How Can People Be So Stupid? Rotating Header Image

If Middle East Uprisings Are Really About Democracy, Why Is Al Qaeda So Happy?

If the uprisings in the Middle East are truly about the people wanting to institute democracy, why is al Qaeda applauding these moves? Since Islam is clearly incompatible with true democracy, as even a rudimentary understanding of Islam will tell a person and as many Muslim leaders have openly stated, it seems very strange that an organization so dedicated to the spread of Islam would be happy about the situation. But, you see, these revolutions have nothing to do with democracy, at least the kind of democracy invented by Plato and instituted by the Western, civilized world. No, every time you see the word democracy trumpeted by the likes of Al Jazeera and the useful idiots in the West like CNN, Fox, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, you should substitute the word sharia. That is because what a huge percentage of Muslims clearly want is really the freedom to impose sharia on everyone and re-establish the Caliphate.

A quick review of recent history has proven this to be true. Algeria had “democratic” elections, and Islamists were put in power. Gaza had “democratic” elections, and Hamas, a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of Israel, was put in power. In both of these countries, like everywhere Islam becomes powerful enough, sharia law is imposed on all of the residents of the country, resulting in the loss of rights of women and all non-Muslims. This is happening in Gaza and has been happening in Algeria. In another election, Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast (also known as Cote d’Ivoire) was “defeated” in an election by an Islamist from the Northern, primarily Muslim part of that country, Alassane Ouattara. Like most predominantly Muslim areas, the Northern part of the Ivory Coast was totally unproductive, economically, but it will now be imposing sharia law on the entire nation, unless Gbagbo can hold on to power. Since Muslims make up only about 39% (officially) of the population of the Ivory Coast, and represented nothing but a drain on it’s economy,  it is highly unlikely that they could have actually won an election, since the nation is predominantly Christian and African Traditional Religion. However, in recent years the Muslims have been encouraging the illegal immigration of millions of Muslims from neighboring nations in the hopes of illegally swaying the elections. (Just as Barack Obama wants to legalize all of the illegal immigrants from Mexico, better known as undocumented democrats.) The Ivory Coast has been wracked by violence for the last few months, and it does not look like it will end soon, since neither candidate is likely to compromise on a power-sharing arrangement. And, the UN has officially sanctioned the election which was internally found to have elected Gbagbo. (The Ivory Coast, although it had been predominantly non-Muslim, was a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the UN. Since it has 57 members, which is a significant percentage of all of the countries in the UN, it has a disproportionate control over the feckless, corrupt,  and largely useless United Nations.)

In the most recent issue of Inspire (Spring, 2011), the magazine of al Qaeda, there is an essay by Ayman al-Zawahiri, number 2 banana in al Qaeda. In it he gives his perspective on the uprisings in the Middle East.

O my respectable and honourable brothers: Indeed, what is taking place in Tunisia and Egypt, its influence has extended to Jordan, Yemen and the likes of the Muslim lands. These events have to be studied carefully in order not to waste the noble ones’ anger nor the uprising of the free people lest their reaping result is stolen, especially after having sacrificed their souls, blood and the years of their imprisonment in the process. These corrupt regimes are an inseparable part of the international system which is led by America that wages war on Islam and Muslims.
Hence, these governments are the authorized representatives of the super-powers and they are their supporters. In addition to carrying out and executing their policies – that include waging war against Islam and the Muslim women’s veil, the changing of educational curriculums, the
normalization of relations with Israel, the prevention of shari’ah’s rule, the theft of the ummah’s wealth – on account of that, the international superpowers advocate these national regimes, support them and overlook their crimes, oppression, subjugation, lies, falsifications and burglary. They replace them with others if they realize that these regimes aren’t able to fulfill their interests or that the corruption of these regimes has reached to such an extent where it’s
unacceptable. Also it might be that the continuation of their rule results in provoking the  people and inciting them to rise up in an uncontrollable manner. That is why America is leading
the international super-powers in taking the initiative to replace these regimes and take new faces as a substitute for the old faces which delude the masses with slight reformation and freedom; however, the interests of the supercilious and oppressive powers of the world remain maintained and well-protected.

