Gulf Diary

Gulf Diary

1991 9 September 19-26 Gulf Diary (2826) 2

23 January, 1991

The most important news today is that Iraq has set hundreds of Kuwait’s oil wells on fire. The leaping flames and rising black smoke have filled the sky. The headlines of the Hindustan Times (23 Jan. 91) proclaim: Kuwait Oil Wells Blown Up. This may well mean that Mr. Saddam Hussain is not sure of keeping Kuwait under his control, and has, therefore, decided to destroy the oil wells. When he leaves Kuwait, he would like to see everything destroyed. He has already dumped approximately 350 million gallons of oil into the sea.

Recently Mr. Saddam Hussain had the national flag inscribed with ‘Allah-o-Akbar’. He would like to call the present war a holy war (jihad). This propaganda seems to have impressed the majority of the Muslims spread across the world, for they have started believing that it is indeed a war between Islam and the infidels. But people who burn nature’s gift to humanity can hardly be said to be champions of the Islamic cause. Just consider that when the first caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr, sent out an expeditionary force to Syria under the leadership of Usamah he directed him not to fell any trees.

It is forbidden to cut even a single tree in war. The burning of so many oil wells is, therefore, a crime of far greater magnitude. It is a thousand times worse. It is not only that huge oil deposits are destroyed, but the atmosphere becomes dangerously polluted with smoke and poisonous gases. We should never forget that the oil deposit is not someone’s private property; it is a precious gift from God to the whole of humanity and, as such, must be held in trust by it. Man may use it, but he has no right to destroy it. Any deliberate destruction of oil fields is an act of unpardonable criminality. (Science Reporter, March, 1991, New Delhi)

But Mr. Saddam Hussain has done just that. He has burnt the oil wells. And not only that, but he has dumped oil into the sea, thus endangering the lives not only of human beings but also of birds and fish. All this notwithstanding Muslims have given Mr. Saddam Hussain the title of Mujahid-e-Islam – one who fights for the cause of Islam. Those who raise the banner of Jihad, but fail to follow the tenets of Islam, are not on firm ground. Their case is not one of jehad but of adding insult to injury Truly, they deserve to be punished rather than rewarded.

24 January, 1991

The devastating Gulf war continues with both sides suffering heavy losses, people are being killed. Cities are being destroyed. Birds and fish are dying miserable deaths due to environmental pollution. And the Allied Forces are spending about one billion dollars every day in order to wage this war.

War-mongers have always taken the stand that their fight is in the interests of humanity. The group of 28 countries fighting under the American command say that they are fighting for a weak country against a powerful and tyrannical regime. Mr. Saddam Hussain for his part, would have us believe that he is fighting to correct past mistakes, implying that Kuwait which, by his lights, was formerly a part of Iraq, should once again be merged with Iraq.

Shortly before the American Spanish war broke out in 1898, the British ambassador and six other ambassadors from Europe assembled in Washington to persuade the American President not to go to war. The diplomatic exchanges with the US President in Washington were summarised by the New York World of April 8, 1898.

Said the six ambassadors: We hope for humanity’s sake you will not go to war.”

Said Mr. Mc Kinley in reply: “We hope if we do go to war, you will understand that it is for humanity’s sake.”

In the last fifty years, there have been 300 wars of differing magnitudes in the Third World alone. Each warring side has sound justification for its stand. This is a state of affairs which proves the Hereafter to be a moral necessity. The truth is that it is only in the world of the Hereafter that it can be decide a ultimately who is right and who is not.

At the outset, a war may be within the control of the country or .group which started it. But once it is under way, the havoc that it creates is beyond human control. Wisdom dictates that we should permanently distance ourselves from war and all that spells war.

25 January, 1991

A Times of India report (January 25, 1991) on the Urdu Press states that a violent Muslim mob attacked the office of an Urdu daily, The Urdu Times and pelted it with stones. Copies of its newspaper were burnt and the employees of the newspaper were threatened. The reason for this ugly episode was that The Urdu Times was the only Urdu paper which had denounced Mr. Saddam Hussain while agreeing with the policies of Saudi Arabia. No true journalism can flourish when faced with this mentality of intolerance.

All other Urdu papers are whole-heartedly supporting Mr. Saddam Hussain. He is being called ‘Salahuddin Ayyubi’ and ‘Saddam’ the Mujahid-e-Islam’ and his portraits are selling like hot cakes in Muslim localities. The Urdu newspapers which were selling poorly have boosted up their sales astronomically by publishing emotional articles in support of Mr. Saddam Hussain. Any newspaper carrying headlines like: ‘Iraqi scuds deprive the Israelis of their sleep,’ or ‘Bush bows down to Saddam Hussain’, are most popular among the Muslims.

