Saturday, August 31, 2013

Dr. Rouhani, Putin talks on the phone: Stressing on efforts to prevent the military attack against Syria

Dr. Rouhani, Putin talks on the phone: Stressing on efforts to prevent the military attack against Syria
http://www.president.ir/en/70822
news id: 70822 - Wednesday 28 August 2013 - 23:25
Russia President Vladimir Putin, in a telephone conversation with President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday evening, stressed on his country's common stance with Iran on prevention of a military attack against Syria.


The two presidents emphasized that illegal military attack against any country is a blatant breach of international laws.

President Rouhani said that Iran is keen to consult with Russia on different issues including the problem of Syria.

Praising the principled stance of Russia on Syria, President Rouhani said that this stance helps establish peace in Syria.

President Rouhani said the Islamic Republic of Iran strongly condemns use of chemical weapons anywhere and by anybody but believes that any pre-judgment on the issue can be dangerous.

Dr.Rouhani said likely military move of the western countries against Syria is a source of concern, adding that Syria has a sensitive and strategic position and any military attack against it can cause instability all over the Middle East.

President Rouhani called for all efforts to prevent the military attack and said such an attack can put at risk all the achievements of peace-loving countries.

President Putin said international issues have become very complicated, adding that Russia, like Iran, believes that use of weapons of mass destruction including chemical weapons is unacceptable but Russia's previous efforts to attract international attention to the fact that which countries use these chemicals have been neglected.

Putin said no evidence has been given on the use of chemical weapons by the government of Syria, adding that Russian does not believe that Syrian government has used chemical weapons since they have been advancing in the war and did not need to do it.

Putin said Iran and Russia's stances on Syria are identical, adding that if US has any evidence to prove that Syria has used chemical weapons, as they claim, they should give their information to the UN inspectors.

President al-Assad: Syria will never become a western puppet state, we will fight terrorism and freely build relationships that best serve the interests of the Syrians

President al-Assad: Syria will never become a western puppet state, we will fight terrorism and freely build relationships that best serve the interests of the Syrians
http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/08/27/499187.htm
Aug 27, 2013


Damascus, (SANA) – President Bashar al-Assad stressed that Syria is a sovereign country that will fight terrorism and will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.

In an interview with the Russian newspaper of Izvestia, President al-Assad stressed that "the majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws."

On the alleged use of chemical weapons, President al-Assad said that the statements by the US administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion, adding that "there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point."

His Excellency stressed that these accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

Here is the full content of the interview:

Q1 Interviewer: Mr President, the most pressing question today is the current situation in Syria. What parts of the country remain under the rebels’ control?

President al-Assad: From our perspective, it’s not a matter of labelling areas as controlled by terrorists or by the government; we are not dealing with a conventional occupation to allow us to contextualise it in this manner. We are fighting terrorists infiltrating particular regions, towns or peripheral city areas. They wreak havoc, vandalise, destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians simply because they denounce them. The army mobilises into these areas with the security forces and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the terrorists, those who survive relocate to other areas. Therefore, the essence of our action is striking terrorism.

Our challenge, which has protracted the situation, is the influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries - estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least. As long as they continue to receive financial and military aid, we will continue to strike them. I can confirm that there has not been any instance where the Syrian Army has planned to enter a particular location and has not succeeded in eliminating the terrorists within it.

The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws

The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws, so as I said this not about who controls more areas of land. Wherever terrorism strikes, we shall strike back.

Q2 Interviewer: Yet, Western mainstream media claim that the terrorists control 40% to 70% of Syrian territory; what is the reality?

President al-Assad: There isn’t an army in the world that can be present with its armament in every corner of any given country. The terrorists exploit this, and violate areas where the army is not present. They escape from one area to another, and we continue to eradicate them from these areas with great success. Therefore, I reiterate, the issue is not the size of the territories they infiltrate but the large influx of terrorists coming from abroad.

The more significant criterion to evaluate success is - has the Syrian Army been able to enter any area infiltrated by terrorists and defeat them? Most certainly the answer is yes; the army has always succeeded in this and continues to do so. However, this takes time because these types of wars do not end suddenly, they protract for prolonged periods and as such carry a heavy price. Even when we have eradicated all the terrorists, we will have paid a hefty price.

Q3 Interviewer: Mr President, you have spoken of Islamist Takfiri extremists’ fighters who have entered Syria. Are they fragmented groups who fight sporadically? Or do they belong to a coherent major force that seeks to destroy the security and stability in Syria and the whole Middle East?

President al-Assad: They have both traits. They are similar in that they all share the same extremist Takfiri doctrine of certain individuals such as Zawahiri; they also have similar or identical financial backing and military support. They differ on the ground in that they are incoherent and scattered with each group adhering to a separate leader and pursuing different agendas. Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilise them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergised when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.


Q4 Interviewer: The Syrian government claims a strong link between Israel and the terrorists. How can you explain this? It is commonly perceived that the extremist Islamists loathe Israel and become hysterical upon hearing its name.

President al-Assad: If this was the case, why is it then that when we strike the terrorists at the frontier, Israel strikes at our forces to alleviate the pressure off of them? Why, when we blockade them into an area does Israel let them through their barricades so they can come round and re-attack from another direction? Why has Israel carried out direct strikes against the Syrian Army on more than one occasion in recent months? So clearly this perception is inaccurate. It is Israel who has publically declared its cooperation with these terrorists and treated them in Israeli hospitals.

If these terrorist groups were indeed hostile to Israel and hysterical even on the mention of the word as you mention, why have they fought the Soviet Union, Syria and Egypt, whilst never carrying out a single strike against Israel? Who originally created these terrorist groups? These groups were initially created in the early 80’s by the United States and the West, with Saudi funding, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. So logically speaking, how could such groups manufactured by the US and the West ever strike Israel!

Q5 Interviewer: Mr. President, this interview will be translated into several international languages, and shall be read by world leaders, some who may currently be working against you. What would you like to say to them?

President al-Assad: Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen. Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events. Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least? Have they not realised that since the Vietnam War, all the wars their predecessors have waged have failed? Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilising effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world? Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?

From another perspective, these politicians should know that terrorism is not a winning card you play when it suits you and keep it in your pocket when it doesn't. Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time. Therefore, you cannot support terrorism in Syria whilst fighting it in Mali; you cannot support terrorism in Chechnya and fight it in Afghanistan.

To be very precise, I am referring to the West and not all world leaders, if these western leaders are looking to achieve their interests, they need to listen to their own constituents and to the people in this region rather than seeking to install ‘puppet’ leaders, in the hope that they would be able to deliver their objectives. In doing so, western policy may become more realistic in the region.

Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state

Our message to the world is straightforward: Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.

Q6 Interviewer: On Wednesday, the rebels accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons; some Western leaders adopted these accusations. What is your response to this? Will you allow the UN inspectors access to the site to investigate the incident?

President al-Assad: The statements by the American administration, the West and other countries were made with disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point. The American administration made the accusation on Wednesday and two days later announced that they would start to collect the evidence - what evidence is it going to gather from afar?!

CW use accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists

They claim that the area in question is under the control of the rebels and that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. In fact, the area is in contiguity with the Syrian Army positions, so how is it possible that any country would use chemical weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction, in an area where its own forces are located; this is preposterous! These accusations are completely politicised and come on the back of the advances made by the Syrian Army against the terrorists.

As for the UN Commission, we were the first to request a UN investigation when terrorists launched rockets that carried toxic gas in the outskirts of Aleppo. Several months before the attack, American and Western statements were already preparing public opinion of the potential use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. This raised our suspicion that they were aware of the terrorists’ intentions to use these weapons in order to blame the Syrian government. After liaising with Russia, we decided to request a commission to investigate the incident. Whereas we requested an investigation based on the facts on the ground, not on rumours or allegations; the US, France and the UK have tried to exploit the incident to investigate allegations rather than happenings.

During the last few weeks, we have worked with the Commission and set the guidelines for cooperation. First of these, is that our national sovereignty is a red line and as such the Commission will directly liaise with us during the process. Second, the issue is not only how the investigation will be conducted but also how the results will be interpreted. We are all aware that instead of being interpreted in an objective manner, these results could easily be interpreted according to the requirements and agendas of certain major countries. Certainly, we expect Russia to block any interpretation that aims to serve American and western policies. What is most important is that we differentiate between western accusations that are based on allegations and hearsay and our request for an investigation based on concrete evidence and facts.

Q7 Interviewer: Recent statements by the American administration and other Western governments have stated that the US has not ruled out military intervention in Syria. In light of this, is it looking more likely that the US would behave in the same way it did in Iraq, in other words look for a pretext for military intervention?

President al-Assad: This is not the first time that the possibility of military intervention has been raised. From the outset, the US, along with France and Britain, has strived for military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately for them, events took a different course with the balance shifting against their interests in the Security Council despite their numerous attempts to haggle with Russia and China, but to no avail. The negative outcomes that emerged in Libya and Egypt were also not in their favour.

All of this made it impossible for them to convince their constituents and the world that they were following sound or successful policies.

