Skip to main content

Iraq in Crisis - Part 2

SRIraq
In this sec­ond part of Revolution Observers spe­cial report, look­ing at the cri­sis in Iraq, the win­ners and losers from the cur­rent upris­ing are analysed 
Despite their lim­ited role in the cur­rent upris­ing in Iraq, ISIS has ben­e­fit­ted from the events sub­stan­tially. The expo­sure it has been given by the inter­na­tional media has aided it’s inter­na­tional recruit­ment effort. It is unde­ni­able that there are Mus­lims who believe fight­ing against the West­ern sup­ported regimes estab­lished in the Mus­lims world by the colo­nial pow­ers (pri­mar­ily Amer­ica and Britain) is the cor­rect path towards revival of the Islamic Nation (Ummah). The suc­cess of ISIS in Iraq increases the appeal of this orga­ni­za­tion to these Mus­lims. In addi­tion, it has been reported that ISIS has been able to cap­ture sub­stan­tial amounts of highly sophis­ti­cated weapons dur­ing the raid on Mosul – Amer­i­can Army sup­plied Humvee’s and Jeeps, tanks, anti-tank rock­ets and even heli­copters. [1] ISIS is also said to have raided the Cen­tral Bank offices in Mosul, tak­ing off with almost $500 mil­lion worth of Iraqi dinars. [2] There­fore, the upris­ing in Anbar has been a great suc­cess for ISIS from both a pro­pa­ganda and mil­i­tary perspective.
How­ever, ISIS is not the only party ben­e­fit­ting from the cur­rent state of affairs in Iraq.
In his inter­view with Al Ara­biyya, Anbar tribal leader Sheikh Ali Hatem al Suleiman stated that if the demands of the tribes were not met by the Iraqi gov­ern­ment in Bag­dad, Iraq would have to be bro­ken up into a Kur­dish north, Sunni cen­ter and Shi’a south. [3] The lead­ers of the Iraqi Kurds – who made use of the unrest in Anbar by expelling the Iraqi gov­ern­ment rep­re­sen­ta­tives from Kirkuk, the emo­tional cap­i­tal of Iraqi Kur­dis­tan and home of the fourth largest oil field in Iraq [4] – have come out with even stronger words of sup­port for a break up of Iraq. Kur­dish Prime Min­is­ter Nechir­van Barzani, nephew of the Kur­dis­tan Pres­i­dent Mas­soud Barzani, said that after the events in Mosul Iraq could no longer stay together. He sug­gested the cre­ation of an autonomous Sunni Arab region, sim­i­lar to the exist­ing autonomous Kur­dish region, as a way out of the cri­sis. [5]
The call for a break-up of Iraq was first uttered by Joe Biden, pres­i­dent Obama’s vice pres­i­dent, in a New York Times opin­ion piece from March 2006 named “Unity through Auton­omy in Iraq”. [6] Vice-president Biden is said to remain in favor of what has been called the “Bosnia-option” for Iraq until today [7], and there is ample evi­dence that this in fact is the longer term Amer­i­can plan for the country.
For exam­ple, while Amer­ica now crit­i­cizes the Iraqi Prime Min­is­ter Nouri Al-Maliki for hav­ing caused the unrest in the coun­try through sec­tar­ian poli­cies, it was the US who put him in power. Shortly after the United Iraqi Alliance party won the gen­eral elec­tions of 2006 its leader Ibrahim al Jaa­fari was forced from power. The Amer­i­cans, through their ambas­sador to Iraq Zal­may Khalilzad and the CIA, then played an active role in the selec­tion of a new leader for the party. This lead to Nouri Al Maliki being appointed as the new leader of the United Iraqi Alliance party, which auto­mat­i­cally made him the first Prime Min­is­ter of post-war Iraq. [8] Dur­ing the 2010 elec­tions Amer­ica actu­ally renewed their sup­port for Al Maliki. Although los­ing the pop­u­lar vote to Iyad Allawi he nev­er­the­less stayed on as Prime Min­is­ter, a feat that could not have hap­pened with­out the sup­port of Amer­ica. [9] All along Amer­ica was aware that Al Maliki’s was oppress­ing the Sun­nis and that this was caus­ing resent­ment in Anbar. [10] Nev­er­the­less, it con­tin­ued to work with him on the impor­tant mat­ters, only gen­tly rebuk­ing him for his sec­tar­i­an­ism dur­ing the run up to the 2014 elec­tions. [11]
When the inevitable unrest finally began in Anbar, Al Maliki approached the Amer­i­cans for mil­i­tary sup­port to sup­press it. But the Amer­i­cans refused. This was effec­tively the first time Amer­ica took their hands off of Al Maliki and it was at a crit­i­cal moment. Deci­sive action at the begin­ning of the rebel­lion could have pre­vented it from spread­ing, ensur­ing the integrity of the coun­try would be main­tained. By sud­denly leav­ing Al Maliki to deal with mat­ters on his own, Amer­ica effec­tively opened the road to country-wide sec­tar­ian vio­lence. [12]
This indi­cates that Amer­i­can used Al Maliki all along. They turned a blind eye when he set into motion the poli­cies that would cause civil strife in Iraq. Then, when the unrest started that was unavoid­able con­sid­er­ing these poli­cies, it refused to sup­port him, ensur­ing that the sit­u­a­tion would worsen. By leav­ing Al Maliki to deal with the sit­u­a­tion him­self, Amer­ica directed the devel­op­ment of the cir­cum­stances to the point where all par­ties would see the break-up of the coun­try as the only way out.
