Gulf Diary

Gulf Diary

1991 12 December 14-24 Gulf Diary (3823) 3

1st February, 1991

An acquaintance handed me an Urdu monthly magazine and asked me to read a commentary in it on American policy. It said that America’s hard-line attitude and its ruthless policy of crushing the Muslims had turned Arab territory into a battle ground where Muslim blood ran like water, and that believers in the Trinity were openly intruding upon the legacy of Ibrahim. The Prophet had exhorted the faithful to ‘expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian peninsula.’ The Qur’an also says that they should not be befriended. Yet the Prophet’s successors and followers have made them their allies, and the latter are now marauding everywhere in Arab territory. Muslim cities are being turned into Naga Sakis and Hiroshimas.” (Ma’arif, February, 1991)

I thereupon showed him the Arabic weekly al Dawah (January 31, 1991) in which it has been ruled by Sheikh Ibn Baz, a well-known Islamic scholar of Saudi Arabia, who is president of Dar-al-Ifta, in- Riyadh, that according to the Islamic principle of idhtirar, that is, the law of necessity, it is quite permissible to seek help from non-Muslim governments. He promptly took umbrage at this saying that “those who say such things are on the Saudis’ pay roll and are American agents.”

This is the tone and tenor of Muslim ‘writers’ and ‘orators’. They cannot tolerate any disagreement. In such an eventuality they immediately resort to fault-finding, apportioning blame and outright condemnation.

Those who advocate the expulsion of Jews and Christians from Islamic territory should be equally emphatic about expelling evil from their own hearts. It is obligatory for all Muslims to harbour no malice towards other Muslims. The true Muslim should be neither egoistic nor unjust. He should feel no ill-will towards others and should never act vengefully. He must never make baseless allegations leading to character assassination, and should never wish for the destruction of another.

But this other kind of expulsion – of base feelings and motives – does not interest Muslims. They have proved totally ineffective on this front, and yet they are the most vocal about the territorial expulsion of other human beings.

2ad February, 1991

The Times of India of February 2, 1991 carried an article by Mr. Sham Lal,Win the War; Lose the Peace, I liked the heading better than the contents of the article.

In the two weeks of fighting in the Gulf, nearly 50 billion dollars have been spent. The expenditure will spiral upward every day. Irrespective of who wins the war, the peace has been lost. India won the war of Bangladesh in 1971. But what followed was violence, inflation and rampant corruption, destroying the peace and tranquility for ever.

The same story will be repeated, albeit on a much larger scale after the Gulf War. No matter which side is victorious, the misery of the common man will only increase a hundred fold. The impact will be felt even by the victor.

Regardless of the scale – small or big – on which wars are fought they are all fought to find a solution to some problem. But every war in turn has created even more problems. A noted western thinker has said: “Problems are created by problem-solving activity.”

There is, however, an exception to this rule – the course embarked upon by the prophet of Islam. Like other leaders he found himself in confrontational situations, but the difference in his case was that the number of times he actually chose to go to war was almost negligible. In the annals of human history his humanitarianism in solving problems has remained unparalleled.

He faced the kind of challenges which today result in war. But the Prophet used peace as his weapon. If the Muslims could only emulate their own Prophet, thus showing the world that peace is the strongest force, they would not only win their battles without a fight, but would also demonstrate the Divine way. In this way they would establish their leadership of the world.

3rd February, 1991

Not only the front pages of the newspapers but also additional inside pages are full of the happenings in the Gulf these days. The Hindustan Times of February 3, 1991 has devoted the whole of page 14 to this topic. But in the middle of all this tragic war reporting, there is a four-line news-item: A man convicted of killing ten Rochester area women in New York since 1988 has been sentenced to a minimum of 250 years in prison.

In terms of the general lay-out of the newspaper, this piece of news has been relegated to such an insignificant position that it would most likely attract little or no attention. But it is actually a very important piece of news. The punishment meted out for these heinous crimes is a measure of man’s abhorrence of criminality. Such punishments are an expression of man’s conscience.

Going by the dictates of conscience one would like to see the killer killed at least given a long and hard term in jail. This being so, what of those responsible for destructive wars that cost thousands of lives, cripple millions of others, wipe out irreplaceable natural resources and pollute the land, sea and atmosphere? What about the one who causes widespread death and destruction? Who will punish him? The inability to deal effectively with this situation because of human limitations necessitates the emergence of another, world in which there is limitless power and authority. It is there that the war mongers will receive the punishment they deserve.

