing the seaport of Haifa and turning it into a free-trade zone akin to Jabel Ali in Dubai. For his part, "Israeli" energy minister Yuval Steinitz proposed the admission of the UAE to the East Mediterranean Gas Forum which includes Egypt, "Israel", Greece, Italy, Jordan, and Cyprus.

    Therefore, magnifying the incident is designed to activate the normalisation agreements, exploit the huge funds of the key portfolios of the Muslims which exceed $1.7 trillion for the Gulf States alone, and integrate the Zionist entity within the region through the gates of economic partnership, in addition to the military and security partnership necessitated by the challenges of the Iranian file.
    The Emirates, who is leading the normalisation caravan, represents the spearhead in the US-Zionist initiative aimed at integrating the usurping entity into the financial and economic system of the region, so as to turn it into a normal system that contributes to deepening the frailty of the countries of the region, especially Egypt who represents a manpower reservoir and a geopolitical challenge to the West and the Zionist entity.

    Some of the normalisation projects being proposed are establishing a sea channel via the seaport of Eilat, which will rival the Suez Canal and support the Haifa seaport in the absence of the port of Beirut and the ports of Syria which have been offered to Russia, building a railway between Tel Aviv and Eilat and linking it to a railway to the Gulf States, modernising the ports of Ashdod and Eilat, and linking the huge Saudi oilfields of Abqaiq to Eilat’s seaport to ship Saudi oil to Europe and America via a 700 km highway which would in turn be linked to the Eilat-Ashkelon highway.

    These projects, in addition to the previously proposed pipelines to transport Azerbaijani and Kazak oil, would lead to instituting an Emirati-"Israeli" energy centre which would turn into a main energy passageway to world markets, and give the two states, or rather "Israel", a host of commercial, economic and financial privileges which would contribute to sidestepping the dangerous and costly maritime routes of Hormuz and the Suez Canal, and allow several European and American companies, which used to avoid dealing with the usurping entity in the energy sector - for fear of their interests in the Gulf States – to follow in the footsteps of Chevron, the third largest US gas and oil exploration company, and invest billions of dollars in the field of gas and oil explorations in "Israel" and the Eastern Mediterranean.

    The potential and declared projects reveal that they institute a comprehensive package aimed at integrating "Israel" into the region and link the fate of the people of the region and their interests to its survival while changing the rules of the game in granting the usurping entity the financial backing to control the commodities and oil trade in the Eastern Mediterranean region at the expense of Egypt (the Suez Canal and its harbours such as Dumyat) and the people of the region, and in doing so, aborting any initiative that would turn Egypt into a regional centre for energy and natural gas exports to European markets, in addition to deepening the poverty of Egypt and its people, considering that she constitutes the largest population and military force the Muslims could rely upon in the Arab lands.

    Hence, the Muslims ought to be constantly vigilant and aware of what the Kuffar are plotting for the region, and what America is undertaking in collaboration with the treacherous regimes of the region to integrate the Jewish entity economically into the region now that they have concluded the political agreements with it. This makes it incumbent upon us to stand up to these plots, rejecting them and striving to thwart them so that they may remain dead text until the opportune moment comes for the Ummah to rectify the situation and uproot this freak entity from the region for good.

    15 Sha’aban 1442h
    29 March 2021
     

    hizbuttahrir.org

  • Political Observation - The Salt Hospital Incident in Jordan & the Pressures and Challenges Facing King Abdullah 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Salt Hospital Incident in Jordan & the Pressures and Challenges Facing King Abdullah

    Yesterday morning, Saturday 13 March, shortage of oxygen supplies at the intensive care unit of al-Salt new hospital in Jordan caused the death of 7 patients according to health minister Dr Nathir Obeidat who was reported by Jordanian press agency Petra to have said in a press briefing that he took responsibility for the incident.

    Soon after the incident, Jordanian monarch, king Abdullah II rushed “angrily” to the hospital wearing a military uniform. The prime minister announced the dismissal of the health minister as the Lower House Speaker, Abdulmunim Oddat, and President of the Senate, Faisal al-Fayez, known for their absolute loyalty to the king, called for a session of the Lower House and the Senate to debate the incident. Meanwhile, several prosecutors began their investigation amid overwhelming popular anger.

    It is clear that the high-level and strong reaction of the regime reflects the sensitivity of the domestic and foreign political situation for the king and his crown prince. This is why the Jordanian regime swiftly suspended the hospital directors and charged them with causing the deaths. The surrounding political circumstances and the regime’s decision to mobilise its political forces to tackle the impact of the incident on the tense popular atmosphere is set to weaken the royal institution and contribute to the endeavour to reshape the Jordanian regime in parallel with the regional and international political events, especially liquidating the issue of Palestine, downsizing Iran, and settling the Syrian file.

    Although the Salt hospital incident was caused by the government’s negligence and disregard to the wellbeing of the masses, the US embassy’s message to its citizens a day before the incident warning them against visiting several Jordanian cities including al-Salt under the pretext of “crime and terrorism” could not be viewed as sheer coincidence. This is set to turn the incident into potent ammunition for generating tension and a part of the tools of struggle between the dynamism of the opposition forces and the palace. The so-called opposition against the king have called for a demonstration on 24 March, as they took advantage of the Biden administration’s intention to exert pressure on the regimes with the pickaxe of democracy to weaken them, recycle the crises of the region, and discharge the tension within the popular atmospheres and the wastes of the oppression caused by the police regimes that America imposed on the people of the region, in order to initiate popular calls for American liberal values and perpetuate the sacrifice of the Ummah’s children for their sake.

    The political facts in Jordan, the most notorious of which is imposing economic restrictions on the masses, exploiting the coronavirus to extend the lockdown, muzzle and tame the masses and deprive them of the rites reflecting their unity such as the Friday prayer, preventing the dynamism from gathering to slam the foreign plots and dictates, the king’s harassment of his brothers, especially prince Hamza and prince Hashem, his marginalising of his brothers Ali and Faisal, his embellishment of his son crown prince Hussein by projecting him extensively in the media, in addition to his visit two days ago to Saudi who had given prince Hashem a very warm welcome which vexed him and led him to dismiss his brother from his post as senior secretary at the Royal Hashemite Court, his meeting with the "Israeli" defence minister, Benny Gantz, who was quoted as saying “unfortunately, Netanyahu is a persona non grata in Jordan and his presence harms the relations between the two countries”, his refusal to meet Netanyahu who needed his backing in his electoral campaign, all this falls within the context of foreign and domestic challenges the king is facing in respect of the requirements of the forthcoming political phase and bequeathing the throne to his son. It falls also within the context of the American shift under the new administration and its approaches vis-à-vis the regional solution which the new administration aims to orchestrate through soft power and according to its interests and the interests of the usurping entity, which hinge on the need to resume the negotiations with the participation of a Palestinian authority representing all the factions, preparations for which are underway through the Palestinian elections, and on Jordan’s participation which would absorb the upshots of the final solutions, a scenario in which king Abdullah is attempting to invest to bequeath the throne to his son.

    There is no change in US strategy on the file of the “Palestinian refugees” in Jordan. It is the trump card with which king Abdullah is bargaining with the US administration to secure his son’s accession to the throne, and for the sake of which he is attempting to remove the domestic obstacles facing it by restructuring the army, security services and the intelligence agency, since such institutions, in addition to the tribal dynamism and the retired army officers, represent the traditional forces opposing the notion of widening the political rights of the “Palestinian constituent”. This is why the king’s message to the Jordanian intelligence agency alluded to curtailing all its interactants pertinent to political aspects and confining its function to the professional security aspect, especially as the message, which included a reprimand to the agency, was preceded by a royal instruction to enact a new election law within the framework of the political reform being regulated according to the constructs of liquidating the “Palestinian issue”.

    The friction and tension between Jordan and "Israel" falls under the atmospheres in which the king is struggling to market his successor, prince Hussein, and corroborate his Hashemite custodianship over the sacred precincts in the city of al-Quds, such as the contact between the Jordanian leadership with Benny Gantz, and Netanyahu’s decision to prevent the crown prince from visiting al-Aqsa Mosque to commemorate the night of al-Isra’, thus depriving him of the chance to market himself as custodian over the holy precincts; this was viewed as a reprimand by Netanyahu to king Abdullah who hosted his rival Gantz, and as a reflection of Netanyahu’s doctrine stipulating "Israel’s” sovereignty over al-Quds, with Jordan’s role reduced to administering and servicing the sacred precincts of the Muslims and Christians.

    In light of these events, the domestic tensions and incidents are set to escalate in Jordan amid the regime’s efforts to tighten its grip on society with a catalogue of fabricated pretexts, pressures of the dynamism, as well as the foreign carrots and sticks, to eventually arrive at a restructuring of the regime, balancing between the desire of the king to bequeath the throne to his crown prince and the demands of the people of Jordan, in addition to the requirements of liquidating the “Palestinian issue”.

    In the midst of this political performance by the regimes and by those who present themselves as an alternative, the people of Jordan and the children of the Islamic Ummah throughout their countries continue to pay a heavy price with their lives and their sustenance because they have turned away from the remembrance of their Lord and His Shari'ah in which their salvation, might and dignity lie. Hence, they ought to realise that they would have no human dignity and no decent living if they continued to depart in their dynamism and struggle from nationalistic and patriotic visions, declined liberal values, and false secularist solutions. They ought to realise that the rulers in their countries compete to gain the pleasure of their American master who controls them through its embassies in their countries.

    30 Rajab 1442h
    14 March 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Political Comment - The Pope's Visit to Iraq 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Comment

    Pope Francis concluded his “historic” four-day visit to Iraq on 8 March 2021 despite the restrictions and lockdowns imposed on the masses due to the coronavirus pandemic, and at a time blasts and missile attacks have been escalating in the lands of Mesopotamia. The pope visited four Iraqi governorates, namely Baghdad, al-Najaf, Dhi Qar, Mosul and Erbil, and met President Barham Saleh, prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, and several Kurdish leaders.

    On the second day of his tour, the pope headed south to al-Najaf where he held an “historic” meeting with the Shia authority ayatollah Sistani before visiting the ancient city of Ur, which is believed to be the birthplace of prophet Ibrahim peace be upon him, and held an inter-faith prayer in which representatives of Islam and various Christian sects and churches took part.

    Having perceived the aims behind this visit and reading between the lines of the ensuing statements and communiqués in addition to the surrounding circumstances, actual details, reality of the pope and his role and the reality of the Iraqi political leaders, especially al-Sistani, it has transpired that the visit was designed to promote many concepts and issues.

    The main aim of the visit was propagating the principle of “religious co-existence” under the umbrella of “Abrahamic religions” which has remarkably been exploited to justify alliance and normalisation with the Zionist entity. Hence, the pope’s visit to Ur, the city symbolising prophet Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was not innocent. Moreover, the visit was designed to propagate liberal democracy which attends to the rights of the individuals and minorities, integrate all faiths and entrench secularism, which is allegedly neutral towards all religions and sects. This is the approach Joe Biden intends to initiate through soft power styles in his bid to reshape the Middle East intellectually and politically; this involves supporting the Hawza of al-Najaf rather than the Hawza of Qum as per the requirements of the current political phase which necessitates lending an official status to the Hawza of al-Najaf and marginalising the Iranian Hawza of Qum, in order to weaken Iran’s influence on Iraq’s political forces, downsize her sectarian influence over the region to the advantage of Sistani who is categorising the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) on the basis of loyalty to his authority and affiliation to the government of al-Kadhimi, and dwarfing the Iranian role to the advantage of the regional solution which is designed to integrate the Zionist entity within the security, economic, and societal fabric of the Middle East. Moreover, it would be more precarious if this visit preceded a plan under which America, or "Israel", in light of the "Israeli" election atmosphere, to strike Iran and compel her to return back to her functional role. This means the pope’s visit to Iraq is part of the effort of stripping Iran of her tools and neutralising them while sparing the US interests in Iraq of the fallout of any potential crisis.

    It is common knowledge that the Vatican has played a pivotal focal role in serving the interests and aims of the US and "Israel" in several issues such as the internationalising of al-Quds and absolving the Jews of the “Messiah’s blood” in contradiction to the bible. Furthermore, the Vatican was very instrumental in aiding the US to dismantle the Soviet Union as stated in the declassified CIA report of 1978 which also mentioned that a Polish pope would resurrect nationalism in Poland and other countries under Soviet occupation, thus destabilising the USSR. Consequently, President Reagan succeeded in harnessing the Vatican in destroying the Soviet Union through the coordination between the Vatican and CIA director William Casey.

    This “peace-loving” pope in particular is the one who pressed against military intervention in Syria in 2013 in response to the use of chemical weapons against the masses. This was when the US opted to not intervene militarily and this pope, who assumed the role of “peace dove”, aided President Obama by instructing Papal diplomats to contact more than 70 foreign ambassadors and inform them of the pope’s aversion to military intervention in Syria, which led Iran to describe the pope’s style of halting aerial strikes against the Syrian regime as “impressive”.

    In addition to all this, the pope’s visit sends a message of support to the followers of the Shia sect in the Gulf states and religious minorities in the Islamic world. Protecting religious minorities, for America and the colonialist powers, constitutes grounds for intervening and dividing Muslims’ lands under the guise of protecting their holy precincts and the religious and ethnic minorities in the name of freedom and democracy. This is what happened when Britain allowed the Chinese to emigrate to Singapore until they became the majority and demanded secession from Malaysia. It also happened in southern Sudan and East Timor, and it is underway in the Kurdish areas, the Amazigh’s areas in Algeria and the Shia areas in Yemen. This is why the US Congress has enacted the law of intervention to protect religious minorities.

    It is also under this theme that changing the education curricula, removing Quranic verses and prophetic hadiths and distorting the concepts is taking place in Muslims’ lands, especially in the Gulf region and al-Sham, to identify with the alleged “Abrahamic” religion and the alliance deals with the Zionists. Meanwhile, Muslim minorities, even if they were of European origin, continue to endure oppression and discrimination in the countries of democracy and preachers of human rights.

    The pope’s visit to Iraq, which was shrouded with excessive glorification and homage, was designed to convey a message of vainglory and haughtiness, considering that it derived its “historic” attribute from being a visit to the metropolis of the Abbasside Khilafah which the emperor of the “holy” Roman empire, Charlemagne, used to curry favour to its caliph, Harun al-Rashid. From this visit, the pope also aims to embellish the West in the eyes of the Muslims and to efface the aftermath of the West’s savage crimes. whose colonialist and crusader motive was corroborated by George Bush. His personal visit to Sistani was a token of appreciation and gratitude for the services he rendered to the US when he called on the people of Iraq in August 2004 to cooperate with America and refrain from fighting her, not to mention his other services to his American masters such as his persistent endeavour to dismantle the Popular Mobilisation Forces, integrate them within state institutions and separate them from Iran.

    In fact, the most prominent feature of this visit is that it came as a complement to what America had started in the Emirates two years ago when the pope met the grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, and signed what was dubbed as the “Document of Human Fraternity” which instituted the notion of “Abrahamic Faith” which is refuted by the saying of Allah “Abraham was neither a "Jew" nor a "Christian", but was one who turned away from all that is false, having surrendered himself unto Allah; and he was not of those who ascribe divinity to anything beside Him.” [Aal-Imran-67]

    This visit is akin to a crusader Zionist secularist campaign, supporting the barbaric campaign against Muslims, their lands and the foundations of their religion with the aim of humiliating them, obliterating their identity and enslaving them to the criminal West, its agents and its decadent liberal values.

    It is disgraceful for the pope to assume the lowly role of propagating secularism and atheism which turned on the church during the “Age of Enlightenment” and declared war on “God”. He who claims to be “God on earth” is but a traitor and a liar; he calls for not harnessing religion in politics, and for supporting the oppressed and helping the needy, and yet he subjugates his religion and church to serve the atheists and secularists, and the beasts of capitalism, colonialism and world tyranny.

    It is also repugnant for those who claim to love the Aal al-Bayt to repeat the treason of Ibn-ul Alqami and pave the way for America and her agent, the pope, welcome them with roses, give them control over the lands, and leave the fate of their children and the children of the Muslims in the hands of the evilest creatures. This visit has trampled over the dignity of the Muslims; it would not have taken place had it not been for the lowliness and depravity of America’s agents in Iraq, headed by the chieftain of the Hawza Sistani, head of state Barham Saleh, and prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, who greeted the pope as a conqueror.

    In response to the falsehood of “terrorism” that the pope of the colonialist West has spuriously attributed to Muslims to justify his support for his brethren in faith, and his call on Muslims to abandon their religion and embrace “Abrahamic religion” and “Human Fraternity”, we re-iterate that the causes of violence against non-Muslims from among the Dhimmi and covenantors, which Islam does not endorse, are instigated the West, the concocter of “terrorism” and “terrorists”; also responsible are the regimes that the West has generated to oppress the Muslims, Islamic movements, and the volition of the masses. The alignment of the West and its agents with the minorities at the expense of the Muslims who constitute the overwhelming majority in their lands, is responsible for this alleged “terrorism”, together with the leaders of the religious sects who provoke the Muslims, embolden themselves against them with the help of foreign powers and significantly shore up the criminal regimes, as is the case with the Copts of Egypt who support the criminal Abdul Fattah al-Sisi.

    The animosity of the West and the collaborating regimes, from among the various sects and the secularists, towards Islam and Muslims, which is reflected in displacing them and demolishing their mosques without any denunciation and disapproval, is far more despicable than the demolition of a few churches and the displacement of the Christians over whom the pope grieved during his visit. Hence, the followers of the various sects should reject being used by the West and its agents as fuel for the war against Islam and Muslims if they want safety and salvation.

    The Muslims for their part should stand up to the insolent campaign against Islam led by the regimes and their lowly tools from among the followers of various sects, secularists and hired agents. The Muslims had a lofty status, dignity and grandeur when they had a state; but when their political entity was demolished, they became more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master, and the leaders of the West started to brazenly boast about their belittling of the Muslims and plundering of their riches.

    Muslims have no other way to regain their squandered dignity and sovereignty over their lands and to liberate themselves from dependence than to treat the work towards resuming the Islamic way of life as a decisive issue that leads to effectively establishing their state which will preserve the rights of its subjects irrespective of their religion and place the world on the threshold of justice and and restore the lost human dignity.

    Hizb ut-Tahrir

    24 Rajab 1442h
    8 March 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

  • Trip Down the Political Horizons Within the Context of US Plans to Downsize Iran in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Trip Down the Political Horizons - Within the Context of US Plans to Downsize Iran in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen

    Political escalation towards Iran

    Joe Biden’s administration has emphasised the priority of the Iranian nuclear file and its inclination to restore the agreement concluded with Iran in 2015. It is however exploiting the sanctions on Iran, Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement, and the Iranian ballistic missiles program to reregulate Iran’s activities which are no longer part of the agenda pertinent to the Arab-"Israeli" normalisation and alliance. The former nuclear agreement was designed during Obama’s tenure within the framework of the role assigned to Iran, namely dismantling the region on sectarian grounds. It was engineered in a manner that allegedly evoked the anxiety of Saudi and "Israel" with the aim of generating a common Saudi-"Israeli" interest that justified alliance and normalisation at a later stage. Therefore, Saudi objected to the deal and "Israel" expressed its reservations towards it.

    Then the Trump administration brought the Deal of the Century in cahoots with "Israel" to up the ante in the Iranian file. Hence, America withdrew from the agreement and "Israel" was given a free rein to strike Iranian forces and her affiliated militias in Syria to lure Iran into a reaction in the shape of military strikes against Saudi via the Yemeni al-Houthi militia, thus paving the way for the Arab-"Israeli" rapprochement and the regional solution, which was later interpreted by the agreements of shame concluded by the Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, which in turn will smooth the path for bin Salman to jump on the bandwagon of normalisation and alliance.

    Then came Joe Biden, who is reported to have said that: "If Israel had not existed, the United States would have invented Israel," and "What people must understand now, and to be crystal clear, is that Israel is the largest power of the United States in the Middle East…. And I would say to my friends when they tell you these things, I would say: Imagine our conditions in the world if there were no Israel, how many warships there would be. How many soldiers will be deployed,” or words to that effect. This is to complement the phases of shaping the region and designing its alliances and security with the participation of "Israel", which represents an advanced military base to him, exploiting what Iran refers to as “strategic patience” to ensure the continuity of the normalisation process and to restructure the Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese and Yemeni regimes according to the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) with its new modernist attire that relieves the Zionist entity of the attribute of enemy and allows it to integrate in the region. This necessitates pushing bin Salman towards further openness to modernity, democracy, and liberalism, and leading the Islamic world towards accepting the Zionist existence and liquidating the “Palestinian issue”.

    It is in this context that Joe Biden harnessed the Iranian scarecrow and the file of Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination to twist bin Salman’s arm into gambling with his fate and undertaking unpopular decisions pertinent to domestic political change, and normalisation and alliance with "Israel", as well as the Yemeni file which, should he fail to resolve, would be a scandal impinging on his ability to inherit the throne and compelling him to comply with the requirements of the regional solution. This narrative was reflected in the statement of deputy chairman of the AK Party, Yasin Aktay, who commented on the report of the CIA pertinent to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi by saying: “It is sad that the issue of Jamal Khashoggi has turned into a trump card in the hand of the US against Saudi.” All this intersects with Iran’sreactions to her downsizing and the clipping of her wings in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, and compels her to push her surrogates to escalate their activities, especially in Iraq and Yemen, and to target Saudi, particularly after the agreement of Sinjar between the government of al-Kadhimi and the government of Arbil. The agreement stipulates evacuating the armed factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) from the region, and blocking Iran’s gateways to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, with the consent of Turkey, and which has recently led the Iranian and Turkish diplomats in Iraq to trade accusations.

    Iran incites her surrogates and strengthens her standpoint to negotiate with America.

    On the other hand, America did not squander the opportunity to strike the PMF last week in the Iranian gateway through the Iraqi-Syrian borders in the region of Boukamal in order to deter Iran and her surrogates from impinging on the Sinjar agreement which was designed to strip Iran of the most strategic position in northern Iraq on the Syrian borders. It was also designed to exert pressure on the PMF who have rejected the agreement and are continuing to resist their integration within the Iraqi forces under the leadership of al Kadhimi, and to attack the military bases hosting US soldiers, such as their attack on al-Harir bases in Arbil in mid-February, as well as their targeting of Ain al-Assad airbase. in an attempt to dissuade al-Kadhimi from implementing what he had pledged to America regarding “imposing the sovereignty of the law, restricting the possessions of weapons to the state, and protecting the diplomatic missions and their properties. ”

    Although such attacks by the PMF on military bases and the attacks of al-Houthi group on Saudi and their campaign on the Yemeni city of Marib are related to the specificity of the Iraqi and Yemeni issues, they represent a message Iran wants to send stipulating that she still controls the reins of those groups. And through such groups she wants to obtain a bargaining chip in her negotiations with the US over their relationship and her functional regional role which has started to be corroded as the process of normalisation between the Gulf States and "Israel" continues to gather momentum and is close to establishing a defence and security alliance which has started to crop up following the recent attack on the "Israeli" cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman, which was likely to have been conducted by Iran. This is what Benny Gantz stated following the talks he held with Jordanian king Abdullah II who, for his part, aspires to play a role that would bring him closer to the new US administration and restore the support of the Gulf States via the "Israeli" gate.

    The escalation in Marib and the reengineering of the Yemeni standpoint pertinent to fragmentation

    As for the plane of the Houthi attacks on Saudi, and their attack on Marib, the targeting of Saudi by the Houthis has not ceased; if anything, it has even increased in a remarkable manner, especially the recent attack that targeted Riyadh after it had been focused on the areas of Asir and Najran. This coincided with the diplomatic onslaught Washington waged against Saudi in general and on crown prince bin Salman in particular, especially a few days after the return of U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking from his visit to Saudi where he had extensive meetings with the Saudi defence and foreign affairs ministers in the presence of United Nations Security Council Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths and a number of US top brass. This indicates that America has taken a host of practical steps pertinent to the final solution to the war in Yemen and to the reengineering of the Yemeni standpoint to steer it towards a negotiated settlement which will culminate in dividing Yemen; this manoeuvre was discerned by the Houthis who launched their attack on Marib in order to impose a fait accompli on the ground which would guarantee them a share in the energy revenues.

    Marib is situated 120 kms east of the Yemeni capital Sanaa which has been under the control of the Houthis since their coup against the regime of Saleh in September 2014. It is an oil-rich area and the only “northern” province completely under the control of the forces of the Hadi government. It is a strategic city situated to the south of the oil-rich al-Jawf governorate and hosts the largest refinery in Yemen and the largest power station on which Sanaa depends for 50% of its energy needs. As for the recent clashes that erupted after Biden stated that “the war in Yemen must stop”, and which are taking place in al-Mashja’a and Haylan in the directorate of Sirwah, west of the Marib governorate, and also in the al-Jada’an area, to the northwest of the governorate, they are designed by the Houthis to control the strategic area and spread their hegemony over them ahead of the final talks to end the war and settle the Yemeni file. The Houthis are taking advantage of the American decision to end the logistic and military support to the Saudi alliance in order to weaken the government of Hadi and divide Yemen between them, i.e., the Houthis and the Transitional Council in the south. This is corroborated by their intensive attacks on the Marib governorate from several points and from the side of al-Jawf, after they have made some incursions into the strategic Dahida mountains in order to tighten their grip on the government forces in the areas of Safir and al-Alam where the oil and natural gas wells are situated.

    It is evident that America’s lethargic standpoint towards the Houthis’ attack on Marib and the comment of president and commander of the Southern Transitional Council, Major General Aidarus Qassem Abdulaziz al-Zoubaidi, on the battles taking place around it, that the process of dividing Yemen has begun; al-Zoubaidi said: “It would be also possible to change the political scene by depriving the government of Hadi of its last major pieces of land in north Yemen. And this could lead to a situation whereby the Southern Transitional Council would be dominating the south to a great extent and the Houthis controlling most of the north.” This can only lead to marginalising the Saudi role, especially that Biden has now appointed a delegate to oversee the Yemeni file and the US has suspended military support to Saudi in her war in Yemen, in addition to the channels America has generated to contact al-Houthi directly. All this is designed to lead to ending the war under a US/UN supervision and turning the page of “the legitimacy of Hadi” who is still at odds with the forces of south Yemen, a scenario which will smooth the way for al-Houthi to dominate the north and the STC to dominate the south. Perhaps this is why bin Salman exploited the international sympathetic standpoint towards Saudi following the recent attacks on Saudi and mobilised his forces to repel the Houthis’ onslaught on Marib in a bid to obtain a trump card that will enable him to get closer to the US administration since Biden has inclined towards ending the war in Yemen.

    The battle of Marib is expected to crystallise the phase of fragmentation and pave the way for the political process leading to it. The fallouts of the battle are expected to expand the dominance of the Houthis over the most important positions of the “legitimate government”, or at least give them a foothold in Marib to enhance their negotiating position, marginalise president Hadi to the benefit of the STC, and enable them to acquire the components of a state in the north by either seizing control of the energy resources or threatening them. This will allow the Houthis to negotiate over the energy resources and to gain some trump cards for the negotiations pertinent to the maritime passage in Hudaydah and to the division that Iran has explicitly called for and for which the Biden administration paved the way by refusing to label the Houthi group as a terrorist organisation, while maintaining the sanctions on some senior leaders in order to subjugate and contain them. This explains what has been attributed to Hassan Nasrullah who has been reported as saying: “The Houthis are on the verge of achieving a magnificent victory and drawing a new equation.”

    As for the “legitimate government”, there is a rift between Hadi and the STC over competencies and administration, and this was deduced from the statement of the STC and its calls for Saudi to urgently find a solution to the unilateral decisions Hadi has been taking in isolation of the cabinet, such as appointing senior civil servants without prior consultation; and this could lead to renewing military confrontation. This will in turn lead to downsizing the role of the presidency that represents the “Yemeni unity” and transferring the competencies to the government, thus confining its affairs to the south. In an interview with the Guardian, President of the Southern Transitional Council, Aidarus al-Zoubaidi, called for the STC’s right to have a presence in all the final negotiations with the Houthis. He said if a referendum were held, they would gain 90% of the votes for the secession of the south. He also warned that the “Yemeni issues would not be solved if the voice of the south were overlooked.”

    Moreover, south Yemen is susceptible to strife and federalisation due to regional rifts. America would not have achieved such successes in bringing the region to a state of chaos in order to rearrange it according to her interests had it not been for those functional regimes and those collaborating rulers, and for those military and political cliques who had accepted to be a tool in the hands of domestic and regional sides in executing the plans of the American master. And such plans would not have seen the light had the masses in Yemen viewed the moves of the collaborators and the political and military cliques from the angle of the Islamic Aqeedah and Shari'ah that imposes on them the obligation in thwarting the plots of the Kafir enemies and those proceeding behind them from among the traitors. It also forbids them from drifting towards killing each other and fuelling hatred amongst them so as to make them accept their separation from each other to live under divided entities which inflict the Ummah with more division, fragmentation and further weakness.

    20 Rajab 1442h

    4 March 2021

     

     

  • Political Observation - The Political Dynamism in Turkey 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - The Political Dynamism in Turkey
     
    Turkey’s political milieu has been subjected since 11 November 2020 to a barrage of unprecedented shockwaves, tensions and splits, which by and large have been revolving around the conservative nationalistic discourse and its ideological models, i.e., full secularism and partial secularism, being hijacked and monopolised by the main political parties, namely the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP), due to what the conservative discourse, with its sentimental Islamic and secularist tinge, holds in terms of cranes to lift the parties to power.
     
    It is common knowledge that a host of sheer domestic factors and some foreign factors that have crept in through the political forces affiliated to foreign powers, play a focal role in the tensions and polarisations taking place on the political scene and influencing the Turkish parties’ domestic agendas pertinent to the regime and the constitution.
     
    From this perspective, we can expound the Turkish domestic and foreign political situation while taking into account that some domestic events are not detached from the meddling of the US who has been endeavouring to reshape the regime and bring Turkey back to her stable since Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became independent and disrupted some of her agendas in Turkey and the region.
     
    As for the splits that have dealt the major parties a heavy blow and resulted in the emergence of 4 new parties led by prominent figures from the main two parties, their motives are divergent in accordance with the party from which they originated. The decision of Ahmet Davutoğlu and Ali Babacan to split and establish two opposition parties falls within the attempts to exert pressure on Erdoğan and end his monopoly over the Islamic sentimental discourse and the conservative nationalistic discourse, knowing that Ali Babacan and Ahmet Davutoğlu split from the AKP amid a tense relationship between Erdoğan and America and at the height of America’s pressure on Turkey.
     