In this sit­u­a­tion Amer­ica is now let­ting go of Al Maliki by start­ing the call for him to resign [13] such that a new gov­ern­ment can be formed that pro­ceeds on the implic­itly agreed upon solu­tion, i.e. that will orga­nize the breakup of Iraq with sup­port from the par­ties concerned.
There­fore, the cur­rent unrest in Iraq can be said to fur­ther an Amer­i­can plan to break up Iraq, with the aim of weak­en­ing it such that coun­try which was once the most pow­er­ful in the entire Middle-East will lose the abil­ity to ever threaten the Amer­i­can inter­ests in the region.
The losers in the cur­rent uprising
Obvi­ously, the Mus­lims in Iraq are los­ing, and this applies to the Kurds, Sun­nis and Shia. A break up of Iraq would sub­stan­tially weaken all of them and leave them as pawns in the hands of the colo­nial­ist nations, whereas on a united basis they could chal­lenge the colo­nial­ists and their aspirations.
Another loser in the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion sits across the bor­der, how­ever. It is the rev­o­lu­tion­ary move­ment fight­ing for Khi­lafah in Syria. ISIS has been play­ing a highly sus­pi­cious role in the Syr­ian upris­ing. Orig­i­nally it went into Syria to sup­port the upris­ing there. How­ever, just as it had done in Anbar it quickly turned the local pop­u­la­tion against it. Rather than fight­ing the al-Assad regime it began to focus on con­trol­ling cer­tain parts of Syria, being con­tent with the tyrant Syr­ian regime remain­ing in place. In the areas it brought under its con­trol it enforced rules that felt as oppres­sion to the local pop­u­la­tion, hurt­ing the sup­port of the Syr­ian peo­ple for the rev­o­lu­tion that is crit­i­cal to its suc­cess. And as it had done in Anbar, it also began fight­ing the other rev­o­lu­tion­ary groups. In addi­tion to all this which effec­tively trans­lates into indi­rect sup­port for the Al Assad regime, it is rumored ISIS has also been pro­vid­ing direct sup­port to Dam­as­cus through the sale of oil and elec­tric­ity. [14]
Khi­lafah?
Because the stated aim of ISIS is the re-establishment of the Islamic State Al Khi­lafah, many media out­lets have started dis­cussing the pos­si­bil­ity of a new Caliphate emerg­ing in the region fol­low­ing the hype around the ISIS in the cur­rent unrest in Iraq. Based on what is presently known, it is highly unlikely the cur­rent events in Iraq will have such far reach­ing consequences.
ISIS has not clar­i­fied which sys­tems it intends to imple­ment if and when it estab­lishes the Khi­lafah. It remains totally unclear, there­fore, how ISIS intends to man­age the polit­i­cal, eco­nomic and soci­etal affairs of the peo­ple, or how this will be dif­fer­ent from the ways the cur­rent nation-states man­age these affairs. The utter silence from the side of ISIS on these impor­tant topic leads to doubt as to whether the orga­ni­za­tion actu­ally pos­sesses the deep insights in Islam that are required to for­mu­late poli­cies in these areas.
In addi­tion, in the instances where ISIS did artic­u­late poli­cies for its Islamic State, its opin­ions have gone against the estab­lished Islamic rul­ings in these matters.
