Open Letter to Taliban’s Leaders, Operatives & Afghan People

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Open Letter to the Taliban’s Leaders and Operatives, and Afghan People

Dear Noble Brothers

Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu, as for what is to follow:

The issue of Muslims is not seizing power but rather building a state; and building the state would be by gathering the Ummah around the Islamic idea, and making her proceed in life according to this idea. Then power would be taken and established based on this idea. The state is an executive entity for the host of concepts, criteria and convictions embraced by the Ummah that represent her viewpoint in life. In other words, the state is an entity built upon an idea that is embraced by the Ummah which is prepared to sacrifice for its sake. Hence, seizing power does not mean establishing a state. The state requires the authority to be built upon an idea embraced by the Ummah. What generates revival is establishing the authority upon the Islamic idea, i.e., the Islamic Aqeedah. Hence, what generates revival is establishing the state on “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”. Establishing it on the Hanafi school of thought, the book of al-Tahawi or the Shari'ah rules does not generate any revival whatsoever because these would be taken as systems and laws and as a result, they could never occasion any revival. The State should rather be established on “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”, then the Shari'ah rules would be taken in their quality as commands and prohibitions from Allah , and thus they would be implemented because they are the order of Allah and since they would be obtained from “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”. Only then revival would take place.

We are saying this so that we may perceive the reality and in what situation we should be.

Dear Noble Brothers

The existence of a Muslim in this life is for the sake of Islam and his work in life is carrying the Islamic Da’awah. The function of the Islamic State is implementing Islam and executing its rules domestically and carrying the Da’awah to the world, the method of which is Jihad, which is shouldered by the State. The Muslim lives for Islam, sacrifices for its sake, carries the Da’awah to elevate its standing, establishes the State to implement it and performs Jihad for the sake of Allah to spread it. Allah has made us Muslims and bestowed upon us the honour of embracing the magnificent Islam: He sent unto us a Messenger from among ourselves to convey unto us the ayat of Allah, cause us to grow in purity and to impart unto us the Book and wisdom so that we may bear witness to the truth before humankind by implementing Islam on them domestically and carrying it as message to the world at large to share the guidance with them rather than exterminate them.

The Muslims have been, without a shadow of a doubt since the dawn of Islam’s history, involved in a momentous Jihad. The work for the sake of Islam started on the intellectual and political path, while averting bloody frictions as much as possible and refraining from armed conflict with the Kuffar to persuade them to embrace this Deen and establish its Deen. Then, when Islam became a force to be reckoned with and its State was established, it caried the Da’awah on the political and military path simultaneously. The Muslims gave their lives for the sake of this message and sacrificed all that is dear and precious, until the Islamic State became the sun of the blossoming world and the undisputed superpower. Then the Kuffar succeeded in dealing the Islamic fraternity among the Muslims a heavy blow, dismantled their lands and destroyed their State. Hence, the Muslims became more unfortunate than the orphans seated at the table of the avaricious master. And you have suffered like the rest of the Muslims in all the Muslims’ lands from the humiliation of colonialism and the tyranny of the colonialists and their surrogates with the resulting bloodshed and the suffering caused by the three colonialist campaigns on Afghanistan, British, Soviet and American, during which millions of our brethren were killed, banished, imprisoned and tortured to serve the interests of the Kuffar.

Dear Noble Brothers

Allah revealed the noble Qur’an to be put into implementation. He is the Judge, and He is the Commander and Prohibitor. He issues the rules on actions and things. Hence, sovereignty belong to Him alone. Allah conferred the authority to the Ummah who elects from among her children a ruler to implement the Shari'ah of Allah . Hence, this ruler derives his legitimacy from Islam by implementing its rules and from the Ummah who elects him.

Hence, it is forbidden for the Ummah of Islam to lack at any time an authority, and to be ruled by other than the Shari'ah of her Lord. We are aware that you did apply Islam in Afghanistan during your first dominion over the country before the America invasion which toppled your authority and abolished your Imarah. We are urging you to establish your authority in Afghanistan in its quality as a part of the Muslims’ lands rather than in its patriotic and nationalistic quality, and to resume what you have started in terms of implementing Islam on the Muslims. This is the weighty trust for which you are responsible, and Allah will hold you accountable for what you have been entrusted with when you stand before Him.

We are also aware that you have negotiated with the Americans to arrange their exit from Afghanistan and hand the reins of power over to you; this was clear from America’s decision to let the collaborating regime meet its fate and not to support it, and to let you seize one wilaya after another and one directorate after another, without interfering despite their ability to prevent you from doing so. This indicated that it was part of the agreement pertinent to the Americans’ exit from your country.

Hence, we remind you of America’s broken promises after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union 32 years ago. The Americans never keep their promises and their covenants, and we believe you are aware of how America toyed with the mujahideen after the withdrawal of the Soviet occupier from your country and how she sowed the seeds of hatred amongst them, fuelling warlike discord amongst them severely, thus which plunged Afghanistan into a devastating civil war between the brothers in arms and in Deen. You are also aware of what America did to the Muslims in Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Egypt, and how she broke her oath with them, and even with her own agents who were also exhausted in service of her multinationals first, then in service of her surrogates who participated in the invasion and the war, and then those who colluded with her from among the traitorous rulers or those aspiring to seize power; and the masses in those countries had nothing left but starvation and death.

The insightfulness, seriousness and doctrinism of the believer make it inevitable for him to be wary of the hidden political forces that impede any substantial change that do not conform to America’s interests, explore the reality of foreign powers and their interests in Afghanistan and establish the outlines and boundaries of how to deal with them.

Dear Noble Brothers

You should purify your ranks, unify your forces, reconcile with your people and derive your support from them, and unleash their energies to build the State and proceed with it in the path of revival. After two decades of occupation, America has dismantled the masses, sowed the seeds of division amongst them and planted spies within their ranks who are attempting to flee with the occupiers to safe havens; and there are undoubtedly others who still embrace the occupier’s thoughts and agenda, be it within the ranks of the civilians or the military personnel, commanders and soldiers alike. Hence, you ought to be wary and cautious and purify the ranks from the traitors and collaborators. You have to beware of them, lest they should creep into positions of leadership. The experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt should serve as a parable and a lesson to you, lest you should incline towards those who feign their love for Islam whereas in fact, they continue to serve America and embrace her culture.

Dear Noble Brothers

The objective of Jihad is to remove the physical obstacles impeding the carrying of the message. It is not just killing and fighting for the sake of fighting. Hence, military power is a trust for carrying the message, not a sword brandished in the face of the country and the masses. Military power does not give the right to use it except withing the boundaries of the Shari'ah rule. The military culture emanating from the Islamic Aqeedah is the only way to secure and immunise the military forces against any manipulation, tampering and shady understandings or deals with foreign political forces, especially America.

While we warn you against having a relationship with America, we are not however saying you should live in a secluded fortress; it is inevitable for the Islamic State to live within this world and to connect with it with positive relations dictated by the logic of human life and the mission of carrying the message, which necessitates interacting with other nations and contacting states and peoples to convey Islam and secure life’s needs. Hence, you should conduct your relationship with other states and peoples according to the logic of conveying the message and in a manner serving the interest of the Ummah while repelling all the perils that may harm her, remaining vigilant and aware of the plots and styles concocted by the covetous powers in your country and maintaining a political insight with regards to the munafiqeen and the covert and overt collaborating mercenaries.

The Afghan people are Muslims. They love Allah and His Messenger. They are warriors and fighters. They faced the Russians and the Americans and fared well in defending their country. They are formidable ammunition for any side aspiring to rule Afghanistan with Islam. Hence, all you need to do is concentrate the idea of Islam within this people so that they may live by it and it may live through them. You should work towards injecting society with the Islamic concepts, criteria and convictions so that they may guide people’s behaviours. You should focus on the concept of Islamic fraternity and that Muslims, with all their ethnicities, tribal affiliations and sects are but one single Ummah to the exclusion of all other people, and that they are one hand against all others.

It is also imperative to reject the capitalist solutions to life’s problems, expose their corruption and the woes and calamities it has brought on peoples embracing capitalism. It would also be imperative to engage in a doctrinal intellectual struggle and a clear political struggle to rid the Ummah of colonialist domination, liberate her from their influence, root out their intellectual, cultural, political, economic and military presence, and close off all gaps in their faces. Meanwhile, attention should be devoted to expounding the Islamic solutions to these problems and how the individual Muslim should implement the system of Islam motivated by his piety and fear of Allah , and how the State should implement it through the masses sensing its fairness, the cooperation of the Ummah with the ruler in ordering Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar and the authority of the State, and through the masses, political parties and forces based on the Islamic Aqeedah who hold the rulers, emirs and civil servants to account. Therefore, the Islamic political thoughts must be concentrated among the masses in a powerful manner and manifested in their conversations, debates and relationships like ripened fruits would manifest themselves.

The Ummah’s viewpoint towards life should also be unified by adopting the criterion of Kufr and Iman, and Halal and Haram. The Muslims should also be exhorted to work by Islam and for Islam. All other ethnicities external to the Taliban movement should also be encouraged to get involved in this work to fuse the various ethnic groups in the crucible of Islam, dissipating all disparities and boundaries leading to unifying society and consolidating its ranks and consequently, turning it into a popular base for the new regime. This could only occur by unifying the viewpoint towards governance and integrating the leaders and officials of other ethnicities into the governing setup under the principle of Islamic fraternity and the criterion of competence and suitability.

It is the ideological intellectual building of the Ummah on the basis of Islam in its quality as an Aqeedah and a system, which will make the Ummah proceed in obedience with contentment and reassurance. The process of building involves making the thoughts of Aqeedah, Khilafah, Jihad and Islamic fraternity prevalent in society in a manner that paralyses all other leaderships so that Islam remains the unilateral leader of the Ummah, and the group expressing the Aqeedah and willpower of the Ummah becomes the effective leader of the State and society; and in this aspect, let the children of the Aqeedah compete among themselves, irrespective of their diverse opinions and schools of thought, to attract the masses, rule them and protect their Deen and Ummah.

One of the requirements of fairness in implementation is to share out the riches and positions of responsibilities and not monopolise them, and even place others ahead of the Taliban movement, as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did as per the Hadith narrated by Muslim on the authority of Anas Ibnu Malek who said that “a man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to give him a very large flock and he gave that to him. He came to his tribe and said: O people, embrace Islam. By Allah, Muhammad donates so much as if he did not fear poverty. Anas said that the person embraced Islam for the sake of the world but later he became Muslim until Islam became dearer to him than the world and what it contains.”

Another requirement of fairness is considering everyone equal like the teeth of a comb, irrespective of their ethnicities and sects, in terms of accountability and answerability, which maintains and controls the conduct of all officials.

Dear Noble Brothers

The masses are the only safety valve which will protect the State because they are the ones who empower the authority to rule on their behalf. What turns the masses into a popular base and a natural support for the authority is the Aqeedah with its legislative system and referentiality as well as the intellectual construction of the Ummah which involves fusing her with Islam, its concepts and its rules, the most important of which are the principles of governance in Islam, namely: the sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah; authority belongs to the Ummah; one single Khalifah; adopting the rules and enacting the laws is the exclusive competency of the Khalifah. This would be the impregnable barrier and the protective shield against military coups and infiltrations of those lurking in the dark, especially those who have been planted within the military forces and the cliques who conspire with foreign embassies. Hence, it is imperative to educate the masses with the Shari'ah-based political culture to concentrate the concepts of governance and qualities of its men. It is also imperative to deter the Ummah, especially the people of influence and power, from injustice, falsehood and the rule of Kufr, in addition to exposing to the Ummah those hellbent on being hypocritical and calling them to account just like the rulers. It is also crucial to confront, weaken and isolate those who harbour the thoughts of Kufr while being wary of adulation, cajolery, diplomacy, and Machiavellianism with any Kufr thought, erroneous concept or misdemeanour from their part.

The Ummah should perceive that establishing Islamic parties to culture the Ummah in a constant manner and to expose the schemes, conspiracies and activities of the Kafir colonialists, and calling the officials and rulers to account, is a necessity dictated by Shari'ah, the straightforwardness of the path and the steadfastness on the truth. The mechanism of political answerability in a partisan manner is more effective and influential in deterring the rulers from deviation and treason. Answerability is one of the momentous cornerstones upon which the Deen of Islam is built. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The master of martyrs on the Day of Resurrection is Hamzah and a man who stands up to a tyrannical authority, commanding good and forbidding evil and he is killed for it.” He ﷺ also said: “In the near future there will be emirs and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds is safe. But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined.” And he ﷺ also said: “The most excellent Jihad is when one speaks a true word in the presence of a tyrannical ruler.”

We stress that the role of the military and security forces is to protect the entity of the State and carry the Message rather than protecting the movement, imam, ruler or Western values and the interests of the colonialists. Such forces should not be a sword brandished in the face of the Ummah. Protecting the imams, movements and rulers is achieved automatically through protecting the State’s entity.

Hence, although security is in the hands of Allah , and it is He who sends shivers down the spine of the Kuffar and hypocrites, this is not in isolation of the universal laws that Allah has bestowed on His servants so that they may gain authority on earth. Allah granted security to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the Sahaba and made them safe from the danger they had been enduring from the Mushrikin in Makkah; and in Medina, they used to always carry their weapons until one day they asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “O Messenger of Allah, will a day come in which we will be safe and lay down our arms? Upon this the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: you will not persevere but a little until a man from amongst you will sit among this great crowd without sporting an iron.” Then the following ayah was revealed: “Allah has promised those of you who have attained Iman and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will cause them to accede to power on earth” [An-Nour-55]

Finally, despite the bravery of its people, Afghanistan remains weak and the Taliban movement should, as it establishes its authority in this country and if it were independent, sincere and serious about resuming the Islamic way of life, epitomise the image befitting the Islamic State, and burn the falsehood of the world’s capitalist system with the light of its Shari'ah while erasing the falsehood with which the West has maligned the system of Islam and its State to distort it through ignorant people and agents. , and endeavour to strengthen the entity of the State and protect it with a more solid Muslim entity, such as Turkey, which, although continues to rule by secularism, is a powerful independent state with which it would be conducive to merge with and work from within to turn it into a Dar al-Islam. Unifying the Muslims’ lands is a Shari'ah priority and a political and economic necessity, and an aim to which those working for Islam and Muslims should not be oblivious. If the Taliban were to do this, it would prove that its loyalty to Allah and His religion is above any other loyalty, and that it has taken a sound step in the path of liberation and revival, offering a great service to the Ummah of Islam.

“And tell them: Keep working: Allah will behold your works and so will His Messenger and the believers; and you shall be brought back to Him Who knows that which is beyond the reach of perception and that which is within the reach of perception. He will then declare to you all that you have been doing." [at-Tawbah-105]

18 Muharram 1443h
26 August 2021 


  • The Extensive Security Operation in Jenin & the Internal Power Struggle in "Israel"  

     بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - The Extensive Security Operation in Jenin & the Internal Power Struggle in "Israel" 
    "Israeli" forces stormed Jenin’s refugee camp yesterday morning, Friday, to execute an extensive security operation after it had been delayed for two days due to the assassination of Aljazeera correspondent Shereen Abu Aqleh. "Israeli" soldiers fired missiles on a house  in which Palestinians wanted by the occupying forces were allegedly hiding. The "Israeli" army said its forces had executed preventive and pre-emptive operations in the West Bank without giving any further details. The fighters who had been bulwarked in the camp confronted the forces of occupation steadfastly and courageously with a flurry of bullets, damaging a number of military vehicles and achieving direct hits within the ranks of the enemy which forced the occupation forces to beat a hasty retreat. 
    In order to perceive the aims of the "Israeli" security operation and its pertinence to the internal power struggle in the usurping entity, it would be imperative to review the events since the toppling of former prime minister Netanyahu because what is most remarkable  politically in the "Israeli" security operation is its occurrence in an atmosphere dominated by outbidding, sniping, jostling and partisan polarisation, in addition to the extensive debate  within  "Israeli" extremist far right circles over the  security and military failures against successive fedayeen activity  in the heart of the "Israeli" entity, coupled with the argument over "Israeli" sovereignty over the West Bank, al-Quds and the holy precincts. The opposition exploited this issue to weaken confidence in the already groggy government of Naftali Bennett due its frailty and fissures in its inner walls, since it came as the result of circumstances that necessitated sidelining Netanyahu from power after the change in the US administration and the exigencies of its policies towards the region, in addition to the pragmatic changes in some aspects of the Palestinian issue and in line with the approach of the US deep state. This is because the “regional solution” and “Abrahamic process” would not be successful if the consequences of occupation were not resolved such as the issues of refugees, the sacred precincts and  borders. Unlike the way former US President Donald Trump used to deal with "Israel" and its prime minister, Joe Biden conspired to thwart and demonise Netanyahu and deprive him of a lifeline in his war on Gaza last year, just like what President Nixon did in the 1973 war. Biden let the missiles of Hamas rock the extremist "Israeli" rightwing public opinion before Tal al-Rabi’ and other cities in inner Palestine were rocked and the occupiers were terrorised and provoked into seeking revenge from the Palestinians of inner Palestine, as was the case in the city of al-Lidd, which led consequently to accusing the usurping entity of apartheid with the aim of exerting pressure on "Israeli" public opinion and persuading it of the practicality  of the “peace” process led by the US and hampered by Netanyahu and the extremist rightwing, and with the aim of alienating the electoral powerbases from his government, toppling him and forming a coalition that would downsize the influence of the most extreme rightwing in the government, thus paving the way for stirring  the still waters in the negotiations process and reviving the “peace” process via the “Abrahamic” process. 
    As Netanyahu fell and Bennett succeeded in forming a government, the former set about placing obstacles in its way and succeeded in reducing the gap between the opposition and the government by inciting the Yamina party Knesset member, Idit Silman, to resign. He addressed Knesset members via Twitter by saying “join Idit Silman, join us, and we will together put Israel back on  track for success, prosperity, security, and peace.” According to "Israeli" press, Idit Silman agreed with Netanyahu to assume the post of health minister in the forthcoming government. 
    Netanyahu continued his escalation in impeding the government by targeting it through every single event such as exploiting the "Israeli" court decision to allow the government to offer non-Kosher food in hospitals, inciting the extremist rightwing, and using the fedayeen operations in Tal al-Rabi’ and other places to accuse the government of security failure, which represents the focus of attention for the occupiers, and which was alluded to this week by a former minister in Netanyahu’s cabinet, Yoav Galant, and such as inciting, together with several politicians, especially from the Likud party and a number of journalists, the extremists to storm Masjid al-Aqsa to embarrass the government of Bennett and alienate the rightwing powerbases from his government. Netanyahu accused the government of cowardice for failing to respond to Hamas’s threats, and called for reactivating the policy of assassination which he himself halted during his tenure. Hence, Maariv columnist Ben Caspit accused Netanyahu of stirring the issues from behind the scenes to cause a disturbance, citing the  record number of Jewish settlers had recently stormed al-Masjid al-Aqsa and remarking that settlers had for the first time since the occupation of al-Quds in 1967 started to pray in the courtyards of al-Aqsa, and describing Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir as being the keepers of hell. 
    For his part, the head of the parliamentary Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, also member of the Yesh Atid party, Ram Ben-Barak, retorted by saying “there are no magic formulae for the situation we are facing; we are in the middle of a war. We need to build the segregation wall which we have neglected and not attended to for several years. There is a lot we need to do.” He indirectly blamed Netanyahu’s cabinet, which was in office for 12 years. The tussle between the government and the opposition was so acute to the point where an "Israeli" rabbi blamed Palestinian “violence” on the extremists and settlers who provoked the Palestinians by storming Masjid al-Aqsa; the criticism came in the wake of the Elad operation in which three settlers were slain. 
    By monitoring the events pertinent to the priority of the "Israeli" government, which hinges on maintaining the incoherent governmental coalition and is shackled by religious rightwing forces and the "Israeli" party Ra'am which represents the southern wing of the “Islamic” movement in "Israel" under the leadership of Mansour Abbas who is accused by the "Israeli" opposition of blackmailing Bennett, we deduce the presence of a fierce struggle for power and a persistence by Netanyahu to impede the progress of the government with the aim of toppling it and returning to power. This is clearly reflected  in the opposition’s success in inciting the herds of settlers and extremists to storm Masjid al-Aqsa on Passover day with the participation of Netanyahu himself. Such a move confused the government and upped the ante in the tussle with Hamas, and this encouraged Netanyahu to continue booby-trapping the path of the government and besieging its leader, especially after the resignation of Idit Silman, which enhanced the chances of the rightwing opposition under Netanyahu’s leadership to table to the Knesset a draft bill requesting the dissolution of the government under the pretext of having lost the required majority, hoping to  lure one single Knesset member to his ranks. It is well known that Netanyahu is fighting tooth and nail to return to power in order to avert a prison sentence due to the corruption charges lodged against him which are still under investigation. And as the tension erupted in al-Quds and the war of words between "Israel" and Hamas intensified, the US intervened to avert a military clash that would divert attention away from the current world media campaign against Russia, and worked towards shoring up the "Israeli" government through the Negev summit and by preventing Palestinian escalation and containing reactions to the Jewish religious zealots’ storming of Masjid al-Aqsa, an event that Bennett for his part attempted to restrict and Jordan attempted to avert its occurrence against the Palestinian side through the decision of the endowments ministry to ban I’tikaf at-Masjid al-Aqsa during the month of Ramadhan except for the last ten days of the month; all this was designed to shore up the "Israeli" government and spare it any discomfiture. 
    Meanwhile, prime minister Naftali Bennett responded to the accusations of the opposition of acquiescing to the demands of Jordan with regard to sovereignty over the holy precincts and confirmed "Israeli" sovereignty over the West Bank, and that al-Quds was the perpetual capital of "Israel", meaning sovereignty over the lands but not the inhabitants, thus meeting the minimum requirement of the “solution’s” agenda, to which the king of Jordan does not seemingly object in return for bequeathing the throne to his son, a narrative vividly expressed by the upshots of the Jordanian royal committee in charge of modernising the political system.  The "Israeli" prime minister was also looking for an opportunity to win the "Israeli" public opinion over or divert its attention away from the security failure through an extensive security operation to silence domestic public opinion and restore the strength of the "Israeli" security deterrent force; this was revealed by the statement of "Israeli" chief of staff  Aviv Kochavi in a video aired by the "Israeli" army in which he said “we will do whatever it takes,  whatever necessary, and whenever necessary to restore security.” 
    However, as the security operation in Jenin was about to begin on 11 May, the crime of assassinating the prominent Aljazeera correspondent Shereen Abu Aqleh by the "Israeli" forces took place, hampering and perturbing the security operation, and halting it for two days; consequently, the "Israeli" government faced a severe international embarrassment due to the worldwide uproar caused by the assassination, which weighed heavily on the unsettled government and on the political climate in "Israel". It has also embarrassed the security coordination authority, i.e., the Palestinian authority which was concerned, together with Jordan, with supporting the government of Bennett at this critical stage, due to the stature of the assassinated correspondent, Aljazeera channel, the nature of the incident, its circumstances and its potential fallouts, which stained the security operation with the mud of the crime and stole the thunder of the required achievement of Bennett’s government. In this sense, the crime of assassinating Aljazeera correspondent Shereen Abu Aqleh cannot be isolated from the equation of the power struggle in the usurping entity and the context of the "Israeli" outbidding, partisan polarisation and the need of the prime minister for an injection of oxygen into the lungs of his ailing government, which would spare his blushes following the failure of the security operation. This reveals that the crime had been plotted in secret, especially as it occurred amid the controversy over assassinations, and came in parallel with the series of actions and snares the opposition had laid to unsettle the government.  
    It is likely that the opposition was behind this repugnant crime to perturb the security operation and upset the calculations of Naftali Bennett, once it had prepared the grounds for the return of assassinations, which resulted in the assassination that was plotted to generate a security loophole to stain the government and point the finger at it, and thus compel it to change its priorities and engross it in tackling the situation domestically, regionally and internationally. However, the prime minister who boasted about having killed Palestinians with his own hands to gain the voices of extremist voters, was not averse to harnessing the blood of Aljazeera correspondent among the domestic public opinion and the extreme rightwing which hastened to bless the crime through the extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir; "Israeli" newspaper Haaretz revealed in the last hours of Wednesday 11 May details of the "Israeli" army inquiry which did not rule out the responsibility of operatives belonging to the Duvdevan unit for the assassination of Aljazeera correspondent Shereen Abu Aqleh, according to However, the inquiry was circumspect so as to deny any responsibility whenever necessary by claiming that armed Palestinians have the same weapon used in the assassination. This implicit confession hinting at the government’s responsibility for the assassination of the correspondent means that Bennett wants to turn the crisis into an opportunity to win over rightwing public opinion  and immunise his government against collapse. However, Bennet is not expected to succeed in preserving his government against which several complex factors have gathered to dismantle it, the most important of which is the diversity in the visions of its coalition, which restrict its options and turns its continuance into an illusion, let alone letting it move one single step forward. This makes the return of Netanyahu to power a probability which is open to bargaining and deliberation with the US administration, especially with the midterm elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate drawing near, which usually compel US parties to entice the voices of “Jews” and the influential evangelical movement.   
    Finally, it is worth mentioning that the ugly crime and the malicious “Zionist” hand of treachery would not have been able to shed the blood of Aljazeera correspondent Shereen Abu Aqleh and to arrogantly attack her funeral procession had it not been for the lowliness of the collaborating rulers and the treason of the normalising regimes, as well as the collaborating treacherous authority of Mahmoud Abbas, and had it not been for their cowardice and their betrayal of the victim and her likes from among the oppressed, who have irrigated the land of Palestine with their innocent blood, and who were not expecting a medal from the traitor Mahmoud Abbas who sanctifies security coordination, nor were they expecting a ceremony of crying and face-slapping, or a condolence tent; they were rather expecting the rise of the ardent men, the gunfire, the missiles, the armies of conquest and the sound of the bullets of revenge, in emulation of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ  , and by following the footsteps of the emir of the believers al-Mu’tasim who, when the cry for help of a woman who had been slapped, decided to engage in one of the greatest battles in the history of the Muslims to rescue her. However, the coward rulers of the Ummah nowadays decided to let the cries of the betrayed correspondent and those before fall into deaf ears. 
    “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.”  [at-Tawbah-14]
    13 Shawwal 1443h 
    14 May 2022  

  • Putin’s Speech & Developments in the Russo-Ukrainian Crisis 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Putin’s Speech & Developments in the Russo-Ukrainian Crisis

    In his annual speech yesterday, 9 May, marking the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, an annual celebration that Putin has been harnessing throughout his term of office to corroborate Russia’s presence as a world military power, Russian President Putin linked the “spirit of victory” and the sacrifices of the former “great patriotic war” to the patriotism of Russia today and her struggle to remain a political and military player at the world stage. He stressed that Russia’s decision to go to war in Ukraine was right and deemed it the decision of a sovereign, powerful and independent state.

    President Putin accentuated Ukraine’s centrality in the orthodox patriotic thought upon which he has built his domestic and foreign policy. His speech carried several messages with domestic and foreign themes. He glorified several important battles in Ukrainian cities during the “great patriotic war”, and stressed that the current battle was a historical communication. He said “Today, as in the past, you are fighting for our people in Donbass, for the security of our motherland, for Russia.” He also blamed America, Ukraine and NATO, justifying his decision to go to war by the security alerts he had received, including Ukraine’s preparations for a “punitive operation in Donbass”, Kiev declaring “that it could attain nuclear weapons,” and “Nato began the active military assimilation of territories along our borders,” adding that “an absolutely unacceptable threat to us was steadily being created right on our borders”, and that “Russia launched a pre-emptive strike at the aggression…. The decision of a sovereign, strong and independent country.”

    These statements by the Russian president came as Washington continued to escalate the crisis by imposing sanctions on Moscow and pursuing her support for Ukraine; this was reflected in the request by the White House to Congress to approve military support and an extra $33 billion for Ukraine. It was reflected also in Biden’s decision to sign on the same day the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act into law. The law dates back to the Second World War and it was enacted to support Ukraine against Hitler by speeding up the dispatch of military equipment to Ukraine.


    The US escalation is vividly reflected in the support given to Zelensky’s efforts to incite European public opinion against any country, organisation and company dealing with Russia by using very poignant expressions such as “your hands are stained with our blood”, and in the obstacles preventing reaching a solution that could throw Putin a lifeline or spare Europe from the Russian security threat such as Zelensky’s insistence on clinging to all Ukrainian territory including the Crimean Peninsula. America has also been pushing the British prime minister and his foreign secretary to incite against Russia and provoke her and press Europe to accept the sanctions imposed on Russia in the energy sector. Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph has exposed France and Germany’s cooperation with Russia and the logistical support they lent her in the form of thermal monoculars for tanks and navigation systems for jetfighters. The US escalation is also clearly reflected in the statement delivered by NATO’s secretary general following Putin’s speech in which he said NATO stood firmly behind Ukraine and would continue to support her right to defend herself. Those were the very words of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken which alluded to giving Zelensky the green light to escalate the situation and widen the scope of the war beyond Ukraine. This is corroborated by the continued supplies to the Ukrainian army with means of resistance and sophisticated assault weapons, as well as intelligence reports that helped the Ukrainian army sink the Russian ship Moskva, and by America’s decision to raise the issue of the separatist region in the republic of Moldova, namely Transnistria, which is adjacent to Ukraine and occupied by the Russians, through the security tensions in the separatist region and the military deployments on the border routes, in addition to the provocative behaviour of the Moldovan government against Russia by turning Moldova into a military supplies bridge for Ukraine, and the West’s decision to supply Moldova with a bundle of military aid and prevent the Moldovan government from celebrating the Russian victory day which it used to mark each year.
    The Ukrainian crisis has so far enabled America to execute a host of measures to isolate Russia, drive a wedge into her relationship with Europe and empower NATO member states and upgrade their military systems by increasing their military expenditure, an enterprise that several US administrations had focused on achieving. The clearest sign for this prospect is Germany’s precipitated decision to inject approximately €100 billion into her defence budget and to approve a bill for increasing the annual military spend to 2% of GDP; Italy also proceeded with a similar measure. The EU for its part issued a resolution pertinent to achieving European energy security by reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy and opening the European market for liquid gas supplies from America with the shipping costs being covered by the increase in gas prices during the crisis. America has also given Ukraine a platform for armament with the most sophisticated US military equipment including Javelin and Stinger missiles to test the effectiveness of her weapons against Russian weapons. America wanted also to test her intelligence capabilities by passing on to Ukraine data on Russian warships which led to sinking the Russian battleship Moskova and information on how to target and incapacitate the Russian frigate Admiral Marakov, and how to target Russian military commanders. She also tested the capabilities of the “co-operators” aka the “Belarusian saboteurs” in executing support actions such as disrupting the supply chains and supply routes of the Russian forces on the Kiev battlefront.

    On the other hand, the bundle of sanctions on Russia has started to impact the progress of her military operation; UK defence department commented on the Russian army’s consumption of substantial quantities of sophisticated ammunition, most of which depends on European components and spare parts whose export to Russia has been banned. All this was summed up by the statement of UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace in which he emphasised the West’s policy vis-à-vis the crisis by saying “"Putin must fail in Ukraine is our key policy mission, but we mustn't avoid the fundamentals here, which is that it is for Ukraine to choose how it ends this conflict, how it makes Russia end this conflict.” This is expressive of an Anglo-American persistence to compel Russia and Europe to adhere to the rules of the new political and security game by giving Ukraine all the means enabling her to deplete Russia and force her to fail by arming and training Ukrainian forces so as to impose a reality on the battleground to the point where Russia could never win this war in a meaningful way, and which would compel her to opt for the least damaging outcome from among the colours of failure, and which would lead Russia into an impasse and force her to move to plan C which would necessitate focusing her military operations in the area of Donbass and south Ukraine, and even the seaport of Odessa in the southwest, and establishing a buffer zone to cut off Western supplies. And this is the American aim which has been dwarfing Russian objectives. Pushing Putin towards plan C would enable America to achieve the objective from which she is hoping to shape the appropriate security climate for the continuance of NATO and its hegemony over European sovereign decisions, namely keeping Russia as a scarecrow for the European states, especially as that is what America wants the war to lead to as Putin continues to defy the US administration which is forcing him to cling to the regions of Donbass and Crimea and making this the end of his wishes, so that Ukraine may remain a hotbed of tension on Europe’s eastern borders, and so that Russia may also remain a source of anxiety, tension and fear for Europe through the war of attrition, or through subjugating Putin and harnessing him for that purpose. In this context, America managed to bide time, which is an important factor in warfare, and compelled Western states to bankroll Ukraine and arm her with what she needed for a war of attrition in eastern Ukraine; she has also prepared them for the new security climate which will include keeping them under the American cloak and under her nuclear umbrella. The US jibes at Putin, making him brandish nuclear weapons, by leaking the report on CIA supplying the Ukrainian army with the data of Russian warships and the locations of Russian generals on the battlefields, as well as Boris Johnson’s taunting of Russia by visiting Ukraine, fall perhaps within this context. This means the American plan for the battle will compel him to stay militarily in Ukraine, thus luring him into a devastating war of attrition; it will also keep Ukraine a hotbed of tension forcing the European states to proceed behind America even at the expense of their own interests. This explains Macron’s apprehensions and his proposal to establish a European bloc in parallel to the EU with the aim of bulwarking the European standpoint vis-à-vis any Russian dispute with neighbouring European countries such as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, and averting any direct clash between Europe and Russia which would impact European interests, especially in the energy sector, and also with the aim of circumventing the project of inviting European countries to apply for EU and NATO membership, which is a source of worry for Russia, and thus, the parallel bloc would act as the alternative for all of this and would nullify America’s pretexts to lead Europe towards what she wants; nevertheless Macron is still willing to give America what she wants in respect of the “war of models” by determining democracy, freedoms and the rule of law as commitments for the parallel European bloc. This is because America is redrawing the geopolitical and value-based boundaries which would redefine the “West” and make it an international political tool in the political, economic and value-based war of models and in initiating the integration of Europe in the potential battle with China. Although Putin projected self-confidence, his speech revealed the weightiness of the unprecedented sanctions imposed on Russia, the scale of international pressure and the domestic embarrassment to the Russian leadership, especially after the relationship between Russia and "Israel" had been strained due to Lavrov’s scathing attack which was unbecoming of conventional diplomacy. It is also clear that the Russian leadership is facing a crisis and its room for manoeuvre is narrow and limited. On the other face of the coin, it is clear that Europe is shackled, perturbed and lacking willpower; she submitted to America despite her strategic and geopolitical interests being with Russia rather than America, and despite her inability to abandon Russian energy, at least for the time being. Europe relies on gas imports exceeding 150 billion cubic metres a year, while America can only supply her with 10 billion cubic metres.

    Hence, the progress of the Russo-Ukrainian crisis, amid American superiority and the diversity of components of its power, and amid Putin’s reliance on oppressive military power and his ability to muzzle domestic opposition, is heading towards forcing Putin to resort for one of these options: either total defeat and international isolation, depletion, or submission; and if Putin were to acquiesce to this scenario, it would disrupt the interactants of the Russian military power and its cornerstone, break the silence of the Russian masses, destroy the foundations of the regime and its willpower, dismantle the hard nucleus supporting Putin and herald his downfall to seize Russia’s reins, downsize her, plunder her resources, control her relationship with Europe and neutralise her in any potential struggle with China.

    10 Shawwal 1443h
    11 May 2022 

  • Eid Message  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Dear Noble Brothers and Sisters - Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

    We congratulate you on Eid al-Fitr and we pray to Allah the Almighty to accept from us the Siyam and the Qiyam, and make us from the salvaged of Ramadhan.

    This remarkable occasion and divine rite comes as the Ummah continues to suffer under the yoke of the Kuffar and regimes ruling the Muslims with Kufr who are waging a relentless war against their religion and their Aqeedah. The days have been proving each day that these regimes are harsher against the Muslims than the Kuffar themselves as they are the bridge through which the Kuffar get to the Ummah to assail the religion and dignity of the Ummah and plunder her riches.

    It has become common knowledge that the conspiracies of these regimes are dictated by the Kufr states and their international institutions, starting from altering education curricula by discarding Islamic values and building them on the concepts and values of Western civilisation, and changing the constitutions and laws to suit the frenzied attack waged by the world’s dark forces against all the peoples and nations of the world.

    At a time when these regimes witness the viciousness of the Kuffar against their masses, and their betrayal and abandoning of the states’ chieftains for the sake of their interests, they continue to cheaply offer themselves for the sake of their masters and their interests to the point where they have become spineless, relishing slavery, affiliation and treason, and devoting themselves obediently to serve the Kuffar.

    This all-out war being waged against the religion and Aqeedah of the Ummah warrants from the Muslims to awake from their slumber and seek the path of salvation from the wretched reality they are experiencing, the genocide there are facing and the frenzied onslaught on their religion and values which culminated in the emergence of aspects never known to their predecessors, and which even caused the obliteration of nations before them. So, would the Muslims await the sunnah of replacement and accept to be obliterated? Allah the Almighty would then replace them with other people who would be as eager to preserve their religion as they are to preserve their lives. Or would the Muslims awaken from their slumber, reject the state of heedlessness and move consciously to face these calamities that are befalling them from every corner, threatening their religion and their values with extinctions and trampling their dignity?

    Severe shocks are enough to awaken nations and make them determined; but we are witnessing the opposite. Despite the blazing emotions of the Muslims towards their religion and their yearning for implementing the Shari’ah of their Lord, they are no longer moved by the attacks against their sanctities, the acrimony towards their Lord and the rejection of the sunnah of their Prophet, and not even the attacks against the values and rules of Islam.

    We are aware of the scale of hardships facing the Ummah and the magnitude of the viciousness inflicted on her, and what those who work towards her liberation and revival face in terms of extermination and punishment. We have also witnessed what the Ummah has suffered at the hands of the Kafir West and these regimes in terms of tragedies and calamities. However, this Ummah is different from the other nations of the world. She is the Ummah who has carried the trust of Islam with all its weightiness and sacrificed for the sake of conveying its message. This Ummah is the stronghold of the sole goodness capable of salvaging the world and bring it out of the darkness and into the radiance of Islam. She is the Ummah that Allah the Almighty has pledged to grant victory if she aided His cause and if she moved with her utmost power to reverse the conditions she is enduring.

    Hence, hope, all the hope, is pinned on her; not only to salvage herself but the entire world from the hegemony of the ghoulish and savage capitalist system and what it has inflicted upon the nations and peoples of the world in terms of ruin, destruction and distortion of reason and human nature. This is because the Islamic Ummah is the only nation possessing the truth and the path of righteousness.

    We pray to Allah the Almighty to complete the joy of this Ummah by removing her worries, trials and tribulations, unifying her ranks, healing her rifts and ending her infighting. We also pray to the Almighty to help those who are working sincerely towards unifying her and raising her banner.

    30 Ramadhan 1443h

    1 May 2022

  • Events of Masjid al-Aqsa & Political Activity Preceding Them 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Events of Masjid al-Aqsa & Political Activity Preceding Them

    "Israeli" forces killed last month more than 16 Palestinians, who were elevated as martyrs, in various military operations while 14 "Israelis" were killed in four individual attacks executed by Palestinians. As the month of Ramadhan entered and the Jewish Passover began, tensions and "Israeli" police attacks against worshippers in al-Masjid al-Aqsa intensified to protect the Jewish settlers and the Jewish “Temple Mount” groups. The unarmed Palestinians, specifically those living in al-Quds, have depicted the most splendid images of heroism in standing up to the forces of occupations and herds of settlers. Their hearts were filled with the belief that Allah the Almighty would be their Guardian when support became scarce.

    These events are, without a shadow of a doubt, not isolated from the preceding political activities undertaken by some US agents in the region, with the aim of preserving the normalisation process and alliance with the Zionist entity while injecting blood into the veins of the government of occupation that had become frail and ramshackle due to the speculations, acute partisan tussles and "Israeli" divisions. Egyptian president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi hosted a month ago an unannounced meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh between "Israeli" prime minister Naftali Bennett and Abu Dhabi’s crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed, during which they reviewed the fallouts of the Iranian nuclear deal, which represents a scarecrow to "Israel", with the aim of establishing a security system that would include the latter and keep the behaviour of rightwing "Israeli" governments in line with the US Greater Middle East Initiative. Propagating the imminence of an agreement between America and Iran and calling for removing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from America’s foreign terrorist organization blacklist was perhaps designed to corroborate such narrative. The meeting also explored the means to contain Palestinian reactions to the provocations of the extremist Jews during the month of Ramadhan and the Jewish Passover which the opposition was set to harness to weaken the cabinet of Bennett and dismantle its alliances. The Sharm al-Sheikh meeting was followed by the summit of al-Aqabah in which Jordan took part alongside Saudi, the Emirates, Egypt and Iraq, and by another summit between King Abdullah II and President Mahmoud Abbas for the same purpose, namely shoring up the government of Bennett and containing the fireball and escalation for which the "Israeli" extreme rightwing had plotted. All this was in parallel with what "Israel" described as the summit of hope in the Negev, which gathered US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, "Israeli" Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and Egyptian, Emirati, Bahraini and Moroccan foreign ministers. Their statements and their decision to visit Ben Gurion’s grave, which provoked the emotions of Muslims, corroborated their support for the government of Bennett and Lapid which was threatened with collapse, and for the “Abrahamic” process under a US and Arab official sponsorship, despite the people of the region who reject it. The Bahraini foreign minister announced that there was a need to turn the “Abrahamic agreements into actions and practices against terrorist forces such as Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Iranian aggressors.” For his part, Emirati foreign minister said “Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty 43 years ago and we regret not having joined then.” All this lip service was designed to shore up the rightwing government of the occupation and generate the security, economic and political climate which would, “optimistically”, influence "Israeli" public opinion and persuade it of the viability of the “peace” process as a foundation for the existence, continuance and security of the Zionist entity, instead of the military and security options which the recent operations in inner Palestine have proven a failure, in addition to what the climate of the Arab-"Israeli" alliance, the “Abrahamic” process and the “regional solution” may generate by imposing the usurping entity on the people of the region, in addition to disheartening their resistance and dashing their hopes. This is what al-Sisi heralded in 2016 when he linked what he described as “the warmest peace” to settling the issue of the “Palestinians”; what he meant by this is that the "Israelis" should seize the opportunity and accept the formula of settling the issue through tackling the aftermaths of the occupation and granting the Palestinians a part of their land.

