Gulf Diary

Gulf Diary

1992 1-2 January-February 24-33 Gulf Diary (3345) 4

1 13th February, 1991

The Nawa-e-Waqt (February 13) has published an article by Mr. Malik Amjad Husain, an advocate, in which he says that surcharged emotions have taken control of the public in Pakistan. They are losing sight of reality and are no longer capable of determining who is in the wrong. They consider Mr. Saddam Hussain a hero because he has revived the Palestinian issue. They circumvent the present issue by arguing that Kuwait was a part of Iraq and that it was the British who in 1918 carved out a state and gave it sovereignty.

The writer argues that even if we accept that the British created Kuwait for their own selfish motives, it is not prudent to keep harping on this point. In the same way, even Pakistan was a part of India 44 years ago, and the Indians can take the stand that since India was divided to serve British interests, it would be legitimate for India to usurp Pakistan. It is not correct even to entertain such notions.

This shows the double standards which have been accepted and to which Muslims have fallen prey. The logic which they put forward to justify the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq should be equally applicable to India or Israel who, by the same token, should be in occupation respectively of Pakistan and Palestine.

*In his article (An Arabic magazine published by Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow.) ‘Who is Responsible for the Gulf war?’ (Ai-Raid, February 1, 1991), Mohammad Wajdi Qandeel elaborates on the losses of war. He asks who was responsible for stoking the fires of war, thus opening the gates of hell for Iraq. He emphasises that the person responsible is Saddam Hussain. It is the Iraqi leadership which is responsible for the horrific tragedy which has befallen Iraq (p. 2).

This analysis is strictly in accordance with Islamic thinking. Islam takes cognisance of the cause and not the result. The responsibility will attach to the man who was the cause behind such a tragic occurrence.

It is not Islamic to apply logic of one sort in one place and of a different sort in another; or to be supportive of a cause in one place while changing one’s stand in another, where both situations, in essence, are on a parallel.

14th February, 1991

The Arabic weekly, Al-Majalla, (13-19 February) has published an interview with the one-time personal physician of Saddam Hussain, Dr. Tehsin Moalla, who received his medical degrees at the University of Baghdad.

In the interview he dwelt upon the destruction of Iraq which has resulted from the war. He said that the people of Iraq are suffering the worst misery, such as is painful even for an observer. He does not hold Allied forces responsible for this suffering, but places the blame squarely on the Iraqi leadership. He goes on to say that Iraq is now paying for the crime committed by Saddam Hussain.

A similar note has been struck by the political commentator of Al-Dawah (February 14), an Arabic weekly published in Riyadh. He says that the war has caused the Palestinians to suffer irreparable losses for they are now shunned by the other Arab nations who had given them billions of dollars in aid and had placed them in high positions. No longer can they enjoy these benefits.

The loss they have sustained is not the fault of other Arab countries, nor is it attributable to anything other than the course adopted by their own leaders. The Palestinians are now paying a heavy price for the stand taken by their leaders in justifying Saddam Hussain’s invasion of Kuwait.

The crux of the matter pertains not just to Iraq or to Kuwait, but rather to the whole world. Everywhere, including India, Muslims are faced with problems. Those responsible for this are not the supposed enemies of Islam, but the Muslims’ very own leaders. Without exception, these leaders have misled their followers. They have played upon their emotions, thus bringing themselves into prominence, but causing greater and greater misery for the Muslim masses.

15th February, 1991

Aaeen, a monthly published in Lahore, arrived today. It represents the ideology of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan. It reports that at a meeting of the executive committee of the Jamaat-e-Islami on January 26 in Lahore, a resolution on the Gulf crisis was unanimously passed.

It was declared that since this war is being fought by America by political design and with imperialistic goals in view, it must cease forthwith. It is the earnest appeal of Muslims the world over, and of all peace-loving peoples, that the Americans, their Allies and Iraq must give up the path of confrontation and respond to the call of peace.

This appeal on the part of the Jamaat-e-Islami sounds hollow and unrealistic. If the Americans and the Allies are acting belligerently in their own self-interest, they will never pay any heed to such appeals. No one ever does when it is a question of self-interest. I suspect that even those who are making this appeal would not act any differently under the circumstances.

