Thursday, May 29, 2014

Q&A: America's Impact on India's Policy to Confront China

Question:
On 07/04/2014 the general election in India was launched, which will continue until 12/05/2014 and the results will be declared on 16/05/2014. The elections are contested by two large political blocs; the American-linked Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with its alliance, and the pro-British, the Congress Party, which since its return to power through winning the 2004 election, showed a sluggish relationship with the United States because of its association with Britain, and showed fear in confronting China... The question is what is the impact of America on India's policy in confronting China? And what is the relationship of that with the American Asia-Pacific Strategy and its motivation to Australia and Japan to enter into this confrontation? Will this policy be greatly affected by the type of the ruling party in India, whether the BJP or the Congress Party wins? Does India have the ability to deal with China? How is the balance of power between China and India?

Answer:
The answer to these questions will be clarified by reviewing the following points:
1. The United States is working to curb China by the surrounding countries in the Pacific region, particularly in the Eastern and Southern China Seas. So it builds various forms of alliances and partnerships and it strengthens relations with countries in the region for this purpose. This began more than a decade ago and with earnest when America realized that the policy of containment of China reached the end or the saturation level; that is, it cannot contain China more than it had. It drew closer to it by allowing it to join the WTO, it increased trade relations with it, and a U.S.-China Strategic Dialogue became no longer sensitive as it was before... However, China did not come into the orbit of America, not even an ally according to this policy, and it has been unable to limit its ambitions to find its dominance on the East and South China Seas which is an important and vital area, rather a fateful one to it. China remained a state that maintains its integrity, coherence and independence as a major regional country working to strengthen its power, militarily and economically. Therefore, it began to exploit its economic power in some areas for political influence, and not just for profit, and is working to strengthen its influence in the region, which is contrary to the American policy or puts the American influence at risk. China has regional ambitions to dominate the region it deemed fateful, and is not sufficed by the landmass territory that its land stretches to remain confined in this territory as an economically large country only... America as well considers China's maritime area vital to it. And out of its arrogance, America is not content to be a regional state within the Americas, but it considers the whole world as its region! Therefore it rivals China in its region in order to expand the American international dominance... Thus, the policy of containment by drawing closer to China in trade relations and strategic dialogues; this policy did not make China to spin in the orbit of America, not even to become an ally in the known sense, but its regional policy became worrying to America. Thus the policy of containment became no longer effective alone, and America began to put its new plan that relates to the Asia-Pacific region, which requires the mobilization of about 60% of its naval force in the region. This is in addition to the policy of encirclement that America followed on China by occupying it with its regional issues... America has focused its efforts to mobilize countries of the region towards this policy of encirclement; the most prominent of these countries that can effectively influence in this cordon are three: India, Japan, and Australia...
2. As for India, it has a border with China of 3488 km long, and there are unresolved problems between them relating to this border. For a quarter of a century, rounds of talks have been held; the latest was the fourteenth round of border demarcation between the two countries. Then they stopped, and the fifteenth round was not hold due to what happened on the 15/4/2013 when Chinese soldiers stormed the border with India and entered the Indian territory of the Ladakh region. They erected their tents, but then they withdrew after three weeks. This was a display operation by China, which wanted to send a message to India that China is ready to cross the border and enter a war with it as happened in October 1962, where the Chinese army launched an attack on the Arunachal Pradesh area and expelled Indian troops. After a month of this operation, Chinese forces launched a second attack on Indian lands, killing about 2,000 Indians. This issue remains unsolved and is called the "The Line of Actual Control". It is a hotly contested issue between the two countries, creating a constant tension. This is in addition to the tension caused by the problem of the Tibet region, occupied by China in 1950, which is adjacent to the Indian border. Thus, India cooperates with America in raising this problem by embracing the Buddhists of this region and their leader Dalai Lama where India has established the Central Tibetan Administration for him as a government in-exile. All these factors hardly make the tension between India and China remain calm...
