U.S. motives over Darfur arouse Arab suspicions

[maruf]

U.S. motives over Darfur arouse Arab suspicions
30 Jul 2004 07:32:05 GMT

www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28410783.htm



By Tom Perry

CAIRO, July 29 (Reuters) - The Arab League is cautioning the West against threatening sanctions on Sudan over a humanitarian crisis in Darfur, a move some in the Arab world see as a U.S. pretext for toppling another Arab government.

Sudan says pressure over Darfur, where the United Nations says the world's worst humanitarian crisis is unfolding, aims to undermine the country's Islamist government, whose thawing ties with Washington have been put back on ice over the issue.

"Many would say that the U.S. administration, as well as some European countries, have found in the Darfur crisis a long lost pretext to put the government under the sword of international sanctions," Arab League spokesman Hossam Zaki said, adding an embargo would not help resolve the crisis, but antagonise Khartoum.

A U.S.-drafted U.N. resolution, on which the Security Council will vote on Friday, implicitly threatens Sudan with sanctions should the government not fulfil pledges to disarm Arab militias and provide aid workers relief access.

The U.S. Congress has said the Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, are committing genocide against non-Arabs in Darfur, where fighting has displaced one million and killed 30,000.

The Darfur rebels say the government armed and sent the militias against them. Khartoum denies the charges.

Many in the Arab world are angry over the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which toppled Saddam Hussein, and what they see as an unswerving U.S. bias towards Israel at the Palestinians' expense. They are now questioning Washington's motives in taking the Darfur issue to the Security Council.

FRAGMENT THE REGION

"How come the Security Council ... and those with a humanitarian agenda are so active when it comes to such a situation, when they turn a blind eye to the miserable situation in the Palestinian territories," Zaki said.

Mohamed Mahdi Akef, head of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, said Washington was using Darfur as part of a plan "designed to fragment all states of the region, the beginning of it (the plan) was in Iraq".

The United States in 1998 launched missiles at a Khartoum pharamaceuticals plant linked to Osama bin Laden, saying it was making ingredients for chemical weapons. Sudan, which sheltered bin Laden from 1991 to 1996, has been under U.S. sanctions since 1997 for sponsoring terrorism.

But the United States, under the Bush administration, has taken an active diplomatic role in Sudan.

Under U.S. pressure, Khartoum and the southern rebels have made great strides in the last two years towards reaching a final peace deal to end a 21-year-old civil war in southern Sudan, separate from the Darfur conflict. Khartoum has agreed to a southern vote on secession six years after a final deal.

Some Arab writers and politicians are suspicious, however, that the U.S. diplomacy is aimed at splitting the Muslim Arab north of the oil-producing country from the mainly Christian or animist south.

MILITARY INTERVENTION

British and Australian statements of readiness to send troops to Darfur have provoked official concern, although Washington has said talk of military intervention is premature. Sudan's northern neighbour Libya has said it could not accept the presence of troops from outside the African Union in Sudan, which has said it would fight any foreign soldiers. The Arab League said it was very concerned by talk of such intervention. Zaki said Australia's troop offer smacks of human rights double standards, especially given that it had voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution demanding Israel tear down a barrier it is building in the West Bank.

Like Australia, the United States stood with Israel against the measure demanding the Jewish state pull down the barrier in line with a World Court ruling.

But for Kamel Labidi, a journalist who formerly worked at Amnesty International, it is the Arab world which should be accused of applying double standards in dealing with Darfur.

"The Arab world, relentless in its condemnation of western behaviour in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories, has with few exceptions, turned a blind eye to the devastation in Darfur," he wrote in Britain's Parliamentary Brief.

Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi said Arab media, including his paper, had not ignored the Darfur crisis. "Our columnists have been publishing articles condemning what has been going on in Darfur," he said.



AlertNet news is provided by

Printable view | Email this article | Send comments





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998-2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

[maruf]

Sudan
uploaded 20 Jul 2000

Bismillahi Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

The war taking place in Sudan nowadays is aimed at separating the south of Sudan. It is not just a civil war, but a war that carries international dimensions. The issue of separating the "African Southern Sudan" is old, for Britain, who colonised Sudan, adopts the separation of southern Sudan, and she has in 1955, i.e. before her withdrawal, flared up a revolution in the south in order to separate it.

