There are three vital political objectives that stand out in the current Ummah’s reality and these are: the liberation from foreign dominance and control, political unity and the application of Islam. These are connected and intertwined objectives and they are all realised through the realisation of the Islamic project represented in the Khilafah upon the methodology of the Prophethood and it is this which will make the Muslims one Ummah as many of the Shar’iyah texts have affirmed from which is the Noble Aayah:إِنَّ هَذِهِ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَأَنَا رَبُّكُمْ فَاعْبُدُونِ
“Verily this Ummah of yours is one Ummah and I am your Lord so worship me” (Al-Anbiyaa 92)
As for the division of the Islamic lands and dividing the Muslims upon political, sectarian and ethnic lines then this represents the project which is the complete opposite to the Khilafah. And so at the beginning of the last century this arose as a result of the colonial project implemented by Britain and France to bring down the Ottoman Caliphate which had represented the political entity for all Muslims despite what it endured of weakness and the misapplication of Islam towards the end of its era. At that time Sykes and Picot were able to define the measurements and borders of the Arab lands upon the basis of the geographical layout of the regions and the oil resources present within them.
That division of the lands fulfilled the realisation of the economic and political colonialist interests whilst no interests were secured for the people of those lands. After that those borders transformed into ‘patriotic’ projects for the sake of which blood would be spilled whilst bodies would be buried in wrapped in the flags that Sykes and Picot provided for them. Therefore the project of fragmenting and dividing the lands of the Muslims is the opposite of the Khilafah project, which they had destroyed in the past and are currently planning to prevent its return.
In light of the fact that the colonial balance of powers has transformed from the old colonial set-up towards one of a single power (America), then in its position its vision has become crystallised in respect to the drawing of the political borders within the region in accordance to its interests and not the interests of the old colonialism. For that reason, those who observe will notice the increased talk in decision making circles in America (political and research think tanks) about a new fragmentation. This is like what Richard Haass, President of the American Council on Foreign Relations, expressed in terms of a ‘New Sykes-Picot’ in the Middle East representing the solution that will save America from its worsening predicament in Iraq and its hesitation in Syria whilst reiterating that the old Middle East is prone to disintegration (Al-Wafd Newspaper, 17/06/2014).
The studies and newspaper reports explaining this American vision have become numerous and they have presented new maps like the paper prepared by the Global Research Institute published on 19/05/2015 under the heading: ‘Plans to redraw the Middle East: The New Middle East Project’ after having first been published in 2006. Or like the report that the Sunday Review published on 28/09/2013 under the title: ‘Imagining a Remapped Middle East’.
It is this context that in which the pen of ‘The project of blood borders’ comes to the fore in order to redraw the lines and borders. The US Armed Forces Journal published its details on 01/06/2006 under the heading: ‘Blood Borders – How a better Middle East would look?’ It is a vision that was presented by the retired US General Ralph Peters for fragmentation and division to take place upon sectarian, tribal and Madh’habiy lines and bases.
However the term ‘The project of blood borders’ fundamentally goes back to the American Orientalist, of Jewish-British origin, Bernard Lewis, who presented a plan for the re-division of the Middle East upon nationalist bases in the presidential term of the former American President Carter (1977-1981) in which the Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Iranians would be pushed into wars to pave the way for redrawing the map and this was approved in 1983 (Blood borders records).
New maps for ethnic, madh’habiy (schools of thought) and sectarian groupings were in fact drawn and these are circulating in a number of studies and on a number of sites albeit with some differences in respect to the details. So for instance the project of blood borders includes the dividing of Iraq into three entities: Shi’a in the South, Kurdish in the North and Sunni in the middle. It divides Syria into an Alawi state upon the Mediterranean coast, a Sunni State in Halab (Aleppo), another around Damascus and a Druze state in the Golan. It envisages the division of Egypt into a Sunni state, another Coptic State in the North, a Nubian State with Aswan as its capital, a state for the Bedouins in Sinai and a state in North Sinai that would incorporate Gaza. It sees the division of North Africa into seven sectarian states including for example a Berber state, a Polisario state, an Amazigh state and so on. As for the plans for the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula then it includes abolishing the current states and re-dividing them into three small states: A Shi’a Ahsaa’ (Eastern Arabia) (incorporating Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the Emirates and Oman), a Najd Sunni State and a Hijaz Sunni State.
Fragmenting the Muslims and diverting them from the concept of ‘One Ummah’ towards rival and contesting factions and nationalisms is what the West is depending upon in order to prevent the emergence of the rightly guided Khilafah project upon the methodology of the Prophethood or in the least to delay its emergence. It proceeds in its project of fragmentation slowly so that it occurs smoothly within the style of a ‘soft partition’. This is because it is not necessary for this partition to happen quickly or for it to be openly declared from the start. Rather its pace increases through the increase of wars and via armed actions which the armed groups and organisations or factions and minorities are hastily plunging into. This is so that ‘Quasi-States’ as entities (which fall short of a state entity) can come into being. This is what we observe today in respect to distorted entities like that of the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS), the Houthi expansion in Yemen and the repositioning of the Alawites in the Syrian coast…
The ongoing events in the region reveal that America is proceeding in these plans via its agents and there has been a sectarian and factional upsurge in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Fear mongering has arisen in respect to the Shi’a or Persian crescent alongside warnings to beware of the Iranian expansion. There is also lamenting in respect to the Shi’a minority in Saudi and on the other side lamenting in respect to the Sunni minority in Iran. In addition to all of that is the heating up of what they call the ‘Kurdish issue’.
All of this factional (sectarian) and nationalistic escalation is proceeding within the project of ‘Blood borders’ which America is using to confront the Ummah. It is working through this project to reform and shape the region in a way that will realise and accomplish the securing of its interests. It is therefore essential for the Muslims not to be used as tools in this project and to be alert to the seriousness and danger of any factional, sectarian, madh’habiy and nationalistic speech and address because this acts as a base for the American project and because it is completely opposed and contradictory to the vital objectives of the Ummah in respect to liberation, unity and the implementation of the Sharee’ah.
Dr Maher Al-Jabari
Member of The Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Palestine
Written for Ar-Rayah Newspaper – Issue 41