Connect with us


The “Official Narrative” Has Been Laid Down for us- On the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Amad Abu Reem



Since the original post on Benazir’s assassination is already quite cluttered, I would like to leave that for updates and ground-situation, this article from Robert Fisk deserved its own post.

benazir-knight-shining-armour.JPGI am not particularly enthused at discussing Benazir’s checkered past, considering that she is dead and that Islamically, we avoid talking about someone’s shortcomings after their passing. But, in weighing the benefit vs. harm, I find it important that between the eulogies, the unending praises and the references to Benazir’s “martyr” status, that we take a moment to step away and be JUST to history. Revisionist history, especially in matters that may frame the future of Pakistan, can be especially harmful. We have to understand what took us to this juncture and also recognize that Benazir’s leadership wasn’t in Pakistan’s best interest, considering FACTS and HISTORY, not emotions and “official, whitewashed narratives”. Let’s turn to the well-regarded journalist, Robert Fisk:

We are told by George Bush that her murderers were “extremists” and “terrorists” [implication? “Islamists”]. Well, you can’t dispute that.

Even before the dust settled, Bush and everyone else found the ultimate and oft-used/abused bogeyman- of course, none other than Al-Qaeda; after all, didn’t the attack have all the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda? Though one wonders when Al-Qaeda officially filed for patents on nearly every sort of terrorist attack:

It was the Taliban madmen again, the al-Qa’ida spider who struck at this lone and brave woman who had dared to call for democracy in her country.

Of course, when you have pin up our favorite villain (Al-Qaeda) as the guilty party, then you need a hero on the other side, so let’s make Benazir a martyr:

let us be under no illusions that this brave lady is indeed a true martyr – it’s not surprising that the “good-versus-evil” donkey can be trotted out to explain the carnage

Well, Fisk wants to provide us a refresher in the Bhutto family’s “illustrious” history:

Murtaza and Shahnawaz [Benazir’s brothers], hijacked a Pakistani airliner in 1981 and flew it to Kabul where Murtaza demanded the release of political prisoners in Pakistan. Here, a military officer on the plane was murdered.

Then Fisk moves on to a brilliant narrative that examines Bhutto’s corruption, published only about 2 weeks ago in the London Review of Books, headlined “Daughter of the WEST” by Tariq Ali. I will take the opportunity to touch on Mr. Ali’s account as well.

In this article, Tariq talks about the “arranged marriage” that the West was trying to broker between Benazir and Musharraf, two parties that loathed each other:

Arranged marriages can be a messy business… Where both parties are known to loathe each other, only a rash parent, desensitised by the thought of short-term gain, will continue with the process knowing full well that it will end in misery and possibly violence. That this is equally true in political life became clear in the recent attempt by Washington to tie Benazir Bhutto to Pervez Musharraf.

The single, strong parent in this case was a desperate State Department… Brokers from both sides engaged in lengthy negotiations on the size of the dowry… She may have been in a hurry but she did not wish to be seen taking the arm of a uniformed president. He was not prepared to forgive her past…Neither party could say ‘no’, though Musharraf hoped the union could be effected inconspicuously

But even though the masses can be like sheep like masses in all nations, there is still a sizeable chunk of the educated and self-thinking class in Pakistan, who could not believe the drama that was transpiring. It was like a reality TV program, except that the script was being written, and then played out, in front of their eyes. Yet, people were expected to believe it wasn’t what they were seeing and thinking. No, we were to believe that we had been fools to distrust Musharraf, and fools to believe that Benazir was anything but the knight in shining armor, galloping into Pakistan, to rescue it from its own people.

