(CORDIS) — Improving the energy efficiency of public buildings through retrofitting may be crucial to reducing Europe’s carbon footprint, but is not necessarily all that easy to implement. People still have to work in these places, making issues such as health and safety and disruption to the working day critical. Recent developments in an EU-funded project however have shown that the retrofitting of hospitals, education facilities and administrative centres is not only feasible, but could eventually lead to drastic reductions of energy consumption (over 50 %).

The ambitious four-year BRICKER project, which began in 2013, is carrying out retrofitting demonstrations at three sites; an administrative centre in Spain, a university building in Belgium and a hospital in Turkey. Solutions include installing made-to-measure façades, innovative insulation materials and high performance windows.

In Spain, the demonstration project involves the refurbishment of Extremadura government offices in the town of Mérida. The refit will combine technologies that have never before been used together. In particular, the project consists of integrating Parabolic Trough Solar Collectors (PTC), a biomass boiler, a heat and electricity cogeneration unit based on so-called Organic Ranking Cycle (ORC), an adsorption chiller and a cooling tower.

Once complete, it is hoped that the office complex will act as a showcase for the rest of the region, and encourage further use of renewable energies – particularly solar and biomass – both of which the region has in abundance. A replication plan will be drawn up to evaluate the potential for other government buildings to take up the challenge.

In Belgium a demonstration is being carried out in a group of buildings belonging to the University of Liège. As in Spain, BRICKER project partners are aiming to carry out a scalable, replicable and highly energy efficient refurbishment of an existing publicly-owned non-residential building, leading to a 50 % energy consumption reduction.

A meeting was held at this site in March 2014 to assess progress, and to ensure that the project is on track to achieve its objectives. BRICKER project coordinator Juan Ramón de las Cuevas indicated that a good level of exchange and collaboration within the consortium was evident, and that he was pleased with how the project was unfolding.

During this meeting, delegates were shown around the university building and briefed on the technologies to be deployed during the project. The visitors looked at plans to refurbish the heat distribution system and gas boilers and to install aerating windows and energy efficient electric systems.

Finally, the BRICKER project’s Turkish site is a university hospital building belonging to Adnan Menderes University, in the town of Aydin. The actual demonstration will involve the installation of lightweight façade coverings, heat recovery systems and parabolic solar panels.

Now one year into the project, BRICKER demo site owners have been engaged in public procurement, organising tenders for the purchase of equipment and materials. Associated investment costs of new technologies are expected to represent a maximum of 20% of the total cost of building an equivalent new building in the same location, while the project has estimated a return on investment in approximately seven years.

The post Cutting Energy Consumption In Public Buildings By Half appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(CORDIS) — On 6 August, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) ‘Rosetta’ became the first ever spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet. Since then, she has been whizzing through space alongside Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko as her team prepares to make contact. Now, the ESA has announced the site on which Rosetta’s lander, known as ‘Philae’, aims to touch down.

Philae, a 100 kg lander, is planned to reach the surface on 11 November, where it will perform indepth measurements to characterise the nucleus in situ, in a totally unprecedented way. The team has dubbed the targeted area as ‘Site J’. They say it is an intriguing region of the comet that offers unique scientific potential, with hints of activity nearby, and minimum risk to the lander compared to the other candidate sites.

But choosing a suitable landing site has not been an easy task and a backup, Site C, has also been selected. Stephan Ulamec, Philae Lander Manager at the DLR German Aerospace Center, elaborates, ‘As we have seen from recent close-up images, the comet is a beautiful but dramatic world – it is scientifically exciting, but its shape makes it operationally challenging.’

Ulamec continues, ‘None of the candidate landing sites met all of the operational criteria at the 100% level, but Site J is clearly the best solution.’

If successful, the team will make space history once again by making the first ever in situ analysis of a comet. It’s hoped that the observations will offer unparalleled insight into the composition, structure and evolution of a comet.

Jean-Pierre Bibring, a lead lander scientist and principal investigator of the CIVA instrument at the IAS in Orsay, France, notes, ‘Site J in particular offers us the chance to analyse pristine material, characterise the properties of the nucleus, and study the processes that drive its activity.’

Rosetta reached the comet last month following a 10-year pursuit. Then the race to find the landing site began. By 24 August, using data collected when Rosetta was still about 100 km from the comet, five candidate regions had been identified for further analysis.

Since then, the spacecraft has moved to within 30 km of the comet, affording more detailed scientific measurements of the candidate sites. In parallel, the operations and flight dynamics teams have been exploring options for delivering the lander to all five candidate landing sites.

Last week, a host of involved experts met to consider the available data and to choose the primary and backup sites.

The landing is expected to take place in mid-November. Once deployed from Rosetta, Philae’s descent will be autonomous, with commands having been prepared by the Lander Control Centre at DLR, and uploaded via Rosetta mission control before separation.

When the lander touches down, at the equivalent of walking pace, it will use harpoons and ice screws to fix it onto the surface. It will then make a 360° panoramic image of the landing site to help determine where and in what orientation it has landed.

‘No one has ever attempted to land on a comet before, so it is a real challenge,’ says Fred Jansen, ESA Rosetta mission manager. ‘The complicated ‘double’ structure of the comet has had a considerable impact on the overall risks related to landing, but they are risks worth taking to have the chance of making the first ever soft landing on a comet.’

The post ESA Prepares For First Ever In Situ Analysis Of A Comet appeared first on Eurasia Review.

With northern rebels claiming the capital Sana’a and Al-Qaeda militants increasing their attacks in the south, Yemen’s security crisis is likely to continue, experts believe. While a new agreement between the Houthi rebels and the government may have temporarily reduced fears of all-out civil war, the country’s political, security and economic crises are unlikely to ease, leading NGOs to fear increasing humanitarian needs.

The Arab world’s poorest country has been beset by insecurity since a 2011 uprising that eventually unseated long-time president Ali Abdullah Saleh. The Houthis, based in the north along the Saudi Arabian border, have historically pursued claims for greater autonomy but of late have made an explosive entry into the national political sphere, while the southern-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have been resurgent in recent months.

Houthi fighters, who between 2004 and 2010 fought the Saleh regime in what was, in effect, a civil war in the north of the country, have this year won successive military victories against tribal and Sunni Islamist militias in the province of Amran, which separates Sana’a from the Houthi heartland, Sa’dah, and most recently in resource rich Al Jawf and Mareb.

Since 18 August, Houthi supporters have been flooding into Sana’a following a speech by their leader, Abdelmalek al-Houthi, calling for the government to stand down and a reversal of a decision to reduce fuel subsidies, which led to a spike in prices by up to 95 per cent. Fighting with tribal and Sunni Islamist militias reached the capital a month later, with President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, Saleh’s successor, appearing unable to control his capital.

On 21 September, in a deal welcomed by foreign powers, representatives of the government and the country’s political establishment signed an agreement with the Houthis. The agreement was initially aimed at removing Houthi encampments set up in the centre and outskirts of the city, and latterly came to call for the group to remove its militias from Sana’a and neighbouring provinces. The Houthis agreed to the main body of the deal, which would see fuel prices brought down and give the Houthis a bigger role in selecting a new government. However, they refused at the last minute to sign one part of the deal outlining plans for successive withdrawals and disarmament, leaving it unclear if and when their forces will pull back from the capital.

While the agreement has calmed fears of an all-out civil war after several days of violence, it leaves a highly efficient and heavily armed militia in control of Sana’a. Likewise the peace deal has not addressed fighting between the Houthis and rival militias in the northern provinces of Mareb and Al Jawf – a situation that has humanitarian consequences.

“In the short term, continued fighting in Al Jawf and Marib means more families displaced, schools occupied and children dragged into fighting,” Julien Harneis, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) representative in Yemen, told IRIN.

Fertile ground for Al-Qaeda

For the beleaguered government, the knock-on effects of the turmoil in Sana’a for their fight against AQAP in the south of the country could be significant. In recent months the group, the virulent local franchise of the extremist organization, has been stepping up its activities and rhetoric, with at least 20 people killed in attacks on military outposts by the group in August.

Earlier this year the military launched a major campaign against AQAP, but it has struggled to make gains; the offensive has not been able to significantly weaken the group, which has even expanded its presence in the eastern province of Hadramawt.

There are also fears that the Houthis’ power play could encourage the Sunni Islam AQAP to increase violence in Sana’a as they seek to fight back against the Shia group.

In mid-September a regional leader of Ansar al-Sharia, an AQAP offshoot which does much of its work on the ground, announced that the group was increasing its presence in Sana’a in preparation for a fight with the Houthis.

Government officials say the standoff and fighting with the Houthi rebels distracted the military – which is both weak and divided – from the fight. “I think the Salafists and Al Qaeda will use the opportunity to strengthen their presence in Sana’a; that would be logical for them,” said a senior government official. “Al Qaeda are attacking the army and the PSO [intelligence agency]… This is a good environment for Al Qaeda.”

Ibrahim Sharqieh, a Yemen and conflict resolution expert at the Brookings Institution in Doha, thinks the dynamics of the country’s crises are getting more complex and harder to solve.

“We are currently generating a number of new causes and deeper crises in Yemen, which changes the context,” he said. “Conflict escalation where mistrust is very deep and the partners are escalating would change the relationships from collegiate to more adversarial which would change the dynamics in Yemen, which would make it difficult to resolve.”

A worsening humanitarian situation

Further violence will only worsen already severe humanitarian needs. In 2011 the economy contracted 10.5 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund, pushing unemployment and poverty levels up to above 50 percent, where they have remained stubbornly stuck ever since. As such, pre-existing humanitarian needs have worsened; child malnutrition levels are among the highest in the world.

“In short, if the current crisis continues, there are short-term humanitarian problems and long-term development ones,” UNICEF’s Harneis said. In the short term, he added, the government’s slow progress on addressing humanitarian needs must be addressed.

“The crisis is also slowing down the government’s work on the many reforms that Yemen needs,” he said. “For example, the government’s Social Welfare Fund [SWF] provides a small allowance to most of the 60 percent of the population living below the poverty line. It is a proven tool that helps families put food on the table and keep their children at school. However, many of Yemen’s poorest are not yet covered by the SWF.”

“We are working with the government and World Bank to extend the coverage of the Fund but with the current crisis it is difficult to keep the spotlight on this vital issue. That said, government is trying its best,” said Harneis.

The post Yemen Deal Brings Little Solace – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Isha Sharma

Asim Umar, appointed as the commander of Qaedat al-Jihad in the Indian Subcontinent (QJIS) in August this year, has emerged as a new actor in the global jihadist stage. Little is known about the leader of the new Al Qaeda affiliate, but it would be useful to draw a profile from his educational background, his association with different terrorist groups, his social network and his views expressed in many videos available for examination.

Asim Umar is known for his oratory skills and his grasp of the jihadi literature. He began his jihadi career by translating the jihadi literature from Pashto to Urdu and subsequently wrote at least four books promoting jihad. He has articulated his Salafi views on many videos which are posted as a propaganda and recruitment tool by al Qaeda. In recognition of his extreme views on Sharia and Caliphate, al Qaeda had appointed him as the head of Sharia Committee.

So far, there is no public knowledge about Umar’s combat skills and experience. There are, however, references of his travel to Afghanistan and becoming part of Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami (HuJI), a transnational terrorist group launched by three Pakistani mujahideen cadres in the early days of Afghan Jihad. Many al Qaeda and Taliban leaders sharpened their skills in the years spent with HuJI. HuJI remains a close ally of al Qaeda with presence in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

It is his ideological orientation and oratory skills which have brought him closer to the al Qaeda leadership. Of the several video messages by Umar, three are significant. The first one was released in September 2012, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 attacks. The fact of Asim Umar being featured in this video showed his growing stature within the terrorist group. The second video of November 2012 video showed him extolling the virtues of Sharia rule, the history of Sharia in the Indian sub-continent.

The most significant was the July 2013 video titled ”Why is There No Storm in Your Ocean?”. It urged the Indian Muslims to join the jihad and give a final push to the edifice of America. Umar also exhorted Muslims in India to join the Syria Jihad. He said the Mujahideen “with black flags have established their bases for the establishment of the Caliphate” in Syria. It is not yet known whether any of the Indians who went to Syria was influenced by Umar’s propaganda video.

Umar’s another asset is his social network. By virtue of having studied at Jamia Uloom-e-Islamia in Karachi and Darul Uloom Haqqania in Akhora Khattak, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, both seminaries known as ‘jihad factories’, he has a phone directory of who’s who of jihad in the region. Beginning from the Taliban chief Mullah Omar, an alumni of Akhora Khattak, countless senior leaders of al Qaeda, Taliban, TTP, JeM and other groups have had their early indoctrination at these seminaries.

This ‘old boys’ network has given Asim Umar an extensive reach among the jihadi groups active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He can tap into the Taliban network with as much ease as he could work with Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). His association with al Qaeda gives him access to other transnational terrorist groups.

What is more significant in the Indian context is Umar’s association with HuJI which can enable him to utilise the resources and experience of anti-India terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Mohammad, a protégé of Pakistan Army and an ally of the Afghan Taliban.

Asim Umar’s appointment has to be viewed in the context of the appointment of Farman Shinwari as the Pakistan head of al Qaeda in 2012. Shinwari is also a former HuJI leader and has participated in terrorist activities against India in Kashmir. Umar’s indoctrination skills and Shinwari’s combat experience in the Indian sub-continent could become a useful instrument for al Qaeda to revive its flagging fortunes in South Asia, and elsewhere.

No less significant is Asim Umar’s role as a propaganda chief for TTP. Umar’s appointment as AQIS chief further confirms, what the U S State Department in 2019 termed, the “symbiotic relationship”between TTP and AQ. Proscribing TTP, the State Department noted that “TTP draws ideological guidance from al Qaeda, while al Qaeda relies on TTP for safe haven in the Pashtun areas along the Afghan-Pakistani border.” This, the note stated, gave TTP “access to both al Qaeda’s global terrorist network and the operational experience of its members”.

(The writer is a Research Intern at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

The post Asim Umar: A New Actor In World Jihadist Stage – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

To understand the hype surrounding the petro-Islamic terrorism phenomena, we need to understand the prevailing global economic order and its prognosis. What the pragmatic economists forecasted about the free market capitalism has turned out to be true; whether we like it or not. A kind of global economic entropy has set into motion. The money is flowing from the area of high monetary density to the area of low monetary density. The rise of the BRICS countries is a proof of this tendency. BRICS are growing economically because the labor is cheap; labor laws and rights nonexistent; expenses on creating a safe and healthy work environment minimal; regulatory framework is lax; expenses on environmental protection negligible; taxes are low; and in the nutshell windfalls for the multinational corporations are huge.

Thus, BRICS are threatening the global economic monopoly of the Western bloc: North America and Western Europe. Here we need to understand the difference between the manufacturing sector and the services sector. The manufacturing sector is the backbone of the economy; one cannot create a manufacturing base overnight. It is based on hard assets: we need raw materials; production equipment; transport and power infrastructure; and last but not the least, a technically-educated labor force. It takes decades to build and sustain a manufacturing base. But the services sector, like the Western financial institutions, can be built and dismantled in a relatively short period of time.

If we take a cursory look at the economy of the Western bloc; it has still retained some of its high-tech manufacturing base but it is losing fast to the cheaper and equally robust manufacturing base of the BRICS nations. Everything is made in China these days, except: microprocessors, softwares, a few internet giants, some pharmaceutical products, the Big Oil and the all-important military hardware and the defense production industry. Aside from these, the entire economy of the Western bloc is based on financial institutions, the investment banks like: JP Morgan chase, total assets $ 2359 billion (market capitalization: 187 billion); Citigroup, total assets 1865 billion (Market Capitalization: 141 billion); Bank of America, total assets 2210 billion (Market Capitalization: 133 billion); Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas and Axa Group (France), Deutsche Bank and Allianz Group (Germany), Barclays and HSBC (UK).

After establishing the fact that the Western economy is mostly based on its financial-services sector; we need to understand its implications. Like I said earlier, it takes time to build a manufacturing base, but it is relatively easy to build and dismantle an economy based on financial services. What if Tamim bin Hammad Al Thani (ruler of Qatar) decides tomorrow to withdraw his shares from Barclays and put them in some OIC-sponsored bank, in line with Sharia? What if all the Sheikhs of GCC withdraw their petro-dollars from the Western financial institutions; can the fragile financial-services based Western economies sustain such a blow?

We need to look for comparative advantages and disadvantages here. If the vulnerable Western economy is its biggest weakness, what are its biggest strengths? The biggest strength of the Western bloc is its military might. Got to give credit to the Western hawks they did which nobody else in the world had the courage to do; they privatized their defense production industry. And as we know, privately-owned companies are more innovative, inventive and in this particular case, lethal. But having power is one thing; and using that power to achieve certain desirable goals is another.

The Western liberal-democracies are not autocracies; they are answerable to their electorates for their deeds and misdeeds. And much to the dismay of pragmatic Machiavellian rulers; the ordinary citizens just can’t get over their antediluvian moral prejudices. To overcome this is-ought barrier they wanted a moral pretext to do what they wanted to do on pragmatic economic grounds. That’s when 9/11 took place: a blessing in disguise for the Big Oil and the military-industrial complex. Here I would like to clarify that I am not a conspiracy theorist and Bin Laden was not a CIA agent; he merely provided an opportunity to the neocons to invade the energy-rich and morally and militarily weak Middle East. By “morally weak” I mean that the Arab autocrats do not rule with the consent of the people and they are just as afraid of their own people as they are of the external threats. Thus it is very easy for the neocolonial powers to pit them against one another to exploit their financial and energy resources: the age-old, tried-and-tested ‘divide and rule’ policy.

The pivotal role played by the Wahabi-Salafi ideology in radicalizing Muslims all over the world is an established fact as mentioned in the EU report; this Wahabi-Salafi ideology is generously funded by Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf-based Arab sheikhs since the 1973 oil embargo when the price of oil quadrupled and the Arab sheikhs’ contribution towards the spiritual ‘well-being’ of Muslims increased proportionally; these petro-sheikhs are in turn propped up by the Western powers since the Cold War; thus syllogistically, the root cause of Islamic extremism is the neocolonial powers’ manipulation of the socio-political life of Arabs specifically and Muslims generally to appropriate their energy resources in the context of an energy-starved industrialized world.

Petroimperialism and the Western ‘strategic interests’ in the Middle East region:

In 2012 the Maliki Administration offered some oil and gas exploration and production contracts, but those were fixed-fee contracts which are more beneficial to the states where such resources are located, and not the far more lucrative production-sharing contracts which the Big Oil prefers. Here the reader must keep in mind that Iraq has the Persian Gulf’s third largest ‘proven’ oil reserves of 140 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia’s 265 and Iran’s 150 billion barrels (while UAE and Kuwait have 100 billion barrels each.) The Western Big Oil didn’t pay much heed to the contracts and those were won by the Russian, Chinese and Indian companies, although the Big Oil does operates numerous oil fields in Southern Iraq, in and around Basra.

