Question: There are certain issues regarding the events that remain still unclear:

1: We learned that the events in Egypt and Tunisia were spontaneous and we described them as good and blessed. Similarly in Libya and Yemen, they were started by huge crowds. Why did the revivalists then settle for a ‘revolution,‘ which is nothing more than mere cosmetic surgery of the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes, as if the revolution had been accomplished...even though the foundations of the regime remained intact and even though there was no change in the allegiance of the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia?

2: Similarly, events in Tunisia and Egypt moved fast up to a point, but when matters spread to Libya and Yemen, they were prolonged and drifted along. Why is this difference?

3: During the last three days, the media has been reporting that Europe, "Britain and France," are considering intervention in Libya and are preparing to enforce a no-fly zone over it. The US also intends to do so but is wavering! Then on 9th March, 2011, France announced its recognition for the Libyan Provisional National Council and urged the European Union to recognize it. Then on 11.3.2011, at its special session in Brussels, the EU was on the verge of according its recognition to the Libyan Provisional National Council, in fact it was considered to be mere formality by one member state, and demanded Qadhafi to step down at once... at the same time, the US did not exhibit eagerness as Europe did, even though it was expected that events presented an opportunity for the US to exploit in its favor and replace Britain's influence...why is that Europe is more keen to intervene than the US?

4: Also regarding the ‘revolutionaries‘, can they prevail in the face of the heavily armed Libyan forces who are openly bent upon a bloody path and have announced that they will turn Libya into burning flames?

Please clarify these issues, may Allah reward you.

Answer:

1: It is correct that the events started spontaneously not only in Tunsia and Egypt, but also in Libya and Yemen...and there has been a positive impact of these protests because it has shattered the barrier of fear that the people had from their rulers and it also elevated their Islamic sentiments. The people moved out and shouted "Allah Akbar" without any fear of retaliation by their rulers and this will certainly benefit in mobilizing the people...thus from this aspect the events were welcome and blessed.

On the other hand these events had an emotional outset, with generalized slogans. Such occurrences can easily be infiltrated by the international powers and their agent rulers in the country, which is why Europe i.e. Britain and France were able to infiltrate these protests in Tunisia through their trained proxies who joined the protestors and succeeded in keeping the foundations of their regime intact with mere cosmetic changes.

The same was repeated in Egypt except that t was the US that did so there through its agents...

To any sincere and aware person, it was clear that these events stemmed from the people's emotions and that such occurrences can be easily infiltrated and crushed by international powers. This is why the sincere persons focused on keeping in contact with the protesters, in order to keep them aware of the happenings and to urge them not to let their spilled blood be humiliated and wasted. And more importantly that their demands are in accordance with their deen, for which they make their Takbeers and Tahleels....

Despite such sincere, true and intense attempts with the protestors, other forces utilized their proxies and harnessed their resources to the extent that the protesters at the Tahrir Square in Egypt who offered prayers in thousands, cried the greatness of Allah and were overwhelmed by their Islamic sentiments, neither demanded the rule of Islam nor mentioned Jihad against the Jewish state, which has usurped Palestine and moreover did not call for the rescinding of the Camp David accord!

This underscores the truth of the statement that two aspects are required in order to achieve the correct change:

* Public Opinion which stems out awareness and not merely public opinion as such.

* Support of the people of power, and not merely any support.

The protesters were not aware of these two issues and thus the result was a cosmetic change, without any real change in the political structure.

2: The difference between the events in Tunisia and Egypt on the one hand where Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were removed from power within days, and the events in Libya and Yemen where the situation has prolonged more than in Tunisia and Egypt; is that the international powers who have influence in Tunisia and Egypt persisted in authority and kept their influence intact in the region. Europe had its grip on the events in Tunisia which it addressed in stages, whenever the people stood up; the powers changed the face of the rulers and kept the basic structure of the secular capitalist system of governance intact, without any changes. Similarly in Egypt, it was the US alone which was in touch with the political forces in the past and the present regime and treated the situation in steps; whenever the protestors roared, they changed one face with another!

Thus what made the removal of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak so easy was that the international players are basically of one type, Europe in Tunisia and the US in Egypt...these players, through their agents in these countries who had supported the previous regimes for decades, were able to infiltrate the protesters and raised their voices over those of the  protesters and calling for their demands in forceful voices against the oppression and suppression enforced by the tyrannical rulers in Tunisia and Egypt; and yet the same forces cheated the protestors!

In other words, the rival parties in Tunisia and Egypt were:

The protesters who had spontaneous sentiments against the oppression...and,

Europe through its agents in Tunisia, and the US through its agents in Egypt as well...

