Caliphatism - Establishing the “Islamic Kingdom of God on Earth”
David J.
Jonsson
September 9,
2006
President George
W. Bush
in his speech of Speech of September 5, 2006 discussed the Global War
on Terror.
The
terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without
conscience -- but they’re not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and
focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane. (Suggested
reading: The Clash of Ideologies: The Making
of the Christian and Islamic Worlds) These
al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni
extremists. They’re driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that
rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent
men, women and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to
establish a violent political utopia across the
Middle East, which they call a “Caliphate” -- where all
would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called
the 9/11 attacks -- in his words -- “a great step towards the unity of Muslims
and establishing the Righteous… [Caliphate].”
This
caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and
former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East,
and
Southeast Asia. We know this because
al Qaeda has told us. About two months ago, the terrorist
Zawahiri -- he’s
al Qaeda’s second in command --
declared that
al Qaeda intends to impose its rule in
“every land that was a home for Islam, from [
Spain
(Andalusia)] to
Iraq
. He went on
to say, “The whole world is an open field for us.”
We
know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how
the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of
Afghanistan
. Under the rule of the
Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare -- a land where
women were imprisoned in their homes, men were beaten for missing prayer
meetings, girls could not go to school, and children were forbidden the
smallest pleasures like flying kites.(Suggested reading: The Kite
Runner by Khaled Hosseini.) Religious police roamed the streets, beating and detaining civilians for
perceived offenses. Women were publicly whipped. Summary executions were held
in
Kabul
’s
soccer stadium in front of cheering mobs. And
Afghanistan
was turned into a launching pad for horrific attacks against
America
and
other parts of the civilized world -- including many Muslim nations.
·
Is a Caliphate Coming
to a Country Near You?
·
Transnational
Movements and the Creation of One World under Islam
·
Establishing
the Islamic “Kingdom of God on Earth”
·
The Medina Charter
(Constitution)
·
Osama bin Laden
Harks Back to the Events of 1924
·
The Muslim
Brotherhood – the Roots of Islamist Struggle
·
President
George Bush Commenting on Islamist Recruiting
·
Al Qaeda Introduces Professional DVDs
·
Al-Qaeda Issues
An ‘Invitation’
·
The Emerging
Shiite Crescent
·
Geopolitical
Implications of Breakup of Iraq
·
The Life Blood of the
Islamist
·
The “Axis of Appeasement”
- Revisited
·
The
Apocalyptic Teaching of Islam
Is a Caliphate Coming to a Country Near
You?
In my book Islamic
Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist –
Islamist Alliance, in Chapter 2 I wrote:
In his short story, “The
Metamorphosis,”
Franz
Kafka
described the transformation
of a human into a vermin. He could also have written the plot for the mutation
of the Christian nations into the coming new caliphate--one world under
Islam--a world without borders. After all, Gregor Samsa found himself transformed into an insect one morning. Thus, Samsa lies in a room, examines his new physical state, and considers how he will be able to
explain being late for work. Samsa does not waste any time thinking about why
he has become an insect and how to escape the situation. Instead, there is only
apathy, quiet resignation--the man accepts the undeniability of the surreal
situation. He lies quietly with shallow breath--thinking, feeling, and acting
as if he were unchanged.
There is not that much of a
difference between the metamorphosis of a person into an insect and that of a
group of states into a caliphate.
A similar fate is befalling the West--European countries
and North America. They question nothing, they do nothing, and they observe
their metamorphosis with little discernible recognition, much less appropriate
agitation. Once the smoke clears from the stage and the new caliphate shows its
true colors, they will catch sight of an ugly creature--and that creature will
be themselves.
History clearly indicates
that Islamic barbarism against Jews and Christians dates back to the seventh
century.
With the Moral-Trade-Deficit of the West exhibited by the
growth of the Radical-Center-Movement departing from the worldview of our
Judeo-Christian heritage, a vacuum has been created for the creation of the
caliphate. And so it is that the West is morphing from dar-al-Harb to dar-al-Islam.
A caliphate may be coming soon to a country near you.
Transnational Movements and the Creation
of One World under Islam
Islam’s ultimate goal is the creation of “one world
without borders under Islamic rule,” a totalitarian economic political
theocracy based on Islamic law--Shariah law. The Islamic empire will not
be limited to just the Spain-to-Indonesia
region, for Islamists have a global vision that requires control over
non-Muslim countries, also, and specifically the United States. Their universal
ambitions certainly can be stopped, but first they must be understood and
resisted. Only when the West, particularly the United States, realizes that the
Islamists intend to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Qur’an--Shariah
law--will it enter the final era of this war--the Final Jihad.
