UNITED NATIONS Rights Head Warns Of 'Civil War' In Syria – Al-Jazeera Intl News

International community urged to take immediate action as UN's estimated death toll since protests began exceeds 3,000.

The number of people killed in Syria in violence related to protests against President Bashar al-Assad's government has now reached more than 3,000, the United Nations human rights chief has said, as she has called for "the international community to take immediate measures to protect the Syrian people".

Navi Pillay, the UN's high commissioner for human rights, expressed her deep dismay at the "remorseless toll of human lives", according to a statement released from the body's head office in Geneva on Friday.

"The number of people killed since the violence started in March has now exceeded 3,000, including at least 187 children. More than 100 people have been reported killed in the last 10 days alone," she said.

"In addition, thousands have been arrested, detained, forcibly disappeared and tortured. Family members inside and outside the country have been targeted for harassment, intimidation, threats and beatings.

"As more members of the military refuse to attack civilians and change sides, the crisis is already showing worrying signs of descending into an armed struggle."

"The Government of Syria has manifestly failed to protect its population. Furthermore, it has ignored the international community's calls to co-operate with international investigations," the UN human rights chief said.

Meanwhile, activists said at least 9 people were killed in demonstrations across the country on Friday and that the number was expected to rise, Al Jazeera's Rula Amin reported from Beirut in neighbouring Lebanon.

   "The demonstrations spread from Dera'a in the south to the central part of the country in Homs, in Idlib, and to the eastern part in Deir Azzour," Amin said.

"The slogans today were of course, the toppling of the regime, a call on Syrian officers and soldiers to refuse orders to shoot and a call on international community to provide help and to provide protection for civilians."

International action

Pillay said that the international community must take "protective action in a collective and decisive manner", before the violence drives Syria into "a full-blown civil war".

"Sniping from rooftops, and indiscriminate use of force against peaceful protesters - including the use of live
ammunition and the shelling of residential neighbourhoods - have become routine occurrences in many Syrian cities," Pillay said.

Such call by the UN human rights commissioner "will mean very good news for the [Syrian] people, because it will add pressure on the international community to do something," but it is unclear what exactly they expect the world to do, our correspondent Rula Amin said.

Some say they do want military intervention and even welcome it because of the intensity to which Assad has cracked down on the population with violence, Amin said.

"They're talking about no fly zones, to stop the Syrian military and the government from using planes and tanks."

However, one member of the coalition of opposition groups, said the struggle against the Assad regime must remain peaceful.

"There is a pull by some people to take the country towards armed resistance, [but] most people disagree," said Louay Safi, the chair of the political office of the Syrian National Council (SNC).

"The council itself believe the best option it to have unarmed resistance - a peaceful resistance."

"We should avoid civil war at all costs and we believe the regime will fall if the people continue opposing it and the world stops giving support [to the government] from the outside," Safi added.

Arab League

Arab League foreign ministers will hold an emergency meeting on Sunday to discuss the ongoing unrest in protest-hit Syria, Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh said.

The meeting will "apparently look into what measures they can take against the Syrian regime, after it has refused all recommendations put forward by the League in their last meeting on Syria" ... including a list of political reforms and dispatching a fact-finding mission from the League, an Arab League source said, according to Rageh.

The 22-member Arab League has not yet approved the request but such meetings need only the approval of two members to take place.

Six member states of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) called for such a  meeting on Thursday, demanding on the need address "the situation in Syria, which has deteriorated sharply, particularly in its humanitarian dimensions, and steps that could help end the bloodshed and halt the machine of violence".

In a meeting on September 13, Arab foreign ministers met in Cairo and called on the Syrian authorities to "immediately stop the bloodshed," drawing a testy response from Damascus.

Nabil al-Arabi, the Arab League chief, had met Assad three days earlier and presented him with a 13-point document outlining Arab proposals for reform.

