Daftar Isi Nusantara Angkasa News Global

Advertising

Lyngsat Network Intelsat Asia Sat Satbeams

Meluruskan Doa Berbuka Puasa ‘Paling Sahih’

Doa buka puasa apa yang biasanya Anda baca? Jika jawabannya Allâhumma laka shumtu, maka itu sama seperti yang kebanyakan masyarakat baca...

Pesan Rahbar

Showing posts with label ABNS NEWS ENGLISH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABNS NEWS ENGLISH. Show all posts

Love for the Ahlul-Bayt (as) - Story 1


By: Ayatullah Ibrāhim Amīnī

‘Allāma Tabātabā’ī used to visit the shrine of Hazrat Ma’sūma (s) at least once every week. He would walk [to the shrine], and along the way, if he saw a discarded orange, cucumber or banana peel, he would use his staff to remove it from the sidewalk. During the summer he used to visit the holy city of Mashhad. When visiting the shrine of Imām Ridha (a) at night, he would sit in the area adjacent to the side of the shrine (dharīh) where Imām’s head is buried. In a state of humbleness and humility he would then recite the ziyārat (greetings to the Imām). Whilst in Mashhad he would participate in the Maghrib and ‘Ishā congregational prayers led by Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Hādi Mīlānī, sitting in a corner amongst the people [during the namaz].

‘Allāma had an intimate relationship with the Prophet (s) and the Imāms (a). He would mention their names with extreme decorum and reverence, participate in gatherings where their deaths were mourned, and weep profusely for the tragedies that the Ahlul Bayt had faced.

(Hauzah-Hussainiyyahal-Muntazar/Berbagai-Sumber-Lain/ABNS)

Sunni: Names of the Immaculate Twelve Imams as they Appear at the Prophet Muhammad’s (S) Mosque, al-Madinah al-Munawara, KSA

The names of the Twelve Imams of Ahl al-Bayt at Masjid An-Nabawi sallallahu alaihi wa aalhi wa sallam. Included here are the names; ‘Ali al-Murtaza, Hasan as-Sibt, Husayn as-Sibt, Abul Fadhl ‘Abbas, Salman al-Farsi, Bilal al-Habashi, Muhammad al-Baqir, Musa al-Kadhim, Muhammad al-Taqi, ‘Ali an-Naqi, Hasan al-‘Askari, and Muhammad al-Mahdi. Two of the three remaining names (written as) Zayn al-‘Abidin, and Ja’far al-Sadiq, are in the first Sahn, opposite the names Hamzah, and Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas, while the names ‘Ali al-Ridha, and Muhammad al-Mahdi are in the second Sahn, between the names of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Anas ibn Malik.


The posterior wall of the Mihrab has written the historic inscription of five lines written in the Mamluki Thuluth script:
1. ”In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, and Peace be upon our leader Muhammad.
2. This Noble Mihrab has been placed in the prayer place of the Prophet by order of the Humble Slave,
3. the Sovereign Ruler, Al-Ashraf,
4. Abu Al-Nasr Qaitibai. Allah is Eternal and Supreme.
5. In the month of Dhu Al-Hijjah, in the year 888 A.H.”
Appended to the aforementioned inscription, in the same script, is the following:
6. Its renovation was ordered by His Majesty,
7. King Fahd bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al Sa’ud,
8. Who Glorifies Allah, in the year 1404 A.H. (Holy Hejaz)

Right to left: ‘Ali al-Murtaza, Husayn as-Sibt, Abul Fadhl ‘Abbas.

Right to left: ‘Ali al-Murtaza, Husayn as-Sibt, Abul Fadhl ‘Abbas.

‘Ali al-Murtaza

Husayn as-Sibt

Abul Fadhl ‘Abbas

Hasan as-Sibt

Right to left: Muhammad al-Taqi, Musa al-Kadhim, Muhammad al-Baqir

Muhammad al-Taqi

Musa al-Kadhim

Muhammad al-Baqir

‘Ali an-Naqi

‘Ali an-Naqi

Right to left: Hasan al-‘Askari, Muhammad al-Taqi, Musa al-Kadhim.

Hasan al-‘Askari

Muhammad al-Mahdi

Muhammad al-Mahdi

Muhammad al-Mahdi

Salman al-Farsi

Salman al-Farsi

Bilal al-Habasi

Bab Makkah

(Ahmed-Amiruddin/Berbagai-Sumber-Lain/ABNS)

“As the Arabs see the Jews” His Majesty King Abdullah, The American Magazine November, 1947

His Majesty King Abdullah I, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1946–51)

I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support.

So many billions of words have been written about Palestine—perhaps more than on any other subject in history—that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.

We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.

There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.

The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.

Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumbered—a minority in our home.

Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.

Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.

We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.

Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?

Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.

No people on earth have been less “anti-Semitic” than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours.

Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centres have always contained large and prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatment—far, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers.

I was puzzled for a long time about the odd belief which apparently persists in America that Palestine has somehow “always been a Jewish land.” Recently an American I talked to cleared up this mystery. He pointed out that the only things most Americans know about Palestine are what they read in the Bible. It was a Jewish land in those days, they reason, and they assume it has always remained so.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is absurd to reach so far back into the mists of history to argue about who should have Palestine today, and I apologise for it. Yet the Jews do this, and I must reply to their “historic claim.” I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!

If you suggest that I am biased, I invite you to read any sound history of the period and verify the facts.

Such fragmentary records as we have indicate that the Jews were wandering nomads from Iraq who moved to southern Turkey, came south to Palestine, stayed there a short time, and then passed to Egypt, where they remained about 400 years. About 1300 BC (according to your calendar) they left Egypt and gradually conquered most—but not all—of the inhabitants of Palestine.

It is significant that the Philistines—not the Jews—gave their name to the country: “Palestine” is merely the Greek form of “Philistia.”

Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC. Only 250 years later the Kingdom of Judah had shrunk to a small province around Jerusalem, barely a quarter of modern Palestine.

In 63 BC the Jews were conquered by Roman Pompey, and never again had even the vestige of independence. The Roman Emperor Hadrian finally wiped them out about 135 AD. He utterly destroyed Jerusalem, rebuilt under another name, and for hundreds of years no Jew was permitted to enter it. A handful of Jews remained in Palestine but the vast majority were killed or scattered to other countries, in the Diaspora, or the Great Dispersion. From that time Palestine ceased to be a Jewish country, in any conceivable sense.

This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!

Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, “homeland” of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.

Many Mexicans might claim Spain, “homeland” of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the “homeland” of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!