4th February, 1991

The Gulf war started on 17 January, 1991. Since then, bombing raids had been going on non-stop. But it was mostly a one-side affair. While allied bombers rained destruction on Iraq, Mr. Saddam Hussain and his army remained sheltered in their bunkers. Then, suddenly, on 30 January, 1991, the Iraqi army in a surprise move attacked Al Khafji, a border town of Saudi Arabia, and brought it under their control. The next two days witnessed fierce battles as the Allied Forces reacted with heavy land and air assaults. The Iraqi forces suffered a crushing defeat. A large number of their men were killed. Some were taken prisoner, while others fled, leaving behind their equipment.

The Americans and the Allied forces rated the Iraqi army very highly as a fighting force, and were of the view that it would not be easy to take it on. But the assault on Al Khafji revealed the chinks in the Iraqi armour, thus bearing out the opinion of an independent defence expert who had forecast that an attack by the Allied forces on Alkhafji would go against the Iraqis. As it happened, the Iraqi communications were found to be very poor and even in fighting skills they were found lacking. Most importantly, their hearts were not in fighting.

They were not as tough as we thought they were. A fresh report suggests that the Al Khafji episode has emboldened the Americans, who are planning a massive assault to destroy the Iraqi forces in Kuwait and Iraq. The myth of Iraqi invincibility has been exploded. It looks certain that the Iraqis will not be able to face the Allies even in a land battle. They were heading for a humiliating defeat.

Whether the confrontation is between two individuals or two nations, face plays an important role. If a man is not sure of winning, he should avoid fighting so that he does not lose face in the event of his defeat. Once this happens, he will no longer be held in awe.

5th February, 1991

AI-Dawah, a popular Arabic weekly of Riyadh has published an article on the Gulf War, entitled:

“Foolishness Too is a Weapon’

According to this report, when an officer of the Allied Forces was asked what their most powerful weapon was, he replied, “The most powerful weapon of the Allied Forces is Saddam Hussain’s foolhardiness and blind rages. The Allies ought to take advantage of this if they want a quick victory.”

No man is a fool. But a great craving for something can make a man deaf and blind. Mr. Saddam Hussain’s real weakness is his boundless ambition to see himself as a great hero. This is why he rushes into doing things which are well beyond the scope of his actual powers.

After coming into power in 1979, he has committed one blunder after another. In September, 1980, he unilaterally revoked the Treaty of Aljazier (1975) and launched an attack on Iran. For eight years subsequently he waged a futile war. Then, suddenly, on 2nd August, 1990, he invaded Kuwait, thereby getting himself into a situation of such difficulty that he is unable to extricate himself from it. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Faith creates humility in a man and humility saves him from committing all kinds of blunders. A man of faith constitutes a power which cannot be overcome, even by the most dreaded enemy. Blunders are the result of overestimating one’s own capacities. Faith keeps a man from such self-aggrandizement. As a result he is saved from committing acts of folly which lead to serious misadventures.

6th February, 1991

Long-range missiles were first used by the Germans in World War II. They were later ‘improved’ by the Americans and Soviets to make them more lethal and longer-ranged. Their systems are complicated and now have nuclear warheads mounted in them. A launcher is used to fire them and their direction is controlled by radio signals, sending them at great speed directly to the target.

The Soviets used German technology to make the Scud missiles, which were brought in large quantities by Iraq. The Iraqis carried out further modification to make them more lethal and to increase their range.

Mr. Saddam Hussain was very confident of getting good results with the Scud. He considered it a surprise weapon which he would use to hit the enemy hard. These missiles were used in the Gulf war on about 18 occasions to strike the Israeli cities of Haifa and Tel Aviv. The same number of missiles were launched against Dahran and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. But largely, they proved ineffective. They were intercepted and destroyed in mid-air by the Patriot missiles so that they could not even get within striking distance of their targets. As soon as the Americans learned that the Soviets had been able to produce Scud missiles, they began the research work which produced the Patriot – an effective counter to the Scud.

Immediately a Scud was fired the Patriot missile would leave its launcher, travel at an extremely fast speed to intercept it, and then it would explode it in mid-air. Of the several dozen Scuds fired by Iraq during the Gulf war, each one was rendered ineffective by American Patriot missiles.

The photograph below depicts both missiles in action. A Scud launched by the Iraqis is shown being intercepted in mid-flight by a Patriot missile.

The Patriot missile has a very advanced and complicated system, which includes a satellite in orbit and a control system on the ground. There is an inbuilt flaw in the Scud, and this is exploited by the Patriot missile system. The Americans have taken the maximum advantage of this weakness to destroy a large number of Scuds.

