Flawed strategy on the militants

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=167066
Saturday, March 14, 2009
By Zafar Hilaly
President Barak Obama's remarks on March 7 on the possibility of reconciliation with the "good Taliban" opposed to Al Qaeda coincided with his administration's criticism of the Pakistani government's own reconciliation deal with the Taliban in Swat. This happened despite Pakistani officials' assurance to the US that the was not surrender but an attempt to drive a wedge between hardcore Taliban and local Islamists.

The ANP has handed over the Swat valley to the Taliban while boasting that the deal was meant in fact meant to drive a wedge between the two groups of militants. But the leader of the Taliban (Fazlullah) is the son-in-law of the leader of the local Islamists (Sufi Mohammad). Such chicanery is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully, Mr Obama will heed the advice of the Taliban spokesman who, in so many words, told him to stop daydreaming.

There is still time for Washington and Islamabad to get it right. Al Qaeda is the only terror organisation that has a global reach and a global agenda. It is the only terror group that can realistically aspire to the possession of nuclear weapons which, as it happens, are located where it is headquartered--Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan is the country where it feels it is most likely to prevail against its foreign and local enemies. And why not? The Pakistani military is ill equipped, and lacks a coherent strategy to take on the Taliban in difficult terrain, the civil leadership is incompetent, unpopular and divided, the economy is teetering and, to cap it all, America is hated to an extent that is irrational.

To make matters worse the middle classes of the country, to which the civil and military structure mostly belong, believe that the US will be driven out of Afghanistan by the irresistible combination of the Taliban, a high body count and America's economic woes; or when the already overstretched US is distracted by Iran much as the Americans were by Iraq. And instead of preparing for the day when Pakistan may need to confront the Taliban on its own, a daunting challenge considering how badly Pakistan is faring in the war despite liberal access to US coffers, they think that a few Swat-like deals with the "good" Taliban will suffice. "All will be well between Pakistan and the Taliban once the US withdraws from Afghanistan" is a common refrain.

Asked about the Taliban/Al Qaeda agenda of wresting Kashmir from India and despatching Israel to oblivion and the possible disaster that it may wreak on an Al Qaeda headquartered Pakistan, people prefer to dismiss it as American propaganda and instead allude to Pakistan's nuclear weapons as the cure-all for foreign threats. (Hardly a "cure-all" more likely an "end-all" as the nuclear explosion will need to occur in Pakistan if Al Qaeda is the target.)

In fact, a policy of appeasing the Taliban already seems underway, as the Swat agreement, the FATA agreements of the past, and the military's not-so-secret dialoguing with the Taliban suggest. The desire to keep open the doors of reconciliation with the Taliban, and the nod and a wink policy towards the Taliban have earned mistrust among friends abroad. But at home it resonates with the public. They, and certainly the military, see India as the main enemy and a the prospect of a two-front war is to be avoided at all costs. Thus if the choice is between the Taliban, the erstwhile friend, and India, the eternal, implacable foe, it is a no-brainer. India foolishly has reinforced the India phobia by lining up virtually its entire army on Pakistan's borders. The US too did itself no favour by treating Pakistan, and particularly the military, as an object to be used and then discarded when no longer required. This rankles with Pakistanis; being made a fool of is more hurtful for people than being abandoned.

Our present policy of appeasement of the Taliban brought on by a visceral antipathy for India and, to a lesser extent, the US, suggests that many Pakistanis would be willing to hitch their shalwars up to their ankles, lock up their wives and daughters and accept Taliban-like rule, if that were to become a reality. That kind of passivity and collaboration enabled a relatively paltry number of British to hang on to the subcontinent for as long as 200 years. Other people, reared in state schools and on madrasas with curricula designed by openly fundamentalist regimes or closet-fundamentalists, would not only welcome the Taliban but probably rush to augment their numbers. And while a tiny few with visas, and a portion of the $80-130 billion held abroad by Pakistanis, will flee to whichever country will have them. The rest, the vast majority that is, will perforce remain at home sullen, cringing and fearful, putting up with the antics of the Vice and Virtue Departments of the Taliban lest they be taken for slaughter to the scores of Qurbani Chowks that will blossom in every city.

To many the picture painted above may sound alarmist and, hopefully, matters will never reach such a pass. But that, alas, is similar to what happened in Afghanistan once the Taliban seized power and made gladiatorial spectacles of whippings, amputations and executions. Of course, some will say that "Pakistan is not Afghanistan," and dismiss the possibility of a Taliban takeover. It is true that Pakistan is not Afghanistan; it is actually an even more alluring prize for the Taliban and Al Qaeda than Afghanistan. Once harnessed to their cause, Pakistan would greatly help Al Qaeda in realising its declared goal, that of creation of a World Islamic Caliphate.

Nor is such a scenario unrealistic, considering how poorly we are faring in the war against the Taliban, who have shown that they can strike at will, and as easily, next to the Presidency in Islamabad, as the remotest border post. Indeed, such is their reach that normal life is becoming difficult for the citizenry and for government to function smoothly. Mr Zardari is hunkered down in what must be the largest war bunker in the world, the Presidency. Mr Gilani, is being braver, though he has less to worry about because, for the moment at least and till he starts acting like a prime minister, he is too inconsequential a target. Meanwhile, vast sums that would have been better utilised for the benefit of the populace in the form of socio-economic development and to alleviate poverty which, like starvation, is now endemic is being spent on fighting the insurgents. Soon the war will prove prohibitively expensive.

Notwithstanding the dire threat posed by the ongoing insurgency; the military sticks to its unfathomable logic that India will momentarily attack Pakistan and risk a nuclear holocaust. Hence, all 600,000 of the Pakistani Army (minus the 100,000 in FATA), replete with tanks, APCs, anti-tank guns, artillery batteries, surface-to-surface missiles, helicopters, with the air force on call and a plethora of nuclear-tipped missiles to boot, guards the fenced border with India unless it is to prevent a spy or more vault the fence. A strategy somewhat akin to that of the British garrison in Singapore during World War II, which had its heavy guns pointing out to sea while the conquering Japanese came overland across Malaya. It is said, and rightly so, that "those whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad."

The only bright spot in this otherwise gloomy picture is the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are still beatable. In the words of Bruce Reidel, currently responsible for devising Washington's strategy for the war, "a wise and smart policy" can defeat them. To fashion such a policy for Pakistan must surely also be our foremost priority.



The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it @hotmail.com

OPINION: How we lost Swat —Nasir Abbas Mirza

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\03\09\story_9-3-2009_pg3_5

We have worked long and hard at losing Swat. We lost it in hundreds of little battles fought over the last 35 years.

Since the mid-seventies, religious extremists have been chipping away at our liberties, our rights and our freedom. Bit by bit they have demolished, and continue to, all attempts to create a modern civil society.

We lost Swat the day we made discriminatory laws based on sectarian and religious divisions. I am reminded of a Jewish parable. An old Jewish man was on his deathbed and his entire family stood around him. The old man kept saying, “Take care of the Armenians; take care of the Armenians.” His son asked, “But we are Jewish; why do you keep saying take care of the Armenians?” The old man replied, “Because if they get to the Armenians, you will be next.”

We let them get one sect and now they are in the process of getting the Shias (non-protesting spectators include Mr Nawaz Sharif and Qazi Hussain Ahmad); next would be other sects and religions — Ismailis, Parsis, Barelvis and so on until, as Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy calls it, the Saudi-isation of Pakistan is complete.

We lost Swat when we banned alcohol. It’s banned but readily available. Anyone can have it and everyone has it. Smugglers and bootleggers laugh their way to the bank and the imbibers take it as a cocktail of sin, guilt and crime.

We lost Swat when the state abdicated its right to educate its people, leaving it to the private sector. For every modern school, the private sector gave us a thousand madrassas.

We lost Swat when we let the movie industry die and banned theatre, singing and dancing; when we banned Basant and everything else that can be termed entertainment (including cricket). Soon we will have the same fond memories of cricket as we have of kite flying.

There is as much drinking, gambling and fornication going on in this country as in any other country. But hypocrisy triumphs every day. We have been living a lie for the last 35 years. Google would tell you the largest number of visitors to porn sites are from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

We lost Swat when we permitted the Islami Jamiat-e Tulaba to terrorise our universities; when we inserted the religion column in our passports; when shalwar-qameez became our national dress; when we created women’s police stations.

It was a sad day when traders of Hall Road, Lahore, burned CDs after receiving an anonymous letter threatening to bomb them for selling adult CDs. Nobody is there to protect them. That’s how it started in Swat. Next in line are girls’ schools. Is Lahore ready for a bomb at any of the girls’ schools? Is there a plan?

We lost our way when we set up parallel systems with all kinds of Islamic councils and courts. Our society today is dominated by mullahs, pirs and bazurgs. A man today is known by the pir he keeps. The merit of a man is not his education and ability but the façade of religiosity. A man with beard is better than a man without one; a man who fasts is good, a man who drinks is bad. Rich man, bad; poor man, good. Can anything be more tribal than this?

It was at the peak of General Zia-ul Haq’s Islamisation that writers like Ashfaq Ahmad made an industry out of it. Glorifying the pir and the faqir, he promoted ruhaniat and praised otherworldliness. At prime time, on the state-owned television channel, Mr Ahmad vilified the rich and the successful while equating poverty with piety. How simplistic and fateful can one get?

The brilliant physicist Richard Feynman used to make fun of such philosophies, joking about a posteriori conclusions — reasoning from known facts back to possible causes. “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight,” he would say. “I saw a car with the licence plate ARW 257. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of licence plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”

His point, of course, is that it is easy to make any banal situation seem extraordinary if you treat it as fateful. Read it again; this is taken as serious philosophy in Pakistan and such ‘miracles’ are the favourite topic of discussion among the educated.

The industry based on fatalism and extremism is the only one thriving in Pakistan today. From Zia-ul Haq to Mian Nawaz Sharif to Dr Aamir Liaqat to Inzamam-ul Haq to Farhat Hashmi, the list of the captains of this industry is too long to reproduce here. Those who spent their youth during Zia’s days have come of age and are at the helm of affairs in this country. After 35 years of mass duplicity, we have at hand a completely distorted society.

We lost Swat when someone in this country decided that our cultural and religious sentiments would be irreparably hurt if a man were to kiss a woman on screen. On the other hand, that same someone decided that repulsive violence was all right to be screened to audiences of all ages.

The rot started in the seventies because it took us nearly 30 years after independence to completely distort, dismantle and destroy whatever the British had given us. In tatters you would find the education system, the justice system, the irrigation system, the railway system, good governance, law and order, a military that cannot, or refuses to, fight subversive tribesmen, the merit system and everything else that could remotely be called civil or modern. Mind you, at the time, each one of the listed systems was the best in the world.

If it weren’t for British rule, how different would we have been from Afghanistan? We would still be facing marauding hordes of barbarians from the north who used to come down regularly to loot, rape and plunder. That’s our history, at its most concise. Six decades after 1947 we are once again facing those hordes. Swat they have pillaged and conquered. How far away are we from Swat?

The sad part is that while doing all of the above, we felt good about it. Now we know that we took a wrong turn in the mid-seventies. Every day we hear about “going back to the 1973 constitution”. What we don’t hear is “we need to go back to 1973”.

The loss of Swat is not the end of it. It is just another battle lost by us. This battle, and the many more to come, can only be won with more liberties, more freedom and more rights. And a state with a will to protect these at all costs. That’s the real battlefront of this war against terror and extremism.

The writer is a freelance columnist

Pashtun poet's mausoleum bombed in Pakistan

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, March 5 (Reuters) - Suspected Islamist militants in Pakistan blew up on Thursday the mausoleum of a 17th century poet revered in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, apparently because women visited the shrine.

The ethnic Pashtun poet, Abdul Rehman, is commonly known as Rehman Baba, and is loved by Pashtuns for his mystical verse.

People regularly go to his white, marble mausoleum on the outskirts of the northwestern city of Peshawar to pay their respects but no one was hurt in the pre-dawn blast.

"The structure of the shrine has been badly damaged but there were no casualties," said police officer Zar Noor.

Militants had warned people to stop women visiting the shrine, a resident told DawnNews television.

Militants have been stepping up attacks in Pakistan in recent years, especially in the Pashtun-dominated northwest.

As well as battling the security forces, the militants in many areas have tried to stamp out what they see as inappropriate practices such as music and dancing.

Radical Muslims such as the Taliban also consider paying homage at graves to be heretical. (Reporting by Faris Ali; Writing by Zeeshan Haider; Editing by Robert Birsel) ((zeeshan.haider@thomsonreuters.com; +92 51 281 0017; Reuters Messaging: zeeshan.haider.reuters.com@reuters.net))

Shame of the House of Saud: Shadows over Mecca

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/shame-of-the-house-of-saud-shadows-over-mecca-474736.html

Previously unseen photographs (NOT PUBLISHED WITH THIS ARTICLE) reveal how religious zealots obsessed with idolatory have colluded with developers to destroy Islam's diverse heritage

By Daniel Howden

Wednesday, 19 April 2006

There is a growing shadow being cast over Islam's holiest site. Only a few metres from the walls of the Grand Mosque in Mecca skyscrapers are reaching further into the sky, slowly blocking out the light. These enormous and garish newcomers now dwarf the elegant black granite of the Kaaba, the focal point of the four million Muslims' annual Haj pilgrimage.

The tower blocks are the latest and largest evidence of the destruction of Islamic heritage that has wiped almost all of the historic city from the physical landscape. As revealed in The Independent last August,the historic cities of Mecca and Medina are under an unprecedented assault from religious zealots and their commercial backers.

Writing in response to the article, Prince Turki al-Faisal said that Saudi Arabia was spending more than $19bn (£11bn) preserving and maintaining these two holy sites. "[We are aware] how important the preservation of this heritage is, not just to us but to the millions of Muslims from around the world who visit the two holy mosques every year. It is hardly something we are going to allow to be destroyed."

This rebuttal sits at odds with a series of previously unseen photographs, published today, that document the demolition of key archaeological sites and their replacement with skyscrapers.

Saudi religious authorities have overseen a decades-long demolition campaign that has cleared the way for developers to embark on a building spree of multi-storey hotels, restaurants, shopping centres and luxury apartment blocks on a scale unseen outside Dubai. The driving force behind this historical demolition is Wahhabism ­ the austere state faith that the House of Saud brought with it when Ibn Saud conquered the Arabian peninsula in the 1920s.

The Wahhabis live in fanatical fear that places of historical or religious interest could give rise to alternative forms of pilgrimage or worship. Their obsession with combating idolatry has seen them flatten all evidence of a past that does not agree with their interpretation of Islam.

Irfan Ahmed al-Alawi, the chairman of the Islamic Heritage Foundation, set up to help protect the holy sites, says the case of the grave of Amina bint Wahb, the mother of the Prophet, found in 1998, is typical of what has happened. "It was bulldozed in Abwa and gasoline was poured on it. Even though thousands of petitions throughout the Muslim world were sent, nothing could stop this action."

Today there are fewer than 20 structures remaining in Mecca that date back to the time of the Prophet 1,400 years ago. The litany of this lost history includes the house of Khadijah, the wife of the Prophet, demolished to make way for public lavatories; the house of Abu Bakr, the Prophet's companion, now the site of the local Hilton hotel; the house of Ali-Oraid, the grandson of the Prophet, and the Mosque of abu-Qubais, now the location of the King's palace in Mecca.

Yet the same oil-rich dynasty that pumped money into the Taliban regime as they blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan six years ago has so far avoided international criticism for similar acts of vandalism at home. Mai Yamani, author of The Cradle of Islam, said it was time for other Muslim governments to ignore the al-Sauds' oil wealth and clout and speak out. "What is alarming about this is that the world doesn't question the al-Sauds' custodianship of Islam's two holy places. These are the sites that are of such importance to over one billion Muslims and yet their destruction is being ignored," she said. "When the Prophet was insulted by Danish cartoonists thousands of people went into the streets to protest. The sites related to the Prophet are part of their heritage and religion but we see no concern from Muslims."

Lay people, and in some cases even US senators could be forgiven for thinking that the House of Saud has been the guardian of the two holy places for time immemorial. In fact, it is only 80 years since the tribal chieftain Ibn Saud occupied Mecca and Medina. The House of Saud has been bound to Wahhabism since the 18th century religious reformer Mohamed Ibn Abdul-Wahab signed a pact with Mohammed bin Saud in 1744. Wahab's warrior zealots helped to conquer a kingdom for the tribal chieftains. The House of Saud got its wealth and power, and the clerics got the vehicle of state they needed to spread their fundamentalist ideology around the world. The ruler of this fledgling kingdom needed the legitimacy afforded by declaring himself " custodian of the two holy places".

But that legitimacy has come at an enormous price for the diversity of Muslims who look to Mecca for guidance. Once in charge, the Wahhabists wasted little time in censoring the Haj. As early as 1929, Egyptian pilgrims were refused permission to celebrate the colourful Mahmal rites and more than 30 were killed. At the time Egypt severed diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Few governments have stood up to them since.

Instead, the homogenisation of Islam's holiest sites was allowed to accelerate into a demolition campaign that now threatens the birthplace of the Prophet itself. The site survived the early reign of Ibn Saud 50 years ago when the architect for the planned library persuaded the absolute ruler to allow him to preserve the remains under the new structure. Saudi authorities now plan to "update" the site with a car park that would mean concreting over the remains.

"The al-Sauds need to rein in the Wahhabists now," warns Dr Yamani. "Mecca used to be a symbol of Muslim diversity and it needs to be again." But with oil prices and profits, at record highs, there is little sign the House of Saud is listening.

Sami Angawi, a Hijazi architect who has devoted his life to a largely doomed effort to preserve what remains of the history of the world's greatest pilgrimage sites, said that the final farewell to Mecca was imminent. " What we are witnessing are the last days of Mecca and Medina."

Mecca's skyline

Giant cranes and half-constructed skyscrapers tower over the Grand Mosque in Mecca. Six new property developments, including the Bin Laden group's Zam Zam Tower, are transforming the character of Islam's holiest city

ISLAMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mountain of light

The mountain of light, or al-Nour, is next in the Wahhabis' sights. Home to the Hira'a cave, it was here that the Prophet is said to have received the first verses of the Koran. Hardline clerics want it destroyed to stop pilgrims visiting. At the foot of the hill there is a Wahhabi fatwa: " The Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) did not permit us to climb on to this hill, not to pray here, not to touch stones, and tie knots on trees..."

ISLAMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The Prophet's wife's grave

The ruins in the foreground are the remains of the grave of the Prophet's wife, Al Baqi, destroyed in the 1950s. The mutawi religious police are present night and day to prevent anyone placing flowers on the site, or even praying in the proximity of the graves

THE ISLAMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Al Oraid Mosque

The 1,200-year-old mosque, site of the grave of the Prophet's grandson al-Oraid, is seen here being dynamited. Gathered around the site are Saudi religious police with their distinctive red scarves, who appear to be celebrating

THE ISLAMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION

http://www.al-islam.org/shrines/baqi.htm

HISTORY OF THE CEMETERY OF JANNAT AL-BAQI

WHERE IMAM HASAN B. ALI (2ND IMAM), IMAM ALI B. AL-HUSAYN (4TH IMAM), IMAM MUHAMMAD B. ALI (5TH IMAM), & IMAM JA'FAR B. MUHAMMAD (6TH IMAM), PEACE BE UPON THEM, ARE BURIED

---

On 8th Shawwal, Wednesday, in the year 1345 AH (April 21, 1925), mausoleums in Jannatul al-Baqi (Madina) were demolished by King Ibn Saud.

In the same year (1925), he also demolished the tombs of holy personages at Jannat al-Mualla (Makkah) where the Holy Prophet (s)'s mother, wife, grandfather and other ancestors are buried.

Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudi Wahhabis continues even today. According to some scholars what is happening in Hijaz is actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea is to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history.

---

The Origins of Al-Baqi

Literally "al-Baqi" means a tree garden. It is also known as "Jannat al-Baqi" due to its sanctity, since in it are buried many of our Prophet's relatives and companions.

The first companion buried in al-Baqi was Uthman b. Madhoon who died on the 3rd of Sha'ban in the 3rd year of Hijrah. The Prophet (s) ordered certain trees to be felled, and in its midst, he buried his dear companion, placing two stones over the grave.

On the following years, the Prophet's son Ibrahim, who died in infancy and over whom the Prophet (s) wept bitterly, was also buried there. The people of Madina then began to use that site for the burial of their own dead, because the Prophet (s) used to greet those who were buried in al-Baqi by saying, "Peace be upon you, O abode of the faithful! God willing, we should soon join you. O' Allah, forgive the fellows of al-Baqi".

The site of the burial ground at al-Baqi was gradually extended. Nearly seven thousand companions of the Holy Prophet (s) were buried there, not to mention those of the Ahlul Bayt (a). Imam Hasan b. Ali (a), Imam Ali b. al-Husayn (a), Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a), and Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) were all buried there.

Among other relatives of the Prophet (s) who were buried at al-Baqi are: his aunts Safiya and Aatika, and his aunt Fatima bint al-Asad, the mother of Imam Ali (a). The third caliph Uthman was buried outside al-Baqi, but with later extensions, his grave was included in the area. In later years, great Muslim scholars like Malik bin Anas and many others, were buried there too. Thus, did al-Baqi become a well-known place of great historic significance to all Muslims.

Al-Baqi as viewed by historians

Umar bin Jubair describes al-Baqi as he saw it during his travel to Madina, saying "Al-Baqi is situated to the east of Madina. You enter it through the gate known as the gate of al-Baqi. As you enter, the first grave you see on your left is that of Safiya, the Prophet's aunt, and further still is the grave of Malik bin Anas, the Imam of Madina. On his grave is raised a small dome. In front of it is the grave of Ibrahim son of our Prophet (s) with a white dome over it, and next to it on the right is the grave of Abdul-Rahman son of Umar bin al-Khattab, popularly known as Abu Shahma, whose father had kept punishing him till death overtook him. Facing it are the graves of Aqeel bin Abi Talib and Abdullah bin Ja'far al-Tayyar. There, facing those graves is a small shrine containing the graves of the Prophet's wives, following by a shrine of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib.

The grave of Hasan bin Ali (a), situated near the gate to it's right hand, has an elevated dome over it. His head lies at the feet of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, and both graves are raised high above the ground, their walls are panelled with yellow plates and studded with beautiful star-shaped nails. This is how the grave of Ibrahim, son of the Prophet (s) has also been adorned. Behind the shrine of Abbas there is the house attributed to Fatima, daughter of our Prophet (s), known as "Bayt al-Ahzaan" (the house of grief) because it is the house she used to frequent in order to mourn the death of her father, the chosen one, peace be upon him. At the farthest end of al-Baqi is the grave of the caliph Uthman, with a small dome over it, and there, next to it, is the grave of Fatima bint Asad, mother of Ali b. Abi Talib (a)"

After a century and a half, the famous traveller Ibn Batuta came to describe al-Baqi in a way which does not in any way differ from the description given by Ibn Jubair. He adds saying, "At al-Baqi are the graves of numerous Muhajirin and Ansar and many companions of the Prophet (s), except that most of their names are unknown."

Thus, over the centuries, al-Baqi remained a sacred site with renovations being carried out as and when needed till the Wahhabis rose to power in the early nineteenth century. The latter desecrated the tombs and demonstrated disrespect to the martyrs and the companions of the Prophet (s) buried there. Muslims who disagreed with them were branded as "infidels" and were subsequently killed.

The First Destruction of Al-Baqi

The Wahhabis believed that visiting the graves and the shrines of the Prophets, the Imams, or the saints was a form of idolatry and totally un-Islamic. Those who did not conform with their belief were killed and their property was confiscated. Since their first invasion of Iraq, and till nowadays, in fact, the Wahhabis, as well as other rulers of the Gulf States, having been carrying out massacres from which no Muslim who disagreed with them was spared. Obviously, the rest of the Islamic World viewed those graves with deep reverence. Had it not been so, the two caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar would not have expressed their desire for burial near the grave of the Prophet (s).

From 1205 AH to 1217 AH, the Wahhabis made several attempts to gain a foothold in Hijaz but failed. Finally, in 1217 AH, they somehow emerged victorious in Taif where they spilled the innocent blood of Muslims. In 1218 AH, they entered Makkah and destroyed all sacred places and domes there, including the one which served as a canopy over the well of Zamzam.

In 1221, the Wahhabis entered Madina to desecrate al-Baqi as well as every mosque they came across. An attempt was even made to demolish the Prophet's tomb, but for one reason or another, the idea was abandoned. In subsequent years, Muslims from Iraq, Syria, and Egypt were refused entry into Makkah for Hajj. King Al-Saud set a pre-condition that those who wished to perform the pilgrimage would have to accept Wahhabism or else be branded as non-Muslims, becoming ineligible for entry into the Haram.

Al-Baqi was razed to the ground, with no sign of any grave or tomb whatsoever. But the Saudis were still not quite satisfied with doing all of that. Their king ordered three black attendants at the Prophet's shrine to show him where the treasure of valuable gifts were stored. The Wahhabis plundered the treasure for their own use.

Thousands of Muslims fled Makkah and Madina in a bid to save their lives and escape from the mounting pressure and persecution at the hands of the Wahhabis. Muslims from all over the world denounced this Saudi savagery and exhorted the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire to save the sacred shrines from total destruction. Then, as it is known, Muhammad Ali Basha attacked Hijaz and, with the support of local tribes, managed to restore law and order in Madina and Makkah, dislodging the Al-Saud clansmen. The entire Muslim world celebrated this victory with great fanfare and rejoicing. In Cairo, the celebrations continued for five days. No doubt, the joy was due to the fact that pilgrims were once more allowed freely to go for Hajj, and the sacred shrines were once again restored.

In 1818 AD, the Ottaman Caliph Abdul Majid and his successors, Caliphs Abdul Hamid and Mohammed, carried out the reconstruction of all sacred places, restoring the Islamic heritage at all important sites. In 1848 and 1860 AD, further renovations were made at the expense of nearly seven hundred thousand pounds, most of which came from the donations collected at the Prophet's tomb.

The second plunder by the Wahhabis

The Ottoman Empire had added to the splendor of Madina and Makkah by building religious structures of great beauty and architectural value. Richard Burton, who visited the holy shrines in 1853 AD disguised as an Afghan Muslim and adopting the Muslim name Abdullah, speaks of Madina boasting 55 mosques and holy shrines. Another English adventurer who visited Madina in 1877-1878 AD describes it as a small beautiful city resembling Istanbul. He writes about its white walls, golden slender minarets and green fields.

1924 AD Wahhabis entered Hijaz for a second time and carried out another merciless plunder and massacre. People in streets were killed. Houses were razed to the ground. Women and children too were not spared.

Awn bin Hashim (Shairf of Makkah) writes: "Before me, a valley appeared to have been paved with corpses, dried blood staining everywhere all around. There was hardly a tree which didn't have one or two dead bodies near its roots."

1925 Madina surrendered to the Wahhabi onslaught. All Islamic heritage were destroyed. The only shrine that remained intact was that of the Holy Prophet (s).

Ibn Jabhan says: "We know that the tomb standing on the Prophet's grave is against our principles, and to have his grave in a mosque is an abominable sin."

Tombs of Hamza and other martyrs were demolished at Uhud. The Prophet's mosque was bombarded. On protest by Muslims, assurances were given by Ibn Saud that it will be restored but the promise was never fulfilled. A promise was given that Hijaz will have an Islamic multinational government. This was also abandoned.

1925 AD Jannat al-Mu'alla, the sacred cemetery at Makkah was destroyed alongwith the house where the Holy Prophet (s) was born. Since then, this day is a day of mourning for all Muslims.

Is it not strange that the Wahhabis find it offensive to have the tombs, shrines and other places of importance preserved, while the remains of their Saudi kings are being guarded at the expense of millions of dollars?

Protest from Indian Muslims

1926, protest gatherings were held by shocked Muslims all over the world. Resolutions were passed and a statement outlining the crimes perpetrated by Wahhabis was issued and included the following:

1. The destruction and desecration of the holy places i.e. the birth place of the Holy Prophet [s], the graves of Banu Hashim in Makkah and in Jannat al-Baqi (Madinah), the refusal of the Wahhabis to allow Muslims to recite Ziyarah or Surah al-Fatiha at those graves.

2. The destruction of the places of worship i.e. Masjid Hamza, Masjid Abu Rasheed, in addition to the tombs of Imams and Sahaba (Prophet's companions).

3. Interference in the performance of Hajj rituals.

4. Forcing the Muslims to follow the Wahhabis innovations and to abandon their own ways according to the guidance of the Imams they follow.

5. The massacre of sayyids in Taif, Madina, Ahsa, and Qatif.

6. The demolition of the grave of the Imams at al-Baqi which deeply offended and grieved all Shias.

Protest from other countries

Similar protests were lodged by Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey. All of them condemn the Saudi Wahhabis for their barbaric acts. Some scholars wrote tracts and books to tell the world the fact that what was happening in Hijaz was actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea was to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history.

A partial list of the demolished graves and shrines

• Al-Mualla graveyard in Makkah which includes the grave of Sayyida Khadija bint Khuwailid (a), wife of the Prophet (s), the grave of Amina bint Wahab, mother of the Prophet (s), the grave of Abu Talib, father of Imam Ali (a), and the grave of Abdul Muttalib, grandfather of the Prophet (s)

• The grave of Hawa (Eve) in Jeddah

• The grave of the father of the Prophet (s) in Madina

• The house of sorrows (bayt al-Ahzan) of Sayyida Fatima (a) in Madina

• The Salman al-Farsi mosque in Madina

• The Raj'at ash-Shams mosque in Madina

• The house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, where he lived after migrating from Makkah

• The house of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) in Madina

• The complex (mahhalla) of Banu Hashim in Madina

• The house of Imam Ali (a) where Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) were born

• The house of Hamza and the graves of the martyrs of Uhud (a)

Threats to Sunni Muslims

These jokers see threats everywhere???

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP49803

'Al-Nidaa, a website affiliated with Al-Qa'ida, recently published a series of articles about the war in Iraq. The eleventh[1] part of the series dealt with the dangers facing Sunni Islamists in the region. The article names a few such dangers, and refers to the emerging threat of the Shi'a to Sunni Islamists as "greater than the threat posed by the Jews and the Christians." The following is a summary of the main points of the article:

"The Crusaders Threat": This danger will be manifested primarily in the expected missionary activities in Iraq, in addition to the military activities that aim at "uprooting Islam."

"The Jewish Threat": This threat has two aspects: The first is a Jewish plan, based on religious motives, to control Iraq. The second has to do with ending the Iraqi threat to Israel's existence.

"The Threat to Islam From the Muslims Themselves": "The believers," Sunni Islamists, face popular as well as institutionalized hatred. "This hatred is no less [intense] than the hatred from Jews and Christians. Sometimes it is a hundred times worse than the hatred of the enemies of the nation, the Jews and the Christians." This threat, according to the article, emanates from the leaders of Islamic countries, and the clerics who serve them.

"The Secular Threat": "There is no doubt," the article stated, "that one of the greatest threats to the hegemony of Islam and the dominance of Shari'a [Islamic law] is the American secularism that will be imposed forcefully on the region… The Islamic world will change from dictatorship to democracy, which means sub-human degradation in all walks of life." The meaning, stated the article, of the term 'democracy,' is that people rule, instead of Allah.

"The Threat of Those Who Abandoned the Islamic Tradition": The article maintained that "since a large segment of Muslims" will oppose secularism, the "Zionist-Crusader coalition" is encouraging large spiritual groups such as the Sufis, "who are mostly infidels" and believe in monism, pantheism, and re-incarnation, and follow laws that "appeared in night-dreams, wishful thinking, conscience, inspiration, and other endless falsehoods." Orders such as the Sufis "oppose Jihad and do not oppose the infidels."

"The Threat of the Rational School": The article asserted that British imperialism planted this "deadly seedling that maintains that Islam is not opposed to atheism, and that Islam is required to get close to the infidel and co-exist with him."

"This school of thought, which was established by Muhammad 'Abdu [in the early 20^th century] and maintains that logic has precedence over [the] text [of the Koran], may become the first stepping stone to secularizing the region, because it is a mixture of secularism and Islam."

The Shit'ite Threat

The article paid particular attention to the issue of the Shi'a:

"The danger of the Shi'a to the region is no less than that posed by the Jews and the Christians. Throughout Islamic history, the Shi'a helped the Christians and the polytheists in their battles against Muslim countries. The seemingly anti-Jewish and anti-Christian Shi'a hatred is nothing but slogans used to export the Khomeini revolution."

According to the article, the Shi'a in Iran developed a five-step plan, each step lasting ten years, to export their revolution to the countries of the region. The plan was devised by the "Shura Council of the Iranian Cultural Revolution," and the article maintained that "whether the plan has been truly hatched by it or not, it does reflect the reality."

"Since the threat that we face from the naïve leaders who have Sunni roots is much greater than the dangers that we face from the West and the East… if we succeed in undermining the entities of these governments by creating discord between the rulers and the clergy, and by hurting businessmen in those countries, and by diverting [capital] from them to our country or to other countries in the world, we would achieve a startling victory…"

"We witnessed how the Shi'a clergy in Iraq rushed to open the gates for the Crusaders, and how they cooperated with them in order to control Iraq."

"At the beginning they issued a Fatwa about the need to fight the enemy who is attacking Muslim countries. [But] this Fatwa was meant for internal consumption and was not implemented in the field, and the Iranian-based Shi'a 'Badr Brigades' did not enter Iraq and did not fire a single bullet in accordance with the Fatwa." "When the Shi'a realized that the balance is tilting in favor of the Crusaders, they rushed to open the gates for them and to cooperate with them to control most of the southern cities. They reiterated the role of one of their ancestors, Ibn Al-'Alqami, who opened the gates of Baghdad for the Mongols [in 1258]. Nothing is left for the Americans but to thank those Shi'a clergymen for their efforts to assist them in entering the cities and controlling them… The Iraqi Shi'a continue to support the enemies, the Crusaders, [and] they inform on the Sunnis [to the Americans] to get them arrested or killed."

The article also offered several calculations which, it claimed, prove that the Shi'a are not the majority in Iraq, and that such claims are "American propaganda:"

"If the Shi'a call for the establishment of a government representing the majority, then this government should be Sunni, because the Sunna are the majority in Iraq. They constitute 68% of all Arabs and non-Arabs. The problem is that this majority, in reality, is an absent majority, because there is not one Sunni country that takes care of them and demands for them their rights. The only way the Sunna will be able to restore their legitimate rights is by raising the banner of Jihad against the enemies of the nation and Islam."

"In conclusion, the threat of the Shi'a to the nation is equal to the threat posed by the Jews and the Christians. They harbor the same ill-will against the nation, which needs to protect itself from them and from being deceived by them… They pose a danger not only to Iraq, but to the whole region. If the Shi'a have influence over Iraq, or if they obtain some kind of autonomy in southern Iraq, they will be so much closer to extending their influence. After all, they exist in considerable numbers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. If those Shi'a get organized and if their initiatives get support from countries that sponsor them – Iran, Syria, and Lebanon – it will mean that they have reached advanced stages in their 50-year plan…"

"The Muslims should be careful, because the Shi'a do not hesitate to cooperate with the Crusaders and the Jewish enemies [of] the Sunna. The Shi'a believe that the threat of the Sunna and their heresy is greater than the threat posed by the Jews and the Christians. Whoever follows history knows that the Shi'a assisted the enemies of the nation who stabbed her in the back. It suffices that the Shi'a defiled the sanctity of Allah's house and stole the Black Stone [the Ka'ba] for twenty years,[2]before it was brought back to its place. Those who are familiar with the beliefs of the Shi'a can hardly fathom the depth of their evil and hatred. Beware [of] them, Oh Muslims."

"We also caution against those who advocate befriending the Shi'a. Such [an] approach can only cause further harm to the nation. To get close to the Shi'a is more dangerous than getting close to the Jews, because the animosity of the Jews is well known, while the Shi'a pretend [to be friendly] and deceive the nation…""How can we approach those who believe that we should curse the followers of the Prophet Muhammad and accuse them of heresy? They, who curse the Prophet's wives and accuse [the Prophet's wife] 'Aisha of prostitution?... If you advocate getting closer to people with such beliefs, then getting closer to Christians is not as bad… [N]ot everyone who maintains that he is Muslim is indeed a Muslim, if his deeds completely nullify Islam …"