Question:

A military coup was announced in Mali on 22nd March, 2012 by the junior rank officers against President Amadou (Ahmedou) Toumani Touri. The coup announcement on the Mali Television by Lieutennant Ahmadou Konari, the spokesman of what is referred to by the revolutionaries as the National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and State (CNRDR), stated that "...the Committee decided to assume its responsibility and put an end to Amadou (Ahmadou) Toumani Toure's incompetent regime". It may be noted that President Tomani Toure's second term in office was to come to an end next month and he is not allowed to stand ofr a third term in office under the constitution...

So what prompted these officers to hurried oust the president through a coup instead of waiting for his constitutional term to end next month? Then, is it a local event or does it have an international aspect to it? If so, what is it? May Allah reward you.

Answer:

Yes, the present president Amadou (Ahmedou) Toumani Touri was elected in 2002 and reelected in 2007, and his second term was to end next month when elections were due to take place on 29th of next month. Under the Mali constitution enacted in 1992, a president cannot seek his re-election for a third term. Also, the ousted president did not express his intention to seek re-election for a third term in office and thus can not be accused of having violated the constitution. This clearly means that the coup did not have any justification on the pretext of what they referred to as "removal of an incompetent president" because his term anyway was to end after a month and such chaotic actions were uncalled for!

However, observing the issue from all its aspects, it becomes clear that these officers have been encouraged by an international side to carry out the coup in order to prevent elections from taking place for electing a new president which were scheduled for next month, and create a new political equation...In order to understand as to how they could acheive this and what international side is behind it, one needs to consider the following:

1: Coup leader Captain Ahmadou Haya Sanogo clarified in his interview with the Spanich Agencia EFE on 23rd March, 2012 and described the coup staged by him and his colleagues as "a necessary step and that he intends to to hand over power to a new government which will be formed after consultations between all forces in the country after the ouster of president Ahmadou Toumani Toure. He expressed his intention and said that is not interested in remaining in power and along with his colleagues carried out the coup to usher in change in Mali after ten years of a corrupted regime...and that there were no oppurtunies for consultations with the ousted president and hence the the military leadership decided to take up arms. He stressed that everything was getting from bad to worse". Thus the words of the coup leader are not convincing because the elections are to take place in the next month and his coup is not justified unless he intends to prevent elections from place and so that no undesirable leadership comes to power. Also there is no apparant clash between the various political forces and election prcesses have run normally since 1992...

2: Early reactions to the coup from France have been sharp which ahve condemned it severely and its foreign minister Alain Juppe emphasised the need for holding elections as soon as possible and declared that his country has "suspended all relations with Mali, however will continue to provide humanitarian assistance...and will continue our work to counter terrorism". [AFP: 22.03.2012].

France has followed the European Union and Michael Mann, the spokesman for Catherine Ashton, the EU Foreign Policy Chief issued a statement saying: " "We condemn the military takeover of power and the suspension of the constitution. Constitutional rule should be restored as soon as possible." [AFP: 22.03.2012].

On the same day, France and Britain moved quickly and secured a resolution from the United Nationa Security Council (UNSC) severely condemning the coup and calling for restoration of constitutional order and elected government...this was followed by British Foreign Secretary Mark Lyall Grant who occupies the UNSC rotating presidency of the Security Council saying: "The Constitutional regime and a democratically eleceted government should be restored in Mali... and that the 15 UNSC members severely condemn the coup in Mali." This indicates that the coup is not in France's interest as well as others in the EU who have allied with France in order to protect their influence in Africa, on the contrary, the coup is against their influence.

3: As for the American reaction and its opposition to the coup which came after France and the EU response was rather "floating and tentative"! The US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said: " The current situation is unclear and develops fast...We believe that grievances should be addressed through dialogue and not through violence."[BBC: 22.03.2012]. United Nations Secreatary-General Ban Ki-moon also expressed similarly in his statement calling for "calm and that grievances are resolved democratically." Thus these statements by the spokesmen indicate that the US is unperterbed by the coup and the UN Secreatary-General has followed the US policy on the issue, rather these statements point to US's tacit support when its State Dept. Spoeksperson says that "We believe that grievances should be addressed through dialogue and not through violence", and Ban Ki-moon's statement indicate that the US treats them both equally and gives them the right to rebel and stage the coup because of their injustices and grievances according to it.