The issue being addressed: has there been or when will there
be a penetration of the Western cultures and civilization that easily make
takeover a fait accompli. The thesis is that the process is under way.
What we need to fear is the dog that does not bark at night.
Establishing the Islamic “ Kingdom of God on Earth”
In Chapter 5 of Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad
I wrote: Islam is more than a religion; it is an economic and political
movement set up following the Hijra from Mecca
to Medina. Muhammad set up the Nation-State and made himself the first
caliph. Islam, therefore, established the principle of a “kingdom of God
on earth.” This then required an army to defend the state.
The roles of a caliph are these: Spiritual leader
of Muslims, the one who guides Muslims in new matters; Religious leader
of the Muslims, the one who enforces Islamic law--Shariah; Political
leader of Muslims, the one who conducts relations with other states and
administers government; and Military leader of Muslims, the one who
orders and conducts military affairs, in particular those regarding the
conflict between dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. We call this
Nation-State the Ummah or Umma (the Muslim
community or ideal state worldwide) and the Islamic “world without borders.”
From an Islamic sense, in Islamic religious history, al-Hijra
was the migration or emigration of the Prophet
Muhammad
from
Mecca
to
Medina
in
622 C.E. It became Year 1 of the Muslim lunar calendar (AH). It was one of the
great seminal events of Islamic history and paved the way for the conquest of Mecca
by
Muhammad
and the final
settlement of Islam in Arabia
, from where it emerged to
become a major world religion (ideology).
Ummah is the body of the Muslims, as one distinct
and integrated community. The Ummah of Muhammad
includes those who lived in the past, those who are alive now, and those who
will live in the future. It can be subdivided into two groups: 1) Ummat
ad-Da’wa--the nation that was called upon to believe in Allah Ta’ala
and the Last Day, and 2) Ummat al-Isteajaba--the nation that
responded to the call of Muhammad. Another name for
this Ummah is Al-Ummat al-Islamiah (the Islamic Nation). Allah
Subhana wa Ta’ala commanded the Ummat al-Isteajaba to hold together
and not to disagree. The Last Day is where the apocalyptic teaching in Islam
enters.
The Medina Charter (Constitution)
Because all Muslims are required to look to Muhammad
for guidance in establishing the “Islamic
kingdom of
God
on earth,” it is important for us to review the first constitution that he
wrote in 622 C.E. In 2005 we were in the process of developing the
constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Major issues in developing these constitutions related to the role of the Shariah
in establishing the law of the countries. The future of these countries depends
on the role of Shariah. This is a critical time for the future of the
world. The first Islamic state in
Medina
established the Medina Charter. Based on a social contract, it was
constitutional in character. Today, Islamists are proposing that the world
accept the principles of that contract to emulate Muhammad
, based on the
principles set forth in the Qur’an.
Before we acquiesce to the
demands of the Islamists, it is imperative that we explore this contract and its
implications.
In the constitution or Charter of Medina
(Dustur al-Madinah) that
Muhammad
wrote, we read:
A believer
shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an
unbeliever against a believer...Believers are friends one to the other to the
exclusion of outsiders...The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed
in the way of God. (Article 14)
This constitution led to death of many Jews and
Christians. Is that the direction in which we want to proceed now?
Osama bin Laden Harks Back to the Events
of 1924
It is important to understand the importance of the
events of 1924 and immediately following.
The caliphs were “the Commanders of the Faithful”
and the heirs of Muhammad who ruled the Dar
al-Islam from the time of Muhammad’s death
until the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Who
should be the caliph is the greatest dividing issue in Islam--the defining
criteria of Sunnis and Shiites. This is the battle we witnessing today in Iraq between
the Shiites and the Sunnis. It is also the battle we are witnessing playing out
in Lebanon
with Hezbollah. In my article “Iran Reaches
the Mediterranean“, I comment that it is important to follow the events
in Palestine, Lebanon
and Egypt.
The election in the Palestine Authority
has resulted in the election of Hamas. In December 2005, the Egyptian
electorate came out strongly for the Muslim Brotherhood, and not for the
liberal elements. In Iraq,
the post-Saddam electorate voted in a pro-Iranian Islamist as prime minister.
In Lebanon,
the voters celebrated the withdrawal of Syrian troops by voting Hezbollah into
the government. Likewise, radical Islamic elements have prospered in elections
in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
For Muslims, the
apocalyptic nature surrounding the pronouncements needs to be understood.