    Ahmet Davutoğlu conveyed America’s demands to Bashar Assad at the beginning of the “Syrian revolution”, whereas Ali Babacan studied and worked in the US. It is also common knowledge that both men oppose Erdoğan in his domestic and foreign policies, which clash with US policy.

    As for the split within the CHP, its plane is merely domestic. The party suffered widespread resignations which included parliamentarians and prominent figures. This could tear apart the CHP, which is deemed as the main rival of the ruling AKP, and undermine its chances of toppling Erdoğan and the AKP from power in the coming elections after the successes it had achieved in the latest mayoral elections, especially the snatching of Istanbul’s municipality, the stronghold of the AKP, at the hands of Ekrem İmamoğlu.
     
    A month after three CHP parliamentarians had announced their resignation, namely Hüseyin Avni Aksoy, MP for the northern province of Karabük, Mehmet Ali Çelebi, MP for the western province of Izmir and Özcan Özer, MP for the north-western province of Yalova, prominent CHP leader Muharrem İnce announced his resignation during a press conference on 8 February from the party led by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. It was the biggest wave of resignations the party has faced for almost 12 years. This was a heavy blow to the US-affiliated CHP party. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu justified his resignation by the ideological deviations and deep crises the party had been experiencing, in addition to the rifts between its popular base and the administration. “I am now parting company with those who solicit democracy from the US and those who do not follow the path of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,” he said, adding “I am parting company with the fake CHP, and with those who protect the Gülen organisation, and those who do not understand the meaning of the Blue Homeland, as well as those who could not stomach Turkey’s support of Azerbaijan”. This indicates the presence of deep rifts between the various wings of the party, which is linked to the widespread state of polarisation that has swept the entire Turkish political milieu, including the AKP from which Ali Babacan and Ahmet Davutoğlu resigned. It is also common knowledge that the fever which has stricken the Turkish political milieu has intensified since the change of guard in the US administration and in light of Joe Biden’s hostile stance towards Erdoğan and his huge support for the Kurds. And this explains the alliance that has been concluded between the CHP and the Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), the internal rift within the CHP and the scathing attack of Muharrem İnce who left the party and harnessed the conservative secularist nationalist discourse to attract support for himself. This is why Muharrem İnce is banking on the US stance towards Erdoğan and the damage Kemal Kilicdaroglu inflicted on the principles of the CHP in response to America’s demands on the Kurdish issue, to launch his political venture to achieve his leadership aspirations separately from the CHP whose alliance with the HDP and flirting with the religious sentiments of the Turkish people constitute, in his opinion, a deviation from the Kemalist principles of the party and the nationalist populist discourse. He is hoping that the US pressure on Erdoğan, such as through the statement of former chief of staff Mehmet İlker Başbuğ “had Adnan Menderes called for early elections, he would not have been ousted [and executed]”, and the report of the US Rand Corporation claiming that a fresh military coup in Turkey could not be ruled out, in addition to the rumours spread by Ahmet Davutoğlu suggesting that a coup against Erdoğan was in the offing and that his supporters were about to abandon ship, and what will follow ahead of the coming elections, will secure a place for him on the political scene, hoping that the political manoeuvre of Ahmet Davutoğlu and Ali Babacan to establish an alliance with Saadet Party (aka Felicity Party) against the AKP will damage the popularity and popular base of the alliance of the nationalist movement and the AKP to his own advantage.
     
    This is why Erdoğan visited the grave of former prime minister Necmettin Erbakan, and visited the Chairman of the Felicity Party High Advisory Board, Oğuzhan Asiltürk, at his home in the hope of winning him over and disrupting Ahmet Davutoğlu and Ali Babacan’s attempts to forge further alliances against him.
     
    It is also in this context that Erdoğan visited his ally, chairman Devlet Bahçeli of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), at his home in order to strengthen their alliance following Bahçeli’s statement of “Once the HDP is shut down and our call is answered, we will do what we have to do.” Amidst this dynamism, Erdoğan’s team fanned the flames of discontent when they launched a scathing attack on the CHP with the aim of deepening its divisions and demanded from its members to explain why their delegate, Özgan, had a meeting with the CIA and the Pentagon on the eve of the failed 2016 coup. The story caused an uproar and amassed further pressure on the CHP and its leaders. Erdoğan has also been instrumental in adding fuel to the political tussle and scattering the standpoints of the opposition by proposing a constitutional amendment to consolidate the presidential system which the CHP and its allies, especially the “Good Party”, have called to be repealed and revert to a parliamentarian system.

    The unfolding events of the Turkish political scene could be summed up in a host of gambles and political investments from all stakeholders amongst the new regional and international facts, and in preparing for the upcoming elections according to personal and international agendas. A vivid example of this is the ongoing tussle that erupted at Bosphorus University, the stronghold of the secularists and the first university America founded in the Islamic world before the collapse of the Ottoman Khilafah, after Erdoğan appointed a new president from the conservative movement.

    Erdoğan has been endeavouring to consolidate his political gains by staging a host of manoeuvres and tactical withdrawals in foreign policy such as the issue of the Russian S400 defence system, and by exploiting the terrorist acts carried out by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) to amass support for his policies and standpoints while shoring up his popularity. He has also been attempting to bulwark his approach and policies by updating the constitution, consolidating the presidential system, circumventing his opponents’ call for a parliamentary system and dividing their ranks with the help of the Turkish intelligence services, which is most likely behind the Kemalists’ efforts to split the CHP, and via his flagrant calls for rebellion against CHP president Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu who has mortgaged the thoughts and the progression of his party to America’s domestic and foreign plans in Turkey. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu had previously confirmed this when he accused Erdoğan and his men and intelligence cronies of driving a wedge between the opposition parties. Meanwhile, the opposition parties for their part have been attempting to rattle Erdoğan’s cage and to forge further alliances against him by taking advantage of the American trend towards regional issues in disrupting Turkey’s achievements from which Erdoğan derives his popularity.
     
    9 Rajab 1442h
    21 February 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency

    On Monday 8 February Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Inc. announced, in its annual disclosure, that it had invested about $1.5 billion in the cryptocurrency Bitcoin in the last month. This disclosure came following the accelerated rise in the price of the cryptocurrency which started last November, leading to quadrupling its value and peaking to around $50,000 on 16 February 2021.


    This spike was remarkable and unprecedented, especially after the previous falls the currency suffered in 2018 and 2019; and although some observers have attributed the recent gradual rise in the price of Bitcoin that started in the second quarter of 2020 to the collapse in oil prices and the stock markets’ turbulences caused by the knock-on-effect of coronavirus on the world economy, there are, however, a host of strong indications that a powerful volition has been behind what is occurring. In March 2020 Forbes Magazine reported in a promotional manner that Bitcoin would achieve astronomical profits if the US launched cryptocurrency based on the Democratic Party’s proposed bill pertinent to providing financial support to alleviate the economic impact of coronavirus, and which called for establishing a digital dollar wallet for every US citizen. The magazine confirmed that major financial institutions had started investing in in Bitcoin. The European Union (EU) for its part announced on 18 September 2020 that it would launch a cryptocurrency in 2024. This triggered the demand for cryptocurrencies after it had been stagnating and encouraged several investors to invest in Bitcoin, which consequently reduced the pressure on the spiralling demand for gold whose prices peaked to near $2000 per ounce as a result of the shepherded media campaign to deepen the state of uncertainty vis-à-vis the world economy and the fears over the coronavirus crisis and its fallouts.


    In order to perceive the dimensions and the fallouts of this momentous and constant rise that started in November 2020 and of the investors’ attraction to cryptocurrencies, especially Tesla’s investment, due to its standing in the US economic and political scene, it would be imperative to take into account the motives of Tesla Inc., its funders, and the approaches of the various wings within the deep state, especially the financial and the industrial ones, including the new industries such as the digital and environmental. Tesla Inc. manufactures electric vehicles and giant batteries for energy storage; it never had any presence in the deep state like the institutions of the defence industry, namely Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Tesla Inc. was founded in 2003 and in less than 20 years, its annual revenues reached $21 billion. Besides, it is not the first company to express an interest in cryptocurrencies. Facebook has expressed its intention to spearhead a cryptocurrency under the name Libra since 2019. The decision of new economy firms with influence on the US administration’s trends such as Tesla, Facebook and Microsoft among others to jump on the bandwagon of cryptocurrency denotes undoubtedly the presence of a pressure being exerted by them and by some financiers on the decision-making circles in the US, especially on the Federal institutions such as the Treasury, the Federal Bank, and The Bureau of the Fiscal Service, to organise cryptocurrencies within a legal framework and regulatory laws to protect capital with governmental protection, especially that the second major investor in Tesla Inc. after the founder Elon Musk is the Susquehanna International Group, which is considered one of the biggest stimulator of trade in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum with 500 investors dealing with it in cryptocurrency since 2016.


    The group expects these currencies to replace gold as a rare commodity and a safe haven, or so it is trying to promote in order to attract investment in the cryptocurrency market, expand this investment and incentivise the state to regulate it.
    On the other side of the fence, the Republicans, Trump’s supporters in particular, would probably resist the notion of the private sector, especially the digital industries sector, being independent in coining cryptocurrencies, and would attempt to weaken their influence in terms of orchestrating the polices and occupying the positions of decision-making. This is why Donald Trump was averse to cryptocurrencies and slammed Facebook for its endeavour to spearhead its cryptocurrency Libra. It has, however, been noted that the dynamism pertinent to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has been gathering a remarkable momentum since the arrival of Biden and the Democrats who have been backing digital industries from the onset.
    This explains the statement of US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen in which she said: “I think we need to look closely at how to encourage their use for legitimate activities while curtailing their use for malign and illegal activities. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Federal Reserve Board and the other federal banking and securities regulators on how to implement an effective regulatory framework for these and other fintech innovations.” All this is part and parcel of the drive to regulate cryptocurrencies and give them an official status.


    It would also be imperative to discern the difference between the Blockchain technology and the cryptocurrencies that rely on the technology. The former is is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets without the need of a third party such as a Central Bank or Customs and Excise, whereas the latter, i.e. cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, they can be used to pay for a commodity or a service or in any transaction without being linked to any specific currency; and the choice is left both parties of the contract.


    This is what has occasioned the drive to regulate cryptocurrencies; because if they remained a loose cannon, they could cause a fiasco. Hence, governments set about attempting to constrain the technology and the currencies and harness them politically and economically. This is why Janet Yellen said that cryptocurrencies “can be used to finance terrorism, facilitate money laundering, and support malign activities that threaten U.S. national security interests and the integrity of the U.S. and international financial systems.” She elaborated: “I think many are used … mainly for illicit financing and I think we really need to examine ways in which we can curtail their use and make sure that anti-money laundering (sic) doesn’t occur through those channels.”
    “I think we need to look closely at how to encourage their use for legitimate activities while curtailing their use for malign and illegal activities,” she added. This statement was by and large echoed by the president of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde with the aim of justifying the regulating and controlling of cryptocurrencies.


    Inducing the peoples and the countries of the world to accept the notion of cryptocurrencies has become a political reality since most of the world’s assets saved in dollars or euros are virtually digital currencies today since they are not covered by gold. The grounds for digital currencies and cryptocurrencies have been prepared since the events of 9/11 with the aim of linking financial transactions to the systems and laws enacted by America under the theme of a “unified financial regulator”, which is in fact epitomised in an international organisation that exerts international political pressure and compels the countries of the world to generate financial, legal and procedural policies and systems, and carry out a host of amendments to suit the interests of the seven major powers; this includes digitising financial transactions to facilitate the process of controlling, monitoring and acquisitioning funds by US judicial bodies in order to impose sanctions on states and individuals whenever necessary. Moreover, cryptocurrencies would enable the US to lend support to the movements involved in her policies, initiatives and agendas, and working against the regimes targeted by America, and would allow her agents to automatically exchange documents away from the surveillance of the regimes in the countries America wishes to destabilise and blackmail. Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation Alex Gladstein told Decrypt Website that: “In authoritarian regimes like Russia, the government has total control over the banking system, but doesn’t control Bitcoin.”


    This is why Russian opposition activist Navalny has a cryptocurrency wallet through which he has been receiving donations from unknown sources, thus allowing him to nurture other encrypted wallets away from Russian security control according to Decrypt website.


    What could be said in general concerning the initiation of the cryptocurrency market and according to the information available up until now is that the process is designed to incentivise and expand investment in cryptocurrency in order to justify governmental intervention, legalisation, control and dominion over the market. Hence, pressure groups have been working on two fronts:


    1- Encouraging investors to inject cash into cryptocurrency markets exactly as they did at the beginning of digital technology in the nineties of the past century, so that they may finance a new market that will dominate private and governmental commercial transaction in the coming years. Statistics have confirmed that the flow of investments in cryptocurrency market has led to a spiralling increase from $200 billion in September 2020 to $1.1 trillion today.


    2- Opening the floodgates for dealing in cryptocurrency in digital markets and in assets (vehicles and real estate), in order to impose their adherence to the prevalent corporate laws, which compels them to reveal and declare all transactions to avoid incurring sanctions and penalties. And this would enable the pressure groups from extracting the black market dormant funds and absorb them into the financial markets, thus enabling the government to monitor them.


    The process aims also at generating a defensive mechanism to reduce the pressure on gold and immunise the dollar against the fallouts of inflation and competition from cryptocurrency. Hence, legalising cryptocurrency is designed to control it and turn its rivalry to the dollar into a support, cover and ally to gold at the same time, especially that the state of uncertainty caused by political, financial and economic crises, disasters, competition, and speculations has led many countries to shy away from banknotes and turn to gold; and in the last few years, some countries such as Russia, China and Turkey have increased their gold reserves.


    The stimulation of the cryptocurrency market is deemed as a psychological preparation for the masses to accept financial dealing and exchange in a cashless society in the future, and to rely on electronic assets for their savings which have become a digital currency with a value exceeding the size of the banknotes in circulation. Recent statistics have revealed that the assets of the digital dollar have increased to $9 trillion as opposed to the $1.1 trillion of banknotes in circulation. This psychological preparation will eventually lead to accepting to shift towards cryptocurrency and digital currency, thus achieving the aims of digitising the transactions and the interests of the US.


    6 Rajab 1442h
    18 February 2021

     

  • Political Observation - Upshots of the Libyan Political Dialogue 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Upshots of the Libyan Political Dialogue

    The last round of voting by the 75 members of the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum set up by the United Nations and consisting of 75 members, 13 of whom are from the House of Representatives, and 13 from the High Council of State, in addition to members from various tribal and political milieux, took place on 5 February 2021 in Geneva. The vote was won by the third list headed by Mohammad Younes Menfi from the “east”, Mousa al-Kouni from the “south”, Abdullah Hussein Al-Lafi from the “west”, and prime minister Abdul Hamid Mohammed Dbeibah from Misrata.

    The fourth list headed by Aqilah Saleh, with Abdul Majeed Ghaith Seif Al-Nasr representing the south, Osama Abdul Salam Juwaili representing the west, and Fathi Ali Abdul Salam Bashagha as prime minister, lost the vote.

    The list of the Libyan diplomat and former ally of the Justice and Construction party (Muslim Brotherhood), Mohammad Younes Menfi, together with Abdul Hamid Mohammed Dbeibah, won by 39 votes, whereas their rivals Aqilah Saleh, head of the Tobruk-based parliament, and Fathi Ali Abdul Salam Bashagha, interior minister of the Government of National Accord (GNA), won 34 votes.

    The winning list is expected to run the country’s affairs for an interim period, until the presidential and parliamentary elections are held on 24 December 2021.

    These results were seconded by regional and international support, as well as meeting approval of all domestic stakeholders such as the government of al-Sarraj in Tripoli and the Tobruk-based House of Representatives headed by Aqilah Saleh who pledged to “support the work of the government”.
    As for the US administration, it called for a smooth and constructive handover of all the competencies and duty to the new executive authority and vowed to bring to account all those who undermined stability and hampered the political process in Libya. The agreement was also welcomed by the UN Secretary General, the League of Arab States, and the states sponsoring Khalifah Haftar.

    In order to perceive what has been achieved by the 75-member committee commissioned with electing the key positions of the state, and which resulted in appointing Mohammed al Menfi as interim president of the High Council of State and Abdul Hamid Mohammed Dbeibah of Misrata as interim prime minister, it would be imperative to realise that all the candidates for the post of prime minister had pledged in writing to adhere to the roadmap agreed upon in Tunis, which stipulated the criteria for selecting the nominees for the key positions in the new executive authority, namely the president of the High Council of State, his two deputies, and the prime minister, and which also stipulated unifying the executive authority that had been divided since 2014, and forging ahead with implementing the host of security, military, economic and political measures, culminating in organising general elections and appointing a permanent government in December. It would also be imperative to realise that the task assigned to this authority is temporary and those assuming it would not be eligible for nomination in the forthcoming phase. This was corroborated by the deputy head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), Stephanie Williams, who stated that the interim executive authority would work on the specific process, that is evacuating foreign forces and tackling domestic Libyan challenges. She stressed that the selection mechanism would yield an interim executive authority with specific competencies, and its main task would be to hold parliamentary and presidential elections on 24 December 2021.

    Since the mandate of the elected authority is temporary, constrained to an agenda predetermined by the “roadmap” and involving the withdrawal of foreign forces and tackling domestic challenges according to the Berlin Conference’s upshots, which are in line with the American vision proposed by the US Congress under the “Libya Stabilization Act”, and since the bloc that won the vote is approved by the forces of western Libya, discarding Aqilah Saleh and his gang in eastern Libya, and Fathi Bashagha in western Libya on whom the US will be relying in the future, removing the top tier leaderships and the controversial personalities in Libya, including the Head of the High Council of State Khaled al-Meshri, from the political façade at this stage, and portraying the new authority as being a technocrat government, this means they intend to deceive the people of Libya, especially in Tripoli and Misrata, thus smoothing the way for the “losing” forces and enabling them in the forthcoming and permanent phase, once the task of the interim presidency and government has ended, to contain the domestic forces and muzzle the foreign forces, especially as the criteria of selecting the head of the Presidential Council have conferred the highest post to the east, and given the post of its two deputies to the west and the south, and confined the post of prime minister to a personality from the west. This is because the main problematic lies in the forces of western Libya where the people of the region continue to resist and uprise, and the spread of weapons and insecurity are rife, which prevents the agents of the US from controlling the state, and impacts negatively on the stability of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and the Sahel region. This would inevitably lead to taming and demoralising the masses, and working towards containing the people of western Libya and their armed groups and ending the struggle at the hands of their representatives.

    The elected prime minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, pledged in a message he addressed via video to the members of the forum to “end the struggle, hold elections on democratic principles, work with everyone irrespective of their thoughts, constituents, sects and regions, solve the problem of electricity and liquid cash, keeping weapons in the hands of the state, and improve relations with neighbouring states.”

    Hence, the recent developments do not express a change in the rules of the game as much as America’s circumvention of the reality she has generated through her agents to contain the popular dynamism and through introducing international and regional forces to fan the flames of struggle and rift between them, now that she has exhausted all the pretexts and designed a mechanism to restore the personalities she wants to power through a host of political and legal understandings to be overseen by the “mercurial” al-Menfi who was a supporter of Gaddafi during his student days in France, then established an alliance with the Justice and Construction Party, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood, and then the patriotic forces led by the American agents Mahmoud Jibril. The understanding will also be overseen by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, one of the former beneficiaries of the Gaddafi regime and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and armed groups. These two agents are allegedly “clean” and have not been involved in corruption or the bloody struggle between east and west in 2019 and 2020.

    This explains the international welcome, including by Egypt, France and Greece, the sponsors of Khalifah Haftar and Aqilah Saleh, and explains why Stephanie Williams described the voting process that took place in the Geneva suburbs as a historic moment.


    The US will most probably bulwark the new government with a Security Council resolution against any foreign intervention and domestic impediments, and this is what the departing prime minister Fayez al-Sarraj called for.

    It is also expected from Abdul Hamid Dbeibah to work towards containing the forces of the west in Tripoli and Misrata, and conducting the relationship with Turkey with a view of determining her mission, while al-Menfi and al-Kouni will be expected to assume the task of reproducing the forces of eastern and southern Libya which will involve curbing the personal ambitions of Khalifah Haftar, unifying the military, security and civil institutions, forming regular forces, monopolising the weapons for the state, spreading dominance over society, including the Tuaregs who are being incited by France to seek secession in the south, downsizing French, Russian and Turkish meddling, and working towards nurturing the interim period and leading the country towards the upcoming elections. This is what infuriated Macron and led him to call for expelling Turkish soldiers from Libya following the agreement concluded by the Libyan forces and decisive riposte he received from Erdoğan.

    It is clear that the situation in Libya is heading towards downsizing the role of all foreign powers as America has succeeded in imposing a consensus between the warring factions with the aim of settling the domestic situation, nullifying the pretexts for foreign intervention and conducting the struggle in Eastern Mediterranean, despite the deep regional and ideological rifts among the Libyan stakeholders, which have been nurtured by regional rivalries, and despite the caveats pertinent to the “Islamists” remaining part of the political landscape and impacting the regimes of the region and the regional alliances. This is proved by the assurances given by Stephanie Williams stipulating that the government will assume its tasks irrespective of whether the parliamentarians gave it a vote of confidence or otherwise, because the “roadmap” on which the UN envoy insisted and placed in a prohibited area has tackled this issue through the mechanism of settling the struggle, namely returning to the Political Dialogue Forum to approve the government in case a dispute over it arose.

    Although the glitter of the roadmap concocted by America, the enemy of the Ummah, to end the struggle in Libya may deceive the gullible and trusting people, it however does not deceive the insightful from among the Ummah’s children, who are aware that the solutions coming from their enemies are in fact designed to shackle them further, and that the solutions to their problems can only be those which they impose with their own willpower, once they have rectified the situation and seized the reins of power to put an end to the meddling of the Kuffar, the enemies of the Ummah, in their affairs.

    27 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    9 February 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état

    The Burmese army carried out a coup d’état on Monday 1 February 2021 that resulted in toppling president Win Myint and arresting prime minister Aung San Suu Kyi along with other leading figures of her party. The army appointed vice-president Myint Swe in an acting capacity and declared a one-year state of emergency.

    The media office of the Myanmar army mentioned in its first comment following the coup that the coup leader, Gen Min Aung Hlaing, informed his new cabinet during its first meeting on Tuesday 2 February that “the army’s decision to seize power was inevitable”, following the complaints against election fraud.

    The Burmese army had hinted just before the elections at the beginning of November 2020 at its intention to destroy the democratic process initiated by Hilary Clinton in 2011, following a series of understandings, pressures and tempting Indian and Japanese projects. Consequently, Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was warmly welcomed at the White House and whose biography became the subject of a film in 2011 with a view to promote her before the masses of Myanmar, acceded to power in 2015 after she had been under house arrest.

    Soon after the National League for Democracy (NLD) headed by Aung San Suu Kyi was announced as the winner of the November 2020 elections, the army-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party contested the results and the army threatened to take action against what it described as election-rigging. Meanwhile, the Union Election Commission dismissed the claims of the army and the opposition. On 30 January, the army announced that it “would protect the constitution and act according to the law”; and this was translated into its putsch against the authority two days later and its imposition of a one-year state of emergency. The army justified its action via its affiliated media outlets by claiming that the Covid-19 pandemic and the government’s failure to postpone the November elections were some of the reasons why the state of emergency was declared. The Burmese top brass was banking on Aung San Suu Kyi’s slumping popularity due to the damage to her image at an international level following her stance on the Rohingya issue; the Nobel committee received several calls for stripping her of her prize, while other institutions, including the EU, have stripped her of their honorary awards. However, this did not prevent the West, whose interests take precedence over all other values, from denouncing the coup under the pretext of protecting democracy.

    US president Joe Biden commented that "The United States will stand up for democracy wherever it is under attack." He urged the Burmese army to “relinquish power they have seized”. Meanwhile, Facebook was quick to ban a TV channel affiliated to the army in Myanmar following the coup.

    For his part, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, said it was “a clear violation of the country’s constitution and an attempt by the military to overturn the will of the Myanmar people and their strong attachment to democracy” adding, “The European Union expects that the safety of the citizens of both Myanmar and of its Member States be ensured at all times and will consider all options at its disposal to ensure that democracy prevails.” The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, denounced the coup and said the “developments represent a serious blow to democratic reforms in Myanmar”. China for her part described Myanmar as a “friendly” state, while Western media described it as a Chinese satellite state. Beijing commented by saying it was “monitoring [the] events and calling on all sides to respect the constitution.”

    It is clear from Russia and China’s apprehensions towards the UN Security Council’s joint statement calling on the Burmese army to adhere to the democratic system and lift the state of emergency, and from the domestic facts and international reactions, coupled with the US media outlets’ focus on the issue of “human rights”, the visit of Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi to Myanmar before the recent events and his meeting with the army chief who expressed his gratitude to China and his support for her policies towards Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Uighur province, and the recent visit of the Russian defence minister Sergey Shoygu to Myanmar, where he signed a contract to supply the Burmese army with advanced Russian weapons and military equipment in exchange for special facilities giving Russian naval vessels access to Myanmar’s seaports, it is clear from all this that the coup of Gen. Min Aung Hlaing had been planned since November, just as Biden won the US presidential election in America, as a precaution against the American standpoint towards the Burmese army chiefs who have been hampering the democratic transition, and against the Indo-American activity which attempts to hamper the ASEAN countries’ endeavour to conclude a code of conduct with Beijing on the South China Sea.

    The results of the recent elections were frightening for the Burmese army because the 85% achieved by its arch enemy Aung San Suu Kyi and the 7% achieved by its close ally, the Union Solidarity and Development Party, do not reflect the size of the role the army plays in ruling matters; such a result opens the floodgates for redrafting the constitution and the hybrid system engineered by the army in order to secure its influence on the establishment, especially as the policy of openness towards democracy and the West, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, enjoys the backing of a movement within the armed forces. This is the movement that played a role in the agreement on power sharing with Aung San Suu Kyi. Hence, the results of November’s elections were disappointing for the army chief, Gen Min Aung Hlaing. They had dashed his hopes of nominating himself for president after his imminent retirement from the army. On the other hand, the results reflected the overwhelming popularity and dominance of Suu Kyi’s party over its rival, the Union Solidarity and Development Party on which the army had been banking.

    This is why Gen. Hlaing exploited a constitutional loophole allowing the army to intervene in political life in the 2008 constitution and carried out a coup against Suu Kyi to prevent her from taking office after he had become certain that he would not narrow the popularity gap with her party and win the elections. This would have also allowed the movement of the military leaders supporting democratic reform to dominate the military leadership, thus leading to the erosion of Chinese influence in Myanmar and undermining her political model of governance and her interests, such as oil and gas pipelines and the Road and Belt initiative, especially in the forthcoming phase in which the US, under the new administration, has adopted democracy as the cornerstone of confronting China and Russia. This was alluded to by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his reply to a question on China in which he said it would be hard to compete with China when her system seemed more stable in comparison with the chaotic American system.

    It is well known that Myanmar is one of the battlefields of systems and interests between the US, the sponsor of world democracy, and the hybrid communist system of China. Myanmar is also considered an area of intervention and tension through which America seeks to exert pressure on China, exactly like in the areas of border clashes between India and China, North Korea and South Korea, and the Uighur issue, especially as the rise of democracy in Myanmar 10 years ago was a significant breakthrough for America on the Chinese front, and a major accomplishment for former president Barack Obama, vice-president Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, engineered by Hilary Clinton thanks to her pledges of economic aid and sanctions’ alleviation.

    Nevertheless, the criminal leaders of the Burmese army, who were loyal to China, did not sit idly by but used Rohingya Muslims as fuel to distort the image of the US-backed prime minister, Aung San Suu Kyi. The army placed her in an awkward situation domestically and internationally through the ethnic cleansing campaign it conducted against the Rohingya Muslims in 2017. Suu Kyi was between the hammer and the anvil: if she had objected to the genocide against the Rohingya Muslims, she would have lost her popular backing from the extremist Buddhist majority, and if she had supported the genocide, she would have destroyed her nascent democracy from which she derived international support and exploited to curb the army’s role in ruling matters. However, Suu Kyi’s Western-backed performance in the Rohingya issue and her success in gaining the support of the masses thwarted the army’s endeavour and led it to move and carry out this military coup.

    The US is expected to exert significant international pressure on the Burmese army’s top brass and exploit the coup to incite the Burmese masses against the military regime, and to encourage the peoples of the region to move against the totalitarian regimes in Cambodia and Thailand in order to promote democracy through which her agents would accede to power, accentuate the flaws of the Chinese ruling system, and lead a worldwide campaign to lay siege to it.

    America will undoubtedly benefit from the coup to promote Biden’s agenda pertinent to the Indo-Pacific Oceans initiative and strengthen the partnerships between the countries of the region and the US, and thus containing China and supporting the Quad Alliance founded by Trump against China, comprising of the US, Japan, Australia and India who endeavours to execute with Japan the projects of transit routes linking south India with its northeast via Burmese lands, in addition to establishing links with Thailand.

    America may also harness the event to expand the area of tension surrounding China by encouraging the Rohingya to take up arms and exploiting them in armed operations to incite Islamic public opinion against China who backs the savage Burmese regime, in order to exert further pressure on her and hamper her support for the leaders of the coup.

    As for the Burmese top brass accused of genocide, they are banking on Chinese support, and on compelling Suu Kyi to agree to new terms leading to restoring their role in ruling matters, in addition to their attempt to harness the situation to negotiate a lifting of the US sanctions against them.

    21 Jumada al-Akhirah 1442h
    3 February 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

     

  • Political Observation - Protests in Russia 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
     
    Political Observation - Protests in Russia 
     
    Tens of thousands in Moscow, St Petersberg and several other Russian cities took to the streets on 23 January 2021 in support of calls for the release of anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny who was arrested immediately upon his return to Russia from Germany on 17 January and charged with breaching the parole terms of his suspended sentence.
     
    Soon after his arrest, his fellow anti-corruption activists released a video clip showing a palace on the Black Sea coast they alleged belonged to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Prior to this, they issued a list of the eight most “notorious” Russian personalities from among the circle of President Putin and exhorted the West to impose sanctions on them. They seized on the pervasive corruption of Putin and the Russian elites allied with him, as well as the constant eccentricity of Russian justice, and the fall in living standards which evoked deep resentment towards the regime among a sizeable section of Russian masses that was reflected in the response of Russian youth to the calls of Navalny and his fellow activists to take to the streets and protest.
     