4: The US had recently begun work to estblish its influence in Mali by sighning agreements with it to train Malian armed forces to fight terrorism as well as conduct practices for fighting rebel groups. It used to select officers and send them to the US for training. On 24.03.2012, the Times website reported informed US sources that an American diplomat who asked not to be named told journalists that: "the coup leader Captian Amadou (Ahmadou) Haya Sanogo was selected from among the elite officers by the US embassy to receive anit-terrorist training in the United States". He added that: "Sanogo travlled several times to the US on special missions...".

5: While France suspended political, military and economic cooperation with Mali as weel as aid to it, the US did not announce any such suspension of assistance which are to the tune of 137 million dollors annually. Further, Victoria Nuland, the US State Dept. Spokesperson stated that: "her country has not taken the decision to suspend US aid to Mali". [Al-Jazeerah 23.03.2012]. This indicates the extent to which France is is disturbed by the coup and points to its unhappiness, while it indicates that the US is undistubed by the events and in fact tacitly supports the coup.

6: All that we have mentioned points to that the US is behind the coup that took place in Mali and this is to exercise its influence over the Islamic land as replace France which had earlier colonised it and continues to hold influence over it. America intends to prevent the coming electoral process in Mali because the political establishment is pro-France. Thus through this coup, the tables have been turned over heads of French agents who toe the French policies. This coup has tied Mali to the US since the US controls the "miliary" movement and makes it difficult for the old political class allied to France to overcome the present situation, and at the most they can hope to participate ineffectively in the new set up under US influence.

7: Mali is an Islamic land whose people entered Islam hundreds of years back and whose overwhelming majority is Muslim which is about 90% of its population. Towards the end of the ninteenth century, the French colonialists occupied it and declared it to be its part in 1904. It as granted nominal independence in the year 1960. Mali is rich in mineral wealth like gold, phosphates, bauxite, iron, uranium and several other minerals. Of late it has been caught in the internal rivalries between the old "European coloniser France" and the new colonialist "America"...
Thus this Islamic land became the target for all greedy eyes and this is because the Muslims are disunited and ruled by systems other than Islam, so instead of working to restore the Khilafah "Caliphate" State which unites all Muslim groups, strengthens them from their present weaknesses, one sses the Muslims divided under more then countries and statlets whose rulers do have no concern for peoples‘ issue but they realise the objectives and interests of the kuffar colonialists...This has further weakened the Muslims who have been deprived of the very base that strengthens them, and different nations are inviting each others to exploit them like one invites others for food on the dining table. Earlier the Muslims were the harbingers of all things good for the world who carried the call of the Truth through Da'wah and Jihad...the Prophet (saw) truthfully said:

«يُوشِكُ الْأُمَمُ أَنْ تَدَاعَى عَلَيْكُمْ كَمَا تَدَاعَى الْأَكَلَةُ إِلَى قَصْعَتِهَا»، فَقَالَ قَائِلٌ: وَمِنْ قِلَّةٍ نَحْنُ يَوْمَئِذٍ؟ قَالَ: «بَلْ أَنْتُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ كَثِيرٌ، وَلَكِنَّكُمْ غُثَاءٌ كَغُثَاءِ السَّيْلِ، وَلَيَنْزَعَنَّ اللَّهُ مِنْ صُدُورِ عَدُوِّكُمُ الْمَهَابَةَ مِنْكُمْ، وَلَيَقْذِفَنَّ اللَّهُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمُ الْوَهْنَ»، فَقَالَ قَائِلٌ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، وَمَا الْوَهْنُ؟ قَالَ: «حُبُّ الدُّنْيَا، وَكَرَاهِيَةُ الْمَوْتِ» أخرجه أبو داود عن ثوبان...

"Soon a time will come upon you, when the nations will call one another against you, like a group of people sitting around a platter of food." The Sahaabah asked, "Ya Rasoolullaah, will we be few in number that day?" He (saw) replied."No, you wont be few in number, rather you will number MANY...BUT you will be like the floating rubbish, upon floods of water. When such a time shall come, Allaah, The Almighty, will extract your fear from the hearts of your enemies, and He, (swt), will cast Wahn into your hearts." The Sahaabah asked ke, "Ya Rasoolulllaah, whats Wahn?" He (saw) replied, "The Love of the dunia and the fear of death."Aboo Dawood.

So let us abandon the love of the world and let us give up fear of death in the path of Allah (swt) and work steadfastly to achieve the glad-tidings of the Prophet (saw) regarding the return of the Khilafah "Caliphate" as he (saw) said:

"...ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا جَبْرِيَّةً، فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ نُبُوَّةٍ» ثُمَّ سَكَتَ. أخرجه أحمد."

