A brotherly reminder to internal opponents of the Islamic State

Abu Dharr

Muharram 15, 1431 2010-01-01

Opinion

by Abu Dharr (Opinion, Crescent International Vol. 38, No. 11, Muharram, 1431)

This year the Islamic Revolution in Iran turns 31; this means 31 years of independence, change, struggle, and accomplishments. What has emerged through the course of these 31 years, which in the lifespan of nations is still tiny, is the fact — unbeknown only to Zionists, sectarians, and all those who are blinded by hostility — that Islamic Iran is Zionism and imperialism’s number one enemy. It took three decades for an Islamic-centered Iran to bring the Israeli and American governments out into the open so that everyone can see how hateful and violent they are when it comes to Islamic self-determination. Those who are just waking up to this fact should be reminded that in the entire Muslim world, Islamic self-determination is located only in Iran.

We have not seen the end of it yet; the regimes in Washington and Tel Aviv still have scenarios of violence in their strategies. Ever since last summer’s elections in Islamic Iran, political characters in the capitals of Zionism and imperialism could not help but express which side they were on. They came out full of praise for the seditious class whom they characterized as the “reformers.” CNN, the BBC, and FOX among many other media mouthpieces were angling their cameras on their pet conversational partners such as Karim Sadjadpour, Trita Parsi, Ray Takeyh, and a few other Islamically dislocated “experts” to give their “informed opinion” about what is happening in Iran. And all of them, without exception, had their own way of predicting the end-days of the Islamic Republic!

It was political hog-time for these useful idiots whose chorus of boos was joined by the ideological harridan Maryam Rajavi, “This is a clear sign of the inevitable and imminent downfall of the ‘despicable’ clerical regime. All indications bespeak of the countdown of the regime’s downfall…”

We have been hearing this invective for the last three decades. And we will probably hear it for many more years to come. Elections took place in Afghanistan with clear and indisputable rigging, but no one seems to be overly concerned with fraudulent elections in American colonized Afghanistan, just next door to independent Iran. Why, then, are all the eyes and ears of the imperialist and Zionist regimes fixated on Iran? The answer is simple. Iran is Islamic; it is independent, and it is sovereign.

Has anyone picked up on the fact that the so-called liberal, democratic, and open media in the Israeli-American West did not have the courage to interview the “other side?” Everyone knows there are two sides to the issue in Iran. We ask, then, why were the spectators and listeners to the Western three-letter-media conglomerates presented with only one side of the issue? Enough said about the open-minded and tolerant media in the Zionist-centered West.

This leaves us with the credentialed persona who found themselves in “bad company.” Mr. Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mr. Mehdi Karrubi are probably the most visible among them. We wonder how they feel and what they have to say when they are presented with the fact that “their cause” is being championed by taghutis, “ziddi-velayati-faqih,” and out-and-out enemies of all that the Islamic Republic and the Islamic State stand for? Is the Islamic leadership in Iran as defective as to justify a convergence of “legitimate grievances” with fifth columnists and traitors?

The Islamic State will be tested today as it was tested almost 1,400 years ago. The test that we Muslims should know very well — and we do not need the nonsensical analyses of orientalists and their pupils here — is the danger of combining power and wealth. The combination of power and wealth in our early Islamic history resulted in the emasculation of an Islamic standard of governance (imamah, khilafah) into the dynasties and oligarchies commandeered by wealthy politicians.

The strength of an Islamic government is in the separation of those who have power from those who have wealth. This need not generate civil strife or “class warfare” as long as Islam is the reference point for all conscious and committed Muslims involved. In the early years after our revered Prophet (s), the terrible miscalculation of combining wealth and power put the whole Muslim Ummah on a slope of decline until we finally became stateless Muslims — as is the case with all Muslims of the world today, except the Muslims in Islamic Iran. The danger they face in Iran today is the same danger that Muslims in the third decade after the Prophet (s) faced: assimilation of the ruling class into the moneyed class. From our reading of the past 30-odd years there has not yet been such an event. There are individuals who are rich and in government. A close eye should be kept on them. Imam Khamene’i does not belong to the privileged class of society. He is so humble as not to speak of his modest status. But this does not give license to individuals with allegations and complaints to “take the law into their own hands.”

We request the thoughtful and honorable ex-officials to look very closely at themselves and at the critical juncture the Islamic State is passing through to ponder whether it serves the interests of the enemies who are barking loudly against Islamic Iran to solve internal differences by going into the streets and becoming a “cause celebre” for all the domestic and international enemies of the Islamic State?

We also appeal to you to re-read history in a non-sectarian way and ask yourselves whether your ranks are swelling with the “national-interest” types — the types that favored Mu‘awiyah, Banu Umayyah, and Banu al-‘Abbas many centuries ago? Is Mu‘awiyah, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ziyad, and the rest of these political felons specific to Arabians — with their “national interest” arguments and priorities — or are the Iranians and any other national or sectarian group capable of producing their likes?

Let us remind you, as brothers to brothers, that in the decade of the million martyrs, beginning with the dawn of the Islamic Revolution when your sons and our sons defended an Islamic political determination with their lives, those who made the supreme sacrifice did so to live in a state in which “committed Muslims are dignified” and “dual-loyalists are humiliated” — tu‘izzu biha al-Islama wa ahlah wa tudhillu biha al-nifaqa wa ahlah.

We think back throughout the past decades and recall with honor the lives of those who willingly and enthusiastically gave their lives for an Islamic state. We never thought, for one moment, that one day in the near future this Islamic State will gradually become a nation state, or a national state, or a nationalistic state. Those are Mu‘awiyah’s arguments. And some people are surprised as to why Mu‘awiyah ruled in the name of Islam while at cross purposes with the “spirit of Islam.” People at that time had their sense of the “national interest.” The rest is history.

A word to the wise: ask yourselves, why did one million Muslims give their lives in the first decade of the Islamic Revolution? Why did the prime minister of that time refuse, on a state visit to Turkey, to go to Mustafa Kemal’s (Ataturk) grave and follow protocol? Why did the commander in chief at that time say that the war has to be terminated, and if that decision is wrong, he will bear the consequences and be willing to be executed in the public square for that decision?

What if Imam ‘Ali had said, “If the people do not want us, we should abdicate our power positions?” Why did he go to Battle of al-Jamal, knowing that the national interest argument is all around? Why did he go to battle at Siffin, knowing that the national interest argument had picked up momentum?

Please, do not frivol away the historical accomplishments of the last 31 years.

And, please do not forget the million martyrs of the past, and be aware of the millions of martyrs in the future. As Islamic self-determination marches in, the “national interest” argument stands to be exposed. Please do not be on the wrong side of history today, when you were on the right side of history yesterday.