Download Vision of the Muslim Brotherhood on self

Vision of the Muslim Brotherhood on self-determination in Southern
Sudan
Nov. 9, 2010
Introduction
This article is a brief historical description of the Sudan
As a political and religious organization of all Muslims, our position is obvious
about this historic crime [self-determination] perpetrated against the Sudan,
Islam and Muslims. When such a crime is compromised in the land of
Muslims and Islam, with ease, the punishments shall be delivered to the
unbelievers. They shall become a thorn on the side of the nation and
delivered that nation to the enemies of Allah [Almighty God]. As always the
intention of this sedition is to disrupt the growth of Muslims and Islam. There
are only few fateful days left for the referendum as we get out this
document. As Muslims and true believers of the Allah [Almighty God], we do
not call after the departure of the convoy [secession of South Sudan], but a
continuation of our appeals that we are launching throughout the Islamic
World as we did always, and time and time again.
The Reformed Muslim Brotherhood is issuing this booklet to alert and awaken
all Muslims; perhaps God himself will facilitate the awakening and stop this
disaster from happening.
According to the Naivasha Agreement of 2005, self-determination for South
Sudan is supposed to take place on the ninth of January. This pivotal event
will determine the fate of the Sudan geographically, politically as well as
security. It is very strange that the people of the Sudan, religious leaders,
and scholars did not participate and present their opinion in the decisionmaking of this serious crime, but was done by a group which holds power in
the Sudan and the former southern rebels.
The agreement makes the secession of southern Sudan from the rest of the
country a possibility, because it gives the people of southern Sudan alone
excluding the rest of the country the right to vote. In such cases, the rebels
are encouraging south Sudanese by claiming that the “South has been
colonized by the North!!”
Since this referendum is a critical milestone that will shape the Sudan and its
map [God forbid!], it is also necessary to shed light on some of the logical,
legitimate facts, as a testimony of God and history.
These facts are:
First, the land of the south Sudan is part of the Islamic World that shall not
be relinquished. History is a proof! South Sudan is an Islamic land, Saracens
and will always be ruled by Muslims with other various parts of the Sudan. It
is part of an Islamic country and because of this; its geography must remain
intact by all means.
As it is well known in history, the present Sudan was cluster of chiefdoms,
kingdoms and sultanates, until the Ottoman Turkish conquest of Egypt in the
first decades of the nineteenth century. The Turks put these Muslim
kingdoms, chiefdoms and sultanates including the South together and named
it the Sudan. As you have seen, the Sudan becomes part of the Ottoman
Empire.
As evidenced in the history the Sudan, unlike other regions, for instance,
Darfur which joined the Sudan in 1874 at the hand of al Zubayr Pasha, South
Sudan was already part of the Sudan.
In addition, during the Mahdia Revolution southern tribes participated in the
struggle against the infidels lead by the Mahdi in big numbers. They pledged
allegiance and entered into obedience, and became part of the Islamic state
established by the Mahdi. [1]
Based on this, the South, with all its endowment is an integral part of the
Islamic World, which is an Islamic land, and no one has the legal right to
transfer, sell, and change the borders of the land of the martyrs. No one has
the authority to do disarmament in the land Muslims are governing and give
it to non-Muslims. This is an insult to Allah [Almighty God] and Muslims.
Sudan: The Islamic Conquest of the Sudan
Islam came to the Sudan during the reign of Caliph Osman ibn Affan III (may
Allah be pleased with him) when he sent his servant to Egypt, Abdullah ibn
Sah started campaign and conquered Nubia in southern Egypt. This was due
to repeated attack by infidels on the southern borders of Egypt. Though the
primary purpose of Abdullah ibn Sah’s campaign was to discipline the infidels
of Nubia and secure the borders of Egypt, his Islamic army invaded the
Nubian capital, Old Dongola, destroyed it churches and build mosques for
Muslims there. This conquest resulted into the signing of the treaty, which
ensured the subordination of the Nubian and their loyalty to the Islamic
state.