    The western media deliberately focused their attention on the 85 million views Putin’s short clip attracted and on cities that had never partaken in any protests before, such as Sevastopol and Komarov, as well as Russian youths who responded to the protests for the first time and who constituted 40% of the protesters. The protests’ organisers took advantage of the current generation’s oblivion to the events of 1990s when Putin salvaged Russia from the claws of the Russian oligarchs who cooperated with America to incite resentment and protests against him. Consequently, the current generation is unaware that the alternative to a greedy Putin are the beasts of capitalism who are more extremist and savage than Putin. They are a criminal liberal gang who want to share Russia with America and harness her to serve America globally.
      
    Following these protests, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian foreign ministers called for imposing restrictive measures on the Russian officials responsible for the arrests. The US State Department for its part announced that it would “stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and partners in defence of human rights – whether in Russia or wherever they come under threat.” Putin retorted by saying that “the police should act within the boundaries of the law.” And in a direct warning to Navalny, he said “no one should strive to achieve their aims and ambitious objectives, especially in politics, by using children, youths, and violence.” 
     
    In order to perceive these events, which undoubtedly America has instigated, it is imperative to explore them within the context of the American general perspective towards Russia, and in light of the new US administration’s standpoint which, owing to the interests of the US, has reverted to the democratic approach with its neoliberal format. This approach aims to entrench American grandeur and the policy of perpetuating  capitalism’s hegemony and is based on clashing with totalitarian regimes in both their versions, the nationalistic, such as Russia, and the ideological, such as the Chinese communist system and Islam, and on accentuating the civilisational disparity between capitalism and totalitarianism in order to secure US domestic cohesion and unilateral dominion over the international situation, and on achieving US overseas interests according to Joe Biden’s vision who said in his inaugural speech: “we'll lead, not merely by the example of our power, but by the power of our example.” In other words, by the superiority of the American system to the totalitarian systems of Russia and China. For his part, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted at the difficulty in competing with China when her system seemed more stable than the American system.  
     
    From this perspective, America, who has been coveting Russian resources and the legacy of the former Soviet Union, is striving to destroy Putin’s nationalistic system which has been disrupting on her incursions deep into the Russian geopolitical sphere and even Russia proper. Hence, US strategy towards Russia is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. In fact, further pressure is expected to be exerted on Russia by the new US administration; and this has recently been reflected in the protests which are expected to resume in the next few days, especially as tackling the Middle East file warrants exerting some pressure on Putin and curbing Russian interventions beyond Russian boundaries in the forthcoming period. This narrative is corroborated by the consensus of the members of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations who convened on 19 January 2021 and stated that Russia would pay a heavy price and would have to bear the consequences of her acts of sabotage, her flagrant meddling in the US presidential elections of 2016, her occupation of Crimea, east Ukraine, Syria, and Libya, and her interference in the Karabakh war. The vice-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, was even quoted as telling Antony Blinken that he could request further competencies from the Committee if necessary. 
     
    The issue of the Russian opposition leader, Navalny, has evidently attracted President’s Biden attention who raised it during his telephone conversation with Putin; this was corroborated by the Kremlin spokesperson who stated that “with regard to this issue, yes, US President did raise it, and President Putin gave the necessary explanations.” This confirms conclusively that the protests that have recently erupted in Russia had been planned, orchestrated and timed as part of the US political raids on Russia and her sphere of influence in Belarus, Moldova, and Kyrgyzstan; Russia has so far lost Ukraine and Georgia to the US, and under the tenure of Joe Biden, the US raids are expected to take an extra dimension directed at the one-man state that Putin attached to his person. 
     
    This issue was extensively debated during the marathon session of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, especially by Senator Ted Cruz who referred to Nord Stream 2 when saying: "If you are concerned about military adventurism by Putin, the very best thing we can do is deprive him of the resources to fuel that military aggression” and adding that America should halt the pipeline even if it upset Merkel. In other words, America wants to drain Putin’s revenues which allowed Russia to rebuild her military force and bankroll her operations in Syria, Libya, Armenia and Ukraine. 
     
    Hence, these protests are part of the series of US pressures aimed at breaking the fear barrier of the Russian masses, and dismantling the hard nucleus of the Russian leadership represented by President Putin and the deep state within the army, security institutions and business tycoons. The Kremlin spokesperson, Dimitri Peskov, responded to Navalny’s claims of Putin owning the alleged palace by saying that “spurious vilifications such as these are but a series in the media campaign directed personally at President Putin…. and at destabilising Russia.” This was epitomised effectively by the protests in the slogan raised by the protesters, namely “We don’t fear you anymore”, which by the same token, carries a message of incitement to the peoples of the region and the Belt and Road countries within the Russian lebensraum. 
     
    This personal attack on Putin comes against the backdrop of the nature of the regime he founded and in which he played the role of saviour for the lost Russian people who had been resentful towards politics and the politicians. It is well known that Putin exploited the blasts that rocked Moscow during his premiership to veer the compass of public concern away from the slogans of social justice and economic reform to personal safety, peace and security, in order to tighten his grip on power. Putin harnessed the all-out war on Chechen “terrorism” as a gate to the hearts and minds of the lost and fearful masses, and he used widespread corruption as a pretext to purge the political milieu of rival forces, so that he may become the sole power broker thereafter. 
     
    As a consequence of Putin’s purging of the political milieu, especially of America’s men, and his oppressing of every real opponent, in addition to establishing a host of tailor-made parties, and due to the corruption-infested Russian political milieu which Putin succeeded in muzzling, America could not topple him and regulate Russia’s policy according to her own interests despite her repeated attempts. 
     
    This is why the issue of Navalny represents an opportunity for American political investment and for inciting the masses against the ruling class through the gate of combating corruption through which Putin himself acceded to power. America will exploit the Covid-19 crisis, the recent oil and gas price war, and the western sanctions on the Russian economy to intimidate the forces backing Putin, and dismantle the hard nucleus supplying him with power and resistance.   
     
    However, although the activity of Navalny and his team have demonstrated adequate ability in triggering the protests thanks to America’s help, and in undermining the popularity of Putin and his ruling party, Navalny is unable to topple the current regime instantly as he does not enjoy the support of the political and economic elites at the domestic level, and the US does not have any influential agents within the key ministries and institutions, such as the interior ministry, the army and security agencies, to provide Navalny and the protests with the appropriate support to topple the regime. 
     
    Although America realises that Navalny is unable to change the regime, she however continues to invest in the repeated cycles of protests and suppression, and in Putin’s blunder that turned Navalny from a western agent into a national hero. This is set in the long run to break the barrier of fear and undermine the image of the regime, weaken its support and downsize Putin’s popularity. As for the success of the regime’s endeavour in tackling the situation, it depends on Putin’s ability to ride the storm, quell the protests and bring the situation under control through intimidation, arrests, oppression, detentions and fines, which he resorted to in previous protests, so that he may resume the execution of his ambitious plan, namely establishing a presidential council akin to the Chinese regime, to ensure the continuance of his nationalistic independent policies after his departure.
     
    Putin will most probably continue to meet the escalation with escalation in respect of protecting his regime and the Russian entity based on his famous motto, namely “I am an officer and I do not surrender”. He may also resort to a tactical retraction in respect of his policies towards Syria and Libya, and to political manoeuvring in his relationship with Turkey and vis-à-vis the interests of the US with the Kurds. Putin may on the other hand opt for undermining the stability of the Baltic states, replacing his ally, Alexander Lukashenko, to fend off the US pressure exerted on him via Belarus, and reignite the tension in east Ukraine by organising a referendum on joining the Russian Federation, as he did in Crimea.  
     
    15 Jumada al-Akhirah 1442h
    28 January 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
  • Political Observation - President Tebboune’s Return to Algeria and his Trip to Germany to Resume Treatment  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - President Tebboune’s Return to Algeria and his Trip to Germany to Resume Treatment

    Algerian state television announced on 29 December 2020 that president Abdulmajid Tebboune had returned to the country “safe and sound” after receiving hospital treatment for Covid-19 lasting two months in Germany.

    Soon after his return, Tebboune presided over government meetings, signed the budget law for 2021 and ratified the new constitutional amendment. A short while after his return, it was announced that he would travel to Germany to complete his treatment, without indicating the length of his absence; this cast doubt over the reality of his health condition. His return to Algeria and then his departure less than two weeks later to complete his treatment denoted an urgent mission to ratify the new constitution, sign the budget law of 2021, and corroborate the reality that the army had designed to contain the popular dynamism, muzzle political parties and lend legitimacy to the authority that has become concentrated in the hands of the new faces from among the top brass who have inherited the deep state under the leadership of General Said Chengriha and his cronies, following the fierce struggle which saw a host of liquidations between the various wings, including the liquidation of the wing loyal to former chief of staff, Gaid Saleh, through a white coup against his men, and the work to restore the credibility of the historical military icons and security services, with the aim of neutralising Algerian mainstream public opinion once and for all.

    It seems the return of the president from Germany was designed to dissipate the rumours surrounding his health and thwart the calls for effectuating article 102 of the constitution stipulating the removal of the president on the grounds of poor health; such calls were implicitly echoed by the President of the Peace Community Movement, Abdul Razak Makari.

    This denotes that the return of president Tebboune, who is but a puppet and a political façade for the rule of the generals, was coordinated with Gen. Said Chengriha to circumvent any calls that could prevent the approval of the budget and the constitutional amendment which has impacted the function of the army, and to thwart the attempts at hampering the progress of the formation of the new authority, or giving the initiative back to the masses after they have been discarded from the equation.

    The mysterious death of Gaid Saleh immediately after Tebboune assumed power has initiated a new phase in the chapter of struggle for power and positions of influence, and in the attempts at containing the Algerian dynamism. Soon after the death of Gaid Saleh, president Tebboune carried out extensive changes within the Algerian army, which affected the leaderships that former chief of staff had appointed, and consolidated the clique of Gen Said Chengriha. The most prominent leadership figures that Tebboune and Said Chengriha hastened to do away with was Head of Intelligence, General Wasini Bouazza, who had backed the rival of president Tebboune, namely former information minister Azzeddine Mihoubi. The dismissal of Wasini was to the advantage of former head of intelligence, Mohammed Mediene, aka Toufiq, Security Services Coordinator, Major General Athmane 'Bachir' Tartag, and Said Bouteflika, brother of former president Abdelaziz Bouteflika. This was an indication that the waters of the deep state had infiltrated the cracks of the establishment.

    President Tebboune toppled, last August, a host of senior officers working in three key administrations within the defence ministry, including Gen. Abdelkader Lashkhem, head of the Communications, Information Systems and Cyber Warfare Department, Gen. Ali Akroum, head of the Organisation and Logistics Department and Gen. Rashid Shouaki, Head of the Military Industries Department. All this falls under the endeavour to turn the page of the interim period and its icons and reproduce the military leadership positions to guarantee the role of the army and tighten its grip on the authority after it had succeeded in circumventing the popular dynamism thanks to the presidential elections and the constitutional amendments. It falls also under the initiative aimed at healing the rifts with the old guard and its men, such as Gen. Toufiq, who is expected to be prosecuted anew to either exonerate him or alleviate his sentence, and Said Bouteflika, who is affiliated to the camp of the old guard, now that the path has been smoothed by absolving former Algerian Labour Party leader, Louiza Hanoun, of corruption charges, in addition to cancelling the subpoena issued to Khaled Nezzar who commented after the appointment of Said Chengriha as general chief of staff that the “army is now in safe hands”. Soon after, Khaled Nezzar was absolved of money laundering charges in Spain and the 20-year sentence issued against him in absentia was rescinded one month after his return to Algeria; he has recently returned to one of Algeria’s military bases onboard the presidential jet to face trial and have his case closed. This was exploited by opponents of the current authority to incite public opinion against it.

    These facts indicate that Tebboune is nothing but a façade brought by the army and that the army are the de facto rulers of Algeria. The recent presidential elections were simply a measure designed to pacify the masses, give the military time to draw its breath and reproduce the political leadership that satisfies the interests of the military, pleases those behind them, dominates mainstream public opinion and dismantles the hard nucleus of the Algerian dynamism.

    Tebboune’s continuance in power is currently dependent on the volition of the army and on their ability to benefit from his continuance in his capacity as a façade to reshuffle their cards domestically and send reassuring messages to their employers abroad. As for Tebboune’s slamming of normalisation and of the scurrying of some countries to sign peace treaties with the Jewish entity, it does not exceed being an alignment with the popular standpoint in Algeria that strongly rejects normalisation, especially as the rulers of Algeria and the army derive their legitimacy from their standpoint towards the Western Sahara and their standpoint towards the Palestinian issue, which is consistent with the emotions of the people in Algeria, despite their declared commitment to the Arab peace initiative and the two-state solution.

    It is well known that Gen. Said Chengriha exploited the regional developments in Libya in which the role of Algeria and the interests of its leaders were marginalised due to the rapprochement between the al-Sarraj government and Egypt and due to the circumvention of the Turkish role that was consistent with the Algerian vision, and took advantage of the surprising developments in the issue of the Western Sahara, with which the army nurtures its intervention in ruling matters, to openly veer back towards the wing of Gen. Mediene and his security surrogates, and to arrange for the return of Gen. Khaled Nezzar, in an attempt to restore the reputation of the army, activate its role through the gates of the Sahara issue, and strengthen the security apparatuses and unify their ranks, ensure the cohesion of the regime and end its divisions which led the various wings to harness the popular dynamism and bulwark themselves behind it, and encouraged France to launch a smear campaign against the Algerian situation and incite chaos, a narrative reflected in Macron’s statement to the French magazine “Jeune Afrique” in which he said that he “supported president Tebboune in his bid to lead the transitional period and help the country overcome its political crisis.” This entails dissolving all the elected institutions and replacing them with a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution before holding fresh presidential and parliamentary elections.

    The smear campaign against the Algerian situation was also reflected in the European parliament’s criticism of human rights abuses in Algeria and in the activities of France’s ambassador, Francois Gouyette, who was slammed by several Algerian MPs and party leaders and accused of meddling in Algeria’s affairs. MP Amira Salim accused him of “hosting the propagators of the interim period at his residence under the guise of supporting free political speech and defending human rights.” She added that “the French ambassador is taking advantage of our political vacuum to spread chaos and incitement, no to a transitional period whatever the cost." Algerian information minister Ammar Belhimer for his part told the official press agency that his country was “facing verbal attacks from France.”

    Gen. Said Chengriha’s restructuring of the army and security agencies has come amidst these atmospheres to neutralise French meddling through which France is attempting to incite the Amazigh to seek secession, by taking advantage of the deteriorating economic situation caused by a drop in demand for oil due to covid-19; Algeria’s oil revenues suffered a setback and dropped by a third, and foreign currency reserves dropped from $200 billion in 2014 to $44 billion this year. The Algerian dinar lost 20% of its value against the euro in 2020 and some Algerians commented that UNESCO may declare the Algerian currency an endangered species.

    The structuring undertaken by Said Chengriha aims also at unifying the stance of the deep state in the face of any popular dynamism or regional changes in the forthcoming period such as the Libyan file, normalisation and the role of the army in foreign missions, especially in Mali where America is attempting to curb French presence now that France has resorted to financing and forming a military force affiliated to her to avert losses among her soldiers, which have been on the increase in recent days.

    5 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    18 January 2021
     

  • Political Observation - Hamas and the Pretext of National Partnership 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Hamas and the Pretext of National Partnership

    No sooner had the victory of Joe Biden in the US presidential elections been announced than the region witnessed a political dynamism through which the rulers wanted to portray Biden to the people of the region as the saviour, and to shroud their treason with the cloak of the phoney détente generated by Biden’s victory over Trump, especially as the president-elect has pledged to oxygenate the lungs of US democracy through which the world leaders breathe, after his predecessor had suffocated them, confiscated their willpower and bullied and humiliated them. Biden has also pledged to pump blood into the arteries of the “peace” process whose stakeholders have been bracing themselves for its resumption, including Netanyahu’s main opponent, the Blue and White party leader, Benny Gantz, in addition to Turkey and Qatar who have influence over Hamas and wish to score points in their favour to help them withstand their regional opponents. Russia is also considered a stakeholder since she is eager to have a presence in the files of the Middle East and offer her services to the Biden administration in her quality as one of the guarantors alongside Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar, with the task of unifying the Palestinian standpoint vis-à-vis the elections, in addition to Iran who has been flirting with the Biden administration and reminding him of her ability to contribute to the stability of the region on the files on his table, including the security of the Zionist entity, the Yemeni war, the Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanese files, the progress of the “peace process”, and normalisation, by mellowing the stance of Hamas and turning a blind eye to its decision to throw itself into the embrace of the capitulators, in the hope of restoring the nuclear agreement and ending the economic blockade imposed on her.

    As the victory of Joe Biden in the elections was announced, Mahmoud Abbas decided to restore security coordination with "Israel" in a manner that seemed as a welcoming of the victory of Biden who cannot rescind Trump’s decrees on al-Quds and its embassy move, or halt the normalisation process on which all the US political forces, the European states, Russia and the traitorous regimes in the Muslims’ lands are in agreement. This means Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to resume security coordination with the Zionist entity and to agree to holding the Palestinian elections was in response to the requirements of the forthcoming phase, and designed to continue deluding the people of Palestine, and lending legitimacy to Tamim, bin Salman, and the herd of normalisers from among the rulers of Arab and Islamic countries.

    As for the "Israeli" government, it responded to Abbas’s move by releasing the frozen funds designated for the Palestinian Authority at the start of this month with the aim of opening a window of contact with Biden’s administration, and enabling Abbas to pay the wages of the Palestinian Authority’s security spies and rejuvenate the Palestinian economy which is on the brink of collapsing and consequently undermining the stability of "Israeli" security, especially as the imminent "Israeli" elections, through which Netanyahu aspires to return to power to avert being prosecuted on corruption charges, represent an unprecedented obstacle in the face of efforts to return to power.

    In the meantime, Hamas suddenly announced on the al-Aqsa channel through the head of its politburo, Ismael Haniyeh, that it had decided to withdraw the condition of holding “concurrent” presidential and legislative elections, as well as the elections of the Palestinian National Council (PNC). Hamas also announced that it had accepted the demand of the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, to hold the elections consecutively, namely the legislative elections first, then the presidential, and then the PNC elections.

    Hamas’s decision came about one month after the failure of its talks with Fatah in Cairo, under the pretext of the decision by Ramallah’s Authority to resume its security coordination with the Zionist entity. However, Hamas’s sudden retraction and decision to waive its conditions linked to the elections, despite the impact a delay in the PNC elections may have on the file of the refugees, indicates a vile deception by its leaders who had earlier claimed that their suspending of the talks on the elections and the Palestinian reconciliation was elicited by the Palestinian Authority’s decision to resume security coordination with "Israel". However, Hamas soon retracted from its position even though the Palestinian Authority continued its security coordination and justified its sudden U-turn by the pledges made by the guarantor countries, namely Russia, Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar. This exposes the collusion to pave the way for the process of treason, normalisation and capitulation, especially as Hamas realises that Abbas’s authority is attempting to defer the elections of the PNC to pave the way for the Zionist entity to liquidate the file of the refugees by resettling them in exile and excluding them from voting in the PNC elections.

    All this is reminiscent of Hamas’s endorsement of the two-state solution on the 1967 borders in the humiliating capitulation document announced by Khaled Mashaal in Qatar before the end of his chairmanship of the movement’s politburo, which was accompanied by a transfer of leadership to the moderate wing led by Ismael Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar who does not object to having an intimate relationship with the bloodthirsty regime of Bashar Assad, singing the praises of the criminal regime of al-Sisi and coordinating with the traitor Mohammed Dahlan. Hamas then brought Khalil al-Hayya so that he may work with the others to silence the domestic “resistance” and deter the opponents.

    In this context, Yahya Sinwar and Khalil Hayya attempted to endorse the demand of the Palestinian Authority and "Israel" on unifying on the policy of war and peace. During a meeting with the professional syndicates in Gaza on 24 October 2017, Yahya Sinwar said: “Our weapon must undoubtedly be under a unifying national umbrella in which every Palestinian can partake, namely the umbrella of the PLO.” He then foreshadowed, for the benefit of the movement’s cadres banking on the commander of the al-Qassam Brigades, Mohammed Deif, that “he also supports this approach”. Khalil al-Hayya for his part announced through the al-Aqsa channel on 15 October 2017: “We need the decision of war and peace to be unified and this can only be brought about if our institutions were unified and all of us are in there; when Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other forces part of the PLO become one with a single agenda.” This was imposed by the Egyptian intelligence services as one of the items of discussion between Fatah and Hamas when it proposed establishing a Supreme Council that would have a "peace and war decision" so as to enable Hamas and the armed factions to relinquish the option of armed struggle as they have always known that the aim of “national reconciliation” and unifying the decision of “war and peace” under the umbrella of the PLO and Abbas’s authority is to send the “resistance weapons” into retirement.

    It is clear from Hamas’s recent retraction on the electoral arrangements amidst the traitorous normalisation and the regional dynamism celebrating Biden’s election victory, and in light of the changes expected to be occasioned by the "Israeli" elections, that the situation is heading towards a return of the agenda to integrate Hamas and the armed factions under the wing of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, in preparation for resuming the frivolous negotiations and continuing the liquidation of the Palestinian issue at the hands and with the legitimisation of the custodians of resistance and Jihad.

    Since “national reconciliation” and proceeding in the elections is tantamount to surrender and integration into the collaborating political milieu, and the theme of forfeiture and treason, which is no longer a secret to Hamas and the resistance factions, and whose outcome is no longer a secret as the indications point to "Israeli" sovereignty over the land and a Palestinian-Jordanian custodianship over the inhabitants according to a formula to be arranged in due course. The duty warranted by this process on Hamas and the armed factions, if they were serious about preserving the resistance option, is to at least reject the current traitorous process, and to reject being involved in the elections or being part of an authority which is no more than a watchdog for the enemy. They should not comply with the dictates that compel them to shift the direction of their weapons from the usurping enemy and towards their brethren in Aqeedah, blood and arms, in order to break their necks, as per the threat of Sinwar who vowed to break the neck of anyone objecting to “the devastating and abrupt concessions” he was about to make, and “each concession will be greater than its predecessors” in respect of the reconciliation and its fallouts, according to his statement as he assumed his position.

    The concession that Hamas has offered amidst the mood of preparing for Joe Biden to finish what Donald Trump started is not a concession to the partners of the homeland as it has claimed, but rather a delegation for Abbas’s authority to concede and liquidate the Palestinian issue, which makes Hamas accessory to the crime of high treason if this were to happen. It is a sad state of affairs for Hamas, which projects itself as a resistance and jihad movement, to proceed in this path, the path of functional regimes and movements, and to integrate itself into the traitorous farce under the guise of “national consensus”. It is shameful on Hamas to bank on the traitorous regimes instead of resistance and jihad which it knows that the land and the sanctities would not be liberated without. It is also shameful for a movement aware of the requirements of jihad to continue being frail to justify its standpoint at a time when it hoists the symbol of strength “Wa A’iddou” i.e., “make ready against them”, only to break and completely untwist the yarn which it has itself spun and made strong in terms of preparation, and to resort to “necessity”, which if it allowed to halt its resistance, it should not use as a pretext to forfeit, concede and jump on the bandwagon of the collaborators and delegate them to liquidate the Palestinian issue for which its children have been enduring the blockade, hunger and suffering, and sacrificing thousands of martyrs for its sake.

    If Hamas were sincere, it would be naïve to think that the puppets of the US in Qatar and Iran would lend it support for nothing, and that they are not trading in the “resistance” to curry favour with the American idol and offer Palestine to the enemies of Allah (swt) as the price for keeping their thrones.

    What the Muslims and cadres of the Islamic groups should do is warn their criminal and traitorous rulers, not to obey the suspect leaders of their organisations, rebuke them, call them to account and not to please them at the expense of evoking the anger of Allah (swt) who says: “But these followed Pharaoh's bidding - and Pharaoh's bidding led by no means to what is right. He shall go before his people on the Day of Resurrection, having led them towards the fire and vile was the destination towards which they were led.” [Hud-97,98]

    We pray to Allah (swt) to guide our sincere brothers from among the jihadi groups resisting the Zionist occupation to the righteousness of their affairs.

    “O you who believe, do not betray Allah and the Messenger and do not knowingly betray the trusts that have been reposed in you.” [al-Anfal-27]


    29 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    13 January 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Has the Deep State Lost Control of the US Political Reality or has it Restored it? 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Has the Deep State Lost Control of the US Political Reality or has it Restored it?

    Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday 6 January leading to the joint session of Congress to confirm President-elect Joe Biden's election win to be suspended and forced into recess. The protestors gathered earlier near the White House to attend the “Save America Rally" that Trump had called to protest against his defeat in the elections which he continued to insist had been “stolen” from him.

    Violent clashes between the protestors and security forces resulted in the death of four persons and the gathered lawmakers were forced to seek protection before security reinforcements arrived and control of the building was restored four hours after the chaos had erupted.

    The incident coincided with the statement of Mike Pence as lawmakers were preparing to debate Arizona’s second electoral challenge, and with Trump’s tweet claiming that Pence had betrayed them. The Senate had overwhelmingly turned aside a challenge to President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Arizona. These events arose against the backdrop of Trump’s allegations that major electoral corruption had taken place leading to his defeat in the elections. In fact, Trump started alluding to the possible elections’ fraud as early as August 2020 when he said “the only way we lose is if the election is rigged”. This revealed that he had realised the deep state’s plans to let him down, especially when he started being targeted at an early stage on several issues such as his defence of bin Salman in the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, and his abuse of power to exert pressure on Ukraine for electoral interests. Certain parties also threatened to impeach and depose him, to which he commented that he was the victim of treason. It also revealed that his early rebellious statements reflected his intention to cause turmoil and resort to military action against Iran. This was corroborated by his tweet yesterday: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,”, and today’s tweet via the account of a Whitehouse spokesperson: “Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th.”

    However, the Electoral College results revealed Biden’s decisive victory. This was expected as the Republican Party was divided on Trump between supporters and opponents, and due to the election strategy of the Republicans which focussed on winning the Senate elections. Moreover, several leading Republican figures had distanced themselves from Trump. More than half of the Republican representatives and seven Senators voted in favour of the challenge against the results of the Arizona vote, which indicates that Trump’s stance was widely supported within the party. Meanwhile, a number of veteran Republicans, especially Senators, recalled the party’s role in protecting the constitution rather than the person. This was clearly reflected in the statements of several representatives and Senators who withdrew from the midterm elections such as Jeff Flick, and held members of the Republican Party responsible for keeping silent over Trump’s actions and his undermining of the constitutional institutions and wondered how the party would recover amidst the presence of more than half its members supporting and defending the policies of Donald Trump.

    By reviewing the aforementioned facts, which revealed the deep state’s inclination towards ending Trump’s tenure and contenting itself with what he has achieved domestically and abroad, such as enacting fiscal laws, bolstering the Republicans’ influence in the judiciary, issuing presidential decrees in bulk, withdrawing from some international treaties such as the Iranian nuclear deal, blackmailing Europe in respect of NATO, demonising China and imposing new realities on the Middle East file, and by also reviewing the merits of yesterday’s events, namely storming of the Capitol building and the domestic and foreign reactions shedding light on “democracy”, which Biden adopted as the cornerstone of his electoral campaign and domestic and foreign policy, in addition to what seemed like collusion by the police with the protestors, we can conclude an attempt by the deep state to rally the ranks, mobilise the masses around the establishment, blame the despicable acts of the Republican Party and the US on Donald Trump, holding him solely responsible, and reiterating America’s democratic leadership and state of law, as well as US leadership of the “free world”. This is perhaps what led Senator Lindsey Graham to say “count me out, enough is enough.”

    And to corroborate this approach, the calls demanding the activation of article 25 of the constitution pertinent to removing the president were accentuated. They were deemed a message to US domestic public opinion stipulating the illegitimacy of Trump’s orders and also to the world, stressing that America is a state of law. US media were unanimous in deliberately portraying yesterday’s events as dangerous as the 9/11 attacks on the US and as an attack on freedom, US democracy and its institutions, especially as the Capitol building represents a symbol of American sovereignty and union. The media also reported that two devices planted near the Republican National Committee headquarters and the Democratic National Committee headquarters were defused.

    The breaches of Donald Trump and his supporters were also placed under the spotlight in order to evoke domestic and foreign reactions calling for adhering to democracy and its mechanism since the US is viewed as the fortress of transparency, freedom and democracy. This was expressed by Russia, China, Turkey, Britain, Germany and France, as well as leaders of the various institutions of the EU who denounced the attack on “democracy”. President of the European Council, Charles Michel, tweeted: “We trust the US to ensure a peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden, the US Congress is a temple of democracy".

    In America, several Republican and Democrat leaders slammed the “criminal behaviour”, stressing that chaos would neither terrify Congress nor hamper American democracy. At the start of the session, the Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, denounced the "attack on democracy" adding "To those who tried to divert our attention from our responsibility: You failed. To those who participated in defiling the temple of our democracy: Justice will be served". For his part, Senate majority leader Mitchell McConnell stressed: “we will not be intimidated, we will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs or threats. They tried to disrupt our democracy; they failed. They failed.” Meanwhile, the leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said that what happened on Wednesday was the result of Trump's "words and lies" and would leave "a stain that will not be easily erased."

    Republican Senator Mitt Romney held Donald Trump responsible and said: “What happened here today was an insurrection, incited by the president of the United States.” George Bush for his part issued a statement in which he said: "This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic -- not our democratic republic." Former presidents Clinton and Obama condemned Trump’s behaviour, while Mike Pompeo, a close ally of Donald Trump, slammed the violence of the protestors and their storming of the Capitol building saying “The storming of the U.S. Capitol today is unacceptable. Lawlessness and rioting -- here or around the world -- is always unacceptable.” House Republican Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, for his part said: “Now is the moment to show America we can work best together.” Moreover, Facebook and Twitter, in an unprecedented move, “temporarily” locked Donald Trump’s accounts on Wednesday.