    Hence, the "Israeli" escalation that erupted in al-Masjid al-Aqsa falls within the context of the "Israeli" partisan speculations and tussles between the secularist movement on the one hand and the "Israeli" rightwing, such as the government of Bennett, and the far-right parties such as the Likud on the other; the Likud exploited the event to undermine the government and the Yamina party, one of the leaders of which (Idit Silman) turned on Bennett and resigned from the coalition after she had been incited and enticed by Netanyahu, thus reducing the parliamentary majority between the government and the opposition to 60-60 for each.

    As for the "Israeli" government, it could not find a better way to thwart the opposition’s attempts to exploit the event than oppressing the Palestinians and protecting the settlers and religious zealots to preserve the cohesion of its coalition and its electoral credentials, while attempting to rein the herds of Zionists in and prevent a sharp escalation due to foreign considerations dictated by the US desire to avert an eruption of the situation leading to diverting the attention from the Russo-Ukrainian war, which she deems the most important event at this moment; this was expressed by Secretary of State Blinken who stressed the importance of maintaining calm in the region. In this sense, the government of Bennett is eager to prevent any aggravation of the situation, in line with the American standpoint. "Israeli" newspaper Hayom reported that as of Friday, "Israel" would prevent Jews from entering Masjid al-Aqsa until the end of Ramadhan. In the same context, the collaborating Arab Ministerial Committee reacted to contain the situation; its communiqué in Amman two days ago revealed that it had washed its hands off the duty to deter the Zionist entity and its herds, and referred the responsibility to protect Masjid al-Aqsa and the Palestinians to the “international community”. Moreover, and according to Middle East Eye, Hamas received 150 calls within 48 hours from various parties pertinent to “mediation efforts” to prevent war in the Gaza Strip following the deteriorating situation in the West Bank and al-Quds. For its part, since Khaled Mashal announced the amendment of its charter and Ismael Haniyeh was selected as head of its politburo to justify foisting that amendment with Khaled’s Mashal’s announcements during the last war on Gaza last year alluding to accepting the two-state solution, Hamas has been regulating its policy and activity according to the process that had been agreed upon in Cairo. Its swift contact with Egypt, informing her that she was not responsible for the missile attack on the Zionist entity last Monday, and that the threatening language amidst the Zionists’ aggression against Masjid al-Aqsa was merely for propaganda purposes. According to Middle East Eye, sources said that Hamas “has been trying to contain the activities of its ally, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), using "sharp language" and warning against unilateral escalation following threats made against “Israel” by its Beirut-based secretary-general, Ziad al-Nakhala.” It was hoped Hamas would preserve what its men had achieved in terms of heroic actions despite the disparity in capabilities at all levels with the enemy, and that it would rally the resistance and unify its objective in inflicting damage on the Zionist enemy and deterring it from pursuing its aggressions against Masjid al-Aqsa and all the cities of the West Bank and Gaza.

    The tempo of the progress in executing the Deal of the Century, with the adjustments made by Biden included, is proceeding at an alarming pace, especially as the file of Al-Quds and holy precincts has been the hottest issue for years and almost on a daily basis, to achieve a consensual formula acceptable to both the "Israeli" and Palestinian sides, amidst an Arab political climate inclining towards establishing an alliance with "Israel" and normalising relations with it.

    Faced with these conspiratorial and demeaning standpoints the Arab regimes have become accustomed to, and the meagre standpoint that would shroud the Muslims with shame each time their honour has been violated and their sanctities vilified, we call on everyone whose heart is filled with Iman and who yearns for the Jannah of Al-Rahman, from among those with power in their hands, to rise and succour their Aqsa and the blessed lands that surround it, and to draw close to Allah the Almighty in this noble month, the month of victories, by purifying the blessed land from the squalor of the Jews and those allied with them.

    The likes of Khalid Ibnul Waleed, who destroyed the Persians and the Romans within a few years, are still within the Ummah. Likewise, the likes of Salahuddin, who liberated al-Quds from the Crusaders who were mightier and fiercer than the Jews, are also among the Ummah. The Ummah still has the likes of Alp Arslan who faced 200 thousand Crusaders with 20 thousand mujahideen and vanquished them, imprisoning the Roman Emperor in the process. All the Ummah needs is the leader who would project her credentials of struggle, her heritage of knowledge, and her rich reservoir of men and equipment, and deploy all this for the sake of her revival and liberation.

    “Fight them so that Allah may punish them by your hands and humiliate them, and help you against them, and heal the hearts of the believers.” [al-Tawbah-14]

    22 Ramadhan 1443
    23 April 2022


  • Struggle in Palestine jews & those Behind Them: Axiomatic Facts for Ummah 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    The Struggle in Palestine with the jews & those Behind Them: 
    Facts that Must Remain Axiomatic Among the Ummah

    First: The issue of Palestine is vital and towards which a measure of life and death must be undertaken. It is, however, secondary to the central issue, namely resuming the Islamic way of life by establishing the Islamic State and implementing the rule of Allah on earth. This warrants removing the systems of Kufr, toppling the collaborating rulers, unifying the Muslims’ lands, and preparing for resuming Jihad, liberating Palestine and carrying the message of Islam to the world. Although Palestine is a secondary issue, it is however not merely a disputed piece of land, but rather part and parcel of the Aqeedah of the Muslims. Palestine had been linked to their Islam and to their Aqeedah before they even conquered her and spread their authority over her lands. Allah had made Palestine the first Qibla of the Muslims and the night journey of His noble Messenger ﷺ. It is in Palestine that Allah brought all the prophets to life for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to lead them in Salat in her Masjid, and it was from Palestine that Allah ascended His Messenger ﷺ to the heavens. It is also Palestine that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made it a rite to set on a journey to it in addition to Makkah and Medina; and he ﷺ made it Mandub (recommended) to he who cannot travel to it to send oil to light the lamps of Masjid Al-Aqsa. This is not confined to al-Quds alone, but it also includes all the lands of Palestine, as per the text of the noble Qur’an. Allah says: “Limitless in His glory is He who transported His servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa - the environs of which We had blessed -so that We might show him some of Our symbols”. Hence, the mubarakah (blessing) includes the surroundings of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, namely all the lands of al-Sham, Yafa, Tal al-Rabi’, Haifa, Saida, Beirut, Tabariyyah, al-Nasira, Nablus, al-Khalil, Gaza, al-Aqabah, , and Sinai, are all a blessed land linked to the Aqeedah of the Muslims. It is forbidden to forsake one single inch of it, irrespective of how far it were from al Quds and from al-Masjid al-Aqsa because it is all a blessed land linked to the Aqeedah of the Muslims; forsaking it would be tantamount to forsaking the Aqeedah of the Muslims and betraying, Allah , the Messenger ﷺ , and the believers.

    Second: If the enemy usurps any part of the Muslims’ lands, the Muslims will have to rise for Jihad to repel the enemy and fight him until they recover the land, even if they have to sacrifice their lives and all that is precious for the sake of this duty. This is why the Muslims rose, when the Crusaders seized the lands of Islam during the Crusades, to fight the invading Crusaders and they never relinquished one single inch, and they went on fighting them generation after generation until they succeeded in recapturing al-Quds 90 years after it has been lost. They also recaptured all the lands of Islam from the Crusaders in wars lasting 200 years, without willingly surrendering to the overwhelming enemy any part of the land. The Crusaders would usurp areas of land through war, and the Muslims would persevere in fighting them until they recover what had been usurped from them by force; they never accepted to let the crusader populate, be comfortable, or build settlements without a fight. What the Muslims concluded with the Crusaders were merely armistices and stoppings of acts of warfare for a limited period, so that the Mujahideen may muster their forces, not to let the Crusaders live in the lands they had usurped, or acknowledge their right to one single inch of the lands due to, ipso facto, superiority, and overwhelming power.

    Third: The peace agreements and normalisation the regimes have concluded with the Jews do not concern the Ummah in any shape or form; these regimes do not represent the Ummah in the slightest but rather those who have brought them and assigned to them the affairs of the Muslims through hegemony and power. Hence, they are agreements between the jews and regimes affiliated to the West, and with an international colonialist sponsorship. They are agreements of capitulation and submission by these regimes to the jews. Thus, they have no Shari’ah, or judicial, or political impact as far as the Ummah is concerned, and they do not prevent any Jihad or resistance or war against the usurping jews, and do not even suspend any struggle against the traitorous functional regimes who have emboldened the jews.

    Hence, all these agreements, which have been designed to liquidate the issue of Palestine, normalise the relationship with the Jews, integrate them in the region, and even hand over the region’s leadership to them, do not represent the Muslims whatsoever.

    Fourth: The issue of Palestine is the issue of the Islamic Ummah, rather than the issue of the UN, or the Quartet, or the League of Arab States; it is not even the issue of the people of Palestine alone, as they want it to be. It is an issue of the Ummah alone, and according to what her religion dictates, who determines the manner to solve the issue. Shari’ah makes it compulsory upon the entire Ummah to undertake the necessary measures to execute this solution, through those who genuinely represent her willpower, namely the Khalifah of the Muslims who the Ummah will appoint as a guardian and protector of her interests; and this is not hard for the mighty Islamic Ummah who ruled the world for centuries.

    Fifth: All the solutions of liquidation proposed internationally or regionally, and all the political initiatives that some Palestinian groups, or Arab or international forces have called for are but solutions designed to embed the usurping entity and liquidate the issue. Moreover, not only are such solutions pragmatic and have no connection to Islam, they are also flawed and do not reflect the interests of the people of the region. Such initiatives have failed to liberate one single inch of Palestine and have not deterred the jews from their aggression, haughtiness, and ghoulish behaviour; they have rather yielded further concessions and entrenchment of the usurping entity in Palestine.

    Sixth: The sound solution to the issue of Palestine begins by placing it on its original plane, namely treating it as an Islamic issue. It is neither an Arab nor a Palestinian issue but rather the issue of the entire Ummah. Islam makes it obligatory on the Islamic Ummah to work towards recovering Palestine through Jihad and fighting. This obligation falls on the people of Palestine first, and if the sufficiency is not achieved the obligation will fall on those next to them from among the Muslims, and then the nearest to them, until sufficiency is achieved and the lands recovered from the usurping jews. However, since the regimes surrounding this entity are engrossed in protecting its security and entrenching its existence by linking it to the people of the region through economic and political agreements to secure the continuance of its existence, the sound path towards liberating Palestine would be to reject such conspiratorial solutions, destroy these traitorous regimes and establish the Islamic State, which will rectify the process of liberating Palestine from the usurpers. This does not mean that the Muslims in Palestine and outside should remain bystanders until the Islamic State is established, because Shari’ah has made it obligatory on those capable of inflicting damage on the enemy, or preventing him from executing its plans, or weakening his power, to harness their ability to achieve this, so that the flame of Jihad and the effort to achieve liberation may remain ablaze in the hearts of the Ummah’s children, not only to liberate al-Masjid al-Aqsa, the violation against which is used today as a tool to bulwark the government of Bennet and Lapid against collapse and to reverse the plans of the extremist rightwing to the advantage of the government with an official Arab collusion, but also to liberate the Ummah from colonialism, enslavement, and treason, and liberate all the land of Palestine for good. This is not hard in the slightest for Allah .

    “If you aid the cause of Allah, He will help you and will make firm your steps.” [Surah Mohammed-7]

    16 Ramadhan 1443h
    17 April 2022


  • Pakistani Parliament Ouster Against Imran Khan 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Pakistani Parliament Ouster Against Imran Khan

    On 10 April 2022, America succeeded in toppling Imran Khan and his government after she had instructed the Supreme Court of Pakistan to issue a decree on Thursday 7 April nullifying all the instructions of President Arif Alvi to dissolve parliament and declare early elections, as per the recommendations of Prime Minister Imran Khan.

    After parliament had passed a vote of no-confidence, Imran Khan announced in a deceiving tweet, in which he harnessed the concept of conspiracy, that, “Pakistan became an independent state in 1947; but the freedom struggle begins again today against a foreign conspiracy of regime change.” This tweet was a follow-up to what Imran Khan announced when the Pakistani opposition were attempting to oust him the fist time; he said during a speech aired by Pakistani television on 31 March 2022, “I will fight until the end and I will defeat these conspiracies,” he added, “People suggested me to resign but I will play till last ball. I will not resign. I will play till the last ball.” This is what the collaborators usually do when they lose the backing of their foreign sponsors to the advantage of their opponents and their partners in treason.

    America mobilised the opposition against Imran Khan whom she accused of economic maladministration despite the support he had received from her through the IMF and the World Bank. She also accused him of failing to control rising inflation and the deterioration of the Pakistani Rupee, in addition to his mismanagement of foreign policy. Imran Khan retorted by claiming that the challenge his government had been facing was instigated by an American conspiracy and the collaboration of the opposition with foreign interference, and by calling the masses, especially the youth, to protest the conspiracy and stage nationwide marches.

    In fact, America has been working on exacerbating the Pakistani domestic political situation in order to screen and probe Pakistani public opinion vis-à-vis the politicians by hounding the opposition to topple the prime minister who had taken a catalogue of standpoints and policies that invoked America’s wrath and infuriated the military institution affiliated to her, such as his relationship with Russia and China, who had warned of a potential coup in Pakistan. During his televised speech on 31 March 2022 ,Imran Khan implied that a “Western state”, meaning America, was backing his ouster because he had visited Russia and met President Vladimir Putin last month; he then declared his alignment behind Russia and stressed that Pakistan’s foreign policy should be independent and not hostile towards any nation. This does not mean that he became independent, or he intends to become independent, but he merely felt his sell-by date had expired, and thus he merely wanted to demonise his opponents and plant landmines in their path.

    Amidst this political tension in the country, an army spokesperson announced on behalf of the Pakistani armed forces that “the army has no bearings on the current political events”; this was a few hours before the dissolution of parliament and the government on 3 April 2022. However Chief of Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa slammed the Russian war on Ukraine a day before and called for an immediate end to the “great tragedy” suffered by a smaller country. America for her part hastened to deny the allegations of Imran Khan, stressed her neutrality vis-à-vis the Pakistani political forces and reiterated her eagerness to maintain the Pakistani political approach and its conformity to her interests.

    Although the spokesperson of the Pakistani army claimed impartiality in the political battle taking place between Imran Khan and the opposition, the statement of the army chief however revealed that Imran’s standpoints did not please America, and thus Pakistan’s standpoint should not be neutral in Russia’s war on Ukraine. Hence, Imran Khan’s visit to Russia on the same day Putin declared war on Ukraine was a political banana skin irrespective of whether the visit was with the blessing of America or not; therefore, Chief of Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa stated in the same speech that Pakistan should be in the Western camp, "We share a long history of excellent and strategic relationship with the United States, which remains our largest export market," he said, adding that European Union, United Kingdom, Gulf, South East Asia, and Japan were also vital for Pakistan’s national development. This makes the Pakistani opposition an American choice at this stage, without nevertheless forsaking Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in which she has been investing since 1999 via Imran Khan, and which represents a major popular force in tribal areas, and especially as Chief of Staff Qamar Javed contradicted Imran Khan who stated that Pakistan had made a mistake by aligning herself with the West during the Cold War. He also openly criticised Western diplomats in Islamabad who, in the previous month, requested in a joint letter from his government to condemn Moscow’s aggression against Kiev; he retorted by saying, “What do you think of us? Are we your slaves...that whatever you say, we will do?"

    As for the relationship with China, Imran Khan expressed to the Washington Post in September 2021 his aversion to offering the US air bases in Pakistan; he also expressed his refusal to enter any alliance hostile to China. This was when foreign troops in Afghanistan were about to complete their withdrawal. In June, Imran Khan was quoted as saying “Absolutely not. There is no way we are going to allow any bases, any sort of action from Pakistani territory into Afghanistan. Absolutely not.” As a result, America instructed the UAE to request the return of its $1billion deposited with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), at a time when the government of Imran Khan was facing a deep financial crisis. Pakistan had to also borrow $1billion from China to pay back a loan to Saudi.

    The US pressure on Pakistan was also induced by Sino-Pakistani rapprochement in isolation of the American coordination through which America has been attempting to delay China’s economic accomplishment before blackmailing her, especially in respect of the investments pertinent to the Sino-Pakistani economic passageway, such as building railways and expanding the seaport of Gwadar, which is deemed a major seaport for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in addition to the arms deals with the Pakistani army. China harnessed America’s need for the seaport of Gwadar as a passageway for Turkmenistan gas in which US energy firm Chevron Corporation had invested, and Pakistan’s desperate need for development in the absence of financial revenues, and strengthened her influence in the Indian Ocean by harnessing the strategic seaport of Gwadar as a vantage point to monitor the Strait of Hormuz, which is the operations site of the United States Fifth Fleet headquartered in Bahrain, and also to monitor India’s Western Naval Command on the western coastline; this obviously clashes with America’s strategy pertaining to containing China and besieging her in the Indian Ocean.

    What evokes America’s concern most is that China has recently become the main arms and military equipment supplier of the Pakistani army, and has even eclipsed America. The share of Chinese weapons in the Pakistani army has risen from 13% to 41%, in addition to China’s full support for the Pakistani nuclear programme. Imran Khan stated clearly and in contradiction to US policy in Pakistan, during his televised speech in August 2021: “We are lucky because we have a friend who stood by us through thick and thin. None of our other friends stood by us like China who supported us politically and defended us in all fronts.” He added that Pakistan was facing tremendous pressure to normalise her relationship with "Israel".

    Accordingly, and despite his services to the US, Imran Khan failed to read the changes in US policy towards Russia and China, and failed to take into account that the collaborator’s affiliation to world powers is useless during political crises, especially according to the logic of interests which does not recognise any permanent friend, and in the presence of rivals in treason. Hence, despite all the standpoints he took and his close rapprochement with China and Russia, Pakistan remains under US custodianship because the Pakistani military commanders are still slaves and have not unfettered themselves from their collaboration with America. This is why it was plain sailing for America to mobilise the opposition with the backing of the army and the Supreme Court to topple Imran Khan and his government despite the popular support he had mustered due to the unambiguous American conspiracy to remove him.

    Hence, the new prime minister and president of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Shahbaz Sharif hastened to corroborate his loyalty to America by saying, “Our relations with Britain and America have experienced ups and downs, and we will work to improve our relations with both countries.” He also addressed India by saying, “We want peace, but that is not possible without resolving the Kashmir issue.” And this in fact is in line with the United States’ plan to mobilise the countries of the region against China and Russia in preparation for containing them and compelling them to submit to the American will in this century.

    15 Ramadhan 1443h
    16 April 2022


  • French Elections - War on Islam 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - French Elections – War on Islam

    The French presidential elections will take place tomorrow 10 April, followed by legislative elections in June 2022, amid a widespread debate over French identity and its standing in the world and Francophone countries, and amid France’s competition with Germany over Europe’s leadership.

    The first round of the elections are held under a catalogue of political, diplomatic and economic setbacks Macron faced in 2021, and during which France looked impotent and exposed, especially in the Libyan issue, Mali and Lebanon, as well as in the confrontation with Turkey in the East Mediterranean and in the AUKUS submarine deal which deprived France of the chance to establish any noteworthy presence in the Indo-Pacific region and the weapons market of that part of the world, not to mention the crisis of Ukraine and Russia which has placed France between the devil and the deep blue sea, not knowing whether to please America and invoke the wrath of Putin by siding with Ukraine in the face of Russia, or please Putin and anger America and most of the European states, thus losing further leadership credentials on the European continent. Putin’s recent criticism of the freedom to libel religions adopted by France presupposes a warning to Macron regarding his standpoint vis-à-vis Ukraine rather than a sympathetic gesture towards Muslims.

    To understand the first round of elections, it would be imperative to observe two issues: 1 - none of the candidates is likely to win a majority in the first round and the elections will move to a second round. 2 – The French state is striving to direct the attention of the French masses towards the issue of protecting the constitution, freedoms and the secularist identity by attacking Islam, despite the impact of such an undertaking leading to engrossing France in domestic issues.

    French elections have never witnessed a fiercer struggle over French identity as is the case today. The candidates of the French rightwing, namely Eric Zemmour, dubbed as France’s Trump, Valérie Pécresse, the candidate of “Les Républicains” (LR) and Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, have stirred the issue of immigrants and exploited it as electoral ammunition and a bridgeway to the electoral powerbases. The majority of current opinion polls indicate that Macron is leading the race after succeeding in implementing a host of stringent policies towards Islam and immigration, the two files representing the electoral arsenal of the candidates, and, at the same time, the fig leaf with which they cover their abjectness, compensate for their failures and corroborate their continental presence amidst Europe’s demographic fears and the controversy of identity that has been disquieting the French masses.

    However, the intensity of islamophobia and animosity towards immigrants has risen steadily in parallel with the intensity of the jostling and mobilisation on the grounds of the identity issue in the elections. When Eric Zemmour announced his presidential run, he said “It is high time we salvaged France, not reform her,” adding that he was running for president “so that our children and grandchildren do not suffer from barbarism… so that our daughters do not wear the hijab… so that they may inherit a France as she was known to our predecessors.”

    In the course of the unabated contest to win rightwing votes from the supporters of Le Pen and the centre-right whom Macron relies upon, Valérie Pécresse, who aspires to be the first woman to assume the post of president in the history of France, announced as she won the nomination of “Les Républicains”: “We will win back France’s grandeur and protect the French people,” adding that she felt “the anger of the masses towards the Islamist separatist tendency, and their feeling that their values and lifestyle are threatened because of the uncontrolled immigration.”

    As for the aspect of policies, Zemmour pledged in his electoral communiqué that if he were to win the elections, he would suspend all the benefits offered to foreigners which would save the French treasury $20-30 billion each year and would strive to preserve national sovereignty by estranging America and consolidating the relationship with Russia. As for Valérie Pécresse, she is marketing herself as the strong woman inspired by the experiences of Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel; she described herself as being “a third Thatcher and two thirds Merkel”, considering that such description alludes to a message of reconciliation with the US due to the harmony between the policies of Thatcher and Merkel and those of the US in most international files. As for Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, she thinks Zemmour is “submerged in the clash of civilisations” and hopes her electoral powerbase would not be eroded by the frenzied tussle and gravitation amidst the divided French rightwing. Although the role of Zemmour and its motives and fallouts are still unclear in these elections, it is nevertheless evident that it would lead to eroding the votes of the French rightwing; and this is what Macron dreads. However, it is imperative to perceive that the main objective is to gain enough votes to secure a presence in the second round, which has been historically characterised with deals and consensuses, as was the case in the second round of the previous elections. Hence, some sources are talking about an undeclared deal between Macron and former president Nicolas Sarkozy who did not back any candidate in the internal polling of Les Républicains. In this case, Macron could circumvent Valérie Pécresse’s challenge by striking a deal with Sarkozy to form a governmental coalition with the Republicans proceeding behind Sarkozy, which means Macron will scoop the vote of that electoral powerbase instead of Valérie Pécresse. Although Macron has been the object of domestic public resentment and has failed in several foreign political files, he however continues to head the opinion polls and is supported by historical facts; Giscard d'Estaing in 1981, and Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, were the only two presidents in the history of the Fifth Republic to have failed in being re-elected.

    Despite the diversity of the candidates and the attempts of each one to project the qualities distinguishing them from the others to win the votes of the electorate, they however, by and large, raise and adopt three main issues: French identity, secularist republic and national sovereignty. Their political manifestos pertinent to these issues revolve in a remarkable manner on Muslim immigrants and on the “threat” of Islam which constitutes a challenge to French values. Hence, the candidates tend to resort to ideological mobilisation and use racist expressions such as “Islamic terrorism”, “subjugated Muslim women”, “Islamic separatism” and Islam’s threat to the “values of the republic”, while cloaking their grudges with the shrouds of freedom, fraternity and equality to conceal France’s repugnant colonialist face, knowing that America has been behind the rise of Europe’s rightwing movement with the aim of dismantling the political milieux and manipulating them, especially in France.

    8 Ramadhan 1443h
    9 April 2022

  • Pakistan’s Role in Serving the US 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Pakistan’s Role in Serving the US

    The government of Imran Khan has been locked in a fierce struggle since the start of the year with the opposition parties led by Shahbaz Sharif (Pakistan Muslim League) and the son of Benazir Bhutto and Chairperson of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Imran Khan accuses the opposition of conspiring with foreign powers against the sovereignty of Pakistan, while the opposition rejoinders by exploiting the deteriorating economic situation, inflation, increasing foreign debt and the inability of Imran Khan’s government to carry out the reforms, as well as his maladministration of the procedure of appointing the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director-General to replace Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed, thus exposing an issue which is usually handled behind closed doors, and contributing to the departure of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM-P) and twenty members of Imran Khan’s party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf to the opposition, which allowed the latter to gain the 172 votes needed to pass the no-confidence motion and place the government of Imran Khan on the brink of collapse.

    It is worth mentioning here that several officials in the Biden administration and the Department of State had informed Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington several times verbally, and at least once in writing, that they were very concerned about the deterioration of bilateral relations between the US and Pakistan, especially in respect of the main foreign policy conducted by the Khan administration. The US officials also warned of the consequences Pakistan could face if she did not adhere to the American outline in these issues and adapt to the situation; meanwhile, US diplomats intensified their meetings with leaders of the Pakistani opposition.

    In this context, we ought to know that it is the US who manipulates the Pakistani political forces and army and controls them like puppets, exactly like the rest of the collaborators in the Muslims’ lands, especially the leaders of Egypt and the Gulf States. This is deduced fromPakistan’s policies in reality and directly from a statement by the Deputy Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, who said “all parties in Pakistan have to get approval of US government.” It is also imperative to perceive that America allows her agents to compete for serving her interests without the need to intervene at times, while she may on other occasions back one team at the expense of another in accordance with her interests, especially in the presence of an alternative enjoying popular support, if the regime faced collapse, if the ruler strayed from the path or if she wanted to weaken the state and fragment it on regionalist and sectarian grounds.

    In the case of Pakistan, the US is attempting to test the toughness of Khan’s government in the face of the storms it has been facing since the tenure of Donald Trump who never offered any economic incentives to help Imran Khan fulfil his electoral pledges. America is endeavouring to produce a government capable of securing her interests irrespective of the ruling party, especially in foreign issues representing the cornerstone of Pakistan’s functional role since she was adopted as a base for America’s conspiring against the Soviet Union and a launching pad to hijack India from the British. In the wake of the Second World War, America paid special attention to South Asia (India and Pakistan) based on the Truman Doctrine which Harry Truman announced to the US Congress on 12 March 1947 by saying “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” This was expounded in the American National Security Council position paper no. 48/1 (December 1949), which stated that ‘Should India and Pakistan fall to communism, the United States and its friends might find themselves denied any foothold on the Asian mainland,’ and it was also corroborated by Allen Dulles in 1953 who said that Pakistan was a reliable fortress against communism, if religion and Muslim human resources were harnessed in competing against the Soviet Union; he added that such qualities would make America “need them in the alliance”. This culminated in America signing a joint defence agreement with Pakistan and offering her membership of Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). Hence, Pakistan became totally affiliated to America who exploited her in her political agendas such as supporting Jamal Abdul Nasser in nationalising the Suez Canal, backing Ahmed Ben Bella in the Algerian war of “independence” by offering him a Pakistani passport, offering US spy planes a host of bases to fly over Chinese and Soviet lands, offering the American Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) an office at the Pakistani army’s general command, and offering logistical assistance to rebels in Tibet which China had occupied and ignited a war against India in 1962. This resulted in India throwing herself into the embrace of America; and this was the opportunity America had been yearning for since the partition since India was the main target of the US due to her significance in the international struggle and in dominating Asia. President Kennedy announced in 1959 that the crisis was a struggle for leadership in Asia.

    75 years since the Pakistani state came into being, Pakistan’s relationship with the Western world and her affiliation to the Middle and Far East region has been dominated by two issues, which nurtured her role in executing US policy, namely the communist expansion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan (1947-1985) and then the War on Terror since 2001. Pakistan, through successive governments, chose to market herself to the West to undertake the role played by Turkey and Greece against communist expansion. Pakistan’s founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah said “we hope America will pour money and weapons into Pakistan.” Moreover, it rallied behind the US to execute the Truman and the Eisenhower Doctrines. This was corroborated in 1952 by Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Ali Bogra, who said the US should not consider Pakistan a neutral state in Asia as her main sympathy was with the West.

    This approach was pursued by the government of Ayyub Khan, who confronted the influence of the communist party in Afghanistan in 1973, and the government of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq following the intervention of the Soviet Union in 1979. Then Pervez Musharraf linked Pakistan to the War on Terror and in turn received $18 billion between 2002 and 2011.Pakistan’s domestic political situation was dominated by the centrality of the military institution in running political life and giving priority to the American security, economic and political interests to the detriment of “national” interests. This trend has been conspicuous since the coup of Ghulam Mohammed against the government of Khwaja Nazimuddin in 1953, then the coup of Ayyub Khan, who had a direct relationship with CIA Director Allen Dulles, against the government of Fairuz Khan in 1958, and then the coup of Pervez Musharraf against the government of Nawaz Sharif in 1999. Washington’s knowledge and approval of Pakistan’s military coups was deduced from the reality of the military authorities’ relationship with the CIA and the US embassy, especially their direct contacts with the political officer at the embassy, and the contacts of Ayyub Khan with the CIA and the State Department to persuade them to “rely on Pakistan in preserving the free world”. This was before his military coup against the government of Fairuz Khan in 1958.

    Today, and following the American withdrawal from Afghanistan for which Imran Khan paved the way immediately after his election by releasing Mullah Baradar, the chief negotiator in Doha, Pakistan faces a catalogue of challenges reflected in the regional alliances, political movements and the wretched economic situation. The US is harnessing the current economic slump to pave the way for the Pakistani government to execute the legislative, fiscal and tax reforms to attract US investments and incentivise Pakistan to work with the IMF, implement its recommendations and borrow from world markets, which have been urging Pakistan to implement fiscal, economic, and legislative reforms, especially following the decrease of US and Saudi aid and the financial revenues from Iran due to the US sanctions. All this is designed to deepen Pakistan’s affiliation to the US and rehabilitate her for the role America wants her to assume vis-à-vis China. This has been preluded through Imran Khan’s alliance with Turkey and Malaysia, and through America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan which resulted in planting a hotbed of tension and instability to threaten neighbouring countries and Russia’s southern flank, orchestrate the relationships of the countries of the region and control the agenda of negotiations with the Taliban via the troika that includes Russia, China, Pakistan and the US.

    Hence, America is striving to redirect Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s role in light of the challenges posed by China and Russia, especially as Pakistan played a focal role in conducting the Soviet-Afghan struggle, in addition to her strategic position in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and the energy supply routes stretching from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. Imran Khan was harnessed by the US in covering up the centrality of the army with an acceptable political façade to vent the masses’ anger and regulate Pakistan’s political life according to the American agendas. He also served America in terrifying bin Salman by withdrawing from the alliance against Yemen, and he was harnessed in the attempts to transfer the Islamic leadership from Saudi to Malaysia, Turkey, Qatar and Indonesia to form an Islamic force outside the framework of the Organisation Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in order to help bin Salman detach the land of the Haramayn from its religious roots and pursue his campaign of embracing the Western lifestyle. Imran Khan was also used in weakening the centrality of the Arabs in the (Sunni) Islamic world and driving a wedge between them and the non-Arabs. Nevertheless, it is likely that America would abandon him as she did with his predecessors; this could be read in his latest statement: “we sacrificed our interests for the sake of those abroad, but they never appreciated it.”

    However, the precariousness of what is being concocted by America for Pakistan and Afghanistan is reintroducing the “Islamic” confrontation against China who is being demonised and whose crimes against the Uyghur Muslims are being highlighted. Hence, it is feared that this could lead to using the Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan as firewood in a fierce war of attrition, as was the case with the Soviet Union.

    29 Shaaban 1443h
    1 April 2022





  • Hadith (Tradition) of Siyam 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Hadith (Tradition) of Siyam

    For the 98th year, Muslims have been living without an Imam ruling by the Shariah of Allah - which He has approved for us as our Deen - and without a state taking care of their affairs and applying its rulings on them. The Kafir West exploit al-Ruwaybidat (lowly and despicable men), whom they appointed as presidents, kings and emirs over Muslims’ countries to guard the borders of Sykes-Picot, and divide Muslims under the flags and banners of Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic ignorance) that Islam has rejected, such that each “country” decides the day of fasting and day of Eid separately or for exigent political interests. Some of them will apply astronomical (lunar) calculations relating to the time of the crescent’s birth and this is contrary to the Hadith of the Messenger (saw) “Fast upon sighting it and end your fast upon sighting it” while others will depend on the sighting of the (moon's) crescent to confirm the start of the month. The difference in the beginning of fasting and Eid between these countries is usually politically motivated to dismantle the unity of Muslims and poison their Deen and Aqeedah, which is embodied in the unity of fasting and breaking the fast, the unity of their state, their Khalifah and banner

    Muslims have a choice between two options, there being no third for them: either to obey the created, or to obey the Creator; and there is no way to attain contentment except by obeying the Creator and upholding His command and His prohibition. For Allah ta'aala says, 'This day I have perfected for you your Deen and completed My favour upon you and approved al-Islam as a Deen for you.' (TMQ). Allah ta'aala ordered His Rasool (saw) with the conveying (of the message of Islam). 'Oh Messenger. Convey whatever has been revealed to you from your Rabb and if you do not do this then you will not have conveyed His message.' (TMQ). Allah ta'aala ordered us with al-Taa'ah (obedience). 'But nay, by your Rabb, they will not believe (in truth) until they make you judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which you decide, and submit with full submission.' (TMQ). Allah ta'aala also says in the Qur'an, 'It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.' (TMQ)

    And the Messenger (saw) said, 'By the One in whose Hand is my soul, I have certainly been sent with that which is pure and clear proof' and he alayhi al-salatu wa al-salam said, 'Even if Mūsā were alive, he would have no choice but to follow me.'

    Thus, he alayhi al-salatu wa al-salam clarified for the Ummah all the matters of Deen with the text of the ayaat (verses) and the Hadith, and left the Ummah on the pure reasoning and proof whose night is like its day and only those who will perish will stray from it. 'And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.' (TMQ). Among the things he made clear to them was that he explained to them when they should fast and when they should end their fast and bound that to correct sighting of the Hilal (crescent) of the month of Ramadan or Shawwal. He also made clear to them how they calculate months and years.

    'It is He who made the sun a shining light and the moon a derived light and determined for it phases - that you may know the number of years and account [of time]. Allah has not created this except in truth.'(TMQ) And the manner with which to understand the entry of the month and its departure; 'Lo! The number of the months with Allah is twelve monthsby Allah's ordinance in the day that He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred: that is the right religion.' (TMQ) And Allah ta'aala says, 'They ask thee, (O Muhammad), of new moons; Say: "They are fixed seasons for mankind and for the Hajj".' (TMQ)

    So with his (saw) manifest statement the Muslims dispensed with others, for he (saw) did not leave a place of deficiency or defect in their Deen, rather he perfected their Deen and completed it. 'This day I have perfected for you your Deen' (TMQ) and 'And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.' (TMQ)

    He (saw) demonstrated to them their Deen in its totality such that they are only required to understand its texts and to derive the Ahkam from these for all of life's issues. Therefore, the radix (source) to follow the Hukm Shar'i in fasting and fitr (breaking fast), and in Usool al-Fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence), Ibadaat (worships) are Tawqifiyyah (invariable or fixed). The Prophet (saw) directed us to specify the start of the fast by Ru’yah (sighting) the crescent of Ramadan and to commence fitr (end fasting) by Ru’yah of the crescent of Shawwal. He (saw) did not request Muslims to use calculations to know the time of the birth of the moon, regardless of its ease for Muslims throughout the ages to do so, rather he ordered them to fast with Ru’yah (sighting) the crescent and to make fitr with Ru’yah.

    So that we comprehend the Shar’i requirement from us, it is an obligation upon us to limit the linguistic and Shar'i Mafaheem (concepts) that relate to al-Hilal (the crescent) and al-Ru’yah (sighting).Shahr (month) linguistically, as reported in the Mu’jam Maqayees al-Lughah (Dictionary of Language) by ibn Fares, means “clarity in a matter and enlightenment of this month, and in the speech of the Arabs, al-Hilal, then named every thirty days by thename of al-Hilal and said it was Shahr (month)”. Sheikh-ul-Islam ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in “Majmoo’ al-Fatawa” said, 'Al-Hilal is taken from appearance and raising of voice (ie announcement), while it is derived from the actions of Ademites who say: "We witnessed al-Hilal" (ahlalna al-Hilal), we have begun the month (istahlalnah), thus there is no Hilal except whatever was witnessed (istahal)". Further, al-Hilal is the beginning of the moon (waxing crescent) as ibn Mandhoor said, 'Al-Hilal is Ghurat al-Qamar (the early aspect of the moon and its most prominent) when people witness it at the advent of the month and it is called Hilal for the first two nights of the month and then not referred to as al-Hilal until it re-appears in the following month.' As for in Shari’ah, the month is a reference to the “lunar month”.

    As for the Ru’yah, it is “seeing or sighting by the eye or vision”. The Shari’ah Ru’yah considered acceptable by the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence is the Ru’yah after sunset and not the daytime sighting which has no effect amongst the majority of Ulema. Ru’yah does not require the assembly of Muslims or a specific number of them, for Rasool Allah’s statement 'Witness it' means the absolute witnessing and his statement 'Fast' and 'End your fast' is general including all people on this earth, there being neither difference between one country and another nor between (one) Muslim and (another) Muslim.

    Thus al-Hukm al-Shar'i has made the rising of the crescent of Ramadan a Sabab (cause) for fasting, i.e. a known indicator/sign of the existence of the fasting of Ramadan; that is to say, if the people of a country see the crescent, then all the Muslims have seen it. And whoever witnessed it is a Hujjah (proof) for whoever did not see it.

    Al-Bukhari narrated from ibn Omar that 'the Messenger (saw) mentioned Ramadan and said: 'Do not fast until you sight al-Hilal, and do not end your fast until you sight it and if it is obscured then estimate the days' and he also said, 'The month is twenty-nine nights, do not fastuntil you sight it and if it is obscured complete the term thirty' and he said: 'I heard the Messenger (saw) say: "If you sight it, end your fast and if it is obscured estimate the days”. He also narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger (saw) said: 'Fast based on sighting it and end your fast based on sighting it and if it is unseen complete the term of Sha’ban'; thus, he obligated the fast on the following day once sighted and tied fasting to sighting of al-Hilal such that if the sighting is obscured he ordered to complete the term 30 days. He neither tied the fast or ending of the fast to the “birth” of the moon or touched upon the subject. The Legislator installed the Ru’yah as the Sabab (cause) of fasting and if its rise is not sighted the Sabab Shar'i is not met; the Hukm is not proven by calculation or otherwise, even if it is accurate or definitive, the reason being that the Legislator did not establish it as a Sabab and did not obligate fasting by it. This is further confirmed by the narration of Al-Bukhari that ibn Omar said that he Messenger (saw) said, 'We are an illiterate Ummah; we do not write or calculate, the month is such and such meaning twenty-nine days and thirty days'. 

    Calculation in this context refers to calculating the motion of three bodies relative to each other, i.e. it involves solving a three-body problem involving the orbit of the moon around the earth, and then the orbit of the earth and moon motion which is also orbiting the sun; thus it is evident from the context that it conveys the rejection of tying the hukm to calculation.

