‘Shaikh’ Paul Bremer – Between Democracy and Islam

Just subsequent to the mutilation of the dead American mercenaries by the ordinary Iraqis (Not Al-Qaeeda or ‘foreign’ fighters) in Fallujah, ‘shaikh’ Paul Bremer seems to have suddenly became an advocate of Islamic law (Sharia laws) as he pointed out the Islamic prohibition of mutilating the dead. Does this mean that the US desires the implementation of the Sharia laws in general or only when it needs it to defend its interests? This is the same Paul Bremer that threatened to veto any attempts to introduce the Sharia laws in Iraq’s constitution. As he arrogantly put it on British television: “it does not become law until I sign it”.

This is very confusing; surely in democratic Iraq the Iraqi population should decide such crucial issues and it is their prerogative. So, why is Paul Bremer behaving like Saddam Hussein by dictating to the Iraqi masses? Surely, that was one of the ‘justifications’ for the invasion of Iraq after the failure to find WMDs!

Nevertheless, in line with vetoing Islam, shouldn’t the American administration be approving the behaviour of the Fallujah crowd, which represented a form of veto, as they were not following the Sharia laws according to ‘Shaikh’ Paul Bremer? Furthermore, the Fallujah crowd were merely exercising their new freedom to express themselves, their inner thoughts and emotions; most certainly they could not have done such things under Saddam’s rule.

The Islamic-moderates have been quick to identify the mutilators in Fallujah as the troublesome ‘extremists’, the root cause of all the problems. In reality the mutilators were not pro-Islamic fighters but ordinary Iraqis, including children and teenagers. They were all freely expressing their anger for the recent killings in Fallujah and the murder of Sheikh Yassin, evident from all the various pictures of shaikh Yassin that were floating around in the crowd.

It is also perplexing to see that why does the Islamic-moderates confine themselves to advising the US and its allies, it would have been a natural progression for them to go to Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and speak directly to the Muslims masses, even the families of the victims. They could have explained the need to remove the troublesome ‘extremist’ elements that are preventing peace with the benevolent US and Israel.

For the moderates, the conflict is essentially a one sided problem, violent Muslims due to the lack of understanding of Islam. So the Muslims must cease all forms of physical resistance, as there is no place for ‘violence’ in Islam, thus they should be tolerant, peaceful and merciful almost unconditionally. No doubt in my mind, that such moderates would be given their own liberation in Fallujah style –” that would be a very liberating experience to watch and something that I would cherish in my memory.

Mutilation is generally prohibited in Islamic law but not if it has been done in retaliation. There are Islamic evidences on this matter and thus, before pronouncing the Islamic verdict one needs to enquire about the mutilation of the Iraqi civilians. Unfortunately many of the Islamic scholars (Ulemas) being isolated tend to overlook the facts on the ground and more importantly the political dimension of issuing Islamic edicts (Fatwas). However, it is interesting to note that neither the Imams who rebuked the mutilation or the US authority contested the permissibility under the Sharia laws to execute or kill these mercenaries and the illegal occupation forces along with their collaborators. In any case, issuing of Islamic edicts (Fatwa) is a matter for the Islamic scholars not for those who profess to hate the subject, as exemplified by the likes of Paul ! Bremer with his UN like Islamic-veto power.

Paul Bremer’s veto is like that of the recent US veto exercised in the UN Security Council in favour of Israel. Vetoing a resolution that was almost unanimously agreed upon by all the nations condemning the murder of Sheikh Yasin. Yet, paradoxically the veto is presented as ‘legal’, ‘just’ and in line with democratic ‘principles’ regardless of the clear opposition of the vast majority! Isn’t the American version of democracy great? One wonders, as to why the Arabs/Muslims cannot appreciate this fact and instead they resent America? The US imposes various dictators and sanctions for decades, then it seeks to liberate the masses by bombing the country to pieces, therefore, what is so hypocritical or immoral about this!