The situation in Libya also differs to that of Egypt and Tunisia, and Syria as I have said is very different from all these. Each country has a unique situation and applying the same scenario across the board is no longer a plausible option. No doubt they can wage wars, but they cannot predict where they will spread or how they will end. This has led them to realise that all their crafted scenarios have now spiralled out of their control.

It is now crystal clear to everybody that what is happening in Syria is not a popular revolution pushing for political reform, but targeted terrorism aimed at destroying the Syrian state. What will they say to their people when pushing for military intervention: we are intervening in Syria to support terrorism against the state?!

Interviewer: What will America face should it decide on military intervention or on waging a war on Syria?

Global powers can wage wars, but can they win them?

President al-Assad: What it has been confronted with in every war since Vietnam… failure. America has waged many wars, but has never been able to achieve its political objectives from any of them. It will also not be able to convince the American people of the benefits of this war, nor will it be able to convince the people in this region of their policies and plans. Global powers can wage wars, but can they win them?

Q8: Interviewer: Mr. President, how is your relationship with President Vladimir Putin? Do you speak on the phone? If so, what do you discuss?

President al-Assad: I have a strong relationship with President Putin, which spans back many years even before the crisis. We contact each other from time to time, although the complexity of events in Syria cannot be discussed on the phone. Our relationship is facilitated through Russian and Syrian officials who exchange visits, the majority of which are conducted away from the glare of the media.

Current priorities are to work towards easing the violence in Syria

Q9 Interviewer: Mr. President, are you planning to visit Russia or invite President Putin to visit Syria?

President al-Assad: It is possible of course; however the current priorities are to work towards easing the violence in Syria, there are casualties on a daily basis. When circumstances improve, a visit will be necessary; for now, our officials are managing this relationship well.

Q10: Interviewer: Mr. President, Russia is opposing the US and EU policies, especially with regards to Syria, what would happen were Russia to make a compromise now? Is such a scenario possible?

President al-Assad: Russian-American relations should not be viewed through the context of the Syrian crisis alone; it should be viewed in a broader and more comprehensive manner. The US presumed that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was perpetually destroyed. After President Putin took office in the late 90s, Russia began to gradually recover and regain its international position; hence the Cold War began again, but in a different and subtler manner.

The US persisted on many fronts: striving to contain Russian interests in the world, attempting to influence the mentality of Russians closer to the West both in terms of culture and aspiration. It worked diligently to eliminate Russia’s vital and powerful role on many fronts, one of which is Syria.

You may be wondering, like many Russians, why Russia continues to stand by Syria. It is important to explain this reason to the general public: Russia is not defending President Bashar al-Assad or the Syrian government, since the Syrian people should decide their president and the most suitable political system – this is not the issue. Russia is defending the fundamental principles it has embraced for more than a hundred years, the first of which is independence and the policy of non-interference in internal affairs. Russia itself has suffered and continues to suffer from such interference.

Additionally, Russia is defending its legitimate interests in the region. Some superficial analysts narrow these interests to the Port of Tartous, but in reality Russia’s interests are far more significant. Politically speaking, when terrorism strikes Syria, a key country in the region, it would have a direct impact on stability in the Middle East, which would subsequently affect Russia. Unlike many western governments, the Russian leadership fully understands this reality. From a social and cultural perspective, we must not forget the tens of thousands of Syrian-Russian families, which create a social, cultural and humanitarian bridge between our two countries.

If Russia were to seek a compromise, as you stipulated, this would have happened one or two years ago when the picture was blurred, even for some Russian officials. Today, the picture is crystal clear. A Russia that didn’t make a compromise back then, would not do so now.


Q11 Interviewer: Mr. President, are there any negotiations with Russia to supply fuel or military hardware to Syria? With regards to the S-300 defence system contract in particular, have you received it?

contracts signed with Russia are being honoured and neither the crisis nor the pressure from the US, European or Gulf countries’ have affected their implementation

President al-Assad: Of course, no country would publically declare what armaments and weapons it possesses, or the contracts it signs in this respect. This is strictly classified information concerning the Armed Forces. Suffice to say that all contracts signed with Russia are being honoured and neither the crisis nor the pressure from the US, European or Gulf countries’ have affected their implementation. Russia continues to supply Syria with what it requires to defend itself and its people.

Q12 Interviewer: Mr President, what form of aid does Syria require from Russia today? Is it financial or perhaps military equipment? For example would Syria request a loan from Russia?

President al-Assad: In the absence of security on the ground, it is impossible to have a functioning and stable economy. So firstly, the support that Russia is providing through agreed military contracts to help Syrians defend themselves will lead to better security, which will in turn help facilitate an economic recovery. Secondly, Russia’s political support for our right of independence and sovereignty has also played a significant role. Many other countries have turned against us politically and translated this policy by cutting economic ties and closing their markets. Russia has done the complete opposite and continues to maintain good trading relations with us, which has helped keep our economy functioning. Therefore in response to your question, Russia’s supportive political stance and its commitment to honour the agreed military contracts without surrendering to American pressure have substantially aided our economy, despite the negative bearings the economic embargo - imposed by others, has had on the lives of the Syrian people.

From a purely economic perspective, there are several agreements between Syria and Russia for various goods and materials. As for a loan from Russia, this should be viewed as beneficial to both parties: for Russia it is an opportunity for its national industries and companies to expand into new markets, for Syria it provides some of the funding necessary to rebuild our infrastructure and stimulate our economy. I reiterate that Russia’s political stance and support have been instrumental in restoring security and providing the basic needs for the Syrian people.

Q13 Interviewer: Mr. President, do these contracts relate to fuel or basic food requirements?

President al-Assad: Syrian citizens are being targeted through their basic food, medical and fuel requirements. The Syrian government is working to ensure these basic needs are available to all Syrians through trade agreements with Russia and other friendly countries.

Q14 Interviewer: Returning to the situation in Syria and the current crisis. We are aware that you successively issue amnesties. Do these amnesties include rebels? And do some of them subsequently change sides to fight with the Armed Forces?

certain groups have switched from fighting against the army to fighting beside it

President al-Assad: Yes, this is in fact the case. Recently, there has been a marked shift, especially since the picture has become clearer to many that what is happening in Syria is sheer terrorism. Many have come back into the mainstream of civil life, surrendering their weapons and benefitting from the amnesties to help them return to their normal lives. Most remarkably, there are certain groups who have switched from fighting against the army to fighting beside it; these people were either misled by what was propagated in the media or were initially militarised under threats from the terrorists. It is for this very reason that from the start of the crisis, the Syrian government has adopted an open door policy to all those who wanted to U-turn on the initial route they took against their country. Despite the fact that many people in Syria were opposed to this policy, it has proven to be effective and has helped alleviate some of the tension from the crisis.

Q15 Interviewer: Mr. President, Syria’s relations with several states are collapsing consecutively, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Who are your true allies, and who are your enemies?

President al-Assad: The countries that support us are well known to everyone: internationally - Russia and China, regionally - Iran. However, we are starting to see a positive shift on the international arena. Certain countries that were strongly against Syria have begun to change their positions; others have started to reinitiate relations with us. Of course, the changes in these countries’ positions do not constitute direct support.

In contrast, there are particular countries that have directly mobilised and buttressed terrorism in Syria. Predominantly Qatar and Turkey in the first two years; Qatar financed while Turkey provided logistical support by training terrorists and streaming them into Syria. Recently, Saudi Arabia has replaced Qatar in the funding role. To be completely clear and transparent, Saudi Arabia has nothing but funding; those who only have money cannot build a civilisation or nurture it. Saudi Arabia implements its agenda depending on how much money it commands.

Turkey is a different case. It is pitiful that a great country such as Turkey, which bears a strategic location and a liberal society, is being manipulated by a meagre amount of dollars through a Gulf state harbouring a regressive mentality. It is of course the Turkish Prime Minister who shoulders responsibility for this situation and not the Turkish people with whom we share a great deal of heritage and traditions.

Q17 Interviewer: Mr. President, what makes Russian-Syrian relations so strong? Is it geopolitical interests? Or that they jointly share a struggle against terrorism?

President al-Assad: There is more than one factor that forges Syrian-Russian relations so strongly. First of which is that Russia has suffered from occupation during World War II and Syria has been occupied more than once. Secondly, since the Soviet era, Russia has been subjected to continuous and repeated attempts of foreign intervention in its internal affairs; this is also the case with Syria.

Thirdly but no less significantly is terrorism. In Syria, we understand well what it means when extremists from Chechnya kill innocent civilians, what it means to hold under siege children and teachers in Beslan or hold innocent people hostage in Moscow’s theatre. Equally, the Russian people understand when we in Syria refer to the identical acts of terrorism they have suffered. It is for this reason that the Russian people reject the Western narrative of “good terrorists and bad terrorists.”

In addition to these areas, there are also the Syrian-Russian family ties I mentioned earlier, which would not have developed without common cultural, social and intellectual characteristics, as well as the geopolitical interests we also spoke of. Russia, unlike the Europeans and the West, is well aware of the consequences of destabilising Syria and the region and the affect this will have on the inexorable spread of terrorism.