However, after that show of ‘audacity’ by the Maliki government the Big Oil and its collaborators in the Western governments and the corporate media put pro-Iran Maliki’s name in their bad books. The Big Oil including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Total won their production-sharing contracts in the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan (‘semi’ here is a meaningless adjective because for all practical purposes the pro-US Barzani’s Kurdistan is fully independent of the Iraqi control.) There is so much oil in the Iraqi Kurdistan and the extraction cost per barrel is so minimal that a petro-poet once wrote an ode about it: that the sweet crude seeps through the mountains in brooks and streams and gathers in pools in the low-lying valleys. On top of it, thanks to the US-sponsored Kurdish Peshmerga militia since the 90s, Iraqi Kurdistan is far more stable than the rest of Iraq, and the windfalls for the Big Oil are enormous.

Although, constitutionally the Iraqi central government is entitled to 83% of the oil sales proceeds and Kurdistan can only retain 17% (of total Iraqi oil sales including from Southern Iraq) but when the head-honcho is on your side, the laws can be bent to suit the interests of the Corporate Empire. Throughout the last year, Iraqi Kurdistan kept exporting its oil directly to the Turkish port of Ceyhan through the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline and another pipeline is in the offing, which will further reduce its dependence on the central government in the midstream oil sector.

This, then explains the reason why the US didn’t even get slightly perturbed when its frenemy and invaluable ally [see link 1] in the Syrian Jihad: the Islamic State (ISIS) overran half of Iraq and threatened Baghdad. Initially the US only made a token contribution by sending a few surveillance drones and choppers to Iraq and kept on pressurizing Maliki to quit before it can fully commit to helping Iraq fight ISIS. Even when ISIS overran the al Muthanna complex [see link 2], where in one of its underground bunkers some 2500 Sarin-filled rockets are stored the US remained nonchalant. On 9 July the Iraqi ambassador to the UN warned that ISIS has acquired 40 kgs of uranium compounds [see link 3] from the Mosul University but the US kept insisting that any large-scale help is contingent on Maliki’s removal from the premiership. The US only geared into action when its staunchest oil-rich ally in the region: the capital of Massoud Barzani’s Iraqi Kurdistan, Irbil, was threatened by ISIS.

In June-July 2014, when ISIS was advancing on Baghdad, the American evacuees from the US embassy in Baghdad had taken refuge in Irbil’s US consulate. Irbil also hosts a secret CIA station [see link 4] which is in the process of being further expanded. Irbil is also the hub of Big Oil’s Northern Iraq operations. During its Northern Iraq offensive, ISIS had also set its eyes on the oil-rich Kirkuk governorate which the Kurds seized from the control of central Iraqi government when ISIS captured Mosul. So when ISIS threatened Iraqi Kurdistan, the well-oiled US military machine geared into action. Finally the laser-guided missiles and Hell-fires started targeting ISIS’ positions; the formidable ‘frenemy’ with whom the US has a love-hate relationship; after all, it ‘liberated’ the whole of north-east Syria from the anti-US Assad regime’s control in Syria; but some lines must never be crossed no matter what; and those boundaries are the lines of the Corporate Empire’s trade and energy interests spanning the whole world but especially in the Persian Gulf, whose littoral states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran) together hold 800 billion barrels [see link 5] of world’s total of 1500 billion barrels of ‘proven’ oil reserves; and where 35,000 US Marines [see link 6] are presently stationed in their air-craft carriers and the leased military bases in Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Djibouti and Kurdish Iraq.

The unholy alliance between the neocolonial powers and the Middle Eastern despots:

A question arises that why do the neo-colonial powers prop up the Middle Eastern dictators knowing fully well that they are the ones responsible for nurturing Takfiri-jihadis; and is it possible that in some future point in time they will withdraw their support? Not likely, at least not in the foreseeable future. The neo-colonial powers and their corporate interests are so addicted to the scent of the black gold that they would rather fight the Arab tyrants’ wars for them against their regional rivals [see link 7]. Presently, there are two regional powers vying for dominance in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syrian Jihad is basically a Sunni Jihad against the Shia Resistance axis. The Shia axis is comprised of Iran and Syria, latter has an Alawi (Shia) regime, even though the majority of Syria’s population is Sunni Muslims and the Alawis only constitute 12% of the population. Lebanon-based Hezbollah (Shia) is also an integral part of the Shia Resistance axis.

Regardless, Saudi Arabia has long-standing grievances against Iran’s meddling in the Middle Eastern affairs, especially the latter’s support for the Palestinian cause, the Houthis in Yemen, the Bahraini Shias and more importantly the significant and restive Shia minority in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia where 90% of Saudi oil reserves and oil infrastructure is located along the Persian Gulf coast. On top of that Saudi Arabia also has grievances against the US for toppling the Sunni Saddam regime in Iraq in 2003 which formed a bulwark against the Iranian influence in the Middle East because of Saddam’s military prowess. In the wake of political movements for enfranchisement during the Arab Spring of 2011, Saudi Arabia took advantage of the opportunity and militarized the political movement in Syria with the help of its Sunni allies: the Gulf monarchies of Qatar, UAE and Kuwait, and Jordan and Turkey (all Sunnis).

However, why did the Western powers preferred to join this Sunni alliance against the Shia Resistance axis? It’s because the Assad regime has a history of animosity towards the West; it also had close relationship with the erstwhile Soviet Union and it hosted a Russian naval facility at Tartus; its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah is the biggest threat to Israel’s regional security. On the other hand, all the aforementioned Sunni states have always been the steadfast allies of the West along with Israel; don’t get misled [see link 8] by what they say in public, all the Sunni states along with the Western support are in the same boat in the Syrian Jihad as Israel.

Hypothetically speaking, had the Western powers not joined the ignoble Syrian Jihad which has claimed 190,000 lives so far, what could have been an appropriate course of action to persuade the Gulf monarchies to desist from fomenting trouble in Syria? This is a question of will, if there is will there are always numerous ways to deal with a problem. However, after what has happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria only a consumer of corporate media agitprop will prescribe a Western military intervention anywhere in the world. But if military intervention is off the table, is there a viable alternative to enforce international justice and to persuade the sovereign states to follow the agreed-upon principles of international morality while pursuing their national interests? Yes there is.

The crippling economic sanctions on Iran in the last two years may not have accomplished much, but they brought to the fore the enormous power which the Western financial institutions and the petro-dollar as a global reserve currency wields over the global financial system. We must bear in mind that the Iranian nuclear negotiations are as much about Iran’s nuclear program and as they are about its ballistic missile program, which is a far bigger threat to the Gulf monarchies across the Persian Gulf. Despite the sanctions being unfair, Iran felt the heat so much that it remained engaged in the negotiations throughout the last two years, and the Iranian electorate voted the hardliner Ahmedinejad out and the reformist Hassan Rouhani won the last year’s elections. Such was the crippling effect of the sanctions that had it not been for Iran’s abundant oil and gas reserves, and some Russian, Chinese and Turkish help in illicitly buying Iranian oil, it would have defaulted by now.

All I am trying to suggest is, that there are ways to arm-twist the Gulf monarchies to implement democratic reforms and to refrain from sponsoring the Takfiri-Jihadi terror groups all over the Islamic world, provided that we have just and upright international arbiters who are really interested in enforcing international justice rather than pandering to the uncontrollable greed of their corporate interests. However when it comes to sanctioning the Gulf despots, there is a caveat: Iran is only a single oil-rich state which has 160 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. On the other hand, the Persian Gulf monarchies are actually three oil-rich states: Saudi Arabia 265 billion barrels; and UAE and Kuwait with 100 billion barrels each; together this amounts to 465 billion barrels, almost one-thirds of the global proven oil reserves; and if we add Qatar to the equation, which isn’t oil-rich, but has substantial natural gas reserves, it must take a morally very very upright arbiter to sanction all of them.

Recently, some very upbeat rumors about the Shale Revolution are circulating the mainstream corporate media. However, the Shale revolution is primarily a natural gas revolution: it has increased the ‘probable-recoverable’ resources of natural gas by 30%. The ‘shale oil’ on the other hand, refers to two very different kinds of energy resource: one, the solid kerogen; substantial resources of kerogen have been found in the US’ Green River formations, but the cost of extracting liquid crude from solid kerogen is so high that it is economically unviable for at least another 100 years; two, the tight oil which is blocked by the shale, it is a viable energy resource, but the reserves are so limited, around 4 billion barrels [see link 9] in Texas and North Dakota, that it will run out in a few years time.

The Canadian oil sands and the Venezuelan heavy crude is economically viable; but compared to the Middle Eastern Arab crude, about which Pepe Escobar famously quipped during the Libyan ‘humanitarian’ intervention: “Sweet Crude O’mine,” is a class apart. More than the size of the reserves it is also about the per barrel extraction cost, which determines the profits of the oil companies. Moreover, the US produced 11 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil in the first quarter of 2014; more than Saudi Arabia and Russia, each of which produces around 10 million bpd; but the US still imported 7.5 million bpd during the same period, which is more than the total oil imports of the second largest importer of crude oil: China. More than the volume of oil production, the quantity which an oil-producing country ‘exports,’ determines its place in the ‘hierarchy of petroleum.’ And the Gulf monarchies constitute the top tier of that pyramid.

Enough petro-chemistry for today, let us move back to politics. It is generally believed that political Islam is the precursor of Islamic extremism and Jihadism; however there are two distinct and separate types of political Islam: the despotic political Islam of the Gulf variety; and the democratic political Islam of the Turkish and the Muslim Brotherhood variety. The latter organization never ruled Egypt except for a brief one year stint, it would be unwise to draw any lessons from such a brief period of history. The Turkish variety of political Islam, the oft-quoted ‘Turkish model,’ is worth emulating all over the Islamic world. I understand that political Islam in all its forms and manifestations is an anathema to the liberals, but it is the ground reality of the Islamic world. The liberal dictatorships, no matter how benevolent they may be, have never worked in the past, and they will meet the same fate in the future too.

The mainspring of Islamic extremism and militancy isn’t the democratic political Islam, because why would people turn to violence when they can exercise their choice to vote their rulers in and also to vote them out? The mainspring of Islamic militancy is the despotic political Islam of the Gulf variety. The Western powers, omniscient as they are, are fully aware of this fact; then why do they choose to support the same forces, when their ostensible and professed goal is to eliminate extremism and militancy? It is because, since the time immemorial, it has been a firm policy-principle of the Western powers to promote ‘stability’ in the Middle East rather than democracy or representation. They are fully cognizant of the reality that the mainstream Muslim sentiment is firmly against the US intervention in the Middle Eastern affairs, especially after the end of Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when the US after defeating a staunch rival turned its guns against the Muslim world in order to further exploit their energy resources. Additionally, the US policy-makers also prefer to deal with small groups of Middle Eastern ‘strongmen’ rather than cultivating a complex and uncertain relationship on a popular level: certainly a myopic approach which is the hallmark of the so-called ‘pragmatic’ strategists.

Sources and links:

[Link 1] How Syrian Jihad spawned Islamic State? http://www.eurasiareview.com/18092014-syrian-jihad-spawned-islamic-state-analysis/

[Link 2] Al Muthanna chemical weapons storage site. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28222879

[Link 3] ISIS seized 40 kgs of Uranium from the Mosul university. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/09/us-iraq-security-nuclear-idUSKBN0FE2KT20140709

[Link 4] Secret CIA station in Irbil. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/11/233126/expansion-of-secret-facility-in.html?sp=/99/117/

[Link 5] More than 50% of world’s proven oil reserves in the Persian Gulf’s littoral states: Saudi Arabia(265 billion barrels), Iran (160 bb), Iraq (140 bb), UAE and Kuwait (100 billion barrels each). http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm

[Link 6] Chuck Hagel: 35,000 US troops currently stationed in the Middle East. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/07/us-usa-hagel-dialogue-idUSBRE9B602920131207

[Link 7] Alastair Crooke: Syria and Iran, the Great Game. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/04/syria-iran-great-game

[Link 8] Secret military command center in Jordan where military officials from 14 Western and Arab countries including Israel coordinate the Southern front of the Syria war theater. http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/syrian-rebels-get-arms-and-advice-through-secret-command-centre-in-amman

[Link 9] Oildrum: Shale oil and gas reserves. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9753

The post Terrorism As Pretext For Intervention – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Veronica Khangchian

A Sep 10, 2014 report indicates that Khalistani militant groups have also started eyeing India’s northeast region to procure weapons and that easy availability of illegal weapons in the region has become a matter of grave concern.

An important member of the Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF), Dilbagh Singh, who was arrested in Guwahati (Assam) on Sep 9 was reportedly trying to explore possibilities of procuring weapons from the region.

According to Punjab Police, KZF is one of the three most prominent Khalistani militant outfits, the other two being Khalistan Commando Force and Babbar Khalsa, and it is believed that leaders of several such outfits are taking shelter in Pakistan.

The KZF still has presence in Punjab and Jammu areas and the chief of the outfit, Ranjit Singh Neeta who hails from Jammu, is now out of the country and his whereabouts are not known despite inputs that he has been trying to revive the outfit, reportedly under pressure from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The effort to procure weapons is suspected to be a part of the plan.

According to sources, several members of the Khalistani militant groups flew to Pakistan via Bangkok (Thailand) and Nepal following tightening of security along the India-Pakistan border and that there is strong possibility that they may have come into contact with the militants of north east in those places.

The militant groups of the northeast, as well as the clandestine arms dealers, mostly procure weapons from China, especially from its Yunan province through the India-Myanmar border. Bangladesh was earlier a safe haven for northeast insurgents. However, after the Sheikh Hasina-led government evicted insurgents from the northeast shutting down their safe haven in the country, they have found refuge in Myanmar.

In the latest incident, security forces, on Sep 2, 2014, unearthed a large weapons cache from the Satchari National Park in the Chunarughat Sub-District of the Habiganj district in Bangladesh, adjoining West Tripura District in the Indian state of Tripura.

The recovered weapons include rocket launchers, four machineguns, a rifle, five machinegun barrels, 222 anti-tank weapons with 248 charges, 19 machinegun drum chains, 19 magazines, 12,987 bullets of various kinds and weapon lubricants. Significantly, a huge arms cache was recovered by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) of Bangladesh over several days (June 3-June 9) from the same area, which was perhaps the single biggest arms seizure in Bangladesh since the April 2, 2004, Chittagong arms haul case where 10 truckloads of weapons had been seized.

The area from where the arms were recovered was once the base camp of the now-defunct Indian insurgent outfit, the Tripura-based All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF) which was later captured by insurgents belonging to the National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT). Media reports had speculated on the distant possibility of Assam-based United Liberation Front of Asom-Independent (ULFA-I) ‘chief’ Paresh Baruah asking ATTF to store the weapons (the June recovery) in its one-time bases.

The Assam Police have intelligence inputs that Paresh Barua is currently operating out of his base along the Myanmar-China border.

Significantly, in 2013, then union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde disclosed: “There are reports that the insurgent groups operating in the northeast states of India have been augmenting their armoury by acquiring arms from China and Sino-Myanmar border towns and routing them through Myanmar.”

India and Myanmar have agreed to cooperate to prevent cross-border movement of armed groups, share information on seizure of arms and check arms smuggling/drug trafficking. The agreement was reached during the 20th Sectoral Level (Joint Working Group) Meeting between Myanmar and India held in Bagan, Myanmar, from June 19-20, 2013. The union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has described the 1,643-km-long India-Myanmar border – the locus of cross-border movement of militants, illegal arms and drugs – as “extremely porous”.

Worryingly, the Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA), the most lethal outfit in Meghalaya had recently emerged as one of the biggest procurers of arms in Meghalaya, using Guwahati city (Assam) as their main transit route. There has been growing nexus between ULFA-I and GNLA, which is also a matter of concern.

There have been startling incidents of arms smuggling in the northeast as well in the recent past. On March 7 and 8, 2013, in a major arms haul – the biggest haul in Mizoram thus far and one of the biggest in the northeast in recent years – the Mizoram Police and Assam Rifles seized 31 AK-47 assault rifles, one Singapore-made Light Machine Gun (LMG), one US-made Browning automatic rifle, 809 rounds of ammunition, and 32 magazines from a farmhouse near Lengpui Airport, on the outskirts of state capital, Aizawl. Mizoram police’s Superintendent of Police (SP) Lalchhuana of Crime Investigation Department (Crime) disclosed that the arms were smuggled from Myanmar and were to be delivered to the Parbotia Chatagram Jana Sangata Samiti (PCJSS), a group ‘working’ for the rights of the indigenous people of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) tribes in Bangladesh.

Other concerns also persisted in the northeast, particularly Assam. Mention may be made specifically of the spread of Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), the potential revival of Islamic groups and the recent ‘threat’ declared by the Al Qaeda.

An April 18, 2013 report observed that the CPI-Maoist was planning to strengthen its base in the northeast. A six-page letter sent to 13 states, by the MHA on CPI-Maoist efforts to expand to new areas, noted that the Maoists planned to strengthen their Eastern Regional Bureau: “The northeast is another region where the CPI-Maoist is trying to spread its wings … with the objectives that include strengthening the outfit’s Eastern Regional Bureau, procurement of arms/ammunition/communication equipment.”

On Feb 5, 2014, Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi disclosed that CPI-Maoist had entered into an understanding with militants based in the northeastern region as well as with Pakistan’s ISI, to spread its network in the state. It is also important to note that the Manipur-based Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) which had signed a joint declaration in October 2008 with the CPI-Maoist for unified action for waging war against India, has elaborated the vision of evolving a ‘Strong United Front’ along with CPI-Maoist and Kashmiri militants, backed by ISI and China.

Shockingly, a recent report by an intelligence agency, which added another security challenge, mentions as many as 14 Islamic radical groups active in Assam and that one such group, the Pachman, is involved in arms dealing while the Adam Sena is bringing in funds from other countries for other fundamentalist groups working in the state. The revelation comes days after the Al Qaeda released a video declaring the establishment of a new branch in the Indian subcontinent to revive jihadist activity.

Al Qaeda’s leader Ayman al-Zawahiri assured Muslims “in Burma, Bangladesh, Assam, Gujarat and Kashmir that your brothers” in the militant organization “did not forget you and that they are doing what they can to rescue you”. Worryingly, according to a Sep 5 report, at least 23 youth from Manipur’s Lilong area of Thoubal district are reported to have left home to join the Indian arm of Al Qaeda in recent months. Though it would be tough for the Al Qaeda to set up bases in India, intelligence agencies believe that they can carry out attacks.

The northeast in embroiled in multiple concerns, ranging from issues of arms smuggling to growing menacing nexus of militant groups worsened by the involvement of ‘external’ agencies. This is further compounded by the region’s proximity to Myanmar, China, Bangladesh and also Nepal, making it a fertile ground for militant groups from within and ‘outside’ to operate using the region as corridor.