    Al-Imam al-Nawawi said regarding it: (Rasool (saw) said "Fast for sighting it and end your fast for sighting it”; the meaning is the Ru’yah of some of the Muslims and does not pre-requisite the Ru’yah of every Insan (human), rather the sighting of two just persons suffices for all people), this being evident in the narration of ibn Omar who said, 'The people sighted al-Hilal and I told the Messenger (saw) that it was sighted, so he fasted and ordered the people to fast' and it is evident from the narration of ibn Abbas that 'an Arab came to al-Naby (saw) and said, "I sighted al-Hilal tonight" so he (Rasoolullah) said, “Do you bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger?" He said, "Yes, and he (Rasoolullah) said, "Call o’ Bilal to the people to fast tomorrow”. Ibn Taymiyyah said, 'If its rise in the sky is not manifest on earth it has no Hukm, neither outwardly or inwardly, so that if it is witnessed (istahal) by one or two who did not declare it then that is not a Hilal. No Hukm is proven until they declare it and this declaration is al-Ihlal, which is the raising of the voices to disclose the sighting. And because Takleef  (responsibility) follows Ilm (knowledge), then if you have no knowledge you are not obligated to fast'. This Yaqeen (decisiveness) through Ru’yah is confirmed by ibn Abdul-Bir in “al-Tamheed” who said, 'No fasting of Ramadan should be undertaken without Yaqeen that the month of Sha’ban has ended, this Yaqeen only being met by the sighting of al-Hilal or completing thirty days (of) Sha’ban.’

    It is therefore incorrect in fasting and ending of the fast to consider other than the Ru’yah Shar’iyyah, this being the Ru’yah that a just Muslim bears witness to knowing what they have sighted. The borders that divide us should have no bearing on the difference in fasting and ending of the fast amongst Muslims, regardless of the differences or distances between their lands.

    Dear Muslims…

    The month of Ramadan is the month of Islam, in which the Da’wah began, the state was stabilised and the Muslims were victorious, and the attacks of the Kuffar against Muslim lands were crushed. This month is the glory of Islam and Muslims in this world and the hereafter, drawing closer to Allah in it is magnificent and doing good in it is great, its fasting is ashield and its Qiyam (standing in Salat) is a Sunnah. Allah honoured it with Laylat ul-Qadr (night of power) and singled it out with a great reward. Every deed of a son of Adam increases a good deed by 10 to 700 times. Allah Azza wa Jall said: “Except for fasting, which is for me and I reward for it.”

    During this honourable month the Prophet (saw) would increase his exertion over other months in Ibadah and Sadaqah and all nature of good deeds. The Sahabah followed his example such that they would exert more effort to become closer to Allah in Ramadan than they normally would in other months. The Messenger (saw) is our Uswah Hassanah (beautiful example). Even as we strive continually to work sincerely to resume the Islamic (way of) life on earth, it is befitting of us during the month of fasting that we should strive to become closer to Allah and multiply our efforts to carry the Da'wah and propagate it; as the Rasool (saw) said, 'By Allah, should Allah grant Hidaya (guidance) to one man, it is better for you than red camels". How valuable would this be if this were to happen in Ramadan?

    We ask al-Mawla Azza wa Jall to assist Muslims in their work for the advancement of their Deen and the resumption of their Islamic way of life, by applying the Shar' (Law) of their Rabb (Lord), and carrying it as a message to the whole world.

    And Allah is al-Hadi (the Guider) and al-Muwaffiq (granter of success) to the sound way.

    29 Shaaban 1443h

    1 April 2022





  • Developments on Libya’s Political Landscape 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Developments on Libya’s Political Landscape

    The Libyan capital Tripoli witnessed last Thursday a security mobilisation after the Tobruk House of Representatives had assigned the premiership to Fathi Bashagha with Abdul Hamid Dbeibah refusing to step down. And while the UN expressed a conniving standpoint in favour of Bashagha, the US contented herself by saying she was monitoring the situation and called on all parties to observe calm.

    Since the Libyan political process was gradually designed by the US since the Sukheirat Agreement of 2015 and under the auspices of UN Envoy Martin Kobler to liquidate the remnants of the “February Revolution” and to dwarf the role of the “Islamists” on the political landscape, and subsequently, form an interim government headed by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah to oversee the elections which never took place in December 2021, it would be imperative to perceive the new developments of instructing Bashagha to form the government in light of statements made by Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) Stephanie Williams on 13 February after she had met both Dbeibah and Bashagha. Following her meeting with Dbeibah, Stephanie Williams emphasised “the importance for all actors and institutions to work within the political framework and, above all, to preserve calm on the ground in the interest of Libya’s unity and stability,” and following her meeting with Bashagha she reiterated “the need to go forward in an inclusive, transparent and consensual manner, and to maintain stability in Tripoli and throughout the country”. She added the focus must continue to be on the holding of “free, fair and inclusive national elections in the shortest possible time”, which alluded to implicit support for Bashagha to form a new government to assume transferring power and endorsing the constitution now following Dbeibah’s failure in his mission. This was later clearly expressed by Williams during her meeting with Aguila Saleh; she said “the Speaker of the House of Representatives briefed me on the mechanism that the House will follow to grant confidence to the new government in line with the procedures implemented in the vote of confidence in March 2021.”

    If America kept silent over assigning Bashagha to form a government as it is evident from her standpoint and the standpoint of the Head of UNSMIL Stephanie Williams, this could only mean that the elections’ mechanism to design the situation had either failed or had been thwarted, and a crisis has been generated by forming a new government to achieve several aims via the collaborators in the Presidential Council and parliament behind which the remnants of the defunct regime bulwark themselves, as well as those who express the American standpoint and assume the task of stripping the armed factions of their weapons and influence, and strive to bring the masses back to the stable of obedience. America is also endeavouring to regulate anew the roles of foreign powers represented by Russia and France, contain their presence in Libya and downsize their aspirations and gains, in addition to continuing to contain Erdogan and control his foreign performance to the tune of American interests.

    Hence, the decision of Stephanie Williams to raise the issue of preserving the stability of the security situation, whose agitation represented an obstacle in the face of the elections, and to persist following her meeting with Bashagha on holding “free, fair and inclusive national elections in the shortest possible time”, while maintaining her recognition of the Dbeibah government, indicates that America continues to implement the policy of maintaining an equilibrium between the east and the west, and the process of containing all the parties especially in the western areas such as Tripoli and Misrata, by driving a wedge between the political and military forces in the western region that supports both sides of the governmental tussle, namely Abdul Hamid Dbeibah who upset America by dismissing her protegee, foreign minister Najla Mohammed El Mangoush, and Fathi Bashagha, the pawn of the West and ally of Khalifa Haftar.

    In this context, the US is attempting to dash the hopes of the masses in Libya and subjugate them via a leadership emanating from the collaborating political milieu, even if she were forced to annihilate the effective tools on the political landscape, thus paving the way for endorsing the situation and bringing back to what it was before the revolution by destabilising the political landscape and brandishing the threat of dividing Libya through multiple governments and divergent leaderships, and exhorting the masses to accept the elections whose results have already been determined as was the case in Algeria. America did previously warn last January through her envoy to Libya and her ambassador Richard Norland against distracting attention away from the electoral process following attempts to form a new government since the issue would lead to generating a parallel government. This standpoint was supported by Britain whose embassy in Libya announced that it would continue recognising the Government of National Unity (GNU) as the authority in charge of leading Libya towards the elections, and that London did not support “establishing parallel governments or institutions.”

    America is undoubtedly harnessing Dbeibah’s craving for leading the government to destabilise, reproduce and orchestrate the situation. She is also harnessing his security mobilisation to confront his opponents in deepening the troubled security climate which has impeded the electoral process in order to justify disarming the armed the groups in Tripoli and the western region, enable her agents from seizing the reins of power, and forestall the gambles of foreign powers on the jostling Libyan political forces. Hence, US State Department corroborated its commitment to backing the political process led by the Libyans that fulfils the demands of the masses by holding elections. Russia for her part attempted to undermine the position of the Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) Stephanie Williams by calling for appointing a UN delegate whom America has been, and still is, preventing from taking the vacant seat in Libya. Hence, the step of instructing Bashagha to form a government with the international community continuing to recognise the government of Dbeibah has frozen the role of the dialogue committee under the reality that has impeded the elections and restored the role of the Tobruk parliament in the balance of domestic powers, especially following the meeting between Stephanie Williams and Aguila Saleh. It has also shifted the struggle to the interior of the western region, especially Misrata, the hometown of both contenders for government. This is expected to generate an administrative confusion and paralyse or impede the functionality of the state’s institutions, in addition to aggravating the deteriorating standard of living and exerting further pressure on the masses of the western region, thus persisting on silencing the weapons of the warring factions and the aspirations of the covetous personalities, pushing them towards subjugation and consensus, and holding elections under the auspices of the UN which represents the American volition; subsequently, making what America wants is what the Libyan people want as well.

    Hence, the country will remain hostage to Western designs, which are executed by the faithful collaborators of the West who would burn the country down through wars from which only the Kuffar benefit if they differed, with the innocent and oppressed Muslims being the firewood, and whose agreement would only be in service of their masters, the Kuffar, away from the Ummah and her interests.

    How long will the Muslims continue to be pawns on the chessboard? Is it not high time they seized the reins of power and worked towards rectifying the situation and implementing Islam in life, the state and society?

    25 Shaaban 1443h
    28 March 2022



  • Yemeni Stakeholders Political & Military Actions at Behest of Foreign Powers: Designed to Steer towards Negotiations 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation
    Yemeni Stakeholders Political & Military Actions at Behest of Foreign Powers: Designed to Steer towards Negotiations 
    Following the interview of United States Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking with “The National” newspaper in Manama on 21 November 2021, during which he said that the US was pushing for “regional solutions for a regional problem,” that removing the designation of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation was a “positive gesture” to which “they have not responded in a way that I would have liked to see”, and that America was “still very concerned, and remain very concerned, about their behaviour”, Saudi forces, seconded by Yemeni government forces, launched a flurry of air and ground strikes against the Houthis on several fronts and over several weeks of December and January. This was   part of a strategic military pressure aimed at reflecting the American vision towards the Houthis, considering they are an “extremist and intransigent” side, and at pinning them in their positions and preventing them from expanding, thus paving the way for settling the Iranian nuclear file and its implications in the region. However,  the approach pursued by the Houthis’, especially after their victories in Shabwa and Marib where the Yemeni alliance forces collapsed, soon changed as the forces affiliated to the Emirates intervened in the south of Yemen, represented by the Giants Brigades led by the nephew of former Yemeni president, following a signal from the US Envoy sent through an interview on 16 December 2022 in which he said, “So, it's a matter of getting enough leverage and pressure on the warring parties to realize that their aims will be better achieved through negotiation rather than continuing to fight.” This means exerting pressure on the Houthis who continue their attempts to expand, and forcing them to stop despite Iran who has been harnessing them as a bargaining chip in her struggle with Saudi. It also means that America will assign a new functional role to the Houthis in the forthcoming phase, which will follow the process of regulating the Iranian behaviour according to the requirements of the regional solution. The new functional role of the Houthis includes their role in dividing Yemen and  in the equation of military, political, and economic equilibrium after the division. 
    The return of the interventions by the forces loyal to the Emirates, which had effectively withdrawn from any military operations against the Houthis for several years, and their focusing on separating the south by supporting the separatist movements and its military forces, has resulted in recapturing the strategic and oil-rich governorate of Shabwa and recovering all the areas which the Yemeni army had lost in Marib through the “Cyclone of the South” operation, with the aim of achieving the desired equilibrium. 
    It is clear that the Houthis’ missile and drone attacks which terrified the Emirates throughout the month of January, following a four-year lull, also constitute  a message to Abu Dhabi stipulating the need to refrain from backing the government forces and destabilising the military equilibrium on the ground, which could give the government and Saudi side hope in achieving an unexpected victory over the Houthis. 
    On the other hand, and in order to exert further pressure on the Houthis with the aim of compelling them to sit at the negotiating table, the UN Secretary General slammed the escalation by describing the military operations traded by the warring factions in January as a “vicious circle” which could only be broken by a ceasefire in Yemen and by opening the seaports and airports, something to which Saudi responded positively through her deputy defence minister Khaled bin Salman who emphasised, following his meeting with the UN and US envoys, that his country’s policy was to “support the efforts aimed at reaching a political solution in Yemen”.  
    Moreover, the operations targeting the Emirates, namely the missile strikes and what they entail in terms of denoting “trespassing and sidestepping Saudi territories to strike deep inside the Emirates”, especially as the president of the usurping entity was visiting the Emirates, or the hijacking of the oil tanker in the Red Sea, are also deemed a clear instruction to the Emirate to regulate its relationship with the Zionist entity  so as not to provide the new “Israeli” government with total reassurance and the impetus to see political gains in isolation of the American channels, especially that the Emirates’ rulers made their continuance in power dependent on their animosity towards Islam and the relationship with “Israel” following the tsunami of the “Arab Spring”, which could give the new "Israel" government the chance to bypass the steps of the regional solution and steer "Israeli" public opinion towards further intransigence in respect of making “concessions” to the Palestinians. The "Israeli" support for the Emirates and the Gulf States could encourage the rulers to confine their continuance in power linked to serving the Zionist entity, which to them would constitute a safe haven from the American hegemony and pressure which undermines their regimes in some files, such as the US refusal to conclude a contract for the purchase of modern jetfighters with the Emirates, and her decision to leak the news of the Financial Action Task Force, which has decided to place the Emirates on the list of the states who did not comply with the endeavours to combat money-laundering, financing terrorism, and implementing the commercial and financial measures and regulations, knowing that the aim of this “Task Force” is to give major powers the ability to monitor and control all the domestic economic and financial transactions, the “transparency of the fiscal activities”, and the flow of funds in and out of the country, and such as America’s reluctance to intercept the Houthis’ attacks on the Emirates despite her ability to do so. This has prompted the Emirati rulers to grovel to Washington to plead for reclassifying the Houthi movement, from which they benefited in deepening the division and undermining the Yemeni revolution and the Reform Movement, as a “terrorist organisation”, and to request further US military presence and backing. However, Washington informed Abu Dhabi during a meeting between US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and the Saudi and Emirati ambassadors that America supported the efforts led by the UN to end the war in Yemen through a political process. Hence, as America determined the new role of the Emirates, namely re-establishing the military equilibrium on the ground and refraining from transgressing it, the Emirates were compelled  to instruct the Giants Brigades to return to their barracks and leave the battlefield in Marib to the governmental forces to fulfil their treacherous role, which they have been practising since the beginning of the war. This scenario was corroborated by an official of the Giants Brigades in a statement to France Press Agency (AFP) in which said that the Brigades “have not withdrawn from the battlefronts but started to take some defensive measures to confront any potential military attack by the Houthis”, in other words, they were present to prevent the Houthis from transgressing the boundaries of the areas drawn to them. This in turn confirms that America wants to keep the scarecrow of Iran and her surrogates within the framework of the functional role assigned to them once the nuclear file has been sealed off and progress in the “peace” process and the regional solution has been made.  
    As for the Iranian role, Iranian foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian hinted at the end of the meeting of Joint Committee for Strategic Consultations on 24 December 2021 in the presence of Omani minister of diplomatic affairs Sheikh Khalifa al-Harthy, that his country was “committed to dialogue and to adopting the political solutions to iron out bilateral and regional problems”; he also confirmed “Tehran’s readiness to negotiate with the countries of the region to improve bilateral relations”. This is exactly what the negotiating sides in Vienna have been demanding. American insists that the Houthis should not “carry out any attack using drones, or conventional or winged missiles without the prior permission or instruction from Iran.” Iranian foreign ministry official spokesperson replied by saying that “Iran is prepared to support the diplomatic solutions, which are deemed the only solution for the Yemeni crisis.” He also confirmed that the Yemeni issue was “linked to the regional solutions” and that “the region will benefit from the return of the relations between Teheran and Riyadh to normal.” 
    The biggest calamity to befall this Ummah after the collapse of her State is her engrossment in wars that were never hers, and in adopting solutions that had no link to either her religion or her history, as well as her silence over rulers who have been protecting the interests of her enemies and preventing her liberation and revival; rulers who have even been depleting her forces in civil wars on nationalist and sectarian grounds, which led to squandering her riches and killing the best of her youth. In the face of this river of Muslim blood being shed in vain and leading only to deepening the division between the Ummah’s children, the Ummah has no other choice by to respond to the call of her Lord, resume her Islamic way of life, and rally her ranks to repel the assault of her enemies, an convey her message, which has become the last stronghold for salvaging the world from the tyranny of the criminal capitalism and from atheism.  
    18 Shaaban 1443h
    21 March 2022  

  • Fallouts of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Fallouts of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

    The aims of America and Russia are no longer a secret over the Ukraine war. Putin, who realised that America had been luring him into military action by refusing to give Russia any guarantees to not arm Ukraine, retract her application for membership to NATO and the EU, and renounce any plans to deploy NATO weapons on her lands that would undermine Russian national security, wanted to carry out a blitzkrieg to either topple the government of Zelensky or force it to sign an agreement which would prevent NATO expansion and would benefit him in bolstering his domestic popularity and Russia’s regional and international grandeur, and thus imposing a fait accompli in the face of which France and Germany would be unable to comply with American pressure due to their need for Russian energy.

    However, America and Britain, in addition to France, where Macron is at this stage facing electoral upheavals, and Germany, after the departure of Angela Merkel, had had different calculations and arrangements; this is why Putin hinted at France and Germany during his latest speech and pointed out that they had inclined towards the US, which according to him, was unacceptable to Russia.

    Faced with this reality, in which Russia’s gamble failed him, Putin found himself compelled to pursue his military escalation to dominate and dismember Ukraine, lay siege to her cities and strike the strongholds of the nationalists opposing Russia in an attempt to exact an agreement which would impinge on the American plan pertinent to the Russian lebensraum and European energy security, and impose, at least, Ukraine’s neutrality in the geostrategic aspect, especially as his battle with Ukraine is in fact a battle with the US who has exploited the Ukrainian government to achieve her aims, a narrative Ukrainian President Zelensky did not shy away from when he accepted to discuss Ukraine’s neutrality; i.e., he admitted his affiliation to the US and his partiality. Hence, Putin hastened to take the decision to go to war at all costs since accepting Ukraine’s membership to NATO and her embracing of the Western liberal model in governance, economy and sociology, would extend the erosion of the Russian lebensraum to Russia proper, and this is what America had heralded by inducing the Chechen war and infiltrating the Russian political milieu in a manner that nearly led to placing Russia within the ranks of client states and making her squander all her riches through the privatisation policy executed by America’s men in Russia such as Sergei Kiriyenko and Anatoly Chubais.

    During the press conference he held on 1 February, Vladimir Putin said “I still believe the US is not concerned about Ukraine’s security though they may be thinking about it on the sideline. America’s main aim is to contain Russia’s development and growth. This is all there is to it. And in this sense, Ukraine is merely a tool to achieve this aim. This could be done in various ways: through luring us into some armed conflicts, or compelling her allies in Europe to impose harsh sanctions on us, as the US is talking today.”

    Although Putin realised that America had left him no choice but to invade Ukraine, this however does not mean he will proceed in the American trap to the end. He has rather set a host of aims designed to recapture Ukraine to either Russian affiliation or neutrality, irrespective of the costs, knowing that Russia’s gambles have been unsuccessful ever since the Soviet Union’s era in the face of sprawling American influence, which it could not confront with military power alone. A clear example of this notion was reflected in the American trap for Russia in Afghanistan; in an interview with French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed in 1988 that the CIA had laid a trap for Moscow by arming the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet-backed government in Kabul, six months before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

    As for Putin’s wager on China, it was also unsuccessful because China’s interests lie with America and Europe more than they do with Russia. China is attempting to strike a balance between her relationship with Russia and her relationship with the West at a time when Putin does not want her to be neutral. America has been aware of this narrative, which prompted her to warn China against helping Russia. Consequently, Putin was left with the option of shoring up the domestic front, and this is why he launched during his latest speech a scathing attack on the “fifth columnists”, describing them as “insects stuck in the mouth” and calling on the masses to “spit them out”. His speech also tackled the West’s banking on the sanctions and on exaggerating the Russian military losses. He called on the masses to place Russian nationalist sovereignty ahead of personal expediencies; this alludes to the presence of a treason and an American infiltration of the close circle of his clique. It also indicates that Putin will pursue his struggle against America by relying on military escalation and imposing Ukraine’s neutrality by force or through a face-saving compromise. In this context, America could endorse an agreement on a ceasefire, to which Ukrainian President alluded by saying he was “open to negotiations on Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk”, especially as America has achieved what she had wanted, and especially as prolonging the war would increase American gains and weaken Putin further and drive him to resort to excessive force and thus aggravate the Europeans’ trepidations towards him.

    Hence, any agreement to end the war will not turn the clock back and it will leave Ukraine under threat to keep Europe in a constant state of anxiety and subsequently nurture the European apprehensions, especially as the devastation exacted by Russia on Ukrainian cities and the Russian nuclear threat brings Europe back to the memories of the Second World War and its horrors. All this is in the interest of the US as the Ukrainian war has led to increasing the defence budgets of Germany and Italy to meet the criteria set by the US for NATO member states; this was reflected in several contracts for the purchase of American weapons including F35 jetfighters and anti-ballistic missile defense system THAAD which the US exhibited recently in the Emirates in shooting down the missiles of al-Houthi, and the contracts for the purchase of Javelin, the anti-tank missiles.

    Hence, America is compelling the Europeans to pay the price of the American security umbrella which would allow her to shift her expenditure for hegemony purposes elsewhere in the world. As for the fallouts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, America and Russia are in fact both effective enemies of the Muslims; despite their divergent interests, they however agree, together with other countries of the Capitalist world, on preventing the Muslims from achieving liberation. Such a reality, in which Western interests have clashed, and although it may somehow benefit the Muslims, it however could not be expected to unshackle the Islamic Ummah from the dominion of belligerent and covetous international powers; this is because Putin achieving his aims would not prevent America from pursuing her ghoulish comportment throughout the world, and towards the Muslims in particular, especially as Putin does not aspire to jostle with America on the world scene; he has rather proved on several occasions that he has been on America’s side in her aggression against the Muslims and in plundering their resources. He allowed America to use Russian military bases and Russian lebensraum’s airspace to attack Afghanistan, and he also colluded with America to prevent the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime and extinguish the “Syrian revolution”. Moreover, Putin’s victory in the Ukraine war would deter the Muslim Central Asian countries from thinking about liberation.

    As for the US, she has achieved what she had wanted since Russia moved militarily to invade Ukraine. She has rallied the European states behind her and forced China to observe a certain amount of neutrality, at least in this battle, especially as China does have any interest in the sanctions imposed on Russia. America has also redefined “the West” and redesigned the relationships with Europe on the grounds of setting aside all political rifts and economic interests for the sake of upholding the “common values of liberal democracy.” America has also achieved the main aim in respect of controlling Europe through NATO, with European financing and American weapons, embedding the threat on energy security in Europe thanks to the Russian war on Ukraine, and dismantling Europe’s confidence in Putin after the departure of Angela Merkel who had been persistent on completing the Nord Stream 2 project and good relations with Russia. This is because weaning Europe off Russian energy would weaken the relationship between them and deepen the state of uncertainty and the Russian threats to Europe; it would also make the American areas of influence in Africa and the Middle East a source for European energy. Consequently, Europe would have no choice but to depend fully on the US in confronting the Russian threat, achieving the continent’s energy security and security her energy supplies. In this context, the US-Iranian nuclear agreement is being reanimated in Geneva, the political situation in Libya is being tackled and the relationship between the US and Venezuela is being smoothed with the aim of reinstating them in the world’s energy market. OPEC, for its part, is being directed towards increasing production to regulate gas and oil prices, and China is being dragged towards Saudi, as bin Salman’s invitation of the Chinese President to visit Saudi coincided with Russia’s attempts to lean economically, financially and diplomatically on China. Bin Salman’s initiative was undoubtedly inspired by America with the aim of neutralising China at this stage, alienating her from Russia in the energy sector and steering her towards the Gulf in order to control her energy security.

    Although this war has rekindled the memory of the Muslims and drawn their attention to the racist and ugly face of the West; it has even drawn their attention to the ruling cliques in the Muslims’ lands who have let down their brethren in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Kashmir, Palestine, Syria and Iraq. This war has also exposed the cowardice of the rulers who did not dare sympathise with their peoples and come to their aid as the Western leaders did with Ukraine. Although the Kuffar’s destroying of their homelands and with their own hands has evoked the sense of revenge from those who had oppressed them, the outcomes of this war however will not change the nature of confrontation between the Muslims and their enemies throughout the world; i.e., the conditions will not change and they will not be able to influence international relations until they change their inner selves: Allah the Almighty says “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of people until they change what is within themselves.” [al-Ra’ad-11]

    The Muslims should be wary, amid the American strategy towards Russia and China, of being harnessed yet again in this war as firewood or a cannonball under the name of Jihad for the sake of Allah, as it has been noted that the Capitalist West and the decisionmakers in the US are overwhelmed by a wave of hysteria induced by greed and egoism; hence, the notion of throwing all their weapons in their struggle, including rekindling Jihad and dragging the Muslims into an inferno that has nothing to do them, cannot be ruled out. Reminding the Muslims of their history in Ukraine, the mufti of Ukraine’s call upon the Muslims to declare Jihad against Russia, the mufti of Russia’s claims that the Russian war is legitimate and America’s highlighting of the grievance of the Uyghur Muslims in China, all this is not innocent; and the Muslim is never stung from the same hole twice.

    16 Sha’aban 1443h
    19 March 2022 

  • The Quad: US Tool to Codify Global Principles & Systems 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Quad: US Tool to Codify Global Principles & Systems

    The American vision to lead the world in the 21st century requires unilateral dominion of the American capitalist paradigm, which is built on downsizing the role of the state, liberal market and free trade, and which, allegedly, represents “the best form of government to unleash human aspirations and guide the relations between all the world’s nations and peoples.”

    In order to fulfil this vision, the US harnesses all her resources to protect and propagate her Capitalist paradigm and remove the obstacles it may face. The point at issue for America is decisive and liked to the ideology upon which she is built, and through which the Capitalist class, multinationals and pressure groups, i.e., the lobbies, control the fate of the world, its resources and riches, sometimes through soft power and other times through hard power to coerce other states to succumb to their volition.

    This occurrence is clearly reflected in the approach of successive US administrations and the approach of Joe Biden who has adopted “diplomatic priority” as a tool to renovate and “modernise international institutions to make sure they are fit for purpose,” considering that strengthening America’s security is linked to her unilateral dominion over the international situation, her influence over international institutions and her shaping of the system and principles of the world order.

    Although America’s foreign position is stable with no other power jostling with her over the international situation, since Russia and China do not have any military or political tendencies beyond their regional lebensraums, which may undermine American unilateral dominion, the relationship between America and China is however tinged with rivalry due to America’s endeavour to achieve absolute economic dominance; this has inevitably turned China and her transnational economic aspirations into a challenge for America in the current century. America has even amplified China’s status and ambition to the point where she has been warning against her political and economic behaviour, as per the strategy of US national security pertinent to a ”new agenda of strategic competition between world powers”, which alluded to the fact that certain powers have started to “impose their regional and international influence” and have been working seriously to challenge the American geopolitical perks and acquisitions in a bid “to exploit the free and open rules-based order and attempt to reshape the international system in its favour”. America pointed out that China and her communist party constituted nowadays the main challenge to the free world. All this was designed to justify the political and economic measures the US administration intends to adopt towards China. This was corroborated on the eve of the June 2021 G7 summit by Joe Biden who said “democracies face an existential battle against autocracies” in reference to dictatorial regimes in China and Russia in particular. It was also evidently reflected in the updated “Atlantic Charter” and its nine axes, which aims at besieging China in the first instance and then Russia, thus achieving America’s endeavours to mobilise the “democracies” behind Biden’s vision for the “war of the models”. Meanwhile, China’s defence minister denied his country’s yearning for regional dominion or political jostling; he said “Those who allege the theory of China seeking political rivalry, we say to them: we only want to broaden the channels of free trade and commercial exchange between countries and establish world peace.”

    US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan expounded the process of diplomacy and alliance by saying that the President was “speaking out powerfully about the common purpose and common strength of democracies [which]is an important part of a collective effort to be able to meet the China challenge over the decades ahead.” He meant that Biden had combined all misgivings and challenges facing the allies, including Pompeo’s accusations that China had made “efforts to steal data across networks, which you just referred to in terms of the decision Australia made, or militarise the South China Sea… or engage in activities where they foist money on nations that are desperate for resources and leave them trapped in debt, debt positions, which ultimately aren't about commercial transactions, but are about political control,” in addition to evoking the issues of the Uyghur Muslims, Honk Kong, Huawei and the “China virus”, and thus reproducing the image of China so that she may become the main challenge facing the free world today.

    All this was in response to China starting to build her relationships outside the frameworks of “international norms” by linking her neighbours among others to her leading economic system, which is built on the state’s investment in basic and strategic industries and civilian and military abilities, which has given China several achievements in technology and supply chains, and enabled her to dominate the channels and instruments for control, communication and information, especially in the technology of quantum computers which can perform complex calculations in fractions of a second, encrypt documents and military and financial instructions.

    It is common knowledge that America is the official sponsor in charge of taking China out of isolation. She integrated China into the world Capitalist community and granted her a seat in the Group of Twenty (G20), membership in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a prominent status at the IMF and the World Bank, as well as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other world organisations, not to mention the US, European, Japanese and Gulf investments totalling hundreds of billions of dollars. However, all this was on condition that China would carry out market reforms and adhere to the regulations of international organisations and institutions, i.e., to move towards the free market. Since China is not affiliated to America but rather an independent state, it is natural, taking into account her interests, for her to not adhere literally to these conditions. It is expected that China will deviate from the formulated frameworks, the political and economic boundaries and the margin of manoeuvre. This prompted Pompeo to warn China by saying America would not remain idle and would confront China; he called on China to adhere to international systems and laws.

    And based on the findings of US National Security charter and US Indo-Pacific strategy, which confirmed that Asia was the most important region, the US set up the framework that would achieve her strategic vision towards China, namely compelling adherence to international norms and laws, and set about containing China through military preparation, alliances and strong links through a regional network. This is why she established the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), which includes America, Japan, India and Australia, to be a new democratic alliance aimed at confronting and besieging China, and preventing her from continuing to control the foundations of rapprochement with neighbouring countries and the areas of her economic expansion. America resorted to the style of reprimanding, humiliating, blackmailing and subjecting other countries to her demands; Pompeo slammed Australia in a public address in Sydney by saying “Yeah. Look, you can sell your soul for a pile of soya beans or you can protect your people.”

    China reiterated through the speech delivered by her defence minister Wei Fenghe at Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore “the need to respect the core interests of China, because it would be impossible for any country to think that China would allow her sovereignty, security and developmental interests to be undermined.” He reemphasised that Taiwan and Honk Kong were a red line, that any vision for the security of the region should take into account the common security interests of the countries of the region, and that it would be implausible to resort to security blocs as a means to settle regional issues.

    China has also described the QUAD as “sea scum” but the Biden administration went ahead and initiated the QUAD through the Washington Summit last September, during which it confirmed the grounds of cooperation between the member states to enhance security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

    Hence, America turned the QUAD into a core institutional component in her geopolitical approach to the region; this approach, corroborated by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and the RAND Corporation, involves harnessing a “regional group with influence and capable of supporting and shoring up the American values.” America has initiated several political steps and actions to corroborate this role such as exhorting the EU to declare a similar policy and cooperate directly with the countries of the region with the aim of finalising free trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand and India to shrink their link and dependence on the Chinese economy.

    Examples of actions the QUAD has been designing to amend the norms and laws is what is pertinent to transferring new sophisticated technology in smart microchips and quantum computers, and which is stipulated by the document on “Quad Principles on Technology Design, Development, Governance and Use.” This resulted in setting up a host of customs mechanisms and regulations and exports rules to meet the common interests and values, and prevent the export of technologies to China or any of her military institutions. These steps are designed to “establish a secure supply chain for semiconductors”, 75% of which are produced by East Asian countries although the six largest multinationals which design these are American. Another example is the QUAD’s “objection to the unilateral and coercive attempts to change the status quo in the East and South China Sea,” which has culminated in adopting the maritime law treaty in order to meet the challenge to the maritime rules-based order, especially the East and South China Sea, and in increasing the “freedom of navigation patrols” and bolstering maritime military presence through naval drills that including those of Australia, New Zealand and Japan. It has also generated an agreement to launch a joint initiative to map capacity, identify vulnerabilities and bolster strategic supply chains,” which involve the highest economic and financial risks as they rely heavily on the Chinese economy in respect of products pertinent to or having an impact on national security. Losses of the world’s car industry is estimated at $60 billion due to the inability to import semiconductors, the manufacturing of which is dominated by South Asian countries, especially China and Taiwan. This explains why Biden mentioned in his State of the Union speech the investment of Intel Corporation.

    Innovating the styles and means to effectuate political visions and achieve the aims expected of them, and putting the strategies into implementation, is part of political leadership craftsmanship, and part of the accessories of awareness and a characteristic of the statesmen who perceive that politics is governing people’s affairs and transferring political thought to the palpable reality and the domestic and foreign relationships. The leadership, to which those working for revival aspire, should in the first instance be an intellectual leadership so that it may have an authority. This authority cannot be effective and influential unless the ideology upon which it is built rests on a spiritual foundation, i.e., unless it is based on a rational doctrine built on Iman in Allah, the Creator and Planner, and from which a system emanates. This is what America and the conventional powers lack, which means that their intellectual well is about to dry up, their civilisational glitter is about to fade and their hegemony over the world is about to end. The chickens of the Capitalist ideology have come home to roost in the shape of a ferocious war between Russia and the West. The hopes of the Ummah, and even the entire world, are pinned on the magnificent Islam, whose return to the realm of life to project its radiance, justice, and bliss, needs only the men whose loyalty to Allah the Almighty eclipses all other loyalties.

    7 Sha’aban 1443h
    10 March 2022

  • Biden’s State of the Union Speech 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Biden’s State of the Union Speech

    Less than a month ago Joe Biden was facing considerable criticism chiefly because of his inability to unify the ranks of the Democratic Party and its reforms agenda, the highest inflation levels for thirty years in the US, his failure to build bridges of cooperation with the Republicans as he pledged in his inaugural speech a year ago and the increase in the crime rate, not to mention the possibility of the Democratic Party losing the midterm elections of November 2022. However, he succeeded thanks to the Ukrainian crisis and the Russian invasion that ensued to recapture the political momentum in his favour and to redirect the discourse towards Russia who represents the common enemy of the masses and the American political class, especially as the Democrats and the Republicans are in agreement over the standpoint vis-à-vis Russia and as Biden had been accused of being weak in dealing with Putin. Biden also succeeded in highlighting anew his main agenda which revolves around the issue of the “war of models” between democracy and autocracy, a state characterised by institutions, the concepts of freedom, justice, and the rule of law and the “tyrannical systems and dictatorship”. This moral and value-based tone in the speech of Biden was not directed at America alone, but also linked to the events in Ukraine and the forthcoming dealings with China. This means his speech was directed at Europe to muzzle the materialistic expedient tendency that has for so long impinged on the attempts at dismantling the relationship with Russia and made Europe hesitate on the economic relations with China and her companies such as Huawei.

    On the other hand, and in an attempt to demonise Donald Trump and his followers in the Republican Party and cushion the blow of the Republicans’ libels, especially in respect of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden said, “He thought he could divide us at home…. But Putin was wrong. We are ready. We are united. And that’s what we did: We stayed united,” in a bid to compare Donald Trump’s defeat in the elections to what Putin gambled on in his war on Ukraine. Biden harnessed the emotional atmosphere overwhelming public opinion and hostility towards Russia and commented on being accused of failing to build bridges of cooperation with the Republicans by saying, “While it often appears we do not agree and that — we — we do agree on a lot more things than we acknowledge. I signed 80 bipartisan bills into law last year.”

    It is clear Biden had designed his speech and initiated it with the Ukrainian issue in order to achieve this purpose, namely unifying the Senate and the House of Representatives; he said, “Yes. We, the United States of America, stand with the Ukrainian people.” He harnessed the Ukrainian crisis to remind his audience that, “Tonight we meet as Democrats, Republicans, and independents, but, most importantly, as Americans with a duty to one another, to America, to the American people, and to the Constitution, and an unwavering resolve that freedom will always triumph over tyranny.” He focused on Putin personally, considering he is one of the fiercest opponents of Liberalism which the American political system across the board embraces. This was reflected in the several standing ovations he received, which in turn projected a very rare instance of unified ranks in US Congress which has often been the scene of deep rifts. This enabled Biden to allude to his major achievement, namely restoring the unity of the American people following the deep divisions that Donald Trump inflicted among the American people.

    Biden also elucidated the leading role he had performed to rally the ranks of the Western alliance saying that it did not merely include European states but “the Asian and African continents” as well, and reiterating that, “The United States and our Allies will defend every inch of territory that is NATO territory with the full force of our collective power — every single inch.” He said that his unwavering standpoint towards Putin made Europe more united and harmonious, and led to the return of cohesion within NATO and the EU under US leadership. He also responded positively with the calls of domestic Russian opposition to call corrupt Russian officials to account; he announced that the US Treasury had set up a special team to monitor and investigate all the Russian oligarchs and confiscate their properties, funds, investments, and assets, and hold them accountable for their crimes; he said, “Tonight, I say to the Russian oligarchs and the corrupt leaders who’ve bilked billions of dollars off this violent regime: No more.”

    Joe Biden’s administration did not conceal the purpose of undermining the Russian economy through sanctions, namely drying up the arteries of the Russian defence budget and exerting pressure on the Russian masses to rebel against Putin and his entourage. As for America’s domestic file, he seized the moment to play down the impact of the sanctions imposed on Russia and their fallouts on the US economy, and to propagate his achievements for electoral purposes. He explained that all the sanctions would be counterproductive and costly for the US economy, but that was the price of supporting freedom; he said he had taken a host of steps to reduce the cost by releasing 30 million oil barrels from the US strategic reserves as part of a step taken by several states to release 60 million barrels. He also attempted to expound the importance of the financial decisions he had taken by reminding his audience that US economy had grown by 5.7% in 2021, and generated 5.6 million new jobs, and slamming the decision of his predecessor to spend $2 trillion in reducing taxes of which the top one percent of Americans benefitted and which failed to achieve the pledges made to justify this tax cut, and instead, led to weak economic growth, low wages and a huge economic deficit, in addition to causing the widest gap between the rich and the rest of the citizens. He said, “When we use taxpayers’ dollars to rebuild America, we’re going to do it by buying American. Buy American products. Support American jobs.”

    As for inflation, and in an attempt to sedate the masses regarding the narrowing of class distinctions and the flaws in the distribution of wealth, and in an attempt to market himself and generate an opportunity to salvage his presidency and the credentials of his party in the next midterm and presidential elections, he said, “I think I have a better idea to fight inflation: Lower your costs, not your wages,”; he added, “Look, economists call this increasing the productive capacity of our economy.” He demanded from pharmaceutical companies to reduce the cost of drugs and wondered why insulin was sold at 30 times its cost.

    Joe Biden also alluded to the forthcoming phase, namely the confrontation with China; and by doing so, he was attempting to hijack and outdo the discourse of the Republican Party. He said “I’ve told Xi Jinping: It’s never been a good bet to bet against the American people,” adding that he had submitted to Congress “the bipartisan Innovation Act that will make record investments in emerging technologies and American manufacturing.” He announced that microchips company Intel would build a new plant costing $20 billion and that Intel’s CEO pledged to invest $100 billion to execute the plan of his company. Biden wanted to reassure the American people about the fallout of the forthcoming confrontation with China. He said that Ford would be “investing $11 billion in electric vehicles, creating 11,000 jobs across the country.” And General Motors would be “making the largest investment in its history — $7 billion to build electric vehicles, creating 4,000 jobs in Michigan.”

    This announcement is extremely important as it is the first American investment after the threat of strategic supply chains had been accentuated and highlighted with China playing a focal role, especially throughout the pandemic.

    It seems Joe Biden has succeeded in harnessing the Ukrainian crisis in averting what has been described a shortcoming in his political performance, especially in respect of the withdrawal from Afghanistan on which the Republican Party spokesperson focused, in addition to his mishandling of the Coronavirus pandemic fallouts that led to a sharp dwindling in his popularity credentials, which recently slumped to 37%, the lowest among his 12 predecessors after the first year of their tenures.

    Biden has made of the State of the Union speech a tool to embellish his image, increase the credentials of his party and enhance the chance of his party in winning the next midterm elections by projecting the unity of Congress and the level of support given to his domestic and foreign policies, especially in respect of the Ukrainian crisis and standing up to Russia’s belligerence. He was eager to project total support for Ukraine by hosting the Ukrainian ambassador to Washington, Oksana Markarova, who sat to the right of the First Lady and was one of the guests of honour, and with several congresspersons flying the yellow and blue colours of Ukraine.