All of these factors collectively shape the political stance of a great country like Russia. Its position is not founded on one or two elements, but rather by a comprehensive historical, cultural and intellectual perspective.

Q18 Interviewer: Mr. President, what will occur in Geneva 2, what are your expectations from this conference?

President al-Assad: The objective of the Geneva conference is to support the political process and facilitate a political solution to the crisis. However, this cannot be accomplished before halting the foreign support to terrorism. We expect that the Geneva conference would start applying pressure on the countries supporting terrorism in Syria, to stop the smuggling of weapons and the streaming of foreign terrorists into the country. When this is achieved, political steps can be easily pursued, most imperative of which is initiating a dialogue between Syrians to discuss the future political system, the constitution, various legislations and others.

Interviewer: Thank you for your sincerity and for such a transparent discussion during this interview.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Rohani: Aventura militar en el Medio Oriente podría causar un daño irreparable

Rohani: Aventura militar en el Medio Oriente podría causar un daño irreparable
http://takbirtv.com/index.php/politica/559-rohani-aventura-militar-en-el-medio-oriente-podria-causar-un-dano-irreparable
Creado en Viernes, 30 Agosto 2013 09:52


Rohani: Aventura militar en el Medio Oriente podría causar un daño irreparable

TEHERAN - El presidente iraní, Hassan Rohani, expresó este miércoles su profunda preocupación por los acontecimientos que se desarrollan en Medio Oriente, diciendo que los habitantes de la región no pueden tolerar una nueva guerra.

Rohani, dirigiéndose a los miembros de su gabinete, dijo: "Cualquier tipo de aventura (militar) dejará daños irreparables en la estabilidad de la región y el mundo, y sólo dará lugar a la propagación del extremismo y el terrorismo en Medio Oriente."

Los comentarios de Rohani llegan a raíz de que Occidente se está preparando para una inminente acción militar en Siria bajo la acusación de que el gobierno sirio usó armas químicas contra su propio pueblo. El gobierno sirio rechazó tales afirmaciones y dijo que las fuerzas de la oposición están detrás de la utilización de armas químicas y que está de acuerdo con una inspección de las Naciones Unidas para verificar el tema.

"La República Islámica de Irán, como una de las principales víctimas de las armas químicas y un precursor en la lucha contra ellas, condena categóricamente el uso de tales armas."

Rohani dijo además que el lenguaje intimidatorio por parte de las potencias occidentales contra estados soberanos es una clara amenaza a la estabilidad de la seguridad internacional.

"De acuerdo a la información que tenemos, un grupo parece estar usando la propaganda mediática y política para desviar la atención sobre la situación en Siria con el fin de beneficiarse de la utilización de armas químicas e imponer sus imprudentes y peligrosos puntos de vista", explicó.

Rohani hizo un llamado a las organizaciones internacionales para identificar sobre la base de una investigación imparcial a los responsables que estuvieran detrás de la utilización de armas químicas en Siria.

"La ONU, en su investigación sobre el reciente incidente, debería tener en cuenta los hechos consumados y los registros que muestran el traslado de materiales químicos para los extremistas desde el exterior de Siria."

El presidente dijo que la ONU debería anunciar el resultado de sus investigaciones "de manera transparente".

Takbir TV

Sunday, August 25, 2013

President strongly condemns chemical weapons use

President strongly condemns chemical weapons use
http://www.president.ir/en/70682
news id: 70682 - Saturday 24 August 2013 - 10:30
President Hassan Rouhani here on Saturday has strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons, urging the international community to spare no effort in preventing the use of such arms in all parts of the world, particularly in Syria.


He made the remarks after he and his cabinet members attended the mausoleum of the late Imam Khomeini in downtown Tehran to renew allegiance to the Founder of the Islamic Republic.

President expressed his “deep concerns and regret” over the ongoing situation in the region, particularly in Syria, where innocent people have been killed or affected by chemical weapons.

Iran, as a victim of chemical weapon, advises the international community to abandon the use of chemical weapons anywhere, particularly in Syria.

“The airstrike by the Zionist regime on Lebanon under the ongoing circumstances is also condemned and this matter shows that enemies have hatched a big plot against us and the Middle East, which is more obvious in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt than in other places,” the Iranian chief executive said.

Regional instability would only benefit the Zionist regime, he said, expressing hope that through vigilance of peace-loving people and states, the entire region would witness stability and tranquility in near future.

President has reiterated that his administration is implementing a series of prompt measures to tackle the country’s immediate economic problems in less than 100 days.

“We pledge to the people that, in the first 100 days [of the new administration’s tenure] or even less, we will take the necessary and urgent actions with regard to the economy and inform the people of the result,” said president Rouhani.

The president noted that in the course of two sessions last week, the Iranian administration made all the required arrangements to provide the basic goods needed in the country until the end of the current Iranian calendar year (ending March 20, 2014).

President Rouhani described the country’s economy as being in the situation of stagflation and noted that the administration faces “complications” to overcome the current economic problems.

“Nevertheless,” he added, “the administration is determined to form a workgroup in the first session of the cabinet this week (on Sunday) tasked with preparing in 15 days a list of all the existing obstacles in the way of economic flourishing, job creation, the establishment of small and large enterprises, economic dynamism in the sectors of industry, agriculture and public service and attending to the involvement and activation of the private sector,” president pointed out.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Iran Hints Nuclear Talks Could Include New Official

Iran Hints Nuclear Talks Could Include New Official
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/21/world/middleeast/irans-new-foreign-minister-may-lead-nuclear-talks.html
By RICK GLADSTONE
Published: August 20, 2013

Iran sent strong signals on Tuesday that its new foreign minister, an American-educated diplomat with a deep understanding of the United States, would assume the additional role of leading the Iranian delegation in talks with the major powers over Iran’s disputed nuclear program.

Such a change under the new president, Hassan Rouhani, would be a significant departure for Iran in the nuclear talks. Mr. Rouhani, a moderate cleric who won the presidency in June over his more conservative rivals, has pledged to reduce tensions with the West over the nuclear issue, which has left Iran increasingly isolated and economically troubled by punitive sanctions.

Mr. Rouhani’s choice for foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, was confirmed by Parliament last week. The signals that Mr. Zarif would lead the nuclear negotiations were conveyed on Tuesday at a regular weekly news conference in Tehran by the Foreign Ministry spokesman, which was broadcast by Iran’s Press TV Web site.

“Over the past 10 to 12 years, the negotiator has been the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. This may change,” said the spokesman, Abbas Araqchi. “Rouhani may decide to appoint somebody else. Maybe the foreign minister, or anyone else that he deems fit.”

For the spokesman to even make such a speculative statement suggested that Mr. Rouhani had already decided that his foreign minister would be doing the negotiating henceforth and that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on the nuclear issue, had agreed, despite his own deep mistrust of the West.

The previous nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, was a personal emissary of the ayatollah’s and was among the conservative presidential candidates defeated by Mr. Rouhani in the June 14 election. Mr. Jalili made no progress in the talks with the so-called P-5-plus-1, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany.

Mr. Zarif, 53, is widely considered the most important new face in Mr. Rouhani’s cabinet because of his background in the United States. He is known for having sought to improve relations with the West and the United States in particular, preferring to refer to it as a rival nation and not the enemy, the name commonly used by Iranian hard-line conservatives.

He was Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations from 2002 to 2007. He was sidelined and eventually replaced after the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-liner who escalated Iran’s nuclear activities and often inveighed against the West.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman’s statement on Tuesday was the second time in five days that personnel changes under Mr. Rouhani have suggested that a shake-up in strategy on the nuclear issue may be under way.

On Friday, Iranian state news media announced that Fereydoon Abassi, a hard-line nuclear scientist who narrowly escaped assassination nearly three years ago in a bombing that Iran attributed to Israeli agents, had been removed as the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, which operates nuclear facilities.

Mr. Abassi’s replacement was the former foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, widely considered the most practical member of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s cabinet. Mr. Abassi, by contrast, was regarded as uncompromising.

“You have to read the fig leaves from all these pronouncements — they’re talking about diplomacy,” said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a political science professor who specializes in Iran at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. “I think in this case they’re hoping some wise politicians here in the United States will put two and two together — that these are all signs they want to reach an agreement.”

It remains unclear when the nuclear talks will resume. But many Iran political experts have been saying they expect a less bombastic tone in the talks under Mr. Rouhani, even if Iran insists on its right to enrich uranium, a major obstacle to an agreement.

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, rejecting Western suspicions that it aspires to build nuclear weapons.

A version of this article appears in print on August 21, 2013, on page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Iran Hints Nuclear Talks Could Include New Official.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Maudoodi’s article on takfir

Maudoodi’s article on takfir
http://www.muslim.org/movement/maudoodi/art-takfir.htm

Introductory note

Maulana Maudoodi wrote an article entitled Fitna-i Takfir (‘The mischief of calling Muslims as kafir’) for his magazine Tarjuman al-Quran in its May 1935 issue. It can be found in the collection of his writings published under the title Tafhimat, Part II (eleventh edition, Islamic Publications, Lahore, March 1984, pages 177–190). An English translation of this article is reproduced below, which was done by Dr. Zahid Aziz and first published in The Light & Islamic Review, dated November–December 1996.

