Islamist speeches
Al-Tayeb Mustafa and arguments weaker than spider webs
The ring is Adlan
The decline of the rescue, and its progress toward the end, reflects and resembles the general characteristics of its original program. The rescue program, called the civilizational project, in a harsh mockery of projects and civilizations, had three basic circles: a local circle represented in subjecting Sudan and its people to its tight grip, through economic plunder that knows no rules or boundaries, and through bloody oppression that does not stop at any moral or human value; Then a regional circle represents the extension of the authority of extremist Islamic groups, in all Islamic countries, starting with the Arab ones, and in all African countries, starting with the neighbors, as Dr. Ghazi Salah al-Din explained to the IGAD Foreign Ministers in 1994. The third circle is the global one, where the civilizational project invades the whole world, through terrorism, exporting the revolution, and inaugurating the millennium, or is it the happy million?, of an earthly empire ruled by it. Shaykhs reduced by divine providence.
The Salvation Army spared no effort in launching its wars at all these levels, and at the same time. If we contemplated this project with the logic of reason, we would say that those in charge of it are a group that has lost their senses, but if we said that, and we have said it, then the response to us, from them, is easy and accessible, which is that we do not understand the higher and precise political mathematics, which makes a small group, in a poor country, and with relatively close to zero capabilities, able to defeat the forces of arrogance in all the world, by sheer will and determination. If we ridicule, and we have ridiculed, the slogans that America's doom is approaching, this is only because our visions, as they thought and imagined, saw a cloud over them that prevents them from seeing the enormous, global forces ready to support the civilizational project. At the local level, the civilizational project won, and it could not have won, with the fox cunning that took some of its companions into captivity and others to the palace, and with the negligence that led its people to political suicide, on the part of the rulers of that period, and their opponents alike. He triumphed by clearing the economic arena of ancient capitalism, and confiscating public and private wealth, in victory for the concept of the state of spoils and levies, the blood-sucking, parasitic state, whose violence against those who collected their money according to the respected and recognized rules of commercial activity reached the point of murder and physical liquidation, for possessing a small amount of dollars. The intellectual and cultural arena also emptied of its best representatives, with all shades of their spectrum, to make way for one fractured voice, which claims to monopolize the truth and knowledge of secrets, and believes that if humanitarian discourse does not adopt the language of violence, exclusion, war and destruction, it is not worthy of the name discourse. Rescue triumphed at the local level, but was severely defeated at the regional level as a result of its terrorist acts that culminated in the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak in 1995, as It was defeated by a defeat no less severe at the global level, as a result of its terrorist acts, which were represented by the attempt to bomb the International Trade Building in 1993, and the attempt to bomb the United Nations building in the same year, and the farce ended with the events of September 11, 2001, when the tampering authority was confronted with the results of its actions, and by harboring Osama bin Laden and his terrorist movement, so it submitted in denial, and prostrated in obedience, to the forces of power. The arrogance that we intended to torment, but in the correct sense of the slogan, that is, the torment that it inflicted on salvation and not the other way around.
If the two defeats at the regional and international levels were complete, then Al-Inqaz, with its signing of the Nivash Accords, sharing power and wealth, self-determination, and giving a privileged status to the three marginalized regions, suffered a half-defeat. If we give proportions to these three circles, in terms of their impact on the fall of the rescue as a system: let us say 10% for the global circle, 15% for the regional circle, and 75% for the local national circle, then the overall rescue project will have lost by points. Although these percentages are arbitrary, any modification to them will lead to the same result. But the short memory of the rescuers, and the airiness of their slogans, help them here as well, as their current speeches suggest that they may have completely forgotten the original dimensions of their project. None of them are now talking about building a comprehensive fundamentalist empire, and even when the imagination of Andalusia moves the tongues of some of them, dreaming, wishing, and consoling, they quickly withdraw their statements. The rescuers, with all their groups, became the hyena that was alone with the prey and did not want anyone to join it in devouring it. Although the concern is common to all of them, they defend it in very different ways and methods. Some of them accept the Naivasha agreements, while trying to make them the last concession they offer to save, and some of them want to make other minor concessions, to unite the North against the South and the marginalized, regions and groups. Some of them are willing to stay through a deal with the Popular Movement in which the elections are rigged and the opponents are defeated, and some of them adopt a more radical position and call for the separation of the South itself, as it is the source of the internal defeat for salvation.
