| AL JAZEERA ENGLISH | |||
Meeting to mark African bloc's 50th jubilee expected to call for dropping of ICC charges against Kenyan leader.
Last Modified: 25 May 2013 15:14
     |
|||
| Dozens of African leaders met in the Ethiopian
capital to mark 50 years since the founding of the African Union, a
continentwide organisation that helped liberate Africa from
colonial masters and which now is trying to stay relevant on a continent
regularly troubled by conflict. Opening the summit on Saturday that was attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry and other foreign dignitaries, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said the AU's original pan-Africanist aspirations remain relevant for a continent where many states are still struggling to overcome rampant poverty and violence. "This historic day marks not only a great leap forward in the Pan-Africanist quest for freedom, independence and unity but also the beginning of our collective endeavor for the realisations of Africa's socio-economic emancipation,'' he said. "The major responsibility of the current and future generations of Africans is.to create a continent free from poverty and conflict and an Africa whose citizens would enjoy middle- income status.'' African leaders have gathered to witness celebrations in Addis Ababa for the 50th jubilee of the continental bloc, with its many problems set aside for a day to mark the progress that has been made. Brazil said Saturday it plans to cancel $900mn worth of debt in 12 African countries, as part of a broader strategy to boost ties with the continent. "The idea of having Africa as a special relationship for Brazil is strategic for Brazil's foreign policy," presidential spokesman Thomas Traumann told reporters on the sidelines of African Union celebrations to mark 50 years of the continental bloc, attended by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. High-profile guests Mass dancing troupes performed musical dramas on Saturday to about 10,000 guests in a big hall in the Ethiopian capital, home to the African Union. Today's 54-member AU is the successor of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), established amid the heady days as independence from colonial rule swept the continent in 1963. African leaders were expected to be joined by Francois Hollande, the French president; Wang Yang, China's vice-premier; and John Kerry, US secretary of state. Mali is expected to be discussed: it is preparing to receive a UN peacekeeping force to support French soldiers fighting formerly al-Qaeda-linked rebels in the desert north since January. The agenda will also likely include Madagascar - in political deadlock since a 2009 coup - and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where UN-backed government soldiers are struggling to defeat rebels. There is also an AU move to back Kenya's call for the Hague-based International Criminal Court to drop crimes-against-humanity charges against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta. Speaking to Al Jazeera's Nazanine Moshiri in Addis Ababa, Nhial Deng Nhial, South Sudan's foreign minister, said he believed the motion would be passed at the summit. Time to look back Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, AU Commission chief, said the "celebration of all Africa" was "historic", and that it was a time to both look back at the past and consider how the continent can tackle the many challenges ahead. "The future is in our hands, its bright ... the opportunities are great for the continent to be prosperous," Dlamini-Zuma said in a statement late on Friday.
Musicians playing include Congolese music legend Papa Wemba, Mali's Salif Keita and British-based reggae band Steel Pulse, with giant screens set up across Addis Ababa also showing the festival. The AU has budgeted $1.27m for Saturday's celebrations, according to official documents seen by South Africa's Institute for Security Studies (ISS). Erastus Mwencha, AU Commission deputy chief, said he did not have the exact figure but that some $3m would be spent on Saturday's festivities and on other events over the coming year. The AU took over from the OAU in 2002, switching its name in a bid to shrug off its troubled past. OAU non-interference in member states' affairs allowed leaders to shirk democratic elections and abuse human rights without criticism from their neighbours. Combat roles In recent years, the AU's role in combat - such as its mission in Somalia to battle al-Qaeda-linked groups - has shown it can take concrete action, even if the funding for that mission comes mainly from Western backers. But at the same time, the splits revealed by the 2011 conflict in Libya - when members squabbled between those wanting to recognise rebels and those backing Muammar Gaddafi - showed its disunity and lack of global clout. Gaddafi's death also robbed the AU of a major source of funding. Leaders will discuss finding backers for the cash-strapped body at a two-day summit following Saturday's anniversary celebrations. Development indicators on the continent - including health, education, infant mortality, economic growth and democracy - have improved steadily in the past 50 years. Africa is home to some of the fastest growing economies in the world according to the IMF, and has attracted huge amounts of foreign investment in recent years. At the same time 24 out of the bottom 25 nations at the bottom of UN human development index are in Africa, and the subsequent summit will tackle a range of crises the continent faces.
|
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Leaders open landmark AU summit in Ethiopia
To Sharia or not to Sharia: The question of Islamopolitics
AL JAZEERA ENGLISH
| Opinion | |||
|
|
|||
Islam does not seek to turn its adherents into a monolithic group, but instead celebrates diversity and pluralism.