But no one asked and no one is still asking… why did the militancy suddenly increase in Pakistan, at least as the “official narrative” goes? Why did Pakistan suddenly become so dangerous? Why did so many frontiers in the “war on terrorism” suddenly open? Why did Musharraf’s popularity dive into numbers even below Bush’s in America? Of course, no link to the bloodbath and possible chemical weaponry used at the Red Mosque… of course no link to the repression of people from a wide spectrum of ideologies and political inclinations, of course no link to the hundreds of “missing people“… of course no link to the removal of all “unfriendly” judges and replacement by a kangaroo court. No links at all to any of this. If you were thinking, “it must have been all the madrassas”. Oh yes, the madrassa myth. No myth? Well then, congratulations, you indeed bought the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE. So, back to the Pakistani audience, watching the wedding drama unfold:

Many Pakistanis – not just the mutinous and mischievous types who have to be locked up at regular intervals – were repelled, and coverage of ‘the deal’ in the Pakistan media was universally hostile, except on state television. The ‘breakthrough’ was loudly trumpeted in the West, however, and a whitewashed Benazir Bhutto was presented on US networks and BBC TV news as the champion of Pakistani democracy – reporters loyally referred to her as ‘the former prime minister’ rather than the fugitive politician facing corruption charges in several countries.

What corruption? Never heard of it. Ahem:

How did Benazir return the favor for her new official image being presented to the world on a silver platter (while many self-thinking Pakistanis saw RIGHT through it):

by expressing sympathy for the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lunching with the Israeli ambassador to the UN (a litmus test) and pledging to ‘wipe out terrorism’ in her own country. In 1979 a previous military dictator had bumped off her father with Washington’s approval, and perhaps she thought it would be safer to seek permanent shelter underneath the imperial umbrella. HarperCollins had paid her half a million dollars to write a new book. The working title she chose was ‘Reconciliation’.

And what did the bridegroom of the arranged marriage promise?

Like his predecessors, he promised [in 1999] he would stay in power only for a limited period, pledging in 2003 to resign as army chief of staff in 2004. Like his predecessors, he ignored his pledge. Martial law always begins with the promise of a new order that will sweep away the filth and corruption that marked the old one: in this case it toppled the civilian administrations of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. But ‘new orders’ are not forward movements, more military detours that further weaken the shaky foundations of a country and its institutions. Within a decade the uniformed ruler will be overtaken by a new upheaval.

So, what happened when Benazir returned to Pakistan? Was the wedding party really that spectacular? Was the party even necessary, considering the risks to her life and the lives of the innocent people who could perish in an attack that was almost waiting to happen?

The intelligence agencies (as well as her own security advisers) warned her of the dangers. She had declared war on the terrorists and they had threatened to kill her. But she was adamant. She wanted to demonstrate her popularity to the world and to her political rivals, including those inside her own fiefdom, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). For a whole month before she boarded the Dubai-Karachi flight, the PPP were busy recruiting volunteers from all over the country to welcome her. Up to 200,000 people lined the streets, but it was a far cry from the million who turned up in Lahore in 1986 … As darkness fell, the bombers struck. Who they were and who sent them remains a mystery. She was unhurt, but 130 people died, including some of the policemen guarding her. The wedding reception had led to mayhem.

We all know that Musharraf eventually called the State of Emergency and removed the judiciary. What did Benazir do?

Her first response was to say she was shocked, which was slightly disingenuous… Yet for more than 24 hours she was unable to give a clear response. At one point she even criticised the chief justice for being too provocative.

And then Musharraf too decided to quit the forced marriage. So, now a desperate Benazir does what?

she couldn’t take the risk of losing key figures in her party. She denounced the emergency and its perpetrator, established contact with the beleaguered opposition, and, as if putting on a new lipstick, declared that she would lead the struggle to get rid of the dictator. She now tried to call on the chief justice to express her sympathy but wasn’t allowed near his residence.

What would a principled leader have done instead, and what did she do with her party colleague who was one of the leading voices in the defense of the judiciary?