Similarly, Westerners need to understand the role of Islamic apocalyptic
teaching to comprehend the actions of the Islamists.
The end of the Caliphate in
1924 may be the single most epochal event in modern Islam. Many Islamic
fundamentalist groups—including al-Qaeda—have taken it as their goal to
establish a new Caliphate. What would be the implications of such an event? And
just who might this new caliph be?
President
Bush
is correct in his assessment:
“The
Shia and Sunni extremists represent different faces of the same threat. They
draw inspiration from different sources, but both seek to impose a dark vision
of violent Islamic radicalism across the
Middle
East.
They oppose the advance of freedom, and they want to gain control of weapons of
mass destruction. If they succeed in undermining fragile democracies, like
Iraq
, and drive
the forces of freedom out of the region, they will have an open field to pursue
their dangerous goals. Each strain of violent Islamic radicalism would be
emboldened.”
The Muslim Brotherhood – the Roots of
Islamist Struggle
As the world – the media and the administration focus
their attention on the “War on Terror”, al Qaeda
and its poster boy Osama bin Laden, they do not understand the role that the
Muslim Brotherhood played and is currently playing in the struggle to build the
Islamic
kingdom of
God
on Earth. Members and naïve fellow travelers of the Muslim Brotherhood and
its offshoots, most of which do not subscribe to physical terrorist actions
play a significant role with their positions of influence in the media,
banking, legal, education, religion, politics and even major corporations.
Muslim Brotherhood organizations span the globe and are present on many
university campuses. Their goal is the same—to create a global totalitarian
government operating under Shariah
law. They are a no less
a potent factor than the terrorists striking the world’s infrastructure.
The Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance, of which the
Muslim Brotherhood plays a role, makes up a key element of the Islamic Military Industrial Complex.
The intellectual father of all modern-day Muslim radicals,
the Egyptian Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949), decried the end of the caliphate
because it separated “the state from religion in a country which was until
recently the site of the Commander of the
Faithful.” Al-Banna characterized the end of the caliphate as part of a
larger “Western invasion which was armed and equipped with all the destructive
influences of money, wealth, prestige, ostentation, power and means of
propaganda.” Al-Banna founded the first modern radical Muslim organization, the
Muslim Brotherhood. The first Muslim
Brotherhood was founded in
Egypt
in 1928.
Writing for the International
Assessment and
Strategy
Center
, on
April 18, 2006 ,
Douglas
Farah
in the article The
Little Explored Offshore Empire of the International Muslim Brotherhood
commented:
“…The Brotherhood has played a central role in
providing both the ideological and technical capacities for supporting terrorist
finance on a global basis… the Brotherhood has spread both the ideology of
militant pan-Islamicism and became the spine upon which the funding operations
for militant pan-Islamicism was built, taking funds largely generated from
wealthy Gulf state elites and distributing them for terrorist education,
recruitment and operations widely dispersed throughout the world,
especially in areas where Muslims hoped to displace non-Muslim or secular
governments.”
“Almost every major Islamist group can trace its roots to
the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by the
Hassan
al-Banna, a pan-Islamicist who opposed the secular tendencies in Islamic
nations. Hamas is a direct offshoot of the Brotherhood. Hassan
al-Turabi, who offered sanctuary in
Sudan
to Osama bin Laden and his
al Qaeda
allies, is a leader of the Brotherhood. He also sat on the boards of several of
the most important Islamic financial institutions…”
In the article by Mohamad Bazzi
writing for Newsday on October 10, 2001, he wrote: “By launching a “holy war”
against the
United
States
, Osama bin Laden would like a return to
the glory days of the Muslim empire.”
“In his videotaped statement broadcast around the world
Sunday, bin Laden said the
United States
was finally tasting the kind of “humiliation and disgrace” that the Muslim
community has felt “for more than 80 years.”
“Experts say that by using such an exact figure, bin Laden
was most likely referring to the end of the Caliphate, the religious and
government authority that ruled the Muslim empire from the death of the Prophet
Muhammad
in 632
until 1924. The Caliphate has been an important symbol for many Islamic
militants who want to replace secular governments or monarchies with states
ruled by Islamic law.”
“For bin Laden, the end of the Caliphate symbolizes a
point at which the Islamic ummah, or community, became divided into
nation-states. In its wake, a sense of worldwide Muslim unity gave way to Arab,
Turkish and Persian nationalism. The Turkish nationalist
Kemal
Ataturk
abolished the
Caliphate.”
