The Amman Message by Zahir Ebrahim

In continuation of my examination of What Role did Shias Play in Condemning Qadianis to Kafirdom in Cahoots with Sunni Scholars in 1974?, the fact that Muslims under the tutelage of their religious as well as secular leadership continue to harbor the ill founded superiority complex borne of uber self-righteousness that they have the right to define who is a Muslim and who isn't, was once again demonstrated in 2005 in The Three Points of The Amman Message. Once again the Qadianis were left out of the fold in that invited congregation of the pious from all over the Muslim world who self-righteously declared:
'(1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible. Verily his (or her) blood, honour, and property are inviolable.' ---
What would be incredibly funny in this declaration made at the International Islamic Conference in Amman Jordan under the benefactorship of the Hashemite Kingdom, were it not so pathetic, is that none of the above schools are even mentioned in the Holy Qur'an! And nor is there any doctrine of rule by kings in Islam to legitimize the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; and nor is there any doctrine of hereditary self-appointment to the position of Imammate in the Holy Qur'an to legitimize the divine leadership of the Aga Khan (see quote from Aga Khan's letter below self-asserting his hereditary right as a divine mandate, no differently than the antediluvian divine right of kings to rule their flock asserted by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan holding the Conference). The illegitimates apportioning to themselves the right to declare others illegitimate, as is usually the case with power that is flushed with hubris and best captured by St. Augustine at the dawn of the Christian civilization:
“When the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.' ” --- St. Augustine of Hippo, The City of God against the Pagans, pg. 148
What the Amman Message, signed by more learned scholars and pious dignitaries than I have the impudence to count, was ostensibly trying to do was to ban calling Muslims “kafir” by other Muslims – and yet they chose to define, by their own “Ijma”, who is a Muslim and who isn't.
Instead of defining acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior based on rights and responsibilities for pluralistic mutual co-existence, while paying lip-service to pluralism, they chose to define faith, namely, who is a Muslim and who isn't. And they drew upon their favorite hadith which conveniently sanctioned the very notion of “Ijma”, meaning, consensus among the self proclaimed self-righteous Muslims being a valid method of making judgments on Islamic matters, and extending that to include matters pertaining to faith. Of course, these super learned scholars and brilliant pious leaders of the Muslim world forgot that the greatest example of a consensus is a lynch mob – and that, in a civilized world, a majority consensus does not justify the poor guy on the gallows to be necklaced by the self-righteous mob anymore than a self-righteous nation deny its minority of even one individual a single political and civil right, let alone deny anyone their human rights based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, or not in conformity to the majority.
Who are these Amman scholars, convened under the authority of an absolutist monarch, to define who is a Muslim? The Conference would have been more appropriate in debating whether the Hashemite kingdom itself is justified by Islam.
Where does the Holy Qur'an give mortal fallible elites – themselves at the mercy of their limited imagination, limited acumen, but evidently just as infinite in their power-grabs and kingdoms as in their ingrained socialization biases and hereditary prejudices which they self-righteously come to call faith – the right to decree who is a Muslim and who isn't, or which is a legitimate school of jurisprudence and which isn't? Can these elites first create an “Ijma”, consensus, on that question?
No---we don't care to ask the right questions lest it expose our self-righteous bullshit!
By the same yardstick employed at that conference, if Muslim scholars, Muslim rulers, and other Muslim elites participating in it can't create an “Ijma” on the more fundamental question of whether or not hereditary Muslim elites like themselves have the right first, to define another's Islamic faith, jurisprudence, and in general what beliefs are legitimate and what aren't, then ergo, that trumps their reaching any conclusion whatsoever on decreeing who is a Muslim and who isn't.
This Amman conference and its feeble-minded declaration, well-intentioned though it may have seemed to address and bridge a persisting Muslim lacuna of centuries, reduced itself to a sham by first not passing a declaration unequivocally demonstrating their own right to pass such a declaration on who is a Muslim solely from the Holy Qur'an. They would have clearly failed had they even tried to demonstrate their right to do so!
The Holy Qur'an, the singular scripture of the religion of Islam, does not devolve such a right upon any fallible man once someone has proclaimed themselves to be a Muslim. See categorical directives in numerous verses such as: “If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (fragment 4:59); or “If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute.” (5:48); etc. Which is why this conference had to rely on historical narratives on “Ijma”, penned by the hand of fallible man in the first place, to dubiously assert the validity of their declaration. They could of course not have used the same external narratives to establish first their own right to do so because then they'd be checkmated by the Holy Scripture itself like the straightforward and categorical verses quoted above.
“Ijma”, whatever its sacrosanctness in consensual decision making on earthly matters, still cannot be against the guidance in the Holy Qur'an, in both letter and spirit. It is a firm rejection criterion. And when it is not against the Holy Qur'an, it still does not mean it has any religious validity, or Qur'anic acceptability, just because it is not against the Holy Qur'an. The latter is not an acceptance criterion, because lot of things not in the Holy Qur'an can be passed of as being part of religion of Islam. This is how any divine religion is adulterated by the fertile imagination, or malice, of man. The notion that a majority of fallible people speaking collectively to ascertain a religious or spiritual truth, whether unanimously or not, will magically come up with the truth infallibly, just by the preponderance of their sheer numbers, is absurd. A thousand zeroes added together still adds up to zero!
While a majority can come together to determine laws and agree or disagree on sociopolitical and scientific matters for instance, that is hardly the yardstick for spiritual matters of faith and beliefs such as deciding who is a Muslim and who isn't. Being a Muslim is entirely a matter of faith and understanding; how one interprets or understands a verse in the Holy Qur'an is entirely one's own shibboleth to bear.
Which is why they didn't even try to first “Ijma” on their own right to “Ijma” on the question that they so easily adjudicated upon, as any adept junior philosopher able to reason would have easily countered them. And those unable to reason are hardly in any position to make any adjudication on any matter to begin with, let alone on such momentous a question as this.
What I find the most disturbing in the Amman Message is that even H.H. Aga Khan IV, the enlightened steward of the Ismailis, their Hazir Imam, signed off on this travesty as his own minority flock was conveniently included in the construction of the definition of who is a Muslim (see excerpt from his letter below). The Ahmedis / Qadianis were obviously not invited for their own funeral. It is the peak of prejudice that the Aga Khan who himself declared in his letter to the Amman conference that he is only the hereditary heir to the Ismaili leadership, should participate in defining who is a Muslim and who isn't. By the Aga Khan's own admission, not just Islam, but also his Imammate of his flock, is an inheritance – the divine right of kings re-birthing in modernity in the religious guise:
'I am happy that we have been invited to participate in the International Islamic Conference being held in Amman, from the 4th to the 6th of July, 2005, under the auspices of the Hashemite Kingdom. In light of the purpose of the conference, I find it appropriate to reiterate, in my message of greetings, the statement I made in a keynote address at a gathering of eminent Muslim scholars from 48 countries who attended the Seerat Conference in Karachi on Friday, 12th March, 1976, nearly 30 years ago, which I had the honour to preside at the invitation of the then Minister for Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan.