Last Modified: 25 May 2013 17:18
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
"Islam was never meant to be a prescribing force that dictates how society should be like," writes Ghilan [AP]
|
|||
|
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released their latest results from a survey
of Muslims around the world on religion, politics and society. Although
there is wide variability, it seems that most Muslims want Sharia
(Islamic Law) to be the governing law of their countries and to play an
important role in the political process. However, although the majority
of Muslims agree on the general principle of applying Sharia, they do not seem to agree
on what that term means. Given the diversity of understanding and
sources one can be exposed to in the Islamic tradition, this
disagreement should not come as a surprise. A romanticised history leading to failed reality Although valid religious reasons might be cited from average Muslims for the desire of Sharia, the lack of Islamic education and awareness about how Sharia operates raises a flag to dig deeper into their motives. Children in the Muslim world are typically exposed to a romanticised and utopic historical account of how Muslims of the past were. It is an image of saints walking upon the Earth fulfilling the commandments of God and striving for more self-purification, while at the same time studying the world and contributing to science and the advancement of human knowledge at a miraculous rate. They are taught that Muslims today have strayed away so far from Islamic teachings that God is punishing them by depriving them from what the West has accomplished. What has been lost on Muslims today is the methodology of "how" to be a Muslim. In selling their hypothetical utopia of the days that have passed, those who teach Islamic history in the Muslim world have inadvertently switched the focus from how one can be a practising Muslim who contributes to the greater good of society, to focusing on attempts to replicate the exact way past Muslims supposedly lived. Hence, many Muslims today are working hard to bring about quantum mechanical speculations to reality and take everyone back in time away from "evil" modernity. One way they do this is through advancing their various versions of Islamopolitics. Winston Churchill said that "tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip". This tact is exemplified in the contemporary experience of the failure of Islamopolitics in Sudan. As Nesrine Malik pointed out last year in response to another oppressive act of the Sudanese government in the name of Sharia, Islamic rhetoric in politics was initially "a way of paying lip service to religion for the government to gain legitimacy". She mentioned how this false cloak of religiosity now serves as a "potent tool that allows the government to apply punishment harshly (but inconsistently) whenever it feels the need... to invoke the emotive power of religious offence". Aside from siphoning as much as $9bn out of the impoverished country, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is also charged with the Darfur genocide where he is accused of trying to wipe out three non-Arab ethnic groups. The propaganda machine al-Bashir employed to recruit young men to commit these atrocities based its message on a call for Jihad. This is the consequence of an Islamopolitical movement's rise to fame and popularity, then to power, and finally to hegemony and oppression in the name of religion.
The situation as it stands today is not a positive one. Not only do many Muslims have a caricatured conception of different political models, they have also done a disservice to Islam by presenting a caricatured simpleton image of what in reality is a rich and very complex tradition. As the author of Islam and the Destiny of Man Charles le Gai Eaton would put it, Islam has become a "Boy Scout religion" where one simply opens up the book of rules and implements them. Moreover, such a presentation of Islam has made it seem to be unable to address modernity. Islam was never meant to be a prescribing force that dictates how society should be like. Rather, it acts as a filter that can be taken in various societies and seeks to eliminate ailments and celebrate their healthy aspects. In other words, Islam does not seek to turn its adherents into a monolithic group, but instead celebrates diversity and pluralism. Numerous verses in the Quran explicitly state this such as, "Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and colours. There truly are signs in this for those who know" [30:22]. Another verse states that God "made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one another" [49:13]. Even when it comes to diversity of religions or an outright disbelief in God, the Islamic message is about asserting that people have the right to self-determination. In fact, according to Islamic ethos, belief is of no value if people do not have the freedom to disbelief. In contrast to the Islamopolitical worldview, which sees that man was made for religion, the Islamic worldview asserts that religion was revealed for man, and this can be practically shown by way of an example. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam and author who was at the forefront of the Ground Zero mosque controversy in New York, published a paper in the University of St Thomas Law Journal in which he systematically shows how the American Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution are all consistent with Islamic Law. What this paper shows is the fallacy of assuming Islam as something foreign to be brought in place of already existing paradigms. In addition, it also confirms a statement Averroes - the 12th century Spanish Andalusian Muslim polymath - made about Sharia, which is that "God created the intellect and revealed the Sharia, and the two will not contradict". In fact, the attempts to ban Sharia law can be viewed as comical from an Islamic legal perspective because it would entail undermining one's own legal system and banning laws that are already in place. Interestingly, the use of Islam as a platform with slogans and promises of a better tomorrow is not a permissible act according to the same Sharia these movements are calling for. Even if a slogan is changed in order for it not to carry a religious connotation, the presence of a religious name for a party like the "Muslim Brotherhood" poses a problem. Within the first two pages of the Quran is a verse that says, "When it is said to them 'do not cause corruption in the land', they say, 'we are only putting things right', but really they are causing corruption, though they do not realise it" [2:11]. One of the insights from this verse noted by the commentators of the Quran is that we should always be weary of those making claims about rectifying current states. In Islamic history, whenever a political movement arose with the claims of "applying the rule of God", it was never a positive experience for the masses. For those that came under their dominion it was expected of them to walk a very thin line. Many Muslims might object and exclaim that Islam is a complete way of life. However, the assertion of Islam being a "complete religion" and a "system" does not mean that it sets out specific details about every single aspect of life. If that were the case it would never be able to cope with progress and modernity. Rather, it comes with general prescriptions (as opposed to descriptions) that have objectives which things can be tailored for. The objection really stems from a lack of recognition of the distinction within Islamic Law that Muslim jurists have always recognised. Islam can be generally divided into two branches: acts of worship and acts of worldly transactions. The acts of worship have indeed been set out in detail and the juristic principal that governs them for a Muslim is that all acts of worship are impermissible except those which have been prescribed by the Sharia to be performed. In contrast, the juristic principal governing the acts of worldly transactions is that all actions are permissible except those that have been singled out by the Sharia to be impermissible. The relevance of the principal governing worldly transactions relates to the role humans must play in the world. As per the Islamic worldview, God did not create human beings with intellects so that they can turn them off and behave as automatons merely carrying out orders. Part of being in this world is using the intellect to deliberate, reflect and make choices that can later be reassessed in light of their consequences. Although some specifics are dictated, and general guidelines are given, human reason must play an active role during its presence in the world. Islamic perspective on politics Several Muslim jurists have written various works on the role of religion in politics. One of the best definitions for politics as understood in Islam is one given by the early jurist Ibn Aqeel (d 1119) who said:
Politics is whatever action that brings the people closer to rectification and further from destruction, even if it wasn't something dictated by the Prophet or no Revelation has come down regarding it.One of most prolific and often-quoted jurists in the Islamic tradition (ironically more so by modern Saudi clerics than others) was Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (d 1350) who pointed out a problem that continues to this day. He said: The fault is not with the religion. Rather, it's with those who close every door to cultivating beneficial interests; investigating the higher objectives of the Sacred Law; reflecting on the consequences and priorities; and they constrict for people what God as expanded for them and they waste for them many benefits by their lack of understanding, stubbornness, and dogmatism. On the opposite extreme are those who disregard the Sacred Law completely, don't stop at the limits of God, don't restrict themselves to the Revelation, and turn religion into malleable dough in their hands to shape it into whatever form they see fit based on their egos, whims, and desires.Raghib Isfahani (d 1108), a prominent Muslim philosopher and political theorist, divided politics into two types: the politics in which an individual deals with his own affairs, and the politics employed by an individual to manage the affairs of others. Ibn Khaldun (d 1406), quite possibly the most prominent Muslim political theorist and one of the pioneers in codifying the discipline of sociology, noted that proper adherence to religious principals elevates the people from tribalism and allows them to see beyond their own immediate interests. This is due to having an absolute reference point that they all must go back to. In other words, when everyone's focus transcends him or herself to an absolute higher power, only then can they overcome personal interests for a higher cause. Islam versus Muslims The human element must be brought to the forefront of this conversation. The way in which Islam is being considered the driving force behind Islamopolitical movements as if it is an autonomous agent removes accountability from the people within those movements. While their desire for economic and social reform is commendable, their approach is highly questionable. After nearly a century of religious oppression by dictators, delegitimised Islamic institutions and romanticised historical accounts that at times may not be grounded in reality, all one has to do is organise an Islamopolitical party, and highly educated Muslims will go along with their delusion. Without economic, social and health care plans, and a deep understanding of how modern geopolitics operate, these parties will fail. But their failure will not be their own; in the minds of people it will be a failure of Islam. Much of the supposed conflict Muslims view with regards to separation of religion and politics has more to do with a false perception in their minds than with an objective reality. It is also their knee-jerk reaction to reject anything non-Muslims do as if the quality of any action is judged by who carries it out. Sharia is an organic activity that involves human intellect. The current struggle is between rationalist Muslims who want to bring forth the Islamic tradition in its complete spectrum and dogmatist Muslims who think classical political works written in completely different contextual realities have some divine quality or sanctity to them. More importantly, Muslims need to come to terms with the fact that progress is not going to come from political parties that exploit the population's emotional connection with Islam as a means to gain power. Mohamed Ghilan is a neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, Canada, and a student of Islamic jurisprudence. He blogs here and has an active self-titled podcast on iTunes. Follow him on Twitter: @mohamedghilan You can follow the editor on Twitter: @nyktweets
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
|
Two child limit imposed on Myanmar's Rohingya
| AL JAZEERA ENGLISH |
New measure, which applies to Muslim Rohingya families in western Rakhine state, does not affect Buddhists in the area.
Last Modified: 25 May 2013 14:34
|
Sectarian violence first flared nearly a year ago between the region's Rakhine Buddhists and Muslim Rohingya [EPA]
|
Authorities in Myanmar's western Rakhine state have imposed a two-child limit for Muslim Rohingya families, a policy that does not apply to Buddhists in the area, and comes amid accusations of ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of sectarian violence. Local officials said on Saturday that the new measure would be applied to two Rakhine townships that border Bangladesh and have the highest Muslim populations in the state. The townships, Buthidaung and Maundaw, are about 95 percent Muslim. The unusual order makes Myanmar perhaps the only country in the world to impose such a restriction on a religious group, and is likely to fuel further criticism that Muslims are being discriminated against in the Buddhist-majority country. China has a one-child policy, but it is not based on religion and exceptions apply to minority ethnic groups. India briefly practised forced sterilisation of men in a bid to control the population in the mid-1970s when civil liberties were suspended during a period of emergency rule, but a nationwide outcry quickly shut down the programme. 'Overpopulation causes tension' Rakhine state spokesman Win Myaing said the new programme was meant to stem rapid population growth in the Muslim community, which a government-appointed commission identified as one of the causes of the sectarian violence. Although Muslims are the majority in the two townships in which the new policy applies, they account for only about 4 percent of Myanmar's roughly 60 million people. The measure was enacted a week ago after the commission recommended family planning programs to stem population growth among Muslims, Win Myaing said. The commission also recommended doubling the number of security forces in the volatile region. "The population growth of Rohingya Muslims is 10 times higher than that of the Rakhine (Buddhists)," Win Myaing said. "Overpopulation is one of the causes of tension." Sectarian violence in Myanmar first flared nearly a year ago in Rakhine state between the region's Rakhine Buddhists and Muslim Rohingya. Mobs of Buddhists armed with machetes razed thousands of Muslim homes, leaving hundreds of people dead and forcing 125,000 to flee, mostly Muslims. Witnesses and human rights groups said riot police stood by as crowds attacked Muslims and burned their villages. New York-based Human Rights Watch has accused authorities in Rakhine of fomenting an organised campaign of "ethnic cleansing" against the Rohingya. |
World reacts to death of Venezuela’s controversial leader Hugo Chavez
Al Arabiya
Wednesday, 06 March 2013
Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez wears an army uniform
and the red beret of his parachute regiment while attending a military
parade in Caracas in this April 13, 2005 file photo. (Reuters)
President Hugo Chavez died on Tuesday after a two-year battle
with cancer, ending 14 years of controversial rule that won him
passionate support from Latin American to the Middle East.
In the Middle East in particular Chavez enjoyed popular support for his often critical stances against Israel and the American policy in the region, but his backing of dictatorial leaders from Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Iran’s regime of Ayatollah saw his popularity dwindling during the Arab Spring.
**Loved or hated? Arab world may shed a tear over Venezuela’s Chavez
In the Middle East in particular Chavez enjoyed popular support for his often critical stances against Israel and the American policy in the region, but his backing of dictatorial leaders from Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Iran’s regime of Ayatollah saw his popularity dwindling during the Arab Spring.
**Loved or hated? Arab world may shed a tear over Venezuela’s Chavez
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid tribute to Chavez on Wednesday saying he had fallen “martyr” to a “suspect illness.”
Ahmadinejad hailed his close ally for “serving the people of Venezuela and defending human and revolutionary values.”
“He finally died from a suspect illness and he gave his life... to the elevation of his country and the freedom of his people,” Ahmadinejad said in a message of condolences to Vice President Nicolas Maduro.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon offered his “deepest condolences” to the people of Venezuela.
U.S. President Barack Obama, in a statement, said: “At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government.
“As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
Cancer survivor and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff told reporters: “Today a great Latin American died. ... On many occasions, the Brazilian government did not fully agree with President Hugo Chavez but today, as always, we recognize in him a great leader, an irreparable loss and, above all, a friend of Brazil.”
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said: “I received the news of President Hugo Chavez's death with great sadness. I'm proud to have lived and worked with him for the integration of Latin America and for a more just world. My solidarity to the Venezuelan people, to Chavez's family and supporters, on this sad day, but I'm confident that his example of love of the fatherland and his dedication to the cause of the poor will continue to illuminate the future of Venezuela.”
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos told reporters: “The obsession that united us and that was the base of our relationship was peace in Colombia and the region. If we've advanced in a solid peace process ... it's also thanks to the dedication and commitment without limits of President Chavez and the Venezuelan government.
“The best tribute we can pay to the memory of Hugo Chavez is to fulfill this dream he shared with us to reach an agreement to end the conflict and to see a peaceful Colombia.”
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera, in a televised address: “We undoubtedly had our differences, but I was always able to appreciate the strength, the engagement with which Chavez fought for his ideas.”
“When his illness worsened and he had to return to Cuba, I called him and I remember he told me ... that if he had to face death, he wanted to do it in his country, in his beloved Venezuela.”
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Chavez’s death was “a tragedy.” “He was a great politician,” Churkin said.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “I was saddened to learn of the death of President Hugo Chavez today. As president of Venezuela for 14 years he has left a lasting impression on the country and more widely. I would like to offer my condolences to his family and to the Venezuelan people at this time.”
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said: “Hugo Chavez ruled Venezuela with an iron hand and his passing has left a political void that we hope will be filled peacefully and through a constitutional and democratic process, grounded in the Venezuelan constitution and adhering to the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
“With free and fair elections, Venezuela can begin to restore its once robust democracy and ensure respect for the human, political and civil rights of its people.”
U.S. Representative Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement said: “Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear. His death dents the alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator.
“Venezuela once had a strong democratic tradition and was close to the United States. Chavez's death sets the stage for fresh elections. While not guaranteed, closer U.S. relations with his key country in our Hemisphere are now possible.”
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in a statement: “President Chavez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment.
“At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing. We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chavez and recall his positive legacies – especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable - the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.”
U.S. actor Sean Penn, in a statement: “Today the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have. My thoughts are with the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela.”
Ahmadinejad hailed his close ally for “serving the people of Venezuela and defending human and revolutionary values.”
“He finally died from a suspect illness and he gave his life... to the elevation of his country and the freedom of his people,” Ahmadinejad said in a message of condolences to Vice President Nicolas Maduro.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon offered his “deepest condolences” to the people of Venezuela.
U.S. President Barack Obama, in a statement, said: “At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government.
“As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
Cancer survivor and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff told reporters: “Today a great Latin American died. ... On many occasions, the Brazilian government did not fully agree with President Hugo Chavez but today, as always, we recognize in him a great leader, an irreparable loss and, above all, a friend of Brazil.”
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said: “I received the news of President Hugo Chavez's death with great sadness. I'm proud to have lived and worked with him for the integration of Latin America and for a more just world. My solidarity to the Venezuelan people, to Chavez's family and supporters, on this sad day, but I'm confident that his example of love of the fatherland and his dedication to the cause of the poor will continue to illuminate the future of Venezuela.”
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos told reporters: “The obsession that united us and that was the base of our relationship was peace in Colombia and the region. If we've advanced in a solid peace process ... it's also thanks to the dedication and commitment without limits of President Chavez and the Venezuelan government.
“The best tribute we can pay to the memory of Hugo Chavez is to fulfill this dream he shared with us to reach an agreement to end the conflict and to see a peaceful Colombia.”
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera, in a televised address: “We undoubtedly had our differences, but I was always able to appreciate the strength, the engagement with which Chavez fought for his ideas.”
“When his illness worsened and he had to return to Cuba, I called him and I remember he told me ... that if he had to face death, he wanted to do it in his country, in his beloved Venezuela.”
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Chavez’s death was “a tragedy.” “He was a great politician,” Churkin said.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “I was saddened to learn of the death of President Hugo Chavez today. As president of Venezuela for 14 years he has left a lasting impression on the country and more widely. I would like to offer my condolences to his family and to the Venezuelan people at this time.”
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said: “Hugo Chavez ruled Venezuela with an iron hand and his passing has left a political void that we hope will be filled peacefully and through a constitutional and democratic process, grounded in the Venezuelan constitution and adhering to the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
“With free and fair elections, Venezuela can begin to restore its once robust democracy and ensure respect for the human, political and civil rights of its people.”
U.S. Representative Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement said: “Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear. His death dents the alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator.
“Venezuela once had a strong democratic tradition and was close to the United States. Chavez's death sets the stage for fresh elections. While not guaranteed, closer U.S. relations with his key country in our Hemisphere are now possible.”
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in a statement: “President Chavez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment.
“At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing. We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chavez and recall his positive legacies – especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable - the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.”
U.S. actor Sean Penn, in a statement: “Today the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have. My thoughts are with the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela.”
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon offered his “deepest condolences” to the people of Venezuela.
U.S. President Barack Obama, in a statement, said: “At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government.
“As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
Cancer survivor and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff told reporters: “Today a great Latin American died. ... On many occasions, the Brazilian government did not fully agree with President Hugo Chavez but today, as always, we recognize in him a great leader, an irreparable loss and, above all, a friend of Brazil.”
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said: “I received the news of President Hugo Chavez's death with great sadness. I'm proud to have lived and worked with him for the integration of Latin America and for a more just world. My solidarity to the Venezuelan people, to Chavez's family and supporters, on this sad day, but I'm confident that his example of love of the fatherland and his dedication to the cause of the poor will continue to illuminate the future of Venezuela.”
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos told reporters: “The obsession that united us and that was the base of our relationship was peace in Colombia and the region. If we've advanced in a solid peace process ... it's also thanks to the dedication and commitment without limits of President Chavez and the Venezuelan government.
“The best tribute we can pay to the memory of Hugo Chavez is to fulfill this dream he shared with us to reach an agreement to end the conflict and to see a peaceful Colombia.”
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera, in a televised address: “We undoubtedly had our differences, but I was always able to appreciate the strength, the engagement with which Chavez fought for his ideas.”
“When his illness worsened and he had to return to Cuba, I called him and I remember he told me ... that if he had to face death, he wanted to do it in his country, in his beloved Venezuela.”
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Chavez’s death was “a tragedy.” “He was a great politician,” Churkin said.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “I was saddened to learn of the death of President Hugo Chavez today. As president of Venezuela for 14 years he has left a lasting impression on the country and more widely. I would like to offer my condolences to his family and to the Venezuelan people at this time.”
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement:
“Hugo Chavez ruled Venezuela with an iron hand and his passing has left a political void that we hope will be filled peacefully and through a constitutional and democratic process, grounded in the Venezuelan constitution and adhering to the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
“With free and fair elections, Venezuela can begin to restore its once robust democracy and ensure respect for the human, political and civil rights of its people.”
U.S. Representative Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement:
“Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear. His death dents the alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator.
“Venezuela once had a strong democratic tradition and was close to the United States. Chavez's death sets the stage forfresh elections. While not guaranteed, closer U.S. relations with his key country in our Hemisphere are now possible.”
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in a statement: “President Chavez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment.
“At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing. We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chavez and recall his positive legacies – especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable - the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.”
U.S. actor Sean Penn, in a statement: “Today the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have. My thoughts are with the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela.”
U.S. President Barack Obama, in a statement, said: “At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government.
“As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
Cancer survivor and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff told reporters: “Today a great Latin American died. ... On many occasions, the Brazilian government did not fully agree with President Hugo Chavez but today, as always, we recognize in him a great leader, an irreparable loss and, above all, a friend of Brazil.”
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said: “I received the news of President Hugo Chavez's death with great sadness. I'm proud to have lived and worked with him for the integration of Latin America and for a more just world. My solidarity to the Venezuelan people, to Chavez's family and supporters, on this sad day, but I'm confident that his example of love of the fatherland and his dedication to the cause of the poor will continue to illuminate the future of Venezuela.”
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos told reporters: “The obsession that united us and that was the base of our relationship was peace in Colombia and the region. If we've advanced in a solid peace process ... it's also thanks to the dedication and commitment without limits of President Chavez and the Venezuelan government.
“The best tribute we can pay to the memory of Hugo Chavez is to fulfill this dream he shared with us to reach an agreement to end the conflict and to see a peaceful Colombia.”
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera, in a televised address: “We undoubtedly had our differences, but I was always able to appreciate the strength, the engagement with which Chavez fought for his ideas.”
“When his illness worsened and he had to return to Cuba, I called him and I remember he told me ... that if he had to face death, he wanted to do it in his country, in his beloved Venezuela.”
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Chavez’s death was “a tragedy.” “He was a great politician,” Churkin said.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “I was saddened to learn of the death of President Hugo Chavez today. As president of Venezuela for 14 years he has left a lasting impression on the country and more widely. I would like to offer my condolences to his family and to the Venezuelan people at this time.”
U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a statement:
“Hugo Chavez ruled Venezuela with an iron hand and his passing has left a political void that we hope will be filled peacefully and through a constitutional and democratic process, grounded in the Venezuelan constitution and adhering to the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
“With free and fair elections, Venezuela can begin to restore its once robust democracy and ensure respect for the human, political and civil rights of its people.”
U.S. Representative Ed Royce, Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement:
“Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear. His death dents the alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders in South America. Good riddance to this dictator.
“Venezuela once had a strong democratic tradition and was close to the United States. Chavez's death sets the stage forfresh elections. While not guaranteed, closer U.S. relations with his key country in our Hemisphere are now possible.”
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in a statement: “President Chavez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment.
“At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing. We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chavez and recall his positive legacies – especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable - the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.”
U.S. actor Sean Penn, in a statement: “Today the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have. My thoughts are with the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela.”
|
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
|
The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria: a decisive battle
AL ARABIYA
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Syria needs to restructure the
group by bringing younger generations to top positions NOW, even as it
is in the midst of a historic battle to overthrow the Syrian regime.
The Brotherhood in Egypt needs to implement a new policy regarding the Syrian crisis, which should be consistent with Egyptian regional importance, clearing neighboring countries’ suspicions, and preventing future tension with their comrades in Syria. In short, they should line up with the winners.
The Brotherhood in Jordan needs to break away from the idea of an American conspiracy and develop their own approach regarding the Syrian conflict from supporting relief work, to directing political support, some of which must be directed toward the Jordanian government they oppose.
What is happening in Syria is a real popular revolution that the Brotherhood had not planned for or expected; this is why the clumsiness of the Brotherhood all over the world is now understandable.
They need to maintain their achievements now, and prevent engendering political crises and clashes in Syria, especially when restructuring their organization that was in exile for more than 30 years, with the division between Damascus’ Brotherhood and Aleppo’s Brotherhood. The organization has also witnessed a division between the leadership and young fighters who instigated the first confrontation with the regime without the consent of the organization. The MB leaders have also witnessed divisions among their ranks in Iraq – under the influence of Saddam Hussein’s regime and his intelligence services – Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and Europe.
Some of them got rich abroad, while others have built special relationships with Arab and Western governments, but they were not young when the Syrian revolution surprised them two years ago; most of them were over 40 years old, with some approaching 60.
When they were actively involved in the Syrian revolution at the Syrian National Council and activist committees, some thought they were still linked to the Brotherhood and this is why there were talks about MB domination, when in fact they had left the organization a long time ago.
It is best for the Brotherhood leaders to reintroduce these young men to the group, and even to leadership positions, so as not to repeat the same mistake as the Egyptian Brotherhood, where some of the brightest young men like Abu al-ala Madi or Abdul Moneim Fotouh have dissented; the Brotherhood’s supreme guide had wished they hadn’t left the group.
Mursi’s government stance is no longer convincing; they only want to support the Syrian revolution through speeches and promises, without having to translate it on the ground through a full partnership with an active alliance seeking to overthrow the regime. The Egyptian government wants to leave the door open to Iran because the conflict in Syria is not long-term. It will end when the final decisions are taken; therefore there is no room for pragmatism and half-baked solutions. The Brotherhood must choose the Syrian revolution’s side in the war that is now taking place in the region, if not for ethical motives, then for the aim of reserving a seat among the winners for themselves and for Egypt.
This war will inevitably generate a victorious alliance; it will be a huge mistake for Egypt to be out of this alliance, especially in the Brotherhood era.
They openly criticized training and arming operations led by the Americans who had sent –without prior notice– members of the U.S. military to cooperate with their Jordanian counterparts and intelligence services there.
The Brotherhood believes that there is always an “American conspiracy,” following the opinion of the Palestinians who do not like Americans for obvious reasons, rather than accept the U.S. aid for the sake of the Syrian conflict. They are committing the same mistake they did earlier in the war to liberate Kuwait when they criticized the occupation but refused international interference to eradicate it; back then, they caused a division – along various factions of the Brotherhood – with their allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, including the Brotherhood in Kuwait that declared its withdrawal from the Brotherhood’s international organization (I was the first to publish this story in al-Hayat newspaper during the crisis).
The Arab and Islamic public wants to topple the Syrian regime at any cost, and leave the decision in the hands of Islamic movements who grew up being fed confrontational speeches against the West and colonialism, without ever taking into consideration the political transformations that happened in the West.
This will push Islamic movements to miss this valuable opportunity in the region, turning it into a mere protest movement like the Turkish Saadet (Happiness) Party, inheriting the glory of late Necmettin Erbakan, who is today sitting in the “lap” of the Syrian regime due to his anti-Western rhetoric.
History is in the making, a new Middle East is being formed, so dear older generation Brotherhood’s leaders in Syria, Egypt and Jordan, let the youth lead. They are more aware of the changing world.
This article was first published in al-Hayat on May 25, 2013.
The Brotherhood in Egypt needs to implement a new policy regarding the Syrian crisis, which should be consistent with Egyptian regional importance, clearing neighboring countries’ suspicions, and preventing future tension with their comrades in Syria. In short, they should line up with the winners.
The Brotherhood in Jordan needs to break away from the idea of an American conspiracy and develop their own approach regarding the Syrian conflict from supporting relief work, to directing political support, some of which must be directed toward the Jordanian government they oppose.
What is happening in Syria is a real popular revolution that the Brotherhood had not planned for or expected; this is why the clumsiness of the Brotherhood all over the world is now understandable.
What’s ahead for the MB?
The moment of truth in Syria has now approached and the Brotherhood should be ready for it. Many important things have happened and will happen in coming days for the Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia has finally embraced the MB; it does not matter how and why that happened, but what is important is that it will strongly help both the kingdom and the Brotherhood to reach their goal to overthrow the regime and stop the massacres that the Syrian people are suffering from, then – and this is very important – to be committed to a steady alliance through re-drawing a new Eastern Arab world without Iran. The Muslim Brotherhood vowed this, in the meetings that recently took place in Jeddah.The moment of truth in Syria has now approached and the Muslim Brotherhood should be ready for it.The Brotherhood in Syria has taken a very clever step when it participated with Syrians in establishing the “national council,” the “coalition,” and then the transitional government. Nevertheless, they were repeatedly accused that they are seeking to control all these bodies and institutions; it was a clever step from them to step away from the transitional government and its president Ghassan Hitto, when they knew that this would be a cause of division and mistrust.
Jamal Khashoggi
They need to maintain their achievements now, and prevent engendering political crises and clashes in Syria, especially when restructuring their organization that was in exile for more than 30 years, with the division between Damascus’ Brotherhood and Aleppo’s Brotherhood. The organization has also witnessed a division between the leadership and young fighters who instigated the first confrontation with the regime without the consent of the organization. The MB leaders have also witnessed divisions among their ranks in Iraq – under the influence of Saddam Hussein’s regime and his intelligence services – Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and Europe.
MB’s new generation
A more effective, liberal and independent young generation of the Brotherhood emerged from the Syrian diaspora all around the world; they established associations concerned about their nation away from the MB’s leadership but at the same time, maintained the friendship and respect towards the leaders.Some of them got rich abroad, while others have built special relationships with Arab and Western governments, but they were not young when the Syrian revolution surprised them two years ago; most of them were over 40 years old, with some approaching 60.
When they were actively involved in the Syrian revolution at the Syrian National Council and activist committees, some thought they were still linked to the Brotherhood and this is why there were talks about MB domination, when in fact they had left the organization a long time ago.
It is best for the Brotherhood leaders to reintroduce these young men to the group, and even to leadership positions, so as not to repeat the same mistake as the Egyptian Brotherhood, where some of the brightest young men like Abu al-ala Madi or Abdul Moneim Fotouh have dissented; the Brotherhood’s supreme guide had wished they hadn’t left the group.
Egypt’s involvement
As for their situation in Egypt, it is no secret that even the Brotherhood in Syria does not agree with their comrades in Egypt who stated that they have enough problems and challenges. Saudi Arabia and many other countries have raised concerns about the Brotherhood’s pragmatism.Mursi’s government stance is no longer convincing; they only want to support the Syrian revolution through speeches and promises, without having to translate it on the ground through a full partnership with an active alliance seeking to overthrow the regime. The Egyptian government wants to leave the door open to Iran because the conflict in Syria is not long-term. It will end when the final decisions are taken; therefore there is no room for pragmatism and half-baked solutions. The Brotherhood must choose the Syrian revolution’s side in the war that is now taking place in the region, if not for ethical motives, then for the aim of reserving a seat among the winners for themselves and for Egypt.
This war will inevitably generate a victorious alliance; it will be a huge mistake for Egypt to be out of this alliance, especially in the Brotherhood era.
Confused in Jordan
In Jordan, the Brotherhood is also confused; they are against the regime and with the revolution; they are working hard for the relief of the citizens in need but they kick up dust around the only possible solution: international intervention.They openly criticized training and arming operations led by the Americans who had sent –without prior notice– members of the U.S. military to cooperate with their Jordanian counterparts and intelligence services there.
The Brotherhood believes that there is always an “American conspiracy,” following the opinion of the Palestinians who do not like Americans for obvious reasons, rather than accept the U.S. aid for the sake of the Syrian conflict. They are committing the same mistake they did earlier in the war to liberate Kuwait when they criticized the occupation but refused international interference to eradicate it; back then, they caused a division – along various factions of the Brotherhood – with their allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, including the Brotherhood in Kuwait that declared its withdrawal from the Brotherhood’s international organization (I was the first to publish this story in al-Hayat newspaper during the crisis).
The Arab and Islamic public wants to topple the Syrian regime at any cost, and leave the decision in the hands of Islamic movements who grew up being fed confrontational speeches against the West and colonialism, without ever taking into consideration the political transformations that happened in the West.
This will push Islamic movements to miss this valuable opportunity in the region, turning it into a mere protest movement like the Turkish Saadet (Happiness) Party, inheriting the glory of late Necmettin Erbakan, who is today sitting in the “lap” of the Syrian regime due to his anti-Western rhetoric.
History is in the making, a new Middle East is being formed, so dear older generation Brotherhood’s leaders in Syria, Egypt and Jordan, let the youth lead. They are more aware of the changing world.
This article was first published in al-Hayat on May 25, 2013.
Hezbollah chief vows ‘victory’ against Syrian opposition fighters
Al Arabiya
Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah's comments Saturday marked the
first time he has publically confirmed his men were fighting in Syria.
(Al Arabiya)
Al Arabiya With Agencies -
Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah on Saturday vowed “victory” in
the fight against Syrian opposition fighters, saying his group is
committed to its choice in the conflict and will accept all sacrifices
and consequences of it.
“I say to all the honorable people, to the mujahedeen, to the heroes: I have always promised you a victory and now I pledge to you a new one” in Syria, he said at a ceremony marking the 13th anniversary of Israel’s military withdrawal from Lebanon.
Nasrallah says Hezbollah members are fighting in Syria against Islamic extremists who pose a danger to Lebanon.
Nasrallah’s comments Saturday marked the first time he has publically confirmed his men were fighting in Syria.
They are also his first since Hezbollah fighters have become deeply involved in the battle for of the central Syrian town of Qusair.
He said tens of thousands of Islamic extremists from all over the world have been sent to Syria to fight the regime, but Hezbollah sends “a few” fighters and it is accused of intervening in the conflict.
“I say to all the honorable people, to the mujahedeen, to the heroes: I have always promised you a victory and now I pledge to you a new one” in Syria, he said at a ceremony marking the 13th anniversary of Israel’s military withdrawal from Lebanon.
Nasrallah says Hezbollah members are fighting in Syria against Islamic extremists who pose a danger to Lebanon.
-
- Supporters of Hezbollah and relatives of Hezbollah member Hussein Ahmad Abu Hasan
- carry his coffin during his funeral in Beirut’s suburbs May 21, 2013. (Reuters)
-
- Supporters of Hezbollah and relatives of Hezbollah member Hussein Ahmad Abu Hasan
- carry his coffin during his funeral in Beirut’s suburbs May 21, 2013. (Reuters)
-
- Relatives mourn during the funeral of Hezbollah member Hussein Ahmad Abu Hasan
- in Beirut’s suburbs May 21, 2013. (Reuters)
-
- Supporters of Hezbollah and relatives of Hezbollah member Hussein Ahmad Abu Hasan
- carry his coffin during his funeral in Beirut’s suburbs May 21, 2013. (Reuters)
-
- Demonstrators carry a poster depicting a caricature of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad (R)
- and Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, during a protest in Kafranbel, near Idlib May 24, 2013. (Reuters)
Nasrallah’s comments Saturday marked the first time he has publically confirmed his men were fighting in Syria.
They are also his first since Hezbollah fighters have become deeply involved in the battle for of the central Syrian town of Qusair.
He said tens of thousands of Islamic extremists from all over the world have been sent to Syria to fight the regime, but Hezbollah sends “a few” fighters and it is accused of intervening in the conflict.
MI5 tried to recruit Adebolajo, claims Woolwich suspect’s ‘friend’
Al Arabiya
Adebolajo, 28, was asked by the MI5 domestic intelligence agency if he knew certain individuals and later if he wanted to work for them.
But the murder suspect allegedly snubbed the offer, his friend Abu Nusaybah told the BBC, before promptly arrested on the broadcaster’s premises after giving the interview, on suspicion of terrorism offences, the BBC reported.
It is understood the arrest was not directly linked to the brutal murder of 25-year-old soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death in broad daylight Wednesday outside the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, southeast London.
Scotland Yard police headquarters said counter-terror officers had arrested a 31-year-old man in London on suspicion of the “commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,” according to AFP.
Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale – the second murder suspect linked with the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby - both remain under armed guard in hospital after being shot by police at the scene, were known to the intelligence services but were reportedly assessed as not posing a deadly threat.
Rigby’s distraught wife said the family found it hard to accept that the 25-year-old had been killed not in a war zone but on the streets of his own country.
A huge pile of floral tributes was building up outside the barracks.
More details emerged about Adebolajo, who was born to devout Nigerian Christians but converted to Islam a decade ago and had attended meetings of the extremist group Al-Muhajiroun, which is now banned in Britain.
He had reportedly sold inflammatory literature at a stall in Woolwich, where his increasingly extremist behaviour in recent weeks had alarmed other Muslims.
Reports said Adebolajo had attempted to travel to Somalia to fight alongside Al-Qaeda-linked Shebab insurgents but had been turned back and had his passport confiscated by police.
Abu Nusaybah told BBC television that Adebolajo had been picked up by Kenyan forces and physically assaulted in detention there.
Shortly after he returned, MI5 agents repeatedly called at his home, the friend alleged.
“His wording was: ‘They are bugging me -- they won’t leave me alone’,” he said.
“After him saying that he didn’t know these individuals and so forth, what he said is they asked him whether he would be interested in working for them.
“He was explicit in that he refused to work for them.”
Adebolajo was captured on film shortly after the attack brandishing a bloodied knife and meat cleaver and claiming he had killed the soldier because British forces killed Muslims every day.
Less is known about the other suspect but he is also believed to be of Nigerian origin.
Dramatic footage of the incident obtained by the Daily Mirror newspaper also showed Adebolajo charging at armed police before he was shot and injured.
Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the founder of the al-Muhajiroun movement which was banned in Britain under anti-terror laws told Al Arabiya he does “not oppose what [Adebolajo] did.”
“I didn’t teach him to kill, neither did I give him an encouraging or hate-loaded lesson, but it seems that he acted alone,” Bakri said.
Adebolajo came from a Nigerian Christians background converted to Islam a decade ago.
“When someone settles in a non-Muslim country, this means that he is in a peace pact with its people, and both parties should refrain from aggressing one another,” Sheikh Bakri said.
He added that he thinks that Adebolajo decided “to free himself from this peace pact.”
“I am against the method used in killing the victim [Rigby].”
Michael Adebolajo protesting in 2007 outside London's Paddington Green Police Station (Photo courtesy: NNP)
Al Arabiya with AFP -
An alleged friend of Michael Adebolajo, suspected of hacking a
soldier to death in London, was arrested at the BBC after telling the
broadcaster on Friday that British security services had tried to
recruit the murder suspect.Adebolajo, 28, was asked by the MI5 domestic intelligence agency if he knew certain individuals and later if he wanted to work for them.
But the murder suspect allegedly snubbed the offer, his friend Abu Nusaybah told the BBC, before promptly arrested on the broadcaster’s premises after giving the interview, on suspicion of terrorism offences, the BBC reported.
It is understood the arrest was not directly linked to the brutal murder of 25-year-old soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death in broad daylight Wednesday outside the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, southeast London.
Scotland Yard police headquarters said counter-terror officers had arrested a 31-year-old man in London on suspicion of the “commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,” according to AFP.
Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale – the second murder suspect linked with the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby - both remain under armed guard in hospital after being shot by police at the scene, were known to the intelligence services but were reportedly assessed as not posing a deadly threat.
Rigby’s distraught wife said the family found it hard to accept that the 25-year-old had been killed not in a war zone but on the streets of his own country.
A huge pile of floral tributes was building up outside the barracks.
More details emerged about Adebolajo, who was born to devout Nigerian Christians but converted to Islam a decade ago and had attended meetings of the extremist group Al-Muhajiroun, which is now banned in Britain.
He had reportedly sold inflammatory literature at a stall in Woolwich, where his increasingly extremist behaviour in recent weeks had alarmed other Muslims.
Reports said Adebolajo had attempted to travel to Somalia to fight alongside Al-Qaeda-linked Shebab insurgents but had been turned back and had his passport confiscated by police.
Abu Nusaybah told BBC television that Adebolajo had been picked up by Kenyan forces and physically assaulted in detention there.
Shortly after he returned, MI5 agents repeatedly called at his home, the friend alleged.
“His wording was: ‘They are bugging me -- they won’t leave me alone’,” he said.
“After him saying that he didn’t know these individuals and so forth, what he said is they asked him whether he would be interested in working for them.
“He was explicit in that he refused to work for them.”
Adebolajo was captured on film shortly after the attack brandishing a bloodied knife and meat cleaver and claiming he had killed the soldier because British forces killed Muslims every day.
Less is known about the other suspect but he is also believed to be of Nigerian origin.
Dramatic footage of the incident obtained by the Daily Mirror newspaper also showed Adebolajo charging at armed police before he was shot and injured.
Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the founder of the al-Muhajiroun movement which was banned in Britain under anti-terror laws told Al Arabiya he does “not oppose what [Adebolajo] did.”
“I didn’t teach him to kill, neither did I give him an encouraging or hate-loaded lesson, but it seems that he acted alone,” Bakri said.
Adebolajo came from a Nigerian Christians background converted to Islam a decade ago.
“When someone settles in a non-Muslim country, this means that he is in a peace pact with its people, and both parties should refrain from aggressing one another,” Sheikh Bakri said.
He added that he thinks that Adebolajo decided “to free himself from this peace pact.”
“I am against the method used in killing the victim [Rigby].”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)