Showing posts with label South Asia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Asia. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Unpublicized Crises: Chomsky on Sri Lanka
Noam Chomsky at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS) on 27 October 2009.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Comments on Obama's Cairo speech
How do we read that speech? Is it reaching out to the Muslim world or just a change of tactics for the neo-imperial ambitions?
Above: Dr. Hatem Bazian of UC Berkeley shares his perspective with a crowd of demonstrators at a rally against the 60 year old occupation of Palestine just a few days after Obama's speech in Cairo. Also see Part II and Part III
Robert Fisk: Words that could heal wounds of centuries
The Independent, June 5, 2009
Source
Preacher, historian, economist, moralist, schoolteacher, critic, warrior, imam, emperor. Sometimes you even forgot Barack Obama was the President of the United States of America.
Will his lecture to a carefully chosen audience at Cairo University "re-imagine the world" and heal the wounds of centuries between Muslims and Christians? Will it resolve the Arab-Israeli tragedy after more than 60 years? If words could do the job, perhaps...
It was a clever speech we heard from Obama yesterday, as gentle and as ruthless as any audience could wish for – and we were all his audience. He praised Islam. He loved Islam. He admired Islam. He loved Christianity. And he admired America. Did we know that there were seven million Muslims in America, that there were mosques in every state of the Union, that Morocco was the first nation to recognise the United States and that our duty is to fight against stereotypes of Muslims just as Muslims must fight against stereotypes of America?
But much of the truth was there, albeit softened to avoid hurting feelings in Israel. To deny the facts of the Jewish Holocaust was "baseless, ignorant and hateful", he said, a remark obviously aimed at Iran. And Israel deserved security and "Palestinians must abandon violence..."
The United States demanded a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He told the Israelis there had to be a total end to their colonisation in the West Bank. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
The Palestinians had suffered without a homeland. "The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable," Obama said and the US would not turn its back on the "legitimate Palestinian aspiration for a state of their own". Israel had to take "concrete steps" to give the Palestinians progress in their daily lives as part of a road to peace. Israel needed to acknowledge Palestinian suffering and the Palestinian right to exist. Wow. Not for a generation has Israel had to take this kind of criticism from a US President. It sounded like the end of the Zionist dream. Did George Bush ever exist?
Alas, he did. Indeed, at times, the Obama address sounded like the Bush General Repair Company, visiting the Muslim world to sweep up mountains of broken chandeliers and shredded flesh. The President of the United States – and this was awesome – admitted his country's failures, its over-reaction to 9/11, its creation of Guantanamo which, Obama reminded us all again, he is closing down. Not bad, Obama...
We got to Iran. One state trying to acquire nuclear weapons would lead to a "dangerous path" for all of us, especially in the Middle East. We must prevent a nuclear arms race. But Iran as a nation must be treated with dignity. More extraordinarily, Obama reminded us that the US had connived to overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq government of Iran in the Fifties. It was "hard to overcome decades of distrust".
There was more; democracy, women's rights, the economy, a few good quotes from the Koran ("Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind".) Governments must respect "all their people" and their minorities. He mentioned the Christian Copts of Egypt; even the Christian Maronites of Lebanon got a look in.
And when Obama said that some governments, "once in power, are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others", there was a roar of applause from the supposedly obedient audience. No wonder the Egyptian government wanted to select which bits of Obama's speech would be suitable for the Egyptian people. They were clearly very, very unhappy with the police-state regime of Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, Obama did not once mention Mubarak's name.
Over and again, one kept saying to oneself: Obama hasn't mentioned Iraq – and then he did ("a war of choice... our combat brigades will be leaving"). But he hasn't mentioned Afghanistan – and then he did ("we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan... we will gladly bring every one of our troops home"). When he started talking about the "coalition of 46 countries" in Afghanistan – a very dodgy statistic – he began to sound like his predecessor. And here, of course, we encountered an inevitable problem. As the Palestinian intellectual Marwan Bishara pointed out yesterday, it is easy to be "dazzled" by presidents. This was a dazzling performance. But if one searched the text, there were things missing.
There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this. The Holocaust loomed out of his speech and he reminded us that he was going to the site of the Buchenwald concentration camp today.
For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism, on "cycles of suspicion and discord" – even if America and Islam shared "common principles" which turned out to be "justice, progress and the dignity of all human beings".
There was one merciful omission: a speech of nearly 6,000 words did not include the lethal word "terror". "Terror" or "terrorism" have become punctuation marks for every Israeli government and became part of the obscene grammar of the Bush era.
An intelligent guy, then, Obama. Not exactly Gettysburg. Not exactly Churchill, but not bad. One could only remember Churchill's observations: "Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare."
-------
Edit, June 21, 2009: Added Charles Hirschkind's reference and excerpts:
Obama on Palestine: What New Beginning?
By Charles Hirschkind, The Immanent Frame, June 9, 2009
Source
Excerpts:
"Obama also made mention of the suffering of the Palestinian people, a point that many have taken as evidence of a more balanced approach to the region. What he actually said, however, points in a contrary direction. It is a masterful formulation, and bears closer scrutiny. “It is undeniable,” he noted, “that the Palestinian people—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” A “homeland,” of course, is precisely not what the Palestinians have been pursuing. They are on it, and have long been so, except for those now living as refugees and whose return Obama is on the record as opposing. It is rather the Jewish people, not the Palestinians, whose history we recognize in the phrase “pursuit of a homeland,” a people whose moral claim to such a homeland is based in centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, a point Obama began with in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It is a mistake, however, to see Obama’s use of this expression to characterize the predicament of the Palestinians as evidence of “balance” or “evenhandedness.” What we find instead is that the terms of recognition by which Palestinian suffering can be acknowledged—the need for a homeland—are precisely those whose ultimate moral reference is the foundation of Israel. In other words, the moral force of Palestinian claims is made to rest upon the very example that has produced their dispossession."
"As I am writing from Spain, I cannot resist a few words on this last point. What are we to make of this oddest of historical blunders, in a speech that otherwise shows such careful and meticulous craftsmanship? Here are the two lines: “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.” Muslim tolerance during the Inquisition?! Such a slip in an otherwise seamless speech begs interpretation. What displacement or condensation has occurred such that the celebrated convivencia of al-Andaluz is now made contemporaneous with the forced conversion, slaughter, and exile of Spain’s Muslim and Jewish populations under the Inquisitorial regime? Are we to find in this image a call to the inhabitants of Gaza, or to the villagers of Afghanistan and Pakistan, to practice their celebrated Muslim tolerance in the face of their own devastation by American and Israeli armies and weaponry?"
Above: Dr. Hatem Bazian of UC Berkeley shares his perspective with a crowd of demonstrators at a rally against the 60 year old occupation of Palestine just a few days after Obama's speech in Cairo. Also see Part II and Part III
Robert Fisk: Words that could heal wounds of centuries
The Independent, June 5, 2009
Source
Preacher, historian, economist, moralist, schoolteacher, critic, warrior, imam, emperor. Sometimes you even forgot Barack Obama was the President of the United States of America.
Will his lecture to a carefully chosen audience at Cairo University "re-imagine the world" and heal the wounds of centuries between Muslims and Christians? Will it resolve the Arab-Israeli tragedy after more than 60 years? If words could do the job, perhaps...
It was a clever speech we heard from Obama yesterday, as gentle and as ruthless as any audience could wish for – and we were all his audience. He praised Islam. He loved Islam. He admired Islam. He loved Christianity. And he admired America. Did we know that there were seven million Muslims in America, that there were mosques in every state of the Union, that Morocco was the first nation to recognise the United States and that our duty is to fight against stereotypes of Muslims just as Muslims must fight against stereotypes of America?
But much of the truth was there, albeit softened to avoid hurting feelings in Israel. To deny the facts of the Jewish Holocaust was "baseless, ignorant and hateful", he said, a remark obviously aimed at Iran. And Israel deserved security and "Palestinians must abandon violence..."
The United States demanded a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He told the Israelis there had to be a total end to their colonisation in the West Bank. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
The Palestinians had suffered without a homeland. "The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable," Obama said and the US would not turn its back on the "legitimate Palestinian aspiration for a state of their own". Israel had to take "concrete steps" to give the Palestinians progress in their daily lives as part of a road to peace. Israel needed to acknowledge Palestinian suffering and the Palestinian right to exist. Wow. Not for a generation has Israel had to take this kind of criticism from a US President. It sounded like the end of the Zionist dream. Did George Bush ever exist?
Alas, he did. Indeed, at times, the Obama address sounded like the Bush General Repair Company, visiting the Muslim world to sweep up mountains of broken chandeliers and shredded flesh. The President of the United States – and this was awesome – admitted his country's failures, its over-reaction to 9/11, its creation of Guantanamo which, Obama reminded us all again, he is closing down. Not bad, Obama...
We got to Iran. One state trying to acquire nuclear weapons would lead to a "dangerous path" for all of us, especially in the Middle East. We must prevent a nuclear arms race. But Iran as a nation must be treated with dignity. More extraordinarily, Obama reminded us that the US had connived to overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq government of Iran in the Fifties. It was "hard to overcome decades of distrust".
There was more; democracy, women's rights, the economy, a few good quotes from the Koran ("Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind".) Governments must respect "all their people" and their minorities. He mentioned the Christian Copts of Egypt; even the Christian Maronites of Lebanon got a look in.
And when Obama said that some governments, "once in power, are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others", there was a roar of applause from the supposedly obedient audience. No wonder the Egyptian government wanted to select which bits of Obama's speech would be suitable for the Egyptian people. They were clearly very, very unhappy with the police-state regime of Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, Obama did not once mention Mubarak's name.
Over and again, one kept saying to oneself: Obama hasn't mentioned Iraq – and then he did ("a war of choice... our combat brigades will be leaving"). But he hasn't mentioned Afghanistan – and then he did ("we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan... we will gladly bring every one of our troops home"). When he started talking about the "coalition of 46 countries" in Afghanistan – a very dodgy statistic – he began to sound like his predecessor. And here, of course, we encountered an inevitable problem. As the Palestinian intellectual Marwan Bishara pointed out yesterday, it is easy to be "dazzled" by presidents. This was a dazzling performance. But if one searched the text, there were things missing.
There was no mention – during or after his kindly excoriation of Iran – of Israel's estimated 264 nuclear warheads. He admonished the Palestinians for their violence – for "shooting rockets at sleeping children or blowing up old women in a bus". But there was no mention of Israel's violence in Gaza, just of the "continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Nor was there a mention of Israel's bombing of civilians in Lebanon, of its repeated invasions of Lebanon (17,500 dead in the 1982 invasion alone). Obama told Muslims not to live in the past, but cut the Israelis out of this. The Holocaust loomed out of his speech and he reminded us that he was going to the site of the Buchenwald concentration camp today.
For a man who is sending thousands more US troops into Afghanistan – a certain disaster-to-come in the eyes of Arabs and Westerners – there was something brazen about all this. When he talked about the debt that all Westerners owed to Islam – the "light of learning" in Andalusia, algebra, the magnetic compass, religious tolerance, it was like a cat being gently stroked before a visit to the vet. And the vet, of course, lectured the Muslims on the dangers of extremism, on "cycles of suspicion and discord" – even if America and Islam shared "common principles" which turned out to be "justice, progress and the dignity of all human beings".