    This consensus by the two parties on condemning Donald Trump corroborates the fact that it is the deep state that decides the leadership position, contrary to what they are attempting to project to the US domestic public opinion and to the world. Trump would not have rebelled against democracy had he not known that it was merely smokescreen and that the decision-making belonged to the capitalist elite and not to the masses. This elite acted according to the requirements of its interests and wanted to discipline the president who wanted to bulwark himself with the masses against it. The capitalist elite is even attempting through this event practised by a section of the white race, and amid the race and ethnic changes in American society, to mobilise the non-white constituent and give it the responsibility of defending and protecting the constitution and the US institutions in future, and dupe them into believing that they would be defending their rights and their votes against the racist and extremist whites. In other words, the deep state wants to elicit a reaction from the other sections of society to protect the upshots of their policies. In a nutshell, the event has been harnessed to turn over Donald Trump’s page, wipe the sins of the capitalist class domestically and the injustice of the US and her extortion of the countries of the world, and portray America as being on equal footing with the rest of the world by demonising Donald Trump and holding him fully responsible for US policies while exonerating the state from his crimes. As for Biden, yesterday’s events will pave the way for his domestic vision and facilitate his task abroad, as the world will welcome his portfolio as an international détente.

    23 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    7 January 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

     

     

     

  • Political Observation - Reading the Qatari-Saudi Reconciliation 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Reading the Qatari-Saudi Reconciliation

    The agenda of the 41st Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) held at the Maraya Concert Hall in al-Ula near Medina was concluded yesterday Tuesday 5 January. The summit focused on the Saudi-Qatari reconciliation engineered by Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, during his visit to Qatar and Saudi last November and finalised on Monday 4 January, according to the New York Post.

    In fact, the manner in which the Saudi-Qatari reconciliation was achieved was not expressive of a solution to the problem that had elicited the embargo on Qatar, inasmuch as expressive of the American volition, the requirements of the presidential transition in the US, the needs of the “Israeli" elections, and the Deal of the Century led by Netanyahu who is facing the spectre of defeat in the forthcoming elections. There was no mention of any Qatari concessions pertinent to the conditions laid down by the blockading countries, namely Saudi, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain, such as closing down Aljazeera and the Turkish military base in Qatar, ending sponsorship of the Muslim Brotherhood, and scaling down relations with Iran. This means the rapprochement was connected to the imminent change of guard at the White House and preparations to assume the new roles and relationships stipulated by the forthcoming administration, such as Qatar’s relationship with Turkey who has been warned by Biden for not acquiescing to the American administration, in addition to Biden’s standpoint towards bin Salman and the Iranian nuclear deal. This is where the US strategy prepared by the deep state’s institutions intersects with the current arrangements of the Trump administration in serving the liquidation of the Palestinian issue, with all sides attempting to exploit the situation to their advantage.

    On the one hand, Donald Trump and the Republicans are attempting to reap the fruits of their labour right up to the eleventh hour of their tenure and racing against time to lure Saudi into normalisation. Hence, an air or a missile attack against some of Iran’s nuclear facilities or some sensitive locations in Iran, in the form of a US-"Israeli" joint military operation cannot be ruled out, the timing of which would serve both Trump and Netanyahu, especially now that the latter has been dealt a heavy blow by former Likud member of the Knesset, Gideon Sa’ar, who formed a rival party and concluded a host of agreements with right-wing parties such as the far-right Yamina party led by Naftali Bennett. Hence, if the two sides failed in their race against time to lure Saudi into normalisation, their last resort would be drawing Iran into a military confrontation which would impede the process of transferring power at the White House on the one hand, return the security nightmare to the "Israeli" society which has always been the usurping entity’s centre of attention, and remind the Jews of the security Netanyahu had provided for them during his premiership on the other hand.

    In this context, opening Saudi and Qatari airspace, but not the Bahraini and Emirati, at this stage could serve as an indication that Trump and Netanyahu might be preparing to strike specific Iranian positions and provoke her to retaliate deep into "Israel" in order to mobilise support for Netanyahu and throw a spanner in the works of the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear file by adding the issue of the Iranian ballistic missiles to the agenda of negotiations. This demand was evidently present at the GCC summit, and it was also the demand of Netanyahu and Trump who dispatched Kushner to attend the summit and oversee its agenda.

    What was also remarkable is the failure of king Salman, al-Sisi and bin Zayed to attend the summit which was presided over by crown prince bin Salman. This means the summit was used as a platform to demonstrate the leadership qualities of bin Salman, pave the way for succeeding his father, send a message to his opponents from within the Saudi clan and gauge domestic reaction. This is why bin Salman sent a congratulatory message to Biden in the presence of Kushner to cajole him and gain his pleasure, knowing that the position of ruler in Saudi is exclusively an American affair.

    The absence of king Salman was already a precedent; as for the absence of bin Zayed, the king of Bahrain and al-Sisi, who were invited to attend the summit, it was due to them realising that the summit was for the benefit of bin Salman, and this is why the summit was shifted from Bahrain to Saudi since it was linked to the requirements of the US presidential transition and the "Israeli" elections rather than to healing the rift between Saudi and Qatar. This is why they contented themselves with justifying their stance by accepting the general framework of the reconciliation; and this narrative was expressed by UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Anwar Girgash, who said that “the main idea of the demands was an attempt to lay down the principles of non-interference in domestic affairs.” Hence, the summit’s main focus was linked to the American presidential transition which was reflected by the speedy conclusion of the agreement with its implications, conditions and upshots. It seems that Kushner’s attendance was designed to reassure bin Salman about his future and to reiterate the Republicans’ support for his bid to accede to the throne after Trump’s departure, which means Saudi and Qatar are being prepared to proceed with normalisation, a move which Asharq al-Awsat newspaper heralded by stating that 2021 will be the year of peace, in addition to the closing statement of the summit which corroborated the need to unify the political standpoints, meaning the standpoint towards normalisation, since the other Gulf States’ standpoints are designed by the US so as to make them jostle with each other and perform their roles within the policy of containing the region with its various warring and ideologically diverse sides. Moreover, the standpoint towards normalisation necessitates settling all the inter-Arab disputes ahead of inaugurating the phase of normalisation with the "Israeli" enemy. There is no difference here between American administrations about who will execute the strategy linked to the Zionist entity since it is part of what has been assigned to Trump until the end of his tenure for his successor to build upon. It is worth mentioning that the timing of Saudi and Qatar’s jumping on the normalisation bandwagon, in case Trump departed beforehand, hinges on the results of the "Israeli" elections, which will give Saudi and Qatar a breathing space to kick-start the "Israeli"-Palestinian negotiations and cover their normalisation with the cloak of negotiations and the approval of the Palestinian Authority, not to mention securing the Jordanian standpoint with the appropriate support. It also hinges on the political margins provided by Trump’s departure and his decisive, robust and hasty style, and the arrival of Biden and his soft diplomatic styles which lean towards pragmatism rather than imposing the decided fate on the Palestinian issue. However, generating the conditions for attacking Iran, if an attack has been decided, then, without any impediments from influential forces in the US decision-making mechanism, he is constrained by what serves US national security and does not impinge on the work of the forthcoming administration. This issue has triggered a controversy between the Republicans and the Democrats and a stern warning was issued in a letter from former US Secretaries of Defence, which included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, stipulating clearly that “Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about US national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.”

    Hence, military action against Iran cannot be ascertained despite the presence of several indications suggesting it is imminent, because it is closer to being a personal interest rather than a national one. This means it could be vetoed by US decision makers to avert anything that may impinge on the work of the forthcoming administration. This likelihood is corroborated by US intelligence puppet, namely Iraqi prime minister al-Kadhimi, who spilled the beans to Iran about "Israeli" attempts to execute an operation targeting US forces in Iraq, which prompted Iran in light of this information to warn against "Israel’s” intention to drag the region into a war.

    22 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    6 January 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Political Observation - The Blasts at Aden’s Airport 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Blasts at Aden’s Airport

    Several blasts rocked the airport of the Yemeni city of Aden on Wednesday 30 December 2020, soon after an aircraft had landed carrying members of the new government headed by Maeen Abdul-Malik, the formation of which was announced by Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi on 18 December as per the Riyadh Agreement. The attack resulted in 22 deaths and tens of injuries.

    It has transpired from reading the event and its ramifications that since the signing of the Riyadh Agreement on 5 November 2019 between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) which calls for the secession of the south, the Yemeni crisis has been stagnant and not one single article of the Agreement has been executed up until the formation of the government was announced this month.

    It has also transpired from the pressure Saudi has been exerting to stop the fighting in the south since the beginning of December that Mohammed bin Salman has brought about a solution to the military and political problem by hurriedly forming the government as if he was in a race against time, which proves that the event is tightly linked to the transfer of power in the US to the Joe Biden administration who pledged during his electoral campaign to reappraise the relationship of his country with Saudi, withdraw US support for the Saudi war efforts, and, as he described it, help it come out of the quagmire in which it had plunged itself. Biden also pledged to confront bin Salman on several files, such as the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, in order to blackmail him and achieve a host of political and economic gains which are no less important than what Donald Trump has achieved because he needs political achievement to shore up his position and the position of the Democratic Party among the pressure groups and the evangelist movement in the US who aim to lure bin Salman into normalising Saudi’s relations with "Israel".

    Hence, bin Salman’s endeavour to settle the military struggle without stripping the militias of the STC of their weapons and dismantling them or integrating them into the institutions of the “legitimate” government, and to form the government in a manner that provoked the UAE since it included members of the Yemeni Congregation for Reform, and the fact that he overlooked the “Tihama Coalition” which slammed the agreement and warned against its consequences on the national and social fabric, and discarded the women’s component to which the Riyadh Agreement had awarded 30% of government portfolios, all this proves that forming the government was a personal objective for Bin Salman and a solution to his own problem rather than the Yemeni crisis, especially as his suitability to rule has become dependent on a number of files including the Yemeni file, which means that bin Salman’s aim of forming the government amidst these circumstance and amidst his perception of America’s aim of dividing Yemen, does not exceed a media stunt on which the Saudi media has been focusing for the past two weeks in an attempt to prove that bin Salam was capable of pushing all the stakeholders towards the solution, and conveying a message to president-elect Biden ahead of his tenure suggesting that he has paved the way for him to fulfil his pledges regarding the Yemeni file. In fact, there is no real solution to the Yemeni crisis in the offing; forming the new Yemeni government was but an attempt to improve the relationship with the president-elect after the latter had threatened to reappraise his country’s relationship with Saudi. This is corroborated by the trip the head of the STC, Aidarus al-Zoubaidi, made to the UAE immediately following the forming of the government in Riyadh. He failed to accompany them in their trip to Aden as he had been planning to boobytrap the agreement, hamper the work of the government and plan the secession of the south in stages. Minutes after the arrival in Aden of the government, whose formation bin Salman had deemed an achievement that he would offer to the Saudi domestic public opinion and to the forthcoming US administration, the military and political attack at Aden’s airport turned it into a failure for bin Salman rather than an achievement, especially as the Emirates has distanced itself from the process of forming the Yemeni government and deemed it an exclusively Saudi affair; Emirati foreign minister Anwar Gargash tweeted that “targeting Aden’s airport was an attack on the Riyadh Agreement”. The agent of the UAE in Yemen, namely head of the STC Hadi bin Braik, rubbed salt into the wounds of bin Salman by casting doubt on al-Houthi’s involvement in the attack, although the Hadi government pointed the finger at the Houthis. Bin Braik said “it is too early to accuse al-Houthi since he is not affected by the Riyadh Agreement and the forming of the government. Those who screamed in pain from the Agreement and the forming of the government number many.” Meanwhile, the Houthi group, who have discerned the purpose of bin Salman’s hastened undertaking, denied involvement in the attack, and this confirms that thwarting the Saudi solution was agreed by Iran and its surrogate al-Houthi, the Emirates, who is responsible for the security of the airport, and "Israel". The interest of these sides is to keep bin Salman naked in his confrontation with the Biden administration, and to compel him to play the card of normalisation with the Zionists and join the camp of the normalising countries; and this is what Trump and Netanyahu did with the collusion of the Emirates whose involvement in the Yemeni crisis was only designed to prevent the Saudi administration from monopolising the Yemeni file, thwart its endeavour and coerce bin Salman into making the major concessions on the files he needed to execute before being granted the throne, especially the Deal of the Century, in service of America and "Israel".

    The fact that forming the Yemeni government was the only aim of bin Salman and that it was solely linked to his own fate under the upcoming Biden administration is corroborated by his precipitated forming of the government on paper rather than on the ground, keeping the southern militias out of the authority of the state, allowing the formation of the government to overlook the stipulations of the Riyadh agreement and overlooking the complex problems on the ground such as Sumatra’s breakaway from the southern administration. This estrangement of the state and the facts, and oblivion to the situation the US conspired to generate in northern Yemen through the UN’s peace and partnership agreement imposed by the Houthi militias on the eve of Sana’s fall on 21 September 2014, indicates America’s intention to legitimise and entrench the status quo on the basis of “crisis management”, by generating a state of constant chaos and instability, in order to orchestrate it in stages and steer it towards fragmenting Yemen under the umbrella of the alleged legitimacy. It is the very policy America is pursuing in Libya and Syria to restructure them, and the very policy it practised in Sudan and separated its south from the north, and which she is still practising in southern Sudan and tinkering with its leaderships to hamper and destroy the Chinese investments.

    16 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    31 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - The Fallouts of Brexit & the Trade Deal  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Fallouts of Brexit & the Trade Deal

    Britain and the European Union (EU) reached a Brexit trade deal on Thursday 24 December 2020. UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said “everything that the British public were promised during the 2016 referendum and in the general election last year is delivered by this deal,” while the EU described the deal as “fair and balanced”.  
     
    Boris Johnson told a press conference “we have taken back control of laws and our destiny… with full control of our waters” …. and for the first time since 1973 we will be an independent coastal state”. Since the British withdrawal from the EU and Brexit trade deal will have a host of consequences on Euro-British relations and since it is linked to America’s strategy towards the EU, it is imperative to review the role of the US in this event.  
     
    The Euro-British relationship had been marked by significant incoherence due to the “principle of sovereignty” and due to Britain’s bias in favour of the US in most continental and international issues, particularly the issue of European security, NATO and economic affairs. 
     
    The principle of sovereignty is the centre of attention for the British people and their historical heritage. Britain views sovereignty and authority as the competency of her parliament, and this was the source of her problems with the EU legislations and with her implementation of the European courts’ laws.  
     
    Britain and the EU needed to urgently reach an agreement to avert disrupting their trade, the size of which is in excess of one trillion dollars, before the 11-month transitional period expired. At the beginning of the month, a week of intense negotiations on Britain’s post-transition commercial and financial relationship with the EU ended in a stalemate with European and British media reports citing “significant differences” such as the EU’s insistence on fishing quotas in British waters, an issue that France raised, in addition to its insistence on implementing the principle of parity on state subsidies for businesses and the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. 
     
    Had a deal not been reached, World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Tax and Customs Authority rules would have been implemented on the commercial and financial dealings between the two sides.  
     
    The Cold War between America and the Soviet Union split the world into two camps, capitalist and communist, or “freedom” and “totalitarianism”, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the start of the American campaign against Islam, the Balkan war, the war on “terror”, and the significant increase in emigration, legal and illegal, a sweeping nationalist and patriotic sentiment was  injected into the world political atmosphere to the point where it became a reactionary atmosphere nurturing the clash of ideological identities and causing the fragmentation of states and standpoints on sectarian and factional grounds, as was the case in the Middle East and the Muslims’ lands, and on the grounds of patriotic and nationalist identity and racial and regional discrimination  in the European political atmosphere and the British intellectual and political atmosphere in particular, ever since the British establishment began implementing the devolution policy in 1999 during Tony Blair’s tenure which involved transferring some competencies of sovereignty to regional parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, followed by granting major cities the right to elect their mayors, as was the case with Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham among others.    
     
    Although it was natural for the masses of those regions to think more about local issues and shape their political concepts and opinions according to the reality of local events, polarisation of opinions and standpoints on nationalistic and continental grounds, in addition to the radical transformation and public divisions due to international and geopolitical issues, such as emigration, the integration of the Muslims and national sovereignty, namely legislation and border protection, has imposed the approach that determines, protects and distinguishes the policies pertinent to national identity, exactly like what Macron is currently carrying out in terms of bullying French Muslims to preserve the secularist identity of the state.  
     
    The British political elite exploited the right-wing media to fuel the polarisation between the calls for nationalism and patriotic sovereignty and the calls for European unity, by demonising the “opportunist” immigrants, criminal gangs, and minorities refusing to integrate into democratic values and isolating themselves from society. That political elite propagated that the “whites” were paying the price for the decrease in salaries, and exploited this notion in the elections, as was the case with Donald Trump in the US.  
     
    Far-right parties like the Lega Nord led by Matteo Salvini in Italy, and the Alternative for Germany, as well as right-wing parties in Austria, Poland, the Netherlands, and France, exploited the growing public opinion against immigration and are in favour of closing borders to influence elections and racist policies. This trend gathered momentum in Western countries and was epitomised in the ascendency of far-right parties in all Western countries, even in the countries that had endured the fascist experiment such as Italy and Germany. All this has been nurtured through an artery from the other side of the Atlantic in a programmed and systematic manner which prepared the grounds for the separatist calls to grow louder and void the EU of its political potency, turning it into a skeleton that America could dress with the attire that suits her objective, namely keeping the EU within its economic framework and preventing it from political jostling and military and security independence.  
     
    In this context, i.e., the context of the political atmosphere and the nationalistic intellectual orientation nurtured by the US, we can explain the British separatist trend and the US standpoint towards the British withdrawal from the EU (Brexit). Despite Obama’s declared standpoints and his support for the Remain campaign, what was however being concocted in reality, especially in terms of inciting public opinion against immigration and terrorism, was geared towards exhorting Britain to withdraw from the EU, divide the united  stance of the conventional major powers, place them on a collision course with the Islamic world in the name of liberal values, and deepen their dependence on America militarily after the exit of Britain who used to be a vital military powerbase to the EU.  
     
    The US aims to reshape the EU away from the red tape in Brussels; in December 2018, Pompeo for his part called for making the EU and its bureaucratic system more responsive and caring towards the masses, and for giving priority to the sovereign interests of nation states and reducing integration within a regional rigid bloc, and that vision was compatible with the vision of Margaret Thatcher that cropped up following the Rome summit of 1990.  
     
    Despite the Republican and Democrat administrations’ difference in the viewpoints and styles of dealing with the European states, be it at the level of bilateral relations or the level of dealing with the EU as a bloc, this does not however impact the American aims of keeping Europe dependent on America in security, military, political and economic matters. There is no difference between the two administrations at the strategic level, especially as the institutional trend allows each administration to work within the framework of the general policy, using the styles and plans that ensure the success of the state’s general policies.  
     
    During the tenure of Donald Trump, we noted that the opening statement of Dana Rohrabacher, head of the Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs at the House of Representatives, which he delivered on 6 December 2017, expressed more clearly the American standpoint. He congratulated the British people following the results of the referendum by saying: “The Brexit vote represents a self-determination of the British people. It reflects an inherent desire of people to control their own destiny rather than be under the domination of another country or another group of countries.”  
    For his part, Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, was quoted as saying: “Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts: self-determination, limited government, democratic accountability, and economic liberty. A truly free and powerful Great Britain is good for the United States.” 
     
    The US exhortation of the UK to leave the EU could also be deduced from the statements of Donald Trump and his praising of UK prime minister Theresa May, as well as his backing of the British government in the talks with the EU Commission, the pledges he made to Britain and the pledges he made to dissipate her fears of Obama’s warnings against the fallouts an exit from the EU would cause on the economic and financial side, and to the Anglo-American special relationship. Those statements were made during Theresa May’s visit to the White House a week after he took the oath of office. He claimed that Britain would get a strong and comprehensive trade deal. However, British negotiators soon realised during the initial negotiations that Trump’s policy leaned towards maximising the benefit of  Britain’s need for a trade deal. This was corroborated by the head of the American Brexit Committee who said that “in our negotiations, we are seeking to achieve maximum benefit for America.” This explains the American dictates and conditions which were unfair and harmful to Britain and which America could not achieve had Britain still been a member of the EU, and could not achieve through her previous negotiations with the EU. America took a negative approach by voting at the WTO against the agreement between Britain and the EU on sharing the agricultural produce trade quota of the EU. She incited Brazil to object to the deal and then voted in favour of Brazil’s objection.   
     
    America also included a host of harsh conditions to the new civil air transport agreement since the US-EU open skies treaty no longer applies to Britain. And to add insult to injury, America stipulated that Britain should review her procedural and organisational system to match the system adopted in America, thus reducing her chances of achieving an agreement with the 27 member states of the EU and allowing her products to be freely circulated within the EU. America also urged Britain to open her national health service for US companies, which means privatising the NHS, something the British electorates reject.    
     
    This American capitalist, opportunist and greedy trend was expressed by former French ambassador to Washington, Gérard Araud, in an interview with the Guardian on 19 April 2019 where he said: “Basically, this president and this administration don’t have allies, don’t have friends. It’s really [about] bilateral relationships on the basis of the balance of power and the defence of narrow American interests.” He added: “They [the Trump administration] are not thinking in terms of multilateral cooperation first. And secondly, they don’t have any affection towards the Europeans. They treat Europeans the way they treat the Chinese.” He warned Britain against the free trade deal it is seeking post-Brexit with America by saying: “And when the British come for a free-trade agreement, there will be blood on the walls and it will be British blood. It will be GMOs breakfast, lunch and dinner.”  All this reveals that the US endeavoured to take Britain out of the EU in order to weaken it politically and militarily. Trump incited British prime minister Theresa May to be firm in the negotiations and said: “I gave the prime minister my ideas on how to negotiate it and I think you would have been successful. She didn’t listen to that and that’s fine.” Trump’s advice was exposed by Steve Bannon who said that president Trump told May to prepare a negotiation strategy that included exceeding the limits and targets of the demands in the withdrawal deal, and finalise the file within six months using all the cards in her possession, even the legal arrangements. Moreover, it is common knowledge that Tony Blair, the closest UK prime minister to America, was one of the first to call for a withdrawal from the EU, and he built his first political attempt at being nominated for the premiership on the notion of withdrawing from Europe.  
     
    Although the notion of the EU was most probably inspired by the US from the perspective of generating an equilibrium in Europe in the wake of the Second World War due to the impact of European differences on international peace and security, she however was aspiring to this within the framework of complementarity and economic interests, i.e., economic union. However, Europe’s drive towards more European integration through the Rome and Maastricht Treaties in the early nineties and the argument over sovereignty between British political forces had a major impact on the British political orientation and resulted in an open war erupting between senior members of the Conservative Party, in the removal of Thatcher and banishing the Tories from power for 13 years.  
     
    As a result of the domestic political bickering, the role of the media in shaping the public mood for electoral reasons, the Conservative Party’s mobilisation of its forces founded on the “white” component, David Cameron’s harnessing of the same media machine to lure “white” Britons, the British demographic structure which played a significant role in luring the electorate during the referendum on Brexit, and the ensuing course of events, all this culminated into the focus on the British identity and on mobilising  public opinion and portraying the British “white” citizen as a foreigner in his own country; the issue of immigration, and the consequences of globalisation, as well as national sovereignty were politicised with the aim of building the programme of “determining a national identity and exploiting it for electoral purposes and political plans that led to the return of the Conservatives to power in 2010.  
     
    Due to the adversities that the political ruling elite faced between 2007 and 2012, such as moral and financial corruption, Blair’s lying to parliament, and the financial crisis to name but a few, and which evoked popular resentment against the establishment, the elite resorted to blaming “foreign powers”, which included Europe, immigration and the policy of free movement. This was exploited by the US-backed leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, to influence the masses’ tendencies in favour of leaving the EU, and to bolster the popularity of his party at the expense of the Conservatives.  
     
    The political elite were not expecting the contact Farage had had with US right-wing workforce under Steve Bannon’s leadership, and with members of Donald Trump’s campaign, namely Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, as well as Steve Assange, and his harnessing of Cambridge Analytica and social networking, to deepen the popular resentment to the point where it split the country into two camps over Brexit.  
     
    In light of the efforts nurtured by Steve Bannon and the role he played in shoring up the European right-wing, Trump’s support for Boris Johnson, who championed Brexit to assume power, and Trump’s scathing attack on Obama’s standpoint towards the British issue, the position of the US became clear in supporting Britain’s exit from the EU within the framework of the American policy that aims at raising the controversy of identity, not just in America, Britain and Europe, but in the whole world, so that America may remain “first”, i.e., so that she may maintain her supremacy and dominion over the world’s crises and international relations. It is clear that America is behind pushing Europe through the controversy on the identity that Macron is leading due to his hatred and stupidity, to generate a confrontation between Europe and Muslims on the one hand, and Europe and China on the other, in order to control and conduct international relations in a manner guaranteeing her unilateral dominion over the international situation and achieving her interests. America set about tampering with the dynamism of the British political elite in 2014, and nurtured right-wing tendencies through logistical and technical support by mobilising the Breitbart News Network and turning it into a formidable force deep inside British politics; and this was corroborated by Farage who was quoted as saying after the referendum “thank you Breitbart”. The reason behind America’s undertaking is her belief that Brexit will inevitably lead to restructuring the EU and its institutions within a continental bloc whose views will be divided and its need for the US will be greater.   
     
    Britain’s withdrawal from the EU would undoubtedly not have taken place had it not been for the issue of absolute national sovereignty of the legal system and parliament, which to the British masses, are of major importance more than any other people from among the member states; the issue of sovereignty had always been a formidable obstacle in the face of Britain’s integration into the European project. Former Labour Party leader, Hugh Gaitskell, a celebrated opponent of Britain’s integration into Europe, described Britain’s membership of the Common Market as "the end of a thousand years of history".  Since the Maastricht Treaty, Britain had been consistently seeking exemptions from European treaties and organisations; hence, she was the least integrated member in the EU. In his book titled “An Awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community”, Professor Stephen George attributed Britain’s issue with the EU to the “the distinctiveness of the identity and culture of the UK in contrast to that of continental Europe”, which he deemed as Britain’s main grievance with the integrated European project, as the British political elite supported working on the basis of organised inter-governmental cooperation, contrary to the European penchant for federalism and supranational organisation (Brussels), and was in favour of a united market rather than a fiscal union. He also mentioned the great importance the British political elite gave to the right to defend national sovereignty and take its decisions in London as a nation state.  

    10 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    24 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org


      

  • Political Observation - The "Israeli" Attack on Gaza  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The "Israeli" Attack on Gaza

    The missiles of the Zionist occupation lit the dark skies of Gaza to expose the deceit of the alleged peace concluded by the depraved collaborating Arab regimes which grovelled en masse and rushed to normalise their ties and establish an alliance with "Israel", like flies attracted to decaying faeces. The jetfighters of the criminal "Israeli" enemy targeted the industrial sectors on which the blockaded people of Gaza depend for their livelihood; and according to news agencies, the "Israeli" jets launched their attack on the morning of Saturday 26 December 2020 under the pretext of retaliating for the two rockets fired from Gaza towards Jewish settlements. The attacks targeted positions of the “Islamic resistance” Hamas at a time when the US and "Israel" are beating the drums of war to the tune of the American and "Israeli" military moves in the region and the rocket attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, and in the midst of Netanyahu and Trump’s attempts to concoct the pretexts of aggression against the people of the region and make political gains on the Deal of the Century, and on other issues pertinent to the Republican Party, and to rescue Netanyahu from his successive domestic crises and prepare him for a fourth election after he failed in maintaining the cohesion of the government and the agreements with his opponents. The "Israeli" aggression against Gaza comes also amid the preparations of Hamas and other “resistance groups” to stage a military exercise, the first of its kind, under the theme of “Robust Cornerstone”, as per the announcement of the joint operations room of the resistance.

    Such evidence is sufficient to explain the "Israeli" attack on the people of Gaza and the resistance groups; it carries a deterrent stipulating that “your weapons and military exercises will be of no use to you, nor will Iran be able to help you if she or her surrogates in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, become the target of a strike before the end of Trump’s tenure.

    It is well known that Netanyahu wants to send the message to the electorate that he is quite capable of dealing with the security threats which have been worrying the settlers ever since their entity was established. The Maariv newspaper republished an old report on the plans of the occupation for Gaza, and reminded its readers that Chief of General Staff Aviv Kochavi was planning to kill 300 Palestinians from Hamas every day in the forthcoming war. Hence, these terrorist attacks fall in essence within the preparations for the next "Israeli" elections and carry an electoral message more than anything else, especially in the presence of a formidable opponent within the right-wing camp threatening Netanyahu’s chances of winning the elections, namely the New Hope party formed by former Likud member of the Knesset and former minister Gideon Sa'ar who could, according to an opinion poll by Channel 12, win 21 seats if the elections were held in coming days, in addition to the other right-wing parties that may weaken Netanyahu’s chances of returning to power with a comfortable majority. This means Netanyahu needs to multiply his efforts to lure more Arab states into normalisation and raise the stakes of an escalation, with the possibility of an "Israeli" military strike against Iran or her surrogates to attract the electorates, as a defeat in the elections would mean his trial on corruption charges.

    13 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    28 December 2020  

    hizbuttahrir.org

  • Political Observation - Deliberate Media Hype of Border Tension Between Ethiopia and Sudan 

    سم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Deliberate Media Hype of Border Tension Between Ethiopia and Sudan

    The Sudanese army announced on 16 December 2020 that it had suffered material and human losses following an ambush laid by Ethiopian forces and armed groups deep inside Sudanese lands. Three Sudanese soldiers were killed in the ambush. Sudan responded by dispatching reinforcements to the borders with Ethiopia to recapture what the army described as lands usurped by Ethiopian militia in al-Fashqa region which is situated in the Wilaya of al-Gadarif in eastern Sudan. Ethiopian armed groups seized parts of the Sudanese farmers’ lands in that area after they had expelled them by force. However, that area has been the scene of similar tension for more than 25 years, but it has never been the focus of such media hype by Sudan, and this makes the event and its hidden motive dubious. 
     
    Having explored the incident, and its implications and circumstances further, it transpired that the issue was merely a military action designed to achieve a host of political aims pertinent to demarcating the borders between the two countries and preventing the repeated attacks carried out by Ethiopian militias on Sudanese lands, namely the al Fashqa region in the wilaya of al-Gadarif. The incident occurred as the living conditions deteriorated and the masses grew even more resentful after the government and the army generals had normalised Sudan’s relations with the Zionist entity. Therefore, the top brass and the government set about deceiving the masses into believing that the country was facing a threat and urging them to rally behind their army and their leadership in the face of the foreign aggression, whereas in fact, the incident was nothing but a local border incident through which the Sudanese army wanted to confirm its presence and ability to protect the country and its unity, especially after the ambush carried out by Ethiopian militias occupying the region of al-Fashqa. Nevertheless, the media hype and  public mobilisation to support the army in its military reinforcement on the borders with Ethiopia was designed to dramatize the issue and steer the resentment of the Sudanese masses towards a foreign enemy, thus venting its anger and tension, and diverting their attention away from the first anniversary of the popular intifada, the wretched living conditions, and the traitorous agreement with the Zionist entity. In fact, no clashes took place between the two armies and what occurred was a muscle-flexing exercise designed for local consumption in Sudan and Ethiopia whose regime is in desperate need to distract the masses following the political fissure in the Ethiopian political milieu and Abiy Ahmed’s military campaign against his opponents and rivals.    
     