“Bin Laden and other Islamists see the demise of the
Caliphate as paving the way for the downturn in the Islamic community and its
subjection by western colonial powers,” said
Diaa
Rashwan
,
a leading expert on Islamic militants and a senior researcher at the
Al-Ahram
Center
for Political and Strategic Studies in
Cairo
.
“In the Islamists’ eyes, it was the moment when the ills of colonialism and
nationalism joined together.”
President
George
Bush
Commenting on Islamist
Recruiting
President
Bush
is correct in his assessment of the use
of the Internet and the recruiting tactics:
“Al Qaeda
continues to adapt in the face of our global campaign against them.
Increasingly, al Qaeda is taking advantage of the
Internet to disseminate propaganda, and to conduct “virtual recruitment” and
“virtual training” of new terrorists. Al Qaeda’s
leaders no longer need to meet face-to-face with their operatives. They can
find new suicide bombers, and facilitate new terrorist attacks, without ever
laying eyes on those they’re training, financing, or sending to strike us.”
Al Qaeda Introduces Professional DVDs
In my article Axis of
Appeasement – The Inconvenient Truth I addressed the approach being used by
the Islamists: According to Susanne Koelbl writing on August 17 in Spiegel
Online: Terrorists are becoming increasingly adept at producing
high-quality videos. DVDs depicting bloody beheadings are now available at
markets in
Pakistan
and
Afghanistan
. They’re also on the
Web.
That the Internet has become a communication platform for
terrorists—as well as for their supporters and their adversaries—is nothing
new. These days, though, a close monitoring of the Web reveals the increasing
brutality of the international jihadist movement. The radicals’ isolation and
desperation is also on full display. The images, though, also document the
vulnerability of Western armies in the remote mountainous regions of
Afghanistan
and
Iraq
, together with the challenges
they face in dealing with the realities of the countries in which they
operate.
Intelligence services believe that the Pakistani city of
Quetta
is home to what is probably the most
professional media workshop of terror. The city, in the state of Beluchistan in
the Pashtun border region, is considered a Taliban stronghold. And it plays host
to al-Qaeda’s propaganda headquarters, the “Foundation for Islamic Media
Production,” or “Al-Sahab.”
The most important statements issued by the godfather of
terror Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi,
the head of al- Qaeda’s Iraq division until he was killed in June, were edited
and processed here. What began as an amateur operation producing poor-quality
videos has since turned into a highly professional outfit.
Al-Qaeda Issues An
‘Invitation’
In February 2005, Jane’s Defense Weekly wrote with concern about what it
called “significant developments” in the composition of jihadist terror cells,
including “an increase in the number of members who have ‘joined’ and were no
longer ‘recruited.’”
An Arabic pamphlet circulating on Islamist Web sites at
about the same time, titled “How can I become a member of al- Qaeda?” seems to confirm that the path to al-Qaeda & Co. is growing ever shorter. The pamphlet’s response to
its own question, according to a translation provided by the Washington
based
institute SITE , is as
follows:
“Al-Qaida is no longer
merely an organization fighting Jews and crusaders alone. Today the al-Qaeda
issues an ‘invitation’ that asks all Muslims to rise up in support of God’s
religion. ... Whoever answers this call is seen as part of al-Qaeda, whether or
not you wish this to happen. But if you are a true Muslim, you have no other
choice but to heed this call.”
“With this approach, al-Qaeda is attracting instant
mujahedeen who like the
London
bus and subway bombers, essentially recruit themselves within a breathtakingly
short amount of time. As a result, they are far more unpredictable and
difficult to recognize than
Afghanistan
veterans.”
The Emerging Shiite Crescent
As background for President Bush’s speech In Their
Own Words: What the Terrorists Believe, What They Hope to Accomplish, and How
They Intend to Accomplish It, reference is made to comments by Ayman
al-Zawahiri: We Must “Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory
As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The
Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq.” We note the strategy for extending the
caliphate from Iraq
to neighboring countries. The strategy comes in direct conflict with emerging Shiite
Crescent—thus the battle for control of Iraq.
In the speech President
Bush Discusses Progress in the Global War on Terror on September 7
he said:
This coalition includes two nations that used
to sponsor terror, but now help us fight it -- the democratic nations of
Afghanistan and
Iraq
. (Applause.) In
Afghanistan
, President
Karzai
’s
elected government is fighting our common enemies. In showing the courage he’s
showing, he’s inspired millions across the region. In
Iraq, Prime Minister
Maliki
’s unity government is fighting
al Qaeda and the enemies of
Iraq
’s democracy. They’re taking
increasing responsibility for the security of their free country.