An example of this can be found in Pakistan itself. General Zia, the former President of Pakistan, was instrumental in having Mr. Bhutto sentenced to death. In this, he had the whole-hearted support of Syed Abul Ala Maududi and the Jamaat-e-Islami. When the death sentence for Mr. Bhutto was announced, all the countries of the world, including the Muslim countries, appealed to the Pakistani President not to hang Mr. Bhutto. But General Zia and the Jamat-e-Islami went ahead with the execution of Mr. Bhutto in total disregard of this worldwide appeal for mercy. They knew that Bhutto alive would have meant their political demise.

Today, wherever self-interest is involved, people are not willing to listen. Then how can such people advise others to disregard their own interests and pay heed to appeals to retract their steps? Principles are for others. For ourselves we want gain. So goes the popular refrain. What the British writer, W.S. Leander (1778-1864) had to say on this subject applies perfectly to such people: “We talk on principle, but we act interest.”

16th February, 1991

Al-Majallah (13-19 February) carries a photograph of an agitating crowd made up of Iraqi residents in the U.S. Among the various placards they are carrying, there is one that reads: ‘Iraqi immigrants are not responsible for Saddam’s crime.

It is reported that there are about 3 million Arabs in the USA, out of which 80,000 are from Iraq. Their second generation has no particular attachment with their place of origin-but the generation which was born in the Arabian peninsula is deeply attached to their place of birth. One Arab American said: “Today, I am witnessing the country of my birth and the country of my adoption fighting with each other. I am witnessing the homeland of my sons and grandsons at war with the native place of my forefathers.

There are Arabs and other Muslims who have settled in France, Britain, Germany, etc. in large numbers. Everywhere, they are in a state of psychological conflict, because their activities in America and other western countries are now suspect. And judging by the many cases of violence against them, the local population is not particularly fond of them.

It appears that Muslims the world over are going to face a situation similar to that of the Muslims in India since 1947. Where Muslims in western countries had been leading a life of dignity and prosperity, they will now be forced into a life full of difficulties and humiliation. They lay the blame for this on the supposed ‘anti-Islamic’ sentiment of the west. But, in fact, the responsibility lies with the Muslim leaders and with no one else. In the distant past, Muslims carried with them to other countries the invitation to Islam. And this solved their problems. But, nowadays, Muslims go to other countries solely in search of a livelihood. And there they find themselves beset by all kinds of problems.

17th February, 1991

The title of the Times of India editorial (January 18, 1991) was ‘Pax Americana’, referring, of course, to the dominant role of the USA after the second world war. (‘Pax Americana’ is an echo of the expression ‘Pax Romana’ which signified the kind of peace which was politically established by the Romans after they had spread their empire in the Mediterranean region). The concept of ‘Pax Americana’ was only partially true, because during this period, the Soviet Union also enjoyed the status of a superpower. Now, however, the situation has undergone a radical change. The Times of India aptly observes that “the bi-polar world order created by the Cold War collapsed along with the Berlin Wall in November 1989. A more and more uni-polar world began to emerge from the rubble. That process has now accelerated with dizzying speed.” (p.1)

Times of India of the 17th February has published an interview with the famous French historian, Amaury de Riencourt, who says that centuries of historic endeavour and extraordinary material progress by the US has set it on the course which will lead it to Pax Americana.

Evidently, it is America’s imperial destiny to be the Rome of the twentieth century. This is an indisputable fact. Wisdom for the Muslims, therefore, lies in steering clear of any collision course with the Americans on the political front, and approaching them instead with the message of Islam. If things are done in this way, it may just be possible at some future date to replace American influence with Islam. No power can totally deny the opportunity to propagate Islam. And if such an opportunity exists, that is all that Islam needs.

