Thursday, 31 December 2015

SONS OF MALCOLM NEW YEAR MESSAGE FOR 2016


Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Reflections on 2015 going into 2016 * Stay LOYAL to the inter-generational struggle against imperialism and for independence and socialism! * Towards 2016 as the year to combat 21st century fascism in all its forms! Not only this last year, but the last near five years has been a horror story with a two name title to it: Arab Sting. A veritable profound and deep counter revolution informed by imperialist conciseness of foolishness in playing with power in a context of only the pro-imperialist political forces from the liberals to the right/far-right having the strategic control while revolutionary forces having small to insignificant capacity; self hate of our own people towards their own societies and achievements and a willingness to throw it all in the air for the imperialists to catch all and thus to play with it as they wish. We have seen Homeland after Homeland collapse into division and nightmares that we could have only dreamt in our worst nightmares: mass lynchings (Libya and Syria), sexual enslavement (Syria and Iraq), destruction of the poorest Arab country (Yemen), destruction of the 'Cuba of the region' (neo-con, daniel pipes) of Libya and the near destruction of Syria and the rise again of a Turkish government open war by means of tanks and helicopter gunships against Kurdish people. The Arab Sting is an on-going operation against the independence of our countries and sabotaging any global alliance between our countries and China and Russia. However, there has been some complications to the Sting: starting from Egypt's rejection of the nato proxies of the Muslim Brotherhood through to the Syrian govt invitation to smash the death squads, we are seeing the tide turning, but it's a precarious push back and much remains to be done although daily we have strategic good news from Syria. On the other hand, and the real good news is not only Russia's smart counter resistance to Nato in the arenas of Ukraine (Crimea and East Ukraine) but also in the media war (Russia Today), we have China's increasing global leadership as the veritable global anti-imperialist bank, the initiation of the Asia Infrastructure Bank and the New Silk Route projects. These are truly historic earth shaking initiatives, especially the Silk Route project that is going to transform Asia. Despite these advances, we see the continuing lack of global revolutionary leadership, which combatively we had in the form of the mid 2000s alliance between Gaddafi, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, Assad, Lukashenko and others. We have lost that relatively cohesive global leadership, and in the absence of Chavez and Gaddafi, we have lost our bounce and swagger that we once had. Connected to this is the continuing rise of imperialist fascist politics that is directly connected to the growing global crises of imperialism on all fronts, a developing fascism permeating the entire western political spectrum. For the liberals and the left the Arab Sting is a 'revolution': lynching, rape, sexual enslavement, looting, total collapse of societies for them is something of the fragranced perfumes of a spring, for us it is a fate worse than death. Across the world and in western countries the western/westernised left and liberals pimping and the industrial rape industry is positively 'sex work'; the struggle against sexism and male domination has turned and descended into defending men who become women (trans), and anti-racism is now colonial divide and rule spun as 'safe space' and 'privilege calling'. One could not get a more cliched example of the growing decadent and parasitic indulgence of a imploding empire, whereby the spoilt children of a dying empire are posturing their parasitism as liberation, defending desperately their imperialist given standard of living and culture and anti-ethics. For the western political centre and right and far right, they are basking increasingly in white supremacist racism and resurrecting the old nazism and fascism of the past whereby their beloved (increasingly non-white) white europe is being infiltrated by the 'global conspiracy of jews, globalists, jewish bankers, hook-nosed islamists' of the refugee crisis, whereby pogroms and mass mob attacks against Black and Brown people is becoming the new 'european native resistance' against the general crisis of their imperialist system. The entire political spectrum in the west except for a tiny few partial examples, is manifesting what I call '21 century fascism', whose central character is the promotion of the imperialist and racist destruction of our peoples, governments, leadership and Homelands as something to celebrate, and the division of oppressed peoples from the left and liberals as what I call eurocentric identity politics and from the right as the old style racism and xenophobia. Only a new global leadership that directly addresses these issues at the head of an anti-imperialist upsurge can start to clean these aegean stables of filth. Such recent examples have basically only been Hugo Chavez: he had the political understanding, the strength of character and charisma and the leadership of a national, regional and global struggle to implement some kind of leadership. He has gone, we await the next and hopefully greater and better and more effective global leadership. We need our masses of poor in our Homelands to develop the organisation and political understanding to develop the united front against imperialism and for independence and socialism, that only has come in history with the advent of a new global revolutionary forces be it post 1917, or post 1945 (China, India, Vietnam, Korea, Algeria, Egypt), but this will not happen without leadership and organisation. Looking forward to 2016, it is time that anti-imperialist forces went into a more confrontational ideological battle with the 21st century fascist forces and their backward views. Anti-imperialists loyal to our historical and current actual global struggle will have to do it, as no one else will do it, and no one else will support us in doing so, although we can use the slowly increasing Global South media platforms to conduct this struggle. It is time to expose and thoroughly critique to defeat their nonsensical political positions. They are nothing but counter-revolutionary paper tigers who rely on fascist bullying, often on (anti)social media, whereby people who are increasingly alienated from the system seek out counter alternatives only to find left imperialism or right imperialism, which then feeds the very same imperialist strategies that it needs for its own self-preservation. We need to gather our forces. Many engage on a daily basis on the internet, but the very nature of anti-social media means feeds individualism constantly on top of the individualistic nature of much of our actual lives (grind for food and rent). The internet like the system in general incapsulates one of the central unresolvable contradictions of the system (resolvable only by negating the contradiction: ie., revolutionary overthrow of imperialism), ie., the system produces greater and greater socialisation but is based around private profit and the individualism that seeks to justify itself. We are going through a slightly contradictory historical moment: the global class war, the struggle against imperialism is proceeding apace with the leadership of the BRICS and others, however, on the political front we are still weak and still in a period of defeat since 1991, although we saw a short peak in the period in the mid 2000s with the the aforementioned rise of the assertive global south alliance of leaderships. We have the global south world-wide juggernaut going forward, but we don;t quite have the political leadership able to inspire and mobilise the necessary forces to counter and defeat the rise of the new fascism. However difficult the challenge, however outside of 21st century fascist trendiness, populism, distractions and parasitic decadence: we need to be combative, have confidence and determination in ourselves, gather strength from their sacrifices and fearlessness and intelligence from the glorious histories, legacies, ideologies and world-shaking victories of our peoples liberation struggles across the world. Stay LOYAL to the inter-generational struggle against imperialism and for independence and socialism! Towards 2016 as the year to combat 21st century fascism in all its forms! - Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Sunday, 20 December 2015

SNIPING AT RUSSIA IN RELATION TO SYRIA IS TREASON



The dogs bark while the Syrian-Russian resistance caravan in Syria carries on

A comment on supposed anti-imperialists attacking on Putin/Russia Re: #Syria, attacking China etc:

On the one hand its not even worth addressing this issue, because the people sniping against Russia know nothing of the real complex struggle against imperialism that our countries and leaderships have been waging for centuries. If it were left to these internet warriors, we would all be in the depths of occupation and enslavement of imperialism having done nothing to advance our peoples and our defensive wars of liberation. However, in case others are confused by this, its worth us conducting a concerted ideological struggle to politically smash, isolate and defeat such silliness in our circles.

One important point that is often missed and not appreciated is that imperialism has a vested strategic interest in playing up the military and economic capacity of China, Russia and our other global allies. They do this so as to put into the mind of the people that a big scary new global power is going to get them, so we better do all we can do push back and neutralise this oppressive new powers that are disturbing the lovely imperialist hegemony in the world. A considerable section of the masses internalise this imperialist racism against Russia and China and so join in the imperialist campaign against them and our allies such as Libya, Syria, Korea etc.

While it is true that the BRICS are expanding in their military and economic capacity, and while it is important we understand and play up our strengths and are inspired by that it is at the same time important that we stay as sobre and realistic as possible as to the actual extent of our power and capacity.

On the case of the Syrian-Russian historical unity and especially since the Syrian government invited the Russians to help them clean up the imperialist death squads, some people in the pro Syrian government camp act like Russia is a all powerful behemoth who can slap down anyone and anything like as if they are flies being swatted. While the Russian invitation into Syria has been admitted by even countless imperialists and their ideologues to be a game-changer, the Russians do not have endless military arsenals, supplies, capacity to smash everyone and everything that disturbs the general trajectory of defending Syria and relatedly the people of the region.

While Russia has for many reasons generally good relations with the white colonial settler state known as 'israel', it also cannot conduct a war simultaneously with the imperialist armed gangs in Syria and also a major world military power with the latest military arsenal supplied by the USA that is israel. Indeed, embarking on fighting directly too many conventional major states at the same time is a sure recipe for defeats and reversals of our peoples fortunes in Syria. It's laughable that people are suggesting that the Russians shoot down all the jets of the yanks, french, brits and israelis in the skies of the Levant. It's not going to happen, that would be a really stupid and self-defeating action and those suggesting in any way that the Russians do so are not friends of the Syrians, but frankly their enemies and enemies of the GlobalSouth.

The anti-imeprialist socialist revolutionary leadership of the Bolsheviks, Chinese and many others show historic achievements in accomplishing the tasks of the Revolution, but anyone who knows anything about these Revolutions will know they were only accomplished through masterful strategy and tactics that also included accepting and working through reality and also clever compromises.

Here are two quotes from Lenin from 1920, perhaps the greatest revolutionary strategist and thinker that has ever lived on this issue from the aptly entitled 'Left-wing Communism an Infantile Disorder', a book that should be part for he absolute basic revolutionary education for everyone:

"To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met with support—whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or partial, it does not matter—from some members of the Communist Party of Holland."

[…]

"There are different kinds of compromises. One must be able to analyse the situation and the concrete conditions of each compromise, or of each variety of compromise. One must learn to distinguish between a man who has given up his money and fire-arms to bandits so as to lessen the evil they can do and to facilitate their capture and execution, and a man who gives his money and fire-arms to bandits so as to share in the loot. In politics this is by no means always as elementary as it is in this childishly simple example. However, anyone who is out to think up for the workers some kind of recipe that will provide them with cut-and-dried solutions for all contingencies, or promises that the policy of the revolutionary proletariat will never come up against difficult or complex situations, is simply a charlatan." (source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ )

As Lenin makes clear, we should not spin sell outs and capitulations as clever tactical compromises, and it is only through a cold and sobre analysis of the facts and having a correct and seasoned anti-imperialist leadership can we make the right decisions, and even then mistakes can be made but should be rectified immediately.

