Tag: zionism

The Second Coming

Father of Boys Killed by IsraelTurning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

                                                                        –W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming, 1921

This was the first poem I had ever read as a Literature student. And this was about thirteen years ago. I distinctly remember the words of our teacher who said, “Yeats takes strange apocalyptic delight in these words.” Then, while simply making class-notes, the words just sounded cool. Today, after thirteen years, I recall them now with strange apocalyptic dismay. I just read an acquaintance’s post off Facebook – something about detention camps and the systematic (um, strategic?) exit of the Palestinians from their own home. On a permanent basis. I offhandedly posted a comment on the post about how I thought that “history repeats itself” is an obsolete cliché. In this poem, the word “gyre” was Yeats’s philosophical concoction: that history repeats itself every two thousand years. Or something. He obviously had The Great Apocalypse in mind. But how wrong was he. History repeats itself sooner than what he had perhaps calculated.

I will not say that Israel is the new Hitler. That’s been done. I will not say that the suffering of the Jews at the hands of Hitler with his premise to purify the Aryan race was justified. I will not say that the Jews of that unfortunate time were not oppressed. I will not even say that all Jews should now be condemned simply because they are Jews. Thankfully, I choose not to be anti-Semitic. However, what we are seeing today is a telling commentary of profound racism, discrimination, otherization, profiling, stereotyping, ethnic cleansing, apartheid or whatever anthropological/political label you want to choose for convenience. I faintly recall one of the slides from a popular apocalyptically delightful documentary called ‘The Arrivals’ that came out in 2008. No, I am not a conspiracy theorist; however, the documentary had some certain truths. One of them being how The Arab has been systematically and strategically been represented as the convenient villain, the sub-human, the barbarian, the uncouth monster who is incapable of sensitivity that is otherwise so intrinsic to the rest of the human race. How – by that very fact – we feel no sympathy when we see images of the horrors of Abu Ghraib, of Gitmo, of Palestinians or anyone who could be linked in any way to the desolate desert of Hijaz. Who are we kidding? Islamophobia was present even Sayyidna Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) shocked the world with his arrival. The Final One came from Ismail, not Ishaq (blessings upon them both), much to everyone’s surprise. He was an Arab. He was not from Jerusalem, as was the case otherwise with the rest who came before him. He came and changed the way things were done and to be done, forever. And those who rejected him simply because he was unlike them were deeply and detrimentally racist. But some like Sayyidna Salman bin Farsi’ who were out to root for the truth saw the difference. And accepted him.

Yet as time has gone by, the Arab – now loosely seen as the Muslim – is a potential threat. We have all heard of, and some have possibly read, Edward Said’s Orientalism in which he carefully dissects this ambivalent relationship between the Self and the Other. Again, context is an important factor in determining the content of any author’s work. Perhaps seeing himself as a Palestinian, Said’s own analysis can now be dismissed as being prejudiced. But it would be quite disingenuous for us to conveniently disregard his work which offers an incisive introspection of the West’s gaze on the other side of the globe: how is difference viewed – to be fascinated by, and to be feared, and to be controlled. Maybe even conquered. This fear did not just erupt with the tragic events of 9/11. Again, a convenient trump card to look at the Bedouin beast under the microscope.