3. America tried to exploit these tensions between China and India by driving India to confront China or stir up trouble between them in order to occupy China with this issue. Nonetheless, India fears facing China overland and the Chinese offensive messages on the outskirts of India reiterates this. Hence, America needed to find temptations for India to encourage it to continue aggravating China and occupying it with the border conflicts... So America held a strategic partnership with India as well as it held a nuclear cooperation agreement between them... In addition, the United States signed several economic and security agreements with India. So it concluded a defence pact in 2005 and a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 2008. All this expands the horizon of security cooperation between them. As a result, the two countries are currently engaged in several unprecedented joint military exercises, as well as the large sales of U.S. arms to India continues to grow... So when the Chief of Staff of the Indian Army General Deepak Kapoor stated at the end of December 2009, that, "The Indian army is preparing to fight a two-front war" (The Economic, 15/2/2010), America went on pressing Pakistan to reduce its forces on the Eastern front with India, and to focus its forces on the Western front to fight the Mujahideen who are fighting against America in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas. All this is so that India can focus on the northern front with China... America has also worked to increase trade with India, as the volume of U.S. exports to India has quickly increased in the past five compared to any other country. According to estimates by the Confederation of Indian Industry, the bilateral trade in services is likely to rise from 60 billion dollars to more than $150 billion in the next six years... However, India fears too much land conflict with China, in addition to that, the rulers of India from the Conference Party are loyal to Britain more than their loyalty to America they are unwilling to venture into a losing confrontation with China for the interests of America...!
4. Then America saw to detract the attention of India towards the East Pacific, specifically in the South China Sea and lured it by the presence of energy sources of oil and gas in this region to compete with China, and to confront within its Asia-Pacific Strategy. And so it was; India has agreed with Vietnam to off-shore drilling for oil and gas in the ocean off the disputed Spratly Islands with China. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Liu Weimin stated after that: "We do not hope to see outside forces involved in the South China Sea dispute, and do not want to see foreign companies engaging in activities that will undermine China's sovereignty, rights and interests". (The Middle East 28/11/2011). Earlier, the People's Daily Newspaper that speaks on behalf of the Communist Party, accused both India and Vietnam for their irresponsible confrontation attempts with China. America continued its attempts to encourage India towards direction into that area. Thus, on 22/07/2013, the U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden visited India and made remarks in Washington before his visit; paving and tempting India to go to the east in the Pacific. He said, "...that India is increasingly looking east as a force for security and growth in Southeast Asia and beyond. To us that's welcome news." He also said, "We welcome India's engagement in the region and its efforts to develop new trade and transport links by land and by sea in the area." (IIP Digital 23/07/2013). A month earlier, i.e. on 24/06/2013, Kerry met with his Indian counterpart Shri Salman Khurshid in New Delhi where they jointly chaired the fourth round of the US-India Strategic Dialogue. They reaffirmed their shared vision on peace and stability in Asia and the Indian and Pacific Oceans, as well as they emphasized the continued support to strengthen regional communication and reaffirmed the importance of maritime security..." (IIP Digital 24/06/2013). All of this clearly demonstrates the interest of America to push India to the East in the Pacific Ocean, specifically to the South China Sea... Nevertheless, India did not respond with the response America required during the past two years after America laid out its new plan regarding the Asia-Pacific region and pushed it towards the East. This is due to reasons related to the policy of the ruling Congress Party loyal to Britain, as well as to India's fear to confront China...
5. As for Australia, the United States began working on activating the role of Australia, which spins in its orbit, and promoting cooperation with it in the fields of economic and security to face China within the US Strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. For this purpose, U.S. officials at the highest levels, and in particular Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, and former Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey have travelled to the city of Perth, Australia, for a meeting with their Australian counterparts. Clinton said on the day during the launch of the Asian American Centre at the University of Western Australia in Perth, "Australia is a gateway to the vibrant trade and energy routes that connect the Indian Ocean to the Pacific, energy resources produced in Australia are flowing through those routes to the entire world." And she said, "It is not surprising that foreign investment is souring in Australia, including more than 100 billion dollars from the United States, because these increasingly waters are at the heart of the global economy and a key focus U.S. expanding engagement in the region, what we sometimes call our pivot to Asia". She also said, "The United States never actually left Asia, the United States is still a Pacific power, which is here to stay." She added, "The way of thinking of the United States about the Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region will be crucial to the future of the United States as well as to Australia." (IIP Digital 11/15/2012). At this Centre, Clinton also mentioned America's view of India and what it wants from it, she said, "One of the United States strategic priorities is to support India's look East policy and to encourage New Delhi to play a greater role in Asian institutions and affairs." Furthermore she said, "The United States welcomes the joint Australia-India naval vessel exercises in the future, and is eager to work together the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation which Australia will chair in 2013, and which the United States has now joined as a dialogue partner". (ibid.) These ideas demonstrate the American way of thinking concerning the region; it wants to harness Australia as an active player in addressing China's moves in the region. It also shows that it did not achieve its objectives through India, the country neighbouring to China by land, and it wants Australia's engagement with India in the waters of the South China Sea. As Australia is closer to implement the U.S. policy than India, since it is considered a Western country that adopts capitalism, and is eager to colonize like any other Western capitalist country. Therefore it works and cooperates with America in the colonial invasions as it worked with Britain, and continues to work with them both because it spins in the orbit of these two countries...
