Truth falls casualty to free world’s war
Various semi-official sources expressed the conviction that both the alleged gas attack in Ghouta, Syria and the intensely publicised ‘Skripal poisoning’ in Britain were faked by certain Special Operatives from the broader Atlantic Alliance in order to fo
While the winds of “reform” are blowing across the Saudi desert making headlines every day, Islamic clerics, scholars and academicians in India are unimpressed yet observant of the undergoing changes in the historically conservative society of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
In the recent past, KSA’s crown prince Mohammad-binSalman has gained steady admirers for his “progressive” initiatives for Saudi women and culture, his action-oriented approach to curb corruption and initiatives to rein in extremism. Nonetheless, Muslim thinkers in India are not impressed and do not see these changes as “reforms”, let alone consider it as a beginning for “Islamic reformation” to counter religious extremism that has gripped Islam worldwide.
Dr Tahir Mahmood, former chairman of the National Minorities Commission and member of the Law Commission of India, told The Sunday Guardian, “These are not reforms and this is no reformation of Islam. This is restoration of Islam to the religion it was meant to be which until now was distorted by the Saudis. Changes like banning polygamy or making divorce formal could have been considered as reforms. But as much as we welcome the end of the ban on women driving, we cannot call these reforms.”
Salim Engineer, General Secretary of Jamaat-e-Islami-Hind, told The Sunday Guardian: “Reforms are required in laws made by humans; ‘deen’ does not require reforms. What deen requires is ‘Ijtehad’. Ijtehad means implementation of the scripture addressing the needs of the prevailing circumstances. So as far as the question of reforms in KSA stands, it looks to me that whatever is happening there is a consequence of their internal matters. It has nothing to do with reformation of Islam.”
Most of the clergymen that this paper spoke to did not want to indulge in the subject, saying that this does not concern them. The general perception around crown prince Salman’s efforts to modernise Saudi society is that of confusion mixed with condescend—confusion over the dramatic shift of the Saudi’s endorsement of the values that were so vehemently opposed until now aggravated by the said differences of opinion between the crown prince and his father King Salman. The clerics’ tone is condescending because they do not approve of the concentration of power by a single family.
Arif Mohammad Khan, former Union Cabinet Minister and an avid religious thinker and writer on Islamic issues, said, “Islam is not about getting things done forcefully, be it marriage, divorce, conversions or taking over countries. The Saudis were never telling you the real Islam. It is unfortunate that historically, Islam has been clutched by an imperial ethos and what is happening today which is being referred to as ‘reform’, is no reform at all. Islam does not require to be reformed, but it requires to be practised.”
Clerics in India do not see KSA’s social changes as a reformation of Islam, rather as an indicator of a Prince who is taking a lot of heat from the United States and Israel, suggesting that if the geo-political realities of KSA would not have come under duress, then the kingdom would not have gone about “reforming” its mannerisms. A cleric affiliated with a popular Jamaat based in New Delhi, who did not want to be identified, said, “These so-called reforms are not being seen as a sign of a strong ruler. The media in the West has been applauding the Prince for being progressive and bold enough to be willing to bring change, but we understand that KSA’s reality today is different. Also, allowing women to drive, attend soccer matches have nothing to do with Islam. These were restrictions imposed by their own society; religion had no role to play in it. Islam never said that women cannot drive.”
The reforms are also being seen as the regime’s way to stay in power. Salim explained, “True Islam stands for the best man as the ruler. Family rule or dictatorship is not Islam’s way. Though the Prince did good in weeding out corrupt officials from his government, he also concentrated a lot of power in his own hands by eliminating members of his own family. Because of these overlapping interests, I feel that though his actions might have positive implications, the nature of his decisions and the general opinion about him here is not sanguine, which is why whatever happens in KSA will be spoken about in sceptic tones here.”
Arif further underlined the economic realities of contemporary Saudi society that resulted in making way for these sociological changes. Blessed with oil and, hence a lot of wealth, young Saudis were sent to study abroad and now after two generations of well-educated citizens, the regime also needs to provide them with jobs and financial stability in times of collapsing oil prices.