    What corroborates this farce is the meeting between the Sudanese interim government’s prime minister, Abdullah Hamdok, with his Ethiopian counterpart, Abiy Ahmed, on the sidelines of the IGAD summit in Djibouti, and the announcement of the Sudanese information minister, Faysal Mohammed Saleh, in which he said that the government forces had recaptured most of the lands on the borders with Ethiopia; it is further corroborated by the statement of Ethiopia’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Demeke Mekonnen, who headed a delegation to Khartoum and announced that “the borders escalation with Sudan leads to unwarranted tension…. Our firm position is reactivating the current mechanisms and generating a friendly solution concerning settlement and agriculture”. All this proves that the incident was fabricated and exploited to serve the aforementioned aims, and then the issue was de-escalated, and the borders file was brought back to the negotiating table.  
     
    13 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h  
    28 December 2020  
     
  • Political Observation - US & European Sanctions on Turkey 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - US & European Sanctions on Turkey

    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Monday 14 December 2020 a bundle of sanctions on the Republic of Turkey’s Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB) under the pretext of Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 surface-to-air missile system. The sanctions include a ban on all U.S. export licences and authorisations to SSB and an asset freeze and visa restrictions on Dr Ismail Demir, SSB’s president, and other senior SSB officers. Pompeo added in a press briefing that the sanctions on Turkey had been imposed pursuant to Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which allows imposing economic sanctions on any entity or country concluding arms deals with Russian companies, adding that “today’s action sends a clear signal that the United States will fully implement CAATSA Section 231 and will not tolerate significant transactions with Russia’s defence and intelligence sectors.”

    The American action is mainly driven by Turkey’s decision to end her affiliation to the US after America had opted to support the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a militia linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) that advocates the separation of the Kurds’ areas from the Turkish entity. Speaking on the sidelines of the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Head of the US Special Operations Command, General Raymond, revealed in 2017 that the name given to the SDF was requested by America to cover up the activities of the People's Protection Units (YPG) and their link to the PKK which Turkey has been fighting for two years and which is classified as a terrorist organisation in Turkey and the US. 

    The Kurdish issue touches on the nationalist foundation on which the Turkish regime is built, and being nonchalant towards it undermines the political future of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and even the future of any Turkish political party adopting a stance leading to compromising the unity of the state, as the nationalist aspect and the unity of the Turkish territory constitute the main source from which Turkish political parties derive their popular support and legitimacy in power, including the secularist nationalist parties affiliated to the US. Hence, political parties in Turkey may differ in their intellectual and doctrinal benchmarks, but they all converge on the nationalist aspect since it is deeply rooted in the awareness of the Turks and because of its impact on the inclinations of the electorate.

    The Kurdish issue cropped up as a result of the US project supporting the rise of a Kurdish entity which would have entailed slicing parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran; and these countries for their part converged on the aim of preventing the Kurds from establishing their entity, contrary to American volition.

    And following the failed coup attempt of 2016, tension between America and Turkey increased and Erdoğan’s trust in the US slumped to its lowest levels. The coup attempt led to widening the rift between Erdoğan and America, who was behind the coup, and resulted in a significant rapprochement between Russia and Turkey, especially after Erdoğan had concluded a peace deal with Putin following the downing of the Russian jetfighter. The purchase of the Russian surface-to-air defence system S400 was Erdoğan’s gesture of goodwill to Putin who deemed widening the wedge between Turkey and the US and heightening the tension between NATO member states a gain at a strategic and nationalist level, as well as a personal gain that bolstered his domestic popularity, and who managed to take full advantage of the collapse of US-Turkish negotiations on the Patriot missile deal as America refused to include the transfer of the technology in the contract.

    In this context, i.e., the context of tension between Russia, who is eager to widen the rift between Turkey and NATO member states, and America who was infuriated by the Russian arms deal due to the impact it had on making Turkish armament independent from America’s control over its efficacy, as she would normally do with defence and attack systems manufactured in America, and due to the impact of the Russo-Turkish military cooperation on Turkey’s reliance on the US and NATO in the midst of America’s endeavour to prevent Turkey from achieving independence in full military industrialisation and joining the club of arms-producing countries and bring her back to her stable, sometimes through the carrot and other times through the stick of economic pressure and soft sanctions.

    Moreover, and in this context, we can explain why America, Canada, Japan, and Germany suspended their export licences for the equipment Turkey needs for the production of tanks and drones. This resulted in Turkey failing to deliver tanks to Pakistan, losing the $1 billion contract. This embarrassed Erdoğan who has always boasted during party rallies about Turkey’s success in reducing Turkey’s dependence on foreign weapons systems from 80% to 30%. We can also explain in the same context America’s attempt to hamper Turkey’s efforts to achieve independence in military industrialisation and drive a wedge between Turkey and Russia by giving Russia’s arch enemy, Ukraine, the green light to establish closer ties with Turkey and share with her a number of vital military technologies such as turboprop engines, diesel engines, aircraft electronics, radar and surveillance systems, missile engines, and electronic power steering systems. Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, Reznikov Oleksii, visited Turkey in August 2020 to bolster the alliance between the two countries by selling about 25% of the JSC Motor Sich Public Joint Stock Company to Turkish firms, causing Putin domestic embarrassment in respect of his relationship with Erdoğan due to the Russian people’s resentment towards the Ukrainians.

    US and European sanctions on individuals are by and large deemed as diplomatic pressure and soft power reflecting America and Europe’s standpoint. Hence, they are merely specific messages pertinent to specific issues. This applies to the US and European sanctions on Turkey. The US sanctions were imposed following the EU’s sanctions on Turkish officials announced during the EU summit in Brussels on Thursday 10 December 2020 against the backdrop of Turkish gas exploration in Eastern Mediterranean and the tension between Turkey, Greece and the Greek Cypriot government, which France describes as “unilateral and provocative actions”. Hence, the European sanctions on Turkey are designed to shore up the confidence of smaller European countries in the EU and in Europe’s image in general, following the Turkish standoff with France. They are also a warning message to Erdoğan designed to dissuade him from banking unduly on the Europeans differences pertinent to the EU standpoint vis-à-vis his country.

    As for the US sanctions on Turkey, they are designed to reassure the European states which felt let down that she has not abandoned them as Macron claimed, and to deter Erdoğan from deepening his relationship with Russia, especially following Putin’s praising of Erdoğan few days ago.

    The American standpoint towards Turkey is strategic and unaffected by a change in the administration; the sanctions were approved by the US Congress years ago during the tenure of Donald Trump who deferred their implementation for tactical reasons and for mutual interests, but now the time has come to express the standpoint and send the message through soft sanctions.

    These sanctions are also designed to issue a warning to Turkey who issued instructions last week to the Syrian armed groups loyal to her to attack Kurdish positions in Ayn Issa in the northern countryside of Raqqah after the Kurds rejected a Russian proposal to hand that area over to the Syrian regime. The attack on the Kurds was carried out following a Russo-Turkish understanding and coordination.

    Erdoğan deemed the recent US sanctions a flagrant infringement of Turkish sovereign rights. He said that the main aim of the sanctions was to hamper Turkey’s progress in defence industrialisation and to keep her dependent on foreign technology. This means Erdoğan has perceived the purport of the sanctions and that Turkey should expect further pressure during Biden’s tenure.

    8 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    23 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Normalisation: A Phase of Liquidating the Palestinian Issue 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Normalisation: A Phase of Liquidating the Palestinian Issue

    US president Donald Trump confirmed on Twitter his recognition of Morocco’s full sovereignty over Western Sahara and pledged to offer financial support for development projects in Morocco and the Sahara as well. This came after his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, had visited Morocco, where he received a warm welcome by king Mohammed VI, and confirmed that recognising Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara hinged on the kingdom’s normalisation of its ties with "Israel".

    This announcement came following a catalogue of preludes and arrangements whose outcomes were expected and which Trump crowned with twitter; it has become clear that the US arrangements for Trump’s remaining tenure at the White House aim at reaping the fruits of the deal that Trump had concluded with the collaborating Arab rulers in favour of "Israel" while depriving the Democratic Party from taking the credit, now that the involvement of more traitorous and collaborating regimes in the treason of normalisation with the usurping entity has ripened. Trump was brought to power to achieve these undertakings which will bolster the chances of the Republican Party in dominating the Senate in the next midterm elections and returning to the White House in the next presidential elections. This was evidently reflected in Donald Trump’s electoral campaign which focused on his historic achievement in normalisation between "Israel" and Arab states; he said: “There have been two peace agreements with Israel in the last 72 years. This is now the second peace agreement that we have announced in the last month, and I am very hopeful that there will be more to follow.” It is true that this achievement could not help him win the elections due to the political approach of the domestic and international ruling institutions and the high-level interests of the US, as well as the approach dictated by reality, but achieving maximum political gains, such as luring more Arab regimes to normalise ties with "Israel" and depriving Biden from reaping the benefits is considered an investment for the Republican Party in the bid to shore up its evangelical electoral base and the Zionist lobby; it is also considered a debt on the neck of the evangelists and the Jewish lobbies that has to be settled in the future, especially since Netanyahu represents the optimum choice for the evangelical rightwing and the Republican Party and has to be helped in his domestic crises through normalisation with the Arab agents, unlike his relationship with the Democratic Party which was tinged with tension with the administration of Obama and Biden around the end of their tenure.

    Those preludes and arrangements are reflected in luring Iran into a military confrontation, either through an understanding with the Iranian leadership or through coercion, heightening tension in the region through military or other means in order to justify the official Arab alliance with "Israel", especially of Saudi. Another arrangement was also reflected in the trial balloon undertaken by the Sultanate of Oman when one of its schools displayed a map of the region in which Palestine was replaced with "Israel", and the ensuing uproar it caused was used to gauge the reaction of Omani public opinion.

    However, the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and the Saudi- Qatari reconciliation are the most noteworthy events indicating what is being concocted in respect of the justifications paving the way for alliance and normalisation with "Israel".

    As for the Arab Maghreb, preparations for announcing normalisation and alliance between Morocco and "Israel" started from when the UAE and 16 African states, and then Jordan, opened consulates in Western Sahara without any objective justification; this was followed by stirring up the waters between Morocco and the Polisario Front with the incident of al-Karkarat, after which the Polisario announced its withdrawal from the ceasefire mediated by the UN and declared war on Morocco. This was the event through which the profile of king Mohammed VI was embellished; he was projected as a hero whose “decisive” military action reopened the passage for the safe movement of people and goods between the Moroccan kingdom, Mauritania, and the African countries south of the Sahara. The rulers of Algeria invested in military action to divert the masses’ attention away from the domestic crises and exploited the Moroccan normalisation with "Israel" to entrench the status quo in the absence of President Abdul Majid Taboun and pave the way for effectuating article 107 of the constitution that gives the president or those acting on his behalf wide-ranging competencies to preserve the institutions, security, and stability of the state. In this context, the official magazine of the Algerian army stated that “the Algerians should be fully prepared to confront the threat posed by the sides which are belligerent towards the security of the region,” especially amid France’s provocations and incitements with the aim of destabilising the Algerian status quo. This was reflected in Macron’s statement to the French magazine, Jeune Afrique, in which he said he “backed President Taboun in leading a transitional period to help the country overcome its political crisis,” which means dissolving all the elected institutions and replacing them with an institutional council to draft a new constitution for the country, before holding fresh presidential and parliamentary elections. This provocative approach was also reflected in the European Parliament’s criticism of human rights abuses in Algeria and in the activities of French Ambassador to Algiers, Francois Gouyette, who was accused by parliamentarian, Amira Salim, of “hosting those who promote a transitional phase at his residence under the guise of supporting freedom of political expression and defending human rights”. This was met by a barrage of denouncements and criticisms and Algerian information minister, Ammar Belhimer, told the official press agency that his country was “facing verbal attacks from France.” Some Algerian parliamentarians, leaders and political parties slammed what they referred to as French meddling in Algerian affairs. Amira Salim said the “French ambassador is exploiting the void in our political scene to spread chaos and incitement, and we will not accept a transitional period at any cost, and parliament will abort it.” Meanwhile, Algerian prime minister, Abdul Aziz Jarrad, announced in his speech in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of 11 December 1960 demonstrations that “Algeria is targeted and there are several dangerous issues in our regional sphere that are aimed at destroying the stability of the region.” And in reference to the Moroccan-"Israeli" normalisation, he said “there is a genuine foreign determination to help the Zionist entity reach our borders, and the political class should work towards the stability of the country.”

    In fact, all that seems surprising in terms of events is nothing but traitorous actions, deception and dishonesty, perpetrated by the puppet rulers against the people of the region in order to tame them and control the situation to serve the American plan reflected in the Greater Middle East Initiative, especially the Deal of the Century and the liquidation of the Palestinian issue. Hence, whether America and "Israel" staged a military strike against Iran or contented themselves with limited actions, this would not deviate from the agenda of heightening the tension, paving the way for a return to negotiations on the Iranian nuclear and missiles file, goading Saudi and the rest of the Gulf States to establish alliance and normalisation of ties with "Israel" in service of America, the Republican Party and Netanyahu in particular, in exchange for the rulers keeping their thrones. 

    As for the Maghreban front, Morocco’s normalisation is designed to break the ice and pave the way for dragging Libya, Tunisia and Mauritania to the bottom of the quagmire in which the Arab collaborating rulers have fallen. Morocco’s normalisation with the criminal entity was no surprise because the doomed king Hassan II acceded to the throne with the support of "Israeli" intelligence services whose agents, according to leaked reports, met the leader of the Moroccan opposition, Mahdi Ben Barka, and spied on him, and then informed king Hassan II that Ben Barka sought their help in his attempt to topple him and enabled the king to get rid of him.

    As for Tunisia, the path towards normalisation has already been paved since the parliamentarian bill criminalising normalisation was thwarted and president Kais Saied supported the Tunisian stance rejecting the denunciation of the Emirati normalisation with "Israel" through the abstention of Tunisia’s representative from voting in favour of the Palestinian draft resolution at the League of Arab States. Kais Saied then appointed the second-in-command in Tunisia’s Interest Office to the Zionist entity, Tarek al-Adab as Tunisia’s ambassador to the UN. It is also common knowledge that Mauritania, which is dominated by Emirati influence, was the third Arab state after Egypt and Jordan to establish diplomatic ties with "Israel" at ambassadorial level; its official relations with the criminal entity started in 1996 during the tenure of president Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya. Hence, announcing its normalisation with "Israel" will not be surprising.

    As for the stance of the Algerian authorities vis-à-vis normalisation, it is nothing but propaganda for domestic consumption with the aim of cajoling the Algerian public opinion that loves Palestine, and containing the domestic tense situation, especially amid the absence of President Taboun, which is expected to be lengthy. As for the official communiqué of the Polisario Front in which it expressed its resentment towards the US decision by stating that its “struggle for self-rule will continue”, it confirms that they are part of the saga through which the Moroccan-"Israeli" normalisation was orchestrated.

    Despite the Arab rulers’ addiction to collaboration, treason and depravity, and despite what the Islamic Ummah has suffered in terms of setbacks, tribulations and humiliations, she has, however, always emerged from her setbacks stronger and more resolute thanks to her sincere children. We have no doubt whatsoever that the Ummah of Mohammed ﷺ who banished the Jews from Khaybar is capable of solving her own problems, exacting revenge from her collaborating rulers and abolishing the Jewish entity once and for all, as we have been promised by Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. Hence, For the like of this, then, let them labour, those who labour.

    28 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    13 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

     

  • Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia

    The Ethiopian armed forces announced on 28 November 2020 that they had seized control of the city of Mekelle, the capital of the Tigray Region, following the fierce battles which erupted on 4 November between the central government in Addis Ababa and the regional government in the Tigray Region. In order to perceive the reality of the war in Ethiopia and the causes lying behind it, it would be imperative to discern the nature of the forces jostling for the centre of power.

    The centre of power in Ethiopia has always been in the hands of the Amhara ethnic group who founded the modern Ethiopian state which consists of several ethnicities and various nationalities. By the end of the 19th century, Abyssinian king Menelik II annexed the predominantly Muslim Oromo Region, and with the help of Britain, he succeeded in gaining the region of Bani Shankoul which was part of Sudan; and at the end of the Second World War and after the defeat of Italy, Britain handed the Region of Ogaden over to Ethiopia although it was part of Somalia’s lands.

    The current state of Ethiopia has in fact been artificially founded due to British colonialism; this is because her geographic position, namely Abyssinia, is located around the Amhara regions and parts of Tigray where its capital, the city of Aksum, is located, and where the ruling palaces of Abyssinian kings were located, as well as the tomb of al-Najashi on whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ offered the janaza prayer in absentia.

    Power remained in the hands of the Amhara kings of Abyssinia until 1974 when the Provisional Military Administrative Council ousted their last emperor Haile Selassie, abolished the monarchy and established a communist state. From 1980, America started sponsoring several liberation movements in Ethiopia, especially in Tigray, Eritrea, Ogaden and Oromo.

    In 1991, the last Marxist ruler in Ethiopia, Mengistu Haile Mariam, was deposed by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which was a group comprising several fronts, the most important of which was the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) under the leadership of Meles Zenawi, which eventually dominated the government and the state’s institutions. In parallel to this and under US auspices, i.e. following the London conference coordinated by Herman Cohen, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) headed by Isaias Afwerki seized power in Eritrea in the same year and declared independence in 1993 following a mock referendum. Meles Zenawi, a Tigrayan, continued in power until he died in 2012. He was succeeded by his deputy, Hailemariam Desalegn, who, like his predecessor, was an orthodox but from the southern provinces. However, it seems that the ethnicities representing the deep state in Ethiopia, especially Amhara and the Tigray, were averse to his tenure and several protests and demonstrations against him took place which finally forced him to tender his resignation. A consensus was then concluded, and Abiy Ahmed Ali took office in March 2018 with the backing of America which was reflected in offering him the Nobel Peace Prize after he had visited the al-Buraq Wall.

    Although many individuals attribute Abiy Ahmed to the Oromo ethnicity representing 35% of Ethiopia’s population because of his Muslim father, he however represents the interests of the Amhara ethnic group, i.e. 25% of the population, because of his links to his Christian mother. The Amhara used to represent the weight of the deep state in Ethiopia since the days of the Abyssinian kingdom. Moreover, Abiy Ahmed is a Protestant, and this is why America has been backing him politically although the Orthodox represent the majority of the Ethiopian Christian sects. He has also been supported by the Muslim Oromo ethnic group, exactly as was the case with his predecessor Meles Zenawi when he seized power in 1991.

    Abiy Ahmed is the first official from the Oromo ethnic group to be chosen by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) for the post of prime minister after 27 years of being the ruling party. Abiy Ahmed took office following the protests that erupted in the province of Oromia in early 2018 due to the deteriorating political and economic conditions; the reins of power were smoothly passed on to him following a host of understandings with the EPRDF in April 2018. However, he turned on his allies within the front and set about purging the government of the old guard he had known very well since his days as head of the intelligence services.

    Historically, the US has deepened her hegemony over the Horn of Africa region and marginalised France whose Djibouti military base is the largest in Africa, and since 2002, the US has given Germany a role at the expense of the French. Ethiopia for her part is a vital state for America in terms of controlling the region. America backed her in striking the military pockets in Eritrea and then participated in ending the rift between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Moreover, the rulers of the UAE were instructed to contribute to America’s endeavour to deepen her influence in Africa. America managed to corroborate her influence in the Horn of Africa through Djibouti, which is deemed as the focal state in terms of energy and maritime security in the Red Sea.

    Although the domestic struggle may lead to fragmenting Ethiopia, and it may also expand beyond her borders, the unity of Ethiopia within a federal framework would continue to represent an interest to the US due to the intricate ethnic composition in the Horn of Africa and its surrounding regions, which if it were to flare up, would change the geopolitical situation in the entire region which America has worked assiduously to maintain stability and remove all rifts between its countries.

    By pursuing the struggle taking place since the protests of Oromia which erupted in July 2020 following the killing of a famous popular singer, in addition to the armed struggle that broke out last month, we conclude that it started as a result of president Abiy Ahmed’s undertakings and his rifts with the deep state represented by the political parties, senior military officers and the leaders of the provinces who backed him to assume power.

    The struggle erupted on 5 November following a clash between the president and the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), which is part of the former ruling coalition, namely the EPRDF that ruled Ethiopia for three decades. According to successive reports, there are several deep rifts between the president and the EPRDF, dating back to the president’s decision to turn on the front, dissolve it, oppress its leaders and turn it into a party under the name of “Prosperity”. This was viewed by the leaders of the front as a treason. Even the tribe of the president, the Oromo, believe that he has failed to fulfil his promises in respect of restoring an equilibrium between them and other ethnicities. This led to the rebellion of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) who refused to hand the leaders of the EPRDF to Abiy Ahmed and organised the elections of the province in isolation from the federal government, especially after the president had postponed the presidential elections under the pretext of the coronavirus pandemic. Abiy Ahmed rejected the TPLF’s undertaking and suspended financial aid to the province last October. This means that the circumstances in which the clashes erupted are domestic and fraught with complications in respect of the Ethiopian ethnic makeup, and personal, partisan and regional interests, exactly like the domestic struggle of southern Sudan. There is nothing to link the Ethiopian tussles to any regional or international issues in terms of any objective reason for their eruption. It seems that the strong links and interests America has had with president Abiy Ahmed since he headed the Ethiopian intelligence services explain why she has turned a blind eye to the campaign against his opponents who became a spent force after she had exploited them in the regional struggles with Eritrea and whose expulsion from the scene has become a necessity dictated by the US interests in the province as a whole, an agenda which Abiy Ahmed has been implementing and which has led to the political rifts and armed struggle.

    It is clear that the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) is well versed with US interests and is attempting to sow dissension in the hope of widening the crisis to Eritrea, knowing that it was averse to signing the peace treaty in 2018 as its policy, in its quality as a part of the coalition government since the end of the war in 2002, had been based on isolating and marginalising Eritrea and its president, Afwerki, who was deliberately reluctant to achieve any progress in the negotiations with Hailemariam. Moreover, the TPLF was infuriated by the peace treaty that led to bringing Afwerki and Eritrea out of isolation and to Ethiopia surrendering the legal rights of the Tigrayans’ historical claims for the Eritrean lands inhabited by ethnic tribes linked to Tigray.

    What confirms Tigray’s attempt to widen the struggle is the statement of the Tigray province’s president, Debretsion Gebremichael, in which he said that “Eritrea has dispatched soldiers and tanks to support Ethiopia.” Hence, this struggle is set to have a major impact and huge fallouts on Eritrea because any revolution in Tigray will extend to Eritrea due to the Tigray ethnicity living there; this is what US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, warned against in a telephone call to Abiy Ahmed, according to Reuters which quoted State Department spokesman, Cale Brown, as saying that Pompeo “reiterated the United States’ grave concern regarding ongoing hostilities and the risks the conflict poses”, i.e. the risks of the crisis spreading to neighbouring countries. African newspapers such as Ghana’s Daily Graphic reported on 30 November that missiles that were fired by the TPLF on Eritrea in mid-November has turned a domestic struggle into a transborder one. The purport of what the US State Department has published denotes America’s desire to contain the crisis and generate a domestic solution. And what Abiy Ahmed has carried out, purges within the government and what they entailed in terms of armed conflict, forms part of the agenda he has been appointed to execute.

    17 Rabi’ al -Awwal 1442h
    2 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - The Political Context of the Vigorous Activities in the Middle East 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - The Political Context of the Vigorous Activities in the Middle East 
     
    Following his victory in the US elections, Joe Biden announced a host of preconceived standpoints towards key issues in the Middle East and the style in which he would tackle them. However, attention and divergent predictions focused on the possibility of Donald Trump rebelling against the results of the elections and executing a military strike against Iran, especially as he has demonstrated together with his Secretary of State, Pompeo, a persistence to cling on to power.    
     
    Meanwhile, the Middle East region witnessed remarkable and coherent political activity. Saudi monarch, King Salman bin Abdul Aziz, made an address in which he warned against Iran and hinted at the kingdom’s readiness to normalise its ties with "Israel". This was followed by a surprise tripartite summit in Abu Dhabi to which America’s godfather in the region, Emirati crown prince Mohmmed bin Zayed, invited king Abdullah II of Jordan and king Hamad bin Issa of Bahrain. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority announced the restoration of security coordination with the Zionist entity while "Israel" launched an air raid against Iranian military bases near Damascus. The Houthi group, for its part, announced that its missile force had succeeded in targeting an Aramco distribution station in Jeddah with a Quds winged missile. 
     
    "Israeli" media outlets leaked the news of prime minister Netanyahu’s secret flight to Saudi today with "Israeli" Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen. The jet departed on Sunday 22 November 2020 from Ben Gurion airport and was in Saudi for four hours, while Pompeo was meeting with Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. This was later corroborated by "Israeli" official radio. Despite Saudi’s denial of the report, the fact that the "Israeli" defence minister and leader of the Blue and White party, Benny Gantz, slammed Netanyahu for leaking the report confirmed that the visit did take place.
     
    On the other hand, king Salman telephoned president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan within the context of inviting him to attend the G20 Summit and mending ties with Turkey. This was followed by the statement of Saudi foreign minister, prince Faysal bin Farhan Aal Saud, during an interview with Reuters in which he said that his country supported full normalisation with "Israel" but a complete and permanent peace agreement guaranteeing a state for the Palestinians with dignity should be approved first. He added that the new US administration would pursue the policies which would help achieve regional stability. With regard to the relationship with Qatar and Turkey, prince Faysal said the kingdom had “good and splendid ties with Turkey and there are no communiqués indicating the presence of an official boycott of Turkish products,” and that “Saudi, together with the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain, continue to seek ways to end the rift with Qatar though they are still seeking to tackle some legitimate security fears”.
     
    Having examined the sum of these moves in light of the change in the US administration and what it would entail in terms of changes in the style of executing the files of the region, it has transpired that the regimes of the region are endeavouring to condition their policies and their relationships to suit the approach of the forthcoming US administration. The moves do not indicate that Donald Trump is preparing a military strike against Iran, even though he and the evangelical rightwing have the desire to do so in service of Netanyahu who is still under pressure due to the corruption charges haunting him; this is because there is a difference between the president’s desire to undertake a military action and the US institutions allowing him to execute it, especially as military tasks in the US are restricted to what undermines US national security and they have to be justified. 
     
    It is true that the Houthi group attacked Aramco station in Jeddah two days ago, which is deemed as a threat to US national security, and that it could be used as a pretext to justify a military strike, especially as Iran announced that she had injected uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) into the cascade of advanced IR-2m centrifuges installed at an underground plant in Natanz according to the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI), and that she had started installing a cascade of IR-4 centrifuges, but this came as part of Iran’s endeavour to pave the way for placing her file on Biden’s table with the aim of returning to the negotiating table and alleviating the economic sanctions rather than escalating the situation. This prompted Netanyahu to send a message to Biden yesterday stipulating that the nuclear agreement could not reconsidered without major changes. The Houthi’s attack and the Iranian provocation come in the context of Pompeo’s visit and his meeting with bin Salman with the aim of terrifying him and rushing him into normalising his ties with the Zionist entity, and thus scoring another point in favour of the evangelical movement and the Republican Party to invest it in the battle for the Senate midterm elections and in promoting Pompeo for the next presidential elections. This could also be viewed as part of the means of blackmailing and exerting pressure on bin Salman who is fearful of Biden’s administration and petrified of the fallout of normalisation, especially as Iran had published in the Teheran Times a map demonstrating the efficacity of Iranian ballistic missiles in targeting US bases in various strategic locations including Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the Emirates just ahead of Pompeo’s visit to Saudi.
     
    Hence, the political activities in the region indicate that America aims to consolidate what has already been achieved in respect of the Deal of the Century. This approach is deduced from the Egyptian-Sudanese manoeuvres which aim to protect the government of normalisation and alliance under the leadership of Abdullah Hamdok and the army, against any popular protest that may impinge on the relationship with "Israel". It is also corroborated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which recommended to the US administration speeding up its backing of the Sudanese regime to avert the threat of a popular uprising, and instructing Saudi and the Emirates to support the regime of al-Burhan and Hamdok, since preserving the Sudanese regime is deemed a US priority necessitating putting an end to the polarisation of the Sudanese leaders and the jostling with Qatar to attract them. 
     
    We conclude from the aforementioned that the fervent activity falls within the context of imposing a host of new realities on the ground in a preemptive manner, and preparing for the forthcoming phase under the Biden administration; this includes Erdoğan’s recent proclivity to calm the situation with Europe that hopes Biden will back it in the confrontation with Turkey, especially as Turkey’s economic performance has recently declined and most probably induced Erdoğan’s speech in which he solicited de-escalation two days ago, and indicated his wariness of Biden’s intentions of backing his domestic and foreign opponents.
     
    Also, from the activities of the Arab states, we conclude their inclination towards completing alliance and normalisation, especially between Saudi and "Israel", with the aim of liquidating the issue of Palestine. We can expound in this context the Jordanian preparations to exact an approval for the result of the Deal of the Century, specifically from the “East Jordanian Constituent”, through the parliamentarian formation and the Jordanian Senate. We can also expound why the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas wants to revive the negotiations and remove the obstacles facing them by restoring the treacherous security coordination which not only damages the struggle of the Ummah’s children in Palestine but also to justify for Arab countries their alliance and normalisation with the Jewish entity, especially Saudi, and by complying with the "Israeli" demand to freeze the salaries of the Palestinian prisoners and the martyrs’ families, thus turning their issue from an issue of resistance to a charity case. This also sends a warning to the children of the Ummah in Palestine against resisting and struggling against the army of occupation, not to mention the Palestinian Authority’s inclination towards eradicating the culture of “resistance” from the education curricula and purging the memory of future generations of the values encouraging resistance and Jihad and turning them into servants and slaves to the usurping entity. This prompts us to constantly remind the Muslims to denounce loudly and clearly the traitorous regimes and collaborating rulers, and to reject all the outputs of their conspiratorial political activity. 
     