America today works towards separating southern Sudan and she is behind the war being waged on the Sudanese borders. She has lured John Garang, who broke away from the rebel movement and established what is known as "The Popular Army for the Liberation of Sudan", to her camp and started to support him through her agent Hilamiryam the Ethiopian, until his army became the largest and the most important of the rebel factions.

Despite the difference in their political allegiances, all the Sudanese administrations have expressed their resistance to the issue of separation. All what president Jaafar Al-Numayri agreed to during his term of rule was to grant the south self-rule in 1972, but he soon retracted his offer, and so did Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi during his term of office. When the so-called "Salvation Government" came to power, led by president Omar Al-Bashir, and adopted a nominal Islamic aspect, it showed an excessive zeal in fighting the rebel movement and driving it out of its strongholds, and it succeeded in doing so. It used to take advantage of the drought season to launch its military operations, until they managed to drive the rebels out of most of their positions, however it failed to quell the rebellion and put an end to the revolution, because the rebels use the territories of the neighbouring countries, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda - who happen to be American agents - as their safe haven, whence they gather, train and launch their attacks on the Sudanese territories.

The omens of the latest attack, that intensified lately, had gathered momentum in the past three months, for America embarked upon offering military assistance to the rebels via Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda. Furthermore, the Sudanese opposition, led by the Federal Democratic Khatmyya party, headed by Uthman Al-Mirghani, and Al-Ansar Al-Mahdiya and the Ummah party headed by Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi, have started coordinating with Garang, and the neighbouring countries harbouring the rebels and the Sudanese opposition outside Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda embarked upon supplying the rebels with military and logistic assistance, and according to Sudanese sources with fighting troops as well. The U.S. ambassador to Khartoum and Eritrea has met the Sudanese opposition in Asmara to coordinate with them.

As a consequence of this coordination and this assistance, the rebels launched an attack on the eastern and south-eastern Sudanese borders form their bases in Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda and occupied a few towns.

However, the force of the rebels would remain unable to dominate southern Sudan and declare it a separate and independent state through these military actions. However, they will be capable to keep up the resistance, mount a war of attrition against Sudan and exhaust it into yielding and accepting the separation of the South. This will be similar to what America did with Ethiopia when she waged a war of attrition against her until she forced her to agree to the separation and independence of Eritrea. The current events are but an escalation of the war of attrition in order to speed up Sudan's acceptance to the separation of the south.

It should be mentioned here that although the coordination between Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi and Uthman Al-Mirghani on the one side and Garangh on the other side is aimed at overthrowing the Bashir government rather than the separation of the south, it is still however regarded as a shameful act. It is a betrayal of the Ummah and a crime against Sudan and the Sudanese people and if anything, it shows how politically naïve they both are, and how eager they are to overthrow the rule of Bashir in order to take over his post. 19th Ramadhan 1417h
28th January 1997


Hizb ut-Tahrir


The visit of the American envoy to Sudan
uploaded 23 Nov 2001

The American envoy to Sudan, reverend John Danforth, arrived in the country on 12/11/2001 and met a number of officials from the government and the opposition, and is expected to visit a number of regions in Sudan.

The question which comes to mind is: Why is America so concerned about the afflictions of war on the people of Sudan, such that she sends an envoy to stop the current war in Southern Sudan!? Is it not America who poured hundreds of tons of bombs, daily on the heads of our brothers in Afghanistan for more than a month, and continues doing so even until now, and who is killing women, children and the elderly? Is it not America who has massacred the Muslim people of Iraq for more than ten years, and still continues to do so now? Is it not America which stands behind the criminal acts undertaken by the Jews daily in Palestine, acts of killing, breaking bones, destroying farms, blockades etc? Was it not America that bombed the pharmaceutical factory of Ash-Shifaa? Was it not she that branded Sudan as a state that harbours terrorism? Did she not impose economic sanctions on Sudan and extended them for the period of another year, even though she recognizes that the government of Sudan has shown excellent cooperation regarding the issue of terrorism? Was it not her president, Bush, who said about the government of Sudan, during his address when he appointed Danforth as envoy: "For about two decades the Sudanese government has waged a brutal and scandalous war against its own people. This is something which is not valid. It must stop. The government has aimed its war against civilians, using violence and terror. It permits slavery and encourages it…" Is it not America that supports the rebellion in the south of Sudan, and announces that publicly? Was it not America that imposed new measures for entry visa applications, submitted by citizens from Islamic countries, including Sudan? These new measures include a time limit of 20 days for a decision, and a detailed life history etc?
Despite all this the government and the opposition have welcomed that envoy. Based on the words of Mustafah Uthman, the foreign minister, as mentioned in ar-Ra’i al-‘Aam newspaper on 12/11/2001, the government of Sudan has taken it upon itself to cooperate completely with the American envoy. This was also reported in al-Ayyam on the same date. It was also mentioned by the first deputy of the Ummah Party, Dr. Umar Nur ad-Daaim, who welcomed the visit of the envoy saying: "The party will meet the envoy and convey to him the party’s vision for a just peace, and how that will be achieved in Sudan." It was also reported in the Akhbar al-Yawm (issued 12/11/2001) that the American envoy would meet the leader of the Democratic Gathering, Muhammad Uthman Mirghani. Also the group has prepared a documented file to present to Danforth, containing the group’s vision and stance towards the ideas presented in the arena.

