Question:

There were a number of matters that were unclear in the revolutions that have taken place:

1. We have learned that the events in Egypt and Tunisia were self-initiated and we consider such a development a blessing. The same being the case with Libya and Yemen, with the masses in huge numbers demonstrating for the removal of the tyrant rulers. Why then are the revolutionaries content with ‘cosmetic’ changes of the regime in Tunisia and Egypt where the situation appears to have reached a stalemate as if the revolutionaries have won whereas what still remains is the ‘body’ of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes?

2. In Egypt and Tunisia, the events occurred swiftly and rapidly but when the ‘fever’ of revolt extended to Libya and Yemen, it has taken longer and is more protracted. Why has this been the case?

3. Moreover, the global media projected the image with its coverage in early March 2011 that Europe i.e. Britain and France, show a strong interest to intervene in Libya with military intervention while America distanced itself and even hesitated! On 10^th March 2011, France announced its recognition of the Libyan Transitional National Assembly and called on the European Union to recognise it. The European Union in its meeting on the 11^th March 2011 was close to recognising the Transitional National Council and considered it the official representatives to negotiate with, and they went further and called for Gaddafi to step down immediately. At the same time, America did not show the enthusiasm to intervene as Europe did despite the fact that America could exploit this opportunity to her advantage in order to replace British influence. Why has Europe shown more interest and enthusiasm than America?

4. What about the rebels/revolutionaries, can they withstand the heavily armed Libyan tyrant who has always used brutality openly and not secretly, it was declared that he will create a Libyan holocaust?

Answer:

1. It is correct that the events in Tunisia and Egypt and even Libya and Yemen was a popular uprising and it had the positive impact of breaking the barrier of fear that the rulers for long utilised, such fear even overcame their Islamic sentiments, but the people began mobilizing and moving without fearing the oppression of the rulers. On the one hand, one of its benefits was that it made the people rise up against the rulers and thus from this angle this was a positive development and a blessing.

On the other hand, the disparate movements began with much emotion and demands for change. Such emotional disparate movements however lack the necessary cohesion and this allowed foreign forces and their allies to intervene and penetrate them. Thus, European forces i.e. the French and British – were able to penetrate these movements in Tunisia by trained agents infiltrating those revolting. This made it possible to maintain the original structure and system of the regime and due to the continued presence of foreign forces only ‘cosmetic change’ was possible.

This is what has also happened in Egypt where America was able to infiltrate the rebels and protesters and steer them. This is evident to any sincere and discerning individual. These movements were emotional and can be easily influenced and penetrated by foreign forces and their agents.

Some sincere elements focused on maintaining contact with the protestors to alert them and raise awareness about the events that were taking place and urged them not to betray the blood that was spilled for the cause and to make their protest in accordance with the demands and requirements of their religion chanting takbirs and chanting eulogies. But despite these intense, serious and sincere attempts on the protesters’ part, other more stronger forces  exploited the situation and influenced the protesters to the extent that they were even present in Tahrir Square in Egypt praying in congregation amongst the other thousands of people there, chanting takbirs and eulogies, raising Islamic sentiments and emotions but never mentioning any demand for Islamic rule nor did they even mention jihad against the Zionist entity occupying Palestine and they didn’t even mention the rejection of the Camp David accords.

 This confirms the correctness of the intelligent person that achieving real change requires two key aspects:

• Public opinion from public awareness and not public opinion alone.
• Support of the people of power and not any support

The protesters did not have the insight on these two matters, so the result was cosmetic change without any change in the political structure of the regime.

2. As for the difference in what happened in Tunisia and Egypt regarding the removal of Ben Ali and Mubarak within a matter of days and the ongoing efforts in Libya and Yemen, the reason why events are taking longer than they did in Tunisia and Egypt is because of the presence of foreign elements in Tunisia and Egypt. These foreign elements remained in their respective areas of ​​controlling influence. Europe seized the reins of power in Tunisia and dealt with the uprising gradually. Whenever the people rallied with one voice and call it was changed to something else, keeping the structure of the secular capitalist system unchanged.

The same was the case in Egypt, where America was able to make contact and utilize political forces operating with Hosni Mubarak and addressed the issue of change gradually. Like Tunisia whenever the people rallied with a call for change through a specific demand the protestors were diverted to something different. Thus, what facilitated the swift departure of Ben Ali and Mubarak within a matter of days was due to the presence of foreign powers in both Egypt and Tunisia – Europe in Tunisia and America in Egypt. These international players were able, through their trained agents in the former regimes able to infiltrate the protestors and scream louder than their screams, to proclaim stronger demands as well as make louder noises than the protestors themselves who were rebelling against injustice, oppression and repression imposed by the dictator rulers of in Tunisia and Egypt. These elements were deceiving the protestors.