Perhaps an example of a mistake from our side was Libya and UN resolution 1973: as I have said many times our leadership including but not exclusively the Russians and Chinese slipped badly on that one, but the mistake however grave has been admitted and they have rectified and learnt from that mistake. Actually, Putin had an open spat with Medvedev on that, and Medvedev;s demotion was a direct part of the correction of that mistake by the Russians. And the whole Syrian scenario since spring 2011 on Libya and the actions of the Russians and Chinese has been a learning process from the mistake over Libya.

The Syrians with their partners and especially the Russians have done so much to turn the situation around in a matter of months. We were on the verge of being backed up into Lattakia region, the death squads were rampaging, and then the Syrians invited the Russians and within literally days and weeks the strategic trajectory was reversed, we were winning major battles, the imperialists freaked out and have come running to the Russians to work out a situation whereby the the enemy will try and cut its losses as much as possible. But the Syrian-Russian partnership every single day makes further advances and further strengthens the hand of the Syrian government and the regional resistance's position vis-a-vis the new framework established at the UNSC which calls for the eradication of the death squads especially Nusra and Daesh but others will be included in that list, calls for a country-wide ceasefire in several months, mention nothing about regime-change, and wants a new national unity government. That's all a major turn around from just a few months ago. The new national government will be basically the current Syrian government with a few token new non-armed opposition figures.

But there are people in our midst who are constantly sniping at the Russians. Make no mistake, sniping at the Russians is but sniping at the Syrian government and people who have not only fought this global imperialist divide and ruin project for nearly five years, but also just as importantly sniping at the Russians is also an attack on the intelligence of the Syrian people as it assumes that the Syrians are stupid and these geniuses of the global anti-imperialist struggle no better than the entire Syrian leadership and peoples.

In conclusion, our global leadership are pushing ahead with developing their capacity. We are doing well, but we are not about to change everything in the world with the click of a few fingers. We are not even at the economic capacity whereby the Chinese can bail out a tiny european country like Greece, not that that was on offer from the Chinese! Our economic situation globally while looking good from the Chinese angle, is suffering due to the collapse of oil prices and the imperialist directing of Saudi and others in this open oil conspiracy. However, we are getting there. It's going to be another two decades or so before we APPROACH EQUALISING our global side with the imperialists military, and before we reach that we have a lot of hard slog and major imperialists wars and intrigue to fight off.

Now is the time to stay loyal, to read and study soberly and seriously and popularise that. Now is the time to respect our leadership who are achieving amazing things. As I have said before, as individuals we are nobody, as a collective force with our leadership: we exist and we go forward. As people sitting at our desks and laptop and 'smart' phones, we are useless idiots only and until we support our side, our peoples, our leaderships in this resistance and liberation movement against global imperialist war.

The dogs bark while the Syrian-Russian resistance caravan in Syria carries on.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm 

PALESTINIAN REVOLUTIONARY HERO, SAMIR QANTAR MARTYRED

[pictured: Samir Qantar in prison with Fatah leader Mustafa Barghouti and PFLP leader Ahmed Saadat. Qantar receiving a Syrian medal from President Assad in 2008]

I had the honour of meeting in person Samir Qantar in a beautiful mountain village outside of Beirut when I was there in 2007. Comrade shaheed Qantar was relaxing there receiving guests in the cool mountainous air giving relief from the hot summer sun and weather further in the lowlands. No doubt the cool and sweet mountain air was cooling Qantar from his three decades in the enemy prisons. The figs were ripe hanging by the vines across the mountain gardens.

It is with sadness but pride and honour that I heard of his and up to twelve of our comrades martyrdom this morning.

Comrade Qantar was released by the White colonial settler enemy in a prisoner exchange with Hizbullah. The enemy has violated that agreement and conducted a cowardly method of martyring our comrade via fighter jets, however this is also a great honour as it shows the desperation and frustration of the enemy towards Qantar. Why the frustration? Because Qantar re-entered the Resistance wiring with Hizbullah and the Syrian government carrying out effective Resistance against the enemy and in defence of the popular Resistance alliance of Iran-Syria-Hizbullah and allied forces.

Shame on all those who sold out the Resistance for an imperialist and zionist project against Syria and the region!

Glory to those who stay loyal to our leadership and intergenerational struggle for liberation from imperialism!

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Saturday, 19 December 2015

AS THE LAST COAL MINE CLOSES, IT WASNT THE IMMIGRANTS THAT DID IT!


Malcolm X Movement

The UK government are closing the last deep coal mine which is in Kellingley, Yorkshire, this is a forced end to the traditions and legacies of the most radical section of working class and socialist struggle in this country. The Miners struggle produced some amazing radical socialists who stood with the global struggle against imperialism like Arthur Horner, Robert Page Arnot, Mick Mcgahey and Arthur Scargill.

It is the imperialists and capitalists running the UK state and government have done this to the miners for generations, including the Labor government in 1911 that put the army and its guns at pit heads against the militant miners. It was the UK government and the sell outs in the Labour Party that sold out the miners strike in the heroic Miners Strike in 1984-85.

The defeat of the mining communities saw alcoholism, unemployment and drug addiction impact and devastate the once proud and united mining villages and towns.

It has been the ruling classes of the UK state that has continued to oppress and immiserate the white working class, however too many white workers instead attack any group with no power such as Black, Asian and immigrant people instead of those who are responsible for putting them into misery and who put the people of the non west into war and collapse.

The Malcolm X Movement believes in maximum unity against imperialism and racism, at the same time we are not going to advocate that Black and Asian workers wait for the White working class to get over their colonial and racist prejudices, we must continue to defend our peoples here and especially those attacked in such massive and traumatic ways by the UK state in our Homelands. Along the path of this struggle we seek to ally with all forces who believe in unity and mutual respect in the anti imperialist struggle.

HOW SLAVES BUILT AMERICAN CAPITALISM


How Slaves Built American Capitalism

Counterpunch

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in America and contrary to popular belief, slavery is not a product of Western capitalism; Western capitalism is a product of slavery.

The expansion of slavery in the first eight decades after American Independence drove the evolution and modernization of the United States.

Historian Edward Baptist illustrates how in the span of a single lifetime, the South grew from a narrow coastal strip of worn-out tobacco plantations to a continental cotton empire, and the United States grew into a modern, industrial, and capitalist economy.

Through torture and punishment slave owners extracted greater efficiencies from slaves which allowed the United States to seize control of the world market for cotton, the key raw material of the Industrial Revolution, and become a prosperous and powerful nation.

Cotton was to the early 19th century, what oil was to the 20th century: the commodity that determined the wealth of nations. Cotton accounted for a staggering 50 percent of US exports and ignited the economic boom that America experienced. America owes its very existence as a first world nation to slavery.

In the abstract, capitalism and slavery are fundamentally counterposed systems. One is based on free labor, and the other, on forced labor. However, in practice, Capitalism itself would have been impossible without slavery.

In the United States, scholars have demonstrated that profit wasn’t made just from Southerners selling the cotton that slaves picked or the cane they cut. Slavery was central to the establishment of the industries that today dominate the U.S. economy: real estate, insurance and finance.

Wall Street was founded on slavery. African slaves built the physical wall that gives Wall Street its name, forming the northern boundary of the Dutch colony designed to ward off resisting natives who wanted their land back. To formalize the colossal trade in human beings, in 1711, New York officials established a slave market on Wall Street.

Many prominent American banks including JP Morgan and Wachovia Corp made fortunes from slavery and accepted slaves as “collateral”. JP Morgan recently admitted that it “accepted approximately 13,000 enslaved individuals as collateral on loans and took possession of approximately 1,250 enslaved individuals”.

The story that American schoolbooks tell of slavery is regional, rather than national, it portrays slavery as a brutal aberration to the American rule of democracy and freedom. Slavery is recounted as an unfortunate detour from the nation’s march to modernity, and certainly not the engine that drove American economic prosperity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In order to fully appreciate the importance of slavery to American capitalism, one need only look at the torrid history of an antebellum Alabama dry-goods outfit called Lehman Brothers. Warren Buffet is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and the richest billionaire in America. Berkshire Hathaway’s antecedent firm was a Rhode Island textile manufacturer and slavery profiteer.

In the north, New England was the home of America’s cotton textile industry and the hotbed of American abolitionism, which grew rich on the backs of the enslaved people forced to pick cotton in the south. The architects of New England’s industrial revolution constantly monitored the price of cotton, for their textile mills would have been silent without the labor of slaves on distant plantations.

The book Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow illustrates how the Northern bourgeoisie were connected to the slave system by a million threads: they bought molasses, which was made with slave labor, and sold rum as part of the Triangle Trade; they lent money to Southern planters; and most of the cotton that was sold to Britain was shipped through New England ports.

Despite being turned into a civil rights hero, Abraham Lincoln did not think blacks were the equals of whites. Lincoln’s plan was to send the blacks in America back to Africa, and if he had not been assassinated, returning blacks to Africa would likely have been his post-war policy. Lincoln even admitted that the emancipation proclamation, in his own words, was merely “a practical war measure” to convince Britain, that the North was driven by “something more than ambition.”

For Blacks, the end of slavery, one hundred and fifty years ago, was just the beginning of the as yet unachieved quest for democratic and economic racial equality.

In the era before WWII, the American elite consensus viewed capitalist civilization as a racial and colonial project. To this day, capitalism in America can only be described as “Racial Capitalism”: the legacy of slavery marked by the simultaneous, and intertwined emergence of white supremacy and capitalism in modern America.

Black people in America live in a Racial Capitalist system. Racial Capitalism exercises its authority over the Black minority through an oppressive array of modern day lynchings by the police, increasing for-profit mass incarceration and institutionally driven racial economic inequality. Racial Capitalism is unquestionably a modern day crime against humanity.