She could have followed the example of her imprisoned colleague Aitzaz Ahsan, but she was envious of him: he had become far too popular in Pakistan… Not a single message had flowed from her Blackberry to congratulate him on his victories in the struggle to reinstate the chief justice. Ahsan had advised her against any deal with Musharraf. When generals are against the wall, he is reported to have told her, they resort to desperate and irrational measures…The fact that Ahsan was proved right irritated her even more. Any notion of political morality had long ago been dumped. The very idea of a party with a consistent set of beliefs was regarded as ridiculous and outdated. Ahsan was now safe in prison, far from the madding hordes of Western journalists whom she received in style during the few days she spent under house arrest and afterwards. She made a few polite noises about his imprisonment, but nothing more.

Where was marriage broker?

Negroponte spent some time with Musharraf and spoke to Benazir, still insisting that they make up and go through with the deal. She immediately toned down her criticisms, but the general was scathing. Had she remained loyal to him she might have lost public support, but he would have made sure she had a substantial presence in the new parliament.

And we all know now of course, that Nawaz Sharif came back not much later, and polls showed him with a lead over Benazir. When Nawaz tried to call her (and I am hard-pressed to accept his sincere intentions) to convince her to boycott elections, Benazir in essence refused. In effect, the boycott was left to Imran Khan and other minor players, the few politicians taking principled stands and instep with the deposed judges. Here was yet another opportunity to choose principles over politics and power. But it wasn’t for Benazir. She was going to fight the elections, principles (and Pakistan’s independent judiciary) might as well go to hell.

Here we return back to Fisk’s article, where he highlights the latter parts of Tariq Ali’s excellent account:

Tariq Ali dwelt at length on the subsequent murder of Murtaza Bhutto by police close to his home at a time when Benazir was prime minister – and at a time when Benazir was enraged at Murtaza for demanding a return to PPP values and for condemning Benazir’s appointment of her own husband as minister for industry, a highly lucrative post…

When Murtaza’s 14-year-old daughter, Fatima, rang her aunt Benazir to ask why witnesses were being arrested – rather than her father’s killers – she says Benazir told her: “Look, you’re very young. You don’t understand things.”

So, Benazir is dead. So are her brothers. One murdered when she herself was PM, amid mysterious circumstances. Where do we go from here? Fisk continues…

George Bush announced on Thursday he was “looking forward” to talking to his old friend Musharraf.

So, of course, we were asked to concentrate once more on all those ” extremists” and “terrorists”, not on the logic of questioning which many Pakistanis were feeling their way through in the aftermath of Benazir’s assassination.

With Benazir’s killing, would the hated elections that no one wants still go on? Probably not, especially considering that one of the main candidates is gone, Fisk argues. And then Fisk boils out down to simple logic, in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman’s notebook before he became the top cop in London. So, I’ll let Fisk take us to the finish-line:

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan?
Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir’s supporters this month?
Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month?
Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month?
Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a “murderer” were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.

Related Posts on MM:

Imad Shaykh is one of the founders of MuslimMatters, Inc. His identity is shaped by his religion (Islam), place of birth (Pakistan), and nationality (American). By education, he is a ChemE, topped off with an MBA from Wharton. He has been involved with Texas Dawah, Clear Lake Islamic Center and MSA. His interests include politics, cricket, and media interactions. Career-wise, Imad is in management in the oil & gas industry (but one who still appreciates the "green revolution").



  1. Amad


    December 28, 2007 at 11:07 PM

    I think Fisk always does a fantastic job of stepping back and discriminating between truth and the “official narrative”

  2. Avatar

    Irum Sarfaraz

    December 29, 2007 at 12:13 AM

    Excellent piece. All this ‘martyr’ and ‘shaheed’ business had really started to irk me. Glad to see someone separate the myth from the reality. Who doesn’t love a hero? Lets just make sure we love the right ones.

  3. Avatar


    December 29, 2007 at 1:23 AM

    Thank you for the article, while it may not be good to talk bad about regular common run of the mill people after they have passed —accurate and clear analyses of political and public figures are different – because we have to learn from history, and not allow it to be corrupted…. actually, we are required to learn from history. Furthermore, we are talking about someone who was oppressive towards the people of Pakistan, perhaps towards her own brother – such individuals’ historical roles have to be examined.