There was one merciful omission: a speech of nearly 6,000 words did not include the lethal word "terror". "Terror" or "terrorism" have become punctuation marks for every Israeli government and became part of the obscene grammar of the Bush era.
An intelligent guy, then, Obama. Not exactly Gettysburg. Not exactly Churchill, but not bad. One could only remember Churchill's observations: "Words are easy and many, while great deeds are difficult and rare."
-------
Edit, June 21, 2009: Added Charles Hirschkind's reference and excerpts:
Obama on Palestine: What New Beginning?
By Charles Hirschkind, The Immanent Frame, June 9, 2009
Source
Excerpts:
"Obama also made mention of the suffering of the Palestinian people, a point that many have taken as evidence of a more balanced approach to the region. What he actually said, however, points in a contrary direction. It is a masterful formulation, and bears closer scrutiny. “It is undeniable,” he noted, “that the Palestinian people—Muslims and Christians—have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” A “homeland,” of course, is precisely not what the Palestinians have been pursuing. They are on it, and have long been so, except for those now living as refugees and whose return Obama is on the record as opposing. It is rather the Jewish people, not the Palestinians, whose history we recognize in the phrase “pursuit of a homeland,” a people whose moral claim to such a homeland is based in centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, a point Obama began with in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It is a mistake, however, to see Obama’s use of this expression to characterize the predicament of the Palestinians as evidence of “balance” or “evenhandedness.” What we find instead is that the terms of recognition by which Palestinian suffering can be acknowledged—the need for a homeland—are precisely those whose ultimate moral reference is the foundation of Israel. In other words, the moral force of Palestinian claims is made to rest upon the very example that has produced their dispossession."
"As I am writing from Spain, I cannot resist a few words on this last point. What are we to make of this oddest of historical blunders, in a speech that otherwise shows such careful and meticulous craftsmanship? Here are the two lines: “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.” Muslim tolerance during the Inquisition?! Such a slip in an otherwise seamless speech begs interpretation. What displacement or condensation has occurred such that the celebrated convivencia of al-Andaluz is now made contemporaneous with the forced conversion, slaughter, and exile of Spain’s Muslim and Jewish populations under the Inquisitorial regime? Are we to find in this image a call to the inhabitants of Gaza, or to the villagers of Afghanistan and Pakistan, to practice their celebrated Muslim tolerance in the face of their own devastation by American and Israeli armies and weaponry?"
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Jamaat's New Amir Interviewed on Jawab Deyh
Jamaat-e Islami Pakistan's new Amir, Syed Munawar Hassan, faces tough questions from Iftekhar Ahmed on Jawab Deyh (GEO TV) in Urdu, aired on April 5, 2009. Defending the Taliban rule in Afghanistan was his weakest moment in the interview.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
(Alternative link to the same interview)
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
(Alternative link to the same interview)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
On Arundhati Roy's Support for the Kashmir Cause
On Arundhati Roy's Support for the Kashmir Cause
By Syed Hamad Ali, New Statesman, October 6, 2008
Source
Ever since she shot to global fame following her 1997 win of the Booker prize for The God of Small Things, Arundhati Roy seems to have concentrated her creative energy on raising awareness about pressing social and political issues.
This is the woman who described terrorism as the “privatisation of war” and called George Bush a “world nightmare incarnate.”
No surprise then she was dubbed “the Indian author of one good novel and many peevish essays” in a New York Times article.
Roy, who is an anti-globalisation campaigner, once famously said that the “only thing worth globalising is dissent.” As an opponent of the Iraqi invasion she walked a very fine line of what is considered acceptable when she was quoted urging people to “become the Iraqi resistance”, albeit through non-violent means.
Last month the Indian novelist wrote a lengthy newspaper article calling for Kashmir’s freedom in which she argued: “India needs azadi [freedom] from Kashmir just as much as - if not more than - Kashmir needs azadi from India.”
Predictably, accusations of “sedition” and of being a “loose cannon” were once again lobbed by critics inside the country’s political establishment.
“Here in India you have people saying that the government should do to Kashmir what the Russians are doing to Chechnya,” Roy tells the New Statesman. “There is a great admiration for military solutions right now.”
So it comes as no surprise her detractors would prefer Roy to keep quiet – especially when it comes to Kashmir.
“It is a great tribute to the tolerance of India's ethos that a person who openly calls for Balkanisation of the country is not being locked up and the keys thrown away,” commented the ruling Congress party’s Manish Tiwari. Yet Roy seems unfazed. She was in the troubled state recently to witness the mass demonstrations there by locals protesting Indian rule. “For me being there makes me feel humiliated as an Indian,” she says. “There are very many beautiful things about India which are all coloured by this.”
Since an insurgency began in Kashmir back in 1989, at least 40,000-60,000 people have been killed.
An estimated 400,000 Indian troops are stationed to impose India’s grip on the region. At the same time around 200,000 Hindu Pandits have also been uprooted and forced to leave the largely Muslim valley. Roy says that it was the sight of Kashmiris themselves protesting, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands, that she felt actually gave her the right to write about the issue. “They were very clear about what they were saying,” she says.
Even back in April when Tibet was the focus of global attention, The Times of India noted: “the problem of Jammu and Kashmir is the elephant in the room which Indians debating Tibet are doing their darndest to ignore.”
Many, however, are still determined to cling onto Kashmir. The opposition BJP’s General Secretary, Arun Jaitley, went so far as to state openly in a TV interview: “I am one of those who firmly believe that azadi is not even a distant dream for those separatists, it is an impossible thing.” India today is the country with the third-largest Muslim population in the world at close to 150 million. As its only Muslim majority state Kashmir, so the argument goes, is crucial to the secular and the multi-ethnic makeup of the nation. When confronted by such reasoning Roy is quick to retort: “The Muslims of India and the Muslims of Kashmir are both held hostage to each other.”
“That is a very specious argument of theirs, you look at what’s been happening in India even now with the Hindu VHP massacring Christians in Orissa,” continues Roy whose own mother hails from Kerala’s Syrian Christian community. “The state is standing back and watching. In Gujrat we all know what happened, they massacred Muslims and then came on TV and boasted about it.”
The 2002 riots in the western Gujrat state left more than a 1000, largely Muslims, dead with many accusing the state’s Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, of complicity in the events by turning a blind eye. To date Modi remains a free man and a popular governor in his state. But he is an extremely divisive figure. While some call him India’s Hitler, others speculate he is a future prime ministerial candidate.
“Only when it comes to Kashmir suddenly the Indian government starts trotting out this business of it being secular,” Roy notes.
The novelist is just as concerned about the disparity between rich and poor in India. She describes the middle and upper classes as existing "in a whole little country of their own". With many cheering the rise of the “New India”, as millionaires and billionaires prop up everywhere, conditions in parts of the country remain worse than Sub-Saharan Africa according to recent World Bank estimates.
India is home to a third of the world’s poor with roughly 75 per cent of it’s population living on less then US$2 a day.
Further nearly half of India’s children are clinically malnourished. “What about a society in which a million people earn their living carrying human shit on their heads?” adds Roy. “Is it alright because we have some market and nuclear bombs?”
She says although a battle was fought for India’s independence in 1947, in her view it wasn’t really a revolution. “The people who were ruling the roost during the time of the British empire continued to do that after independence,” says Roy. “The same policeman, the same justice system, the same brown sahibs neatly stepped into the shoes of the white sahibs… Like dalits, for example, why wouldn’t they prefer British masters to upper caste masters?”
As a fervent opponent of US foreign policy she supported neither Bush nor Kerry during the 2004 elections.
Roy has likened the choice to an option of two brands of detergent owned by the same company.
“I kind of resent the idea that the whole world has to be interested in the American elections,” she says.
Even with Bush due to make his much anticipated exit and an air of expectation about the potential of the first ever black US President - assuming he wins of course - Roy remains pessimistic and refuses to give her endorsement to either Obama or McCain.
She predicts the coming months will see Obama turn into a white man and warns against expecting a miracle: “He’ll have to prove that he is whiter than the white man. And if it was Hillary Clinton she would also have had to become a white man.”
But surely Obama would be an improvement over the more conservative, hawkish, McCain? Roy acknowledges the US presidency is a very powerful position but says that she feels such a complex system has been put into place that he is not really able to make decisions himself. Roy compares the situation confronted by the US electorate to the one faced by their Indian counterparts in picking between Congress and BJP. “It is a humiliating choice,” she says.
Yet, inspite of all she sees wrong with the society she lives in, Roy is clearly infatuated with India: “I could have lived anywhere in the world now if I wanted to. But every moment of my day is so absorbing, is so full of so much richness. In terms of the debates and the excitement going on here. The varied ways in which it comes at you and the complexities you have to deal with. The completely unpredictable nature of my life. Now these are the things I love.”
By Syed Hamad Ali, New Statesman, October 6, 2008
Source
Ever since she shot to global fame following her 1997 win of the Booker prize for The God of Small Things, Arundhati Roy seems to have concentrated her creative energy on raising awareness about pressing social and political issues.
This is the woman who described terrorism as the “privatisation of war” and called George Bush a “world nightmare incarnate.”
No surprise then she was dubbed “the Indian author of one good novel and many peevish essays” in a New York Times article.
Roy, who is an anti-globalisation campaigner, once famously said that the “only thing worth globalising is dissent.” As an opponent of the Iraqi invasion she walked a very fine line of what is considered acceptable when she was quoted urging people to “become the Iraqi resistance”, albeit through non-violent means.
Last month the Indian novelist wrote a lengthy newspaper article calling for Kashmir’s freedom in which she argued: “India needs azadi [freedom] from Kashmir just as much as - if not more than - Kashmir needs azadi from India.”
Predictably, accusations of “sedition” and of being a “loose cannon” were once again lobbed by critics inside the country’s political establishment.
“Here in India you have people saying that the government should do to Kashmir what the Russians are doing to Chechnya,” Roy tells the New Statesman. “There is a great admiration for military solutions right now.”
So it comes as no surprise her detractors would prefer Roy to keep quiet – especially when it comes to Kashmir.
“It is a great tribute to the tolerance of India's ethos that a person who openly calls for Balkanisation of the country is not being locked up and the keys thrown away,” commented the ruling Congress party’s Manish Tiwari. Yet Roy seems unfazed. She was in the troubled state recently to witness the mass demonstrations there by locals protesting Indian rule. “For me being there makes me feel humiliated as an Indian,” she says. “There are very many beautiful things about India which are all coloured by this.”
Since an insurgency began in Kashmir back in 1989, at least 40,000-60,000 people have been killed.
An estimated 400,000 Indian troops are stationed to impose India’s grip on the region. At the same time around 200,000 Hindu Pandits have also been uprooted and forced to leave the largely Muslim valley. Roy says that it was the sight of Kashmiris themselves protesting, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands, that she felt actually gave her the right to write about the issue. “They were very clear about what they were saying,” she says.
Even back in April when Tibet was the focus of global attention, The Times of India noted: “the problem of Jammu and Kashmir is the elephant in the room which Indians debating Tibet are doing their darndest to ignore.”
