Recently, the sister Roshonara Choudhry was convicted of an attack against Stephen Timms, a serving Member of Parliament. This attack was slowly built up by the media from being one in which she was described as perhaps having psychological problems to suddenly being Al-Qaeda’s sleeper cell in the United Kingdom. Headlines ranged from the sensational (“Brainwashed by Al-Qaeda into stabbing MP”) through to the downright preposterous (“From Spider-man to a Web Fanatic”). In all articles however, there is one thing noticeably absent : the facts into why a young woman would take matters into her own hands.
One can gain an insight into her mindset, through the police interviews that are allegedly from her and conducted by a DC Hussain as reported by the Guardian, that this was clearly a woman troubled immensely by her conscience and what she perceives as the numerous injustices perpetrated against the muslim community both in this country and around the world.
She talks firstly of how her local MP, an MP who is meant to represent 1000s of muslims and people of conscience in his borough, voted unrepentantly for the war in Iraq, perhaps to further his political career as part of the “Blairite Revolution” (after all, we know it wasn’t on evidence of WMD). This was a war in which over 100,000 have been killed through the actions of the United States, UK and other States, and a war which was carried out for no reason but greed of the rich and powerful. The price of civilian death was a price which was borne mainly by the Muslims of Iraq, with Blair and Bush free to write their memoirs whilst families grow up without their father, mother, daughter or son.
She then talks of her University, which chose to honour one of the butchers of Qana in Lebanon, Shimon Peres. This person was given an honorary doctorate in Law from Kings College for “Services to Peace”, and mirrors his Nobel Prize received just 2 years after the shelling of Qana where 800 civillians died.
Roshonara then talks of her sympathy with the muslims in Palestine, a sympathy that is shared with muslims and non-muslims around the world. Palestine, a country where they survive in an open concentration camp called Gaza, with an embargo on trade and their so-called “brothers” of Jordan and Egypt actively starving them to death. All this whilst the world looks on.
She then mentions oppression, again an issue noticeably absent by both the journalists, and I’m sad to say the muslim organisations, who have stayed silent in this sisters cause with a few exceptions. This oppression is something that Helptheprisoners.org reads about and tries to address every single day. Not a week goes by without a brother mentioning the beating he received in an Italian Jail, or the harassment of the police towards his family, or the denial of basic materials in their cells, and so on. This is just in the microcosm of prison, but what about outside?
Is the government oblivious to the impact that picking up the newspaper every morning, seeing a “pundit” condemn immigrants, foreigners, muslim womens dress, a new community centre, a new mosque, might have on the muslim community? To be constantly bombarded with blatant racism and anti-muslim sentiment, to the point of physical violence on the part of right-wing extremists under the guise of “supporting our boys” will obviously play on peoples minds.
Then to be accused of “not integrating”, not doing enough to “condemn extremism”, having CCTV targeted on muslim areas exclusively, having constant pressure put on you about how you dress, how long your beard is, how many times you pray, what schools you send your children to, the books you read, the conversations you have, the general suspicion of a public hyped up through diatribes in the Daily Mail, what effect does the government and the Police believe it will have on the growing muslim community?
Then we have specific laws targeted towards muslims. Laws that allow men already acquitted of terrorism offences to still carry that label for the rest of their lives, living out a meagre existence under harsher house arrest conditions than Aung San Suu Ki, with the threat of deportation to torture hanging over their heads every day. Situations where not even a prima facie case has been presented to a court yet we have brothers awaiting extraditon to a country they have never set foot in with evidence they have never been presented with facing life imprisonment in a US Supermax prison. Where we have sisters being framed, tortured for years then given life sentences with evidence that holds no water. Where we have brothers kidnapped from the streets of Milan or Sarajevo, and shipped off to underground torture chambers where the governments remain unrepentant of the suffering they caused. Where we have a government that tries to cover up torture of those who were meant to be under their care.
Despite all of this, the constant bombardment, harassment, intimidation and oppression of the muslim community both in the UK and worldwide, through the media, the government, and elements of the population, we instead blame a distant sheikh in a far-off land for the “radicalisation” of Roshonara Choudhary, a sister who to the point of extreme mental anguish could clearly take the paradox no more. Perhaps rather than blaming others, its time the UK looked closer to home.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Remembering Srebrenica
Today, on the 11th July 2010, marks 15 years since the worst massacre to take place in Europe since World War II. It is a date that the United Nations and NATO in their new war-on-terror guise would like to forget, for it is the date of the genocide of Srebrenica. Many of us were too young to see it, and some of us like myself were not even muslim at that time and as such would have casually commented on the violence before changing channels. This is an attitude that the west seems to have ingrained in a lot of muslims nowadays, that of switching off from the horror and devastation that the enemies of Islam have caused in the name of nationalism, finance and foreign policy. Its important for all of us to be aware of what happens when we demonstrate indifference and “switch off”, and no more pertinent an example of that is present than the massacre of Srebrenica.
At the height of the war in Bosnia-Herzogovina, in which the Bosnian Serbs heavily backed and supported by Serbia were committing what we now understand as ethnic cleansing, Srebrenica was also affected from near enough the start of the war. In one description :-javascript:void(0)
“Between April 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica town and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircraft. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties”
Eventually, the United Nations under considerable pressure elected to act, designating Srebrenica a “safe area” in 2003 where refugees could congregate. This stayed this way until early july 2005, when the Serb forces elected to attack those in the refugee area, after gathering from a meeting with the French commander of the UN in Bosnia that they would not attack.
The Dutch Soldiers, as expected, offered no resistance as serb forces ransacked the town. Indeed, some dutch high-command were captured drinking with the serb war criminals by TV cameras. It was however to get far worse as the refugees fled from Srebrenica to Potocari. In Potocari women were raped and babies killed whilst the dutch UN peacekeepers looked on, presumably as part of the “turn the other cheek” philosophy. Men were separated and marched to their deaths across the hills. They were herded into football stadiums or warehouses, and executed en masse. Women and children were taken to the notorious “rape camps” where some were murdered and others released to walk to government-held territory. Whilst this was happening, the UN and NATO forces continued to refuse to intervene even though they were well aware a massacre was occurring.
Eventually over 8000 persons were killed, more than 30,000 displaced, and countless homes destroyed.
So what has happened since then? Sadly no-one has learnt their lesson from such events, as we have seen many massacres committed by troops around the world, with no intervention ever taking place unless there is money and oil involved. We have seen NATO and the UN acting as the worlds peacemakers in Afghanistan, bizarrely dispensing with their propaganda as the “worlds saviour” to instead massacre thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. Though not anywhere near the scale of Srebrenica, this is more due to a lack of people in Afghanistan (a country ravished by decades of war ) rather than any concern by the occupying NATO Forces.
We have also seen the Bosnian government quick to forget the debt and gratitude they owe to those who fought the serbs in the war, without whom it is unlikely that NATO, fearing a genuine Islamic state, would have intervened. Indeed one of the conditions of the Dayton Accords was that “foreign” ( ie. Muslim ) fighters leave Bosnia immediately. The Bosnian government have tried to deport brothers for years whose crime was to help muslims when the whole world would not. They have also handed brothers over to the Americans who were then tortured in Guantanamo Bay for many years. They have harassed the families of Ex-Mujahideen, making their desire for European Membership supercede their responsibilities to the ones to whom they owe their very survival.