As to what repercussions these social changes are going to bring to Muslims in India and elsewhere across the world, Arif said, “Wait for another 10-15 years, there is going to be a drastic change in the psyche of Indian Muslims. Until 1987, there was no protest or movement against triple talaq, but today there are people who are speaking against it publicly. Things have already changed. Those times are gone when people in India did not bother reading the Quran with a translation and only went to a Mullah for advice. The concentration of authority on religious matters and misuse of this power cannot last for long.”
Mahmood said, “Saudi Arabia is not our Vatican or Harmandir Saheb. We have no reason to be inspired or influenced by them. Islam has multiple schools of thought, the one that KSA has followed so far, the Hanabali school of thought, is the most conservative one. On the other hand, in India you will not find a single Hanabali believer. The reason KSA became the seat of Islam is because they got control of Mecca at the time
b i f d d i h h i f h i i h During two weeks spent i n Europe this April, I found confirmation for my impression gained in the summer of 2017 that the Anglo-Franco-US alliance spawned by the 19141918 war was being revived. The main enemy is Russia, but another, unofficially acknowledged target is Germany under economic attack from the United States. The European Union may be about to split into two blocs as desired by the British and American governments, who wish to reduce Germany’s continental primacy. Additionally, Berlin’s deep economic involvement with Russia (not only about gas imports and industrial cooperation) and extensive business relations with China are seen as threatening the already eroded Atlantic supremacy. The state visit of Emmanuel Macron to Washington DC in late April, after the trilateral bombing of Syria against Germany’s (and Italy’s) wishes are also explained by that rivalry.
Various semi- official sources, speaking off the record, expressed the conviction that both the alleged latest gas attack in Ghouta, Syria and the intensely publicised “Skripal poisoning” incident in Britain were faked by certain Special Operatives from the broader Atlantic Alliance in order to force Europe into a Cold War mode and revamp a collapsing coalition against the Syrian-Iranian-Russian compact. Other European capitals were and remain highly sceptical, if not dismissive of Anglo-French allegations, against which they had been warned in advance in official statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry. However, in order to maintain a minimum of cohesion and comply with the intense British-American pressure, most states reluctantly agreed to expel a token number of Russian diplomats. In the US, a cheerleader for the “Kick The Ruskies Out” initiative was, it seems National Security Adviser H.R. MacMaster who was fired by Donald Trump right afterwards.
The illegal and illogical bombing of Syria, decided upon without UN Security Council approval, without taking a vote in the respective legislative assemblies and absent any independent confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government was, apparently, a tactical move to reassert the West’s role in Syria and the region and a symbol wanted by both President Macron and Prime Minister Theresa May to refurbish their military partnership with the US in order to intimidate Iran, Turkey, Russia and China as the main players “on the other side”.
The “bombing powers” had no interest in getting the facts checked by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and only reluctantly let it send an investigating team in Syria on Russia’s requirement. The latest reports indicate that the Syrian bombing of Ghouta did not involve chemical weapons, which is why western media are doing their best to ignore the testimonies of local witnesses contradicting AngloFrench claims.
In the event the western strikes on Syria were restricted in scope by US Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who, after stating he had seen no evidence for the chemical attack, insisted on checking every intended target with the Russians, thereby informing Damascus in advance.
Mattis was not alone in the awareness that a hit on any Russian facility or personnel would lead to retaliation from Moscow, which might quickly escalate the conflict. As a result of that prior consultation, the Syrian Air Defense was able to shoot down a high number of missiles, while Russian submarines played a game of cat and mouse with the vessels of the new “Triple Entente” to interfere with their launches. It seems that the French did not fire any missile, whether that was by presidential decision— Macron wanted noise and fury but not a real shooting match—or due to the inaction of French Navy commanders, sceptical about the justification for this attack. As the Russians pointed out, if there were chemical weapons in the designated targets, destroying them with explosive ordinance would only create a catastrophe in civilian areas. The missiles that actually landed, destroyed a few scientific research labs, university buildings and air force fa- cilities. Allegations against the Bashar Assad regime had come as usual from the Hollywoodesque White Helmets, known to be playing a PR role on behalf of the western and Saudi-supported Jaish al Islam and other radical militias and were relayed by the London based and western financed Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Those two among many “opposition activists” have tried for years to trigger a full scale invasion of Syria by western powers to overthrow the Assad government.