Many, however, are still determined to cling onto Kashmir. The opposition BJP’s General Secretary, Arun Jaitley, went so far as to state openly in a TV interview: “I am one of those who firmly believe that azadi is not even a distant dream for those separatists, it is an impossible thing.” India today is the country with the third-largest Muslim population in the world at close to 150 million. As its only Muslim majority state Kashmir, so the argument goes, is crucial to the secular and the multi-ethnic makeup of the nation. When confronted by such reasoning Roy is quick to retort: “The Muslims of India and the Muslims of Kashmir are both held hostage to each other.”
“That is a very specious argument of theirs, you look at what’s been happening in India even now with the Hindu VHP massacring Christians in Orissa,” continues Roy whose own mother hails from Kerala’s Syrian Christian community. “The state is standing back and watching. In Gujrat we all know what happened, they massacred Muslims and then came on TV and boasted about it.”
The 2002 riots in the western Gujrat state left more than a 1000, largely Muslims, dead with many accusing the state’s Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, of complicity in the events by turning a blind eye. To date Modi remains a free man and a popular governor in his state. But he is an extremely divisive figure. While some call him India’s Hitler, others speculate he is a future prime ministerial candidate.
“Only when it comes to Kashmir suddenly the Indian government starts trotting out this business of it being secular,” Roy notes.
The novelist is just as concerned about the disparity between rich and poor in India. She describes the middle and upper classes as existing "in a whole little country of their own". With many cheering the rise of the “New India”, as millionaires and billionaires prop up everywhere, conditions in parts of the country remain worse than Sub-Saharan Africa according to recent World Bank estimates.
India is home to a third of the world’s poor with roughly 75 per cent of it’s population living on less then US$2 a day.
Further nearly half of India’s children are clinically malnourished. “What about a society in which a million people earn their living carrying human shit on their heads?” adds Roy. “Is it alright because we have some market and nuclear bombs?”
She says although a battle was fought for India’s independence in 1947, in her view it wasn’t really a revolution. “The people who were ruling the roost during the time of the British empire continued to do that after independence,” says Roy. “The same policeman, the same justice system, the same brown sahibs neatly stepped into the shoes of the white sahibs… Like dalits, for example, why wouldn’t they prefer British masters to upper caste masters?”
As a fervent opponent of US foreign policy she supported neither Bush nor Kerry during the 2004 elections.
Roy has likened the choice to an option of two brands of detergent owned by the same company.
“I kind of resent the idea that the whole world has to be interested in the American elections,” she says.
Even with Bush due to make his much anticipated exit and an air of expectation about the potential of the first ever black US President - assuming he wins of course - Roy remains pessimistic and refuses to give her endorsement to either Obama or McCain.
She predicts the coming months will see Obama turn into a white man and warns against expecting a miracle: “He’ll have to prove that he is whiter than the white man. And if it was Hillary Clinton she would also have had to become a white man.”
But surely Obama would be an improvement over the more conservative, hawkish, McCain? Roy acknowledges the US presidency is a very powerful position but says that she feels such a complex system has been put into place that he is not really able to make decisions himself. Roy compares the situation confronted by the US electorate to the one faced by their Indian counterparts in picking between Congress and BJP. “It is a humiliating choice,” she says.
Yet, inspite of all she sees wrong with the society she lives in, Roy is clearly infatuated with India: “I could have lived anywhere in the world now if I wanted to. But every moment of my day is so absorbing, is so full of so much richness. In terms of the debates and the excitement going on here. The varied ways in which it comes at you and the complexities you have to deal with. The completely unpredictable nature of my life. Now these are the things I love.”
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Shias, Sunnis celebrate Eid together in Lucknow
Not that celebrating Eid together is something new and doesn't happen in other regions of the world with significant Sunni and Shia population. The common Sunnis and Shias have generally lived along with each other for centuries. They shared cultures, languages, lifestyles, businesses, intermarriages, friendships, and common historical experiences. This is despite their differences and occasional tensions. But I wanted to quote the below story to emphasize the 'coexistence' aspect, since too often the media seem to be focused on the 'conflict' between the two groups.
Shias, Sunnis celebrate Eid together in Lucknow
By Kamal Khan, Anant Zanane, NDTV.com, October 02, 2008
Source
LUCKNOW For years, Mecca was the only place in the world where Muslims from different sects offered Namaaz together. But now, it is happening in Lucknow too.
It began as a gesture in 2007 and it is already almost a tradition.
"When Shias and Sunnis from Lucknow go for Haj, they go together. They go together to the muzdelefa, satharafat. They do the twaf together. So when they return to Lucknow, why do they go to separate mosques? In Haj, we are trained to be together, so we should stay together over here as well," said Dr Kalbe Sadiq, vice president, AIMPLB.
This Eid, Shias will offer prayers at this Idgah, which is managed by Sunnis and the man leading them will be Sunni cleric Maulana Kahlid Rashid.
"I think this will give a very clear and good message not only throughout Lucknow and India, but throughout the world as there are Shia-Sunni conflicts in other parts of the world also," said Maulana Khalid Rashid, Sunni cleric.
The city of Lucknow has been witness to volatile relations between the two sects with often riots breaking out during Moharram. But this unique gesture will undoubtedly help offset the strained relations between Shias and Sunnis.
Shias, Sunnis celebrate Eid together in Lucknow
By Kamal Khan, Anant Zanane, NDTV.com, October 02, 2008
Source
LUCKNOW For years, Mecca was the only place in the world where Muslims from different sects offered Namaaz together. But now, it is happening in Lucknow too.
It began as a gesture in 2007 and it is already almost a tradition.
"When Shias and Sunnis from Lucknow go for Haj, they go together. They go together to the muzdelefa, satharafat. They do the twaf together. So when they return to Lucknow, why do they go to separate mosques? In Haj, we are trained to be together, so we should stay together over here as well," said Dr Kalbe Sadiq, vice president, AIMPLB.
This Eid, Shias will offer prayers at this Idgah, which is managed by Sunnis and the man leading them will be Sunni cleric Maulana Kahlid Rashid.
"I think this will give a very clear and good message not only throughout Lucknow and India, but throughout the world as there are Shia-Sunni conflicts in other parts of the world also," said Maulana Khalid Rashid, Sunni cleric.
The city of Lucknow has been witness to volatile relations between the two sects with often riots breaking out during Moharram. But this unique gesture will undoubtedly help offset the strained relations between Shias and Sunnis.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Yume Inhidame Jannatul Baqi: Protesting the Saudi Crimes against the Sacred Symbols of Islam
See Jannatul al-Baqi pictures, before and after the demolition, here.
See pictures of a protest held in front of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC last year (Oct 22, 2007).
Al-Baqi in History
Source
The Origins of Al-Baqi
Literally "al-Baqi" means a tree garden. It is also known as "Jannat al-Baqi" due to its sanctity, since in it are buried many of our Prophet's relatives and companions.
The first companion buried in al-Baqi was Uthman b. Madhoon who died on the 3rd of Sha'ban in the 3rd year of Hijrah. The Prophet (s) ordered certain trees to be felled, and in its midst, he buried his dear companion, placing two stones over the grave.
On the following years, the Prophet's son Ibrahim, who died in infancy and over whom the Prophet (s) wept bitterly, was also buried there. The people of Madina then began to use that site for the burial of their own dead, because the Prophet (s) used to greet those who were buried in al-Baqi by saying, "Peace be upon you, O abode of the faithful! God willing, we should soon join you. O' Allah, forgive the fellows of al-Baqi".
The site of the burial ground at al-Baqi was gradually extended. Nearly seven thousand companions of the Holy Prophet (s) were buried there, not to mention those of the Ahlul Bayt (a). Imam Hasan b. Ali (a), Imam Ali b. al-Husayn (a), Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a), and Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) were all buried there.
Among other relatives of the Prophet (s) who were buried at al-Baqi are: his aunts Safiya and Aatika, and his aunt Fatima bint al-Asad, the mother of Imam Ali (a). The third caliph Uthman was buried outside al-Baqi, but with later extensions, his grave was included in the area. In later years, great Muslim scholars like Malik bin Anas and many others, were buried there too. Thus, did al-Baqi become a well-known place of great historic significance to all Muslims.
Al-Baqi as viewed by historians
Umar bin Jubair describes al-Baqi as he saw it during his travel to Madina, saying "Al-Baqi is situated to the east of Madina. You enter it through the gate known as the gate of al-Baqi. As you enter, the first grave you see on your left is that of Safiya, the Prophet's aunt, and further still is the grave of Malik bin Anas, the Imam of Madina. On his grave is raised a small dome. In front of it is the grave of Ibrahim son of our Prophet (s) with a white dome over it, and next to it on the right is the grave of Abdul-Rahman son of Umar bin al-Khattab, popularly known as Abu Shahma, whose father had kept punishing him till death overtook him. Facing it are the graves of Aqeel bin Abi Talib and Abdullah bin Ja'far al-Tayyar. There, facing those graves is a small shrine containing the graves of the Prophet's wives, following by a shrine of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib.
The grave of Hasan bin Ali (a), situated near the gate to it's right hand, has an elevated dome over it. His head lies at the feet of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, and both graves are raised high above the ground, their walls are panelled with yellow plates and studded with beautiful star-shaped nails. This is how the grave of Ibrahim, son of the Prophet (s) has also been adorned. Behind the shrine of Abbas there is the house attributed to Fatima, daughter of our Prophet (s), known as "Bayt al-Ahzaan" (the house of grief) because it is the house she used to frequent in order to mourn the death of her father, the chosen one, peace be upon him. At the farthest end of al-Baqi is the grave of the caliph Uthman, with a small dome over it, and there, next to it, is the grave of Fatima bint Asad, mother of Ali b. Abi Talib (a)"
After a century and a half, the famous traveller Ibn Batuta came to describe al-Baqi in a way which does not in any way differ from the description given by Ibn Jubair. He adds saying, "At al-Baqi are the graves of numerous Muhajirin and Ansar and many companions of the Prophet (s), except that most of their names are unknown."
Thus, over the centuries, al-Baqi remained a sacred site with renovations being carried out as and when needed till the Wahhabis rose to power in the early nineteenth century. The latter desecrated the tombs and demonstrated disrespect to the martyrs and the companions of the Prophet (s) buried there. Muslims who disagreed with them were branded as "infidels" and were subsequently killed.
The First Destruction of Al-Baqi
The Wahhabis believed that visiting the graves and the shrines of the Prophets, the Imams, or the saints was a form of idolatry and totally un-Islamic. Those who did not conform with their belief were killed and their property was confiscated. Since their first invasion of Iraq, and till nowadays, in fact, the Wahhabis, as well as other rulers of the Gulf States, having been carrying out massacres from which no Muslim who disagreed with them was spared. Obviously, the rest of the Islamic World viewed those graves with deep reverence. Had it not been so, the two caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar would not have expressed their desire for burial near the grave of the Prophet (s).
From 1205 AH to 1217 AH, the Wahhabis made several attempts to gain a foothold in Hijaz but failed. Finally, in 1217 AH, they somehow emerged victorious in Taif where they spilled the innocent blood of Muslims. In 1218 AH, they entered Makkah and destroyed all sacred places and domes there, including the one which served as a canopy over the well of Zamzam.