Seeing an African American at the pinnacle of power in the land of slavery would be exciting if only black equality indicators were not tumbling. In fact, during Obama’s tenure the black-white median household wealth gap is down to seven black cents on the white dollar. The spread between black unemployment and white unemployment has also widened by four points since President Obama took office.

The nation’s police historically enforced Racial Capitalism. The first modern police forces in America were Slave Patrols and Night Watches, which were both designed to control the behaviors of African Americans.

Historical literature is clear that prior to the Civil War a legally sanctioned police force existed for the sole purpose of oppressing the slave population and protecting the property and interests of white slave owners. The glaring similarities between the eighteenth century Slave Patrols and modern American police brutality in the Black community are too salient to dismiss or ignore.

Ever since the first police forces were established in America, lynchings have been the linchpin of racial capitalist law and order. Days after the abolition of slavery, the worst terrorist organization in American history was formed with the US government’s blessing: The Klu Klux Klan.

The majority of Americans believe that lynchings are an outdated form of racial terrorism, which blighted American society up until the end of the era of Jim Crow laws; however, America’s proclivity towards the unbridled slaughter of African Americans has only worsened over time. The Guardian newspaper recently noted that historians believe that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century on average two African-Americans were lynched every week.

Compare this with incomplete data compiled by the FBI that shows that a Black person is killed by a white police officer more than twice a week, and it’s clear that police brutality in Black communities is getting worse, not better.

Lynching does not necessarily mean hanging. It often included humiliation, torture, burning, dismemberment and castration. A lynching was a quintessential American public ritual that often took place in front of large crowds that sometimes numbered in the thousands and children played during the festivities.

Shortly after the abolition of slavery in 1899 the Springfield Weekly newspaper described a lynching by the KKK chronicling how, “the Negro was deprived of his ears, fingers and genital parts of his body. He pleaded pitifully for his life while the mutilation was going on…before the body was cool, it was cut to pieces, the bones crushed into small bits…the Negro’s heart was cut into several pieces, as was also his liver…small pieces of bones went for 25 cents…”.

Central to the perpetuation of Racial Capitalism is racial terrorism, which is why to this day, the US government refuses to designate the KKK as a domestic terrorist organization.

Racially terrorizing Black communities goes hand in hand with the systematic containment and imprisonment of Blacks. Thanks in large part to the racially motivated War on Drugs, the United States right now incarcerates more African-Americans as a percentage than South Africa did at the height of Apartheid.

Private prisons were designed by the rich and for the rich. The for-profit prison system depends on imprisoning Blacks for its survival. Much in the same way the United States was designed. After all, more Black men are in prison or jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850 before the Civil War began.

America’s “take-off” in the 19th century wasn’t in spite of slavery; it was largely thanks to it. Capitalism was created by slavery and slavery in turn created the enduring legacy of Racial Capitalism that persists in America today.

There has historically been a sharp contrast between America’s lofty ideals, on the one hand, and the seemingly permanent second-class status of African Americas, on the other. The late 19th century irony of a statue named Liberty overseeing the arrival in New York’s harbor of millions of foreigners, even as black Southern peasants, not alien, just profoundly alienated, were kept enslaved at the social margins. The hypocrisy of a racist ideology that openly questioned the Negro’s human worth surviving America’s defeat of the Nazis. To this day, far from being a “post-racial” nation, American racial equality indicators and race relations are at a new low.

The race problem is America’s great national dilemma that continues to pose the greatest threat to America’s democratic experiment. Simmering discontent in Black communities will continue to rise towards a dangerous boiling point unless and until slavery’s greatest legacy of ongoing Racial Capitalism is exposed and completely dismantled.


Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com.

CHE GUEVARA IN TANZANIA


Che Guevara in Tanzania

By Azaria C. Mbughuni

The Argentinian revolutionary and hero of the Cuban revolution, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, spent over four months in Tanzania between 1965 and 1966. He entered Tanzanian soil a total of three times, once publicly and twice in secret between February and November of 1965. Che was attracted to Tanzania because it was the headquarters of most liberation movements from southern Africa; it was one of the centers of revolutionary thought in the African continent at the time.

After almost three months of travelling to 6 different African countries pitching a case for a revolution, it was in Tanzania that Che would find a government ready to support his plan and a place to launch his next revolution. Tanzania would eventually become the starting point for a Cuban operation that would see Che together with more than 130 Cubans cross Lake Tanganyika and spend the next seven months fighting in the Congo. Che landed in Dar es Salaam on Thursday, February 11, 1965 from China. He had one mission: to rally support from the liberation movements to create a united army to fight against imperialist an neocolonial forces in the Congo.

Che went to Tanzania with a mission. He wanted a revolution. If there was any place in Africa with a large number of revolutionaries from different countries close to the battlefields in 1965, it was Tanzania.

A war was escalating in the neighboring Mozambique against the Portuguese. Revolutionaries from South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, were flocking into the country. Tanzania was the one place in Africa that Che had hopes for his mission to recruit fighters and establish a rear base for a revolutionary war.

Che spent the first day in Dar es Salaam and then flew to Zanzibar to attend the celebrations of the anniversary of the Zanzibar revolution on the weekend of February 13, 1965. The anniversary was postponed from January 12 to February 12, 1965 because of Ramadan. Attending the anniversary celebrations of the Zanzibar revolution was a symbolic start for Che’s tour of Tanzania. Cuba had provided military training from numerous Zanzibar comrades who came to play a big role in the eventual victory of that revolution.The security situation in Tanzania was tense in the end of 1964 and the beginning of 1965. A diplomatic crisis between Tanzania and the US erupted in November of 1964 with discovery of documents purporting a plan by the US to help Portugal overthrow the Tanzanian government.

The crisis escalated when on January 11th, 1965, Tanzanian intelligence services snooping on telephone conversation between two American diplomats, Bob Gordon and Frank Carlucci, heard them speaking in codes about what appeared to be a plot against the Zanzibar government. The two US diplomats were expelled from Tanzania in January of 1965. It was a crisis that, according to one American diplomat, Don Patterson, would bring Nyerere to tears during his discussion with William Leonhart, the US Ambassador to Tanzania at the time. Che was in Tanzania during this difficult period for the Tanzanian government officials. The New York Times carried an article on the US and Tanzania diplomatic crisis on February 15, 1965; it noted that the Tanzanian government was hosting Maj. Ernesto Che Guevara amidst the crisis.

Back in Zanzibar, Ali Sultan Issa, the newly appointed Minister of Education, was given the task of hosting Che. Ali was a socialist who had studied in Britain, spent time in Cuba and China. In fact, Ali had first met Che in Cuba in 1962 and again later at a conference in Geneva in 1964. Che stayed at a small house in Buba, Zanzibar. Ali made sure that preparations were made for Che to stay in the house.

Che and Ali would spend two hours discussing Che’s Tricontinental vision. Che wanted to build revolutionary armies from three different continents-Africa, South America, and Asia- to struggle against imperialism. The two also discussed the awakening of African revolutionary thought of the rebels in Congo, freedom fighters in Mozambique and southern African.

Che spent time with Salim Ahmed Salim and his family in Zanzibar. Salim was Tanzania’s Ambassador to Egypt from 1964 to 1965. Salim invited Che to his house for a meal. Salim’s wife, Amne Ahmed, prepared a meal for the renowned revolutionary. Che and Salim spent several hours discussing the Cuban revolution and the strength of the liberation movements in Africa. Che returned to Dar es Salaam after spending several days in Zanzibar. Arrangements were made for a meeting for Che and at least 50 representatives of various liberation groups from 10 countries. The black Cuban Ambassador to Tanzania Pablo Rivalta and Juan Carretero, Head of Latin America Section of the Intelligence Department for Cuba, took part in the talks. The meeting was held at the Cuban Embassy in Upanga, Dar es Salaam. It was at this meeting that Che unveiled his scheme to create an army made up of soldiers from different African countries to be trained in the Congo. Che called his initiative the “common front.” This was a difficult proposal for the various liberation groups to accept. The freedom fighters wanted to focus on the campaigns in their own countries. Che faced resistance and realized very quickly that it would be better to meet with individual groups one at a time. Separate meetings were arranged later for some of the groups.

FRELIMO leaders from Mozambique met with Che separately. The list of attendees included, Marcelino dos Santos, Samora Machel, and Eduardo Mondlane. Once again, Che took the time to make a case to FRELIMO to send soldiers to train and fight in the Congo. FRELIMO leaders were not impressed with the plan. What followed was a long debate between Che and FRELIMO leaders.

According to Marcelinos dos Santos, they informed Che about some of the details of the war in Mozambique and Che questioned the veracity of some of the claims. The debate became heated and acrimonious at one point. Mondlane, the President of FRELIMO, was offended. The meeting was adjourned, but not before numerous pictures were taken.

The most productive meeting for Che in Dar es Salaam was with the Congo rebels based in Tanzania, Laurent Kabila and Godefrei Tchamlesso, and later Gaston Soumialot. Che had at least three meetings with the Congo rebels in Dar es Salaam in February of 1965. He was particularly impressed with Kabila. Che wrote in his diary that Kabila “made an excellent impression on me.” He presented a clear plan of action and identified US imperialism as the main enemy; this is something that made an impression on Che. The Congo rebels eventually accepted Che’s proposal. The initial plan was to send 30 Cubans to train the rebels. Che never told the Congolese rebel leaders nor the Tanzanian officials that he was planning to lead the group of Cubans himself. The Cuban plan for the Congo would not have had a chance of succeeding without the approval and support of the Tanzanian government.