Thus, the international powers were in a position to keep the foundations of their secular capitalist system intact in the name of liberty and democracy. They achieved this by offering cosmetic changes which certainly will be exposed later, however, after its time has passed!

As for Libya and Yemen, their situation is contrasting. Europe could not prevent America from intervention in either Libya or Yemen. The stage was not monopolized by Europe in both these countries, to manage the affairs as it wanted. Namely, to satisfy or pacify the people with token gestures and retain their agents intact, as they had tried earlier to keep Qadhafi in Libya and Ali Saleh in Yemen  "if possible," by offering initiatives to convince the people and grant them an open hand in the matter. That is until it became clear to the Europeans that they have failed in the continuous achievement of their interests, even by controlling the protesters, through slaughter and spilling their blood. Their strength was lost and they lost their influence in the two countries, which means that they have played out their roles and it is over for them. This is why they are trying to create an alternative from among the political arena, which was carved up in Libya and Yemen. But all this was not as easy as it was in Tunisia, for instance, because Europe has to contend with another global power, namely the US, which has seriously moved into Libya and Yemen ... thus the stage was not controlled by Europe alone. If it was so, matters would have settled as easily as they did in Tunisia. But here, the US intervened in the arena at the outset by coming in contact both openly and behind the scenes... In other words, there were three competing parties in both of these countries:

• A- The spontaneous protesters who had natural sentiments against the oppression...
• B- Europe (i.e. Britain & France in Libya, and Britain alone in Yemen) striving to retain its previous influence by merely changing the face...and
• C- The US which is trying to establish effective control in the two countries...

The two international parties have tried to project through their media that they are against the totalitarian and oppressive rulers, as if Europe and the US were hitherto unaware about the oppression by the rulers. The fact is that it is these Kafir colonialist nations that have been supporting the oppressive and tyrannical regimes in the Muslim lands as long as they can achieve their interests. But once the oppressive rulers have played out their roles, they are discarded and disowned and a search is carried on for a less repulsive face!

In other words, it is the presence of the international conflict in Libya and Yemen, which prolongs matters, more so than the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

3: As for intervention, it has been clear since the inception of the events on 17th February, 2011 that the US is keen to intervene and enforce a no-fly zone. It mobilized its ships closer to the Libyan coast...and as is known of America, it wanted to exercise complete and exclusive hegemony, as if it was supporting the ‘revolutionaries ‘ and through it, it wanted to look for an alternative to Qadhafi, so that it could replace Britain there.

However, the British also moved in and without delay sent its aircrafts to Cyprus and joined activities with France on the issue of no-fly zone. In fact she sent a delegation to the Provisional Libyan National Council in Benghazi... which was sent back by the council.

European intervention is not the same as US intervention. Britain has a crew of its proxies in the political circle which it nurtured during the reign of its influence in Libya. Qadhafi and his men were serving British interests during his term and since he has almost fallen, Britain is keen to stay close to her agents under the pretext of no-fly zone, so that it can carve out an alternative to Qadhafi. Thus its intervention through any ‘legitimate' and appropriate means is meant to ensure that one of its proxies is able to replace Qadhafi, whose face has become repulsive and unacceptable to people, and it needs a new face which is not so blackened! Thus Britain's military intervention will provide a political cover along with its agents. This explains France and Britain's actions on the issue of no-fly zone, as well as the resolutions of the EU special session today, 11th March 2011.

It is known that other European countries like France and Italy have great economic interests in Libya and it is in their interest to intervene if possible, in order to protect their interests. This strengthens Britain's position vis-a-vis the US...Hence Britain has started to make its preparations through its agents inside and outside of Libya in order to enable them to come to power in the event of Qadhafi's downfall. Britain has its agents amongst the politicians, who can change their face to suit people.

As for the US, Qadhafi did not leave for her any political faction to move with her, which is why it wants to ensure presence of agents before any military intervention.

However, the US is delaying intervention until the revolutionists realize that it is America which will save them from Qadhafi's fire, allowing them to stoop, before the US intervenes and particularly since the America is aware that a no-fly zone without her will not solve the problem.

