The War Within Islam

Efforts to foster Sunni–Shia unity: In a special interview broadcast on Al Jazeera on February 14, 2007, former Iranian president and chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and highly influential Sunni scholar Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, "stressed the impermissibility of the fighting between the Sunnis and the Shi’is" and the need to "be aware of the conspiracies of the forces of hegemony and Zionism which aim to weaken [Islam] and tear it apart in Iraq." Even on this occasion there were differences, with Rafsanjani openly asking "more than once who started" the inter-Muslim killing in Iraq, and Al-Qaradawi denying claims by Rafsanjani that he knew where "those arriving to Iraq to blow Shi’i shrines up are coming from: [Wikipedia]

International jihad, in part created and supervised by the U.S. to undermine the Soviet Union, has exacerbated divisions that are fuelling bloodshed.
The bloodiest conflicts on planet Earth today are no longer imperialist wars waged for raw materials, territory, and markets. Instead, religious wars – mostly between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims – are ravaging half a dozen countries across the world. The new militancy derives sustenance from religious extremism, which in turn derives from a massive return to the faith. A 2012 Pew Global Report discovered that many Sunni majority states (Egypt-53%|, Tunisia-41%, Jordan-43% etc.) have large fractions of their population who refuse to accept Shias as real Muslims.

In this sectarian war, Pakistan has become one of the most vicious battlegrounds. Its Shia minority, estimated at 20-30% of the population, has seen thousands killed in recent years. This year has been no less tragic than earlier ones: Shikarpur on Jan 30, Peshawar on Feb 13, Rawalpindi on Feb 18; in less than three weeks, suicide bombers successfully targeted three Shia mosques packed with worshippers. Hazara Shias are fleeing Balochistan, some making futile attempts to reach Australia’s distant shores. Barricades surround segregated Shia urban neighbourhoods. But even high security often fails: a suicide bomber made it through to residential Abbas Town in Karachi with a carload of explosives, leaving dozens of broken apartments with flesh and body parts hanging from balconies. Outside of Syria and Iraq, Pakistan is now the world’s deadliest country for Shias.

Unsurprisingly, Pakistan’s Shias see themselves as victims of religious persecution. Some speak dramatically of a Shia genocide. This is surely an exaggeration since the scale is only a thousand or so per year. But the irony should not be lost: Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father, was a Gujrati Shia Muslim. He mobilized millions stating that Muslims and Hindus could never coexist but Muslims, irrespective of sect, could. This eventually turned out to be wrong, but in my childhood things were largely peaceful. Intermarriages were fairly common until the 1980’s, and orthodox Shias had joined orthodox Sunnis into enthusiastically supporting Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s 1974 decision to declare Ahmadis, a small persecuted community, as non-Muslim.

Now, in a curious flip of history, a 2012 Pew Global Survey shows that 41% of Pakistanis believe that Shias are non-Muslim. A popular explanation of this change blames the Islamization process started by military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980’s. His policies distinguished between different sects and indeed did promote discord. However the massive ongoing fratricide across the Middle East suggests that religious tensions would have anyway boiled over; the phenomenon is now globalized. Shias, being only 12-14 percent of all Muslims, have largely been on the receiving end. But Shia Iran has scarcely been kind to the “heretical” Bahais or Iran’s Sunnis.

At the core of today’s conflicts is the relatively recent insistence, equally by Shias and Sunnis, is that religion must fuse with political power. Sizeable fractions of both sects demand a system that has temporal authority based upon the Qu’ran, and where religion is not confined to an individual’s contemplation of God. However, apart from the Qu’ran, Shia and Sunni agree to nothing else.

What caused dormant differences to explode into war? I think that Islam’s new era owes to three catastrophic events. First, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 converted secular Iran into Islamic Iran and ignited a craving among the orthodox, both Shia and Sunni, for a religious state. Second, international jihad was created and supervised by the United States to counter the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan but eventually ran amok. Third, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 destroyed Saddam Hussein but, in seeking to assure their legitimacy and control, the invaders found it expeditious to recognize and then unleash the sectarian monster.

Today, the world’s Shias find inspiration from Ayatollah Khomenei’s political philosophy. On the other hand, Sunni ideals of the caliphate derive from the militant preaching of Egypt’s Syed Qutb and Pakistan’s Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi. Both Sunni and Shia insist that true justice is possible only when religious law replaces secular law and religious practices are enforced in society. Both see the secular West as their mortal enemy. But thereafter the agreement grinds to a halt. There are irreconcilably different versions of early Islamic history, different choices of exemplars, and different religious rituals.

Had the Qur’an prescribed a kind of political system, Shia and Sunni would have argued their cases with that as the reference. But on matters of state and politics, the Holy Book is silent. In fact, as various scholars have pointed out, the Arabic language had no word for “state”. That which came closest was dawlah. But the word acquired its current meaning only after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia which led to the emergence of geographically defined nation-states in Europe.

Crucially, the Qur’an is silent on how a state’s ruler is to be chosen and what might be legitimate grounds for his removal. It does not specify the limits of the ruler’s power or that of the shura’s (consultative body). Also unmentioned is the manner in which the shura, which could potentially appoint or remove a ruler, is to be chosen. Would there be an executive, judiciary, or government ministries and what should their functions be? Islam’s other source of definitive authority, Prophet Mohammed, did not outline the process for selecting future leaders of the faithful. Whether he actually specified his immediate successor remains deeply contentious and, in fact, lies at the base of centuries-long theological differences between Shia and Sunni. Nevertheless, from time to time, the idea of an Islamic state has been resurrected.