Rivalta set up a meeting between Che and President Nyerere. There was a reception at the State House and Che got an opportunity to speak to Nyerere, the Foreign Minister Oscar Kambona, Joseph Lusinde, Minister of Interior, Abdulrahman Babu, and the Vice President, Rashidi Kawawa. Rivalta was present at the meeting.The meeting was productive. Che made a case to the Tanzanian officials about Cuban assistance to the Congolese Liberation Movement. Cuba would support the Congo rebels by providing supplies and training. Tanzanian government promised the Cubans that instructors and supplies would be given a safe passage to the Congo. Che stayed in Tanzania from February 11 to 18, 1965. He gave a press conference in Dar es Salaam on February 18th before he left the country. Che told reporters that his African tour had “reaffirmed his conviction of the possibility of a ‘common front’ against imperialism and colonialism.” He told reporters that the “common front” would include Latin-American countries, Socialist African and Asian states.

The Americans were paying close attention to his visit to Dar es Salaam. The New York Times carried article of Che’s press conference in Tanzania on February 19th. Che left Tanzania for Egypt and then Algeria. He did not return to Cuba until March 14, 1965. The trip to Tanzania had been a resounding success. He convinced the Congo rebels to accept assistance from Cuba; Che and Rivalta had secured the approval of the Tanzanian government to allow them to transit Cuban trainers and supplies to Congo. Che’s dream of an all out war against imperialism launched from the shores of Lake Tanganyika was getting closer to becoming a reality.Preparations were made for Cuban soldiers to go to fight in the Congo in Cuba. The Cuban soldiers had to travel to Tanzania first and then sneak into the Congo secretly.

Che and his men arrived in Dar es Salaam on April 19, 1965 according to most accounts.Ambassador Rivalta received a cable from Cuba to go pick up three Cubans at the Dar es Salaam airport prior to their arrival. He was not told who the three men were; he did know that they were part of the group going to fight in the Congo. Che passed through the Tanzania immigration using the assumed name Ramon Benetiz. The name did not raise any suspicion about the true identity of the man carrying the diplomatic passport. He was clean-shaven, wore glasses, and had prosthetic devices to alter his look. Rivalta who had known Che well did not recognize him. Che eventually leaned over and told his old friend “Stop being a fool, and take it easy.” Rivalta then recognized Che, an old comrade from the Cuban war of revolution.He later wrote “I almost peed in my pants.” Rivalta took Che, a black Cuban soldier named Victor Dreke and Jose Maria Martinez Tamayo to a hotel in the city. A Cuban diplomat named Rogelio Oliva picked them up the next day and took the trio to a house about five kilometers from the city. The Cuban embassy obtained the house for the operation. The house had a small farm and it would have been in the outskirts of the city back in 1965. Che and his men did not stay at the farm for very long. According to Dreke’s account, Rivalta went to the farm one night and took some of the Cubans on a tour of Dar es Salaam. It is not clear if Che was included in that short tour of the city.

He had already seen most of the city in his visit two months before.Che gave his men new names based on Swahili numbers. He gave Dreke the name Moja (one), Tamayo became Mbili (two), and he named himself Tatu (three). The wait in Dar es Salaam was short; but Che was restless nevertheless. He was anxious to go to the Congo. The longer they stayed in Dar es Salaam, the greater the chances they would be detected by enemies. The Tanzanian government was not informed of his presence at the time. Exactly when the Tanzanian government was informed of Che’s presence is not clear. Che spent at least one day in Dar es Salaam by most accounts. He left on April 20 with a group of about 14 people. Tchamlesso and a member of the Tanzanian police accompanied the Cubans. The Tanzanian police joined them to make sure that they did not have any problems along the way. The men travelled in a convoy of three cars: one Land Rover, three Mercedes Benzes, and two jeeps. The vehicles carried some of the weapons they would use in the Congo. The Cubans, including Che, took turns driving the more than 1,700 Kilometers from Dar es Salaam to Kigoma. It was a long journey on dirt road that took two days. The group was delayed at one point because they had to wait for a barge to cross a river. Che read a book about the Congo when he was not driving.The group arrived in Kigoma on the night of April 22, 1965. Kigoma was a city of about 70,000 people at the time. Congo was about 50 Kilometers directly across Lake Tanganyika, one of the deepest lakes in the world. Kigoma was a busy city.

Refugees were escaping the Congo and rebel soldiers came in and out of the city in large numbers. The Cubans split up into two groups. Che, Dreke, Tamayo, Zerquera, and a couple of other Cubans went to stay at the residence of Sinfua, the Regional Commissioner of Kigoma.Che and his men spent one night in Kigoma. The Tanzanian Regional Commissioner of Kigoma, Sinfua, warned Che during their discussions that the Congo rebels were undisciplined. Che would admit later that Sinfua had been correct. The Cubans boarded a boat just before midnight on April 23, 1965 for the Congo. Che and his men would spend the next 7 months fighting in the Congo. Tanzania was critical for the Cuban operations in the Congo. Che could not have lasted seven months in the Congo without cooperation of the Tanzanian government. The heart of the Congo operations was at the Cuban Embassy in Dar es Salaam. All supplies came through Tanzania had to be sent to the Congo.Che’s whereabouts was unknown to the public. Very few people were aware of Che’s presence in Tanzania and in the Congo.

According to most accounts, Westerners did not know Che’s whereabouts. Larry Devlin, the CIA chief station in the Congo, claimed that he reported Che’s presence in October of 1965, but was ignored. Some recent reports indicate that the Americans had a ship in the Indian Ocean along East Africa monitoring communication between the Cuban Embassy in Dar es Salaam and the Cuban soldiers in the Congo. Interception of the communication does not necessary mean that Americans knew Che was among the soldiers, even if they had their suspicions. There is one report that indicates the possibility that someone may have known where Che was at the time. Rumors emerged in Cairo and Dar es Salaam in October of 1965 that Che and Soumialot were killed in the Congo. The reports forced Soumialot to give a press conference in Dar es Salaam in October 17, 1965. The Times of London reported Soumialot’s press conference that same day, October 17, 1965. Soumialot told reporters that he was well and alive. He denied claims that Che had been in the Congo and that he was killed in an ambush. The situation in the Congo was desperate for the Cubans by the end of October 1965. A group of white mercenaries and Congo soldiers led by Mobuto SeseSeko and an Irish mercenary named Mike Hoare, started closing in on the Cubans by October. To make matters worse, the Congo leader Joseph Kasa-Vubu went to the OAU conference in Ghana from October 21 to 15, 1965, and promised to remove foreign mercenaries. He managed to secure OAU resolution calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Congo. Nyerere called Ambassador Rivalta shortly afterwards and asked the Cubans to withdraw their troops.

Che and the Cuban soldiers crossed Lake Tanganyika and entered Kigoma on November 21, 1965. Oliva and another Cuban diplomat named Coloman Ferrer, were in Kigoma to welcome Che and the Cuban soldiers back to Tanzanian soil. The Tanzanian police went to the boat and took all the weapons. Che took a bath, changed clothes, and ate food. He and his men slept on the floor of a waiting room in Kigoma. This was the third and last time Che would enter Tanzania; it was a bittersweet moment for Che. The mission had failed, but his determination to continue the struggle remained strong. Coloman received instructions to take Che and a few men he selected back to Dar es Salaam. The group left on a van for Dar es Salaam. They barely made it on time for the last ferry that crossed the river at 7pm. Coloman was instructed to keep the Cuban embassy informed of their whereabouts. He made a call from Morogoro to inform the embassy of their location.

Coloman and Che went to the house owned by the Tanzania Director of Prisons, near the airport when they reached Dar es Salaam. Che and other comrades spent the first night at the house. Coloman went to see Che the next day and bought some supplies for him. Che would spend another two or three days at the house near the airport, just outside the city. So it was, Che was in Dar es Salaam once again in the end of November 1965. Eventually he moved from the house on the outskirts of Dar es Salaam to a two- bedroom apartment on top of the Cuban Embassy in Upanga, a suburb of Dar es Salaam. He would spend the next four months in the apartment without venturing outside.Che kept himself very busy in Dar es Salaam. He contemplated about the shortcomings of the Congo operation and considered his next move. Che was clear about one thing: he wanted to fight. However, he was not sure where he would launch his next campaign against imperialists. He did not want to return to Cuba.

The failure of the Congo mission weighed heavily on him. The Cubans kept Che’s presence in Tanzania top secret. Very few people in the Cuban Embassy knew of his presence. There were only about three people who were allowed to enter Che’s apartment: Rivalta, Oscar FernandezMell, Padilla, and Delfin, the telegraph operator. Che spent his time reading, playing chess, and writing diaries of his Congo experiences. Spending four months in an apartment without going outside would be difficult for most people. This was not the case for Che. The few Cubans who interacted with Che during that time did not notice any signs of distress. He welcomed the new year of 1966 in Dar es Salaam with Rivalta, Padillla, and Fernandez Mell. Che spent his time reading, playing chess, and writing. He spent considerable time working on his Congo diaries. He dictated the text to Ferrer and Ferrer would later transcribe it. Che revised and corrected the final manuscript. One of the best moments for Che in Tanzania was when his wife Aleida March came to visit him secretly sometime around February of 1966. Aleida and Che would spend the next month, clammed up in the two-bedroom apartment.

According to Aleida, this was to become one of the best times the couple spent together. They spent day and nights together catching up on lost time. The couple had not spent much time together since they got married in 1959. And so it was in Dar es Salaam that Che would rekindle romance with his wife. Aleida recalled later that “it was the first time we had ever been alone together” and closest thing to a “honeymoon” that the two had enjoyed. She would allude to “making up of all the lost time.” The reunion would be the first and last time the two spent considerable time alone. Che slipped out of Dar es Salaam secretly sometime in March of 1966. He went to Prague, Cuba, and eventually, to Bolivia where he was killed with the help of the CIA. Just as his secret entrance to Dar es Salaam, his secret departure was without fanfare. He came to Tanzania seeking a path to fight a revolutionary war; a war against neocolonialism and imperialism. He was full of hope; he wanted to build an army that would defeat the imperialists in the Congo. This dream was never realized. Yet Che left an indelible mark on this part of Africa. His was a story of commitment and dedication; a story of both setbacks and triumphs. It is ultimately a story of sacrifice and willingness to pay the ultimate price for a cause that one believes in. Che wrote in his last letter to his wife and five children before leaving for Bolivia: “Above all, always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice committed against anyone, anywhere in the world. This is the most beautiful quality in a revolutionar.
Writing By Azaria C. Mbughuni



HISTORY VICTORY FOR SYRIA REFLECTED IN THE UNSC RESOLUTION


A few comments by myself: Syria has faced and continues to face, as it says in this meme from Malcolm X Movement, the COMBINED forces of global imperialism and its regional allies and connected supremacist death squads since early 2011. As we know from many sources not least Gen Wesley Clark's admission that Syria was on the imperialist target list, and that the Brits had a similar plan to destroy Syria way back in 1957. So for nearly five years this massive barrage has been visited upon the Syrian people, who their leadership and regional and global allies have fought back this onslaught.