Here I will discuss the positions of those calling for the secession of the South, led by their spokesman, Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa, who was, and still is, one of the supervisors of the Salvation media and its speech, and whose importance derives from that position, and from his direct relations with the top of power. The first thing that caught my attention in Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa’s proposals was that while he, along with his brothers, used religious discourse about the necessity of Arabizing the South, Islamizing it, subjugating it militarily and politically, and winning its land for “Islam,” and adopting religious language in describing the fate of his dead Islamists, whom he called martyrs, he used purely secular language in calling for the separation of the South! The "manifesto" that he published last January, calling for the separation of the South, was completely devoid of religious considerations. There is no suggestion here that Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa has abandoned his fundamentalist religious discourse, as he quickly returns to it when he encounters opponents to his project, but the indication relates to his subordinating the religious discourse to the secular other, if his immediate purposes required it, proving that the “jurisprudence of necessity” is not bounded by borders and does not stand in front of any barriers, including religious ones.
Al-Tayeb Mustafa's arguments can be summarized, without getting involved with him in regurgitation, in a few arguments, which are the following: * We need a new approach in dealing with the issue of the South, one that makes us "go beyond petty fanaticism, whether intellectual or regional, on the way out of the tunnel of crisis to safety."
* The South is the reason for the backwardness of the North, due to the human, economic, social and political losses that resulted from the half-century war. Had it not been for the war in the South, the North would currently be in a unique position, at least in Africa, in terms of its growth and progress, because all the money and capabilities that were wasted in the war could have been spent on development.
* There are no elements of unity between us and the southerners due to the difference in “race, religion, language, customs, traditions, conscience, and common feelings.” Perhaps because the southerners themselves are aware of these differences, they are practically seeking secession despite everything their leaders say, out of cunning and tactics, about their belief in the unity of the country. This is evidenced by the meeting of Al-Akhbad al-Aziz al-Hilu in Arizona with the branch of the Popular Movement there, in which a female fighter from the Popular Army called for the expulsion of the Arabs from the south. In it, Abdul Aziz Al-Helu said that the shops and bars are no longer owned by jellaba or Greeks, but rather are owned by merchants from the region.
* Based on these reasons, Al-Tayeb Mustafa calls for separating the North from the South, and calls for accelerating this, because it is wiser to amputate the part of the body affected by cancer, instead of letting it infect the entire body, and lead to its eventual death. Here we must be as determined as surgeons, so we do not hesitate to amputate the diseased part, even if amputating it necessarily leads to amputating other parts, in accordance with the same principle of sacrificing the part for the sake of the whole. That is, the possibility of the secession of the Nuba Mountains, for example, and the unknown fate of the Muslims in the south, should not dissuade us from our approach of harsh surgery. Rather, we must hasten the separation: “to save the future, our new generations, and atone for a major crime we committed against our homeland and our people.”
In this article, I will try to present the arguments of Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa and clarify that, in what they appear and conceal, they express the self-collapse of the civilizational project, in its third and final cycle, and it is an unmistakable symptom of the total defeat that awaits it.
Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa says that we need a new approach in dealing with the South, and he frankly goes so far as to say that we must “get beyond petty fanaticism, whether intellectual or regional, in order to get out of the tunnel of crisis to safety.” When Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa talks about “intellectual fanaticism,” he means, first and foremost, the ideology that led to igniting war in the south for the purpose of Islamizing and Arabizing it. It is the essence of the civilizational project approach towards the South. And when he calls for this, he calls, in clear terms, and without roundabouts, to give up what the Salvation Army has been screaming from all its mouthpieces, and from the mouths of all its advocates, that it is a religious duty that cannot be given up, even if the heavyweights agree to reject it. Rescue mobilized all the country's resources, and mobilized thousands of Sudanese youth, north, west, south, east and center, to fulfill what it called a sacred religious duty. Rather, it included in its war to spread “Islam” not only angels, but also monkeys and trees. Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa did not skimp on this war, with his means of communication and the arenas of his redemption. Rather, he did not skimp on it even with the four souls of his heart, of whom the most beloved to him died. Which shows the extent of his belief in that idea, and the extent of his willingness to sacrifice for it, as he explains at the same time, and the truth is more worthy of being told, a degree of intellectual consistency, and coherence of speech and action, that was not available to many of his brothers. Al-Tayeb's problem is that the intellectual position, represented by the fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Islam, which gave him everything and gave him what was dearest to him, was wrong, aggressive, devoid of the requirements of maturity, and deviant from the path of patriotism and the interest of the nation. Any project that mobilizes the youth of a nation, is not for the sake of development, goodness, and growth, or celebrating life and embracing it, but rather to kill other brothers in the nation, or force them to believe in ideas that they see but do not see, and glorifying death and annihilation, without a battle, cannot be rational thought. Its result will be nothing but this overwhelming and poisonous bitterness that Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa expresses in every letter he writes. The bereaved, male and female, are not expected to be steadfast, except after great firmness and great patience.
We really need a new approach towards the South, a new approach towards the homeland, and a new approach towards politics. If Mr. Al-Tayyib Mustafa had been ousted before, along with subjugation, oppression, and the imposition of the minors (by opening the letter) on others, then with his call for the secession of the south, and his indifference to the secession of other parts, he is ousted, and in a compelling psychological reaction, to the complete opposite side, and calls for the reduction of the homeland, to suit his own ability, and the rescue’s ability to control and control. This new approach, which our country needs, established its foundations in Naivasha, where the real issues that concern the people were raised, which are democracy, sharing power and wealth, giving people their right to determine their fate, and making decisions that determine their lives, by them themselves, and at the lowest levels to them. The vision of Naivasha is not a vision of salvation. It is a vision that is opposite to the tendencies of salvation and imposed on it, not by the international community alone, but by the reality of the legendary valor with which the popular movement fought attempts to oppress, humiliate, and exterminate its people, at the hands of advocates of the civilizational project. Perhaps it is trying to rescue now, by creating side outlets, to deny it when the pressures intensify, such as calling for secession, to try some tricks that might help it to renounce some of what it has committed to, but that is not the case. Professor Al-Tayeb Mustafa does not hesitate to completely reverse the facts when he says that the South is the reason for the North’s backwardness, because the human and economic capabilities that were wasted in the war against the South could have been harnessed for the development of the North. It is true, of course, that the loss of capabilities and resources could have, along with other fundamental changes, led to the development of both the North and the South, if that damned war had not occurred. But did the South seek to ignite that war? Did the South beg the rescuers to rain bombs on it and send tanks, maniacs and hired men to burn the green and the dry and kill the defenseless and the innocent? Was the South crying out to the messengers to guide it to the path of truth and righteousness? Do not use the August 1955 rebellion as an excuse, as that was a criminal and unfortunate incident in which investigations took place and some were tried and punished. A responsible government could have taken it as an example to draw lessons from, and tried to lift the historical injustice that befell the people of the South, build bridges of trust between brothers in the homeland, and strengthen the national fabric in a way that unites people and unites their goals. Sudan is still waiting for such rulers, and Naivasha may have set its feet firmly on this path, we hope.
The slogan that the war in the south is the reason for the backwardness of the north is a word of truth that means falsehood, as Ali bin Abi Talib said. Its falsehood is that the war destroyed the South and harmed it and harmed it dozens of times more than it did to the North. Its falsehood is that through it some obsessed people wanted to impose their limited visions on the entire country, and shape it into mental images that they formed in the stage of intellectual and age adolescence, and they do not want to give it up, for the purely worldly gains that they gained through it. Its falsehood is that it can ignore the death of more than two million people of the South, elderly, women and children. To talk about the South's injustice to the North.