So what is to be done? With the rise of the Da’ish (the Islamic State group) and massive failures in Iraq and Libya, the West must somehow deal with the consequences of its former policies of subjugation, conquest, and extraction of resources. America’s ally, Saudi Arabia, fuels Sunni fundamentalism with petrodollars, and should be firmly dealt with. But it is Muslims, still saddled with ancient animosities and pre-modern ideas, who will have to chart out a new course. At present, the trends are not encouraging.

In Muslim countries around the world, religious faith continues to take a firmer grip over the lives of ordinary citizens. Therefore the question of what constitutes the truest form of faith becomes ever more important. Hence, sympathy for victims of mass killings, or individual assassinations, is limited. This, in turn, gives license to the killers who are implicitly encouraged by television media. Operating on laissez faire, with almost no state control, it panders to the high viewership ratings earned by ranting preachers. This is the flame which sets the abundant dead wood on fire.

There is only one way to end these mad killings. Muslim societies must realize that categorizing fellow citizens according to their religious belief is naught but a prescription for catastrophe. That realization had once existed in many Muslim societies and was articulated by countless Sufis, mystics, and bards.

Iran’s famous poet, Shams of Tabriz (1185-1248) had perhaps put it better than anyone else:

I am not a Muslim
None may call me Christian or Jew
I am not of the East, nor the West
I am neither of earth nor water
I am not of India or China
I am not of the kingdom of Iraq
I am not of this world nor the next,
not of heaven, nor of purgatory.
My place is the placeless,
My trace is the traceless.
It is not the body nor is it the soul,
for I belong to the soul of my love.
If I should win a moment with You,
I will put both worlds under my feet
and dance forever in joy.
O Shams of Tabriz, I am so drunk in the world
that except for revelry and intoxication
I have no tale to tell.

By: Pervez Hoodbhoy. He teaches physics in Lahore and Islamabad.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-War-Within-Islam-20150306-0039.html

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations
• Videos >>>>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace

Peace Forum Magazines
Over 1,000,000 Visits

http://PeaceForumNet.blogspot.com
http://AftabKhan-net.blogspot.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *...

http://FreeBookpark.blogspot.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Choice to fight IS or Shi'a domination by Iran?

THE prime minister’s visit to Saudi Arabia has sparked a mini-firestorm of speculation about the ‘real’ motives for the trip. Yet Nawaz Sharif is just one of many regional and international leaders invited to Riyadh over the past few days.

The Turkish and Egyptian presidents were recently in the kingdom, while John Kerry also made a quick dash to Riyadh. It seems two main issues were commonly discussed during these visits: Iran and the self-styled Islamic State. There has been talk of forming a ‘Sunni bloc’ as Tehran has started to exercise greater influence across the region and a possible nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 emerges on the horizon, which would pave the way for the Islamic Republic’s re-entry into the global financial system. Indeed in both Syria and Iraq, Iran is helping these governments push back against IS. This puts the Arab sheikhdoms in a tough spot: should they still try and contain Iran, or should they focus on defeating IS?

IS, on the other hand, is projecting itself as a champion of the ‘Sunni’ cause, putting up a fight against an expansionist, Shia Iran. Here, the difficulty of the Gulf sheikhdoms becomes apparent: if they take a position against IS they’ll be on the same side as Iran. If they support the Islamic State — overtly or covertly — it will effectively be suicidal. For while IS may come in handy to encircle Iran, it is quite clear the self-styled caliphate seeks to dismantle the current political architecture of the Middle East and remake the region, and indeed the entire Muslim world, in its image. That is why it is important for Sunni-majority states, especially the Gulf sheikhdoms, to firmly oppose IS, and despite their doctrinal and ideological differences with Iran, bury the hatchet and work with Tehran against IS. Moreover, if the Sunni states remain ambiguous about their anti-IS policy, Islamists the world over will gravitate towards the extremist group as it continues to play up its anti-Iran and anti-Shia credentials.

And where does Pakistan fit into this equation? It is indeed a difficult challenge for Islamabad to balance its ties with Riyadh and Tehran. But within this difficulty may be an opportunity. Firstly, Pakistan should not become a party in the Arab-Iran tussle. Iran is a neighbour and should not be estranged while decades of ties with Saudi Arabia must also not be severed. If anything, Pakistan is ideally placed to act as a bridge between the two — should it play its cards right. Coming back to IS, the Iranian action against the group must not be viewed through a sectarian lens, especially when Saudi Arabia and other countries have declared it a terrorist organisation. Ideally, collective action against IS is the best option; for this Iran and Saudi Arabia will need to set aside their differences and focus on the common enemy.
Contents from Editorial by  Dawn.com

IS (neither Islamic nor state) and the morning after war

As the US Congress ponders President Barack Obama's request for an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), US policymakers must focus on the "morning after" before they embark on another potentially disastrous war in the Levant.

The president assured the nation at his press conference on February 11 that IS is on the verge of being contained, degraded, and defeated. If true, the United States and the West must address the future of the region in the wake of the collapse of IS to avoid the rise of another extremist threat and another "perfect storm" in the region.