  4. Avatar


    December 29, 2007 at 2:56 AM

    Subhanallah! WoW What is the Ummah gonna do, May Allah have mercy on the Ummah and protect the believers and those on the right path from the oppression and the torture both physical, and mental.
    So depressing(not the so much the killing but the aftermath of it)

  5. Avatar


    December 29, 2007 at 8:47 AM

    “I am not particularly enthused at discussing Benazir’s checkered past, considering that she is dead and that Islamically, we avoid talking about someone’s shortcomings after their passing.”

    How about just stopping there for now? At least let the mud on her grave dry and then you can weigh in with the excellent research and analysis to show just how checkered her checkered past is.

    Sitting in Pakistan all I can see is that regardless of political affiliation, from the common man to the sharpest critics, people have been magnanimous enough to not speak ill of the woman at this time. And that is not the “official” narrative – this is the word from the street.

  6. Pingback: Indigo Jo Blogs

  7. Amad


    December 29, 2007 at 3:34 PM

    Folks, Jawad is my “real” elder brother so I have to be reserved in my reply :) esp. since this was his first comment… So welcome to our little domain.

    I would have loved to stay away from the factual historical discussion of BB’s past, until as you mentioned, the mud dried… But you see, just like the time it takes to dry mud, often such momentous stories and the hype around them are short-lived in the memories of most world people, esp. outside Pakistan. And cult personalities and dogma tend to stick almost like mud, excuse the analogy.

    If we let the “knight-savior” narrative remain unchallenged and allow it to dominate (which it still is), then it will be very difficult to “unstick” it. To separate fact from fiction. History is being made right now, and I want to make sure I do my minute bit to rectify the “official” narrative.

  8. Avatar


    December 29, 2007 at 10:50 PM

    Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month?
    Answer: General Musharraf.

    Question: Who declared martial law this month?
    Answer General Musharraf.

    Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

    Er. Yes. Well quite.

    Conflating unconnected facts to impute blame is a logical fallacy. This is what people like me refer to as a “Fiskie”, a form of yellow journalism Mr. Fisk has resurrected. It’s too bad, because Mr. Fisk has his good moments, too.

    In his better moments Mr. Fisk might have written something to the effect that Mushy will never get over what happened to Bhutto on his watch, that he is making a mistake by expecting all Pakistanis to be fair to him, so he should resign forthwith, the only question being can Pakistan endure his absence without all the letters of its acronym falling apart.

  9. Avatar


    December 29, 2007 at 11:42 PM

    And the icing on the cake is the denial of Betullah Mashud for the assasination. Now who killed Benazir will be a topic for all the conspiracy theroists in the world. Another assasination without the name of murderer. Amazing huh!

  10. Avatar


    December 30, 2007 at 5:09 AM

    We need to learn from History. That’s what the History is for. But any analysis any conclusion we make, needs to be done with all integrity and honesty. Leading/misleading others with our comments can be as destructive as the original act. So please make careful assessment.

  11. Avatar


    December 30, 2007 at 8:38 AM

    To correct the statement that “bhutto was killed in a terrorist attack” this appears not to be the case. In fact, it seems she was not hit with a single bullet or shrapnel!

    smells fishy. hmmm

  12. Avatar

    Irum Sarfaraz

    December 30, 2007 at 11:41 AM

    You are absolutely right Lubna and in my opinion narratives such as these serve exactly this purpose; they lay out all the facts for people to make distinction between the ‘hero’ and the ‘non-hero’. I know the proverbial mud hasn’t dried on her grave but those millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts and the beyond-lavish life style are thorns in my side.

  13. Avatar


    December 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM

    It is quite interesting. I was speaking to a non-desi friend abt BB’s assassination and its aftermath so she asked me, “was she really a good leader?!” I had a good laugh. The western media coverage is way too gradiloquent.

  14. Avatar

    abu abdurrahman

    December 30, 2007 at 12:30 PM

    I live in Pakistan

    There were three main stories about her death published in Pakistan since the news got out of her death.