In my presidential address, I appealed to our ulama not to delay the search for the answers to the issues of a rapidly evolving modernity which Muslims of the world face because we have the knowledge that Islam is Allah's final message to mankind, the Holy Qur'an His final Book, and Muhammad, may peace be upon him, His last and final Prophet.
These are the fundamental principles of faith enshrined in the Shahada and the Tawhid therein, which bind the Ummah in an eternal bond of unity. With other Muslims, they are continuously reaffirmed by the Shia Ismaili Muslims of whom I am the 49th hereditary Imam in direct lineal descent from the first Shia Imam, Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib though his marriage to Bibi Fatimat-as-Zahra, our beloved Prophet's daughter.
I applaud Jordan, under the leadership of His Majesty King Abdullah, for the foresight in hosting and organizing this International Islamic Conference for the purpose of fostering unity in the Ummah and promoting the good reputation of our faith of Islam. Let this Conference be part of a continuous process of dialogue in the true spirit of Muslim brotherhood so that the entire wealth of our pluralistic heritage bears fruit for the Muslim world, and indeed the whole of humanity; for ours is the heritage which permiates human dignity, transcending bounds of creed, ethnicity, language, gender, and nationality.' ---
Right! For all humanity except the undesirable, the Qadianis in this instance, re-declared not within the fold of Islam by the “Ijma” of the elites gathered at the Conference. Apart from the fact that the Shahada has no specific mention of declaring the finality of the Prophet, the Aga Khan himself declaring his own legitimacy to make such proclamation as only hereditary, undermines his own position as having any legitimacy whatsoever to belittle other peoples' inheritance. The Aga Khan no more chose his religion, and he even inherited its leadership by his own admission, then the Qadianis / Ahmadis, and the vast majority of Muslims on planet earth. One would not be remiss in hazarding the guess that 99% Muslims in Muslim societies are hereditary Muslims. This has two direct implications for the saintly H.H. Aga Khan IV:
(1) By participating in this travesty of denying others their respective claims to socialized faith of birth, and consequently denying them their political and civil rights in the politically charged and fanatically self-righteous climate in Muslim nations which often burn the Qadianis / Ahmadis at stake, the great benefactor of Muslims, the builder of schools and hospitals, the doer of great social works worldwide, is being both hypocritical and political. That is uncharacteristic of the Aga Khan's other public stance of political neutrality under his famous Doctrine of Neutrality. Evidently, he and his ancestors are only neutral when they are up against a stronger power and face existential crisis if they offer any resistance to it. Then they expeditiously choose compromise as the path of sagaciousness since “it can supply a bridge across a difficult period” as was stated by “Sir” Aga Khan the III, the grandfather of the present Aga Khan, in his 1954 Memoirs “World Enough and Time” (PDF, Cached). The sagacious bridge of silence and co-operation with power through times of tyranny. Dumping on the little guys facing their own existential crisis however is of course entirely “Islamic” (sic!). See Ismaili Muslims and Aga Khan's Doctrine of Neutrality (
(2) By participating in the 1976 Seerat conference convened by the Government of Pakistan soon after the Qadianis had been declared 'kafir' by the same Government in 1974, is an endorsement of calling sub sects within Islam 'kafir'. So, I am not sure that some other barbarians now wishing to dish the same treatment to the Ismailis, and the Shias in general, don't just have an abhorrent but rather clear precedent in modernity to fall back upon in defence of their own misanthropy.
You start marginalizing one minority, and sooner or later it comes to your own doorstep. Welcome to the new kafirs, the Shias and the Islamilis. Other Sunni flavors can't be all that far behind.
See “Sir” Allama Iqbal an Ahmadi? ( where this subject of right to belief is separated out from the diabolically Machiavellian modus operandi of cognitive infiltration through religion subversion for “imperial mobilization”. The concluding passage from that examination is pertinent to the discussion herein of the inalienable rights of Qadianis / Ahmadis, as indeed of all minorities in any non-oppressive pluralistic society, and is reproduced below:
'As the final word, the Ahmadis today, born and socialized into their core belief system no differently than any other people, including the Shias and the Sunnis in their myriad Muslim sects, cannot be denied their political rights in Pakistan and continued to be marginalized as “non Muslim”. That infernal question of who is a Muslim and who isn't in the sectarianly infested Muslim polity is only the devil's gambit to sow discord among a foolish people. When a purely theological and academic matter that is best relegated to intellectual discourses in mullah seminaries among the idle caste posing as the self-appointed guardians of faith, is cast in political overtones, then those participating in it can only be the devil's apprentice. Separating propaganda from religious dogma when the two have deliberately been intertwined requires expending matching intellectual energy to confront the villainy, not state sponsored, and mob tyranny. This analysis accordingly has separated the propaganda of imperial mobilization from the right to bear any religion or belief.'
The plague of kafirdom and takfirism, like the label of “terrorism”, is an age old instrument of exercising primacy and supremacy through divide and conquer. Its roots are not new but very distinguished indeed. They go back to the very dawn of Muslim Dynastic empires, to the rise of the first Umayyad dynastic caliphate in the late seventh century A.D. Those unfavorable to the new Muslim kings, those resisting their authority to mount and corrupt the pulpit of Islam, were openly maligned and even cursed from the pulpit itself. The calumny was heaped even on the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet of Islam, specifically Imam Ali and his descendants, of whom H.H. Aga Khan IV is a distant claimant some fourteen centuries later. The most pious Muslim clergy of the day was harvested for this task in the service of empire first by the despotic Muslim rulers themselves!
Spreading that plague of defining who is a Muslim and who isn't, who is deviant and who isn't, has remained a most potent tool in the hands of despotic rulers and empires throughout the ages. The Shia Muslims who have continued to believe, and still do so today, in the right of Imam Ali and the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet of Islam to both spiritually as well as politically govern the Muslims as Imams in opposition to all the caliphatic empires, have historically borne the brunt of that plague at the hands of virtually all despotic Muslim rulers for as long as Muslim empires have exercised their suzerainty on earth. The Shia scholars and elites, of all Muslim peoples, should have known better than to participate in spreading this kind of travesty to yet another marginalized minority who self-identified themselves as Muslims.
This plague of kafirdom is eating away at the very soul of Muslim nations today faster than enemy bombs can be utilized for “imperial mobilization”! Its utility to divide and conquer remains unsurpassed. Its poisonous power for propaganda warfare and for mobilizing the masses for internecine warfare is proven time and again. Its logical antidote cannot be selective and arbitrary sanctimoniousness, as the Amman Message self-servingly was, nor favor one sect or school of thought over another, but only principled, as should be obvious to even the ordinary common man of average commonsense and conscience, let alone to the elites who rule nations and the public mind.