(Dr. Veronica Khangchian is with the Institute for Conflict Management. She can be contacted at southasiamonitor1@gmail.com)

The post Northeast India: Embroiled In Multiple Threats – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The European Union is increasingly seen in South Asia as the citadel of ‘soft power’. But the way the two regions relate tends to go far beyond. There is a burgeoning political and economic relationship. That is, in many ways, defining their interactions. Pakistan, a country strategically placed in South Asia, is of importance to Europe. This is increasingly becoming evident.

Unsurprisingly, the lead European country in terms of relations with Pakistan remains the United Kingdom (UK).These are historical and cover the broad spectrum of political, intellectual, emotional, and economic ties. Indeed till 1956, Pakistan remained a Dominion in the British Commonwealth, six years longer than India. Of the 2.2 million Pakistanis who comprise the diaspora in Europe, over half live in the UK. Many have been there through generations, and have begun to play an important role in different aspects of the host community.

In politics there are many persons of Pakistani origin who sit in both the Houses of Commons and Lords, as well as in the Scottish and European Parliaments. For instance Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi was until recently a Senior Minister of State in the Foreign Office (from the Conservative Party) and earlier Shahid Malik, of the Labour Party, was a Minister for International Development in the Gordon Brown government. In the literary world Mohsin Hamid, Hanif Kureishi and Tariq Ali are well-known names, as Zia Moheyuddin in entertainment. In some ways they were returning the favours of the nineteenth century English literateur, Rudyard Kipling, who brought territories now comprising Pakistan to the mainstream of British social and literary consciousness through works such as Kim and others. In business, Sir Anwar Pervez, founder of the Bestway Group, is the wealthiest Muslim in Britain.

Cricket, which provides an abiding link between Pakistan and Britain, has seen many of those of Pakistani origin play for England such as Aamer Khan, Usman Afzaal and Qasim Sheikh. On the somewhat unsavoury side this diaspora has also provided its share of Islamist militants, among them being Abu Bakr Mansha, Hasib Hussain and Shehzad Tanweer.

Originally, the Pakistanis in the rest of Europe were more indigent, but over time their situation improved, and they began to contribute to the welfare of friends and families in Pakistan, and to charities (albeit, mostly Islamic).They usually learn the language of their host communities, and have also begun to take part in the local intellectual life. For instance, Professor Emeritus Ishtiaq Ahmed in Sweden has written extensively on South Asian and global politics.
Time was when Pakistan was an effective strategic partner of some European countries, such as the UK (through Defence agreements such as the Baghdad Pact), but no longer. The relations are now mostly economic and political.

Politically, the European Security Strategy (ESS) in 2003 identified in Pakistan, a country with over 100 nuclear warheads and counting, as a ‘frightening scenario’, one in which a ‘terrorist group could acquire weapons of mass destruction’. In fact Pakistan is relevant to all the five key threats outlined in the ESS; terrorism, proliferation of WMD, regional conflicts, state failure and organised crime. Stability of Pakistan is also important as it continues to be a conduit for the supplies to European troops in Afghanistan representing 25 out of 27 EU member-states, but this importance will decline as the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan. The politicians at the European Union headquarters in Brussels worry about possibilities of the training of European terrorists in Pakistan, but not overly so, as indigenous terrorists in Europe itself are beginning to occupy their attention.

On strategic issues, the European Union is quite happy to play a second fiddle to the United States, and concentrate itself to effecting positive transformations in Pakistan through the use of what Joseph Nye has called ‘soft power’, or the capacity of more gentle suasion through the spread of values. For instance the Third Generation Agreement ratified in 2004, focuses on democracy and the protection of human rights in Pakistan. There is empathy and understanding in Europe of the key role Pakistan will be required to play in restoring calm in Afghanistan, in the future, and that a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan is good for the region and the world. The best way to do this, Brussels has assessed, is to support Pakistan’s economy and buttress its development efforts.

To those ends, the EU remains Pakistan’s largest export-destination and trading partner. EU imports well over 27% of Pakistan’s exports in goods, with Pakistan receiving more than 15% of European sales. The EU policy is to remain constructively engaged with Pakistan at all possible levels. These are mainly three: First, resumption and upgrading of political dialogue, second, the signing of the Third Generation cooperation agreement and third, additional development assistance.

The total assistance provided to Pakistan by EU member-states between 2009 and 2013 amounted to 2.458 billion euros, an increase by 50% year-to-year. The support is spread across the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, Food Facility, Instrument for Stability, and loans from the European Investment Bank. There has been considerable humanitarian assistance as well. After the disastrous floods in Pakistan in 2010, the relief provided by the EU amounted to 423 million euros, totalling 30% of the total international flood-aid. The following year another 75 million euros were committed for the conflict- affected populations of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan.

In December 2013 the EU granted Pakistan the much-awaited duty-free market access under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences-Plus (GSP-Plus), which became effective as of 1 January 2014. Earlier Pakistan undertook to fully implement its commitments under 27 international conventions on human rights, good governance, labour and environmental standards. An extremely-pleased Pakistani Finance Minister, Ishaq Dar, said that the scheme would increase Pakistani exports to Europe by US $ 2 billion a year. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan also expressed his satisfaction by stating that gaining access to the European markets was the top-most priority of the government as part of the economic development agenda. To complement this initiative the EU and Pakistan adopted in 2012 a five-year engagement plan that would run into 2017, launching a Strategic Dialogue. This would be expected to cover a wide range of issues, from security, including counter- terrorism, non-proliferation and regional cooperation, to human rights, migration and development cooperation.

Relations between Europe and Pakistan are civilisational – starting with those between Britain and the fringes of the South Asian subcontinent – to this day, when in most aspects they are on an even keel. These comprise more than the sum of their parts, for the computation of numbers of trade or aid figures, sales or purchases, can fully reflect the complexities of the numerous bonds of varied times that sew these two regions together. It can indeed be said to be a partnership in progress.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), an autonomous research institute at the National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh, and he can be contacted at isasiac@nus.edu.sg. Opinions expressed in this paper, based on research by the author, do not necessarily reflect the views of ISAS.

The post Europe And Pakistan: A Partnership In Progress – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By C Uday Bhaskar

From the just-concluded visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Delhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will soon embark for the USA where, apart from his maiden address to the UN General Assembly, the focus will be on his first meeting with US President Barack Obama.

While the more visible part of the Modi visit will no doubt be the public interaction with the Indian diaspora in New York where more than 20,000 participants are expected, the more substantive part will be in Washington DC.

The abiding strategic challenge for Prime Minister Modi, as it was for his predecessor Manmohan Singh, will be to find the right balance in India’s triangular relationship with the US on one hand and China on the other. The emerging global macro-economic configuration over the next two decades points to a triangular arrangement with China overtaking the US to be the world’s largest GDP by about 2025. While the US will still be a close second, the third spot will be that of India’s which is projected to be a distant third.

The anomalous situation that will obtain is that while China will be the world’s most prosperous nation in overall terms (and not per capita), the US will still be the most powerful military nation and symbolizes the democratic constituency in global affairs. Latent China-US contestation is inherent in such a configuration, and the challenge for India will be to find the space and leverages to both protect and advance its core national interests in a complex major power framework and an increasingly globalized world order.

The Xi visit to India was rich in optics and, from the Ahmedabad visit and the homage to Mahatma Gandhi at the ashram, the symbolism for a potentially cooperative relationship was contained in the Modi formulation of “INCH to MILES”. On the eve of the Xi visit, the Indian prime minister asserted that from being just “India-China”, the relationship would now become the “Millennium of Exceptional Synergy”.

However, the mismatch between this highly desirable objective to that which is in the realm of the feasible was more than apparent by the time President Xi arrived in Delhi. India-China relations have been enveloped in a great degree of mistrust and opacity over a range of tangled security and strategic differences and none more sensitive than the disputed territorial and border issue that saw the two Asian giants engage in brief border war in October 1962.

Intriguingly, the Xi visit in Delhi began with reports of an incursion by People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Chumar sector of Ladakh and this cast a shadow over the symbolism of MILES. Various interpretations are being offered about why the PLA chose to act in this manner during a high-level political visit, and it may be recalled that in April 2013 ahead of Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang’s visit to India there was a similar standoff. At the time Delhi stood its ground and indicated that the Li visit would have to be rescheduled if the PLA troops did not withdraw, and finally an uneasy modus vivendi was arrived at.

This time around there is considerable speculation as to whether President Xi was in the decision making loop about this Chinese PLA incursion or not. As in the past, there is unwavering opacity about who in Beijing had authorized this PLA initiative, and this will be one more incident in the uneasy Sino-Indian relationship. What is more germane are the consequences of the fallout of the Xi visit to India against this backdrop.

It may be summarized that the first Modi-Xi summit has delivered below the median on substantive issues, and while the two leaders may have established a comfortable personal equation, they are visibly constrained by the weight of their respective historical narratives and inheritance.

But one fact emerges from the Xi visit. The complex territorial and border dispute that till now was cloaked in expansive statements and generalities has now acquired a prominent status in the political dialogue between the two nations. The joint statement issued after the Xi visit made the mandatory reference and observed: “Pending a final resolution of the boundary question, the two sides would continue to make joint efforts to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas.” And yet both sides continue to maintain troop levels in the Chumar sector and the unease prevails.

For Prime Minister Modi having now met with his Japanese counterpart in Tokyo and the Chinese president in Delhi, the next critical meeting is with US President Obama. From a phase of deep estrangement, the major punctuation in the bilateral relationship with the US is the Bush-Manmohan Singh nuclear rapprochement that was concluded in late 2008. However, the last six years have been relatively static due to the domestic political compulsions on both sides – first for Singh and now for President Obama.

The Modi challenge will be to infuse traction and directivity to the moribund India-US relationship, and some indicators are stark. The US is itself beleaguered economically and will not be able to offer any significant investment in the manner that Japan ($35 billion) and to an extent China ($20bn) have promised. Neither is any kind of formal military alliance an option for India – notwithstanding the anxieties generated by Beijing’s military assertiveness.

For India the path is clear: To determinedly enhance its economic, technological and military capabilities across the board and arrive at some degree of mutuality with China in terms of comprehensive national power. The visit of US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel offered a menu of options for India to address its many military inventory and defence production gaps. Hopefully, Prime Minister Modi will be able to resurrect some of the possibilities that had been identified in the Rumsfeld-Mukherjee agreement of June 2005 in his meeting with President Obama. As the last decade has demonstrated, an empathetic Delhi-Washington relationship makes Beijing more malleable when it deals with Delhi.

This is the strategic equipoise that the Modi visit must realize in the long run and, summit level political dialogue apart, the Indian diaspora remains an untapped gene pool of human resource and valuable expertise.

(Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar (Retd), is Director of the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at cudaybhaskar@spsindia.in)

The post From Xi To Obama: Challenges For Modi – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A Spanish priest who became infected with the Ebola virus while serving at a Sierra Leone hospital died Thursday in a Madrid hospital, Spanish media said citing medical sources.

Brother Manuel García Viejo, 69, has been earlier flown to Madrid’s Carlos III hospital while suffering advance stages of the deadly disease.

This marks the second time Spain registers an Ebola-related death since the recent outbreak of the disease in West Africa.

In August, 75-year-old missionary Miguel Pajares died five days after having been flown to Spain from Liberia with symptoms of Ebola. His treatment with experimental drug ZMapp was ineffective.

The worst Ebola outbreak in history started in February in Guinea and quickly spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Nigeria.

According to the latest WHO estimates, the Ebola death toll has risen to just under 3,000 since the epidemic started.

Fatality rates are estimated to be at 70.7 percent in Guinea, 72.3 percent in Liberia and 69.0 percent in Sierra Leone.

There is no officially approved medication for the disease. However, several countries, including Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan, are currently working on vaccines. Earlier in August, first humans were treated for the first time with the experimental ZMapp serum. Two US citizens and two doctors from Nigeria and Uganda showed signs of improvement following the treatment. Spanish priest Pajares and Liberian doctor Abraham Borbor did not survive.

The World Health Organization concluded on August 12 that it was ethical to use experimental drugs to treat patients infected with the deadly Ebola virus.

The post Second Spanish Missionary Dies From Ebola: Reports appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A large group of Islamic theologians addressed the head of the Islamic State in an open letter, articulately accusing the movement of practices that have nothing to do with Islam, even rejecting the extremists’ right to call themselves jihadists.

Over a hundred Muslim scholars and clergymen from all over the world have released on Wednesday an address to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, accusing the self-proclaimed caliph and his army of heinous war crimes and violation of fundamental principles of Islam, illiterate use of Islamic scripture torn from the context and perversion of the rules of morality and Sharia law.

“Who gave you authority over the ummah [Muslim people]?” the letter questions. “Was it your group? If this is the case, then a group of no more than several thousand has appointed itself the ruler of over a billion-and-a-half Muslims. This attitude is based upon a corrupt circular logic that says: ‘Only we are Muslims, and we decide who the caliph is, we have chosen one and so whoever does not accept our caliph is not a Muslim,’” the document said.

The letter has been published in two languages, Arabic and English, on a specially-created website. Though the document goes into in-depth analyses of the nuances and exegesis of Islamic texts, the general message is combined on the very first page of the address, outlined in 24 essentials downtrodden by the militants of the Islamic State – according to the authors of the letter.

The absolute majority of the essentials detailed in the letter – 20 out of 24 – have to do with acts forbidden in modern Islam. They deal with many aspects of noble human life: prohibiting such acts as killing of the innocent, prisoners and emissaries (journalists included), denying women and children their rights, the re-introduction of slavery, torture, disfiguring the dead and destroying graves, harming or mistreating believers of other religions of the Scripture, starting armed insurrection, declaring caliphate “without consensus from all Muslims,” as well as issuing fatwas (legal rulings, interpretations of the Islamic law) without proper religious education, mastery of the Arabic language, “oversimplify[ing] Sharia matters” and even “ignoring the reality of contemporary times.”

As the authors of the letter observe, all of those interdictions have been ruthlessly violated by the leadership and members of the Islamic State.

In particular, the document stresses the unprecedented number of people executed by the Islamic State militants for their beliefs.

“You have killed many innocents who were neither combatants nor armed, just because they disagree with your opinion,” the letter said, denying the Islamic State the right to call the faithful to jihad. “There is no such thing as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions.”

“Jihad is a noble concept in Islam,” told VICE News the national director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad. “It is the right to defend oneself and one’s country. But people cannot take it into their own hands. As an act of aggression, it is a violation,” he said.

“They claim to be jihadists, but they are not. I urge everyone not to refer to them as jihadists,” Awad added.

The letter specifically focused attention on POWs being executed by the Islamic State in their thousands in Iraq and Syria.

“You have killed many prisoners,” the document states, addressing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his men, “including the 1,700 captives at Camp Speicher in Tikrit in June, 2014; the 200 captives at the Sha’er gas field in July, 2014; the 700 captives of the Sha’etat tribe in Deir el-Zor (600 of whom were unarmed civilians); the 250 captives at the Tabqah air base in Al-Raqqah in August, 2014; Kurdish and Lebanese soldiers, and many untold others whom God knows. These are heinous war crimes,” the address states.

The children who died in IS attacks or were used in combat were added to the list of shameful IS deeds.

“In your schools some children are tortured and coerced into doing your bidding and others are being executed,” the letter says. “These are crimes against innocents who are so young they are not even morally accountable.”

The letter also calls attention to frivolous handling of the holy texts and intentionally-selective citation of certain passages in order to legitimize atrocities perpetrated by the IS.

“It is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the [Koran] and Hadith relate about that point,” the letter notes.

The beheaded American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and then British aid worker David Haines, were also remembered.

“It is known that all religions forbid the killing of emissaries,” the letter said. “Journalists — if they are honest and of course not spies — are emissaries of truth, because their job is to expose the truth to people in general.”

The slavery that returned to the Middle East with the rise of the Islamic State was not ignored in the document either.

Despite Islam’s consensus taking decision to abolish slavery over a century ago, “Islamic State militants have captured women from minority communities and forced them to marry fighters or sold them into slavery.”

The most effective ideological critics of the IS should come from within the Muslim community, shared Nihad Awad, who believes that the open letter is “intended for a conservative audience” and is “very convincing.”

“People should know that what ISIS is doing is not Islam,” Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, which facilitated publication of the letter, told VICE News. “It’s important that a large number of scholars are speaking up and saying this is wrong.”

The post Muslim Scholars Blast Islamic State appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The following is the complete text of the Open Letter to Islamic State leader Al-Baghdadi, which is co-signed by over 120 Islamic Scholars.

The text of the article explains why the Islamic State’s practices are not acceptable in Islam.

The original text was published here: http://lettertobaghdadi.com/

Executive Summary

1- It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry- pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2- It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3- It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4- It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8- Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11- It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12- The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13- It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14- It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15- It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16- It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17- It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18- It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19- It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God .
20- It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler
and not allowing people to pray.
22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24- After the death of the Prophet , Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds,
Peace and Blessings be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers

By the declining day, Lo! man is a state of loss, Save those who believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to endurance. (Al-‘Asr, 103: 1-3)

Open Letter

To Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’,

To the fighters and followers of the self-declared ‘Islamic State’,

Peace and the mercy of God be upon you.

During your sermon dated 6th of Ramadan 1435 AH (4th July 2014 CE), you said, paraphrasing Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq : ‘If you find what I say and do to be true, then assist me, and if you find what I say and do to be false, then advise me and set me straight.’ In what follows is a scholarly opinion via the media. The Prophet  said: ‘Religion is [rectifying] advice1.’ Everything said here below relies completely upon the statements and actions of followers of the ‘Islamic State’ as they themselves have promulgated in social media—or upon Muslim eyewitness accounts—and not upon other media. Every effort has been made to avoid fabrications and misunderstandings. Moreover, everything said here consists of synopses written in a simple style that reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Sunni scholars over the course of Islamic history.

In one of his speeches2, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani said: ‘God bless Prophet Muhammad who was sent with the sword as a mercy to all worlds.’3 This statement comprises compounded confusions and a mistaken paradigm. Yet it is often repeated by followers of the ‘Islamic State’. Now God sent the Prophet Muhammad  as a mercy to all worlds: ‘We did not send you, except as a mercy to all the worlds.’ (Al-Anbiya’, 22: 107). This is true for all time and place. The Prophet  was sent as mercy to people, animals, plants, to the heavens and to subtle beings—no Muslims disagree about this. It is a general and unconditional statement taken from the Qur’an itself. However, the phrase, ‘sent with the sword’ is part of a Hadith that is specific to a certain time and place which have since expired. Thus it is forbidden to mix the Qur’an and Hadith in this way, as it is forbidden to mix the general and specific, and the conditional and unconditional.