The fighting in Iraq
has been difficult and it has been bloody, and some say that Iraq is a
diversion from the war on terror. The terrorists disagree. Osama bin Laden has
proclaimed that the “third world war is raging” in Iraq. Al Qaeda
leaders have declared that Baghdad will be the
capital of the new caliphate that they wish to establish across the broader Middle East. It’s hard to believe that extremists would
make large journeys across dangerous borders to endure heavy fighting, and to
blow themselves up on the streets of Baghdad
for a so-called “diversion.” The terrorists know that the outcome in the war on
terror will depend on the outcome in Iraq
-- and so to protect our own citizens, the free world must succeed in Iraq.
While in Baghdad
on September 7, 2006, a Draft bill
presented to Iraqi parliament on federal system for Shia, Sunni population
as reported by the Islamic Republic News Service. “Iraqi parliament’s largest Shia party on Thursday put forward a draft
bill to establish federal system of government for both the Shia and Sunni
population.”
“The draft bill, read out in parliament, calls for setting
up a separate autonomous states in
Iraq
for both
the Shia and Sunni population.”
“...special legislation and a referendum would be needed
to establish federalism throughout the country which would entail creating an
autonomous Shia government in the south.”
This event followed the report on September 5 also from
the Islamic Republic News Service: Senior
Iraqi delegation heads for Tehran “A high-ranking Iraqi delegation
headed by Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Berham Salih left here for
Tehran
Tuesday” “The visit is aimed at
enhancing and consolidating relations between the two countries, the source
further stated.”
The aim of the legislation is altering the structure of
the Iraqi state. The move shows
Iran
has found a way around its Shiite allies’ inability to dominate
Baghdad
. Even so, a
number of domestic and international factors mean
Iran
is not interested seeing the
Iraqi state collapse.
By rearranging the provinces into autonomous federal zones
along the lines of Iraq’s
northern Kurdistan region, the pro-Iranian
Shia have found a way to consolidate their gains over power and the oil
resources in the south. According to an article in Reuters
on September 7, 2006 “Sunnis fear could break
up the country and leave them with little access to its oil wealth.”
Sunnis, concentrated in Iraq’s
resource-poor central and western provinces, are opposed to such a move,
fearing it would seal their political doom by giving Shiites in the south and
Kurds in the north control of much of Iraq’s oil.
“Events such as the Iraqi Shiite move for federalism have
made
Iran
’s position in
Iraq
much clearer:
Tehran
is going for the gold, and it will not settle for an Iraq
in which
Iran
’s
allies are merely the largest political group in a coalition government. Moving
toward a federalist model at a time when the United States
and
Israel
are not in a position to do much about its regional ambitions would allow Tehran
to reap the benefits it craves in
Iraq
, but
potential pitfalls remain.”
Strategic
Forecasting, Inc. commented on the events on September 6, 2006: “Negotiations
over the proposed autonomy plan thus could put Iraq
’s
future at risk and could be detrimental to
Iran
’s security.
Iran
is playing a very dangerous game, one in
which success could mean strategic influence in
Iraq
, while
failure could mean regional war.”
As John
Hall, senior Washington correspondent of Media General News
Service commented in the article Shiite Crescent arrives: “From the Persian Gulf to the
Mediterranean,
the Shiite
Crescent
was jumping last week. Triumphant anti-Israel leaders of Hezbollah in southern
Lebanon,
Iran’s
chest-thumping president, and the made-in-the-USA power structure of democratic
Iraq were crowing that
Israel
had been
beaten.”
“King Abdullah
of Jordan, a staunch U.S. ally in
the region, saw it coming two years ago and coined the phrase “Shiite Crescent.”
His warning was largely directed at Sunni Muslim nations facing
Iran
, and his
message didn’t get much attention here. But the pieces of the young leader’s
prophecy are starting to drop into place.”
“Abdullah’s vision was the emergence of a new power center
that would come to dominate the region. The Shiite Crescent comprised Iran ’s Shiite-dominated government, the new
Shiite regime taking control after the ouster of Saddam Hussein
in Iraq and the
Hezbollah-dominated Shiite “state within a state” in southern Lebanon .”
“The cease-fire just declared following Hezbollah’s brief
war with
Israel
left
southern
Lebanon
in ruins and destroyed much of Hezbollah’s arms cache. But Hezbollah’s
leadership remains strong. And most Shiite Muslims, as well as the rest of the
Arab world, are celebrating what they call a victory over
Israel
’s much more powerful and
modern army and air force.”
“Iran ’s
deep pockets could re supply Hezbollah with arms to keep attacking Israel unless a U.N. force being formed to move
into southern Lebanon is
more aggressive than others have been to stop the traffic through Syria
.”