I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as valid—or just as fantastic—as the Jewish “historic connection” with Palestine. Most are more valid.

In any event, the great Moslem expansion about 650 AD finally settled things. It dominated Palestine completely. From that day on, Palestine was solidly Arabic in population, language, and religion. When British armies entered the country during the last war, they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews.

If solid, uninterrupted Arab occupation for nearly 1,300 years does not make a country “Arab”, what does?

The Jews say, and rightly, that Palestine is the home of their religion. It is likewise the birthplace of Christianity, but would any Christian nation claim it on that account? In passing, let me say that the Christian Arabs—and there are many hundreds of thousands of them in the Arab World—are in absolute agreement with all other Arabs in opposing the Zionist invasion of Palestine.

May I also point out that Jerusalem is, after Mecca and Medina, the holiest place in Islam. In fact, in the early days of our religion, Moslems prayed toward Jerusalem instead of Mecca.

The Jewish “religious claim” to Palestine is as absurd as the “historic claim.” The Holy Places, sacred to three great religions, must be open to all, the monopoly of none. Let us not confuse religion and politics.

We are told that we are inhumane and heartless because do not accept with open arms the perhaps 200,000 Jews in Europe who suffered so frightfully under Nazi cruelty, and who even now—almost three years after war’s end—still languish in cold, depressing camps.

Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine—a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. “We have hurt these people terribly,” cries the West to the East. “Won’t you please take care of them for us?”

We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore “cruel and heartless nationalists”?

We are a generous people: we are proud that “Arab hospitality” is a phrase famous throughout the world. We are a humane people: no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror. No one pities the present plight of the desperate European Jews more than we.

But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us—even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.

I will be entirely frank with you. There is one thing the Arab world simply cannot understand. Of all the nations of the earth, America is most insistent that something be done for these suffering Jews of Europe. This feeling does credit to the humanity for which America is famous, and to that glorious inscription on your Statue of Liberty.

And yet this same America—the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known—refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself!

I hope you will not think I am being bitter about this. I have tried hard to understand that mysterious paradox, and I confess I cannot. Nor can any other Arab.

Perhaps you have been informed that “the Jews in Europe want to go to no other place except Palestine.”

This myth is one of the greatest propaganda triumphs of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the organisation which promotes with fanatic zeal the emigration to Palestine. It is a subtle half-truth, thus doubly dangerous.

The astounding truth is that nobody on earth really knows where these unfortunate Jews really want to go!

You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it.

Some time ago the American Military Governor in Germany was asked at a press conference how he was so certain that all Jews there wanted to go to Palestine. His answer was simple: “My Jewish advisors tell me so.” He admitted no poll had ever been made. Preparations were indeed begun for one, but the Jewish Agency stepped in to stop it.

The truth is that the Jews in German camps are now subjected to a Zionist pressure campaign which learned much from the Nazi terror. It is dangerous for a Jew to say that he would rather go to some other country, not Palestine. Such dissenters have been severely beaten, and worse.

Not long ago, in Palestine, nearly 1,000 Austrian Jews informed the international refugee organisation that they would like to go back to Austria, and plans were made to repatriate them.

The Jewish Agency heard of this, and exerted enough political pressure to stop it. It would be bad propaganda for Zionism if Jews began leaving Palestine. The nearly 1,000 Austrian are still there, against their will.

The fact is that most of the European Jews are Western in culture and outlook, entirely urban in experience and habits. They cannot really have their hearts set on becoming pioneers in the barren, arid, cramped land which is Palestine.

One thing, however, is undoubtedly true. As matters stand now, most refugee Jews in Europe would, indeed, vote for Palestine, simply because they know no other country will have them.

If you or I were given a choice between a near-prison camp for the rest of our lives—or Palestine—we would both choose Palestine, too.

But open up any other alternative to them—give them any other choice, and see what happens!

No poll, however, will be worth anything unless the nations of the earth are willing to open their doors—just a little—to the Jews. In other words, if in such a poll a Jew says he wants to go to Sweden, Sweden must be willing to accept him. If he votes for America, you must let him come in.

Any other kind of poll would be a farce. For the desperate Jew, this is no idle testing of opinion: this is a grave matter of life or death. Unless he is absolutely sure that his vote means something, he will always vote for Palestine, so as not to risk his bird in the hand for one in the bush.

In any event, Palestine can accept no more. The 65,000 Jews in Palestine in 1918 have jumped to 600,000 today. We Arabs have increased, too, but not by immigration. The Jews were then a mere 11 per cent of our population. Today they are one third of it.

The rate of increase has been terrifying. In a few more years—unless stopped now—it will overwhelm us, and we shall be an important minority in our own home.

Surely the rest of the wide world is rich enough and generous enough to find a place for 200,000 Jews—about one third the number that tiny, poor Palestine has already sheltered. For the rest of the world, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. For us it means national suicide.

We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?

The sorry story of the so-called “Balfour Declaration,” which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the Arabs—promises made in cold print which admit no denying.

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a “national home” for an entirely foreign people.

Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.

I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.

In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered it—in 1927 almost twice as many.

But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.

In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger.

But the next year—the year of Hitler—it jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!

It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.

I have the impression that many Americans believe the trouble in Palestine is very remote from them, that America had little to do with it, and that your only interest now is that of a humane bystander.

I believe that you do not realise how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realise your responsibility you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.

Quite aside from official American support for the “National Home” of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows.

The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The contributions were by private individuals, but they were almost entirely Americans, and, as a nation, only America can answer for it.

The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door. Your government, almost alone in the world, is insisting on the immediate admission of 100,000 more Jews into Palestine—to be followed by countless additional ones. This will have the most frightful consequences in bloody chaos beyond anything ever hinted at in Palestine before.

It is your press and political leadership, almost alone in the world, who press this demand. It is almost entirely American money which hires or buys the “refugee ships” that steam illegally toward Palestine: American money which pays their crews. The illegal immigration from Europe is arranged by the Jewish Agency, supported almost entirely by American funds. It is American dollars which support the terrorists, which buy the bullets and pistols that kill British soldiers—your allies—and Arab citizens—your friends.

We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder. We could not believe this could really happen in the modern world. Now we must believe it: we have seen the advertisements with our own eyes.

I point out these things because nothing less than complete frankness will be of use. The crisis is too stark for mere polite vagueness which means nothing.

I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favours. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it. We ask only that when you judge the Palestine question, you put yourselves in our place.

What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst—enough to dominate your country—merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?

Our answer is the same.

And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you? Ours will be the same.