Maulana Maudoodi’s article

Mischief of Takfir

In the period of the decline of the Muslims, among the many troubles that have arisen, one serious and dangerous mischief is that of declaring one another as kafir and wrong-doer, and cursing one another. People introduced cracks within the plain and simple creed of Islam, and by means of inference and interpretation they created from them such branches and details as were mutually contradictory, and which were not explained in the Quran and Sunna, and even if these were, then God and His Prophet had not given them any importance. Then these servants of God (may God forgive them) gave so much importance to their own invented side-issues that they made them the criteria for faith, and on the basis of these they tore Islam to pieces, and made numerous sects, each sect calling every other as kafir, wrong-doer, misguided, doomed to hell, and God knows what. Whereas God in His clear Book had drawn a plain line of distinction between kufr and Islam, and had not given anyone the right to have discretion to declare anything he wants as kufr and anything he wants as Islam. Whether the cause of this mischief is narrow-mindedness with good intentions, or selfishness, envy and self-seeking with malevolent intentions, the fact remains that probably nothing else has done the Muslims as much harm as this has done.

As to the question of a person being in fact a believer or not, it is not the task of any human being to decide it. This matter is directly to do with God, and it is He Who shall decide it on the day of Judgment. As for people, if they have to decide anything it is only this: Which person, according to the distinctive signs of the followers of Islam, as laid down by God and His Messenger, is within the borders of Islam, and which person has gone outside them. For this purpose, the things which have been taught to us as the foundations of Islam are the following:

“Islam is that you bear witness that there is none to be worshipped except Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and that you should keep up prayer, and pay the Zakaat, and fast in Ramadaan, and perform the pilgrimage to the House of God if you are able to do it.” (Muslim, Abu Da‘ud, Tirmizi, Nasa’i)

These are the marks of the borders of Islam. As to those who are within these borders, we are commanded to treat them as Muslims. No one has the right to expel them from the community. As to those who have gone outside these borders, we must deal with them as required by Islamic teachings. In neither case are we empowered to judge what is in the heart. Our work is to look at the outward only, and what of us, even the Messenger of Allah in this matter looked only at the outward. Hence, Bukhari and Muslim agree on the report that once Ali sent some money from Yemen to the Holy Prophet, and the Holy Prophet divided it among four men. At this a man who was there said: “O Messenger of Allah, fear Allah!”

The Holy Prophet said:

“Woe to you! Who on earth is more obliged to fear God than me!”

Khalid Ibn Walid was present. He said:

“Messenger of Allah, should I not kill him?”

The Holy Prophet said:

“No, perhaps he says his prayers.”

Khalid said:

“Many are they who say their prayers, but do not have in their hearts what they say with their tongues.”

The Holy Prophet said:

“I have not been commanded to open up the hearts of people or to cut open their insides.”

Imam Shafi‘i and Ahmad in their Musnads and Imam Malik in the Mu’atta have recorded the report that once a man from among the Ansar was talking confidentially with the Holy Prophet. Suddenly the Holy Prophet said loudly [about someone]:

“Does he not bear witness that there is no god but Allah?”

The Ansari said:

“Yes indeed, O Messenger of Allah, but his testimony cannot be trusted.”

The Holy Prophet said:

“Does he not accept that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?”

He again replied:

“Yes, he professes it but his profession cannot be trusted.”

The Holy Prophet said:

“Does he not pray?”

He again said:

“Yes he does, but his prayer cannot be trusted.”

The Holy Prophet said:

“God has forbidden me to kill such people.”

Now what great injustice it is that a Muslim who professes to have faith in the beliefs taught by God and the Messenger, and is within the borders of Islam according to the clear explanations given above, should be declared by some person as being excluded from the community. This is not boldness against men, but rather in the face of God. It is in fact to oppose God Himself, that while the law of God passes a decree about a man that he is a Muslim, a creature of God issues a decree of kufr about the same man. For precisely this reason, the Holy Prophet has very strictly forbidden calling people kafir and wrong-doers. He went so far as to say that if a man calls another kafir, and the latter is not so in reality, the verdict of kufr shall rebound on the accuser.

“If a man calls his Muslim brother kafir, it applies to one of the two.” (Bukhari)

“Whenever a man accuses another of being a kafir or wrong-doer, this accusation will rebound on him if the one accused is not in reality a kafir or wrong-doer.” (Bukhari)

“The man who calls another kafir or enemy of God, and the latter was not such, this charge will indeed turn back upon the accused.” (Muslim)

“He who curses a believer, it is as if he has killed him. And he who accuses a believer of kufr, it is as if he has killed him.” (Bukhari)

Takfir and calling others wrong-doers is not merely the violation of the rights of an individual, rather it is also a crime against society. It is an act of injustice against the entire Islamic society, and it does immense harm to the Muslims as a community. The reason for this can be understood easily with a little thought.

The fundamental difference between the Islamic society and non-Islamic societies is that the latter are based on the ties of colour, race, language and country, and in contrast to these the Islamic society is based only on the bond of religion. In non-Islamic societies, differences of belief and thought do not introduce any obstacle because such differences do not remove people from the bonds which are based on uniformity of race or country or language or colour. Views may be as far apart as heaven and earth, but neither the relationship of blood, nor the ties of country, nor the link of language, nor the unity of colour, are cut off. Therefore, differences of belief pose no danger to non-Islamic societies. However, in Islam the factor which unites persons of different races, colours, languages and countries into one nation is nothing else but unity of belief. Here belief is all in all; race, colour, language and country do not matter. Therefore, the man who cuts the bond of faith really cuts that rope of God which binds together all those who worship one God, who accept one Messenger and who believe in one Book. In Islam, to call a person or a group as kafir does not only mean that his faith and integrity are attacked, but it also means that all the ties of brotherhood, love, association, dealings and mutual co-operation between the Islamic society and one or more of its members are cut off; and one or more limbs of the body of the Muslim community are severed and discarded.

If this act were in accordance with the command of God and the Messenger, then it is undoubtedly right. In that case, it is true service of Islam to sever the diseased limb and cast it away. If, however, that limb was not diseased according to the Divine law, and is cut off entirely unjustly, then it would be an even greater injustice to the body from which it was cut off than to the limb itself.

This is precisely the reason why Allah and His Messenger have given strict instructions to honour the bond of faith. Allah says:

“If a person, to show that he is a Muslim, presents salaam to you, do not just say to him, without investigations, You are not a believer.” (The Holy Quran, 4:94)

It is in Hadith that once during a military expedition a man, when he saw the Muslims, said: “Assalamu Alaikum, there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” But a Muslim killed him, thinking that the man had proclaimed the Kalima just to save his own life. When the Holy Prophet heard of this, he was very angry, and he reprimanded that Muslim. But he replied:

“O Messenger of Allah, that man read the Kalima merely to protect himself from our sword.”

The Holy Prophet said:

“Did you open his heart and look inside it?”

A companion of the Holy Prophet asked:

“If a man (in battle) attacks me and cuts off my hand, but when I attack him he recites the Kalima, can I kill him in these circumstances?”

The Holy Prophet said: “No.” The companion said:

“O Messenger of Allah, he cut off my hand.”

The Holy Prophet said:

“Despite that, you cannot kill him. If you do kill him then he will have the rank which you had before you killed him, and you will have the rank which he had before he recited the Kalima.”

In another hadith it says that the Holy Prophet said:

“If a man (in a battle) is attacking a kafir with a spear, and it has reached his throat, and at that moment he says ‘There is no god but Allah’, the Muslim must immediately withdraw his spear.”

Another hadith records that

“to abuse a Muslim is an act of wrong-doing, and to fight a Muslim is an act of kufr.”

All these instructions were given because the strength and unity of the Muslims are based on the bond of faith and nothing else. If Muslims do not honour this bond, and they keep on cutting it on small things, the community will become disintegrated, and it will have no collective strength left to proclaim the word of God to the followers of falsehood and to invite them to good.

It is not our meaning that there should be no takfir or declaration of wrong-doing at all, so that even if a man speaks and writes clear heresy he should still be called, and taken to be, a Muslim. This is not the meaning of the texts of the Quran and Sunna quoted above, nor of what we have said above. And how could it be? Just as it is harmful to expel a Muslim from Islam, it is no less harmful to include a kafir within the Islamic community. However, what we want to emphasise is that the greatest caution must be exercised in the matter of declaring a Muslim as kafir, as much caution as is exercised in passing a sentence of death upon someone. Every person who is a Muslim and believes that there is no god but Allah, it should be presumed in his favour that he has faith in his heart. If he does something which contains a semblance of kufr, one must believe that he did not do it with the intention of kufr, but merely out of ignorance and lack of understanding. Therefore one must not straightaway issue a fatwa (verdict) of kufr on hearing what he says, but must try in a goodly manner to make him see sense.