“Hezbollah is vowing to
resist any effort to disarm it.”
As reported by Reuters on September 7, 2006
Al Jazeera airs audio of new Iraq al Qaeda
leader: “Al
Qaeda’s new leader called on Muslims to unify ranks with
insurgents in
Iraq
,
according to an audio tape aired by
Al
Jazeera
television on Thursday.”
“Place your hands in our hands ... our enemy has unified
his ranks, now is the time to unite,” said the speaker, identified by
Al
Jazeera
as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.
Geopolitical Implications of
Breakup of Iraq
It is important to review briefly the history of the
rivalry between the Shiites and the Sunni to understand the complexity of
battles raging in Iraq.
The Shiite-Sunni divide starts with
early Islamic history with the killing of
Hussain
ibn Ali ibn
Abi
Talib, the third Imam and grandson of the Prophet
Muhammad
at the
Battle of Karbala in 680. For further study see: The Clash of Ideologies: The Making
of the Christian and Islamic Worlds).
The anniversary of his death is called Ashoura, a day of
mourning and religious observance for Shiite Muslims with some flagellating
themselves. Shiites consider Hussain as the rightful successor of the Prophet Muhammad and his
death and commemoration is considered as a struggle against oppression. An
excellent source for further study is: God's
Rule - Government and Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political
Thought by Patricia
Crone.
It was the dispute over succession in the seventh century
and this death that ignited the chasm between the Sunni branch of Islam and the
Shiites. The conflicts continued with the coming to power of the
Umayyads
[the first Islamic dynasty (661-750)] and the Abbasids [second of two great
dynasties
(750-1258
) who came to power under the
auspices of a Shiite movement].
Essentially the Shiites lost the battle for the political
leadership of the Muslim world and became a dissident community. Two major
empires replaced the Islamic caliphate; the Safavids in
Iran
who were Shiite [came to power in 1501] and
the Ottomans in
Turkey
that
controlled the Arab world and were Sunni. The Ottoma-Safavid rivalry became a
surrogate for the Shiite-Sunni rivalry and the Ottomans lasted far longer. The
Ottoman caliphate lasted until 1924.
Following World War I the Arab world rose to significance,
the structure of power confirms the Sunni domination particularly in places
like Bahrain, and Iraq, where the Shiite were the majority but the British gave
the power to the Sunni ruling dynasty. The British policy confirmed sectarian
attitudes and Arab nationalism was secular on the surface but it was sometimes
clearly anti-Shiite. The book Desert
Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell: Adventurer, Adviser to Kings,
Ally of Lawrence of Arabia by Janet Wallach
provides an interesting insight into the events leading up to establishment of
the boundaries of Iraq and the important role of oil from Iran had following WW
1.
Today Iran
has the most powerful military force in the Gulf, independent of its potential
for nuclear armaments, except for the U.S. At present most of countries
in the Gulf are governed by Sunnis where in some cases the Shia are persecuted.
The Shia of Iraq now pretty much run
that country for the first time–even though they were a majority population
since they converted to Shiism to counter the what they saw as the brutalities
and oppression of the Ottoman Empire (caliphate) a long time ago. Following the
recent war, the Shia in Lebanon
want even more political representation. The same could be said for the Shia of
Saudi Arabia (who live in
the area that has the major oil fields in the northeast), the Shia of Bahrain (a majority of the population), and the
Shia are also found in Kuwait ,
Qatar , Pakistan and
elsewhere. While the Shia are only 15 percent of the total population of
Muslims in the world, they are on the ascendance due in large part to the
change in power in Iraq .
The regimes in Egypt , Saudi Arabia , Jordan
and elsewhere are also under considerable heat. The success of Hezbollah in
standing up to Israel in Lebanon has
increased the temperature for their leaders, and in their streets. Also, the
probability of a Hezbollah attack on U.S. interests was not particularly
high before these events, it has been suggested that it is much higher now. It
has been a long time since Hezbollah targeted the U.S. Now all bets may be off. It
was Hezbollah that was behind the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in
Beirut
that killed 241
Americans.
There may be an element of truth in the fact that the Shiites
are looking to
Tehran
for guidance and leadership. It is not only a question of allegiance as much as
it is of turning to an external political reference. It is also no longer a
question of Shiites alone looking to
Iran
. Sunni and Christian Arabs are
also gazing in that direction, on the whole, because they see an
Iran
that is
assertive, that is strong and defiant of a world superpower and the West.