The evidence so far that Washington will be more successful than during the Iraq war is not terribly encouraging.

The Iraq War parallel

George Tenet, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, wrote in his book At the Center of the Storm that in September 2002 CIA analysts presented the Bush administration with an analytic paper titled "The Perfect Storm: Planning for Negative Consequences of Invading Iraq." The paper included "worst-case scenarios" of what could go wrong as a result of a US-led invasion of Iraq.

The paper, according to Tenet, outlined several negative consequences:

anarchy and the territorial breakup of Iraq;

regime-threatening instability in key Arab states;

deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States that produced a surge of global terrorism against US interests.

The Perfect Storm paper suggested several steps that the United States could take that might mitigate the impact of these potentially negative consequences. These included a serious attempt at solving some of the key regional conflicts and domestic economic and political issues that have plagued the region for decades.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration spent more time worrying about defeating Saddam's army than focusing on what could follow Saddam's demise. Ignoring the Perfect Storm paper, as the past decade has shown, was detrimental to US interests, the security of the region, and the stability of some key Arab allies. The US and the region now have to deal with these consequences - anarchy, destruction, and refugees - of the Bush administration's refusal to act on those warnings.

The past decade also witnessed the resurgence of radical and terrorist groups, which happily filled the vacuum that ensued. US credibility in the region plummeted as well.

When CIA analysts persisted in raising their concerns about a post-Saddam Iraq, the Pentagon's Under Secretary for Policy Doug Feith dismissed the concerns as "persnickety."

If the Obama administration wants to avoid the miscalculations of the previous administration about Iraq, it should make sure the land war against IS in Iraq and Syria does not become "enduring" and that the presence of US troops on the ground does not morph into an "occupation."

Defeating IS might be the easy part. Devising a reasonably stable post-IS Levant will be more challenging because of the complexity of the issues involved. Before embarking on the next phase of combat, US policymakers should have the courage and strategic vision to raise and answer several key questions.

How will Sunni and Shia Muslims react to the re-entry of US troops on the ground and to the likelihood that US military presence could extend beyond three years?

The "liberation" of Iraq that the Bush administration touted in March 2003 quickly turned into "occupation," which precipitously engendered anger among the population. Iraqi Sunnis and Shia rose up against the US military. The insurgency that erupted attracted thousands of foreign jihadists from the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world. Bloody sectarianism and vigilantism spread across Iraq as an unintended consequence of the invasion, and it still haunts the region today.

During the Iraq war, the Iraqi Sunni minority, which has ruled the country since its creation in the early 1920s, perceived the United States as backing the Shia majority at the expense of the Sunnis. They also saw the United States as supporting the sectarian policies of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, especially as he excluded Sunnis from senior government positions. This feeling of alienation pushed many Iraqi Sunnis to support the Islamic State.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refused to admit that an insurgency and a civil war were spreading across Iraq. By the time he admitted that both were happening, it became impossible to defend the "liberation" thesis to Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims.

If the US-led ground war against IS extends to Syria, how will Washington reconcile its announced policy favoring Assad's downfall with fighting alongside his forces, and how will the Arab public and leaders react to such perceived hypocrisy?

It's foolish to argue that the US-led war against IS in Syria is not indirectly benefiting the Assad regime. Assad claimed in a recent BBC interview that the coalition provides his regime with "information" about the fighting. Regardless of the veracity of his claim, Assad has enjoyed a breathing room and the freedom to pursue his opponents viciously and mercilessly, thanks to the US-led coalition's laser-like focus on IS.

Sunni Arab regimes, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are already urging the Obama administration to increase substantially its military support of the anti-Assad mainstream opposition. These regimes, which are also fighting IS, argue that the United States could simultaneously fight IS and work toward toppling Assad.

If this situation continues and Assad stays in power while IS is being contained, Sunni Arab populations would soon begin to view the United States as the "enemy." Popular support for radical jihadists would grow, and the region would witness a repeat of the Iraq scenario.

The territorial expansion of IS across Iraq and Syria has for all intents and purposes removed the borders between the two countries and is threatening the boundaries between Syria and Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, and Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

If US policymakers are interested in creating political stability after IS, they should explore how to re-establish a new political order on the ashes of the century-old Sykes-Picot Levant political architecture. Otherwise, the "Iraq fatigue" that almost crippled US efforts in Iraq in recent years, especially during the Maliki era, will surely be replaced by a "Levant fatigue."

It will take a monumental effort to redesign a new Levant based on reconciling Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Kurds, and Arabs on the principles of inclusion, tolerance, and respect for human rights, economic opportunity, and good governance. If the United States is not prepared to commit time and resources to this goal, the Levant would devolve into failed states and ungovernable territories.

If radical Sunni ideology and autocracy are the root causes of IS, what should the United States do to thwart the rise of another terrorist organization in the wake of this one?

Since the bulk of radical Sunni theology comes out of Saudi Arabia and militant Salafi Wahhabism, the United States should be prepared to urge the new Saudi leadership, especially the Deputy to the Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Nayef, to review the role of Salafi Wahhabi preachers and religious leaders in domestic public life and foreign policy. This also should certainly apply to Saudi education and textbooks.