The stance adopted by present-day Muslim journalists and the general attitude of the Muslims remind me of their behaviour during the second world war, at which time India was ruled by Great Britain and the Muslims were at loggerheads with the British. When the Germans bombed Britain, the Muslims were very happy. Their sentiments were aptly expressed in an immensely popular poem which was published in a newspaper. Its title was ‘Hitler, the Great!’ One of its couplets went like this:

When you go to visit Buckingham Palace this time. Drop a bomb over it in our name.

A similar emotionalism is surging through the Muslims of today, many of whom direct their hatred towards Jews and Christians. When Mr. Saddam Hussain warned the Christians (meaning the Americans and their allies) that they would be drowned in the Gulf, and followed this up with a scud attack over Israel, he set off a ‘new wave of popularity for himself among the Muslims. But this reaction hardly goes below the surface. It has nothing to do with Islam or with common sense.

The Muslim press lacks depth. It would not be wrong to say that people who are regular readers of Urdu newspapers are as unenlightened about world affairs as a reader of Ghalib or Zauq would be about modern science

26 January, 1991

On January 26, 1991 the Hindustan Times published a detailed description of Mr. Saddam Hussain’s ‘palace’ in Baghdad under the headline: “Saddam Can Live One Year in Bunker.” This presidential ‘palace’, according to the report, is a concrete construction situated at a depth of 120 feet, is fully air-conditioned and fitted with lifts. President Saddam Hussain could live there for up to one year and be safe from nuclear attack.

According to Mr. Leberre, a French engineer who helped to build the palace and the bunker, “you go down in the lift after passing through a very thick door concealed behind the panelling in the President’s office. You then have to pass through a number of ante chambers which only open with code, a magnetic card and after recognition by the guard manning video cameras. It has hermetically sealed doors, is entirely air-conditioned and has filtration system so that it would remain safe even in case of nuclear attack. (Daily Telegraph, January 25, 1991). There is also an internal well linked to a natural water reserve at a depth of 400 metres, which cannot be contaminated. The operations office of this bunker, from which president Saddam Hussain has recently been broadcasting, has all the necessary telephonic and computer links to enable him to direct the war from there. Mr. Lebere is of the view that President Saddam Hussain could survive in and function from this emplacement over a long period of time.

Mr. Saddam Hussain has called this war the ‘mother of all wars’ (Umm-al-Maharib) and thinks that from his hiding place in his underground palace he is going to win it. But he is only living in a fool’s paradise. He has cut himself off from reality and is destined to lose.

27 January, 1991

Makka, the holiest place for Muslims, was the venue of a world conference from the 9th to the 11th of January, 1991, during the Gulf crisis. It was attended by ulamas (religious scholars) from Saudi Arabi and other countries of the world. After three days of deliberations the Makka declaration to the Muslim Ummah was made public. The following is an extract from the authenticated text, published by the Arabic Weekly, AI-Dawah of January 17, 1991 (p. 7):

“Message to the Iraqi forces: disobedience to the orders of Mr. Saddam Hussain is obligatory under the Shariah.”

According to the report, the ulamas assembled there were unanimous in urging Mr. Saddam Hussain to vacate Kuwait immediately. It was declared, moreover, that it was the duty of the Iraqi forces not to support Mr. Saddam Hussain in his act of tyranny. The conference also urged the Muslims of the world not to support the Iraqi President and to condemn his invasion of Kuwait, which has given the Americans and other western countries the opportunity to enter the Gulf.

In principle, I agree with the verdict of the ulamas. Strangely, this appeal was disregarded by most Muslim countries, and Muslims the world over rose to back Mr. Saddam Hussein. While it can be said that the Iraqi forces had no option but to go along with their leader, the Muslim masses were under no such compulsion. There was no call for them to support Mr. Saddam Hussein. This rift which has appeared between the ulamas and the Muslim masses is quite unprecedented.

The reason for this can be traced to the fact that the ulamas and Muslim leaders have themselves been responsible for turning the Muslims against the communities concerned (i.e. the Jews and the Christians). Now it has become impossible for the Muslims to take an unbiased, dispassionate stand. The hatred for the west which has been implanted by our leaders in the Muslim psyche could culminate in no other way. If they gave their support to Saddam Hussain, it was because he appeared to them in the guise of the deliverer of Palestine.

28 January, 1991

The newspapers are full of the Iraqi leader’s rhetoric. He says, for example, that the Arabian desert will be turned into a graveyard for the American and Allied Forces. Muslims are impressed by this brave show, as if it were a real crusade, a war of jehad. On the other hand, the stand taken by Shah Fahad of Saudi Arabia, in joining the Americans and their allies, strikes them as sheer cowardice.