(King-Hussein/Ahmed-Amiruddin/Berbagai-Sumber-Lain/ABNS)

Should Naqshbandi Sufi Muslims Who Reside in Democratic Societies Vote?


Sultan ul-Awliya al-Sayyid al-Sharif Mawlana Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Q. As salamu alaikum! As Shaykh Nazim and you are opposed to democracy, I will not cast a vote in the upcoming GHMC elections. Is this correct or should I just vote for the Muslim candidate instead?

A. Wa alaikum as salam wa rahamtullahi wa barakatuhu. Our position is similar to the Catholics who also follow an Abrahamic religon. Catholics who live in democratic nations do their best to participate socially and politically in their respective nations while maintaining a distinct Catholic identify and set of beliefs all along. Many Catholic lobbies strive to make their nations hear and reconcile with their view point on issues like abortion, gay marriage etc., and participate in the democratic process while at the same time maintaining an open loyalty to their Saints of the Church and spiritual allegiance to the Pope and Vatican City. Vatican City is an absolute monarchy and the Pope an absolute monarch. Similarly, in our view, after the restoration of our Arab caliphate, Muslim citizens living in democratic nations will continue to be loyal to Awliya, Aqtab, Abdaal and Awtad etc., and will have spiritual allegiance to the Arab Hashemite dynastic caliph from the Ahl al-Bayt – who rules an absolute monarchy as an absolute monarch – while at the same time continuing to be outstanding citizens of their respective democratic nations. President John F. Kennedy was a devout Catholic and the President of the United States of America at the same time. There is no issue nor conflict with such a religious and ideological ‘arrangement’ in our view. The caliphate of the Arabs and Ahl al-Bayt will be restored according to prophesy very soon, perhaps even within the next three years if Allah permits. Arabs will continue to live in Arabia and the Arab Middle East to which they have always been indigenous according to history – unlike most citizens of the Jewish State who are in fact European – while non-Arabs in non-Arab nations. Given Her Majesty’s official royal descent from the House of David, my initial hypothesis was – like al-Mahdi in the Greater Arab Middle East from Mecca/Madinah/Jerusalem-Palestine/Iraq – Jesus would rule the West from Buckingham Palace, as the British monarchy is a heriditary monarchy unlike Vatican City. However, it seems the British monarchy – shared by Canada – is getting weaker by the day and will most likely be abolished – like the Turkish monarchy – by the Christian Zionists sooner than later. Hence, it is quite possible upon his return Jesus will instead possibly make Vatican City centre of his kingdom in the West after his reforms are implemented. Jesus is a literal real person who was bestowed with miracles including the ability to raise the dead. He will return to earth after his descent from the seventh heaven in space according to Sunni Islam as well as Christianity.

If you choose to participate in your democracy, cast your vote for the best candidate.

(Ahmed-Amiruddin/Berbagai-Sumber-Lain/ABNS)

Primary Documents – Proclamation of the Ulema Regarding Independence from Turkey, March 1917


On 27 June 1916 Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Emir of Mecca, issued a proclamation in which he announced himself, as a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed ﷺ as the true leader of the Islamic faith. In this he was effectively seeking to depose Ottoman Sultan Mehmed Vas spiritual leader, whom he represented as a mere tool of the Young Turk administration.

Numerous reasons were cited to support Hussein’s claim, not least of which was the alleged mistreatment by the Turks of Arabs in Syria, and the controversial argument put forward by the Young Turks (in 1909) that all religions were to be regarded as equal.

Hussein’s objective in initiating the Great Arab Revolt was to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Syria) to Aden (Yemen), based on the ancient traditions and culture of the Arab people, the upholding of Islamic ideals and the full protection and inclusion of ethnic religious minorities.

Click here to read the text of King Hussein’s 27 June 1916 proclamation. Reproduced below is the text of the March 1917 proclamation issued by the Ulema (body of priests of Mecca) providing crucial support to Hussein.


Proclamation by the Ulema, March 1917

In the Name of Allah the Merciful.

Proclamation to the Faithful.

We, the elders and lawyers of the House of God, are among those whom God has permitted to serve the faith and defend its truths. The world and its treasures, in comparison with truth, are not worth the wing of an insect, for there is no other purpose for man in this life except to prepare for eternity.

The Moslem soul rejoices in beholding the Grand “Kaaba” in the first streak of dawn and in the shadow of evening, and he is sanctified by dwelling in the land blessed by the Prophet of God. The peace of God be upon him! Can such a man allow his faith to be scorned or see evil befall the things that are holy? Even so it is with us who dwell in this holy place.

We have discerned the hearts of the usurpers of Osman’s empire. We have learned their evil purpose with regard to our faith, we have beheld their crimes and wickedness in this our holy land, and our faith has shown us the path of salvation, and in its name we have acted according to our duty to ourselves and the Moslems of the world.

Every Moslem who would consider this matter should seek its cause and ascertain the nature of evil against which we rose in arms, when we found words were of no avail.

As for us, we are absolutely certain that the secret committee of the Young Turk Party has notoriously disobeyed God. No words stayed their hand from crime, and no opposition prevented the evil consequences of their actions. Let no one think that we speak vain things. There stand the facts and events which every man by inquiry can ascertain for himself.

We shall bring forth these facts and lay them before the Mohammedan world when necessity demands. Now we content ourselves with begging those of our brethren who oppose us to send some reliable person or persons to Constantinople, the capital of the Unionists, and there witness personally, as we have ourselves witnessed, Moslem women employed by the Government and exposed in public places unveiled before men of strange nations.

What do our true Moslem brethren who oppose us in haste think of this matter, an example of an evil that will greatly injure us if it increases and of which we publicly complain?

Would the obedience of people who do such a thing (and it is the least of their crimes against Islam and Moslems) be a true obedience or would it be disobedience to God? Never, by the God of the “Kaaba,” never. To obey them is to disobey God. Far from it that any of the faithful should consent to this.

We endeavoured to please God and avoid a rebellion so long as it was possible. We rebelled in order to please God, and He gave us victory and stood by us in support of His law and religion, and in accordance with a wisdom known to Him which would lead to the uplifting of this people.

Every Moslem heart in the Ottoman Empire, even among the Turks in Anatolia and among the members of the Turkish royal family in the palaces, prays God for our success, and God always answers the prayers of the oppressed and the righteous.

There is no doubt about it, that if the inhabitants of those countries which the Unionists have lost through their alliance with Germany in this war had revolted against those oppressors, just as we did, they would have no more been regarded as belligerents and would thus have saved their countries for themselves. But if things should continue as they are, no territory will remain for this empire.