The fact that the early scholars and founding leaders of the Qadianis / Ahmadis in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, indeed theologically subverted the religion of Islam to support the tyranny of British colonialism in the Indian subcontinent, and were supported by the British masters with imperial favors and patronage, is self-evident in their own works and in their life and times even today (Backgrounder below). See for instance the passage pertaining to the famous Qadiani-Ahmadi English translator of the Holy Qur'an, Maulana Muhammad Ali, who tried to interpret verse 4:59 of the Holy Qur'an to legitimize British imperial rule and subvert Indian-Muslim opposition to it in the name of “religion of peace”, in: What does the Holy Qur'an say about Rulership? ( It is reproduced below:
'In fact, the pulpit did not even shy from applying that verse of obedience to the British colonial masters of India as the Qadiani-Ahmadi pontiffs did at the turn of the twentieth-century; Maulana Muhammad Ali, laying its diabolical foundations in his seminal English translation of the Holy Qur'an, first in the Preface under the heading: Reverence for authority, pg. xv wrote: “But while teaching equality of rights, Islam teaches the highest reverence for authority. ... By those in authority are meant not only the actual rulers of a country, but all those who are in any way entrusted with authority”, then elaborated it further in his footnote number 593 for his English translation of verse 4:59 “The words ulul-amr, or those in authority, have a wide significance, ... among those in authority are included the rulers of a land, though they may belong to an alien religion,”!'
The issue of right to belief, right to practice whatever religion one is born into, or believes in, freely, without encroaching on others' rights to do the same, and without stepping on others' freedom in the name of exercising one's own freedom, is orthogonal to subversion of a noble religion by superpowers to serve their own imperial interests. Obviously, if one's religion, unlike Islam, teaches to oppress and enslave others, then that religion of primacy, the religion of the ubermensch (Nietzschean Superman), even if it be in some God's name, is not part of this equation of equitable pluralism. Predators can be afforded no sanctuary in an awakened society. The untermensch (lesser peoples), must defend themselves by whatever means that will be effective against such depraved and nihilistic “chosen peoples” who employ pluralism, and other pleasing sounding human rights conventions, to subvert divine religions. One has to shrewdly judge and adjudicate which is which, support the right to one to one's death, and defend against the other with one's life.
And it goes without saying that any resistance to being eaten alive is always labeled “terrorism” by the predators! As the timeless cliché of moral relativism goes: “If it succeeds it is a Revolution, if it fails it is an Insurrection”. Zionism and global imperialism are these kinds of menacing “religions” today, the highest order enemy of all mankind so to speak. And it is in their interest to keep the rest of the world fighting among themselves with fabricated crises thrown into the mix as catalysts. Religion is its most fertile ground, especially “Islam”. See the Raahe-Nijaat (the way out) series cited at the top of this article to understand the real enemy and his Machiavellian fabrication of fraudulent terror as part of the Hegelian Dialectic – the modern modus operandi for the same age old quest for global hegemony.
We are now living in the twenty-first century. To know who the real enemy is today, to not continually fall prey to its vile narratives and Machiavellian creations that lay the seeds of divide and conquer for generations to come, to not become embroiled in frivolous and ancillary issues such as trying to declare who is a Muslim and who isn't, and to stay focussed on the main enemy who enlists many house niggers ( and other dupes and mercenaries flying different flags and wearing different uniforms in proxy services, takes both intellectual prowess and considerable moral courage. As per Sun Tzu in The Art of War:
'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.'
Shame on these so called Amman Messengers to have failed the Muslim public when they actually had a slight chance to proclaim some good.
If anything, these self-appointed guardians of faith should have declined to give “hawa” (air), declined to fan the fire, of takfirism. They should have resisted the temptation of defining who is a Muslim and who isn't. And instead, categorically asserted that in today's increasingly dystopic and warisome world, with Muslims and the religion of Islam constantly under assault from all sides and diabolically demonized as the key doctrinal motivators for imperial mobilization, full spectrum unity among Muslims is of paramount importance to counter the full spectrum scheming to create disunity among them.
The self-appointed guardians of faith should have categorically asserted that any force, any fatwa, any activism, which interfered in forming this unity is forbidden by the force of law. A resolution should have been passed and sent for legal ratification by all predominantly Muslim nations, that regardless of how a religious sect originated in history, or how asinine their beliefs may appear to others, that no Muslim today has the right to pass public judgment on that belief (intellectual and academic debates to advance critical understanding of history sensibly exempted); and if any Muslim, irrespective of his or her own sect and socialized belief system, who sides with foreign enemies of Muslims, connives with them to disarm Muslims, or demonizes other Muslims, or whose behavior and acts are inimical to the interests of the Muslims as defined under Qur'anic law which divines Muslims as a single people, is the first enemy within, of both Islam and Muslims. That such fifth columnists shall be tried in a court of law for sedition, and if found guilty, awarded the punishment defined for treason and sedition in their respective nations.
It would not surprise anyone that with these judicious distinctions, we shall find real traitors hiding among all sects of Muslims. Mir Jaffer and Mir Sadiq, the last time I checked, were not Qadianis! Nor are the many Sunni Muslim rulers and despotic Sunni Muslim kingdoms who continue to sell out the Muslims as proxy agents of the empire du jour. Intelligent distinctions like these help us get rid of all fifth columnists among Muslims who hide in plainsight in the garb of piety and mainstream Islam.
Indeed, what is more pertinent to national and public interest, beliefs or behavior? That moral and legal distinction demolishes all arguments ever made for declaring any people who profess the Islamic faith, kafir. This treatment is consistent with the principled teachings of the Holy Qur'an. Once again, for the emphasis that it deserves for its sheer practicality, and as an important reminder to the self-appointed guardians of faith laboring under their own delusional la mission civilisatrice:
“If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. ... If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute.” --- The Holy Qur'an
Such shrewd distancing from takfirism by separating beliefs from behavior, as the Holy Qur'an has wisely counseled, whereby belief is exclusively the purview of God, and behavior the purview of man, would have cleanly separated the chaff from the wheat and closed the doors to all Machiavellian subversions by empires too clever and cunning to defeat otherwise. Alas, that was not meant to be.
Perhaps this style of thinking is considered blasphemous in these holy circles?
I can quite understand empire labeling anyone advocating such self-defence against occupation a “terrorist”. After all, virtually all founding fathers of the United States of America, all the signers of its Declaration of Independence, were declared “terrorists” by the empire from which they had asserted their separation.
What I cannot comprehend is self-appointed antediluvian guardians of obscurantism declaring anyone “kafir” for upholding his or her own beliefs, just as they exercise their right to uphold their own beliefs and resist when non Muslims dishonor what they honor. It is for this reason the Qadianis / Ahmedis die willingly for the sake of their own beliefs no matter how ridiculous they may appear to other Muslims, rather than change them for fear of majority. Every self-respecting people would do just that. Wouldn't you, if by some magic, a new majority turned against you?
Well, perhaps not, because bullies are often the worst cowards. The Jews demonstrated that quite willingly during World War II when they were besieged by a superior demonic force and chose not to fight back. But the moment they got the upper hand in Palestine, we can see what they are doing to a defenseless people. That day may not be too far away for Muslims –– for, we shall surely be replaced by a better people who shall not become purveyors of injustices; who shall leave to God what belongs to God, and pay to man what is man's, expecting exactly the same recompense in return. And we may be replaced by a force far more demonic than the Jews experienced! We are already up against the lot today.

Historical Backgrounder on Qadiani – Ahmadi – Mirzai
Begin Quote
- page 9 -
The genesis of the controversy that led to the disturbances is to be found in what has been described in official documents as ‘the Ahrar-Ahmadiya controversy’, which had existed since long before the Partition. But this description was objected to, in fact resented, before us by all non-Ahmadi parties, on the ground that differences with the Ahmadis are not confined to the Ahrar and are common to all sects of Musalmans. Similarly the use of the word ‘ Ahmadi ’ exclusively in respect of the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was resented by non-Ahmadis for the reason that all Musalmans are Ahmadis, being the followers of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, whose other name was Ahmad, and that it has been wrongly usurped by the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. We have decided to use the word ‘ Musalman ’ to distinguish the general body of Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from those who believe in him and the word ‘Ahmadi’, ‘Qadiani’ or ‘Mirzai’ for the Qadiani section of Ahmadis who believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet (nabi).
In Part V we will deal in greater detail with the doctrinal and social differences between the Qadianis and Musalmans. Here we content ourselves with only giving a brief account of the Ahmadiya movement, which was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a grandson of Mirza Ghulam Murtaza who was a General in the Sikh Darbar. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born on 13th February 1835, at Qadian, a village in the district of Gurdaspur, which exclusively belonged to his family in proprietary rights. He learned Persian and Arabic languages at home but does not appear to have received any Western education. In 1864 he got some employment in the District Courts, Sialkot, where he served for four years. On his father’s death he devoted himself whole-heartedly to the study of religious literature, and between 1880 and 1884 wrote his famous ‘Buraheen-i-Ahmadiya’ in four volumes. Later he wrote some more books. Acute religious controversies were going on in those days and there were repeated attacks on Islam, not only by Christian missionaries but also by preachers of Arya Samaj, a liberal Hindu movement which was becoming very popular.
In March 1882 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed, to have had a revelation (ilham) to the effect that he had been entrusted by God with a special mission, in other words, that he was a ‘mamoor-min-Allah’. In 1888, again under an ilham, he demanded homage (bai’at) from his adherents. Near the end of 1890, Mirza Sahib again received an ilham that Jesus of Nazareth (Isa Ibn-i-Maryam) had not died on the Cross, nor lifted up to the Heavens but that he was taken off the Cross in a wounded condition by his disciples and cured of his wounds, that thereafter he escaped to Kashmir where he died a natural death, that the belief that he will reappear in his original bodily form near the Day of Resurrection was wrong, that the promise relating to his appearance merely meant that another man with the attributes of Isa Ibn-i-Maryam would appear in the ummat of the Holy Prophet of Islam and that this promise had been fulfilled in the person of Mirza
- page 10 -
Sahib himself who was Maseel-i-Isa, and thus the promised Messiah. The publicity given, to this doctrine created a stir among the Musalmans because this was contrary to the generally accepted belief that Isa Ibn-i-Maryam was to descend from Heaven in his bodily form, and gave rise to strong opposition among the Muslim theologians. Subsequently. Mirza Sahib also claimed to be the promised Mahdi, not the Mahdi who was to engage himself in conquest and bloodshed but the reasoning Mahdi who would vanquish his opponents by argument. This new claim gave further impetus to the opposition to Mirza Sahib and theologians began to pronounce fatwas of kufr against him. In 1900 he expounded another doctrine that thereafter there was to be no jihad bissaif and that jihad was to be confined to efforts to convince the opponent by argument. In 1901 Mirza Sahib claimed to be a ‘zilli nabi’ and by an advertisement ‘Ek ghalati ka izala’, explained the doctrine of khatm-i-nubuwwat to mean that after the death of the Holy Prophet of Islam no nabi would appear with a new shari’at but that the appearance of a new prophet without a shara’a was not contrary to the doctrine of khatm-inubuwwat. In a public lecture in Sialkot in November 1904, Mirza Sahib also claimed to be a Maseel-i-Krishan.
The Jama’at-i-Ahmadiya was founded in 1901 and at Mirza Sahib’s own request was shown as a separate Muslim sect in the census records of that year. The present number of the jama’at is stated to be in the neighbourhood of 2,00,000 in Pakistan, Ahmadis are also to be found in other Muslim countries and in India, Europe and America.
The new movement had attracted substantial support in Mirza Sahib’s own lifetime, including several men of consequence and influence. On Mirza Sahib’s death in 1908 Maulvi Nur-ud-Din became the first khalifa of Jama'at-i-Ahmadiya. On Khalifa Nur-ud-Din's death in 1914, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's son Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the present head of the Ahmadiya community, became the second khalifa. His succession as a khalifa caused a split in the jama’at and a section of the jama'at led by Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din and Maulvi Muhammad Ali, seceded and formed a separate party, called the Lahore party, the difference between the two being that whereas the Qadiani party believes Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to have been a prophet, the Lahore party deny this status for Mirza Sahib and hold that he was no more than a mujaddid or muhaddas. The seceders set up in Lahore an organisation called ‘Ahmadiya Anjuman-i-Isha'at-i-IsIam’. Both parties are engaged in extensive missionary work in foreign countries.
End Quote

First Published March 27, 2015 | Last updated Friday, September 14, 2018 11:00 pm 4730
Backgrounder on Qadiani added Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:00 pm 5780

The Amman Message by Zahir Ebrahim

Letter5 To Imran Khan From Zahir Ebrahim - Full Spectrum Alliances

Dateline California, Monday, September 3, 2018 06:00 pm | Updated Sep 4, 2018 04:00 pm
Dear Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan:
4.0 Full Spectrum Alliances
Continuing Project ReGenesis Pakistan from Part-4 in this Part-5 of my Open Letter.
Today I expand upon the necessity of the doctrine of Full Spectrum Deterrence to counter the doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance on the Grand Chessboard. Atomic bombs do not create this deterrence. One cannot eat nuclear weapons to stave off hunger. Pakistan is even unable to use its nuclear arsenal to deter drone attacks on its own territories and the indiscriminate killings of its own innocent peoples from the air. Neither do nuclear weapons protect against fourth and fifth generation warfare which is fought from within to destroy nations from the inside; nor do nuclear weapons protect against economic warfare that is waged both from within with ineffective and corrupt governments brought to the helm who aid in the destruction of their own societies with calculated policies of ineptness, and from outside with economic sanctions.
We see the truth of these observations from the disintegration of the nuclear armed superpower of yesteryear, the USSR, to the democracy revolutions and insurgency vs. counter-insurgency warfare throughout the Middle East, the most recent being the disintegration of Syria, to Iran under economic sanctions weakening the state itself, to Pakistan being victim of its own mercenary elites who eagerly serve the massa.