6. As for Japan, America is working to boost its strength in Japan and give it a greater role in defending the region against China. America announced on 6/4/2014 its sending of additional missile defense ships to Japan in a statement by the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, "the United States is planning to forward-deploy two additional AEGIS ballistic missile defense ships to Japan by 2017 and this step is a response to provocations from North Korea that threatened to carry out a new form of nuclear tests." He also warned China from abusing its great strength saying, "Great nations must not use coercion and intimidation, because this leads to conflict." He also said that he "wants to hold talks with China about its use of military power and to encourage transparency" (Reuters 6/4/2014). He pointed to what Russia did in Crimea to warn China of its similar actions in the contested islands with Japan saying:
"You cannot go around the world and redefine boundaries and violate territorial integrity and the sovereignty of nations by force, coercion or intimidation, whether it's in small islands in the Pacific, or in large nations in Europe." He also said, "Something else... that I will be talking with the Chinese about is respect for their neighbors. Coercion, intimidation is a very deadly thing that leads only to conflict." The American Secretary of Defense met last week with Defense Ministers of the South-East Asia states where he warned of the increased American concern over the South China Sea. (The same source) Japan's Kyodo News mentioned on 5/4/2014, "It is likely that the US Secretary of Defense and the Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera will discuss the issue of allowing Japan to exercise the right of self-defense by modifying the Japanese constitution. In addition Onodera will discuss the issue of transferring arms and defense equipment in his meeting with the US Secretary of Defense, and the two sides could reach an agreement to strengthen their cooperation in the area of defense equipment." This means that America wants to give Japan a role in defending the region against China to ease the burden on it and to arouse the nationalistic emotions of the Japanese who aspire to have self-power in their name and protect themselves independent of America.
7. As for the influence of American policy in the victory of the Congress Party or the Janata Party pertaining to its plan dealing with Asia – The Pacific Ocean, it no doubt has an effect, because the Congress Party is a party that has long been loyal to the English, and it has political wit that is somewhat taken from its old lady Britain. Therefore, it is troubling to America, and at the same time it is elusive to it as Britain is. Hence it carries out some military agreements and trade relations but it disrupts some political relationships and strategic issues. For example, the Congress Party issued a statement in its election campaign, in which it won power in 2004, clarifying its stance on America, and criticizing the policy of the Janata Party that was previously in power. This is what came in the statement: "It is sad that a great country like India has declined to the level of having a relationship of adherence to the United States of America, where the government of the United States of America considers the adherence of India a given. This has led to the BJP government being prepared to adapt to the priorities and policies of the United States of America without due consideration to India's vital foreign policy and national security interests." It is clear from this statement just how troubling it is to America. Nevertheless, it did not cut off strategic dialogue and returned to it in June 2010, which had begun in the era of President Bush in 2004. It described the Secretary of State Clinton, the head of the United States delegation at the India dialogue forum, as "an indispensible partner and a trusted friend." Therefore, since the Congress Party's rise to power after the defeat of the Janata Party that is loyal to America, it has become difficult to keep India in line with the implementation of America's plan to confront China except if America puts forth great temptations as we previously mentioned. However, India's reluctance to contend with circumstances is nothing new, it happened in the time of the Janata Party, and nevertheless the Party did not raise the issue while implementing American policy. It should be known that Britain had made the Congress Party completely loyal to them, and handed power over to it when it departed, and had not budged from it, not even partly, except for a short time from 1998 to 2004 when the Janata Party loyal to America won, and then the Congress Party won in the elections of 2004-2009.
As for the current elections, which began on 07/04/2014, the results are to be announced on 16/05/2014. It was reported by various pollsters that their results indicate that the BJP and its allies are expected to win in this election, if the expectations of public opinion are true, and the electoral opinion monitoring institutions in India, and Janata wins, whether by a majority to form a government alone. And that is unlikely to some extent, or the results were significant for it to impose conditions on any government formed, if so, the policy of America to harass China through India will be possible more than the time of the Congress party rule, but it also makes it easier to implement the policy as was the case during the reign of the Janata Party, loyal to America, it breathed a sigh of relief at the time after the Congress Party ruled for decades before that. When the Congress Party came to power in 2004 they began a policy to distort the American policy in India, but the Congress Party was dodging America to achieve advantageous agreements with it before took steps to help America in its policy.