Islamophobia today – in our very own backyard – is demonstrating itself in the most strange and silly of ways showing how deeply entrenched we are with our fears and prejudices. From people getting so upset by the trivial semantics of sehri versus suhoor and Khuda versus Allah Hafiz, to an entire population that is being bull-dozed and droned and dimed into annihilation, the Arab is an intruder, that “little snake” that has crept into not just our preciously paak Pakistani culture, but is somehow going to take control of the world. We get uncomfortable when we see any woman dressed like an Arab, or any man who is looking like one, or a child who doesn’t say “Hey” but rather says “salaam” even to kids of his own age. We feel and take offence at it as if our own national integrity is at stake. That is why whenever you talk about Palestinian suffering at least in the drawing rooms of Pakistan, what you inevitably get to hear is: oh what about our IDPs? What about our minorities? Hamas is a terror organization like the Taliban; and other such half-baked tautologies. Extend this same dynamic of discourse and thought to the larger drawing rooms of the globe: oh what about animal rights? What about global warming? All these terror organizations are a menace that must be removed – after all, we are the defenders of humanity. Yes, IDPS are a huge and pressing concern for our nation – much more pressing than “suhur” and black abayas; Yes, if we don’t care enough about global warming there won’t be any Maldives for us to party away in the summers and we may just be living off an iceberg. I am deliberately being sarcastic, if not entirely cynical. These issues are grave. But graver still has been the utter apathy of the entire global community over a people that has been duped, manipulated, marginalized, bombed, beaten up, massacred, shot, imprisoned, and now potentially going to be expelled from its own soil. Why: they’re Arabs, why not?

 Thankfully, many are not tuning into mainstream newsrooms to see what is really going on, as was the case before. Little did we know that we had been warned before, long, long ago:

O you who believe, if an evildoer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done! Al-Qur’an(49:6)

Now most of us are quite sorry for our chosen ignorance. Perhaps, we chose not to believe. Finally, due to social media, after nearly a century of silence the world has seen some semblance of the truth. Not perhaps as true as Salman bin Farsi’, but many are getting there. The conflict effectively began as early as 1897 when the Zionist Organization, now ironically known as the WZO (W, stands for World) rose to full throttle in 1948 and now simmers and seethes to this day. And the battle is not perhaps on the face of it about God, the Promised Land, or the Dangerous Neighbor. As Robert Fisk has stated, “as usual, it’s about land.” Veni, vidi, vici. Wonder why the Arabs said, “You’re welcome,” in the first place. A fitting remix of Caesar’s words have now retuned in a rap song.

I came, I saw, I conquered, I shot you down

Your brain no have no conscious, don’t make a sound

I came, I saw, I conquered, what you do now?

Your brain no have no conscious, what you do?

Don’t make a sound…

But social media finally helped the hitherto silent global community speak, and shout. Protests are being raged, petitions are being signed, boycotts are being advocated, webpages are being designed, images, stories, videos are being shared. But many mouths are left gaping in silence. How could someone bully a people like that? How could anyone stand up and root for such bullies? How can anyone not say a word? How can an oppressed people not react? The fact that Protective Edge is a retaliation for the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers is not new news. What happened to the boys was wrong, unacceptable, and unsavory. And so, IDF killed not three, but four boys playing football on a beach. If simply, and callously, mere numbers are looked at, and the Jewish and Islamic principle of lex talionis – eye for an eye, or qisas – which both religious communities (among other things agree on) is followed, retribution has been grossly served. But the IDF is not winning by just one number, but by a hundred. The retribution is being unleashed on thousands, and nearly 600 have already paid for it, of which 76% are civilians, and 45% women and children, according to the UN’s Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Yet still protocol demands that this just may be amounting to war crimes. And finger-pointing is always convenient: “ask them, they started it.” But the Arabs can turn around and make the same claim when the conflict began to take its monstrous form nearly half a century ago.

“With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun. Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. …There would be no oppressed had there been no prior of violence to establish their subjugation.” – Paulo Freire.

Both nations have met with oppression in their religious history. Both nations have met with oppression in their recent living history. How can they not understand what it means, and what it entails? How can Hamas’s reaction be simply dismissed as terrorism? How can a home-made rocket be the same as DIME munitions? How can a one-minute warning phone-call be adequate for an entire home to wrap up, pack up, and run for their lives? How can a stone stand in the way of a tank ready to bulldoze? How can the global audience not stir and shout? How can those who have the reins of power wear blinders themselves? As journalist, Ferrari Sheppard noted during his recent trip to Israel-Palestine,

“Zionism has convinced many Jews that they are preserving themselves. The common thought is that if the “savage” Palestinians stop resisting, stop shooting rockets, stop fighting Israel’s inevitable domination, there can be peace. I find this peculiar because during my visit, I felt no danger from Palestinians, only from Israeli soldiers. Perhaps it’s because I’m accustomed to being hunted in America. There is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict; there is only oppression.”