Whereas in the past, Saudi officials have resisted any perceived foreign interference as an encroachment on their religion, this type of extremist, intolerant ideology has nevertheless given radical jihadists a religious justification for their violence. It now poses an undeniable threat to the national security of the United States and the safety of its citizens in the region.

Autocracy, corruption, repression, and anarchy in several Arab states have left millions of citizens and refugees alienated, unemployed, and angry. Many young men and women in these populations will be tempted to join new terrorist organizations following IS's demise. The governments violate the rights of these young people at whim, imprison them illegally, and convict them in sham trials - all because of their political views or religious affiliation or both - in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.

In Egypt thousands of political prisoners are languishing in jail. In Bahrain, the regime has been stripping dozens of citizens of their citizenship because of their pro-democracy views. Once their passports are taken away, Bahraini citizens are deprived of most government services and opportunities. When visiting a government office for a particular service, they are required to show the passport, which the government has already taken away, as a proof of identity - a classic case of "Catch 22" leaving these citizens in a state of economic and political limbo.

The Perfect Storm paper warned the Bush administration about what could follow Saddam if critical questions about a post-Saddam Iraq were not addressed. The Bush White House did not heed those warnings. It would be indeed tragic for the United States if the Obama administration made the same mistake.

Emile Nakhlehis a Research Professor at the University of New Mexico, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America's Relations with the Muslim World.

Asia Times Online : World Affairs

by Emile Nakhleh, Asiatimes.com

IS and the morning after war

Related: 

Bernard Lewis Plan to Carve up Middle East and Muslim World: http://aftabkhan-net.blogspot.com/2014/10/plan-to-carve-up-muslim-world.html
SIS: 'American-Zionist Tool' for Dismembering Iraq (Sotal Iraq, Iraq)
 "Strangely enough, America today is fighting ISIS, and has sent experts to Iraq for that very purpose. For whom? For the love of Iraqis? And for whose benefit does America support ISIS and provide it with weapons in Syria? For whose benefit does it support the al-Nusra Front? ... Today it is essential to pay careful attention to, and analyze carefully, all American and Israeli plans. The forces of Freedom, human rights and democracy must join to defeat their criminal designs for undermining Iraq, and their tool of implementation, ISIS."

No observer of events can justifiably describe America's role in the Middle East as one of a neutral advocate of liberty and peace, because the U.S. shows no concern for Arabs or Islamic interests. It is entirely concerned with securing its hegemony over the entire region to ensure the protection of its own economic interests and the security interests of Israel.

Following the 2003 occupation of this ancient society, which has well-established roots and stretches far back in history, America employed a reckless and cunning policy of spreading sectarianism in order to dismember and dissociate Iraq's social and intellectual fabric.

The United States knew how to sow its malicious ideas with the rules and regulations imposed by the notorious [U.S. Proconsul] L. Paul Bremer. Bremer dissolved the Army, and his de-Baathification allowed militias to integrate into the armed forces, which fostered sectarianism and religious, ethnic and racial strife, establishing a system that encouraged the division of Iraq. Ultimately, that was the key objective.

If America had been truly serious about putting Iraq on the right path and instituting a genuine democracy, it would have issued legislation to protect human dignity and the right of the people to live within a framework of liberty, peace, security and safety! Instead, the United States did just the opposite, disrupting Iraq's civilizational project.

Strangely enough, America today is fighting ISIS, and has sent experts to Iraq for that very purpose. For whom? For the love of Iraqis? And for whose benefit does America support ISIS and provide it with weapons in Syria? For whose benefit does it support the al-Nusra Front?

Everyone should be aware that America, with its policies of double standards, its purely demagogic methods, and its changing of colors in the region, are in place only to serve its own special interests. What does America and its Zionist and Freemason allies want from Iraq after the catastrophes of Mosul and Tikrit? [ISIS overran both cities and continues to occupy them].
Posted By Worldmeets.US

Today it is essential for forces of freedom to stand against, pay careful attention to, and analyze carefully, all American and Israeli plans. Must all join to defeat their criminal designs for undermining Iraq, and their tool of implementation, ISIS. And we much take special care not to exclude any of Iraq’s religions, ethnicities, or races. Iraq is in dire need of a nation that stands with our armed forces to deter these traitors and ISIS scum.

For the sake of protecting Iraq's land, sky, and water, and maintaining the cohesion of the nation.

Extract from original By Ali Abed Al Ghazzi, Translated By Lina Barakat-Masroujeh, Iraq - Sotal Iraq - Original Article (Arabic)
http://worldmeets.us/ http://www.worldmeets.us/sotaliraq000042.shtml#.VOyc9_mUdpo#ixzz3Sg6qcAUv
http://www.worldmeets.us/sotaliraq000042.shtml#.VOyc9_mUdpo

Defeat religious terrorism with power of Islam: هزيمة الإرهاب الديني مع قوة الإسلام:

والإرهابيون يستخدمون باسم الإسلام والجهاد لارتكاب الفظائع يمنع منعا باتا في الإسلام

The Terrorists are using name of Islam and Jihad to commit atrocities strictly

 forbidden in Islam

أنها تستخدم الرموز والمصطلحات الدينية الإسلامية (الجهاد) لتضليل وتوظيف جاهل، المسلمين الأبرياء، وكسب التعاطف والدعم