For exam­ple, the move­ment con­sid­ers con­trol over an area as suf­fi­cient jus­ti­fi­ca­tion to declare Khi­lafah (which is why it does not see any issue with call­ing itself “Islamic State”, since it con­trols an area how­ever big or small) and it believes the usage of force is allowed to estab­lish this control.
How­ever, this opin­ion is not sup­ported by the life of Prophet Mohammed (saw) and his (saw) work to estab­lish the first Islamic State. Prophet Mohammed (saw) worked with peo­ple with author­ity to con­vince them to hand it over to Islam. At no time dur­ing his (saw) efforts to estab­lish the first Islamic State did he (saw) use any kind of force against peo­ple to pres­sure them to accept him (saw) as their prophet and polit­i­cal leader. This clar­i­fies that one of the require­ments for the dec­la­ra­tion of the Islamic State is sup­port in the con­cerned area for this dec­la­ra­tion, i.e. it requires not just con­trol over an area as ISIS holds.
Another exam­ple is the method­ol­ogy for appoint­ing the Khal­i­fah who leads the Islamic State. ISISholds that since it con­trols and area, and since it appointed a leader, every Mus­lim is Islam­i­cally obliged to give their oath of alle­giance (bay’ah) to this leader. A refusal to do so is taken by ISIS as a sign of hypocrisy or dis­be­lief. Dur­ing his work to estab­lish the Islamic State Prophet Mohammed (saw) never demanded an oath of alle­giance. Rather, he worked to con­vince peo­ple to give him (saw) their oath of alle­giance. And the same dur­ing the time of the Rightly Guided Khulafa’ah after him (saw). Upon the death of one of them they allowed the peo­ple or the peo­ple of power and influ­ence amongst them to pro­pose a new Khal­i­fah and they did not respond to the first pro­posal by forc­ing every­one else to accept it.
Since it is nec­es­sary for the one who wants to estab­lish the Islamic State to pos­sess a cor­rect and deep under­stand­ing of what Khi­lafah really is, and since ISIS has not shown to pos­sess this cor­rect and deep under­stand­ing, it is highly unlikely that from the ISIS efforts in Iraq and Syria a new Khi­lafah will emerge. Other groups will have to facil­i­tate this.
Part 1 — Iraq in Crisis

[1] “Al Qaeda mil­i­tants cap­ture US Black Hawk heli­copters in Iraq”, www.zerohedge.com/news/2014–06-10/al-qaeda-militants-capture-us-blackhawk-helicopters-iraq
[2] “Al-Qaeda Jihadis Loot Over $400 Mil­lion From Mosul Cen­tral Bank, Seize Saddam’s Home­town”,www.zerohedge.com/news/2014–06-11/al-qaeda-jihadis-loot-over-400-million-mosul-central-bank-seize-saddams-hometown
[3] “Ten­sions Rise in Bagh­dad with Raid on Offi­cial”, The New York Times,www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/world/middleeast/tensions-rise-in-baghdad-with-raid-on-sunni-official.html
[4] “Iraq cri­sis: Kurds dream of sep­a­rate state as their forces seize Kirkuk”, The Inde­pen­dent,www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-kurds-dream-of-separate-state-as-their-forces-seize-kirkuk-9547332.html?printService=print
[5] “Mil­i­tants clash with Pesh­merga in Iraq’s Kirkuk: tribal sheikh”,http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/06/17/Kurdish-PM-says-Iraq-PM-should-be-denied-third-term.html
[7] “Bush-Era Advo­cates Of Split­ting Iraq Into Three Parts Say: I Told You So”, Buz­zFeed,www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/bush-era-advocates-of-splitting-iraq-into-three-parts-say-i
[9] “Sup­port For Iraq’s Maliki Puts U.S., Iran In Same Camp”, NPR,www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129888314
[10] “World Report 2014: Iraq”, Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/iraq
[12] “US Said to Rebuff Iraqi Requests to Strike Mil­i­tants”, The New York Times,www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/iraq-asked-us-for-airstrikes-on-militants-officials-say.html
[13] “U.S. Sig­nals Iraq’s Maliki Should Go”, Wall Street Jour­nal,http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/u-s-signals-1403137521-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwODExNDgyWj
[14] “Syria’s Assad accused of boost­ing al-Qaeda with secret oil deals”, The Tele­graph,www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran