Unknowingly the US is fighting a war for Islam

0
37

The soul of Salah-ud-din Ayubi, the Kurdish general revered throughout the lands of Islam should have been very sad. So would be the soul of Imam Hussein.

Salah-ud-din’s descendents who were brutally murdered by a former stooge of the United States are now the chief collaborators in the US occupation of Iraq. So are the Shiite, who betrayed the soul of Imam Hussein by surrendering to the tyrant invaders and working for consolidation of the occupation.

Some analyst-collaborators and personnel of the US and Israeli agencies, writing under Muslim names, argue that may be Iraq was not a war against Islam but a war for Islam.

It is important to note that none of the independent Muslim analysts has argued that Iraq war was directly a war on Islam and as a result the neocons would succeed in eliminating Islam as such.

Actually the war on Iraq is part of a larger war on Islam. In the overall war, Muslims, divided in different sects, are hurting the cause of Islam more than anyone else.

Muslims’ war on Islam is far serious and effective than all the US and its allies’ all out attempts at undermining it. Nevertheless we can argue that they are unintentionally and unknowingly helping the cause of Islam

However, the pro-occupation Muslims who think that the US occupation of Iraq is a war for Islam are considering it so for some baseless reasons.

They argue that the Ayatollah’s in Qom “could learn [from this war] and like to defuse their activism in favour of Sistanis ‘quietism.'”

These undercover enemies of Islam believe that Sistani’s conduct has been apolitical and he lacks a lust for temporal powers. They don’t know that he has taken the back seat for specific reasons, one of which is his Iranian nationality.

It is too early for the under-cover analysts and pro-occupation writers to predict a rift between the Ayatollah’s of Iran and Iraq.

It is a total disregard of the reality to predict that Sistani would wrest Shiite clerical control back from Qom and Baghdad will once again take its role as the capital of Islam, with Kerbala and An-Najaf as the minarets bellowing the cry of freedom to the oppressed Shi’ite of the world.

Sistani’s capitulation and surrender to the US occupation was evident the day he started his collaboration with silence.

Irrespective of Sistani’s knowledge and respect among Shi’ite community, he is no way near the dust of those who are standing firm against the US totalitarian adventures, let alone his challenging Qom’s global leadership of Shiite Islam.

The world knows Sistani from his silence over the events like Abu-Ghraib and the attacks on Najaf until these events were broadcasted by the foreign media. The worst came to fore when his criminal "quietism" continued in the face of crimes against humanity in Fallujah.

Sistani’s silent collaboration had a bad effect on Shiite population in general. Whilst the Sunnis of Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit, Mosul and various other cities engaged in liberation, the Shi’ite community remained relatively silent or their resistance in Najaf forgiven in return for Sistani’s belated intervention.

It is also naïve to apply the Shiite principles to Islam in General in support of the secular mantra of separation of church and state. Some of the Shi’ite scholars argue on the grounds of theological reasons which state that political participation to be suspended until the arrival of the infallible Imam Mahdi. This, however, is not the case in Islam or majority of Shi’is and Sunnis in general.

Sistani’s silence itself was participation in favour of the occupation. It amounted to taking a position by default and making a statement of tacit approval. Being apolitical is like the notion of neutral, but that is not the case as we have seen from the subsequent sham elections under the auspices of the occupiers. The so considered apolitical Sistani was the one who mobilized Shiite all over the world to participate in the elections, despite the rejection by a majority of Sunni Muslims.

Imam Hussein’s heroic stand against the rule of Yazid would be described by the modern standards of the tyrants and global terrorists as suicidal. That’s why Sistani and other Sunni leaders’ playing by the rules of the occupiers designed specifically to justify the war and occupation is considered by many as betrayal of Imam Hussein’s soul for worldly/political gains.

It is naïve to assume that Sistani disregarded Ayatollah’s in Qom. It might be a game plan to somehow take advantage of the Sunni’s total focus on throwing the occupiers out and come into power one way or the other. Keeping true to its anti-American rhetoric, Iran could directly use Sistani to get the Shi’its to revolt openly. But it might have decided to let the Shiite come into power before thinking of throwing the US out.

Thus, Sistani’s tacit approval of the US led onslaught on Sunnis was a clear indication of the objectives to raise the Shi’its’ strength at the expense of the Sunnis. Saddam’s crimes against Shi’te and Kurds do not justify such an insensitive and un-Islamic attitude. Otherwise, what is the difference between those who approved yesterday’s oppression and those who are taking advantage of today’s oppression.

Those who cannot come up with a single reason to support their claim that the US war on Iraq was a war for Islam, ignore that what the Shiite leadership was doing in Iraq was a clear violation not only of the principles of the Qur’an but of all international law norms of human decency.

Allowing non-Muslim, invading armies to kill your brothers and sisters in faith is a clear violation of the Qur’anic commands unless, of course, if the collaborating, pro-war analysts consider the people living in Fallujah to be outside the fold of Islam, or the US lies for invading Iraq as truthful statements made to promote the cause of Islam.

The collaborating Sunni and Shi’ite leadership would shine until the US forces are there and they keep on scratching each other’s back.