    30 Rajab 1443h
    3 March 2022

  • Germany's Strategic Shift on European Security & its Relationship with Russia 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Germany's Strategic Shift on European Security & its Relationship with Russia

    In a speech described as historic and a quantum leap in German foreign and defence policy, during an extraordinary session of the Bundestag on Sunday 27 February, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that his country would increase military expenditure in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which he described as a “turning point in the history of our continent”, and which has demolished “the European security order that had prevailed for almost half a century since the Helsinki Final Act.” He said, “that the world afterwards will no longer be the same as the world before,” adding that “anyone who has watched his televised declaration of war on Ukraine, can no longer have any doubt that Putin wants to build a Russian empire…. He wants to fundamentally redefine the status quo within Europe in line with his own vision. And he has no qualms about using military force to do so.” The German Chancellor said Germany would from now on invest more than 2% of her GDP on defence. He also announced allocating a €100 billion fund to reequip the army, knowing that the German army paid for the price of German unification by reducing its forces and doing away with 3250 tanks in 30 years. Germany also intends to implement a host of plans to halve her dependence on Russian gas; this is what the US has been seeking all along. A German editor admitted that America dominated all German media outlets through transatlantic organisations and described Germany as an American colony.

    It is known that America’s call for liberalism is confined to two aspects, namely free trade, which enables capitalists to dominate the economy and the political decision-making of other countries, and the political aspect which lends legitimacy to the systems affiliated to her; it also enables the US to intervene under the guise of protecting “democracy”. But in fact, America tends to evoke the nationalist populist tendencies in order to impede the expansion of major powers such as Russia, since nationalism is not a fitting message that a superpower could convey to other nations and peoples, considering that it aims at spreading nationalistic sovereignty on other nations; this is what people tend to resist and this is why Hitler failed in his invasion of Russia and Europe. Moreover, America’s support for populist tendencies contributes to fragmenting states and evoking problems among them, and thus making it easier to control them, in addition to justifying interference in their affairs under the guise of protecting minorities. In this context, the US has been promoting nationalism in the areas of the former Soviet Union, and even in the Russian Federation itself, as was the case in Chechenia. America is also supporting populist tendencies in Europe, and reviving German militarism and the concepts of grandeur, exactly like what Britain did by evoking Arab nationalism to dismantle the Ottoman State.

    What is remarkable in the Ukrainian crisis is America’s provocation of Putin through the scale of military support for Ukraine, and by focusing political and media reports, especially American and British, on Russia’s losses and her failure to enter Ukrainian cities and on accentuating the unprecedented sanctions to lure Putin into seeking to compensate for the deficits, flex his muscles, threaten to use nuclear weapons and spread terror throughout Europe. All this falls within a double-edged American strategy whereby she would besiege the opponent from all sides, and thus changing the German vision of the relationship with Russia, making the security fears take precedence over the economic interests between the two countries and subsequently, reviving German militarism. This explains why some of Russia’s reactions serve the interests of the US. In this context, it would be implausible to negate some of the aspects of the Russo-American concordance in international politics, European security, and strategic stability. However, concordance in certain issues should not be generalised, especially the issue of reviving German militarism which has constituted a Russian nightmare throughout history, and especially that Russia does not seek a hostile relationship with Germany for major economic considerations, and the same could be said about Germany.

    Hence, a Russo-American concordance on Ukraine is non-existent; there is rather a genuine struggle. By reading the strategy of Russian national security of 2015 and 2021, in addition to the notable message of Putin when he assumed power, we deduce that Putin has real aspirations to regain Russia’s power and strengthen her influence within her lebensraum; he also has genuine apprehensions over NATO’s expansion eastwards. Early in 2021 Putin requested from the US the signing of a document pertinent to security guarantees but Joe Biden rejected it immediately describing it as too extreme.

    Hence, Putin is undertaking a host of measures and making some choices which are known to serve America, but he has no choice; therefore, his choices cannot be deemed as a collusion with America who has been targeting Russia and threatening the future of Putin himself. It would be inconceivable for Putin to conspire against his personal interest, or against Russian national security, or partake in changing the German standpoint with regard to dispatching weapons to areas of conflict and increasing the defence budget or driving German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to forsake his country’s neutrality in the relationship with Russia and the Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin wants none of this but the sharp American strategy has reduced his options to the basis of the lesser of the two evils and led him into a direction that paved the way for America and Germany to make a U-turn and forsake their fundamental post-World War II constants in preparation for establishing a European security system in which Germany would be placed on a collision course with Russia on behalf of America, and thus snatching the European leadership from France, considering that Germany does not jostle with America and does not have an international influence like France.

    Russia’s chief historical dilemma lies in the threat posed by the militarism of Germany who laid siege to several Russian cities during the Second World War; but Scholz played down this narrative by saying “We will not, therefore, allow this conflict between Putin and the free world to lead to the reopening of old wounds and to new outbreaks of hostility.” Hence, the size of the budget announced by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, namely €100 billion to rehabilitate the German military power and increase its expenditure to reach 2% of the GDP, in addition to the statements by German politicians and top brass on Germany’s military shortcomings, all this alludes to America’s endeavour to impose a dangerous security strategy that will lead to reviving German nationalistic emotions, threatening Russia, and making US weapons manufacturers and other industries laugh all the way to the bank. Hence, most of the pressure exerted on the US administration in its tackling of the Russian file and in militarising international conflicts has been instigated by the military industries’ lobby. This indicates that America is effectively aiming to assign to Germany a focal role in European security and within NATO, whose budget is set to increase, and subsequently, place Germany on a collision course with Russia so that she may focus on the Chinese challenge.

    In this regard, America is harnessing the Russian war to regulate the world order to deal with China in the future, and to send a strongly worded message through the economic carnage she inflicted on Russia, lest the Chinese leadership should think about invading Taiwan or changing the security system in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The message is also aimed at the regions and countries threatened by China to induce them to seek American protection and steer India towards more integration into the American plan for China.

    Hence, America is attempting to corner China in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean and neutralise her through pressing her to condemn Russia. On the other hand, she is reassuring Germany and Europe with regard to energy issues through the Euro-American energy partnership, which was corroborated by the European Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson who in 2019 stated that “cooperation between the EU and the US in the trade of liquid natural gas has been successful and should continue.” Algeria for her part has recently announced that she would be committed to securing the supply of gas for Europe. America has even been encouraging the Europeans to opt for alternative energy and striving to secure Ukraine’s energy needs, should Russia decide to cease supplying her with energy, by linking the Ukrainian and European energy systems, an initiative welcomed by European countries yesterday, and turning Ukraine into a European farm for natural alternative energy and nuclear energy; this is because the German people are averse to producing nuclear energy on their lands, and consequently, weaning Germany off Russian gas, which requires exploiting the nuclear energy of Ukraine.

    On the other hand, we note that Britain has been encouraging the standpoints of the Germans and their move towards militarisation to weaken France, in a cheap attempt at fishing in troubled waters, book a front seat in European security, and prove the shortcomings of the French vision which suggests that NATO is brain-dead. France has been silent over the German shift towards militarism due to the pressures of the Ukrainian crisis and its fallouts, and over Macron’s inability to do anything save for pleading with Putin, not to mention his impotence in the face of the Russian threat to Europe and the evaporation of his notion of European strategic independence from America, knowing that isolating Russia internationally would generate a vacuum that Britain wishes to fill.

    For his part, Putin has apparently miscalculated and is meeting resistance in Ukraine, which requires of him upping the ante. He wants to warn NATO member states against being excessive in their military support for Ukraine. The West has tested the pulse of Putin with the military aid it has offered Ukraine in order to generate the grounds for further steps and achieve a breakthrough for NATO such as imposing a no-fly zone in west Ukraine, speeding up the admission of Ukraine into the EU, and deploying weapons and troops on Ukrainian territory which are the nearest point to the Russian capital. In this context it would be possible to read the statements, threats, and fears of Putin. This is why the Russian military operations are concentrated in the east and the south along the Ukrainian Black Sea coastline and up to the Ukrainian-Rumanian borders and the Ukrainian-Moldovan borders, which Russia has been dominating since the independence of the Moldovan republic from the province of Transnistria, in order to isolate Ukraine from Europe save for the Ukrainian-Polish borders, while continuing to dismember Ukraine, prepare for the fall of the capital Kiev, and force the surrender of her government and replace it with a government loyal to Russia.

    28 Rajab 1443h
    1 March 2022 

  • Russia’s Attack on Ukraine 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Review of Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

    Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on the morning of Thursday 24 February the launch of a military operation in the province of Donbas in east Ukraine. It transpired later that the operation was widened as it reached the seaport of Odesa, Kherson, the seaport of Mariupol and the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital Kiev that day.

    Putin said in a televised statement “The West left us with zero option…. What is occurring now is necessary as we have been left no other option”. He stressed that “Now they also claim to possess nuclear weapons. We will not allow this to be done…. Russia does not plan to occupy Ukrainian lands. Russia deems it important that all Ukrainian people should enjoy the right to self-determination.” He emphasised that “Russia cannot feel safe and continue to exist and develop under the constant threat from Ukraine. Moscow’s attempts to agree on non-expansion of NATO were in vain; and the situation on a NATO expansion has become more dangerous and we can no longer keep silent.” He added “For the US and her allies, this is a policy of containing Russia but for us it is a real threat to the existence of the state.” With regard to the Ukrainian crisis, Putin warned the West by saying “Russia is being pushed against the wall.” This was reemphasised by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov who said “the US is using Ukraine to deter Russia. NATO has endeavoured to integrate Ukraine and Georgia and disregarded our security vision. We attempted to persuade Kiev and the West to implement the Minsk agreements, but our attempts were in vain. He added “the current regime in Kiev is subservient to the US, the West and the Neo-Nazis. The Ukrainian President has failed to adhere to the Minsk Protocol, concluded an alliance with NATO and sought to procure nuclear weapons.” For his part, Russian intelligence chief said “Russia will not allow Ukraine to turn into a dagger in the hands of America.” All this reflects the real apprehensions and the fundamental causes of the Russian military operation in Ukraine.

    Russia had provided the pretext for her military operation by officially recognising the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces from Ukraine, in addition to the Russian parliament’s ratification of the bill stipulating dispatching military forces abroad, and Putin issuing a decree ordering the dispatching of military forces to the two separatist regions, as per the request of their administrations, for support from President Putin to repel the aggression of the Ukrainian military forces.

    This means the Russian preparations to invade Ukraine and thwarting her membership to NATO by force had been prearranged in anticipation of a failure to reach a political solution with America, and of his banking on the ability of France and Germany to resist the US pressures to preserve their interests with Russia being fruitless. It also means that America had known all along what Russia had been planning; this is why she refused to provide any security guarantees as she wanted to lure Russia into a military action leading to her isolation and to destroying her relationship with Europe, especially France and Germany, the biggest losers from the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis. This was explicitly expressed by the German government spokesperson who said that suspending Russia from the SWIFT global interbank payments system would be technically difficult to arrange and would have a massive impact on transactions for Germany and German businesses in Russia, adding that a number of states had been against putting any sanctions on Russia related to oil and gas delivery. Therefore, the German President appealed to Putin to stop “this crazy war.”

    No sooner the military operation had begun than a Western political and media campaign condemning the Russian onslaught was launched. Russia was threatened with severe sanctions and European states and NATO called for urgent meetings to assess the Russian war in Ukraine and debate the sanctions to be imposed on Russia.

    By reading the statements of Russian, Ukrainian and European officials, it transpires that what had been confirmed earlier, in respect of expanding NATO to include Ukraine with America’s incitement and a Franco-German apprehension, was designed to generate a hotbed of tension on the Russian borders and to besiege her in one of the most important areas of her vital and geostrategic sphere. Ukraine’s membership to NATO, or deploying NATO forces therein, would shackle Russia’s hands and prevent her from using force against Ukraine. Russia’s intelligence chief had warned of Ukraine becoming a dagger in the hands of America. America’s aim is to perpetuate the state of uncertainty and the inability to predict Putin’s behaviour as the regulator of the Russo-European relationship to justify the continuance of NATO and America’s manipulation of Europe’s security.

    In this context, it would be safe to say that Biden has succeeded in luring Putin into a military action that has sent shivers down Europe’s spine after America had rejected the guarantees sought by Russia, the most important of which was expanding NATO towards Russia. Biden has also succeeded in portraying the Russian aggression against Ukraine as an aggression against Europe and the values of freedom and democracy. He hastened with Britain to strengthen NATO forces in the Baltic states and eastern Europe. He has also succeeded in mobilising the European states in imposing sanctions on Russia by exploiting France’s EU presidency and Germany’s G7 presidency, the two states that had attempted to settle the crisis politically to avert its impacts on them. It seems that America has excluded the energy sector and the SWIFT system from the sanctions due to their fallouts on Europe, and to encourage France and Germany to impose sanctions on Putin and the fiscal system between Europe and Russia. Hence, US President Joe Biden stressed in a joint statement with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on 28 January the presence of a common commitment to preserve energy security in Europe.

    It is common knowledge that the sanctions will weaken Russia and undermine the relations between the Russians and the Europeans and widen the wedge between them. Meanwhile, Europe’s united standpoint and her rallying behind the US will enable America in the future to lead Europe in accordance with the unified standpoints of NATO and the values of freedom and democracy. This was corroborated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during a joint press briefing with the NATO Secretary General; she said “this crisis will bring us even closer together…. We are more united and more determined than ever. We are one union, one alliance, united in purpose.”
    As for Russia’s military aims, they are indicated by the axes of the Russian onslaught that targeted the province of Donbas in order to regain the administrative areas that had been affiliated to the province before 2014 and which are beyond the control of the separatists, and targeted also the strategic coastal belt in the area of Kherson which links the province of Donbas to the Crimean Peninsula, to regain control of the water source which the Ukrainian government had cut off, in addition to the attack on the seaports of Odesa and Mariupol with the aim of paralysing the Ukrainian economy incite the masses against the government and exert pressure on Zelensky to resign. The Russian army wants to get close to the Moldovan republic, which is close to Odesa, and intimidate its government with regard to the file of the breakaway Transnistria region which is loyal to Russia and which hosts the Russian 14th army stationed on the borders with Romania. As for the attack from the Belarusian side, it aims at dominating the Chernobyl nuclear reactor and the strategic Gostomel airport, and subsequently, besieging the capital Kiev, a target that has now become evident. Russia’s aims are reflected conspicuously in the statement of Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov who said “once we complete this military operation and liberate Ukraine from militarisation, we will allow its people to determine their future. We will only be ready to negotiate once the conditions of Putin are met, namely that Ukraine lay down its weapons and form a government representing everyone.”

    This makes the option of entering Kiev or besieging it and toppling the government or forcing it to be neutral by force probable. However, Lavrov reassured Europe by saying: “Russia will regain peace in Ukraine quickly and will prevent a greater conflict in Europe.” As for the Ukrainian president’s request to meet President Putin, and his readiness to negotiate with Russia, even on the issue of neutrality, it is but an attempt to slow the move towards the capital and to dissuade Putin from entering Kiev and toppling the government. The statements of Lavrov and Putin allude to an intention to change the Ukrainian government, or force it to surrender by force, or even divide it and take it out of the sphere of US influence. This narrative was indicated by the Ukrainian President and its omens were reflected in the process of the military operations. As for the grievances of the Ukrainian President ahead of the NATO meeting suggesting that Ukraine was left alone, it is designed to embarrass Europe and exert pressure on her to take a strong stand in the face of the Russians. He said “the European response is insufficient and the aid is also not enough while the Russian tanks are attacking our people. Russia is now attempting to divide Ukraine. We want from Europe to expel Russian ambassadors, isolate Russia and strengthen the sanctions against her. I urge the European citizens to take to the streets to exert pressure on their governments to take decisive decisions.” For his part, President Putin called on “the Ukrainian army to seize the reins of power”, since he realises that the army understands best the Russian military threat and that it could be relied on with regard to the possibility of being responsive to the Russian demands. Putin expressed this narrative by saying “agreement between us would be easier if you assumed power.”

    America will probably approve negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to bide time and impinge on Russia’s plan to dominate Ukraine and topple her government, or divide Ukraine, and thus negotiate from a position of strength, especially as America has now achieved the aim of dragging Russia into a military action that has terrified Europe, corroborated its presence in eastern Europe and the Baltic states, and led Europe to impose sanctions on Russia. However, Putin is unlikely to engage in any negotiation before displaying his force and tightening his grip on Kiev, lay siege to it, and recover the areas of Donbas lost in 2014, to save his blushes before domestic public opinion and to preserve Russia’s grandeur before his allies in the region and before NATO and the entire world.

    Nevertheless, the unfolding events do not affect the unipolar international situation, though it may enhance Russia’s international presence, especially now that Putin has succeeded in doing what he had wanted, even by resorting to military force. Hence, this war will lead to corroborating Russia’s security situation and weakening Western influence in Ukraine and its impact on Russia, while America will achieve her aims in respect of her influence in Europe and in entrenching the notion of the Russian threat which has always been resisted by France and Germany; and there will be no consolation for Ukraine’s collaborating rulers who have sacrificed their country in service of US interests.

    24 Rajab 1443h
    25 February 2022 

  • The Crisis Between Russia and Ukraine - Causes and Trajectories 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    The Crisis Between Russia and Ukraine - Causes and Trajectories

    The tempo of events between Russia and Ukraine has been accelerating. The origin of these events is a struggle whose theme is the Russian vital interests and Western policies. Russia has been vigilantly and anxiously monitoring the activities of the Ukrainian leaders in respect of their current and future orientations vis-à-vis the relationship with Europe and the US, in addition to Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, while Ukraine has been viewing with deep concern what she considers a violation of her sovereignty following the March 2014 referendum when Russia decided to annex the Crimean Peninsula which was part of her lands in addition to the ongoing struggle in Donbas and Luhansk. These two provinces of her lands had announced their secession with Russian incitement and with the Duma recently recognising the independence of Donbas.

    The new development in this crisis is the Russian troops on the Ukrainian borders with the aim of exerting pressure on Ukraine and intimidating her in respect of her endeavour to join NATO and lend her ear to the US. This has raised a host of persistent questions, including the potential eruption of the situation and its transformation into a major war.

    In order to perceive the motives of the parties to the conflict, it would be imperative to acquaint ourselves with the beginning of the crisis, the Minsk Protocol and the rifts over its implementation, the influential parties, and the interests of the disputing sides and what they evoke in terms of issues pertinent to the struggle of identities and strategic tendencies between Russia and the US and the potentiality of the crisis developing into a conflict or a major war.

    As for the beginning of the current crisis, it dates back to 21 November 2013, when the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych halted the preparations to execute a partnership agreement with the EU, the consequences of which were widespread protests and demonstrations, deteriorating conditions in the eastern and southern areas where the majority of the population is of Russian origin and loyal to President Yanukovych. And as the US-backed protests intensified and turned into a big revolution, parliament ousted President Yanukovych, who subsequently fled, on 22 February 2014 and replaced him by parliament speaker Oleksandr Turchynov. Meanwhile, Russia took control of the Crimean Peninsula and annexed it to the Russia Federation in one of largest annexation procedures witnessed by Europe since the Second World War. Subsequently, a war broke out in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast between separatists loyal to Russia and the Ukrainian government.

    The US and the EU responded by imposing sanctions on Russia following her invasion of Crimea but the sanctions had no effective impact on the Russian economy; Russia continued to work towards acquiring a leveraging tool on the one hand, and a confidence-building window with European states to dissipate their security fears and nullify the US pretexts pertinent to the perils of the European relationship with Russia on the other hand. This was effectuated through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which made Germany dependent on Russia gas despite the political difficulties and impediments such as the Ukrainian crises that America has engineered to thwart the Russo-European understanding and maintain the state of uncertainty between them.

    In fact, Russia has managed to orchestrate the crisis and avert an escalation with Ukraine during the past few years. However, Western manoeuvres and America’s incitement of Ukraine to provoke Russia through military infringements in the east and persisting on admitting the former into NATO, and even citing it in the country’s constitution, has infuriated Russia and led Putin to mobilise his forces along the Ukrainian borders from three sides, north, east, and south. This has made the crisis prone to eruption whenever America wanted to widen the wedge between Russia and Europe, especially Germany and France. Several observers interpreted this scenario as an imminent Russian invasion, as Russian military divisions moved thousands of kilometres towards the Ukrainian borders, Crimea, and Belarus, with their numbers reaching 200,000 soldiers according to Washington. As for the two Minsk agreements, their implementation is no longer practicable, and now that the Duma has voted for the independence of Donbas, they have become irrelevant, despite the persistence of both sides to implement the 2015 “Minsk Agreement” in full, which includes lending Ukrainian legitimacy to the lands torn apart by war within the political system of Ukraine, as per her wishes, while Russia insists on the independence of Donbas, and she has even effectively voted for this.

    The motive behind this Russian comportment is the threat Russia has sensed from the Ukrainian policies and behaviours. Russia is endeavouring to establish herself as a geopolitical and geostrategic player in a region that has always been viewed as part of her vital interests, including Ukraine. Consequently, if these interests were physically threatened, Russia would resort to force to confront the threats and impose the secession of east, southeast Ukraine and up to the Crimean Peninsula by force. Moreover, Russia has changed her standpoint towards her interests in Ukraine to exceed rejecting the NATO membership of the latter, and to include rejecting categorically the increasing defence cooperation between Ukraine and the West and demanding the implementation of the West’s pledge pertinent to the military presence in Poland and the Baltic States, and at the same time, she has been endeavouring to review the agreements and settlements concluded after the Cold War, including regaining the regional security system so that she may have a role in European security. Hence, Russia is seeking a host of unconditional guarantees for her security today and in the future, and she would not accept a NATO expansion eastward to include Ukraine as Putin has declared. The direct threat that Russia dreads is Ukraine’s move towards European institutions so that her quest to join the EU and NATO may be accepted. Russia’s main concern is preventing such memberships or preventing Ukraine from hosting any NATO infrastructure on her lands. As for the further dimension of Russian interests, it is reflected in relinking the states that formed the former Soviet Union before its collapse, in order to preserve her lebensraum, which has started to be eroded due to the American infiltration. This is deemed a strategic security matter for the Russian side, especially President Vladimir Putin who is striving to keep Ukraine within the Russian strategic circle, a move corroborated by the common social, cultural and economic ties between Russia and Ukraine.

    As for the Ukrainian interests, they are reflected in the fact that Ukraine represents a bridge between Russia and the EU. This geographic position makes her a link or a buffer zone between Russia and Europe. The Ukrainian interests manifest themselves in the endeavour to get rid of the Russian influence on the government and the capital in Ukraine, in addition to the inclination towards the West, and gaining membership to the EU and NATO. And although the electoral manifesto of Ukrainian President Zielinski stipulated a pledge to hold a dialogue and negotiate with Russia, and to pursue a diplomatic channel, and implement the Minsk agreements pertinent to the Donbas region in southeast Ukraine, he however changed his approach under the pressure of domestic chaos and the increasing patriotic streak nurtured by the US in Eastern European states and the former Soviet Union’s republics. Moreover, Ukraine has several apprehensions vis-à-vis the Russian standpoint such as being totally invaded; thus, she tends to amplify the West’s fears of a Russian expansion and urges Western powers to impose sanctions on Russia, considering that, in her view, such sanctions would contribute in weakening Russia and engrossing her in domestic social and nationalistic struggles, which would subsequently lead to recapturing Crimea and the rebellious areas, mainly Donbas.

    On the other hand, Ukraine has several demands related to freedom of navigation; these demands were induced by the incident in which Russia seized three Ukrainian navy boats and their crews, claiming that they had illegally entered Russian territorial waters. This was one of the reasons that prompted Ukraine to seek NATO and EU membership and to believe that her future lies with the Europeans, as her EU membership would enable her to acquire a catalogue of economic perks that the EU offers while joining NATO would provide her with the security umbrella and protection of her existence; it would also shore up her negotiating position with Russia in respect of the dispute over the occupied Crimean Peninsula and the rebellious areas. This is the main point of dispute between Ukraine and Russia who, for her part, considers NATO’s presence close to her borders a strategic threat to her national security.

    As for the American role in the crisis, it falls within the framework of downsizing Russia while keeping her a source of threat to Europe, even though America has on the surface been endeavouring to generate a form of strategic stability between her and Russia; Presidents Putin and Biden have met several times as part of their constant efforts to establish a stable relationship.

    The American role in the Ukrainian crisis is prominent through her corroboration, together with Britain and other NATO member states, of her partnership with Ukraine and through supplying the Ukrainian army with American weapons. The struggle in Ukraine is one of the most prominent aspects of the rift between Russia and the US; this is why President Biden has been attempting, and even demanding from Putin, to place the Ukrainian file on the negotiating table of the Russo-American relationship to review it on a larger scale within the framework of “strategic stability.”

    It is common knowledge that the American standpoint vis-à-vis the Russo-Ukrainian crisis is shrouded with malice and deception. At a time when America was averse to the mobilisation of Russian troops on the Ukrainian borders, and was threatening Russia with harsh economic sanctions if she took the step of defying international willpower, she however failed to move in an effective manner to protect Ukraine against potential invasion; she rather worked towards evacuating her diplomats and expatriates from Ukraine in a move interpreted as an abandoning of Ukraine to let her face her fate by herself America contented herself with backing her militarily and devising a host of red lines in respect of the invasion in a move designed to deepen European awareness of the Russian threat and emphasise her role in protecting Europe, and the need of the Europeans for NATO. This is why America and NATO raised the levels of preparedness among their armed forces and deployed NATO forces along the borders with Belarus. She also despatched American FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and handed the Ukrainian navy two US coast guard boats, while Britain started building two naval bases for Ukraine. Nevertheless, dispatching US troops to confront Russia is a farfetched option; America has compensated for this by dispatching troops to the states of the eastern wing of NATO to corroborate its role in the security of Europe and deepen eastern European dependence on America.

    As for the European standpoint, it is tilting between calling for a diplomatic solution, threatening to impose sanctions and warning against an invasion and its consequences; in other situations, the relationship between Russia and EU member states is dominated by a tit for tat expulsion of diplomats, as was the case between Germany and Russia following the assassination of a Chechen opponent. France and Germany for their part are striving to reduce the tension lest the crisis should impact negatively on their interests, and at the same time, they are jostling to lead a Europe divided in her standpoints towards the relationship with Russia.

    In light of European statements, the European states may reduce their strategic dependence on Russian gas to please America, and resort to imposing sanctions in case Russia invades Ukraine, even though they would prefer the diplomatic solution to the confrontation to ensure Ukraine’s unity. Hence, the EU offered its services throughout the crisis in its quality as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine. Germany and France have led several attempts at mediation and at monitoring a ceasefire; in 2014, what became known as the Normandy Quartet was formed comprising of Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine. The EU is also expected to partake in imposing stern sanctions against Russia should she attack Ukraine. Such measures may include shutting Russia out of the SWIFT system and delaying the operating of the Russian gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 in Germany; this is what America has been seeking so that she may impinge on the Russo-German entente, and this notion was corroborated by US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, who told reporters on 27 January during a briefing "If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward."

    As for what is expected to happen in the next phase, Russian leaders may come to the conclusion that using force today could be less costly than using it tomorrow if Ukraine were to become a NATO member state. Hence, the choices of Russia’s top brass are limited in respect of preserving Russian interests, even though the use of force will not be easy. Putin may resort to flex his muscles within a limited scope should the political course of action lead to a stalemate and should Russia fail to achieve the desired settlement, and he may be compelled to invade eastern Ukraine to use this manoeuvre as a bargaining chip during the negotiations and impose a settlement that would halt Ukraine’s move to the Western camp. On the other hand, America is attempting to lure Russia into a military action and aggravate the situation in a manner which would carry a message to Russia stipulating that speeding up the invasion would be better than delaying it, so that she may dissipate the Europeans’ trust in Putin and deepen the nationalistic tendency which is hostile to Russia in Ukraine and in the entire Russian lebensraum.

    Putin for his part would be aspiring to shore up Russia’s political, military and economic position through this crisis, especially after he had succeeded in Syria and Georgia, orchestrating the Armenian-Azerbaijani crisis and restoring security in Kazakhstan. Hence, Putin would endeavour to regulate the balance afresh through the use of force should he fail to achieve a satisfactory settlement with Ukraine and the US. This may compel Russia to disentangle herself from this booby-trapped process by resorting to military force in order to readjust the Ukrainian orientations and attempt to lift the West’s sanctions, knowing that Russia had resorted to force in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and has to a great extent hampered US plans in those countries. Hence, if Russia were to wage war on Ukraine, it would be hard for her to end it and she may not achieve lasting peace since the war could develop into a long-term confrontation, especially if what is known geographically as Western Ukraine remained through Western supplies. In other words, the war could turn into a war of attrition if Ukraine were supplied with sophisticated Western weapons and equipment. Russia could also facereal diplomatic isolation, especially if the war erupted and turned into an open and major confrontation between the forces of the two countries, namely Russia and Ukraine, whereby the former would be viewed as the aggressor. Hence, Russia would prefer to maintain the status quo, which would be a less damaging option than military confrontation, provided nothing compelling her to undertake a limited military action crops up. The status quo is in Russia’s favour, especially if the independence of Donbas were recognised, even though this would nurture the state of uncertainty in her relationship with Europe.

    Hence, US policy towards Russia remains fixed, namely besieging the latter within her lebensraum, turning her into a major regional power, and sealing off her relationship with China, Germany and France, lest the international situation should be destabilised.

    Although the presence of a strong Russia adjacent to Europe constitutes an American interest, her strength however should not exceed the extent required to keep the equilibrium with Europe and maintain the latter under the umbrella of American protection with Europe footing the bill of such protection.

    The current crisis between Russia and Ukraine is in fact a crisis between Russia and America who aims at besieging Russia within her lebensraum and downsizing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy, as well as dissuading the European states from considering France’s calls for establishing a European force independent of NATO, and turning NATO into an international organisation to uphold international peace and security.

    As Russia strives to defend her lebensraum, America is attempting to place Europe on a collision course with Russia and humiliate France so that she may ditch her notion of establishing an independent European force. By observing the current Russo-Ukrainian crisis, it has transpired that Russia is adamant to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which if it materialised, would place Russia within minutes of its missiles, a scenario that Russia would never accept. This is why Putin demanded from NATO, especially America, written guarantees before withdrawing his forces from Ukraine’s borders.

    The current crisis has turned into a muscle-flexing exercise by Russia and an intimidation of Europe; and this is what America wants to achieve her aims. And although the Minsk Protocol has given Ukraine the right to regain full control of the country’s borders in all the region of conflict, it has however remained mere ink on paper; consequently, those provinces remained rebellious towards the central government. Nevertheless, Russia continues to contemplate the secession of those provinces and considers them independent of Ukraine, especially now that the Duma voted last to recognise the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, and the independence of Donbas from Ukraine. If Russia were to succeed in exacting an international endorsement of such a step, this would herald the division of Ukraine, and this is what Russia covets and Europe dreads.

    17 Rajab 1443h
    18 February 2022

  • Erdoğan’s UAE Visit & Relationship with "Israel" 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Erdoğan’s UAE Visit & Relationship with "Israel"

    The visit of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to the Emirates on 14-15 February came in response to the visit staged by Abu Dhabi’s crown prince and the de facto UAE ruler Mohammed bin Zayed to Turkey on 24 November 2021. The visit came as a reaction to the changes pertinent to the relationship with Iran and the Gulf States pursued by America under the tenure of the Democrats. During the visit, Turkey and the UAE signed 12 joint agreements in various fields the most important of which was an agreement on the defence industry which America aims to integrate with host of foreign partners such as Ukraine and the UAE to prevent Turkey from being independent in this field.

    It seems the Emirates’ rulers have realised that they had to follow in the footsteps of Egypt and Saudi who had expressed a desire to have closer relations with Turkey, and to resume the race with Qatar in serving America and stimulate her presence in the region following the remarkable role Qatar played in Afghanistan and the recent partnership concluded between Qatar and NATO.

    Hence, following a lingering tussle between Turkey and the Emirates, which had backed all of Turkey’s opponents, President Erdoğan received a warm welcome during his visit which was described as historic. This came in the context of luring Turkey and harnessing her in securing the strategic equilibrium in the Middle East and Gulf security following the policy of downsizing Iran and energizing the process of the regional solution, and in the context of containing the Turkish leadership which has so far withstood all the efforts aimed at bringing it back in to the stable of affiliated states.

    It is no secret that the transformation of the radically hostile standpoint of the Emirates towards Turkey and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and towards all that which is attributed to Islam, does not deviate from the instructions of the US and the exigencies of the changes that followed America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as the forthcoming challenges with China and Russia. Although this rapprochement represented a carrot for Erdoğan, who does not object to the intersection of his interests with those of America and her agents as per the principle of expediency and pragmatism, the Emirati-Turkish rapprochement, however, at a time when the Turkish economy is deteriorating and Erdoğan is drawing nearer to the elections’ season with the urgent need to improve the economic indicators, muzzle the domestic resentment and thwart the foreign interventions, in addition to his U-turn in the relationship with Saudi and Egypt, and America’s decision to shore up his standpoint in the Eastern Mediterranean at the expense of Greece and France, all this falls under a host of American demands pertinent to Erdoğan’s understandings with Russia, who has been subjected to a NATO campaign in the Ukrainian scene to weaken her relationship with Germany and perturb her relationship with France and China. It also falls under the requirements to tackle Erdoğan’s persistent impact on America’s policies towards the Turkish domestic file and his harassment of her agents, the Syrian file and the Kurds, the relationship with "Israel", and to provide a cover for the states that have normalised their relations with the Zionist entity and concluded an alliance with it which explains the recent inducement of the file pertinent to the relationship between Turkey and the usurping entity.

    Therefore, what is occurring in terms of the openness in Erdoğan’s foreign policy amidst the US economic pressures and the activity of the Turkish opposition, such as the meeting between the UK ambassador and the mayor of Istanbul Ekrem İmamoğlu, and the meeting of the latter with the US ambassador, falls under the attempts to lure Erdoğan and impose a custodianship on his foreign relations, restructure and redesign them according to the American vision without however impinging on Erdoğan’s interests outside the context of affiliation, and in an attempt to bring Turkey back to the stable of obedience following the failed coup to topple Erdoğan in 2016.

    In this context, Erdoğan aspires to harness the relationship with the Emirates and the visit of the Zionist entity’s president Isaac Herzog to Turkey in several issues pertinent to domestic policy, the tussle over Eastern Mediterranean oil and in mellowing the relationship with Biden’s administration, which has been fraught with rifts. Erdoğan announced this visit as early as 27 January 2022 through a host of statements aired by Anadolu Agency as he commented on the nature of the relationship between Turkey and "Israel"; he said “a new phase in the relations between Turkey and "Israel" will begin with the visit of the "Israeli" president.”

    It seems that America’s agents have either absorbed these changes themselves or received their orders from the White House; and subsequently, they set about improving their relationship with Qatar and then moved towards Turkey, towards whom they had been hostile, to turn with her a new leaf as they realised that she wielded influence in several files of the region, especially Syria, Iraq, Libya and East Africa.

    Erdoğan would not have announced the visit of Herzog had he not concluded a host of secret and unannounced understandings with America pertaining to sharing the Eastern Mediterranean’s oil. "Israeli" newspaper Jerusalem Post reported that the Biden administration informed "Israel", Cyprus and Greece in the past few weeks that it no longer supported the "Israeli" gas pipeline to Europe. For his part, Erdoğan commented on this American announcement by saying “this project was unfeasible; they had done all the financial calculations and concluded that there was nothing positive in this project.” He added that such projects could not be successful without the help of Turkey. He explicitly reiterated this aim during a statement aired by Anadolu Agency on 27 January 2022 as he announced Herzog’s visit by saying “we did in the past hold a few meetings with "Israeli" stakeholders and confirmed the mutual cooperation to export gas to Europe; and Turkey is still ready for joint action.”

    Meanwhile, the president of TUSIAD, Simone Kaslowski, met with several opposition leaders and his association issued a communiqué calling on Erdoğan to retract from lowering the interest rate and to hold early elections. This prompted Erdoğan to issue a direct warning to the president of the TUSIAD association, urging him to refrain from meddling in the way the political affairs of the country are run and to focus his efforts on trade and industry; he reminded him that “Turkey today is not the same as that of the past,” in reference to the infiltration of TUSIAD in the state’s financial institutions.

    Hence, the rapprochement of Erdoğan and his group with the Emirates and "Israel" are designed to extinguish the blazing foreign front in order to generate the necessary provisions to win the elections in 2023, by weakening the domestic and foreign support given to the Turkish opposition, especially as Erdoğan has often announced that Turkey has been facing an economic war since the failed coup of July 2016.

    16 Rajab 1443h
    17 February 2022

  • Kais Saied Pursues his Authoritarian Measures 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Kais Saied Pursues his Authoritarian Measures

    President of the Tunisian republic Kais Saied announced few days ago that the Supreme Judicial Council was a thing of the past. This decision, which he announced from the headquarters of the interior ministry, was seconded by a host of measures such as closing down the Council’s building, placing security forces at its entrance and preventing its members from entering. Although such undertaking among others was expected by observers of the Tunisian political scene, its impact however was severe on domestic opponents of his constitutional coup, especially members of the Assembly of the People's Representatives who have been subjected to his arbitrary measures since 25 July 2021 and who have been hoping to widen the scope of opponents to the president via some activities and events such as establishing the “Citizens Against the Coup” front and staging street protests. In the protest, in Mohammed V Boulevard on 13 February, one of the deputies of the al-Karama coalition announced that those who supported the president in his coup from among security personnel, military officers or guards would be called to account, irrespective of whether parliament resumed its functions or not. Such scenario suggests that the US has been exerting pressure on President Kais Saied and intimidating the Francophone forces who are still dwelling in the pockets of the security and military institutions in North Africa. It also reflects a host of regional and international pledges to the Tunisian opposition forces to reinforce their containment of the mainstream public opinion amidst the endeavours to reproduce the political scene and marginalise the option of the” Islamists” and their role in it. President Kais Saied continues to execute such measures to which the US and her agents in Egypt, Algeria and the Emirates are not objecting. Other indications reflecting this scenario have come in the shape of an imminent visit to Tunisia by a European Parliament delegation to meet the speaker of the parliament whose competencies have been suspended for about seven months; such a move is politically viewed as direct support for the president’s opponents. Moreover, several reports have been published by some newspapers and research centres inciting the US administration and warning against the excessive measures of the Tunisian President such as the report compiled by the Washington Post’s Editor-in-Chief in which he said America should not remain idle towards what was occurring in Tunisia. He also mentioned that Joe Biden had pledged to support democracy in Tunisia when he was Obama’s vice-president and met former President Caid Essebsi and concluded with him several agreements such as considering Tunisia as a non-NATO partner.

    President Kais Saied for his part is attempting to muster domestic support and appease the anxieties of the US regarding the infiltration of the Francophone forces within the presidential office by fulfilling the demands of some of his entourage who are at odds with each other, such as the tiff between the interior minister and his family with Kais Saied’s chief of staff Nadia Akasha, which ended in her dismissal according to the official communiqué, or her resignation as per her announcement on social media before leaving the country for France. Kais Saied is also attempting to strengthen his standpoints through some of his supporters in the judiciary and official circles, and the abolishment of the Judicial Council was carried out in this context. As for his foreign relations, he met with the French treasury chief following an unannounced visit to France, according to public sources, while Tunisia’s interior minister met the French ambassador and signed an agreement to restore the Franco-Tunisian security committee. This came after Kais Saied had launched a scathing attack on the G7 foreign ministers in response to their apprehensions vis-à-vis his decision to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council. All these moves were designed to alleviate France’s security concerns, which constitute her major nightmare in North Africa, following her successive losses in Libya and Chad, as well as her decision to withdraw from Mali recently.

    We deduce from the aforementioned that the sole foreign backer of President Kais Saied is France, despite America’s decision to contain him and direct him through her agents in Egypt and the UAE in order to control his movements and implicate him from time to time. However, each time he carries out a new undertaking, he widens the circle of his opponents and generates the conditions, especially in the midst of the economic crisis, astronomical price increase, lack of basic commodities and the dwindling of his popularity among the masses, for the imposing of fresh foreign dictates ahead of the negotiations with the IMF, whose provisions have always been harsh; this will compel him to carry out a host of painful reforms which will eventually pave the way for discarding him once he has been exhausted in serving the colonialists’ designs.

    We have time and time again warned of the collaborating political milieu in the Muslims’ lands in our political observations on the situation in Tunisia, which, more than ten centuries ago, represented the platform of conquests towards Spain, Italy and East and Central Africa, and which deserves, together with her men, a political milieu emanating from the willpower of the masses that expresses the Aqeedah of this Ummah. It will also be befitting for such a milieu to abolish the current feuding political milieu which has been jostling to serve the Kafir West and enable it to plunder the riches of the land and disfigure the psyche of the servants with its corrupt materialistic culture, which is set to corrupt our children and future generations. Our Lord the Almighty has forbidden us from following all what those profligates are calling us for in terms of debauchery and decadence, referring our affairs to the rules of kufr and Taghut, and being loyal to the Kuffar. Allah the Almighty has commanded us to obey him, individuals and groups alike, and He has promised us the bliss of the two lives, provided we adhere to the righteous and straight path and we hold on to His Book and the Sunnah of His noble Messenger who was sent as a mercy to humankind.