In 1221, the Wahhabis entered Madina to desecrate al-Baqi as well as every mosque they came across. An attempt was even made to demolish the Prophet's tomb, but for one reason or another, the idea was abandoned. In subsequent years, Muslims from Iraq, Syria, and Egypt were refused entry into Makkah for Hajj. King Al-Saud set a pre-condition that those who wished to perform the pilgrimage would have to accept Wahhabism or else be branded as non-Muslims, becoming ineligible for entry into the Haram.
Al-Baqi was razed to the ground, with no sign of any grave or tomb whatsoever. But the Saudis were still not quite satisfied with doing all of that. Their king ordered three black attendants at the Prophet's shrine to show him where the treasure of valuable gifts were stored. The Wahhabis plundered the treasure for their own use.
Thousands of Muslims fled Makkah and Madina in a bid to save their lives and escape from the mounting pressure and persecution at the hands of the Wahhabis. Muslims from all over the world denounced this Saudi savagery and exhorted the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire to save the sacred shrines from total destruction. Then, as it is known, Muhammad Ali Basha attacked Hijaz and, with the support of local tribes, managed to restore law and order in Madina and Makkah, dislodging the Al-Saud clansmen. The entire Muslim world celebrated this victory with great fanfare and rejoicing. In Cairo, the celebrations continued for five days. No doubt, the joy was due to the fact that pilgrims were once more allowed freely to go for Hajj, and the sacred shrines were once again restored.
In 1818 AD, the Ottaman Caliph Abdul Majid and his successors, Caliphs Abdul Hamid and Mohammed, carried out the reconstruction of all sacred places, restoring the Islamic heritage at all important sites. In 1848 and 1860 AD, further renovations were made at the expense of nearly seven hundred thousand pounds, most of which came from the donations collected at the Prophet's tomb.
The second plunder by the Wahhabis
The Ottoman Empire had added to the splendor of Madina and Makkah by building religious structures of great beauty and architectural value. Richard Burton, who visited the holy shrines in 1853 AD disguised as an Afghan Muslim and adopting the Muslim name Abdullah, speaks of Madina boasting 55 mosques and holy shrines. Another English adventurer who visited Madina in 1877-1878 AD describes it as a small beautiful city resembling Istanbul. He writes about its white walls, golden slender minarets and green fields.
1924 AD Wahhabis entered Hijaz for a second time and carried out another merciless plunder and massacre. People in streets were killed. Houses were razed to the ground. Women and children too were not spared.
Awn bin Hashim (Shairf of Makkah) writes: "Before me, a valley appeared to have been paved with corpses, dried blood staining everywhere all around. There was hardly a tree which didn't have one or two dead bodies near its roots."
1925 Madina surrendered to the Wahhabi onslaught. All Islamic heritage were destroyed. The only shrine that remained intact was that of the Holy Prophet (s).
Ibn Jabhan says: "We know that the tomb standing on the Prophet's grave is against our principles, and to have his grave in a mosque is an abominable sin."
Tombs of Hamza and other martyrs were demolished at Uhud. The Prophet's mosque was bombarded. On protest by Muslims, assurances were given by Ibn Saud that it will be restored but the promise was never fulfilled. A promise was given that Hijaz will have an Islamic multinational government. This was also abandoned.
1925 AD Jannat al-Mu'alla, the sacred cemetery at Makkah was destroyed alongwith the house where the Holy Prophet (s) was born. Since then, this day is a day of mourning for all Muslims.
Is it not strange that the Wahhabis find it offensive to have the tombs, shrines and other places of importance preserved, while the remains of their Saudi kings are being guarded at the expense of millions of dollars?
Protest from Indian Muslims
1926, protest gatherings were held by shocked Muslims all over the world. Resolutions were passed and a statement outlining the crimes perpetrated by Wahhabis was issued and included the following:
1. The destruction and desecration of the holy places i.e. the birth place of the Holy Prophet [s], the graves of Banu Hashim in Makkah and in Jannat al-Baqi (Madinah), the refusal of the Wahhabis to allow Muslims to recite Ziyarah or Surah al-Fatiha at those graves.
2. The destruction of the places of worship i.e. Masjid Hamza, Masjid Abu Rasheed, in addition to the tombs of Imams and Sahaba (Prophet's companions).
3. Interference in the performance of Hajj rituals.
4. Forcing the Muslims to follow the Wahhabis innovations and to abandon their own ways according to the guidance of the Imams they follow.
5. The massacre of sayyids in Taif, Madina, Ahsa, and Qatif.
6. The demolition of the grave of the Imams at al-Baqi which deeply offended and grieved all Shias.
Protest from other countries
Similar protests were lodged by Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey. All of them condemn the Saudi Wahhabis for their barbaric acts. Some scholars wrote tracts and books to tell the world the fact that what was happening in Hijaz was actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea was to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history.
A partial list of the demolished graves and shrines
* Al-Mualla graveyard in Makkah which includes the grave of Sayyida Khadija bint Khuwailid (a), wife of the Prophet (s), the grave of Amina bint Wahab, mother of the Prophet (s), the grave of Abu Talib, father of Imam Ali (a), and the grave of Abdul Muttalib, grandfather of the Prophet (s)
* The grave of Hawa (Eve) in Jeddah
* The grave of the father of the Prophet (s) in Madina
* The house of sorrows (bayt al-Ahzan) of Sayyida Fatima (a) in Madina
* The Salman al-Farsi mosque in Madina
* The Raj'at ash-Shams mosque in Madina
* The house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, where he lived after migrating from Makkah
* The house of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) in Madina
* The complex (mahhalla) of Banu Hashim in Madina
* The house of Imam Ali (a) where Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) were born
* The house of Hamza and the graves of the martyrs of Uhud (a)
---------
An insightful email I received in this regard:
Subject: CONDOLENCES ON THE SAD OCASSION OF DEMOLITION OF JANNATUL BAQEE
We send our condolences to our IMAM, IMAM MOHAMMAD AL-MAHDI (A.T.F.S), our great Ulama, and all lovers of Ahlul Bayt on the Tragedy of Al-Baqi'
In 1924 AD Wahabis entered Hijaz and carried out a merciless attack. People in the streets were killed and houses were razed to the ground. Awn bin Hashim, Sharif of Makkah, wrote, "Before me, a valley appeared to have been paved with corpses, dried blood staining everywhere all around. There was hardly a tree which didn't have one or two dead bodies near its roots."
SAUD FAMILY took over in 1925; they destroyed the historic and most respectable graveyards of Jannatul Moallah and Jannatul Baqee. These are the holiest places that carry the graves of forefathers of the Khatmi Martabat (SAAW), Aal-e-Athaar (A.S.), Ummahaatul Momineen (R.A.) Sahaba Kubaar (R.A.), Tabaeen (R.A.).
The tragic news of this incident was given to the Indian news agencies by a British Press reporter through a telegram and when this news was published in newspapers the whole India turned topsy-turvy with pain because it was a great tragedy for the Islamic World against which the whole Islamic World rose in protest. Farzandan-e-Tauheed not only observed mourning rather they also lodged strong protest against it. At that time i.e. 1925 a delegation of Khilafat Committee comprising Hazrat Maulana Suleman Nadvi, Maulana Muhammad Irfan, Maulana Abdul Majid Badayunvi, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, and others reached Hejaz so as to talk to the Saudi rulers on this issue. The rulers assured them that no further action will be taken in this connection (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 23).
The said delegation delivered back information to India that graves in Jannatul Moallah had been destructed before they reached there, so much so that even the place of Holy Prophet’s birth was not spared. Later, another delegation from the Khilafat Committee visited Saudi Arabia and sent feedback to India that when our delegation reached Hejaz on May 23 the first shattering news we heard was that Jannatul Baqee has also been destructed. When Saudi rulers were asked, they replied that we consider exploitation of Bad’it and Kufr our duty and would not care for any consideration of the Islamic World in this connection whether they like it or not (Excerpts from the Report of the Khilafat Committee, Page 85). Afterwards this delegation delivered another tragic news that whatever the situation is all Qubbaas of Madina Munawwarah were razed to ground despite promises made by Sultan Abdel Aziz Bin Saud (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 88).
They did not stop here and also destructed all those places and mosques with whom some holy personalities were related in one way or the other. Like Makkah, some mosques in Madina could not remain protected. The mosques razed to ground at that time include: Masjid-e-Fatima (adjacent to Masjid-e-Qaba), Masjid-e-Sanaia (where the Dandaan-e-Mubarik of the Holy Prophet SAAW were separated), Masjid-e-Minar Teen, Masjid-e-Maida (place where Surah Maida was sent), Masjid-e-Ajabah (a place where an important Dua of the Holy Prophet SAAW was accepted) (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 88).
The personalities whose graves were destructed included: Khatoon-e-Jannat Hazrat Syeda Fatima Zahra (S.A.), Hazrat Fatima Sughra Binte Imam Hussain, Shahzada Sulah-o-Aman Hazrat Imam Hassan Mujtaba (A.S.), Beemar-e-Karbala Hazrat Imam Zainul Abideen (A.S.), Hazrat Ibrahim Farzand-e-Rasool, Hazrat Abbas Ibne Abdul Muttalib (to whom Abbasi family belongs), Hazrat Imam Muhammad Baqir (A.S.), Hazrat Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq (A.S.). The nine Ummahaatul Momineen whose mazars were destructed included: Hazrat Aisha (R.A.), Hazrat Umm-e-Salma (R.A.) Hazrat Zainab, Hazrat Hafza (R.A.). In addition the mazars of Hazoor’s (SAAW) aunts, Sahaba Karaam, Tabaeen, Hazrat Usman Bin Affan, Hazrat Usman Bin Mazoon, Hazrat Jafar-e-Tayyar, Hazrat Abdul Rehman Ibne Auf, Hazrat Imam Malik, and Hazrat Imam Nafeh were also included in those which were destructed (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 89).
Therefore, a leader of the Khilafat Committee Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar delivered an address at Jamia Masjid Delhi keeping these incidents in view some excerpts of which are: “I am sitting in Allah’s home and consider Him before me and say that I have no personal enmity with the Ibne Saud. Neither my opposition to him is based on personal interest. I would say whatever I have seen and would say clearly whether any party becomes happy or unhappy. Sultan Ibne Saud repeatedly talks about Kitaab Allah and Sunnat-e-Rasool. I found out that they have made the Kitaab Allah and Sunnat-e-Rasool a tool to earn worldly gains (Maqalaat-e-Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Pages 95-96).
It’s our faithful duty to attract the attention of the so-called champions of human rights i.e. Arab League, OIC, ICC, the United Nations, Security Council and others towards the destruction of holy graves in Jannatul Baqee and Jannatul Moallah by observing UNIVERSAL JAANATUL BAQEE DEMOLITION DAY (Youm-e-Inhidam Jannatul Baqee) on 8th Shawal every year.
Ay Khak-e-Madina Teray Zarron Mein Bhi Ab Tak
Hum Bint-e-Payember Ki Lahad Dhondh Rahay Hain
See pictures of a protest held in front of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC last year (Oct 22, 2007).