In summary the conflicting parties in Tunisia and Egypt were: 

• The protestors who were protesting against injustice, and
• Europe in Tunisia with her agents and America in Egypt with her agents

Therefore it was easy for the foreign powers to maintain the structure of the secular Capitalist system, in the name of freedom and democracy through ‘cosmetic changes.’

As for Libya and Yemen, the situation in these two countries is different. Europe was unable to prevent America from interfering in Libya or in Yemen. These two countries were not an arena purely for Europe to set the political agenda. What took place was Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdul-Saleh in Yemen both claimed they were able to remain in power by giving incentives to the people in the form of reforms. It became apparent however to Europe that this was not working and was failing and such rulers were now ineffective in securing European interests, even though they controlled the protestors through slaughter and spilling their blood. These two rulers had exhausted their roles. Therefore Europe is now trying to build an alternative political class in Libya and Yemen. However this is now complicated by the presence of the American, who is giving attention to these two countries and especially Yemen since the war on terror began. Whilst Europe was able to, with considerable ease resolve the problem of a popular uprising in Tunisia, there was no other challenge by another power, but in both Libya and Yemen America is competing for influence with Europe.

Therefore there are three rival factions in Yemen and Libya:

• The protesters who arose in a popular uprising against injustices of the regime out of emotion and anger
• Europe, i.e. Britain and France in Libya and Britain in Yemen, trying to maintain their former influence but with new personnel, and
• America that is trying to be the most influential political player in the region

The competition between these powers resulted in them demonstrating to their agents and the worlds media that they were against the rulers, tyrants and dictators in these countries, as if they were oblivious to the tyranny of these rulers, despite the fact that these disbelieving states were behind the rulers and tyrants of taghut in the Muslim countries as long as they were securing their interests. When their purpose and use was exhausted, the colonialists would search for replacements. In other words, the presence of international rivalry in Libya and Yemen, which is prolonged and protracted, delayed the movements in Libya and Yemen than in the case of Tunisia and Egypt.

3. As for the apparent lack of American commitment to military intervention, it was evident to America when the uprising began in Mid-February in Libya that a no fly zone would possibly be imposed. Thus she stationed her vessels along or close to the shores of Libya. This is her usual behaviour, where she likes to dominate the political situation. She used the protection of the “revolution” as a pretext to intervene and replace Gaddafi and therefore secure influence where Britain has long dominated. However, Britain also did not hesitate or delay in moving, she sent her planes to her base in Cyprus. America has also acted in active solidarity with France on the subject of no fly zones and even proposed sending a delegation to the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The response of the National Council was to turn it down.

The intervention of Europe differs from that of the American intervention in the region. Britain has a political class that was built through its influence in Libya. Gaddafi and his followers served the interests of Britain throughout there years of rule. However were Gaddafi to fall or nearly fall, it was important for Britain to be next to close to her agents in Libya, utilising the imposition of the no-fly zones that would create a political situation allowing her to replace Gaddafi. Thus, her intervention under the UN resolution which stated ‘all necessary measures’ suitably places her near her agents in Libya so that she can find a replacement for Gaddafi who humiliated himself by massacring his own people Thus, this military intervention is a cover for her political action in Libya and this explains the activity of Britain and France on the subject of the imposition of the no fly zones.

It is well known that other European countries like France, Italy, etc. have huge economic interests in Libya and therefore have reasons to intervene in order to maintain their interests.  This strengthens Britain in the face of America and she begun preparing and working through her agents at home and abroad to manage the situation when Gaddafi falls, it was able to do this as it has politicians in Libya that are willing to serve them. As for America Gaddafi has not left her any political class and hence she wants to ensure the presence of her followers and strengthen them before any military action begins. Accordingly, America is stalling intervention in until the rebels realize that it is America that will save them from Gaddafi’s fire. Thus, in reality caring little for Gaddafi’s murders. In particular, America is aware that no fly zones alone will not solve the problem in Libya. America is stalling not because she does not want to intervene, but rather to ensure her agents are in place when she does intervene, i.e. she wants to ensure that the burden of intervention is worth the trouble before she proceeds forward. American intervention however has huge burdens and difficulties.