If he still does not accept, and insists upon his view, we must put it to the Book of God to see whether or not the thing on which he is so insistent is contrary to the clear directions which distinguish between faith and disbelief. And also whether or not the man’s belief or action in question can be regarded as an interpretation. If it is not against the clear directions, and there is room for interpretation, then the verdict of kufr cannot be applied. The most that can be said is that he is misguided, and even that in relation to that particular issue, not in all matters. However, if his belief is contrary to clear teachings, and even after finding out that his belief is opposed to the Book of God he continues to adhere to his stand, and one is unable to treat his belief as an interpretation, then in such a case the judgment of wrong-doing or kufr could be applied to him, while bearing in mind the nature of the issue involved. But account must be taken of degree and gravity. All crimes and all criminals are not equal. They differ in seriousness, and it is a requirement of justice that the punishment which is awarded must take account of the degree of seriousness. To use the same rod on everyone is certainly unjust.

As we explained at the outset, one aspect of the issue of kufr and Islam is internal and another external. The internal is related to the heart and the intention of man, and the external is related to his tongue and action. From a man’s words and actions we can, to a certain extent, estimate his inner condition. This, however, would be mere conjecture and inference, not knowledge and certainty. Without knowledge and certainty, to make a judgment about someone’s faith or kufr on the basis of mere conjecture and inference would be definitely unjust, even though such a judgment might coincide with the truth. Therefore, the right way is to leave the question of faith to Allah. No one but He can know whose heart has faith and whose heart does not:

“Surely your Lord knows best who strays from His path, and knows best who follows the guidance.” (The Holy Quran, 53:30)

Our sight extends only to the outward, and from looking at apparent words and deeds we can form an opinion as to who is a Muslim and who is not. It is possible that the man who outwardly is talking heresy, out of ignorance and stupidity, is inwardly a true and firm believer, and has in his heart a greater love for God and the Messenger than many preachers and religious teachers. It is similarly possible that the man who proclaims his faith loudly and forcefully, and obeys the laws of the religion fully to the outward eye, is in reality a show-off and a hypocrite. So, in passing a judgment of kufr upon someone based on outward conduct, one must greatly fear the chastisement of God. Before issuing such a judgment, we must ponder a thousand times as to the responsibility we are taking upon our heads, and whether we have reasonable grounds on the basis of which it is better for us to take this responsibility rather than to avoid it.

The God Who revealed Islam for the guidance of all mankind is the best knower of differences in human nature, and none more than He can make allowances for these differences. This is why He based His religion on such simple and brief beliefs that everyone, from a simpleton to a philosopher or a scientist, can accept them. It is the simplicity and the brevity of these beliefs which has made them worthy of being the fundamental principles of a universal religion of mankind. For the man not capable of deep thought, it is sufficient to accept that God is one, Muhammad is His Messenger, the Quran is His Book, and that we have to appear before Him on the day of Judgment. For the man who can think, this brevity contains such breadth that he can follow numerous paths in the search of truth, in accordance with his capability and aptitude. He can go as far as he likes. He can spend his entire life in this search, without ever reaching a stage where he could say that he had understood all that he could. Whatever path a thinking man may take for his enquiry and search, and however far he may go, as long as he walks within the limits which the word of Allah has drawn between Islam and kufr, he cannot be declared as excluded from the fold of the faith, no matter how much we may differ with the wanderings of his mind.

For instance, the essence of belief in Allah is only that there is God Who is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe, and only He is worthy of worship. The way in which a simple peasant can accept this, it is not possible that a thinking man could also accept it in the same simple way. Then, the detailed concepts of God, His attributes, and the nature of His relation with the creation, which a man of a particular type of aptitude will develop in his mind through thinking, will not be exactly the same as the concepts of a man of a different aptitude about these matters. But as long as all of them believe in the real basic belief, they are all Muslims, no matter how widely their thoughts differ about the details, and no matter how much they may have stumbled in various places.

Similarly, as regards the Islamic beliefs in revelation, prophethood, angels and the Last Day, there are only a few points of principle which should be called the essentials of faith. The rest are details, for some of which man can find explicit or implicit indications in the word of God, and some are created by man himself in his mind in accordance with his thinking. It is very possible that in determining most of these details a man’s reason may be at fault, and his ideas may stray very far from the truth. But so long as he does not let go of the essence of these beliefs, no error of reason or thought can possibly expel him from the fold of the faith, however far he may go from the centre of the faith, and however much we may have to rebuke and reproach him for these deviations of belief.

At this point, we can understand with a little thought how sects in Islam came into being. The Quran and Hadith contain simple and brief statements about the essentials of the religion. The subtle references that are given about the details of these matters have been understood by different people in different ways, in accordance with their mental capabilities and natural inclinations. In understanding these details by the use of inference and reasoning, people deduced separate types of secondary matters and side-issues. So far, there was no problem, nor was there anything wrong in one group considering its own stand-point to be true and arguing with other groups to draw them towards the same. But the calamity was that, by going to an extreme, people added their own derived and reasoned beliefs to the principles and essentials of the religion, and then every group started to call all those groups as kafir who denied their derived beliefs. Here began the war of beliefs, and this was the starting point of that injustice. It is true that many of the ways followed in the matter of beliefs, by the use of inference and interpretation, are wrong. But every error is not necessarily kufr. It is undoubtedly permissible to call an error an error, and to believe its perpetrator to be misguided and at fault, and to try to bring him to the right path. But as long as a person does not deny the basic fact which Allah has commanded one to believe, it is not at all permissible to call him a kafir, no matter how extensive his error becomes.

It is deplorable that our religious leaders are not willing at all to give up this long-standing practice. They ignore the difference between the root and the branch, between the explicit and the derived. They have made into basic principles those side-matters which they or their predecessors derived from the principles by use of their particular understanding. They give the rank of explicit matters to those interpretations which their group has adopted by deriving meaning from the explicit. The result is that they declare as kafir that person who denies their derivations and interpretations, as would be done with a person who denies the principles and basic teachings. This immoderate behaviour had at first merely produced disunity in the Islamic community. But now we see that this kafir-making by the religious leaders is producing disillusionment in the hearts of the Muslims not only with these leaders but with the very religion which these leaders are representing. Day by day the authority of the religious leaders over the Muslims is declining. By listening to what they say, one’s heart is repelled away from religion rather than attracted towards it. The general impression regarding religious meetings and writings is that there is nothing in them except useless controversy. In this day of the prevalence of disbelief and evil, the only possible way to acquaint the Muslim public with religious knowledge would have been through the writings and speeches of the religious leaders, if the people had confidence in them. But alas, because of sectarian fighting and the pastime of takfir, this one way too is being lost, and this is the main cause of the widespread ignorance and error among Muslims regarding religion.

Would that our religious leaders realise their own fault! And if they cannot do it for the sake of Islam and the Muslims, then at least they could take pity on themselves and give up this habit which has disgraced them so much among their own people, the people who once used to honour them.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Entrevista al Sr. Iván Ardila

Entrevista al Sr. Iván Ardila
http://spanish.irib.ir/análisis/entrevistas/item/145733-entrevista-al-sr-iván-ardila
Viernes, 12 Julio 2013 06:08


En nuestra sección de entrevistas hoy estamos como el Sr. Iván Ardila que se encuentra en el Distrito Federal de México y es un asiduo oyente de nuestra radio. Hola que tal Sr. Ardila Salam aleikom hermana Julia Palomino Cómo se encuentra Ud? Ah perfecto, y un poco consternado porque han quitado una sección de los programas de radio Islam, Camino hacia la Luz, ya no se encuentra, se detuvo en el programa creo 547 y ya no volvimos a verlo Qué bueno que nos informe, porque eso tenemos que verlo con nuestros conductores, gracias Nos podría decir cómo se inicio Ud., con nuestra radio Yo descubrí el hipervínculo a Radio Islam en alguna página islámica de la comunidad multimedia islámica y de repente me metí y descubrí que había un gran reservorio de programas en la Radio Islam de todos los temas posibles y empecé a oírlos y descubrí que pues era como un cofre del tesoro porque había radio para dar y regalar y para oír en todos los momentos, entonces no solamente a escuchar todos los programas sin o a ver los programas que tenían ya catalogados por fechas de emisiones anteriores, y pues lo he vuelto mi radio principal así como la tele que se genera también desde la RII, pues se convirtió en esta su casa, en la tele principal , pues nosotros prácticamente a despecho de otras teles que promueven otro tipo de programas y de valores nosotros encontramos por vez primera la radio y televisión que siempre habíamos buscado y siempre habíamos querido sin saberlo en la Radio Islam y en Hispantv.

http://m1.ws.irib.ir/spanish/media/k2/audio/145733.mp3

Praying with Unfolded Arms (Sadr) by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Praying with Unfolded Arms (Sadr) by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Monday, August 19, 2013

An in depth analysis by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, a Western convert to the Sunni Maliki school of Islam, on practice of Praying with Unfolded Arms must be viewed by the believers with an open mind.. He, quite carefully and skillfully concludes after a tremendous amount of research and examination of the traditions of Imams and scholars (Faqihs) of Islam, that Praying with Unfolded Arms (Sadr) was indeed, a practice of the prophet, of almost all of his companions, his endeared Ahl-ul-Bayt as well as Imams of Sunni schools . Also, We learn from this rather formidable lecture by Shaykh Yusuf, as to why praying with folded Arms (Qabr) as many of Sunni Muslims observe, was the result of a political agenda to oppose Shia and Khawarij during the Umayyah reign.