    “So let those who would go against His bidding beware, lest a trial befall them, or grievous suffering befall them.” [an-Nour-63]

    15 Rajab 1443h
    16 February 2022  

  • Identity Controversy in Jordan 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Identity Controversy in Jordan

    Political and media tussles reaching the point of hatred and plotting break out from time to time between those who claim to represent the “nationalist movement” within the “foreign opposition” backed by tribal activists, retired military officers and some parliamentary personalities, and a host of political and media personalities attributed to those described as the “Palestinian constituent” together with those who claim to be their supporters from among the liberalists linked to the regime, the US embassy and foreign agendas. The struggle of the “nationalist” faction with the palace and its entourage revolves around corruption, nepotism, monopolising power, structuring the regime and the naturalisation file with the deteriorating economic situation and financial and administrative corruption as their ammunition in the onslaught on the palace with the aim of deterring it from implementing the foreign dictates on the future of the “Palestinian issue” and its fallouts on Jordan, and twist its arm into carrying out “political reforms” and a restructuring leading to reproducing the regime on “nationalist” grounds that would prevent the palace from pursuing its ghoulish comportment towards the state, its faculties and its future, and subsequently, achieving a government with a “general mandate in addition to bulwarking the “east-Jordanian constituent” against the widening of the “political rights” of the “Palestinian constituent”.

    As a result, political tussle erupted in the past few days over the notion of “collective national identity” which was recommended by the royal committee to streamline the political system and ratified by the constitutional amendments at the beginning of this month.

    In light of this poisonous political atmosphere, it is imperative to corroborate what we have already elucidated concerning this issue and its perspectives and the standpoint that should be undertaken towards it by the vital forces in society. Hence, by revisiting the events instigated by the former US administration through the Deal of the Century and by probing the current events that have been taking place in Jordan since King Abdullah acceded to the throne, and then linking them to their foreign plane, we deduce that the issue of naturalising the “Palestinian refugees” in their place of residence and expanding political representation of those dubbed as the “Palestinian constituent” in Jordan represent the cornerstone in the bid to settle the “Palestinian issue” and entrenching the Zionist occupation and its “right to exist” since perpetuating the existence of so-called “Palestinian refugees” would keep the “Palestinian issue” alive in the conscience of the Muslims and a cause for entrenching “extremism” from a security perspective, turn it into a stain on the solutions of the so-called “Middle East issue”, and maintain it as a “legal impediment” at the plane of international laws and conventions, which tend to selectively decide on the peoples’ right to self-determination. This turns the “Palestinian issue”, which is laden with conspiracies, into a burden on the Arab regimes and an obstacle in the face of integrating the Zionist entity into the region, a scarecrow for "Israeli" security and a threat to the Jewishness of the state. Hence, the policy of the usurping entity is built on the notion of “ending the right of return”, land-grabbing, Judaizing the Palestinian areas and displacing more residents of the occupied lands, especially the residents of al-Quds. In other words, the Zionist entity is attempting to get rid of the Palestinian “demographic surplus” and relocate it to Jordan, and place the settlers in their residential areas while maintaining its sovereignty over the lands and the holy precincts; this is why it continues to build settlements in the West Bank, harass the Palestinians, and confiscate their properties.

    It is common knowledge that the “Palestinian issue” is a matter of interest for the international community since it borders Western interests in the Gulf and international transportation routes. It is also common knowledge that "Israel" represents a Western colonialist forward operating base (FOB) in the heart of the Islamic world, and any tension or clash between the Muslims and the “Zionists” would rekindle in the people of the region the notion of liberation and Jihad, threaten the interests of the West and herald the demolition of the entire Western American colonialist project for the Middle East. Hence, Western powers, headed by America, have been attempting to end the remnants of the “Palestinian issue” and integrate the Zionist entity into the region via normalisation, alliance, economic intertwining and the “Abrahamic approach”. They have also been endeavouring to dissolve “the Palestinian identity” through extremely devious styles, including naturalising the Palestinian refugees in their place of residence. This trend cropped up when Egypt forsook her commitment to the League of Arab States in 1965 stipulating refraining from naturalising the Palestinians and only granting them unified travel documents in order to preserve the Palestinian identity. In 2012, the Egyptian authorities accelerated the pace of naturalising the Palestinians; their number reached 50,000 from Gaza alone at the same period when the king of Jordan formed a committee that included former intelligence chief Mohammed al Dahabi, Taher al Masri, and Rajai al Dajani, to naturalise the Palestinians. However, Mohammed al Dahabi, described by the US embassy in one of its briefings as “an impediment in the face of reforms”, according to NGO sources, hampered the forming of the committee. Hence, the recommendations of the royal committee and the constitutional amendments pertinent to parties and elections, which will lead to taming partisan activities, providing an appropriate climate for pragmatic and liberal parties and tightening the siege imposed on proscribed doctrinal parties, and which will also lead to widening the representation of the “Jordanians of Palestinian origin” in parliament and in the “forthcoming parliamentary government” at the expense of the “tribes”, under the guise of “shoring up the collective national identity” and upholding fair representation for all the factions and regions of Jordanian society, such recommendations are insincere since they are tantamount to a response to the Westernisation and secularisation of the societal awareness on the fulfilment of the “regional solution”, abolishing the right of return, liquidating the “Palestinian issue”, and turning Jordan into an alternative homeland and a ”hybrid regime”, irrespective of the fate of the participatory formula with the Palestinian Authority and the notion of the “two-state solution” and its denotation. This is the reason behind the tautness of the “East-Jordan nationalist movement”, its resentment towards the king and his family, and its aversion to “naturalisation” and expanding political representation of the so-called “Palestinian constituent”, and the cause behind the division among the state’s security agencies and the king’s relentless onslaught on the intelligence department with the aim of downsizing its function and undermine its grandeur, as well as his calls for ending the leaking of information to the “foreign opposition”.

    In this context, it is imperative to perceive that there is no harm in “naturalising” and resettling the “Palestinians”, treating them equally to their brethren in Jordan in terms of the legitimate rights and duties without relinquishing one single inch of the land of Palestine and the right of return, and it should not be a problematic since citizenship in Islam is the right of being affiliated to the “doctrinal homeland” and of living therein irrespective of the presence or the absence of the Islamic State and her system. Since citizenship is a legal bond rather than a doctrinal bond between an individual in his quality as a human and the state, and since such a bond entails a host of rights and commitments, it is therefore permissible provided it is not built on loyalty to the systems of Kufr. Moreover, since citizenship, i.e., “nationality, in the Islamic lands is the right of every Muslim, irrespective of the implemented system while taking into account the prohibition of being loyal to Dar al-Kufr and its system, or acknowledging the country-levels of the Islamic lands on patriotic or nationalist grounds and what they may entail in terms of modernist outputs, discriminations and violations of the Shari'ah rules, obtaining it and enjoying the legitimate rights it entails is an entitlement that gives the emigrants from Palestine the right to settle in the lands of Islam and enjoy all the rights and duties.

    However, if settling the “Palestinian refugees” falls within the political context epitomised in “normalisation, alliance and the Abrahamic approach”, which is a conspiratorial context aiming at abolishing the “right of return”, entrenching the Zionist occupation of Palestine and recognising the right of "Israel" to exist, it should therefore not be resisted by depriving the Palestinians of their rights, but resisted by the people of the two banks to the attempt to liquidate the issue through legitimate methods and means.

    Therefore, it is imperative for this perception to be the foundation for the viewpoint towards “naturalisation” and the relationship between the children of the two banks. In other words, as the brothers east of the river object to the “political reforms” and the notion of the devious “collective national identity”, they should take into account the legitimate right of the people of Palestine to be fully integrated in the Muslims’ lands without any discrimination, and their right to be supported based on the exigency of Islamic fraternity and the pledge of the covenant (thimmah) for the non-Muslims from among them. Hence, it is imperative to rescind and eschew the peripheral identities and the “collective national identity” in favour of the doctrinal identity in which there exists no difference between Arab and non-Arab save in piety while taking into account the pledge of the covenant to the non-Muslims, especially as the people of Jordan, when they gave refuge and supported Palestine and her people against the crusades, British colonialism and Zionist occupation, they did so on the grounds of Islamic fraternity and because the issue was their own just like the people of Palestine. They ought to remember that the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased wit them) did not conquer Jordan to uphold patriotism but for the word of Allah the Almighty to reign supreme; the children of Palestine in Jordan should for their part snub their collaborating leaders, reject the liquidating of their issue and the relinquishing of their lands and their right of return. By this token, objecting to settling the “Palestinians”, depriving them of some of their rights, or describing them as refugees, or discriminating against them on “patriotic” grounds, or under the guise of preserving the “Palestinian identity” is abhorred by Shari'ah. The duty is to be fair to them on the grounds of religious fraternity and the covenant, close ranks with them in confronting the regime and the US-Zionist project targeting the entire Ummah indiscriminately. It is also imperative to realise that Jordan and its people are all militarily, culturally and economically colonised, and they themselves are in need of a liberation warranting a struggle with the American foreign colonialist backing the regime to sever the support it gives to its collaborators, by exposing, isolating and banishing them. Moreover, we ought to realise that the king himself does not have any authority over Jordan; he is merely executing the domestic and regional tasks assigned to him by the US in exchange for his continuance in power together with his family, knowing that he inherited the throne from his father on the recommendation of US National Security Advisor Sandy Berger who instructed king Hussein in his last days to remove his brother crown prince Hassan, a move exposed by the French press at the time.

    Moreover, it is imperative to realise that the Jordanian political milieu, with its various tendencies, is by and large corrupt and an extension of the herd of collaborators and scroungers who have mastered the rules of the American political game in the regions and have been vying to execute it. It would be woolgathering to envisage a “parliamentary government” with a general mandate within a state shackled with political, military and economic agreements, a corrupt and hired political milieu and a powerless people. Hence, the path towards regaining the authority and “sovereignty” would not be through “political reform” for the same fabric, or on patriotic grounds of the Jahiliya era: “Do they, perchance, desire the law of pagan ignorance. But for people who have inner certainty, who could be a better law-giver than Allah” [al-Maidah-50]; the solution ought to be taken from the reservoir of the noble Shari'ah and its method in tackling corrupt regimes, namely the radical change that uproots the regimes of affiliation, Kufr and Taghut, and establishes the Shari'ah of Allah and righteous governance.

    “Hence, judge between them in accordance with what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their errant views; and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from what Allah has revealed to you.” [al-Maidah-49]

    13 Jumada al-Akhirah 1443h
    16 January 2022 

  • Political Observation - Kazakhstan Unrest 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - The Protests in Kazakhstan
    The events of Kazakhstan, a country with an important geopolitical position and abundant riches, have received worldwide attention in the past few days following the eruption of violent public protests on 2 January triggered by the decision of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s government to increase the price of “butane and propane”, known as the fuel of the poor due to its cheap price, from 1 January. Consequently, protests brimmed with resentment against the pervasive corruption of the government, inequity in salaries and economic hardships aggravated by the coronavirus pandemic mushroomed throughout the country. The protests soon turned into omens of a popular uprising against the regime demanding the departure of former President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the de facto ruler of Kazakhstan, and led to the death of dozens of protestors and security operatives. As the protests turned into riots and several security operatives deserted their positions and military uniforms and joined the protestors, President Tokayev seized the opportunity to declare a state of emergency, purge some of the commanders whose loyalty was questionable and sought the support of Russia to regain control of the situation. 
    President Tokayev claimed in an address to the nation that the protests proved the “intervention of foreign hands” and that they were “terrorist acts.” In a swift measure aimed at containing the situation, the government announced its resignation on 5 January and several members of the national security council, including former President Nursultan Nazarbayev, were dismissed in a bid to appease the protestors, while America called for refraining from using violence against the protestors, exactly as she did during the “Arab Spring”.
    The Russian foreign ministry for its part called for the need to “reach a peaceful solution” and a return to “normality.” The Kremlin spokesperson said “there should be no foreign intervention”, meaning “American intervention”, and explained that troops were dispatched to Kazakhstan to support the authority after it had been “targeted by world terrorism”. Members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation responded to the request of the Kazakh President to dispatch peacekeeping forces to maintain stability in his country and help his government get rid of the “terrorists”. News reports also said “security forces have succeeded in regaining control of the city’s main streets” following the arrival of Russian paratroopers who shored up efforts aimed at quelling the uprising, knowing that the areas that targeted the economic interests were in the city of Almaty which is deemed as the stronghold of the Russian community in Kazakhstan. 
    Having monitored the events, their causes, their eruption and circumstances, as well as the surrounding interests and intertwined relationships, it would be safe to say that the objective causes of the uprising against the corrupt regime were present exactly as they were in Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and the Arab countries before the “Arab Spring”, with the difference being that the preparation for the Colour Revolutions and the Arab Revolutions were engineered, orchestrated and directed through training, supervision and media support, whose bridgehead in the Arab countries was Al-Jazeera, unlike the situation in  Kazakhstan where events reveal that sheer protests and livelihood demands were swiftly amplified by public resentment and foreign guided incitement for the sake of achieving immediate aims pertinent to America’s pressure on China as  Kazakhstan is the only country linking major markets in China and South Asia to Russian and European markets through land, rail and a seaport in the Caspian Sea, and is deemed the juncture of the major Chinese project known as the Belt and Road Initiative. The immediate aims are also pertinent to the Russo-American tussle in the Ukrainian file and America’s attempts to snatch the influence in the countries within the Russian periphery, besiege Russia and keep her in a state of tension with the West, especially as the talks between Russia, America and NATO on the Ukrainian crisis got underway today (10 January) in addition to the impact of the events in  Kazakhstan on the Russo- Turkish relationship considering that destabilising  Kazakhstan would provide Turkey with a new bargaining chip against the Russians, and their impact on the price of gas and its supplies to Europe since Kazakhstan is a transit route for Russian gas to Europe. Hence, the tension in Kazakhstan terrifies the Russians and the Europeans who subsequently would be compelled to side with America in her talks with Russia over Ukraine. 
    Although those loyal to America such as former Kazakh energy minister, Mukhtar Ablyazov, who resides in Kiev that is swarming with CIA agents, have been instrumental in inciting the Kazakhs against the regime, this does not however mean that America wants to generate long-term total chaos in  Kazakhstan since the  Kazakh regime is more resolute than the Ukrainian regime, and toppling the regime in favour of the nationalist and liberal forces loyal to the West and hostile towards Russia could not be guaranteed since Russia would not stand idly by towards a threat of such magnitude, notwithstanding other considerations pertinent to America’s interests and need for 16% of Russian uranium and about 25% of Kazakh uranium to operate her nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. Hence, America dreads the collapse of the regime and its fallout on her interests; Kazakhstan is the leading uranium producer with 41% of world production and American multinational energy corporation Chevron owns half of the Tengiz oilfield which produces a third of the country’s oil, knowing that Kazakhstan is the 9th largest oil-producing country in the world. This implies the presence of joint interests between America and Russia and previous understandings on Kazakhstan and on sharing her huge resources with the collusion of her criminal rulers. This narrative is corroborated by the way in which former Kazakh President Nour Nazarbayev collaborated with America and secured her interests throughout his tenure despite his strong links to Russia; in 2019, the commander of United States Central Command, Joseph Leonard Votel, described the relationship with Kazakhstan as being “the most mature and forward-thinking in Central Asia.” What corroborates further the understanding between America and Russia in  Kazakhstan is the fact that the latter had been characterised by political stability for about 30 years despite the Colour Revolutions that stormed the Russian lebensraum with US guidance and backing and never came close to  Kazakhstan, the most crucial country to Russia and her lebensraum, which implies the presence of a reality that had imposed itself in Kazakhstan and in which both the Americans and the Russians had been endeavouring to exploit to their advantage.  
    The protests are expected to be quelled and the regime reproduced in a manner that will keep the Kazakh “cake” in the hands of Russia and America while the domestic cracks within the regime are expected to remain. It seems that the events erupted due to the corrupt regime, the deteriorating economic situation and the mafia-like tussle for power, as well as the bad and criminal distribution of wealth.  Kazakhstan’s GDP is estimated at $170 billion and yet more than one million citizens live below the poverty line. This is why Russia leapt to rescue the Kazakh regime in self-defence due to the threat posed by the situation on her negotiating standpoint with the US, her security and economic interests and her entire lebensraum, and to seize the opportunity to reinforce her military presence to secure and bulwark  the regime against the liberal forces loyal to the West and the nationalist and “Islamist” forces which Putin dreads the transmission of their “disease” to Russia.
    Meanwhile, America hastened to incentivise her agents to ride the wave of protests in anticipation of an aggravation of the matters, harness the crisis and turn it into an opportunity to strengthen the nationalist movement hostile to Russia and the pro-Western Kazakh liberal forces, deepen her influence in Kazakhstan and harness her when necessary for the series of hotbeds of tension she intends to generate on the Chinese-Russian borders and throw a spanner in the works of cooperation between them, especially after China invested hundreds of billions of dollars in her agreements with Russia to immunise herself against the US sanctions in 2014. President Vladimir Putin noticed two months ago this US manoeuvre and described the relationship with China as having “reached its highest level in history… and some Western partners are barefacedly attempting to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing.” The events of Kazakhstan have shed light on the enormous riches the Islamic Ummah possesses and on the strategic position of her lands. This should enable the Islamic Ummah and her forthcoming State, with the leave of Allah the Almighty, to deter the colonialist powers, repel their aggression and compel them to deal with her on equal grounds, once the Muslims succeed in gaining control over their interests and reverse the international relations to their advantage; this to Allah the Almighty is not difficult. 
    “And say: "Act! [139] And Allah will behold your deeds, and His Apostle, and the believers.” [at-Tawbah-105]  
    7 Jumada al-Akhirah 1443h
    10 January 2022  

  • Conspiracy to Uproot Islam from Land of Haramayn 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Comment - The Conspiracy to Uproot Islam from the Land of the Haramayn

    “Indeed, those who contend against Allah and His Messenger - it is they who shall find themselves among the most abject.” [al-Mujadilah-20]

    In conjunction with the events of Riyadh Season 2021 consisting of over 7000 events including 70 Arab and six international concerts, in addition to 10 international exhibitions and 350 theatre shows, and in conjunction with the first edition of the Red Sea International Film Festival (RSIFF) in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, attended by a sizable number of world film “stars” from various European countries and Hollywood, among them gays, feminists and gay rights activists according to Middle East Eye (MEE), thus reflecting a debauchery aiming at promoting liberalism and freedom of speech, the first three-day Riyadh Philosophy Conference organised by the Literature, Publishing and Translation Commission at King Fahad Library in Riyadh, was launched on Wednesday 8 December. The conference gathered an “elite” of intellectuals and personalities involved in thought and philosophy from Saudi and other parts of the world. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Literature, Publishing and Translation Commission, Dr Mohammed Hasan Alwan, said in the opening speech of the conference that “Saudi is one of the countries of the world that is changing most, and no country could match it in terms of dynamism for revival, an issue which will have various philosophical, intellectual and cultural overtones.”

    Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman put forward in 2016 a reform plan under the theme of “Vision 2030” based on investment in the entertainment sector among others. He also announced in October 2018 that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be completely different in the next five years.” He also said, “if we succeed in the next five years, the countries of the region will join us” adding “this is the war of the Saudis and this is my war, which I am personally waging.”

    Effectively, in the past five years, he has killed off the traditional religious image of Saudi; and Jordan joined him through the Netflix films which were designed to corrupt young girls and boys, and through the concerts which were officially immunised against the coronavirus to the exclusion of other social events. Saudi was also joined by Tunisia through waging a war on the Shari'ah rules and spreading poisonous films such as Black Medusa and what it entails in terms of debauchery and destructive feminist concepts.

    As for the philosophy conference in Saudi, it is the most dangerous on the awareness of Muslim youth as it includes a host of “workshops addressing contemporary issues” and sheds light on the “role of philosophy in understanding the world today.” The conference includes various activities designed to “embed the value of philosophical thought among young generations and incentivise their interest in it,” according to what has been stated. The West’s aim from recommending the inclusion of philosophy in the educational curricula is to poison, and even destroy, the Islamic personality and reconfigure the awareness among the youth and shape their thought according to what philosophy, its cognitive resources and its outputs that contradict religion involve such as making reason the judge of good and bad instead of the Shari'ah texts, weakening Muslims’ link to religion and its authority while injecting them with the constructs of Western culture such as the methods of scientific research in humanities rather than the natural and experimental sciences. All this is to be effectuated through the gates of “openness to the world today” and perceiving it with its contemporary tools such the philosophy of “enlightenment” which stipulates that reason can do away with religion thanks to science, as well as marketing all this to Muslim youth in its quality as proud achievements, thus encouraging them to adopt the secularist and liberal democratic values and concepts which are built on Relativity of Truth, man’s centrality and denying the authority of revelation to eventually imposing a cognitive boycott on Islam, its values and its history, accepting the corrupt reality, submitting to the colonialists and their imported thought and acquiescing to the collaborating rulers and client regimes. They have exploited the Open Skies Policy to generate interaction between cultures while coating their corrupting of the Ummah with “reform and renewal” with the help of the herds of “cultural elites” who assumed the attribute of “enlightenment” to deal Islam a blow, distort it and cast doubt on its constants.

    Dear Muslims,

    Your children should be wary of what is concocted against them by arming themselves with intellectual and political awareness, mobilising themselves for the vital issue and the ferocious war against their religion, and repel the intellectual and military onslaught of the Kuffar which is threatening to destroy the Ummah and the future of her children with the collusion of her collaborating rulers. Mohammed bin Salman admitted during an interview with the Washington Post in 2018 to have harnessed religion and mobilised Wahabism at the behest of the West for the sake of foreign agendas and declaring war on Islam in the cradle of the Islamic religion. He has set about executing what he had pledged to his masters in the White House as he deems the war on Islam and its conveyors his personal crusade; and he is about to uproot what is left in terms of religious monuments and rites in the land of the Haramayn so that he may be joined by the rest of the Islamic lands, as he promised, and follow in the footsteps of his partner, the Satan of the Arabs, Mohammed bin Zayed, who has turned the Emirates into a house of prostitution, debauchery and intoxicants, and who used, with the help of bin Salman and the rulers of the Gulf, the riches of the Muslims to fight Islam and buy the loyalty of the leaders, politicians, academics, media professionals, “scholars” and “sheikhs” whose disregard for religion has led some of them to propagate the profligate events of Riyadh Season 21. This is what former Imam of the Holy Mosque Adel al-Kalbani did, exactly like what “sheikh” Abdul Fattah Moro did in Tunisia. Wallowing in the obscenities of the rulers has even led the Imam of al-Haram al-Makki, sheikh Sudais to sing the praises of the enemy of Islam and the Muslims, Donald Trump, and the treachery of other “sheikhs” who have not only entered the hole of the lizard but even relished dwelling in there, led them to make the blood of the Muslims violable in the Gulf War, side with the rulers against the masses, make their obedience an obligation, justify the carnages perpetrated against the Muslims in the “Arab revolutions”, legitimise treason, peace and alliance with the usurping Zionist entity, and recognise its “right” to exist. Those profligate and depraved rulers harnessed the riches of the Muslims to recruit spies, support the collaborators and criminals, destroy the Muslims’ lands in the “Arab Spring” and establish the projects of normalisation with the Zionist entity. They however deprived the oppressed Muslims in Gaza, Kashmir, Burma and the displaced women and children living in refugee camps of those riches, knowing that the plight of those oppressed Muslims is but the construct of the guided, criminal and reckless policies of those rulers who blessed the oppression of the Uyghur Muslims in China and concocted an “Abrahamic” religion to efface the boundaries between Islam and Kufr and integrate the Zionist entity in the region. They also spent the funds of the Muslims generously, wastefully and profligately on their luxuries and entourage and on the disseminators of Westernisation and libellers of the Islamic religion, as well as the propagators of debauchery, decadence, sordidness, whoredom and profligacy from among male and female “artists” whom they turned into icons and role models. All this has been occurring within a frenzied campaign against Islam, its constants, and its foundations, especially the Prophetic Sunnah which epitomises the Islamic way of life in its political aspects and moral splendour.

    Dear Muslims,

    The calamity of the Ummah in her religion due to the doctrinal desertification and the bulldozing of its values is tremendous, and her material losses, pillaged for her enemies and their poodles in Muslims’ lands are immeasurable. Sincere scholars, parties and influential figures should spread awareness about Islam, its sanctities, and the duty of Muslims towards it. They should infuse in the Ummah the spirit of struggle and standing up to the Kuffar Westerners whose confrontation can never be through importing their way of life, consuming their culture, concluding alliances with them and mortgaging the country to their interests.

    The “scholars” and “sheikhs” ought to emulate their predecessors, the beacons who made sacrifices, and refrain from betraying Islam and letting it down under the pretext of eating carrion meat being permissible out of necessity, return to the rulers their merchandise such as carrion, swine flesh and the crumbs of their tables instead of making of them a feast, enjoying eating them and calling those not driven by necessity to join in; if they serious about supporting their religion and their Ummah, they should get involved in commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil and adopt this action as a muzzle to deter the traitorous rulers and regimes from conspiring and perpetrating falsehood. They should arm themselves with the succour of their Lord Who says, “If you help the cause of Allah, He will help you.” [Mohammed-7], derive their inspiration from the bravery and stance of the classical scholars and rely on their popular support credentials. They are capable of overcoming the state of horror from the rulers by truly relying on Allah the Almighty, believing in His Qadaa and His Qadar and realising that the oppressive rulers suffer pain even as we suffer it and that we are hoping from Allah what they cannot hope for, and that the forces of the Ummah and the influential sections therein are capable of surpassing the roles Imposed by the systems of corrupt governance and the collaborating rulers. The sincere scholars are even capable on their own to awaken the resolves of the oblivious to the plots, deceptions , betrayals and conspiracies of the rulers, and capable, with the help of Allah the Almighty, to lead the Ummah, seize the initiative, topple the Kufr regimes, establish the religion of Allah and resume the Islamic way of life if they reenergised their drive and mustered the forces for it; they would only need to take the root causes into account, have iman in the rules of Allah the Almighty and His support, and rely on Him. This is what is becoming of the “scholar” who would be ashamed of Allah his Lord finding him where He prohibited him, or not finding him where He commanded him.

    “Those who convey Allah’s messages, and stand in awe of Him, and hold none but Allah in awe: for none can take count as Allah does.” [al-Ahzab-39]

    11 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
    15 December 2021


  • Beyond Biden’s Democracy Summit 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Beyond Biden’s Democracy Summit

    On Thursday and Friday, 9-10 December US President Joe Biden hosted by video link a “Summit for Democracy”, which gathered representatives of about 100 countries, NGOs, corporations, and charity organisations. According to France24, the list of invitees caused a great deal of tension as China and Russia, deemed by Biden as the two most notorious “authoritative states”, denounced their exclusion from the Summit and deemed it “an unjustified return to the cold war mentality and to dividing the world.” Beijing was infuriated by the invitation to the Summit extended to Taiwan which she deems a Chinese province.

    The Summit aims to “strengthen democracy and advance respect for human rights”, as per President Biden’s electoral pledge.

    It is no secret that China and Russia are politically targeted in the dividing of the world into two camps, one of which is “liberal democratic”, and the other is “totalistic authoritarian”. The targeting is due to geoeconomic considerations in the case of China and geostrategic considerations in the case of Russia, in addition to targeting the Islamic Ummah within this dividing for ideological and doctrinal considerations within the context of the preventive war.

    By reading the Democratic Party’s manifesto of the 2020 elections, we construe that one of its priorities is tackling “the standpoint of the US in the world”, and this will be through corroborating the notion of the “West” as a collective of democratic states sharing the same concepts and values, rather than mere historical alliances, such as NATO, or ASEAN, and through establishing the “Community of Democracies”, which is built around the notion of democracy itself.

    In this context, the US Secretary of State told the Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing that he would rely on shedding light on those countries that did not conform to the American values as one of the tools of the US foreign policy of Joe Biden’s administration. The Democratic Party calls for restructuring the alliances and partnerships to meet potential challenges through the American values and adopting them as a means to “strengthening America’s security and prosperity”. The Democratic Party realises that the war of “models” America has adopted as the criterion for the Western relationship with China and Russia, and the pretext to intervene in the Muslims’ lands, is the plane of a war of values and concepts with the civilisational alternative to the comprehensive Western community instituted by America. An example of such an approach is reflected in exhorting the masses of the Middle East to call for freedom and democracy in the “Arab Spring”, unleashing the oppressive rulers on them, and making them pay a heavy price for choosing the “Islamists” and rallying around the slogans of the “Islamic State and Jihad”, with the aim of deepening their need for freedom and democracy, and compelling them to reconcile with secularism and Western values.

    Owing to the indicators of the Summit and what preceded them in terms of changes inside America, its aims become very clear since Biden’s electoral pledge to gather the leaders of the world to a summit to confront dictatorship across the world corroborates the purpose of this Summit, namely to mobilise US public opinion around him and around the Democratic Party, amass support for his policies, and boost the chances of the Democratic Party in the next elections, now that President Biden and his administration have become the choice of the deep state to execute its domestic and foreign policies at this stage. This is especially after Trump and the Republican Party had been demonised in the Capitol events, in addition to corroborating the leadership of the US over the “free” capitalist world by leaning on the scarecrow of “Islamic terrorism” and the Chinese and Russian models of governance and welfare.

    It is in this context that reproducing democracy, in its quality as an ideological receptacle to conduct international relations in a selective manner, falls, as well as within the framework of the war of models, the geostrategic jostling with Russia, and the geoeconomic tussle with China, both of which, along with “Islamophobia”, provide a host of tributaries which alienate people from the ruling models and lifestyles. This would culminate in making those alienating models share with the ghoulish capitalist liberal model its corruption, provide it with a fig leaf, keep it company in its loneliness, oppression, and gloominess, renew the pledge of allegiance of those resentful of its ghoulish behaviour and mute their moans and groans. This is corroborated by the conviction of President Biden stipulating that the optimum method to market democracy and rally the world behind the US is by demonstrating that democratic societies could eclipse the dictatorial alternative, and ultimately, arrive at leading the European states which he has invited to unite and work with him to confront the international challenges and what the US describes as the forces of the dictatorial camp led by Russia and China, in addition to confronting what they call “Islamic terrorism.”

    One of the other aims of the Summit, which was manifested in the participation of “human rights lobbies” and the organisations seeking to exploit the Summit as a means for fundraising to spend on their dubious projects, is to bolster the role of civil society institutions in executing the agendas of the US, exactly as they did in the colour revolutions of east Europe and in the “Arab Spring”.

    Hence, the Summit will provide international cover for the activities of “transnational democracy” and human rights organisations, and US-sponsored civil society institutions involved in espionage and active in most of the countries of the world, and will enable them to execute the agendas of US intelligence, exactly as they did with 6 April Movement in Egypt during the “Arab Spring”.

    Therefore, this Summit, which the Biden administration has pledged to organise each year, falls within the context of preserving American hegemony, and within the framework of diplomatic ammunition, political instrumentalism, and value-based camouflage; but at the same time it expresses a civilisational drought. This is because liberal democracy has been damaged in its Western urban areas in which populist and racist inclinations have ballooned and brought rightwing parties to power in recent years. This was vividly reflected on 6 January when thousands of rightwing populists from among the supporters of former President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol building to disrupt the ratification of the US elections results, the killing of George Floyd as well as the campaigns of rightwing leaders in Austria, Czechia, Poland, and Hungary, together with French President Macron, against immigrants, Islam, and the Muslims in their countries. It was also illustrated by the support given by those democratic countries, headed by the US, to the most vicious oppressive pharaohs in the world, such as Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, Mohammed bin Salman, and the rest of the oppressors, who would not have dared to oppress and stand up to their masses, and yet remain in power, had it not been for the American protection and European support.

    Perhaps what places this Summit in the category of political instrumentalism is the US decision to integrate it within the context of economic duelling and geostrategic tussle with China and Russia over the international arena, which makes the value-based character of the Summit marginal in comparison with its returns on the plane of the war on the Chinese firm Huawei and the Euro-Russian Nord Stream2, and the circumventing of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with the aim of suffocating China within the alleyways of her initiative if it were not expedient to US companies. Moreover, the Summit has been harnessed as a leveraging tool by using political isolation against some regimes through the selective choosing of the invited countries; the US invited Pakistan, the Philippines, and Brazil, whose President is the far-right extremist Jair Bolsonaro, whereas she snubbed Turkey, who is more democratic than those invited countries.

    Nevertheless, the West’s endeavour to recycle democracy and harness it for expedient aims in international relations reflects the bankruptcy of the Western civilisation, its values, and the frailty and instability of the world order. This should pave the way for nations and peoples to acknowledge the system of Islam and deepen the need for it and the adherence to it. It is the same situation that peoples experienced before the Islamic conquests and allowed the Muslims to carry out their conquests to salvage people from worshipping servants to worshipping the Lord of all servants and enabled them to lead the world singlehandedly for over 13 centuries.

    8 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
    12 December 2021

  • Russo-Ukrainian Crisis 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Russo-Ukrainian Crisis

    The US plan for Ukraine is summed up in pulling the latter out of the Russian sphere of influence and generating a hotbed of security tension to worry Russia and send shivers down Europe’s spine simultaneously. America succeeded through the “colour revolutions” to snatch Ukraine from the hands of the Russians and lure Russia into annexing Crimea and backing the eastern Ukraine separatists. This generated a state of uncertainty in eastern Europe and terrified the Baltic States. It also achieved progress in the policy of expanding eastwards, penetrating the areas of Russian influence, besieging Russia with a ring of democracies affiliated to the West, and goading Russia into taking military steps which nurtured the state of uncertainty between her and Europe while maintaining her as a scarecrow of European security and a national nightmare compelling the European states to throw themselves into America’s embrace and bulwark themselves with her security system, namely NATO.

    By reading the previous military escalation in the spring of 2021 with the mobilisation of 130,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border, then their withdrawal only to be remobilised again, in addition to Russian fortifications in Crimea and naval drills, we construe these as a Russian message to America, NATO and the EU that Ukraine’s NATO membership entails a hefty price. Hence, Putin was adamant in seeking legal and written guarantees that NATO would not deploy offensive systems in the countries neighbouring Russia and would not expand eastwards. Meanwhile, NATO continues to press ahead for a foothold in Ukraine with the alliance Secretary General stating that “Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence, trying to control their neighbours.”

    Although the event revolves around Ukraine, it however involves a catalogue of imperative political issues for Russian national security, European security and energy independence, France’s attempt to make Europe’s security independent and her manoeuvring to hold a Russo-European summit and establish a more neutral axis on Euro-Russo-Chinese relations, in addition to Turkey’s role, military relationship and her NATO membership and its impact on relations with Russia.

    In fact, Russia’s source of concern lies in Ukraine and Belarus, the only two countries outside the Western political and security system and directly bordering Russia, because they would constitute a major and direct threat to Russia’s national security should they join the Western camp. According to Putin, Ukraine is a “red line” as far as Russia is concerned. He elaborated that “if some sophisticated military structures were to crop up in Ukrainian lands, this would mean that their offloads could reach Moscow between 7 to 10 minutes.”

    This Russian escalation is tantamount to a direct message to the Europeans warning them against being exploited and lured into a dispute and an arms race which would benefit America and her partners. Russia realises that the US, who compelled her to annex Crimea in order to preserve her presence in the Black Sea after losing her influence in Ukraine in 2014, could induce her anew to annex east Ukraine for security, economic and demographic reasons. This would deepen the state of uncertainty between Russia and the Europeans, highlight the importance of NATO to Europe and heighten her dependence on America. Therefore, Ukraine has restored the European nightmare, fear and wariness of Russia and Putin in person, whom she turned into an enemy threatening Europe’s security and economic interests and who cannot be trusted. In this context, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said during a visit to Rome that he would “call on Chancellor Scholz not to give in to pressure from Russia and not to allow Nord Stream 2 to be used as an instrument for blackmail against Ukraine.” Several statements were also made by Baltic States’ foreign ministers spokespersons expressing Europe’s “need to exhibit a clear policy line on energy.”

    It is worth mentioning in this context that Russia and China do not dispute America’s supremacy over the world, but they jostle with her over her supremacy over them. The American aim behind these disputes and the campaigns of inciting NATO member states and the EU against China and Russia is to lure them into rallying behind her and adopting her international agenda. Britain, Germany, and the Baltic States responded, proceeded behind America, and called for expelling Russia from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), arming Ukraine, shutting down Nord Stream 2 and doubling the financial sanctions on Russia.

    Following the meeting between Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in September 2021, the US and Ukraine signed the “U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership” which paves the way for Ukraine to join the European political and security community by confirming that “the strategic partnership existing between our two nations is critical for the security of Ukraine and Europe as a whole.” That partnership also corroborated the perpetuation of the state of uncertainty through America’s emphasis on her “unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and extending to its territorial waters in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, which threatens regional peace and stability and undermines the global rules-based order,” and through the 12 clauses of Section II of the Charter titled “Security and Countering Russian Aggression.”

    Hence, the denotations and signs of the escalation do not indicate that Russia is about to start a war. It is rather a provocation which, should Ukraine join NATO, will lead to a host of limited Russian military steps in east Ukraine which could cost Putin a hefty financial and psychological price and damage his domestic and regional agenda. Whether the escalation is eased or progressed into a limited military action, it would in both cases achieve America’s aims to perpetuate the Russo-Ukrainian struggle and use it as a pretext to blackmail Russia and Europe and dominate Europe’s political, security, and economic agenda and steer it to serve her interests. Hence, a Russo-American summit was held on Tuesday 7 December 2021 to debate and relaunch the “Strategic Stability Dialogue”, which was one of the most important outcomes of the Russo-American 2021 Geneva summit that gave America more time to redirect the standpoints of the European states, especially Germany after the US-Russian understandings allowed her to complete the Nord Stream2 project within certain conditions; however, the project is currently suspended due to the current Ukrainian crisis.

    The Ukrainian crisis, as things stand, is considered a continuation of the policy of isolating and subjugating Russia. It could also be harnessed by America to depict a gloomy picture of Russia and to claim that the Russian onslaught cannot be halted and necessitates arming and supporting Ukraine while imposing maximum sanctions on Russia. However, leaks from the White House indicate that the political outcome will be to return to and launch the Minsk Protocol which is rigged by America and Russia. In other words, returning with the rifts back to square one, which perpetuates the state of instability and uncertainty while Putin attempts to polarise Germany and France through the statement of the Kremlin following the Summit between Putin and Biden, during which Putin told his US counterpart that “Ukraine was behaving provocatively and taking a ‘destructive line’ aimed at dismantling agreements.” This requires an effective role by the members of the Quartet, i.e., the intervention of France and Germany to fulfil their role, accept the federalisation of Ukraine or grant the provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk legal rights to protect themselves. Ukraine and Belarus represent a security nightmare to Russia just like Taiwan represents a nightmare to China. As for America, it seems she will not fully accept the calls for preventing Ukraine’s membership to NATO because her NATO membership is the hotbed of tension through which America nurtures and conducts relations between Russia and Europe, and it is part of the Charter concluded between Ukraine and America. The tension may be eased by agreeing on “not deploying offensive weapons and offensive missiles systems” on Ukrainian lands.

    7 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
    11 December 2021


  • Turkish Openness to Gulf States 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
    Political Observation - Turkish Openness to Gulf States

    The Turkish regime’s openness towards the Gulf States following the steps of rapprochement with Egypt and the rapprochement with the Emirates, the formidable adversary of Erdogan’s “Islamist” regime, warrants a review of the aims behind this rapprochement for Turkey who has gone to extremes in distancing her foreign policies from the international willpower, except in coercive or expedient situations, whereby she has opted to condition the policies of this rapprochement in line with her national interests that provide the jostling Turkish political forces with electoral resources that nurture their popularity credentials.

    As for the Emirati-Turkish rapprochement, it falls within reviewing the Emirati aims in light of the US policy towards Turkey at this stage which necessitates containing her, besieging Russia within her lebensraum and isolating China, subjecting her to the American willpower and regulating her according to the world order. The Emirates acts as America’s tool in polarising the countries of the world and influencing their domestic and foreign policies through the power of money to serve the American projects such as bankrolling Khalifah Haftar and supporting the energy and water projects expected to be built for the Zionist entity in Jordan. Similar to this trend is what Emirati investment in Turkish defence industries means in preventing their independence and keeping foreign loans and investments as the source for their infrastructures. Such loans need to be repaid in foreign currency, thus keeping Turkey caged within the global financial system that controls her economy. The UAE’s functional role that penetrates countries and impacts them with cash and through the state-owned firms could be read through the comment of Emirati minister Sultan al-Jabir on the Emirati-Turkish rapprochement; he said “you ought to know that the art of partnership is part and parcel of the UAE’s approach. This partnership was the key factor behind the numerous successes we have achieved over the past years.” It is well known that the Turkish economy has not been targeted as fiercely as this since the years that followed America’s decision to abandon the “Islamic model” option in the region, target Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and since Erdoğan decided to impede some of the American agendas in Syria and Iraq.