When a Scud is launched, very intense heat is given off. This emanation is picked up by the satellite and relayed to the ground station. This in turn activates the computers and the Patriot is then launched. As the Scud’s flight progresses, the computer works out the path to be followed by the Patriots. The point of interception is so accurately anticipated that the Patriot cannot fail to destroy the Scud

Like the Scud, everything in this world has a weak point, and if you know what it is, you can make use of it to achieve success, whatever the odds. With this knowledge, you can defeat any adversary at his own game.

7th February, 1991

The Hindustan Times of 6th February has reproduced a statement made by the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Ahmed Zaki Yemani, in which he asserts that the Gulf war is because of oil. In an interview with a Swedish daily, Svenska Dagbladet, he said, “....in future, the power which has oil resources in its hands will be the superpower of the world”. He went on to say that “because the Persian Gulf has 75 per cent of the entire oil resources of the world, US domination of the Gulf oil would mean it would be able to use it as an alternative to the atomic bomb in future international developments.” (p. 12)

There is also a statement in today’s paper by President George Bush, who claims that “.... the Gulf War would be America’s last war. There would be no need to fight another one because of the new world order.” (p. 12)

In the early period’ of Islam the Muslims enjoyed immense political power, which earned them respect the world over. God was kind to them once again when oil deposits were discovered, giving them the potential of a superpower in the age of technology. It is ironical that their wealth is being exploited by others, who are becoming the superpower, while the Muslims themselves have to playa subordinate role.

If opportunities existing beyond the boundaries of one’s own terrain are to be availed of, the first prerequisite is internal strength. Without this, external opportunities are as useless as a body without a soul. No internal strength means no achievement either at home or at the international level.

8th February, 1991

The Qaumi Awaz (February 8) and certain other dailies have published a report that Pakistan’s polity is faced with a serious crisis, arising from the government’s support for Saudi Arabia, while public sympathy is with Iraq. The Prime Minister, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, declared the 5th of January, 1991, as Kashmir day, solely in order to divert public attention from the Gulf war. But despite the full backing of the government, the whole performance was a lacklustre affair.

A similar situation has developed in the Arab world, where the Muslims are divided into two camps. A select group is with Saudi Arabia and America, but the majority seem overwhelmingly to support Mr. Saddam Hussain. This reflects poorly on the Muslim leadership which has based its judgement on emotions rather than on reality.

The Palestinian problem that arose after the second World War was indeed serious, and warranted a balanced approach. Yet, realities were ignored, and the case was put before the people with rhetoric verging on bombast. In the last 50 years, if the Muslim masses have become deeply emotional on the Palestine issue, it is because they have been fed consistently on emotion.

Mr. Saddam Hussain took undue advantage of this fact, demanding that the Americans and their Allies should have Palestine vacated before he would withdraw from Kuwait. He made this into a catchy slogan which he knew would be certain to appeal to Muslims who had developed an emotional mentality as a result of the highly charged presentation of the Palestine issue. As he anticipated, they were completely taken in by it.

If politics are to be constructive, they should not play upon the sentiments of the people. Whenever an issue is sentimentalized to a very high degree, people will fail to appreciate the true seriousness of the situation. Any judgement they make on it is bound to be over-precipitate because it is coloured by their emotions Rather than play such a role, politics should inculcate in people a Just sense of proportion.

9th February, 1991

Dr. Abdur Rehman Al-Awzi, a minister in the Kuwait government has come to New Delhi as a special envoy of the ruler of Kuwait in order to meet senior officials of the Government of India. On February 8, 1991, he held a press conference, details of which have been published by various dailies.

Dr. Al-Awzi admitted that the Muslim world is wholeheartedly supporting Mr. Saddam Hussain and that America is being condemned as an oppressor. This is because of the different ways of looking at the problem. He said that the Gulf War did not start on January 17, 1991, but on August 2, 1990 when Iraq forcibly occupied Kuwait. (Qaumi Awaz, February 9, 1991).

What the Kuwaiti Minister was trying to convey was that as far as Kuwait is concerned, the war was started by Mr. Saddam Hussain, whom they consider the invader, whereas the Muslim masses think the war was started on January 17, 1991, by the Americans, the latter according to them, being the guilty party.

When I read this, I felt that this relates not only to the Gulf War, but to all such controversial matters. Just as every dispute starts with some action, followed by a reaction, so does every dispute has two sides to it. But it will depend upon individuals which side you will hear. No one is ever willing to tell the whole story. Each of the involved parties will highlight those aspects that are in his own favour.

This point is fully illustrated by the different stances adopted on the events of August 2 and January 17. Those who believe that the real war started on August 2 fault the other party, which consider January 17 as the commencement of the onslaught, and vice versa. Be that as it may, from the Islamic standpoint, the blame goes to the party which struck on August 2, because the one who commences hostilities is the greater oppressor.