Now, the Shias have no purpose in rejoicing that an outstanding Sunni intellectual has belittled the Sunni school by deliberating on a centuries old practice, nor do the Sunni Muslims have any reason to fume and get flustered on an opinion by a single but brilliant scholar of Islam, who has an inalienable right to express his inner self in a scholarly manner. The real moral outcome of this this presentation, though, is the victory of Ijtehad, the most vibrant and core concept of our exalted faith. Muslim Ummah's practice of folding their arms or otherwise, is not going to challenge or question one's faith, rather it will strengthen it. But we need preachers like Hamza Yusuf who, unlike many other divisive, delusional and destructive occupiers of our pulpits, have a God given ability to bring the global Muslim Community under one banner.

Hope it may be beneficial for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6vobY94XkE

Saturday, August 17, 2013

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF THE FOUNDER OF WAHHABISM

A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF THE FOUNDER OF WAHHABISM
By Yasin T. al-Jibouri

Excerpted from my book titled Kerbala and Beyond (Iranian and American editions). Please circulate to everyone you know! Let us fight falsehood with the truth!

The most serious damage to the shrine of Imam al-Hussain (ﻉ) in Kerbala, Iraq, was inflicted by the Wahhabis, followers of Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab who invented an odd interpretation of Islam which does not respect the grave-sites of any holy person, including that of the Prophet of Islam (ص). Since the Wahhabis have proven to be the most antagonistic[1] towards the followers of Ahl al-Bayt (ﻉ), it is not out of place here to introduce the reader to their man, Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab, while narrating the mischief he and his ignorant Bedouin zealots committed against the shrine of Imām Hussain (ﻉ) in Kerbalā’ and that of his father, Imām Ali (ﻉ), in Najaf.

Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab was born in 1115 A.H./1703 A.D. in the small town of Uyayna in Najd, the southern highland of Arabia’s interior, and died in 1206 A.H./1791-92 A.D. He belonged to the tribe of Tamim. His father was a lawyer and a pious Muslim adhering to the Hanbalite sect founded by Imām Ahmed ibn Hanbal who, with the most rigid consistency, had advocated the principle of the exclusive validity of the hadīth as against the inclination among the older sects to make concessions to reason and commonsense, especially since Islam is the religion of commonsense. In Baghdad, Muhammed learned the jurisprudence of the Hanbali Sunni sect which remains to be predominant among the people of Najd and Hijaz: Whabbis constitute no more than 8% of the entire population of today's Saudi Arabia, the only country in the world named after its ruling clan. The reader has already come to know how much distortion exists in hadīth and can appreciate the danger of believing in each and every hadīth as though it were the inviolable and irrefutable gospel truth. He also studied jurisprudence at Mecca and Medīna where his mentors were admirers of Ibn Taymiyyah who, in the 7th Century A.H./the 14th Century A.D., had revived the teachings of Imām Ahmed ibn Hanbal. The founder of the sect, the last in the series of the four Sunni sects, namely Ahmed ibn Hanbal, was a theologian born in and died in Baghdad; the year of his birth is 164 A.H./780 A.D. and that of his death is 241 A.H./855 A.D.

Since his childhood, Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah[2] and, therefore, looked askance at many religious practices of the people of Najd (southern section of today’s kingdom of the Wahhabi Al Saud clan). Such an influence convinced him that the dominant form of contemporary Islam, particularly among the Turks of his time, was permeated with abuses. He, therefore, sought to restore the original purity of the doctrine and of life in its restricted milieus. The facts that the Wahhabis are the minority of all Muslim minorities, and that the people of Najd and Hijaz are still predominantly Hanbalites who do not subscribe to Wahhabism by choice, prove that he did not achieve his objective and, most likely, such an objective will never be achieved despite all Saudi Arabia’s petro-dollars and the abundance of those who solicit such dollars, the ruler-appointed preachers most of whom are Salafis.

Having joined his father, with whom he debated his personal views, Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab caused a seriously violent confrontation to erupt from such an exchange of opposite views, for his father’s views were consistent with mainstream Hanbali Muslim thought. He performed the pilgrimage for the first time, visiting Mecca and Medīna where he attended lectures on different branches of Islamic learning. His mentors included Abdullāh‎ ibn Ibrahim ibn Saif and Hayat as-Sindi, who both were admirers of Ibn Taymiyyah. They both rejected the principle of taqlid (imitation) which is commonly accepted by all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence as well as by Shī’a‎ Muslims. These men’s teachings had a great impact on Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab who began to take a more aggressive attitude in preaching his views and, hence, he publicly expressed his denunciation of the sanctification of the holy precincts of the Prophet’s shrine and of the shrines of any “saint.” Then he went back home and decided to go to Basra, Iraq, on his way to Damascus, Syria. During his stay in Basra, he expressed the same views, whereupon its people kicked him out of the city. He almost died of thirst once, due to exhaustion and to the intensity of the heat in the desert, when he was on his way from Basra to the city of Zubair but was saved by a Zubairi man. Finding his provisions insufficient to travel to Damascus, Muhammed had to change his travel plan and to go to the (Saudi) al-Ahsa (or al-Hasa) province then to Huraymala, one of the cities of Najd, to which his father and the entire family had to move because of the public’s denunciation of young Muhammed’s views, reaching it in 1139 A.H./1726-27 A.D. By then, Muhammed’s good and pious father had lost his job as qadi (judge) on account of his son’s radical preaching. The denunciation continued till his father’s death in 1153 A.H./1740 A.D.

His father’s death emboldened him to express his thoughts more freely and consolidate his movement. His preaching found an echo among some of the people of his town, and his fame started on the rise, so much so that he was welcomed by the ruler of his home town Uyayna, namely Othman ibn Muammar Al Hamad, who offered him protection and appointed him as his personal assistant. In order to cement his ties with Othman, Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab married Jawhara, Othman’s aunt. Othman ordered his townsmen to observe the Wahhabi teachings, and Muhammed now felt strong enough to demolish the monument erected on the burial site of Zaid ibn al-Khattab. But the new alliance between Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab and Othman ibn Muammar Al Hamad disturbed the scholars of Najd who complained against the first to the emir (provincial governor) of the al-Ahsa province. The emir wrote Othman reprimanding and warning him of dire consequences for encouraging Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab to revolt against the established authority and creed. Finding himself in a precarious situation and his job in jeopardy, Othman dismissed Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab from his service and asked him to leave the town.

In 1160 A.H./1746-47 A.D., having been expelled from Uyayna, Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab sought refuge in Dar'iyya, only six hours away from Uyayna, at the invitation of its ruler, Muhammed ibn Saud[3], ancestor of the Al Saud dynasty now ruling Saudi Arabia. Muhammed ibn Saud lived in a fortified settlement as chief of the Unayza clan. Soon, an alliance was forged between both men, each promising the other glory, fame, and riches for his support. The people of that town lived at the time in utter destitution, and something was needed to bring them relief. Muhammed ibn Saud rejected any veneration of the Prophet (ﺹ) or of other men of piety. It was there that Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab stayed for more than two years. Both men felt that it was time to declare “jihad” against all those who rejected the new Wahhabi dogma, forming a small band of raiders mounted on horseback to invade various towns, kill and loot. The lives and property of all those who did not subscribe to the views of these two men were now in jeopardy for they were considered as guilty of being pagans fighting against whom is justified by the Qur’ān until they converted or extirpated. These raids extended far beyond Dar'iyya to include all of Najd and parts of Yemen, Hijaz, Syria and Iraq. In 1187 A.H./1773 A.D., the principality of Riyadh fell to them, marking a new era in the lucrative career of Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab.

During a short period of time, the destitutes of Dar'iyya found themselves wearing sumptuous clothes, carrying weapons decorated with gold and silver, eating meat, and baking wheat bread; in short, they found their dreams come true, going from rags to riches, thanks to those raids which continued till Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab died in 1206 A.H./1791-92 A.D., leaving his band to carry out more and more raids and his form of “Wahhabism” embraced by the Al Saud clansmen who eventually ascended to power, due to the support they received from the British who used them to undermine the last Islamic power, the Ottoman Sultanate. Al Saud became the sole rulers of Najd and Hijaz, promoting and publicizing for Wahhabism by any and all means, spending in the process funds which belong to the Muslim masses, not to them.