America cannot start a third war. It is still fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and has failed to complete her mission in Iraq. Add to this the fact that the US has not recovered from the global financial crisis despite certain questionable economic statistics and indicators. Hillary Clinton indicated in her speech before the US House of Representatives where she complained of budget cuts to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by almost half and described it as “a meager budget for difficult times.” The US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “that military action may have results that are not directly clear and so need to be studied very carefully.” (Washington Post, 03/02/2011). Hence, America’s direct involvement in a third theater of war would burden her and overstretch her in light of the other engagements and their dynamics.  Therefore, on the 1^st March 2011 Gates justified ordering the two warships “USS Kearsarge” and “USS Ponce” to move near the Libyan coast. He justified this under the pretext of humanitarian assistance. America sends its troops under the pretext of a humanitarian mission? The truth is that it sent those ships in order to monitor the situation for military missions such that if necessary, it would act within proximity! It is also perhaps to frighten the Gaddafi regime and at worse prepare itself for military strikes against Libya.

With all that, America has worked to contact the protestors and rebels as announced by Clinton just as she announced in her other communications before her visit to Cairo. America is working for their support without directly intervening in order to be able to gain influence in winning the internal leadership as much as it is able to and work on restricting Gaddafi from arms length even if the only gain is some of Libya’s leaders, but as long as this assures some infiltration of Libya. This for the America would be a price worth paying with military intervention and a burden worth bearing.

These are the reasons for America stalling and delaying its proclamation to intervene and keeping vague its relationship with the protestors. It was waiting to ensure the effective political infiltration of its agents inside Libya was made before it acted and it seems that America will continue on this road.

4. As for the longevity of the “revolution,” it is clear the people are defiant before the criminal Gaddafi and the evidence for this is their persistence in the face of Gaddafi’s heavy weaponry and their lack of fear. They have broken the fear barrier and have taken up arms joining the forces of the army as well as other tribes and taking control of many areas. They have become accustomed to the new situation and the Islamic sentiments are growing. All this has made them stand strong in the face of Gaddafi’s mercenaries. However, the difference in capability, especially weapons is huge, the gap is too big between what the protesters have and what the tyrant of Libya possesses, which is spewing lava on the protestors in the way of a scorched-earth. The colonial powers of Europe and America exploited the might of Gaddafi’s forces pretending to show assistance to the protestors and it is feared that the colonial powers will find a justification, such as the call for “humanitarian intervention” in order to stop the bloody massacres committed by Gaddafi. But the sad aspect of this is that the Arab states bordering Libya failed to intervene, their armies are stationed in their barracks coming out to kill the people but when it comes to helping the oppressed in Libya, they do not move. Truly, they are deaf, dumb and blind. They do not understand.

This is what is feared: the exploitation of the bloody massacres by the colonialist kuffar as a pretext for militarily intervention in Libya. Neither Arab parties nor Libyan parties have said anything challenging regarding the ongoing brutal massacre. This matter was mentioned by the Secretary of the Arab League.

The effect of this is the fear of each other. Britain attempts to make its agents the ones who hold the reins of power in the uprising and if the regime of Gaddafi falls, she will come to them. Likewise, the agents of America fear the masters of their own affairs; if they attempt to instill help, America will buy a new client. It is not clear so far who has the upper-hand nor is the matter clearly decided between loyal supporters of Gaddafi and his British-client regime, Britain’s agents and America’s agents.

Even if the protest is won and Gaddafi is removed it will not resolve, in the short term, the situation for any of the participant factions. This is because of the presence of international powers, their infiltration of Libya and those competing in the shadows, as well as the presence of their agents working among the people to take charge. The people of Libya will not be delivered from this problem unless they adopt Islam as a system of life that operates as a state and in society and in all things clearly and openly. As for rallying under the national banner, each and any old person or thing will come under this banner and each Party will seek to control the political situation and lead the people on a path that makes them waste the  pure blood that was shed without achieving a just and equitable system of governance, which will shelter all under the shade of its security and safety.

 This is what we fear for the Muslims in Libya with regards to the deception of the rulers and the danger and harm of the colonist kuffar within the Muslim lands as well as the tyranny giving rise to the bloody massacres at the hands of the tyrant of Libya.

 The duty of the Ummah is to press the rulers, especially those neighboring Libya such as Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia to seize the hands of the tyrant and mobilise the armies to make them, their cohorts, mercenaries and helpers taste the torment of humiliation in this world. And the torment of Jahannam, in the Afterlife is left to Allah the Mighty.

6^th Rabi` al-Thani

11^th March 2011