If you keep this in mind and remember what the Indian paper Mashrek wrote on September 12th and 19th on the subject of the disqualification of the Beni Osman to be the Caliphs of Islam, you will understand that we have risen in order to avert these dangers and to put the Islamic rule on a firm foundation of true civilization according to the noble dictates of our religion.

If our revolution were only to preserve the integrity of our country and to save it from what has befallen other Islamic countries, it is enough, and we are amply justified.

We call the attention of those who oppose us to the necessity of saving the other countries from the calamities into which their inhabitants have fallen and to deliver them from the destruction and ruin into which those criminal hands are dragging them, if any true religious enthusiasm is left at all.

We have done what we ought to do. We have cleansed our country from the germs of atheism and evil. The best course for those Moslems who still side with and defend this notorious gang of Unionists, is to submit to the will of God before their tongues, hands, and feet give witness against them.

It is a great mistake to suppose that in rising against this party we are rising against a legitimate Caliph possessing all the legal or, at least, some of the conditions qualifying him to be such.

What does the Mohammedan world say of the Beni Osman who pretend to be Caliphs of Islam, while for many years they were like puppets in the hands of the Janissaries; tossed about, dethroned, and killed by them, in a manner contrary to the laws and doctrines established in the books of religion on the accession and dethronement of Caliphs – which facts are recorded in their history?

History is now repeating itself. To those Janissaries, grandsons have appeared in these days who are repeating the acts enacted in the days of Abdul Aziz, Murad, and Abdul Hamid. The murder of Yussuf Izzedin, the Turkish heir apparent, is too recent to be forgotten.

Those who oppose us and side with the Beni Osman should do one of two things: (1) Consider the Janissaries and their grandsons as the final authority on the question of the Caliphate, which we do not think any reasonable man would do, because it is against the laws of religion; or (2) consider those Janissaries and their grandsons as void of authority on the Caliphate question, in which case we should ask them, “What is the Caliphate and what are its conditions?”

Therefore, it remains for those who oppose us to repent, to come to their senses and unite with us in appealing to the Moslem world to use all effective measures for the strengthening of Islam and the restoring of its glory.

We want those who are present here to tell you who are far away that we shall confess before Almighty God, on the last day, that today we do not know of any Moslem ruler more righteous and fearing God than the son of His Prophet who is now on the throne of the Arab country.

We do not know any one more zealous than he in religion, more observant of the law of God in words and deeds, and more capable of managing our affairs in such a way as would please God. The people of the Holy Land have proclaimed him their King simply because, in so doing, they would be serving their religion and country.

As to the question of the Caliphate, in spite of all that is known of the deplorable condition in which it is situated at the present moment, we have not interfered with it at all and it will remain as it is pending the final decision of the whole Mohammedan world.

Salams to all who hear what is said and believe the good in it. May God lead us all into the path of right.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. IV, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

(Ahmed-Amiruddin/Berbagai-Sumber-Lain/ABNS)

Sordid Arabia: Diplomat's sex slavery reveals sickening truths

Two Nepali women have alleged rape against a Saudi diplomat serving in India. (Photo: dailyo)

As you read this, a man identified as Majid has reportedly tucked himself away inside the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Delhi. On Wednesday, he crept out of his official residence in Delhi's wealthy Gurgaon suburb, ably dodged a tumult of TV cameras and took refuge at the plush embassy of his home country. First secretary Majid of the embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had just been accused of perpetrating and overseeing the systematic and chronic rape, sexual enslavement and torture of two Nepali nationals at his official residence. You've seen the story play out on TV, read the lurid details of Majid's alleged crimes. Heard about how he would allegedly dispatch his wife and daughter out of the house so the coast was clear to invite other monsters to come and partake of his Nepali slaves. You've allowed the comforting, hypnotising numbness of journalistic detail of this sordid tale of sexual savagery wash over you. The big question everyone's asking, of course, is: So what happens to Majid? Surely you already know? Not much.

The Vienna Convention on diplomatic immunity is well-considered and, let's make no mistake, necessary. But so are the enduring questions over whether or not such protocols should apply for serious crimes like murder and rape. For the purposes of this column, I'm only marginally less concerned about the freedoms that diplomatic immunity evidently provide for criminal activity. Like a grudging but unanimous langote that forcibly contains what would otherwise probably be all-out diplomatic mayhem.

Because, frankly, this story goes beyond whether or not an Arab diplomat accused of orchestrating rape orgies on two Nepali slaves deserves to be stripped of a privilege without which he would, we all wish, be invited by the scruff of his neck into a lock-up somewhere in Haryana. This story affords us two far bigger and, frankly, far more insidious vistas.

First, Saudi Arabia itself. As first secretary Majid cowers behind invisible diplomatic immunity (and the very visible ramparts of the embassy building on South Delhi's splendid Paschimi Marg), we are presented a valuable opportunity to visit the idea of Saudi Arabia - the country. A nation that, like every other, enjoys (and rightly so) diplomatic privileges in a foreign land. But also one that has managed to emulsify its terrifying everyday reality simply with crude oil and lucre. A country that so brazenly stands among the so-called world order as a key player, while the world looks the other way on how it smothers its horrors with that most simple of things: money.

There is something special about Saudi Arabia and the effortless, virtually unassailable global hypocrisy it continues to pump from the rest of the world. Remember how President Obama, hours after lecturing the Indian State on the lofty tenets of religious tolerance and the rights of women, hot-tailed it on Air Force One out of Delhi to Saudi Arabia? Where, not only did Obama valiantly honour Washington's historic forbearance on violently enforced Saudi fanaticism, but was also unable to say very much when the new king he had come to welcome shook his hand, but not Michelle's. The US' inviolable relationship with Saudi Arabia is a current every country must swim with. Even if grudgingly. Like their own Mr Majid at the embassy in Delhi, Saudi Arabia has an immunity from much of the rest of the world.

The second insidious vista this week's sordid tale of sex slavery affords us is India's own relationship with Saudi Arabia. Let's make no mistake. The world, India included, has morally subsidised much of the foulness that Saudi Arabia stands for. Sadly, India's ties to Saudi Arabia are pretty much irreversible. At least for now. Nearly three million Indian nationals live in Saudi Arabia and constitute that country's largest foreign national community. India is energy hungry and Saudi Arabia feeds the biggest chunk of that hunger. Sure. Except, the geopolitical or economic calculus only helps gloss over the things we'd rather not talk about.