They use Islamic religious symbols and terminologies (Jihad) to misguide and recruit  the ignorant , innocent Muslims, and to gain sympathies and support

 The great religion Islam has been hijacked by few 
lunatics while 1.5 billion Muslims watch helplessly 

What a shame! In order to defeat them; mere meetings, condemnations, resolutions , speeches, religious edict (Fatwas), laws, speedy military courts and military action against them are JUST NOT ENOUGH

وقد خطفت الدين العظيم الإسلام من قبل عدد قليل من المجانين في حين يراقب 1.5 مليار مسلم بلا حول ولا قوة يا للعار! من أجل إلحاق الهزيمة بهم. مجرد الاجتماعات والإدانات والقرارات والخطب، فتوى دينية (فتاوى) والقوانين والمحاكم العسكرية السريعة والعمل العسكري ضدهم هي فقط لا يكفي

 They have to be deprived of their FALSE religious , ideological power base of recruitment and support  

أنها يجب أن تكون المحرومون من FALSE الدينية، قاعدة القوة الأيديولوجية التجنيد والدعم

The rulers of Muslim countries in consultation with Ulema (Islamic scholars) should declare them to be outside the folds of Islam (to save lives, Quran:2:173) and declare TOTAL WAR, Jihad against these Fisadi Terrorists 

حكام الدول الإسلامية بالتشاور مع العلماء (علماء المسلمين) أن تعلن لها أن تكون خارج ثنايا الإسلام (لإنقاذ الأرواح، القرآن: 2: 173)، وتعلن الحرب الشاملة، الجهاد ضد هؤلاء الإرهابيين Fisadi

Every Muslim as a religious duty should be obliged to voluntarily take part in this Jihad against Fisadi Terrorists according to plan to be issued by Muslim states (not private organizations or individuals)

كل مسلم واجب ديني يجب أن تكون ملزمة لاتخاذ طوعا المشاركة في هذا الجهاد ضد الإرهابيين Fisadi وفقا للخطة التي ستصدر من قبل الدول الإسلامية (المنظمات لا الخاصة أو الأفراد)

People should join AFVF (Anti Fisadi Volunteer Force ), provide financial support / donations to governments, take part in peaceful demonstrations, use the power of pen to educate the masses on the heinous un Islamic crimes against
humanity committed by Fisadi Terrorists.

يجب على الناس الانضمام AFVF (قوة مكافحة Fisadi تطوع)، وتوفير الدعم المالي / التبرعات للحكومات، والمشاركة في مظاهرات سلمية، واستخدام القوة من ركلة جزاء لتثقيف الجماهير على جرائم الإسلامية الامم المتحدة البشعة ضد الإنسانية التي ارتكبها الإرهابيون Fisadi.

Unless every Muslim participate in this Endeavour, they cannot be defeated
militarily alone. This is not an emotional narrative. The thinkers and intellectuals should seriously ponder upon this issue and propose suitable measures

ما لم يشارك كل مسلم في هذا المسعى، فإنها لا يمكن أن تهزم

وحده عسكريا. هذا ليس السرد العاطفي. يجب على المفكرين والمثقفين يفكر بجدية على هذه المسألة واقتراح التدابير المناسبة

يجب أن المجتمع الدولي أن يقدم كل الدعم الممكن لهزيمة هذا الخطر

International community should provide all possible support to defeat this menace  

 THE MISNOMER
ISLAMIC STATE, DAESH, ISLAMIC CALIPHATE 

After “Al-QAIDA”, “TALIBAN”, “BOKO HARAM” the new terrorist organization have emerged in the Middle East popularly known as “ISLAMIC STATE” or “DAESH”, or “ISLAMIC CALIPHATE” etc.  The actions of these terrorist groups have nothing to do with Islam or Islamic teachings. Its is misnomer to associate them with Islam in any way. Taking advantage of oppression, repression and exploitation by despotic “Imperialistic” puppets ruling Muslim countries, simple, ignorant people get sympathetic with them.  These Terrorist groups are outcome of imperialist, anti-Islamic conspirators to divide the Muslims to keep control of their resources. These Terrorists are tools of anti-Islamic forces, conspirators, using Islam with the dual purpose; Firstly to attract innocent ignorant Muslim youth and Secondly, to discredit, undermine Islam and its universal message for humanity.  It’s time to reject this  misnomer henceforth it be called:

“UN-ISLAMIC STATE”  or Arabic “La Dolah Islamiyah”

"لا إسلامية ولا دولة" "دولة إسلامية مضادة"
"لا دولتہ اسلامی " "غیر اسلامی خوارج"

More: http://flip.it/kiJqd    ,  http://Takfiritaliban.blogspot.com

اسلام کے نام پر فسادی جنگ کا خاتمہ صرف اسلام سے:

اسلام ، جہاد کے نام پر فساد کا خاتمہ کرنے کے لءیے محض مذمتی قراردادیں، کمیٹاں،دھواںدار تقریریں، بیانات، کانفرسیں، قوانین، فوجی  کاروائیاں، فوجی عدالتیں   وغیرہ کافی نہیں. یہ ایک مکمل قومی، مذھبی جنگ ہے(Total War).   مسلمان حکمران علماء کرام کی مدد سے  تکفیری فسادیوں اور ان کے ھمدردوں کے خلاف خالی فتووں کے علاوہ کھلم کھلا اعلان جہاد کریں جس میں ہر مسلمان جان، مال، قلم یا کسی اور متفقہ طریقے سے  حکومت کی مدد (غیر سرکاری طور پر نہیں)  سے حصہ لے . انشا ء اللہ امت مسلمہ اس سازش کو تباہ کر کہ امن قاءم  کر لیں گے. یہ کوءی سیاسی جزباتی نعرہ نہیں ایک ممکن سنجیدہ حل ہے اہل دانش اس معاملہ پر ٹھنڈےدل و دماغ سے غور و فکرکریں اور  ممکن عملی اقدام تجویز کریں. پیغام پھیلاءیں پر امن دباءو ڈالیں.
مَّن يَشْفَعْ شَفَاعَةً حَسَنَةً يَكُن لَّهُ نَصِيبٌ مِّنْهَا ۖ وَمَن يَشْفَعْ شَفَاعَةً سَيِّئَةً يَكُن لَّهُ كِفْلٌ مِّنْهَا ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّـهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ مُّقِيتًا
جو بھلائی کی سفارش کریگا وہ اس میں سے حصہ پائے گا اور جو برائی کی سفارش کرے گا وہ اس میں سے حصہ پائے گا، اور اللہ ہر چیز پر نظر رکھنے والا ہے(قرآن:4:85) Takfiri Khawarji Terrorism :

http://flip.it/kiJqd

http://Takfiritaliban.blogspot.com

The doctrine of Terrorists Takfiri  is not based upon any direct clear commandment or Ayah of Qur’an, it is derivative, based upon analogy (taweel), which can have more than one opinions.  However through their violent terrorist acts, they are violating the clear verses (Ayahs) of Quran and Hadith. No Muslim worth the name will ever dare to even think of rejecting or violating the unambiguous commandments of Allah, clearly mentioned in Qur’an and Hadith, summarised here:

·       Disregarding the Ayahs, which annuls good deeds: Qur’an;18:104-105.

·       Killing a believer, major sin: Qur’an;4:93. “A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands.”(Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 1.9)

·       Killing of innocent human not permitted: Qur’an;5:32, 17:33.

·       Mischief on land rejected: Qur’an;28:77,2:11-12,  2:60, 206, 3:63, 7:56, 5:33-34.

·       Creating disorder and anarchy on land . (Quran; 5:33 & 4:59)

·       Fighting permitted in defence with in limits – No Transgression: Qur’an;2:190.

·       Kindness to Non Combatants: Qur’an; 60:8.

·    Suicide is not permissible in Islam: Qur’an;2:195,4:29,  Sahih Al Bukhari Hadith Numbr:8.126, Sahih Muslim Hadith. Number.486.

·    Killing by burning not allowed: Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith, Number.4.259, Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith, Number.4.260. Bombing & explosions burn the victims.

· Safety of mosques, monasteries, churches, synagogues & worshippers:  Qur’an;2:114, 22:40).

·       Mutilation of the dead bodies is prohibited: Sahih Muslim Hadith.804.

·       Prohibitions-of killing religious people, women, children, aged, sick people, animals and cutting trees in military expeditions: Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith, Number.4.257,258, Al Muwata Hadith, Number;21.10.

·       Freedom of faith-no compulsion: Qur’an;2:256,88:21-24, 45;50,109:6.10:100.

·       No sectarianism :  (Quran;3:105, 6:159).

·       Rebellion against Islamic state and Muslim rulers not allowed: Quran; 4:59

· Creating mischief [disorder] on land: “..do not spread mischief in the 
land.”(Qur’an;7:74. 5:33)
More >>>>>> http://takfiritaliban.blogspot.com/2012/08/illogical-logic-of-takfiri-
taliban-to.html

:Defeat religious terrorism with power of Islam

The Terrorists are using name of Islam and Jihad to commit atrocities strictly forbidden in Islam. They use Islamic religious symbols and terminologies (Jihad) to misguide and recruit  the ignorant, innocent Muslims, and to gain sympathies and support. The great religion "Islam" has been hijacked by few lunatics while 1.5 billion Muslims watch helplessly; What a shame! In order to defeat them; mere meetings, condemnations, resolutions , speeches, religious edict (Fatwas), laws, speedy military courts and military action against them are JUST NOT 

ENOUGH. They have to be  >>>>> keep reading >>>>>  http://goo.gl/owS18Z

Jihad, Extremism:

• Jihad: Myth & Reality
• Takfir- Dotcrine of Terror
• Islamic Decree [Fatwa] Against Terrorism
• Tolerance
• Rebellion by Khawarij Taliban & Shari’ah in Pakistan   
• Rebuttal to  Anti-Islam FAQs
• Islamic Scholars in modern age علماء اور دور جدید

Pakistan’s Lessons for Turkey NY Times

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, declared that Turkey is ready “for any cooperation in the fight against terrorism.” Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu argued that Islamic State militants pose a greater threat to Turkey and the Muslim world than to the West.

But Turkey’s dilemma is far more grave than its leaders realize. Indeed, Turkey’s current situation resembles the early years of Pakistan’s sponsorship of the Taliban. The Islamic State is recruiting militants in Turkey. And failure to clean its own house now could lead Turkey down the path of “Pakistanization,” whereby a resident jihadist infrastructure causes Sunni extremism to ingrain itself deeply within the fabric of society.