Moreover, God has prescribed mercy upon Himself: ‘… Your Lord has prescribed for Himself mercy …’ (Al-An’am, 6:54). God also states that His mercy encompasses all things: ‘… My mercy embraces all things …’ (Al-A’raf, 7:156). In an authentic Hadith, the Prophet  said: ‘When God created Creation, He wrote in place above His throne, with Himself “Truly, My mercy is greater than My wrath4.”’ Accordingly, it is forbidden to equate ‘the sword’—and thus wrath and severity—with ‘mercy’. Furthermore, it is forbidden to make the idea ‘mercy to all worlds’ subordinate to the phrase ‘sent with the sword’, because this would mean that mercy is dependent upon the sword, which is simply not true. Besides, how could ‘a sword’ affect realms where swords have no effect, such as the heavens, subtle beings and plants? The Prophet Muhammad’s  being a mercy to all the worlds cannot possibly be conditional upon his having taken up the sword (at one point in time, for a particular reason and in a particular context). This point is not merely academic. Rather, it reveals the essence of much of what is to follow since it erroneously equates the sword and Divine mercy.

1. Legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and Qur’anic exegesis: With regards to Qur’anic exegesis, and the understanding of Hadith, and issue in legal theory in general, the methodology set forth by God in the Qur’an and the Prophet  in the Hadith is as follows: to consider everything that has been revealed relating to a particular question in its entirety, without depending on only parts of it, and then to judge—if one is qualified—based on all available scriptural sources. God  says: ‘… What, do you believe in part of the Book, and disbelieve in part? …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2:85); ‘… they pervert words from their contexts; and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of…’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5:13); ‘… those who have reduced the Recitation, to parts’ (Al-Hijr, 15:91). Once all relevant scriptural passages have been gathered, the ‘general’ has to be distinguished from the ‘specific’, and the ‘conditional’ from the ‘unconditional’. Also, the ‘unequivocal’ passages have to be distinguished from the allegorical ones. Moreover, the reasons and circumstances for revelation (asbab al-nuzul) for all the passages and verses, in addition to all the other hermeneutical conditions that the classical imams have specified, must be understood. Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point. The reason behind this is that everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired, so it is not permissible to ignore any part of it. Indeed it is imperative to reconcile all texts, as much as possible, or that there be a clear reason why one text should outweigh another. This is what Imam Shafi’i explains in his Al-Risalah, with a universal consensus among all usul scholars. Imam al-Haramayn, Al-Juwayni, says in Al- Burhan fi Usul Al-Fiqh:

Regarding the qualities of a mufti and the disciplines that he must master: … it is imperative that the mufti must be a scholar of language, for the Shari’ah is [in] Arabic. … it is imperative that he be a scholar of syntax and parsing … it is imperative that he be a scholar of the Qur’an, for the Qur’an is the basis of all rulings … Knowledge of textual abrogation is indispensable; and the science of the fundamentals of jurisprudence (usul) is the cornerstone of the whole subject … He should also know the various degrees of proofs and arguments … as well as their histories. [He should also know] the science of Hadith so that he can distinguish the authentic from the weak; and the acceptable from the apocryphal … [He should also know] jurisprudence…. Moreover, having ‘legal intuition’ (fiqh al-nafs) is needed: it is the capital of anyone who derives legal rulings … scholars have summarized all this by saying that a mufti is ‘someone who independently knows all the texts and arguments for legal rulings’. ‘Texts’ refers to mastering language, Qura’nic exegesis and Hadith; while ‘arguments’ indicates mastering legal theory, analogical reasoning of the various kinds, as well as ‘legal intuition’ (fiqh al-nafs).

Al-Ghazali has said similar things in Al-Mustasfa (Vol. 1, p.342), as did Al-Suyuti in Al- Itqan fi Ulum Al-Qur’an (Vol. 4, p.213).

2. Language: As mentioned above, one of the most important pillars of legal theory is the mastery of the Arabic Language. This means mastering Arabic grammar, syntax, morphology, rhetoric, poetry, etymology and Qur’anic exegesis. Without mastery of these disciplines, error will be likely, indeed inevitable. Your declaration of what you have termed ‘the Caliphate’ was under the title ‘This is God’s Promise’. The person who phrased this declaration intended to allude to the verse: ‘God has promised those of you who believe and perform righteous deeds that He will surely make them successors in the earth, just as He made those who were before them successors, and He will surely establish for them their religion which He has approved for them, and that He will give them in exchange after their fear security. “They worship Me, without associating anything with Me”. And whoever is ungrateful after that, those, they are the immoral.’ (Al-Nur, 24: 55). But it is not permissible to invoke a specific verse from the Qur’an as applying to an event that has occurred 1400 years after the verse was revealed. How can Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani say that ‘God’s promise’ is this so-called Caliphate? Even if it were supposed that his claim is correct, he should have said: ‘this is of God’s promise’. Moreover, there is another linguistic error; wherein he has appropriated the word ‘istikhlaf’ (succession) to refer to the so-called caliphate. Proof that this is not the correct usage of the word can be seen in the following verse: ‘He said, “Perhaps your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you successors (yastakhlifakum) in the land, that He may observe how you shall act”.’ (Al-A’raf, 7:129). Succession (istikhlaf) means that they have settled on the land in place of another people. It does not mean that they are the rulers of a particular political system. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, there is no tautology in the Qur’an5. There is a difference between ‘khilafah’ and ‘istikhlaf’. Al-Tabari says in his exegesis (tafsir) of the Qur’an: ‘make you successors (yastakhlifakum): Meaning He will make you succeed them in their land after their destruction; do not fear them or any other people.6’ This proves that the meaning of ‘istikhlaf’ here is not rulership but, rather, dwelling on their land.

3. Oversimplification: It is not permissible to constantly speak of ‘simplifying matters’, or to cherry-pick an extract from the Qur’an without understanding it within its full context. It is also not permissible to say: ‘Islam is simple, and the Prophet  and his noble Companions were simple, why complicate Islam?’ This is precisely what Abu Al-Baraa’ Al-Hindi did in his online video in July 2014. In it he says: ‘Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear … all the scholars tell me: “This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad” … forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.”’ People need to understand that the Prophet  and his noble Companions made do with as little material means as possible, without complicated technology, but they were greater than all of us in understanding, jurisprudence and intellect, and yet only a small number of Companions were qualified to issue fatwas. God  says in the Qur’an: ‘… Say: “Are those who know equal with those who do not know?”…’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 9). God  also says: ‘… Ask the People of the Remembrance if you do not know.’ (Al-Anbiya’, 21: 7); and: ‘… If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them; those among them who are able to think it out, would have known it from them …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 83). Thus, jurisprudence is no simple matter, and not just anyone can speak authoritatively on it or issue fatwas (religious edicts). God  says in the Qur’an: ‘… But only people of cores remember.’ (Al-Ra’d, 13:19). And the Prophet Muhammad  said: ‘Whoever speaks about the Qur’an without knowledge should await his seat in the Fire7.’ It is also high time to stop blithely saying that ‘they are men, and we are men’; those who say this do not have the same understanding and discernment as the noble Companions and the imams of the Pious Forebears (al-Salaf al-Saleh) to whom they are referring.

4. Difference of Opinion: In regards to difference of opinion, there are two kinds: blameworthy and praiseworthy. Regarding blameworthy difference of opinion, God  says in the Qur’an: ‘And those who were given the Scripture did not become divided, except after the clear proof had come to them.’ (Al-Bayyinah, 98: 4). As for praiseworthy difference of opinion, God  says: ‘… then God guided those who believed to the truth, regarding which they were at variance, by His leave …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 213). This is the opinion expressed by Al-Imam Al-Shafi’i in Al-Risalah, the other three imams and all the scholars for over a thousand years.

When there is a difference of opinion among eminent scholars, the more merciful, i.e. the best, opinion should be chosen. Severity should be avoided, as should the idea that severity is the measure of piety. God  says: ‘And follow the best of what has been revealed to you from your Lord …’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 55); and: ‘Indulge [people] with forgiveness, and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.’ (Al-A’raf, 7: 199). God  also says: ‘[Those] who listen to the words [of God] and follow the best [sense] of it. Those, they are the ones whom God has guided; and those, they are the people of pith.’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 18). In an authentic Hadith, it is related that the Lady Aisha said: ‘Whenever faced by more than once choice, the Prophet  always chose the easiest one8.’

The more severe opinion should not be considered more pious, religious or sincere to God . Indeed, in severity there is exaggeration and extremism; God  says in the Qur’an: ‘… God desires ease for you, and desires not hardship for you …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 185). Moreover, the Prophet  said: ‘Do not be severe with yourselves lest God be severe towards you. A people were severe with themselves and then God was severe towards them9 .’ There is delusion and vanity in severity, because severe people naturally say to themselves: ‘I am severe. Anyone less severe than me is deficient’; and thus: ‘I am superior to them.’ Herein lies an inherent attribution of ill-intention to God , as if God  revealed the Qur’an to make people miserable. God says: ‘Tā hā. We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you should be miserable’. (Ta Ha, 20: 1-2).

It is worth noting that most of the people who became Muslims throughout history, did so through gentle invitation (da’wah hasanah). God  says: ‘Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and dispute with them by way of that which is best. Truly your Lord knows best those who stray from His way and He knows best those who are guided.’ (Al-Nahl, 16: 125). The Prophet  said: ‘Be gentle, and beware of violence and foul language10.’ And while Islam spread politically from Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these lands remained Christian for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion. Indeed large countries and entire provinces became Muslim without conquest but through invitation (da’wah), such as: Indonesia; Malaysia; West and East Africa, and others. Hence, severity is neither a measure of piety nor a choice for the spread of Islam.

5. Practical Jurisprudence (fiqh al-waq’i): What is meant by ‘practical jurisprudence’ is the process of applying Shari’ah rulings and dealing with them according to the realities and circumstances that people are living under. This is achieved by having an insight into the realities under which people are living and identifying their problems, struggles, capabilities and what they are subjected to. Practical jurisprudence (fiqh al-waq’i) considers the texts that are applicable to peoples realities at a particular time, and the obligations that can be postponed until they are able to be met or delayed based on their capabilities. Imam Ghazali said: ‘As for practicalities that dictate necessities, it is not far-fetched that independent reasoning (ijtihad) may lead to them [practicalities], even if there is no specific origin for them11.’ Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah said: ‘Indeed, [a jurist] must understand people’s propensity for plotting, deception and fraud, in addition to their customs and traditions. Religious edicts (fatwas) change with the change of time, place, customs and circumstances, and all of this is from the religion of God, as already elucidated.12’

6. The Killing of Innocents: God  says in the Qur’an: ‘And do not slay the soul [whose life] God has made inviolable, except with due cause …’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 33); and ‘Say: “Come, I will recite that which your Lord has made a sacred duty for you: that you associate nothing with Him, that you be dutiful to parents, and that you do not slay your children, because of poverty – We will provide for you and them – and that you do not draw near any acts of lewdness, whether it be manifest or concealed, and that you do not slay the life which God has made sacred, except rightfully. This is what He has charged you with that perhaps you will understand.”’ (Al-An’am, 6: 151). The slaying of a soul—any soul—is haraam (forbidden and inviolable under Islamic Law), it is also one of the most abominable sins (mubiqat). God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32). You have killed many innocents who were neither combatants nor armed, just because they disagree with your opinions13.

7. Killing Emissaries: It is known that all religions forbid the killing of emissaries. What is meant by emissaries here are people who are sent from one group of people to another to perform a noble task such as reconciliation or the delivery of a message. Emissaries have a special inviolability. Ibn Masoud said: ‘The Sunnah continues that emissaries are never killed14.’ Journalists—if they are honest and of course are not spies—are emissaries of truth, because their job is to expose the truth to people in general. You have mercilessly killed the journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, even after Sotloff’s mother pleaded with you and begged for mercy. Aid workers are also emissaries of mercy and kindness, yet you killed the aid worker David Haines. What you have done is unquestionably forbidden (haraam).

8. Jihad: All Muslims see the great virtue in jihad. God  says: ‘O you who believe, what is wrong with you that, when it is said to you, “Go forth in the way of God’, you sink down heavily to the ground”’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 38); and: ‘And fight in the way of God with those who fight against you, but aggress not; God loves not the aggressors.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 190); and many other verses. Imam Shafi’i, the other three imams, and indeed all the scholars see that jihad is a communal obligation (fard kifayah) and not an individual obligation (fard ayn) because God  says: ‘yet to each God has promised the goodly reward, and God has preferred those who struggle over the ones who sit at home with a great reward’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 95). The word ‘jihad’ is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim; this much is a firmly established principle. Furthermore, all scholars agree that jihad is conditional upon the consent of one’s parents. The proof for this is that a man came to the Prophet  asking him to permit him to perform jihad, upon which the Prophet  asked him: ‘Are your parents alive?’ to which he replied: ‘Yes.’ And the Prophet  told him: ‘Then perform jihad (struggle) through [serving] them. 15’ Moreover, there are two kinds of jihad in Islam: the greater jihad, which is the jihad (struggle) against one’s ego; and the lesser jihad, the jihad (struggle) against the enemy. In regards to the greater jihad, the Prophet  said: ‘We have returned from the greater jihad to the lesser jihad16.’ If you say that this Hadith is weak or apocryphal, the answer is that evidence for this concept is in the Qur’an itself: ‘So do not obey the disbelievers, but struggle against them therewith with a great endeavour [lit. a great jihad].’ (Al-Furqan, 25:52). ‘Therewith’ in this verse refers to the Qur’an, which is ‘a healing for what is in the breasts’ (Yunus, 10: 57). This is clearly understood from the Hadith in which the Prophet  said: “‘Shall I tell you about the best of all deeds, the best act of piety in the eyes of your Lord which will elevate your status in the Hereafter and is better for you than spending gold and paper and better than going up in arms against your enemy and striking their necks and their striking your necks?’ They said: “Yes.” The Prophet  said: “Remembrance of God.17”’ Thus, the greater jihad is the jihad against the ego and its weapon is remembrance of God and purification of the soul. Furthermore, God  has clarified the relationship between the two kinds of jihad in another verse: ‘O you who believe, when you meet a host, then stand firm and remember God much, that you may succeed.’ (Al-Anfal, 8: 45). Thus, standing firm is the lesser jihad and is dependent on the greater jihad which is the jihad against the ego through the remembrance of God and purification of the soul. In any case, jihad is a means to peace, safety and security, and not an end in itself. This is clear from God’s words: ‘Fight them till there is no sedition, and the religion is for God; then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). In your speech of July 4th, 2014, you said: ‘There is no life without jihad’. Perhaps this was based on Al-Qurtubi’s exegesis of the verse: ‘O you who believe, respond to God and the Messenger, when He calls you to that which will give you life …’ (Al-Anfal, 8: 24). True jihad enlivens the heart. However, there can be life without jihad, because Muslims may face circumstances where combat is not called for, or where jihad is not required, and Islamic history is replete with examples of this.

In truth, it is clear that you and your fighters are fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad. No truthful person following events—friend or foe—can deny this. However, jihad without legitimate cause, legitimate goals, legitimate purpose, legitimate methodology and legitimate intention is not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality.

a. The Intention Behind Jihad: God  says: ‘and that man shall have only what he [himself] strives for’ (Al-Najm, 53: 39). Prophetic Tradition relates that on the authority of Abu Musa Al- Ash’ari, a man came to the Prophet  and said: ‘A man may fight out of zeal, out of bravery or out of pride. Which of these is in the path of God?’ The Prophet  replied: ‘Whoever fights for the Word of God to be supreme is in the path of God18.’ The Prophet  also said: ‘The first to be judged on the Day of Resurrection is the man who died as a martyr. He will be brought forth and [God] will make His favours known to him, which he will recognize. He will be asked: “What did you do with them?” to which the man will reply: “I fought for your sake until I was killed.” He [i.e. God] will say: “You have lied. You fought so that it would be said that you are bold, and so it was said.” He will then be ordered to be dragged on his face and flung into the Fire …19’.

b. The Reason behind Jihad: The reason behind jihad for Muslims is to fight those who fight them, not to fight anyone who does not fight them, nor to transgress against anyone who has not transgressed against them. God’s words in permitting jihad are: ‘Permission is granted to those who fight because they have been wronged. And God is truly able to help them; those who were expelled from their homes without right, only because they said: “Our Lord is God”. Were it not for God’s causing some people to drive back others, destruction would have befallen the monasteries, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which God’s Name is mentioned greatly. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is truly Strong, Mighty.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 39-40). Thus, jihad is tied to safety, freedom of religion, having been wronged, and eviction from one’s land. These two verses were revealed after the Prophet  and his companions suffered torture, murder, and persecution for thirteen years at the hands of the idolaters. Hence, there is no such thing as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imams Malik and Ahmad and all other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school20.

c. The Goal of Jihad: Scholars are in agreement regarding the goal of jihad, because God  says: ‘Fight them till there is no sedition, and the religion is for God; then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). The Prophet  further said: ‘I have been ordered to fight people until they say: “There is no god but God”, so whoever says: “There is no god but God” is safe in himself and his wealth except as permitted by law, and his reckoning is with God21.’ This is the goal of jihad once war has been waged on Muslims. These texts specify what victory looks like in the case that Muslims are victorious, and that the reason for jihad must not be confused with the goal of jihad; all scholars are in agreement on this matter. The Hadith above refers to an event that has already taken place and is conditional upon God’s words: ‘It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all religion. And God suffices as witness.’ (Al-Fath, 48: 28). It took place in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet , for God  says: ‘… and that you may warn the Mother of Towns [Um al-Qura] and those around it …’ (Al-An’am, 6: 92); and: ‘O you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 123). The Prophet  also said: ‘Evict the idolaters from the Arabian Peninsula.22’ How could this not have come to pass when God  promises the Prophet : ‘It is He Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all [other] religions, though the disbelievers be averse.’ (Al-Saff, 61: 9). What is meant here must be the Arabian Peninsula since this is what happened during the life of the Prophet . In any case, if the commanders of jihad see that it is in the best interest of Muslims, it is permissible for them to cease combat, even if this goal has not been achieved, because God  says: ‘… then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). The circumstances and events of Sulh al-Hudaybiyah are proof of this.

d. The Rules of Conduct of Jihad: The rules of conduct of jihad are summarized in the words of the Prophet Muhammad : ‘Wage war but do not be severe, do not be treacherous, do not mutilate or kill children …23.’ The Prophet  also said on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: ‘Those retreating are not to be killed, nor are the injured to be harmed, and whoever shuts his door is safe24.’ Similarly, when Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq  prepared an army and sent it to the Levant, he said: ‘You will find people who have devoted themselves to monasteries, leave them to their devotions. You will also find others whose heads are seats for devils (i.e. armed deacons25), so strike their necks. However, do not kill the old and decrepit, women or children; do not destroy buildings; do not cut down trees or harm livestock without good cause; do not burn or drown palms; do not be treacherous; do not mutilate; do not be cowardly; and do not loot. And truly God will support those who support Him and His Messengers while not seeing Him. Truly, God is Strong, Mighty26.’

As for killing prisoners, it is forbidden in Islamic Law. Yet you have killed many prisoners including the 1700 captives at Camp Speicher in Tikrit in June, 2014; the 200 captives at the Sha’er gas field in July, 2014; the 700 captives of the Sha’etat tribe in Deir el-Zor (600 of whom were unarmed civilians); the 250 captives at the Tabqah air base in Al-Raqqah in August, 2014; Kurdish and Lebanese soldiers, and many untold others whom God knows. These are heinous war crimes.