After the death of Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab, his band of raiders, under the leadership of the Al Saud dynasty, pursued their campaigns in the pretext of disseminating Wahhabism. In the years that followed Muhammed ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s death, the Wahhabis gradually became burdensome to their neighbors. They pursued their northward advance; therefore, the Pasha of Baghdad found himself compelled to take defensive measures against them, having heard about their ruthlessness and disregard for the lives of all non-Wahhabis. He, therefore, led an army of about seven thousand Turks and twice did his army of mostly Arabs attacked them in their richest and most fertile oasis, that of al-Ahsa, in 1212 A.H./1797 A.D. but did not move on their capital, Dar'iyya, at once, as he should have, laying a siege for a month to the citadel of al-Ahsa. When Muhammed ibn Saud himself advanced against the Pasha, the latter did not dare to attack him but concluded a six-year peace treaty with him, a treaty for which the Wahhabis later demonstrated their disregard. By then, they had already set their eyes on plundering the shrine of Imām Hussain (ﻉ) and all the valuable relics it contained.

On the anniversary of the historic Ghadīr Khumm incident, that is, Thul-Hijja 18, 1216 A.H./April 21, 1801 A.D.[4], Prince Saud mobilized an army of twenty thousand strong and invaded the holy city of Kerbalā’. First they laid a siege of the city then entered the city and brutally massacred its defenders, visitors and inhabitants, looting, burning, demolishing and wreaking havoc ... The city [Kerbalā’] fell into their hands. The magnificent domed building over the grave of Hussain was destroyed and enormous booty dragged off.[5]

More than five thousand Muslims were slaughtered. Then the Saudi prince turned to the Kerbalā’ shrine itself; he and his men pulled gold slabs out of their places, stole chandeliers and Persian rugs and historical relics, plundering anything of value. This tragedy is immortalized by eulogies composed by poets from Kerbalā’ and elsewhere. And the Wahhabis did not leave Kerbalā’ alone after this massacre; rather, they continued for the next twelve years invading it, killing and looting, taking advantage of the administrative weakness of the aging Ottoman Sultanate responsible for protecting it. During those twelve years, more and more Bedouin tribes joined them for a “piece of the action.” In 1218 A.H./1803 A.D., during the time of hajj (pilgrimage), the Wahhabis, led by Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, attacked Mecca, which surrendered to them after putting up a brief resistance. They looted whatever possessions the pilgrims had had. The governor of Mecca, Sharif Ghalib, fled to Jiddah which was shortly thereafter besieged, and the leader of the Syrian pilgrim caravan, Abd-Allāh Pasha of Damascus, had to leave Mecca, too. On Rajab 19, 1218 A.H./November 4, 1803, Abdul-Aziz Al Saud paid with his life for what he had committed; he was killed in Dar'iyya. His son, Saud ibn Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, lifted the siege of Jiddah and had Sharif Ghalib sent back to Mecca as his vassal in exchange for Jiddah’s customs revenue.

In 1220 A.H./1805 and 1221 A.H./1806 A.D., Mecca and Medīna fell to the Wahhabis[6] respectively. The Wahhabis unleashed their wrath on both holy cities, committing untold atrocities and razing the cemetery, where many relatives and sahāba (companions) of the Prophet (ﺹ) were buried, to the ground[7]. Having spread their control over Riyadh, Jiddah, Mecca and Medīna, all of today’s Saudi Arabia became practically under their control.

The next major invasion of the holy city of Kerbalā’ by the Wahhabis took place on the 9th of the holy month of Ramadan of 1225 A.H., corresponding to October 8, 1810 A.D. It was then that both Kerbalā’ and Najaf (where the magnificent shrine of Imām Ali ibn Abū Talib (ﻉ) is located) were besieged. Roads were blocked, pilgrims were looted then massacred, and the shrines were attacked and damaged. The details of this second invasion were recorded by an eyewitness: Sayyid Muhammed Jawad al-Āmili, author of the famous book of jurisprudence titled Miftah al-Karama which was completed shortly after midnight on the very first day when the siege was laid. The writer recorded how terrified he and the other residents of Kerbalā’ felt at seeing their city receiving a major attack from the Wahhabis. A large number of pilgrims were killed. Their number varies from one account to another, and the most realistic figure seems to be the one provided by Sayyid Muhammed Jawad al-Āmili who puts it at one hundred and fifty.

The Wahhabis no longer attack and demolish Imām Hussain’s shrine, but they have been relentlessly attacking the creed of those who venerate him through a flood of books written and printed world-wide. They fund their writing, publication and circulation. They sometimes distribute them free of charge during the annual pilgrimage season while prohibiting all pilgrims from carrying or distributing any literature at all... During recent years, they have been beheading Shī’ite‎ scholars wherever they can find them, destroying Shī’ite‎ shrines, such as the famous 'Askari Shrine in Samarra, Iraq, which was bombed and destroyed in February of 2006 and in June of 2007; it houses the remains of both Imām Ali al-Hadi and Hassan al-'Askari, peace be with them, who descended from the immediate family of the Prophet of Islam, peace and blessings of the Almighty be with him and his progeny. Many other Shī’ite‎ mosques and Hussainiyyas were bombed by the Wahhabis and are still targets of their mischief, yet these rogues will never be able to destroy Shī’ite‎ Islam till the Resurrection Day. They have plenty of money, so they send their filthy money to Iraq to get the Muslims to kill each other, the Shī’ite‎ to kill the Sunni and vice versa, thus making Satan the happiest being on earth, for nothing pleases this damned creature more than seeing Muslims at each other's throats. Such is the desire of all the enemies of Islam and Muslims. Actually, due to the barbarism of these fundamentalist Wahhabis, more and more Muslims are getting to be curious about Shī’ite‎ Islam, so they study it and many of them end up eventually switching their sect from Sunni to Shī’ite‎ Islam. There is no harm in a Sunni becoming Shī’ite‎ or in a Shī’ite‎ becoming Sunni: Islam is one tree stalk having two major branches. After all, religions of the world have sects, and people change the sect they follow according to their personal convictions and satisfaction. It happens every day, and nobody fusses about it. Thus, the Wahhabis' mischief is actually having the opposite result of what these fundamentalist fanatics, who have ruined the reputation of Islam and Muslims world-wide, anticipate.

[1] Such antagonism has proven to be bloody especially in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Wahabbis also justify the killing of other Sunnis who do not subscribe to their beliefs as they have done in Iraq.

[2] Ibn Taymiyyah, mentor of Wahhabis and Takfiris, is Ahmed ibn Abdul-Halim ibn Abdul-Salam ibn Abdullāh‎ al-Khidr, “Taqiyy ad-Din ,” “Abul-Abbās,” a Hanbali scholar who was born in Harran (ancient Carrhae where Mudar Arabs lived, a town built by Harran brother of prophet Abraham [ع] from whom it derived its name), Iraq, in 661 A.H./1263 A.D. and died inside a Damascus, Syria, prison in 728 A.H./1328 A.D. He had his own radical and un-orthodox way of interpreting hadīth which was different from everyone else’s, distinguishing him from all other scholars of jurisprudence. Those who adopt his views are called “Salafis,” followers of the “salaf,” the “pious” predecessors. He is on the record as the first person to disbelieve in intercession (shafaa). For more details, refer to the 463-page book titled Ibn Taymiyyah by Sa’ib Abdul-Hamid, published in Arabic in Qum, Islamic Republic of Iran, by the Ghadīr Center for Islamic Studies. There are many fanatical groups in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan that adopt this “Salafi” ideology disseminated by government-sponsored Saudi mis-sionary activities and funded by petro-dollars.

[3] The correct pronunciation of “Saud” is Sa'ood,” but we will stick to the commonly used spelling of this word.

[4] Other references consulted for this book indicate that the said attack was carried out on Thul-Hijja 14, 1215 A.H./April 28, 1801 A.D., but we are of the view that the above date is more accurate.

[5] Carl Brockelmann, ed., History of the Islamic Peoples (London, 1980), p. 354.

[6] Ibid.

[7] The Wahhabis have carried out their campaigns against the burial grounds of the Prophet’s family and companions well into the next century. For example, in 1343 A.H./1924 A.D., they demolished the grave-sites of many family members and companions (sahāba) of the Prophet (ﺹ) against the wish and despite the denunciation of the adherents of all other Muslim sects world-wide. And in 1413 A.H./1993, they also demolished the house of Khadija, wife of Prophet Muhammed (ص), as well as the house where the Prophet (ﺹ) had been born, which stood approximately 50 meters northward from Khadija’s house, turning both of them into public bathrooms...