    1. The first was that a suicide bomb killed her “amid firing”. This was Musharraf’s version when he first appeared on TV following her death. It was a written speech which he had to look at the paper every other second. He mentioned that it was the work of suicide bombers and terrorists who killed her. CNN also tried to show this version by saying that she died by a suicide bomb even though its reporters told otherwise. This story was also endorsed by secularists and the anti-militants.CNN also tried to say it was the work of ‘religious parties’ clearly indicating Jamaat Islami and Jamaat Ulema-i-Islam. JI is boycotting the elections and JUI has more to lose than win since the PPP are not very strong in NWFP where JUI holds its only significant strength.
    2. The second more seemingly-accurate report which appeared a little later but was soon all over the local news was that she popped her head out of the sunroof to wave to supporters and then seeing the chance the assassin killed her by three bullets. One in the head, two in the neck. At one point, Aaj TV even mentioned that the assassin shot five bullets and then, another person used a report control bomb to kill the assassin. Though most channels were saying this, they kept on switching back and forth between the two stories in apparent pressure from the government.Later on, this was endorsed by an eye-witness(in Dawn on Friday) and by Amin Fahim, the PPP vice chairman who sat next to her in the car.
    3. Apparently, the first government-imposed story was too inaccurate and vague. And you the rest of the world had gotten the video with the gunshots. So the government created a new story. The bullets missed her, the force of the explosion hit her and while she was coming back down in the car, the LEVER of the sunroof hit her and was the cause of her death. PROOF: They had an x-ray of her head and the video you all got hours before the people of Pakistan did. Oh yeah, the GEO logo was missing. After this, they had a transcript from Baitullah Mehsud (the Taliban commander in Pakistan) congratulating some “Maulana” for the assassination. Interestingly, it also included Mehsud’s location. Last was a NEW report from the doctor saying she was not killed by bullets(as he previously said) but by a concussion from the LEVER.

    Why hide the truth in the first place? Is it because of a hidden agenda?

  15. Amad


    December 31, 2007 at 5:14 AM

    Fisk is one of the finest journalists and courageous truth-speaker the world has seen. Obviously solomon you’d like to take a digg at him where possible, because he has been consistently uncovering the truth on Israel’s state-terrorism and brutalism in the occupied territories.

  16. Avatar

    Abu Abdurrahman

    December 31, 2007 at 9:41 AM

    ..Err..there’s more than one Abu Abdurrahman at MM? (Im sure the brother used to spell it abdur rahman)

    Anyway – from London – it seems most coniving of politicians of BRown’s ilk to be suddenly making such a big noise about Benazir’s death calling it an staggering blow to democracy in Pakistan.

    It was governments such as their’s that in reality are to blame for such upheaval!

  17. Avatar


    December 31, 2007 at 11:20 AM

    You aren’t disagreeing with what I wrote, Amad, merely imputing my motives. So I take it you agree with me 100%!

  18. Pingback: Regarding Muslims — Geography, Telecast

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

#Current Affairs

Malaysians Ask China To Free Uyghurs, Close The Camps

Hena Zuberi



Free Uyghur Malaysia

By Gulnaz Uighur

Muslims are standing up for Uyghurs, protests held in Malaysia.

5th of July could be just like another day for people but for Uyghurs, it brings back dark memories of a bloody past. This day, in 2009, thousands of Uyghur students were massacred by Chinese police in Urumqi. These young students were demanding an investigation into the rising number of homicides in a toy factory. These people only wanted justice. They were also upset by the ongoing discrimination in the employment sector. Graduates were denied jobs because of their Uyghur ethnicity. After the protests, China started abducting the Uyghur youth and no one knows where the missing went. Its been 10 years since that horrifying incident and the condition of Muslims have devolved in a genocidal nightmare.

Communist Government in China Has over 2 Million Uyghurs in Concentration Camps

Beijing has now locked over 2 million Uyghurs in concentration camps. People in these places are forced to denounce Islam, forget the teachings of Quran, prohibited from praying, asked to learn Xi Jinping’s speech and tortured for not obeying these orders. Sadly, Islam is being treated as a disease in China and most of the Islamic nations are turning a blind eye to it.