If you claim that the Prophet  killed some captives in some battles, then the answer is that he only ordered that two captives be killed at the Battle of Badr: Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt and Nadr ibn Al-Harith. They were leaders of war and war criminals, and the execution of war criminals is permissible if the ruler orders it. This is also what Saladin did upon conquering Jerusalem, and what the Allies did during the Nuremberg trials after World War II. As for the tens of thousands of captives that fell under the jurisdiction of the Prophet  over a span of ten years and 29 battles, he did not execute a single regular soldier; rather, he entrusted that they be treated with kindness27. The Divine Decree regarding captives and prisoners of war is in God’s  words: ‘…Thereafter either [set them free] by grace or by ransom …’ (Muhammad, 47: 4). God  commanded that captives and prisoners of war be treated with dignity and respect: ‘And they give food, despite [their] love of it to the needy, and the orphan, and the prisoner.’ (Al-Insan, 76: 8). Indeed, the true Sunnah of the Prophet  regarding captives is pardon and amnesty, as was demonstrated during the Conquest of Mecca when the Prophet  said: ‘I say as my brother Joseph said: “There shall be no reproach on you this day”. Go, for you are free!28’

Finally, one of the most important principles when it comes to the manner of jihad is that only combatants may be killed; their families and non-combatants may not be killed intentionally. If you ask about the instance when the Prophet  was asked about bystanders and women being killed with idolaters and he said: ‘They are from them29’, this Hadith refers to the killing of innocents by accident and in no way indicates that the intentional killing of innocents—such as in bombings—is permitted. As for God’s  words: ‘… and be harsh with them …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 73); and: ‘… and let them find harshness in you …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 123), this is during war, not after it.

9. Declaring People Non-Muslim (takfir): Some misunderstandings about takfir are a result of the exaggeration of some Salafi scholars in matters of takfir (declaring people non-Muslim), and in their exceeding of what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim have said in many important aspects. In brief, takfir can be summarised correctly as follows:

a. Quintessentially in Islam, anyone who says: ‘There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ is a Muslim and cannot be declared a non-Muslim. God  says: ‘O you who believe, when you are going forth in the way of God, be discriminating and do not say to him who offers you peace: ‘You are not a believer, desiring the transient goods of the life of this world. With God are plenteous spoils. So you were formerly, but God has been gracious to you. So be discriminating. Surely God is ever Aware of what you do.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 94). The meaning of ‘be discriminating’ in the above verse is to ask them: ‘Are you Muslims?’ The answer is to be taken at face-value without questioning or testing their faith. Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad  said: ‘Woe to you! Look! After I die, do no return to being non-believers, striking each other’s necks30.’ The Prophet  also said: ‘… so whoever says: “There is no god but God” saves himself and his wealth except as permitted by law, and his reckoning is with God.31’ Ibn Omar and the Lady Aisha also said: ‘Declaring the people of the Qiblah as non-Muslim is not permissible32.’

b. This issue is of the utmost importance because it is used to justify the spilling of Muslim blood, violating their sanctity, and usurping their wealth and rights. God  says: ‘And whoever slays a believer deliberately, his requital is Hell, abiding therein, and God is wroth with him and has cursed him, and has prepared for him a mighty chastisement.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 93). Moreover, the Prophet  said: ‘Whoever says to his brother “O disbeliever”, it will certainly be true of one of them33.’ God  has warned, in the strongest terms, against killing anyone who verbally declares his Islam: ‘… And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God does not allow you any way against them.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 90). The Prophet  warned against accusing people of polytheism and of taking up the sword against them; he said: ‘The person I fear for you the most is the man who has read the Qur’an … cast it off and thrown it behind him, and taken up the sword against his neighbour and accused him of polytheism34.’

It is not permissible to kill any Muslim, (nor indeed any human being), who is unarmed and a non-combatant. Usamah Ibn Zayd narrated that, after he killed a man who had said: ‘There is no god but God’, ‘the Prophet  asked: “He said: ‘There is no god but God’ and you killed him?!” I replied: “O Messenger of God, he only said it out of fear of [our] arms.” He said: “Did you see inside his heart to know whether or not he meant it? 35”’

Recently, Shaker Wahib—who was affiliated with what was known at the time as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—appeared in a YouTube video where he stopped unarmed civilians who said they were Muslims. He then proceeded to ask them the number of prostrations (rak’ahs) in specific prayers. When they answered incorrectly, he killed them36. This is absolutely forbidden under Islamic Law and is a heinous crime.

c. Peoples’ deeds are tied to the intent behind those deeds. The Prophet  said: ‘Actions are but by intention, and every person will have what they intended …37.’ Furthermore, God  says: ‘When the hypocrites come to you they say: ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of God’. And God knows that you are indeed His Messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites truly are liars.’ (Al-Munafiqun, 63: 1). God  thus describes the words of the hypocrites regarding the Prophet’s message—an indisputable fact—as lies, because their intention when saying it was to lie even though it is true in itself. It is a lie because they uttered with their tongues a truth that God  knows their hearts reject. This means that disbelief requires the intention of disbelief, and not just absentminded words or deeds. It is not permissible to accuse anyone of disbelief without proof of the intention of disbelief. Nor is it permissible to accuse anyone of being a non-Muslim without ascertaining that intention. It is, after all, possible that the person was coerced, ignorant, insane or did not mean it. It is also possible that he misunderstood a particular issue. God  says: ‘Whoever disbelieves in God after [having affirmed] his faith—except for him who is compelled, while his heart is at rest in faith—but he who opens up his breast to unbelief, upon such shall be wrath from God, and there is a great chastisement for them.’ (Al-Nahl, 16: 106).

It is forbidden to interpret the implications of a person’s deeds; only the person himself or herself may interpret their own deeds—particularly when there is a difference of opinion among Muslims regarding that particular deed. It is also forbidden to declare others non-Muslim (takfir) based on any matter in which there is a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars. It is forbidden to declare an entire group of people non-Muslim. Disbelief applies only to individuals depending on their deeds and intentions. God  says: ‘No laden soul will bear another’s load.’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 7). Finally, it is forbidden to declare people who do not doubt the disbelief of others, or refuse to declare them non-Muslim, as non-Muslim.

The reason this point has been discussed in such detail is because you distributed the books of Muhammad bin Abdel-Wahhab as soon as you reached Mosul and Aleppo. In any case, scholars— including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah—distinguish between the actions of a disbeliever (kafir) and declaring people non-Muslim (takfir). Even if a person performs a deed that has elements of disbelief, this does not necessitate that that person be judged as a disbeliever for the reasons presented earlier. Al-Dhahabi38 related that his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, used to say near the end of his life: ‘I do not declare any member of the ummah non-Muslim … The Prophet  said: “Anyone who maintains his ablution is a believer”, so whoever observes the prescribed prayers with ablution is a Muslim.’

This is a crucial point; the Prophet  said: ‘Subtle shirk [i.e. associating partners with God] is when a man stands to pray and embellishes his prayer for an onlooker39.’ He thereby described ostentation in prayer as ‘subtle shirk’, which is minor shirk. This minor shirk, which some worshippers fall into, is not considered major shirk and cannot lead to takfir or to being cast out of the fold of Islam. For other than prophets and messengers, everyone else worships God  according to their capacity, and not as God  deserves. God  says: ‘They measured not God with His true measure …’ (Al-An’am, 6: 91); and: ‘And they will question you concerning the Spirit. Say: “The Spirit is of the command of my Lord. And of knowledge you have not been given except a little”.’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 85). Nevertheless, God  accepts such worship. And people are not able to conceive of God , because: ‘…There is nothing like Him …’ (Al-Shura, 42: 11); and: ‘Vision cannot attain Him, but He attains [all] vision …’ (Al-An’am, 6:103). Nothing is known of Him  except for what He has revealed through revelation (al-wahy) or He imparted to the Prophet Muhammad : ‘… He casts the Spirit of His command upon whomever He will of His servants …’ (Ghafir, 40: 15). So how can anyone take up a sword against others just because he or she believes that they do not worship God  as He deserves? No one worships God as He deserves except by His  permission. More fundamentally, the issue of shirk among the Arabs is moot, as the Prophet  said: ‘The Devil has lost hope that those who pray in the Arabian Peninsula will worship him, but [aims] to sow discord among them40.’

10. People of the Scripture: Regarding Arab Christians, you gave them three choices: jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam. You painted their homes red, destroyed their churches, and in some cases, looted their homes and property. You killed some of them and caused many others to flee their homes with nothing but their lives and the clothes on their backs. These Christians are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it, indeed they are friends, neighbours and co- citizens. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they all fall under ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them. Some of their ancestors fought alongside the Prophet’s  army against the Byzantines; and thus have been citizens of the State of Medina since that time. Others are under agreements that were guaranteed to them by Omar ibn Al- Khattab, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans and their respective states. In short, they are not strangers to these lands, but rather, of the native peoples of these lands from pre-Islamic times; they are not enemies but friends. For the past 1400 years they have defended their countries against the Crusaders, colonialists, Israel and other wars, how, then, can you treat them as enemies? God  says in the Qur’an: ‘God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly and deal with them justly. Assuredly God loves the just.’ (Al- Mumtahanah, 60: 8).

As for jizyah, there are two types of jizyah in Shari’ah (Islamic Law). The first type is that which is levied while the subjects are ‘readily being subdued’. This applies to those who fought Islam, as is understood from God’s  words: ‘Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor do they practise the religion of truth, from among of those who have been given the Scripture, until they pay the jizya tribute, readily being subdued.’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 29). As is clarified by a preceding verse in this Surah (chapter of the Qur’an), those intended by this verse are parties who pre-emptively attacked Muslims: ‘Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger – initiating against you first? Are you afraid of them? God is more worthy of your fear if you are believers.’ (Al-Tawbah, 9:13)41. The second type of jizyah is levied on those who do not wage war against Islam; it is levied on them instead of zakat (which only Muslims pay and which is higher in percentage than the jizyah) through a covenant and without harshness. Omar ibn Al-Khattab agreed to call it ‘charity’ (sadaqah). The jizyah is then deposited to the state treasury and is distributed among citizens, including needy Christian citizens as Omar did during his caliphate42.

11. Yazidis: You fought the Yazidis under the banner of jihad but they neither fought you nor Muslims. You considered them satanists and gave them the choice to either be killed or be forced into Islam. You killed hundreds of them and buried them in mass graves. You caused the death and suffering of hundreds of others. Had it not been for American and Kurdish intervention, tens of thousands of their men, women, children and elderly would have been killed. These are all abominable crimes. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they are Magians, because the Prophet  said: ‘Treat them as you treat People of the Scripture43.’ Thus they are People of the Scripture. God  says: ‘Truly those who believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, and the Magians and the polytheists – God will indeed judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Assuredly God, over all things, is Witness.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 17). Even if you doubt that they are People of the Scripture, from the legal perspective of Shari’ah, many scholars of the Pious Forebears considered them to be commensurate with Magians based on the aforementioned Hadith. The Umayyads even considered Hindus and Buddhists to be dhimmis. Al-Qurtubi said: ‘Al-Awza’i said: “Jizyah is levied on those who worship idols and fire, as well as on unbelievers and agnostics.” This is also the Maliki position, for Imam Malik’s opinion was that jizyah is levied on all idol worshippers and unbelievers, be they Arab or non-Arabs … except for apostates44.’

12. Slavery: No scholar of Islam disputes that one of Islam’s aims is to abolish slavery. God  says: ‘And what will show you what the obstacle is?, the freeing of a slave, or to give food on a day of hunger’ (Al-Balad, 90: 12-14); and: ‘… then [the penalty for them is] the setting free of a slave before they touch one another …’ (Al-Mujadilah, 58: 3). The Prophet Muhammad’s  Sunnah is that he freed all male and female slaves who were in his possession or whom had been given to him45. For over a century, Muslims, and indeed the entire world, have been united in the prohibition and criminalization of slavery, which was a milestone in human history when it was finally achieved. The Prophet  said regarding the pre-Islamic ‘League of the Virtuous’ (hilf al- fudul) during the time of Jahiliyyah: ‘Had I been asked to fulfil it in Islam, I would oblige46.’ After a century of Muslim consensus on the prohibition of slavery, you have violated this; you have taken women as concubines and thus revived strife and sedition (fitnah), and corruption and lewdness on the earth. You have resuscitated something that the Shari’ah has worked tirelessly to undo and has been considered forbidden by consensus for over a century. Indeed all the Muslim countries in the world are signatories of anti-slavery conventions. God  says: ‘… And fulfil the covenant. Indeed the covenant will be enquired into.’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 34) You bear the responsibility of this great crime and all the reactions which this may lead to against all Muslims.

13. Coercion and Compulsion: God  says: ‘you are not a taskmaster over them’ (Al-Ghashiyah, 88: 22); and: ‘There is no compulsion in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error …’ (Al- Baqarah, 2: 256); and: ‘And if your Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Would you then compel people until they are believers?’ (Yunus, 10: 99); and: ‘And say, “The truth [that comes] from your Lord; so whoever will, let him believe, and whoever will, let him disbelieve”.’ (Al-Kahf, 18: 29); and: ‘You have your religion and I have my religion’ (Al- Kafirun, 109: 6).

It is known that the verse: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca, hence, no one can claim that it was abrogated. You have coerced people to convert to Islam just as you have coerced Muslims to accept your views. You also coerce everyone living under your control in every matter, great or small, even in matters which are between the individual and God . In Al-Raqqa, Deir el-Zor and other areas under your control, armed groups who call themselves ‘al-hisbah’ make their rounds, taking people to task as though they were assigned by God  to execute His commandments. Yet, not a single one of the Companions did this. This is not enjoining the right and honourable and forbidding the wrong; rather, it is coercion, assault, and constant, random intimidation. If God  wanted this, He would have obliged them over the minutest details of His religion. God says: ‘… Have they not realised, those who believe, that had God willed, He could have guided all mankind? …’ (Al-Ra’d, 13: 31); and: ‘If We will We will send down to them a sign from the heaven before which their necks will remain bowed in humility.’ (Al-Shu’ara’, 26: 4).

14. Women: In simple terms, you treat women like detainees and prisoners; they dress according to your whims; they are not allowed to leave their homes and they are not allowed to go to school.

Despite the fact that the Prophet  said: ‘The pursuit of knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim47’, and despite the fact that the first word revealed of the Qur’an was: ‘Read’. Nor are they allowed to work or earn a living; nor allowed to move about freely and they are forced to marry your fighters. God  says: ‘O people, fear your Lord, Who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them scattered many men and women; and fear God by whom you claim [your rights] from one another and kinship ties. Surely God has been watchful over you.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 1). And the Prophet  said: ‘Treat women well48.’

15. Children: You have made children engage in war and killing. Some are taking up arms and others are playing with the severed heads of your victims. Some children have been thrown into the fray of combat and are killing and being killed. In your schools some children are tortured and coerced into doing your bidding and others are being executed. These are crimes against innocents who are so young they are not even morally accountable. God  says: ‘What is wrong with you, that you do not fight in the way of God, and for the oppressed men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, bring us forth from this town whose people are evildoers and appoint for us a protector from You, and appoint for us from You a helper”.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 75).

16. Hudud (Punishment): Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law. However, they are not to be applied without clarification, warning, exhortation, and meeting the burden of proof; and they are not to be applied in a cruel manner. For example, the Prophet  avoided hudud in some circumstances, and as is widely known, Omar ibn Al-Khattab suspended the hudud during a famine. In all schools of jurisprudence, hudud punishments have clear procedures that need to be implemented with mercy, and their conditions render it difficult to actually implement them. Moreover, suspicions or doubts avert hudud; i.e. if there is any doubt whatsoever, the hudud punishment cannot be implemented. The hudud punishments are also not applied to those who are in need or deprived or destitute; there are no hudud for the theft of fruits and vegetables or for stealing under a certain amount. You have rushed to enact the hudud while, in reality, conscientious religious fervour makes implementing hudud punishments something of the utmost difficulty with the highest burden of proof.

17. Torture: Your captives and some of those who were under your control have said that you tortured and terrorized them through beatings; murder and various other forms of torture, including burying people alive. You have decapitated people with knives, which is one of the cruellest forms of torture and is forbidden in Islamic Law (Shari’ah). In the mass killings you have committed— which are forbidden under Islamic Law—your fighters mock those they are about to kill by telling them that they will be killed like sheep, bleating and then indeed butchering them like sheep. Your fighters are not satisfied with mere killing, they add humiliation, debasement and mockery to it. God  says: ‘O you who believe, do not let any people deride another people: who may be better than they are …’ (Al-Hujurat, 49: 11).

18. Mutilation: Not only have you mutilated corpses, you have stuck the decapitated heads of your victims on spikes and rods and kicked their severed heads around like balls and broadcast it to the world during the World Cup—a sport that is permissible in principle in Islam and which allows people to relieve stress and forget their problems. You jeered at corpses and severed heads and broadcast these acts from the military bases you overran in Syria. You have provided ample ammunition for all those who want to call Islam barbaric with your broadcasting of barbaric acts which you pretend are for the sake of Islam. You have given the world a stick with which to beat Islam whereas in reality Islam is completely innocent of these acts and prohibits them.

19. Attributing crimes to God in the name of humility: After tying Syrian soldiers of the 17th Division in North-eastern Syria to barbed wire, you cut off their heads with knives and posted a video of this on the internet. In the video you said: ‘We are your brothers, the soldiers of the Islamic State. God has favoured us with His grace and victory by conquering the 17th Division; a victory and favour through God. We seek refuge in God from our might and power. We seek refuge in God from our weapons and our readiness.’ You thus attributed this heinous crime to God , and made as if this were an act of humility to God , by saying that He  did it and not you. But God says: ‘And when they commit any indecency they say, “We found our fathers practising it, and God has enjoined it on us”. Say, “God does not enjoin indecency. Do you say concerning God that which you do not know?”’ (Al-A’raf, 7: 28).

20. Destruction of the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions. You have blown up and destroyed the graves of Prophets and Companions. Scholars disagree on the subject of graves. Nevertheless, it is not permissible to blow up the graves of Prophets and Companions and disinter their remains, just as it is not permissible to burn grapes under the pretext that some people use them to make wine. God  says: ‘… Those who prevailed regarding their affair, “We will verily set up over them, a place of worship”.’ (Al-Kahf, 18:21); and: ‘… Take to yourselves Abraham’s station for a place of prayer …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 125). The Prophet  said: ‘I had previously prohibited you from visiting graves. Permission has been granted for Muhammad to visit his mother’s grave, so visit them [i.e. graves] for they remind [one] of death and the Hereafter49.’ Visiting graves reminds people of death and the Hereafter; God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Rivalry [in worldly things] distracts you until you visit the graves.’ (Al-Takathur, 102: 1-2).