Al-Tayeb Mustafa says that there are no ingredients to unite the South and the North, due to differences in race, religion, language, customs and traditions, common conscience and feelings. Assuming that his statement is completely true, which it is not, as we will explain, does this prevent us from living together? I do not think so, because establishing rights on the basis of citizenship, democracy, guaranteeing equality, justice, equal opportunities, the rule of law, equality before and in its protection, the provision of services, the protection of human dignity, and the fight against discrimination, racism, and racial and religious supremacy, are sufficient to convince different people to live in an inclusive entity because their interests require it, and their interests are nothing but their rights themselves. But, fortunately, Mr. Tayeb Mustafa's statement is not a correction. He himself bears witness to this. He said here that there is a difference in races, and he presented it as an obstacle to unity. But he says in the same article that Negritude runs in his blood and the blood of his children. This is a great saying, which shows that the good Mustafa is able, if he wants, to speak the truth and spread it among the people. Negritude runs in all of our blood, whether we deny it or acknowledge it. Negritude runs in all of our blood, in a way that we cannot hide from people, even if we imagine that we can hide it from ourselves. The Sudanese woke up to this truth in the diaspora, when the world refused to distinguish them on the basis of north and south, or west and east, and saw in them one people, with slight differences in colors and features, almost invisible to the foreign eye, and not beyond what these foreigners were familiar with of differences of this kind among their peoples themselves. The culturally backward world refused to distinguish between them, considering them completely equal in slavery. The civilized world refused to accept that the blackness of some of them was different from the blackness of others, and its best representatives acted on the basis that color cannot be used to rob human dignity, or detract from rights.
The unity of races, then, and not their differences, is the true reality for the overwhelming majority of the people of Sudan. The time has come to acknowledge this truth from which we have often fled, and the brilliant pursuit of Al-Numan pursued us:
You are like the night that overtakes me, even if I think that what is far from you is vast
I have called on our political leaders, who “inlaid us” with their honorable lineages, to return to the truth and bring forth for us the trees of their African lineages, as this will heal the deep wounds they have dug in the Sudanese body with arrogance, arrogance, and lies.
Because Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa cannot eat his dates and keep them at the same time, he cannot say that blackness runs in his blood and the blood of his children and talk at the same time about the difference in races. As for the difference in religion, this is an argument that does not stand up to careful examination. Let me point out here a point I mentioned at the beginning of this article, about the superiority of a certain type of secular discourse. I will show that it is not true, over any other discourse, in Mr. Tayeb Mustafa’s call for secession. According to the civilizational project, differences in religion call for jihad and unification of religion, so that it is entirely for God, through the sword and other than the sword. But here, in another paradox of this project, whose deep internal cracks have become apparent, he says that the difference in religion is a reason for separation.
Difference in religion is not a reason for separation, because establishing rights on the basis of citizenship means equality for people in the areas I mentioned, and in others I did not mention, regardless of their religions. If we looked at the map of the world today, and applied the rule that differences in religion justify the dismantling of nations, we would only leave the top four or five systems, in all the world, that could fulfill the condition of unity of religion. Humanity, its organizations, and its human rights projects have surpassed that primitive awareness that makes the unity of religion a condition for the unity of nations. Humanity has achieved this through scourges, wars, and countless losses. This is, in fact, the compelling argument of secularism in distinguishing between the political and the religious, for the benefit of both, and for the benefit of all humanity, and the condition for its survival on this planet. Secularism is inescapable and inescapable, because it is a movement of societies to control their destinies, away from earthly and heavenly guardians, and humanity will not be deterred from that by the positions of some people who speak out of whims and cling to the gifts of the distant past. However, the statement that there are absolute religious differences between the North and the South is not supported by reality. It is a strange irony that Mr. Mustafa does not pay attention to the size of the southern Muslims, and only deals with them as refugees, in the Republic of the North, which the Salvation Hyena wants to be completely exclusive to.