As a result of the Islamic conquest, the treaty lasted for six centuries and it
regulated relationship between Muslims in Egypt and Nubia. The incursion of
Muslim traders into Nubia also helped to spread Islam in remote areas of the
Nubian Kingdom. Also contributed in the spread of Islam to the rest of the
Nubia and beyond was the political turmoil in the Abbasid state, which
resulted in the migration of the Arabs to the Sudan in various groups,
especially when Caliph al Mutassim Abbasi decided to sent Arabs away as
soldiers. This settlement of the Arab tribes in the modern day Sudan, UAE
resulted in the established of Islamic Emirate by sultans such as Abdul Hamid
Bin Abdullah Al-Omari in the nineteenth century AD in the Eastern Desert.
[2]
But these migrations peaked during the nineteenth century AD during the
worsening conflict between the Arabs and the Mamluks when the Arabs
started to come to the Sudan in large batches, taking over the Christian state
of the Nubia and made it an Islamic Sultanate. There was another Arab influx
from the western slope of North Africa through West Africa until it reached
Darfur and Kordofan.
Funj: One of the last remaining entities that was defeated by the Arab state
of Alwa that ruled central Sudan. The allied Arab tribes under the banner of
Sheik Arab Qawasmi Abdullah rise in the beginning of the nineteenth century
AD and conquered the Kindom of the Nuba in Kordofan and destroyed the
capital of Soba established Islamic political entity, which united with the
Kingdom of Funj in the Upper Blue Nile. [3]
In addition, what is known today as South Sudan was early on in the hand of
Muslims like the Misseriya Arabs pastoralists who arrived in the nineteenth
century in the south Sudan across the Red Sea and settled, especially in the
Abyei region before the arrival of the Dinka.
South Sudan in the hand of the Ottoman Empire:
In 1821 Mohammad Ali Pasha of Egypt invaded the Sudan, however, he ruled
the Sudan on the behalf of Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul, which was the Caliph
at the time. After the fall of kingdom in the north of the Sudan in the hand of
the Turks, Mohammad Ali Pasha continue southward to explore the waters of
the Nile under Captain Salim, who arrive in “Gondakoro” an island on the Nile
southeast of the city of Juba, the capital of Southern Sudan. It was said that
when Captain Salim and his soldiers arrive on the island of Gondokoro, they
embraced one another for achieving their goal.[4]
The control of the waters of the Nile and the invasion of the Sudan was one
of the important goals achieved by Mohammad Ali Pasha. He was keen to
extend his control and influence with his soldiers. This expedition was later
on continue after him by Alkhadioyen until he reached what was known as
the Directorate of Equatoria and stretched the limits of his conquest to Lake
Victoria in what is known today as Ugandan.
Zubair Basha:
The Turkish under Al-Zubair Basha and Dr. Mercy established Islamic state in
Bhar Al Gazel under Turkish government. He was later became the ruler of
Darfur and Bhar Al Gazel.
The Era of Mahdia:
The Mahdia Revolution inherited Islamic region of south Sudan from the
Turkish government and entered it into the administrative system established
on the basis of Islam. As a result of the Mahdia Revolution, Sharia arbitration
was extended in the south Sudan all the way to the Mount of Al Rajaf, which
is located southeast of the city of Juba. [5] In summary, the South has been
subjected to the rule of Muslims during different eras of the Sudan since the
Turks and even during the state of the Mahdia Revolution, in which
southerners participated. With the rest of the Sudan, south Sudan also fell
into the hands of English occupiers, and then liberated with the rest of the
country during independence.
As shown by these narratives above, south Sudan is an Islamic land, it
belongs to all Muslims. No infidels should hold on to it, or waived it through
referendum or other means. All in all, secession of south Sudan under the
pressure of infidels is a betrayal in the eyes of Allah [Almighty God] and his
messenger and the believers.