    Furthermore, we exhort the children of the Ummah to call to account her forces, parties, scholars and dignitaries for their deafening silence and reluctance to seize the initiative and put an end to the treason of the regimes and rulers and their conspiring against Muslims. We remind those capable of generating change that they are perpetrating the most appalling treason against their Deen and causing the most grievous harm to the Ummah by keeping silent over falsehood. They ought to think about the judgement, which if they escaped today, will not escape on the day wealth and children will be of no avail save for those who come before Allah the Almighty with a heart free from evil. 
     
    8 Rabi’ al-Thani 1442h 
    23 November 2020 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Observation - Macron Orders France’s Muslims to Apostatise 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Macron Orders France’s Muslims to Apostatise

    “It is Satan who is trying to get you to fear his allies, so do not be afraid, but fear Me, if you are believers” [Aal-Imrân-175]

    On Wednesday 18 November, French president Emmanuel Macron received leaders of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) and its unions to explore the outlines of establishing a National Council of Imams to be responsible for accrediting imams, and to draw a charter confirming that their religion is “not political”.

    The office of the French president said Macron had asked his collocutors to draw up a new charter within fifteen days that must include recognition of the “values of the Republic” by which the CFCM and its nine unions must abide. The presidential office stressed also that Macron had given the Council’s officials a two-week ultimatum to draw up the charter.

    Macron emphasised that the new charter should include an acknowledgement of the values of the republic, specify that Islam in France is a religion and not a political movement, and put an end to foreign involvement in French mosques.

    This obviously places the Muslims in France before a test of their values; either they fall into the quagmire of liberal secularism and abandon their Aqeedah, the rules of their religion and their dignity, and consequently Muslim women would abandon their chastity, or face punishment. If this were not terrorism, what would terrorism be then? And if this were not an abuse of human dignity and freedom of creed of which Macron claims to be a protector, what would then be considered a violation of human dignity and what would then be viewed as protection of religious rights?

    All Western countries dread the demographic expansion of the Muslims in Europe and America as much as they dread the erosion of their liberal values which, compared with the chastity and humanity of the Muslims, appear animalistic. Hence, it is very likely that this policy falls within the framework of confronting the Muslim demographic problem as well as tackling Islam itself. Investigative journalist Dr Nafeez Ahmed reported that “three months before the Trump campaign announced its Muslim ban, a man employed by a Conservative party lobby group linked to Boris Johnson told Trump advisor, Frank Gaffney, that a Muslim ban is the solution to the Muslim demographic timebomb”. Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, for his part told reporters after a cabinet meeting on 11 November 2020 that “In the fight against political Islam – the ideological basis behind it – we are going to create a criminal offense called ‘political Islam’ in order to be able to move against those who aren’t terrorists but are preparing the ground for it.”

    In fact, the demands dictated by Macron to the leaders of the Islamic community could lead those who respond to them and believe in their content to committing flagrant Kufr; they could also enable Macron to overcome his domestic and foreign crises and give him the antidote he has been persistently seeking to fend off the domestic and foreign critics and lure the far-right movement. Abusing the dignity of the Muslims in Europe and harassing them could turn into a general policy for the European states and consequently, constraining the life of the Muslims and criminalising those who breach it.

    If Macron had demanded from the Muslims not to interfere in ruling matters of the French republic, the issue would have been uncomplicated, but since he demanded from the Muslims to change their religion, they should not comply because the state of constraining duress does not apply to them. The most dangerous aspect of Macron’s undertaking is demanding the Muslims to acknowledge that their religion is not “political” and to recognise the “values of the French republic”, namely secularism, the religion of the French. The Muslims acknowledgement of Islam being devoid of politics is tantamount to denying conclusive texts of the noble Qur’an. Allah the Almighty says: “We have revealed to you the book, with the truth, so that you judge between people in accordance with what Allah has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the traitors.” [An-Nisa 105]; “His is the creation, and His is the command.” [Al-Aaraf-54]. Denying the conclusive text of the Qur’an is indisputably Kufr. Hence, the Muslims in France should realise that such an acknowledgement is apostasy from the religion of Allah the Almighty. They ought to hold on to their religion even if it led to their expulsion from France for Allah’s earth is wide enough. Allah the Almighty says: “Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handle, which does not break. Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” [al-Baqarah-256]. They should not place the materialistic value ahead of the lasting spiritual value: “Say, If your parents, and your children, and your siblings, and your spouses, and your relatives, and the wealth you have acquired, and a business you worry about, and homes you love, are more dear to you than Allah, and His Messenger, and the struggle in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His judgment. And Allah does not guide the sinful people.” [al-Tawbah-24]

    The appropriate response to the demands of Macron who has failed to be consistent with his doctrine and the constitution of his country which champions freedom of creed, simply because of his hatred towards Islam, is for the Muslims to be coherent with their Aqeedah and to hold on to their religion just like their prophet Yusuf did in the face of less than what Macron has demanded of them: “He said, My Lord, prison is more desirable to me than what they call me to.” [Yusuf-33]. They should not betray their Lord just to please him. Ibnu Hibban reported in his Sahih book that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said “Whoever seeks Allah's pleasure by the people's wrath, Allah will suffice him from the people. And whoever seeks the people's pleasure by Allah's wrath, Allah will entrust him to the people.”

    Dear Muslims in France in particular and Western countries in general, be truthful to Allah so that He may be with you and support your religion and your prophet, and heal the hearts of your Ummah; and do not be like those that Allah the Almighty said about them: “Among the people are those who say, we believe in Allah and in the Last Day, but they are not believers.” [al-Baqarah-8]

    4 Rabi’ al-Thani 1442h
    19 November 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Political Observation - Nagorno-Karabakh War Ends 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Nagorno-Karabakh War Ends

    Russian president Vladimir Putin announced the agreement on a “complete ceasefire” in Nagorno-Karabakh. The agreement stipulated that “a complete ceasefire has been concluded in Karabakh starting 10 November at midnight Moscow time. The armies of Azerbaijan and Armenia have pledged to remain in their positions and to exchange prisoners of war.” The agreement has also stipulated that “Armenia will return Kalbajar to Azerbaijan by 15 November and Lachin by 1 December, while keeping a 5-kilometre wide corridor connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, which will be controlled by Russian peacekeepers.

    Russia has succeeded in ending the Azerbaijan-Armenia war in a surprising manner after about two months of military battles in the occupied Azerbaijani Karabakh province, the roots of which date back to 1923 when the province was part of Azerbaijan’s territory and Joseph Stalin decided to separate it from Azerbaijan. In May 1992, separatist Armenian forces occupied the cities of Shusha and Lachin and in 1993, Armenian forces seized six other Azerbaijani districts around Nagorno-Karabakh, namely Kalbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Gubadli and Zangilan.

    Before coming to Armenia’s rescue, Russia had concocted this hotbed of tension between the two countries to ensure her intervention and to conduct the relations between the two sides in order to preserve her influence in the Caucasus region which is susceptible to ethnic and religious tensions whose brewing threatens the Russian Federation’s entity itself, not to mention the threat to Russia’s vital and strategic space in the entire region in favour of the US who has been endeavouring to seize its natural resources and dominate its supply routes, and besiege and contain Russia as per the old plan revealed by US policymaker and former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

    In addition to America’s covetous designs, Russia also dreads Turkey’s entry as an influential and active competitor in the Caucasus region with an American blessing whose aims are no secret in terms of heating up the friction between Russia and Turkey and weakening their relations, and triggering the demographic situation within the Iranian component, namely the Persians and Azerbaijanis, which led Iran to offer her mediation between the warring sides.

    However, because she has been subjected to a flurry of America’s political raids on her sphere of influence in Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova after losing Georgia and Ukraine to America, Russia is departing from a defensive strategy hinging on generating an equilibrium between Armenia and Azerbaijan and snatching the file of Karabakh from the Minsk Group, i.e. distancing the US and Europe from the issue, while maintaining the margin of differences with Turkey under control in order to underpin the stretch of antipathy and rifts between Turkey and the US and Europe. This Russian manoeuvring is more like a choice dictated by Russia and Turkey’s need for each other rather than a strategic political decision by either side because Russia has limited options amid the circumstances surrounding her. This led her to let the military operations take their course in a direction that would allow her to achieve her immediate aims, namely remaining in the region and overseeing the relations and not dominating them singlehandedly.

    Hence, by succeeding in ending the war in isolation of the Minsk Group, Russia has achieved what she had wanted according to her political approach which is constrained by a catalogue of equilibria, be it on the international plane pertinent to America or in neutralizing Turkey and limiting her manoeuvring and influence, in addition to scoring a point of rapprochement with Iran who is wary of the fallout of the crisis on the unity of her lands and societal cohesion. As for the Armenian domestic political plane, Russia wanted to discipline America’s man, Armenia’s prime minister Nikol Pashinyan, by subjecting him to the wrath of the masses together with the civil society forces linked to US billionaire philanthropist, George Soros.

    It is true that the main motive behind the Russian intervention to end the war was the rapid developments on the ground and Azerbaijan’s recapture of Shusha and her advance on various battlefronts, and Moscow’s fear of a total collapse of the Armenian forces which would have threatened the erosion of her backyard. However, Putin’s success in ending the war and brokering a ceasefire agreement is considered a Russian breakthrough and a message to all the stakeholders stipulating that she is main player in the crisis. Hence, the upshots of the agreement could be viewed as a success for Putin in terms of imposing a permanent Russian military presence in the region for five years, automatically renewable for further five-year periods, and shaking American influence by destroying the popularity of Armenian prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, who had reneged on his understandings with the Russians by allowing civil society institutions linked to the US to expand and work against her influence. This perhaps explains why Putin accepted Azerbaijan’s conditions which made Pashinyan look submissive, so that he may destroy his popularity, end his political future and make an example of him for those who follow him. Putin’s tactic started to bear its fruits as angry protests against Pashinyan broke out in the capital Yerevan with protesters gathering outside the government building and chanting anti-Pashinyan slogans; they broke windows and stormed the government building with some of them reaching the prime minister’s office and demanding his resignation.

    Vladimir Putin has also succeeded in achieving a longer-term objective by weakening Erdoğan’s chances of acquiring any trump cards or bargaining chips which could exert pressure on him, or even enter the arena of rivalry and competition; but he was also eager to maintain the relationship and the understandings he had reached with Erdoğan since he was the first Turkish president with whom he was able to reach a concord.

    What Putin has also succeeded in achieving is depriving Azerbaijan, who is backed by Turkey, of recovering full sovereignty over her lands, and dissuading her from defying the Russian master in his geopolitical area in the future, in addition to achieving a far-reaching aim by rescuing the Armenians from a totally humiliating defeat while convincing them of their need for the Russian umbrella. Putin has also downsized the victory of Azerbaijanis who had routed the Armenian occupiers and imposed their conditions from a position of strength with the backing of Turkey, lest their victory should remind the Russians and the Armenians of the grandeur of the Muslims, or restore in the memory of the Muslims their lost glory and their rights that are still confiscated by the Russian tsar such as the Crimean Peninsula.

    As for the Azerbaijani and Turkish side, the former succeeded with the help of the latter, despite the Russians’ attempt to thwart their victory, to establish a precedent in isolation of the international volition represented by the Minsk Group, namely laying the foundations of a reality in the Azerbaijani province that could no longer be sidestepped or ignored, whereas Turkey succeeded in imposing her presence in the region as a player whom Russia could no longer ignore, especially after Turkish weapons had proven their ability to change the balance of power in northern Syria, Libya and Azerbaijan. This proves that the Islamic Ummah, who is shackled by international institutions and resolutions, is capable of reversing the state of humiliation and dejection if she were to generate the willpower and the independent leadership which will trample on the resolutions of the colonialist organisations, and lead the Muslims to a lofty standing.

    27 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    13 November 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Political Observation - The Corrupt US System’s Mechanism & the Ascendency of the Deep State 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Corrupt US System’s Mechanism & the Ascendency of the Deep State

    The capitalist system is pragmatic and it conditions and shapes itself according to reality. However, its main legislative dilemma remains the concept of compromise that is deeply rooted in the American mentality and which manifests itself in most of what has been agreed upon in the US constitution, especially in the electoral mechanisms.

    What tends to deepen the American system’s dilemma is the fact that the republic and its systems have been built on racism and confiscating the political rights of some, and determines the right to vote through the criterion of freedom; in other words, preventing slaves from voting. This is because the US constitution legislated slavery in a devious manner; section 1 of the 13th amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Furthermore, the notion of the Electoral College suppresses and deceives the volition of the masses. It is an electoral mechanism designed to subjugate the small states to the principle of federation, especially in the presidential federal elections.

    The deep state is not confined in its denotational reservoir to the shadowy forces or the remnants of the annihilated regime that the media project as being the deep state to deceive the masses, divert their resentment and provoke their anger and rebellion towards the structure of the state, so that it may protect its essence; it is rather the intellectual, political and legislative system, the state institutions and the forces that influence them. In the US, the deep state is not merely the personalities, capitalists, companies, civil and military industrial groups, digital information technology and centres of strategic studies; it is rather all those institutions in addition to the constitutional institutions concocted by the founding fathers and the amendments introduced to their systems.

    Hence, the deep state in America is an integrated institution built on an intellectual and political system incorporated within the state organs, its governmental and non-governmental institutions and the forces influencing it such as the oil industry group, military industry group and the information technology industry, namely Google, Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook, as well as the strategic research centres such as the Rand Corporation which includes an elite of intellectuals, politicians and retired military and civilian personalities, and enjoys generous financing from companies and capitalists. Their main aim is to protect the federal constitution and the interests of the capitalists, and bulwarking the republic which is deemed as their executive tool in achieving their interests.

    It is common knowledge that the world institutional structure we witness nowadays started its ghoulish comportment in 1933, when the US abandoned the gold standard, delinking the value of the dollar to gold. Then it turned into a savage beast when America realised her military might after dropping two nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. She became confident that her military power would enable her to reshape the world according to her extremely vicious colonialist and capitalist vision. She succeeded in achieving this thanks to the current international system she established which includes financial, commercial, political and regional institutions which she has been harnessing to preserve the world order, the international situation she dominates singlehandedly.

    The most important official and effective components of the deep state in the US include the Department of State, CIA, FBI, Pentagon, National Security Agency and the Electoral College established by the founding fathers to serve the constitution, dominate the political scene, curb the power of the masses and dominate political decision-making and steer it in one single direction to oversee the choice of the electorates. This is corroborated by distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University, George C. Edwards III, who was quoted as saying: “They were tired, impatient, frustrated. They cobbled together this plan because they couldn’t agree on anything else.” Hence, the statement describes an important issue in the psychology of the American union and expressed the deeply-rooted societal division epitomised by the mistrust and suspicion dominating the union members who dread a central meddling in the affairs of the states or conferring executive powers on an official organ that would confiscate the authorities of the states via the federal institutions. This is the issue upon which Donald Trump built his first and second electoral campaigns and even exploited to absolve himself of responsibility for the unrest and protests against the killing of George Floyd and the spread of coronavirus, blaming the state governors of the Democratic party instead. Moreover, the notion of the electoral college was devised in the first instance as a compromise with the aim of sidestepping the volition of the masses and anticipating the risks that may crop up from direct elections. In other words, it was devised to curb the power of the people and the popular immunity of the president which may tempt him to rebel against the deep state, or may impede his removal should the deep state’s forces decide to get rid of him or side with his opponent. This explains the reason behind the prepondering force of the electoral college and its interactants in manipulating the choice of president and the presidential office.

    In fact, the reason why the capitalists have resorted to adopting the principle of compromise lies in the alternative being the fragmentation of the capitalist ideology itself; this is because the nature of life imposed by the capitalist ideology leads to the individualistic and egoistic tendencies, chieftainship and the dominance of capitalists and businesspersons over society resulting in their monopoly of power to control the masses and spread their hegemony; this clashes entirely with the notion of power and sovereignty to the people, and the “divine right” and its dictates and impediments. Hence, the principle of compromise is the magic carpet that fulfils the greed of the thieving capitalists; it is the sanctuary that allows them to secretly confiscate the will of the masses in choosing their rulers, to fraudulently enhance the credentials of their candidate and to avert any clash of interests and destruction of the ideology that achieves their interests forcibly. Hence, jurisprudents conjured up the notion of the Electoral College as a compromise after months of push and pull during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Some claimed the right of Congress to elect the president and some claimed the right of the people.

    The electoral college was therefore the sanctuary that stipulated establishing a temporary voting body equal to the number of US senators and representatives to elect the president of the US every four years. The body is constitutionally delegated to elect the US president in Washington the second week of January, i.e. two months after the elections. Hence, when an American citizen selects his presidential candidate on Election Day, he is actually choosing the members of this body who will cast votes on his behalf in the days and weeks after the election. This compromise reflected in the electoral college was reached after the smaller states had objected to the dominance of the greater states such as California over the US presidential elections due to their economic clout, the size of their population and the high number of slaves who were counted as residents, affecting the number of citizens in those states and their share of the electoral vote, even if they did not have the right to vote. This is why the fourth US president from 1809 to 1817, James Maddison, announced that because of the slaves, a census could not be a criterion to determine the share of the electoral college for each state. Consequently, due to the impact of considering the slaves as citizens, they reached another compromise that differentiated humanity between the white freeman and the slave; hence, they redefined the human attribute of the slaves and estimated its value at three fifths of a white man, i.e. they estimated the value of a slave as being an incomplete human beings, not to mention the denial of their political and civil rights, so as not to completely remove them from the census of the state, and in order to benefit from their numbers in increasing the share of the state in the electoral college since the number of votes in the electoral college for each state is linked to the number of residents.

    Therefore, the electoral college was endorsed and electoral rights were determined according to these factors; and this is why most political commentators attributed the flaws in the current political atmosphere and structure, reflected in the societal divisions and political struggle, to the fact that they had not been envisaged in the minds of US legislators and the founders of the electoral college. They also attributed it to the failure to constitutionalise a clear voting mechanism in respect of the electoral college. Maine and Nebraska are the only states to have introduced some modifications to the constitutions of their respective states whereby the votes are awarded to the candidate winning a majority.

    It is worth mentioning in this context that some of the representatives of the electoral college refused in seven previous elections to vote for the president-elect who had won the majority. The most famous celebrated occurrence was the refusal of North Carolina’s representative, Lloyd Bailey, to vote for Nixon in 1968. Such occurrences cropped up again in the 2016 elections, though some of these were isolated individual cases and had no telling impact, though they reflect the possibility of the representative in the electoral college renouncing his delegation and commitment to the electorates and voting for the president he wants himself, especially in the absence of a unified federal system to elect the members of the electoral college and to compel the representative of the electoral college to vote for the president according to the delegation of the electorates; and this corroborates the fact that capitalism and its liberal democratic system continue to deceive and defraud the alleged willpower of the masses.

    24 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    10 November 2020

      hizbuttahrir.org

  • Political Observation - Russia’s Position in World Politics and her Relationship with the US 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Russia’s Position in World Politics and her Relationship with the US

    Apart from Britain, who is proceeding in the American orbit, Russia and the rest of the major powers do not dispute America’s leadership of the world, but rather seek strategic and security survival in their historical sphere of influence within a host of political approaches imposed and shaped by the might of the US and her international influence; this is because their membership of the Security Council and the regional organisations infiltrated by America, and the International institutions dominated by her, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, tend to frame their political movements instead of providing them with a margin of influence in world politics, especially as America controls the oil regions and her currency dominates the dollar-based International financial system, in addition to controlling most of the influential world media outlets and having the upper hand in terms of the means to execute International resolutions; all this has given America the exclusive power to break the law, rebel against the world order and bypass its institutions without fearing the sword of sanctions which she incidentally keeps wielding to muzzle the countries of the world including Russia and the major powers.

    Despite the power America enjoys, and despite Russia and the other major powers being integrated within the governance system instituted by America about 90 years ago, extending its continuance after the Second World War, then again after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the war on Islam, America does place Russia outside the category of independent states since the disparity in military and economic power between major powers does not necessarily mean either affiliation to the leading superpower or proceeding in its orbit; it only denotes a classification of the major powers in terms of military clout, influence and international decision-making. Consequently, the Russian undertakings that seem to identify with US policy actually fall under the understandings and mutual interests between the two countries. Examples of this would include Russia’s military strikes against the Syrian armed opposition which were designed to weaken them and restore a military equilibrium between the Syrian regime and the opposition, and force the fighting factions and opponents viewed as loose cannons to return to the American fold while inducing the masses to reject the militants with Islamic tendencies and coerce them into accepting America’s solutions and initiatives such as federalisation and the Deal of the Century. This was corroborated by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy, Andrew Exum, in a speech before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs in which he justified the Russo-American understandings by claiming they were necessary to preserve the security of the "Israeli" entity.

    Moreover, some of the Russian political undertakings and stances were independent of the understandings with the US, such as her collusion with "Israel" to strike the Iranian forces and their affiliated militias in certain areas, and the strikes against the city of Idlib to displace its residents with the collusion of the criminal Bashar Assad; those Russian undertakings were harmonious with America’s policy in terrifying Turkey and Europe with the waves of migration and “terror”, especially as America’s strategy in Syria and Libya tends to absorb in its segment related to disconcerting Europe with the independent Russian moves whose outputs could be turned into inputs for future phases, such as exploiting the presence of the Wagner mercenaries and Russia’s objection to Turkey’s storming of Sirte and al-Jufra as a pretext to limit the Russian and Turkish field of activity in Libya, freeze the military process, kick France out of the game and exhort all foreign and domestic stakeholders to join the political process according to her vision of the solution as per the Berlin Conference and the outputs of the Geneva talks.

    On the other hand, Russia is a nationalist state and does not compete with America on the world stage; despite her conversion to capitalism, it remains however a distorted mafia-like specimen that lacks the civilisational Western democratic model that may be emulated. She also lacks the competitive edge in the technological sectors and civilian industries which Western states dominate. However, Russia endeavours to assert herself and her nationalistic sovereignty through her military might and developing her military industry, bullying all the religious, nationalist and ethnic components within her entity and her regional sphere, and flexing her oppressive military muscles in Syria and Libya. This is what forces her to conclude a host of understandings with the US beyond her geopolitical sphere and engrosses her in resisting American expansion into her lebensraum and geopolitical sphere, most of which is no longer under her total control, especially after Georgia and Ukraine exited the sphere of her influence following the Colour revolutions, the electoral events in Belarus, Kirgizstan and Moldova, and the war in Armenia. Meanwhile, Russia continues through her understandings with the US to gain some bargaining chips in certain regions and uses them to defend her regional depth.

    As for America, she continues to make rapid strides to besiege Russia within her geopolitical areas; and most observers are aware of the political changes that took place after most of the former Warsaw pact countries joined the EU and NATO, and of America’s attempts to chip away at Russia’s lebensraum within the Russian Commonwealth and to destabilise her union through the Chechen war that Putin eventually won.

    America also uses Russia as a scarecrow by allowing her to extend her presence to the Middle East and North African coastlines, which are considered an extremely sensitive area for Europe’s security and interests and for the Arab states. She also exploits Russia in the “Game Theory” and “The Strategy of Conflict” with the aim of deepening the ongoing crises and besieging Europe from the east, south and southeast with a belt of unrest and conflicts, and consequently perpetuating the state of uncertainty in Europe towards Russia in order to control and blackmail all of them and orchestrate the relationships between them according to her vision and interests. The president of the European Council Charles, Michel, expressed this sentiment by saying that “Europe is surrounded by a belt of instability.”

    America is banking on strengthening the performance of NATO and exploiting the European fears of the Russian threat to influence further the domestic and foreign policies of the European states. Hence, the US provokes Russia by violating the Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles Treaty and establishing missile defence systems in Poland and the Baltic states under the pretext of the Iranian threat and “terrorism” that she incidentally sponsors, in addition to snubbing the French offer to mediate with Russia on the issue of the missile agreement for the same reasons, namely perpetuating the uncertainty towards Russia and tinkering with European security.

    America continues her endeavour to isolate Russia internationally by raising Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and her meddling in the elections of neighbouring countries to impose sanctions on her, downsize her and curb her resistance to the American version of the Eurasia Project which Kissinger has often talked about and which America aims to implement in order to reach the energy sources in the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea countries, and eventually, in anticipation of the 21st century challenges, wean Europe off Russian gas or at least dwarf Russia’s gas exports thus depriving her of the revenues shoring up her military industries, and on the other hand, keep Europe dependent on her and the regions under her influence for her energy, within the strategy of dual containment of Russia and Europe.

    As for the Sino-Russian rapprochement, it does not provide Russia with sufficient power to influence world politics inasmuch as corroborate America’s strategy to encourage China to abandon her communist system that impedes the introduction of the liberal approach. The strategy focuses on the impact of the capitalist laws that automatically infiltrate the communist system via the gates of foreign alliance and the network of strategic imports. Hence, America is not worried about the Sino-Russian rapprochement turning into a rival political force, since the frail alliance that has brought them together could not withstand the conflict of interest pertinent to oil price rises which serve oil-producing Russia and harm oil-consuming China. Besides, Russia and China came together and used their veto several times in the Syrian file without achieving any impact on the International situation, apart from being viewed as opponents of the International consensus. This is due to America’s ability to contain the movements of the potential opponents and harness their presence on the international scene to deceive the masses and distance herself from the dirty work, or delegate them to act on her behalf either due to domestic considerations such as the presidential elections, or to avert the resentment of US public opinion against the president and his party, especially on issues pertinent to the Zionist entity or any other objective reason.

    The peripheral and media presence of countries such as France, Britain, Russia and China in the International scene is often a necessity dictated by US policy aimed to either implicate them or divert attention away from herself, or mobilise world public opinion on a specific issue and provide International cover for it, such as America’s nomination of France and Britain to handle the file of East Euphrates and the Buffer zone sought by Turkey on the borders with Syria; this manoeuvre was designed to remove the attribute of “terrorism” and lend legitimacy to the Syrian Democratic Forces and the PKK, whose presence Turkey categorically rejected.

    Moreover, when America allows the conventional major powers to be present on the political scene, this tends to either divert the masses’ resentment towards another enemy, such as the Muslims’ resentment towards Russia and Iran in the Syrian file, or generate a tussle between the conventional major powers and drive a wedge between them. Other examples of this manoeuvre are America’s decision to partially turn a blind eye to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and tempting Russia and Europe with the Arab markets and linking their interests to her areas of influence in order to blackmail and control them, oversee their relationships with those countries and to lend legitimacy to her tyrant agents such as Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. This explains why America allowed her agents to open their markets to her rivals, especially in the fields of arms and energy.

    Furthermore, it is possible to note the type of relationship between America and Russia through the statements of former US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter in 2016: “The United States does not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia… But make no mistake, we will defend our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords all of us.” Ashton Carter was more explicit when he described the US relationship with Russia by saying that the balanced approach of the US administration towards Russia was summed up in deterring Moscow while continuing to cooperate with her in the fields of common objectives and interests. Ashton Carter’s statements justify the US’s bilateral relations with Moscow and inhibit the Russo-European relationship; they are compatible with the reality of the relationship between them and consistent with America’s attempt to compel Europe to deal with Russia according to the American vision that categorises Russia as an enemy and justifies the continuance of NATO and the increase in its budget. Therefore, Putin endeavoured to alleviate Europe’s fears and attract Macron after he won the presidential elections. He said on Russia’s Victory Day, 9 May 2017: “This monstrous tragedy was made possible primarily due to connivance to the criminal ideology of racial superiority and due to the lack of unity among the world’s leading nations. This allowed the Nazis to arrogate the right to decide the destiny of other peoples, to unleash the cruellest, bloodiest war, to enslave nearly all European nations.” He added: “We will never forget that it was our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers who won back Europe’s freedom and the long-awaited peace.”

    We conclude from this that Russia remains an independent state and is genuinely targeted by the US. America has been pursuing Russia in her lebensraum and working relentlessly towards preventing her from meddling in the affairs of the neighbouring countries. America has been striving to make incursions into Russia’s regional depth in the south, i.e. the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia, in order to control the oil and gas resources and their supply routes, and subsequently reduce Russia’s revenues and hamper her spending on Putin’s policy that seeks to revamp the Russian armed forces to face the challenges of the 21st century.

    Finally, despite all the differences and the malice fraught with venom and selfishness in the manner America deals with her own kind from among the frenzied wolves and vicious beasts, and despite her investment in “terrorism and migration”, her fragmentation of the Muslims’ lands through the “Arab Spring” and her exploitation of those lands as a fuel in her initiatives that aim to enslave the Muslims and terrify Russia, Europe and China from being subjected to the same fate, they all treat the leaderless Muslims’ lands as a game reserve and they all gang up against them. They are all criminal, covetous and belligerent colonial powers.

    The Muslims should realise that America is not an inevitable fate, and that she only acquired worldwide dominion and economic superiority because Islam, the Muslims and their state was absent and because the collaborators were imposed on them to plunder their riches which should they recapture, they would rewrite history and rule the whole world.

    “If you help the cause of Allah, He will help you” [Mohammed-7]
     

    21 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    7 November 2020


     

  • Political Observation - France’s Status & Relationship with the United States 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - France’s Status & Her Relationship with the United States

    Each country has a domestic political stance and a foreign political stance. Monitoring a state’s domestic and foreign policy in light of the international situation helps us perceive whether the state is either affiliated to another power in its policy, or independent or a satellite state.

    One of the French strategic thinkers says: “More than anything, France wants to be sovereign; yet her sovereignty is insufficient to secure her national interest.” Based on France’s nature and the ideology upon which she is built, and by observing her domestic and foreign political stance, we deduce that she is an independent state but unable to control her destiny.

    Since being part of a whole renders a constituent dependent, France linked the colonised countries to her culture; and as it is known, cultural affiliation hampers the deracination of political influence. Therefore, France managed to maintain some presence in West Africa, a pretext to intervene in the continent, and a presence on the international scene, especially as the state should have something to offer to the world if it were to maintain a position on the world stage. This is what France, America and Britain have and Russia does not, namely the liberal democratic value-based system. It is worth observing in this context that investing in what certain opponents or foes from among independent states believe in, is one of America’s styles, just like her investment in Russia and France’s need to have an international presence motivated by ideology or nationalism to act as guarantees for self-assertion and to avert domestic erosion and collapse. Likewise, America’s investment in Erdoğan’s need to enhance his popular standing, and her exploiting of such an enterprise in her strategies and plans which often tend to absorb the movements of the others irrespective of their orientation, with the aim of containing and directing them, such as the movements of Turkey and Russia in Syria and Libya. This could confuse the observers’ perception of the relationships between America and those states and lead to analysing the events in a manner contrary to their reality. Another example of this approach is America’s investment in the Muslim youths’ yearning for Jihad on the principle of “the end justifies the means” to achieve her objectives based on the Dulles Strategy, and her support for the national liberation movements against British and French colonialism last century, as per the testimony of mid-level CIA officer Oliver Iselin on US intelligence agencies’ role in the activities of national liberation movements in Africa.

