For those who thought Iran was not under the will of America

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/11/for-those-who-thought-iran-was-not-under-the-will-of-america/

﷽

There are many who believe Iran have held firmly against the tide of American dominance in the Middle East. They believe Iran to be an underdog who will soon compete on a global scale with America alongside Russia and China. They claim their will is independent and Islamic. It is now starkly clear that their hopes have been dashed and the reality has settled to whom Iran serves. This article hopes to highlight recent actions by Iran after the JCPOA and to whom these actions benefit the most.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)[1] is an agreement between Iran and US, UK, China, Germany and France to disarm Iran of any nuclear capability that could be used for military purposes. It is seen as one of Obama's biggest achievements.

It states under the JCPOA that:

Iran welcome this historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which will ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful, and mark a fundamental shift in their approach to this issue. They anticipate that full implementation of this JCPOA will positively contribute to regional and international peace and security. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

This cooperation between Washington and Tehran raised many eyebrows in Iran where the population have historically been anti-American. Many knew from the onset that a deal with America would never be favourable for Iran. In fact, Rouhani publicly praised the lifting of the sanctions [2] and regularly mentioned that Iran had the better deal out of the two, in order to quell any concerns from the Iranian public. Officials in the U.S. as well as the Israeli's were quick to notice this and hounded Obama for the first couple of weeks [3], suggesting that he hastened into a deal and that Iran would continue with their nuclear aspirations.

It's not about the nuclear weapons...

The world was duped into thinking the JCPOA is just about halting nuclear proliferation but they failed to understand the bigger picture behind the agreements. Yes, the JCPOA will indeed hamper Iran's nuclear capability and remove yet another Middle Eastern and more importantly Muslim country from the list of nuclear weapon holders, but the main purpose behind it is to relieve Iran economically and allow Her to follow America's demands subserviently, namely to become the face of Shi'itism in order to spread deathly sectarianism across the Muslim world, leading to the Muslims utter destruction and demise.

US Officials promised that they would hold Tehran accountable if they continued to support terrorism yet it was conveniently left out of the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism as an action that could reintroduce the sanctions. John Kerry said:

"If we catch them funding terrorism, they're going to have a problem with the United States Congress and with other people, obviously." [4]

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said :

"Iran, the foremost state sponser of terrorism -- continues to exert its influence in regional crises in the Middle East through the International Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its terrorist partner Lebanese Hezbollah, and proxy groups...Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partners worldwide." [5]

How does it benefit the West if Iran continue to support terrorist activities? And where is the proof that they are doing such?

Tehran has made it clear that they are supporting groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Palestine. In the November report issued by Congressional Research Service "Iran has apparently sought to rebuild the relationship with Hamas by providing missile technology that Hamas used to construct its own rockets, and by helping it rebuild tunnels destroyed in the [2014] conflict with Israel." [6]

Counter air-strikes by "Israel" have frequently hit Hezbollah or IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) members, such as IRGC Gen. Mohammad Ali Allahdadi in the January 2015 Mazraat Amal Incident. Last month, the group's secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, bluntly declared that "Hezbollah gets its money and arms from Iran, and as long as Iran has money, so does Hezbollah."[7]

As mentioned before, Iran's role as the Shi'ites protector and leader is to further sectarianism in the Muslim lands, and it is evident from their explicit support for the Houthi's in Yemen, Shi'ite militia's in Iraq and Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

It comes as no surprise when CENTCOM Chief Gen. Joseph Votel said

Iran has become "more aggressive in the days since the agreement". [8]

If Iran indeed had its own will then it would have turned the game plan of the U.S. upside down by supporting Palestine militarily and removing the occupation rather than meagre token gestures of underhand arms deals with Hamas and PIJ. As the Head of the Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Division Ali Hajizadeh said "Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war" [9]. They would stop all funding of armed Shi'a militias that are going around slaughtering Muslims. They would disobey their masters in Washington and unite the Muslims under Islam and not an "infallible" spiritual leader.

This article featured on http://voiceoftheummah.com

[1] JCPOA - https://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf
[2] President Rouhani hails lifting of Iran sanctions - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/president-rouhani-hails-lifting-iran-sanctions-160117104307664.html
[3] A Bad Deal Off to a Worse Start - http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start
[4] Iran's Support for Terrorism Under the JCPOA - http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-support-for-terrorism-under-the-jcpoa
[5] Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community - http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20160225/104550/HHRG-114-IG00-Wstate-ClapperJ-20160225.pdf
[6] CRS - Iran’s Foreign Policy - https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R44017.pdf
[7] Terrorist Chief: ‘As Long as Iran Has Money, We Will Have Money’ - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/hezbollah-chief-our-budget-income-weapons-all-come-iran
[8] COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE - http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/16-26_3-09-16.pdf
[9] Iran test fires missiles branded with words 'Israel must be wiped out' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/12188431/Iran-test-fires-missiles-branded-with-words-Israel-must-be-wiped-out.html

THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE ISLAMIC STATE IN 1924 – HOW DID IT HAPPEN?