Donald Trump’s attitude in this scenario was puzzling and yet predictable. Under intense pressure at home and constantly accused of being Vladimir Putin’s pawn, he chose to use some ammunition from the overstocked US arsenal as a way to show some pugnacity against Moscow’s Syrian ally, hoping to gain support from his domestic constituency, while humouring the Saudis, Israelis and other promoters of deeper US military engagement in the region, but it was soon known that the Alliance’s bombing raid had more bark than bite and Trump has had to keep his remaining supporters on board by reiterating his obdurate resolve to get out of the JCPOA (“the Iran nuclear deal”).
This seemingly irrational fixation can best be explained by the President’s imperative not to cross the Israeli lobby in the US and abroad. If he only had to take the Saudi Iranophobia into account, he would merely offer the Kingdom newer and more powerful weapons to stave off the “Persian threat”, to the benefit of the American military industry.
The US government and, even more so, Trump treat the Arab states in a cavalier manner (Trump pointedly reminded the Gulf monarchies, rightly or wrongly that they exist by the good grace of Washington), but the Zionist establishment cannot be toyed with and cancelling the Iranian deal has always been the sine qua non requirement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing. It is perhaps significant that, when faced with the very embarrassing Stormy Daniels issue, Donald Trump reportedly sought the advice and support of one of his main donors, the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, said to be worth 40 billion dollars.
This was confirmed by Trump’s disgraced adviser Steve Bannon, who paid both men a double-edged compliment in that snide comment.
Adelson, close to Netanyahu personally and politically, told a shaken President that he would help him to weather the porn actress’ accusations with the right legal strategy. Coming from someone with such experience and power in the business of gambling and associated activities, that assurance was worth a lot, but the price was “no compromise with Iran”, which also implies not letting Syria settle down and rebuild under the rule of Assad, Tehran’s ally. Israel has shown that it is not averse to striking even Russian military equipment in Syria as part of its ongoing strategy to conduct bombing raids over the strife torn country and target Iranian personnel, while covertly supporting some of the Islamist rebel groups. Tel Aviv’s policy may well drag Washington and western allies into a direct confrontation with Moscow.
The US government’s intent to tear up the Iran deal is bad news for European countries that invested a lot of effort and credibility in working it out and hoped to reap the reward through business with the Islamic Republic. Macron’s visit to Washington was partly intended to mollycoddle Trump enough to make him renounce his intempestive pledge. Beneath the surface warmth there was tension and the truculent American President, true to style, treated the younger French head of state as a gruffly affectionate father would a well meaning but inexperienced boy who needs to learn the ways of the world.
Macron (who had, when coming to power intended to visit Iran soon and act as a mediator) took his revenge for the humiliation by stating later in the visit that flip-flopping on signed agreements with foreign nations was “very insane”, but Trump, holding to the American customary position that “what is mine is mine and what is yours is to be discussed”, kept his options open.
On the other hand, Macron apparently got Trump to keep his “boots on the ground” in Syria for now, on the condition that “the Arabs” pay for them and eventually provide troops.
France and Britain are determined to play a key role in the reorganisation of the region, which seems to require a de facto division of Syria, since the western alliance refuses to work with the Syrian government and wants to “rebuild” the country, after helping destroy it, only in areas that are under rebel control or ( illegal) US military occupation, essentially the semi-desertic East and the embattled Kurdish North.
Macron’s proposal to expand and supplement the Iran deal (which the US has not fully complied with anyway) is equally unrealistic, as it would force Tehran to close down its missile development programme and practically disarm to the satisfaction of its regional enemies and of the notoriously unreliable US. Unsurprisingly, Tehran, Moscow and Beijing have reiterated that the UN endorsed agreement is not open to renegotiation.
Western Europe i s coming closer to the current American belligerent mindset and one effect is the rise of insidious censorship in the news and in social media in the guise of “combating fake news”, a leitmotiv in official speech, which often implies banning or discrediting reporting and opinions unfavourable to the Atlantic positions as being disloyal or even treasonous.
The first casualty of war is truth and all nations should remember that mobilising to fight real or alleged enemies eventually implies curtailing freedom of expression. As a result, much mainstream news coverage in the selfstyled “free world” is now clumsy or subtle propaganda.