    By exploring the reality of African countries like Mali and Niger, where America established military bases near the uranium-producing mines, from which France obtains 90% of their output for her nuclear power plants, and by observing France’s desperate efforts to thwart the Libyan method in seeking “liberation”, lest it should contaminate west African countries, in addition to tracking US policy in disseminating “terrorism” in that region via Algeria, a narrative corroborated by Jeremy Keenan in his book titled “The Dark Sahara” in which he accused the US and Algeria of conspiring to fabricate evidence and exaggerate the threat of al-Qaeda’s terror in North Africa, described the “worldwide war on terror” as a hoax, and concluded that the attacks executed by such groups served America’s endeavour to spread her political influence over the region to dominate its economic resources, it transpires from all this that France still has several agents in various parts of Africa who have been serving her political and economic interests for decades.

    However, the US strategy for the African continent, especially during the tenure of Donald Trump, has constrained those agents; thus, some of them proceeded behind her or behind their interests with China, within the context of an American strategy aimed at generating a rivalry between China and France, and even between France and Turkey, and China and Turkey, who has recently turned up in the African continent, as China’s incursion and generation of economic interests through infrastructure projects and direct lending to African states is no longer a secret. Moreover, America has sought to constrain the behaviour of some of those rulers and political milieux constituting the legacy of the old colonialism of the African continent through a host of military, security and economic agreements; consequently, they are no longer in a position to project the French or the British viewpoint and achieve their interests in isolation of American supervision. The Anglo-Saxon capitalists’ control of French major companies, especially oil companies, and what this entails in terms of governance systems instituted by investment funds, has paralysed France’s ability to harness her companies for political aims, as was the case with Elf, which used to act as the French foreign ministry to the point where it would supply armies with weapons and appoint and oust presidents. 

    Hence, French influence nowadays is present through a number of individuals occupying positions of power but they are besieged by American companies and agents, and AFRICOM military bases in the Sahel region and Central Africa. France managed to recapture Côte d'Ivoire from the American agent Alassane Ouattara and to snatch the Congolese president Joseph Kabila from the grip of America; but America killed him because he had turned on her and replaced him with his son, just as she usually changes her shoes in the Gulf.

    However, the influence of France and Britain in their former colonies necessitates from the rulers affiliated to them being decision makers in their respective countries, but this does not mean being able to openly act insubordinately towards America, because what makes the agent able to operate is the ability of the major power to which he is affiliated to protect him; France and Britain could not protect their agents if they were to openly work towards thwarting America’s influence. Not only can America influence the affiliated states but also the states sponsoring them, not to mention the nature of the relationship between the major powers which is no longer based on struggle.

    Despite America’s numerous attempts to infiltrate France’s political system and its deep state, she however could not achieve the same success she had with Britain, where she managed to dwarf the British political milieu through a host of direct actions. She succeeded in luring Britain’s leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, and dominating the British political parties, trade unions and student unions, in addition to influencing the British economy. America also managed to link Britain’s interests to her policies and lure her into partaking in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the war on “terror”, and in persuading her to exert pressure on France in respect of NATO and to exit the European Union.

    As for America’s incursions into the French system and her attempts to destabilise it and dismantle the mechanisms of French independence, these are numerous and they include the Franco-American squabble that cropped up by the end of the Second World War, as America pursued the policy of liquidating the old colonies and draining the classical colonial powers’ sources of influence and chasing them away from their colonies. Britain and France were subjected to an onslaught by proxy via Abdul Nasser and Gaddafi in the Sahel and North Africa, in addition to the trade unions and students’ movements which toppled the government of France’s military icon, Charles De Gaulle, who had objected to Britain’s EEC membership as he knew that it would lead to Americanising the European project. America then set about curtailing the French investment enterprises in her former colonial sphere in west Africa through a host of protocols such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) of 2000, and a number of initiatives such as the African American Strategic Partnership, in addition to sponsoring the African Union, the World Bank and the American NGO’s involved in executing the common objective pertinent to “developing and integrating the Dark Continent”, which include economic, commercial, investment and security development, and which is usually undertaken through high-level US sponsorship, a narrative corroborated by the text of the “US-Africa Strategy ”.

    Observers are aware that America owns 12.4% of UK investment holdings, and that she sought, through her oil companies, to acquire the French Total Group, which includes the major French oil companies such as Total and Elf Aquitaine, by buying 34.5% of its shares; and America sought to become the majority shareholder in the French tyres company Michelin, which America subsequently exploited to exert pressure on the French government by dismissing a large number of its workforce in the nineties, causing the French government a major industrial crisis.

    America has also infiltrated the French media with an army of 50 Jewish financiers, most of whom are linked to the US, such as Bernard Henri Lévy, who virtually work as agents within the French system, in addition to French news channels BFMTV and CNEWS, which have US-sponsored far-right tendencies. As for the status quo in France, it indicates the presence of advanced American actions aimed at dismantling the deep state, such as the onslaught on the structure of the education system and the attempt to monopolise the main governmental jobs through the graduates of one single college, namely “Ecole Nationale D’Administration” founded by De Gaulle after the Second World War and from which Chirac, Hollande and Macron graduated.

    As for Macron’s attempts to establish some influence in the Mediterranean region in Libya, Cyprus or Lebanon, they are not in isolation from American supervision, and some Lebanese leaders, such as former minister Wiam Wahab, expressed this reality by stating that “America has sent Macron with her agenda with which we are familiar”.

    Meanwhile, recent events in Libya revealed that America’s decision to give France the green light to back her agent Khalifah Haftar was a political trap aimed at projecting France’s impotence. As for Macron’s desperate attempts to persuade EU member states to establish a European military force, his attempts to restore France’s relations with Russia or his intervention to settle the issue of intermediate-range and short-range missiles, they all ended in failure. America is working directly or through her agents to sow despair in France, downsize her and confine her to her national borders.

    It is possible to construe this reality from Macron’s reactions and his attempts to cover up his failure and compensate for it through his attack on Islam and his precautionary measures by raising fears in French nationals for their identity and constitution.

    France is a nuclear power and different from Britain. She had maintained the independence of the French nuclear deterrent and her military industries. She never integrated herself fully into NATO despite being a member state; she withdrew from NATO’s operational aspect since the days of De Gaulle and she does not take part in military cooperation projects and joint manufacturing like Britain. This French attitude infuriated America and led her to call for an increase in NATO’s military spending with France’s attempts to evade it. It is worth recalling in this context France’s position vis-à-vis the 9/11 attacks and her assiduous endeavours to ratify the agreements aimed at deepening European integration, and her deep resentment towards the Anglo-Saxon financial system in the wake of the financial markets’ collapse in 2008.

    France’s main concern is resisting anything that impinges on her doctrine, her perception of her national interests or threatening her economic resources in Africa. Her main problem is that her national interests cannot be achieved in isolation from the US, and this compels her to condition herself with this reality. She is therefore torn between succumbing to the US and conditioning herself with her size and reality; and although she responds swiftly and emotionally in times of crisis, she however quickly returns back to square one and retracts from every step that angers America.

    America for her part is well aware of France’s psychology and exploit her to her advantage; she tends to help her in order to deepen her sense of weakness, impotence and need for America. This is why their relationship is tinged with mistrust, especially from France’s part, as she has suffered a great deal from being exploited by others in achieving their interests, a narrative corroborated by the famous British slogan: “We shall fight until the last French soldier.”

    19 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    5 November 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org  

  • Political Observation - The Nice Attack in France 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Nice Attack in France

    A Muslim youth carried out a knife attack this morning Thursday 29 October on a few French citizens near the Basilica of Notre-Dame in the French city of Nice. French media outlets said the church was the target of the attack which was followed by widespread condemnation by the state, regional organisations and religious institutions. Three persons were killed, and several were injured in the attack.

    During his visit to Basilica of Notre-Dame in Nice, the Kafir Macron announced in a crusader-like tone filled with hatred and resentment that “the entire nation stands behind our Catholic citizens in the face of the Islamist attack.” With a persistent exaggeration that reflected his crisis, and in order to cover up his failure Macron confirmed the deployment of 7000 soldiers to protect the security of the country, in addition to increasing the alert level in response to the threats to protect places of worship and schools. “If we have suffered an attack, it is because of our values related to freedom and our determination to not give in to terror”, Macron said. This latest attack came amid a clamorous crisis with the Islamic world caused by the French president’s campaign on Islam and its prophet ﷺ under the pretext of “free speech”. 

  • Sudan Jumps on the Bandwagon of Traitorous Normalisation and Alliance 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - Sudan Jumps on the Bandwagon of Traitorous Normalisation and Alliance
     
    "Israeli" radio announced on 22 October that an "Israeli" delegation had visited Khartoum on Wednesday 21 October to put the final touches on the agreement to normalise official ties between Sudan and "Israel". Two days later, the White House announced that president Donald Trump had signed a decree “rescinding Sudan's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism” and that Khartoum and Tel Aviv had agreed - through US mediation – to normalise their relations. The timing seems to have benefited all the stakeholders.
  • Political Observation - Trump’s Electoral Stunt 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Trump’s Electoral Stunt

    In a coordinated filming and a Hollywood-like mise-en-scène, Donald Trump returned to the White House from Walter Reed military hospital by helicopter, looking triumphant and claiming that contracting Covid-19 was a “blessing from God”. He then stood on the balcony facing the south lawn of the White House like a film star, removed his mask, as if he wanted to send a message to his electoral powerbase claiming that he had won, and told the America people “don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.”

  • Political Observation - New Motives Behind the Nagorno-Karabakh War 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - New Motives Behind the Nagorno-Karabakh War

    A military conflict has yet again erupted between Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, the motives of the conflict this time are different. Following the conflict of 12 July in Tovuz, north Azerbaijan, the aim of which was to blackmail Turkey and dissuade her from storming the Libyan cities of Sirte and al-Jufra, in addition to undermining the oil and gas supply routes stretching from Azerbaijan to Turkey, the 27 September conflict was triggered to achieve new aims designed to serve America’s interests more than Russia’s.

    It seems that Armenia, whose prime minister Nikol Pashinyan tends to balance between the Russian and Western interests – since he acceded to power with Russia’s support – has taken America’s advice and ignited the Nagorno-Karabakh front to achieve a host of aims, including engrossing Turkey in a new military conflict to exhaust her militarily and economically. 


    The Turkish army is engaged on several fronts susceptible to be militarily set alight, especially in Syria, Iraq and Libya, and in the Eastern Mediterranean against Greece and Cyprus which are implicitly backed by Europe and America. The aims of the new conflict also include the attempt to drive a wedge between Russia and Turkey in southern Caucasus, and consequently ruining the joint understanding they have concluded in several military, security and economic files. This was reflected in the lax American standpoint towards the conflict from the onset and expressed by Donald Trump who said “We'll see if we can stop it.”

    As for Armenia’s prime minister, he stated on 30 September that “peace negotiations with Azerbaijan under Russian mediation would be inappropriate”, in reference to Russia’s slackness in helping him. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has succeeded with Turkey’s backing in recovering some villages in Karabakh and inflicting heavy losses on the Armenian army.

    Since Turkey had learned the ropes of the American stratagem and the importance of the Azerbaijani card in pressurising Russia, she has been strengthening Azerbaijan’s capabilities diplomatically and militarily since the clashes erupted last July. She organised several major military drills, trained Azerbaijani soldiers and dispatched a sizable number of officers, soldiers and weapons. Buoyed by this preparedness, Erdoğan declared as the recent battles erupted: “Azerbaijan who said it was time to settle the score should take matters into her own hands.” He added: “The region will regain peace and calm as soon as Armenia withdraws from occupied Azerbaijani lands.” He, however, did not burn all his bridges when he suggested that the battlefront could be reignited afresh in the future and that “the way for a lasting ceasefire in this region depends on Armenians’ withdrawal from every span of Azerbaijani territory.” And in line with the Turkish stance, Azerbaijani president announced his rejection of any talks with Armenia on Karabakh before total withdrawal from the occupied lands. “We have liberated some strategic points from occupation and no one can chase us away from these lands after today,” he added. On the other hand, and following the losses of the Armenian army, Armenia’s president announced his readiness to accept Russian mediation in negotiations with Azerbaijan. This U-turn came after the states sponsoring him had realised the extent of the Turkish-Azerbaijani determination to fight. 

    It seems the Turkish stance is based on the understanding that Russia would not risk a direct military intervention to support Armenia lest she should end up in a direct and open confrontation with Turkey who controls the Bosporus Strait, and lest she should lose Azerbaijan and turn it into an enemy in her southern flank like Georgia and Ukraine.

    As for the European stance, it has called for an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the Minsk Group and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and if we excluded France, Europe seems to be oblivious to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict on her borders and she is focusing her efforts on besieging Turkey in Eastern Mediterranean. As for France, she is likely to be the inciter of the recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and America is set to benefit from the Franco-Turkish tussle which has undermined some European states’ confidence in France’s ability to secure their interests. This is why France failed in securing a European consensus on imposing sanctions on Turkey, in addition to the personal reasons of French president Emmanuel Macron who is attempting to muster the support of the anti-Turkish French nationalist right-wing after he was subjected to a wave of criticism in France due to his failure in tackling the files of Turkey, Eastern Mediterranean and Mali.

    Turkey’s persistence in offering Azerbaijan a strong military and diplomatic backing is in the first instance a defence of Turkey’s eastern front and her economic and military interests in Azerbaijan, now that she is facing potential conflicts in the south, namely Syria and Iraq, in the west (Greece) and Eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus and Libya).

    Turkey’s backing of Azerbaijan was corroborated by Erdoğan on 1 October who said in a televised speech that “a ceasefire in this region depends on an Armenian withdrawal from Azerbaijani lands…. the statements of the sides keeping silent over the occupation and criminalising those who defend their homeland and those who support them in this endeavour is of no consequence to us; we will continue to support our Azerbaijani brethren with all our capabilities based on the principle of on one single people in two countries.”

    Faced with such dangerous statements and soon after Erdoğan’s speech, America, Russia and France issued a joint communiqué in which they called for an immediate ceasefire between the Azerbaijani and Armenian forces and urged both countries to return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the Minsk Group.

    The Russian foreign ministry sensed it was targeted more than other major powers in this conflict on her doorstep. Hence, she addressed Erdoğan frankly and directly by stating that “the belligerent statements of a third party concerning Karabakh are unconstructive, irresponsible and lead to destabilising the situation in the Caucasus.”

    Hence, despite Armenia’s insinuations suggesting her readiness to accept a ceasefire and return to the negotiations without any preconditions, the Azerbaijani side that has achieved military superiority thanks to Turkey’s backing will continue to work towards recovering the Nagorno-Karabakh region and securing a negotiating position that will enable it to either force the Armenian forces to return to their borders or embed its right to using military force to recover its lands any time it deems fit; and consequently, Azerbaijan will have succeeded in breaking the restrictions of the Minsk Group controlling the mechanisms of tackling the issue of her usurped province.

    Finally, it is imperative to realise that Turkey and other Muslim countries are capable of generating the means to rid themselves of the major powers’ dominion over their political decision-making; that they are capable of harnessing the power of the Muslims’ and the faculties of their lands to the advantage of the Ummah; that they are capable of destroying the terrifying spectre the West has concocted to subjugate the Ummah and lead her to proceed behind the beasts towards her bleak future; and that they are capable of liberating the lands of the Muslims once they have taken the necessary steps for the confrontation.

    17 Safar 1442h
    4 October 2020


     

  • Political Observation - The Popular Dynamism in Egypt 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Popular Dynamism in Egypt

    Egypt has been the scene of several demonstrations and protests calling for the departure of al-Sisi since 20 September. It seems the immediate motive behind this popular dynamism is the government’s decision to demolish people’s homes under the pretext of violating building regulations or being built on either agricultural or state-owned lands. As for the main motives that have piled up since the tyrant and his clique came to power, they include offending the masses’ religion by arresting and severely torturing several preachers, and impertinently demolishing dozens of mosques in recent days, in addition to the wretched economic situation which has become entirely dependent on foreign assistance and support, and the astronomical debt that has mortgaged the faculties and future of Egypt to foreign investment funds and multinationals which have monopolised the gas riches and deprived the people of Egypt of them. Moreover, the masses in Egypt have been enslaved by the brutal secularist capitalist junta, and the military and security forces who have confiscated the basic rights of the people of Egypt, and violated their lives, properties, and honour.

  • Political Observation - Strings of the Political Game in Libya 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - The Strings of the Political Game in Libya Following Bouznika Understanding & Geneva Dialogue
     
    As Turkey decided to firmly join the fray in western Libya where Khalifah Haftar was trounced, the impact of the states sponsoring him, especially France, faded and Russia’s influence shrunk to the level permitted by the US for its designs for the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Europe and NATO.
     
    The Russians and the French discovered they had backed the wrong horse after America made them believe she was supporting Haftar through Egypt and the Emirates, and supporting Turkey to storm Sirte and al-Jufra, whereas in fact she was planning to pull the rug from under the feet of all the stakeholders, including Turkey, by embedding the demarcation lines in Sirte and al-Jufra, turning Sirte into a demilitarised zone through the ceasefire announced by al-Sarraj and Aguila Saleh and kick-starting the negotiations in Morocco and Geneva to galvanise the political process which is based on the upshots of Bouznika and the Berlin Conference, and which intersects with the Cairo Declaration that stipulates expelling “foreign mercenaries” from Libyan lands, dismantling and disarming the militias, in addition to electing a presidential council consisting of three members representing the provinces of Tripoli, Barqah and Fezzan. The political process intersects also with the start of a new transitional period of 18 to 24 months, which necessitates from both sides neutralising the city of Sirte so as to allow the Government of National Accord (GNA) to work freely and without any pressure, and without the need for the protection of the Fajr Libya Battalion, and pawning it to a UN peacekeeping force controlled by the US. This explains why the competencies of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) have been extended, why a host of executive tasks have been added to its mission, and why it has acquisitioned the lion’s share in the negotiating committees in Geneva based on the recent UN Security Council resolution stipulating restructuring UNSMIL, increasing its activity and extending it from 40 to 80 members, whereby UNSMIL would select 54 of its members and the other 26 members would be from parliament and the High Council of State. Restructuring UNSMIL would turn it into a tool steered by the US to determine the progress of the situation in Libya, in isolation of the influence of the covetous states, and without necessarily ruling out the presence of bilateral understandings between America, Turkey and Russia at the expense of the European states and their African and Mediterranean interests, in addition to the dimensions pertinent to Chinese interests in Africa, and triggering competition between China and Turkey, Europe and Russia. US Senator Lindsey Graham alluded to this by backing the notion of allowing Turkey to compete with China in west Africa.
     
    Hence, through the new Libyan political process, America could achieve what Haftar failed to achieve through armed conflict, namely restructuring the Libyan regime and sending the “revolutionaries” back to their homes to employ them in protecting the regime formed by the deep state and the remnants of Gaddafi, now that she has succeeded in thwarting the Paris, Palermo and Moscow conferences, turned Libya into a scene of rivalry between Turkey, France, Russia, Germany and Italy, and made Libya a source of anxiety for the European Union because of illegal migration, “terrorism” and Russia and Turkey’s presence in the basin facing southern Europe which constitutes Europe’s Achilles heel and deepens her need for America and NATO.
     
    It is worth mentioning that each side in the Libyan file attempts to exploit the other stakeholders for its own advantage. America is exploiting the Russian presence to corroborate the continuance of NATO and contain the security and defence European policy. She is also exploiting the Turkish presence to contain the forces of western Libya and its armed groups to integrate them into the army and retrain them in an institutionalised manner under the political authority. The GNA defence minister, Salah al Namroush, announced few days ago that his ministry, with the help of the Turkish side, “has begun to implement programs to build and restructure the Libyan Armed Forces, develop the army, air and naval defence sectors, along with the anti-terrorist forces and the special forces.”
     
    As for Haftar’s objections to the new understandings, it is part of the plot. In the past, he rejected Egyptian mediation and refused to meet al-Sarraj in Cairo in 2017 and to sign the ceasefire agreement in Moscow. He also turned his back on the European states congregated in Berlin. Although all this reflects the narcissism of Haftar’s personality and his recent exasperation as his role has been marginalised and dwarfed and as he has sensed the intention to end it altogether, especially as the declared understandings failed to mention his future as was the case with the previous talks that used to take his role into account. Haftar’s rejection of the ceasefire declared between al-Sarraj and Aguila Saleh comes within the context of exchanging the roles and exerting pressure on the forces of western Libya to coerce them into proceeding with the political solution on the grounds of the Berlin Conference and the Geneva talks with the collusion of al-Sarraj. This was corroborated with Haftar’s acquiescence three days ahead of the political agreement to the dictates of the US embassy in Tripoli pertinent to reopening the seaports and oilfields and resuming oil exports which have been suspended for over seven months. The agreement was concluded with Ahmed Omar Maiteeq, vice chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya, and announced by the spokesperson of Haftar’s militias, Ahmed al-Mismari, on Friday 18 September 2020.
     
    It is worth mentioning in this context that Haftar’s decision to suspend oil exports since the outbreak of the Coronavirus and the collapse of oil prices was not simply to exert pressure of his opponents in Tripoli but also in service of the US who was seeking to halt the freefall of oil prices and prevent the crisis from worsening. As for resuming Libyan oil exports before winter when demand is expected to increase, especially if coronavirus recedes, it is designed to curb a sharp rise in oil prices, and Russia is attempting to thwart this scenario as she continues to benefit from the suspension of Libyan oil exports; this is why Russia is hellbent in remaining in the city of Sirte which represents the gateway to the oil seaports; but Haftar’s collaboration with America is not helping Russia achieve her aims. As for al-Sarraj’s decision to resign by the end of October, provided a presidential council is formed and the work of the 5+5 committee is resumed, it will be a pretext to alienate Haftar whom Turkey insists is removed in order to deepen the Libyans’ acceptance of her presence and consolidate her role in Libya. Moreover, alienating Haftar and all the spent and publicly rejected figures is designed to reduce tension and resentment and remove the obstacles before an appropriate team of cadres for the forthcoming phase.
     
    This is the situation of Libya where the masses are not in control of their destiny and their resources. This is in fact the situation in most of the Islamic lands. Hence, will the people of Libya take heed of the reality in which they are living and of the plots of the Kuffar against them, and will they work towards burying the hatchet, standing united in the face of America and the Kafir Western states’ covetousness ,and sacrificing to uproot America’s influence instead of fighting each other, fragmenting the country and plundering its resources on behalf of the Kufr states and their surrogates?
     
    6 Safar 1442h
    23 September 2020
    www.hizbuttahrir.org
  • Political Observation - The Region’s Unfolding Events: An Alliance against Islam & Muslims, Not Normalisation 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Region’s Unfolding Events: An Alliance against Islam & Muslims, Not Normalisation

    If we were to review the statements of the Arab and Jewish leaders and the articles of the agreement between the Emirates and "Israel", we would deduce that the agreement is targeting the Islamic Ummah and not just Palestine. This was expressed by the statement of Netanyahu in which he said “what has happened is a major turning point in the history of Israel and the Middle East.” The agreement aims at guaranteeing the security of "Israel", entrenching it in the region and supporting it economically; and this was also confirmed by Netanyahu who said “The peace agreements with Abu Dhabi and al-Manama will bring to the Israeli economy billions of dollars in investment and economic cooperation.” 

  • Political Observation - The Role of Iraqi Premier Mustapha al-Kadhimi in Serving America 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Role of Iraqi Premier Mustapha al-Kadhimi in Serving America

    The US has been marketing her agent, Iraqi prime minister Mustapha al-Kadhimi, whom she has brought from outside the political parties in an attempt to secure popular support for him through “fighting corruption” which is deemed as the most prominent file in the masses’ concerns to the point where the entire population has turned into the party with which he is fighting his political opponents.

    Two days into his campaign against corruption, and despite the threatening messages he has received in recent days in the shape of bomb blasts to deter him from executing his agenda, al-Kadhimi launched an extensive operation of arrests against tens of former and current officials and executives, including some prominent figures, in a move described as unprecedented since the fall of Baghdad. According to arabi21.com, Iraqi media outlets reported the arrest of the deputy governor of Dhi Qar, the head of Baghdad Investment Committee, the Director of the Agricultural Bank, his son and ten employees, in addition to the apprehending of two national banks executives and the director of Qi Card. The campaign also included issuing judicial decrees imposing a travel ban on former Baghdad mayor, Thikra Mohammed Jabir, and the director of contracts at the ministry of planning,g Azhar al-Rubaie. An arrest warrant was also issued for the director of Baghdad Water, Ammar Mousa, on corruption charges. Al-Kadhimi has also clashed with the fiercest and most loyal faction to Iran from among the Popular Mobilisation Forces, namely Iraqi Hezbollah, several of whose cadres have recently been arrested under his direct orders. 

  • Political Observation - US Mediation in Demarcating Lebanon-"Israel" Borders 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - US Mediation in Demarcating Lebanon-"Israel" Borders

    In a special briefing via telephone posted on the US Department of State’s website on 8 September 2020, Assistant Secretary of Near Eastern Affair, David Schenker said: “I certainly haven’t said that we have reached an agreement on the maritime and land border framework yet. I think we’re getting closer... but I’m not going to get into the details on what’s holding it up, but I hope to be able to come over to Lebanon and then sign this agreement in the coming weeks.”

    In fact, David Schenker’s briefing represents the cornerstone of America’s endeavour to restructure the Lebanese regime and downsize the weightiness of Hezbollah in the government amidst the tremendous popular and foreign pressures exerted on Hezbollah and its partners following the Beirut port explosion. The border dispute with the usurping entity has been Hezbollah’s pretext for keeping its weapons, and ending this struggle would strip it of the justifications that have been giving it the ability to control sensitive components of the Lebanese state and society which has been preventing Lebanon from joining the camp of normalisation and alliance with "Israel".

    If America were to succeed in settling the “struggle”, which is likely even though it may take some time, she would not only pave the way for opening channels of communication between Lebanon and the criminal entity and removing the obstacles in the face of normalisation, but also put the issue of the northern front that has been exasperating "Israel" to bed, sparing it from being perpetually targeted, especially as Hezbollah’s project does not exceed recovering the occupied Lebanese lands and is set to end once the “struggle” is settled. 

  • Political Observation - Russian Manoeuvres in Eastern Mediterranean 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Russian Manoeuvres in Eastern Mediterranean

    On September 2, 2020, Turkey announced two new naval warnings in the eastern Mediterranean for Russia to conduct live ammunition exercises in the gas exploration area, and the first date was set between September 8-22 with the second between September 17-25 2020.

    What is remarkable in these Russian drills is that they will take place near the areas in which France and Greece carried out joint military manoeuvres. The question is, will the eastern Mediterranean energy crisis lead to fresh political and military alliances?

    In order to answer this question, it would be imperative to perceive that Turkey’s relationship with Russia is not based on an alliance as is the case between Turkey and America. The principle upon which Turkey has been proceeding, since she ended her collaboration with America and moved away from her total affiliation to the Western order, is preserving her strategic interests.

    In order to achieve these supreme interests, she has the option of dealing with major power on a case by case basis. In Libya, she cooperates with America against Russia and France, irrespective of America’s long-term policies for Libya and North Africa, and in Syria, she cooperates with Russia regardless of the Russo-American understandings. Hence, Turkey carves her way in international politics on the basis of her interests rather than affiliation, and she is prepared to raise the stakes if she were to face a direct threat, especially in respect of her national security; but apart from this, she would either bow down, or manoeuvre, or conclude an understanding. 

  • Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle

    International struggle occurs between the willpower of the influential powers in international relations. It aims at subjugating or abolishing the opponent for doctrinal, expedient or nationalistic reasons. Political thinkers say the struggle undergoes several stages which they describe as the struggle’s life cycle. It begins with escalation due to a lack of trust and a hatred nurtured by doctrinal, nationalistic and expedient tendencies. The struggle then begins to shrink with the emergence of goodwill, trust and understanding and then moves towards the stage of stability and ends up fading and disappearing altogether. The struggle may be replaced with cooperation and partnership. This means that a situation of struggle is never perpetual unless the motive behind it is doctrinal and not subject to concession or waning with time.

  • Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 

                                                                                                     Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah

    The US has set about fostering the enormous shock she instigated from the gates of the Emirates to liquidate the issue of Palestine after she had harnessed the regimes and the masses of the Middle East to absorb the final outputs that she engineered through the Arab Spring. America has led the children of the Ummah towards total paralysis to the point where they became unable to stand up to the collaborating regimes after they had been subjected to all kinds of oppression, victimisation, intimidation, and humiliation. She generated the appropriate atmosphere for the regimes to break the resolve of their masses, violate their sanctities and perpetrate the most repugnant of treasons, namely normalisation and alliance with their arch enemy, the Jews. In the past few days, US president Donald Trump has been talking about the agreement between the Emirates and the Jewish entity to normalise their ties, and mentioned that leaders of other states had contacted him enquiring why they had been excluded from the agreement. He also indicated that monarchs, presidents, governments and dictators used to call him to dissuade him from moving the US embassy in "Israel" to al-Quds, but he ignored them and stressed that the ceremony of opening the embassy in al-Quds quelled all the claims of possible serious fallouts as a result of his decision.

    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived yesterday in the region to begin his Middle East tour to corroborate what they refer to as the “Arab-Israeli peace efforts”. He will soon be seconded by Donald Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is expected to visit several countries. Pompeo arrived today in Khartoum on a direct flight from the Jewish entity, and he intends to visit several Gulf States, starting with Bahrain and the Emirates, whereas Kushner and his team are expected to visit "Israel", Bahrain, Oman, Saudi and Morocco as a part of their tour expected to start at the weekend.

    Although the visits of Pompeo and Kushner, and before them the US president’s sponsorship of the "Israeli"- Emirati agreement, come within the context of shoring up Trump’s forthcoming electoral campaign, in addition to supporting Netanyahu in his domestic tussle, what is more dangerous in these events is that they help execute the so-called Deal of the Century which aims at liquidating the Palestinian issue, coercing the Ummah into capitulating completely to America, and establishing peace with the Jewish occupiers. These events epitomise even the war on Islam and the Muslims, as per the statement of the Emirati ambassador to Washington reported by "Israeli" newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in which he said that “Islamic expansion encourages extremism and undermines stability”, and he described the Muslims’ Jihad and history as the “ugly legacy of animosity and conflicts”. 