Should India really give a damn? Surely we have bigger problems of our own? And can India afford really to be sanctimonious about Saudi Arabia? A newspaper report in June suggests Prime Minister Modi could visit the Kingdom within the next few months. The pragmatism of foreign policy means Indian relations with the Kingdom necessarily look away from what such significant diplomatic endorsements actually allow. Of course, that applies to anyone with a meaningful relationship with Saudi Arabia. Certainly, us.

It's not often that a story pops up that throws up issues reflective of whole countries. Inequities of this wonderfully peaceful region of ours couldn't be more elegantly on display this week: a diplomat from an impossibly wealthy nation flees with a force field of official protections, while two clearly underprivileged women from impoverished (and recently shaken to the ground) Nepal wonder with bewilderment whether the people they accuse of violating their bodies will ever face justice. As a journalist, I can tell you that the comfort of suspense turns more wheels than any of us will admit.

If you've been watching the explainers that accompany TV coverage of the story, you'll know by now that Saudi Arabia is legally ambiguous on rape, with a framework of punishments that frequently criminalises rape survivors themselves. It's possible, therefore, that if this crime had been committed in Saudi Arabia, the two Nepali women would have had to pay in some form for what happened to them. Possibly.

Apart from the millions of Indians who live and work in Saudi Arabia, there are of course thousands who travel there every year. I will end with a word on them. Reports suggest Haj pilgrims from India were recently issued a strict advisory against carrying things like pornography, Viagra and "sexual creams or oils" on their voyage to the Kingdom. We Indians needn't fear taking such items to most other places. But to Saudi Arabia, be warned. "It is a very serious issue, which needs to be dealt with seriously," scowled the circular. Having conferred with experts, and given the unique brand of inhumanity the country reserves for women, outsiders and the degenerate, it brings me no joy to confirm that this was probably the most useful advice the Indian government has ever issued about the Kingdom.

Source: dailyo

Atomic Bomb Made in Indonesia

Illustrated

Quietly, Indonesia under President Soekarno ever preparing for atomic weapons. United States of America prevented from making an atomic bomb, Soekarno turned to China.

US hydrogen bomb trial in the Marshall Islands, Pacific in 1954, making Soekarno worry eastern Indonesian region affected by radiation. He looked for radiologists in the country to conduct an investigation. Soekarno issued Presidential Decree No. 230/1954 on the establishment of the State Committee for Radio-activity investigation on November 23, 1954. The committee is led radiologists in the country, GA Siwabessy returning studies in London.

The team then moved to the priority areas adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, such as Manado, Ambon, and Timor. The investigation team concluded that Indonesia is safe from the effects of US bombing trials.

Completed the task, the team suggested to the government to pay more attention to pernukliran. The effort is reaping the rewards. The government then established the Atomic Energy and the Atomic Energy Organization (LTA).

Siwabessy, which is believed to be the director general of the LTA, and then create a blueprint for a national nuclear development. In addition to providing scholarships to the children of the nation to various countries to study the nuclear, LTA active around to studying nuclear. Various cooperation is also being explored, most importantly with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Cooperation was made Indonesia get help from the US. In June 1960, Indonesia signed a bilateral cooperation in the nuclear field with the United States under the "Atoms for Peace". In addition to giving financial support amounting to 350 thousand dollars for the construction of a nuclear reactor, and 141 thousand dollars for research development. The US also sent their experts. Despite reaping the pros and cons, Indonesia managed to build its first nuclear reactor, Triga-Mark II, in April 1961.

However, cooperation was gradually changing shape as the changing relationship between Indonesia and the US. The death of President John F. Kennedy made Indonesia-US relations are no longer intimate. He was increasingly outspoken campaign against neocolonialism and imperialism that supported the old countries like the US.

China's success in testing its first atomic bomb on October 16, 1964 Soekarno inspired to do the same. According Sulfikar Amir in "The State and the Reactor: Nuclear Politics in Post-Soeharto Indonesia," the journal of Indonesia, Soekarno's interest is driven by the threat to the security of Indonesia after the United States launched the Vietnam War and the UK supporting the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia.

Moreover, this is a tactic Soekarno to gain support from the two political camps in the country who continue feuding, the Army and the PKI.

Soekarno then secretly send nuclear experts and ranking Indonesian military officials to China to learn to make an atomic bomb. This he did because of the existence of a binding agreement between Indonesia and the US, which does not allow Indonesia to turn away from the United States in nuclear development. America can not be stopped despite big plans then it dimmed with the fall of Sukarno in 1965.

(Sindo-News/Berbagai-Sumber-Lain/ABNS)

More than one hundred books have been published about Imam Khomeini (R.A)


Social Desk: More than one hundred books have been published about the personality of Imam Khomeini (R.A) by Bostan books.

Mehdi Mohaddesi the researcher of renowned publication of Qom, while conversing with the reporter of Shabestan, said that more than one hundred books have been published about the personality of Imam Khomeini (R.A).

He said that Imam Khomeini (R.A) was the renowned figure of 20th century and 20th century is incomplete without mentioning Imam Khomeini (R.A).

He added that Imam Khomeini (R.A) had described such ideology about Islamic government that was just present in books and he had told the world that Islamic system have such power that it can run government efficiently.

He said that non-Muslims have raised voice with the success of Islamic revolution that it is a temporary revolution and it will end soon but it has been proved that this revolution is still shining like a bright star even after the lapse of half century.

He added that different aspects of the life of Imam Khomeini (R.A) are highlighted in the books published about him.

(Shabestan/ABNS)

Respect of the holy month of Ramadan is important


Social desk: The head of the Committee of enjoining the virtue and forbidding the vice of the province Gilan said that the holy month of Ramadan is important and we should all respect this holy month.

According to the report of Shabestan News Agency the province Gilan the head of the Committee of enjoining the virtue and forbidding the vice Hojjatul Islam Ghulam Raza Shafi’I Zada while talking to the committee’s convention in the city of Rasht on 5th June 2016 said that the holy month of Ramadan is around the corner.

He said that this holy month is the month of self-analysis and soul searching. He said that we should respect the holy month of Ramadan. It is full of divine blessings.

Hojjatul Islam Shafi’i said that those people who cannot hold fasts because of some reason, they should abstain from eating and drinking in public places because in the Islamic society it is important to respect the fast. He further said that the passengers should also respect the holy month of Ramadan and they should not eat and drink publicly. He said that in this holy month the women should take care of the veils as per Islamic traditions. He said in the end that the holy month of Ramadan is a source of reduced social evils and we should keep away from such deeds in this holy month.

(Shabestan/ABNS)

Tax free Muslim markets in Germany


International desk: The chancellor of Germany has relaxed the tax on Muslim markets and restaurants in the holy month of Ramadan.