They did so with the help of the Iranians, Hizbullah and most recently the Russian airstrikes which has been in THIS phase of the Syrian Resistance THE crucial strategic ingredient, as the Resistance was being forced back by the incessant influx of death squads coming in especially from the Syrian-Turkish border. The Syrian-Russian partnership in this Syrian defensive war of liberation has in the past month or so reversed the trajectory of the liberation war, has terrified the Turks and their Nato backers, has taken considerable territory away from the death squads and has got imperialism clamouring to cut their losses, losses which are taking place day by day.

Compounded by the 'refugee crisis' which is resulting in 'Europe' tearing itself apart, imperialism has to some considerable extent negotiate a short to mid term defeat in Syria by the latest UNSC resolution. Important to note that Putin/Lavrov and the Russians changed the USA text on the resolution which called for the removal of President Assad.

The UNSC resolution states that it seeks a nationwide ceasefire, considers leading imperialist and regional death squads of Daesh and Nusra to be outside this process (and thus, game for incineration by Syrian-Russian forces, before the ceasefire), states that other terrorist groups can be added to this (so our side will be pushing for the death squads Ahrar al-Sham, 'Jaish Islam', and others to be included in that list), but most importantly perhaps DOES NOT state anything about removing Assad, but wants a unity government with those in the opposition who are not outside the pale. Now, OF COURSE this will be fought over between our side (Syria, Iran, Russia, China etc), but lets be very clear: it is a historic admission of defeat and a massive climbdown from the very leading global forces who sought to do to Syria what they did to Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Somalia and Libya (2011).

The order of the day right now is to ensure that Syria and Russia go full steam ahead, and then some more, to wipe out the as many of the death squads as possible. As the saying goes: nothing is won on the negotiating table that is not won on the battlefield. And that's the order of the day.

Once again, make no mistake, imperialism will be looking to play all manner of dirty games here in on, that is part of the very nature of imperialism. Indeed, western capitalism and colonialism or imperialism is in its central feature a global war of terrorism, exploitation and genocide. However, we can and must win short term and mid term strategic victories in battles in the wider historic and inter-generational war of liberation to totally wipe out imperialism.

Imperialism has green-lighted Turkey to shoot down the Russian jet, but that backfired as Syria and Putin matched that dirty move by putting in place the S-400 missile shelf in Syria, and Putin recently said to the Turkish govt: 'now try it on with us in Syria!'. Imperialism has sent in Turkish troops against Iraq in Mosul, but that will only spur on the anti-imperialist forces in Iraq to move against this invasion. Imperialism has tried to muscle in on Syrian airspace, but as Lavrov said just today, the imperialists must take the Russian lead on this.

In a more critical reflection of things in the last five years, we contemplate with sadness and tears that we lost the Jamhariya in Libya, which was the shelf of not only Africa but the entire world. We see the tragic events in Tunisia, Egypt but especially Yemen: there is much to do to sort out the devastating horror that the Arab Sting opened up and was designed to open up considering the lack of united popular anti-imperialist patriotic forces in Tunisia and Egypt and elsewhere. Don't play with power, lest you get the horror story that the people impacted by the Sting have had to contend with.

Much to do, a million challenges confront us, but the Syrians and the Russians have seized the time and have done the very best they could considering their own capacities which are not limitless as well as contending with the upping of the imperialist war against Russia and China.

All our forward fronts of our global struggle is under direct attack, Syria was the epicentre and remains so of our global resistance. But thank God and all glories to our martyrs, their families and our leaderships that we are seeing the day that we are clearly pushing back on this murderous and imperialist supremacist war of destruction.

Let's remember and honour and love those that stood by in a steadfast and rock-like manner, and humiliation and dishonour to those who wavered and sniped at us and our leaderships.

All further victories to the Russians! To the Iranians! To Hizbullah! To the Chinese!

But most of all, to the glorious and heroic Syrian people and their armed forces, paramilitary forces and leadership!

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Friday, 18 December 2015

CHINESE PRESIDENT ARGUES AGAINST IMPERIALIST INTERNET HEGEMONY


Cyber sovereignty taboo should end

BEIJING, Dec. 17 (Xinhua) -- Discussion of sovereignty over the Internet has long been a taboo, dismissed in Western media as violation of freedom.

The time has come to drag the issue into the cold, hard light of day, and China, with an online population of 670 million -- more than twice the entire population of the United States -- and more than four million registered domains, has as much right as anyone to raise the debate.

Addressing the second World Internet Conference, President Xi Jinping asserted the right of each country to choose their own path for cyber development, their own system of cyber regulation and to participate in international cyberspace governance on an equal footing.

Legally, it is accepted that countries have the right to set rules for Internet use. The principle of sovereign equality is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. It covers all aspects of state-to-state relations, including in cyberspace.

The UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in 2003 defended countries' right to formulate public policies concerning the Internet. And in July 2015, a report by a UN panel on information security again stated that state sovereignty in cyberspace should be respected.

In reality, all nations have exercised cyberspace sovereignty in one form or another. Even now, consensus has been reached over expanding Internet access and safeguarding cyber security.

With so much discussion on the need to better guard cyber sovereignty and security, the criticisms of China's cyberspace sovereignty by media are irresponsible.

Some Western media or tech firms are not allowed in China because they are not willing to abide by Chinese laws. As a result, they may seize the World Internet Conference as another opportunity to show their grudges.

Google, for example, violated a written promise made when entering the Chinese market by not filtering its search services and then blaming China by insinuation for alleged hacker attacks.

In March 2010, the search engine decided to move its search service out of the Chinese mainland.

But, few tech companies and Internet businesses can afford to ignore the burgeoning market in China. Four Chinese Internet giants, including Alibaba and Tencent, are among the top ten in the world. Internet industries are fast growing.

However, furthering policies and laws on Internet development does not mean China is closing its door to foreign investment.

The sovereign nature of cyberspace entails that it is not a domain beyond the rule of law and rules are necessary in cyberspace, as is freedom.

The increasing number of users and the expanding market is the best evidence that China's policies are working. Temporary measures to regulate cyberspace security will be meliorated and institutionalized in the future, regardless of wrong accusations from the outside.

PROBLEMS OF FAR-RIGHT RADICALISATION OF YOUTH FACILITATED BY THE UK STTAE

Harry Paterson

Had dinner last night with, among others, a school governor. Interestingly, he spoke of his school's concern with 'radicalisation' among the pupils.

I expressed some surprise given that the area, a former mining town on the Notts/Derby border and one I know very well, has hardly any Muslims at all. Quite possibly even none.

He smiled and explained that the 'radicalisation' that concerned him was that of white kids and what he termed 'white power supremacy.' It seems many pupils are openly and consciously identifying with outfits like the EDL, BF and so on and that far right ideology has really taken a grip amongst a large swathe of the student body.

The area itself has definite historical form in this regard. The BNP used to host their 'White Christmas' bash nearby and it's a stone's throw from the former East Midlands stronghold of Skrewdriver, to give just two examples.

This fella is a definite small 'c' conservative and, possibly, a Conservative, yet he is deeply troubled by this phenomenon.

I posed the question that the 'Prevent' strategy is in place to deal with precisely this sort of thing, isn't it?
Apparently not, though, if it doesn't concern Muslim 'radicalisation.'

I'm as stunned as I'm sure you are, on learning of this...

48 YEARS OF THE PFLP IN GAZA, LEADING PALESTINIAN REVOLUTIONARY ORGANISATION


Thousands in Gaza City take to the streets to celebrate 48 years of PFLP, Intifada and struggle

PFLP English

Thousands of leaders, cadres, members and friends of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine took the streets of Gaza City for a mass march on December 12, marking the 48th anniversary of the Front. The march, carrying Palestinian flags and PFLP banners, launched from the Saraya through the streets of the city to the United Nations headquarters, with the participation of representatives of various Palestinian national and Islamic parties, and women’s, student and youth organizations.

Comrades Bisan Odeh and Zakaria Abu Obeid opened the rally, saluting the Front and the masses of the Palestinian people.

Comrade Jamil Mizher, member of the Political Bureau and leader of the Front’s branch in Gaza, delivered the keynote speech, saluting the martyrs and giving a special salute to Comrade Sami Madi, killed by occupation forces the previous day while participating in demonstrations confronting occupation forces on the borders of Gaza to mark the Front’s anniversary.

He saluted the Palestinian leaders in prison, led by imprisoned PFLP General Secretary Comrade Ahmad Sa’adat and his fellow leaders Comrade Khalida Jarrar and Comrade Ahed Abu Ghoulmeh, as well as the diverse Palestinian leaders held behind bars, including Marwan Barghouti, Jamal Abu al-Hija and Hassan Salameh. He also saluted Comrades Nidal Abu Aker and Ghassan Zawahreh of Dheisheh refugee camp on their recent release from occupation prisons, a victory over the Zionist jailer.

In particular, he saluted the Palestinian workers, peasants and popular classes as the leaders of the Palestinian revolution. He recalled the martyrs of the Palestinian struggle and of this intifada, noting that this intifada embodies the unity of Palestine and the will of the people and that it is recentering the Palestinian cause as the central issue in the region after its deliberate marginalization. Furthermore, he said, the role of the people in this uprising is superseding all narrow interests and internal divisions.