10th February, 1991

The Pakistani Premier, Mian Nawaz Sharif, visited several Muslim countries on a peace mission in the last week of January, The countries he covered were Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His sole aim in meeting these countries’ leaders was to put an end to the war The Times of India (February 10) reports that he is on his second peace mission tour. He is scheduled to visit Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya. He has already met the Iraqi Ambassador to Pakistan, Ismael Hamudi Husain, on several occasions. He has also tried to reach Saddam Hussain through King Hussain of Jordan.

Nawa-e-Waqt, a Pakistani daily, (2 Feb. 91) reports that Mr. Nawaz Sharif met with the various political parties and religious leaders to discuss the situation in the Gulf and also apprised them of his peace initiative. He said, ‘I have asked Mr. Saddam Hussain for just three words: “’I will withdraw.” The rest can be handled with ease.’

This is a very simplistic view of the situation taken by Mr. Nawaz Sharif. It is not just a question of saying ‘I will withdraw’, but rather of saying ‘I was wrong’.

Unfortunately, there is hardly anyone in the world who has the courage to admit that he was wrong, including Pakistani Islamist leaders.

It is not easy to say, ‘I was wrong.’ For acknowledging one’s error amounts to a denial of what one stands for. In fact, saying, ‘I was wrong’ takes great courage. Very few people have it.

Once a step has been taken, or a statement has been made, its rectitude becomes a prestige issue. No one wants to retrace his steps, or admit a fault, thereby losing face. It is this fear of losing face which prevents a man from taking the corrective step. He would rather let the world totter to the brink of ruin than allow his false sense of prestige to suffer.

11th February, 1991

When Mr. Saddam Hussain, the ruler of Iraq, invaded Iran in 1980” his battle-cry was ‘The road to *Quds passes through Tehran.’ But when, after eight long years, the fighting ceased, Quds was still under Israeli occupation, while the end result for the two Muslim countries was the loss of lakhs of people and billions of rupees.

* Al Bait-al-Maqaddas, the mosque third in importance located in Palestine The first two being the Kabah and Masjid an-Nabi.

In his second misadventure, Mr. Saddam Hussam overran Kuwait. The latter, being a small country, could not defend itself. Again, Mr. Saddam Hussain’s battle cry was “The road to Quds passes through Kuwait.”

On both occasions, the Muslims of the world, in an overwhelming response to these flights of rhetoric, extended full support to Mr. Saddam Hussain, in the belief that he was sincere about entering Jerusalem to liberate Baitul Maqdis (Quds). They never stopped to wonder why Iraq could not have marched directly on Jerusalam, without first making a detour to overrun Tehran.

The biggest problem for Muslims today is their state of unawareness. If they had been fully apprized of all the facts, they would never have supported Saddam Hussain in his ruthless invasion, and he could never have counted on their future support.

It is this lack of awareness which prevents their understanding the motives’ behind any given utterance or deed. They do not think to probe deeper. They just scratch the surface and think they have found the truth. They are keenly aware of their own emotions, but numb to the happenings in the outside world. They can hardly distinguish between the real and the unreal. Who can save such people from the degeneration which surely awaits them?

True wisdom lies in knowing how to distinguish between fact and fabrication.

12th February, 1991

Al-Majalla, an Arabic weekly printed in Jeddah and published in London, carried in its issue of February 12 an interview with Dr. Abur Rahman Al Awzi, a minister in the government of Kuwait, on the subject of the Gulf crisis.

The interviewer asked Dr. AI-Awzi what the future foreign policy of Kuwait would be. Dr. Al Awzi’s reply was, in essence, that Kuwait must learn from its past experiences and benefit from them. He also said that their biggest mistake was to have given their trust to a man who was not worthy of it.

Kuwait had considered Mr. Saddam as another Arab brother and had given him billions of dollars worth of aid. With this Mr. Saddam Hussain proceeded to acquire arms, and became powerful enough to attack his benefactor. He is, therefore, no longer considered trustworthy by the Kuwaitis.

Strangely, while this was happening, the Muslims were deeply impressed by the speeches of Mr. Saddam Hussain to the point of having blind faith in him. They considered him a supporter of their cause and their deliverer. In fact, the Muslims are now making the same mistakes as were committed by the Kuwaiti rulers in the past, i.e. they are taking him at his face value, instead of judging him by his conduct. Imam Malik records Qasim Bin Muhammad Tabii as having said:

“I have seen people (i.e. the Prophet’s companions) who attached no importance to mere utterances. In actual fact, what counts is not a man’s words but his deeds.”

What a difference between the way the companions thought and the way Muslims think nowadays.