And, why should he be so interested in oppressing women with the headscarf (or burka)? And why should he be so interested in the destruction of Israel? Because the insane, epileptic, megalomaniac, barbarian, pedophile inventor of Islam, Mohammad, commands him to do so in the Koran, hadiths, and Sunnah! (It is interesting to note that Mohammad commanded all women to be veiled, apparently, because he was impotent in his later life, and did not want other men to see the faces of his wives because he feared competition according to the very interesting book Understanding Muhammad a Psychobiography, by Ali Sina.)

Later in that same article, al-Zawahiri further stresses the imposition of sharia law, and the total unacceptability of a secular ruler such as Mohammad ElBaradei.

The secular al-Barada’ai who is prepared, well-ordered and qualified, is a substitute that frankly declares his secularism by saying that the second article of the constitution can be discussed again despite its deficiency and weakness. A substitute who was brought up and encompassed by the international law and is known by its commissioners. A substitute who doesn’t display any views on the normalization of relations with Israel nor the aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the blockade on Gaza, nor the Arab collective defence nor on the subsidization of  basic goods for the lower class, nor on the sale of the public sector and the country’s sufficiency  of essential productions. He is a substitute that resides in Vienna and visits Egypt in  his spare time. He came to Egypt on the third day of demonstrations and stated publicly that he  is ready to lead a caretaker government if the nation wanted that. I don’t know where will be the headquarters of this temporal government; is it going to be in Cairo, Vienna or New York?

In that same issue of Inspire, Anwar al-Awkaki, the American traitor and terrorist who inspired murderers such as Nidal Malik Hasan and wanna-be murderers such as  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, also weighed in on the situation in the Middle East, and how pleased he is with the situation.

Not ruling in accordance to the law of Allah was a sufficient enough reason for the removal of  Sadat but his signing of the peace accord with Israel added urgency to the mandate of his  removal. His assassination marks the first large-scale operation by the modern jihad movement. Hosni Mubarak proved to be no better. In fact he proved to be an eviler version of his predecessor. He went further with the persecution of the Muslim activists and mujahidin, and he furthered the process of turning Egypt into a client state of the West and Israel. Corruption increased under his rule and the gap between the rich and poor widened even more. This time he was removed, however, not by a selected few but by the entire population of the largest Arab state. Eighty million spoke with one voice and said “leave” to the ally of America and Israel.

For a long time the Muslim world has not suffered from such stagnancy in its forms of  government. Mubarak, Gadhafi, Ben Ali, Saleh, Assad and the kings of Morocco, Jordan and the Gulf have been a scourge on the ummah and many were seeing no end in sight. It was becoming an accepted, albeit an unwanted, reality that Mubarak would be followed by his son just like  Bashar followed his father and just like every other system of government in the Middle East,  whether it was a monarchy or a republic, was there to stay, was there forever. This spirit of  defeatism was widespread but was not universal. There were those who wanted change and  believed that it was not only possible but soon. Muslims who understood Islam never accepted  the  rotten systems of government that were wrapping the area in a cloak of tyranny. They wanted change and they worked for it. They paid the price for their struggle and defiance by losing their lives, living in exile and being imprisoned.

al-Awlaki later goes on to describe the reaction of the West. He says how surprised they were by the events in the Middle East (as was he). But, ominously, he also postulates that they either do not understand what is actually happening, or do not want to admit the truth. On that point, I agree. The West keeps trying to put the happy face of “democracy” on the uprisings in the Middle East, but the outcomes will be anything but  liberal, necessarily secular, democratic governments.