Have those people reached the state where they belie their own senses, and trust whims and imagination? Into which country has America entered and brought peace and security? Or do they seek dignity and honour from America?

‘But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, His Messenger [Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam] and to the believers.’ [TMQ 63:8]

There are some Sha’rai facts which have to be mentioned:

• The Muslims are one Ummah, their peace is one and their war is one. This is mentioned in the treaty of Madinah after the Hijrah of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), in which the condition of the Muslims is described: ‘They are one Ummah to the exclusion of other people…the believers are protectors of each other to the exclusion of other people...the peace of the believers is one…a believer does not make peace with anyone to the exclusion of any believer in fighting in the path of Allah.'

[maruf]

• The Kaafireen are enemies of the Muslims: "Verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.’ [TMQ 4:101] "They are the enemies, so beware of them." [TMQ 63:4]

• It is not allowed to make the Kuffar the qiblah which we turn to for solving our problems: "O you who believe! Take not as your Bitanah (entourage, advisors, consultants, helpers) those outside your religion, since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you." [TMQ 3:118]

"And never will Allah grant to the disbelievers a way over the believers.’ [TMQ 4:141] .

’‘And if any amongst you takes them as awliya (helpers, protectors), then surely he is one of them." [TMQ 5:51] .

’‘O you who believe! Take not for awliya (friends, helpers, protectors) disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves." [TMQ 4:144]

• The Qur’an and the Sunnah are the only basis for solving the problems of Muslims: "I have left with you something which if you hold onto you will never go astray after me; the Book of Allah and my Sunnah."

O Muslims:

America is the one who is inciting wars in the whole world, and massacring the Muslims and conspiring to kill them. So how can we expect America to bring about peace in our country? How can we make America the qiblah, towards which we turn to solve our problems, when the qiblah of Muslims should be the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger? ‘The one who desires guidance from anywhere else, Allah will cause him to go astray.’ (hadith). The solution is that we should prevent the rest of the colonialist nations that have ambitions over our land, of which America is at the forefront, from interfering in our affairs. Also we should stop the spilling of blood, and prepare a noble life for all the people of the country, without discrimination. This will not happen without declaring it as a righteous Khilafah, on the way of the Prophethood. Then the rules of Islam will be applied and implemented, and under its shade all peoples will enjoy peace and security.

"And Allah has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of mankind know not." [TMQ 12:21]

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah of Sudan
12/11/01


Source: Hizb ut-Tahrir, Wilayah of Sudan


Freeing Sudanese 'Slaves' From 'Arab Captors' Scam Exposed
uploaded 28 Feb 2002

High-profile Western campaigners who spent millions of dollars buying the freedom of slaves in war-torn Sudan have been the victims of a scam, it is alleged.

Anti-slavery organisations have "redeemed" more than 65,000 Sudanese slaves from their Arab masters over the past seven years, usually for $50 (£35) a head. The leading charities are the Swiss-based Christian Solidarity International (CSI) and Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), founded by Baroness Caroline Cox, a deputy speaker of the Lords. But although slavery in the African country is a reality, The Independent on Sunday can reveal that "redemption" has often been a carefully orchestrated fraud on the charities.