Al-Baqi in History
Source
The Origins of Al-Baqi
Literally "al-Baqi" means a tree garden. It is also known as "Jannat al-Baqi" due to its sanctity, since in it are buried many of our Prophet's relatives and companions.
The first companion buried in al-Baqi was Uthman b. Madhoon who died on the 3rd of Sha'ban in the 3rd year of Hijrah. The Prophet (s) ordered certain trees to be felled, and in its midst, he buried his dear companion, placing two stones over the grave.
On the following years, the Prophet's son Ibrahim, who died in infancy and over whom the Prophet (s) wept bitterly, was also buried there. The people of Madina then began to use that site for the burial of their own dead, because the Prophet (s) used to greet those who were buried in al-Baqi by saying, "Peace be upon you, O abode of the faithful! God willing, we should soon join you. O' Allah, forgive the fellows of al-Baqi".
The site of the burial ground at al-Baqi was gradually extended. Nearly seven thousand companions of the Holy Prophet (s) were buried there, not to mention those of the Ahlul Bayt (a). Imam Hasan b. Ali (a), Imam Ali b. al-Husayn (a), Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a), and Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) were all buried there.
Among other relatives of the Prophet (s) who were buried at al-Baqi are: his aunts Safiya and Aatika, and his aunt Fatima bint al-Asad, the mother of Imam Ali (a). The third caliph Uthman was buried outside al-Baqi, but with later extensions, his grave was included in the area. In later years, great Muslim scholars like Malik bin Anas and many others, were buried there too. Thus, did al-Baqi become a well-known place of great historic significance to all Muslims.
Al-Baqi as viewed by historians
Umar bin Jubair describes al-Baqi as he saw it during his travel to Madina, saying "Al-Baqi is situated to the east of Madina. You enter it through the gate known as the gate of al-Baqi. As you enter, the first grave you see on your left is that of Safiya, the Prophet's aunt, and further still is the grave of Malik bin Anas, the Imam of Madina. On his grave is raised a small dome. In front of it is the grave of Ibrahim son of our Prophet (s) with a white dome over it, and next to it on the right is the grave of Abdul-Rahman son of Umar bin al-Khattab, popularly known as Abu Shahma, whose father had kept punishing him till death overtook him. Facing it are the graves of Aqeel bin Abi Talib and Abdullah bin Ja'far al-Tayyar. There, facing those graves is a small shrine containing the graves of the Prophet's wives, following by a shrine of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib.
The grave of Hasan bin Ali (a), situated near the gate to it's right hand, has an elevated dome over it. His head lies at the feet of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, and both graves are raised high above the ground, their walls are panelled with yellow plates and studded with beautiful star-shaped nails. This is how the grave of Ibrahim, son of the Prophet (s) has also been adorned. Behind the shrine of Abbas there is the house attributed to Fatima, daughter of our Prophet (s), known as "Bayt al-Ahzaan" (the house of grief) because it is the house she used to frequent in order to mourn the death of her father, the chosen one, peace be upon him. At the farthest end of al-Baqi is the grave of the caliph Uthman, with a small dome over it, and there, next to it, is the grave of Fatima bint Asad, mother of Ali b. Abi Talib (a)"
After a century and a half, the famous traveller Ibn Batuta came to describe al-Baqi in a way which does not in any way differ from the description given by Ibn Jubair. He adds saying, "At al-Baqi are the graves of numerous Muhajirin and Ansar and many companions of the Prophet (s), except that most of their names are unknown."
Thus, over the centuries, al-Baqi remained a sacred site with renovations being carried out as and when needed till the Wahhabis rose to power in the early nineteenth century. The latter desecrated the tombs and demonstrated disrespect to the martyrs and the companions of the Prophet (s) buried there. Muslims who disagreed with them were branded as "infidels" and were subsequently killed.
The First Destruction of Al-Baqi
The Wahhabis believed that visiting the graves and the shrines of the Prophets, the Imams, or the saints was a form of idolatry and totally un-Islamic. Those who did not conform with their belief were killed and their property was confiscated. Since their first invasion of Iraq, and till nowadays, in fact, the Wahhabis, as well as other rulers of the Gulf States, having been carrying out massacres from which no Muslim who disagreed with them was spared. Obviously, the rest of the Islamic World viewed those graves with deep reverence. Had it not been so, the two caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar would not have expressed their desire for burial near the grave of the Prophet (s).
From 1205 AH to 1217 AH, the Wahhabis made several attempts to gain a foothold in Hijaz but failed. Finally, in 1217 AH, they somehow emerged victorious in Taif where they spilled the innocent blood of Muslims. In 1218 AH, they entered Makkah and destroyed all sacred places and domes there, including the one which served as a canopy over the well of Zamzam.
In 1221, the Wahhabis entered Madina to desecrate al-Baqi as well as every mosque they came across. An attempt was even made to demolish the Prophet's tomb, but for one reason or another, the idea was abandoned. In subsequent years, Muslims from Iraq, Syria, and Egypt were refused entry into Makkah for Hajj. King Al-Saud set a pre-condition that those who wished to perform the pilgrimage would have to accept Wahhabism or else be branded as non-Muslims, becoming ineligible for entry into the Haram.
Al-Baqi was razed to the ground, with no sign of any grave or tomb whatsoever. But the Saudis were still not quite satisfied with doing all of that. Their king ordered three black attendants at the Prophet's shrine to show him where the treasure of valuable gifts were stored. The Wahhabis plundered the treasure for their own use.
Thousands of Muslims fled Makkah and Madina in a bid to save their lives and escape from the mounting pressure and persecution at the hands of the Wahhabis. Muslims from all over the world denounced this Saudi savagery and exhorted the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire to save the sacred shrines from total destruction. Then, as it is known, Muhammad Ali Basha attacked Hijaz and, with the support of local tribes, managed to restore law and order in Madina and Makkah, dislodging the Al-Saud clansmen. The entire Muslim world celebrated this victory with great fanfare and rejoicing. In Cairo, the celebrations continued for five days. No doubt, the joy was due to the fact that pilgrims were once more allowed freely to go for Hajj, and the sacred shrines were once again restored.
In 1818 AD, the Ottaman Caliph Abdul Majid and his successors, Caliphs Abdul Hamid and Mohammed, carried out the reconstruction of all sacred places, restoring the Islamic heritage at all important sites. In 1848 and 1860 AD, further renovations were made at the expense of nearly seven hundred thousand pounds, most of which came from the donations collected at the Prophet's tomb.
The second plunder by the Wahhabis
The Ottoman Empire had added to the splendor of Madina and Makkah by building religious structures of great beauty and architectural value. Richard Burton, who visited the holy shrines in 1853 AD disguised as an Afghan Muslim and adopting the Muslim name Abdullah, speaks of Madina boasting 55 mosques and holy shrines. Another English adventurer who visited Madina in 1877-1878 AD describes it as a small beautiful city resembling Istanbul. He writes about its white walls, golden slender minarets and green fields.
1924 AD Wahhabis entered Hijaz for a second time and carried out another merciless plunder and massacre. People in streets were killed. Houses were razed to the ground. Women and children too were not spared.
Awn bin Hashim (Shairf of Makkah) writes: "Before me, a valley appeared to have been paved with corpses, dried blood staining everywhere all around. There was hardly a tree which didn't have one or two dead bodies near its roots."
1925 Madina surrendered to the Wahhabi onslaught. All Islamic heritage were destroyed. The only shrine that remained intact was that of the Holy Prophet (s).
Ibn Jabhan says: "We know that the tomb standing on the Prophet's grave is against our principles, and to have his grave in a mosque is an abominable sin."
Tombs of Hamza and other martyrs were demolished at Uhud. The Prophet's mosque was bombarded. On protest by Muslims, assurances were given by Ibn Saud that it will be restored but the promise was never fulfilled. A promise was given that Hijaz will have an Islamic multinational government. This was also abandoned.
1925 AD Jannat al-Mu'alla, the sacred cemetery at Makkah was destroyed alongwith the house where the Holy Prophet (s) was born. Since then, this day is a day of mourning for all Muslims.
Is it not strange that the Wahhabis find it offensive to have the tombs, shrines and other places of importance preserved, while the remains of their Saudi kings are being guarded at the expense of millions of dollars?
Protest from Indian Muslims
1926, protest gatherings were held by shocked Muslims all over the world. Resolutions were passed and a statement outlining the crimes perpetrated by Wahhabis was issued and included the following:
1. The destruction and desecration of the holy places i.e. the birth place of the Holy Prophet [s], the graves of Banu Hashim in Makkah and in Jannat al-Baqi (Madinah), the refusal of the Wahhabis to allow Muslims to recite Ziyarah or Surah al-Fatiha at those graves.
2. The destruction of the places of worship i.e. Masjid Hamza, Masjid Abu Rasheed, in addition to the tombs of Imams and Sahaba (Prophet's companions).
3. Interference in the performance of Hajj rituals.
4. Forcing the Muslims to follow the Wahhabis innovations and to abandon their own ways according to the guidance of the Imams they follow.
5. The massacre of sayyids in Taif, Madina, Ahsa, and Qatif.
6. The demolition of the grave of the Imams at al-Baqi which deeply offended and grieved all Shias.
Protest from other countries
Similar protests were lodged by Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey. All of them condemn the Saudi Wahhabis for their barbaric acts. Some scholars wrote tracts and books to tell the world the fact that what was happening in Hijaz was actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea was to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history.
A partial list of the demolished graves and shrines
* Al-Mualla graveyard in Makkah which includes the grave of Sayyida Khadija bint Khuwailid (a), wife of the Prophet (s), the grave of Amina bint Wahab, mother of the Prophet (s), the grave of Abu Talib, father of Imam Ali (a), and the grave of Abdul Muttalib, grandfather of the Prophet (s)
* The grave of Hawa (Eve) in Jeddah
* The grave of the father of the Prophet (s) in Madina
* The house of sorrows (bayt al-Ahzan) of Sayyida Fatima (a) in Madina
* The Salman al-Farsi mosque in Madina
* The Raj'at ash-Shams mosque in Madina
* The house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, where he lived after migrating from Makkah
* The house of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) in Madina
* The complex (mahhalla) of Banu Hashim in Madina
* The house of Imam Ali (a) where Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) were born
* The house of Hamza and the graves of the martyrs of Uhud (a)
---------
An insightful email I received in this regard:
Subject: CONDOLENCES ON THE SAD OCASSION OF DEMOLITION OF JANNATUL BAQEE
We send our condolences to our IMAM, IMAM MOHAMMAD AL-MAHDI (A.T.F.S), our great Ulama, and all lovers of Ahlul Bayt on the Tragedy of Al-Baqi'
In 1924 AD Wahabis entered Hijaz and carried out a merciless attack. People in the streets were killed and houses were razed to the ground. Awn bin Hashim, Sharif of Makkah, wrote, "Before me, a valley appeared to have been paved with corpses, dried blood staining everywhere all around. There was hardly a tree which didn't have one or two dead bodies near its roots."
SAUD FAMILY took over in 1925; they destroyed the historic and most respectable graveyards of Jannatul Moallah and Jannatul Baqee. These are the holiest places that carry the graves of forefathers of the Khatmi Martabat (SAAW), Aal-e-Athaar (A.S.), Ummahaatul Momineen (R.A.) Sahaba Kubaar (R.A.), Tabaeen (R.A.).