Your former leader, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi said: ‘In our opinion, it is obligatory to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry) and to prohibit all means that lead to it because of Muslim’s narration in his Sahih: on the authority of Abu Al-Hiyaj Al-Asadi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib  said: “Should I not tell you what he [i.e. the Prophet]  sent me to do: not to leave a statue without obliterating it nor a raised grave without levelling it.”’ However, even if what he said were true, it does not apply to the graves of Prophets or Companions, as the Companions were in consensus regarding burying the Prophet  and his two Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, in a building that was contiguous to the Prophet’s Mosque.

21. Rebelling against the leader. It is impermissible to rebel against the leader who is not guilty of declared and candid disbelief (al-kufr al-bawwah); i.e. disbelief that he himself admits to openly and where all Muslims are in consensus regarding such a person being a non-Muslim—or by his prohibiting the establishment of prayers. The evidence of this is in God’s  words: ‘O you who believe, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 59). The Prophet  also said: ‘Listen and obey even if an Abyssinian whose head is like a raisin is given authority over you50.’ The Prophet  also said: ‘The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God’s blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): “Shouldn’t we overthrow them by the sword?” He said: “No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them, you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience51.”’ As for a ruler who is a reprobate or corrupt, he is to be removed by those qualified to elect or dispose a caliph on behalf of the Ummah (nation) (ahl al-hall wal- ‘aqd)—if possible— without sedition (fitnah), armed rebellion or bloodshed. However, he is not rebelled against. It is forbidden to rebel against a leader even if he does not implement the Shari’ah or a portion of it, for God  says: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed – such are the disbelievers.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 44); and: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed, those are the evildoers.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 45); and: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed – those are the wicked.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 47). So, there are three levels of those who do not implement the Shari’ah: disbelief (kufr), evildoing (fusuq) and wickedness (dhulm). Whoever prevents the Shari’ah from being practiced at all in a Muslim country is a disbeliever, but one who does not implement part of it or only implements its higher purposes is merely an evildoer or wicked. In some countries, the implementation of Shari’ah is restricted due to matters of sovereignty on which national security depends, and this is permissible. In summary, Ibn Abbas52 says that whoever does not implement Shari’ah is a wicked evildoer, but he is not a disbeliever and rebelling against him is forbidden. Ibn Abbas  said that ruling by other than God’s commandments is ‘disbelief short of disbelief.’ He also said: ‘It is not the disbelief that they mean; it is not a disbelief that casts one from the fold of religion.’

22. The Caliphate: There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah. The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE. However, a new caliphate requires consensus from Muslims and not just from those in some small corner of the world. Omar ibn Al-Khattab  said: ‘Whosoever pledges allegiance to a man without due consultation with Muslims has fooled himself; and neither he nor the man to whom he pledged allegiance should be followed for he has risked both their lives53.’ Announcing a caliphate without consensus is sedition (fitnah) because it renders the majority of Muslims who do not approve it outside of the caliphate. It will also lead to many rival caliphates emerging, thereby sowing sedition and discord (fitnah) among Muslims. The beginnings of this discord reared its head when the Sunni imams of Mosul did not pledge allegiance to you and you killed them.

In your speech you quoted the Companion Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq : ‘I have been given authority over you, and I am not the best of you.’ This begs the question: who gave you authority over the ummah? Was it your group? If this is the case, then a group of no more than several thousand has appointed itself the ruler of over a billion and a half Muslims. This attitude is based upon a corrupt circular logic that says: ‘Only we are Muslims, and we decide who the caliph is, we have chosen one and so whoever does not accept our caliph is not a Muslim.’ In this case, a caliph is nothing more than the leader of a certain group that declares more than 99% of Muslims non-Muslim. On the other hand, if you recognize the billion and a half people who consider themselves Muslims, how can you not consult (shura) them regarding your so-called caliphate? Thus, you face one of two conclusions: either you concur that they are Muslims and they did not appoint you caliph over them—in which case you are not the caliph—or, the other conclusion is that you do not accept them as Muslims, in which case Muslims are a small group not in need of a caliph, so why use the word ‘caliph’ at all? In truth, the caliphate must emerge from a consensus of Muslim countries, organizations of Islamic scholars and Muslims across the globe.

23. National affiliations: In one of your speeches you said: ‘Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis54.’ In the same speech, you called on Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant. By doing so, you take the rights and resources of these countries and distribute them among people who are strangers to those lands, even though they are of the same religion. This is exactly what Israel did when it invited Jewish settlers abroad to immigrate to Palestine, evict the Palestinians and usurp their ancestral rights and lands. Where is the justice in this?

Simply, patriotism and loving one’s country does not contradict Islam’s teachings, rather, loving one’s country stems from faith, being both instinctual and a Sunnah. The Prophet  said, addressing Mecca: ‘How goodly a land you are, and how beloved you are to me. Were it not that my people forced me to leave, I would not have lived anywhere else55.’ Patriotism and love for one’s country have many proofs from the Qur’an and Sunnah. God  says in the Qur’an: ‘And had We prescribed for them: “Slay yourselves” or “Leave your habitations”, they would not have done it, save a few of them …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 66). Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi commented: ‘Leaving one’s land is equal to slaying oneself56.’ And on the authority of Anas Ibn Malik, the Prophet  ‘would, upon seeing the walls of Medina when returning from travel, hasten the pace of his she-camel. If he was riding a mount, he would move it out of love for [Medina]57 .’ Ibn Hajar said: ‘This Hadith is proof of the virtue of Medina, and of the legal validity of loving one’s country and longing for it58.’

24. Emigration. You invited Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant.59 Abu Muslim Al-Canadi, a soldier of the ‘Islamic State’, said: ‘Come and join us [in Syria] before the doors close60.’ It suffices to repeat the words of the Prophet Muhammed  who said: ‘There is no emigration after the Conquest [of Mecca], but jihad and [its] intention [remain]. And when you are called to war, march forward61.’

Conclusion

In conclusion, God has described Himself as the ‘Most Merciful of the merciful’. He created man from His mercy. God  says in the Qur’an: ‘The Compassionate One has taught the Qur’an. He created man’ (Al-Rahman, 55: 1-3). And God  created man for His mercy: ‘Had your Lord willed, He would have made mankind one community, but they continue to differ, except those on whom your Lord has mercy; and that is why He created them …’ (Hud, 11: 118- 119). Linguistically, ‘that’ refers back to the closest noun, which is ‘mercy’, not ‘differ’. This is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, who said: ‘He created them for mercy62.’

The soundest way to attain this mercy is the worship of God . God says: ‘And I did not create the jinn and mankind except that they may worship Me.’ (Al-Dhariyat, 51: 56). Worshipping God is not a favour that one bestows upon God , but rather, sustenance from Him: ‘I do not desire from them any provision, nor do I desire that they should feed Me. Indeed it is God Who is the Provider, the Lord of Strength, the Firm.’ (Al-Dhariyat, 51: 57-58). Furthermore, God revealed the Qur’an as a mercy from Him: ‘And We reveal of the Qur’an that which is a cure, and a mercy for believers …’ (Al-Isra’, 17:82). Islam is mercy and its attributes are merciful. The Prophet , who was sent as a mercy for all the worlds, summarized a Muslim’s dealings with others by saying: ‘He who shows no mercy, will not be shown mercy63’; and: ‘Have mercy and you will be shown mercy64.’ But, as can be seen from everything mentioned, you have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder. As elucidated, this is a great wrong and an offence to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world.

Reconsider all your actions; desist from them; repent from them; cease harming others and return to the religion of mercy. God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Say [that God declares]: “O My servants who have been prodigal against their own souls, do not despair of God’s mercy. Truly God forgives all sins. Truly He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.”’ (Al-Zumar, 39:53).

And God knows best.
24th Dhul-Qi’da 1435 AH / 19th September 2014 CE

The Saying of Ali bin Abi Talib (k.)

Nu’aym ibn Hammad narrates in Al-Fitan, that the 4th Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib said:

When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet. Thereafter there shall appear a feeble insignificant folk. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron. They will have the state. They will fulfil neither covenant nor agreement. They will call to the truth, but they will not be people of the truth. Their names will be parental attributions, and their aliases will be derived from towns. Their hair will be free-flowing like that of women. This situation will remain until they differ among themselves. Thereafter, God will bring forth the Truth through whomever He wills65 .

People are asking: does this narration by Ali bin Abi Talib (k.)—that is related by Al- Bukhari’s teacher (Nu’aym bin Hamad) over one thousand two hundred years ago in his book Al- Fitan—refer to the ‘Islamic State’?

Is it possible to understand the narration as follows?

‘When you see the black flags’: The flags of the ‘Islamic State’ are black.

‘Remain where you are’: i.e., stay where you are, O Muslims, and do not join them.

‘And do not move your hands or your feet’: i.e. do not help them financially or with equipment.

‘Thereafter there shall appear a feeble insignificant folk’: i.e. ‘weak’ and ‘insignificant’ in terms of understanding of religion, morality and religious practice.

‘Their hearts will be like fragments of iron’: i.e. they will ruthlessly kill prisoners of war and cruelly torture people.

‘They will have the state’: For almost a century, no one has claimed to be an Islamic Caliphate other than the current ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant.

‘They will fulfil neither covenant nor agreement’: The ‘Islamic State’ did not fulfil its agreement with the Sha’etat tribe after the tribe pledged allegiance to them; indeed the ‘Islamic State’ slaughtered them by the hundreds. They also killed journalists.

‘They will call to the truth’: The ‘Islamic State’ calls to Islam.

‘But they will not be people of the truth’: The people of the truth are merciful. The Prophet Muhammad said: ‘Have mercy and you will be shown mercy.’

‘Their names will be parental attributions’: Like: ‘Abu Muthanna’, ‘Abu Muhammad’, ‘Abu Muslim’ and so on.

‘And their aliases will be derived from towns’: Like: ‘Al-Baghdadi’, ‘al-Zarqawi’, ‘al-Tunisi’ and so on.

‘Their hair will be free-flowing like that of women’: ‘Islamic State’ fighters have hair precisely like this.

‘Until they differ among themselves’: Like the differences between the ‘Islamic State’ and its parent, the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria). The fighting between these two has led to around ten thousand deaths in a single year.

‘Thereafter, God will bring forth the truth through whomever He wills’: through a clear and correct Islamic proclamation (like this open letter).

The sage Luqman says in the Qur’an:

‘O my son! Even if it should be the weight of a grain of mustard- seed, and [even if] it be in a rock, or in the heavens, or in the earth, God will bring it forth. Truly God is Subtle, Aware.’ (Luqman, 31: 16)

Notes:
1 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Iman, no. 55.
2 Published by SawarimMedia on YouTube on April 3rd, 2014.
3 Ibn Taymiyyah says in Majmu’ Al-Fatawa (Vol. 28, p. 270), ‘The Prophet  said, “I was sent with the sword as a sign of the Final Hour so that none would be worshipped save God, alone, with no partner. My sustenance has been placed under the shadow of my spear. Lowliness and humiliation will come to those who disobey my teachings. Whosoever imitates people is one of them.” Ahmad narrates this hadith in his Musnad [Vol. 2, p.50] on the authority of Ibn Umar, and Bukhari cites it.’ However, the Hadith has a weak chain of narrators.
4 Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab al-Tawhid, no. 7422, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Tawbah, no. 2751.
5 Ibn Taymiyyah says in Majmu’ Al-Fatawa (Vol. 13, p. 341), ‘Tautology in [the Arabic] language is rare and in the Qur’an, it is even rarer or nonexistent.’ Al-Raghib Al-Asfahani says in Mufradat Al-Qur’an (p. 55), ‘This book is followed … by a book that informs the use of synonyms and their subtle differences. By doing so, the uniqueness of every expression is distinguishable from its synonyms.’
6 Tafsir Al-Tabari (Vol. 9, p. 28).
7 Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi in Tafsir Al-Qur’an, no. 2950.
8 Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab al-Hudud, no. 6786, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Fada’il, no. 2327. 9 Narrated by Abu Dawood in Kitab Al-Adab, no. 4904.
10 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Adab, no. 6030.
11 Al-Ghazali, Al-Mustasfa fi Usul Al-Fiqh, (Vol. 1, p. 420).
12 Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, I’lam Al-Muqi’een ‘an Rabbil-‘Alamin, (Vol. 4, p. 157).
13 The Prophet  did not kill the hypocrites who disagreed with him, nor did he permit that they be killed. Indeed the Prophet  said: ‘So that people do not say that Muhammad killed his companions.’ Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab Tafsir al-Qur’an, no. 4907, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Birr wal-Silah, no. 2584.
14 Narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, (Vol. 6, p. 306).
15 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 3004.
16 Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Zuhd, (Vol. 2, p. 165), and by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi in Tarikh Baghdad, (Vol. 3, p. 523).
17 Narrated by Imam Malik in Al-Muwatta’; Kitab al-Nida’ Lissalah, no. 490, also narrated by Al-Tirmidhi in Kitab al- Da’awat, and by Ibn Majah in Kitab al-Adab, no. 3790, and corrected by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak (Vol. 1, p. 673).
18 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Tawhid, no. 7458, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Imarah, no. 1904. 19 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab Al-Imarah, no. 1905.
20 Cf. Wahbi Al-Zuhayli’s Ahkam al-Harb fil-Islam.
21 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 2946.
22 Narrated by Bukhari in his Sahih, Kitab al-Jihad, no. 3053, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Wasiyyah, no.1637. 23 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 1731, and by Al-Tirmidhi in Kitab al-Diyyat, no. 1408.
24 Narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba in Al-Musannaf (Vol. 6, p. 498).
25 The deacons were armed, combatant priests.
26 Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90), and by Al-Marwazi in Musnad Abi Bakr, no. 21.
27 Narrated by Ibn Abdullah in Al-Isti’ab (Vol. 2, p. 812), and by Al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir (Vol. 19, p. 129): ‘Qatada said: “God ordered that prisoners be treated well.”’
28 Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 118); Cf Fayd Al-Qadeer Sharh al-Jami’ al-Sagheer, (Vol. 5, p. 171).
29 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 1745.
30 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Maghazi, no. 4403, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Iman, no. 66.
31 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 2946.
32 As related in Al-Hafiz Al-Haythami’s Majma’ Al-Zawa’id, (Vol. 1, p. 106).
33 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Adab, no. 6104.
34 Narrated by Ibn Habban in his Sahih, (Vol. 1, p. 282).
35 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Iman, no. 96. Another narration reads: ‘“Did you kill him after he said: ‘There is no
god but God”. I said: “He was trying to save himself”. [The Prophet] kept repeating his words …’. Narrated by Al- Bukhari in Kitab al-Maghazi, no. 4369.
36 YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrVPE_-f9I , June, 2014.
37 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab Bad’ al-Wahy, no. 1; also narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Imarah, no. 1907. 38 Al-Dhahabi’s Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’, (Vol. 11, p. 393).
39 Narrated by Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Zuhd, no. 4204.
40 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab Sifat al-Qiyamah wal-Jannah wal-Nar, no. 2812.
41 Al-Tabari says in his Tafsir (Vol. 6, p. 157): ‘In God’s  words: “Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day …” there is no negation of the meanings of pardon and amnesty … If they agree to being subdued and pay the jizyah after combat, it is permissible to order that they be pardoned for intended treachery or oaths they planned to break as long as they do not wage war without paying the jizyah or refuse to follow laws that apply to them.
42 Jurists permitted the lifting of the jizyah if some of them joined the Muslim army, as happened in the time of Omar bin Al-Khattab.
43 Narrated by Al-Imam Malik in al-Muwatta’, in Kitab al-Zakat, no. 617, and by Al-Shafi’i in his Musnad, no.
1008.
44 Al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir, (Vol. 8, p. 110).
45 Cf Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah (Vol. 5, p. 284) in which he says: ‘The Prophet  freed male and
female slaves … and after the Prophet  died, there were absolutely no slaves of his to be inherited.’
46 Ma’rifat as-Sunan wa Al-Athar, Bayhaqi (Vol. 11, p. 135); As-Sunan Al-Kubra, Bayhaqi (Vol. 6, p. 596); Sirah Ibn Hisham (Vol. 1, p. 266).
47 Narrated by Ibn Majah, no. 224, and by Al-Tabarani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabir (10/195).
48 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Nikah, no. 5186; and by Muslim in Kitab al-Rida’, no. 1468.
49 Narrated by Muslim in his Sahih, no. 977, and by Al-Tirmidhi, no. 1054 and by others.
50 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Ktab al-Adhan, no. 693.
51 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Imarah, no. 1855.
52 Narrated by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak ‘ala as-Sahihayn, (Vol. 2, p. 342).
53 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Hudud, no. 6830.
54 BBC news online, 1st July 2014.
55 Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi in Kitab al-Manaqib, no. 3926; and in Sahih Ibn Hibban (Vol. 9, p. 23).
56 Mafatih Al-Ghayb, Al-Razi (Vol. 15, p. 515) in the exegesis of Al-Anfal, 8:75.
57 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Hajj, no. 1886.
58 Fath Al-Bari, Ibn Hajar (Vol. 3, p. 621).
59 BBC news online, on 1st July 2014.
60 He appeared in a recruitment video produced by Hayat Media Center, August, 2014.
61 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 2783.
62 Cf Mafatih Al-Ghayb, Al-Razi (Vol. 18, p. 412).
63 Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab al-Adab, no. 5997, and by Musim in Kitab al-Fada’il, no. 2318.
64 Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (Vol. 2, p. 160).
65 Narrated by Nu’aym ibn Hammad in Kitab Al-Fitan, Hadith no. 573.

The post Complete Text Of Open Letter To Al-Baghdadi appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Ravi M. Khanna

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s US visit is expected to bring a rare kind of “pragmatism” in Indo-US relations, which used to be badly missed during such summits in the past.

The reason is simple. Modi is known for his no-nonsense attitude, to-the-point speaking and out-of-the-box thinking. He, in fact, has brought that to his approach in the foreign policy also, so much so that India now is focusing more on the doables, without any diplomatic platitudes and unnecessary verbiage.

Earlier, such summits in the US capital, beginning with Indira Gandhi to all the way up to Manmohan Singh, (which this reporter covered from Washington for VOA) mostly ended in wordy joint statements, full of lofty references to the similarities in the two democracies and a “strategic partnership” in bringing peace in this turbulent world. The only hardcore practical agreements worth highlighting were a few defence and technology transfer deals, the recent civil nuclear accord and the agreement in the 1980’s to provide nuclear fuel to the Tarapur power plant. Cooperation against terrorism grew by necessity after 9/11 terror attacks on New York.

Modi, just days ahead of his visit, openly backed Russia and China. He refused to criticize Moscow for its annexation of Crimea and reiterated trust in China’s handling of territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas. Later, in an interview to CNN, Modi, when asked whether New Delhi is as worried about China’s “behaviour in the East and South China Seas” like Vietnam and Philippines are, said he has faith in Beijing’s understanding and its commitment to global laws.