    This Emirati-Turkish rapprochement and the visit of Mohammed bin Zayed, as well as the establishing of a ten-billion dollar fund to support investment in Turkey, have come amidst Erdoğan’s efforts to fend off the speculation attacks on the Turkish lira and the impact of its depreciation on Turkey’s energy imports as well as its impact on the masses’ purchasing power, notwithstanding its positive impact on export competitiveness. Moreover, the Turkish-Emirati rapprochement, in light of Erdoğan’s endeavour to open up to Saudi, Bahrain and Egypt, and his readiness to remedy the relationship with "Israel", has come to nullify the pretences of the opposition who have been calling for addressing the issues of foreign relations, and to ease the intensity of the confrontation with the states backing his opponents in the elections, especially the UAE. It has also come in light of Erdoğan’s need to ease the pressure on the Turkish economy and its fallouts on the political future of the AKP, especially as his foreign policy is mainly built on achieving interests, boosting the Turkish economy and filling the gaps in the issues undermining Turkish national security such as the issue of the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq which is viewed as a trump card in the bid to win the elections.

    Although this rapprochement has been blessed by America despite Erdoğan’s persistence in acting independently in his foreign policy, it is however viewed as an attempt to attract and contain Erdoğan through the gates of economic benefits. The visit of Bahraini foreign minister and Saudi trade minister coincided with the visit of Mohammed bin Zayed and was seconded by the steps Erdoğan took to seek a rapprochement with Egypt, while stressing during his visit to Qatar that the “significant steps” his country took towards Abu Dhabi “would soon be matched with steps towards Cairo and Tel Aviv.”

    This rapprochement between Turkey and the UAE has also come amidst the campaigns of the Turkish opposition who are seeking to topple the AKP and bring Turkey back to her functional role as NATO’s bridgehead to the Middle East and Central Asia in line with US strategy. In an attempt to weaken Erdoğan’s relationship with Russia and warn her against banking on him, and exhort her to snub him, Erdoğan’s arch rival, Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, told Russian magazine Kommersant “I want to recall the words of the current Turkish president who once said that losing power in Istanbul meant losing power in the whole country. They have realised they are losing their authority and they have little time left; and we have enough patience to wait for the departure of this government.” He also accused Erdoğan’s foreign policy of “bloody adventures that have become a threat to the security and stability of Turkey, and to her entire future.” Erdoğan was also slammed by the secularist opposition, former Turkish president Abdullah Gul and former prime minister Ahmed Davutoglu concerning the expulsion of the Canadian, French, Finnish, Danish, German, Dutch, New Zealand, Norwegian, Swedish and US ambassadors. They accused him of reckless behaviour and of causing Turkey “several problems in her international relations” and linked the deteriorating domestic conditions in Turkey to Erdoğan’s standpoints in foreign policy. This was a clear indication of the context and the aims behind the domestic and foreign problems Erdoğan has been facing.

    Hence, the US has been pursuing the carrot and stick policy in dealing with Erdoğan through political and economic tools. She has been behind the Turkish opposition’s campaigns, the dismantling of the AKP and the speculation weakening the Turkish lira, and terrifying Erdoğan and impacting on his popularity while offering him the carrot of economic benefits with the Gulf States in order to contain him. At the same time, America has been attempting to drive a wedge between Russo-Turkish relations and Turkey’s relations with France and Europe through the files of the Middle East, Syria, Libya, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Despite the mutual positive steps between America and Turkey via the facilities that the Gulf States have offered Erdoğan, the relationship between Erdoğan and America will remain tinged with extreme caution as the former has been distrustful of the latter since the failed coup attempt, and because of America’s blatant support of his opponents in the Turkish opposition.US-Turkish relations will remain lukewarm and controlled by intersected interests as America continues to strongly back the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Kurds, and due to the relationship of President Putin with Erdoğan who is harnessing this situation to balance his relationships with Russia and America.

    While Russia is benefitting from the relationship with Erdoğan in widening the wedge between NATO member states and undermining the alliance’s geopolitical platforms in Central Asia and southeast Russia, the US continues to deal with Turkey as a strategic asset in the American areas of influence in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Russian lebensraum, as long as Turkey continues to be a focal player according to the rules of the American political game and within its common limits between America and Turkey without necessarily affecting her wariness of Turkey’s growing power and regional role which she has been working to curtail in all directions by aggravating the situation in the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, to corroborate her military presence and deterrent force such as her recent decision to bolster her military troops in Greece. Meanwhile, Europe, particularly France, is dealing with Turkey as a political challenge and a security and demographic threat on the one hand, and as a vital and significant economic space for European states on the other hand. Hence, America will continue to attend to containing Erdoğan’s behaviour through the carrot and stick, and to work towards recapturing Turkey from the AKP via the Turkish opposition, considering that Turkey’s geostrategic position remains important to Western projects.

    4 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
    9 December 2021

  • Military Escalation in Yemen 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Military Escalation in Yemen

    The month of November witnessed an increase in the intensity of military operations in several strategic positions in Yemen, especially in the strategic oil-rich governorate on Marib, where the most important refineries and power plants are located. It also witnessed intensive attacks in the governorate of Taiz, and the withdrawal of UAE-backed allied forces from their defensive positions around the seaport of al-Hudaydah, which was subsequently seized by the Houthis. Moreover, Saudi forces withdrew from their position in the military base of al-Burayqah in Aden, the Houthis occupied the US embassy in Sanaa, which had been shut since 2015, and missile and drone attacks on Saudi intensified. The military escalation and intensive missile attacks did not spare the Yemeni capital Sanaa, which has been subjected to a barrage of intensive missile attacks since 26 November, with the special operations unit carrying out a series of assassinations against al-Houthi leaders, to the point where the situation in Yemen has come close to total collapse in the political, economic, and financial spheres. The exchange rate of the Yemeni rial collapsed as it lost two thirds of its value and reached 1600 rials to the dollar. This heralds a catalogue of dire and devastating consequences that may lead to plunging the country into famine now that food prices have recently risen sharply.

    This escalation has coincided with the UN report on the real famine from which 8 million Yemenis are suffering, and with another report by the UN Development Programme, which warned that by the end of 2021 the death toll of the war, which by next Ramadhan will have entered its eighth year, will have exceeded 377, 000.

    This reality explains the statement of the Yemeni Shurah Council’s Chairman Ahmed Obaid Bin Dagher who accused the alliance of changing their objectives, the “Legitimacy” of having lost its leadership role, and the army of fighting with its minimum capabilities. Bin Dagher summed up the situation Yemen has come to by saying that, “the republic and the unity are being subjected to a deliberate and financed systematic destruction, and dismantling policies aimed at dividing and tearing the homeland and society apart.” He concluded “the military option ended in a stalemate and the humanitarian and living conditions have become catastrophic.” This implies the presence of clear indications suggesting an intention to turn the page of armed struggle and accept the reality and the borders drawn up by the military battles on the ground.

    All this has come in the context of kick-starting the Iranian nuclear file, bringing Iran back to her initial functional role before the “Arab Spring”, and downsizing the activity of her surrogates in the region. It has also come against the backdrop of bin Salman’s pledge to change the face of Saudi in the next five years; in other words, the objectives of the Yemeni war are close to serving their purpose, which are reflected in federalising Yemen, terrifying and restructuring Saudi, and restoring Iran to her former function.

    This is why on Thursday 30 November, and during an interview with the London-based Elaph newspaper, Yemeni Foreign Minister Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak linked the failure of UN envoys to Yemen to the “Iranian role”, which harnesses Yemen as part of its project in the region and to enhance its negotiating position. He also linked it to the lack of effective international pressure on the Houthis to compel them into opting for peace, and slammed the role of UN envoys to Yemen, which in his opinion is futile in the absence of an international will to generate a solution. He said, “none of the international envoys represent their personal willpower but rather the international willpower; hence, a significant part of any failure an international envoy faces will be down to the extent of support he receives, and the extent of influence wielded by the international powerbrokers to tackle the factors impeding peace.” This accentuates indirectly foreign intervention and imposes the dictates of the influential and relevant power, namely the US. Yemen has had four UN envoy since 2011, the last of whom was Hans Grundberg, who assumed his mission few months ago following the failure of his predecessors, Griffiths, Ould Cheikh, and Benomar, in achieving lasting peace. This is corroborated by what Saudi Foreign Minister Faysal bin Farhan told France24 channel on 14 November 2012, namely that his country, “is committed to ending the struggle in Yemen”. He reiterated the Saudi project calling for a ceasefire and blamed the surrogates of Iran, i.e., al-Houthi and Hezbollah, for the continuance of the struggle by saying, “but the Hezbollah-backed Houthis refuse to respond to these calls, despite the fact that they still stand. On the other hand, the Houthis continue to attack the city of Marib and to fire ballistic missiles on the kingdom.” The Saudi minister hinted at the desire of his country to move through the Saudi-Iranian talks towards “tackling vital issues preoccupying Saudi”, and indicated that ironing out the issues troubling the countries of the region was linked to “reaching a final agreement on the nuclear file.”

    By reading the statements of Saudi and the Yemeni “Legitimacy”, we deduce a tendency to exert pressure on the Houthis, portray them as the extremist party threatening peace, link them to Hezbollah, denounce their political vision which is built on “clinging to the divine right to rule”, absolve the “Legitimacy” of responsibility to divide Yemen, and point the finger at the Houthis. Such calls cropped up during the speech of President Hadi on 30 November marking the 53rd anniversary of independence, in which he said, “this militia should be compelled to peace and national consensus…. And it should awake from the delusions of political hegemony and ethnic and lineal superiority.” For his part, Yemeni Foreign Minister was quoted as saying during the Rome Med - Mediterranean Dialogue currently held in the Italian capital that peace in Yemen necessitated from “the Houthi militia to forsake the divine right to rule and adhere to equal citizenship as a constitutional clause and an essential condition for permanent peace in Yemen.”

    The omens of this approach emerged in the US in the shape of a report compiled by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and published by Marib Press website; it stated that the Houthis constituted the obstacle impeding the efforts aimed at settling the Yemeni crisis, that the militias confirmed their consistent intransigence, and they are nowadays toying with the slogan of Peace to bide time and stage further terrorist operations.

    The report also stated that putting the Houthis back on the terrorist list “met the criteria” and that the Houthis’ status was a topic of debate by the US administration, adding that the Houthis’ dominion over the Yemeni western coastline could threaten the shipping of 6 million oil barrels a day via the Red Sea. This alluded to a warning to Europe and her interests in Bab al-Mandab designed to lure her into supporting the American solutions, especially now that the Ethiopian struggle has erupted.

    As for the military withdrawals from the battlefield, they were interpreted by the spokesperson of the Arab Coalition Forces, Colonel Turki al-Maliki, as being “a redeployment process concordant with the strategic plan of the coalition”, without giving any elaboration on the strategic plan, which could be deduced from the American political demands from the coalition to undertake confidence-building measures to execute the final agreement on Yemen. This is expected to end the struggle by granting the Houthis some of their demands, namely lifting the air and naval siege imposed on Sanaa’s airport and the seaport of al-Hudaydah, securing their financial status and the energy security in Marib by sharing the oil revenues and taxes, and by pledging to secure the demands of bin Salman, namely providing Saudi with American protection, dissipating Saudi’s security fears, ending the threats of the Houthis, and supplying Saudi with sophisticated weapons against ballistic missiles and drones, as well as securing the status of the strategic Taiz governorate, which is deemed the southwestern access to Sanaa, where the “Giants Brigades” have been redeployed.

    Moreover, the sweeping attack launched by the Houthi forces on Marib, which according to a statement by the Houthi Movement led to the death of 15,000 Houthi militiamen in the past six months, has brought the Houthis out of their mountainous strongholds to the open and flat spaces in Marib and Bijan and Shabwa, facilitated the task of the coalition forces, weakened the Houthis, and encouraged some tribes and parties, and southern Yemeni movements to rally around the coalition forces to fend off the Houthi attacks. This sent a message to the Houthis stipulating that the cycle of violence would only end if political concessions were made and foreign dictates were observed through the Saudi-Iranian understandings concluded at the Baghdad meetings. This approach is perfectly compatible with the context sought by America and her policies calling for accepting the influence of the fait accompli and the division on its basis.

    The region will undoubtedly enter a dark tunnel with no light at the end of it, as long as those in charge of its affairs are but pawns amidst the powers with covetous designs in our lands. Those powers are reorganising the region in order to preserve their interests, irrespective of the interests of the Muslims, the owners of these lands. The status quo of these lands will remain the same unless the Ummah moves to seize control of her forces to remedy the situation, removes these meagre entities, which derive the means of their existence from complying with the demands of the covetous powers, and establish the Khilafah State, which will restore of the Muslims and the rule of Allah the Almighty on earth, and endeavour to remove the injustice afflicting not just the Muslims, but the nations and peoples of the entire world.

    “For, Allah always prevails in whatever be His purpose.” [Yusuf-21]

    2 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
    6 December 2021


  • Kick-Starting the Iranian Nuclear File 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Kick-Starting the Iranian Nuclear File

    A fresh round of talks on the Iranian nuclear deal were initiated in Vienna on Monday 29 November 2021 against a backdrop of US and European pledges to the usurping entity to cast off the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, "Israeli" defence minister Naftali Bennett announced during a security conference that his country was not party to the negotiations and thus was not bound by it. Iran for her part has deliberately let it slip that she had increased the level of enrichment in her stockpile and acquired 30 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, which was interpreted as a reduction of the break-out time, i.e., the period Iran needs to produce weapons grade enriched uranium to develop a nuclear weapon, from 12 months, as was the case under the nuclear deal, to 11 months currently as per the statement of the Arms Control Association.

    According to what has been declared, the diplomatic stimulation of these talks, which had been suspended for six months, aims to gauge Iran’s readiness to “negotiate in good faith”, as a host of intransigent statements had been issued by her new leadership on the need to lift the sanctions imposed by the former US administration that have paralysed the Iranian economy and prohibited any commercial and financial dealings with Iran. However, although Joe Biden’s administration has been gearing towards concluding a deal with Iran to induce her into fulfilling the "Israeli" and the rightwing evangelical Christians’ demands in the US, and gifting the Democrats an achievement they could invest in the November midterm elections, it nevertheless refuses to grant Iran any incentives in exchange for attending the talks, and intends to only lift few sanctions. This was deduced from the purport of the messages of reassurance America sent to her five partners in the talks and from the statements of her slaves in the Gulf who called for the need to restore the nuclear deal, by holding several meetings as part of an intensive diplomatic campaign. Special Envoy for Iran Rob Malley tweeted on 18 November 2021 that he had “met with the E3 political directors and senior officials from Egypt, Jordan, and the GCC to discuss 2 paths open to Iran: continued nuclear escalation & crisis, or mutual return to the JCPOA, creating opportunities for regional economic & diplomatic ties.” He also exhorted the Iranian leadership to fulfil the requirements of the deal by saying “time to choose is short.”

    This is reflected in the statements of US National Security Council Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, Brett McGurk, who attended the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Manama Dialogue and confirmed “if advances in Iran's nuclear program and enrichment capability continue unabated, they could render the benefits of the JCPOA moot - a development that would force the U.S. to pursue other options.” And in a message designed to reassure the usurping entity and its supporters in America, Brett McGurk added that “when it comes to military force to prevent a country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that is a very achievable objective."

    By observing the developments of the Iranian nuclear file, we deduce that the US concluded it during the “Arab Spring” and within the context of exerting pressure on bin Salman to speed up the process of liberal openness, pressurising the Arab regimes and preparing them to integrate into the regional solution, which necessitated shifting the compass of belligerence away from the usurping entity and towards the Iranian threat to the region, and containing Netanyahu, who was at the time eager to attack Iran for personal and partisan motives. This prompted former US President Barack Obama to pledge to "Israel" that if all the options were exhausted, the US Central Command would attack Iran; and back then, the US defence secretary showed "Israeli" defence minister Ehud Barak a video of “anti-fortification” bombs especially designed against Iran.

    As the Trump administration initiated the “Deal of the Century” and set about smashing the obstacle impeding the process of alliance and normalisation with "Israel", Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal, induced Iran’s threat to the Arab countries through her surrogates in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria, and instructed the UAE, Morocco, Sudan, and Bahrain to conclude direct agreements with the "Israeli" entity. It also escalated tensions with Iran by launching a flurry of fiery statements, assassinating Qassim Suleimani and inviting "Israel" to join the US Central Command, in order to contain the "Israeli" rightwing and Netanyahu who was obsessed with his electoral premonitions, and terrify Saudi which was subjected to intensive attacks by the Houthis.

    When Biden and his political team, who had initially concluded the nuclear deal with Iran, acceded to power, America conspired to let the Iranian conservative wing win the elections in order to tame its partisan and popular bases with sanctions and compel it into acquiescing to the entire American project for the Middle East, and then move towards concluding a deal that would help Iran end her isolation and tackle her deteriorating economy, while fulfilling the volition of Western powers and the need of Biden and the Democrats for a political achievement that would boost their electoral credentials. This would also dampen the aspirations of the Iranian conservatives and weaken their popular bases and surrogates in the region, especially as the former deal froze the Iranian nuclear project without dismantling it altogether, and left a vacuum that needs to be filled in the future on the monitoring mechanism and the dismantling of equipment.

    Hence, the point at issue is not the Iranian project as such, but rather the Iranian role in the Greater Middle East Initiative and its repositioning to the rhythm of US policy towards the region, once it has been dismantled and restructured to preserve US national security that is epitomised in controlling the oil resources and in the military base within the heart of the Islamic world, namely the usurping entity.

    As for the details, tactics, and timing, these are dictated by the realities on the ground and by the tackling of the fallouts of the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) such as America’s U-turn on destroying the ruling regimes after they had broken the taboos and expressed their willingness to impose the integration of the "Israeli" entity on the masses of the region. This was revealed by Brett McGurk in Manama who said that America had ditched the policy of “nation building” and changing the regimes that appeared in the Middle East after 9/11.

    Therefore, the current round of talks will either lead to a resolution requiring an Iranian compliance with the demands of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), which includes allowing inspectors to return and service the surveillance cameras at the Iranian nuclear sites and granting the NEA the right to visit those sites, or to the agency issuing a report admonishing Iran’s behaviour, thus giving the Biden administration ample time to finalise the structuring of the regimes in Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, speed up the process of political transformation in Saudi, and acclimatise "Israeli" public opinion and the government of Bennett according to the requirements of the regional settlement. The latest political stimulation could pave the way for a solution which will set the conservative Iranian leadership back to square one, and for embarking on settling the crisis in parallel with the progress in solving the regional files as was the case in Iraq where Prime Minister al-Kadhimi has made great strides in retuning the political balance and downsizing Iranian influence, in addition to Syria where the rehabilitation of the regime is underway. This explains the statement of the US negotiating team in which it said that the Council would have no choice but to reconvene in an extraordinary session before the end of the year to tackle the crisis.

    The omens of Iran’s response were reflected in the statement of Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri, who told Iranian television that Iran “calls for guarantees from America that she would neither impose fresh sanctions nor reimpose the previous sanctions.” In fact, successive US administrations have maintained the general strategy in dealing with the Iranian file despite the change of tactics, such as pulling out of the deal during the tenure of President Donald Trump, with the aim of achieving a wider restructuring of the regimes of the region through the presence of an enemy called Iran. The US administration has harnessed sanctions against Iran to tackle the Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, and Yemeni file; the Iranian nuclear project has also been harnessed by Washington to speed up the process of military, diplomatic and economic integration. Hence, America would not find it hard to conjure up a solution which would bring the Iranian military nuclear programme to a grinding halt, replace it with a civil and peaceful nuclear energy programme and link it to the requirements of environmental policy. This would probably take place sooner rather than later as the US administration is engrossed in midterm elections, and especially as the Biden administration is facing severe criticism from the Republicans due to its slackness in keeping the tempo of pressure on Iran such as the military, security, and intelligence campaigns, and tightening financial and commercial sanctions to deal the interests of the Iranian regime a heavy blow.

    26 Rabi’ al Thani 1443h
    1 December 2021


  • Political Observation - The Unfolding Events in Ethiopia 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Unfolding Events in Ethiopia

    The fallouts of the struggle that erupted on 5 November following a clash between the Prime Minister and Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) continue to cast their shadow on the political scene in Ethiopia, aggravating in the process its convolution and ambiguity. At the beginning of the month TPLF announced that its operatives had reached the region of Kemise, which is 325 kilometres north of the capital Addis Ababa, where they joined the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and posed a threat to the capital Addis Ababa and terrified Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed who declared a state of emergency and called on the veterans to rejoin the army to defend his regime.

  • Tunisia’s Crisis: Between Affiliation to France & Pleasing America 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Tunisia’s Crisis:
    Squandering the Country between Affiliation to France & Pleasing America
    Islam’s Standpoint

    The exceptional decisions in Tunisia backed by presidential commands have been in force since 25 July and the President of the Republic, Kais Saied, continues to temporise and dodge the international forces’ demands to restore the state’s institutions, act according to the 2014 constitution and implement the demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which has stipulated the restoring of the institutions before resuming payments of the aid instalments so that the country may surpass its economic crisis. This indicates the international forces’ insistence on the return of parliament, which lends legitimacy to the laws and secures the concluded agreements. The measures of President Kais Saied have led to paralysing parliament, suspending the constitution, and extending the exceptional measures indefinitely, and assigned the overseeing of all the state’s executive, legislative and judiciary institutions to the cabinet, which is answerable to the President of the Republic.

    Despite the flocking of international delegations to Tunisia and the various domestic statements by the parties, political figures and the Tunisian General Labour Union, and the foreign statements by the European Parliament, US Congress and a host of countries, with the aim of steering the confused Tunisian President towards executing the foreign dictates and the domestic requirements, he however opted for buying time to achieve several aims according to the vision that is more conformant to French interests in order to secure his continuance in power and work towards purging the security and judicial circles, in addition to other leaderships, and replace them with leaderships and executives loyal to him and with Francophone tendencies.

    By monitoring the international interaction with the Tunisian political scene following presidential decree 177 issued on 22 September, which significantly corroborated the competencies of the President, it transpires that America has been exerting pressure on President Kais Saied in order to rectify his behaviour which has deviated due to his dependence on France and the Francophone forces in Tunisia, his narcissism and hunger for absolute power, and his lack of political experience, in addition to his attempt to sit on two chairs, namely the French and the American. This approach has angered America and evoked the apprehensions of her agents within the Free Constitutional Party (PDL), which turned on the measures undertaken by the President after it had been supportive of them. The PDL’s president, Abeer Moussa, announced that she had paved the way for the measures undertaken by the President of the Republic, which was viewed as a message from her and America, designed to remind the President of his political affiliation.

    The omens of the American anger towards President Kais Saied emerged during the visit to the region by the Commander of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), Stephen Townsend, where he met Algerian President Abdul Majid Taboun and Libyan interim Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, while his visit to Tunisia was confined to a meeting with the chief of staff at the airport in the presence of US Ambassador Donald Bloom whom President Joe Biden decided to appoint as Ambassador to Pakistan without appointing his successor. The tension between Kais Saied and America was also evident through the complaint he submitted to Donald Bloom regarding US meddling in Tunisian domestic affairs.

    Due to the pressures being exerted on him, Kais Saied announced on Thursday 4 November that he had instructed the minister of communications to devise an electronic survey on the amendments he intended to introduce to the constitution which he has been constantly reiterating his commitment to, despite having issued several decisions that curbed it and maintained all competencies in his hand. This was France’s gamble to preserve her economic and Francophone interests in Tunisia; and this explains why Kais Saied has appointed several Francophone officials, headed by Prime Minister Najla Boden, who is notorious for her Francophone tendencies that are vehemently hostile towards Islam, and why he has been hunting down the deputies of the Dignity Coalition, who built their 2019 electoral campaign on curtailing French interests.
    It is well known that the reluctance of America’s agents in the Tunisian army to object to the decisions of Kais Saied, and the regional cover he has received from America’s agents in Egypt and the UAE, were designed to contain him, curb his Francophone tendencies, and give him a free rein to liquidate the Islamists and downsize their role, and retune the political forces that had caused a widespread resentment due to the practices of parliament before its dissolution.

    According to this mechanism, the US would benefit from venting the anger of the masses and compelling the President to sever his dubious contacts with France. It would also coerce the parties to adapt to their functional role, namely entrenching the secularist liberal approach, and inducing the masses into accepting the reversal in the balance of power, the restructure, and the progress according to its basis.

    These measures, which have been undertaken through the French devilish insinuations and an American green light, have led to fragmenting the largest party attributed to “political Islam”, namely al-Nahda Movement; 130 senior operatives have quit the movement and this will impact negatively on the Islamic project embraced by the hearts and minds, weaken its progress on the political scene and public life, and marginalise its campaigners to the advantage of the collaborating secularist political milieu and the Western colonialist projects in the Muslims’ lands, especially as Tunisia has epitomised the approach and the example for the people of the region through the “Arab Spring”.

    Hence, our people in Tunisia and the rest of the Muslims’ lands ought to be extremely heedful of the plots being concocted against them within the Western decision-making circles, and very wary of the political milieu that has saturated the country with rottenness and treason, even if their devils were to cling to the curtains of the Kaaba.

    The Muslims in Tunisia should beware of siding with either of the parties embroiled in the domestic struggle because they are nothing but dummies controlled by the colonialist powers; they only jostle for serving the colonialists and compete for who would be a plantation slave or a domestic slave, exactly like the slaves used to compete to please the American master.

    Hence, we do not expect any good to come from them. And it is imperative to unearth everything they issue since it would be implausible to design a different cloak from the same fabric. The only salvation for our Ummah is to hold on tight to the Book of Allah the Almighty and the guidance of our Prophet ﷺ, and to work towards resuming the Islamic way of life, which would in turn purge the political milieu and annihilate those who attempt to corrupt it. The only change we ought to aspire to is the real change that leads to building an impregnable state which would represent our Aqeedah and our Shari'ah, which prohibits pledging loyalty to the Kuffar and commands holding tight to the strong rope of Allah the Almighty.

    “And incline not towards those who do wrong lest the Fire touch you” [Hud-113]

    The Committee in Charge                                                                                                                                                                            

    5 Rabi’ al-Thani 1443h / 10 November 2021  


  • Sudan Military Coup Against Hamdok & Forces of Freedom and Change 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s Coup Against Hamdok’s Government and the Forces of Freedom and Change

    As US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Jeffrey Feltman, was visiting Sudan, the Sudanese army, headed by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, staged on Monday 25 October a military coup that toppled his political partners, foremost among whom was Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan arrested several politicians, dissolved the Sovereignty Council and the cabinet, and declared a state of emergency. He also froze some articles of the Constitutional Declaration to sidestep the proviso of handing over the leadership of the Sovereignty Authority to a civilian personality selected by the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), whose mission comes into force on 17 November 2021.

    By scrutinising the measures undertaken by al-Burhan under such political tension and the articles of the Constitutional Declaration he has suspended, we conclude that their suspension leads to confining authority in the hands of the army and targets the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) who had been intransigent with regard to assuming power in less than a month, especially as the decision to dissolve the government is constitutionally impracticable since it is exclusively down to the willpower of the Freedom and Change Forces. The articles suspended by al-Burhan have affected the FFC who wish to jostle with the army and seize power rather than continuing to act as a cover for military rule. Al-Burhan held the FFC responsible for the failure of the transitional administration. He also cancelled Article 24.3 which stipulates that 67 percent of the Transitional Legislative Council is chosen by the FFC while the remaining 33 percent is chosen by the other civilian forces after consulting the military members of the sovereign council.

    As soon as he arrived in Khartoum, US Special Envoy Jeffrey Feltman met the president of the Sovereignty Council Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, his deputy Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo and Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok. He also held a series of meetings with leaders of the Freedom and Change alliance whose divisions threaten the authority of the army. Jeffrey Feltman also met the leaders of the Justice and Equality Movement, Jibril Ibrahim, and Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), Mini Arko Minawi, who split from the FFC. The US embassy in Khartoum stated that Feltman had “confirmed to the Sudanese officials that US support depended on their adherence to the transitional system agreed upon through the Constitutional Declaration and Juba Peace Agreement. The embassy also mentioned that Feltman had urged the Sudanese government to execute the main transitional criteria according to a set of timetables to include establishing the Transitional Legislative Council, agreeing on a handover date of the Sovereignty Council to civilians, reforming the security services, laying down a framework for the elections, restructuring the Constitutional Court and setting up the mechanisms of transitional justice.

    This indicates that the problem lies in the government, the FFC and the popular protests surrounding the transition process. Feltman’s demands sidestep the timetables that had previously been agreed and reveal America’s desire to extend military rule during the transitional period; this was reflected in the demands made by US State Department spokesperson Ned Price last Friday and US Envoy Feltman to the government of Hamdok to respond to the demands of protestors such as establishing the legislative council and expanding the authority which will undermine the influence of the FFC. Feltman also called for establishing the transitional justice mechanisms, which civilian authorities have been calling for, thus giving the top brass implicated in crimes and corruption time and protection.

    It seems, up until now, that America has been compelled to tackle the delicate transitional situation and divisions in the military and its struggle with the political forces by assigning the task of completing the political process to the army since the transition is yet to mature, especially with the eruption of the political struggles and the rebellion of eastern areas; this narrative was expressed by US Envoy Feltman who said the broad alliance was facing an organisational crisis and internal rifts needed to be resolved.

    America’s timid denunciation of al-Burhan’s actions and calls for the return of the democratic process and resumption of the political transition are nothing but an attempt to conceal her backing of the necessary coup which took place in the presence of Feltman, and to exert pressure on the various sides of the political struggle to implement the US agenda. Feltman said the civilian and military components should cooperate to execute the main standards of the transitional period instead of striving to marginalise each other.

    Moreover, the US administration’s sloganising of democracy together with its liberal values is consistent with the Democratic Party’s trends and the American campaign against the Chinese and against Islam.

    Hence, the key to the enigma of this farcical saga that has been taking place in Sudan since the army toppled Omar al-Bashir and up to this scandalous American coup, lies in pursuing the visit of the US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Jeffrey Feltman, which involves reshuffling the pack for the time being in order to keep the components of the political equation in check, and corroborating the political structuring through the army due to the fragility of the political, security and economic situation, and the unripening transfer from military to civilian power amid the volition of the civilian authorities to push the process of transitional justice forward. This has unnerved the army commanders who dread losing legal immunity and their economic gains, and thus weakening the American endeavour to structure the Sudanese regime and shape its domestic and foreign political standpoint. This led al-Burhan to suspend the enquiry into the crime of quelling the protests of 3 June 2019 with the aim of entrenching the centrality of the army, unifying its ranks to undertake the traitorous role assigned to it by America to preserve her interests on the regional plane and suppressing the masses who are eager to rid themselves of colonialism, its culture, and its collaborators. This is why America did not describe the action of al-Burhan as a coup but rather as seizing the authority of the government, which will pave the way for resuming the political transition under the appropriate conditions.

    As for America’s decision to freeze the financial aid estimated at $700 million, it was concordant with her desire to postpone the political transition since the aid in the first instance was allocated to the transitional process. Meanwhile, the statements of US officials focused on what concerns America in Sudan, namely the Constitutional Charter and the Juba Agreement which leads to a federal division and political transition on secularist constitutional grounds to which al-Burhan expressed his commitment in his putschist communiqué, thus making the coup conformant to the American trend.

    Despite domestic divisions and power-hungry tendencies, and amidst popular resentment and aversion to military rule and the government of Hamdok, we fear the conspicuous aspects of a collaboration between all the political and military forces to entrench the outputs of the constitutional charter, and the aggravation of the current crisis, which is being nurtured by both the army and the political forces. We also fear that the return to the political transition and the Juba Agreement will be portrayed as a victory to the masses and their “revolution”, especially as the measures undertaken by al-Burhan have not suspended political life, which means that the coup has been designed to reregulate the components of the political equation; this in turn explains why the secularist political parties within the FFC and their activities have not been prohibited.

    The Muslims’ lands will remain a scene for the forces of Kufr and their collaborators who will continue to control the situation and preserve the conditions desired by the forces of Kufr in Muslim lands unless the sincere individuals and those capable of rectifying the situation move to generate a serious and real change that will place Islam in implementation domestically and turn it into an ideological message to be conveyed by the state to the world.

    20 Rabi’ al-Thani 1443h
    26 October 2021

  • Iranian Escalation against Azerbaijan 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Iranian Escalation against Azerbaijan

    Iran has kept her anger in check over the geopolitical changes resulting from Turkey’s intervention in the latest war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which led to Azerbaijan recovering most of her lands and threatening the route connecting Iran to Armenia and compelled the latter to move towards bettering her relations with Turkey who subsequently gained the upper hand over Iran who failed to lure Azerbaijan to her side despite the sectarian commonality between the two countries. The secularist trait dominating Azerbaijan’s masses, who share the same language with the Turks, and the nationalistic rift between Iran and Azerbaijan helped tilt the scales in favour of Turkey, especially amidst the international and regional pressure being exerted on the functional role of Iran who has been worryingly driven to adopt a host of approaches to preserve her gains, bulwark her borders and domestic frontline, and fill the gaps that may ignite nationalistic emotions threatening to fragment her societal fabric and regional influence which has started to be eroded in Iraq, especially in the aftermath of the recent parliamentary elections, in Syria following the American green light and the Russian collusion to rehabilitate the Syrian regime via its rapprochement with several Arab states, which is viewed as an alternative to Iranian support whose role has been exhausted, and in Lebanon through the constant pressures exerted on Hezbollah such as the targeting of the recent protests staged by Hezbollah which is designed to lure it into using its weapons and thus placing the file of its weapons on the table. All this flows in favour of Turkey’s regional weight and the Zionist influence through the gates of the anticipated Arab official normalisation and political and economic integration with the usurping entity within the framework of generating the regional solution and turning the people of the region’s compass of animosity towards Iran.

    In this context, Iran staged on 1 October military drills on her borders with Azerbaijan under the theme of Conquerors of Khaybar, which reflects Iranian security fears of "Israeli" presence on Iranian-Azerbaijani borders and coincided with the second anniversary of the Karabakh battle in which Azerbaijan regained most of her occupied lands. The Iranian military drills acted as a warning to Azerbaijan, who has had parts of her lands occupied by Iran since 1945, especially after the misgivings raised by Turkish President Erdoğan who on 1 December 2020, and during an Azerbaijani military parade, read a poem reminding the Azerbaijanis of their unity with their brethren in neighbouring Iran which evoked the wrath of the Iranians who deemed it a call for fragmentation and an incitement.

    In response to the timing of the Iranian military manoeuvres, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev said “every country is entitled to stage military drills on its land. It is a sovereign right, but with regard to the timing, we do not see it as ordinary. Why now, and specifically on our borders?”

    He also seized the opportunity to curb the activities of the Europeans who have been attempting to contain the American and "Israeli" escalations against Iran, by accusing Iran of sponsoring drug smuggling into Europe via Armenia. He said “Armenia colluded with Iran for about 30 years to use occupied Azerbaijani lands as a route for smuggling drugs into Europe.”

    Amid these military developments, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev announced on 2 October that he would “involve international and regional forces if Iran persisted with the military drills near Azerbaijan’s borders”. Meanwhile, the Turkish defence ministry announced on 4 October that it would hold joint military drills with Azerbaijan between 5-8 October under the theme of “The Unwavering Brotherhood 2021” in the Nakhchivan province near the borders with Iran in order to send a clear message on protecting geographic interaction between Turkey and Azerbaijan via the Zangezur corridor in southern Armenia, which would cut the route between Iran and Armenia.

    Iran for her part hastened to strengthen her relationship with Armenia by concluding several military agreements allowing Iranian drones to fly over Armenian airspace and the Iranian army to establish military bases in the province of Syunik in an attempt to influence the Armenian standpoints and impede Turkish expansion and geographic interaction between Turkey and Azerbaijan and from there, towards southern Caucasus and Central Asia.

    Based on the aforementioned, we perceive that the focal issue of the Iranian regime lies in security fears and the exchanged "Israeli" -Iranian attacks within the context of regional rivalry, and to a greater extent, it lies in the geopolitical changes that resulted from the Azerbaijan-Armenia war, as well as the caveats of Turkey’s expansion in the southern Caucasus region and her intention to revive the notion of the Turkish World, and the impact of all this on the geographic unity of Iran and her interaction with Armenia, and its fallouts on her economic resources and societal fabric of which Azeris constitute 25%, and remind Iran of “Greater Azerbaijan”, in addition to the unwarranted prospect of Azerbaijan – with Russian collusion – reseizing control of the commercial route between Iran and Armenia and imposing taxes on Iranian trucks. Meanwhile, Armenia has been endeavouring to unconditionally normalise ties with Turkey due to the significant economic interests this may yield on her masses who have been enduring a stifling economic crisis. This normalisation between Turkey and Armenia, which is currently being devised, will impact positively on Azerbaijan-Armenia relations and in favour of Turkey, a situation which Iran finds worrisome as it undermines her interests and heralds its besiegement, especially after the joint military drills carried out between Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan in Baku on 12 September under the theme of Three Brothers 2021.

    It is well known that although Russia and America have been jostling for dominating the region, Turkey’s geopolitical importance, as far as they are concerned, outweighs Iran’s in that region which means the Russo-American collusion comes in favour of Turkey at the expense of Iran. America does have an interest in Turkey’s incursion into the Russian lebensraum and in keeping it as a hotbed of tension between Russia and Turkey and a pretext to intervene and expand NATO towards Russian borders, whereas Russia finds the clash of interests between Iran and Turkey expedient as she would be able to manipulate their interests, conduct their crises and lure and contain them, especially Turkey who represents a bridgehead for NATO towards her borders. Hence, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov pointed during his meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, to the escalating crisis between Iran and Azerbaijan in southern Caucasus saying that it was the focus of a detailed study. He also revealed a mechanism proposed by Russia to defuse the tension based on initiating a dialogue according to a 3+3 formula, i.e., the countries of southern Caucasus: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the three neighbouring countries: Russia, Turkey and Iran. Iranian foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, for his part announced during the press conference with Lavrov that his country “will not accept any changes in the borders in southern Caucasus”. Hence, what is occurring falls under Iran’s attempts to withstand the challenges and pressures surrounding her with the aim of restraining and compelling her to return to her original functional role, a situation upon which Russia, America, Turkey and "Israel" agree.

    It is regrettable that the aggravation of the crisis will only lead to haemorrhaging Muslim blood and all the proposed solutions, in the absence of the State of Islam, proceed only according to the narrow interests of the rulers and on nationalistic and divisive grounds that lead to achieving the interests of the colonial powers that are belligerent towards the Ummah.

    15 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1443h
    21 October 2021

  • Macron’s Grudge against Muslims & Algeria 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - President Macron’s Grudge against Muslims & Algeria

    Observing France’s domestic and foreign political position would lead us to deduce that she is an independent state. However, exactly like Turkey, she is incapable of controlling her destiny. According to a French strategist, “France wants more than anything to have sovereignty; and yet her sovereignty is inadequate to secure her national interest.” This situation is reflected in her domestic and foreign policy and pushes her to adapt to the willpower of major powers and the necessities of reality, especially when she is targeted by the world’s leading power to dwarf her, push her back to her national borders and engross her in local and regional problems. This is what is happening to Britain, France, and Russia.

    Examples of American incursions into the French system and the attempts to destabilise and dismantle the mechanisms of its independence are numerous. America set about investing in the issues of “terrorism”, the environment, French identity and the Yellow Vests’ protests while dominating major French companies such as Total and Michelin through Anglo-Saxon investment portfolios to quash their effectiveness and their colonialist economic tools, and reducing their fiscal revenues through the dominance of technology giants. America has also invested in influencing France’s domestic policies by propagating secessionist and anti-immigration views through social media, infiltrating media outlets with far-right tendencies, and evoking the issue of political corruption in France since the tenure of President Francois Mitterrand.
    These American styles of undermining French political life have been known since she incited the students and workers’ movements which toppled the government of France’s war hero Charles De Gaulle after he had attempted to restore the gold standard and destroy the Bretton Woods system which was designed to turn the dollar into the unrivalled world currency.

    America has recently been striving to project France as an impotent state by exposing her frailties in the Libyan issue in Mali, and in the tussle with Turkey, in which her pride was dented, and through the AUKUS agreement which sabotaged France’s opportunity to have a pioneering presence in the Indo-Pacific region and deprived her of the chance to have a significant share in the region’s weapons’ market.

    Meanwhile, the French government is attempting to redirect the French masses’ attention towards protecting the constitution, freedoms and the secularist identity by launching an onslaught on Islam, promoting national protectionism, and inciting public opinion against globalisation issues, the Anglo-Saxon fiscal system and immigration to tighten the grip on the communities, harness their weightiness as financial and cultural resources for their motherlands, and exert pressure on them to preserve what she has left in terms of influence and interests. Recent examples of this are France’s decision to halve the quotas of visas issued to Algerian and Moroccan nationals, reduce the quota of visas issued to Tunisian nationals to one third, and the statements French newspaper Le Monde published on 2 October attributed to President Macron, which Algeria deemed “offensive and an unacceptable interference” and “an infringement on the memory of millions of Algerians”; Le Monde quoted Macron as saying that “the official history of Algeria has been completely rewritten” and that “this history is not based on facts but on the hatred harboured by Algerian authorities towards France.” The timing and surrounding circumstances of Macron’s statement should be taken into account since it came after France had been dealt a heavy and painful blow, and she needed to restore her foreign, political and diplomatic pride, in addition to Macron’s need to win over the populist rightwing, which political rivals are desperately attempting to win over ahead of the forthcoming elections of April 2022.

