Political Statements and Political Analysis

(Translated)

By: Ustath Ahmad Al-Khatwany

The news necessary for analysis in general is the foundation of political thinking. In fact, it is the daily bread of politicians. Without it, politics cannot be understood, political analysis cannot exist, events cannot be discerned, and their purposes remain unknown.

The Islamic Ummah has long suffered from misinformation in political statements. This is so much so that it has lost vast regions due to the misinterpretation of such statements. The Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate), for instance, lost the Balkans not because of military weakness, but due to malicious and misleading political statements. Britain and its European allies manufactured the Balkan crisis out of nothing, solely through statements. They deceived the Ottomans into believing that sweeping popular uprisings were taking place in the Balkan states, demanding independence and secession. This is even though these claims had no real basis on the ground. There were neither uprisings, nor even demands for independence and secession. Yet the repeated dissemination of these statements convinced the Ottomans that powerful separatist movements were indeed active in the region. The state swallowed the bait and began to act accordingly, which led to its exhaustion and overextension. Eventually, nationalist movements did in fact spread and fill the region, even reaching the very heart of the state. This ultimately led to the complete secession of the Balkans and later, to the fall of the Uthmani Khilafah (Ottoman Caliphate) itself.

To begin with, and in order to understand the importance of political statements in political analysis, it is essential to know the five key components of political analysis:

1- A political analyst must first follow-up on the events and incidents occurring in all countries around the world, gather news about them, and sort them based on importance and relevance, distinguishing between what is coincidental and what is intentional. With continued monitoring, experience, and the passage of time, this follow-up becomes expert. The analyst then develops the ability to select what is most important, and what is deliberate and significant.

2- The analyst needs prior foundational knowledge about the nature of events, incidents, places, people, and statements such as geographical, historical, political, and ideological information, in order to accurately grasp and deeply understand those events, incidents, and news reports.

3- As the analyst seeks to issue political judgments, it is essential that they adhere to two inseparable, and interconnected, principles:

a) Not isolating events from their circumstances, contextualization, and related factors, because separating events from what surrounds, and relates to, them strips them of their value, and detaches them from reality.

b) Avoiding generalization and sweeping comparisons, because generalization and analogical reasoning have no place in politics. In fact, they are a plague upon politicians, and among the most significant indicators of failure in political analysis.

4- Scrutinizing news and events involves, first, verifying their authenticity through reliable sources; second, linking them to the time they occurred; third, examining them within the context of the situation in which they took place; fourth, understanding the intended purpose behind their timing; and fifth, observing the immediate reactions to them, from all relevant and active parties.

5- Connecting the event, or news, to previously available information about it. Then linking the event to relevant analytical frameworks applicable to it and similar news. Finally issuing a judgment that is believed to be the closest to accuracy, and most consistent with reality.

The failure to adhere to these components in political analysis, and the improper handling of the massive volume of statements and news flooding today’s media and online social networks, along with the malicious methods used to shape and direct them, inevitably leads to a dangerous informational and political maze. This maze confuses minds, misleads intellects, diverts understanding from clarity, and steers thought away from sound judgment. The logical consequence is the occurrence of deadly political mistakes that mislead analysts in reaching accurate conclusions, causing them to fall into the traps of international intelligence agencies. This, in turn, has a devastating negative impact on the Ummah and on those striving for its revival.

Therefore, it is essential to adhere to these components most importantly, to closely monitor the flood of information related to events, to exercise caution when dealing with political statements issued by politicians in major and influential countries, and to make an effort to understand the intent behind these statements, before beginning to analyze them and before linking them to the established political frameworks known to us.

For example, American politicians issued statements suggesting that war with Iran was imminent. These were accompanied by the deployment of US aircraft carriers to the Middle East, along with shipments of multi-purpose missiles and weapons. At the same time, attention was drawn to the American-British base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, emphasizing that it is beyond the reach of Iranian missiles, and that it would play a major role in the upcoming war. These reports and events created an atmosphere of war and gave the impression that it was near. Then, suddenly, contradictory news emerged about direct negotiations taking place in Oman between American envoys to the Middle East, and Iranian officials. It was announced that the first round of talks had concluded with positive impressions, as if all the war-related information had merely been a natural prelude to launching a long series of negotiations between the two countries.

Likewise, information continues to pour in about the ongoing war by the Jews against the Gaza Strip, portraying that the people of Gaza have no options but displacement or death, and insisting on the need to surrender the weapons of the resistance and for its leaders to leave. Then, news emerges about the near success of negotiations sponsored by the United States. The same America that calls for turning Gaza into real estate projects now claims it will guarantee Hamas that the Jewish entity will commit to moving on to the second phase of negotiations, supposedly including an end to the war and a withdrawal from Gaza.

If political analysts had taken the politicians statements at face value the first time and built their analyses upon them, their conclusions would have been entirely contrary to reality. They would have fallen victim to deception in dealing with those waves of contradictory statements.

Therefore, before beginning any analysis, it is essential to wait patiently and carefully when receiving political statements. Only afterward should one move on to scrutiny, contextualized linkage, avoiding isolation of events, and refraining from generalizations.