Modern warfare is not merely armed to the teeth armies facing off each other in the battlefield in clearly identified uniforms so one can identify the enemy. That's third generation warfare in military terminology, now deemed too expensive and inefficient in superpower doctrines of global domination. It is deemed useful in only controlled engagements, and mainly against a defenseless foe where victory is not just assured as per the Art of War, but an endless engagement can be maintained for military and political purposes quite unrelated to the war itself. Afghanistan has been suffering third generation warfare for at least two generations now. Afghanistan is also the only society left on earth where such engagement can be organically sustained for as long as necessary.
It is no secret that today on the Grand Chessboard, modern warfare spans the full gamut of deceit, from the ubiquitous war on terror that lends the necessary pretexts, to the more debilitating economic warfare to force nations to heel, to the entirely beneath the surface destruction of societies and nations from within so that they lose not just their ability to defend themselves, but also their will.
The source of Pakistan's full spectrum dysfunction is fundamentally due to this unrecognized modern warfare imposed on it by the superpower du jour. Just as the Indian sub-continent had initially failed to recognize the war imposed on her by the East India Company, Pakistan too has continually failed to recognize the war imposed on her under the pillow-talk of the United States of America and its congeries of exporting American culture, American Aid, American bailouts, American payments for mercenary services rendered, American NGOs, American think-tanks, the World Bank, IMF, ADB, the UN, WTO, Globalization, Free Trade; all Trojan horse instruments for exercising hegemony by the United States. These instruments are not much different in purpose than the singular East India Company's role in simpler times for sustaining the British Empire over her primitive colonies for hundreds of years.
This is not called modernity. This is called naked primacy, naked aggression, naked enslavement of resource-rich nations no different in purpose than under colonial rule. Today it is only disguised as modernity. It is even sold and packaged to our respectable noble elites thusly:
'Today's Uncle Tom doesn't wear a handkerchief on his head. This modern, twentieth-century Uncle Thomas now often wears a top hat. He's usually well-dressed and well-educated. He's often the personification of culture and refinement. The twentieth-century Uncle Thomas sometimes speaks with a Yale or Harvard accent. Sometimes he is known as Professor, Doctor, Judge, and Reverend, even Right Reverend Doctor. This twentieth-century Uncle Thomas is a professional Negro ... by that I mean his profession is being a Negro for the white man.'
--- Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964, 1999 hardcover edition, Chapter Black Muslims, page 265
'The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man’s contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man’s representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him.'
--- Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope, page 307
The utter contempt and disdain in which the modern massa holds its Uncle Tom is not a state secret either:
'A lot has been said and written by some of our American friends about the price of a Pakistani. Dr. Andrew V. Corry, US Counsel General at Lahore, once said, “Price of a Pakistani oscillates between a free trip to the US and a bottle of whisky.” He may not be too far wrong. We did observe some highly placed Pakistanis selling their conscience, prestige, dignity and self-respect for a small price.'
--- Brig. Tirmazi, Profiles of Intelligence, Ch 3, page 45
That's why we are here --- our ineffective governments and our national obsession with systemic corruption are merely the effects. Not the first cause.
To defend against this full spectrum warfare requires far more courage, wherewithal, self-respect, dignity, political and intellectual sophistication than is common to the Uncle Tom geniuses of Pakistan.
First and foremost, it requires recognizing that Pakistan is in fact under active undeclared fourth and fifth gen warfare on the Grand Chessboard. Otherwise she can never fully comprehend what's happening to her due to misdiagnosis.
It also requires recognizing that this war cannot be fought by a slave state suffering the Stockholm syndrome (seeking help from one's own jailor). Otherwise, like the half-doctor forever putting Band-Aids on cancer patients and feeling satisfied with his treatment plan despite the patient dying, even the honest Uncle Tom leader can forever chase effects and die holily in bed with the nation still laboring under the jackboots of the massa.
Do you, Mr. Prime Minister, have the courage of your convictions to face the grotesque reality of the Grand Chessboard outlined in the Introduction above? Are you a visionary leader who can think at multiple levels simultaneously?
I am going to take a giant leap of faith and assume that your Pathan blood is a lot thicker than water, and your mind far sharper than your own heroes who founded Pakistan, first in intellectual thought, and subsequently in political activism. As the late iconoclast intellect of Pakistan, Ardeshir Cowasjee, once wrote to me as I endeavored to explain to him our national myths: Now that we are here, what can we do?
What can we do indeed?
I am going to take a giant leap of faith and assume that you actually wish to do something about our pawn status that forces us to always be out with the begging bowl through Machiavellian debt enslavement, and we end up providing prostitution services to the massa in return. I am going to presume that in your heart of hearts, you wish to stop our macro abuse by the hectoring hegemons, those who install puppets and ineffective governments to service their needs. And I am also going to presume, perhaps gratuitously, that while your sentiments are in the right place, you don't quite know intellectually how to go about it principally because you are surrounded by Uncle Toms and House Niggers. Habitual slaves, Mr. Prime Minister, weaned on the crumbs falling from the massa's table, cannot be counted on to lend advice of seeking liberty from the massa.
I am sorry but I see you only surrounded by House Niggers. If you wish to know what that term means, please visit Malcolm X. I documented our national acumen among our brightest minds in the study of modern mental colonization: FAQ What is an Intellectual Negro?. To my observation, the term House Nigger applies to virtually all notable members of your cabinet, economic advisors, military advisors, political allies, parliament, judiciary, and to our English enabled elitist culture in general. If you are hesitant in accepting that observation and demand facts, please see my 2007 Open Letter to the Chief of Pakistan's military, and my January 25, 2018 Open Letter to the Chief of Pakistan's judiciary. The singular challenge to our nation to think beyond the massa's largesses cuts through all our national institutions, and all our rank and file, not just our elites.
Is it a closely guarded state secret Mr. Prime Minister that most of us are born into mental captivity in Pakistan, are easily co-opted into serving the massa one way or another the moment we step into adulthood, often under the pretext of earning an honest livelihood when we are honest, and serving our own narrow self-interests as mercenaries when we are not so honest? And that we die celebrating the massa and his civilization, proudly bequeathing this legacy of mental servitude to the next generation year after year? Haven't our best minds been reduced to not even being able to recognize that fact anymore? These best minds on your team Mr. Prime Minister, from whom you seek advice on how to run the affairs of the state, are infected with this very cross around their neck.
However, I am certain Mr. Prime Minister, that this abominable plague from the West no longer infects your mind. That you have succeeded in freeing yourself from the shackles of brown sahib mentality which Lord Macaulay diabolically crafted for us in 1835 with the following policy prescription before the British Parliament: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”
This admittedly Pollyannaish belief in you Mr. Prime Minister, is the principal motivation behind these series of bold and candid Open Letters to you. I do not know if you will ever be made aware of them, let alone read them. I do what I can with my lonely pen without power. But you have power, and will soon become powerless in power, unless you perceptively come to understand the diabolical forces that have made Pakistan the basket case nation that it is today. These forces are not about to lay down their arms just because an honest man has become the Prime Minister of their golden goose.
Mr. Prime Minister, survival on the Grand Chessboard is not the gentlemanly game of cricket that you learned from the English massa while they diabolically enslaved us for over two hundred years in the most un gentlemanly game of colonization.