    Hence, the behaviour of French leaders reflects their anxieties over their domestic political future and the risk of losing the remaining French influence overseas, especially in Algeria’s political milieu on which America has gradually started to tighten her grip, weakening France’s collaborators influence over it. This is corroborated by Macron’s questioning of the existence of “an Algerian nation before the French colonialism”, meaning that we the French, were responsible for shaping the contemporary image of the Algerian state and its men loyal to the West and its culture. Moreover, the statements of Macron came within the context of precautionary measures against the calls of the countries afflicted by colonialism for an apology and compensation, especially after Germany had compensated her former colony Namibia for the genocide she perpetrated during her occupation of the southwestern African country. This is why the response of the Algerian presidency was sharp, though it somewhat included some harnessing of Macron’s statement to curry favour with the masses who are resentful towards their regime and rulers. The Algerian presidency deemed Macron’s statements as “an unacceptable infringement of the memory of 5,630,000 martyrs who sacrificed their lives in a brave resistance against French colonialism”, stressing that “France’s colonialist crimes are innumerable; they are tantamount to a genocide against the Algerian people, yet, these crimes are unrecognised, and they should not be the subject of offensive manoeuvres.”

    From this perspective of the French domestic and foreign political standpoint, and against the background of the preparatory and primary phase of the elections of April 2022, which French political parties have started taking the first steps since September, we can perceive the context in which French leaders are operating, especially that no candidate is expected to win a majority in the first round. The elections are expected to move to a second round in which Macron and Le Pen, the rightwing candidate, will partake, as other parties were unable to translate their gains in the local elections at the republic level.

    It is worth mentioning that throughout the era of the Fifth Republic, only Giscard d'Estaing and Nicolas Sarkozy succeeded in being re-elected to the post of President in 1981 and 2007 respectively. Nevertheless, current opinion polls indicate that Macron is in the lead after he succeeded in executing harsh policies towards Islam and immigration, the two files representing the arsenal of the candidates for the elections, amidst the worrying argument over the identity of the French people. Hence, reducing the quotas of visas issued to the Muslims of North Africa, the campaigns undertaken by the interior ministry against mosques, Islamic centres and Muslims, Macron hoisting the banner of combating “Islamism” under the theme of combating “separatism” and illegal migration plus his racist statements against Algeria, all this is linked to the decline in France’s continental and international standing, her attempts to regain it, or at least carry out a damage limitation exercise, and to Macron’s electoral campaign to polarise the rightwing and centrist French voters, as he has practically failed in his domestic and international policies.

    Inasmuch as Macron’s statements serve his electoral campaign and his foreign political agenda, they also serve the Algerian ruling junta which has lost its credibility despite its attempts to gain legitimacy through bogus elections. Macron’s statements triggered a wave of anger among Algerian mainstream public opinion, accompanied by a host of measures undertaken by the Algerian government such as recalling its ambassador to Paris and closing its airspace to French military planes supporting operations in the African Sahel, which will aggravate the French failure in Mali, evoke the emotions of the masses in Algeria, who resent their regime, and deepen their hatred towards France.

    The colonial powers’ audacity to wreak havoc in Muslim lands and their disregard towards the dignity of the Ummah is brought about by the state of fragmentation the Muslims are experiencing and the absence of their state and their independent willpower. They have no other way to salvage themselves from this wretched situation except through mustering their power, unity, and resoluteness from the inspiration of their Book and the sunnah of their Messenger ﷺ, elevating their thought, building their state and generating their leader whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ described as “the shield they fight behind him and they are protected by him.”

    2 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1443h
    8 October 2021 

  • AUKUS & the French Submarine Crisis 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - AUKUS & the French Submarine Crisis

    In what its Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian described as a “stab in the back”, France has heavily criticised Australia’s decision to cancel a huge deal she had signed with her in 2016 to purchase conventionally powered submarines in preference of a strategic partnership with the US and Britain. America and Britain announced also that they would supply Australia with the technology to build nuclear-powered submarines within the framework of a strategic security partnership and a tripartite alliance known as AUKUS.

    Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton announced that the security agreement his country concluded with the UK and the US would allow Washington to bolster her military presence in Australia. As the AUKUS agreement was announced, and despite statements from Europe sympathising with France, the European political division nurtured by the rift between the US and France emerged and was evident in the conflict between upholding a unified standpoint and exercising one’s volition and in the newspapers as well as the statements of several officials. In her State of the Union address, President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen tackled the direction of the EU on three important and strategic topics which all serve Joe Biden’s agenda towards China, namely a rival initiative to the Belt and Road Initiative, a European policy for the Indo-Pacific region and European security and defence policy. However, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, described the European vision towards the Indian and Pacific Oceans as being a cooperative rather than a confrontational approach, which is the policy France has been calling for towards Russia and China, thus contradicting the American approach built on alliances that Biden referenced when saying “When we strengthen our alliances, we amplify our power…..we will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s.”

    The aim of the American approach is to isolate Russia and China while dwarfing France, subjugating and integrating her into the policy devised for the EU to preserve the current world order that in turn guarantee’s US long term undisputed dominion over the international situation. This was expressed by former Secretary of State Pompeo who said the “…Chinese Communist Party[‘s] … actions are the primary challenge today in the free world…Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity” adding “We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams.”

    Hence, it is now clear that the step America, Britain and Australia have taken falls under the necessary plans and arrangements to reassure Britain, who has exited the EU, and reassure Australia and the countries neighbouring China, and on the other hand, isolate and contain China, lay siege to her economic growth and regional ambitions, prevent her from taking any steps that may undermine the political, security and economic system that America has anchored in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and the South China Sea, prevent her from bullying the countries of the region and any endeavours that may lead to changing the status quo, destabilise the world order and threaten US interests and Western values. This was alluded to by the White House spokesperson when she commented on the tripartite partnership and alliance by saying “This partnership, announced yesterday, is not about any one country. This is about advancing our strategic interests, the strategic interest of the United States, upholding the international rules-based order, and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.” Over the last two decades, China has embarked on upgrading its naval defence system since its major strategic dilemma lies in her need for safe passage to the Pacific and Indian Oceans, especially as she has been targeted by the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), strengthening of Taiwan’s defence capabilities via a host of arms deals, bulwarking Hong Kong through the Sino-British agreement of 1997, the highlighting of the Uyghurs’ issue and demonising her on Covid-19. China has also been targeted by the Integrated Strategic Deterrence, which US military commanders urged to be swiftly implemented two months ago and is designed to deter China from thieving technology, violating intellectual property and staging cyberattacks, and to tackle the “evil Chinese influence”. The tripartite alliance between the US, Britain and Australia further targets China with the submarine deal whose aim was summed up by French Finance and Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire with “the US has one obsession, which is to contain the surge of China’s power” and corroborated by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who commented on Macron’s reaction with “Donnez-moi un break” (give me a break).

    The issue of the French submarines, Australia’s decision to cancel the$56 billion deal which led France to recall her ambassadors to Canberra and Washington for consultation, Switzerland’s decision to cancel the purchase of French jetfighters Dasseault Rafale worth over $5 billion for US F35 jetfighters instead, and the Romanian government’s decision to reconsider a similar deal worth €1.2 billion to build four French Gowind corvettes, was the culmination and result of America’s arrangements for the current century, and of the turbulent relationship between France and America, which the latter will add to her ammunition used in the battle to dismantle the deep state in France and harness it against Macron in the presidential election of spring 2022. The tripartite alliance and the cancelling of the arms deals with Australia and Switzerland have dealt France a heavy blow, and made her rush towards India lest the latter should withdraw from an earmarked deal to purchase Rafale Dassault jetfighters. They have also shaken her diplomatic abilities and her continental and international weight which may destabilize her and have an impact on her endeavours to form a European force independent of NATO. Boris Johnson taunted Macron following France’s misfortune and addressed him from outside US Capitol with “get a grip”.

    The extent of the pain that France has suffered was reflected in the reactions of the French leaders; French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told Radio France Info “it is indeed a stab in the back”, and that he was “infuriated” and “very bitter” adding “we established a relationship based on trust with Australia, and this trust has been betrayed… the Europeans decided three days ago to adopt a strategy specific to them in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.” He also said his country was in the process of reassessing her standpoint vis-à-vis her allies within the context of responding to the strategic alliance between the US, Britain and Australia.” He told Channel France2 “the issue of the submarines is a serious crisis that will affect the future of NATO”, and he accused Australia and the US of lying and Britain of persistent opportunism.

    The reason behind America’s targeting of France is the latter’s assiduous endeavour to ratify the agreements on deepening European political integration and security independence based on the principle of “we are with America, but we are independent”. France has also been targeted because of her bitter resentment towards the Anglo-Saxon fiscal system which was exasperated by the 2008 financial markets collapse, and because she is a nuclear power who unlike Britain, has maintained independence of the French nuclear deterrent and arms industry and was never fully integrated with NATO despite her membership. She withdrew from NATO’s operational aspect since the days of De Gaulle and has never partaken in the projects of military cooperation and collaborative industries as Britain has. And this is what infuriated America and led her to persistently call for an increase in NATO’s military spending in the face of France’s attempts to wriggle out of it. Moreover, France has been targeted because Macron has been attempting to intervene to solve the issue of the short and medium-range missiles treaty, persuade EU member states to establish a European military force, restore the relationship with Russia and dissipate the state of uncertainty America is instigating to corroborate NATO’s role and control of European security.

    Hence, America has been working directly and through her agents to sow despair in France, dwarf her and sweep her back to the French inland. this explains why Macron has been attempting to conceal his failure and compensate for it by launching an onslaught on Islam with the aim of mobilising the Europeans behind him and by taking precautionary measure domestically through evoking the fears of French citizens from the threat of Islam on their identity.

    This shock and its fallout has unnerved France and made her lose her composure which lead her leaders to seek a solution to the crisis that has damaged her diplomatic and political existence and her international image. She could either pursue her hybrid approach of “we are with you but we are independent” and move towards bolstering her relationship with Russia and China, which a large number of EU member states are averse to as it weakens the EU further, or opt for full integration under the umbrella of the EU, thus evaporating any independence she has left due to the method of European decision making which necessitates political consensus in security and political matters and exactly what the US wants.

    Finally, this event confirms yet again that the capitalist West is divided, even though they are united in their war against Islam and the Muslims, because the capitalist doctrine they embrace promotes individualism and egoism, and only recognises the criterion of materialist expediency and interest. This makes Islam the only viable ideology to guide human life and makes the Islamic Ummah the sole, fair and just leader to govern people’s affairs and safeguard their interests.

    17 Safar 1443h
    24 September 2021 

  • Alleged Attempted Coup in Sudan 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Alleged Attempted Coup in Sudan

    Official Sudanese media outlets announced this morning, Tuesday 21 September 2021, “a failed coup attempt in Sudan”. Official spokesperson of the Sovereignty Council of Sudan Mohamed Al Faki Suleiman posted a statement on Facebook in which he wrote “Rise in defence of your country and to protect the transition.” Almost an hour later he also wrote “Things are under control and the revolution is victorious”, in a bid to dupe the masses into believing that the alleged coup was directed against the volition of the masses.

    Following a joint meeting between the collaborating Freedom and Change Forces (FFC) with the Sudanese cabinet, Sudanese information minister Hamza Baloul said “the attempted coup was designed to turn the clock back. Military and civilian putschists have been apprehended. They are from among the officers loyal to the former regime.” Meanwhile, the Sudanese army announced that “a failed attempted coup has been brought under control.”

    Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok for his part said an “urgent real decision will be issued to immunise the transition” stressing “the current partnership must be consolidated.” He added that “a special committee will issue a swift decision to dismantle the 30 June system”, meaning the dismantling of the “Empowerment” state that epitomised the “dissolved Islamic system” of Omar al-Bashir.

    By scrutinising the official statements and the news whose sources are monopolised by the state, and through the analysis of the farcical circumstances such as rumours circulating of an “imminent coup” before it happened, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged coup attempt, especially the conditions witnessed by the capital and other cities during the past few months with sit-ins and protests against the deteriorating economic situation, increase in fuel prices and foodstuffs, plundering of public funds, lack of security and discontent within the ranks of the military necessitating a pre-emptive purge of the security and military institutions along with some political forces opposing the regime, it has transpired from all this that the alleged attempted coup, of which the government was aware beforehand but did not undertake adequate measures nor any preemptive action to prevent its flaccid initiation, was but a political ploy in which some elements were duped into carrying out by the presidential council, with both its military and political wings which engineered it in order to effectuate the outputs of the transitional period which will expire in two months, i.e., in November of this year. This narrative was corroborated two days ago by the statement of Mohammed al-Faki Suleiman who said “the transitional period has become threatened by the increased activities of the remnants of the dissolved party from within and without the state.”

    Perhaps the most precarious aspect of what has been agreed upon between the political and military forces, who are also seeking to entrench themselves, is federalising the state and officially establishing the system and society on the secularist doctrine. Since the toppling of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan has been heading towards federal fragmentation and decentralised governance which was stipulated by the agreement between the government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) headed by Abdulaziz al Helou. The agreement literally and constitutionally institutes a secularist federal state and calls for merging the rebel movements and “unifying” the armed forces, now that the Sovereignty Council has conspired to turn the various sections of the armed forces into militias and terrorise the masses by turning Khartoum and Darfur into military barracks swarming with armed movements which have succeeded in imposing the secularity of the state in the constitution. Consequently, the state and its system will be restructured once the political construct attributed to Islam under the leadership of Omar al-Bashir has been exhausted under the weight of insecurity and economic decline, the army and security forces have been purged of those loyal to the former regime and the resentment of the masses has been vented through guided uprisings and delusionary victories.

    This alleged attempted coup will undoubtedly help the government to achieve its aims on designing and restructuring the regime such as ending “fragmentation” within the military which Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok warned of previously when he said “the military fragmentation within the military institution is very worrying” and USAID’s Samantha Power stating during her visit to Khartoum in August that “The United States agrees that Sudan’s army should have a single, unified command, and we will actively support civilian-led security reform and the formal integration of the Rapid Support Forces and former opposition armed groups.” All this was for the sake of unifying the standpoints towards the outputs that Sudan has sustained due to the American dictates imposed through the constitutional document, and through the agreement on the Declaration of Principles between the transitional period government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement – North (SPLM–N); the agreement was overseen by former US Congressperson and the executive director of the UN World Food Programme, David Beasley, and designed to corroborate that Sudan was a civil federal state built on a federal system of governance.

    Other aims include documenting the security, political and military partnership, portraying the army as the guarantor of the aims of the “revolution”, circumventing the popular protests and driving people to despair and dissuading them of seeking change, exactly as in the countries of the “Arab Spring”, which is the most precarious predicament for the people of the region.

    Therefore, this alleged coup attempt in Sudan, the drive to hold elections in Libya before the end of the year, containing the popular dynamism in Algeria through rigged presidential elections, turning a blind eye to the Syrian regime’s terrorism, the iron fist of al-Sisi in Egypt and empowering the Houthi in Yemen, indicates that America wants to entrench what has already been accomplished in reshaping the Middle East, ending the option of “Islamists” in government and dwarfing their roles, securing her new agents, protecting the secularist identity of the state, the government of normalisation and alliance under the leadership of Abdullah Hamdok and the army against any popular disgruntlement which may lead to impeding the restructuring of the regime and the relationship with "Israel”.

    This is corroborated by Middle East Media Research Institute which recommended the American administration speed up its backing of the Sudanese regime to avert a popular uprising, and advised to instruct Saudi and the UAE to help the regime of Burhan and Hamdok, considering that preserving it was an American priority that necessitated halting the polarisation of Sudanese leaders by regional powers.

    This leads us to reemphasise that the fate of the Ummah is dependent on her acquiring political awareness, arming herself with the Aqeedah, adhering to the rules of Allah the Almighty, being wary of His enemies and their plotting and deceiving ploys, rallying around the sincere leaderships, shunning every initiative that does not call for resuming the Islamic way of life and establishing the State with Shari'ah reigning supreme under the authority of the Ummah, and only moving to deal the Kufr systems and collaborators, and the influence of their masters who colonise the Muslims’ lands, a heavy blow.

    “Victory comes only from Allah.” [al-Anfal-10]

    14 Safar 1443h
    21 September 2021


  • Syrian Regime’s Attack on Daraa 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Backdrop to Syrian Regime’s Attack on Daraa al-Balad

    The ordeal of the oppressed people in Syria continues unabated. It is the largest and fiercest since the hoax of the Arab Spring in which the enemies of the Ummah invested in a cauldron in which the blood of Muslims has been boiling, and exploited the aspirations of Muslims to break free from the shackles of the oppressive regimes and attain a future in which Islam would reign supreme as it did in the past, revived them and placed them as leaders over all other nations.

    Despite the agreement concluded between representatives of Daraa’s residents and the criminal regime of Bashar Assad at the beginning of the month which followed a siege of over two months, stipulating ending the barbaric shelling of the city, lifting the siege imposed on it and settling the security situation of its residents who took part in the “revolution” against the regime, the international understandings and regional conspiracies that whet the appetite of Syrian regime to kill, betray, shed blood and exact revenge on the people of Daraa who refused to partake in the recent presidential elections, have encouraged the regime to renew its shelling of the city and impose humiliating new conditions on its residents and opposition forces.

    Those conditions stipulate handing over all personal light weapons in the city and allowing the regime to set up nine security checkpoints instead of four, in addition to carrying out house searches, handing over or deporting those wanted by the regime, in preparation for controlling the city following the hoax of the Astana de-escalation agreement of 2017. This prompted some tribal leaders to seek the help of the king of Jordan who returned from his US visit with the file of marketing and rehabilitating the Syrian regime and resuming economic ties with it in preparation for endorsing the Syrian situation within a federal framework akin to the Iraqi regime. The visit of the Jordanian monarch, and Egyptian officials to Moscow, falls within this context, especially as the file of rehabilitating the Syrian regime is linked to the course of events in the entire region, including bringing the ruling crisis in Lebanon out of the bottleneck and appointing as prime minister, with the blessing of America and France, Najib Mikati who will be politically and economically backed by the Gulf States, and shoring up the Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi through the Baghdad summit attended by French President Emmanuel Macron, the king of Jordan and senior officials of neighbouring countries and Iran, whose political approach under the current situation allows the presence of an Iraqi Prime Minister from outside of the milieu conspiring with her.

    The rehabilitation of the Syrian regime, which was on the brink of collapsing before the Russian and Iranian intervention with the blessing of America, falls within the context of the regional solution and the endeavours to clip Iran’s wings now that her role has been served in the previous phase, all of which is linked to reshaping the Middle East and liquidating the Palestinian issue.

    The vision of the Biden administration is built on what US Secretary of State Antony Blinken mentioned during a Senate Committee hearing, and what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated during a debate with his predecessor Robert O'Brien, which stipulates the necessity of harnessing any peace agreement in serving America’s interests in the first instance and protecting the usurping entity, considering that it has been acting as America’s shadow and tool in the region, through establishing a diplomatic, economic and security mergence, and an "Israeli" superiority within the framework of a regional solution which would remove the obstacles between the Arab states and "Israel", and prevent the region, positioned on the peripheries of the interests of the West and America in particular, from erupting. This necessitated discarding Netanyahu, weakening and taming the Zionist rightwing, clipping Iran’s wings and finding a solution to Russian and Turkish presence in Syria in line with the new American administration’s approach whose wing within the deep state is stronger.

    In this context, the onslaught of the criminal Syrian regime on the people of Daraa aims at disarming the opposition forces, voiding the area bordering "Israel" of the “resistance” and taming and disheartening its people within the framework of executing the security arrangement for Syria’s southern borders with Jordan, and preparing the grounds for kick-starting the delusional peace process. Moreover, and in the same context, plans are afoot to reshape "Israeli" public opinion in the wake of the recent war on Gaza and the toppling of Netanyahu, and induce the new rightwing government headed by Naftali Bennet to be less rigid in the negotiations with the Palestinians who are reshuffling their domestic pack to accommodate the new developments and the forthcoming phase.

    As for the American standpoint, it was reflected by king Abdullah’s endeavour to vulgarise the regime of Bashar Assad and his let-down of the people of Daraa who had turned to him for help and pleaded with him to open the border for them to flee the barrel bombs of the criminals. It was also expressed by the US decision to abandon her support for the fighting groups of the south, instruct Jordan and the Gulf States to refrain from sponsoring them, and shut down the Military Operations Centre (MOC) she had established in Jordan to support the Syrian opposition in the south. America has also blessed the de-escalation agreement and the ceasefire that included disarming the opposition forces of their heavy and medium weapons and evacuating the fighters and civilians, rejecting their settlement to northwest Syria.

    Moreover, the American standpoint was also reflected in the statements of Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Joey Hood, who told Aljazeera “We do not seek to change the Assad regime, but rather to change the behaviour of his government”, stressing that Washington supported a political process under the auspices of the UN to form a government representing the Syrian people. Hence, America confirmed her real standpoint on the Syrian regime, her U-turn on toppling of the criminal Bashar Assad and his clique, and her collusion with Russia and Iran to slaughter the masses in Syria to secure her interests of fragmenting and weakening Syria and safeguarding the Zionist entity, within the previously agreed understandings between Russia, America and "Israel" which would allow the Syrian regime to restore its dominance over the southern region bordering Jordan and the southwestern region bordering "Israel". Former US President Donald Trump expressed this endeavour by stating that his country was ready to work with Russia and "Israel" to guarantee the safety of "Israel". Furthermore, America has a host of immediate interests on voiding the Middle East region of the Islamic culture, reshaping the awareness of Muslims on secular grounds and backing the eradicationalist liberal forces, in addition to her long-term economic interests reflected in dominating the energy supply routes to Europe, and securing electricity and gas supplies from Egypt to Lebanon via Jordan and Daraa to preserve the Lebanese status quo and prevent its total collapse, and to support her agents in the new government, hence the meeting of Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese energy ministers in Amman.

    5 Safar 1443h
    12 September 2021

  • Political Observation - European Security Apprehensions Following US Withdrawal from Afghanistan 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - European Security Apprehensions Following US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

    The events of Afghanistan last week gatecrashed the EU defence ministers’ informal meeting. These events evoked the issue of the European rapid reaction force, which, despite being agreed upon in 2018 and endorsed by NATO in a formula separate from the traditional European defence cooperation in order to accommodate Britain, who had always been averse to establishing a force parallel to NATO, it still lacking the mechanisms of activation which require the consensus of the member states’ leaders, most of whom receive their instructions from the US, such as those Biden met during his last European tour, who blocked Macron’s attempts to build closer relations between the EU and Russia and thwarted Putin’s request to attend a EU summit. Moreover, Italy, Poland, and Denmark have been instrumental in impeding France’s attempts to destabilise or influence the centrality of NATO in European defence and security.

    Hence, the US has harnessed the events of Afghanistan and drawn upon the scarecrow of the so-called “terrorism” and illegal migration to corroborate Europe’s impotence and deepen her dependence on the American clout. This was forthrightly expressed by Slovenia’s defence minister who said the setback in Afghanistan had highlighted the EU’s dependence on the US. His statement was seconded by German defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer who said the Europeans were unable to oppose the American decision to withdraw from Afghanistan because they lacked the ability to do so.

    For his part, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell told a press conference following the meeting in Slovenia, “Afghanistan has shown that the deficiencies in our strategic autonomy come with a price and that the only way forward is to combine our forces and strengthen not only our capacity, but also our will to act.” He added, “If we want to be able to act autonomously and not to be dependent on the choices made by others – even if these others are our friends and allies - then we have to develop our own capacities.”

    This proves that Europe shares with China and Russia the same fears America left them with through her withdrawal from Afghanistan, namely the threat of what they describe as “Islamic terrorism”. It is true the Taliban Movement does not constitute a force that could threaten powers such as China, Russia, and Europe, but it could be recruited once again to act as an incubator and a factory for those they describe as “terrorists", whose operations rattled the cage of the European masses, and were projected as security challenge to their societies and governments, and a threat to their interests, not to mention the threat posed by the presence of an entity embracing a system contradicting international systems, with values different to theirs, and a political model stimulating an Ummah with a message who is yearning to return to her religion in its pure form, independent state, glories, and civilisational heritage. Such a threat represents on the one hand a source of anxiety to the Western world and its civilisation, and an incentive to Western masses to cling to the capitalist systems and lifestyle whose glitter is virtually dissipating, a state of affairs which has been bothersome to Western politicians and intellectuals, and to which the President of the European Council Charles Michel referred on social media by stating that, “the EU and its member states should have a greater weight in the world to defend our interests and values and to protect our citizens.” A senior EU official also stated, “what is in our mind is being able to deploy a rapid intervention force in the event of having for instance a legitimate government in some country, which we fear it would be dominated by a terrorist group.”

    However, the European standpoints vis-à-vis the rapid reaction force are but loud wailing and an attempt to save face following the heavy blow Europe has been dealt and after the inability to protect her overseas civil servants has been exposed, while the Americans boasted about having carried out the largest and quickest evacuation operation in the world. Therefore, former President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker commented on the defence cooperation agreement as he urged member states to ratify it, “When France intervenes in Mali, it is European honour they are saving.” The notion of establishing a European rapid reaction force has been unachievable since the beginning of the 1990s, not to mention the “tactical groupings” system of 2007, because the EU has been designed for economic integration rather than political and military union, in order to keep it dependent on the US and under her influence and dominion.

    Germany has perceived this reality and decided to proceed in America’s orbit to secure her interests. German defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer set the record straight regarding the notion of activating the European force by saying, “we have to become more independent as Europeans and be able to move more independently. But it is very important that we not act as a substitute for NATO and the Americans."

    France was not too far from the German standpoint due to the rivalry between Paris and Berlin despite Macron’s attempts to break free from NATO’s shackles. The initiative of a European force emanates fundamentally from the attempts of French President Emmanuel Macron to turn Paris into a centre for European foreign and security policy, buoyed by the French nuclear deterrent, which EU member states no longer enjoy now that Britain has left the Union, and by Germany’s lack of this deterrent. Germany for her part is attempting to fill the leadership vacuum with the economic clout and political weight she enjoys among EU member states and within European institutions. Macron called for “consolidating European defence cooperation and establishing a cooperation between the armies of the European states that are willing and capable.” This is also what French defence minister Florence Parly expressed by saying, “the Europeans have to be strong and more capable of defending themselves and their sovereignty… Europe is capable of defending her own security.” And in order to thwart the pretexts of the European states averse to establishing a European force parallel to NATO, the French minister said, “France considers the European force as ‘complementary’ to NATO” and “would not affect it”.

    As for the US standpoint, it was expressed by State Department Spokesperson Ned Price who told a press briefing, “we continue to believe that a stronger, more capable Europe is in our shared interests…. Given the overlapping transatlantic challenges, we won’t succeed without enhanced NATO-EU cooperation. And that’s something that we continue to strongly support. When the democracies that make up NATO, when the democracies that make up the EU stick together, they constitute a tremendous force for a stable and open international order.” His statement was designed to corroborate the “strategic partnership”, which in fact is the codename for affiliation, and the centrality of NATO in European defence and security.

    It is worth noting in this context that the US has engineered her strategy abroad in a manner allowing her to recycle the outputs and feedbacks of her policies and harness them in achieving her aims and serving her interests, just like she did when she involved Turkey and Russia in the Syrian file, and when she involved them together with France in the Libyan file.

    Establishing a European force lacking the effectiveness equal to the American power will only lead to confirming Europe’s impotence and decrepitude, and at best, it will shore up the backseat leadership pursued by the Biden administration, and free further American resources, which could be directed towards what is viewed as concerns pertinent to US national security in areas being currently animated in the world, such as the axis of dealing with China, the Middle East, and the Horn of Africa.

    This European impotence was acknowledged by the NATO member states who relied on the US air force and logistical services for the two decades they spent in Afghanistan; and then they were forced to withdraw as well. This was expressed by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell who told the New York Times, “But in the end, the timing and nature of the withdrawal were set in Washington. We Europeans found ourselves — not only for the evacuations out of the Kabul airport but also more broadly — depending on American decisions.”

    What is evident in the unfolding events is that America is reminding the Europeans, through the events she fabricates, of their impotence and warning them against stepping out of line or seeking their interests in isolation of her volition, especially that the European initiatives always come under the threats and the uncertainties which America consecrates in respect of European security.

    Moreover, the increased Russian interventions and Chinese ambitions in eastern Europe and Africa, coupled with America’s decision to reduce the number of US troops in Europe, withdraw from the intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles agreement, and back Britain’s exit from the EU, all this has led America to corroborate NATO’s role and compel the European states to fulfil their commitment with the minimum defence expenditure of 2% of their GDP.

    The Islamic Ummah’s awareness of world politics and the plotting of colonialist powers and her scrutinising of her leaderships and domestic forces, coupled with the Muslims’ standpoints vis-à-vis the events being referred to their Shari'ah, all this will be the definite guarantee to avoid the traps and avert the setbacks visiting them and their lands. If the Taliban Movement’s accession to power in Afghanistan has set the alarm bells ringing in Europe, China, and Russia and led them to take precautionary measures to protect their interests, the more reason the Ummah should bulwark her domestic front through awareness and doctrinism and avoid being overwhelmed by a guided emotion designed to exploit her children as fuel for battles that do not concern them. Following the bomb attacks attributed to ISIS, aka Daesh, in Kabul, which provided America and the Taliban with the pretext to cooperate between them, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley announced that “it's possible the United States will seek to coordinate with the Taliban on counterterrorism strikes in Afghanistan against Islamic State militants or others.” Hence, the Muslims should be wary of what the media, ignoramus, and spies propagate, lest the rivers of blood the West headed by America have burst in the Muslims’ lands should continue to flow.

    “And expose the path of the unrighteous.” [al-Ana’am-55]

    29 Muharram 1443h

    6 September 2021


  • Political Observation - Yemen: Roadmap to Division 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Yemen: Roadmap to Division

    The United Nations announced on 6 August the appointment of Swedish diplomat Hans Grundberg as its new envoy to Yemen. This coincided with a shift in the military standpoint of the Houthis from defence to attack on several frontlines, knowing that they had initially rejected the appointment of Grundberg as US representative, only to have a change of heart later and accept the appointment later on the condition that he would have to start from where Griffith had left off. What is remarkable is that the appointment of the UN envoy coincided with leaks about a roadmap, attributed to “Legitimacy”, for Yemen which evoked the apprehensions of some officials, especially the Shurah Council Chairperson Ahmed Obaid bin Dagher who emerged warning against impinging on the legitimacy of President Hadi and tweeted that “Legitimacy is not the obstacle in the face of achieving peace”, and thus exposed what had been occurring behind the scenes such as the attempt to transfer the competencies of President Hadi to an agreed-upon Vice-President or to form a presidential council in which all the stakeholders would take part with the aim of generating an appropriate ground for dialogue between the Yemeni political constituents and the Iran-backed Houthis. This was confirmed by former Yemeni foreign minister Dr Abu Bakr al-Qirbi who pointed out that “the international community is seeking to solve the Yemeni crisis by transferring power to a new consensual vice-president, or by establishing a presidential council.” It was also exposed by the head of the Juhod Studies Centre, Abdul Sattar al-Shamiri, who referred to an extensive debate taking place in the Sultanate of Oman on a draft agreement to end the war in Yemen consisting of 21 articles, devised by the US State Department and the new UN envoy.

    However, the Houthis, who have been stationed for several months on the outskirts of Marib, the last stronghold of “Legitimacy” in northern Yemen, have no political or economic interest in giving up all those gains and handing them over to a presidential council or a consensual vice-president, without having the upper hand and the last word. They realise that the Western standpoints are built on the fait accompli policy, as long as it fulfils their interests. Observers of the unfolding events in the Islamic lands realise the collusion of the regimes and rulers in favour of the Kafir colonialist, incarnated by the US, in perpetuating the proxy wars which divert Muslims away from their issues and only serve Western powers who control their outputs.

    It is evident that U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking adopted the eight-article Gulf initiative handed to him during his first visit to the region in February 2021 as a benchmark for completing the American plan to divide Yemen under the theme of ending the struggle through a permanent political solution and providing humanitarian aid to the Yemeni people. This trend is corroborated by the Shurah Council Chairperson, Ahmed Obaid bin Dagher, who commented on the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) initiative by endorsing the “adoption of the project of the overwhelming majority of the Yemeni people, and I mean the project of the federal state… with an objective tackling of the southern issue.”

    In fact, dividing Yemen in some form of a confederation is not a new occurrence. The proposed endorsement of four provinces, which would be granted all the competencies akin to self-rule, provided that the north is divided into two provinces, one for the Houthis with its borders stretching to the governorate of Ibb south of Sanaa, and the second to the forces representing the Legitimacy camp stretching over the remaining lands of the north, including al-Hudaydah. As for the south, it would consist of two provinces which would be granted full competencies until a referendum is held on the final status of south Yemen under the auspices of the UN by the beginning of the fifth year from the date of the agreement coming into force. However, the most important point in the leak is pertinent to the international guarantees for Yemen’s security through deploying international peacekeeping forces in 17 Yemeni regions including al-Hudaydah which reflects colonialist dimensions in military form and consequently leads to thwart any move to future unity.

    The omens of this high treason are reflected in the corroboration of foreign minister Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak during his virtual meeting with Dutch ambassador Peter Derrek Hof, which stipulated “the government’s eagerness to achieve sustainable peace and reach a political settlement based on the three nationally and internationally agreed upon baselines.” The baselines in question are the Gulf initiative of 2011, the upshots of the National Dialogue Conference of 2011-2013 and the UN Security Council resolutions, especially resolution 2216 which compels the Houthis to surrender the areas under their control and hand over their weapons.

    In an attempt to link the Yemeni issue to the geopolitical agenda of Bab al-Mandab and the conflagrant Horn of Africa, which is linked to international navigation security, UN representative of Legitimacy Abdullah al-Saadi mentioned in his statement to the Security Council during an open debate on Yemen that “the Houthis’ using of the city of al-Hudaydah and its seaports to equip and launch boobytrapped boats, plant naval mines and practise piracy, poses a threat to regional and international peace and security; it is also an unprecedented targeting of international maritime routes, commercial activity, and international energy security in one of the most important maritime shipping routes in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait.”

    As for the standpoint of Iran and al-Houthi, the new Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, sent a message to Washington and Riyadh by making the proceedings of his telephone conversation with Iraqi prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi public during which the latter invited him to partake in the summit of Iraq’s neighbouring countries; Raisi said “everyone should endeavour to end the war in Yemen and respect the right of the Yemeni people to self-determination” adding that, “the countries of the region are capable of devising and implementing a roadmap towards achieving permanent peace, security and stability through cooperation between them.” He stressed that “Iraq’s neighbouring countries' summit will culminate in national and regional results highlighting Iraq’s strength and its effective role in the region, and the ability of the countries of the region to solve their own problems.” This denotes the wishes of President Raisi to adapt to the Biden administration and the new developments of American policies and take Iran back to her functional square that supports American initiatives, and thus, relieving America of the burden of overseeing the region directly. This falls under the Iranian and Saudi endeavours to settle their differences and tackle the Yemeni crisis and the Iraqi elections through the rounds of talks between the Iranian and Saudi sides in the Iraqi capital.

    The omens of a positive response from the Houthis are reflected in the insinuations of Hussein al-Izzi, deputy foreign minister in the “Houthi government”, who told the London-based media outlet, The New Arab, that “Sanaa and Riyadh could reach an agreement on peace, security and good neighbourly relations”, adding in reference to the Legitimacy that “if the two capitals decided this, the mercenaries would not form an obstacle because the interests of the two brotherly peoples are far greater than the narrow interests of those elements.” All this has been unfolding amid a rapprochement and a host of agreements between Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi which were reflected in the meeting between bin Salman and the Qatari foreign minister who conveyed to him a written letter from Sheikh Tamim. They were also reflected in the press release of the Saudi news agency stating that bin Salman had sent a written letter to the emir of Kuwait, Mashal al-Ahmed. This was designed to curb the Emirati drive towards escalating the situation, leapfrogging the stages and speeding the secession of the south. This drive was reflected in the tweet by Deputy Chairman of Police and General Security in Dubai Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim in which he said that “there is an international consensus on the return of the state of south Yemen with Aden as its capital.” It has also been unfolding amid the activities undertaken by Abu Dhabi to gather the remnants of the General People's Congress, which is the party of Ali Abdullah Saleh, in an attempt to generate a consensual compromise within the various trends that cropped up inside the party.

    These movements and visits have by and large coincided with the statement of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who told the UN Security Council’s session currently held in New York on the developments of the Yemeni crisis that, “all parties to the Riyadh Agreement to redouble efforts aimed at implementation and return the Yemeni government to Aden, so it can restore basic services and take steps to improve economic stability.”

    18 Muharram 1443h
    27 August 2021


  • Open Letter to Taliban’s Leaders, Operatives & Afghan People 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Open Letter to the Taliban’s Leaders and Operatives, and Afghan People

    Dear Noble Brothers

    Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu, as for what is to follow:

    The issue of Muslims is not seizing power but rather building a state; and building the state would be by gathering the Ummah around the Islamic idea, and making her proceed in life according to this idea. Then power would be taken and established based on this idea. The state is an executive entity for the host of concepts, criteria and convictions embraced by the Ummah that represent her viewpoint in life. In other words, the state is an entity built upon an idea that is embraced by the Ummah which is prepared to sacrifice for its sake. Hence, seizing power does not mean establishing a state. The state requires the authority to be built upon an idea embraced by the Ummah. What generates revival is establishing the authority upon the Islamic idea, i.e., the Islamic Aqeedah. Hence, what generates revival is establishing the state on “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”. Establishing it on the Hanafi school of thought, the book of al-Tahawi or the Shari'ah rules does not generate any revival whatsoever because these would be taken as systems and laws and as a result, they could never occasion any revival. The State should rather be established on “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”, then the Shari'ah rules would be taken in their quality as commands and prohibitions from Allah , and thus they would be implemented because they are the order of Allah and since they would be obtained from “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”. Only then revival would take place.

    We are saying this so that we may perceive the reality and in what situation we should be.

    Dear Noble Brothers

    The existence of a Muslim in this life is for the sake of Islam and his work in life is carrying the Islamic Da’awah. The function of the Islamic State is implementing Islam and executing its rules domestically and carrying the Da’awah to the world, the method of which is Jihad, which is shouldered by the State. The Muslim lives for Islam, sacrifices for its sake, carries the Da’awah to elevate its standing, establishes the State to implement it and performs Jihad for the sake of Allah to spread it. Allah has made us Muslims and bestowed upon us the honour of embracing the magnificent Islam: He sent unto us a Messenger from among ourselves to convey unto us the ayat of Allah, cause us to grow in purity and to impart unto us the Book and wisdom so that we may bear witness to the truth before humankind by implementing Islam on them domestically and carrying it as message to the world at large to share the guidance with them rather than exterminate them.

    The Muslims have been, without a shadow of a doubt since the dawn of Islam’s history, involved in a momentous Jihad. The work for the sake of Islam started on the intellectual and political path, while averting bloody frictions as much as possible and refraining from armed conflict with the Kuffar to persuade them to embrace this Deen and establish its Deen. Then, when Islam became a force to be reckoned with and its State was established, it caried the Da’awah on the political and military path simultaneously. The Muslims gave their lives for the sake of this message and sacrificed all that is dear and precious, until the Islamic State became the sun of the blossoming world and the undisputed superpower. Then the Kuffar succeeded in dealing the Islamic fraternity among the Muslims a heavy blow, dismantled their lands and destroyed their State. Hence, the Muslims became more unfortunate than the orphans seated at the table of the avaricious master. And you have suffered like the rest of the Muslims in all the Muslims’ lands from the humiliation of colonialism and the tyranny of the colonialists and their surrogates with the resulting bloodshed and the suffering caused by the three colonialist campaigns on Afghanistan, British, Soviet and American, during which millions of our brethren were killed, banished, imprisoned and tortured to serve the interests of the Kuffar.

    Dear Noble Brothers

    Allah revealed the noble Qur’an to be put into implementation. He is the Judge, and He is the Commander and Prohibitor. He issues the rules on actions and things. Hence, sovereignty belong to Him alone. Allah conferred the authority to the Ummah who elects from among her children a ruler to implement the Shari'ah of Allah . Hence, this ruler derives his legitimacy from Islam by implementing its rules and from the Ummah who elects him.