Thus the US is delaying intervention, not because it doesn't want to intervene, rather to insure that she has followers when she intervenes, which means that it wants to ensure that the results achieved are at least worth the trouble, since any US intervention would mean great troubles:

America is not in a position to undertake a third war, whilst it is already engaged in the Afghanistan and Pakistan war, whilst the one in Iraq has not yet ended. Furthermore, the US is encumbered by a financial crisis which does not grant it any respite, despite the various reports and forecasts which are regarded as incorrect. Hillary Clinton pointed to this during her address to the US House of Representatives and complained of the shrinking of budgetary allocations for the US State Department by half. She termed the budget as "weak with difficult times ahead." At the same time, the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "the military operations may have indirect consequences which need to be studied with great care". [Washington Post: 02.03.2011]. Thus America‘s direct entanglement in three wars will further put her under greater troubles and weaken it, in addition to its sufferings in different regions, as well as internal issues. This is why Robert Gates justified his orders to the two war ships "Caresarge" and "Bonsai" on 1st March, 2011 to move close to the Libyan coast. He said these ships have been ordered closer to the Libyan coast, in order to provide humanitarian assistance. So the US sends its naval warships under the pretext of humanitarian help!...Although the truth of the matter is that the ships are sent to monitor the military operations and even work from such proximity if the need arises, as well as terrifying Qadhafi's regime and to prepare for the worst outcome, by striking Libya.

Despite all of this, the US is working on contact with the protesters and the revolutionists, and Hillary Clinton has declared so. She also talked about other contacts during her recent visit to Cairo. She is working to support them without direct intervention in order to achieve influence by winning over domestic leaders as far as possible, and she is also working from outside to tighten the noose around Qadhafi. Thus if she wins over some leaderships or enlists them and is assured of appropriate penetration into Libya, she will then have something that merits a military intervention and is worth the accompanying troubles.

These are the reasons for delay in announcing its decision ofr intervention or for announcing its stance over the revolution. This is only meant to gain time to ensure effective political infiltration inside Libya. It appears that the US is inching towards such a scenario...

4: As for the persistence of the "revolutionaries ", it is clear that they are steadfast in the face of the criminal Qadhafi. The proof of that is their steadfastness in confronting Qadhafi's heavy arms with no fear; they have shattered the fear barrier, taken up arms and a section of the armed forces having joined with them. They have taken control of a number of regions and various tribes have also joined them. They are accustomed to the new situation and their sentiments are ardently Islamic...All these factors have enabled them to stand up to Qadhafi's mercenaries in great heroic acts...

However, the great misbalance in terms of arms and weapons of the protestors and the forces of Qadhafi... who is spitting fire on the protestors along the burnt landscape of Libya...the colonialist forces, i.e. Europe and the US are raising the balance in favor of Qadhafi's weapons and projecting as if they are helping the protestors. It is feared that the colonialist forces may find a justification under the garb of "humanitarian assistance" to intervene to put an end to the slaughtering and blood shed being committed by Qadhafi...

The sad part, or rather the humiliating part, is that the neighboring Arab rulers have not moved at all and their armed forces are resting in their barracks. They are ordered out of barracks only to kill people and not for coming to the rescue of the victims in Libya. The Arab rulers remain deaf, dumb and even blind, they perceive not...

What is feared is that the Kafir colonialists will exploit the bloody slaughter being committed by Qadhafi and thus they will find a pretext for military intervention in Libya. They have no shortage of either an Arab or Libyan party calling them to intervene; in fact the Secretary General of the Arab League has alluded to this already.

In addition to this, there is another apprehension, that Britain may enable its proxies to manage the protests to bring them to the fore, in case the regime of Qadhafi falls. Similarly the US agents may take hold of the situation if they can and find their own proxies and buy new support. The situation until now is neither tilted towards the sincere people nor to the Qadhafi regime loyal to the British, nor to any alternate British proxy or US agent. Even if the protests are victorious and Qadhafi falls, the situation would still not tilt in favor of any of the parties in the short term. This is because of the intervention of those colonialist countries and their rivalry for control, behind the scenes, as well as because of the presence of their proxies among the people, who are striving to take control. The people in Libya will not succeed except by clearly and publicly adopting Islam as the system of life in the country and society, in all aspects...But so long as things remain under the banner of nationalism, everyone will move in and work to take control of things and drive people. And the spilling of innocent blood will occur without any fair achievement or just authority under which the people can live in peace and safety.

This is what we fear for the Muslims in Libya because of the betrayal of the neighboring rulers who wait for the kafir colonialists to enter the Muslim lands, as well as the tyranny of the slaughter at the hands of the Libyan tyrant...

It becomes the duty of the Ummah to put pressure upon their rulers especially those neighboring Libya in Egypt, Algeria and Tunis to stand up to the tyrannical rulers and force them to move their armed forces so that Qadhafi gets the taste of his own blood and is made to face his actions: humiliating punishment in this world and the punishment of Hell in the hereafter, indeed it is no big task for Allah.