The relationship between the North and the South
One of the reasons cited always by the infidels to justify the separation of the
South from the North is that the relationship between the North and the
South are not on good terms. It is always about the long history of wars and
that is, it would be better to stop bloodshed to let the South go. The truth is
that the relationship between the North and South was not always about war,
but that of co-existence for more than five centuries. The emergence of the
recent war is a history of no more than 50 years. It is true that was the
breakout war occasionally, for instance, between the Shilluk and the Funj, or
between Arab tribes and the Dinka. However, conflicts over resources or land
were not confined to the Funj and the Shilluk or the Dinka and the Misseriya
but happening all over the Sudan between various chiefdoms and kingdoms
in various times and even among southern tribes themselves. Such conflicts
didn’t constitute a phenomenon that characterizes relationship of aggression
between the North and the South.
More historical evidence of good relationship:
During the era of the former Turkish Sultan Zubair Basha and Dr. Mercy,
there was an Islamic state in the deep south of the Sudan that was governed
by the laws of God and the foundation of its army was “Banzenker.” The
Islamic state in the south was recognized by the Turkish government and
subject together for the first time together with Darfur, the Fur Sultanate as
part of the Turtish Islamic state in 1874. [6]
The Mahdia Revolution after the Ottoman rule extended it borders to Mount
Al Rajaf entered the South in glory and obedience without conflict. Indeed,
southern tribes like the Dinka, Nuer, and Shilluk participated in the revolution
under the command of Prince Mahdi (may God be generous to him) and
brothers Mohammad and princes of Solomon.
In the old history of Misseriya regarding Abyei, we find that Misseriya were
the ones who hosted “Dinka Ngok” who were expelled by their Dinka brothers
as a result of a row. The Misseriya hosted the “Dink Ngok” after they did not
find someone to host them. The cordial relationship between Misseriya and
Dinka Ngok continue on brotherly terms and when the English tried to annex
the Dinka Ngok to Bhar Al Gazel, the Dinka Ngok refused and insisted to be
part of south Kordofan. The chief of the Dinka Ngok at the time was Chief
Deng Mijok and chief of the Misseriya was Babu Nimr. The two were brothers
because their relationship was built on Islamic principles.
As a result of this customs and tradition and culture, Arabic language
prevailed in the South and became the language of communication between
different tribes in south Sudan. In those days southerners wear Arabic
fashions, carry Arabic names (tzmoa). However, the current problem was
developed by the infidels of the British administration (1898-1956) to isolate
south Sudan from north Sudan and erect sealed areas, where northerners
were not allowed or work in the south and prevented southerners from
having Arabic or Islamic names, or wearing Arab clothes. The churches and
missionaries fired northerners and takeover education and evangelize the
South, creating an elite southern religiously and culturally to the British
colonialists. But despite that, Muslims continue to grow in number more than
the number of Christians in the south Sudan with the survival of the majority
of the pagans. Despite this policy, southerners chose during the Juba
conference in 1947 to stand with the unity of the Sudan and voted later in
1955 from within the parliament together with the North in favor of
independence of the Sudan.
Colonialism and industry of hatred:
There was no hostility between northerners and southerners, however,
British policies created the kind of variation that is experienced today by the
people of the Sudan. Though the some negative effects created by the British
have found their roots among the elites of the south Sudan, language and
religion were not a problem. In clear terms, the isolation of the south from
the north by the British is the root of the starvation and nutrition problem in
that part of the Sudan. After independence, the Conference of the Graduates
demanded the withdrawal of the forces of occupation and demanded different
standards of education between the north and south. The adoption of the
Arabic language as the language of education, the steps taken by Gen.
Abboud (1958-1964) to impose Arabic language as the language of
instruction in the South, the expulsion of the priest and foreigners fueled the
problem in the South. To worsen the situation, the church took the lead in
fueling the problem further.