"Then there will be an oppressive rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then Allah will end it when He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah "Caliphate" according to the method of Prophethood." (Ahmad)

 Following the footsteps of thieves and kidnappers, government agencies have released Dr Abdul Qayyum, a renowned Dental Surgeon from Rahim Yar Khan and member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, in the dead of night. He was abducted by government thugs nine months ago, from his car, at gunpoint, in front of his young daughter.

Can the market provide moral outcomes? Do atheists have morals? Do religious people have better morals? Where should young people get morals from? Are Islamic morals superior? These were the type of questions being fired at me as I sat in a TV studio recording a program for 4 Thought TV. In front of me to my left was a sound man, to his right was a camera man and behind them sat the producer asking the questions. As I answered a question, the producer sometimes wanted to explore the answer further so she asked further questions. At one point the camera man joined in the questioning and wondered if religious people have the morality issue easier because they believe their actions have consequences in the afterlife. We discussed last year's London riots and the morality, or lack of it, of those who looted people's shops, homes and businesses. We discussed what a Muslim in the West can or cannot do when we see inappropriate advertising or ‘immoral' things.

It all started a few weeks earlier when I received a phone call inviting me to appear on channel 4's television series called 4 Thought. The 2 minute slot deals with faith, religion, morals, and ethics. Each day after the main Channel 4 TV news, someone speaks for about two minutes on the theme adopted for that week. The theme I was invited to speak on was ‘From where should our young people get moral guidance?'. I was asked to speak from an Islamic perspective while others including atheists, humanists and Christians would address the same theme from their perspective. In preparing for the recording, I watched several previous episodes in order to get a feel of the format and to think of what I would want to get across in about two minutes.

The issue of ‘where should morals come from' is one that is now a very polarised and heated debate in the West. An issue that exemplifies this is the current debate in the UK regarding allowing same-sex marriage. This is being opposed by some Christian groups who claim marriage is the preserve of men and women. Other voices oppose this and challenge the Churches right to define what is right and wrong. The child sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church has led many to say that this is proof of its hypocrisy since it preaches against such things and claims to uphold good morals. They say that the Church is therefore in no position to dictate morals in society. Added to this is a Muslim community with overt Islamic practices and a fairly consistent sense of right and wrong as defined by Islam. Interestingly, some Western commentators actually commend our ‘family values'. They praise the fact that many Muslim children respect their elders and parents, that Muslim families are generally close knit and supportive of each other and that we rarely put our elderly in old people's homes. They say these are values which existed in Britain many years ago but which have been eroded in recent times. So they like our family values, but what about the other values and morals Islam teaches us? What about the prohibitions on homosexuality, relationships before marriage and such things which they have not only been embraced but are now actively promoted in the West? You will find that many of those who praise our ‘family values' have a wider issue with Islam's prescriptions in an age of what they regard as ‘evolution and advancement'.

As more and more people in the West become ‘non-religious', when the issue of morality is discussed, many non-religious people are offended by the idea that only religions can be the source of morals. They would argue that ‘John is a kind and good man, yet he's an atheist'. Indeed, if you go by one of the dictionary definitions of morals; Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behaviour - it is hard to argue against. So you cannot say that non-religious people do not have morals. What I would question is the evolving nature of those morals and the source that defines those morals. Is it an independent and competent source that is fully aware of man's nature and situation and indeed knows what is good for man? Will these morals evolve so what was shunned as abhorrent yesterday is now praised as good tomorrow? If child abuse is universally shunned today, what will be the case tomorrow?

As I sat in the studio being questioned, these were some of the points I tried to make. I thank Allah (swt) for the opportunity to add a Muslim voice to the debate. Allah (swt) has saved us by defining a wholesome and consistent set of morals which enable the human being to fulfil his needs and desires in a wholesome way resulting in a harmonious society - something which the increasingly non-religious West is struggling with more and more.

VIDEO: Taji Mustafa - Where should our young people look for moral guidance?
http://www.4thought.tv/themes/where-should-our-young-people-look-for-moral-guidance/994?autoplay=true

Taji Mustafa
Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain

After facing a defeat in Afghanistan, as they faced defeat in Iraq, America and its crusader allies are trying to sign the strategic pacts in order to veil their defeat and to have a long term influence in the region. Before this, the Bush administration signed the same sort of strategic and security pacts with the Maliki regime of Iraq, in 2007.