He addressed the role of US imperialism and the so-called “Quartet” in Palestine, noting that they would be unable to stop the intifada without forcing their strategic partner, the occupier, to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people.

The creative role and potential of Palestinian youth is imposing the will of the people over the Palestinian leadership, said Mizher, noting that the people would no longer accept the path of negotiations and Oslo.





Thursday, 17 December 2015

LAST SOVIET HERO OF THE ANTI-FASCIST RAID ON THE REICHSTAG PASSES ON



Last surviving Soviet Second World War hero to storm the Reichstag dies aged 93: Veteran's regiment raised the Red Flag over the parliament

- Nikolay Belyaev led troops as they stormed the Reichstag in April 1945
- The Soviet-era war hero has now died aged 93 in St Petersburg, Russia
- USSR troops overran the building in the final days of the Battle of Berlin

[source]

The last of the Second World War veterans to have taken part in the storming of the Reichstag in Berlin has died, aged 93.

Soviet-era hero Nikolay Belyaev was the last survivor of the feared 3rd Shock Army troops who spearheaded the taking of the German capital.

It was Belyaev's 756th regiment that tore down the Nazi swastika and raised the Soviet red flag over the parliament's broken roof on May 1, 1945.

Russian news outlets announced yesterday that the veteran died peacefully in St Petersburg, in western Russia.

His long-term friend Valentina Ilyina told local media he was still leading a very active life, while a book about his wartime heroics is expected to be published next year.

The Reichstag building - which translates to the 'Imperial Diet Building' - is a historical edifice in Berlin which opened in 1894.

This housed the government of the day until 1933, before it was taken over by the pseudo-parliament of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

Ironically, the building was no longer used as the regime's headquarters after a fire in 1933, but the Soviets always considered it a symbolic centre of the Nazi party.

The storming of the building began in the early hours of April 30, 1945, after Stalin declared it must be taken by May 1 so news of its capture could be broadcast during Moscow's May Day parades.

Although it was later claimed to have been captured by about 11pm on April 30, fighting actually continued into the early hours of the following day.

When the Soviets did erect the red star flag on top of the building, there was said to still be fighting in its basement.

About 200 German soldiers died during almost 24 hours of fighting in and around the building, while hundreds more were wounded.



Wednesday, 16 December 2015

bRITAIN AND THE RISE OF WAHHABISM AND THE HOUSE OF SAUD


Supremacism and Terrorism in the Muslim world is a Creation of the Brits

The UK and USA have been saying for at least fifteen years that they are involved in a 'global war on terror, however, they are the very 'great powers' allied to their junior partners who are the very historical, current and conceptual bases for the very same terrorist organisations and ideologies. The article shared here outlines the historical fact that like in basically every part of the world where one finds a supremacist oppressive political power, that it was the leading colonial and imperialist states that gave birth to them and in the case that these oppressive powers still exist they are usually kept on a life machine by the UK and USA.

The 'Kingdom of Saudi' Arabia (KSA) is a creation of the Brits. The Brits, as well as other european colonial powers have developed a white and western supremacy to justify and perpetuate its oppression across the world, and KSA is a asymmetric mirror reflection of this supremacism, KSA is operating in its policies and conceptual framework in the same but smaller or 'mini-me' version of western supremacism but instead of whiteness, a colonial application of Christianity, instead of the details of western supremacy KSA has hijacked and used and abused Islam as a cloak to justify and perpetuate its oppressions.

KSA and Qatar are major buyers of UK weapons, and invest massive amounts into the UK economy without which the UK economy would be in even more dire straits. And of course KSA and the Gulf Monarchies are the junior partners of the UK, USA and France and other western imperialist states in developing the supremacist armed gangs, some of whom are known as 'Isis'/Daesh, Jabhat Nusra, AlQaeda, Ahrah al-Sham and others. Although these monarchist states have a massive amount of revenue thanks to the oil fields on which they sit and the protection they receive from the 'west', it is important to appreciate that they are the junior partners to the UK and USA, and not the leading section of this relationship. Without the protection and promotion of the UK and USA, KSA and the other Guld monarchies would fall to the democratic and anti-imperialist forces within these countries and of those of the people of the immediate region.

Many thanks to Dr Abdullah Mohammad Sindi and KanaanOnline for publishing this excellent article over a decade ago. Dr Adel Samara, the editor in chief of Kanaan, is in my opinion one of the greatest revolutionary intellectuals of the Palestinian liberation struggle, and I would encourage people to engage with his work and to help popularise his analysis and research.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Britain and the Rise of Wahhabism and the House of Saud

KanaanOnline

Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi* A Note from Kana’an: In today’s article, Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi provides an analytical and historical review of Wahhabism, Britain’s role in its rise, and its relation to the Saudi ruling family. Kana’an welcomes the debate that aims at exposing the history and role of reactionary Arab regimes, particularly the crucial role of colonial and imperial powers in their formation, survival, and their dependency on continuous imperialist support.

Kana’an, as a secular publication, does not adopt a religious perspective or approach. We recognize, however, that religion has its cultural and political manifestations that are critical and can not be ignored or underestimated in the sphere of our life, culture and politics.

As we publish this article, Kana’an remains a secular publication, a forum for debate, and maintains that the views and approach expressed in this article are those of the author. (Kana’an)


I. INTRODUCTION:

One of the most rigid and reactionary sects in all of Islam today is Wahhabism. It is the official and dominant sect in Saudi Arabia whose sole constitution is the Holy Qur’an.

Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia’s ruling House of Saud have been intimately and permanently intertwined since their births. Wahhabism created the Saudi monarchy, and the House of Saud spread Wahhabism. One could not have existed without the other. Wahhabism gives the House of Saud legitimacy, and the House of Saud protects and promotes Wahhabism. The two are inseparable because each supports the other and depends on it for survival.

Unlike Islam in other Muslim countries, however, Wahhabism treats women as third class citizens, imposes the veil on them, and denies them basic human rights such as: driving cars; the freedom of traveling within the country or leaving it without permission or Mahram (“a relative male chaperon”); the interaction with men who

are not related to them in order to maintain a complete separation of the sexes; and until a few decades ago denied them public education and banned them from Radio and Television.

In addition, unlike other Islamic sects, Wahhabism outlaws the celebration of Almoulid (Prophet Mohammad’s Birthday); forbids religious freedom, opposes political freedom of expression by constantly admonishing Saudis to obey their leaders (who are not even elected); bans movie theaters; forces the public and businesses to observe prayers; cows the masses by publicly using the harshest Islamic punishments (applied mostly to the poor, like all other punishments) such as the beheading for convicted killers and the hand-amputation for thieves; denies the Saudi citizenship to non-Muslims; and condoned slavery until the 1960s. Wahhabism also abhors smoking, singing, and dancing. To ensure full compliance of its stern ordinances, the Wahhabi “Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice” with its religious police keeps a watchful eye on the Saudi public.

Wahhabism is highly self-centered and extremely intolerant of progressive ideologies, other religions, and other Islamic sects such as Shiism and Sufism. It despises Arab Nationalism with a great deal of passion, yet it promotes “Saudi” nationalism, despite the fact that any nationalism is considered a violation of Islamic theology due to the concept of Islamic Ummah (“nation”). Wahhabism considers itself to be the only correct way in all of Islam, and any Muslim who opposes it as heretic or non-believer.


II. THE BIRTH OF WAHHABISM:

Wahhabism was born in the middle of the 18th century in the sleepy desert-village of Dir’iyyah located in the Arabian Peninsula’s central region of Najd. The Wahhabi sect derives its name from the name of its founder Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab (1703-92). Born in the Najdi small desert-village of Uyayna, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was a zealot preacher who married a total of 20 wives (no more than 4 at a time) and had 18 children. [1] Before becoming a preacher, however, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab traveled extensively for years for business, pleasure, and education to Hejaz, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and India.

Although Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is considered to be the father of Wahhabism, it was actually the British who initially impregnated him with the ideas of Wahhabism and made him its leader for their own sinister purposes to destroy Islam and the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The intricate details of this intriguing British conspiracy, which are beyond the scope of this article, are to be found in the memoirs of its master spy, titled “Confessions of a British Spy” from which the following two paragraphs are drawn. [2]

While in Basra, Iraq young Ibn Abdul-Wahhab fell under the influence and control of a British undercover spy nicknamed “Hempher” who was one of many spies sent by London to Muslim lands in order to destabilize the Ottoman Empire and create conflicts among Muslims.

Hempher, who pretended to be Muslim, went by the name of “Mohammad” and cunningly established a long-term intimate friendship with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab. Hempher, who showered Ibn Abdul-Wahhab with money and gifts, completely brainwashed him by convincing him that most Muslims should be killed because they had “dangerously violated” the basic tenets of Islam by becoming “heretics” and “polytheists”. Hempher also fabricated for him a wild dream in which he supposedly “saw” Prophet Mohammad “kissing” Ibn Abdul-Wahhab between the eyes, telling him you are the “greatest”, and asking him to be his “deputy” to save Islam from “heresies” and “superstitions”. Upon hearing Hempher’s dream, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was wild with joy and became more determined than ever to assume the responsibility of establishing a new Islamic sect to “purify” and “reform” Islam.

In his memoirs Hempher described Ibn Abdul-Wahhab as “extremely unstable”, “extremely rude”, “morally depraved”, “nervous”, “arrogant”, and “ignorant”. The British, who viewed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab as a “typical fool”, also arranged for him to have Nikah Mut’a (“marriage for pure sex”) with two British female undercover spies. The first was a Christian woman, nicknamed “Safiyya”, who lived with him in Basra as well as in Isfahan, Iran. The other was Jewish, nicknamed “Asiya” and married him in Shiraz, Iran.


III. THE FIRST SAUDI-WAHHABI STATE: 1744-1818

After returning to Najd from his trips, Ibn Abdul-Wahhab began to preach his wild ideas in Uyayna. However, because of his rigid preaching, he was thrown out of his birthplace. He then went to preach in nearby Dir’iyyah where his dear friend Hempher and other undercover British spies joined him. Ibn Abdul-Wahhab ordered women to shave off their heads in order not to “seduce” men with their hair. [3] He also mercilessly killed a local adulteress in a crowded public square by brutally smashing her head with a large heavy boulder. [4] While Islamic punishment for adultery is stoning, but only with small stones, Muslim scholars disagree as to whether the punishment was actually intended to kill.