This is a lopsided war. There is no contest really between unequal players. The Nazis were no match for the Jews. The Israel State is no match for a marginalized Palestinian group. The issue of Palestine is not just about a people being wronged and punished for being different. It’s not just about power either anymore. It’s a tug of war for survival, with millions that have been swept away in the struggle. The Jews who have witnessed the horror of the Holocaust have seen how generations have been wasted, never to recover. And the same fate and horror awaits the Palestinian people. Gideon Levy, a survivor of the Holocaust and a prominent literary figure of the Israelite community, poignantly points out:

“I am amazed again and again at how little Israelis know of what’s going on fifteen minutes away from their homes,” he says. “The brainwashing machinery is so efficient that trying [to undo it is] almost like trying to turn an omelette back to an egg. It makes people so full of ignorance and cruelty.”

Yeats was wrong. It really does not take a gyre to unspiral itself through the ages to show how history recklessly regurgitates. History is ruthless in its repetition. We see it every day now on our Facebook pages and our tweets, unravelling as a protracted and pathetic global human tragedy. And we, as the audience, wait yet again – to see what happens next.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Israel’s Zionist Foundation and Expansionist Dream – A Short History

palestine-loss-of-land‘At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said it out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.’[1] ~ (Theodor Herzl writes in his diary about Basel Zionist Conference, 1897 where Zionism was officially coined)

The birth of the State of Israel on 14th May 1948 is a turning point in the history of the Middle East and one of the most significant events of the twentieth century. Based on Zionist ideology, Israel came into being as a ‘fulfilment of the promise of the Jewish scriptures’. Since its inception, Israel centres its relations with the native population and neighbouring countries on an existential threat. Alliances, ties, negotiations and treaties all base on Israel’s so-called security concerns faced from within and outside the country. But Israel’s Zionist foundations and expansionist aims have a major role to play in the volatile situation of the Middle East.

Israel, by definition and by essence is a Jewish state and was formed to give the Jews, living in different parts the world after the Diaspora, a national home. While Zionist ideology laid the foundation stone of the state, the native Arab population and the seemingly mighty neighbours joined by the rhetoric of common Arab roots, language and cultures became the immediate security threat for the country. But very soon Israel’s man and military power was evident to her as well as to the hollow and deeply divided Arab world. The idea that there was no power in the neighbouring world that matched the military strength of Israel became evident after repeated humiliating defeats encountered by Arab forces, but the case built by Israel as, David surrounded by the forces of Goliath, continued to play a significant role in Israel’s expansionist plans based actually on the ideas of Zionism.

ZIONIST FOUNDATIONS OF ISRAEL:

Zion is the biblical name for Jerusalem.[2] Political Zionism is a concept of the late nineteenth century, coined by Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian secular Jew, in the background of strong anti-Semitism in Europe. His book ‘The Jewish State’ provided a detailed plan for a state where Jews, who were not a religious group but a nation in his views, were to live in peace. In 1897, at the Basel Zionist Conference, the idea of Zionism was officially founded i.e. a ‘Jewish national home’ in Palestine. Herzl mentions in his diary,

‘At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said it out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it.’[3]

The three strands of Israel’s identity i.e. religion, nationalism and the Holocaust, as described by Michael Barnett, help Israel portray herself to be in an isolated state and vulnerable to security concerns from different fronts.

‘While all national identities differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’, arguably the centrality of religion, nationalism and the Holocaust in Israel’s identity, make these effective and cognitive boundaries more severe and austere’.[4],[5]

Chaim Weizmann, the elected President of World Zionist Organisation was the strongest link between ideas initiated by Herzl and the British Empire. He put all his efforts to win British support for ‘Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine’ belittling the risk of Arab opposition and portraying them ‘a tiny fraction of large Arab nation’[6]- Balfour Declaration, a letter written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour, promising a national home for Jewish people under British support came as a major achievement for Zionists in 1917. Jews were only 10% of the population. The 90% were a non-existent entity for Weizmann as well as the British. The declaration opened the doors of Palestine to the Jews and the Zionist ideas started becoming clearer with time. Although diplomacy was always the way to the goal, and avoidance of the term ‘state’ and preference for usage of ‘a national home’ was the trend, but Weizmann when asked at a peace conference in Paris defined the Jewish National home as ‘to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English.’[7] The Arabs were not partners in any negotiations and Weizmann’s policy was uncompromising in terms of Jewish settlement goals in Palestine.

Jabotinsky, a staunch Jewish nationalist and the founder of Revisionist Zionism, believed in the supremacy of the Jews. For him, Jews were the source of budding Western civilization in the backward and stagnant East. While he acknowledged that no voluntary agreement was possible between alien settlers and native population, the idea of return to Palestine could not be bargained.

‘We must either suspend our settlement efforts or continue them without paying attention to the mood of the natives. Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an iron wall which they will be powerless to break down.’[8]

For him, an iron wall, i.e. a strong invincible force, was the answer to the Arab problem. Negotiations would only be fruitful if the Zionists were physically and militarily stronger than the natives. Peaceful coexistence is a possibility only after overpowering the threats, materially and by force. For Jabotinsky, there was nothing immoral about the concept of the ‘iron wall’, if the idea of Zionism and right to return to the Zion was to be achieved. The latter is a sacred truth, so any step taken in whatever shape, no matter how immoral it looks to the world, becomes automatically sacred.[9]

Arab resistance was very natural in these circumstances. Riots against the Jews took the shape of full-blown upheavals. Arabs rejected all proposals put forward by the British. David Ben Gurion, the founder of the State of Israel, pushed the British for establishment of a Jewish state after increasing Arab resistance. Lord Peel’s commission report suggested partition of the land in two states in 1937. Although the Zionist leaders were divided on the issue of borders of the states, Ben Gurion’s idea was to accept it for the start and the rest of the country would soon be under Jewish rule.

‘Erect a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.’[10]

This was the foundation of Israel: Religion, Zionism (Jewish nationalism), a history of Diaspora, and a strong belief in moral right to return. As perceived by Jabotinsky, the settlers would naturally be unwelcomed by any native population and that is where importance of security would come into play. Thus, pillars of unmatched security and powerful military were absolutely essential to support the foundation stone of identity. Zionist movements developed their own military power in order to be independent of any outside support for survival through the paramilitary organisation called Haganah, and Irgun. In the backdrop of end of World War II, the Holocaust and strengthening Zionist military force, General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution in favour of the partition of Palestine in 1947. In 1948, the state of Israel was born in the midst of confrontation with Arabs, within and outside the state.

THE CONFLICT: A NATURAL OUTCOME OF OCCUPATION:

The Arab-Israel conflict is as old as the proclamation of Israel. The Jewish population in Palestine increased dramatically from 10% (54,000) to 32% in 1947. With military supremacy, Zionists were able to gain control of the territories defined in the UN partition plan. The first war against the new state began immediately with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon but due to disunity, poor communication, absence of reliable intelligence and poor leadership, coordination and planning[11], the Arab states failed badly. Also, the military balance was in favour of Israel with total number of Arab troops of only 25,000 and IDF over 35,000 increasing to 65,000 within two months and 96,441 in seven months. As Avi Shlaim comments, ‘In this war, as in most wars, the stronger side prevailed.’[12] Armistice was signed between Israel and Arab states in 1949. But the border tensions remained high.

The subsequent crisis came in the shape of the Suez war of 1956. Colonel Gamal Abd al-Nasser of Egypt had reached an agreement with the British to withdraw from the military base in the Suez Canal. Israel for her own security wanted the British to remain in the area, therefore a spy ring was activated so as to blow up the installations and give reason to the British not to vacate the area. Spies were captured, tried and hanged by Egypt. Israel’s public saw it as Egypt’s hostile attitude towards their state. To satisfy the public with government’s prompt action and state’s military superiority, Israel attacked Gaza and caused heavy Egyptian casualties. Nasser signed arms deal with Soviet Union, which caused Israel to get more arms from France. Britain not happy with Gamal refused to finance Aswan Dam. Nasser’s retaliation came in the form of nationalising the Suez Canal which was the lifeline for the colonialists to rule the other side of the world. Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt in the Suez War of 1956. The Israeli army managed to occupy the Sinai Peninsula within 100 hours[13]and Sharm al-Sheikh, thus opening the Straits of Tiran, which were Israel’s primary route to East Africa but had been blocked by Egypt for several years.

In 1967 the six-day war was the most remarkable military victory in the history of Israel. 5th June to 10th June, Israel had occupied the West Bank and the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the entire Sinai Peninsula. Arabs suffered from a humiliating defeat, tipping the balance of power heavily in favour of Israel. ‘The annexation of East Jerusalem, was the first and the most dramatic assertion of Israel’s claim to sovereignty over its ancient homeland. Zion, was at the heart of Zionist dream for the restoration of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine.’[14]

The political and military equation began to change after this war. Syria and Saudi Arabia displayed willingness to recognize Israel, and Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties. The demand of surrendering the territories occupied in 1967 remained prominent in exchange of recognition and peace with Israel throughout the post war era. The major argument in retaining the West Bank was security-based, as it would form a barrier against any attacks from the East. But the West Bank also formed part of ancient Israel (Judaea and Samaria). The Revisionist Zionist Likud party kept rejecting the idea of any kind of surrender even if peace with neighbours and natives became impossible. Their expansionism towards the fulfilment of a Jewish state did not take into account the opportunities of peace offers. Israel’s military supremacy and invincibility throughout these years had made the expansionist goal much easier even if it meant the subjugation of the native population. Negotiations, compromise and diplomacy did not hold much value due to the ‘iron wall’, the unconquerable force once perceived by Jabotinsky, which had later transformed into a literal physical reality.

 THE MIGHTY OPPRESSOR AND THE HELPLESS NATIVES:

The Palestinian problem remains a real one until today. Israel’s population reached six millions in 1998, nearly ten times what it had been in 1948.[15]Israel’s war of independence in 1948 was Palestinian’s Nakba (disaster) when 780,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of country’s population were driven out by Zionist troops and design.[16]The remaining population was denied any political rights as if they were non-existent in the flow, due to the Zionist program, which had to be implemented by any means necessary. Destruction of an existing society in 1948, conquest of West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the invasion of 1982 with 17,500 Lebanese and Palestinian dead, the Sabra and Shatila massacres; the continuous assault on Palestinian schools, refugee camps, hospitals, civil installations[17] was all a show of asymmetrical power unwilling to create a peaceful society meant for coexistence. Israel’s security issues arise not only from it being a product of Zionist ideology but, simply put, an occupant in a land where the native population has no rights whatsoever despite Israel’s big claims of being democratic. The disparity of power between Israel and the native population also nullifies the security argument especially from inside the state, when Palestinians have no army, air force, tanks or sophisticated defences of any kind.

 ‘There can be no conceivable peace, in my opinion, that doesn’t tackle the real issue, which is Israel’s utter refusal to accept the sovereign existence of a Palestinian people that is entitled to rights over what Sharon and most of the people supporting him consider exclusively to the land of Greater Israel, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza.’[18]~ Edward Said

 A French philosopher Ernest Renan once said, ‘A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours.’ In Israel’s case, the view of the past is not mistaken. The Diaspora, the Holocaust, and anti-Semitism of Europe are a horrible reality. But the translation of a terrible past into an uncompromising dream with results like massacres, subjugation, violation of international laws and expansionism, has given rise to merciless atrocities and has put at risk, the peace of the world. Security for Israel may be a genuine concern and will always be, not because the world is bent upon being anti-Semitic, but an oppressor will always be seen as an oppressor, no matter which part of the world he exists in. Every native population will see an alien settler with concern and the peaceful co-existence would never come into being if the settler’s inflexible passion or hunger for fulfilment of a dream brings endless tragedies, bloodshed and fears for the natives.

REFERENCES:

[1]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press, 2000), p.3

[2] Ibid, p.1

[3]Ibid, p.3

[4]M. Barnett, Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change, Israel’s Road to Oslo http://home.gwu.edu/~barnett/articles/1999_israel_ejir.pdf

[5]S. Telhami, M. Barnett,Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East (Cornell University Press, 2002), p.58

[6]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press, 2000), pp. 6-7

[7]Ibid, p.8

[8]Ibid, p.13

[9]Ibid, p.15

[10]David Ben Gurion, Letters to Paula,(London, 1971), 153-157, A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press, 2000) p. 21

[11]E. L. Rogan, A. Shlaim, The War for Palestine, Rewriting the History of 1948, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp. 80-81

[12]Ibid

[13]A. Bregman, Israel’s War, A History Since 1947, 3rd Edition (Cornwall, 2010), p. 59

[14]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press 2000), p. 251

[15]A. Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World (The Penguin Press 2000), p. 597

[16]E. Said, The Consequences of 1948, E. L. Rogan & A. Shlaim (ed.), The War for Palestine, 2nd Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), p.248

[17]E. Said, The End of Peace Process: Oslo and After (Granta Books, London, 2002), p. xv

[18]Ibid, p. xv

The vital lessons from Khader Adnan story

Khader Adnan was no stranger to “administrative detention” or rather imprisonment without trial by the Israelis. On this occasion however, the Israeli legal system may have regretted taking such a step. After all, how could they anticipate the up and coming, heroic and very long 66 day hunger strike that Adnan embarked upon? Israel was caught between the daily Palestinian driven demonstrations and the every growing media coverage that resulted from Khader Adnan struggle itself.

Twitter played an invaluable role. During Adnan’s hunger strike, Palestinians and their worldwide supporters tweeted their hastags up to the top 3 worldwide trending terms on a daily basis. Eventually headlines were made by the mainstream media in various parts all over the world. For Israel, this just would not do. Like a rabbit in the headlights, Israel could only do one thing to save it own interests and that is to get out of the way. It has now become in Israel’s interest to keep Adnan alive.

Adnan is currently in a Israeli hospital, taking in food upon the agreement of his release in April. The Israeli courts have ordered a review of the case for Adnan’s detention and whilst there is still some suspicion that Israel will simply put him back into the detention, we know that the Palestinians will never give up on him. They never give up on one of their own.

This is, in itself, an important lesson for the rest of the Muslims worldwide. Especially for those in the UK. Injustice and oppression of Muslims is rife in the forms of physical oppression from puppet regimes and terrorist nations or the political and ideological oppression through Islamophobia and teachings of a diluted Islam. Yet this is what we all have in common and, at the same time, have not only found it extraordinary hard and even refused to unite upon this issue over the past number of decades.

There is of course the exception of the Palestinians and others who face dire degree of persecution.  The people of Kashmir are another apt example. They find time to help those worse off than themselves, such as Aafia Siddiqi, despite going through their own hell.

So, whats stopping us? Its more than just sectarianism. We no longer see it as our duty to help the oppressed, despite the fact it is Fardh for a Muslim. To make it even worse, we very rarely hear of such an obligation or leadership from our religious figures. Whilst there is a void of understanding and leadership on these issues, surely it comes to us as the Muslim mass to rise up for those who need us most.

If we are ever to unite and overcome the difficulties, we as an Ummah, face and help our oppressed brothers and sisters, our current attitude to them and to Islam has to change. Social media, especially twitter, a space without boarders or social divisions, is the best place to continue that movement. It is in this space we can directly impact the lives of others through our Islamically obligated driven activism hundreds of miles away.