Friday, August 16, 2013

Foro Social Mundial: una Reflexión sobre el Espacio Climático

Foro Social Mundial: una Reflexión sobre el Espacio Climático
La Lucha por Resolver el Cambio Climático es la Expresión de la Lucha entre las Fuerzas del Capital y las Fuerzas de la Humanidad
http://www.globalforestcoalition.net/es/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Cobertura-Forestal-no43-Jun-2013.pdf
8 de julio de 2013
Pablo Solón, Directo Ejecutivo, Focus on the Global South

Fue la primera vez que hubo un espacio dedicado al cambio climático en un Foro Social Mundial. Durante tres días en el FSM de Túnez (26-30 de Marzo) se organizaron 13 eventos sobre diferentes aspectos del cambio climático (combustibles fósiles, agua, migraciones, empleo, alimentación, industrias extractivas, falsas soluciones como los mercados de carbono y los esquemas de REDD, alternativas sistémicas etc.). La metodología acordada por 20 organizaciones [1] que lo convocaron no siguió la lógica de negociación de las Naciones Unidas sino los intereses cotidianos de la gente. El objetivo era analizar cómo fortalecer los vínculos entre las luchas sociales y las luchas medioambientales. El plan era partir de los impactos y las luchas existentes para profundizar en las alternativas y las estrategias de acción para hacer frente al cambio climático. Este artículo contiene una pincelada de lo que fue aquella sinfonía de voces y propuestas.

Plenaria durante el cierre del Espacio Climático – Foro Social Mundial, Túnez, Marzo de 2013. Foto: I. Alvarez.

El Espacio Climático mostró de forma muy concreta que el cambio climático no es un tema meramente medioambiental. En consecuencia no se puede pretender resolverlo con una campaña únicamente enfocada a la crisis climática. El cambio climático es producto del sistema capitalista, de su lógica de crecimiento sin límites para obtener la mayor ganancia posible. Para hacer frente al cambio climático hay que sustituir esta lógica defectuosa por un marco alternativo que reafirme que la importancia del patrimonio natural es más importante para el usuario que el valor de cambio/mercado, y que anteponga el bienestar de todos por encima de los beneficios de unos pocos. Necesitamos un sistema que reconozca a la naturaleza no como materia prima sino como nuestro hogar, como nuestra Madre Tierra. Un sistema que preserve los ciclos vitales de la naturaleza, incluyendo los bosques y océanos, y respete los límites del planeta. Un sistema que busque el equilibrio y la armonía por delante del crecimiento desmesurado. En otras palabras, para salir de la actual crisis climática es necesario quebrar el ciclo perverso del capital.

Este debate, aparentemente abstracto, adquiere carne y hueso cuando se habla de temas concretos. Eso fue lo que se hizo en el Espacio Climático.

Tomemos el ejemplo de los combustibles fósiles. Para controlar las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero varios estudios internacionales señalan que es imprescindible dejar bajo tierra más de dos terceras partes de las reservas conocidas de petróleo, carbón y gas. La aplicación de esta medida choca con los poderosos intereses de transnacionales y Estados que son dueños de este capital y que quieren obtener la máxima ganancia. Limitar las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero no será posible sin que la sociedad recupere el control de esas reservas para frenar su explotación. Pero las transnacionales y los gobiernos que las controlan lucharán a muerte por preservar su capital. Apelarán a todos sus recursos, desde los medios de comunicación hasta las fuerzas de represión. Su principal fortaleza es nuestra más grande debilidad: la mentalidad híperconsumista que ha calado en sectores de la humanidad. No es posible dejar bajo tierra más de dos terceras partes de los combustibles fósiles si al mismo tiempo no salimos de la “pesadilla” del sueño americano de un automóvil para cada familia/persona con soluciones auténticas.

Parte de la solución al cambio climático pasa por forjar ciudades y países con fuertes sistemas de transporte público que hagan innecesarios los carros individuales. La verdadera alternativa no son los automóviles individuales a energía solar, u otras mal-llamadas “energías renovables” dependientes de biomasa, disponibilidad de tierras y otros recursos, sino la reconfiguración del espacio público e individual. El desafío es recuperar el control sobre la industria automotriz para que sirva a las necesidades de transporte público eficiente de la población y no a las ambiciones de ganancia de sus accionistas.

Nuestra tarea fundamental es desensamblar la dimensión climática y ambiental que son intrínsecas a toda lucha social. Cada vez más las luchas que antes eran reformistas se transforman en demandas subversivas ya que el capitalismo busca mayores niveles de ganancia a costa de los seres humanos, de los bosques y de la naturaleza en general. El futuro de la humanidad y de los ciclos vitales de la naturaleza dependen de esta gran batalla que de diferentes formas se está librando por todo el planeta. La principal tarea de los activistas climáticos es ligarse y potenciar esa luchas buscando la articulación de movimientos nacionales, regionales y mundiales contribuyendo a que sean más orgánicos, sostenidos y de mayor visión sistémica.

[1] Alliance of Progressive Labor Philippines, Alternatives International, ATTAC France, Ecologistas en Acción, Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria, ETC Group, Fairwatch, Italy, Focus on the Global South, Global Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power and end TNCs’ impunity, Global Forest Coalition, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, Grupo de Reflexão e Apoio ao Processo do Fórum Social Mundial, Indigenous Environmental Network, La Via Campesina, No-­‐REDD Africa Network, Migrants Rights International, OilWatch International, Polaris Institute, Social Movements for Alternative Asia and Transnational Institute.

A reflection on the Climate Space: The fight to solve climate change is an expression of the struggle between the forces of capitalism and the forces of humanity

A reflection on the Climate Space: The fight to solve climate change is an expression of the struggle between the forces of capitalism and the forces of humanity
http://climatespace2013.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/a-reflection-on-the-climate-space-the-fight-to-solve-climate-change-is-an-expression-of-the-struggle-between-the-forces-of-capitalism-and-the-forces-of-humanity/
July 2, 2013
By Pablo Solón, Executive Director, Focus on the Global South
Published in “Forest Cover” the newsletter of the Global Forest Coalition

It was the first time there was a space dedicated to climate change in a World Social Forum (WSF). During the three days at the WSF in Tunisia (26-30 March), 13 events were organised covering different aspects of climate change (fossil fuels, water, migrations, employment, food, mining, false solutions such as carbon markets and REDD, systemic alternatives, etc.). The methodology agreed by the 20 organisations[1] that prepared the event did not follow the logic of the United Nations negotiations but the daily interests of the people. The goal was to discuss how to strengthen the links between social and environmental struggles. The plan was to start from the impacts and the existing struggles, in order to deepen our ideas and shared understanding about the alternatives and create action strategies to address climate change effectively. This article provides just a glimpse of this symphony of voices and proposals.

The Climate Space showed in a very concrete way that climate change is not a purely environmental issue. Consequently, it cannot be solved with a campaign that is narrowly focused on the climate crisis. Climate change is a product of the capitalist system and its logic of unlimited growth and profit maximisation. To tackle climate change we must replace this flawed logic with an alternative framework that reaffirms the importance of natural heritage to the user as being more important than the exchange/market value, and puts everybody’s welfare over and above profit for a few. We need a system that recognises nature not as raw materials but as our home, our Mother Earth. A system that preserves the vital cycles of nature, including forests and oceans, and respects planetary boundaries. A system that seeks balance and harmony rather than excessive growth. In other words, to get out of the current climate crisis it is necessary to break the vicious cycle of capital.

This debate, seemingly abstract, acquires flesh and bone when specific topics are discussed and this is what happened at the Climate Space.

Let´s take the example of fossil fuels. Several international studies have mentioned that in order to control greenhouse gas emissions it is essential to keep more than two-thirds of the oil, coal and gas reserves underground. But applying this measure conflicts with the powerful interests of corporations and states who own this capital and want to maximise their profits.

Limiting greenhouse gas emissions will not be possible if society does not regain control of these reserves and curb exploitation. But transnational corporations and governments that control the reserves will fight to the death to preserve their capital. They will respond in whatever way they can, from utilising the media to unleashing the forces of repression. Their main strength, however, is our greatest weakness: the hyper-consumerist mentality that has permeated many sectors of humanity. It is not possible to keep more than two-thirds of fossil fuels underground if we do not leave behind the ‘nightmare’ of the American dream of a car for every family/person, and adopt real solutions.

Part of the solution to climate change is to forge cities and countries with strong public transportation systems, which would make individual cars unnecessary. The true alternative is not solar-powered individual cars or other wrongly-called ‘renewable energies’ based on biomass, availability of land and other resources, but the reconfiguration of the public and individual space. The challenge is to regain control over industries, to ensure efficient transportation rather than fulfillment of shareholders’ ambitions to create profit.

Our fundamental task is to unpack the climatic and environmental dimensions that are intrinsic to every social struggle. Increasingly, struggles that generated reformist demands have become subversive, in that capitalism seeks higher levels of profit at the expense of human beings, forests and nature in general. The future of humanity and vital cycles of nature depend on this great battle that is taking place in different ways around the globe. The main task is to link climate activists and strengthen the joint struggles seeking for an articulation of national, regional and global movements and thus, contribute to making them more organic and sustained, with a broader systemic vision.

[1] Alliance of Progressive Labor Philippines, Alternatives International, ATTAC France, Ecologistas en Acción, Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria, ETC Group, Fairwatch, Italy, Focus on the Global South, Global Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power and end TNCs’ impunity, Global Forest Coalition, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, Grupo de Reflexão e Apoio ao Processo do Fórum Social Mundial, Indigenous Environmental Network, La Via Campesina, No-REDD Africa Network, Migrants Rights International, OilWatch International, Polaris Institute, Social Movements for Alternative Asia and Transnational Institute.