  • Political Observation - UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Verdict on the Case of Rafiq al-Hariri 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Verdict on the Case of Rafiq al-Hariri

    On Tuesday 18 August 2020, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon found one single defendant guilty of assassinating former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri in February 2005. Lebanese president Michel Aoun called for “accepting the verdict of the court.” Soon after, Saad al-Hariri announced his acceptance of the court’s verdict and called for the pursuit of the perpetrators.

    As Judge David Re read out the summary of the verdict, he cited that while Syria and Hezbollah "may have had motives to eliminate" Hariri and some of his political allies, there was "no evidence that the Hezbollah leadership had any involvement in Hariri's murder and there is no direct evidence of Syrian involvement". Judge Micheline Braidy, for her part, said the assassination of al-Hariri was executed for political motives and that no evidence was found to implicate Syria and Hezbollah’s leaders in this issue.

    Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hassan Nasrullah, said last Friday that his party would “deal with the verdict of the court as if it did not exist.”
    In fact, every single international institution, including the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, is controlled and not independent. Each one of them is a tool in the hands of the US with which she blackmails the parties she wants to subjugate to her agendas, exactly as she did with former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir who relinquished southern Sudan after he had been threatened with prosecution by the International Criminal Court. 

  • Political Observation - Escalating Tension in Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey & Greece  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Escalating Tension in Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey & Greece 

    Tension and escalation in the eastern Mediterranean have intensified in recent days between Turkey and Greece which virtually came close to brinkmanship. Observers of the events are well aware that America has been orchestrating the crisis since she gave the government of al-Sarraj the green light on the demarcation of a maritime border in the Mediterranean with Turkey. 

    This ignited a war of words between Turkey, Greece and France and placed Turkey in a minefield and within shooting range of the US-affiliated states such as Egypt and the Emirates which were very eager to partake in joint military manoeuvres with "Israel" and Greece in the years that followed the attempted coup d’état on Erdoğan. 

    Turkey, however, acts according to her national interests and her rights to the riches of the Mediterranean Sea. Turkey also believes that protecting the Turkish dry homeland is tightly linked to protecting the “blue homeland” and her territorial waters, especially as the issue of the eastern Mediterranean is linked to national security from the side of the Aegean Sea through which Greece wants to blackmail Turkey in respect of the Cypriot issue, in addition to controlling the Turkish trade routes and plundering Turkey’s rights to the gas of the Mediterranean. 

  • Political Observation - UAE Traitorous Deal with the Jewish Entity 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - UAE Traitorous Deal with the Jewish Entity

    The deal of the UAE with the Jewish entity was not preceded by any notable precursors indicating the presence of an imminent agreement. The deal was rather announced via Twitter by US president Donald Trump. “Huge breakthrough today! Historic Peace Agreement between our two GREAT friends, Israel and the United Arab Emirates!” he tweeted. Meanwhile, an "Israeli" media outlet quoted reports in the US indicating that "Israel" had agreed to push back the issue of extending sovereignty in exchange for opening a representative office in the Emirates.

    Although we realise the treason and effrontery of the Muslim world’s rulers, the desperate attempts of the Jewish rulers to achieve normalisation or generate any kind of acceptance in the region, no matter how minimal, had already been noted in the past. However, the rulers of the Muslims’ lands, including the traitor Mohammed bin Zayed, are nowadays accepting full normalisation with the Jews without any regard for the Ummah’s Islam and her emotions. Netanyahu even talked from a position of strength about peace for peace without making any concessions. “Peace from a position of strength and might; this is the new peace we are committed to,” he said. He also invested in this agreement to win over the "Israeli" voters by claiming it was a victory he achieved “singlehandedly”.

    In fact, the circumstances surrounding the agreement and its timing denote that it came following the decision of presidential rival, Joe Biden, to appoint Kamala Harris, who has close ties with the Zionist Lobby “AIPAC”, as his running mate. Appointing an African American woman who has immigrant roots, is married to a Jew and an anti-racism activist close to the evangelical rightwing sympathetic towards the Zionist entity, and whose support for Biden dispels the notion of him being leftwing and helps him finalise the components of polarisation and mobilisation necessary for entering the electoral battle, all this makes her nomination to the post of vice-president a heavy blow to Donald Trump in the presidential elections. 

  • Political Observation - Macron’s Visit to Lebanon Following Beirut Port Blast 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Macron’s Visit to Lebanon Following Beirut Port Blast 

    We stated in our previous observation on the Beirut blast that the facts of the event pertinent to the cargo and its destination which was switched from Mozambique to Beirut, the circumstances surrounding the decision of the authorities to keep the cargo in the port and the ship owner to abandon it, and the emergence of a deliberate collusion to disregard the safety measures, all this indicates that the incident was plotted and the aim was to target the Lebanese regime, its sectarian structure and its government that gives Hezbollah the upper hand in political decision making.

    The event came within the framework of what has been planned for Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran including closing the chapter of the alleged resistance that guarantees Iran influence in the region, contrary to the plans of the US, and gives Hezbollah the pretext to keep its weapons, impose its willpower on the rest of the Lebanese forces and dictate its terms in relation to the Deal of the Century, the implementation of which will be at the expense of Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime. 

  • Political Observation - Breaking the Resolve of the Jordan Teachers Syndicate  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - Breaking the Resolve of the Jordan Teachers Syndicate  
     
    One of the key political theories to control the masses is that of the philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli who stated in his book titled The Prince (Il Principe) that the ruler’s strategy was built upon anticipating chaos and a menace to his authority, and consequently, it would be imperative to establish a force to deter the masses and establish the relationship between the ruler and his subjects based on blackmail, i.e. authority in exchange for security. Machiavelli argued that submission to the ruler was part of the requisites of society’s security under the guise of providing security for the masses. Moreover, he recommended that the “Prince” to be like a ferocious beast, acting cunningly like a fox and fiercely like a lion to maintain law and order. 
     
    Hence, the ruler is not expected to make any concessions to the masses lest he should undermine his grandeur. Making a concession, in his opinion, would be a precedent which would embolden the masses to rebel and topple his regime.
  • Political Observation - Beirut Explosion 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Beirut Explosion

    The circumstances of the Beirut blast, starting from the shipment of ammonium nitrate six years ago, then the decision of the owner and crew to abandon the ship and its cargo and dump it in Lebanon, and the failure of the Lebanese authorities to take the necessary safety precautions despite their awareness of the dangers involved from previous experiences in the US and China, leads to the preponderant conclusion – although the investigation is yet to be completed and despite the lack of information – that the blast was deliberately planned and executed, especially as it came amid a host of unfavourable domestic and regional circumstances to Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the Lebanese government brought by Hezbollah to sidestep the protests and its political demands, which were shrouded with livelihood-driven demands.

  • Political Observation - The “One-State Solution” and the Statements of Jordanian Prime Minister 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The “One-State Solution” and the Statements of Jordanian Prime Minister

    In an interview with the Guardian on Tuesday 21 July 2020, Jordanian prime minister Omar Razzaz said that with the sign of the ailing status of the decades-old two-state formulation, Jordan could view the creation of a single Palestinian-Israeli state favourably provided it gave equal rights to both peoples. He added: “But let’s work together on a one-state democratic solution. That, I think, we will look at very favourably. But closing one and wishful thinking about the other is just self-deception.” He then addressed the occupiers by saying:” Short of that, if we’re not going towards a two-state solution, let us know what we’re going towards, what kind of one-state solution we’re going towards.”

  • Political Observation - Armenia-Azerbaijan Rift & Its Exploitation to Pressurise Turkey 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Armenia-Azerbaijan Rift & Its Exploitation to Pressurise Turkey 

    Armenia and Azerbaijan have traded accusations about who had initiated the attack against the other. However, according to the statement of the Turkish government, it is Armenia who started the attack; and this is corroborated by a host of indications such as Armenia’s aspirations to occupy certain areas close to Tovuz that overlook Azerbaijan’s oil and gas pipelines which are of strategic importance to Turkey, Europe and "Israel", and the timing and circumstances of the event which are somehow connected to the Russo-Turkish rift over the Libyan file. 

    Armenia concocted the crisis spurred by the sympathetic stance of the US Congress towards the Armenians in their dispute with the Turks and Washington’s endeavour to lure Armenia and sever her links to Russia in order to complete her siege on the Russians. Armenia also took advantage of the strained relations between France, its sympathiser, and Turkey due to the Libyan issue, as well as Turkey’s differences with Russia in Libya and Idlib. This indicates that it was Russia who incited Armenia to attack Azerbaijan, who has close ties and significant interest with Turkey, in order to attract French and European pressure on Turkey and incite the pro-Armenian lobby in the US Congress, thus surrounding Turkey with some kind of isolation amid the West’s exasperation and Greece’s calls for imposing sanctions on Turkey over the Hagia Sophia issue; and all this with the aim of weakening her position in the Libyan file. 

  • Political Observation - Outlook of the Plan to Re-elect Trump  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Outlook of the Plan to Re-elect Trump 

    The outlook of the general plan to re-elect Donald Trump and the details of his campaign has become clear since the eve of Independence Day. America, which has been experiencing division due to the coronavirus pandemic followed by the protests against the killing of George Floyd, is now facing a political reality she has been denying for two centuries, namely that her entity was founded over the bodies and blood of Africans and Red Indians, and that her constitution was written on the basis of a compromise with slave owners. Such a political mechanism that seeks to achieve results without taking into account the method, nor the dangerous consequences and ramifications of destroying the values in order to conclude any kind of agreement, will eventually lead to the collapse of the philosophy of this hybrid state with the leave of Allah the Almighty. 

  • Political Observation - Restructuring the Iraqi Regime 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Restructuring the Iraqi Regime

    Although the Iraqi historian and researcher in security and strategic affairs, Hisham al-Hashimi, was not a significant figure on the Iraqi political scene, his assassination a few days ago, however, by unmasked assassins denoted a clear defiant message to prime minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi aimed at deterring him from going too far in curbing the Iranian influence in Iraq. The assassination of al-Hashimi came amidst the American pressures in their various forms and divergent levels to clip the wings of Iran and control her conduct in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon while paving the way for the regional solution stipulated by Trump’s Deal of the Century backed by the evangelical rightwing in the US. Al-Hashimi had close links with the Iraqi prime minister and he had been scathing in his criticism of Iran and the Popular Mobilisation Forces; his assassination came soon after the changes in the security leaderships introduced by the prime minister, which included dismissing Faleh al-Fayad, head and advisor of the National Security Council and chairman of the Popular Mobilization Forces, and replacing him by one of his close allies, namely General Abdul Ghani al-Asadi, former Commander of the Iraqi Special Operations Forces. 

  • Political Observation - Algeria’s Constitutional Amendments 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Algeria’s Constitutional Amendments

    Algerian President, Abdel Majid Taboun, announced soon after assuming his tenure that he would carry out a host of constitutional changes pertinent to the function of the armed forces, the identity of the country and the post of president. The Algerian army’s magazine in its June 2020 issue proposed constitutionalising Algeria’s participation in “peacekeeping” missions abroad under the auspices of the United Nations, the African Union or the League of Arab States. All this coincided with meetings president Abdel Majid Taboun held with the US and German ambassadors. According to the presidential communiqué on the meeting with the US ambassador, “bilateral relations and the situation in Libya and the region were reviewed.” The US ambassador for his part said: “I think we have a lot of work together to achieve our aims.” 

  • Political Observation - Al-Sisi, Algeria & Threats to Intervene in Libya  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Al-Sisi, Algeria & Threats to Intervene in Libya 

    The criminal Abdul Fattah al-Sisi told Egyptian air force combat units, on 20 June 2020 when he toured the western military region, to “be prepared to execute any mission within our borders or if necessary, beyond our borders.” This came in the aftermath of his failure to rescue the forces of Khalifah Haftar and the regression in international support and momentum to subjugate Tripoli to the dominion of Haftar, and after the Government of National Accord (GNA) forces had started their mobilisation to storm the city of Sirte with the help of Turkey. 

  • Political Observation - Instability in Yemen and Dominance of Southern Transitional Council over Socotra 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Instability in Yemen and Dominance of Southern Transitional Council over Socotra 

    On Friday 19 June, UAE-backed forces of the Southern Transitional Council (STC) stormed the building of the local administration in Socotra. Sources confirmed to Al-Jazeera that STC forces dominated the building of the Socotra security directorate in the city of Hadiboh, as clashes continued between government forces and armed STC operatives around the western gate of the city. A government source told Aljazeera that the Yemeni presidency had contacted Saudi authorities and requested their intervention in Socotra but to no avail. 

    The unfolding events in Yemen fall within the framework of the American initiative in the region and specifically within the context of liquidating the remnants of the “Arab Spring Revolutions” through the deep state and the forces averse to the volition of the people of the region who have not been allowed to rebel against the regimes and who have only been assisted by the West to let them vent their anger, make them despair of achieving liberation and revival, and to bring them back to the house of obedience, thus paving the way for an impotent Middle East due to the sectarian, ethnic, regional and federal fragmentation, and due to the distortion of the identity, effacement of the memory and the unprecedented squandering of resources, not to mention the official Arab regimes’ grovelling to enter into an alliance with the Jewish entity and their collusion to liquidate the Palestinian issue and safeguard the interests of the West in the region. 

  • Political Observation - Outline of the Region’s Current Events 

    Political Observation - Outline of the Region’s Current Events

    Political events in our region as a whole reflect two unmistakable realities:

    1 – The West is in unanimous agreement on keeping the region shackled, unable to achieve liberation and revival and on preventing the return of Islam to power. This is conspicuously reflected in Western support for the secular and liberal movement, the cultural orientation, the media and the education curricula. Distorting the memory and awareness, supporting religious and ethnic minorities, inciting regional and nationalist strife, impoverishing the masses and engrossing them in cheap struggle are also reflective of this Western tendency. 

    2 – Colonialist powers jostle for the riches of the region with all possible means but they share the responsibility of confronting, oppressing and humiliating the people of the region, irrespective of their differences over their colonialist interests. 

  • Political Observation - Settling the Palestinian Issue 


    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Settling the Palestinian Issue

    The challenge is settling the Palestinian issue rather than preserving peripheral identities 

    Bringing the last chapter of the Palestinian issue to a full and final conclusion has become a declared aim within the so-called Deal of the Century which reflects itself in the measures undertaken by Netanyahu and Trump vis-à-vis al-Quds and the Golan, the decision to annex 30% of the West Bank’s territory, Netanyahu’s red lines concerning a united al-Quds, and the refugees file. It further reflects itself in a conspicuous manner in the negotiations taking place between America and the usurping entity in isolation of the Arab sides and amid their collaboration. The Arab regimes are attempting to deliberately deviate the compass of the Palestinian issue by making the challenges of the Deal of the Century directed at the Jordanian regime and the Palestinian Authority and by confining the options of resistance within the framework of adhering to the “two-state solution” in order to allegedly preserving the Jordanian and Palestinian identities. Hence, as the Gulf States and other Arab countries have acquired the pretext to deal with the criminal entity, and they even boast about this without any hesitation or embarrassment, such as the UAE, since they are outside the circle of struggle with the Jewish entity now that Iran has volunteered to dismiss the usurping entity from its role in terrifying them, the Jordanian regime and the Palestinian Authority amplified the threat of annexing the occupied Jordan Valley and confined their vision and pinned their hopes in tackling this issue on the results of the US presidential elections and on the return of the Democrats to power, after Netanyahu had dashed their hopes in the “two-state” solution, and after they had been let down and sacrificed by the Gulf States in exchange for their continuance in power; and this will be adopted by the Jordanian regime and the Palestinian Authority as a pretext to compromise the Palestinian issue further. 

  • Political Observation - Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Defence Minister Shoygu Visit to Ankara Postponed Amidst Accelerating Events in Libya and Challenges Undermining Bashar Assad’s Regime  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Defence Minister Shoygu Visit to Ankara Postponed Amidst Accelerating Events in Libya and Challenges Undermining Bashar Assad’s Regime 

    Russian foreign and defence ministers postponed their visit to Ankara to debate the Syrian and Libyan files one day after they had announced the visit scheduled for Sunday 14 June, following a telephone call by Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. Although Cavusoglu denied the presence of any differences in the Libyan file, his tone however denoted otherwise; he said: “There are no problems in terms of the basic principles in negotiations with the Russians. The table has not been shaken for this reason or that and we need to talk about further details.” 

  • Political Observation - Syrian Situation Updates & Anticipation of the Caesar Act  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Syrian Situation Updates & Anticipation of the Caesar Act 

    Federation is beyond a shadow of a doubt the American vision for Syria now that northern Syria has been separated by a geographic strip stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Iraqi border, which is deemed as part of the basic arrangements for the rise of a Kurdish entity which in the future will include areas of Iraq, Turkey and Iran. The rise of the Kurdish entity has, however, been deferred and plans are afoot to establish it within a Syrian federation as a first step towards total separation in the future, exactly as America did in Iraq, especially since the Kurdish issue is from an American perspective related to federalising Turkey rather than Syria. 

  • Political Observation - "Israeli" High Court Ruling  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - "Israeli" High Court Ruling 

    On 9 June , France24 Arabic reported that the "Israeli" high court struck down a law that had allowed the "Israeli" government to acquisition privately owned land in the West Bank in exchange for material compensation. The "Israeli" Knesset approved this law in 2017 which had paved the way for seizing Palestinian land on which settlers built their homes without an official permit from the authorities, in exchange for material compensation to the Palestinian owners. "Israeli" minister of Settlement Affairs, Tzipi Hotovely, commented : “the High Court today declared war on the right of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel.” She added that the best way to respond to the court was more annexation and settlements. 

  • Political Observation - Protests Resume in Lebanon 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Protests Resume in Lebanon

    Hundreds of protesters took to the streets on Saturday 6 June in the capital Beirut and specifically around the streets leading to parliament in a move symbolising their resentment towards all the political forces and in protest against the economic situation that has been deteriorating in an unprecedented manner since 17 October following the decision of Saad al-Hariri’s government to impose a tax on calls made over WhatsApp. Subsequently the anger of the masses from all sects erupted in Lebanon and this led the 14 March forces, namely Saad al-Hariri, Samir Geagea and former president Amine Gemayel, to mobilise the masses under slogans designed to centralise the national identity anew at the expense of the sectarian identities, in order to weaken the influence of Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon in line with the phase America kick-started by tightening the noose around the necks of the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, clipping Iran’s wings and downsizing its influence while executing the Deal of the Century with steps such as declaring al-Quds as the capital of the usurping entity, imposing "Israeli" sovereignty on the Golan and shifting the relationship of the Arab regimes from normalisation with the Jewish entity to establishing an alliance with it. 

  • Political Observation - Al-Sisi Declaration 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Al-Sisi Declaration

    1 –Cairo meeting’s Objective Between al-Sisi, Haftar and Aquila Saleh

    The persistence of America, Europe and Russia on implementing a ceasefire and effectuating the political solution denotes their intention to prevent the infighting from spreading to eastern Libya. This is why the aim of the Cairo agreement between the collaborators Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, Khalifah Haftar and Aquila Saleh was to send a message to the people of Libya in the western region warning them against allowing Operation Peace Storm led by the government of national accord (GNA) extend beyond the city of Sirte. Al-Sisi said “no side will be allowed to achieve a military settlement”, referring to the GNA. This is why several unknown jetfighters raided the positions of the GNA forces around the city of Sirte soon after the Cairo meeting and the issuing of the communiqué. Hence, America turned Egypt into a safety valve and a defence line for eastern Libya in order to halt the advance of the forces of Tripoli and Misrata, forcing them to stop at Sirte. This would enable the oilfields to remain under the control of the east and to be used as a bargaining chip to compel the west to accept the political solution stipulated by the Berlin Conference. This economic pressure is conducted with the collusion of al-Sarraj who was eager to meet the US ambassador to Ankara, David Satterfield, whenever he visited Turkey, who for his part stressed the need to implement the stipulations of the Berlin Conference. 

  • Political Observation - Divisions & Rivalries between US Lobby Groups  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Divisions & Rivalries between US Lobby Groups

    The divisions and rivalries between lobby groups in America, which in turn impact on the performance of the two parties, are pertinent to the priorities of politics and the interests of influential forces in the decision-making mechanism even within the one single camp. The situation was not always like this, but by observing domestic political proceedings in the US during the last four decades and since the Vietnam war, we have concluded that there exists a difference between the two parties that had no substantial affect on steering the political programmes according to the function of each party, the interaction between domestic and foreign issues, and their reciprocal impact on the interests of the elites’ clubs and lobby groups in accordance with the requirements of each phase based on the assessment of the decision-makers.

  • Political Observation - Unrest in America 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Unrest in America

    Defence Secretary Objects to Deploying Troops in US Cities

    Following the US Defence Secretary’s objection to Trump’s threats to deploy US troops to quell the protests, 89 former defence staff, including four former defence secretaries, namely Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, Ash Carter and William Cohen, issued a statement published by the Washington Post in which they slammed Donald Trump, warned him that deploying the army to quell the protests would lead to undermining the trust between the masses and the army, and reminded him that the army had been established to fight America’s enemies and not its citizens. Although the statement expressed a high sense of responsibility and an aversion to undermining the military doctrine epitomising the centrality of the people in the philosophy of the democratic system, unlike the centrality of the ruler in tyrannical regimes, it does however reveal the depth of the rift within US society despite the fact that Donald Trump and his opponents act on the basis of protecting the ruling institutions guaranteeing the interests of the capitalist class in all its various orientations. 

  • Political Observation - Unfolding Events in Libya after Tripoli’s Recapture 

    Political Observation - Unfolding Events in Libya after Tripoli’s Recapture

    Now that the Government of National Accord (GNA) forces have retaken control of all the western coastal cities and recaptured al-Watiya airbase on 18 May, Tripoli has been purged from the remnants of Haftar’s forces and the GNA forces have entered the city of Tarhunah on Friday 5 June, the path is paved for the execution of the Berlin Conference’s recommendations which are expected to marginalise the major powers and shackle the fighting factions with political solutions as America has now achieved all her aims from the proxy war.

  • Political Observation - The Riots in America 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Riots in America

    Electing Donald Trump to the post of president in the US expressed from the onset the philosophy and strategy the US inherited from Europe, which is built on the “whites’ racial centrality”. During his presidential inauguration ceremony, Donald Trump surrounded himself with white men in a move seen as a reaction or rectification of the mistake of appointing the African American Obama to the White House.
    Trump’s accession to power reflected a shift from political diplomacy to the strategy of confrontation which is characterised by imposing the fait accompli, shunning common concepts and adopting an obstinate stance. This policy is built on the thoughts of Kevin Phillips, one of Nixon’s chief strategists, and is known as “positive polarisation” which was described by the US Congress in 1970 as follows: "The Administration is working the hidden veins of fear, racism and resentment which lie deep in Middle America. Respect for the past, distrust of the future, the politics of 'againstness'."

  • Political Observation - Syrian Regime in the Middle of the Storm 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


    Political Observation - Syrian Regime in the Middle of the Storm 

    Several indications have recently emerged suggesting that a consensus on an alternative regime to Bashar Assad’s is in the offing. Assad’s regional Iranian backer has been dealt a heavy blow and Russia is no longer eager to protect his survival now that she has secured her interests and her share in the reconstruction plan via Turkey and the Syrian opposition, as well as US approval. Other indications have also cropped up in the shape of a cleavage within the hard nucleus of the regime, Bashar’s attempts to disrupt the draft constitution and to upset the ceasefire agreement. 

  • The Reality of the British Snap Elections 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation

    The Reality of the British Snap Elections

    Although the British prime minister Theresa May had stated that there would be not be a general election until 2020, she unexpectedly announced her intention to hold a snap general election on 18 April 2017.

    May justified her decision by stating "division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty... So we need a general election and we need one now."

Scroll paused

Latest Articles

  • Political Observation - Biden-Putin Summit & Strategic Stability

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Biden-Putin Summit & Strategic Stability   The Russo-American summit which Biden had solicited was held on 16 June 2021 at the historical Villa La Grange in Geneva. By the time the summit was held, America had implemented further sanctions on Russia intending to rally Read More
  • The Sino-Iranian Agreement

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم The Sino-Iranian Agreement The memorandum of understanding between China and Iran signed on Saturday 27 March is clearly a continuation of the Go West policy devised by Chinese President Xi Jinping, also known as the Belt and Road Initiative. However, this policy involves several steps that Read More
  • Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle International struggle occurs between the willpower of the influential powers in international relations. It aims at subjugating or abolishing the opponent for doctrinal, expedient or nationalistic reasons. Political thinkers say the struggle undergoes several stages which they describe Read More
  • 1
  • Political Comment - Islamic Political Awareness

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Comment “And do not incline towards, nor rely upon, those who are bent on evildoing lest the fire should touch you” [Hud-113] The coup that Kais Saied carried out was not a surprise except for those whose vision was clouded, and thus, decided to incline Read More
  • Political Comment - Tunisia Crisis

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم    Political Comment - The Governance Crisis in Tunisia    Following the widespread popular protests in several Tunisian cities against the government and al-Nahda Movement with the deteriorating economic situation amid the rampant coronavirus pandemic and the ravaged political situation by rifts between the president, the Prime Read More
  • Afghanistan: US Withdrawal & Turkey’s Role

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Afghanistan: US Withdrawal & Turkey’s Role Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced on 14 June 2021 during a press conference before heading to Brussels to partake in the NATO summit that Turkey was “the only credible country to administer the situation in Afghanistan soundly.” Read More
  • 1
  • Political Observation - America Resets Situation in Mali

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - America Resets Situation in Mali The leader of the military coup in Mali, Colonel Assimi Goïta, announced on Tuesday 25 May 2021 that he had stripped interim President Bah Ndaw and prime minister Moctar Ouane of their competencies, after they had been arrested and Read More
  • Political Observation - The Killing of Chad's President Idriss Déby

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - The Killing of Chad's President Idriss Déby On Tuesday 20 April the Chadian army announced that President Idriss Déby had been fatally wounded. Army spokesperson Gen. Azim Bermando Aguna announced soon after that Idriss Déby "breathed his last defending the sovereign nation on the Read More
  • Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia The Ethiopian armed forces announced on 28 November 2020 that they had seized control of the city of Mekelle, the capital of the Tigray Region, following the fierce battles which erupted on 4 November between the central government in Addis Read More
  • 1
  • Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état The Burmese army carried out a coup d’état on Monday 1 February 2021 that resulted in toppling president Win Myint and arresting prime minister Aung San Suu Kyi along with other leading figures of her party. The army appointed vice-president Myint Read More
  • Political Observation - The Kuala Lumpur Summit 2019

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - The Kuala Lumpur Summit 2019 Malaysian president Mahathir Mohammed has invited some leaders of the Islamic countries and a crowd of scholars and intellectuals numbering about 400 to attend an Islamic summit in the Malaysian capital for economic and financial objectives, as well as Read More
  • The Reasons and the Fallouts of North Korea’s Decision to Cancel the Armistice Agreement

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Answers to Questions On the Reasons and the fallouts of North Korea’s decision to cancel the Armistice agreement North Korea announced on 13 March 2013 that it had cancelled the 1953 armistice with South Korea which ended the Korean war of 1950. North Korea issued a warning Read More
  • 1
  • Political Observation - Joe Biden’s Overseas Trip & NATO

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Joe Biden’s Overseas Trip & NATO In a statement issued on 3 June 2021, the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, commented on Joe Biden’s trip to Europe by saying the “trip will highlight America’s commitment to restoring our alliances, revitalizing the Transatlantic relationship, Read More
  • The New START Treaty

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم   The New START Treaty    The Russo-American New START Treaty on long-range ballistic missiles was signed in 2010 with each side given time to meet its commitments. It expired in 2018 but was extended to 2026 when Biden took office.     The New START Treaty Read More
  • Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency On Monday 8 February Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Inc. announced, in its annual disclosure, that it had invested about $1.5 billion in the cryptocurrency Bitcoin in the last month. This disclosure came following the accelerated rise Read More
  • 1
  • Turkish Mobster Sedat Peker's Campaign Against AKP & Targeting of Süleyman Soylu

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم  Political Observation - Turkish Mobster Sedat Peker's Campaign Against AKP & Targeting of Süleyman Soylu   Turkish official and public circles have in the past few days been rattled by a series of video clips that went viral after they had been broadcast by Sedat Peker who Read More
  • Political Observation - Aims of the Russia-Ukraine Escalation

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Aims of the Russia-Ukraine Escalation The Russo-Ukrainian crisis erupted yet again about a month ago after the two countries had traded accusations of violating the ceasefire agreement concluded between them, although violations by both sides have never stopped. This latest escalation came after President Read More
  • Political Observation - Protests in Russia

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم    Political Observation - Protests in Russia    Tens of thousands in Moscow, St Petersberg and several other Russian cities took to the streets on 23 January 2021 in support of calls for the release of anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny who was arrested immediately upon his return Read More
  • 1

Latest Culture

  • Is Fighting Against Occupation Jihad?

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Answers to Questions Do we consider the fighting against the armies occupying the Muslims' lands, as is the case today, and in the absence of the Amir, be deemed as Jihad? Do we deem it part of the defensive Jihad, knowing that the Answer to a Question Read More
  • Q&A - Mutawatir Hadith (number of narrators)

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Answers to Questions Question: Why do we say that the Mutawatir Hadith is the one narrated by at least five persons whose collusion on a lie is impracticable, whilst there is disagreement on the acceptable number amongst the scholars? Some of them say three and others say Read More
  • Mujtahid & Muqallid (Q&A)

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Question & Answer Question: It is mentioned on page 58 of the official version of the book entitled The System of Islam that, “the Muttabe’ (follower) is the one who is lacking some accredited Shari’ah sciences”, whereas in fact, this description fits the Ammi (common) and not the Read More
  • 1
  • Unity of the Ummah & State - A Vital Issue

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Unity of the Ummah & State - A Vital Issue Ever since its early dawn and throughout its history, Islam has been facing tremendous challenges, and its followers have been subjected to various types of oppression, maltreatment and defamation which even their noble Prophet ﷺ was not Read More
  • America Leads West in War of Extermination against Islam and Muslims

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Dear Muslims, Salvage Yourselves   America Leads West in War of Extermination against Islam and Muslims    Some Western institutions classify the Islamic World as the region that rejects integration. This means the region that rejects Western civilisation and its Capitalist concepts. This is why the Read More
  • Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah What has been occurring in Iraq is not unintentional. Steering Iraq towards drawing sectarian and ethnic borders is part of a plot that has been executed meticulously and gradually to portray that the children of the Ummah are the ones who want Read More
  • 1
  • 1