18th February, 1991

A piece of wishful thinking is expressed in a news item in the Hindustan Times of February 18 under the heading: “India Wants a Role in Post War Plan.” This reports that acting on instructions from New Delhi, the Indian Ambassador to the US, Mr. Abid Hussain, met with the US secretary of State for political affairs, in order to convey India’s desire to be included in any post-war reconstruction and recovery programme in the region. He said that when the reconstruction and rehabilitation programme begins, India should be included as a partner in this process. Mr. Abid Hussain went on to say that “a country like India has to play an extremely important role in the subcontinent, and the US must take much more interest in India’s development.” (p. 12)

Under the present circumstances this would appear to be an immature request that will never be acceded to. The front page of the same newspaper carries a report on the stoppage of the refueling facility provided to American Air Force transport aeroplanes after the hue and cry raised against it by the politicians. If India is not willing to co-operate even to the extent of providing oil on a cost basis, how can she expect to be rewarded in future reconstruction work?

It is an accepted fact that those who are willing to take risks will be the ones to merit success. What right have we to expect to enjoy the fruits of the risks taken by others? Only a simpleton could indulge in such wishful thinking.

19th February, 1991

According to a report in The Times of India, the following joke is doing the rounds in a hotel in Bahrain: ‘A Patriot a day keeps the Scuds away’.

Scuds, lethal, long range missiles manufactured by the Soviet Union, were purchased in large quantities and stockpiled by Iraq. In the whole region there was nothing with which to counter them. Thus armed, Iraq should have been able to play havoc with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states. In fact, a sizeable number of these missiles were targeted at Dahran and Riyadh. But, thanks to their being regularly destroyed in mid-air by the Patriot missiles, they remained largely ineffective.

When the Scud was first produced, the Americans were able to gather sufficient intelligence about it to be able to set up the research work which brought the Patriot on the scene. Although the Scud travels six times faster than the speed of sound, its launching is instantly detected by the Patriot system, which thereupon launches a missile from the opposite direction. This intercepts the Scud and destroys it before it reaches its target.

It is not plots and conspiracies which have brought the US presence to the Gulf, but American competence in producing and utilizing the latest technology. The Arabs had nothing with which to combat the Scuds. They had, therefore, no option but to invite the Americans on to Arab soil. Quoting the Washington Post, the Times of India, reports that eight Arab States (Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Amman, Qatar, UAE) are already planning to raise 15 billion dollars to have American land and air forces on their horizons, which will deter any other political misadventure. The real weakness of the Muslims is their lack of re-sources. Unless this is remedied, there is no point in their agitating against the anti-Islamic conspiracy. This only encourages peevishness and anger in the discussion of Muslim problems without doing anything to solve them.

20th February, 1991

On the 2nd of February, 1991, AI-Majallah titled its cover story, ‘Kuwait Liberation Operation–the Final Phase. On the 7th of February, AI-Dawah, an Arabic weekly published in Riyadh, followed with ‘the End is Near! Time magazine of the 25th February (arriving as usual ahead of schedule) capped this with ‘The Beginning of the End’.

Two thirds of the Iraqi army has been destroyed by non-stop bombing by the Allied forces. The most important places and cities in Iraq look like ruins. Saddam Hussain, who never talked of stopping before the final victory, is now appealing for a ceasefire. The unilateral ‘beginning of the end’ of this horrific war has started. In this issue of Time Magazine, there are moving scenes of the effects of the war on Iraq. There is a photograph of a woman sitting on rubble which was once her home, holding her head in her hands. In another photograph, the Iraqi dead are being dumped unceremoniously into a truck. In yet another photograph, there are two women sitting crying in the midst of ruins. Another picture of ruins shows an Iraqi man in a state of despair. Bridges have been blown up, buildings razed. The fact is that Iraq’s destruction is far more extensive even than that perpetrated by the Tartars in the year 1258.

On the 13th of October, 1990, communalist Hindus broke through a wall, entered the Babari Masjid and unfurled a saffron flag on one of its domes. There were widespread disturbances in the country. Around the same time, anti-Islamic, American forces arrived in the Gulf. Throughout the whole country *Qunur-e-Nazila (A special prayer said for the destruction of the enemies of Islam.) was being offered. The Muslims started cursing openly in their mosques and at other gatherings. But, January, 17, 1991, brought the destruction, not of the infidels, but of the Muslims. It is high time the Muslims stopped agitating against others, did some soul searching and reconsidered their entire line of thinking.