During the renewal of the war since the 1950’s of the last century and until
the turn of the century; the number of southerners displaced to the north
was greater than the number of southerners displaced to the neighboring
countries of Africa. This showed that the conflict between the north and the
south was not based on ethnic or sectarian lines.
Our position on the referendum
The Muslim Brotherhood’s position on the issue of the referendum and selfdetermination was a position of principle based on the rejection of the idea as
well as the rejection of the basis on which it was launch, the Naivasha
Agreement! We have expressed our position and made it clear since the day
this agreement [Naivasha Agreement] was signed. And we have stated
repeatedly, through seminars, data, and media statements and press
releases. We have experiences in the development of people’s abilities to
handle their historical responsibilities and as a result, we rejected that
Convention [Naivasha Agreement] on the eve when it was put up in the
parliament and have the leader of the group [Muslim Brotherhood] filing a
memorandum about the pitfalls of the Convention [Naivasha Agreement] and
its collision with the religion, the National Council, and we have faced what
others faced like arrest by the security officers, interrogation, investigation,
calculated not in the way of Allah [Almighty God] in fairness and denial of the
greatest evil.
Based on this, the Muslim Brotherhood reject the referendum to determine
the fate of South Sudan on the basis of Sharia, in terms of form and contents
because of the obvious realities that may come with it.
First: it is unacceptable, because the basic principle in Islam is that it does
not know the referendum, but drawing on the public opinion after taking the
opinion of the influential people, the Shura Council, scholars as pros and cons
in conjunction with the national interest to avert evil. This conscientious
deliberation was once shown by Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf (may Allah be
pleased with him) during the inauguration of Uthman (may Allah be pleased
with him, his successor and all his companions).
Secondly: The agreement [Naivasha Agreement] is unacceptable in terms of
contents because the theme of the referendum is to alienate south Sudan
which is the territory of Islam and Muslims and deliver it to the unbelievers,
which is not permissible as mentioned in the beginning of the paper.
Thirdly: This agreement is rejected by facts because it is a project lead by
forces hostile to Islam and seeking the siege of Muslims as well as the
expulsion of Islam, a scheme that include the whole of the Sudan, which the
unbelievers want to shred into pieces.
This is not a secret to anyone including Muslims. It is well known that the
forces that were behind the insurgency in the supported the miscreants with
money and weapons throughout the decades of the war. These forces were
the same forces which sponsored the Naivasha Agreement, which was
negotiated for the first time in the history of the civil war in the Sudan – the
principle of self-determination for southerners, the control and the
implementation of the agreement, and the presence of ten thousand UN
troop to protect it. As if these were not enough, these forces are still pushing
toward the direction of the North to weaken it and hand the whole of the
Sudan to southern Sudanese miscreants to rule it.
Furthermore, to highlight the facts that come with this reality, we would like
to refer to the number of negative consequences that may come with the
secession of south Sudan.
These negative consequences are:
1. Disarmament of Muslims, rule of Islamic land and placing of Muslims
under the government lead by the unbelievers.
2. Weakening of Muslims in the south and stunting of the growth of Muslims’
numbers, which is, according to some statistics, was somewhere between
25-30%, [7] although some leading Muslim southerners point out that the
proportion of Muslims in the south is close to 35% of the total population.
3. Return to war, in which case, there will be no peaceful atmosphere
[between the north and the south] after disengagement given the presence
of many outstanding issues such as the border demarcation and denying of
the rights of the Misseriya to participate in the Abyei referendum.
4. Closing of the gate of Islam by the south and prevent it to spread to the
rest of Africa. This is by itself a siege of south Sudan and the rest of the
Sudan, an Islamic land.
5. [Separation of south Sudan will lead to] the heavy negative impact on the
nomadic and pastoral Arab tribes, which move southward following their
natural pastoral grounds. In this regard, independent south Sudan will be a
bridge against their grazing routes that lead southward. This trend will
increase the opportunities of the war in the future.
6. Separation means more fighting between the north and the south, and in
a worse case scenario, there is going to be a mass movement of the
displaced southerners and asylum seekers to the north because of internal
fighting between southern tribes.
7. Separation means re-allocation of the Nile waters – as expected, this
means the beginning of the conflict that will rage for generations.
8. Economic impact on the north due to low oil production – 70% of oil fields
comes from south. This is going to be difficult for the north because the
economy of the north will be based on agricultural mechanized farming
production of corn and other grains, which is usually helping the south.
9. Separation will bring great danger to the north because foreign forces
(America and Israel) will establish military presence in the south as it is the
case now after the Naivasha Agreement. In addition, foreign forces are
helping SPLA to set up bases in the close to the border areas (SPLA camps
south of Renk) represent a military threat to the north.
Military threat to the north can be summarizes as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
SPLA military bases in border of the north and south
NATO (Jewish American south)
Armed border conflict
Nile water
Unity in the context of the Naivasha Agreement:
We clearly reject secession of south Sudan as it is going to be the case if this
referendum goes ahead as planned. However, we also reject unity in the
framework of the convention, because we believe that this agreement is the
worse agreement signed in the modern history of the Sudan. As narrated
above, we believe that we are no longer bound to continue to be subjected to
the terms of the agreement and the details as much as they are. However,
they must be based on different bases taking into the account the right of
Muslim majority in the governance of the country. Religious law is not
blackmail. It is not a dirty one; therefore, Sharia law must be inclusive in
terms of justice for citizens of Muslim state whether under Islam or
otherwise.
We also believe that any agreement on the details and the continuation of
the Naivasha Agreement constitutes long term harm to Islam and Muslims in
regard to the following:
1. Constant threat of separation as we have seen is draining the north of its
vital resources.
2. Waiving of the application of Sharia in the north because the spirit of
Naivasha agreement is based on secularism. Nevertheless, the conclusion
was that the suspension of the law [Sharia law] was the price for unity
according to Naivasha Agreement. Under Islamic state, secularism has no
place.
3. The motive behind the Naivasha Agreement was to strengthen the
influence of the popular movement in the north as well as strengthen its
presence.
4. The agreement was to push the parties to form a confederate state as
shown by the details of the agreement. Should this happen, then it is a
serious matter because the Christians can be exempted from Muslim rule in
the Sudan, which is a Muslim country.
5. In the light of the details according to the framework of the confederation,
or self-government as it is the case today, it will not end the chains of
rebellions in the south, because all elements of power is available at its
disposal, and this time it will be a rebellion of the state with its own army.
This, of course, will be more dangerous than any previous rebellion.
6. According to Naivasha Agreement it is stated that there shall be no party
formed on religious basis. This was mean to weaken the political activities of
Islam in particular and weaken the [Islamic in the Sudan] work in general.
War situation in the Sudan before the Naivasha Agreement
Before the Naivasha Agreement, SPLM remained throughout the duration of
the war in southern Sudan (1983-2005); however, tried very hard to transfer
the rebellion to the north of the Sudan. This was to make the north the scene
of military operations and make strategic break through, which would have
had brought stability in the south at the end.
Such military operations were carried out in Kurmuk, Geissan, Hemshkourib,
south Red Sea state and Kassala. SPLA then tried to move the war to Darfur
earlier before the implementation of this strategy.
At the political level the SPLM was absorbed by the National Democratic
Alliance (NDA), which emerged after the coup to rescue the latest
breakthrough. It never happened in the history of the Sudan that a number
of political movements from the north and the south unite as an opposition
front against the regime in the north and adopt varying methods and
activities aimed at changing the regime or force it to change its behaviors.
Because of its intense presence in the field, SPLM took over the leadership of
the opposition as well as the military wing. It also assumes the post of
secretary general of the nation assembly following the withdrawal of the
Umma Party. This political maneuver led the SPLM to negotiate the Naivasha
Agreement individually with the government (January 2005). The agreement
handed the south to the SPLM and also gave a greater share in the
government of the center as well as wealth sharing with the National
Congress. As a result, this advantages given to the south lead to the
improvement of the political and military situation of the People’s Movement.
Throughout this process and during the implementation of the agreement,
the strategic objective of the SPLM is to make the south stable and to create
unrest to destabilize the north, hence making it a war-torn region.
If we clearly look at the text of the Naivasha Agreement, we find
clear that it leads to the following:
• The Abyei Texts: This area belongs to the north; however, the Misseriya is
denied its dynamic grazing rights and movement and may lead to conflict.
• South Kordofan: The convention restricted its governance to a number of
laws such as popular consultation. Such laws were designed to make the
central government weak.
• South Blue Nile: The same applies to this northern region as evidenced
during the last governor’s election which was won by SPLM’s candidate at
gunpoint. This is a testament for this area will exit from the central
government’s control.
• Prior to the Naivasha Agreement, the first agreement for the Nuba Mts.
was arranged by Rev. Danforth, former U.S. envoy. The reason behind this
was to rescue this isolated region politically and military from the central
government’s control.
• Then came the problem of Darfur (2003) before the signing of the
Naivasha Agreement. This was to increase the suffering of the North and the
movement of the war, with all the sufferings and implications that come with
it to the north.
As we have narrated above, this was a strategic decision-making by the
Popular Movement to make the south stable, keep the final outcome of the
Naivasha Agreement intact, keep the UN resolutions and the U.S. embargo in
place, and make the north a war-ravaged theater of suffering.
In the light of all these conspiracies hatched by the unbelievers to dismember
an Islamic country, we are keeping the solution in our view to unite the home
front and not leave the fate of the country in the monopoly of one party. We
also call our respected citizens to respect the fundamentals of Islam, which
respect public freedom and dignity of citizens to report for duty to safeguard
the country’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity to ward off foreign
interference and aggression of any kind or degree.
Conclusion
At will and with no opposition from the Sudanese government, the enemies
of Islam have chosen to put the Sudan on the sharp edge with far fewer
options (Secular Sudan with fragile government that can be dissolved
overnight or two belligerent countries that could go to war anytime).
Timorous as they are, our rulers have capitulated and chose the above
conditions put forth by the infidels, some of them for satisfaction and
subordination and others for fear and inability to trust the citizens they are
leading. It shouldn’t have been like this for them had they [leaders of the
Sudan] not forfeit the security and stability of the Sudan and accept the
crimes meted out against our nation per the agreement, which..... (Next
page)
makes our future a future trapped with explosives wars. They themselves
may have not signed this treacherous agreement given all the available
options at the time; however, they went ahead and continue to market the
Sudan to a dark future. No matter what you [the reader] imagine, the fear of
what they did is not the worse one. The crime they committed in the eyes of
Allah [Almighty God] is the worse of all.
They had enough time to correct the adverse situation the Sudan is heading
into as we mentioned earlier in this article, but chose to walk in shame and
march into the abyss. And here they are serving, representing the right of
the present the future generations, and without authorization, had acted not
in their interest but for the benefit of those who do not deserve it.
We are hereby proclaiming our witness to history. We are rejecting the
Naivasha Agreement and the referendum. We are calling on the government
of the Sudan to assume its responsibility firmly in maintaining the integrity of
the country Muslims inherited through tough times in the periods of history.
A country united by Islam and Muslims cannot accept the middle ground but
must choose those two routes mentioned above in the faces of men and
enemies.
In the will of Allah (God) which guides the way,
Muslim Brotherhood Reformed
November 2010
__________________
Aviator1,
As I promised you and other friends, this is the English version of the Arabic
text released by Muslim Brotherhood I posted about week ago.
Special thanks goes to the following for translating the text.
1. Ustaz Amir Idriss
2. Ustaz Abdalla Deng
3. Prof. Ali Mustafa
__________________