Perhaps most tragically is the attitude of the muslims, whom now see NATO and the “west” as people who believe in the right to life and in human dignity when their actions in Srebrenica and many other areas of Bosnia show that they were never to be trusted then, and they should not be trusted now. We see muslims ignoring the plight of the other bosnias around the world, the slow death of Gaza, the rape of Kashmir, the Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course the abject poverty of the central African countries coupled with the political terror by dictatorships in the Maghreb and Middle East.
Srebrenica should teach us the dangers of indifference, and I pray to Allah(swt) that the muslims wake from this sleep and remember our past, ameen.
Umar Abdullah,12th July 2010
At the height of the war in Bosnia-Herzogovina, in which the Bosnian Serbs heavily backed and supported by Serbia were committing what we now understand as ethnic cleansing, Srebrenica was also affected from near enough the start of the war. In one description :-javascript:void(0)
“Between April 1992 and March 1993, Srebrenica town and the villages in the area held by Bosnian Muslims were constantly subjected to Serb military assaults, including artillery attacks, sniper fire, as well as occasional bombing from aircraft. Each onslaught followed a similar pattern. Serb soldiers and paramilitaries surrounded a Bosnian Muslim village or hamlet, called upon the population to surrender their weapons, and then began with indiscriminate shelling and shooting. In most cases, they then entered the village or hamlet, expelled or killed the population, who offered no significant resistance, and destroyed their homes. During this period, Srebrenica was subjected to indiscriminate shelling from all directions on a daily basis. Potočari in particular was a daily target for Serb artillery and infantry because it was a sensitive point in the defence line around Srebrenica. Other Bosnian Muslim settlements were routinely attacked as well. All this resulted in a great number of refugees and casualties”
Eventually, the United Nations under considerable pressure elected to act, designating Srebrenica a “safe area” in 2003 where refugees could congregate. This stayed this way until early july 2005, when the Serb forces elected to attack those in the refugee area, after gathering from a meeting with the French commander of the UN in Bosnia that they would not attack.
The Dutch Soldiers, as expected, offered no resistance as serb forces ransacked the town. Indeed, some dutch high-command were captured drinking with the serb war criminals by TV cameras. It was however to get far worse as the refugees fled from Srebrenica to Potocari. In Potocari women were raped and babies killed whilst the dutch UN peacekeepers looked on, presumably as part of the “turn the other cheek” philosophy. Men were separated and marched to their deaths across the hills. They were herded into football stadiums or warehouses, and executed en masse. Women and children were taken to the notorious “rape camps” where some were murdered and others released to walk to government-held territory. Whilst this was happening, the UN and NATO forces continued to refuse to intervene even though they were well aware a massacre was occurring.
Eventually over 8000 persons were killed, more than 30,000 displaced, and countless homes destroyed.
So what has happened since then? Sadly no-one has learnt their lesson from such events, as we have seen many massacres committed by troops around the world, with no intervention ever taking place unless there is money and oil involved. We have seen NATO and the UN acting as the worlds peacemakers in Afghanistan, bizarrely dispensing with their propaganda as the “worlds saviour” to instead massacre thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. Though not anywhere near the scale of Srebrenica, this is more due to a lack of people in Afghanistan (a country ravished by decades of war ) rather than any concern by the occupying NATO Forces.
We have also seen the Bosnian government quick to forget the debt and gratitude they owe to those who fought the serbs in the war, without whom it is unlikely that NATO, fearing a genuine Islamic state, would have intervened. Indeed one of the conditions of the Dayton Accords was that “foreign” ( ie. Muslim ) fighters leave Bosnia immediately. The Bosnian government have tried to deport brothers for years whose crime was to help muslims when the whole world would not. They have also handed brothers over to the Americans who were then tortured in Guantanamo Bay for many years. They have harassed the families of Ex-Mujahideen, making their desire for European Membership supercede their responsibilities to the ones to whom they owe their very survival.
Perhaps most tragically is the attitude of the muslims, whom now see NATO and the “west” as people who believe in the right to life and in human dignity when their actions in Srebrenica and many other areas of Bosnia show that they were never to be trusted then, and they should not be trusted now. We see muslims ignoring the plight of the other bosnias around the world, the slow death of Gaza, the rape of Kashmir, the Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course the abject poverty of the central African countries coupled with the political terror by dictatorships in the Maghreb and Middle East.
Srebrenica should teach us the dangers of indifference, and I pray to Allah(swt) that the muslims wake from this sleep and remember our past, ameen.
Umar Abdullah,12th July 2010
Saturday, 5 September 2009
So why do you write to extremists?
Whenever I’m asked this question, it always amazes me. This ummah, who are 2 Billion strong and obsessed ( and I mean this quite literally ) with the concept of Freemasons / Secret Societies, and conspiracies, when it comes to our brothers and sisters in prison we accept the words of the Sun or the Daily Express without hesitation. To even accept the word “Extremism” is to accept a loaded term which is entirely concocted by the enemies of Islam in order to create fear and suspicion within muslim communities. Much like the term “islamist”, this term is one which many on a government payroll propagate, but few can define it or understand what it means.
Let me give you the example of one brother. He is Algerian, and was arrested under a flood of publicity and pomp in connection with the “ricin” trial. His case lacked any solid basis, but this did not stop the press worldwide condemning this brother ( and others ) to a trial by media. Tony Blairs administration seized on this and would reel out soundbite after soundbite about “those who hate freedom”, which became quite ironic when this brother and others were detained for over two years before being acquitted.
What then became completely absurd is that this brother was then arrested under immigration bail, the basis being “involved in the ricin plot” and other “secret” evidence that he has never been able to challenge or question in an open court. He is now located in a Chateau-D’if style existence under virtual house arrest. The muslim community on the whole have completely shunned this brother, he went from being a popular businessman to one who appreciates any contact however slight. His area is one devoid of muslims, and he spends every Iftari alone with the threat of deportation to torture hanging over him every day. There is no family here, no friends for 50 miles, and who knows what impact a small letter or phonecall would have on one so isolated?
Then there is the example of the brother serving an indeterminate sentence for organising paintball trips and doing dawah stalls in London. Some of the key “evidence” were items such as “The way this individual is cutting a watermelon is exactly as they kill hostages in Iraq.” This brother is a grandfather who is in his 50s. He went from having over 200 people knowing him and speaking to him regularly to having one or two brothers who write to him. Who knows what one letters impact will have towards that brother?
There is also the case of the brothers in Italy. The Egyptian brother, acquitted in Spain yet jailed in Italy for exactly the same charges (“terrorism”), even though the Spanish authorities (Not one known for being favourable to Islam) say that Italy mistranslated his intercepted phonecalls ( the only evidence). He has spent over 3 years imprisoned and has suffered terrible abuses including physical attacks by guards on three separate occasions. He faces at the end of his sentence indefinite detention in Egypt at the end of his sentence. He wept tears when he heard that one muslim in the UK wrote to him. What impact would another have?
Or what of the Moroccan brother, arrested last year and held in such isolated conditions on the island of Sardinia that he is cut off from his own family, sons and daughters, who cannot afford the travel to the region. He has not seen his family for six months, and has no realistic chance of seeing them anytime soon after being moved to the isolation wing of a new prison in the deepest mountains of Nuoro. He has recently been found to need kidney dialysis, which in Italy means that you have to pay some costs of the treatment.
What about the revert brother, attacked with boiling water in his cell whilst the guards stood back and let it happen. A cowardly attack that left him with burns all over his scalp and torso. What about the Tunisian left in -3 degrees celcius without even a blanket in the depth of winter. What about the other Tunisian whom was arrested and his wife suffered such a mental breakdown that their own children were taken into care? What about the brother left to nearly die when he was refused medical treatment from an asthma attack after the prison block caught fire? There are hundreds of examples like this.