How Washington reacts to these comments would become clear only during the visit. It also remains to be seen that during his discussions with President Barack Obama, what kind of a role Modi seeks in Afghanistan and what does Obama expect from India in its new war against the terror group called the Islamic State.

But, according to senior Indian officials, Modi’s first visit is expected to focus more on the deliverables, mostly in defence, trade, renewable energy technology and education. Nonetheless, the non-deliverables are also significant, which include India’s stance at the WTO and the US position on transfer of technology.

Security ties, officials say, are expected to include discussions on coproduction in defence, a possible deal on US helicopters, and on anti-tank Javelin missiles. However, a pact on sharing technology in the power sector is still hinging on the US demand to include a parallel agreement on climate change commitments that India so far has refused to sign.

On the trade and investment question, although most businessmen expect the Obama-Modi personal chemistry to be a high point of the visit, some feel that Modi’s task will not be easy because of India’s image of a “non-friendly” business destination. They point out to the sanctions that Washington has imposed on India for solar imports, and India’s recent stance at the WTO of not signing the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Therefore, they say, Modi will have to work extra hard to convince sceptical American CEOs that India is indeed reopened for business.

However, according to a survey by Assocham, 77 percent of Indian corporations expect tangible outcomes from meetings with President Obama and a boost to bilateral trade from current level of $150 billion.

But then there are several other areas where agreement between the two leaders may not be possible. There are few hopes of a breakthrough on the differences over the intellectual property rights issue and the nuclear issue as well. Reports from Washington say the two American nuclear suppliers, GE and Westinghouse, have run into a wall over India’s nuclear suppliers liability law.

Despite all the sensitive hurdles, some Indian analysts remain optimistic about the overall outcome of the visit, if not for the short term, definitely the long term. They give several reasons. Firstly they say, Washington is expected to be softer on Modi because of the guilt in its sub-conscious about refusing visa to him for such a long time; and some of the mistakes that were made during last year’s controversial treatment of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade.

Secondly, they say it is the first time after a long period of time that Washington will be dealing with a leader who has a comfortable majority in Indian parliament and who is not heading a coalition government. Washington, they say, likes to work with a strong leader who can easily deliver on his promises, and Modi can be such a leader. They also point out to the deep roots Modi has in the Indian community in USA, which now has become very active in US politics as a large vote bank.

Modi’s “to-the-point” approach is expected to surprise some of the US officials who have always expressed their disliking for India’s habit of preaching to Washington about the US international and South Asian policies.

One of my sources at the State Department told me once about the stark difference between his meetings with Indian and Pakistani officials. “When the Pakistanis come,” he said, “they bring a list of things they want and it doesn’t take much time to tell them what is possible, what is conditional and what is not possible at all.”

“But when the Indians come to us,” he said, “they spend most of the time in explaining where our policies are wrong and then in the last fifteen minutes they come out with their agenda and the meeting ends with a promise to meet again.”

(Ravi M. Khanna, author/analyst is a former South Asia bureau chief of Voice of America. He can be contacted at southasiamonitor1@gmail.com)

The post Modi’s Pragmatism Can Change Indo-US Equation – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On Sep 21, Ashraf Ghani, the 65-year-old former finance minister, was declared the winner of Afghanistan’s bitterly contested presidential elections which had run on for almost six months.

The declaration has set the stage for him to become Afghanistan’s second president since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, and will ring out the end of the tenure of incumbent, Hamid Karzai. It would also possibly place in the final stages the second (political) of the triad of transitions Afghanistan is set to undertake as it moves gingerly towards full sovereignty and stability.

Earlier on that day, Ghani and rival Abdullah Abdullah had joined Karzai in the presidential palace to sign the power-sharing agreement which paves way for the “unity” government formation. Teams from both sides had met late into the night with UN representatives to finalise this power-sharing deal before the scheduled announcement of the final election results on Sep 21 following conclusion of a UN-monitored audit and recount.

After signing of the agreement, Karzai in his address to election-weary Afghans said the country has been waiting for this happy day and hoped that the things he couldn’t do, the duo would. The two contenders had been tussling over the powers to be held by the new post of chief executive (CEO), created after two rounds of talks US Secretary of State John Kerry had held with the two rivals in Kabul this summer.

Under the four-page agreement, Ghani on becoming the president will issue a decree appointing runner-up Abdullah Abdullah (or his nominee) as the CEO. There is no provision for a CEO in Afghanistan’s constitution, hence in the coming months it is planned to convene a loya jirga and make requisite constitutional changes, after which Abdullah would eventually become the prime minister. Ghani is expected to take over as the president on Sep 29.

Agreement

The agreement between the two presidential candidates gives substantial powers to the newly-created position of CEO, defining it as having “the functions of an executive prime minister”. The agreement also creates a council of ministers, headed by the CEO and includes two deputies and the cabinet ministers. According to the agreement, this council of ministers will implement the executive affairs of the government.

Therefore, while the president would head his cabinet and take strategic decisions, the CEO will be responsible for managing implementation of government policies as head of the council of ministers. He will also report on progress to the president directly and in the cabinet.

One of the final hurdles to the agreement on a unity government was a clause within the agreement that called for “parity in the selection of personnel between the president and the CEO at the level of head of key security and economic institutions, and independent directorates”. Ghani had contended that the provision would take away powers constitutionally granted to the president. It is an issue that the unity government would address along with reforms to election laws to prevent any crisis in the future.

Immediate Concerns

The Obama administration has been integrally involved in trying to get the two candidates to reach an agreement. To propel the agreement, John Kerry on Sep 17 had made his 30th call to the two rivals since the runoff election on June 14. In addition US President Barack Obama is reported to have called each of the candidates three times since the runoff.

The US would like the signing of the Bilateral Security Agreement and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) at the earliest to get on with its counter-terrorism and training mission in the country. Obama plans to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016, but the US is expected to continue to spend $5 billion to $8 billion per year in Afghanistan for at least a decade.

Another issue requiring attention is the declaration of provincial elections results. As many as 458 candidates, including 97 women, were declared successful in the preliminary results of the provincial polls, announced by the Independent Election Commission on May 20. Final results were to be unveiled on June 17, but the announcement was delayed by the presidential election deadlock and the ensuing vote audit.

Assessment

The key to the new government’s success will be a clear delineation of power between the president and the new position of CEO, as it addresses the most pressing needs of security, economy, justice, jobs, provision of basic services and a corruption-free administration. However, a lot has changed geopolitically for Afghanistan and its new president since polling first began for the presidential and provincial elections in the first week of April this year.

The Pakistan military has launched, and is still continuing with, its operation Zarb-e-Azb to flush out militants from North Waziristan. The operation has virtually pushed the anti-Pakistan militant groups over the Durand line into Afghanistan, causing further instability in the border districts of the country. Some of these militant groups have bought peace by aligning with the Afghan Taliban, while some are being targeted by the Pakistan army through cross border shelling and rocket fire. On the other hand, the Inter-Services Intelligence-aligned groups such as the Haqqanis continue to operate in a “business as usual” mode.

The Pakistani federal government at the same time is living from one political crisis to another, incapable of providing any meaningful support to the new Afghan government. A significant outcome of the Pakistani political crisis has been a stronger and assertive Pakistani military, particularly with respect to the country’s foreign policy towards Afghanistan.

The Afghan Taliban, now estimated to be 30,000 to 35,000 fighters strong, has taken advantage of the instability resulting from the months long post-election wrangling, and launched a series of attacks across the country that has made 2014 the bloodiest year of the 13-year conflict. The Taliban political leadership predictably has dismissed the poll outcome, claiming it to be rigged and has vowed to continue fighting as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.

Further, the Al Qaeda (central) widely believed to be sharing the environs with the Afghan Taliban in Af-Pak, has renewed its allegiance to Mullah Omar and decided to reassert itself in the region and push eastwards in its new avatar of Al Qaeda in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). The Islamic State (IS) has also made its presence felt in Af-Pak by securing support and recognition of some breakaway Pakistani Taliban groups and stepped up its recruitment from the region.

These developments will challenge one of the major positives that has emerged during the period – the staying power of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).  It will also be interesting to see how the ongoing conflict with the IS shapes US policy in Afghanistan, specifically in terms of a rethink on the duration of US/NATO military presence and relations with Iran.

It is clear that a stable Afghanistan requires stronger partnership between the new government and both Western and regional countries, including China and Russia. It remains to be seen whether the common understanding between these stakeholders over issues of Islamic militancy and narcotics trafficking in Afghanistan can prevail over their differences on issues in Ukraine and East Asia.

With the US focus shifting to Eastern Europe and the confrontation with IS in West Asia, and China increasingly feeling the impact of Islamist militancy, India would sense that the situation would provide for it to leverage its soft power for a more constructive role, closer to home, in Afghanistan. The composition of the Afghan unity government, India would feel should be predisposed to support such a move.

(Monish Gulati is Associate Director at the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at m_gulati_2001@yahoo.com)

This article was published at South Asia Monitor.

The post New Afghan Dispensation: Time For India To Play More Constructive Role – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(RFE/RL) — The United States says it believes it has identified the masked militant in the videos depicting the beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker.

FBI Director James Comey told reporters on September 25 that he won’t reveal the man’s name or nationality.

In the three videos, the Islamic State (IS) militant speaks British-accented English before U.S. reporters James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines are decapitated.

Comey also said about a dozen Americans are believed to be currently fighting with Islamist groups in Syria.

He said more than 100 Americans have either tried to go to Syria and been arrested, gone successfully, or gone and come back.

The director said all the Americans who have returned after fighting with extremist groups are either under investigation, under surveillance, or have been arrested.

The post US Says It Has Identified Militant In Beheading Videos appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says his country will apply for membership in the European Union in 2020 as part of a broader plan for social and economic reforms.

Speaking Thursday at a press conference in Kyiv, Poroshenko said the planned reforms, consisting of 60 separate initiatives, will prepare Ukraine to join the 28-nation bloc.

“Anti-corruption reform, judicial reform, reform of the defense system, decentralization of power, energy independence are the priorities,” said Poroshenko who earlier this month signed an Association Agreement with the EU. He said he hopes that legislative elections set for next month will result in a pro-reform parliamentary majority.

The spurning late last year of closer EU ties by Poroshenko’s predecessor, Moscow-backed Viktor Yanukovych, sparked massive anti-government protests which in February led to his ouster and flight to Russia. Moscow, in what Kyiv and the West have seen as retaliatory moves, subsequently annexed Ukraine’s Crimea and orchestrated a separatist rebellion in the country’s east as part of efforts to destabilize Ukraine. Russia denies the charge.

The EU, the U.S. and a number of other Western countries have imposed sanctions on Russia over its role in the Ukraine conflict.

Apparently in response to Poroshenko’s statement on Kyiv’s pursuit of EU membership, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday Ukraine should resolve all its problems with Moscow before moving to join the EU, Itar-Tass news agency reported.

Poroshenko also said Thursday he expects to sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin within the next three weeks as part of a “multilateral” meeting, adding that a one-on-one enounter is also possible. He said he believes there has been a “transformation” in Russia’s aims in relation to Ukraine.

Blasting Putin at UNGA

In contrast, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, addressing what is seen as Russia’s aggression, late Wednesday appealed to the international community to keep sanctions against Moscow in place until Kyiv regains “control of its entire territory,” including Crimea.

In a speech in New York before the U.N. General Assembly, Yatsenyuk also delivered a direct message to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Mr. Putin, you can win the fight against the troops, but you will never win the fight against the nation – united Ukrainian nation,” he said, referring to the conflict in Ukraine’s east which to date has claimed an estimated 3,000 lives.

Yatsenyuk said that Russia has violated international laws by invading parts of Ukrainian territory, by arming pro-Russian insurgents and annexing Crimea.

Commenting on Yatsenyuk’s speech, Russia’s U.N. ambassador Vitaliy Churkin called it “melodramatic” and misguided.

“It’s strange that Ukraine’s PM, instead of solving the multiple problems of his country, which is nearing economic collapse, has come to New York to speak in front of a half-empty General Assembly room,” Churkin told journalists.

Earlier Wednesday, the Ukrainian prime minister expressed skepticism about the current cease-fire with pro-Russian rebels, calling it extremely fragile and shaky. He said Ukraine could easily deter separatists and restore peace in the country on its own, if it wasn’t for Russia’s direct intervention.

Although Moscow denies it, Ukraine and the West claim there has been ample evidence of Russian military support for insurgents in eastern Ukraine, and the presence of Russian troops on Ukrainian soil. NATO says that, despite signs of some recent withdrawals, Russian troops remain there.

‘We need to stop him in Ukraine’

Expressing concern about Putin’s long-term plans, Lithuania’s president says that a lack of a strong unified response to the Ukraine crisis, is only emboldening the Russian leader to go further, and that not even NATO’s collective defense principle, Article 5, will deter him.

“It will not stop Putin from his plans if he does not see real actions from the European and world leaders. They are only talking. We need to stop him in Ukraine,” said Dalia Grybauskaite in an interview with the Washington Post published late Wednesday.

Grybauskaite, whose country, along with its two Baltic neighbors Estonia and Latvia, spent half a century under Moscow’s rule, said that the West, despite sanctions it imposed on Russia, is in effect appeasing Putin.

“Why are we so busy trying not to offend Putin, who is today sending his troops to kill and occupy Ukrainian territory?… We, with open eyes, are allowing the partition of Ukraine,” said Grybauskaite, warning that it could be a precursor for Russian intervention elsewhere in the post-Soviet space.

Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia all have large minorities of ethnic Russians. The Kremlin used a self-proclaimed mandate to protect ethnic Russians as a pretext for its annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea.

All three Baltic countries are members of NATO. They are the only former Soviet republics to have joined the alliance. Ukraine is a NATO partner but not a member.

The post Poroshenko: Ukraine To Apply To Join EU In 2020 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(Civil.Ge) — Georgian PM Irakli Garibashvili has denied reports about Tbilisi offering to host training center for anti-Islamic State fighters and said that Georgia’s contribution to the U.S.-led international coalition will only be “symbolic.”

“I deny this report,” PM Garibashvili told Georgian journalists September 25 in New York, where he is attending the UN General Assembly.

“No training center whatsoever is planned on our territory. This is wrong information and I want to call on journalists to show more responsibility while reporting it,” he said.

“Georgia’s participation in this coalition will be symbolic. We have agreed at the security council [apparently referring to Georgia’s state security and crisis management council] that Georgia will provide humanitarian assistance. It will be solely humanitarian and not military assistance,” PM Garibashvili said.

Foreign Policy’s The Cable reported on September 23, citing unnamed U.S. administration official, that Georgia has offered to host a training center for the Syrian rebels as a part of its contribution to the anti-IS coalition.

It was then also reported by Reuters. “U.S. officials said Georgia had offered to host a training centre for U.S.-backed Syrian rebels, but it was unclear whether Washington would take Tbilisi up on the offer,” Reuters reported in its September 24 analysis of U.S. efforts to forge anti-IS coalition.

Shortly after the Foreign Policy published its story on September 23, the Georgian Ministry of Defense released a statement saying that Tbilisi is considering various options of how to contribute to the anti-IS coalition; but the MoD statement did not deny the report by the Foreign Policy.

Georgia’s State Security and Crisis Management Council, an inter-agency body chaired by PM Irakli Garibashvili, however, strongly denied the report later on September 23.

Foreign Minister, Maia Panjikidze, also denied it on the same day. Four days earlier, on September 19, Foreign Minister Panjikidze addressed the UN Security Council and reiterated Georgia’s readiness to contribute to the anti-IS coalition, but along with “humanitarian assistance”, she also mentioned possibility of sharing Georgia’s “valuable experience from combat missions.”

“We stand ready to provide humanitarian assistance to those who have been affected by brutal actions of terrorist groups. Furthermore, Georgia’s valuable experience from combat missions, as well as successful defense transformation can be effectively used to enhance capabilities of Iraqi and other security forces as they are taking fight against the ISIL [Islamic State] terrorist,” the Georgian Foreign Minister told the UN Security Council on September 19.

“We look forward to working with the United States and other coalition partners in coming days and weeks to identify areas where Georgia contribution can provide added value,” she added.

Georgia’s possible role in coalition to fight Islamic State was one of the issues discussed when U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel visited Tbilisi earlier this month.

“Trainings, exercises – these are the things that come to our mind,” Georgian Defense Minister, Irakli Alasania, said when asked after talks with Hagel how Georgia can contribute to anti-IS coalition.

The post PM: Georgia’s Contribution To Anti-IS Coalition Will Be ‘Symbolic’ appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Human rights activists, journalists, and others imprisoned by the Uzbek government on politically motivated charges suffer torture and abysmal prison conditions. The prisoners’ sentences are often extended arbitrarily for years. Uzbekistan has one of the world’s worst human rights records and has unlawfully imprisoned thousands of people for the peaceful exercise of their freedom of expression.

The 121-page report, “‘Until the Very End’: Politically Motivated Imprisonment in Uzbekistan,” presents disturbing new findings about the treatment of 34 of Uzbekistan’s most prominent people imprisoned on politically motivated charges. They include two of the world’s longest imprisoned journalists and others who have languished behind bars for more than two decades. Based on more than 150 in-depth interviews, including with 10 recently released prisoners, and analysis of newly obtained court documents, the report extensively documents the plight of many wrongfully imprisoned activists.

“The Uzbek government tries to hide the abuses its critics suffer in prison, even their very existence, from the world,” said Steve Swerdlow, Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch. “This new evidence means Tashkent can no longer pretend that politically motivated imprisonment in Uzbekistan does not exist.”

Uzbekistan should immediately and unconditionally release everyone imprisoned on politically motivated charges, stop arbitrarily extending prison sentences, and put a stop to torture in prison, Human Rights Watch said.

The prisoners Human Rights Watch profiled include some of Uzbekistan’s most talented and remarkable figures; uncovering corruption, seeking democratic reform, or leading innovations in the arts, culture, or religion and philosophy. Some were imprisoned for no other identified reason than that the government considered them “enemies of the state.” The government has used overly broad and ill-defined charges of “anti-constitutional activity” and “religious extremism” to imprison many of them. Others were sentenced on fabricated charges of bribery, fraud, or extortion.

At least 29 of the 34 current prisoners whose cases Human Rights Watch documented have made credible allegations of torture or ill-treatment. They have been beaten with rubber truncheons or plastic bottles filled with water and tortured with electric shock, hanging by wrists and ankles, threats of rape and sexual humiliation, asphyxiation with plastic bags and gas masks, threats of physical harm to relatives, and denial of food or water.
Azam Farmonov, a rights activist behind bars since 2006, alleges that police placed a sealed mask on his head to simulate suffocation and beat him on his legs and feet to force a false confession. He said that during pretrial custody, he had been beaten on the head with plastic bottles filled with water and that Uzbek security services officers threatened to drive nails into his toes, as well as to harm his loved ones. Following the torture he suffered, according to his wife, Farmonov said to her at his trial, “I will hold out until the very end.”