Shabestan News Agency quotes Al-Wafd News Agency which has published a news report that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel signed a memorandum the previous day according to which the taxes of the Sunday markets in the holy month of Ramadan have become tax free.

According to the reports of the information sources the government has taken the step so that the Islamic markets and restaurants bring down their prices in the holy month.

It is to clarify that in 2015 Angela Merkal had participated in the fast breaking party of Muslims in which she said Islam is Germany’s inseparable organ. It is worthwhile to mention that in Germany there is a huge number of Muslims and they have huge religious centers. The Islamic center in Hamburg is one of the most famous centers of Islam in the world.

In Germany the Muslims have religious freedom and Muslims can conduct their religious programs with freedom and in different cities of Germany the Muslims conduct the programs freely in connection with the holy month of Ramadan.

(Shabestan/ABNS)

America is using the Syrian crisis to meet its ends


Political desk: The columnist Ali Qasim has written in Syrian daily that America is responsible for the Syrian crisis.

Shabestan News Agency report quotes the columnist Ali Qasim of the daily Al-Sorah who said that America is using the Syrian conflict for its own vested interests.

He said that Russia had given last warning to the terrorists in Syria but at that point America stages a drama of Syrian truce and demanded that all people should play their roles for peace making.

Infact America is trying to wage discord and war in Syria and it will never want to solve the Syrian crisis. It will never want to finish off the terrorists like ISIS decisively and clean them up.

In reality America would like by adopting such stances that the terrorist groups should prosper in numbers so that they can keep the Syrian nation busy. He said in the end of his column that the Syrian conditions reached a point where if they were not possible to be solved, they were at least very hard to be solved. The reason of this is the double pross of America which one side was trying to show off the peace cards while on the other side it was active from within to sabotage the efforts of peace and keep the status quo of Syrian crisis.

(Shabestan/ABNS)

ISIS Terrorists Destroy Holy Shrines , Virgin Mary’s Church and Central Library of Mosul, Iraq


JNN 23 Feb 2015 Baghdad : In the latest pictures released by ISIS takfiri terrorists it is seen that the takfiri group has blown up the Holy Shrines belonging to scholars of Islam including the holy shrine of Muhammad Ibn Musa al-Kazim the son of Imam Mosa al-Kazim. the ISIS terrorist’s group blew up the Virgin Mary Church and burns more than 8 thousand rare books, manuscripts in Central Library of Mosul.

According to News Agency, ISIS takfiri terrorists have tried to destroy tombs of great scholars and elites of Shiite Islam in Dialah province, Eastern Iraq.
This takfiri group, considering any religious symbols blasphemous, on Friday destroyed some of the Shiite scholars’ tombs in Dialah by blowing them up.

In the pictures released by the extremist group it is shown that one of these shrines which belongs to Imam Musa al-Kazim’s (AS) son Muhammad Ibn Musa al-Kazim was blown up by bomb and destroyed to the ground.

The terrorists are ordered to destroy these holy shrines by Hisbah (their authority in religious matters) which is derived from Wahabi ideology, using explosives and bulldozers.

Many mosques and holy shrine have been destroyed by the takfiri group since their inception. In a statement the group called their actions glorious.

The takfiri group backed by Wahabis in Saudi Arabia and the US have tried to desecrate and destroy many holy sites in Iraq and Syria including Holy Shrines in Samarra and Damascus but have always failed to lessen the love of Muslims all around the world for the Imams and their holy shrines.

IS Terrorists Blew Up Virgin Mary’s Church & Central Library :

A local source in Nineveh province revealed on Saturday that the ISIS Terrorists had burned more than eight thousand rare books and manuscripts in the Central Library of Mosul.

The source said that “The ISIS elements burned this evening the Central Library of Mosul in al-Fathilah area, which resulted in destroying more than eight thousand rare book and manuscripts, dating back to ancient historical eras in one of oldest libraries in Nineveh.”

It is reported that people tried to prevent the terrorist group elements from burning the library, but failed.”

In another incident ISIS members blew up the Virgin Mary Church north of Mosul.

On Thursday evening, Terrorists of the ISIS group detonated the Virgin Mary Church north of Mosul using improvised explosive devices .The ISIS elements used the church as their headquarters for leaders of European, Arab and East Asian nationalities to live there.

The explosion destroyed the Church entirely.







(Jakfari-News/ABNS)

Terror trial collapses after fears of deep embarrassment to security services


Swedish national Bherlin Gildo’s lawyers argued British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was

A Free Syrian Army fighter fires his weapon during clashes in Aleppo. The Old Bailey was told by the crown that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of a prosecution. Photograph: Muzaffar Salman/Reuters
 
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain’s security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.

Bherlin Gildo, 37, who was arrested last October on his way from Copenhagen to Manila, was accused of attending a terrorist training camp and receiving weapons training between 31 August 2012 and 1 March 2013 as well as possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist. 

Riel Karmy-Jones, for the crown, told the court on Monday that after reviewing the evidence it was decided there was no longer a reasonable prospect of a prosecution. “Many matters were raised we did not know at the outset,” she told the recorder of London, Nicholas Hilliard QC, who lifted all reporting restrictions and entered not guilty verdicts.

In earlier court hearings, Gildo’s defence lawyers argued he was helping the same rebel groups the British government was aiding before the emergence of the extreme Islamist group, Isis. His trial would have been an “affront to justice”, his lawyers said.

Henry Blaxland QC, the defence counsel, said: “If it is the case that HM government was actively involved in supporting armed resistance to the Assad regime at a time when the defendant was present in Syria and himself participating in such resistance it would be unconscionable to allow the prosecution to continue.”
Blaxland told the court: “If government agencies, of which the prosecution is a part, are themselves involved in the use of force, in whatever way, it is our submission that would be an affront to justice to allow the prosecution to continue.”

After Monday’s hearing, Gildo’s solicitor, Gareth Peirce, said his case had exposed a number of “contradictions” – not least that the matters on which he was charged were not offences in Sweden, and that the UK government had expressed support for the Syrian opposition.

“He has been detained in this country although he did not ever intend to enter this country. For him it’s as if he has been abducted by aliens from outer space,” she said.

“Given that there is a reasonable basis for believing that the British were themselves involved in the supply of arms, if that’s so, it would be an utter hypocrisy to prosecute someone who has been involved in the armed resistance.”