So Malaysia came as a breath of fresh air when Muslim NGOs organized an anti-China protest against Uyghur persecution.

On 5th July 2019, a coalition of 34 Malaysian NGOs gathered outside the Chinese Embassy in Kuala Lumpur to protest the persecution of Uyghurs. The organizations prepared a memo of protest to be submitted to Chinese officials. In the memo, they demanded Beijing to ‘Respect the human rights of the Uyghur people, in particular, their right to life and freedom of religion and belief.’ , ‘immediately stop the persecution and extreme repression of the Uyghur people.’ and close the camps. They also called upon the International community to increase the voices of protest and disfavour upon the Chinese government and to work together to improve the situation for the Uyghur people through concrete actions.

The protesters shouted slogans like ‘Me Too Uyghur’ and ‘Save Uyghur’. In a media interview, president of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim), Mohamad Raimi Abdul Rahim asked immediate freedom for all those who have been detained in concentration camps.

Malaysians Stand With Uyghurs

Abim secretary Muhammad Faisal Abdul Aziz accused the Chinese government of concealing the plight of the Uyghurs by offering NGOs and government agencies free trips and painting a rosy picture of the camps. Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, chairman of the Malaysian Consultative Council Of Islamic Organizations (Mapim), said the atrocities committed against the Uyghurs could not be denied or disguised. The Group of NGOs also included Ikram Association and the Malaysian Youth Council among others.

Though no Chinese official came out to accept the memo, the message was clear that now people won’t keep quiet about the Uyghur persecution. There is a dire need for Muslim countries to break their silence on this issue. There is enough evidence to prove that something unholy and inhumane is happening with Uyghurs. If these countries consider China their friend then ask it to stop being a Shaitan. The leaders must realize that their first duty is towards the Ummah and not towards China.

Now is the time to stand for Uyghurs before nothing is left to be saved.

This protest in  Malaysia has proved that people in Muslim countries do support Uyghurs even if their governments are silent and are upset with Beijing’s policies. This event proved that governments may fail to fight but people won’t.

Continue Reading

#Current Affairs

The Environmental Cost Of War With Iran

Abu Ryan Dardir



war with Iran

Report after report shows how planet Earth may reach a point of no return. An analysis written by Ian Dunlop claims the planet cannot be saved by the mid-century if we continue on this path. And yet here we are marching towards a war with Iran.

When we think of climate change, we rarely think of war. On June 12th, 2019, Brown University released a report declaring the Department of Defence to be “the world’s largest institution to use petroleum and correspondingly, the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.” Burning jet fuel for transportation of troops and weapons make up 70 percent of the Pentagon’s emissions.  Ironically, earlier this year the Pentagon released a 22-page report to Congress stating the ⅔ of their mission-essential installation in the US are vulnerable to flooding, and ½ are susceptible to wildfires. To no surprise, Trump rejected those findings at the time. The Pentagon is now concerned with the impact climate change has on their “foreign missions.”

war, iran, America, Climate change, pentagonWith tensions high with Iran, and several thousand troops are expected to be deployed, if war with Iran is to happen, it may lead us to a more damaged planet that may not recover. This makes the Pentagon guilty of killing people and the earth. The Department of Defense has consistently used between 77-80% of the entire US energy consumption. We see spikes during times of massive war (since America is in a constant state of war), like in 1991, 2001, and so on.

Here is a list of the seven significant sources of greenhouse emissions done by the Department of Defense:

  1. Overall military emissions for installations and non-war operations.
  2. War-related emissions by the US military in overseas contingency operations.
  3. Emissions caused by US military industry   — for instance, for production of weapons and ammunition.
  4. Emissions caused by the direct targeting of petroleum,   namely the deliberate burning of oil wells and refineries by all parties.
  5. Sources of emissions by other belligerents.
  6. Energy consumed by reconstruction of damaged and destroyed infrastructure.
  7. Emissions from other sources, such as fire suppression and extinguishing chemicals, including   Halon, a greenhouse gas, and from explosions and fires due to the destruction of non-petroleum targets in warzones.