Although many people opposed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s rigid teachings and actions including his own father and brother Sulaiman, who were both religious scholars, British undercover spies and money succeeded in cajoling an insignificant Dir’iyyah sheik, Mohammad al-Saud, to support him. [5] In 1744, al-Saud joined forces with Ibn Abdul-Wahhab by forging a political, religious, and marital alliance. With this union between them and their families, which is still in existence today, Wahhabism as a religious and political movement was born. By this joint venture each head of the al-Saud family (House of Saud) assumed the position of a Wahhabi Imam (“religious leader”), while each head of the Wahhabi family was guaranteed control over religious interpretation.

Ignorant people, not by means of knowledge or persuasion, but by pure violence, bloodshed, and terror, spread Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula. As a result of the 1744 Saudi-Wahhabi alliance, a small Bedouin army was established with the help of British undercover spies who provided it with money and weapons. [6] In time this army grew into a major menace that eventually terrorized the entire Arabian Peninsula up to Damascus, and caused one of the worst Fitnah (“violent civil strife”) in the history of Islam. In the process, this army was able to viciously conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula to create the first Saudi-Wahhabi State.

For example, to fight what they considered Muslim “polytheists” and “heretics”, the Saudis-Wahhabis shocked the entire Muslim world in 1801 by brutally destroying and defacing the sacred tomb of the martyr Hussein Bin Ali (Prophet Mohammad's grandson) in Karbala, Iraq, a particularly holy shrine to Shiite Muslims. They also mercilessly slaughtered over 4,000 people in Karbala and stole anything that was not nailed down. It took over 4,000 camels to carry the huge loot. [7] Again in 1810 they ruthlessly killed many innocent people across the Arabian Peninsula. They raided and pillaged many pilgrimage caravans and several major cities in Hejaz including the two holiest cities of Makkah and Madinah. In Makkah they turned away pilgrims, and in Madinah they attacked and desecrated Prophet Mohammad’s Mosque, opened his grave, and sold and distributed its valuable relics and expensive jewels.

These Saudi-Wahhabi terrorist acts and blasphemous crimes aroused the deep anger of Muslims around the world including the Ottoman Caliph in Istanbul. As the official ruler of the Arabian Peninsula and the guardian of Islam's holiest mosques, Caliph Mahmud II ordered an Egyptian force to be sent to the Arabian Peninsula to punish the Saudi-Wahhabi clan. In 1818, an Egyptian army led by Ibraheem Pasha (son of Egypt’s ruler) destroyed the Saudis-Wahhabis and razed their desert capital of Dir’iyyah to the ground. The Wahhabi Imam Abdullah al-Saud and two of his followers were sent to Istanbul in chains where they were publicly beheaded. The rest of the Saudi-Wahhabi clan was held in captivity in Cairo.


IV. THE SECOND SAUDI-WAHHABI STATE: 1843-1891

Although the fanatically violent Wahhabism was destroyed in 1818, it was soon revived with the help of British colonialism. After the execution of the Wahhabi Imam Abdullah al-Saud in Turkey, the remnants of the Saudi-Wahhabi clan looked at their Arab and Muslim brothers as their real enemies, and to Britain and the West in general as their true friends. Accordingly, when Britain colonized Bahrain in 1820 and began to look for ways and means to expand its colonization in the area, the Wahhabi House of Saud found it a great opportunity to quickly seek British protection and help.

In 1843 the Wahhabi Imam Faisal Ibn Turki al-Saud escaped from captivity in Cairo and returned to the Najdi town of Riyadh. Imam Faisal then began to make contacts with the British. In 1848 he “appealed” to the British Political Resident in the Persian city of Bushire “to support his representative in Trucial Oman”. In 1851 Faisal again applied to the British for assistance and support. [8] As a result, the British sent Colonel Lewis Pelly in 1865 to Riyadh to establish an official British treaty with the Wahhabi House of Saud. To impress Pelly with his Wahhabi fanaticism and violence, Imam Faisal said that the major difference in the Wahhabi strategy between political and religious wars was that in the latter there would be no compromise, for “we kill everybody”. [9]

In 1866 the Wahhabi House of Saud treacherously signed a “friendship” treaty with Britain, a power hated by all Muslims because of its colonial atrocities in the Muslim world. The treaty was similar to the many infamous unequal treaties imposed by Britain on other Arab puppets on the Arab Gulf (also known as the Persian Gulf). In exchange for British help, money, and weapons, the Wahhabi House of Saud agreed to collaborate with Britain’s colonial authorities in the area.

By these treacherous acts with the bitterest enemy of Arabs and Islam, the Wahhabi House of Saud aroused the intense anger of Arabs and Muslims in and out of the Arabian Peninsula. Among those who were extremely outraged at the Wahhabi House of Saud was the patriotic al-Rasheed clan of Hail in central Arabia. In 1891 the Turkish-supported al-Rasheeds attacked Riyadh and destroyed the Saudi-Wahhabi clan. However, some members of the Wahhabi House of Saud managed to escape; among them was Imam Abdul-Rahman al-Saud and his teenager lad Abdulaziz. Both quickly fled to British-controlled Kuwait seeking British protection and help.


V. THE THIRD SAUDI-WAHHABI STATE (SAUDI ARABIA): 1902-?

While in Kuwait the Wahhabi Imam Abdul-Rahman and his son Abdulaziz spent their time kneeling to their British masters begging them for money, weapons, and help to capture Riyadh. By the end of the 1800s, however, the aging and ailing Abdul-Rahman was forced to delegate the leadership of the Wahhabi House of Saud to his son Abdulaziz, who then became the new Wahhabi Imam.

Because Britain’s colonial strategy in the Arabian Peninsula at the beginning of the 20th century was quickly gearing towards the final and complete destruction of the Muslim Ottoman Empire and its allies in Najd, al-Rasheed clan, the British decided to swiftly support the new Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz. Fortified with British support, money, and weapons, the new Wahhabi Imam was able in 1902 to capture Riyadh. One of his first savage acts after capturing Riyadh was to terrorize its inhabitants by spiking the heads of the falling al-Rasheeds at the age of the city. He and his fanatical Wahhabi followers also burned over (1,200) people to death. [10]

Known in the West as “Ibn Saud”, the Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz was well loved by his British masters. Many British officials and emissaries in the Arab Gulf area frequently met or interacted with him, and generously supported him with money, weapons, and advisors. Sir Percy Cox, Captain Prideaux, Captain Shakespeare, Gertrude Bell, and Harry Saint John Philby (the so-called “Abdullah”) were among the many British officials and advisors who constantly surrounded Abdulaziz to help him with everything he needed. With British weapons, money, and advisors, Imam Abdulaziz was able to gradually conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula in a ruthless manner under the banner of Wahhabism to create the Third Saudi-Wahhabi State, known today as Saudi Arabia.

In creating Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz and his fanatical Wahhabi soldiers of God committed horrible massacres especially in Islam’s holy land of Hejaz from which they brutally expelled its noble Shareef ruling class, the direct descendants of Prophet Mohammad. In Turabah in May 1919 they waged a sneak attack in the dead of the night on the Hejazi army and viciously massacred over 6,000 of its men. Again, in August 1924 the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis barbarically broke into people’s houses in the Hejazi city of Taif, threatened them, and stole their money at gunpoint. They decapitated boys and old men, and were amused by the horrified women who were screaming and weeping. Many of Taif’s women quickly hid down deep in their water-wells to escape the ongoing rape and murder committed by the savage Saudis-Wahhabis. The primitive Saudis-Wahhabis also murdered many Imams while they prayed in their mosques; burned most of Taif’s buildings to the ground; indiscriminately slaughtered most men they found in the streets; and stole everything that could possibly be moved. More than 400 innocent people were quickly butchered in Taif. [11]

When the vicious Saudis-Wahhabis entered Islam’s holiest city, they found Makkah’s terrorized inhabitants hiding in their homes, the streets were totally deserted, and the houses’ doors and windows were tightly shut in their faces. The Saudis-Wahhabis brutally broke into Makkah’s houses and destroyed all musical instruments and records, gramophones, radios, cigarettes, tobacco pipes, pictures, and mirrors – all considered by them (at that time) to be the work of the Devil. The primitive invaders then used the wooden frames of Makkah’s houses and doors for cooking fire. The Wahhabi soldiers of God also flogged Makkah’s inhabitants who wore Western clothes, gold, perfume, or silk. They also desecrated most graveyards, and destroyed many of Makkah’s beautiful tombs, ornamental mosques, and shrines that had stood for centuries reflecting the glorious Islamic past and the great history of the holy city. In addition, the ignorant invaders barbarically destroyed any physical traces of Prophet Mohammad’s historical monuments and sights in the holy city as well as all other historical buildings or physical structures that could in any way be traced to his disciples “in order not to be worshiped as holy spots”. [12]

In addition, Imam Abdulaziz’s Wahhabi soldiers of God savagely bombarded Islam’s second holiest city of Madinah. To the horror of all Muslims around the world, their British-made bombs and shells fell on Prophet Mohammad’s tomb, badly damaging it.

The fanatical Saudi-Wahhabi army then laid a yearlong crippling siege on the seaport city of Jeddah causing starvation. As a result, drinking water was practically impossible to find and Jeddah’s poor spent their days searching the streets for food in the garbage. Many of them even picked and ate the undigested corn found in the camels’ dung. After severely bombarding the city for some time, the ignorant Saudi-Wahhabi fighters finally entered Jeddah and immediately began destroying the telephone lines, the radio station, and other signs of modern life, considered by them (at that time) to be sacrilegious and work of the Devil.