Although Turkey now recognizes the threat — the Turkish government voted to authorize military force in Iraq and Syria on Thursday — it has yet to come to terms with its own responsibility for helping to create it.

Turkey claims that radical groups grew stronger because moderates seeking the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria were not given adequate aid. But that is not the whole picture. As Francis J. Ricciardone Jr., the former American ambassador to Turkey, has pointed out, Ankara supported radical groups, including the Nusra Front. Indeed, during the early days of Syria’s civil war, jihadist groups funneled fighters and resources through Turkey into Syria.

Turkey’s intervention in the Syrian civil war parallels Pakistan’s support of the Taliban to affect the course of the Afghan civil war. But the jihadism abetted by Pakistan did not remain across the Afghan border. Turkey may now be witnessing the beginnings of a similar blowback.

While the magnitude of Turkey’s recent engagement of jihadist proxies isn’t comparable to Pakistan’s long history of jihadist sponsorship, the late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s ill-fated relationship with the Sunni extremists of Pakistan’s Deobandi movement is still instructive for Turkey. Pakistan’s Deobandis dedicated themselves to implementing “the system of the Caliphate of the Rightly Guided,” a Sunni sectarian state to serve as a South Asian stepping stone to a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Pakistan’s experience with blowback began prior to Ms. Bhutto’s tenure, when General Zia ul-Haq’s regime backed mujahedeen militias as proxies to combat Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Organized by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate with assistance from the United States and Saudi Arabia, the recruitment networks within Pakistan started a radicalization process among segments of Pakistan’s population. The most susceptible group was the more than three million Afghan refugees. (The I.S.I. in particular backed Hekmatyar Gulbuddin’s Hezb-i-Islami, which was part of a rival to movement to the Deobandis.)

Afghan refugee boys began attending Deobandi madrassas, and small numbers of teachers and students began joining militant groups to fight the Soviets. Upon the Soviet withdrawal and the fall of the Afghan Communist government, the mujahedeen turned on one another, prolonging Afghanistan’s civil war, and the presence of millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

In 1994, Ms. Bhutto began to abet militancy to secure Pakistani objectives in Afghanistan. The Bhutto government facilitated a paramilitary force of thousands of madrassa students to cross the border and take control of Afghanistan’s Kandahar Province. With Pakistan’s help, this militia of “Taliban,” literally “students,” conquered large swaths of Afghan territory and declared its commander, Mullah Omar, to be caliph. Like the Taliban before them, the Islamic State has designated its commander, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as caliph and calls the territories under its control a caliphate.

Their militancy soon crossed the border. After the initial stage of mobilizing volunteers and weapons for jihad in Afghanistan, a second phase developed in which Pakistan witnessed a wave of anti-Shiite violence, including bombings of Karachi’s major Shiite mosques by the Taliban’s sister organization in Pakistan, Sipah-e Sahaba.

The Turkish government’s decision to turn a blind eye to Islamic State activity within its borders has similarly led to the extremists’ increasing influence in certain areas of Turkey’s major cities. The recent and unprecedented arson attacks on Shiite mosques in Istanbul may indicate that Turkey is entering this second phase. Turkey is home to only a small Shiite community; but Turkey’s Alevis, a heterodox Muslim sect often regarded as heretical by Sunnis, constitute about 20 percent of Turkey’s population.

A campaign by Sunni extremists against the Alevi community could lead Turkey into a Pakistan-like vortex of sectarian violence and radicalization. The present government’s own politics of polarization, illustrated by Mr. Erdogan’s baiting of the opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu due to his Alevi background during Turkey’s recent presidential election campaign, may further inflame sectarian tensions. And Islamic State militants will not hesitate to exploit the Sunni-Alevi fault line in Turkish society.

Pakistan’s final and most dangerous stage of extremism occurred when the flow of militants and resources was reversed. As the Taliban conquered most of Afghanistan, it provided training camps and other logistical support to its allies, making it harder for Pakistan to control militant organizations inside its borders. After 9/11, Gen. Pervez Musharraf attempted to crack down on militants inside Pakistan. His efforts culminated in the 2007 Red Mosque battle in Islamabad and the subsequent coalescing of militants into the movement known as the Pakistani Taliban.

Turkey has not experienced this stage yet. But the Islamic State may find fertile recruiting ground among Turkey’s 1.3 million Syrian refugees. And Turkish citizens may be drawn into the orbit of militancy just as segments of Pakistan’s population have been. If the Islamic State’s Turkish networks remain intact, Turkey runs the risk that homegrown militants will be empowered by the return of fighters from Islamic State territory in Syria and Iraq.