Source:http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101492410996889.html

The making of the modern maulvi By Ajmal Kamal Tribune Opinion & Analysis

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi opposed the Khilafat movement so fiercely that he was willing to sacrifice his life for the cause of opposing it. His Malfoozat have the following entry concerning the events. “During the peak days of the Tehreek-e-Khilafat, fiery people were in a state of great rage. There was fire all around. Matters came to such a pass that in addition to abuses, condemnations and sundry allegations, I began receiving letters containing death threats in case I did not join it. Hazrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (RA), out of his extreme fondness for me, sent a special envoy to me with his advice that I should consider the dangerous times and if I decided to participate just a little bit only formally, there was room [in the religious sense]. I sent my reply that what he said certainly showed his affection, but the biggest threat was that of losing one’s life, for which I was prepared. However, I was neither willing to participate without being convinced [of the movement being correct] nor could I participate outwardly and remain aloof from the inside, as I considered it hypocrisy. So, behamdillah, I am alive and well before you today. These people have made it like a game for little girls: Either do as we do, or else get killed. During those days I went to the jungle as was my morning routine. On my way I met a Hindu Rajput old man, also from Thana Bhavan. The old-fashioned and elderly Hindus too have affection for me. He said, Maulvi-ji, do you have any idea what kind of things are being proposed for you? You should not come to the jungle alone like this. I said, Chaudhry, I know that, and I also know something that you do not know. He asked me what that was. I said, Without His order nobody can do anything. Despite being Hindu, he was so impressed by it that he exclaimed, Maulvi-ji, you may go wherever you feel like without any jokham (danger). For a man like you, jungle and mountains are no different from home.”

The leaders of the Khilafat movement, apart from collecting donations for the aid of the Ottoman Turks (which, according to reports, never made it to them), asked the Indian Muslims to quit their military or civilian jobs with the British colonial government because it was involved in a world war in which the Ottoman Khalifa had chosen to be in the opposite camp. Apart from producing a lot of sound and fury, such appeals remained largely ineffective, and the process of socio-economic change, initiated as a result of the policies of the colonial government continued. Thanvi, obviously, was opposed to any such adventure. Not only was his brother a district-level employee of the government, a large number of his mureeds and even khulifas, including his official biographer, were in the service of the government.

An offshoot of the same Khilafat movement was what is calledTehreek-e-Hijrat. Although Thanvi chooses to blame the Congress for it, fact is that it was the Deobandi maulvis belonging to Jamiat-ul Ulema-e-Hind (JUH) who, in their infinite wisdom, declared the subcontinent unfit for Muslims to live. They issued a religious fatwafor the shurafa Muslims, who could not undertake jihad against the British government for obvious reasons, to migrate to Afghanistan. The fatwa was obviously not directed at the vast majority of South Asian Muslims who were converts from lower castes and had no reason to feel any historical, ancestral or strategic affiliation with Afghanistan. Perhaps we could discern in this fantastic fatwa of the modern followers of Shah Waliullah an early version of what we today know as ‘strategic depth’, according to which it is presumed that the poor Afghans have a duty to let their land be used to enable ‘us’ to realise our regional, international, Pan-Islamic or whatever dream. Thousands upon thousands of starry-eyed Muslims sold their property and crossed the northwestern border into Afghanistan. The Afghans and their King Amanullah Khan, who could have no truck with the peculiar worldview of the Indian maulvis, felt that their country was unable to host so many uninvited guests, and so the borders were sealed to stop further migration. Those who had already landed there met a tragic fate, many of them even losing their lives.

When commenting on the ideas of Hijrat and quitting government jobs in his Malfoozat, Thanvis does not challenge the religious interpretation which provided the basis of the JUH fatwa. Curiously enough, he avoids even mentioning it. Instead he blames some ‘resolution’ (probably a Congress resolution) for it. He writes: “In the times of the Khilafat movement, a resolution was passed for Hijrat. Muslims stood up saying labbaik to it. Thousands of Muslims were made homeless as a result. Everyone knows its effect on the community (zaat) of Muslims. Then it was advised that they should quit government jobs. Those who had lost their minds (‘jin ki matain mari gayi theen’) left their jobs. The vacancies created by Muslims leaving their jobs were filled by Hindus. Many of them have still not found employment (‘ab tak jootian chatkhate phirte hain’). I receive letters in which people write that they had taken that stupid step then, and till now they are jobless and worried.”