The tragic news of this incident was given to the Indian news agencies by a British Press reporter through a telegram and when this news was published in newspapers the whole India turned topsy-turvy with pain because it was a great tragedy for the Islamic World against which the whole Islamic World rose in protest. Farzandan-e-Tauheed not only observed mourning rather they also lodged strong protest against it. At that time i.e. 1925 a delegation of Khilafat Committee comprising Hazrat Maulana Suleman Nadvi, Maulana Muhammad Irfan, Maulana Abdul Majid Badayunvi, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, and others reached Hejaz so as to talk to the Saudi rulers on this issue. The rulers assured them that no further action will be taken in this connection (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 23).
The said delegation delivered back information to India that graves in Jannatul Moallah had been destructed before they reached there, so much so that even the place of Holy Prophet’s birth was not spared. Later, another delegation from the Khilafat Committee visited Saudi Arabia and sent feedback to India that when our delegation reached Hejaz on May 23 the first shattering news we heard was that Jannatul Baqee has also been destructed. When Saudi rulers were asked, they replied that we consider exploitation of Bad’it and Kufr our duty and would not care for any consideration of the Islamic World in this connection whether they like it or not (Excerpts from the Report of the Khilafat Committee, Page 85). Afterwards this delegation delivered another tragic news that whatever the situation is all Qubbaas of Madina Munawwarah were razed to ground despite promises made by Sultan Abdel Aziz Bin Saud (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 88).
They did not stop here and also destructed all those places and mosques with whom some holy personalities were related in one way or the other. Like Makkah, some mosques in Madina could not remain protected. The mosques razed to ground at that time include: Masjid-e-Fatima (adjacent to Masjid-e-Qaba), Masjid-e-Sanaia (where the Dandaan-e-Mubarik of the Holy Prophet SAAW were separated), Masjid-e-Minar Teen, Masjid-e-Maida (place where Surah Maida was sent), Masjid-e-Ajabah (a place where an important Dua of the Holy Prophet SAAW was accepted) (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 88).
The personalities whose graves were destructed included: Khatoon-e-Jannat Hazrat Syeda Fatima Zahra (S.A.), Hazrat Fatima Sughra Binte Imam Hussain, Shahzada Sulah-o-Aman Hazrat Imam Hassan Mujtaba (A.S.), Beemar-e-Karbala Hazrat Imam Zainul Abideen (A.S.), Hazrat Ibrahim Farzand-e-Rasool, Hazrat Abbas Ibne Abdul Muttalib (to whom Abbasi family belongs), Hazrat Imam Muhammad Baqir (A.S.), Hazrat Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq (A.S.). The nine Ummahaatul Momineen whose mazars were destructed included: Hazrat Aisha (R.A.), Hazrat Umm-e-Salma (R.A.) Hazrat Zainab, Hazrat Hafza (R.A.). In addition the mazars of Hazoor’s (SAAW) aunts, Sahaba Karaam, Tabaeen, Hazrat Usman Bin Affan, Hazrat Usman Bin Mazoon, Hazrat Jafar-e-Tayyar, Hazrat Abdul Rehman Ibne Auf, Hazrat Imam Malik, and Hazrat Imam Nafeh were also included in those which were destructed (Report Khilafat Committee, Page 89).
Therefore, a leader of the Khilafat Committee Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar delivered an address at Jamia Masjid Delhi keeping these incidents in view some excerpts of which are: “I am sitting in Allah’s home and consider Him before me and say that I have no personal enmity with the Ibne Saud. Neither my opposition to him is based on personal interest. I would say whatever I have seen and would say clearly whether any party becomes happy or unhappy. Sultan Ibne Saud repeatedly talks about Kitaab Allah and Sunnat-e-Rasool. I found out that they have made the Kitaab Allah and Sunnat-e-Rasool a tool to earn worldly gains (Maqalaat-e-Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Pages 95-96).
It’s our faithful duty to attract the attention of the so-called champions of human rights i.e. Arab League, OIC, ICC, the United Nations, Security Council and others towards the destruction of holy graves in Jannatul Baqee and Jannatul Moallah by observing UNIVERSAL JAANATUL BAQEE DEMOLITION DAY (Youm-e-Inhidam Jannatul Baqee) on 8th Shawal every year.
Ay Khak-e-Madina Teray Zarron Mein Bhi Ab Tak
Hum Bint-e-Payember Ki Lahad Dhondh Rahay Hain
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Guns, not roses, for Iraq
Guns, not roses, for Iraq
The U.S. is selling billions in weapons to Iraq. Is the Pentagon's plan making the country secure or arming it to the teeth for civil war?
By Mark Benjamin, Salon.com, Sep. 18, 2007
Source
The grand debate about Gen. David Petraeus' Capitol Hill testimony last week on U.S. strategy in Iraq focused primarily on troop levels, withdrawal dates and whether Bush's so-called troop surge was succeeding. But widely overlooked was Petraeus' sales pitch to lawmakers for one initiative he said will help save the war-torn country: massive arms sales from the U.S. government to Iraq.
"Iraq is becoming one of the United States' larger foreign military sales customers," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 11, noting that Iraq has inked deals to buy $1.6 billion in arms from the U.S., with the "possibility of up to $1.8 billion more." Data obtained by Salon shows the arms sales could rise far higher than even the amount the general suggested last week.
Petraeus said that the arms sales are an important part of the initiative to keep the Iraqis "rapidly expanding their security forces." But Petraeus himself presided over an arms debacle in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 in which nearly 200,000 weapons went missing. And while U.S. arms might help the Iraqi security forces "stand up" in the short term, experts warn that the U.S. military could easily lose control over what may follow. Some fear a war zone flooded with weapons that could be turned on U.S. soldiers, or supply huge firepower for a full-blown civil war.
The Pentagon confirmed that this fiscal year, the United States has finalized $1.6 billion in arms sales to Iraq, placing the country in an elite club of weapons buyers. For example, in recent one-year periods Saudi Arabia bought $800 million and Egypt bought $1 billion in arms from the U.S., while Pakistan spent $3.5 billion, including the purchase of jet fighters. "This would put [Iraq] right up there with the top handful of arms buyers," said William Hartung, a weapons proliferation expert at the New America Foundation.
In fact, the numbers Petraeus presented on Iraq were the tip of the iceberg. According to data obtained by Salon from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency at the Pentagon, which manages the arms sales, the military has alerted Congress to up to $4.3 billion in arms sales that have been under discussion since at least 2006 between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
The arms deals come as the U.S. has shifted strategy to enlist Sunnis in western Iraq -- some of them former insurgents -- into all-Sunni units of the Iraqi security forces. The fear is that these newly trained and armed units will ultimately turn against the Shiite-dominated central government or against U.S. forces again. "I think this is kind of crazy," Hartung said about the arms sales. "Now we are making deals with some of these Sunni groups. Well, what if they turn around and go back to being insurgents after we have built them up? I think the danger of these arms being misused, even in the short term, is fairly high."
The weapons are sold through what is called the Foreign Military Sales program, which handles direct, government-to-government arms sales. Federal law requires the Pentagon to notify Congress of deals under development through that program, even if final contracts have not yet been signed. On Sept. 19, 2006, for example, the Pentagon alerted Congress of one pending deal with Iraq, worth $500 million, including 100,000 M-16 and M-4 rifles, the models carried by U.S. troops; 10,000 heavy machine guns; more than 10,000 Glock pistols; almost 3,500 M-24 sniper rifles and 1,300 night vision goggles; and tens of millions of rounds of ammunition.
Plans to sell billions in small arms to the Iraqis could come back to haunt the United States, agrees Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information at the World Security Institute. "I don't know if it makes sense to pump more weapons into the hands of actors that we have absolutely no idea about what their angles are and how those weapons are going to be used," she said. "It is such a chaotic situation ... I'm not sure at this point that that is the best policy."
Losing control of weapons once they are out of U.S. hands is a risk Petraeus knows about. In July, a Government Accountability Office released a critical report showing that the military had lost track of 190,000 weapons the U.S. military was supposed to hand out to Iraqi security forces, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles. That report received widespread attention in the media. (These weapons, purchased by the United States and handed out to Iraqis, are in addition to these new arms deals with Iraq.)
What received less attention was that the report was highly critical of Petraeus himself, though not by name. He was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq from when the command was set up in June 2004 until September 2005. That command was in charge of training and equipping Iraqi security forces. According to the GAO report, Petraeus' command "did not maintain a centralized record of all equipment distributed to the Iraqi security forces from June 2004 until December 2005." As a result, the whereabouts of 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets are unclear. The military, the report added, "cannot ensure that Iraqi security forces received the equipment as intended."
Late last month, a report from National Public Radio revealed that Glock pistols were part of a growing black market in Turkey for weapons of U.S. origin.
"I think he has gotten off easy on this," Stohl said about Petraeus' role in the missing weapons. "Obviously you have to place the blame somewhere and I think that he should take some of it."
When Petraeus was pressed about his role in the missing guns, he argued that the weapons had to be handed out quickly to Iraqis willing to fight against insurgents. There was no time to wait around for tracking systems to be implemented, he said.
Petraeus is now emphasizing speed once again. The Iraqis "have put a lot of stock into Foreign Military Sales, and we have to come through for them," he said in response to questioning by Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor during last week's Senate hearing. "It can't be business as usual. It has to be really moved very quickly."
Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the military now carefully records the identity of each member of the Iraqi security forces who gets a weapon. "That means you take a serial number. You take a retinal scan. You take fingerprints of all 10 fingers. Those all get compiled in a database together," explained Garver. Lost weapons can now be traced back to their original recipients, Garver said.
Garver conceded, however, that the improved tracking system will be of little use in a civil war. "It does provide a measure of control," he said. "In terms of loyalties lying where they lie, will that prevent someone from going to do something? No."
On the home front, American arms companies stand to gain from the arms deals with Iraq, since Pentagon contracting practices favor domestic arms manufacturers. But good business doesn't necessarily equal good foreign policy. According to Stohl, the arms sales to Iraq are part of a troubling pattern of the Bush administration's supplying weapons to unstable regimes since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Early this month, her organization released a report on arms sales to 25 countries considered to be key allies in the so-called war on terror, including many with clear human rights or stability issues, including Ethiopia, Chad and Pakistan. The report showed that since 9/11, arms sales to those 25 countries were worth four times more than sales to those countries in the five years before 9/11. It added that the State Department had reported serious, grave or significant human rights abuses committed by the governments of more than half of the countries on the list.
"I think the United States has made the mistake, since 2001 in particular, of looking at short-term benefits rather than long-term strategic gains," said Stohl. "It is not just with these sales we are talking about in Iraq. It is also from a global perspective in terms of increasing military assistance to governments that probably have not been very much on our side in the past."
With respect to Iraq, most experts agree that it very much remains an open question as to who in that country might be on our side in the future.
Also See:
U.S. Arms Sales Agreements with the Middle East, 1999-2006 (Statistics)
The U.S. is selling billions in weapons to Iraq. Is the Pentagon's plan making the country secure or arming it to the teeth for civil war?