8. When comparing between China and India, China is advantaged in many ways:
China although it does not carry its ideology and waives it in its foreign, economic and financial policy, as well as waiving it in many areas of life. Except it maintains it in its ruling by the Communist Party name only to maintain the interests of the party and that of its followers and for the cohesion of the state and its independence. All of this enabled it to move independently and developed resistance from becoming a subordinate state or an orbit state that revolves in the orbit of a major country. It became a state that aspires to become a major power in the world. Liu Mengo, a Chinese colonel, professor at the National Defence University, who trains young officers, expressed it in his book, which he called "the Chinese dream". He called his country China to develop the strongest armies in the world, and to move quickly to overthrow the hero of the world, America. He invited them to give up humility with respect to the global objectives and to jump, in order to become number one in the world. He said if China is incapable of being number one in the world in the twenty-first century and being a super power in the world, it will inevitably become marginalized... China possesses a sense of strength and challenge, and if China's objective is not limited only to maintain its territory, and accept to confront America only as a response to the movements of America towards its territory, China does not venture out to challenge America in their respective areas of influence... and if it did not begin to adopt capitalism in many areas, particularly in economy... it would have had a loud voice internationally, and its impact on the interests of America's would be most powerful. China in any case has a strong sense of force, and is working to maintain its region's self-sovereignty, even if in its own territory.
As for India, it holds no ideology and does not have ideas emanating from an ideology even though capitalism is implemented to ensure their subordination to the West, especially Britain and not for its revival and making it an independent state. It is like the other countries in the region that have capitalism imposed on it through the force of colonial power, and is still imposed by force. That is why they are not rushing to become independent and have no motivation to work strongly, swiftly, and self- consciously and self-direction. It remains a subordinate state; its policy is not independent, and it is noted that it is moving slowly in the political arena which is always under the influence and neither influential nor initiative and it is under the influence of either Britain or its first master America, which wraps its arms around it and there it established a strong political force for it. That is why it is different from China in this regard, intellectually backward, and are undisciplined by any specific intellectual basis, and those working in the political field are not disciplined by any basis therefore financial and political corruption is rife and moves to include all the politicians. It is difficult to become a major international or even a regional power, and the most it can become in the future is an orbit state orbiting other major country, whether America or Britain or both.
This is in political terms, but in economic terms, China's economy is four times India's economy. While China has been able to reduce the level of poverty in the country, the 66% of the world's poor are from India. India cannot compete with China economically. China has developed a large industrial sector, which led to the possession of large cash reserves that allowed it to affect the global economy. Manufacturing in India is still far from the level of China in terms of the production, processing, and in particular, heavy machinery and modern technology, this does not mean that India is free of these things, but they are lagging behind the level of China...
As for the military aspect, China's official military budget amounts to $119 billion representing more than three times the defence budget in India which amounts to 38 billion dollars. China has made significant progress in modernizing its armed forces, they are now creating their own storage (massive warehouses for military equipment industry such as ships, tanks and fighter planes) and the expansion of its fleet, as its active steps to control the region. However, India has recently begun to develop their capacity to finance military modernization program which still suffers from many problems. As India is still one of the largest importers of military equipment in the world. Despite two decades of efforts to develop its internal military capability, it failed to develop the shelves of value. Said Peter D. Wiseman, a senior researcher at the Institute for International Peace Research in Stockholm said, "I do not think that there are other countries in the world tried seriously to manufacture weapons and failed entirely, such as India." ("The biggest importer of weapons in the world, India would like to buy local", The New York Times, March 2014).
Thus, the comparison between China and India sees China outweighs India several times over...