Perhaps his position was the result of extreme despair, based on the rescue experience in spreading Islam in South Sudan. If we take what was mentioned by historian Douglas Johnson, in his book about the profound causes of Sudan’s civil wars, then the Inqazists were excellent missionaries of Christianity in the south, because the number of those who converted to Christianity in the south during one decade of their rule exceeds the number of those who embraced that religion in the entire colonial era with all its numerous church institutions, great capabilities, and long-lasting.
In an opposite development, and very indicative of the line of rescue trends, and on the cultural level as a whole, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement has made a huge contribution to spreading the Arabic language, by adopting it as an official language of discourse among its soldiers and institutions, and it is accused of being hostile to Islam and the Arabic language. Dr. Mansour Khaled has shown, in more than one of his valuable books, how the Popular Movement acted in this issue, with a broad horizon and a deep patriotic spirit, in contrast to its accusers who are only good at misleading. And the attacks of Al-Tayeb Mustafa on Mansour Khaled, including verbal violence and belittling, which are an expressive sample of the discourse of fundamentalist Islamists who always lose their way to good debate. These attacks are nothing but frustration with such hurtful facts expressed by Dr. Mansour Khaled.
In other words, citing the difference in language as a reason for separation also expresses a prior disregard, by those who claim to be proud of Arabic, of a process occurring before our eyes in which the Arabic language expands, to actually become the common language of communication throughout this country. As for customs and traditions, regardless of their striking similarity to the discerning eye, they are not a reason for separation, but rather a source of wealth, an invitation to interaction, and a repository of multifaceted cultural advancement. If we talk about common feelings, they arise through national experiences and projects that the people of the country can agree to give a single, positive interpretation: such as development, the spread of schools and hospitals, the extension of roads, increased incomes, the availability of work, the cleanliness and fairness of elections, people from all regions assuming major national jobs for considerations of efficiency alone, and the supremacy of the law over the differences of individuals. Feelings are also united by the scientific, cultural, and literary renaissance. Exploding the springs of popular joy and entertainment, leveling the fields of fair competition in all types of sports, and opening the way for the emergence of unified national symbols, Roll Models, in all areas of life, and from all Sudanese nationalities. It is not surprising that such a vision would be completely alien to the people of rescue, because the enormity of their souls does not allow their imagination to run wild. Because they formed their first concepts when they were imprisoned in the iron cage of scarcity, which generates predatory and savage gluttony, and the accompanying emotions of hatred and the desire for exclusion.
The reasons that Mr. Al-Tayeb Mustafa gives under the heading of differences, which he presents as reasons for secession, are in fact nothing more than spider webs, and this is what drives him to chase shortcomings and errors, to prove that it is the popular movement, and not him and his platform, that is calling for secession. Hence, I quote what that unknown fighter in the Popular Army said about the expulsion of Arabs from the south and some areas of the north. There is no doubt that the phrase “fighter” is completely wrong, but it does not in fact express the official opinion of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, as Tayeb Mustafa undoubtedly knows.
The position of the People's Movement is expressed in the Naivasha Protocols and the Machakos Framework Protocol, which are protocols that prevail over the unitary option and place it above all other options, but at the same time they indicate the necessity of making unity an attractive option for the people of the South and for all the people of the regions, regions and marginalized groups. For my part, I would add to the necessity of making unity attractive to the people of the North themselves, and making it clear that their interest is to reformulate the political and cultural equations upon which contemporary Sudan was based, including the deep imbalances that made a small group of cruel parasites, subject to their huge lusts and unlimited appetite for possessions and pleasures, monopolize the country’s wealth and push millions in the North to live under the roof of poverty and destitution. Unity is not attractive until the ruins of salvation and its complete defeat through the ballot boxes, and through the marginalized clinging to their issues and defending them at all costs and prices.