By Mark Benjamin, Salon.com, Sep. 18, 2007
Source
The grand debate about Gen. David Petraeus' Capitol Hill testimony last week on U.S. strategy in Iraq focused primarily on troop levels, withdrawal dates and whether Bush's so-called troop surge was succeeding. But widely overlooked was Petraeus' sales pitch to lawmakers for one initiative he said will help save the war-torn country: massive arms sales from the U.S. government to Iraq.
"Iraq is becoming one of the United States' larger foreign military sales customers," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 11, noting that Iraq has inked deals to buy $1.6 billion in arms from the U.S., with the "possibility of up to $1.8 billion more." Data obtained by Salon shows the arms sales could rise far higher than even the amount the general suggested last week.
Petraeus said that the arms sales are an important part of the initiative to keep the Iraqis "rapidly expanding their security forces." But Petraeus himself presided over an arms debacle in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 in which nearly 200,000 weapons went missing. And while U.S. arms might help the Iraqi security forces "stand up" in the short term, experts warn that the U.S. military could easily lose control over what may follow. Some fear a war zone flooded with weapons that could be turned on U.S. soldiers, or supply huge firepower for a full-blown civil war.
The Pentagon confirmed that this fiscal year, the United States has finalized $1.6 billion in arms sales to Iraq, placing the country in an elite club of weapons buyers. For example, in recent one-year periods Saudi Arabia bought $800 million and Egypt bought $1 billion in arms from the U.S., while Pakistan spent $3.5 billion, including the purchase of jet fighters. "This would put [Iraq] right up there with the top handful of arms buyers," said William Hartung, a weapons proliferation expert at the New America Foundation.
In fact, the numbers Petraeus presented on Iraq were the tip of the iceberg. According to data obtained by Salon from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency at the Pentagon, which manages the arms sales, the military has alerted Congress to up to $4.3 billion in arms sales that have been under discussion since at least 2006 between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
The arms deals come as the U.S. has shifted strategy to enlist Sunnis in western Iraq -- some of them former insurgents -- into all-Sunni units of the Iraqi security forces. The fear is that these newly trained and armed units will ultimately turn against the Shiite-dominated central government or against U.S. forces again. "I think this is kind of crazy," Hartung said about the arms sales. "Now we are making deals with some of these Sunni groups. Well, what if they turn around and go back to being insurgents after we have built them up? I think the danger of these arms being misused, even in the short term, is fairly high."
The weapons are sold through what is called the Foreign Military Sales program, which handles direct, government-to-government arms sales. Federal law requires the Pentagon to notify Congress of deals under development through that program, even if final contracts have not yet been signed. On Sept. 19, 2006, for example, the Pentagon alerted Congress of one pending deal with Iraq, worth $500 million, including 100,000 M-16 and M-4 rifles, the models carried by U.S. troops; 10,000 heavy machine guns; more than 10,000 Glock pistols; almost 3,500 M-24 sniper rifles and 1,300 night vision goggles; and tens of millions of rounds of ammunition.
Plans to sell billions in small arms to the Iraqis could come back to haunt the United States, agrees Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information at the World Security Institute. "I don't know if it makes sense to pump more weapons into the hands of actors that we have absolutely no idea about what their angles are and how those weapons are going to be used," she said. "It is such a chaotic situation ... I'm not sure at this point that that is the best policy."
Losing control of weapons once they are out of U.S. hands is a risk Petraeus knows about. In July, a Government Accountability Office released a critical report showing that the military had lost track of 190,000 weapons the U.S. military was supposed to hand out to Iraqi security forces, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles. That report received widespread attention in the media. (These weapons, purchased by the United States and handed out to Iraqis, are in addition to these new arms deals with Iraq.)
What received less attention was that the report was highly critical of Petraeus himself, though not by name. He was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq from when the command was set up in June 2004 until September 2005. That command was in charge of training and equipping Iraqi security forces. According to the GAO report, Petraeus' command "did not maintain a centralized record of all equipment distributed to the Iraqi security forces from June 2004 until December 2005." As a result, the whereabouts of 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets are unclear. The military, the report added, "cannot ensure that Iraqi security forces received the equipment as intended."
Late last month, a report from National Public Radio revealed that Glock pistols were part of a growing black market in Turkey for weapons of U.S. origin.
"I think he has gotten off easy on this," Stohl said about Petraeus' role in the missing weapons. "Obviously you have to place the blame somewhere and I think that he should take some of it."
When Petraeus was pressed about his role in the missing guns, he argued that the weapons had to be handed out quickly to Iraqis willing to fight against insurgents. There was no time to wait around for tracking systems to be implemented, he said.
Petraeus is now emphasizing speed once again. The Iraqis "have put a lot of stock into Foreign Military Sales, and we have to come through for them," he said in response to questioning by Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor during last week's Senate hearing. "It can't be business as usual. It has to be really moved very quickly."
Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the military now carefully records the identity of each member of the Iraqi security forces who gets a weapon. "That means you take a serial number. You take a retinal scan. You take fingerprints of all 10 fingers. Those all get compiled in a database together," explained Garver. Lost weapons can now be traced back to their original recipients, Garver said.
Garver conceded, however, that the improved tracking system will be of little use in a civil war. "It does provide a measure of control," he said. "In terms of loyalties lying where they lie, will that prevent someone from going to do something? No."
On the home front, American arms companies stand to gain from the arms deals with Iraq, since Pentagon contracting practices favor domestic arms manufacturers. But good business doesn't necessarily equal good foreign policy. According to Stohl, the arms sales to Iraq are part of a troubling pattern of the Bush administration's supplying weapons to unstable regimes since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Early this month, her organization released a report on arms sales to 25 countries considered to be key allies in the so-called war on terror, including many with clear human rights or stability issues, including Ethiopia, Chad and Pakistan. The report showed that since 9/11, arms sales to those 25 countries were worth four times more than sales to those countries in the five years before 9/11. It added that the State Department had reported serious, grave or significant human rights abuses committed by the governments of more than half of the countries on the list.
"I think the United States has made the mistake, since 2001 in particular, of looking at short-term benefits rather than long-term strategic gains," said Stohl. "It is not just with these sales we are talking about in Iraq. It is also from a global perspective in terms of increasing military assistance to governments that probably have not been very much on our side in the past."
With respect to Iraq, most experts agree that it very much remains an open question as to who in that country might be on our side in the future.
Also See:
U.S. Arms Sales Agreements with the Middle East, 1999-2006 (Statistics)
NY Times: With White House Push, U.S. Arms Sales Jump
With White House Push, U.S. Arms Sales Jump
By Eric Lipton, NY Times, September 14, 2008
Source
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is pushing through a broad array of foreign weapons deals as it seeks to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan, contain North Korea and Iran, and solidify ties with onetime Russian allies.
From tanks, helicopters and fighter jets to missiles, remotely piloted aircraft and even warships, the Department of Defense has agreed so far this fiscal year to sell or transfer more than $32 billion in weapons and other military equipment to foreign governments, compared with $12 billion in 2005.
The trend, which started in 2006, is most pronounced in the Middle East, but it reaches into northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and even Canada, through dozens of deals that senior Bush administration officials say they are confident will both tighten military alliances and combat terrorism.
“This is not about being gunrunners,” said Bruce S. Lemkin, the Air Force deputy under secretary who is helping to coordinate many of the biggest sales. “This is about building a more secure world.”
The surging American arms sales reflect the foreign policy tides, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader campaign against international terrorism, that have dominated the Bush administration. Deliveries on orders now being placed will continue for several years, perhaps as one of President Bush’s most lasting legacies.
The United States is far from the only country pushing sophisticated weapons systems: it is facing intense competition from Russia and elsewhere in Europe, including continuing contests for multibillion-dollar deals to sell fighter jets to India and Brazil.
In that booming market, American military contractors are working closely with the Pentagon, which acts as a broker and procures arms for foreign customers through its Foreign Military Sales program.
Less sophisticated weapons, and services to maintain these weapons systems, are often bought directly by foreign governments. That category of direct commercial sales has seen an enormous surge as well, as measured by export licenses issued this fiscal year covering an estimated $96 billion, up from $58 billion in 2005, according to the State Department, which must approve the licenses.
About 60 countries get annual military aid from the United States, $4.5 billion a year, to help them buy American weapons. Israel and Egypt receive more than 80 percent of that aid. The United States has also recently given Iraq and Afghanistan large amounts of weapons and other equipment and has begun to train fledgling military units at no charge; this assistance is included in the tally of foreign sales. But most arms exports are paid for by the purchasers without United States financing.
The growing tally of international weapon deals, which started to surge in 2006, is now provoking questions among some advocates of arms control and some members of Congress.
“Sure, this is a quick and easy way to cement alliances,” said William D. Hartung, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute. “But this is getting out of hand.”
Congress is notified before major arms sales deals are completed between foreign governments and the Pentagon. While lawmakers have the power to object formally and block any individual sale, they rarely use it.
Representative Howard L. Berman of California, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he supported many of the individual weapons sales, like helping Iraq build the capacity to defend itself, but he worried that the sales blitz could have some negative effects. “This could turn into a spiraling arms race that in the end could decrease stability,” he said.
The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded. Among the recent additions are Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Georgia, India, Iraq, Morocco and Pakistan, according to sales data through the end of last month provided by the Department of Defense. Cumulatively, these countries signed $870 million worth of arms deals with the United States from 2001 to 2004. For the past four fiscal years, that total has been $13.8 billion.
In many cases, these sales represent a cultural shift, as nations like Romania, Poland and Morocco, which have long relied on Russian-made MIG-17 fighter jets, are now buying new F-16s, built by Lockheed Martin.
At Lockheed Martin, one of the largest American military contractors, international sales last year brought in about $6.3 billion, or 15 percent of the company’s total sales, up from $4.8 billion in 2001. The foreign sales by Lockheed and other American military contractors are credited with helping keep alive some production lines, like those of the F-16 fighter jet and Boeing’s C-17 transport plane.
Fighter jets made in America will now be flying in other countries for years to come, meaning continued profits for American contractors that maintain them, and in many cases regular interaction between the United States military and foreign air forces, Mr. Lemkin, the Air Force official, said.
Sales are also being driven by the push by many foreign nations to join the once-exclusive club of countries whose arsenals include precise, laser-guided missiles, high-priced American technology that the United States displayed during its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the Persian Gulf region, much of the rearmament is driven by fears of Iran.
The United Arab Emirates, for example, are considering spending as much as $16 billion on American-made missile defense systems, according to recent notifications sent to Congress by the Department of Defense.
The Emirates also have announced an intention to order offensive weapons, including up to 26 Black Hawk helicopters and 900 Longbow Hellfire II missiles, which can knock out enemy tanks.
Saudi Arabia, this fiscal year alone, has signed at least $6 billion worth of agreements to buy weapons from the United States government — the highest figure for that country since 1993, which was another peak year in American weapons sales, after the first Persian Gulf war.
Israel, long a major buyer of United States military equipment, is also increasing its orders, including planned purchases of perhaps as many as four American-made coastal warships, worth $1.9 billion.
In Asia, as North Korea has conducted tests of a long-range missile, American allies have been buying more United States equipment. One ally, South Korea, has signed sales agreements with the Pentagon this year worth $1.1 billion.