9. In conclusion, the United States has worked to direct India towards the northern front of the conflict with China after it secured its western front with Pakistan; which pro-American rulers there offered major concessions to India in the reign of the BJP's pro- America party. When the Congress Party returned to power, there was a decline in the work on this front, also called the Actual Line of Control because of India's fears of confrontation with China with the recent one threading it. Also because this party which is loyal to the British which does not encourage it to follow in the American outline. America directed India to what it calls the trend towards East or towards the Pacific region and specifically towards the South China Sea and tempted it with the presence of energy sources of oil and gas there and convinced it that it has the right from its share, and made it cooperate with Vietnam that claim it is also entitled to take a share and it has the dispute with China over the Spratly Islands there... The United States has also encouraged Australia towards it in an attempt to form a conglomerate of several countries to counter China... America worked to give a more active role for Japan to ease the burden off its defence. If the BJP is successful in the elections, which are currently underway and it reaches power once again, it is likely to see an increase in the activity of India with America in the East, the area of the South China Sea. As for the comparison between the strength of China and India, there is a major difference in the advantage of China that is exponential to India... and if China's objective is not limited only to maintain its territory, and accept to confront America only as a response to the movements of America towards its territory, China does not venture out to challenge America in their respective areas of influence... and if it did not begin to adopt capitalism in many areas, particularly in economy... it would have had a loud voice internationally, and its impact on the interests of America's would be most powerful.
12 Jumada II 1435 AH - 12 April 2014 CE

Q&A: The Western Sahara Issue

Question:
On 29/4/2014, the Security Council issued Resolution No. 2152 regarding the issue of the Western Sahara, the decision was in light of the report of the Secretary-General on 10/04/2014. Note that the report of the Secretary-General came following initiatives by Ross, the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, during his visits to North Africa on 28/01/2014, and after visits of King Mohammed VI, which began on 18/2/2014 to Africa, especially to countries loyal to France, the visits were friendly with multiple agreements signed. The recommendations of the Secretary-General's report stated: "The extension of the Mission until 30/04/2015."
The question is: Why is the Sahara issue shifted from one resolution to another without a solution for nearly forty years since its independence from Spain on 26/02/1976? Is there a relationship between visits made by Ross and the King, and the UN Security Council Resolution 2152? How do we explain the king's visit, who is loyal to Britain, to African countries that are loyal to France; and signing several agreements with them as if the interests of Britain and France are the same? Is there a particular purpose behind the visits of the King to the four African countries, especially since they came after the visit of Ross to the region? Jazak Allah Khair
Answer:
The answer to this question will take pages and pages, but I will try to be brief. However, to have a clearer picture there is a need to review how the issue of the Sahara arose, and the struggle for Africa between the old colonial Europe, especially Britain and France, and between the new colonialism, America. In addition, to be able to understand when the conflict is between Britain and France, and when the conflict or confrontation is between Britain and France on the one hand and between America on the other hand, then the purpose of the visit of King to the four countries after the visit of Ross to the region will become clearer:
First, the emergence of the Sahara issue:
It is well known that since the rule of King Hassan of Morocco, and Boumediene in Algeria, they become influenced by Britain, and the two countries became closed off in front of America. America found an opportunity through the Polisario Movement for Independence of the Sahara after the exit of Spain in 26/02/1976 CE, after 91 years of colonialism. The United Nations was influenced by America and formed a fact-finding mission sent to the Western Sahara. The Mission handed its report to the General Assembly at 06/09/1975 that recommends the Sahara independence from Spain and added that the Organization of the Polisario Movement is the most dominant in the region and has considerable impact. Thus, America highlighted and supported the Polisario as a representative of the Saharawi people. The purpose was to prevent the return of the Sahara to Morocco after Spain's departure, and to keep it as the focus of tension demanding independence, to be exploited by America for its interests in North Africa. Then on the following day after the withdrawal of Spain in 26/02/1976 CE, the National Council of the Sahara declared the establishment of the Saharawi Arab Republic and then joined the Organization of the African Union in 22/02/1982. However, after Spain's exit, Morocco and Mauritania occupied the Sahara in 14/04/1976. Though, Mauritania after the coup against Ould Dada signed a peace deal with the Polisario in Algeria on 05/08/1979 CE under which it ended its occupation of the Sahara; Morocco remained alone in the Sahara.
Thus, Tindouf in Algeria became the location of the headquarters of the Sahrawi government and the Polisario. America began its actual intervention directly through influencing the issuance of United Nations resolutions on the Sahara:
A. On 19/4/1991, the Security Council issued Resolution No. 690 to form a United Nations Mission (MINURSO) for the referendum for self-determination in Western Sahara... and continued to issue resolutions until the arrival of Kofi Annan who appointed James Baker in 1997 as a personal envoy to implement the resolution of the referendum mentioned. After three years, Baker suggested a compromise in his report on 13/7/2000, called the Third Solution, which states that the solution should be in stages, starting with self-autonomy rule of the Sahara, and then after five years, there will be a referendum on self-determination. The Security Council has approved the proposal by Baker and issued in this regard Resolution No. 1359 on 29/6/2001. Although Morocco had reservations on the resolution at first, but seven years on after the Baker proposal, Morocco submitted to U.S. pressure and announced its proposal on 2007 to establish a broad self-autonomous rule in the Sahara, and considered the American initiative by Baker a Moroccan initiative! Morocco presented its initiative on 11/4/2007 and it was adopted by the UN Security Council in resolution 1754 on 25/4/2007.