Ms. Bhutto’s strategy of employing militant proxies to create a client state in Afghanistan succeeded — but at a high price for Pakistan. That is a warning for Turkey, which must recognize that it cannot shield itself from Sunni militancy while pursuing a Sunni sectarian foreign policy in the Middle East.
Pakistan’s Lessons for Turkey
by MICHAEL M. TANCHUM and HALIL M. KARAVELI, mobile.nytimes.com

Confronting the IS — preventing more Frankensteins

The forces of revenge, phobia and senseless bloodletting unleashed by the preposterous invasion of Iraq in 2003 continue to ravage the region and its people. An equilibrium, howsoever unjust, once knocked out, produces a whirlpool of cycles of violence that are not amenable to any quick resolution. This is especially true in a situation where the rationale for military intervention was a fabricated lie — a deception. The alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was the sole basis for launching the attack on a sovereign country and that too without any UN authorisation. Paradoxically, both George W Bush and Tony Blair, having said lies about the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in the ‘deadly’ arsenal of Saddam, not only survived but were re-elected by supposedly the most ‘enlightened’ electorates of the world.
The US occupation of Iraq although camouflaged under the perceived existence of WMDs was intended to destroy the biggest military machine in the Middle East — one that could pose a danger to the state of Israel. The destruction of the country’s infrastructure was also accompanied by an irretrievable shift in its political and sectarian landscape.
This void, left behind by the removal of a regime, the systems which held the country together, was filled by the emergence of groups, mafias that were on rampage — plundering, attacking and looting with no fear of retribution. The regime of Nouri al Maliki began to advance a ‘sectarian’ agenda. This is the worst thing that could happen to a country already under foreign occupation. Polarisation followed and soon there was a collapse of order on a gigantic scale. A many-dimensional conflict ensued that would not only sap the vitality and strength of a country and its populace but also generate a whole series of ethnic and sectarian battles plunging the country and the region into a war with no goals and no strategies.
A somewhat similar catastrophe was being enacted in Syria. The Western countries, principally the US, had this paranoid mindset that the toppling of the Assad regime would help resolve most of the regional security issues besides, of course, making Israel safe from the assaults of Hezbollah, whose patrons and financiers are Iran and Syria. It was not realised that the very forces that were sponsoring would sow the seeds of discord and spread mayhem and anarchy that could pose a potential threat to their ‘vital’ interests in the region.
The IS phenomenon was almost a natural consequence of the vacuum, the atrocities of the factional militias inflicted upon one another under the watch of the diabolical Nouri al Maliki regime, the destruction of villages, towns, the displacement of millions from their ancestral homes. In the milieu in which the IS (formerly ISIS) was born, there was no room for concepts like tolerance, accommodation and understanding. The group soon challenged and swept away the vestiges of a broken order in parts of Syria and Iraq.
The group comprised frustrated and deeply-troubled Sunni extremists who were on the margins of a socio-economic and sectarian order that did not hold any promise for the majority of the people in the region. They soon began to espouse a philosophy of hatred based on the exclusion of those who did not share their ideals and goals. As they embarked upon a policy of challenging and confronting the state authority in both Syria and Iraq, they found whole bands of new adherents to their purported cause of ‘restoring the ethnic and sectarian balance that has been shattered by the upheavals of the last 11 years’. Muslims from different parts of the world began to flock to the region to enlist in what they thought a noble cause. They thought justice would soon prevail and the injustice would end.
The IS took control of banks, industries, oil wells and refineries, weapons, transport and military hardware, etc. That made them independent as far as resources are concerned. It declared one of its leaders ‘Amirul Momineen’ — the commander of the faithful. This was done to convey the message that a new Islamic State is born which would demand allegiance from all Muslims. Owing to the rallying cry of faith, many began to support this movement.
But soon there were many disappointments. The beheading of opponents and journalists caused a stir in the ranks of the movement for Islam does not permit such killings. Then the Kurds were targeted and there were huge displacements of people. This further alienated many well wishers of the movement. The destruction of property was without any valid reason. But more importantly, the supporters began to worry about the ultimate goal and objective of the movement. Because how could a movement that kills journalists, female professionals and causes the expulsion of innocent Muslims from their homes, claim to be heading towards the establishment of an egalitarian, welfare Islamic state? People soon began to break ranks with the movement.
The IS first generated hope, then disappointment. The Sunni Arab monarchies saw a threat to their fiefdoms. They rallied to oppose and confront the IS. They poured resources, mobilised their militaries, sought alliances in a bid to defeat the movement. That was understandable and natural. But people in distant lands were ‘alarmed’ — the United States began to see ‘mortal dangers’ from IS volunteers and decided to intervene to ‘save’ America from it.
The US and French bombing missions are obliterating whatever little is left of the infrastructure of the region. True, the bombs inflict damage on the movement’s arsenal and its treasure. That is one facet of the ‘second invasion’. But a deeper malaise is being caused yet again to the already tumbling political order. More zealots, more frustrated youth, more victims of the holocaust, would begin to emerge from the ashes of a collapsing IS, causing more violence, more instability and more chaos.
The regional countries which have a stake in the situation could have promoted a more harmonious response to the challenge the IS poses. With the West intervening in the crisis, suspicions are bound to be raised in Iran — a key ally of Bashar al-Assad. The West certainly does not want to give respite to the Syrian regime and yet that regime is also fighting the IS. Iran is supporting the Shia majority regime in Iraq which is also fighting the IS. The Sunni Arab monarchies are fighting against both IS as well as the Assad regime. Such a complex conflict would inevitably cause a stupendous and destructive reaction that will be immeasurably difficult to handle or contain .
The Middle East is in the grip of another fatal cycle of violence. The region and its people would bear the scars for generations. The only beneficiaries are Israel and the factories producing weapons in the West.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 29th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.