Another tragic incident that took place as a result of Khilafat movement, which has been all but forgotten by our North-centric historians, was the armed rebellion of the Moplah Muslims in the southern region of Malabar in which around 10,000 people (including about 2,500 rebels) were killed, many more injured, and 20,000 deported to Kala Pani or the Andaman Islands. Thanvi comments on these events: “The nation (qaum) of Moplahs was destroyed by these leaders and the maulvis following them who lectured and flared them up. Their passions were aroused as they were of Arab descent. And then everyone knows what happened to them.”

Published in The Express Tribune, October 15^th, 2011.

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/273974/the-making-of-the-modern-maulvi--ix/

The pact of Hudaibya By Nilofar Ahmed

SOME time after the migration of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and his followers to Madina, the Makkans banned the entry of the believers in Makkah, even for the purposes of Haj or umrah. The Muslims yearned to visit the Kaaba to perform the pilgrimage. After about six years, the Prophet and some 1,500 of his companions started out for Makkah on Ziqa’ad 1, 6 AH, (628 CE), with the intention of performing umrah. They put on the ihram, recited the intention and thus entered the state of consecration.

They did not carry any weapons but the Makkans came to know of their approach and decided to block their path, even if it meant having to go to war. The Prophet decided to avoid confrontation and bloodshed, and to take a very rough and circuitous route. The Muslims camped at Hudaibya, located on the border of Makkah. They decided to negotiate with the Makkans to allow them the peaceful practice of their religion. The Makkans sent small gangs to attack the believers so that they would be incited to start a war. Otherwise they wanted them to turn back. The Prophet dealt with them with great patience and released the Makkans each time after arresting them. The Prophet sent Hazrat Usman as his envoy to the Makkans to convince them to send Suhail bin Umro to talk to him. After negotiations, the final pact, whose scribe was Hazrat Ali, was agreed upon and came to be known as the Sulah Hudaibya (the peace pact of Hudaibya). Some of its clauses were as follows: there would be peace for 10 years in which both parties would refrain from fighting; when a believer came to Makkah and Taif for the purposes of pilgrimage or trade, his life would be protected; if any Qureishi passed through the Muslim territory of Madina, his life would also be protected. The most difficult point to accept was that of one-sided extradition, and which stated that if a Qureishi who had converted to Islam was to escape from his guardian and reach the Prophet in Madina, he would be forced to go back, but if a Muslim renounced his faith and escaped to Makkah, the Makkans would not be obliged to return him.Besides these points, it was also declared that both parties would remain true to the pact; that they would not commit treachery and remain neutral in their wars with other parties; that the Bedouin tribes would be free to make friends with whichever party they pleased; that sacrificial animals would be sacrificed in Hudaibyah and not brought to Makkah; that rights and duties of both parties would be equal. It was also agreed that Muslims would return to Madina without performing umrah that year; that they would be allowed to come back the next year to perform the pilgrimage and be allowed to remain in Makkah for three days; that they would carry only a traveller’s weapon, and not weapons of war; that the Makkans would leave the city for those three days; and that when the Muslims returned, they would not be allowed to take anyone along with them. In this pact, the Prophet, through his wisdom, was able to keep the higher, far-reaching goals in mind. Some of his companions were outraged and found the accord degrading. They resisted coming out of ihram. The Prophet consulted his wife, Umme Salma. She advised him to go ahead and perform the acts needed to come out of the state of ihram himself. He followed her advice. As soon as his companions saw that, they followed suit.The Prophet was always true to his word. While still at Hudaibya, he encountered a difficult decision. Abu Jandal, a new convert, broke his fetters and came crying to him asking that he be rescued from the Makkans who were torturing him. Seeing his condition all the companions were enraged. But the Prophet kept his word and offered him no help, except taking a promise from Abu Jandal’s father that he would not be tortured. On their return to Madina, Muslims met Abu Busair, another new convert who had escaped from Makkah. His relatives demanded his return and the Prophet complied. Abu Busair later managed to escape again, hid in a gorge near Badar and kept attacking the caravans of the Makkans going to Syria.