The phrase “making unity an attractive option” was not mentioned except because the people of the South will not accept unity, in any case, if the old approach, the approach of rescue, continues as the only formula for dealing with them by the Northerners. It is not enough here for the northerners to say that the rescue does not represent us. Rather, they are required to present in a positive way another example of dealings between the North and the South. They are called upon to do so with all their political, civil society, and civil society organizations. They must start that day before tomorrow. And to reveal this new spirit in dealing with the millions of southerners who now live in the north. Let us not forget that young people, with their good willingness to accept and express new trends, can play a pioneering role in this field. It is also no secret that the leadership of the Popular Movement itself could choose to secede, if the old equations and mentalities - the mentalities of superiority, exclusion, humiliation and oppression - continue as they were before the signing of the Naivasha Accords. This is the essence of what Abdel Aziz Al-Helu expressed, in that symposium in Arizona that Al-Tayeb Mustafa cited as evidence of the hatred and racism of the popular movement. Perhaps we find something to protest against in Al-Akhbar Abdel Aziz’s sermon, in terms of his use of generalizations such as jellaba, which some people can understand from the north, as Al-Tayeb Mustafa tried to prove, and perhaps we alert Abdel Aziz to the necessity of using precise language and terminology when he unites/then these complex issues, and to resist the populist tendency, to present the clear position of the SPLM, which is that it calls for unity as a given option, if the specific changes that it expresses in the term New Sudan occur. But we cannot accept what Al-Tayeb Mustafa tried to suggest that the speech was nothing but a heated expression of racist hatred. When he talks about the control of the Popular Movement over the south and some regions, and about establishing political relations with the political parties in the north, and about the localization of trade in those regions, and the lack of ownership of the bars and shops there by the Jellaba, he is expressing a reality that is before his eyes, which is the reality of liberation. If the jurisprudence of necessity allows the jellaba to own bars in the liberated areas, I do not think that Brother Abdul Aziz will object to that! It also expresses a legitimate security for the marginalized to become doctors and engineers, like Al-Tayeb Mustafa, and to live in Al-Safiya or Al-Manshiya, based on their toil and superiority and not through plunder and collection. This is something that Abdel Aziz had to be strict in clarifying, to resist populist tendencies and tendencies, which could be the inauguration of a new parasite.
From what I know personally about Abdul Aziz Al-Helou, I can say that he is, at least, more unified than Al-Tayeb Mustafa. Therefore, presenting his speech in the context of justifying secession is an unsuccessful attempt. One of the important points that I want to draw attention to the leaders of the Popular Movement here is that they should follow the example of Dr. Garang himself, in responding to attacks, whether on the movement as a whole, or on their personal positions. I expected Abdul Aziz Al-Helu to confront what was said about him and refute it in front of all people. This is something that some of the New Sudanese politicians, such as Pagan Amum and Yasser Arman, do well. But the movement needs to descend with all its weight into the battle to win minds and hearts that is now taking place in the north and south, and it needs all of its capable cadres, and they are not few.
Based on his previous points, the nonsense of which we have explained, Al-Tayeb Mustafa calls for separating the south from the north, and cites a medical argument, which is that wisdom requires amputating the organ affected by cancer so that it does not infect the rest of the body. I do not want to enter into an argument with Mr. Tayeb Mustafa about the fact that this may not be the only option. But I answer him with two questions: Did the Sudanese body develop cancer in the south, or cancer in the rescue? Is it easier to amputate the south or amputate the rescue?
It is around these two questions that the conflict is now taking place.
Throughout the past years, I continued to believe that the Mongolian Hulagu had been ruling Sudan since June 30, 1989, until I read Tayeb Mustafa’s article in which he warned of another Hulagu on his way to Khartoum. I was patient and listened to and read Tayeb Mustafa’s arguments until the end, and it became completely clear to me that what I had believed throughout those years was right and correct, and that Tayeb Mustafa’s warnings had no purpose other than to give old Hulagu another chance at life. This is what I will explain in a later article.