On this very day, 3rd of March 1924, the world witnessed the greatest calamity that they have ever encountered, whether they knew it to be, or not. It was on this very day that the Turkish National Assembly, formed on the 23 April 1920, officially abolished the Caliphate, ridding the world of the justice and order that only a State founded on the rules and laws of the Creator can achieve.

In this short article we will look at some of the key reasons to how the Europeans influenced the 'Young Turks' as well as some underlying factors that arose much earlier.

Read it at:

http://kamkashem.com/2016/03/03/the-abolishment-of-the-islamic-state-in-1924-how-did-it-happen/

US CENTCOM Commander General John P.Abizaid Urges Sykes-Picot 2

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) have recently published an interview with the ex US CENTCOM commander John P.Abizaid on the topic of the Middle East.

Bear in mind that this man served 34 years, the longest serving commander of the US CENTCOM and has been involved in many of the huge foreign policy decisions in the West, this is no ex-army officer talking on Press TV and claiming "Israel" controls the world - i.e. this is no conspiracy theorist. CTC are a huge think-tank organisation who like RAND and the Brookings Institute, shape the policies for the West going forward.

Now, he was posed the question, "In your opinion, what should be our strategic end state in this conflict?" and in his response he said that "It is hard to say what the strategic end state would be because Sunni Islamic extremism is an idea, and it is hard to destroy an idea. It’s an ideology." 

Exactly, and this is a point most Muslims fail to understand. The West themselves know that Islam is an ideology and that it is the IDEA of Islam they are trying to destroy. This is not contrary to what Allah (swt) tells the Muslims in the Holy Qur'an.

Now this isn't the point that spurred me on to write this article. It is the question he was posed after this.... read carefully.

The post-WW1 borders is the Sykes-Picot Agreement was in 1916 as we know that WW1 was in 1914. This is clearly talking about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which saw the Middle East split up into the various states we see today. 

Obviously the West can't conclude that they are the ones stoking up sectarianism in the region to establish new lines in the sand but effectively that is what is happening and as always the crocodile tears, is aimed at the Muslims not being able to live peacefully with each other. 

Now if you have read my other articles in relation to the West collusion with Russia and various factions on the ground whether that be consciously or not - the fact of the matter is, the factions on the ground are allowed to exist due to the support that is given to them by huge state sponsors, i.e. a proxy war. 

This redrawing of the Middle East on sectarian lines which they themselves have harnessed and allowed through arming, funding and fundamentally supporting is the new policy going forward and it is very rarely spoken about so plainly! As you can see his response after making that statement was that "most people will clutch their heart, and do cluth their heart, every time I say something like that..." And rightly so! 

If the Muslims were aware of what the plan was for their lands, they wouldn't be so easily duped and embroiled in sectarian struggles. 

Please make the Ummah aware of Sykes-Picot 2, it divided us once and set us back 100's of years, and it'll set us back another 100 years. 

#SykesPicot2 

Where are the Muslim Brotherhood Taking the Ummah of Mohammed (saw)? - By Abu Usaid

The Muslim Brotherhood have sold Syria for a trifling worldly gain after they had forsaken Islam in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan. For a Muslim to sacrifice his wealth and his life to establish a state in which he is commanded to disbelieve is beyond comprehension. "They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray." [4-60]
The deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, Mohammad Farouk Tayfour, who attended the Riyadh meeting yesterday, said in an exclusive interview with al-Arabiya.net: "The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria  have never viewed the revolution as a secular or religious issue." He added: "The revolution is a nationalist issue that excludes no one." He also confirmed the openness of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to dealing with the West and the US by saying: "We have our special method and we have a similar vision to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and the Congregation for Reform in Yemen." In respect of the notion of Khilafah and the group's opinion on it in Syria, he explained that "the specifics and the conclusive evidences on the issue of ruling in Islam are limited." And on the Muslim Brotherhood's relationship with al-Nusrah Front, he said: "We have made great strides in terms of deepening the principle of centrism and moderation but we are yet to reach an agreement on their willingness to sever their ties with al-Qaeda." 