The Western leaders realize that it would be unwise to reveal their true feelings of what is happening. The West knows that it would be unwise to stand by their friends when the masses have spoken out and asked for freedom, a principle the West claims that it stands for. But it seems that the West either does not know what is awaiting them or does know but wants to put on an optimistic face. Let’s take a look at some of what the Western leaders and experts have been saying:

Hillary Clinton claims that: “The success of peaceful protests discredited the extremists and exposed their bankrupt arguments.” Robert Gates thinks that the Arab protests represent a major setback to al Qaeda. Fareed Zakaria asserts: “there is an interesting debate on whether the events in the Middle East are good for the United States, the West, good for peace and stability, but I think there can be little dispute about whom they are bad for: al Qaeda. In fact the Arab revolts of 2011 represent a total repudiation of al Qaeda’s founding ideology.” Peter Bergen who sees that al Qaeda would be watching the events with a mixture of glee and despair only sees the glee in the fact that al Qaeda would be happy to see the current regimes gone but would mostly view the events with despair because: “whatever outcome there is in these different revolutions and revolts, I think it is very unlikely that a Taliban style theocracy is going to replace the regimes that are fallen.”

The statements of the U.S. State and Defense Secretaries prove that either the intelligence reports these guys are reading are misleading or that they are just trying to justify the stance that they are forced to take in support of the Arab masses, by claiming that they are bad for al Qaeda when they know very well that the opposite is the case. In the case of Fareed Zakaria, well, he is wrong this time just like he, and his cabal of neoconservatives, are wrong every time they speak about an issue pertaining to the Muslim world.

But for a so-called ‘terrorism expert’ such as Peter Bergen, it is interesting to see how even he doesn’t get it right this time. For him to think that because a Taliban style regime is not going to take over following the revolutions, is a too short-term way of viewing the unfolding events.

We do not know yet what the outcome would be, and we do not have to. The outcome doesn’t have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction. Regardless of the outcome, whether it is an Islamic government or the likes of al-Baradi, Amr Mousa or another military figure; whatever the outcome is, our mujahidin brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation.

Personally, I suspect that we will see an Islamic theocracy installed in many of the Middle East countries, much like the Islamic theocracy that was installed in Iran after Iran’s “democratic” revolution in 1979 that overthrew the Shah. Of course, it will not be exactly like the Iranian theocracy, since the Arab Middle East countries are predominantly Sunni Muslim, while Iran is predominantly a  Shia Muslim country. But, you can be sure that sharia will be the law of the land, thus leading to the oppression of women and non-Muslims that is even worse than the situation that is currently existing in the Middle East under primarily secular tyrants. Already, in Egypt, we have seen the instances of Christian persecution stepped up, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the only large, organized party that could possibly come to power in the limited time that is being allowed for referendums, is calling for the country to break it’s peace treaty with Israel and to prepare for war.

As I have pointed out before, the self-proclaimed new leader of Libya, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, is obviously an Islamist. Also, it is known that a portion of the “opposition fighters” in Libya are members of al Qaeda, as well as Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has also been stirring the pot in most, if not all, of the uprisings in the Middle East, and may even end up going to war with Saudi Arabia over the control of Bahrain, which, while predominantly Shia, is ruled by a Sunni Monarchy.

Towards the end of al-Awlaki’s article, he again points out how even a renowned terrorism expert like Peter Bergen just doesn’t get it.

Peter Bergen believes that al Qaeda is viewing the events with glee and despair. Glee yes, but not despair. The mujahidin around the world are going through a moment of elation and I wonder whether the West is aware of the upsurge of mujahidin activity in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Arabia, Algeria, and Morocco? Is the West aware of what is happening or are they asleep with drapes covering their eyes? Or is what is happening too much for the West to handle at the moment and they are just bidding for time while attempting to prop up some new stooges who would return the area to the prerevolution era?

There is much more at stake in the Middle East than most Westerners realize. They have been either tricked, or lulled, into the belief that the uprisings in the Middle East are going to lead to the rise of secular democracies in that region. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

 

One Comment

  1. Zul says:

    You dont know what islam is until come the day of judgement. If women in islam is so opressed, why many of your women chose islam openheartedly? Because you the western men are the ones that make women the tools to satisfy your lust. Thousands of christian revert to islam every year every in the world and only that you dont see it or you dont intend to know the fact. If your secular style is so much democratic aans just why would the western intellectuals want to revert to islam? Or is it about oil in those arab countries that you are looking for?

Leave a Reply

Maximum 2 links per comment. Do not use BBCode.