You cannot compete with their legatees du jour with the coterie of nincompoops that you have surrounded yourself with. You cannot win this game with a weak team that has no intellectual capacity to break the shackles of servitude, that spins on a dime, and the best among whom are either idealist dreamers like you thinking this is a game of cricket and we shall prevail, or belong to the same feudal class of mercenaries that is dependent on the massa's favors for their own survival.
But, if you stop thinking of your self-ascribed divine mandate as the game of cricket, and instead pick up on the Art of War, we, we the people, and we the nation, with the same crop of peoples, have a fighting chance.
That's what great leaders are made of, and I can already sense that you aspire to be such a leader who can light the fire in the mind of man; who can inspire us to rise beyond our limitations. It is because of this belief that I have tentatively accepted your explanation that you have to play with the team that you have got.
As the one who forged liberty for the United States of America, Patrick Henry, pleaded with his own selfish and generally comatose elites not much different than ours some 243 years ago:
'There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight!
I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?
Will it be the next week, or the next year?
Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a Xe guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction?
Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. ...
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Baluchistan to the mountains of the Tribal Belt!
The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace.
The war is actually begun!
The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!
Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!'
--- Adapted from Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death,
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
Please permit me to show you how to break the chains of servitude. Albeit, only as a field nigger, a common man who, like Malcolm X, while having lived most of his adult life in the United States, utilized her vast libraries, read her best minds, observed her worst statecraft, and has come away unimpressed by her divine la mission civilisatrice, her ongoing white man's burden. You might remember Mr. Prime Minister, that your own hero whom you cite often and give credit for your Islamic metanoia, “Sir” Allama Iqbal, does have the imperial title “Sir” attached to his name. Perhaps you have forgotten what it meant to be anointed the Knight of the British Empire and for rendering what kind of services to the Crown! Like the rest of Pakistani intelligentsia and our virtuous pulpits, you too claim to be divinely inspired by “Sir” Allama Iqbal's pious words. And like everyone else, you too have evidently paid scant attention to his actual un pious acts, of both commission and omission, in support of his own massa. I have analyzed these facts and observations in: Allama Iqbal - marde-momin or superman?. I invite you to scrutinize it with the emotional detachment necessary to overcome national myths and sacred mythologies that public heroes often come wrapped in.
National myths are easily busted with even an iota of emotional detachment only if learning the real truth of any matter is important. In my report: The UK Indian Independence Act, 1947, 18th July 1947 - Discovering The “Divine Destiny” of Pakistan, I bust the predominant myth behind the construction of Pakistan. The reality of fait accompli of history however, now pragmatically demands what Cowasjee hath said: Now that we are here, what can we do. That is the important matter today; not holding on to sacred myths on how we came about which easily indoctrinate us into false beliefs. These only lead us astray. You have publicly stated your mission to be to craft Medina-like welfare state in “naya Pakistan” based upon the eternal egalitarian principles our beloved Prophet employed fourteen centuries ago. But you become a victim of your own myth-making when you conveniently forget that the Medina of the Prophet of Islam was forged in the blood of the noble martyrs of Islam, directly fighting the onslaught of the powers of the time for ten long years in order to be able to implement those very principles! It was not a free lunch. Your selective story-telling is disingenuous. To create Medina in Pakistan, you cannot ignore the gods living in the Pakistani mind.
I don't make that mistake Mr. Prime Minister. And I won't judge you by your platitudinous words of “naya Pakistan”. As they say in the massa's language: the proof of the pudding is in its eating. When we take everything else from the massa, let's dare to take some of their own wisdom which affords them, under one pretext or another, the license to exercise Full Spectrum Primacy over us. The massa ubermensch race is united in their Anglo-Saxon burden of exercising global primacy through Full Spectrum Dominance.
So, what shall we, the untermensch races and nations, do in a world that is often referred to as the global village in which superpowers forge economic and military alliances among their own kind for controlling and harvesting the rest of us, by cunningly keeping us disunited even with our own neighbors?
In a nutshell, our antidote from their own book of wisdom should be: Self-defence through Full Spectrum Alliance.
Full spectrum alliances with all nations who share the same predicament as ours, beginning with our beleaguered immediate neighbors with whom we share a history, culture, civilization, and extending to nations with whom we share our geography, and beyond to all nations on earth across continents with whom we share the same predicament of being targets of primacy through what has euphemistically come to be known as international relations. This is nothing but the legalized imposition of predatory policies upon the world which aid and favor the developed nations of the world, particularly the Global North, and specifically, the United States of America. The primacy is not even thinly disguised. But slaves can only see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. The free man is different, much different. So is a free nation. I am excited that for the first time in the history of our nation, supposedly a free man has come to power in Pakistan. A free nation will surely follow.
The seeds of this pragmatic political wisdom of uniting with other victims of the same hectoring hegemons politically, militarily, as trading partners, as economic partners, as currency partners, as resource sharing partners, etceteras, were planted in Part-4. I continue in this Part-5 examining why uniting in Full Spectrum Alliances is the only commonsense path to deter the quest for Full Spectrum Dominance. That path is so obvious as to be self-evident. And it not actually transpiring as the common shared national interest of the victim nations is only a divine mystery until one acquires the courage of one's convictions. The peoples of the United States once did. What are we waiting for?
The following is excerpted from my August 09, 2007 missive: The Missing Link To Full Spectrum Dominance – Full Spectrum Deterrence, and my May 15, 2008 Press Release: The Only Solution to Avoid Total War – Full Spectrum Alliances in ASIA.
Begin Excerpt
The plebeians of course well understand that they are being made a meal, and why, but not the complexities of how the tangled web of competing interests and deception games on the Grand Chessboard, and the systematic local covert-ops and co-optations in their own backyards, are gradually doing it to them such that even the right of self-defense is being stripped from them. Since they are unable to diagnose the mechanics of their being made a meal with any degree of precision, they are also unable to come up with efficacious antidotes in their own self-defense even as they are being deftly carved up and served on the platter of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Most invariably end up fatalistically lamenting on this and that cleverly planted red herrings and contrived puppet shows in synchronous harmony with their drum-beating ruling elite, while also realizing fully well that all the dazzling and exploding effects eventually only lead to the same 'pre-ordained' destination of servitude.
As an investigative and independent free-lance journalist, I often talk to the ordinary 'taxi driver', i.e., common man, of the Global South, primarily in my native country.
Many of them easily observe what is manifest for all rational plebeian peoples to see even in the Global North (which the latter inexplicably don't seem to notice), that how the nations of the Global North are continually uniting among themselves into larger administrative, collaborative, and security entities, but the Global South is deliberately being made to divide in all sorts of ways even further. That 'divide and conquer' is at play on their shores is visible to all and sundry, and even when they may not be able to articulate it as elegantly as some erudite hectoring hegemons in the West who seek its vainglorious justification, as in "Hegemony is as old as mankind" [3], they surely recognize it trivially, being on its receiving end.