Many other converts joined him and made it impossible for the caravans to pass that way. Frustrated, the Makkans themselves approached the Prophet to cancel the clause of one-sided extradition. The converts were now able to join the believers in Madina. While on his way back from Hudaibya, the Prophet received the revelation of the first verses of Surah Al-Fatah, in which Allah declared this pact to be a victory (48: 1). The companions later realised that the pact had had far-reaching, beneficial effects. That the Makkans signed an agreement with the Prophet showed that they had accepted him as the legitimate leader of a people and a state. Thus, through his wisdom, patience and farsightedness, the Prophet commanded respect, established his moral authority and brought about a peaceful settlement between people of different faiths through non-violence and sincere negotiations. n

The writer is a scholar of the Quran and writes on its relevance to contemporary issues.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/the-pact-of-hudaibya.html

Guardian UK: Iranians charged in US over plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador

US claims elements of Iranian government directed bomb plot with alleged involvement of Mexican drug cartel

US attorney general Eric Holder describes the "murder-for-hire" plot Link to this video

A dangerous confrontation was developing on Tuesday between the US and Iran after the Obama administration directly blamed the Iranian governnment for an alleged plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador and scores of others at a Washington restaurant with the help of a Mexican drug cartel.

The US attorney-general Eric Holder said Iran would be "held to account" over what he described as a flagrant abuse of international law. While the US says military action remains on the table, it is at present seeking instead to work through diplomatic and financial means to further isolate Iran.

The US Treasury department immediately imposed sanctions against five individuals allegedly linked to the plot.

The Iranian government reacted by dismissing the allegations, saying the US was expert at making false claims. "This is a fabrication," said a spokesman for the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Two men, one an an American-Iranian, Manssor Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian, have been charged in New York with the alleged "murder-for-hire" plot to pay a Mexican drug cartel to help assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador and close confidante of the Saudi king.

According to the US justice department, the aim was to bomb a restaurant in Washington frequented by Jubeir with the possibility of a hundred or more bystanders being killed in the explosion. US officials said the Iranians put a $1.5m price tag on the assassination.

The White House said Obama called Jubeir today to express solidarity between the US and Saudi Arabia in the face of "a flagrant violation of US and international law".

Arbabsiar appeared briefly in court in New York this afternoon, and was held without bail. Shakuri, who is alleged to be a member of the Quds Force, a special operations team inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is said by the US to be in Iran.

The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a "violation of international norms" and said she would discuss with allies in Europe and elsewhere round the world how to further isolate Iran.

The Saudi embassy in Washington described the alleged attempt to assassinate its Jubeir as "despicable".

Relations between the US and Iran have been tense for years over Tehran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear bomb. But the court case heightens tensions even further, introducing unpredictable elements such a risk of retaliation by Saudi Arabia.

The central question is whether a rogue element in Iran may have been involved or whether the alleged plot had been sanctioned by a senior leader. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, who was briefed in detail, reufsed to say whether Ahmadinejad had been involved but he insisted it was "an Iranian government sanctioned event".

Arbabsiar was arrested on September 29 at New York's JFK airport following a sting operation involving the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, speaking alongside Holder at a press conference in Washington, described the plot as "reading like a Hollywood script".

The justice department claimed Arbabsiar was working under the direction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

He allegedly met on a number of occasions in Mexico with a DEA confidential source who was posing as a member of the drugs cartel Zetas. The source, according to the indictment, had faced drugs charges in the past but these had been dismissed in return for him becoming a paid informer.

According to the justice department, Arbabsiar met with the DEA source in Mexico on May 24 where he discussed explosives and explained that he was interested in, among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia. They held further meetings in Mexico in June and July.

Arbabsiar allegedly arranged for $100,000 to the transferred into a bank account in the US for the supposed cartel member.