On the matter of democracy in Iraq, which has become rather comical. Even a cursory glance at Iraq proves one thing beyond doubt, which is that IGC (Iraqi Governing Council) appointed by America to serve its interest has clearly no support amongst the Sunnis or the Shia’s and even the Kurds. People everywhere are carrying the pictures of Ayatollah Sistani or Moqtada al-Sadr or someone else but nowhere anyone can spot pictures of Adnan Pachachi or Ahmad Chalabi or any of the other collaborators sitting in the IGC.

Part of the so-called ‘liberation’ and bringing democracy to Iraq is supposed to manifest in the removal of the censorship, and promote free speech. So naturally the free Iraqis expressed their point of view in opposing the US occupation through the independent newspaper, “Al-Hawza” but the Americans closed it down. Therefore, like the veto, the US loves free speech as long as you don’t speak out against it!

The US charged the newspaper with inciting violence and producing false information, which is hilarious when you examine the track record of the likes of CNN, FOX and the US army. Fox is certainly unique, it is probably the first one-perspective-channel that a leading democratic society has managed to produce, which are usually the norm in dictatorial states. The US army has been inflicting violence on independent journalists from the very beginning of the conflict as oppose to just inciting violence. So, such claims made by the US against “Al-Hawza” tantamounts to the pot calling the kettle black.

These neo-con channels of CNN and FOX openly collaborated with the US government to justify the case for war. There was hardly any critical examination of the evidences presented. Colin Powell, now admits the intelligence was ‘flawed’, but the Iraqi blood was the price – a footnote – often called collateral damages! Therefore, the press does not focus on this aspect. Since the war was clearly illegal and immoral, the US and its allies are the real state terrorists. These channels have continued to support state terrorism, going well beyond just inciting violence! It is time for the resistance movements to take note of this factor. Bullets and bombs do kill but lies, deception and slander kills a lot more!

As for the charges of printing false information, how many times have Fox reported the discovery of WMDs in Iraq to the point that many in the US believed WMD had been discovered in Iraq? Likewise, so many Americans are confused about the link between Saddam Hussein and Usamah Bin Laden. No doubt, Hollywood will produce future blockbusters starring Saddam bin Laden or Usamah bin Saddam, depicted as the bad guy.

In any case, if the Iraqi press printed false information, could that not have been countered by the mass media of the coalition? Which has far greater resource and coverage. Isn’t that what free speech in a democracy is all about? Discussing the alternative viewpoints as oppose to resorting to censorship. However, we know that truth does hurt, and the US was badly wounded after hearing the Iraqi point of view. So they began to churn out further spins and half-truths. As they say, to cover a lie you need to produce more lies. Just look at the case of WMD, the conveniently forgotten fraudulent pretext, which was used to murder and terrorise an entire nation concocted by stacks of lies and deception.

Then there were the riots in Basra, prompted by the general economic hardship and unemployment, a situation that had no precedence in the history of Iraq, even including the era of wars and sanctions faced under the reign of Saddam Hussein. Yet, whilst the Iraqis remain unemployed, American hired contractors and mercenaries are being flown in and are taking a hefty salary from Iraq’s oil revenue. This is according to the company that sent the four mercenaries that were killed and mutilated in Fallujah. Then the company had the chutzpah to claim that they were: “helping to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq”, more like helping themselves and their pockets. So, the ordinary Iraqis sent a clear message, you came for the Iraqi oil now you have got it, which they exemplified by burning the mercenaries ! in Iraqi oil!

Basic common sense and logic dictates that one should ask the ordinary Iraqis and observer their conduct, in order to comprehend the notion of Iraqi liberation and Iraqi democracy, instead of listening to CNN, FOX, ‘shaikh’ Bremer or the US appointed IGC. Iraqi liberation simply means the expulsion of the illegal occupying foreign forces along with their paid mercenaries.

As for democratic Iraq, it is the government that reflects the will and opinion of the masses rather than the interest of the corporate-Zionist-US run by the neo-shylocks. However, since democracy means different things to different people, as one migrant-coolie recently claimed that it was simply to be defined by the people arbitrarily, therefore, perhaps Paul Bremer’s conduct in Iraq represent a form of democracy. Just like the Bremer’s Islamic-Veto, the US has its own veto in the UN, and anyone else exercising it against the US interests is an "unreasonable veto" as France discovered prior to the war.