Even the 'uneducated' but surprisingly astute taxi driver in the developing nations of the Global South insightfully observes that even in their own minimal self-defence, China and Russia are unable to draw into a "full spectrum" alliance when each of these two burgeoning superpowers can clearly perceive that the Global North led by the sole superpower hectoring hegemon is out for "full spectrum dominance" [4]. And the taxi driver knows that both the intended victims on the Grand Chessboard can quite comprehend that the 'great game' is being replayed in Central Asia and the Middle East at the indigenous peoples' expense and that neither is being fooled by the 'global war on terror' mantra. Thus, the plebeian surmises, both must surely also be well aware that their anemic and guarded attempts at SCO collaboration that falls far short of the “full spectrum alliance” necessary to thwart the 'great game' of "full spectrum dominance" being wrecked upon all of "space, sea, land, air, and information" [5] by the top 'baboon' du jour, is merely a toothless and inefficacious show-dog sentry.
Any ordinary person in the street in the impoverished Global South - the general sympathies among whom for the enormous wealth and power controlled by the Global North historically always being in the negative, and now rapidly approaching its nadir with the rise of the new 'Mandarins' heralding in the elite-favored and elite-enabled 'New World Order' - knows that for instance, the pending American-Israeli invasion plan for the destruction of a defenseless Iran can be trivially thwarted by a full spectrum NATO-EU like security-and-trade alliance immediately emerging within the SCO, with India, Pakistan, and Iran being made full time mutual-defense-pact treaty members to safeguard the Asian Continent homeland from all external marauders. It is rather commonsensical to fathom that further extending such 'Treaties' and 'Unions' among similarly fated nations of South America and even Africa can create a relatively stable "full spectrum deterrence" all across the Global South.
This is the most obvious and immediate self-defense-and-trading-partners pact among the 'lowly', which despite the doctrine of naked preemptive aggression of nuclear first-strike preeminence claimed by the 'baboons' du jour, and which is also jingoistically projected to target Russia and China [6], no external economic sanctions and saber-rattling by the "hectoring hegemons" can subvert and co-opt without a full scale 'Armageddon' in which all manifestly lose! Even the realpolitik hegemons don't want 'Armageddon' – the tortuous notion is entirely for the feeble minded among them to keep them geopolitically motivated for 'imperial mobilization'!
As in any power-posturing and bluffing in uber-realist Chess and Poker on the Grand Chessboard, there are many standoffs and postures, alliances and treaties, that can lead to a credible and manageable 'MAD' like conclusive détente of equitable peace and relative security (as during the Cold War) even today.
And this can easily transpire despite the somewhat 'lowly' status of the Russian-Chinese economies and their perceived military under-preparedness compared to the Hectoring Hegemons'. The fantastic interdependence of the global economies and the fluidity of global finance alone can become primal guarantors of peace if the 'checkmating' moves are judiciously and collaboratively played! When a superpower's lifelines become global trade, world stock markets and offshore manufacture, and its national debt is held by others, it also becomes its Achilles heal.
Thus it is profound shortsightedness to only include military prowess, and GDP and domestic spending based econometric dominance in the calculus of détente. Economic and resource vulnerability under Globalization are just as essential pieces on the Grand Chessboard. While the 'Hectoring Hegemons' spearheading the Global North's hegemony over the Global South seem to realize this acutely as they form Unions and Alliances and put up global military bases across the 'Arc of Crises' (as of 2004 more than 700 [7]), to construct the global supermarket for a neo-liberal "fast [food] world" [8], the resource rich and yet criminally impoverished nations of the South do not seem to be able to capitalize on this god-sent serendipitous asset already sitting in their pathetically divided laps.
It is so incredibly bizarre that it should occur to the commonest of commoner taxi-driver to ask the obvious question "what right has god granted to the West to come pillaging in our lands and dictate to us how we should live or govern ourselves" when it doesn't seem to occur to his ruling elite in their policy planning calculus, and who continually seem to bow and scrape to just a single phone call from their Masters du jour. It is indeed heartening to hear the plebeians' unconstrained imagination soar with various self-defense scenarios to safeguard ones' independence and self-determination - but only after one has plied them with a hearty meal in dignified settings and got them to open up a window into their genuine plebeian thoughts - that is bar none. The common 'uneducated' man in his moralist and freedom-aspiring flights of fancy can easily give the best of Hollywood script writers a run for their money (who, it is rumored, often do create the 'reality' of war-game scenarios for the Pentagon that are not just limited to publicly viewable blockbusters like 'Dr. Strangelove').
Unfortunately, these lofty thoughts for freedom from injustices and hegemony in the quest for a more equitable distribution of the world's wealth with liberty afforded to all human beings to pursue the pleasures of life and happiness - yes even those in the Global South - are still only flights of fancy because morality presumably died with Prophet Moses, or perhaps it was stillborn. When was the last time that the glorious Ten Commandments was the basis of any nation's foreign policy? In fact, the only nation that any fair student of political science and political history can even point to in the accurately recorded annals of history as being based entirely upon the 'Law Givers' own moral teachings, is what the Prophet of Islam founded in Medina 1400 years ago and ruled the new nation-state of Islam for 10 years until his death.
Unfortunately, its universally acknowledged moral temper too died with the Prophet of Islam, the meritorious spread of Islam after the Prophet's demise and its global preeminence for 700 years notwithstanding. Lots of empires have flourished over the ages, morality being quite orthogonal to their emergence and dominance. Hence global preeminence and dominant civilization as an 'empire' is not a prima facie evidence of its morality and zenith of humanity in its relation to other 'lesser' nations anymore for Muslims' rise during the European 'Dark Ages', than it is of America's rise today as a global superpower during the Muslims' and the Global South's 'Dark Age'.
All rulers have generally ruled with the 'ubermensch' "might makes right" political philosophy with rare exceptions, and all struggles for freedom from their respective 'la mission civilisatrice' du jour have been waged only by peoples and nations of unflinching courage and determination who unequivocally refused to accept the suzerainty of any 'Hectoring Hegemons' upon them. Such is the amazing unforgettable history of mankind, right alongside the ruling elite's "hegemony is old as mankind".
One wonders then, that when such 'flights of fancy' scenarios for self-defense to acquire and retain full sovereignty and genuine independence - a never ending struggle as old as mankind - can occur even to the lowly 'taxi-driver' and is the documented history of the world, they must surely also occur to the burgeoning Asian powers, to the smaller surrounding nations, and certainly to the vastly more seasoned and sophisticated policy planners and strategic thinkers inhabiting their august corridors of power.
So then, the ordinary plebeian 'taxi-driver' – quite representative of the ordinary masses with street smarts – rightly ponders, why is such collectivist self-defense not occurring?
The astute plebeian is unfortunately not privy to the corridors of power and cannot comprehend the mechanics of how its own ruling elite is repeatedly coerced and co-opted into becoming so impotent that they are unable to enter into any sort of "full spectrum" deterrence alliance either among themselves, or with their immediate geographical neighbors with whom the beleaguered nations share borders and cultures, or in conjunction with the bigger minnows even if at a distance, no matter how corrupted and self-serving the ruling might be.