Gildo’s defence lawyers quoted a number of press articles referring to the supply of arms to Syrian rebels, including one from the Guardian on 8 March 2013, on the west’s training of Syrian rebels in Jordan. Articles on the New York Times from 24 March and 21 June 2013, gave further details and an article in the London Review of Books from 14 April 12014, implicated MI6 in a “rat line” for the transfer of arms from Libya.
Gildo was was flying to Manila to join his wife, a Filipina, when he was stopped under schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, the same statute used to question David Miranda, partner of the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, in 2013.

The court heard that Gildo had sought the help of the Swedish secret service, Sapo, when he wanted to return to his home country.

It is not the first time a British prosecution relating to allegations of Syrian terrorism has collapsed. Last October Moazzem Begg was released after “new material” was said to have emerged.

The attorney general was consulted about Monday’s decision. Karmy-Jones told the court in pre-trial hearings that Gildo had worked with Jabhat al-Nusra, a “proscribed group considered to be al-Qaida in Syria”. He was photographed standing over dead bodies with his finger pointing to the sky.

The Press Association contributed to this report

(theguardian/myartikel/ABNS)

America’s “War Party” and the Myth of Iranian “Irrationality” (Khomeini and Chemical Weapon)


By: Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Speaking with Antiwar Radio’s Scott Horton earlier this week (listen to podcast here (lihat website: http://scotthorton.org/?powerpress_pinw=5890-podcast )) about our forthcoming book, see here  (lihat website: raceforiran), Flynt took on widespread stereotypes in American discourse about Shi’a Islam as a martyrdom-obsessed, death-seeking, and “irrational” culture that makes the Islamic Republic of Iran a threatening and dangerous actor on par with Hitler’s Reich.  He confessed that “I’m reaching a stage where I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when [I hear that sort of thing from] people who I don’t think know very much about Shi’a Islam, don’t know very much about Iran, haven’t spent a lot of time, I would suspect, talking about Shi’a Islam with people who believe it, live it, think about it.”  But, evoking a major theme in Going to Tehran:  Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran, he rejoins,
“Just look at the historical record.  The Islamic Republic has never used weapons of mass destruction.  In its war with Iraq—when the United States, among others, was supporting Saddam Husayn in an eight-year war of aggression against the new Islamic Republic—Ayatollah Khomeini’s own military leaders came to him and said, ‘We inherited the ability to produce chemical weapons agent from the Shah.  We need to do that and weaponize it so that we can respond in kind.  We have tens of thousands of our people, soldiers and civilians, who are being killed in Iraqi chemical weapons attacks.  We need to be able to respond in kind.”  And Imam Khomeini said, ‘No, because this would violate Islamic morality, because it is haram—it is forbidden by God—to do this, and the Islamic Republic of Iran will not do this.’  Imam Khomeini and his successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, have said repeatedly, over years, that the acquisition or use of nuclear weapons would also violate God’s law; Khamenei has said that to do it would be a ‘big sin.’  This is not the rhetoric of people who are out to bring the apocalypse down upon everyone else and themselves

The most detailed, data-rich extensive study of suicide terrorism, done by scholars at the University of Chicago and the U.S. Air War College, concluded that there has literally never been an Iranian suicide bomber…And so people like to talk about the Islamic Republic as run by these ‘mad mullahs,’ or even if the president is a layman, it’s this ‘crazy,’ ‘millenarian’ Ahmadinejad who just is waiting to get his hands on a nuke so he can turn the whole 70-plus million people in Iran into history’s first ‘suicide nation.’  And there is just absolutely no historical or even rhetorical support for that line of argument.  This is a country that, since its revolution, has basically been much, much more concerned about defending itself, defending the Iranian people, consolidating and maintaining its own independence in the face of hostile regional powers and hostile outside powers including, most notably, the United States.

Spurred by a reference to Hannah Arendt’s observation that “the most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution,” Flynt notes,
“The first task of a revolutionary, once he or she has overthrown the incumbent regime that he’s opposing, the first task is to consolidate power.  And that was certainly the case for the Islamic Republic—and the Islamic Republic had to do this when, in fairly short order as I said, Saddam Husayn launches this eight-year-long war against it, supported by most of his regional neighbors and supported by the United States.  So they were having to consolidate power while they were also having to defend the Iranian people against this onslaught.

And then if you look at what they did, after they came out of this war in in 1988—after it’s over and their military has been very, very badly decimated in this war, as has their economy as a whole—they actually diverted significant resources away from military spending, so that they can focus on postwar reconstruction, on building up a health care system, on building up an education system for their people.  And if you look at the outcomes they have produced for Iranians in those areas, considering the baseline they started from, it’s really impressive what they have accomplished.

Today, the United State spends 70 times more on defense than Iran.  Saudi Arabia spends more than four times what Iran spends on defense.  Israel spends twice as much on its military as Iran does.  Iran today has basically no capability to project large amounts of conventional military force beyond its borders.  The idea that Iran is going to come across its borders and, to borrow a phrase from the U.S. Army, park it’s tanks in somebody else’s front yard, is just fantasyland

So they are no conventional military threat to their neighbors.  They do have a lot of ballistic missiles—conventionally-armed ballistic missiles—which they have said they would use in response to attacks on them.  But they are certainly not the only country in the world that makes that sort of deterrent, retaliatory threat as part of its defense posture.  And if you are concerned about those missiles not flying anywhere, I would suggest you don’t attack Iran, and those missiles aren’t going to go anywhere.”

Scott Horton raises the discomfiting prospect that facts don’t really matter where Iran is concerned—that, regardless of the facts, “there is this endless drumbeat of bad things that Iran did, and it doesn’t matter that none of them are true…In the popular narrative, Iran is a terrible danger that must at some point be dealt with; I think the war party has won on that and that means it’s just a matter of time.”  Flynt responds,
“You may be correct; I hope you’re not.  Hillary and I have written the book that Harper’s was good enough to print an excerpt from in no small part because we want to do everything we can, at least, to make sure that the war party doesn’t win.

Now, it’s a very tall order.  The war party, as you describe them—we saw what they are capable of doing, in terms of getting us to invade IraqThey can manufacture intelligence, they can create threats that aren’t there, they can link a country that they don’t like to other threats that Americans are afraid of, like Al-Qa’ida—even though there is no link between that country they don’t like and Al-Qa’idaThey can manage to pull that off.  They can tie into very powerful domestic constituencies who can put lots of pressure on Congress, lots of pressure on the mainstream media, and so onWe saw with Iraq what they are capable of doing, and you’re right—they are certainly trying to do it with Iran now.