He is alleged to have told the DEA source that the assassination needed to go forward, despite possible mass casualties, telling him: "They want that guy [the ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him f**k 'em." The agent and Arbabsiar allegedly discussed bombing a restaurant in the United States that the ambassador frequented.

When the agent noted that others could be killed in the attack, including US senators who dine at the restaurant, Arbabsiar allegedly dismissed these concerns as "no big deal".

The use of a sting operation is likely to prompt scepticism about the extent, if any, of the Iranian government's involvement. Although the focus of media attention this year has been on the Arab Spring, the Pentagon, State Department and White House have all been increasingly worried about alleged nuclear developments in Iran.

Steve Clemons, a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst, said: 
"This is a serious situation - and this kind of assassination is the sort that could lead to an unexpected cascade of events that could draw the U.S. and other powers into a consequential conflagration in the Middle East."

The five facing US Treasury sanctions are: Arbabsiar and Shakuri; Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani; Hamed Abdollahi, a senior Quds Force official, who allegedly coordinated aspects of the plot; and Abdul Reza Shahlai, a Quds official also allegedly involved in the operation.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/11/iranians-charged-us-assassination-plot

Military ruler says Egypt in a critical phase

CAIRO: Egypt’s military ruler said on Thursday the country was going through a critical period, particularly on the security and economic fronts, and called for national unity to achieve a democratic state under civilian rule.Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, delivering a televised address to mark the 1973 war against Israel, also said disagreements and mistrust have plagued the period following the uprising that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak in February.

Protesters and political groups have widely criticised Tantawi for his reluctance to implement sweeping changes and dismantle elements of the former regime.

“Egypt is going through a critical period of its history. It is witnessing a comprehensive transformation of its national course … as changes and crises loom in the horizon,” Tantawi said. “People, despite their different political and non-political orientations, must realize the ramifications and what it takes to get out of that rough road.”

“Our great people … will be able to get over this critical and decisive phase of its history by agreeing on national goals, and protecting its unity and seeking a modern civil state based on sound democratic principles,” he said. He added that the ruling generals are working to overcome disagreements and mistrust that have plagued the transitional period, and address the looming economic and security problems.

Government officials have been sounding alarm bells about worsening economic indicators in Egypt since the revolt that toppled Mubarak on Feb. 11. They point to declining foreign reserves and tourism revenues, as well as a growing trend among local investors to withhold their cash because of uncertainty over the nation’s political and economic future.

A rise in crime and lawless has raised tensions in Egypt, where security forces have yet to redeploy in full since disappearing from the streets during the mass uprising.

Complicating the situation is growing mistrust between Egypt’s news political actors and the ruling generals, who took over from Mubarak in February. Activists and political groups are increasingly critical of the generals’ management of the transitional period, which they promised it would be a six-month period.

Eight months since Mubarak’s fall, the military rulers have yet to give a clear timetable of their plan for handing over power.

Instead, they have floated a proposal which would hold presidential elections by late next year. This prompted several presidential hopefuls to propose their own demands, asking the military to arrange for presidential elections by April.

Tantawi dismissed such claims on Wednesday, insisting the military rulers have no intentions of clinging to power.

Tantawi’s speech Thursday also provided him the opportunity to praise the role of the country’s armed forces, in the face of rising criticism of the military rulers. During the 1973 war, the Egyptian military recovered from its stinging defeat in the
1967 Mideast conflict — when Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and east Jerusalem — to attack the Israeli military and restore Egyptians’ faith in their military.

Fighter jets soared over the Nile in downtown Cairo to commemorate the anniversary Thursday, leaving a trail of red, blue and white smoke. “A salute to the great Egyptian people who were patient, and put up with burdens and challenges, and supporting its Armed Forces, trusting that its stronghold,” he said.

Some Egyptians, however, chose to commemorate the event with a visit to Mubarak, who was the nation’s air force chief during the 1973 conflict, at the hospital where he is staying during his trial over his alleged role in the killing of hundreds of protesters during the uprising.

Dozens of his supporters brought flowers and banners, one of which called Mubarak “The leader of war and peace,” a security official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media.—AP

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/07/military-ruler-says-egypt-in-a-critical-phase.html