21st February, 1991

Over five lakh troops belonging to 28 different countries have assembled in the Gulf at the invitation of Saudi King Fahd and the Amir of Kuwait, AI-Saban. They are now engaged in a destructive war with Saddam Hussain, whose supporters are enraged at the very idea. The Muslim papers in India print such headlines as ‘Islam on the threshold of Christianity’, ‘Rulers of Arab States Admit Infidels to Holy Land,’ etc.

The Saudis have a different point of view. Shaikh Ibn Baz has issued a fatwa in Riyadh’s Arabic weekly, Al-Dawah, (February 21, pp. 6-7) in which he states that it is not a deviation from the shariah for Muslim rulers to take help from non-Muslim States when they are in need of assistance. Al-Dawah has published another report by Shaikh Ibn Baz in which he makes it clear that it is legal to take help from non-Muslims in order to expel tyrants, to eliminate them and to save the Islamic community from their mischief whenever that should prove necessary. For such purposes, help can be taken from non-Muslims, whether they be Jews, Christians or infidels.

On principle, such a stand is correct. Even the Messenger of God sought help from Abu Talib, Mutim bin Addi, Abdullah bin Urayqit, etc., when they were all non-Muslims. The example given by Shaikh ibn Baz was also cited by the Indian Ulama when they included non-Muslims in their movement prior to 1947. The outcome, of course, was the reverse in the latter case. When the Prophet took the help of non-Muslims, the result was the dominance of Islam, whereas when the Indian Ulama sought non-Muslim assistance during the freedom struggle, they suffered a defeat.

There is no doubt that in this war, too, it is Israel and other western countries that will stand to gain in large measure. The Bigger loser will be Iraq and, in differing degrees the Muslims of the world. Who benefits from this help will depend upon who had prepared the ground before seeking help. The Muslims in the first phase of Islam stood on foundations they themselves had solidly laid, so ‘that whatever gains there were indisputably fell to their lot. The Muslims of today have no such base of their own, with the result that they can never hope to enjoy the fruits of victory.

22nd February, 1991

The Allied Forces under the command of the Americans started their bombing raids over Iraq on January 17. They have almost completely destroyed the military might and economic power of Iraq. The ground attack has now been launched and is expected to last only a few days. There has been fierce fighting in which the Iraqis are being massacred by the Allied Forces. Iraq will have no option but to surrender in a most humiliating manner.

According to a report, the Iraqi Ambassador in Pakistan maintains that the Gulf war has proved that Soviet Russia has lost its power base, and is no longer a superpower. He has complained of Russia’s inability to have a UN resolution passed in the Iraqis’ favour. Iraq had always considered the USSR to be a dependable friend, but it had ultimately done nothing for Iraq.

Instead of complaining of the bankruptcy of the Soviet leadership, the Iraqi Ambassador should blame the leaders of Iraq. Soviet Russia and the US signed a treaty in June 90 to end the cold war, but the Iraqi leaders failed to understand its significance. Subsequently, they invaded Kuwait and occupied it in August, 1990, no doubt feeling certain that the Russians would support them as they had done on previous occasions, i.e. before the end of the cold war. But the Russians did little to help Iraq. The reason is that the ending of the cold war did not mean that the USA and the USSR were now on an equal footing. It was rather an acknowledgement that the Russians had lost their superpower status. But the Iraqis, thanks to their wishful thinking, failed to get the message.

The leaders of Iraq are depending upon the successful outcome of the ground battle, which they call the ‘real battle.’ Before the battle started, they claimed that they would turn the desert into a graveyard for the Americans. This reveals the depths of their ignorance. Nowadays, the truly decisive battle is fought in the air, and this the Americans have already won. Now the ground battle will be just a mopping up operation and not the start of the real war. For the Iraqis, however, it is easier to live in an ivory tower at wishful thinking. There is just one problem. When the ruthless hand of reality strikes, nothing will be left of it, not even the smallest atom of rubble.