No one disputes the fact that the notion of "nationalism", from which Dr Tayfour is departing, is built upon the doctrine of separating religion from life and it removes the barriers and boundaries between Islam and Kufr; otherwise how could one reconcile between the exigencies of nationalism which legitimises the accession of a citizen to power irrespective of his religion and the prohibition of a non-Muslim assuming power? Allah (swt) says:"And never will Allah give the unbelievers a way over the believers." [4-141] Ibnul-Arabi said: "Indeed Allah (swt) does not allow the Kuffar a way over the believers in Shari'ah; and if it were to materialise, it would be contrary to Shari'ah." Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you." [4-59] This proves in a conclusive manner that authority belongs to the Muslims because the address in the ayah is to the Muslims and Allah's (swt) saying "from among you" denotes that the supreme authority belongs exclusively to the Muslims; Allah (swt) has also forbidden us from obeying the Kuffar by saying:"O you who believe if you pay heed to those who are bent on denying the truth, they will cause you to turn back on your heels and you will be the losers." [3-149]

Another ayah denoting the prohibition of the Kafir's authority over the Muslim is Allah's (swt) saying: "O you who believe do not take the Kuffar as allies in preference to the believers". [4-144] Al-Qurtubi said about this: "This means do not take as your confidential and close staff from among them." It is also reported on the authority of Ubadah Ibnul-Samit that he said: "The Prophet (ﷺ) called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam..... to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah." Qadi Ayyadh said: "If he were to commit Kufr or to change the Shari'ah or concoct an innovation, he would deviate from the authority and his obedience would be nullified; and the Muslims would have to stand up to him and remove him, and establish a fair Imam if they could; and if this were to only occur to a group, they ought to undertake the removal of the Kafir."

Hence, how does the concept of nationalism and the criterion of citizenship that Tayfour is calling for tally with the Islamic system he has been commanded to establish?

These evidences are sufficient to demolish the foundation upon which the thought of Dr Tayfour is built and they are binding on every member and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood movement to return to the Book of Allah (swt) and act according to it before calling the masses to it. The movement should refrain from deceiving people with the slogan of "Allah is our aspiration and the Qur'an is our constitution" because they stand the farthest from it; and Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe why do you say one thing and do another? Most loathsome in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do." [61-2,3] 

If the decision maker in the Syrian file has assigned to the Muslim Brotherhood the task of dissuading al-Nusrah Front from pursuing armed struggle and of luring them into the camp of "moderation and centrism" instead, they should then refrain from trumpeting the slogan of "Jihad is our way" and tinkering with the Ummah's objective. 

Dr Tayfour says the Muslim Brotherhood has never viewed the revolution as either a "secular or a religious" issue; so what is their issue then? Does he want to justify his acceptance of the state's secularity or does he want us to understand that dealing with the issue through religion would cast a shadow over the victory that descends from the White House? If the plane of the struggle against the regime were not an issue of Islam and Kufr, how would we then describe the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the revolution?  Was it a cheap functional reaction to the American exigencies to shape the Middle East? Or was it an exploitation of Islam to solidify secularism and secure its embracing among the masses? Or was it meant to deviate the direction of the Muslims and curtail their aspiration to achieve liberation and revival?

The statements of Dr Tayfour about the conclusive evidences on the legitimate Khilafah being limited indicates very clearly that the Muslim Brotherhood have washed their hands of the Ummah's central issue and submitted to the volition of the colonialist Kafir West regarding the regime they intend to establish on the ruins of Bashar Assad's regime. Tayfour is attempting to belittle the issue of the Khilafah and propagate the secularist state to the masses in Syria under the pretext that the "conclusive" evidences for al-Khilafah are limited. By disowning the Khilafah system, Tayfour is also attempting to provide support for the outcome of the Riyadh meeting and to dissipate the Western fears of the Islamic trait sported by the "opposition" movements, thus aping the American viewpoint towards Islam. He is also attempting to nullify the Russian arguments and justifications for rejecting the "Islamic" movements and present his group to the West as being a match to their foster child Erdoğan as a guardian of secularism.  

Hence, the call of the Muslim Brotherhood through Dr Tayfour contradicts the conclusive texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, violates the volition of the Muslims, squanders their dignity and their sacrifices and gives a way to the Kuffar over the Muslims. No sincere Muslim should accept or support such a call.

"O you who believe do not betray Allah and the Messenger and do not knowingly betray the trust that has been reposed in you." [8-27]

13 December 2015  

by Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/549926258499111