It has been reported to me that posters have been affixed to walls in the lama Masjid area, in Delhi, bearing such slogans as “The Saudis and the Israelis are two sides of the same coin.” A man reportedly prayed aloud after the congregrational prayer was over. “O God, bring death to the Saudis and the Israelis.”

As for who is right and who is wrong in the present Gulf crisis, it would appear – if one goes by the Hadith – that it is the Saudis who are right and not the other party.

Imam al Tirmizi quoting Amr Bin Auf’s narration of a prophetic tradition, says that as the end of the world draws close, faith will be found in the Arabian peninsula alone. According to this tradition, God’s messenger was heard to say, “Faith will seek shelter in Hijaz (Arabia) as the snake does in its pit.”

There is a more direct reference to the present situation in another tradition. In his book, Kitab-al-Malahim, Imam Abu Daud records Dhu Mikhbar as having heard God’s messenger say, “you will gain the spoils of war and you will be blessed. Then you will return and camp in a meadow with hills in its vicinity. A man from the Christians will raise a cross and proclaim, ‘It is the cross that has triumphed.’ This will anger a man among the Muslims and he will break the cross. The Christians will then revoke the treaty and will rally for war. (Abu Dau’d, Sunan, vol 4, p. 109).

In the light of these Hadiths, the Muslims’ stand is certainly not correct. What they are doing is just a matter of satisfying their whims. They are not going by the sunnah or the Qur’an.

29 January, 1991

Mr. S. Nihal Singh, and Indian journalist who was in Baghdad when the Gulf war started, has had his experiences published in the Hindustan Times of January 29. He was staying at the Hotel AI-Rashid alongwith of the journalists. Dollar was the only currency acceptable against payment of any bill. On this he comments: “Much as the United States was the hated symbol of western might, the dollar still ruled in Baghdad.”

This shows that the Americans and other western countries are virtually in control of world resources. The irony of it is that Muslims who hate America, – as a visit there will reveal – have opted for citizenship of the US in order to improve their prospects.

If Muslim prospects are really to improve, the proper thing to do under these circumstances would be to bring Muslim countries into the field of science and technology. But no worthwhile efforts are being made towards this end. God has endowed Muslim countries with the wealth of petroleum, thus giving them the economic clout to accomplish any developmental programme that they choose. But it is unfortunate that some of these countries are squandering their wealth in luxurious living, while others are busy acquiring deadly weapons so that they can use them against other Muslim countries. The most glaring example is that of Iraq.

Mr. Saddam Hussain acquired wealth from oil without any effort, but he did not see fit to utilize this wealth for the progress of his country. Instead, he purchased deadly weapon systems from the U.S.S.R. Germany, france, etc. and then began threatening his neighbours. Had he used his oil wealth in the development of his country, we could safely assume that Iraqi currency would have enjoyed the same economic importance as the American dollar today.

The decline in the fortunes of Muslim countries, far from being traceable to outside conspiracies, results directly from their own internal weaknesses. Those who ‘reveal’ and give wide publicity to external plotting to account for the downfall of Muslims do little other than show how ill-informed they and other Muslims are.

30 January, 1991

A Muslim I met who lives in London, claims that all Muslims living in London are siding with Mr. Saddam Hussain this war.

Only a handful of Muslims who get money from Saudi Arabia are on the Saudis’ side. My reply to this was that there was no logic in this presumption, for one might also describe the supporters of Saddam Hussain as only those people who are receiving money from him. Then I asked him why Saddam Hussain had not attacked Israel, and why he had chosen to invade Kuwait. He told me that he had been informed by the Iraqi Ambassador in London that when Iraq wanted to attack Israel, it had sought the help of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but to no avail. In the face of their unwillingness to participate Iraq had to resort to the invasion of Kuwait. I suggested to my friend that he should have pointed out to the Ambassador that if Iraq could attack Iran without the help of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and could later attack Kuwait without anyone’s help, it could certainly have done the same to Israel. But the Ambassador, it seems, put up the pretext of Iraqi fears of American retaliation against an attack on Israel. I asked my friend why he had not pointed out that the Americans had in any case entered the fray. The Iraqis could have shown the same disregard for this eventuality as they had in the case of Kuwait.

This is an example of how shallow Muslims have become in their thinking, and their leaders are taking full advantage of this in order to mislead them.

Very often when there is much talk of principles, we find that it is in justification of personal whims and caprices. A man who aspires to leadership will frequently turn minor mishaps into major emergencies and call it a struggle in God’s name, solely to establish his own supremacy. His actions are inspired by material gain, albeit on behalf of the nation, but he will claim that he follows this path because he is a seeker after Truth. This is tantamount to adding insult to injury. No amount of felicitous phrases can ever really justify such selfish action.