Expecting Shi’ite leadership to shift "Vatican" of Shiite Islam back to Najaf from Qom is as wishful as the US dream to enslave and transform all Muslims in the neocons’ image forever to come. Introducing this idea in itself is sign of a writer’s intentions to create a rift between even those who belong to the same sect.

Without Shiite participation in elections and without Sistani’s calls to Shiite community all over the world to vote, wherever they may be, the Presidential council of three collaborators, Talabani a Kurd descendent of Salah-ud-din, a Shiite descendent of Imam Hussain and a Sunni representative of the divided Sunnis would not have seen the light of the day.

Neither is this a momentum of peace, nor is the resistance to US occupation a lust of death. Otherwise this lust would have been on display even when Saddam was in power. Credit for the deaths, destruction, torture and degradation of Iraqis goes to not-so-hidden strategy and objectives of the Zionist-neocons’ global policies.

The totalitarian Zionists and neo-cons will continue to bring more war, more destruction and more humiliation for the Muslims who themselves are at war with Islam and prefer to live and die by the tyrants of the day.

Real peace and accommodation does not come with fake elections and establishment of a sham democracy after launching a war and killing more than 100,000 people on the basis of lies upon lies. Real peace is possible by Muslims’ determination to living by Islam rather than embracing and defending values of the merchants of death and mainstream lunatics in
Washington.

The fig leaf of Talabani’s election cannot hide the US crimes and illegitimate war on Iraq. Hence, irrespective of the occurrence of "Vietnam scenarios," the US is bound to fail along with the Talebani’ election. So will fail the US installation of Karzai in power where the situation is no different from what is deceptively called “new peace initiative” in Palestine, or the “caravan of peace” in South Asia with a bus service between India and Pakistan.

All these are ways to legitimizing occupations and aggressions. However, as long as the seeds of injustice and oppression remain there and as long as the people do not have the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination, the occupiers and aggressors are bound to fail. How long would it take doesn’t matter at all.

All along from participation in the elections to the election of Jalal Talabani, Iraq’s puppet parliamentarians have been justifying the US crimes of 12-years’ long sanctions that took 1.8 million lives; the lies for invasion of Iraq; the Abu Ghraib kind of torture and humiliation and of Bush’s Halebja in Fallujah and other cities.

Iraqi puppet parliamentarians could not see their future. But for chemical Ali who was made to watch and other members of the Baathists cabal it was a replay of their past, when they danced to the US tunes and killed their own people to please Washington. The time is not far when there will be another full circle of events and deeds of the present puppets will come to haunt the members of the present cabal of collaborators.

There is no need to wonder where was the global Islamic conscience sleeping when nobody condemned Saddam for 5,000 dead in a single day in the chemical attack on Halebja, or Assad, or 30,000 killed in Hama? Majid infamously led the brutal Anfal campaigns against the Kurds in 1988, gassing to death 5,000 descendents of Salah-ud-din Ayubi with chemical weapons at Halebja.

If Islamic conscience were alive, it would not have made us see Saddam, Assad or any of the Muslim dictators, kings and sheikhs sitting in power over Muslim masses to mainly serve interest of the former colonial powers or the present tyrants in Washington.

If Islamic conscience were alive, we would not have seen Saddam Hussein or any un-Islamic government in the Muslims world in the first place. We would not have seen Muslims neck deep in Riba (interest), liquor, fornication, homosexuality, and other un-Islamic practices. We would have seen Muslims dying for secularism. We would not have seen Muslim collaborating with occupiers. We would not have seen Muslim divided in many sects and more than fifty nation states with their wealth rotting in the un-Islamic banking systems abroad and their people reeling at the bottom of human development statistics.

If Islamic conscience were alive, we would not have seen any one dare attempt to invade and enslave Muslims on the basis of nothing but lies upon lies and deception.

If Islamic conscience were alive and at work we would not have seen a puppet (Talabani) paying tribute to "the martyrs of Kurdistan and the southern marshes," a reference to Shiites killed during a joint uprising against Saddam in 1991, but ignoring the more than 100,000 Iraqis of all sects who lost their lives due to the US invasion and the 1.8 million that died due to economic sanctions against Iraq.

Saddam and Ba’athism was the result of flight from Islam. What will be the result of the recent US invasions and occupations for promoting secular democracy will not be the reversion to what we have seen so far. It would be revival of Ayubi and Husseini soul in Muslims because they cannot be oblivious of the fact for too long that they are the first who have turned their back on Islam. Outsiders cannot promote or sustain a war on Islam, unless Muslims themselves do not collaborate in rebellion against Islam.

In that sense, one has to agree that the United States’ bloody adventures are a war for Islam, because it is playing a vital role in reawakening Muslims to the fact that they are Muslim only in name; that the sects they claim to belong have no place in the Qur’an and Sunnah. They do not practice what they proclaim to believe. Not practicing what one proclaims to believe is unbelief. It is as simple as this. And this realisation among Muslims is the greatest victory for Muslims out of the US war.
Thus we come to the simple conclusion that the US is unknowingly fighting a war for Islam because Muslims, of whatever contrived sect they may belong to, would never have woke up from their slumber without it.

Note: .

This article was written in response to the article published on this link: http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/printer_6311.shtml which seems to be written by a sell out Muslim or most probably some personnel from the Israeli agencies using a Muslim name.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here