In the eyes of many Muslims and even non-Muslims,
Iran
is becoming the defender of the Arab cause
and against the hegemony of the
U.S.
A lot of the Arabs look at
Iran
as more powerful and the Shiites even more. With a moral-deficit in the West,
subscribing to the Judeo-Christian has no importance. Power and money take
precedence. Iran
is
respected,
Iran
stands up to the West and they
admire that stance. There does not seem to any leader of Sunni cause. The West
only sees Osama bin Laden as representing the Sunni cause. These are the days of
the Shiite rise to power. The balance of power may have been altered in the
Muslim world.
If Iraq were to be divided up, or for that matter the Bill
presented to Parliament on September 7 were to pass, the southern region would
become Shiite—and the Iranians would dominate southern Iraq. This not only
would give them control of the
Basra
oil fields,
but also would theoretically open the road to
Kuwait
and
Saudi
Arabia
.
From a strictly military point of view, and not including the Shiite
insurgencies at all,
Iran
could move far down the western side of the Gulf without the presence of
American forces. This would lead a possibility that the Iranians could seize
control of the bulk of the entire region’s oil reserves and control of the
Straits of Hormuz. They could do the same thing if Iraq
were to be united as an Iranian satellite, but that would be far more difficult
to achieve and would require active
U.S.
cooperation in withdrawing.
The Shiites chose the route to take the southern provinces, with the hope that
the
U.S.
would not
object too strongly.
To accomplish their goal, the Iranians will utilize the
propaganda machine adequately supported by Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance
to push for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Iranians are counting on
the continuing violence to cause discontent with the situation in Iraq. The
propaganda tool is to create a wedge between the American people and the
government. This is obviously happening in the media. Ultimately, they are
counting on the Americans to be sufficiently exhausted by their experience of Iraq to rationalize their withdrawal – leaving,
as in Vietnam,
a graceful interval for what follows.
The options for solving the issues arising in Iraq are not
good. The Iranian hegemony over the Gulf and the Shiite Crescent
would change the
world balance of power. While
U.S.
and the West are focused on Osama bin Laden and the battles for withdrawal from
Iraq
, the Islamists are marching on
and gaining political, legal, media propaganda and economic strength throughout
the western world.
The battle for control of the crescent could be a defining
moment in the rebuilding of the caliphate. The events occurring in this region
could escalate out of control. It must be remembered that Iran is the key
player in the Shiite Crescent.
Iran is an
observer and shortly will become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) joining with Russia and China. Also, it is important not to
forget that Venezuela is
friendly both with Iran
and other members of the SCO. As
noted above the Eastern Province in Saudi
Arabia (oil producing region)
is dominated by Shiites. On September 7, The
United States formally handed over control of
Iraq
’s new military to Prime Minister
Nuri
al-Maliki’s Shiite government on Thursday just as rebels unleashed a fresh wave
of deadly bomb attacks on Iraqi security forces. In spite of events
occurring with coalescing of the Shiite
Crescent, Washington has hailed the
handover as a “gigantic” milestone toward withdrawing 155,000 U.S.-led foreign
troops from Iraq.
Two powers -- the Shiites and Sunni are battling for
control and attempting to establish the Islamic
kingdom of
God
on Earth. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has as his stated goal of
causing events to occur that will bring about the apocalyptic end of the world.
We must listen to what these leaders are saying. Each is attempting to
establish the new caliphate.
The Life Blood of the Islamist
The lifeblood of the forces seeking to establish the Islamic
kingdom of God on Earth is money. The West has
done a fair job in identifying some of sources of funding for terror coming
from non-profit organizations and the banking system. The removal of this
funding, all be it critical, has not reduced the major flow of funding to the
countries, which have the desire to remove the hegemony of the West and in
particular, the U.S.
The funding results largely from the need for oil from these countries—energy
interdependence and need for these foreign governments to finance the
budget and foreign trade deficits of the U.S.
The Axis of Appeasement - Revisited
However, nothing unites the parties more than the common
goal of establishing a totalitarian one-world government that can bring down
the West. This is what we are witnessing in the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist
Alliance. This may be what President
Bush
referred to in his comment:
“Secondly,
along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama
bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah
Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin
Laden says that al Qaeda intends to “[launch],” in
his words, “a media campaign… to create a wedge between the American people and
their government.” This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American
people a number of messages, including “that their government [will] bring them
more losses, in finances and casualties.” And he goes on to say that “they are
being sacrificed… to serve… the big investors, especially the Jews.” Bin Laden
says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda
“aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government
to stop their campaign against Afghanistan.””