So far, the value of foreign arms deliveries completed by the United States has increased only modestly, reaching $13 billion last year compared with an average of $12 billion over the previous three years. Because complex weapons systems take a long time to produce, it is expected that the increase in sales agreements will result in much greater arms deliveries in the coming years. (All dollar amounts for previous years cited in this article have been adjusted to reflect the impact of inflation.)
The flood of sophisticated American military equipment pouring into the Middle East has evoked concern among some members of Congress, who fear that the Bush administration may be compromising the military edge Israel has long maintained in the region.
Not surprisingly, two of the biggest new American arms customers are Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just in the past two years, Iraq has signed more than $3 billion of sales agreements — and announced plans to buy perhaps as much as $7 billion more in American equipment, financed by its rising oil revenues.
Lt. Col. Almarah Belk, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said that making these sales served the interests of both Iraq and the United States because “it reduces the risk of corruption and assists the Iraqis in getting around bottlenecks in their acquisition processes.”
Over the past three years, the United States government, separately, has agreed to buy more than $10 billion in military equipment and weapons on behalf of Afghanistan, according to Defense Department records, including M-16 rifles and C-27 military transport aircraft.
Even tiny countries like Estonia and Latvia are getting into the mix, playing a part in a collaborative effort by 15 countries, mostly in Europe, to buy two C-17 Boeing transport planes, which are used in moving military supplies as well as conducting relief missions.
Boeing has delivered 176 of these $200 million planes to the United States. But until 2006, Britain was the only foreign country that flew them. Now, in addition to the European consortium, Canada, Australia and Qatar have put in orders, and Boeing is competing to sell the plane to six other countries, said Tommy Dunehew, Boeing’s C-17 international sales manager.
In the last year, foreign sales have made up nearly half of the production at the California plant where C-17s are made. “It has been filling up the factory in the last couple of years,” Mr. Dunehew said.
Even before this new round of sales got under way, the United States’ share of the world arms trade was rising, from 40 percent of arms deliveries in 2000 to nearly 52 percent in 2006, the latest year for which the Congressional Research Service has compiled data. The next-largest seller was Russia, which in 2006 accounted for 21 percent of global deliveries.
Representative Berman, who sponsored a bill passed in May to overhaul the arms export process, said American military sales, while often well intended, were sometimes misguided. He cited military sales to Pakistan, which he said he feared were doing more to stoke tensions with India than combat terrorism in the region.
Travis Sharp, a military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, a Washington research group, said one of his biggest worries was that if alliances shifted, the United States might eventually be in combat against an enemy equipped with American-made weapons. Arms sales have had unintended consequences before, as when the United States armed militants fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, only to eventually confront hostile Taliban fighters armed with the same weapons there.
“Once you sell arms to another country, you lose control over how they are used,” Mr. Sharp said. “And the weapons, unfortunately, don’t have an expiration date.”
But Mr. Lemkin, of the Pentagon, said that with so many nations now willing to sell advanced weapons systems, the United States could not afford to be too restrictive in its own sales.
“Would you rather they bought the weapons and aircraft from other countries?” he said. “Because they will.”
----------
On a related note:
September 28, 2008 - Pentagon approves Cobra helicopters for Pakistan
The offer is part of a package of $1.01 billion of weapons for four US allies, including France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan.
By Eric Lipton, NY Times, September 14, 2008
Source
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is pushing through a broad array of foreign weapons deals as it seeks to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan, contain North Korea and Iran, and solidify ties with onetime Russian allies.
From tanks, helicopters and fighter jets to missiles, remotely piloted aircraft and even warships, the Department of Defense has agreed so far this fiscal year to sell or transfer more than $32 billion in weapons and other military equipment to foreign governments, compared with $12 billion in 2005.
The trend, which started in 2006, is most pronounced in the Middle East, but it reaches into northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and even Canada, through dozens of deals that senior Bush administration officials say they are confident will both tighten military alliances and combat terrorism.
“This is not about being gunrunners,” said Bruce S. Lemkin, the Air Force deputy under secretary who is helping to coordinate many of the biggest sales. “This is about building a more secure world.”
The surging American arms sales reflect the foreign policy tides, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader campaign against international terrorism, that have dominated the Bush administration. Deliveries on orders now being placed will continue for several years, perhaps as one of President Bush’s most lasting legacies.
The United States is far from the only country pushing sophisticated weapons systems: it is facing intense competition from Russia and elsewhere in Europe, including continuing contests for multibillion-dollar deals to sell fighter jets to India and Brazil.
In that booming market, American military contractors are working closely with the Pentagon, which acts as a broker and procures arms for foreign customers through its Foreign Military Sales program.
Less sophisticated weapons, and services to maintain these weapons systems, are often bought directly by foreign governments. That category of direct commercial sales has seen an enormous surge as well, as measured by export licenses issued this fiscal year covering an estimated $96 billion, up from $58 billion in 2005, according to the State Department, which must approve the licenses.
About 60 countries get annual military aid from the United States, $4.5 billion a year, to help them buy American weapons. Israel and Egypt receive more than 80 percent of that aid. The United States has also recently given Iraq and Afghanistan large amounts of weapons and other equipment and has begun to train fledgling military units at no charge; this assistance is included in the tally of foreign sales. But most arms exports are paid for by the purchasers without United States financing.
The growing tally of international weapon deals, which started to surge in 2006, is now provoking questions among some advocates of arms control and some members of Congress.
“Sure, this is a quick and easy way to cement alliances,” said William D. Hartung, an arms control specialist at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute. “But this is getting out of hand.”
Congress is notified before major arms sales deals are completed between foreign governments and the Pentagon. While lawmakers have the power to object formally and block any individual sale, they rarely use it.
Representative Howard L. Berman of California, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he supported many of the individual weapons sales, like helping Iraq build the capacity to defend itself, but he worried that the sales blitz could have some negative effects. “This could turn into a spiraling arms race that in the end could decrease stability,” he said.
The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded. Among the recent additions are Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Georgia, India, Iraq, Morocco and Pakistan, according to sales data through the end of last month provided by the Department of Defense. Cumulatively, these countries signed $870 million worth of arms deals with the United States from 2001 to 2004. For the past four fiscal years, that total has been $13.8 billion.
In many cases, these sales represent a cultural shift, as nations like Romania, Poland and Morocco, which have long relied on Russian-made MIG-17 fighter jets, are now buying new F-16s, built by Lockheed Martin.
At Lockheed Martin, one of the largest American military contractors, international sales last year brought in about $6.3 billion, or 15 percent of the company’s total sales, up from $4.8 billion in 2001. The foreign sales by Lockheed and other American military contractors are credited with helping keep alive some production lines, like those of the F-16 fighter jet and Boeing’s C-17 transport plane.
Fighter jets made in America will now be flying in other countries for years to come, meaning continued profits for American contractors that maintain them, and in many cases regular interaction between the United States military and foreign air forces, Mr. Lemkin, the Air Force official, said.
Sales are also being driven by the push by many foreign nations to join the once-exclusive club of countries whose arsenals include precise, laser-guided missiles, high-priced American technology that the United States displayed during its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the Persian Gulf region, much of the rearmament is driven by fears of Iran.
The United Arab Emirates, for example, are considering spending as much as $16 billion on American-made missile defense systems, according to recent notifications sent to Congress by the Department of Defense.
The Emirates also have announced an intention to order offensive weapons, including up to 26 Black Hawk helicopters and 900 Longbow Hellfire II missiles, which can knock out enemy tanks.
Saudi Arabia, this fiscal year alone, has signed at least $6 billion worth of agreements to buy weapons from the United States government — the highest figure for that country since 1993, which was another peak year in American weapons sales, after the first Persian Gulf war.
Israel, long a major buyer of United States military equipment, is also increasing its orders, including planned purchases of perhaps as many as four American-made coastal warships, worth $1.9 billion.
In Asia, as North Korea has conducted tests of a long-range missile, American allies have been buying more United States equipment. One ally, South Korea, has signed sales agreements with the Pentagon this year worth $1.1 billion.
So far, the value of foreign arms deliveries completed by the United States has increased only modestly, reaching $13 billion last year compared with an average of $12 billion over the previous three years. Because complex weapons systems take a long time to produce, it is expected that the increase in sales agreements will result in much greater arms deliveries in the coming years. (All dollar amounts for previous years cited in this article have been adjusted to reflect the impact of inflation.)
The flood of sophisticated American military equipment pouring into the Middle East has evoked concern among some members of Congress, who fear that the Bush administration may be compromising the military edge Israel has long maintained in the region.
Not surprisingly, two of the biggest new American arms customers are Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just in the past two years, Iraq has signed more than $3 billion of sales agreements — and announced plans to buy perhaps as much as $7 billion more in American equipment, financed by its rising oil revenues.
Lt. Col. Almarah Belk, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said that making these sales served the interests of both Iraq and the United States because “it reduces the risk of corruption and assists the Iraqis in getting around bottlenecks in their acquisition processes.”
Over the past three years, the United States government, separately, has agreed to buy more than $10 billion in military equipment and weapons on behalf of Afghanistan, according to Defense Department records, including M-16 rifles and C-27 military transport aircraft.
Even tiny countries like Estonia and Latvia are getting into the mix, playing a part in a collaborative effort by 15 countries, mostly in Europe, to buy two C-17 Boeing transport planes, which are used in moving military supplies as well as conducting relief missions.
Boeing has delivered 176 of these $200 million planes to the United States. But until 2006, Britain was the only foreign country that flew them. Now, in addition to the European consortium, Canada, Australia and Qatar have put in orders, and Boeing is competing to sell the plane to six other countries, said Tommy Dunehew, Boeing’s C-17 international sales manager.
In the last year, foreign sales have made up nearly half of the production at the California plant where C-17s are made. “It has been filling up the factory in the last couple of years,” Mr. Dunehew said.
Even before this new round of sales got under way, the United States’ share of the world arms trade was rising, from 40 percent of arms deliveries in 2000 to nearly 52 percent in 2006, the latest year for which the Congressional Research Service has compiled data. The next-largest seller was Russia, which in 2006 accounted for 21 percent of global deliveries.
Representative Berman, who sponsored a bill passed in May to overhaul the arms export process, said American military sales, while often well intended, were sometimes misguided. He cited military sales to Pakistan, which he said he feared were doing more to stoke tensions with India than combat terrorism in the region.
Travis Sharp, a military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, a Washington research group, said one of his biggest worries was that if alliances shifted, the United States might eventually be in combat against an enemy equipped with American-made weapons. Arms sales have had unintended consequences before, as when the United States armed militants fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, only to eventually confront hostile Taliban fighters armed with the same weapons there.
“Once you sell arms to another country, you lose control over how they are used,” Mr. Sharp said. “And the weapons, unfortunately, don’t have an expiration date.”
But Mr. Lemkin, of the Pentagon, said that with so many nations now willing to sell advanced weapons systems, the United States could not afford to be too restrictive in its own sales.
“Would you rather they bought the weapons and aircraft from other countries?” he said. “Because they will.”
----------
On a related note:
September 28, 2008 - Pentagon approves Cobra helicopters for Pakistan
The offer is part of a package of $1.01 billion of weapons for four US allies, including France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