    Hence, it is forbidden for the Ummah of Islam to lack at any time an authority, and to be ruled by other than the Shari'ah of her Lord. We are aware that you did apply Islam in Afghanistan during your first dominion over the country before the America invasion which toppled your authority and abolished your Imarah. We are urging you to establish your authority in Afghanistan in its quality as a part of the Muslims’ lands rather than in its patriotic and nationalistic quality, and to resume what you have started in terms of implementing Islam on the Muslims. This is the weighty trust for which you are responsible, and Allah will hold you accountable for what you have been entrusted with when you stand before Him.

    We are also aware that you have negotiated with the Americans to arrange their exit from Afghanistan and hand the reins of power over to you; this was clear from America’s decision to let the collaborating regime meet its fate and not to support it, and to let you seize one wilaya after another and one directorate after another, without interfering despite their ability to prevent you from doing so. This indicated that it was part of the agreement pertinent to the Americans’ exit from your country.

    Hence, we remind you of America’s broken promises after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union 32 years ago. The Americans never keep their promises and their covenants, and we believe you are aware of how America toyed with the mujahideen after the withdrawal of the Soviet occupier from your country and how she sowed the seeds of hatred amongst them, fuelling warlike discord amongst them severely, thus which plunged Afghanistan into a devastating civil war between the brothers in arms and in Deen. You are also aware of what America did to the Muslims in Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Egypt, and how she broke her oath with them, and even with her own agents who were also exhausted in service of her multinationals first, then in service of her surrogates who participated in the invasion and the war, and then those who colluded with her from among the traitorous rulers or those aspiring to seize power; and the masses in those countries had nothing left but starvation and death.

    The insightfulness, seriousness and doctrinism of the believer make it inevitable for him to be wary of the hidden political forces that impede any substantial change that do not conform to America’s interests, explore the reality of foreign powers and their interests in Afghanistan and establish the outlines and boundaries of how to deal with them.

    Dear Noble Brothers

    You should purify your ranks, unify your forces, reconcile with your people and derive your support from them, and unleash their energies to build the State and proceed with it in the path of revival. After two decades of occupation, America has dismantled the masses, sowed the seeds of division amongst them and planted spies within their ranks who are attempting to flee with the occupiers to safe havens; and there are undoubtedly others who still embrace the occupier’s thoughts and agenda, be it within the ranks of the civilians or the military personnel, commanders and soldiers alike. Hence, you ought to be wary and cautious and purify the ranks from the traitors and collaborators. You have to beware of them, lest they should creep into positions of leadership. The experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt should serve as a parable and a lesson to you, lest you should incline towards those who feign their love for Islam whereas in fact, they continue to serve America and embrace her culture.

    Dear Noble Brothers

    The objective of Jihad is to remove the physical obstacles impeding the carrying of the message. It is not just killing and fighting for the sake of fighting. Hence, military power is a trust for carrying the message, not a sword brandished in the face of the country and the masses. Military power does not give the right to use it except withing the boundaries of the Shari'ah rule. The military culture emanating from the Islamic Aqeedah is the only way to secure and immunise the military forces against any manipulation, tampering and shady understandings or deals with foreign political forces, especially America.

    While we warn you against having a relationship with America, we are not however saying you should live in a secluded fortress; it is inevitable for the Islamic State to live within this world and to connect with it with positive relations dictated by the logic of human life and the mission of carrying the message, which necessitates interacting with other nations and contacting states and peoples to convey Islam and secure life’s needs. Hence, you should conduct your relationship with other states and peoples according to the logic of conveying the message and in a manner serving the interest of the Ummah while repelling all the perils that may harm her, remaining vigilant and aware of the plots and styles concocted by the covetous powers in your country and maintaining a political insight with regards to the munafiqeen and the covert and overt collaborating mercenaries.

    The Afghan people are Muslims. They love Allah and His Messenger. They are warriors and fighters. They faced the Russians and the Americans and fared well in defending their country. They are formidable ammunition for any side aspiring to rule Afghanistan with Islam. Hence, all you need to do is concentrate the idea of Islam within this people so that they may live by it and it may live through them. You should work towards injecting society with the Islamic concepts, criteria and convictions so that they may guide people’s behaviours. You should focus on the concept of Islamic fraternity and that Muslims, with all their ethnicities, tribal affiliations and sects are but one single Ummah to the exclusion of all other people, and that they are one hand against all others.

    It is also imperative to reject the capitalist solutions to life’s problems, expose their corruption and the woes and calamities it has brought on peoples embracing capitalism. It would also be imperative to engage in a doctrinal intellectual struggle and a clear political struggle to rid the Ummah of colonialist domination, liberate her from their influence, root out their intellectual, cultural, political, economic and military presence, and close off all gaps in their faces. Meanwhile, attention should be devoted to expounding the Islamic solutions to these problems and how the individual Muslim should implement the system of Islam motivated by his piety and fear of Allah , and how the State should implement it through the masses sensing its fairness, the cooperation of the Ummah with the ruler in ordering Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar and the authority of the State, and through the masses, political parties and forces based on the Islamic Aqeedah who hold the rulers, emirs and civil servants to account. Therefore, the Islamic political thoughts must be concentrated among the masses in a powerful manner and manifested in their conversations, debates and relationships like ripened fruits would manifest themselves.

    The Ummah’s viewpoint towards life should also be unified by adopting the criterion of Kufr and Iman, and Halal and Haram. The Muslims should also be exhorted to work by Islam and for Islam. All other ethnicities external to the Taliban movement should also be encouraged to get involved in this work to fuse the various ethnic groups in the crucible of Islam, dissipating all disparities and boundaries leading to unifying society and consolidating its ranks and consequently, turning it into a popular base for the new regime. This could only occur by unifying the viewpoint towards governance and integrating the leaders and officials of other ethnicities into the governing setup under the principle of Islamic fraternity and the criterion of competence and suitability.

    It is the ideological intellectual building of the Ummah on the basis of Islam in its quality as an Aqeedah and a system, which will make the Ummah proceed in obedience with contentment and reassurance. The process of building involves making the thoughts of Aqeedah, Khilafah, Jihad and Islamic fraternity prevalent in society in a manner that paralyses all other leaderships so that Islam remains the unilateral leader of the Ummah, and the group expressing the Aqeedah and willpower of the Ummah becomes the effective leader of the State and society; and in this aspect, let the children of the Aqeedah compete among themselves, irrespective of their diverse opinions and schools of thought, to attract the masses, rule them and protect their Deen and Ummah.

    One of the requirements of fairness in implementation is to share out the riches and positions of responsibilities and not monopolise them, and even place others ahead of the Taliban movement, as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did as per the Hadith narrated by Muslim on the authority of Anas Ibnu Malek who said that “a man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to give him a very large flock and he gave that to him. He came to his tribe and said: O people, embrace Islam. By Allah, Muhammad donates so much as if he did not fear poverty. Anas said that the person embraced Islam for the sake of the world but later he became Muslim until Islam became dearer to him than the world and what it contains.”

    Another requirement of fairness is considering everyone equal like the teeth of a comb, irrespective of their ethnicities and sects, in terms of accountability and answerability, which maintains and controls the conduct of all officials.

    Dear Noble Brothers

    The masses are the only safety valve which will protect the State because they are the ones who empower the authority to rule on their behalf. What turns the masses into a popular base and a natural support for the authority is the Aqeedah with its legislative system and referentiality as well as the intellectual construction of the Ummah which involves fusing her with Islam, its concepts and its rules, the most important of which are the principles of governance in Islam, namely: the sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah; authority belongs to the Ummah; one single Khalifah; adopting the rules and enacting the laws is the exclusive competency of the Khalifah. This would be the impregnable barrier and the protective shield against military coups and infiltrations of those lurking in the dark, especially those who have been planted within the military forces and the cliques who conspire with foreign embassies. Hence, it is imperative to educate the masses with the Shari'ah-based political culture to concentrate the concepts of governance and qualities of its men. It is also imperative to deter the Ummah, especially the people of influence and power, from injustice, falsehood and the rule of Kufr, in addition to exposing to the Ummah those hellbent on being hypocritical and calling them to account just like the rulers. It is also crucial to confront, weaken and isolate those who harbour the thoughts of Kufr while being wary of adulation, cajolery, diplomacy, and Machiavellianism with any Kufr thought, erroneous concept or misdemeanour from their part.

    The Ummah should perceive that establishing Islamic parties to culture the Ummah in a constant manner and to expose the schemes, conspiracies and activities of the Kafir colonialists, and calling the officials and rulers to account, is a necessity dictated by Shari'ah, the straightforwardness of the path and the steadfastness on the truth. The mechanism of political answerability in a partisan manner is more effective and influential in deterring the rulers from deviation and treason. Answerability is one of the momentous cornerstones upon which the Deen of Islam is built. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The master of martyrs on the Day of Resurrection is Hamzah and a man who stands up to a tyrannical authority, commanding good and forbidding evil and he is killed for it.” He ﷺ also said: “In the near future there will be emirs and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds is safe. But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined.” And he ﷺ also said: “The most excellent Jihad is when one speaks a true word in the presence of a tyrannical ruler.”

    We stress that the role of the military and security forces is to protect the entity of the State and carry the Message rather than protecting the movement, imam, ruler or Western values and the interests of the colonialists. Such forces should not be a sword brandished in the face of the Ummah. Protecting the imams, movements and rulers is achieved automatically through protecting the State’s entity.

    Hence, although security is in the hands of Allah , and it is He who sends shivers down the spine of the Kuffar and hypocrites, this is not in isolation of the universal laws that Allah has bestowed on His servants so that they may gain authority on earth. Allah granted security to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the Sahaba and made them safe from the danger they had been enduring from the Mushrikin in Makkah; and in Medina, they used to always carry their weapons until one day they asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “O Messenger of Allah, will a day come in which we will be safe and lay down our arms? Upon this the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: you will not persevere but a little until a man from amongst you will sit among this great crowd without sporting an iron.” Then the following ayah was revealed: “Allah has promised those of you who have attained Iman and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will cause them to accede to power on earth” [An-Nour-55]

    Finally, despite the bravery of its people, Afghanistan remains weak and the Taliban movement should, as it establishes its authority in this country and if it were independent, sincere and serious about resuming the Islamic way of life, epitomise the image befitting the Islamic State, and burn the falsehood of the world’s capitalist system with the light of its Shari'ah while erasing the falsehood with which the West has maligned the system of Islam and its State to distort it through ignorant people and agents. , and endeavour to strengthen the entity of the State and protect it with a more solid Muslim entity, such as Turkey, which, although continues to rule by secularism, is a powerful independent state with which it would be conducive to merge with and work from within to turn it into a Dar al-Islam. Unifying the Muslims’ lands is a Shari'ah priority and a political and economic necessity, and an aim to which those working for Islam and Muslims should not be oblivious. If the Taliban were to do this, it would prove that its loyalty to Allah and His religion is above any other loyalty, and that it has taken a sound step in the path of liberation and revival, offering a great service to the Ummah of Islam.

    “And tell them: Keep working: Allah will behold your works and so will His Messenger and the believers; and you shall be brought back to Him Who knows that which is beyond the reach of perception and that which is within the reach of perception. He will then declare to you all that you have been doing." [at-Tawbah-105]

    18 Muharram 1443h
    26 August 2021 

  • Taliban: America Harnesses “Islamic Organisations” 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Clarifications on America’s Harnessing of “Islamic Organisations”

    First: One of the requirements of political perception is exploring issues and events according to their circumstances, avoiding logic, and abstaining from generalisation or analogy, except by way of reminding, familiarising, elucidating, and cautioning, lest the Muslim should be stung from the same hole twice. America smoothed the path of the “Islamic” movements to accede to power or partake in it when the Arab Spring erupted amid a situation that had its own context and geopolitical scope, namely the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) which stipulated dismantling and restructuring the region. This made it inevitable for America to harness the Islamic movements to regulate the dynamism of the masses, vent their anger, and void their resentment, considering they were the more influential tools of amassing, mobilising, motivating, steering and controlling the masses during the extremely delicate process of dismantling and reproducing the regimes.

    In this regard, the US harnesses the Islamic movements through either vertical infiltration i.e., leaderships, or horizontal infiltration i.e., training, establishing, and polarising, or through subjugation and exploitation. All this for the sake of containing the sides that may stray from the path and controlling the fallout of the political project, the crises, and the international, domestic, and regional tussles through investing in all the stakeholders and tinkering with all the contradictions.

    Moreover, US policy is built first and foremost on interests and pragmatism, and on exploiting the circumstances and turning crises into opportunities. Although the decision-making process in America is determined by the prevailing wing within the deep state, differences therein and amidst the one single camp over strategies, priorities and styles tend to linger due to programmatical, philosophical and domestic considerations. An example of this narrative is the statement of a Taliban leader who was quoted as saying that the “agreement with America was concluded in 2018, but some American political forces opted for aggravation and conflict.” Another example is what happened at the US Senate just before the Arab Spring erupted when former prominent Republican Senator John McCain attempted to pass a bill supporting “democracy, human rights, and civil liberties” in Egypt, ahead of the parliamentary elections of November 2010 which Mubarak’s ruling party won by an overwhelming majority and the regime was accused of rigging, but Dianne Feinstein, Chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, blocked the bill. This proves that US decision makers are not always single-heartedly united, and that differences affect America’s strategies and priorities in her domestic and foreign policies.

    One of the other components influencing domestic political events is the clash between the factional interests, tussle between the collaborators and plots of the rulers against their opponents such as when Abdul Fattah al-Sisi got rid of all the top brass who helped him conspire against Mohammed Morsi; he removed Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Mahmoud Hegazi, with whom he has family ties, after he had returned from the US where he partook in an antiterrorism conference with other military commanders. Al-Sisi also removed Maj. General Mohammed el-Keshki who was in charge of supporting Khalifah Haftar. Al-Sisi also personally oversaw the apprehension of General Fuad Abdul Halim, who had strong ties with the US defence secretary and CIA director, as he feared America would betray him and as he wanted to deepen its reliance on him.

    By this token, the capitalist pragmatic policy turns yesterday’s friend into today’s enemy, and yesterday’s enemy into today’s friend, and does not give weight to religion except to the extent it benefits from it.

    America supported Muslim Azerbaijan against Christian Armenia, and sided with the Muslims of Kosovo against the Serbs; and she has been vulgarising the plight of Uyghur Muslims in China in order to incite the Islamic world against China, exactly as she did in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, which enabled her to engender a leadership bloc within the Islamic organisations loyal to her such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Burhanuddin Rabbani and the senior Taliban operative Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was released by Pakistan at the behest of the CIA after spending over ten years in captivity following a joint Pakistani-US intelligence operation that led to his capture in 2010, and who has recently flown from Doha in the company of several Taliban leaders to Afghanistan onboard a Qatari military jet which would not have been able to leave Qatari airspace had it not been for America’s permission. The Washington Post reported that Baradar met the CIA director on 23 August in Kabul, and this could pave the way for an American recognition and thus encourage the countries of the world to recognise the government of the Taliban.

    It is imperative to reiterate that America’s decision to hand the reins of power over to the Taliban falls within the context of proxy wars, backseat leadership and the Pivot to Asia policy which entails linking Central Asia to its south. It also falls within the context of the geopolitical scope of China and the Central Asian region which constitutes Russia’s Achilles’ heel. Nevertheless, rehabilitating the Taliban Movement, which was founded under the care of the Pakistani intelligence services, could have a knock-on effect on the Middle East region within the cycle of political haemorrhaging of the region and the Muslims, and within the US endeavour to direct, control and orchestrate the internationalist grudges and contradictions. This is deduced from the vigilance and precautions taken by Russia and China on their respective borders and from the standpoint of French President Macron who sounded the alarm bells from what he referred to as “Islamic terrorism”.

    Second: To claim that America has been defeated and that the Taliban have won is the very thing America wants to propagate and sell to the Muslims. It would be wrong to suggest that it would not be in America’s interest to seem defeated and thus her admission of defeat must be genuine; it would be wrong to suggest this because America had achieved her declared aim of banishing the Taliban in less than four weeks when she seized the capital Kabul in November 2001. Moreover, the reality on the ground does not denote an American defeat by the Taliban since the situation does not indicate America’s inability to whitewash the Taliban. America killed more than 200 Taliban operatives during the invasion alone to remind the group of the big stick and to deter it from overstepping its function whereas the Taliban could not kill the same number of American soldiers in seven years. While the Muslims lost in Afghanistan hundreds of thousands of innocent people and mujahideen, America has lost 2443 soldiers and contractors since 2001, most of them in the early years too. After 2014, the death toll of the Americans was only 92 and in the past four years, America lost only one soldier. This is not a defeat. In fact, America has achieved a host of logistical gains since she occupied Afghanistan in terms of training, upgrading her weapons and developing new fighting techniques in addition to thwarting some significant Chinese investments since 2007 such as the Aynak Copper Mine infrastructure project. Hence, when we say America has not been defeated by the Taliban, we are describing reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. Furthermore, there are several indications corroborating the fact that the Taliban movement is an American project concocted via the Pakistani intelligence services; Admiral Mike Mullen admitted during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Taliban was a virtual arm of the Pakistani intelligence services.

    Third: Despite the domestic motives behind America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan such as the 2022 mid-term elections and the Taliban’s attempt to adapt to reality, reconcile with the opponents of the Aqeedah within the framework of a participatory government without any preconditions and establish a peace which will qualify Afghanistan for a regional functional role, thanks to what she possesses in terms of geopolitical sensitivities and supply routes that would make the covetous forces salivate and lure them into the trap. The Taliban movement is also endeavouring to reconcile with the world order and exact recognition. This was expressed by Sirajuddin Haqqani a year ago during his interview with the New York Times. He said, “there is no peace agreement following intensive negotiations without mutual concessions” adding that “Afghanistan could not sustain living in isolation… a new Afghanistan will be a responsible member of the international community”. The stakeholders’ forward escape and their readiness to recognise and deal with the Taliban movement to avert the deluge is part and parcel of the series of traps laid by the US for its adversaries and for the Muslims with the aim of exploiting them for its international initiatives. Muslims are oblivious to their civilisational project and continue to consume the traps thrown at them and the resulting weeds whose harm is far greater than their good in the best of circumstances because they drive Muslims towards aberration and confusion, and sidestep the project of their real revival whose cornerstone is establishing life, the state and society on the ideology of Islam in its high-bred formula, and carrying the message of Islam to the world via Jihad. This is what the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the centrist Islamic organisations lack in the first instance, and thus, it would be wrong to rely on them in any shape or form. It is rather imperative to seek the doctrinal alternative, which does not accept anything less than a Khilafah on the method of the prophethood. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “a Muslim is never stung from the same hole twice.”

    17 Muharram 1443h
    25 August 2021

  • Political Comment - Afghanistan: Taliban Takeover  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Comment - Developments of the Situation in Afghanistan

    Two decades after the barbaric military occupation of Afghanistan, the US decided to withdraw its troops and signed the unconditional withdrawal agreement with the Taliban in Doha on 29 February 2020 which stipulated the completion of this withdrawal by 1 May 2021. However, the Biden administration deferred this withdrawal until 11 September 2021 to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks which America used as a pretext to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

    Since 9 July 2021, and within 30 days, the Taliban has succeeded in seizing control of the three largest cities outside Kabul, namely Herat, the strategic city in the west of the country, the city of Lashkargah, the capital of the Helmand province, and the city of Kandahar, the second-largest city and stronghold and birthplace of the Taliban , which was reported to be under the control of the Taliban on Friday 12 August 2021. This was preceded by the capture of the city of Ghazni, which is close to the capital and the border crossings with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Iran, and the capture of border areas with China.

    The speed in which the government forces have collapsed in the face of the Taliban onslaught which seized a significant quantity of US military hardware, is reminiscent of the Iraqi army’s withdrawal from Mosul, leaving behind billions of dollars and US military equipment as booty for ISIS.

    This indicates that the Taliban’s advance is, by and large, designed to arm the movement and grant it the ability to spread rapidly and besiege the capital from all corners, with US intelligence expecting its fall within 30 to 90 days maximum.

    With the aim of causing further tension and security anxiety in Central Asia, which is one of the American aims designed to preoccupy China and Russia by reviving China’s security challenge in the Afghan province of Badakhshan and keeping Afghanistan as a hotbed of tension on China’s border, America announced she would send 3000 soldiers, followed by Britain with 600 soldiers, to “provide security and safe passage to evacuate some personnel from the embassy”, according to the statement of a State Department official spokesperson, knowing that the US has been reducing the embassy’s civilian staff since April, following the speech of Joe Biden in which he announced the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by August 2021.

    It is clear that this process and the swiftness in which it has been carried out and sensationalised is designed to provide the government of Kabul the cover to concede to the Taliban during the ongoing negotiations in Doha and to achieve the objective of replanting the Taliban in power, so as to act as a minefield in the New Silk Road and a breeding ground for what the West refers to as “terrorism” near Russia’s southern flank.

    The Chairman of the British Foreign Affairs Committee and retired officer Tom Tugendhat commented on Twitter that “the decision to withdraw is like a rug pulled from under the feet of our partners,” and the Washington Post wrote in its leader article “Mr Biden’s precipitous withdrawal, as well as his refusal to offer more meaningful assistance to Afghanistan’s government, risks disaster”.

    These actions emanate from the US plan that Biden revealed with some of its outlines during his speech to the American people last April. He announced that “only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country, and that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan government.” He added: "I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that. We accomplished that objective. We did that. We accomplished that objective... the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe". This means a trap is being laid for China and Russia, in addition to Iran, Tajikistan, and the Central Asian states. This is corroborated by the unanimous statement of the United Nations Security Council members, stipulating that “any force that seeks to take control of Afghanistan with the barrel of a gun, through the barrel of a gun, will not be recognized, will not have legitimacy, will not accrue the international assistance that any such government would likely need to achieve any semblance of durability,” and by the call of the members of the Security Council “on both the Islamic Republic and the Taliban to engage meaningfully in an inclusive, Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process in order to make urgent progress towards a political settlement and a ceasefire.” This is also what High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Joseph Borrel expressed by saying “The Afghan government should engage with the Taliban to reach an inclusive settlement.” He added: “We encourage the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to settle political differences, increase representation of all stakeholders and engage with the Taliban from a united perspective.” This reflects a clear collusion between Europe and America on a new agenda towards China and Russia; in other words, America seeks to impose a new reality whereby the Taliban Movement will officially be present on Chinese and Russian borders.

    This in turn explains the collusion of Europe, America and her agents to allow the Taliban to advance and dominate a third of the 34 provinces’ main cities within one week, and to seize control of the second and third largest cities in full view and within earshot of the Afghan army. The cities were brought under control through deals concluded with the governors of the cities and the provinces, indicating that the whole issue had been secretly concocted. The Taliban’s operations have generated an appropriate political climate in Kabul to accept the political participation of the Taliban, which is deemed a radical change in the Afghan government’s standpoint, which in the past used to reject such a notion under the pretext of “terrorism”. However, it has recently approved the concept of holding elections and expanding the political representation of the Taliban in government. Some diplomats told the British newspaper, the Independent, that the Afghan government proposed the forming of a joint government and the proposal was conveyed to the Qatari government which has been sponsoring the talks between the two warring sides.

    It is common knowledge that major powers tend to achieve their interests; hence, they would either resort to their own forces for these interests, or exploit the forces of other states to achieve them on their behalf. Such exploitation entails being fuel and firewood for the wars of those powers, sacrificing the riches, lives and faculties of one’s country, in total disregard of the interests of his own country and Ummah, and turning his people and his Ummah into a mount for the powerful nations to achieve their interests.
    It is tragic to see Muslims being lured into the trap of the guided media, which portrayed the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq as a triumph for Muslims, whereas in fact it is but a change in the form of colonialism and its evil styles, from direct colonisation to colonisation by proxy, and from direct military occupation to occupation through agents represented by the ruling gangs, warlords, oppressive bodies, intellectual setup and the media and judicial systems.

    Therefore, we urge the sincere members of the Taliban not to enable their leaders, who have shaken hands with those who have slaughtered their children, raped their women and declared war on their religion, to seize the reins of power; and we urge them not to turn Afghanistan into a paw in the hands of America, with which she would preoccupy America’s adversaries, and not to be stung from the American hole once again. They were previously used to deplete the Soviet Union and dismantle its unity and power, and turned Afghanistan into a training ground for their forces and a laboratory to test their weapons. We urge them not to lean towards America as she is a volatile evil, and goodness will never come from such evil under any pretext.

    Dear Muslims

    The Muslims are not destined to remain pawns on the international chessboard, nor tools that America exploits to achieve her own goals, nor to remain mounts for the Kuffar through whom they achieve their aims and then slaughter them once they have served their purposes.

    The destiny and the status of the Muslims is to be leaders of the world, bringing its peoples out of darkness and into the radiance of Islam, and carrying the beacons of guidance to the nations and peoples of the world, and thus, fulfilling the command of their Lord. Allah the Almighty says: “And thus have made you the Ummah of wassat (best and just) , so that you may be witness to mankind.” [al-Baqarah-143]. They will also be fulfilling the glad tiding of their Prophet ﷺ who said: “Verily, Allah drew the ends of the world near me until I saw its east and west, and the rule of my Ummah will reach what has been drawn near me.”

    Fulfilling this glad tiding will not be through inclining towards the Kuffar, proceeding in their path, and achieving their interests, but rather by knowing that they are Kuffar seeking to alienate Islam from life and world politics, exploiting Muslims to serve their interests, and preventing them from breaking free from the yoke of their colonialism.

    Dear Muslims

    The real victory is resuming the Islamic way of life and establishing the Khilafah State that implements Islam domestically and carries it as a message to mankind. This is the victory Muslims would welcome and shed tears of joy to witness. Only the dictatorial collaborating regimes stand in the way of achieving this victory. If they removed them with their own hands, they would disappear, and with them, colonialism; and the influence of the Kafir West would disappear and its false glow will fade away for good.

    “For, Allah always prevails but most people know it not.” [Yusuf-21]

    Hizb ut-Tahrir   

    7 Muharram 1443h
    15 August 2021



  • Political Observation - Dimensions of the Tensions Surrounding the Iranian File 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Dimensions of the Tensions Surrounding the Iranian File

    The oil tanker Mercer Street operated by Zodiac Maritime, a group owned by an "Israeli" businessperson, was attacked at the end of July 2021 off the coast of Oman, in what has become known as the “shadow war” between Iran and "Israel". Two crew members, a Romanian and a Briton were killed in the attack. The BBC reported that the ship had sailed to a safe location under US naval escort.

    Iran, for her part, denied involvement in the attack, deeming it a fabrication and a “conspiracy against Iran”, after her official papers had claimed responsibility for the attack and celebrated it as conservative President Ebrahim Raisi took office.

    "Israel" threatened to respond “appropriately” and to refer the issue to the UN; meanwhile, European and US intelligence sources pointed the finger at Tehran and deemed her the prime suspect. "Israeli" prime minister Naftali Bennet announced that "Israel" was mobilising the international community to call Iran to account. These statements were seconded by "Israeli" leaks alluding to joint "Israeli"-British preparations to stage a counterattack against an Iranian target in retribution for the British victim. Romania and America then joined the coordination to discipline Iran and make her pay the price for what she had perpetrated.

    In fact, despite the powerful statements and threats, the measures undertaken and the request made to Russia to monitor navigation in the Gulf reveals that the event had been concocted prior to the start of the US-Iranian negotiations on the nuclear file and in the midst of the tussle between Netanyahu and Naftali Bennet over how to deal with Iran, in order to exert pressure on the conservative wing in Iran and twist its arm to accept the upshots of the ongoing negotiations with the US and the ”international community”, and in order to give Bennet the chance to outdo his rivals and smash Netanyahu’s monopoly over the “loudest voice” on the Iranian threats, in addition to neutralising the domestic American conservative voices calling for dealing decisively with Iran.

    Although the timing of the attack on the oil tanker Mercer Street coincided with the UN conference on “Maritime Safety”, which America harnessed against China and the events in the South China Sea, and which she has also been harnessing for the security of the Gulf region and maritime navigation, a host of objective elements, however, necessitate stimulating political interactants and intensifying the confrontation with Iran and her surrogates, especially Hezbollah which is still hampering endeavours to form the Lebanese government in order to secure an influential seat in the cabinet, in addition to intimidating the Houthis and warning the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces affiliated to Iran against thwarting the forthcoming elections al-Kadhimi intends to hold in light of his recent understandings with Biden, the withdrawal of US forces, and America’s intention to grant al-Kadhimi an achievement enabling him to regulate the Iraqi political process within the framework of rectifying the standpoints of the Iranian conservative movement, which considers dwarfing Iran’s functions, clipping her wings, retrenching her gains in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, and bringing her back to her original functional square in the region, a grievance they are attempting to reverse through the troublemaking instigated by its sectarian surrogates, pursuing its policies of rivalry and jostling with Iran’s conventional opponents in the region, namely, Saudi, Turkey, and "Israel", and through attempting to acquire the function of an affiliated state, with the rank of a strategic partner and major sponsor of US interests in the Middle East. This vision was expressed by former Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki in a letter to former US ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalil Zadeh through the defunct Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, in which he wrote: “What do the Americans want from us? We supported the liberation of Iraq from Saddam; we supported the Iraqi Interim Governing Council and the presidential elections, and we supported this new situation that the Americans have imposed on Iraq. There is nothing the Americans have done that we have not supported. So, tell your friend what more do they want from us?” Talabani conveyed the message to Zalmay Khalil Zadeh who replied to Talabani with, “We want stability and security in Iraq,” which means stability and security in the context of the regional solution, and the integration of "Israel" into the region, something which the decision-makers in America and the world agree upon.

    In this regard, it would be imperative to note that the US initiative for the Middle East and the Islamic world clashes with the interests and the Aqeedah of the people of the region, and undermines, in some of its aspects, the fundamentals upon which the functional regimes are built, especially those which derive their legitimacy and popular bases from nationalistic resources, such as Turkey, religious resources, such as Saudi, and nationalistic and sectarian resources, such as Iran.

    This is why Turkey broke free from affiliation and Iran exceeded her functional mandate in some issues. Turkey’s breakaway from affiliation and Iran’s transgression of her functional boundaries were dictated by the need to preserve the achievements of the leaders, parties and political elites, and to protect their political future, especially in the presence of an intense domestic and regional tussle to gain the trump cards which would increase the value of the regime in the market of securing Western interests in the region.

    It would also be imperative to indicate that the US does not give weight to affiliated states and the collaborators such as Iran, Saudi, the Emirates and the Afghan government, which the US has recently compelled in losing its conflict with the Taliban, due to her renewed need to invest in Islam and undermine the stability of the regions neighbouring China and the Russian southern border pockets. Likewise, America does not give weight to her allies, including the Jewish leaders in "Israel", when she designs her international policies; this is why she turned a blind eye to Hamas’s missile attacks on "Israel" and colluded to thwart Netanyahu’s efforts to get re-elected.

    Therefore, initiating a military strike against Iran in the context of downsizing her and scaling down the level of her threat to "Israel" in order to encourage the government of Naftali Bennet to adhere to the course of American policy, is not likely but it cannot be ruled out, as there is no consolation for the collaborators. This was the fate of Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Zein El-Abideen Ben Ali, and Ali Abdullah Saleh. However, America’s penchant for the military option against Iran, or otherwise, depends chiefly on the extent of erosion in the extremist political mood and rightwing mentality in "Israel" and on the compliance of the "Israeli" public opinion with the peace process and regional integration through the gate of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, which will contain the Palestinian “resistance” groups. It also depends on the response of the conservative Iranian movement to the American demands in respect of Iran’s surrogates and their troublemaking in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.

    As for the "Israeli" side, it seems that the government of Bennet is so far responsive to the American test. The spokesperson of the "Israeli" army announced on 6 August 2021 that his country had “no interest in escalating the situation and going to war”. By escorting and protecting the Mercer Street oil tanker owned by an "Israeli" tycoon, America wanted to corroborate "Israel’s” need for American protection and the necessity to comply with her policies.

    As for Iran and the rest of the countries of the region, they are complying with the American dictates, adapting to the new situation after the arrival of Biden who is proceeding according to the principle of “sustainable policy” instead of the policy of concluding deals and relying on the collaborators, and proceeding very cautiously to secure their continuance in power in exchange for their services.

    Hence, the Ummah continues to pay from her faculties and at the expense of her revival the invoice of affiliation according to which the rulers of the region are proceeding in service of their American master, even if this led to destroying the resources, causing death and mortgaging the future of the region and its masses to her enemies. Needless to say, the region would not achieve a real liberation unless the conditions generated by the Kuffar in the Muslims lands were rectified, and unless the Aqeedah of the Ummah is placed exclusively as the foundation of revival and the relationship with other countries. Otherwise, the region will continue to be subjected to Western influence and the Muslims will continue to pay the price.

    6 Muharram 1443h
    14 August 2021

  • Political Observation - Clarifications on Kais Saied’s Coup 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Clarifications on Kais Saied’s Coup

    First: The foreign instructions given to Kais Saied, be they by France or the US, do not denote the presence of a clash between them, and that the outcome would be in favour of either side at the expense of the other because the international, regional, and domestic political situation in Tunisia is settled in favour of the US thanks to the might, tools of pressure and influence she enjoys. However, the decision of the excessively narcistic Kais Saied to hijack the critical political scene due to his rift with his “co-wives”, and his disruption of society and political life, with the help of his secularist allies, such as Abeer Mousa, will culminate in a settlement where the beneficiaries will only be the Kafir West and the collaborating political milieu which will seize the opportunity to wipe out its squalor, reproduce the regime and regulate its process and snip the tails of the “revolutionary situation” which the Arab Spring has societally left behind, especially as Kais Saied was selected from outside the political milieu in order to do away with the choice of the forces representing the Islamic tendency who have been exploited in the process of dismantling the regimes and containing the masses’ movements and trends.

    As for the international plane, France’s manoeuvre is not expected to bear fruit with her juggling of the political contradictions in Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria to gain the support and leadership of European states within the framework of her jostling with Germany over European leadership following Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU). It is worth mentioning in this context that Kais Saied lent his ear to France, whose colonialism of Tunisia he described as “protection”, despite having acceded to power via the American gate, as France was behind his move to disrupt the political scene and America was never absent from the event, allowing it to happen in order to set the scene in a manner that will compel France and her surrogates, as well as the people of Tunisia, to capitulate. All this is corroborated by striking indications such as the coup having been staged within the context of France’s attempts to impede America’s agenda for Europe and NATO, the Russo-European relationship and the concord between America and Germany which involves settling the outstanding glitches on Nord Stream 2, and in the context of America’s enterprise to frustrate France’s endeavours to achieve any gains in Libya, Mali, Chad, Algeria, Tunisia and the Eastern Mediterranean without American endorsement. In other words, the Tunisian soft coup has not been staged as a result of harmony and concord in the Franco-American relationship, or an agreement as is the case in the Lebanese issue, but rather in the context of a dissonance and a French sulkiness which was manifested in France’s attempt to hold a tripartite summit with Germany and Russia a month ago which was foiled by America through the objection of Bucharest Nine, which is a group of European countries opposed to Russia and grateful to America for helping them get rid of Russian intervention and threats following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another striking indication that France was behind Kais Saied’s coup is reflected in what the Middle East Eye published quoting Tunisian and Italian sources, namely that “ambassadors from Germany, Italy and the US have all told him to restitute parliament ASAP,” that “the Americans stopped him from holding a mass rally in favour of his power grab…they have all passed messages of support to Rachid Ghannouchi, the speaker of parliament and head of Ennahda, as well as other party leaders,” and that “US Senators Jim Rische and Bob Menendez, the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said they were “deeply concerned” by the growing tension and instability in Tunisia. "President Saied must recommit to the democratic principles that underpin US-Tunisia relations and the military must observe its role in a constitutional democracy."

    Moreover, Facebook decided to block the account of the largest group supporting the coup, whose followers exceeded one million, under the guise of inciting hatred, while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) refused to resume negotiations on Tunisian loans except with a “legitimate government”. Hence, France’s harnessing of the “immigration and terrorism” scarecrow together with the tension south and east of the Mediterranean will be exploited by America validate the role of NATO and justify its continuance; and in this context, America has forged ahead with her initiative to bring together Libyan stakeholders through the political process and the elections scheduled to be imposed in December, and to expel Russian and Turkish forces from Libya, while threatening through Aguila Saleh and Khalifah Haftar to return to the cycle of armed struggle and division to regions of western Libya and the Libyan people in general, especially the armed groups earmarked to be contained and integrated into state institutions to accept the outputs of the political solutions.

    Second: The wild card in the equation of change does not merely lie in rejecting the status quo, but also in possessing the civilisational alternative expressing the ideology of the masses, i.e., their doctrine and their system, and epitomising their will and choice of leadership; it also lies in the persistence to impose the alternative with a decisive doctrinism worthy of the sacrifices that have been made. This is because repression, corruption, despotism and misgovernance fall under the direct sensation of the masses, and they can easily be identified, rejected and overturned. However, imposing the alternative is what requires an insightful and doctrinal political vision and a robust resoluteness. Western powers headed by the US perceived this reality and based their strategy, since the Arab Spring erupted, on generating perfunctory change to protect the essence of the regimes in Arab countries, whereby the masses would remain in a state of constant confusion and division. Each time a collaborator was exhausted, they would bring another one via the masses or the army with a cosmetic popular cover to exhaust the masses’ volition in the nominal change, dismantle it, dominate the Ummah and make her despair of achieving liberation, change and revival.

    Kais Saied and Nabil al-Qarawi received support from civil societies, syndicates and charities linked to foreign powers, and it would be prohibited for the Muslim masses to rely on a corrupt political system, or to expect their will for change to be effectuated when it conforms to the foreign will and the domestic and foreign electoral districts become one and the same because even if the president’s hands were clean, he would act as a sedative to the masses, an embellishment of the corrupt regime and the collaborating milieu, and a servant to the system of corruption and the foreign powers pillaging the Muslims’ resources with a popular mandate. The Muslims should perceive that the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and they should beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They should also perceive that the colonial powers, headed by the US, dominate the political milieux, civil societies and decision-making circles in Muslims’ lands, and that any change based on other than Islam would only yield disappointment and aggravated helplessness and despair from the notion of change, and would only lead to being acclimatised with reality, injustice, the oppressors and the watchdogs of Western interests. It would also lead to redefining governance and reducing it to providing municipal services and collecting waste, rather than running the domestic and foreign affairs of the masses, as well as changing the personnel rather than changing the system and purging the political milieu and the military, security, judicial and media institutions, and implementing the Aqeedah of the masses in all aspects of life.

    Third: Partial or “soft” secularism is not a transitional phase between brutal eradicationalist secularism and Islam, but rather the final solution they want to entrench under the guise of gradualism, the art of the possible, necessities, interests, objectives of Shari'ah, repelling detriments, the lesser of the two evils, and “Kufr less than Kufr”, which would lead to harmony with the secularist system in its quality as an incubator for reform and change, rather than leading to restoring Shari'ah and its referentiality in life, the state and society. Ninety percent of those who voted for Kais Saied and those who recently revolted in Iraq, Sudan, and Algeria, entered their youth through the gate of rebellion against reality, the regimes and the rulers. It is therefore imperative to fuse them with Islam and steer their motivation to generate change. This rumbling torrent of Muslim youths, who rose-up to generate change despite their oblivion to their religion, constitutes the greatest challenge to the colonialist West this century. This is why the West has been intensifying their bombardment of the region with collaborators, spies, saboteurs, beasts and wolves in sheep’s clothing. They have been recruiting smugglers of corrupt thoughts and showering the minds of the youths with secularist and atheist concepts and thoughts alien to their religion to drive them away from change, liberation and revival.

    This rumbling torrent of youths is like the first rain, despite the scum and the conspiracies staining it. When the water comes down, it is not expected to ascend but to descend and run through the rocks and rugged valleys with the scum, then it will settle and subside to germinate the trees that grow and bear delicious fruit. Allah the Almighty says: “He sends down water from the sky, and river-beds are running high according to their measure, the stream carries scum on its surface.” [al-Ra’ad-17]; “As far as the scum is concerned, it passes away as dross; but that which is of benefit to man abides on earth.” [al-Ra’ad-17]. Indeed, the Kuffar have ignited a fire in Muslims’ lands: “And, likewise, from that which they smelt in the fire in order to make ornaments or utensils, scum.” [al-Ra’ad-17], but it is the fire that will separate the precious metals in the Ummah from the scum and impurities to uncover the gemstone and the strong and robust bloc from which the Ummah will benefit with the leave of Allah the Almighty.

    Hence, it is imperative to revive the work towards resuming the Islamic way of life, expound the truth, correct the concepts, and dry out the wells of secularist thought upon which the regimes are built, and from which the tyrannical rulers and their surrogates derive their foreign support.

    “In this way does Allah set forth the parable of truth and falsehood.” [al-Ra’ad-17]

    29 Thil Hijjah 1442h
    8 August 2021  

  • 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



  • 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 

  • 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 



  • 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  

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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


  • 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

  • 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  
  • 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

  • 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     

  • 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    

  • 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 
  • 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     
  • 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   
  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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  

  • 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       

  • 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   

  • 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   

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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
  • 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 

  • 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


  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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




  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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


  • 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

  • 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 thi