As a final example there is Farid, another Moroccan brother who spent over 6 years imprisoned without a trial to assess his innocence or guilt. He was extradited to a Spanish prison where he was threatened and intimidated, where he knew no-one and where he did not even know a word of Spanish. How comforting to have letters from those in the UK who at least could offer him some support, however small.
I wish I could tell you from the above that it was all a bad dream, and really hundreds of thousands of muslims accepted their obligations and responded to all the above pleas of help. Sadly those who helped I can count on two hands from the muslim community. These brothers were all in need, and many more continue to be in need, and we fail them.
It is an obligation for us to support each other in times of difficulty and ease. The prophet(saw) said , “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He does not wrong him, forsake him or despise him.”, as well as “The faithful believers are as a brick structure, each supporting one another”.
So, to answer the question “Why do I write to extremists?”, I would respond that I do not. I write to human beings, my fellow muslims, who request my (or any other muslims) support and help to allow them to prove their innocence or serve their sentence in peace, to stand firm against oppression and injustice.
I leave you with the words of the prophet (saw), then ask yourself to imagine yourself in those same shoes as those worn in the examples above. “No man forsakes a Muslim when his rights are being violated or his honour is being belittled except that Allah will forsake him at a place in which he would love to have His help. And no man helps a Muslim at a time when his honour is being belittled or his rights violated except that Allah will help him at a place in which he loves to have His help”.
Let me give you the example of one brother. He is Algerian, and was arrested under a flood of publicity and pomp in connection with the “ricin” trial. His case lacked any solid basis, but this did not stop the press worldwide condemning this brother ( and others ) to a trial by media. Tony Blairs administration seized on this and would reel out soundbite after soundbite about “those who hate freedom”, which became quite ironic when this brother and others were detained for over two years before being acquitted.
What then became completely absurd is that this brother was then arrested under immigration bail, the basis being “involved in the ricin plot” and other “secret” evidence that he has never been able to challenge or question in an open court. He is now located in a Chateau-D’if style existence under virtual house arrest. The muslim community on the whole have completely shunned this brother, he went from being a popular businessman to one who appreciates any contact however slight. His area is one devoid of muslims, and he spends every Iftari alone with the threat of deportation to torture hanging over him every day. There is no family here, no friends for 50 miles, and who knows what impact a small letter or phonecall would have on one so isolated?
Then there is the example of the brother serving an indeterminate sentence for organising paintball trips and doing dawah stalls in London. Some of the key “evidence” were items such as “The way this individual is cutting a watermelon is exactly as they kill hostages in Iraq.” This brother is a grandfather who is in his 50s. He went from having over 200 people knowing him and speaking to him regularly to having one or two brothers who write to him. Who knows what one letters impact will have towards that brother?
There is also the case of the brothers in Italy. The Egyptian brother, acquitted in Spain yet jailed in Italy for exactly the same charges (“terrorism”), even though the Spanish authorities (Not one known for being favourable to Islam) say that Italy mistranslated his intercepted phonecalls ( the only evidence). He has spent over 3 years imprisoned and has suffered terrible abuses including physical attacks by guards on three separate occasions. He faces at the end of his sentence indefinite detention in Egypt at the end of his sentence. He wept tears when he heard that one muslim in the UK wrote to him. What impact would another have?
Or what of the Moroccan brother, arrested last year and held in such isolated conditions on the island of Sardinia that he is cut off from his own family, sons and daughters, who cannot afford the travel to the region. He has not seen his family for six months, and has no realistic chance of seeing them anytime soon after being moved to the isolation wing of a new prison in the deepest mountains of Nuoro. He has recently been found to need kidney dialysis, which in Italy means that you have to pay some costs of the treatment.
What about the revert brother, attacked with boiling water in his cell whilst the guards stood back and let it happen. A cowardly attack that left him with burns all over his scalp and torso. What about the Tunisian left in -3 degrees celcius without even a blanket in the depth of winter. What about the other Tunisian whom was arrested and his wife suffered such a mental breakdown that their own children were taken into care? What about the brother left to nearly die when he was refused medical treatment from an asthma attack after the prison block caught fire? There are hundreds of examples like this.
As a final example there is Farid, another Moroccan brother who spent over 6 years imprisoned without a trial to assess his innocence or guilt. He was extradited to a Spanish prison where he was threatened and intimidated, where he knew no-one and where he did not even know a word of Spanish. How comforting to have letters from those in the UK who at least could offer him some support, however small.
I wish I could tell you from the above that it was all a bad dream, and really hundreds of thousands of muslims accepted their obligations and responded to all the above pleas of help. Sadly those who helped I can count on two hands from the muslim community. These brothers were all in need, and many more continue to be in need, and we fail them.
It is an obligation for us to support each other in times of difficulty and ease. The prophet(saw) said , “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He does not wrong him, forsake him or despise him.”, as well as “The faithful believers are as a brick structure, each supporting one another”.
So, to answer the question “Why do I write to extremists?”, I would respond that I do not. I write to human beings, my fellow muslims, who request my (or any other muslims) support and help to allow them to prove their innocence or serve their sentence in peace, to stand firm against oppression and injustice.
I leave you with the words of the prophet (saw), then ask yourself to imagine yourself in those same shoes as those worn in the examples above. “No man forsakes a Muslim when his rights are being violated or his honour is being belittled except that Allah will forsake him at a place in which he would love to have His help. And no man helps a Muslim at a time when his honour is being belittled or his rights violated except that Allah will help him at a place in which he loves to have His help”.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Sarkozy, The Burkha and the French war on Humanity
When the vertically-challenged president of France Nicholas Sarkozy made an attack against the clothing that some women choose to wear, it re-ignited the debate about the womans’ role in Islam and society. This debate was of course mostly one-sided, with the tabloids and broadsheets combined making various inflammatory statements through their columnists.
As a man, I do not feel that it is my place to present arguments as to how the Islamic dress actually emancipates women, or the particular details of what constitutes Islamic dress. This is for the sisters to present, as they are the ones who choose to do so every day, facing the jeers and suspicions of many of those in the western society, and for that I have tremendous respect. I am sure that many of us have heard stories of sisters being insulted and attacked just because of their clothing they wear, and in a few cases the brothers have responded but on the whole the muslim vanguard in western countries is a fairly impotent bunch, which makes the sisters all the more stronger in my view.
Instead, I wish to concentrate on Sarkozy’s claim that “The burkha is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement.” He presumably has become enamoured with his public persona to such an extent that it has made him suffer amnesia about the actions of his own country in subjugating women and men in both its colonies and now with the “hidden French hand” in African affairs.
The French colonial experience was not a pleasant one, though of course colonisation for the colonised is never so, however there are often varying degrees of brutality. When France colonised Algeria in the early 1800s, they did so on a path of destruction. Alexis De Tocqueville gave this strategy to the colonising forces :-
“I personally believe that the laws of war enable us to ravage the country and that we must do so either by destroying the crops at harvest time or any time by making fast forays also known as raids the aim of which it to get hold of men or flocks. Whatever the case, we must say that all political freedoms should be suspended in Algeria.”
From these statements, which any Algerian who reads their history will tell you was followed to the letter, we can see that France revelled in its role of forcing subservience upon the population. To suspend freedoms of any kind is of course to debase and subjucate at the most extreme level. Of course, Sarkozy will claim that this was a long time ago ( though curiously the values of Liberté, égalité, fraternité as justification were then as now), there are more examples from recent history.
In Algeria, there was de-facto racial segregation in classrooms, with the Pieds-Noirs (French settlers ) being given access to the best education and employment. Algerian children in particular were prevented from attending school in rural areas.
In the 1950s, France found itself embroiled in a war of liberation by Algerian insurgents, the FLN. France (in a statement that will surely sound familiar ) denied that this guerrilla army was entitled to any rights as prisoners of war, and instead denounced the uprising as one of terrorism. The French forces collectively punished the Algerian population, and whether one was for or against the FLN in time no-one was safe from the excesses of the French forces. Rape, Murder and Torture were par for the course, men or women, young or old. One example from Verité Liberté states that :-
“first, the officer questions the prisoner in the "traditional" manner, hitting him with fist and kicking him. Then follows torture: hanging..., water torture..., electricity..., burning (using cigarettes, etc.)... Cases of prisoners who were driven insane were frequent... Between interrogation sessions, the suspects are imprisoned without food in cells, some of which wre small enough to impede lying down. We must point out that some of them were very young teenagers and others old men of 75, 80 years or more.”
With regards rape, the French army as protocol said that every female arrested must have their genitals inspected for evidence of sexual relations with relatives. This in effect legitimised sexual abuse and rape in the minds of the legionnaires and armed forces, and this command came directly from the French government themselves. A testimony by a former soldier in the book “Torture and the Twilight of empire” , states in one day he saw “one thirteen year old raped by three soldiers, a fifteen year old raped by seven, and a sergeant who had raped an eight year old.”
I apologise for these details, but it is essential that we understand that when france attacks women in Islam, it is in no position to do so. It is still rare to hear any Frenchman express regret over their actions in Algeria, and of course issues such as compensation are a non-issue as far as the French government is concerned.
And this is not to say that these matters are over with. Four French soldiers in 2005 were accused of rape by a child in the Ivory Coast, with similar events happening by French troops in Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Morocco and others. Examples include abuse of patients at a mental health facility, denying food and water to villagers for amusement, and many more atrocities.
It is perhaps then all the more bizarre that Sarkozy, diminutive though he may be, should make such grand statements as women who wear the burkha are debasing themselves. It is of course france that is doing the debasement of all those women in Africa and anywhere else which it tries to exert control.
In my own view, I believe that these women are subservient, to Allah(swt). If they believe that they should dress in the niqab, hijab or burkha, there is no doubt in my mind that they do so only with the intention to please Allah(swt). This is a direct challenge to the authority of the state that wishes all its citizens to rubber-stamp the murders, the rape, the theft of resources and the exploitation that characterises western foreign policy.
If Sarkozys’ concepts of freedom is to allow France to subjucate those weak and oppressed around the world, then I am pleased that we muslims are subservient to Allah(swt), al-humduillah. From a muslim perspective, he is as relevant as he is tall, and I would urge anyone to continue working for Islam, and to let the west know that muslims will not be intimidated.
Umar Abdullah, 26th June 2009
As a man, I do not feel that it is my place to present arguments as to how the Islamic dress actually emancipates women, or the particular details of what constitutes Islamic dress. This is for the sisters to present, as they are the ones who choose to do so every day, facing the jeers and suspicions of many of those in the western society, and for that I have tremendous respect. I am sure that many of us have heard stories of sisters being insulted and attacked just because of their clothing they wear, and in a few cases the brothers have responded but on the whole the muslim vanguard in western countries is a fairly impotent bunch, which makes the sisters all the more stronger in my view.
Instead, I wish to concentrate on Sarkozy’s claim that “The burkha is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement.” He presumably has become enamoured with his public persona to such an extent that it has made him suffer amnesia about the actions of his own country in subjugating women and men in both its colonies and now with the “hidden French hand” in African affairs.
The French colonial experience was not a pleasant one, though of course colonisation for the colonised is never so, however there are often varying degrees of brutality. When France colonised Algeria in the early 1800s, they did so on a path of destruction. Alexis De Tocqueville gave this strategy to the colonising forces :-
“I personally believe that the laws of war enable us to ravage the country and that we must do so either by destroying the crops at harvest time or any time by making fast forays also known as raids the aim of which it to get hold of men or flocks. Whatever the case, we must say that all political freedoms should be suspended in Algeria.”
From these statements, which any Algerian who reads their history will tell you was followed to the letter, we can see that France revelled in its role of forcing subservience upon the population. To suspend freedoms of any kind is of course to debase and subjucate at the most extreme level. Of course, Sarkozy will claim that this was a long time ago ( though curiously the values of Liberté, égalité, fraternité as justification were then as now), there are more examples from recent history.
In Algeria, there was de-facto racial segregation in classrooms, with the Pieds-Noirs (French settlers ) being given access to the best education and employment. Algerian children in particular were prevented from attending school in rural areas.
In the 1950s, France found itself embroiled in a war of liberation by Algerian insurgents, the FLN. France (in a statement that will surely sound familiar ) denied that this guerrilla army was entitled to any rights as prisoners of war, and instead denounced the uprising as one of terrorism. The French forces collectively punished the Algerian population, and whether one was for or against the FLN in time no-one was safe from the excesses of the French forces. Rape, Murder and Torture were par for the course, men or women, young or old. One example from Verité Liberté states that :-
“first, the officer questions the prisoner in the "traditional" manner, hitting him with fist and kicking him. Then follows torture: hanging..., water torture..., electricity..., burning (using cigarettes, etc.)... Cases of prisoners who were driven insane were frequent... Between interrogation sessions, the suspects are imprisoned without food in cells, some of which wre small enough to impede lying down. We must point out that some of them were very young teenagers and others old men of 75, 80 years or more.”
With regards rape, the French army as protocol said that every female arrested must have their genitals inspected for evidence of sexual relations with relatives. This in effect legitimised sexual abuse and rape in the minds of the legionnaires and armed forces, and this command came directly from the French government themselves. A testimony by a former soldier in the book “Torture and the Twilight of empire” , states in one day he saw “one thirteen year old raped by three soldiers, a fifteen year old raped by seven, and a sergeant who had raped an eight year old.”
I apologise for these details, but it is essential that we understand that when france attacks women in Islam, it is in no position to do so. It is still rare to hear any Frenchman express regret over their actions in Algeria, and of course issues such as compensation are a non-issue as far as the French government is concerned.
And this is not to say that these matters are over with. Four French soldiers in 2005 were accused of rape by a child in the Ivory Coast, with similar events happening by French troops in Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Morocco and others. Examples include abuse of patients at a mental health facility, denying food and water to villagers for amusement, and many more atrocities.
It is perhaps then all the more bizarre that Sarkozy, diminutive though he may be, should make such grand statements as women who wear the burkha are debasing themselves. It is of course france that is doing the debasement of all those women in Africa and anywhere else which it tries to exert control.
In my own view, I believe that these women are subservient, to Allah(swt). If they believe that they should dress in the niqab, hijab or burkha, there is no doubt in my mind that they do so only with the intention to please Allah(swt). This is a direct challenge to the authority of the state that wishes all its citizens to rubber-stamp the murders, the rape, the theft of resources and the exploitation that characterises western foreign policy.
If Sarkozys’ concepts of freedom is to allow France to subjucate those weak and oppressed around the world, then I am pleased that we muslims are subservient to Allah(swt), al-humduillah. From a muslim perspective, he is as relevant as he is tall, and I would urge anyone to continue working for Islam, and to let the west know that muslims will not be intimidated.
Umar Abdullah, 26th June 2009
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Mr Smith goes to SIAC ( The Special Immigration Appeals Commission)
After reading so much about the Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedure, Control Orders, Detentions, Bail Revocations, Secret Evidence and Closed Sessions, a good friend of mine advised me that it was possible to attend in person. Having had a holiday from work, I decided to experience these myself from the public gallery so was present for the hearing on the 27th February for five detainees, U, Z, BB, Y and VV. Unfortunately due to restrictions of the court and allegedly their protection I cannot reveal their names.
For the uninitiated, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or SIAC, was established in order to handle cases where the secretary of state herself wishes to see individuals deported on the basis of national security or public interest. These courts are heard in a small room off Chancery Lane, and anyone may attend them whenever the court is in session.
So what happens? Allow me to share my own experiences. I entered the building and had gone through the normal security procedures, no more intrusive than you would expect at an airport. This involved emptying ones pockets and walking through a scanner. After being waived on, a security guard gruffly told me “second floor”, however after responding in perfect English that I was looking for the SIAC court he realised I was not here for my own hearing and instead I made my way to the basement.
I was there fairly early, so the court was closed but after a period of ten minutes myself and four others were given entry to the court, and I made my way towards the back of the gallery following the crowd. The court is a modern one, though fairly cramped, and to the courts credit I must say the chairs were comfortable.
About fifteen minutes after this, a number of solicitors and barristers made their way into the courtroom. The court procedure already seemed fairly informal, with no silks or wigs in sight. It was shortly later that I realised I had made my first faux pas. A gentlemen asked me whether I was with the secretary of states department, and noting the disgust on my face asked me to move to the other side of the gallery. I did so, but at the expense of a good seat, the other side being almost full with supporters. I would estimate approximately 15 supporters had made the journey, some as far as Brighton. I was disappointed with the lack of showing from the muslim community however ( as far as I could ascertain I was the only muslim male there ) however there were plenty of muslim women. I was extremely pleased to see how much support these men have outside the community. It showed to me that this issue is not one that affects just muslims, but instead one that affects a lot of people who are concerned at the direction that this country’s’ laws and freedoms are heading.
Shortly afterwards, the “trial” began. At the “All rise”, I stayed seated, not wishing to show the courts the authority they so dearly would love to have. I do believe though my silent protest was obscured by the large public gallery, but I suppose it’s the thought that counts. There was firstly the matter of the detainees. One was present in the courtroom, behind a Plexiglas screen with slits in it so that he could hear the proceedings, and was flanked to the right of him with agents from the UK Border Agency, dressed in full regalia. It was not quite “Silence of the Lambs”, but it was close enough. I can only imagine how the couple of journalists present would perceive this man, and how much they would look behind the glass and see the man behind it. For the majority of the trial, he stayed studious and quiet, concentrating intently on the proceedings.
The debate was around the four other detainees, who had been taken in the night without their solicitors being contacted until much later. In a couple of the cases, they had been taken to prison after being told the van would be taking them home following a trial yesterday. They were now in different prisons, three in Belmarsh with one in Wood Hill. The Judge explained the court would have difficulty hearing their cases in person, so would videolink be acceptable. It was eventually agreed to.
So, after this was completed a time was given of 12-2 for the video linkups. This made me concerned that I would miss Friday prayers, however thankfully it transpired the proceedings were wrapped up early. Before that time (11am), a “closed session” took place. This is where everyone except for the judge and elements from the Home Office are asked to leave the courtroom. With the door firmly locked, the black box of “secret evidence” was discussed. The Detainee, Solicitor and Barrister are not permitted to hear this evidence. After ½ an hour of this, we were called back into the courtroom.
By this time, the video linkup had arrived and due to defence solicitors wishing to consult with their clients, I was asked to leave the courtroom having not been “ vetted for visiting.” Though disappointed not to hear the men speak, I do understand their reasons for doing so.
I went to make a phone call, returning to a somewhat more elated crowd. Four of the men (all except for “U”) had been ordered by the judge to be returned to their homes. “U” was then given the verdict of having his bail revoked and he was to be returned to prison. After some more complex legal arguments regarding Judicial Reviews and more alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act by the Home Secretary than there are Detainees, Mr Mitting the trial judge issued his judgement explaining his decision. There were no real details to be gleamed, other than “on the basis of the closed evidence, I revoke the bail of U”. This was in essence the commentary, cloaked in legalese.
As the judgement was being read, on the video linkup a sad scene was evolving. Of the three men on the screen, two were given the all-clear to go home whilst Detainee U would be staying. The men all seemed resigned to their respective fates, and as a testimony to the character and virtues of Detainee U he was able to give smiles and laughs to the two who would be going ( VV and Y ), and they shared hugs and salutations before being led out to the left, leaving the solitary figure of U alone. U’s face displayed a look of acceptance, realising that yet again he had been detained without hearing any of the closed evidence against him. I would think that years of these sorts of events have made him harden, and he had already prepared himself mentally to abandon hope ; it has a habit of turning to despair when you hope too much. I would like to see the Home Secretary in court one day herself, to see the damage she is doing to real people with feelings, just like you and me, rather than meeting with her spin doctors to decide upon vote-winning strategies for an increasingly right-wing British public.
It was on this note that I left the courtroom and made my way out into the world of an oblivious population, saddened that the black arts of the SIAC would again go unreported and the latent british public (including the majority of muslims in this country it seems) would again ignore one of the most dangerous assaults on rights and freedoms in the modern age.
* I would urge everyone to send a note of support to Detainee U whom I believe is currently in Belmarsh Prison. You can also send letters of support for those on control orders via the mens solicitors.
For the uninitiated, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or SIAC, was established in order to handle cases where the secretary of state herself wishes to see individuals deported on the basis of national security or public interest. These courts are heard in a small room off Chancery Lane, and anyone may attend them whenever the court is in session.
So what happens? Allow me to share my own experiences. I entered the building and had gone through the normal security procedures, no more intrusive than you would expect at an airport. This involved emptying ones pockets and walking through a scanner. After being waived on, a security guard gruffly told me “second floor”, however after responding in perfect English that I was looking for the SIAC court he realised I was not here for my own hearing and instead I made my way to the basement.
I was there fairly early, so the court was closed but after a period of ten minutes myself and four others were given entry to the court, and I made my way towards the back of the gallery following the crowd. The court is a modern one, though fairly cramped, and to the courts credit I must say the chairs were comfortable.
About fifteen minutes after this, a number of solicitors and barristers made their way into the courtroom. The court procedure already seemed fairly informal, with no silks or wigs in sight. It was shortly later that I realised I had made my first faux pas. A gentlemen asked me whether I was with the secretary of states department, and noting the disgust on my face asked me to move to the other side of the gallery. I did so, but at the expense of a good seat, the other side being almost full with supporters. I would estimate approximately 15 supporters had made the journey, some as far as Brighton. I was disappointed with the lack of showing from the muslim community however ( as far as I could ascertain I was the only muslim male there ) however there were plenty of muslim women. I was extremely pleased to see how much support these men have outside the community. It showed to me that this issue is not one that affects just muslims, but instead one that affects a lot of people who are concerned at the direction that this country’s’ laws and freedoms are heading.
Shortly afterwards, the “trial” began. At the “All rise”, I stayed seated, not wishing to show the courts the authority they so dearly would love to have. I do believe though my silent protest was obscured by the large public gallery, but I suppose it’s the thought that counts. There was firstly the matter of the detainees. One was present in the courtroom, behind a Plexiglas screen with slits in it so that he could hear the proceedings, and was flanked to the right of him with agents from the UK Border Agency, dressed in full regalia. It was not quite “Silence of the Lambs”, but it was close enough. I can only imagine how the couple of journalists present would perceive this man, and how much they would look behind the glass and see the man behind it. For the majority of the trial, he stayed studious and quiet, concentrating intently on the proceedings.
The debate was around the four other detainees, who had been taken in the night without their solicitors being contacted until much later. In a couple of the cases, they had been taken to prison after being told the van would be taking them home following a trial yesterday. They were now in different prisons, three in Belmarsh with one in Wood Hill. The Judge explained the court would have difficulty hearing their cases in person, so would videolink be acceptable. It was eventually agreed to.
So, after this was completed a time was given of 12-2 for the video linkups. This made me concerned that I would miss Friday prayers, however thankfully it transpired the proceedings were wrapped up early. Before that time (11am), a “closed session” took place. This is where everyone except for the judge and elements from the Home Office are asked to leave the courtroom. With the door firmly locked, the black box of “secret evidence” was discussed. The Detainee, Solicitor and Barrister are not permitted to hear this evidence. After ½ an hour of this, we were called back into the courtroom.
By this time, the video linkup had arrived and due to defence solicitors wishing to consult with their clients, I was asked to leave the courtroom having not been “ vetted for visiting.” Though disappointed not to hear the men speak, I do understand their reasons for doing so.
I went to make a phone call, returning to a somewhat more elated crowd. Four of the men (all except for “U”) had been ordered by the judge to be returned to their homes. “U” was then given the verdict of having his bail revoked and he was to be returned to prison. After some more complex legal arguments regarding Judicial Reviews and more alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act by the Home Secretary than there are Detainees, Mr Mitting the trial judge issued his judgement explaining his decision. There were no real details to be gleamed, other than “on the basis of the closed evidence, I revoke the bail of U”. This was in essence the commentary, cloaked in legalese.
As the judgement was being read, on the video linkup a sad scene was evolving. Of the three men on the screen, two were given the all-clear to go home whilst Detainee U would be staying. The men all seemed resigned to their respective fates, and as a testimony to the character and virtues of Detainee U he was able to give smiles and laughs to the two who would be going ( VV and Y ), and they shared hugs and salutations before being led out to the left, leaving the solitary figure of U alone. U’s face displayed a look of acceptance, realising that yet again he had been detained without hearing any of the closed evidence against him. I would think that years of these sorts of events have made him harden, and he had already prepared himself mentally to abandon hope ; it has a habit of turning to despair when you hope too much. I would like to see the Home Secretary in court one day herself, to see the damage she is doing to real people with feelings, just like you and me, rather than meeting with her spin doctors to decide upon vote-winning strategies for an increasingly right-wing British public.
It was on this note that I left the courtroom and made my way out into the world of an oblivious population, saddened that the black arts of the SIAC would again go unreported and the latent british public (including the majority of muslims in this country it seems) would again ignore one of the most dangerous assaults on rights and freedoms in the modern age.
* I would urge everyone to send a note of support to Detainee U whom I believe is currently in Belmarsh Prison. You can also send letters of support for those on control orders via the mens solicitors.
Settlers and Supermarkets
As promised, I elected to research for myself the extent of Israel-supporting companies and products on the high streets that we can carry out the small action of boycotting. As I said earlier, this should be a targeted campaign aimed not only at not boycotting the products in silence, but also ensuring that we tell the companies involved that we are boycotting their products coupled with making awareness within the wider communities that we are all a part of around the world. Today it is the turn of the supermarkets.
As I am from the United Kingdom, I have focussed upon the supermarkets present in this country. However, if someone wishes to add to this article in the future regarding other supermarket chains in different parts of the world, please let me know and I will add them to the list provided evidence is sent with the request.
In order to understand the supermarkets complicity with the Israeli occupation, we must first understand the nature of the suppliers. A great deal of fruit and vegetables, particularly Peppers and dates, is supplied from the so-called “occupied territories” and we may differ as to what extent Israel is occupying the land of Palestine. I take the view that the entire appropriation of land since 1948 is illegal, however some may hold the view that any land post-1967 is occupied. Either way, the same rules apply as most of the products are manufactured within settlements in the West Bank.
Now, as for the reality of these settlements, they have to be read to be believed. The first is the random violence they dish out upon the muslims (and Christians for that matter) of Palestine, knowing that they have state support. A Christian peacemaker team gave the following account on 20th November 2008 in Havat Ma’on :-
“Fifteen masked Israeli settlers from the illegal outpost of Havat Ma'on attacked three Palestinian shepherds who were grazing their flocks in a valley south of the outpost, and Christian peacemakers who were with them. The settlers came running down from a ridge above the shepherds, hurling rocks. The shepherds were able to get their flocks away before the rocks injured them.During the incident, the settlers were able to steal two of the shepherds' donkeys. The settlers killed one donkey with a knife wound in the chest area. They slashed another across the throat, but the donkey survived.”
A quick google search will reveal hundreds of such incidents, in which Settlers seemingly for sport seem to hunt Palestinians who are trying to survive on meagre resources.
They are also diverting much needed water from Palestinian communities in order to fund their excessive lifestyles. One report in 2007 identified that a pipe supplying a well in a Palestinian village was cut, with the water being used to fill a swimming pool for one settler. As each illegal settlement is made, the first actions are to cut the supply for Palestinian villages ( for example, 4000 homes were left without water after one settlement in 2006 ), and then eventually the Palestinians negotiate with the Israeli state as intermediary in order to get their own water back.
There is also the issue of destroying crops and engaging in a “Scorched-earth” policy. They cut olive trees and burn them in order to claim the land is disused, which of course the Israeli courts provide support to substantiate the claims. They often will build roads through olive farms, claiming that one side of the road is theres and the other is the Palestinians.
It is in this background that settlement products are making their way to british high streets in packages labelled “Palestine”, and though we acknowledge the Israelis for affirming that settlement land is Palestinian land, it gives the false impression that these goods are produced by Palestinians. They are made to profit Israeli farmers with water that has been stolen from Palestinians, on land that has been occupied against Palestinians and by individuals that harass and assault Palestinians. The label is an insult to the Palestinian people, just one more brick in the wall of denial and heartbreak that they have been experiencing since 1948.
So, the supermarkets that are involved in this through their greed without morals are Sainsburys, Tescos, Marks and Spencers and Waitrose. They are all supplied by settlement farmers with dates, peppers, herbs and other items. The suppliers are Hadiklaim and Arava. Both of these Israeli companies are complicit in the exploitation and appropriation of Palestinian crops. This was discovered by a report commissioned for the “Sir Joseph Hotung Programme” within the School of Oriental and African Studies.
So what can we do about it? The hardline approach is to boycott the entire supermarkets. With the exception of Marks and Spencers whom have many more stains against their cloth, I do not believe this is feasible nor practical. Instead we should boycott those products from the stores that are labelled “Israel” OR “Palestine”. We should write to these supermarkets, outlining our objections to these goods being supplied within the stores. We should also educate others about the realities of settler-produced goods and the ethics involved in eating peppers provided through deceit and stolen resources.
This I believe should have an effect. Supermarkets are motivated by profits being a capitalist industry, and they will respond in these troubled times if even 10% of their consumers defect to purchasing products from more ethical suppliers. Israeli goods rotting unsold on shelves will soon force these companies to make the right business decision and should see the restoration of fruit and vegetables that are not tainted by the brush of illegal occupation.
I will be writing a sample letter to send out in the next few days, if anyone has further information on any of the details above or would like references, please do get in touch.
As I am from the United Kingdom, I have focussed upon the supermarkets present in this country. However, if someone wishes to add to this article in the future regarding other supermarket chains in different parts of the world, please let me know and I will add them to the list provided evidence is sent with the request.
In order to understand the supermarkets complicity with the Israeli occupation, we must first understand the nature of the suppliers. A great deal of fruit and vegetables, particularly Peppers and dates, is supplied from the so-called “occupied territories” and we may differ as to what extent Israel is occupying the land of Palestine. I take the view that the entire appropriation of land since 1948 is illegal, however some may hold the view that any land post-1967 is occupied. Either way, the same rules apply as most of the products are manufactured within settlements in the West Bank.
Now, as for the reality of these settlements, they have to be read to be believed. The first is the random violence they dish out upon the muslims (and Christians for that matter) of Palestine, knowing that they have state support. A Christian peacemaker team gave the following account on 20th November 2008 in Havat Ma’on :-
“Fifteen masked Israeli settlers from the illegal outpost of Havat Ma'on attacked three Palestinian shepherds who were grazing their flocks in a valley south of the outpost, and Christian peacemakers who were with them. The settlers came running down from a ridge above the shepherds, hurling rocks. The shepherds were able to get their flocks away before the rocks injured them.During the incident, the settlers were able to steal two of the shepherds' donkeys. The settlers killed one donkey with a knife wound in the chest area. They slashed another across the throat, but the donkey survived.”
A quick google search will reveal hundreds of such incidents, in which Settlers seemingly for sport seem to hunt Palestinians who are trying to survive on meagre resources.
They are also diverting much needed water from Palestinian communities in order to fund their excessive lifestyles. One report in 2007 identified that a pipe supplying a well in a Palestinian village was cut, with the water being used to fill a swimming pool for one settler. As each illegal settlement is made, the first actions are to cut the supply for Palestinian villages ( for example, 4000 homes were left without water after one settlement in 2006 ), and then eventually the Palestinians negotiate with the Israeli state as intermediary in order to get their own water back.
There is also the issue of destroying crops and engaging in a “Scorched-earth” policy. They cut olive trees and burn them in order to claim the land is disused, which of course the Israeli courts provide support to substantiate the claims. They often will build roads through olive farms, claiming that one side of the road is theres and the other is the Palestinians.
It is in this background that settlement products are making their way to british high streets in packages labelled “Palestine”, and though we acknowledge the Israelis for affirming that settlement land is Palestinian land, it gives the false impression that these goods are produced by Palestinians. They are made to profit Israeli farmers with water that has been stolen from Palestinians, on land that has been occupied against Palestinians and by individuals that harass and assault Palestinians. The label is an insult to the Palestinian people, just one more brick in the wall of denial and heartbreak that they have been experiencing since 1948.
So, the supermarkets that are involved in this through their greed without morals are Sainsburys, Tescos, Marks and Spencers and Waitrose. They are all supplied by settlement farmers with dates, peppers, herbs and other items. The suppliers are Hadiklaim and Arava. Both of these Israeli companies are complicit in the exploitation and appropriation of Palestinian crops. This was discovered by a report commissioned for the “Sir Joseph Hotung Programme” within the School of Oriental and African Studies.
So what can we do about it? The hardline approach is to boycott the entire supermarkets. With the exception of Marks and Spencers whom have many more stains against their cloth, I do not believe this is feasible nor practical. Instead we should boycott those products from the stores that are labelled “Israel” OR “Palestine”. We should write to these supermarkets, outlining our objections to these goods being supplied within the stores. We should also educate others about the realities of settler-produced goods and the ethics involved in eating peppers provided through deceit and stolen resources.
This I believe should have an effect. Supermarkets are motivated by profits being a capitalist industry, and they will respond in these troubled times if even 10% of their consumers defect to purchasing products from more ethical suppliers. Israeli goods rotting unsold on shelves will soon force these companies to make the right business decision and should see the restoration of fruit and vegetables that are not tainted by the brush of illegal occupation.
I will be writing a sample letter to send out in the next few days, if anyone has further information on any of the details above or would like references, please do get in touch.
A Place Called Gaza - Part 6
Previous Installments can be read here :-
http://hueypmuslim.blogspot.com
In the last instalment, we studied the problems of Egypt and its occupation with the French. In this instalment, we will look at how the political circumstances of that period led to the rise of Muhammad Ali Pasha and the occupation of Gaza by this Egyptian faction.
Muhammad Ali Pasha was an army officer within the Ottoman Empire, and was a member of the battalion that was sent to retake Egypt from the French. When this was successful, and no obvious Ottoman-friendly officer available to hold the seat of governor, he put himself forward to occupy this position which was recognized by the Empire. He managed to hold this position through a Machiavellian approach of forming strong alliances with religious leaders and powerful village chiefs, while ruthlessly crushing those who would think of overthrowing him. This included the extermination of the mamluk power structure through inviting all their chieftains to a banquet to celebrate the appointment of his son as head of an army formed to battle the rebellion of Imam Abdul-Wahab in the Hijaz. When these people arrived at the banquet, Muhammad Alis’ forces massacred them, in what is known as the “Massacre of the Citadel”. After this, he dragged the body of one of them through Cairo to demonstrate what happens to those who seek power over him.
Once he held power, he began to be increasingly important to the Ottomans. They used him in many famous campaigns, such as the war against the Arab Rebellion in 1818, and many of his campaigns were at his own instigation, such as that of the Sudan in 1821.
With power however came greed. He wanted to be assured that his progeny could be sure of inheriting an Empire, and as such begun to act like an Empire. He began to see the Ottomans as a rival power rather than one in which he could work in Harmony. He also believed that he was too powerful to fail in his ambitions, and begun to think of aggressively taking the Levant , an area emcompassing modern day Palestine. Overtures were made, identifying that the natural border was not the Suez Estuary, but instead the Taurus Mountains.
After a war of words erupted between a governor of the Ottomans in Palestine, Abdullah, and Mohammad Ali. Civillians fearing a war fled to Southern Palestine and Gaza from Egypt, to which Abdullah refused to return the individuals. Muhammad Ali then initiated a war, threatening that he would return both the civilians and Abdullah himself to Egypt.
His son, Ibrahim Pasha, set out for Palestine accompanied by many warships and other heavy military. Upon arriving in Gaza, the people did not put up any resistance. This pattern continued all the way to Haifa, and after some battles had managed to open up the road to Istanbul and thereby control it, through their occupation of Anatolia.
Though one could argue that Muhammad Ali’s objectives were aggressive in nature, in some ways they initiated reform that Europe objected to, hence their interference. His major policies were those of economy, where he initiatied heavy industry in Egypt and Palestine such as Cotton industries, which were state monopolies. This drastically affected the market for British Cotton which at that point was obtained from India. With these benefits however were many unsavoury aspects of his rule. Conscription was enforced for every male in the region, and even disabled individuals were forced to fight in the rear ranks. Taxes were heavy and though allowances were given in difficult times, on the whole taxes were far higher than those under the Ottomans.
The Ottoman Empire reacted to his aggressive military manoeuvres and recognised Muhammad Alis wars against the Palestinian Wali for what it was : A rebellion. They removed the titles bestowed upon Muhammad Ali and all his officers by the Ottomans, as well as stripping them from their posts.
Muhammad Ali responded by ordering the Clerics of Al-Azhar ( showing the concept of “government Scholars” is not that new a phenomenon ) to declare the Sultan of the Ottomans a disbeliever guilty of apostacy, which they duly did, as well as issuing a call for jihad against the Ottoman Empire.
Sadly, at this point” the disbelieving forces of France, Russia and Great Britain began to pressure the two forces to agree to a ceasefire in the interests of “peace”. This in hindsight was the beginning of European powers to exert their influence and change the dynamics of the middle east and thereby Islam as a ruling system. The two warring sides signed the treaty of Ktahya ( the Ktahya Accord ) in 1833. This awarded control of Egypt, the Hijaz and Crete to Muhammad Ali.
Later on, the European countries exploited this war and the relative weaknesses of the Ottomans and Muhammad Ali Pashas Kingdom through infighting. They demanded that any aggression between either side must be given permission first by the European powers, these being Prussia, Russia, France and Britain. Britain formed a blockade, which could be said to be a precursor to the so-called peacekeepers we see in conflict zones today, near Beirut. This lasted for some years, the European powers forcing the two countries to abandon the monopolies on trade in both of their Kingdoms, meaning that the markets were flooded with cheaper European goods. At the same time, Gaza was met with a huge outbreak of the Bubonic Plague, decimating its populating and damaging its trade significantly.
Eventually, the European powers wanted a permanent peace, fearing that the skirmishes continuning between the Ottomans and the Pasha dynasty would cause trade problems. They forced Muhammad Ali to withdraw to Egypt and Acre, and gave him 10 days to accept. During these Ten Days, the Ottomans and Britain attacked Palestine, resulting in a civilian revolt against Egypt. Muhammad Ali had to give up this territory, reluctantly pulling out of Gaza and returning to Egypt in 1841, with Gaza being returned to the Ottomans. Muhammad Ali eventually died in 1849, after being awarded the right of hereditary rule over his Kingdom which covered Sudan and Egypt, and with his title of Ottoman Viceroy being restored. Egypt however was a broken state after being forced to abandon its trade tariffs and import duties, with National debt being 80 Million Francs. He remains buried in the courtyard of Muhammad Ali Mosque.
This concludes Part 6, in Part 7 we will study the deteriorating relationship between the Ottomans and Britain.
http://hueypmuslim.blogspot.com
In the last instalment, we studied the problems of Egypt and its occupation with the French. In this instalment, we will look at how the political circumstances of that period led to the rise of Muhammad Ali Pasha and the occupation of Gaza by this Egyptian faction.
Muhammad Ali Pasha was an army officer within the Ottoman Empire, and was a member of the battalion that was sent to retake Egypt from the French. When this was successful, and no obvious Ottoman-friendly officer available to hold the seat of governor, he put himself forward to occupy this position which was recognized by the Empire. He managed to hold this position through a Machiavellian approach of forming strong alliances with religious leaders and powerful village chiefs, while ruthlessly crushing those who would think of overthrowing him. This included the extermination of the mamluk power structure through inviting all their chieftains to a banquet to celebrate the appointment of his son as head of an army formed to battle the rebellion of Imam Abdul-Wahab in the Hijaz. When these people arrived at the banquet, Muhammad Alis’ forces massacred them, in what is known as the “Massacre of the Citadel”. After this, he dragged the body of one of them through Cairo to demonstrate what happens to those who seek power over him.
Once he held power, he began to be increasingly important to the Ottomans. They used him in many famous campaigns, such as the war against the Arab Rebellion in 1818, and many of his campaigns were at his own instigation, such as that of the Sudan in 1821.
With power however came greed. He wanted to be assured that his progeny could be sure of inheriting an Empire, and as such begun to act like an Empire. He began to see the Ottomans as a rival power rather than one in which he could work in Harmony. He also believed that he was too powerful to fail in his ambitions, and begun to think of aggressively taking the Levant , an area emcompassing modern day Palestine. Overtures were made, identifying that the natural border was not the Suez Estuary, but instead the Taurus Mountains.
After a war of words erupted between a governor of the Ottomans in Palestine, Abdullah, and Mohammad Ali. Civillians fearing a war fled to Southern Palestine and Gaza from Egypt, to which Abdullah refused to return the individuals. Muhammad Ali then initiated a war, threatening that he would return both the civilians and Abdullah himself to Egypt.
His son, Ibrahim Pasha, set out for Palestine accompanied by many warships and other heavy military. Upon arriving in Gaza, the people did not put up any resistance. This pattern continued all the way to Haifa, and after some battles had managed to open up the road to Istanbul and thereby control it, through their occupation of Anatolia.
Though one could argue that Muhammad Ali’s objectives were aggressive in nature, in some ways they initiated reform that Europe objected to, hence their interference. His major policies were those of economy, where he initiatied heavy industry in Egypt and Palestine such as Cotton industries, which were state monopolies. This drastically affected the market for British Cotton which at that point was obtained from India. With these benefits however were many unsavoury aspects of his rule. Conscription was enforced for every male in the region, and even disabled individuals were forced to fight in the rear ranks. Taxes were heavy and though allowances were given in difficult times, on the whole taxes were far higher than those under the Ottomans.
The Ottoman Empire reacted to his aggressive military manoeuvres and recognised Muhammad Alis wars against the Palestinian Wali for what it was : A rebellion. They removed the titles bestowed upon Muhammad Ali and all his officers by the Ottomans, as well as stripping them from their posts.
Muhammad Ali responded by ordering the Clerics of Al-Azhar ( showing the concept of “government Scholars” is not that new a phenomenon ) to declare the Sultan of the Ottomans a disbeliever guilty of apostacy, which they duly did, as well as issuing a call for jihad against the Ottoman Empire.
Sadly, at this point” the disbelieving forces of France, Russia and Great Britain began to pressure the two forces to agree to a ceasefire in the interests of “peace”. This in hindsight was the beginning of European powers to exert their influence and change the dynamics of the middle east and thereby Islam as a ruling system. The two warring sides signed the treaty of Ktahya ( the Ktahya Accord ) in 1833. This awarded control of Egypt, the Hijaz and Crete to Muhammad Ali.
Later on, the European countries exploited this war and the relative weaknesses of the Ottomans and Muhammad Ali Pashas Kingdom through infighting. They demanded that any aggression between either side must be given permission first by the European powers, these being Prussia, Russia, France and Britain. Britain formed a blockade, which could be said to be a precursor to the so-called peacekeepers we see in conflict zones today, near Beirut. This lasted for some years, the European powers forcing the two countries to abandon the monopolies on trade in both of their Kingdoms, meaning that the markets were flooded with cheaper European goods. At the same time, Gaza was met with a huge outbreak of the Bubonic Plague, decimating its populating and damaging its trade significantly.
Eventually, the European powers wanted a permanent peace, fearing that the skirmishes continuning between the Ottomans and the Pasha dynasty would cause trade problems. They forced Muhammad Ali to withdraw to Egypt and Acre, and gave him 10 days to accept. During these Ten Days, the Ottomans and Britain attacked Palestine, resulting in a civilian revolt against Egypt. Muhammad Ali had to give up this territory, reluctantly pulling out of Gaza and returning to Egypt in 1841, with Gaza being returned to the Ottomans. Muhammad Ali eventually died in 1849, after being awarded the right of hereditary rule over his Kingdom which covered Sudan and Egypt, and with his title of Ottoman Viceroy being restored. Egypt however was a broken state after being forced to abandon its trade tariffs and import duties, with National debt being 80 Million Francs. He remains buried in the courtyard of Muhammad Ali Mosque.
This concludes Part 6, in Part 7 we will study the deteriorating relationship between the Ottomans and Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