This impact on the climate is just the portion from America, in the Iraq war, 37 countries fought alongside America, and 60 are allied against ISIS. There is a way to calculate those emissions as well.

The Rules of War

Before engaging in battle, the Prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) instructed his soldiers:

  1. Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person. (Sunan Abu Dawud)
  2. Do not practice treachery or mutilation. (Al-Muwatta)
  3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees. (Al-Muwatta)
  4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food. (Al-Muwatta)
  5. If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam. (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
  6. Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
  7. Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle. (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
  8. Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience. (Sahih Muslim)
  9. No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire. (Sunan Abu Dawud).
  10. Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and not to do wrong even if they commit evil. (Al-Tirmidhi)

A verse in the Holy Qur’an

4:75 (Y. Ali) And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!”

How does this potential war against Iran play into all this?

Our first call to action is to organize an anti-war rally. This type of work is weak in America, and virtually non-existent within the Muslim community.

فَقَالَ أَبُو سَعِيدٍ أَمَّا هَذَا فَقَدْ قَضَى مَا عَلَيْهِ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ مَنْ رَأَى مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُنْكِرْهُ بِيَدِهِ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الإِيمَانِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ ‏.‏

Abu Sa’eed said: ‘As for this, he has fulfilled what is upon him. I heard the Messenger of Allah ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) saying: ‘Whoever among you sees an evil, then let him stop it with his hand. Whoever is not able, then with his tongue, and whoever is not able, then with his heart. That is the weakest of faith.”‘

War with Iran will be a Greater Mistake than War with Iraq

Historically, anti-war sentiment in America has grown over the years. When the Iraq war first started only 23% thought it was a mistake, today it is close to 60% that believe the war is a mistake. Yes, this is in hindsight, but that it is also growth. The reason the anti-war movement is feeble in America is that there is no platform for the campaign to grow. Both parties are guilty of starting wars or taking over the wars from the past administration. Whether we do it alone as an individual or as a group, we should do everything we can as privileged members of this planet to save and protect those that can’t defend themselves.

There is a famous quote of the famed boxer Muhammad Ali when explaining why he wasn’t fighting in the war. He said, “…I am not going ten thousand miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would put my prestige in jeopardy and could cause me to lose millions of dollars which should accrue to me as the champion.”

Fighting Earth

With that said, there is a significant interest in the region for more than just fuel and resources. It is truly a problem, our operations in the Gulf is to address our dependency on Persian oil, and the fuel that is used to address our dependence is to protect those resources and access to them. One estimate is that America spends $81 billion annually defending the global oil supply. They do this because the DOD feels its dependency will make it vulnerable on a larger scale.

In 1975 America decided to take away the fear of losing the resources and developed the “Strategic Petroleum Reserve,” and in 1978, they created the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF). Their only purpose was to defend US interest in the Middle East. This, in turn, leads to extractivism of resources and supplies. (Which will be explained in a future article).

This war can be the end of all wars as it can accelerate us to the point of no return in regards to climate change.

A war with Iran is a war with Earth and all who live on it.

Continue Reading

#Current Affairs

5 Quick Things Americans Can Do For Uyghurs Today

Abu Ryan Dardir



“I may die, but let it be known that my nation will continue their struggle so long the world continues to exist.” Kazakh leader Uthman Batur. He said these words as Chinese authorities executed him for resisting the communist occupation. Currently, China has, one million Uyghurs (Uighurs), Kazakhs, and other Muslim minorities held in concentration camps in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) (East Turkistan) in northwestern China.

Their struggle surpasses the 10 or so years since we have become aware of it. Just like the Rohingya genocide, we waited till the last minute. We are always late and say, “Never Again.” It happens again and again.