As presented in
a Financial Times Article US
plays down al-Qaeda in list of terror threats by Caroline
Daniel
and
Edward
Alden
in
Washington
: “The Bush administration yesterday
defended its record in combating terrorism, and identified the principal
terrorist threat facing the
US
as a “transnational movement of
extremist organisations” that exploit Islam, rather than the al-Qaeda
group.”
The White House
report, “Combating Terrorism”, was an updated version of a 2003 strategy
report. It made no mention of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, and said
the
US
had made
“substantial progress in degrading the al-Qaeda network, killing or capturing
key lieutenants, eliminating safe havens and disrupting existing lines of
support”.
“The White
House report was countered by an analysis from the Third Way, a think-tank, launched with senior Democrats,
which looked at Mr Bush’s national security record. “We set out to measure
whether President
Bush
is making
America
safer. And the answer is no,
based on our analysis.”
Joining the
course against President Bush and the “War on Terror” Reuters reported
in the article: France
rejects “war on terror”, “Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking in
parliament, expressed these views on global terrorism, while President Jacques
Chirac backed France’s claims to the international front rank with a fresh
defense of his country’s nuclear arsenal.”
“Villepin noted Chirac’s strong opposition to the U.S.-led
invasion of
Iraq
in 2003 and said the Arab state
had now sunk into violence and was feeding new regional crises.”
“Let us not forget that these crises play into the hands
of all extremists,” the prime minister said in a debate on the
Middle East
. “We can see this with terrorism, whether it tries to strike
inside or outside our frontiers,” he added.
“Against terrorism, what’s needed is not a war. It is, as
France
has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and
effective cooperation with our partners.”
“But we will only end this
curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises,” he
said.
The Axis of
Appeasement has made its position clear for the progressives of the “The
third Way.” In an article on Hillary
Rodham Clinton published on the discoverthenetwork.com September 6, 2006 written
by David Horowitz and published by FrontPageMagazine.com
on June 22, 2000,
quoted below:
“The Third Way” is a
familiar term from the lexicon of the left with a long and dishonorable pedigree
in the catastrophes created by messianic socialists in the 20th Century. It is
the most ornate panel in the tapestry of deception I described at the beginning
of this essay.
In the 1930s, Nazis used “The Third Way” to
characterize their own brand of national socialism as a equidistant between the
“internationalist” socialism of the Soviet Union
and the capitalism of the West. Trotskyists used “The Third Way” as a
term to distinguish their own Marxism from Stalinism and capitalism. In the
1960s, New Leftists used “The Third Way” to define their politics as an
independent socialism between the Soviet gulag and America ’s democracy.
But as the history of Nazism, Trotskyism and the New Left
have shown, there is no “Third Way.” There is the capitalist, democratic
way based on private property and individual rights—a way that leads to liberty
and universal opportunity. And there is the socialist way of group identities,
group rights, a relentless expansion of the political state, restricted liberty
and diminished opportunity. The Third
Way
is not a path to the future. It is just
the suspension between these two destinations. It is a bad faith attempt on the
part of people who are incapable of giving up their socialist schemes to escape
the taint of their discredited past.
The Apocalyptic Teaching of Islam
The totalitarian temptation remains powerfully in place.
Muslims across the world are drawn by the apocalyptic teachings of Islam with
its slogan “Islam is the solution.” That was the case from Iran in 1979 to Algeria
in 1992 to Turkey in 2002,
to the Paris
riots in 2005 to the actions of the Hezbollah and Hamas in recent weeks. Under Secretary Levey discussed Hezbollah’s
and Iran’s financial
institutions on September 8, 2006 at a
9/11-related event in Washington. "It is remarkable that Iran has a
nine-digit line item in its budget to support Hizballah, Hamas, and other
terrorist organizations at the expense of investing in the future of its young
people." He went on to comment: “While we can point to progress since 2001, there is no
doubt that the world remains a dangerous place.” Continuing: “The next steps
may involve sacrifice, but I think that people are beginning to recognize that
the costs we face now pale in comparison to those we might face in the future
if
Iran
does not change course.”
David
J. Jonsson
is the author of Clash
of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, Xulon
Press 2005. His new book: Islamic
Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist -
Islamist Alliance (Salem Communications (May 30, 2006). He received his
undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations
in the
United States and
Japan
and with
multilateral agencies that brought him to more that fifteen countries with significant
or majority populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into
the basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system. He
became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract negotiation and
personal encounter.
David can be
reached at: djonsson2000@yahoo.co.uk
This Page
BACK to
America At War - Salem The Soldier's Homepage