Hillary and I saw that inside government during the run-up to the Iraq WarBasically, all of the institutions Americans count on to provide a check on that sort of thing—the Congress, the media, think tanks, public intellectuals—with some few and extremely honorable and courageous exceptions, for the most part those institutions tankedThey provided no independent check on the war party.  And Hillary and I have written this book, Going to Tehran, as I said, in no small part because, at least this time around, we want someone to be asking the hard questions and making the kinds of countervailing arguments that should have been asked, should have been made before we invaded Iraq but, to a large extent, really weren’t put forward.”

Scott and Flynt also discuss the possibilities for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.  After reviewing the 2003 Iranian non-paper passed to the United States via Swiss intermediaries, Flynt makes a broader point:
This is also part of the ‘mad mullah’ myth—that this is a regime, a government, that is either too ideologically committed to anti-Americanism or too dependent on it for its own domestic legitimacy ever to contemplate improved relations with the United States.  But,again, just look at the historical record.

The historical record is that whenever the United States has reached out to Iran and said, ‘We need your help with some problem—whether it’s American hostages in Lebanon, whether it’s getting weapons to Bosnian Muslims when U.S. law prohibited the United States from doing that, whether it’s help against Al-Qa’ida and in Afghanistan after 9/11—whenever we have reached out like that to Iran, they have tried to respond positively.  They have done much—not everything, but much—of what we’ve asked of them in those circumstances, in the hope that this would lead to an improvement in relations.  It’s never worked out, but not because the Iranians didn’t respond.  It didn’t work out because we decided to pocket their cooperation, and then cut it off.  They’ve advanced any number of proposals over the years for a more comprehensive improvement in relations, which we have pretty consistently rebuffed.

Their stated position, from Ayatollah Khamenei himself—and it’s been echoed by presidents, by foreign ministers, and by other senior officials—is if the United States is willing to accept the Iranian Revolution, to accept the Islamic Republic (the product of that revolution) as a legitimate political entity representing legitimate national interests and to deal with it on that basis, there is no barrier to improved relations between Iran and the United States—and in fact Iran would welcome improved relations on that basis.  From the Iranian perspective, it’s the United States that’s never shown itself seriously willing to proceed on that basis.  We think relations can only improve only after Iran has surrendered to every one of our demands, and then we’ll see if it’s possible, we’ll think about it then…

That’s never going to work with this political order…We tried that for twenty years after the Chinese Revolution with the People’s Republic of China, and it was an utterly stupid and counterproductive policy that, among other things, got us bogged down in Vietnam.  Fortunately, Richard Nixon [realized] that this is stupid, it’s hurting the United States; the United States needs to be able to deal with this large and important country in Asia.  I am going to accept the People’s Republic as a legitimate entity that has national interests just like we do, and we are going to see if we can’t align enough of those interests to make it possible these two countries that have been estranged from one another since the Chinese Revolution actually to have a productive relationship.  And it worked; it worked brilliantly.

That’s the kind of approach we need to take toward Iran today, toward the Islamic Republic.  It’s just like China—for twenty years, Mao and Zhou Enlai had said, ‘We’re not unremittingly and unreasonably hostile toward the United States.  If the United States is prepared to accept us, accept the revolution that we came from, accept us and deal with us as a legitimate entity representing legitimate national interests, there is no barrier to good relations between the United States and China.  We would welcome that.  But you’re not going to be able to bully us around, you’re not going to be able just to make demands of us, and you’re not going to be able to get us to compromise our sovereignty to accommodate your preferences.’  It took us twenty years, but we figured out how to do that” where China was concerned.

As to the prospects for productive American diplomacy toward Iran during President Obama’s second term, Flynt noted that he was “not at all optimistic.”  To be sure, the outlines of a nuclear deal are clear:
If you acknowledge Iran’s legal right to enrich uranium under safeguards on its own territory if it chooses to do so, then everything becomes possible…[But even in the talks over a possible deal to refuel the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) in 2009-2019] the Obama administration was never prepared to acknowledge Iran’s right to enrich…It was prepared to do a kind of narrow deal that would buy it a certain amount of time  to figure out maybe what it wanted to do on these bigger issues.  But it has never been willing to say Iran has a right to enrich…

If you look at why the Obama administration rejected the deal that Brazil and Turkey brokered with Iran over this issue in May 2010, Obama administration officials, Dennis Ross, people like that have said in public, ‘Oh, we had to reject it because the first point in the deal that the Brazilians and the Turks brokered was [an acknowledgment of] Iran’s right to enrich, and we couldn’t have that’…[The administration] put terms on it, and the Brazilians and the Turks took letters that Obama had sent to the Brazilian president and the Turkish prime minister; they even showed those letters to the Iranians while they were negotiating with them, because the Iranians were saying, ‘Are you really sure the United States is going to sign off on this?’  And [the Brazilians and the Turks said, ‘Oh, yes, we have letters from the President of the United States; look.’

But it was really just a kind of cheap trick on Obama’s part.  [Administration officials] thought that if the Brazilians and the Turks insisted on the conditions in Obama’s letter, the Iranians would never agree; then, when the Brazilians and the Turks failed, they were both members of the Security Council at that time and they would both have to support a new sanctions resolution.  It was just a kind of cheap trick.  They thought…the Iranians will never say ‘yes.’  But then the Iranians said ‘yes.’  And then it’s the Obama administration that can’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.”

Looking ahead, Flynt notes that we’ve “talked to senior administration officials just in the last couple of weeks who tell me that there is no inclination to [recognize Iran’s right to enrich]—the policy, the goal is still to get Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.”  Responding to a suggestion that Nixon was uniquely able, as a Republican with strong Cold War anti-communist credentials, to spearhead an opening to China in ways that Obama, as a Democrat, is simply not able to replicate with respect to Iran, Flynt argues,
“More important than Richard Nixon being a Republican was that Richard Nixon actually had an accurate assessment of America’s place in the world when he entered the White House, and he had really thought through what that should mean for the United States strategically.  And he understood how important it was for the United States—it was not a favor to the Chinese—how important it was to the United States to open relations with China.  And he put every ounce of political skill, Machiavellian calculation, diplomatic acumen, capacity for secrecy…all of the good and maybe not so good parts of political persona, he put all of them into this and achieved this historic breakthrough, because he knew it was strategically vital for his country.

I don’t think the main problem with Obama is that he is a Democrat.  I think the main problem is that he doesn’t really understand where the United States is in the world right now, he doesn’t really have a strategic vision for the United States, and whatever vision he does have doesn’t compel him enough, doesn’t matter enough to him that he is actually to spend and risk political capital to realize it.”

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

(raceforiran/scotthorton/myartikel/ABNS)

Terkait Berita: