Chapter 18 – What Future for Muslims?

This is a serialization of the book titled ‘Crisis in Islam’. The full book and its Endnotes may be accessed here.

I started this book intending to look into the roots of the current crisis in Islam. I believe that I have outlined the main causes that gave rise to the intense current crisis, bearing in mind that it is not a new crisis but has been heightened by several factors including especially the horrendous attacks of Western Imperialism of the last century against three generations of aspiring Muslims lost in the myriad years of their history.

It is inconceivable that I can conclude my project without shedding some light on what I think awaits Muslims this century, and what they and others may do about it. Following on from my analysis, it becomes obvious that two parties need to consider what to do in order to break the vicious cycle of terror tearing the Muslim world apart and spilling over to other non-Muslim countries. Both Muslim religious and political leaders and Imperialist planners ought to heed this call.

It is not enough for religious or political leaders to appear day in day out simply stating that what the Salafis are doing today is not part of real Islam, like I have already argued throughout this book. Most of those politicians and all the clerics know that they are in a dilemma. On the one hand, they are eager to dismiss the murderous image of Islam which these Salafi movements are presenting to the world. But on the other hand they cannot refute the Salafi argument that they are adhering to the path of the ‘righteous predecessors’, which the clerics themselves consider as untouchable.

Muslim leaders need to set up a Commission, whether under auspices of The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) or another forum, whose task would be to reread; reconsider and possibly reinterpret Islamic history and the theological legacy. Naturally, this call applies to other religions. Islam is not simply being singled out but Islam is in urgent need of this review because the religion itself is being used as an excuse for terror. No other religion is currently implicated in heralding such a campaign. This Commission should consider among other things the following issues.

Real Islam is exclusively embodied in what the Prophet delivered in the text of the Qur’an and what can be asserted within the Qur’anic principles as having been said or done by the Prophet: “And what Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns – it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the [stranded] traveler – so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you. And whatever the Messenger has given you – take; and what he has forbidden you – refrain from. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.”(Al-Hashr 59:7) Any other action or principle added later by Companions or fuqahā should not form part of Islam, as has been accepted by Muslins generally in adding such political constructs as consensus of the fuqahā, or by some analogous construct. It is an insult to Allah to claim that when He delivered His message He left a few things out for others to complete. It should be obvious that He only left things out because these matters were not integral to His message.

  1. Since there is no reference in Qur’an or the life of the Prophet to indicate otherwise, then Islam should be accepted as a religion deciding the relationship between man and his creator and between man and man. It is not intended by Allah to be a political economic system for His Kingdom on Earth as has been propagated for centuries.
  2. In asserting that Islam is a religion, there is no denial of the fact that moral obligations are imposed by Allah on His creatures to be good; do good deeds and refrain from harming life or nature. Muslims as part of this creation, who had the message delivered by the Prophet Muhammad at that particular juncture in human history, should be guided by the Hadith attributed to him when asked what is Halal and Haram, He replied that ‘Halal [admissible] is clear and Haram [forbidden] is clear’ indicating that instinctively we were created knowing the path.
  3. While religious principles are static, state matters are dynamic: “Whoever is within the Heavens and Earth asks Him; every day He is bringing about a matter.” (Ar-Rahmaan 55:29). Thus while matters like prayers, their times and paying alms are unchanging, means of contracts and marriage ceremonies for example should change with time as part of the changing nature of the state.
  4. Since the Qur’an does not specify the nature of the political or economic systems under which Muslims should live, then it is not axiomatic to argue that an Islamic State can be established. It is possible to argue that a political system may borrow some noble principles from Islam relating to man’s obligations to his fellow citizens, but that does not mean that Allah has made that a Divine Law simply because some fuqahā had said so.
  5. Allah has purposely left essential matters intended for the running of a state out of his message because it is His Eternal Will that religion and state should be separate, contrary to what people in the ‘West’ have been led to believe. One such example is that of the lack of a coherent philosophy of punishment, which every state requires in order to establish peace and security. Allah’s wisdom determines that such matters are dynamic and should be adjusted according to time and place and not eternal principles.
  6. The fact that the principle of a Caliphate did not exist in Qur’an or Prophet’s life indicates that the later assertions of the fuqahā that, at the heart of Islam was the setting up of the Caliphate, has no basis. The Prophet himself, despite living more than twelve years in Medina, did not set up a state in the political and economic sense or create a state apparatus as required by a state nor declared himself a Caliph. He ruled a community of the faithful just like Jesus did. It would be bizarre to suggest that as soon as the Prophet departed it was discovered that Islam needed a state apparatus, which the Prophet had overlooked.
  7. The Islamic State created by Abu Bakr, and practised since, was an innovation imposed by necessity to legitimize authority and not according to Allah’s Will.
  8. Islam was meant for the Arabs, as the Qur’an determines that every people should have a message in their own tongue before they are punished for disobeying. “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” (Ibrahim 14:4), “Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.” (Al-Israa 17:15)
  9. Spreading Islam by the sword is and would always be contrary to Allah’s will. “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” (Al-Baqara 2:190)
  10. Islamic invasion of states outside the land of the Arabs is a heinous crime as determined in the Qur’an.
  11. Killing a soul contrary to the principles set out in Qur’an in three stated occasions is as unforgivable a crime as that of killing all humankind.
  12. The Killing, pillage, capture of slaves and so on are totally alien to Islam and repugnant barbaric acts carried out by the pre-Islam Arabs which Islam came to put an end to ”Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain [in faith]” (Al-Maaida 5:50)
  13. No principle not specified in Qur’an or clearly proven to have been decreed by the Prophet should be automatically assumed to be Islamic because one of the Prophet’s companions had decreed it. Infallibility should be restricted to the Qur’an and the Prophet. “Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.” (An-Najm 53:3)

These are but some of the essential matters which leaders of Islam need to discuss and come to a consensus upon. Once such a task is accomplished, then history should be rewritten for the new generations in the objective light of the above considerations and they should not be restricted by the fear of criticising the ‘predecessors’. The only restrictions Muslims should impose on their rereading of their history are the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet.

In considering the Sunnah of the Prophet, Muslim leaders ought to carefully consider all the Hadiths and practices which have been attributed to the Prophet in the light of the Qur’anic principles, common sense and basic moral values, before attributing them to the Prophet. The most simple argument to refute a Hadith or practice attributed to the Prophet is that since there are no means of verifying events or reporting, then errors are possible especially since matters are being reported from times when even writing was scarce and language was going through a major transformation even in its writing as the alphabets did not have dots or diacritic, being a sign placed above or below a or letter to indicate that it has a different phonetic value, is stressed, or what vowel is associated with it.

Having looked at what the Muslims need to do in order to understand where they stand in human history, it is time to shed some light on what the Imperialist ought to do, not out of generosity or good heart of the Imperialist, but out of necessity dictated by the facts of Globalization, which some Imperialists thought that human history had ended up with. Imperialism thrives on the principle of the open market which marks its channels of exploitation. Thus any process that would hinder such freedom of movement of capital or goods or investments ought to be resisted because it effectively hinders the principles of a free market on which Imperialism thrives. It is imperative for the Imperialists to come to terms with the current state faced by Muslims. It is not enough for them to rely on the old policies of buying some leaders, threatening some and intimidating others.

But in order for the Imperialist planners to understand the current state of affairs they need to appreciate the core roots of their rejection of Islam as a formidable force. Although I said earlier in the book that the West has found Islam a formidable obstacle to Capitalism on which Imperialism pins its objectives, the rejection has even deeper philosophical reasons, which I shall try to present.

There is a serious element in the new wave of Salafi terror. It is not comprised of illiterate peasants who can be bought or appeased. Most of those enlisting are highly educated with specific engineering, medical and scientific skills. When some of those are born in the West it becomes a serious domestic matter to deal with and cannot be dismissed as a problem across the seas, or as one of mind-altering indoctrination.

The West has held a sense of superiority above the rest of humanity during the last five centuries brought about by its ability to subjugate the rest of humanity and produce the long and durable technological advances and improvements in the general standard of life. However, the West has been consciously or subconsciously suffering from an inferiority complex in its need to borrow its religions.  Despite all the material and intellectual achievement, Europe had had to borrow its religions from the Semites. All the West religious beliefs come from the Semites; the Prophets are Semites; the Holy Books are in Semitic languages, and the codes of behaviour are Semitic. This reality has created a deep resentment as to why these superior people have to borrow the beliefs of the lesser Semitic people.

Such resentment has been displayed in different forms with some being so violent and bloody as happened in the treatment of Jews by the German Nazis which found great favour among many Europeans at its time. Christianity has been easier to accept through the clever mechanism of having presented Jesus as partly European through Paul, Rome and the Holy Roman Empire as if Jesus was slowly Europeanized. This may also explain why sects have arisen in the West among Christians, like the Pentecostalists, the Laestadians or the Mormons, all claiming to be Western home-grown churches.

But so for Islam which still seems alien, so much so that many European cities refuse to allow mosques with minarets to be built, not because of the architecture which some of them exhibit, because the rejection is not based on architectural or urban considerations. The rejection of Islam and what it represents, as a formidable intellectual barrier to the arrogant Western ideologies, baffles the mind. The more resistance the Muslims put up the more vicious the European reaction becomes. The invasion and destruction of Iraq is one of the most evident and recent examples of this conflict. It really had nothing to do with a fictitious threat, which Iraq allegedly posed to Europe, but was more as a lesson to a disobedient Muslim state refusing to accept to submit to European domination. Maybe in six centuries from now when Islam will be as old as Christianity is today, attitudes will change but six centuries is a long way to go.

Western Imperialism has to understand and accept this realization and deal with it not because of love for Muslims or kind consideration for humanity but out of self-interest. Imperialism depends on Capitalism as its arm of control and domination. Capitalism needs free movement of people, goods and money. Instability preventing such a safe movement would be detrimental to Imperialism. In the past Imperialism dealt with disobedience by threat of force. This will not work with young men and women who are chasing death. How can you intimidate a teenager who drives a car loaded with explosives straight at you?

With millions of young men and women, some of whom have been born and raised in the West, willing to die and take people and property with them, Imperialism has to rethink its ideas and practices in earnest. It is time the West stopped denigrating Islam and humiliating Muslims as it has been doing for two centuries. It is time the West stopped sending its armies to invade Muslim land, providing the Muslim fundamentalists with the fuel needed to mould young people’s minds about the Western conquest. More importantly, the West has to stop believing that it has a divine right to impose its will on others and tell them how they should live. Europe should reconsider the use of such ludicrous phrases as ‘Judeo-Christian values’ to distinguish itself from others in general and Islam in particular. There are no such values in reality. There are no common values uniting a Siri Lankan Catholic to a Norwegian Protestant to a Falasha from Ethiopia in order for such a phrase to have any meaning other than being a euphemism for Imperialism.

There is a serious element in the new wave of Salafi terror. It is not comprised of illiterate peasants who can be bought or appeased. Most of those enlisting are highly educated with specific engineering, medical and scientific skills. When some of those are born in the West it becomes a serious domestic matter to deal with and cannot be dismissed as a problem across the seas, or as one of mind-altering indoctrination.

Both Muslim leaders and Imperialists planners must consider taking notice of the above suggestion as one way of tackling the crisis in Islam. Failing to do so would only mean looking into the abyss where more violence against Muslims will feed more terror and more suicide bombers all over the world – a dark prospect indeed- although not for the oligarchs who thrive on the ensuing chaos to use force to grab resources and impose their restrictive laws.

Chapter 17 – The Imperialist Role

This is a serialization of the book titled ‘Crisis in Islam’. The full book and its Endnotes may be accessed here.

I shall try in this chapter to show how the role of Imperialism in the crisis in Islam, whether in setting up political movements, supporting others, or subjugating Muslims, has been a major element in the crisis and how it has benefited Imperialism in pursuing its objectives.

The year 1492 is a significant year in the modern history of humankind. It signals the beginning of the last 500 years of modern Western Imperialism that has gone uninterrupted in one form or another. In that year, two major events took place. In one, Christopher Columbus landed on the East coast of the Americas, which landing led to the most ‘disgraceful’ ethnic cleansing of the land, part of which was documented by the American writer Helen Jackson as having led to the killing of millions of ethnic Americans in one century in the USA alone. 1 Two consequences of that landing are worthy of note. Firstly, it set the precedent that Europeans have a natural right to settle any land even if that meant the extermination of its original inhabitants. This has gone on since 1492 and manifested itself in such places as Australia and Palestine with this conviction becoming part of the European psyche. Secondly, it exposes the sense of superiority at the heart of European intellect, which has manifested itself when we read of Columbus having ‘Discovered’ America. It seems that the Europeans believe they have a natural right to decide when history starts in having decided that the Americas and their inhabitants did not exist until the Europeans came, just as much as they have the right to decide the ‘End of History’ 2.

The second significant event of 1492, which is related to the cleansing of the Americas, is the fall of the last Muslim kingdom in Spain 3. The clearly striking Imperialist feature about the end of Muslim rule in Spain is that, to my knowledge, this is the only incident in history in which an invasion led to the total eradication of a religion in one state. Islam, which prevailed in Spain for some eight centuries, did not exist after 1492.

Since 1492, European Imperialism has consisted of a chain of roles by different European states. From the Portuguese Colonialism to the Zionist Imperialism they all share the common features of being based on Judeo-Christian values, intending to subjugate, exploit, and dominate.

In the last few decades, a lot was said and written about the so-called ‘Clash or Dialogue Among Civilizations’ 4, in an attempt to refer to a conflict between Christianity and Islam. I believe that the use of the term ‘civilization’ in characterizing the conflict is unfortunate.  In order to talk about a conflict between Civilizations, we need to identify these Civilizations, which are supposed to be in conflict.  However, I submit that there are no such Civilizations today. There is neither an Islamic Civilization nor a Christian Civilization in existence to have a dialogue. Without entering into a philosophical discussion about the definition of civilization, it suffices to say that if we assume that they existed in the past, such as under the Holy Roman Empire or the Abbasid Empire, they do not exist today.  What could unite a Norwegian and a Namibian to form a Christian Civilization or an Iraqi and an Indonesian to form an Islamic Civilization?

There is no conflict between Civilizations today. The Conflict is between European Imperialism (which includes all offshoots of Europe such as the EU, US, Australia, Canada and Israel) and the ideology of Islam.

European Imperialism discovered as early as the Crusades that Islamic ideology was a formidable challenge to its design to dominate the world. It should be made clear that Imperialism does not have an issue with the political Islamic order but it does oppose Islamic ideology. Islamic ideology, which Imperialism confronts, consists of the principles, which Muslims consciously or subconsciously assimilate from the Qur’an and the Prophet’s conduct. Principles like refusing to submit but to Allah and refusing the Capitalist system of exploitation and accumulation of wealth are only a small sample of how Islam is anathema to Imperialism. It is Islamic ideology, which Zionist Imperialism today finds the true opponent. Thus, it has no problem with some fifty so-called Muslim states but considers Hizbullah a serious threat to its objectives in the Arab World.

The theatrical display of the Imperialist in the so-called coalition fighting ISIL does not convince anyone. Fighting ISIL needs no display of air power. If the Imperialists are genuine about fighting ISIL, the method is clear and had already been tested by them before in Iraq.

The European Imperialists played two major roles in the formation and evolution of the current crisis in Islam. It did not escape the notice of the numerous Orientalists, some of whom have studied Islamic history more deeply than modern Muslim scholars, the nature of the political schism in Islam that dates back to the beginning of the mission. It is not so hard to realize that the Caliphate system of Government was a political system with some religious connotations. It was the decision of clans of Quraysh to assume political power using the Prophet’s legacy as legitimization. In doing so, the clans of Quraysh, which I have already identified in previous chapters, ensured that their rejection of the House of Muhammad, which later became the ‘House of ‘Ali’ as the Prophet had no descendants except through Fatima and ‘Ali, was maintained.

In order to achieve that, the elders of these clans of Quraysh created their hierarchy of Companions of the Prophet upon whom they bestowed titles and praise all alleged to have been made by the Prophet. The practices and policies of those Companions later became an extension of the Prophet’s Sunna and thus an integral part of Islamic Shari’a and Islam in general. Any attempt to question the assumption that the Companion’s practices were not Sunna amounted to near apostasy: a label that most Muslims wanted to avoid. This political establishment, which I referred to in this book as the ‘House of ‘Aisha’, was set up on the day the Prophet passed away by ‘Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr. Most of the Arabs outside Quraysh were indifferent to the political struggle inside Quraysh and thus had no problem with the new political set up so long as it provided them with stability and prosperity with money pouring in from invaded land outside Arabia. The non-Arabs who converted to Islam had no option but to accept Islam as offered by the Quraysh political establishment, who to them logically appeared as having been a true representation of the Prophet’s having been his Companions.

The small percentage of Arabs and non-Arabs who chose to identify themselves, in varying degrees and for different reasons, with the ‘House of ‘Ali’ came to be considered by the Sunni fuqahā as outside mainstream Islam.  Those followers of the ‘House of ‘Ali’  who came to be known as Shi’a of ‘Ali or simply Shi’a, despite being a small twenty percent of Muslims, have played a role much greater than their size because of geography. If we exclude those in the Indian subcontinent, the Shi’a live in the vital area on both sides of the Gulf through Iraq, across southern Turkey, down through eastern Syria to south Lebanon in the area, which the Wahhābis call ‘the Shi’a Crescent’. This enclave in the Muslim world is not just significant in geopolitical terms as it bridges Europe and Asia, but is also significant in being rich in gas and oil reserves.

It would be difficult for any Imperialist power considering action to dominate the world, to overlook this reality and consider ways of exploiting it to its advantage. The British Imperialists, having realized that eradicating Islamic ideology was impossible, decided that the only way was to contain Muslims. Containing them was easiest through controlling Arabia because the Bedouin by nature are the weakest in belief leading to the possibility of easy control and manipulation. More significant is the fact that controlling Mecca means controlling Muslims especially outside the Arab world. Thus, Wahhābism was invented as outlined earlier.

The creation of Wahhābism sowed the seeds of today’s destructive campaign. Wahhābism is a revival of Salafi ideology as expanded by Ibn Taymiyyah. That Salafism asserts that Shi’a in general and the esoteric among them specifically are apostates and infidels who must be eliminated. It is obvious even for the novice in politics to appreciate the potential of such a weapon when required to set Muslims against each other in the location and time required. Setting Wahhābis against Shi’a is the best weapon the Zionist Imperialists have discovered.  One quick look at the scene in the Arab world today suffices. Fifty years ago, everyone talked about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today everyone talks about the Sunni-Shi’a conflict. This is Zionism’s golden age!

The Imperialists went on, as outlined earlier in this book, to back and support other Islamic fundamentalist movements in the Arab world to oppose both Communist and Arab Nationalist movements. Although the Imperialists understood the formidability of Islamic ideology, they also believed that the fundamentalist Islamic movements represented aspirations to power and not the implementation of ideology and thus constituted no danger to the Imperialist objective.

Massive reserves of oil were discovered in the 20th century in the Arabian Peninsula, which dramatically changed the scene and opportunities. The Imperialists started pumping oil like water from wells to run their machinery and support their economy. But part of that massive revenue was given back to the Bedouin in return for guarding its fields and ensuring no locals agitate or question that exploitation. The Bedouin were advised by their Imperialist masters, once they satisfied their lustful desires, to put some of that money to good use in promoting their image in the Muslim world. Large sums of money were spent on extending and improving the holy shrine in Mecca, which ensured them merits with the massive naïve and gullible Muslims, who have never read the verse: “Have you made the providing of water for the pilgrim and the maintenance of al-Masjid al-Haram equal to [the deeds of] one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and strives in the cause of Allah? They are not equal in the sight of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” [At-Tawba 9:19] They also embarked on a massive campaign of building mosques all over the Muslim world and providing them with Wahhābi preachers. That in my mind was their greatest political success, as no other political system has ever had such an opportunity like that which the Mosque in Islam grants in the form of a political platform camouflaged as religious.

Equally significant in the Imperialist role of assisting the Salafi Wahhābi movement has been the design and implementation of a strategy to control the media, which has become, with the advent of digital communication, the most powerful tool in manipulating public opinion and consequently affecting political decisions. The setting up of satellite TV channels like Al-Jazeera, which initially portrayed independent impartial reporting to acquire the confidence of its viewers, could be cited as one example. Once the trust of the public was acquired, it was easy to use it as the powerful tool to manipulate public opinion as has been demonstrated clearly in reporting the civil war in Syria. The number of TV channels spanning the waves of satellites in the service of Salafi ideas and in every language, are too many to count. The Wahhābis bought most publishing houses ensuring no books exposing their history and politics are available to read. 5 I believe that there are only a few Arab dailies which are neither fully owned by one Wahhābi or another nor have a pro-Saudi editor or reporters in its staff.

It is not difficult to appreciate the scale of the Imperialist success in having enabled the Wahhābis to dominate the media in the Muslim world in general.

By the 1980s, the Soviet Union had stagnated to the extent that enabled the testing of its will. Afghanistan was a good place to do so. The Wahhābis were called upon to do their part in serving their masters the Imperialists. They recruited men from all over the Arab world; had them trained by the CIA; paid for the whole operation and sent them to fight the Soviet army which was supporting the communist government of Afghanistan.  The outcome of this operation is more serious than has been yet acknowledged. Firstly, it showed the weak resolve of the Soviet Union, which gave rise to activities that led a few years later to its early disintegration.  Secondly, it signaled the new political role of Salafi Islam. Thirdly, it created the new CIA mercenaries in the Arab world who came to be known as the Arab ‘Mujahedeen’, so much so that the word has entered the English dictionary. It was from among those Mujahedeen that Al-Qaeda was born with the Wahhābi money and the Imperialist training and equipment. Those Mujahedeen went back to their respective countries to recruit more members for Al-Qaeda and await the next move. It is not inconceivable that Osama bin Laden and his colleagues had already had or developed later their own ambition of separating themselves from the Imperialists and setting up their own Islamic state. But that does not change the fact that all those Mujahedeen and their whereabouts were known to the Zionist Imperialists. It is ludicrous to suggest, as some seem to imply today, that the CIA did not know those men who came later to be leaders of Al-Qaeda and its offshoots in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere. Intelligence services are not charities.

The beginning of the 21st century and following the mystery of 9/11 witnessed the ascension of Zionism to the highest state of Imperialism, which gave birth to the Zionist Imperialism I use in this book. Zionist Imperialism indicated that its plans for the century are going to do away with the UN Charter that was drafted and agreed upon by the World States post WWII, and to breach most principles of International Law that have been agreed upon over the last two centuries. The manifestation of this policy came in the invasion, occupation and dismantling of Iraq, a founding member of the UN. Once this was achieved, the revival and activation of sectarian strife was initiated. The details of these policies as implemented by the US ruler of Iraq Paul Bremer are documented in other books. 6 Firstly, Bremer armed the Shi’a militia on the grounds that they fought Saddam Hussein. Once they completed the dirty work, which the US could not carry out, the US moved to arm the Sunni awakening (Sahwa) militia on the grounds that they needed to defend themselves against the Shi’a militia excesses. Between 2005 and 2007 and under US watch, some horrendous sectarian crimes were committed in Iraq by both sides. Following that short sectarian war, Al-Qaeda became an attractive recruiting network for dissatisfied Sunnis who either lost power, members of families or wealth or their homes. The sectarian appeal prevailed and Al-Qaeda, to the delight of the Imperialists and with their backing, continued to build their cells. When the time came, they defeated the not-so-professional Iraqi army, which was built by the US after having dismantled the professional Iraqi army in 2003, and succeeded in extending their control from the small enclave in Syria to include the Governorates of Mousil, Salāhuddeen, Diyāla and Anbar in Iraq.

Syria was the next country to be dismantled after Iraq as part of the Zionist plan to rewrite the borders of the Arab world, having scrapped the failed nation-state system created by the Sykes-Picot agreement. In the case of Iraq, it was possible to invade after having blockaded it for more than twelve years, depleting its military and destroying its economy and instilling desperation in its people. However, no such situation existed in Syria, which still maintained a relatively strong army with a serious arsenal of chemical weapons and a missile capability to deliver them to Israel, whose superiority in the Middle East remains the main objective of Zionist Imperialism.  Following the invasion of Iraq, the US offered President Assad of Syria a proposal, which ensured that the regime would be safe so long as it recognized the hegemony of Israel and dissociated itself from Iran. 7 When Assad rejected the Imperialist offer, the signal went out to the Salafi movement in Syria to go into action. This was timed with the preparation in Northern Africa for regime changes, which the Imperialists refer to as the ‘Arab Spring’, although it has been anything but a Spring. Libya, which had been a stable and prosperous state for some forty years, ceased to exist as a state and degenerated into gangs of killers and looters on tribal and town bases. Tunisia is in serious turmoil looking into the dark tunnel of fundamentalist threat. But Syria, because of a multitude of reasons, needed a more elaborate scheme than those implemented in Libya and Tunisia. The Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda and some disgruntled other groups were all activated by different outside handlers. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar put all their resources to that effect. The result has been more than four years of massive destruction, suicide bombing and killings the like of which would have been assumed fantasies a few years earlier. Parts of Syria have since been outside the Government’s control where the Salafis run their own model of the dark ages which they call an Islamic State. But the important outcome so far has been the destruction of the Syrian economy beyond repair, the weakening of its army and the removal of chemical weapons, all for the benefit of Israel.

Fighting terrorism must assume top priority and other matters of dispute relegated to second order. The truth of the matter, which has exposed Zionist Imperialist objectives, is that it is not interested in fighting terrorism. It is only interested in eradicating Arab Nationalism and protecting the Zionist enclave.

The expansion of an Al-Qaeda offshoot, which called itself IS, then ISIS or ISIL as more commonly known, from Syria to Iraq, may not have been precisely what the Zionist Imperialists wanted when they supported it to destroy Syria. But it should be accepted that such fundamentalist movements might develop their own agendas despite the resistance of their masters and sponsors. The Imperialists planned the destruction of Syria to end the last Arab Nationalist stronghold in the Arab world. They did not intend the Salafi control to reach Iraq where the regime and Government were installed by the US as a reliable ally after the eradication of the Ba’ath Nationalist there. But the Salafi found an opportunity to expand into Iraq where corruption has become the norm and people were dissatisfied with phony democracy brought by the US. The Salafi had their own independent reason for expanding into Iraq. Iraq was being run by Shi’a Muslims for the first time since the rule of ‘Ali bin Abi Tālib between 656 and 661 AD. There is no bigger enemy for the Salafi than Shi’ism and thus once they established their rule on the Euphrates in Syria, it was a golden opportunity to link that with Iraq and set up a Salafi Caliphate to the exclusion of Shi’a, ‘Alawites and Sunni alike.

I am not going into an argument about who created Al-Qaeda and consequently the ISIL as it will not serve the purpose of this analysis. The creation of a political movement is relevant to its functions and objectives. But failing to do so does not diminish the possibility of deciding the objectives of that movement by deciding who benefits from those objectives. All that those Salafi movements have done so far has been destruction, killing and creating instability in the countries in which they have been active. Their call for the setting up of a Salafi Islamic State means the elimination of all others; something which has been demonstrated in the destruction of all religious sites, enslaving war-captive women and killing people on evidence of belonging to a sect that is not affiliated to Salafism as they define it. The natural outcome of such ideology and practices means the disintegration of these states, like Iraq, Syria and Libya today, into splinter statelets based on sectarian or ethno-sectarian bases. That is precisely the Zionist objective in the area so that Israel can lawfully be called a Jewish state as one of the many religious and sectarian entities and the most powerful and dominating among them. It also fits the Oded Yinon Plan to cause internal friction within neighboring Islamic states, thereby neutralizing their consolidated objection to the atrocities of the Zionist entity. 8

The theatrical display of the Imperialist in the so-called coalition fighting ISIL does not convince anyone. Fighting ISIL needs no display of air power. If the Imperialists are genuine about fighting ISIL, the method is clear and had already been tested by them before in Iraq. For the sake of brevity I shall summarize is as follows.

  1. Three main clients of the Zionist Imperialists in the Middle East, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been supporting ISIL according to US Vice-President, Joe Biden. 9 Both Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be ordered and not requested, to desist and they will both comply just as fast as Hamad bin Jāsim, former PM and Foreign Minister of Qatar, packed and left without a single comment once ordered by the US to do so. 10 Once money and media support for the Salafi cease, the movement could hardly afford to recruit new fighters from among the impoverished brainwashed Muslim masses.
  2. Turkey, which may not be easy to order, has to function within the rules of NATO and not is allowed to get the latter entangled in a conflict in which it has no interest. NATO could advise Turkey that it would not be in its best interest to have a fundamentalist Islamic state on its borders and that Turkey should close its borders to ISIL. It would be difficult for Turkey to refuse despite its aspiration for a revival of the Ottoman rule of the Middle East, which may not particularly be an objective of NATO.
  3. Closing the Turkish borders against ISIL will end the insurrection in Iraq and Syria in a few months. ISIL needs the Turkish borders because all its supplies of equipment and men come through it. ISIL has no factories in its small enclave in Syria or Iraq to manufacture tanks, armored carriers and the thousands of four-wheel drive cars, which have to pour in from across the Turkish borders with approval and support of the Turkish authorities. As there are no indigenous Chechens, Uzbek, Tajik or their like in Iraq or Syria, then closing the Turkish borders would dry up the supply of men to ISIL.
  4. The Zionist Imperialists who control the world banking system can stop the flow of money into the hands of ISIL and its affiliates. Every transaction in dollars in the world has to pass through New York. It is inconceivable that money paid by Qataris or Saudis going through that system could not be followed and verified. In the banking system of today, when the transfer of any large sum is investigated for money laundering, it would be very hard to see how the tens of millions allegedly paid by the Qatari Government to free hostages in the hands of terrorists in Turkey could not have been followed and frozen later. Stopping the flow of money to terrorist stops terrorism!
  5. In the slim likelihood of the above suggestions failing, the Imperialists could resort to the Iraqi model, which worked better than their wildest dreams. The UN Security Council should be summoned within hours as happened in the case of Iraq and a solid Resolution, like (661/1990) passed, imposing total blockade against the ISIL enclave in Syria and Iraq. It worked in Iraq for twelve years and led to the easy collapse of the Iraqi state. In the case of ISIL it should work in one year. We need not talk about the war against the ISIL taking years as President Obama has been telling us.

The above clear and lawful means do not escape the attention of any observer of the situation.  So why is it that none of it has been even attempted? The answer is simple: the Imperialists are not serious about fighting the Salafi movements in the Arab world, because the objective of Salafi movements serves the Imperialist objective. So long as the Salafi movements function within these limits serving the Imperialist objective then they would be supported. Once they become a threat to Imperialism, they will be taken out with a ‘shock and awe’ attack beyond anything they have ever imagined before.

Earlier I alluded to the possibility of deviation in objectives between the Salafis and the Imperialists. One such deviation happened when ISIL expanded into Iraq encroaching on an Imperialist client state. The help given to the Salafis was for dismantling Syria. Iraq has been a staunch ally of the Zionist objective since 2003 and its puppet regime has had several treaties with the Zionists for its protection, in return for its compliance with the Zionist policies in the new Middle East. This uncalculated outcome created a dilemma for the Imperialists. On the one hand, their main objective of eliminating the last Arab Nationalist base in the Middle East is being achieved at the hands of ISIL and all other Salafi movements. While on the other hand one of these Salafi movements has encroached on the Zionist ally in Iraq. The Imperialists had to come to save their Iraqi client regime, which they left without a professional army after they occupied it in 2003. The dilemma now is that they want to protect the regime in Baghdad and in order to do so they must weaken ISIL. But weakening ISIL will be enabling Damascus to defeat the ISIL and its affiliates, which means the victory of Damascus and the failure of the plan to dismantle Arab Nationalism. This explains the half-hearted campaign by the imperialists against ISIL. I believe that if the choice is between saving the Iraqi regime leading to saving the regime in Damascus and losing the Iraqi regime and toppling the Ba’ath in Damascus, the Imperialists will opt for the latter.

Any party seriously interested in combating terrorism should support and cooperate with the only government in the World, which has been fighting terrorism for the last four years plus. Any power that does not support Damascus in its fight against terrorism is in fact an ally of the terrorist irrespective of what it does or says. Fighting terrorism must assume top priority and other matters of dispute relegated to second order. The truth of the matter, which has exposed Zionist Imperialist objectives, is that it is not interested in fighting terrorism. It is only interested in eradicating Arab Nationalism and protecting the Zionist enclave.

So far I have attended to one role of the Imperialists in the crisis in Islam, namely that of setting up or supporting fundamentalist Islamic movements. However, there is another no less serious role which the Imperialists played which has been contributing to fueling the recruitments to these movements.

The incursions of the European Imperialists ceased following the end of the Crusaders enclave in greater Syria in the thirteenth century. One reason was that going through its transformation in separating the State from the Church, which kept them busy with their own internal affairs. The other reason was that the Arab World was generally under Ottoman domination in one way or another. Europe was not ready yet to take on the Ottomans. The situation started to change at the beginning of the 19th century when France invaded and occupied Algeria declaring it part of France until a bloody struggle costing some one million lives ended that occupation in 1962. The slow advance of other Europeans together with France led to all of Arab North Africa becoming occupied or under direct control of European Imperialists.

Similar encroachments were taking place in the Arabian Peninsula. Following the setting up of Wahhābism as explained earlier, the British Imperialists occupied South Yemen (Aden) in 1839 and stayed there until 1963. With the control of the Sultan of Muscat being nominal on the Omani coast, the whole southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula was under British control. On the eastern side of the Arabian Peninsula, the East India Company, the arm of the British Imperialists, started setting up its base on the west side of the Gulf. The 19th century was cleverly used by the British in creating alliances between different small Bedouin clans and encouraging them to settle along the western side of the Gulf. Although officially the area extending from the Basrah coast down to the borders of Oman was under the political and military control of the Governor of the Wilayet (Governorate) of Basrah, the Ottoman rule’s weakness and corruption was so prevalent that it was not so difficult for the British Imperialist to assume a de facto control of that side of the Gulf.

On the eve of the WWI British Imperialism was not only in control of the whole Arabian Peninsula and Gulf but it had already strangled the future state of Iraq by having severed from it the district of Kuwait and its exit to the deep waters in the Gulf.

The end of WWI, which witnessed the end of the Ottomans and consequently the end of the Muslim Caliphate for the first time since 632, led to further control of the Arab World when the Sykes-Picot Agreement made between Britain and France in 1916 was implemented. In short, the whole Arab world post WWI was under control of European Imperialism either directly as in Iraq or by proxy as in Arabia.

The two decades between the major European wars of the 20th century witnessed questioning the right of the European to be in control of the Arab World, indeed just as much as it was in other parts of the world. Communists, Arab Nationalists and Islamists all took part in the struggle seeking an end to occupation and domination. The Islamists had the easiest task among the Arab masses. The appeal was very simple and effective. Muslims had lived under Muslim Caliphate and Islamic Shari’a for twelve centuries being masters of themselves and at time prosperously.  Now they were being enslaved by the infidel Europeans. The way to salvation would be to go back to Islam. It is not difficult to see how effective such a simple call has been. The Hashemite ruling family in Jordan has never been able to rid itself of the charge that it had failed in its religious duty when it sided with British infidels against the Muslim Ottoman Caliph in WWI.

The more brutal the occupation and its oppressive measures became, the easier it was for the different Islamic movements to recruit. Equally significant was that the Islamic movements capitalized on the failure of the Arab Nationalist regimes to deliver on their promises.

The two major scenes of crimes committed by Zionist Imperialism in the Arab world stand out as the main trigger for the success of Islamic fundamentalism – Palestine and Iraq. The creation of the state of Israel and the massive cleansing of Palestine of its ethnic Arab inhabitants has been at the heart at Arab and Muslim disillusionment with Imperialism. No one, who does not attempt to understand what the Arabs call the ‘Nakba’ catastrophe of Palestine, will be able to understand the Muslim psyche today. I am not going to elaborate on the rejection by the Arabs of the expulsion of Palestinians or the failure of the Europeans to understand the refusal of the Arabs to accept ethnic cleansing as happened in Australia and the Americas. These are matters outside the scope of this book. But it suffices to say that nothing has served the cause of the Muslim fundamentalists as much as the catastrophe of Palestine has.

The genocidal blockade of Iraq between 1990 and 2003 directly and indirectly killed a percentage of Iraqis greater than any conventional war has done to a single country in the 20th century. It was then followed by a brutal invasion and occupation which dismantled the Iraqi states; dissolved its military apparatus; killed hundreds of thousands and opened the gates to sectarian wars that killed hundreds of thousands more. This triggered so much hate among Muslims that led to recruitments for Al-Qaeda in droves from all over the Muslim world. The explanation used by Al-Qaeda has been simple: the Islamic State of Iraq was beginning to cause some irritation to the Zionist hegemony in the Middle East. The Zionist Imperialists have yet to refute that argument!

I believe that I have shown in the above presentation how the Imperialists have played two roles in fermenting the current crisis in Islam. On the one hand, the Zionist Imperialists occupied the Arab World; humiliated its people and dictated terms of surrender leading many people to find only refuge in returning to the promise which Islam gives in salvation. On the other hand, the Imperialists themselves assisted in setting up movements or in supporting existing or rising new movements calling for a return to Salafi Islam.  The two roles are not mutually exclusive so long as the rising new Islamic movement does not represent a threat to the State of Israel. There are no such indications as the Salafi movements have asserted that their objective is to build a purely Salafi state on Muslim land. That would mean cleansing that land of whoever opposes the Salafi ideals but that would not be adverse to the interest of Israel. Indeed, it may be a blessing in having such a backward state on the border of the technically advanced European enclave in the center of the Middle East.


Iraq’s Problem in Its Constitution not the Referendum!

I have not written on the political situation in Iraq for many months because I believe it to be futile as Iraq has no short or medium term political future that merits some contribution unless a major war breaks out in the area which could transform matters. The reason for such a bleak forecast, which I reached neither lightly nor out of spite, is not because Iraq had been invaded and needs time to recover from the invasion as had happened to Germany and Japan in WWII. There is a major difference between what happened in invading Japan and Germany and invading Iraq. The purpose of invading Germany and Japan was to defeat those countries militarily and economically and dominate them without a major political change. The purpose of invading Iraq has always been ‘regime change’ so that the outcome would be to create a political system more in line with International Zionism’s plan for the Arab World. In 2003 and after 12 years of genocidal blockade Iraq was no threat to its neighbours let alone to the US/UK!

I do not intend to write about what International Zionism did in Iraq in order to transform it from an Arab semi-socialist state to a Zionist semi-capitalist state because I have already co-authored two books on this and no single or even a few articles would do justice to such an important era of Iraq’s history. However, what I intend to write about are two things: who are the Iraqis who took part in the invasion, and what are the facts which the invasion created that are almost impossible to reverse?

All the Iraqis who called on the US to invade Iraq; took part in it; supported it; or took part in the political system installed as a result of the invasion are either servants of International Zionism, its allies or its appeasers, whom I shall refer to herein as the ‘Invasion Proponents’. The reason why I have not written about the disputes within the ‘Invasion Proponents’ is because they are all about protecting personal interest in power as there are no real political or ideological differences among the group.

As the ‘one’ cannot federate with itself and only more than ‘one’ can, then it is clear that the Occupier established in the 2005 Constitution that Iraq has become a federation of more than one independent authority

It is not a secret that the Kurdish leadership among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ have always been aligned with Israel; be that secretly for a long time and openly since the battle of ‘Hindereen’ when in 1996 the Kurds wiped an Iraqi army 4th brigade with open support from Iran, Israel and a bunch of Iraqi communists. The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’, on the other hand, had aspirations extending from setting up an Islamic Sunni State or an Islamic Shi’a State, both of which is a fantasy that could not materialize. However, they all agreed on the end of the Arab identity of future Iraq. Alongside these political Arab and Kurdish groups among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ there were a few independent Iraqis who had no political ambition beyond having a share in power and its reward. That explains why not a single member of the so-called Governing Council, which never governed, asked Paul Bremer, Iraq ruler par excellence, what the occupation was planning for Iraq. They asked, according to Bremer, only about the remuneration for their services.

Towards the objective of ‘regime change’ the occupying US/UK powers issued more than 100 laws which irreparably changed Iraq politically, economically, socially and militarily. Not a single member of the ‘Invasion Proponents’ had an opinion, a say or objection to any of them. When the objective of ‘change’ was achieved, it became imperative for the Occupiers to extricate themselves publicly from the occupation of Iraq. Although, this has not occurred in reality because Iraq in practical and even legal terms is still occupied, it was important to declare the withdrawing from Iraq and handing it to its people.  Such a measure was vital to limit the potential of legal labilities not towards the people of Iraq but rather towards citizens of the US/UK in case any of them suffers some injury or loss as a consequence of Occupation. Thus a need arose to draft a constitution for the new state replacing the Arab Nationalist state.

And that is how the Iraqi Constitution of 2005 was born. I am confident that not one single Iraqi took part in its drafting. I am almost as confident to assert that those who voted for it neither read it before voting for it nor since. Those Iraqis who claim today to have been members of the constitution committee, have only themselves to blame for the shortcomings and failures of the constitution and should be held responsible.

Whoever wants to know the true Zionist project for Iraq should read its 2005 Constitution before preaching about the constitutionality or otherwise of any measure. Reading the Constitution will further expose the political hypocrisy of some members of the ‘Invasion Proponents’; one of whom is reported a few days ago to have said that the establishment of an independent Kurdisatn in northern Iraq will be a ‘second Israel’ implying that he, or any of the ‘Invasion Proponents’, has had a problem with Israel. If that was the case then International Zionism would have been either a charitable organization or stupid in having invaded Iraq only to hand it over. I doubt if Zionism is either. However, none of my fellow Iraqi citizens said to him that had it not been for Israel you would not have assumed power in Baghdad. You would still have been hanging around cafes in Zaineb district of Damascus.

What does the Constitution of 2005 bring to occupied Iraq?

Despite the numerous reservations I have, I will limit them here to issues relevant to the Referendum on the independence of Kurdisatn.

I shall attempt to show how the Constitution was carefully drafted to expand the concept of ‘Creative Chaos’ intended by International Zionism to ensure a fragmented and weak Arab world so that Israel remains dominant and powerful in the otherwise sectarian world around it.

The first thing that hits you in the face is the poor language in which the Constitution was drafted. The reason for that is clear. The Constitution was originally drafted by the Occupier in his language just as was the case with the 1925 Constitution which was drafted by the British: English. Furthermore, English is the language that determines the authenticity of any law or document as Paul Bremer decreed in Regulation (1) on 16 May 2003. So when the Constitution was translated the Kurds got their version of which I have no knowledge.  The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ had no interest in what the Constitution contained assuming that many among them had even read it. And even if they did care what could they have done? They, i.e. the Arabs ‘Invasion Proponents’ fall into three categories who all came from outside Iraq after March 2003. The group of Al Hakim who came from Iran knew better Persian than Arabic. The group of ‘Solagh’ who came from Damascus were led by someone who claimed that he used to read the police crime series of the French ‘Arsene Lupin’ and the novel of the Count of Monte Cristo’. Bahr El-Uloom group which came from the UK were led by the garrulous doctor who is known for using words in meaningless sentences!

Let us start with Article (1) of the Constitution because of its relevance in language and content. It states:

“The Republic of Iraq is a single federal, independent and fully sovereign state in which the system of government is republican, representative, parliamentary, and democratic, and this Constitution is a guarantor of the unity of Iraq.”

A reader of this Article for the first time may raise the question: what is wrong with it? The problem is not in the English text but in the Arabic translation. Firstly, it uses the two English words ‘parliamentary, and democratic’ in that form and not uses Arabic words for them. The Constitution of any state is drafted in its official language. If the translators of the Iraqi Constitution 2005 did not know Arabic words to represent the English original then maybe the Constitution is not meant for Iraq. The composition of the translation is so poor that it would be rejected linguistically if submitted by a primary school pupil. Another example of the poor translation is that the term ‘fully sovereign’ in the English text was translated into Arabic to read ‘with full sovereignty’ as if there are states that have less than ‘full sovereignty’ incorporated in their constitutions.

The true intention of the Occupier appears in choosing the phrase:

“a single federal, independent and fully sovereign state…..”, to distinguish it from the ‘Unitary’ state which was Iraq up to 2003. As the ‘one’ cannot federate with itself and only more than ‘one’ can, then it is clear that the Occupier established in the 2005 Constitution that Iraq has become a federation of more than one independent authority.

Someone may argue that the reason for the Occupier to change the political structure of Iraq was to release the Kurds from the oppression they had suffered in the past. But even if we were to accept the Ba’athist oppression for the Kurds because of their ethnicity and the Shi’a because of their sect, then that was irreversibly changed after the De-Ba’athification of the Iraqi Society in May 2003. Democratic Iraq post 2003 ought to have become free and safe and no need to make it ‘federal’ to avoid oppression!

But the Transitional Administrative Law does not exist legally which makes a reference to any Article in it questionable to say the least. The Transitional Administrative Law suddenly appeared on the CPA website but there is no Regulation or Order through which it was promulgated. Legally it had not been adopted even by the legal order of the occupying power which makes it void.

But the reality that is known to all who have been watching the Middle East is that the Kurds have been nurturing a desire for self-independence, which I find indeed justified. How else could I demand a right fort the Palestinians in their homeland and not that of the Kurds? Establishing such a right leading to a Kurdish state, which I believe is inevitable, may mean that I support the birth of a new enemy as the new state is an ally of Israel. However, despite this realization I am not able to oppose the birth of a Kurdish state, if they so genuinely want, in hope that new generations of Kurds may realize the value of good relationship with their Arab neighbours with whom they had peacefully coexisted for centuries.

The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ are fully aware of the Kurdish designs for an independent state. The question was repeatedly discussed and agree by all the parties during the period that preceded the 2003 invasion. It is difficult and hypocritical of them to make all this noise about the current Referendum by the Kurds. Had they really objected to the Kurdish demand they ought to have demanded that the new Iraq was not a ‘federal’ state.

International Zionism has found in the Kurdish aspiration for a nationhood another arrow to add to its arsenal to ensure a divided unstable Middle East and has decided to use it not out of charity for the Kurds but of spite for the Arabs. Thus the Iraqi Constitution was born. If the Zionists wanted a unitary state in Iraq they could have easily pointed out to the both the Kurds and Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ that the State of California in the USA has similar population to that of Iraq; has more diverse society ethnically and religiously but still a unitary state and not federal. Had Zionism decided that, no one would have been able to oppose.

Article 7 of the Constitution reveals the true purpose of ‘regime change’ in eradicating the Arab Nationalist ideology in Iraq, on which all parties in the ‘Invasion Proponents’ agree, states as follows:

“Any entity or program that adopts, incites, facilitates, glorifies, promotes, or justifies racism or terrorism or accusations of being an infidel (takfir) or ethnic cleansing, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols, under any name whatsoever, shall be prohibited. Such entities may not be part of political pluralism in Iraq. This shall be regulated by law.”

This Article which attempted, unconvincingly, to identify the charges of racism or terrorism with the Ba’ath ideology, in fact implies something more sinister. It sets out as clearly stated in the phrase ‘under any name whatsoever’ to ban the setting up of any political movement that embodies Arab Nationalism ideology by claiming it to be Ba’athist. By this the main objective of the invasion of Iraq, namely eradication of Arab Nationalism, which meets the approval of Kurdish political ambitions and that of political Islamist Arab leaders both Sunni and Shi’a, has been fulfilled.

Thus not one single political group has spoken about Arab Iraq since 2003. While the Kurds have been talking proudly about their Kurdish nationalism, talk about the Arab identity of Iraq has become a shame!

Those who drafted the Constitution and those who read it have ignored that Article 7 is in direct breach of other Articles in the Constitution, such as Articles 14, 39 and 42, set out to present a democratic and free Iraq. When have Constitutions setting up states refer to banning or approving specific parties identified by their names? Constitutions are documents of principles meant to apply for all times to come after their adoption.

Article 24 goes on to reveal the true admission of a divided Iraq when it states that:

“The State shall guarantee freedom of movement of Iraqi manpower, goods, and capital between regions and governorates, and this shall be regulated by law.”

Why would a ‘single’ state need to have an Article in its constitution stating the obvious, namely that people and capital can move free within its borders? Even the EU, which is a very loose union, has full freedom of people and capita without it having to be specified in the individual states’ constitutions.

However, the true objective of the Constitution in dividing Iraq is manifested in Section Three: Federal Powers. Despite the fact that Articles 49 to 64 deal with the Council of Representatives, we find that Article 65 under the heading “The Federation Council” states that:

“A legislative council shall be established named the “Federation Council,” to include representatives from the regions and the governorates that are not organized in a region. A law, enacted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives, shall regulate the formation of the Federation Council, its membership conditions, its competencies, and all that is connected with it.”

Despite the wide difference between the English and Arabic texts and despite our inability to decide which is relevant as different parties may rely on different text, there are still major questions that arise out of Article 65. Why would a single state, which has a fully and democratically elected Council of Representatives, need another legislator in the form of a ‘Federation Council’ in which representatives of governorates take part? Is this not intended as an excuse for potential future dispute?

Article 105 emphasises this reality of intended division in stating that:

“A public commission shall be established to guarantee the rights of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region to ensure their fair participation in managing the various state federal institutions, missions, fellowships, delegations, and regional and international conferences. The commission shall be comprised of representatives of the federal government and representatives of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region, and shall be regulated by a law.”

What is the state of Iraq if regions and governorates need to guarantee their rights within it?

Article 116 seems an attempt to respond to the above question created by Article 105 which states that:

“The federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, as well as local administrations.”

This Article seems to add more confusion than answers. What does it mean to have a decentralized capital, regions, governorates and local administrations constituting a state? This federal system which seems like an amalgamation of all these constituents is a recipe for division and disaster should any member of it decides to move away from the federation.

Following Articles add more to the bizarre state of affairs and make the Iraqi State post 2005 unique and inviting to ridicule.  I shall summarize some of them to support such a description.

Article 119 enabled any on more governorates to set up their own region. Thus by its constitution Iraq could end up with 18 regions. In fact this Article was used by some in southern Iraq calling for their own region similar to that of Kurdistan in the North.

Article 120 allowed each region to have its own constitution which according to Article 121 entitles each region to practice its own independent executive, legislative and judicial authorities. An important sub-article in 121 tells us that:

“Offices for the regions and governorates shall be established in embassies and diplomatic missions, in order to follow cultural, social, and developmental affairs.”

Thus if Iraq became constituted of 7 regions then its Embassy in Somalia, for example, could by the Constitution have seven so-called Offices representing these different regions. It is surprising that neither the US nor the UK have such a constitutional requirements for their states or regions.

There are three more Articles worthy of citing for the purpose of this argument. These are Articles 126, 140 and 141.

Paragraph 2 of Article 140 states that:

“The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007.”

This paragraph raises more than one question relative to the decision to divide Iraq and deserves careful consideration.

Firstly, it refers to Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. But the Transitional Administrative Law does not exist legally which makes a reference to any Article in it questionable to say the least. The Transitional Administrative Law suddenly appeared on the CPA website but there is no Regulation or Order through which it was promulgated. Legally it had not been adopted even by the legal order of the occupying power which makes it void. As the Transitional Administrative Law is null and void, any reference in it has no legal value and subsequently so does Article 140 of the Constitution.

But if we assume that Article 140 stands then that raises another question. Why would a single state need to have a referendum to decide the borders of disputed territories within it?

Article 141 sheds more light on the bizarre state of affairs.

“Legislation enacted in the region of Kurdistan since 1992 shall remain in force, and decisions issued by the government of the region of Kurdistan, including court decisions and contracts, shall be considered valid unless they are amended or annulled pursuant to the laws of the region of Kurdistan by the competent entity in the region, provided that they do not contradict with the Constitution.”

Thus if Kurdisatn has enacted a law prior to 1992 calling for a referendum then an argument that it is unconstitutional for it to do so today is unacceptable not least because there is no such provision in the constitution banning the holding of a referendum. In fact the opposite is supported by the constitution as it is in the nature of a union to be capable of becoming disunited.

Paragraph 4 of Article 126 lends support to such argument as it states:

“Articles of the Constitution may not be amended if such amendment takes away from the powers of the regions that are not within the exclusive powers of the federal authorities, except by the approval of the legislative authority of the concerned region and the approval of the majority of its citizens in a general referendum.”

Which confirms two principles: firstly, that the authority of the region is higher than the Constitution and secondly, that a referendum is the proper mechanism when dealing with the limits of the authority of the region which seems to indicate that it would be right for a region to hold a referendum on a fundamental issue so long as the Constitution does not bar it.

What I have argued in the preceding paragraphs is meant neither to be a justification for the referendum nor to advance a political argument. It is not my intention either to indulge in the wave of emotional talk propagated by so many among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ these days. I write to establish that the objective of invading Iraq has always been to divide it. All the ‘Invasion Proponents’ know that; agreed to it and took part to implement it.

Redefining the Sykes-Picot Agreement begins with the main element of its make-up – Iraq. That is how it was when International Zionism realized the failure of its project to control the Arab World through the setting up of the national state post WWI.

It is time all those in the ‘Invasion Proponents’ stop their hypocrisy about the dangers of the Referendum.


Abdul-Haq Al-Ani
28 September 2017