In my lifetime, there have been horrendous genocides that could have been prevented to stopped. As a child, I remember Rwanda in the headlines, then a year later Bosnian genocide. Then we hear these demonic stories after the fact. I remember stories from survivors from Bosnia, and thinking to myself, “How are you here and functioning?”

Let us not be fooled to why this is happening now. It is related to economic advantages. The Chinese government’s present signature foreign policy initiative is the “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) that seeks to connect the PRC economically to the rest of the Eurasian continent through massive infrastructure projects that will stimulate international trade. The western and south-western components of the BRI require the XUAR to serve as a transportation and commercial hub to trade routes and pipelines that will join China with Central and South Asia, the Middle East, and the entirety of Europe. As a result, the XUAR has become an important strategic region for the Chinese, and the state views its indigenous populations as an obstacle to developing its vision for this future critical center of international commercial networks.1

The expansion of their trade route also ties in Iran hence the sanctions placed, but that’s a different report for a different time. China, of course, has defended their actions by claiming its an anti-terrorism plan. Getting reliable information is hard. China has made it a point to make things difficult for reporters. Yanan Wang, a China-based journalist from the Associated Press, has reported extensively on and from Xinjiang.

In a ceremony at Asia Society on Tuesday commemorating AP’s 2019 Osborn Elliott Award for Excellence in Journalism on Asia, Wang described the subtle ways government minders worked to thwart her reporting: “(Both of the times we went there we arrived at the airport, we had a welcoming committee from the local authorities. They’re always very polite and professional. They say that “you’ve arrived in Xinjiang and we’re here to assist you in your reporting. Tell us what you’re working on so we can help you.” They offer us drives in their car and plenty of hospitality.

Basically, from the moment we arrive, we’re followed by at least one car. There are a bunch of interesting scenarios that we came across. You can see that the local handlers are trying hard to be professional. They are members of the propaganda department, so they’re PR professionals. They don’t want to make it appear like it’s so stifling. At one point, we were taking photos, and someone suddenly appeared on the scene to say he was a “concerned citizen.” He said he’d seen us taking photos and that it was an infringement of his privacy rights. He had this long monologue about privacy rights and about how it wasn’t right for us to take photos of him without his knowledge. We asked him, “Well, where are you in these photos?” and he’d go through all of them. He said we had to delete all of them. He’d say, “This is my brother,” or “This is my place of work, you have to delete it.”

They had all of these interesting tactics to work around the idea that they were trying to obstruct our reporting and make it appear that someone who claims to be a concerned citizen.)”2

On top of that, locals that talk to journalist are punished, sometimes go missing.

I decided to do something this time around; I got in touch with an Uyghur community near my residence to see how an individual could help. It started at a Turkic restaurant, and from there, I have been involved in whatever capacity I am able. Through this effort, I got in touch with a Turkic professor in Turkey who has students stranded as they are cut off from contacting family back in Xinjiang. He helps them out financially; my family and friends help with what they can.

As Muslims in the West, there is no doubt we should act. Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said “Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest of faith” (Muslim).

How Can You Help Uyghurs

Here are a few things you can do to help:

1. Ask Congress to pass To pass S.178 & H.R.649 Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019. Urge your senator and representative to support this cause. It has been introduced. This bill can help the Uyghur community to be treated like Tibetans (another region oppressed by China).

2. Stay informed. The mainstream media is not the place to get accurate information on the situation. Be skeptical of where the data is coming from, stick to reliable sources that are verified. As mentioned above, journalists find it difficult to report.

3. Donate to Uyghur Human Rights Organizations to end concentration camps: UHRP, Uyghur American Association  Donate to Awareness Campaigns: Save Uigur Campaign 

4. Boycott or reduce buying Made in China products

5. Follow these links for updated information: and

This crisis is an ethnic cleansing for profit. These are dark days as we value profit over people.

1.Statement by Concerned Scholars on mass detentions | MCLC …. s/

2.Why It’s So Difficult for Journalists To Report From ….

Continue Reading