During the 30 years of creating Saudi Arabia (1902-32), the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis brutally killed and wounded over 400,000 Arabs throughout the Arabian Peninsula; and carried out over 40,000 public executions and 350,000 public amputations, respectively 1% and 7% of the then estimated population of 4 million. [13] In addition, the Saudi-Wahhabi terror forced more than one million inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula to flee for their lives to other parts of the Arab world, never to return. [14]

Unlike a century earlier when the Egyptian Ibraheem Pasha under Ottoman orders punished the Saudi-Wahhabi warriors for their crimes against Hejaz’s holy cities and inhabitants, this time the Arab and Muslim worlds were under the brutal control of Western colonial powers. Accordingly, the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis escaped punishment and found protection and safety in Britain’s power and friendship.

After establishing his British-made Wahhabi State, Imam Abdulaziz became a brutal dictator who took control of everything personally. He destroyed Hejaz’s free press, political parties, constitution, and all of its governmental apparatuses. The Wahhabi Imam then brazenly named the whole country after his own family, calling it the Kingdom of “Saudi” Arabia.

Besides being a dictator, King Abdulaziz was well known for his insatiable sexual appetite. In addition to his innumerable concubines, the “pious” Wahhabi Imam married about 300 wives; some of them were only a one-night stand. While his sons are estimated to be about 125, no one knows for sure how many daughters he fathered. Moreover, King/Imam Abdulaziz encouraged the practice of slavery by personally owning hundreds of slaves for himself as well as for his family members. However, to avoid international embarrassment, Wahhabism and the House of Saud were finally forced to abolish slavery in 1962. Other embarrassments caused by Wahhabism came in 1969 when the top religious Wahhabi sheik, Abdulaziz Bin Baz, emphatically declared that the Earth was flat, static, and that the Sun revolved around it.

All of Imam/King Abdulaziz’s sons who assumed power after his death in 1953 (Saud, Faisal, Khalid and Fahad) became brutal dictators like him and continued to rely heavily on the enemies of Islam and Arabs in the West for protection. And ever since the US replaced Britain during World War II as the dominant power in the Arab world, the Wahhabi House of Saud has shamelessly turned Saudi Arabia (the holy land of Islam) over to Islam’s foes to make it into a virtual American colony.

Unlike their father, however, Abdulaziz’s sons dropped the title “Imam” preferring to be called simply “kings”. But in late 1986 Saudi Arabia’s current King Fahad (a spoiled playboy in his heydays) in a way returned to a different title of “Imam” when he dropped the title “King” and assumed the title of “the guardian of the two holiest shrines” of Makkah and Madinah, a title that was originally coined for the Muslim Turkish Sultan Selim I (reign: 1512-20).

However, with Saudi Arabia’s immense oil wealth at its disposal, Wahhabism has been able in recent decades not only to mute most of its critics, but also to dramatically improve its own image throughout the Muslim world. Hence, Wahhabism has now been presented as a “reformist movement” that re-established the “purity” of Islam. Even the name “Wahhabism” itself has been dropped in favor of new more suitable names such as “Salafi movement” (“noble tradition”) and “Muwahhedoon” (“unitarians”). Furthermore, the Wahhabi founder himself, Mohammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, has been presented as a “great man” of immense character and knowledge, a man who single-handedly “saved” Islam from “superstitions”. Accordingly, fortified with petro-dollars Wahhabism has in recent times begun to creep out of Saudi Arabia into the surrounding Arab and Muslim lands in a futile attempt to erase its stigma of being a minority trend in Islam.

The Wahhabi House of Saud’s dismal failure to defend al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Palestinians against Israel’s illegal occupation and brutalities, as well as its shameful treachery and open cooperation with the Western enemy of Islam and Arabs not only in killing Muslims and occupying their lands in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in allowing this enemy to militarily occupy the holy land of Islam itself, make all of its efforts to improve its image and the image of its Wahhabism worthless and fruitless.

Contrary to current American media propaganda in the post 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US still strongly supports the Wahhabi House of Saud which fears terrorism as much as the US does. In fact, Wahhabism has already implemented American orders by changing the Saudi Islamic curricula and the meaning of Jihad (“holy war”) in Islam to please Washington. In reality, the House of Saud and the Wahhabi leaders are as much hated by most Muslims as the US itself. Terrorist attacks by Saudi Muslim fundamentalists (some of whom are connected to Osama Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’eda) inside Saudi Arabia aimed at destabilizing the Wahhabi House of Saud have actually increased in the last 10 years.

The fact that the enemies of Islam and Arabs, Israel and the US, fear and loath Shiism (i.e., Iran and Hizbolah) more than any other Islamic sect, is considered by most Muslims to be an honor for Shiism that Wahhabism has shamefully failed to attain for itself.


VI. PROPHET MOHAMMAD’S SAYINGS (“Hadeeths”):

The two Saudi ruling-class families (the political House of Saud and the religious Wahhabi  House), who are from the Najd region in central Arabia, are deeply hated by millions of Muslims in and out of Saudi Arabia especially in its Hejaz region where many people continue to privately celebrate Prophet Mohammad’s Birthday despite Wahhabism. In a well-known Hadeeth, Prophet Mohammad said:

“Narrated by Ibn Umar: The Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) said, 'O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sha'm! [Greater Syria] O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.' The people said, 'And also on our Najd.' He said, 'O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sha'm (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.' The people said, 'O Allah's Apostle! And also on our Najd.' I think the third time the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) said, '... There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan.” [15]

Many Muslims around the world truly believe that “the head of Satan” that Prophet Mohammad was talking about in the above Hadeeth is none other than the two evil families, the House of Saud and its bosom body, the reactionary Wahhabi House.

Also, in another famous Hadeeth Prophet Mohammad said that one of the signs that the end of the world is nearing is: “... that you find barefooted, [unclad], destitute, shepherds of goats vying with one another in the construction of magnificent buildings.” [16]

Again, many Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammad in this second Hadeeth was also referring to these two Saudi ruling-class families. In fact, just several decades ago before oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia, both of these families were indeed destitute, barefooted, goat herders who lived in the Arabian deserts’ villages and oasis in tents made of sheepskin. They now own some of the most magnificent skyscrapers in the entire Muslim world and control the lion share of the Saudi immense wealth.


VII. CONCLUSION:

It is very clear from the historical record that without British help neither Wahhabism nor the House of Saud would be in existence today. Wahhabism is a British-inspired fundamentalist movement in Islam. Through its defense of the House of Saud, the US also supports Wahhabism directly and indirectly regardless of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Wahhabism is violent, right wing, ultraconservative, rigid, extremist, reactionary, sexist, and intolerant. Its bloody historical record is well documented and cannot not be erased or dismissed by anyone. All of Wahhabism’s recent cosmetic changes to improve its own image would never deceive most educated Arabs and Muslims.

Although in recent years a few Wahhabi religious leaders have tried to “distant” themselves from the House of Saud’s brutality and un-Islamic policies in a vain attempt to save Wahhabism’s image from further deterioration, most of the top Wahhabi religious leaders are still firmly 100% behind the House of Saud. In fact, most Wahhabi leaders have openly supported and defended all of the House of Saud’s unpopular domestic and foreign policies including allowing the US to occupy the land of Islam and Arabs, as well as to destroy Arabs and Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Indeed, the two families of the House of Saud and the Wahhabi House could not be separated because they are interwoven by bloodline and marriage since 1744. Their dynamic alliance is clearly manifested today in the composition of Saudi Arabia’s ruling class. In fact, the unity between them is stronger than the old unity of Church and State in Europe’s Middle Ages.

Wahhabism’s intimate association with and support of the House of Saud, which is widely recognized to be one of the most brutal, corrupt, undemocratic, and feudal ruling classes in the entire world, makes its boastful claim of representing “the best form of Islam” the target of Muslim ridicule and derision. Today many educated Arabs and Muslims feel that Wahhabism gives Islam a bad name, and represents a reactionary shackle that prevents Arabs and Muslims from advancement. Certainly many Muslim Sunni scholars in the last 250 years both conservative and liberal, all across the Muslim world from Morocco to Indonesia, as well other Muslim sects such as the Shiite and Sufi, have all rejected Wahhabism since its birth as a horrible deformation of Islam.


Footnotes:

1. Alexei Vassiliev, Ta’reekh Al-Arabiya Al-Saudiya [History of Saudi Arabia], Translated from Russian to Arabic by Khairi al-Dhamin and Jalal al-Maashta (Moscow: Dar Attagaddom, 1986), p. 108.

2. For details see “Confessions of a British Spy”, http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/spy1-7.html

3. See “The Beginning and Spreading of Wahhabism”, http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/wah-36.html

4. William Powell, Saudi Arabia and Its Royal Family (Secaucus, N.J.: Lyle Stuart Inc., 1982), p. 205.

5. “Confessions of a British Spy”.

6. Ibid.

7. Vassiliev, Ta’reekh, p. 117.

8. Gary Troeller, The Birth of Saudi Arabia: Britain and the Rise of the House of Sa’ud (London: Frank Cass, 1976), pp. 15-16.

9. Quoted in Robert Lacey, The Kingdom: Arabia and the House of Saud (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981), p. 145.

10. Said K. Aburish, The Rise, Corruption and the Coming Fall of the House of Saud (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 14.

11. Powell, Saudi Arabia, p. 68.

12. For more details see my book, The Arabs and the West: The Contributions and the Inflictions

13. Aburish, The Rise, p. 27.

14. Ibid., p. 24.

15. Mohammad Muhsin Khan, Sahih al-Bukhari: Arabic-English (al-Medinah al-Munauwara: Islamic University-Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), Vol. 9, p.166.

16. Sahih Muslim. Translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Vol. 1, (Lahore: Sheik Mohammad Ashraf, 1976), p. 2.

* Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi is a Saudi-American professor of International Relations. He did his BA and MA at California State University, Sacramento, and his Ph.D. at the University of Southern California. He was a professor at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He also taught at different American universities and colleges including the University of California at Irvine, Cal Poly Pomona, Cerritos College, and Fullerton College. He is the author of many articles both in Arabic and English. His book, The Arabs and the West: The Contributions and the Inflictions, is sold on Amazon.com.