Human Rights Watch found that authorities punish those imprisoned on politically motivated charges by routinely extending their prison sentences for years, often just days before they are to be released, on insignificant and often farcical grounds. Officials extended the sentence four times for a peaceful opposition figure, Murod Juraev, imprisoned since 1994, most recently in 2012, for infractions including “incorrectly peeling carrots” in the prison kitchen.

The report documents the cases of five prisoners whom Uzbek security services kidnapped from other countries, forcibly returning them to Uzbekistan in the absence of legal proceedings.

Some of those imprisoned on politically motivated charges suffer from serious illnesses and have been kept in solitary confinement for long periods or denied adequate health care or medical treatment. Their treatment could constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, a serious violation of Uzbekistan’s international human rights obligations.

Abdurasul Khudoynazarov, a rights activist, died 26 days after he was released in May 2014, the day prison doctors diagnosed him with advanced liver cancer. He told rights groups before his death that officials consistently denied his requests for medical treatment throughout his 8 years in prison.

At least 18 of those profiled were denied access to counsel at critical stages of their cases, and eight were held incommunicado for up to a year. Authorities have refused to reveal the whereabouts of Akram Yuldashev, a religious leader, since 2009, and it is unclear whether he is dead or alive. Under international law, authorities commit an enforced disappearance when they refuse to acknowledge holding someone in custody or conceal the person’s fate or whereabouts, thereby placing them outside the protection of the law. “Disappearances” increase the likelihood of torture or other ill-treatment, Human Rights Watch said.

“Torture, kidnapping, incommunicado detention, solitary confinement, and extension of sentences are all unspeakable abuses that no one should suffer,” Swerdlow said. “Whether behind bars for 20 years or a shorter time, these people have been wrongfully imprisoned and shouldn’t spend even one more day behind bars.”

Uzbekistan’s refusal to release and end its abuses of people imprisoned on politically motivated charges has not substantially affected its relationships with Washington, Brussels, or other European capitals. Most have apparently seen the country’s importance as a transit route to Afghanistan as the priority, especially ahead of the troop withdrawal by many Western countries in 2014.

Nor has the government faced concrete consequences for its systematic failure to cooperate with the United Nations Human Rights Council, denying access for the last 12 years to 11 UN human rights experts who have asked to visit.

Uzbekistan’s international partners should press the government to urgently improve its human rights record, including freeing people held on politically motivated charges. These countries should be prepared to impose targeted restrictive measures such as visa bans, asset freezes, and restrictions on military assistance to Uzbek government bodies and officials found to be responsible for egregious human rights abuses. Members of the UN Human Rights Council should seek to establish a special rapporteur devoted to Uzbekistan’s atrocious human rights situation.

“The US, EU, and other key governments know all about President Islam Karimov’s use of prison and abuse to stamp out independent journalism, human rights monitoring, and political and religious freedom,” Swerdlow said. “Uzbekistan’s international partners need to tell President Karimov that there will be a serious price to pay unless his government stops imprisoning and torturing peaceful activists, journalists, and religious believers.”

The post Uzbekistan: Prison, Torture For Critics, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Three crew members representing the United States and Russia are on their way to the International Space Station after launching from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 4:25 p.m. EDT Thursday, Sept. 25 (2:25 a.m. on Sept. 26 in Baikonur).

The Soyuz capsule carrying Barry “Butch” Wilmore of NASA and Soyuz Commander Alexander Samokutyaev and Elena Serova of the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) is scheduled to dock with the space station about six hours after launch at 10:16 p.m.

The arrival of Wilmore, Samokutyaev and Serova returns the station’s crew complement to six. The three will join Expedition 41 Commander Max Suraev of Roscosmos, Reid Wiseman of NASA and Alexander Gerst of the European Space Agency. They have been aboard the complex since May.

Suraev, Wiseman and Gerst will return home in November. At that time, Wilmore will become commander of the station for Expedition 42. Wilmore, Samokutyaev and Serova will return to Earth in March 2015.

The crew members will be working off the Earth, for the Earth, conducting hundreds of scientific investigations and technology demonstrations during their six-month sojourn on the orbiting laboratory. This research includes seedling growth, observation of meteors entering Earth’s atmosphere and studies of animal biology and bone and muscle physiology.

One new study, the Biological Research in Canisters (BRIC) 19, will focus on the growth and development of Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings in microgravity. A. thaliana is a small flowering plant related to cabbage. Researchers hope to gain a better understanding of how the growth responses of plants alter in microgravity. The seedlings will be preserved and returned to the ground for evaluation. BRIC helps to maximize research and minimize space and crew time. The hardware also adds to the collective body of knowledge about basic plant growth phenomena and may help improve growth and biomass production to benefit farming practices on Earth.

Another new space station investigation is the Meteor Composition Determination (Meteor). Meteor will enable the first space-based scientific investigation of meteors as they enter Earth’s atmosphere. Meteor uses high-resolution video and image analysis of the atmosphere to ascertain the physical and chemical properties of meteoroid dust, such as size, density and chemical composition. Because scientists can usually identify the parent comets or asteroids for most meteor showers, the study of the meteoroid dust from the space station provides information about the parent comets and asteroids. Investigating the elemental composition of meteors adds to our understanding of how the planets developed, and continuous measurement of meteor interactions with Earth’s atmosphere could spot previously unforeseen meteor showers.

Effects of Gravity on Maintenance of Muscle Mass in Zebrafish (Zebrafish Muscle) is an investigation that will observe the effects of microgravity on the zebrafish, Danio rerio, a tropical freshwater fish belonging to the minnow family. The goal of the study is to determine whether zebrafish muscles weaken in microgravity similarly to human muscles and, if so, isolate the cause. Results from the Zebrafish Muscle investigation may help identify molecular changes involved in the deterioration of muscles exposed to microgravity. This data can help scientists develop new treatments for weakened muscles. The findings could potentially benefit patients on extended bed rest or with limited mobility. In addition, this information would aid researchers in developing countermeasures for muscle weakness in astronauts living in microgravity during extended missions.

The new crew members will perform additional experiments that cover human research, biological and physical sciences, technology development and Earth observations, as well as engage in educational activities. The crew will conduct one Russian and as many as three U.S. spacewalks. They will greet two Russian Progress spacecraft resupply flights, the third commercial resupply flight of Orbital Science’s Cygnus spacecraft and the fifth and sixth flights of SpaceX’s Dragon cargo spacecraft.

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and makes research breakthroughs not possible on Earth. The space station has had continuous human occupation since November 2000. In that time, it has received more than 200 visitors and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft. The space station remains the springboard to NASA’s next great leap in exploration.

The post New Crew Launches To Space Station To Continue Scientific Research appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Hatim Kanaaneh

The Name Games are on in Israel. On the eve of the 5775 Jewish New Year the Israeli Population, Immigration and Border Authority announced the winning first name most commonly given to a newborn boy in Israel in the preceding year as Youssef, which is used by both Arabs and Jews. The spokesperson neglected to mention that what the Authority had in mind was names among Jews only. When questioned the woman hid behind explanations of who her regular customers demanding the statistics were. Of course, her motives were pure and egalitarian.

You can’t really blame this one branch of government. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, an institute reputed for its precision and comprehensiveness would have done the same. After all, everyone knows that Israel is the state of the Jews and that the negligible Arab minority of over 20% is only that, a minority, a mere impurity and a blemish on the wholesomeness of the state’s exclusive ethnicity. The CBS, like other branches of the system in the state of the Jews, has always labored hard at actualizing the dream of ethnic purity with all the means at its disposal: It has always kept its statistics for the miniscule minority split by religion: Moslem, Christian and Druze. On occasion it throws in other random lines of division such as Bedouin versus settled non-Jews. It is not long now before we will have Aramean Christians. Anything but the ‘A’ word because that would imply the presence within our borders, holy and inviolable even if still undetermined, of a non-Jewish contaminant of the same ethnic substance like the sea of undesirables surrounding us on all sides (except, of course, for our Mediterranean escape route to our former cradle of civilized bliss for which we have never stopped longing.)

Then one unprincipled Haaretz correspondent (Ilan Lior, September 22) insisted on toppling the applecart, right on the eve of the holiday when apples are so much in demand: He looked closely at the statistics and as a misinformed non-statistician discovered that the actual winner should have been Muhammad. Ouy-ve!! as we say in Yiddish. What the hell!! What that means is that the 16-or-so% Muslims in Israel use the name Muhammad more than six times as often as its Jews use Youssef. Boy! That is fidelity all right! But I could have told you that without the bother of statistics. My three oldest brothers, may they rest in piece, were named after the prophet. And there are dozens of families in our village with multiple children named after the prophet.

Back in my younger days I taught school in the neighboring village of Sakhnin. We lacked textbooks and I spent a lot of time writing on the blackboard. Whenever the class got too noisy I would shout without turning around: “Muhammad and his neighbor, stop talking.” And for a minute or two you could hear a pin drop. And in the British Mandate days, before Israel elevated our individualistic consciousness with its numbered ID cards, the name Muhammad and its derivatives wreaked havoc with our subsistence farming in the fertile Battouf Valley. You see, Bedouins had the nasty habit of letting their cattle feed on the crops in our land at the peak of its productivity. When a farmer took a Bedouin to court the latter would produce a verifiable alibi proving that the accused, Muhammad the son of Ahmad the son of Mahmoud Mrisat, was in Jordan that day. There simply were ten Bedouins with the same string of the prophet’s alternate names.

Which reminds me: The correspondent of Haaretz also discovered that among the ten top-ranking names Ahmad actually came in at number nine. This is the place to divulge a closely guarded secret of our community. Endearing nicknames, derived from twisting the actual name around to a catchy and playful-sounding shortened version, are a relatively recent phenomenon in our community, an Israeli fad if I am not mistaken. Anxious to maintain our lead position in the Name Game, our leaders have come up with the trickiest of tricks. All three forms of the interrelated prophet’s names, Muhammad, Ahmad and Mahmoud are given the cutie nickname of ‘Hammoudi.’ Now let your flaky ‘Yossi’ compete with that! Muhammad alone beat the s… out of your lead name.

But you try, I know. I just read that the administrators in Safad (I know, you call it Tzfat) College have appointed a student council, the only unelected one in the country, to preempt, I presume, the likelihood of a Mohammad being elected by the 70%-Arab student body.

Recently, in one of his op-ed pieces, Oudeh Bsharat related a personal incident with his son to illustrate a point. His son wanted to know the meaning of ‘mumis,’ a high Arabic term for a sex worker. He hummed and hawed and couldn’t come up with an appropriate explanation. A while later the child came back shouting ‘sharmouta!’ the vulgarity of the same meaning used colloquially as a cuss word.

Well, let me tell you: regardless who asks for what and who supplies the statistics to whom, It is a fucking sharmouta! Shameless apartheid, denial and exclusion of the other.

- Hatim Kanaaneh is a physician who has struggled for over four decades to improve the health of his Palestinian community in Galilee against a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. He is the founder of the NGO The Galilee Society and the author of the book A Doctor in Galilee and of a forthcoming fictional trilogy. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

The post Sharmouta: Names Games In Israel – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Dr. Parasaran Rangarajan

Earlier this year, the Marshall Islands filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against India, United Kingdom[1], and Pakistan[2] for failure to engage in their obligation as a state under customary international law towards negotiations which would end their nuclear programmes[3].

The entire case is based on one statement in the 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality Of The Threat Or Use Of Nuclear Weapons[4], also filed at the ICJ. In the case, the judges unanimously decided:

“There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”

This part of the opinion is customary international law and in most cases; creates legal obligations. This is because Article 38 (1) (b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice allows customary law to be introduced as evidence in a case[5]. Realising this, keep in mind that India has engaged in nuclear disarmament negotiations for decades and a case to force India to negotiate is unnecessary. It may also amount to duress or interfering in the internal matters of a nation.

According to the United Nations High Representative For Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte[6]:

“Mahatma Gandhi himself condemned the atomic bombings in Japan, declaring that “The only weapon that can save the world is non-violence.” On April 2, 1954, Prime Minister Nehru responded to tests of hydrogen bombs by calling upon the United States and the Soviet Union to conclude a “standstill agreement” on further tests pending progress in disarmament. India presented this proposal to Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld a few days later.”

While one may argue that the disarmament of nuclear weapons is also “general practice” in the context of the “principles of humanity”, this is a case of trying to force a member-State of the United Nations to abide by a treaty, specifically the “Non-Proliferation Treaty” (NPT). This is illegal and any signing would amount to duress which would make the treaty null. First, we cite Article 34 of the 1969 “Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties”[7]:

“A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent.”

This is fairly straight forward as the ICJ cannot force India to abide by the NPT without its consent. While the argument may be that the ICJ should force India into entering negotiations in “good faith” towards disarmament, no progress can be made in the actual disarmament nor can the court force India to negotiate as that is a breach of sovereignty.

In United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) or the “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”[8], it states:

“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.”

Clearly, requesting the courts to force India to negotiate without any mandate from the international community is an intervention into the external affairs of the nation in violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter[9]. A similar case has been filed against Chile by Bolvia (Bolvia v. Chile)[10] at the ICJ attempting to force negotiations but has been filed under the premise of an existing treaty; The Bogota Treaty.

The situation may be different if the United Nations or its bodies had a mandate drafted for India for this specific purpose but none exists till this day. There are only resolutions encouraging member-States to join the NPT and disarm nuclear weapons. Even when Kosovo declared independence from Serbia with the United Nations mandate but Serbia refused to negotiate until the ICJ rendered its opinion on the matter[11].

In addition, the court will not have the proper jurisdiction to hand down a verdict on this matter as it relates to national defence. Observing Judge Ignacio Pinto’s statement from the nuclear case at the ICJ; the Court “has no right to hand down a decision against a State which by a formal declaration excludes its jurisdiction over disputes concerning activities connected with national defence”. The ICJ stated it lacked jurisdiction to deliver a verdict in the 1999 Pakistan v. India[12] case as well for similar reasons.

More so, the court found that the non-use of nuclear weapons could prove their “use” as a deterence in international relations. India, to its west and north is surrounded by nuclear states and is a valid form of deterrence. Article X (1) of the NPT states the party may withdraw from the treaty itself if it is not in the interests of the nation:

“Article X

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.” 

It is also worthy to mention India was the first country to call for a ban on nuclear testing in 1954! India even participated in the negotiations for the Comprehensive Nuclear Ban Test Treaty.[13] This is not to mention the decades long negotiations India has promoted in nuclear disarmament according to the Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations[14]:

 “In 1978, India proposed negotiations for an international convention that would prohibit the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

This was followed by another initiative in 1982 calling for a “nuclear freeze” – i.e. prohibition on the production of fissile material for weapons, on production of nuclear weapons, and related delivery systems

In June 1988, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi presented an “Action Plan for Ushering in a Nuclear – weapon free and Non – Violent World Order” to the Third Special Session on Disarmament of the General Assembly in June 1988.

The heart of the Action Plan was the elimination of all nuclear weapons, in three stages by 2010 and it emphasized nuclear disarmament that is global, universal and non – discriminatory in nature.”

In October 2006, India presented to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly a Working Paper on Nuclear Disarmament.”

As we can see, India has a long history of involvement in the disarmament of nuclear weapons and as late as 2006, voted in favour of nuclear disarmament at the United Nations General Assembly and participating in the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament.

As late as 2013, the former External Affairs Minister of India Shri. Salman Khurshid stated the nation is ready to enter negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons; “We refuse to participate in an arms race, including a nuclear arms race. We are prepared to negotiate a global No-First-Use treaty and our proposal for a convention banning the use of nuclear weapons remains on the table.”[15]

So, for the ICJ to dictate to India that it must participate in negotiations, it would have to keep India’s national interests in mind and surely it will not be the authority to legislate India’s interests. Furthermore, India has been willing and is ready to negotiate.

Every forced negotiation has had a mandate by the concerned body, either regional or international. In this case, there is simply no mandate by the international community calling upon India to enter negotiations for nuclear disarmament and the ICJ as the opinion juris of the nuclear case at the ICJ has been realised through India’s willingness to negotiate and previous negotiations.

The right of India to maintain nuclear weapons also has to do with its national defence strategy with regards to the neighborhood of the world it is in, surrounded by nuclear powers. Perhaps most importantly, the ICJ may not have the proper jurisdiction as well according to the judiciary which presided over the case of evidence itself.
[1] “Application: The Republic Of The Marshall Islands v. The United Kingdom.” (n.d.): n. pag. International Court of Justice, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf>.

[2] “Application: The Republic Of The Marshall Islands v. Pakistan.” (n.d.): n. pag. International Court of Justice, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/159/18294.pdf>.
[3] “Application: The Republic Of The Marshall Islands v. The Republic Of India.” (n.d.): n. pag. International Court of Justice, 24 Apr. 2014. Web. <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/158/18292.pdf>.
[4] “LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.”International Court of Justice. N.p., 8 July 1996. Web. <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=498&code=unan&p1=3&p2=4&case….
[5] “Statute Of The International Court of Justice.” International Court of Justice, n.d. Web. <http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/?p1=4&p2=2>.
[6] Duarte, Sergio. “Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons.” Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons (n.d.): n. pag. United Nations, 9 July 2008. Web. <http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/HR/docs/2008/2008June09_India.pdf>.
[7] “VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969.” Organization Of American States, n.d. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oas.org%2Flegal%2Fenglish%2Fdocs%2FVienna%2520Convention%2520Treatie….
[8] “A/RES/25/2625 – Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations – UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements.” A/RES/25/2625 – Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations – UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements. United Nations, 24 Oct. 1970. Web. <http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm>.
[9] “Charter, United Nations, Chapter I, Purposes and Principles.” UN News Center. United Nations, n.d. Web. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml>.
em>[10] Peck, Lyman C. “OBLIGATION TO NEGOCIATE ACCESS TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN (BOLIVIA v. CHILE).” (n.d.): n. pag. International Court of Justice, 24 Apr. 2013. Web. <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/153/17338.pdf>.
[11] ““No Negotiations before ICJ Decision” – B92 English.” B92, 14 May 2010. Web. <http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2010&mm=05&dd=14&nav_id=67….
[12] “Case concerning the Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India).” International Court of Justice, 21 June 2000. Web. <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=585&p1=3&p2=3&case=119&p3=5>.
[13] “Negotiating the CTBT: India’s Security Concerns and Nuclear Disarmament.” Negotiating the CTBT: India’s Security Concerns and Nuclear Disarmament. Journal of International Affairs, 1997. Web. <http://fas.org/news/india/1997/ctbtghose.htm>.
em>[14] “INDIA AND UNITED NATIONS DISARMAMENT.” Permanent Mission of India to the UN , New York. N.p., n.d. Web. <https://www.pminewyork.org/pages.php?id=12>.
[15] “India Ready to Negotiate Global No-First-Use Nuclear Treaty.” The Economic Times, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-27/news/42463856_1_….

The post The Marshall Islands Vs India: Negotiations On Nuclear Weapons – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.