Shouldn't rational self-defense trump unbridled greed, he asks? Only the obvious moral truisms and commonsense is within his limited ken and purview, not the Machiavellian obfuscation and deceptions surrounding the mechanics of power-plays as he does not posses either the intellectual tools nor the time to unravel them.
So he can unbeguilingly only observe that even the murderous gangster Mafiosos are wont to make alliances to protect their territories from outside invaders! He can trivially only ask what has happened to courage, to self-respect, to self-determination, to chutzpah? Has it all been hogged by the defenseless Iran and Venezuela? And he can only emotionally lament that the ruling elite in the rest of Global South seems to be walking on its knees and entirely co-opted one way or another.
But he cannot comprehend what makes such acquiescence to hectoring hegemon happen when many clear paths of alliances and mutual cooperation are plainly visible to all and sundry despite the variegated fog of contrived enmities and competing geopolitical interests?
If a EU can transpire, and a NU is in the clandestine offing, what prevents an AU from transpiring? Surely when the house is on fire, all must unite to put out the fire before arguing about domestic matters?
Unless of course, he conjectures, the ruling elite have become the fifth columnist for empire and are indeed the arsonists in the fire brigade! Such is the profound intelligence as well as the ineptitude of the common man for he simply cannot fathom the mechanics of how such cowardly co-optation to the hectoring hegemons is continually brought to fruition.
What is 'Alice in Wonderland' dream state, what is Hollywood-like contrived reality, and what is the naked truth of the matter when 'Alice' is awake - the distinction is now so blurred between the insanity of "you are with us or with the terrorists" and the extremes of 'off with the head' and real "shock and awe" elocution of the 'Queen' to the synchronized singing of “United We Stand” at the absurd 'Unbirthday Party' of the 'Mad Hatter' - that the ordinary man in the street is unable to comprehend how such co-optation into giving up ones' own rational and commonsensical self-defense against the hegemons du jour is being deftly orchestrated through the complex wheeling-dealing of real world power-plays to which he is not privy.
Thus it appears to him, if he is among the one billion+ Muslims for instance who are presently bearing the full brunt of this fiction of 'war on terror', that the West is genuinely against Islam and is waging a real war against this lofty religion of a billion plus peoples to conquer Muslim lands. The goal is appreciated correctly, not the devious mechanism employed to achieve it. While he quite understands that this 'global war on terror' is fake, he fails to comprehend the real mechanics of how it is deliberately crafted with covert-ops and black-ops a plenty to actually provoke its natural auto-pilot sustainment into existence for a lifetime - because that is what the hectoring hegemons have publicly proclaimed it will take to achieve "full spectrum dominance" through a "World War IV".
And he therefore fails to perceive that 'militant Islam' is merely the well managed patsy du jour, that it is not a happenstance consequence due to 'blow-back' or the so called 'triumphalism' of 'Islam the religion' as the veritable neo-con and closet-Straussian Bernard Lewis would like the world to believe, but a deliberate pre-meditated contrivance ab-initio that originated in the Orwellian minds of the hectoring hegemons decades ago.
The latter are, after all, inimitable masters of psyops and sociological control with a profound understanding of "doctrinal motivations" and how to mobilize an unwilling largely ignorant Western public for conquest; as the hectoring hegemons believe (rightfully or not) that their well fed "democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization" and requires a constant and believable danger as the 'scare-crow' to motivate its 'populist democracy' into continually accepting shedding their young blood for the absurd doctrine of "preemptive self defense" in far off lands.
Thus in a nutshell, the plebeians of the world well know that 'uniting' is the key principle that is required for any self-defense, it is not that profound. What they don't understand is how and why it is not transpiring; what red herrings and covert-ops and co-optations and "techniques of infamy" are systematically disenabling them of natural unity that is normally borne of a shared plight, especially given the plethora of other natural conducive factors such as geographical proximity, cultural, and long-historical affiliations?
End Excerpt
Begin Excerpt
One must however, if one has the geopolitical acumen to understand the diabolical “forces that drive them”, not count on the efficacy of such dissent to avert any of the catastrophic scenarios, including a staged 'Gulf of Tonkin', or a staged nuclear terrorist act within the United States, or an Israeli attack on Iran, or an escalating Israeli war in Lebanon and Syria, all of which can lead to “'defensive' US military action against Iran [and Pakistan]”.
The Iranian and other Asian leaders would be wise to not underestimate the tortuous power of the 'Dark-Side' that is attempting to seed Total War in Asia using America as the 'hired hand'.
Rather than continually dismiss the tortuous aspirations for global domination as lunacy, or mis-guided, it would be prudent to treat them as devilishly real doctrines of conquest by a handful of the world's ruling elite partnering together in a twisted convolution of mutual interests – never to be underestimated for its destructive power upon the weak. Such an assessment, based on full spectrum comprehension of reality, permits the construction of the only effective self-defense by the weak. Why such a self-defense is not transpiring is a puzzle that defies explanation.
That deterrent solution-space, according to Project Humanbeingsfirst, is only in the forming of NATO-like Full Spectrum Alliances with an effective “Dr. Strangelove” type Samson Option that is publicly targeted at Israel and Western Europe as a declared self-defense nuclear doctrine, to construct the only viable and effective Deterrence: MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)!
Only in the insanity of its “sublime irony”, wherein, in the immortal words of Winston Churchill, “safety [is] the sturdy child of terror and survival the twin brother of annihilation”, can there be any assured prospects of defeating the war-mongers before they hand the world a nuclear fait accompli.
End Excerpt
Thank you for reading. I am offering you not just the recipe of commonsense, for all that I have stated above is nothing but commonsense, but also my free labor. You are surrounded by Westoxified mentally colonized slaves. If you seek advice from cowards, you shall become one. Cowardly nations can never be free. This isn't cricket dear Prime Minister. This is the practice of the Art of War in order to put our nation on the right path. It needs people of courage who can think outside the box; not enslaved minds whose first thought is to seek bailout from the IMF lamenting “we have no other choice”.
Beggars shall never be free when they continue to dream of American Aid. The recipients of this Trojan horse of modernity are forever forced into prostitution by the massa. If you will not understand that simple calculus, I have wasted my time. Yet, I continue to hope that we shall endeavor together as a nation to throw the tea overboard. I would like to experience “naya Pakistan” in my own lifetime.
Zahir Ebrahim

Click on image to download PDF Open Guidance to Imran Khan - Reimagining Pakistan : Project ReGenesis by Zahir Ebrahim
Open Guidance to Imran Khan - Reimagining Pakistan : Project ReGenesis by Zahir Ebrahim Click on image to download PDF
( )

First Published Monday, September 3, 2018 06:00 pm 5491 | Introduction added Tuesday, September 4, 2018 04:00 pm 6600
Preamble link added Monday, January 21, 2019

Letter5 To Imran Khan From Zahir Ebrahim - Full Spectrum Alliances 16/16