According to witnesses, local villagers are rounded up to pose as slaves when Christian groups arrive with briefcases full of money. The "slave traders" are sometimes disguised rebel soldiers from the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). A retired Italian missionary told the IoS he saw his own parishioners posing as slaves. A European aid worker saw children she knew pretending they were in bondage. And a former rebel commander said a relative, also a soldier, had been forced to pose as a slave trader.

The emotive issue of slavery in Sudan has had a particularly strong impact among black Americans and Christian groups in the US, where it has become the biggest African cause since apartheid. Politicians have chained themselves to railings in protest, pop stars have given free concerts. The CSI has raised millions of dollars with its promise to save a slave for $50, and raised the issue in public consciousness by inviting well-known figures such as the Rev Al Sharpton and Perry Farrell, lead singer of the rock group Jane's Addiction, to witness redemptions.

Last May, a 12-year-old American schoolgirl, Laquisha Gerald, raised $44 for the cause. "I thought it was good to give up my lunch money to free slaves," she told the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We're doing something good."

Baroness Cox, who split from CSI to form CSW in 1997, has spent over £100,000 redeeming 2,281 slaves. She insists she was not cheated. "We double and triple-checked and did spot interviews with the people redeemed," she said. "Their stories rang true." The decision of her charity, CSW, to stop redeeming slaves a year ago had nothing to do with suspicions of corruption, she said. According to the organisation, her missions to Sudan simply became too dangerous.

Some genuine slaves have been set free - nobody can say how many - but frequently redemption is a deceit, stage-managed by corrupt officials of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). "The racket comes right from the top," said Samson Kwaje, an SPLA official, last week. "The money comes from those American kids. But who gets the cheque?"

The Khartoum government, which has been fighting southern SPLA rebels since 1983, is a notorious human rights abuser. The rebels have mainly traditional and Christian beliefs, while the government is dominated by Muslim extremists. Last week a government helicopter gunship fired five rockets into a southern village, killing 17 civilians in an attack which prompted the US to break off a peace initiative it is sponsoring.

Nor is there any doubt that the government has deliberately rekindled the slave trade as a counter-insurgency measure. It has armed the Murahaleen, a murderous Arab militia that destabilises rebel-held villages by killing the men, stealing the cattle and taking women and children into bondage. In the north, the slaves endure a terrible life of harsh labour, physical abuse and sometimes forced Islamisation or female circumcision.

Swiss-based CSI has sought to counter this terrible trade since 1995 by buying the freedom of more than 63,000 "slaves". In theory, it arranges for Arab middlemen to buy up the slaves and secretly walk them across the front line to the safety of the rebel-held south. Then the CSI representative flies in, pays the going rate - usually $50 per head but currently $35 - and the slaves walk free.

Or so it seems. Father Mario Riva, an Italian missionary, witnessed a CSI redemption in the late 1990s. Unlike nearly all other Westerners who have been permitted to witness a redemption, he knew the Dinka people and their language. Fr Riva saw John Eibner, an American CSI official and the driving force behind slave redemption, standing under a tree with some slaves. The priest recognised them as his own parishioners. "The people told me they had been collected to get money," he said. "It was a kind of business."

Interpretation was key to the deception, said Fr Riva. If Mr Eibner asked whether a slave had been taken into captivity, the interpreter would ask if they had suffered in the war. If the "slave" answered that they had, Mr Eibner would be told they had been captured and badly treated by Arabs, and were grateful to be home.

A nurse with a European charity recalled seeing a slave redemption in late 1999 carried out by American Christians. "They brought the kids to be redeemed to a clearing under the trees. I knew two of them by name," she said. Her colleague recognised the "slave trader" as a rebel official, but warned her to keep quiet. "He said: 'There are guys here with guns. Let them give the money if they want,' " she recalled. The nurse requested anonymity, fearing retribution against colleagues.

If the slaves are fake, the money is very real. After the CSI plane takes off, the profits - sometimes over $300,000 in one week - are divided up. A small cut goes to the slaves and the traders, but the lion's share goes to local commanders and SPLA figures. One is said to have earned enough to buy 40 wives, and others have allegedly built houses or financed businesses.

[maruf]

Mr Eibner denies CSI has been duped. "The money involved is publicised, but we have mechanisms to ensure there is no fraud," he said. But the organisation recently announced that it had freed 14,500 slaves without paying a penny.

Experts have long maintained that CSI's figures did not add up. At times when it was "redeeming" over 6,000 people, aid workers in the north saw no mass movements south. Colleagues in the south reported no surge in demand for food aid from the returned "slaves". In 2000, Fr Riva compiled a list of southerners who had returned to Nyamlell, the town where the CSI campaign started, over the preceding seven years. They were only 300.

Redemption has caused upset within the SPLA, where accusations of profiteering have been made against senior figures. "It has divided us," said Mr Kwaje. Aleu Ayieny Aleu, a retired SPLA commander, alleged that a relative had been "forced several times to pretend [to be] an Arab and simulate the sale of free children" to CSI. And a storm of profiteering allegations prompted the SPLA leader, John Garang, to ban five people from entering Sudan on CSI redemptions.

CSI estimates there are still 200,000 slaves in Sudan. Save the Children puts the figure at no more than 7,000.

Source: The Independent

The true reality of the Machakos protocol
uploaded 09 Aug 2002

In the Kenyan town of Machakos, talks were held between the government of Sudan and the rebel movement. This took place between 17/6/2002 and 20/7/2002, which led to an agreement on three central points, which are:

• The right to self-determination
• The relationship between state and religion
• The ruling structures

The government delegation returned giving us good news that this agreement will put an end to the war and achieve peace, unity and prosperity, and consolidate the Islamic Shari’ah. It will be the healing balm that solves the problems of the people of Sudan.

Is this the true reality of the agreement? Or is the reality one of betrayal, submission, the break up of the country, the strengthening of secularism, the banishment of Islam from life, the deepening of problems and dependency on the foreigner?

With regards to self-determination, both sides have agreed to give the South the right of self-determination after an interim period of about six years, i.e. they would be given the right to separate. We would like to ask: what country is there an example of that has been offered the right of self determination, and then its people chose to remain united? In Europe for example it led to the separation between the Czechs and Slavs. In Asia it led to the separation between Indonesia and the province of East Timor, and in Africa it led to the separation between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

The right of self determination will not lead to the resolution of the above mentioned problems. Rather it is a ploy, dreamt up by the Kuffar colonialists, to break up and weaken nations so that they can make them submit to their colonialist policies. So that the kuffar can be content that the Machakos protocol will be implemented, they have stipulated that an international committee be set up which has the power to monitor and insure that both parties are adhering to the agreement. The official spokesman for the American foreign ministry said in his press conference that was held in Washington on 22/07/2002: “The committee will consist of a number of countries and America will be one of them.”

The right of self-determination, in addition to breaking up countries and destroying their unity and weakening their entity, is an action that the Shari’ah has prohibited. The Messenger  said: “Whosoever comes to you while you are united under one man and wishes to divide your power and break your unity, kill him.”

As for the relationship between state and religion, both sides have agreed to a secular constitution for the South Sudan, a constitution for the North that accepts the enactment of Islamic legislation, and a national a constitution that is secular. This was mentioned by the official spokesman for the delegation of the rebels, Dr. Samsung Kawaji to the Kenyan Bana agency: “The two delegations agreed to the request for self determination for South Sudan and agreed for the North to establish a regional parliament which passes Islamic laws as social legislation for the Muslim inhabitants, in addition to establishing a national parliament which will be governed by a secular constitution.” Thus, the fact that a constitution has been adopted for the north that passes Shari’ah laws and considers the Shari’ah as ‘one’ of the sources of legislation and not the only source, does not exclude it from being a secular constitution like the other two: the constitution of South Sudan and the national constitution. This means the state remains a secular state, as is the case now. This contradicts the ‘Aqeedah of Islam and is not something a Muslim can accept. The constitution of the state of the Muslims is taken from the Shari’ah sources which are: the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijmaa’ of the Sahabah and Qiyas. He  said:


Ãóáóãú ÊóÑó Åöáóì ÇáøóÐöíäó íóÒúÚõãõæäó Ãóäøóåõãú ÂãóäõæÇ ÈöãóÇ ÃõäÒöáó Åöáóíúßó æóãóÇ ÃõäÒöáó ãöäú ÞóÈúáößó íõÑöíÏõæäó Ãóäú íóÊóÍóÇßóãõæÇ Åöáóì ÇáØøóÇÛõæÊö æóÞóÏú ÃõãöÑõæÇ Ãóäú íóßúÝõÑõæÇ Èöåö æóíõÑöíÏõ ÇáÔøóíúØóÇäõ Ãóäú íõÖöáøóåõãú ÖóáÇóáÇð ÈóÚöíÏðÇ



“Have you seen those (hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgment (in their disputes) to the Taghut (false judges etc) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaytan wishes to lead them far astray” [TMQ 4: 60].

[maruf]

As for the government structure, it has been agreed that there will be an entity for the South which will have its own government, parliament, constitution and army, and an entity for the North, and a national entity which combines both entities. This means rewarding the war criminal John Garang – who was the cause for the murder of a million people, with millions being driven away from their homes, and the destruction of mosques. According to the agreement all towns in South Sudan will be handed over to him, towns which are the property of Muslim Ummah and not allowed to be relinquished. They are towns that are still being defended by the people of Sudan ever since the colonialist left the country until now. tens if not hundreds and thousands of people have given their pure and innocent lives in the defence of this land, in order to preserve the unity of the country, which is one of the Shari’ah obligations stressed and emphasized by Islam. The agreement also means that the Kafir John Garang has been given authority over the Muslims in South Sudan. He  said:


æóáóäú íóÌúÚóáó Çááøóåõ áöáúßóÇÝöÑöíäó Úóáóì ÇáúãõÄúãöäöíäó ÓóÈöíáÇð <br>


“And never will Allah grant to the disbelievers a way over the believers” [TMQ 4: 141].

Dividing the country via the right of self-determination, removing Islam and separating it from life, and handing over South Sudan to John Garang, has nothing to do with the issues of the people of Sudan. Rather these acts constitute sharing of the ruling between the government and Garang, and the complete submission to the American administration.

The peace advisor Dr. Ghazi Salah ud-Deen said in a television program broadcasted by the Sudanese TV: “What we have signed to today is the same thing that we refused in 1994. It is contrary to my own personal convictions but I only execute the state policy. There are new developments in the international arena.” We agree with the peace advisor that there have been new developments, but it has been in the American policy. So America, which has been paying for the war in South Sudan, is the same country that wishes peace. She has planned for it and forced both sides to sit at the negotiating table. The US President said before Congress on 10/6/2002: “my policy aims at putting an end to Khartoum’s harbouring of terrorism and to encourage it to respect human rights and lay the foundations for a just peace in Sudan.” The US President took it upon himself to promote this agreement through diplomatic channels.

The American Human Rights Watch mentioned in its report: “Religion and oil have placed Sudan on the top of the priorities list for the Bush administration.”

Thus, we saw America removing the Deen from life in the first round of negotiations and waiting for the second round, and the announcement of a cease-fire so that she can have control over the oil and other resources.

What is strange is that we find some political forces supporting this agreement and the American intervention. They see nothing wrong with it other than the fact that it does not widen the nationalist government and create a democratic system which will enable them to share a piece of the cake with others.

O Muslims of Sudan!
This agreement is nothing short of betrayal to Allah and His Messenger and to the blood spilled in the path of protecting the unity of this country. The agreement means to hand over the South to those criminal murderers, strengthens secularism, removes Islam from life, disintegrates the country and tempts every foolhardy adventurer to bear arms for his political ends. So, anyone who participates, helps, supports, or even remains silent over this agreement will have to bear its sin and shame.

O Muslims:
Peace cannot be achieved except under the shadow of the Islamic state, the Khilafah state, which unites the country, create stability and cuts the sinful hand of colonialism, which started the fire and is now putting it out for its own interests. This is the state which will apply Islam as a system in all aspects of life and carry its flag high, fluttering all over the world.


íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ ÇÓúÊóÌöíÈõæÇ áöáøóåö æóáöáÑøóÓõæáö ÅöÐóÇ ÏóÚóÇßõãú áöãóÇ íõÍúíöíßõãú æóÇÚúáóãõæÇ Ãóäøó Çááøóåó íóÍõæáõ Èóíúäó ÇáúãóÑúÁö æóÞóáúÈöåö æóÃóäøóåõ Åöáóíúåö ÊõÍúÔóÑõæäó



“O you who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he calls you to that which will give you life” [TMQ 8:24].

Hizb ut-Tahrir - Wilayah of Sudan
15 Jumada 1423
25/7/2002

Source: Hizb ut-Tahrir - Wilayah of Sudan