B. Thus Morocco approved the Baker initiative for the rule of autonomy, and called it the Moroccan Initiative! Thinking that it will be the last of the concessions to be made, when it was considered by the United States as a step leading up to self-determination and secession according to America's plans in this regard, similar to what took place in the separation of South Sudan.... After the approval of Morocco on this initiative, matters calmed down for a while due to the emergence of issues of priority to America such as the economic crisis, which escalated in 2008 and beyond, as well as foreign political and military crises... until the spring of 2013, when America had begun to stir the crisis once again with great force; to use the Sahara crisis as a justification for intervention in North Africa and the bordering African countries. It has formulated a draft project to be presented to the Security Council and was designed to expand the role of the UN Mission MINURSO in the Moroccan Sahara to include human rights monitoring in the Sahara, so to monitor every issue big or small in the desert under the pretext of human rights! The King has made many efforts with the U.S. administration not to expand the role of the Mission, and that the observance of human rights should remain outside the role of the Mission. The expansion of the role of the Mission was then adjourned by America. On 25/4/2013 the UN Security Council issued Resolution No. 2099, being lenient in terms of human rights, the text of the resolution was encouraging to the parties not obliging them. "The Security Council encourages the parties to continue their efforts to promote and protect human rights in Western Sahara and in Tindouf camps". America, the Secretary-General, and his personal Envoy, Ross, during the year of extension have energised in creating the atmosphere to discuss the referendum and human rights... so the American diplomat Christopher Ross as the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Western Sahara paid a visit to the area in October 2013 and then on 28/01/2014, and met with Morocco's Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar. "Before coming to Morocco, Ross met in Algeria with the Polisario leader Muhammad bin Abdul Aziz, also he met with the Prime Minister of Algeria Abdul Malik As-Silal." (American Radio Sawa 28/01/2014). In his visits, Ross was interested in the subject of the referendum and human rights.
C. This was a worry for the King, and this concern has increased after Ban Ki-moon's report on 4/10/2014. He recommended in his report under Clause VIII - Observations and Recommendations, the following:
In Item 94: "I call on both parties to recognize the need for urgent progress, and to work seriously on core issues contained in the directives of the Security Council, intending to reach a political solution through the frame of self-determination." And then added, warning if not threatening, "If progress is not observed before April 2015 it will be time to involve members of the Council in the process that present a comprehensive framework that was provided for the negotiations in April 2007."... In Item100: "Nevertheless, the ultimate goal is to achieve continuous, independent, and impartial monitoring of the human rights that cover both the region and the camps." In Item101: "I think that the presence of the Mission is a mechanism to support the implementation of successive Security Council resolutions related to the term of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara."... In Item102: "I recommend that the Security Council extend the term of the Mission for a further 12 months until 30 April 2015."
All this compelled the King to contact Ban Ki-moon and warned him, and even threatened him! It is reported in the Middle East Newspaper on 15/4/2014 from diplomatic sources in New York and identical sources in Rabat the reaction of Mohammed VI threatening the Secretary-General in a telephone conversation with him on 13/4/2014 of abolishing the United Nations Mission MINURSO. It seems that America did not wish to escalate this issue. The current relatively lenient resolution of the Security Council followed. This means that the U.S. escalation in the issue has been postponed once more to the end of the term of the new United Nations Mission in accordance with the new resolution until 30/4/2015.
Thus, the Sahara issue is manufactured by America to be a hotbed of tension exploited by America for its intervention in Africa to influence the affairs of countries loyal to Europe, (Britain and France) to access other countries through it, therefore, America is unharmed by delaying the solution from one year to another just to keep Europe and its agents in suspense regarding these issues.
Second, the Conflict between Colonialism on Africa old Europe (Britain and France) and between the new colonialism of America:
A. During President Clinton's era in the nineties of the last century, America's efforts were focused on addressing the old European powers (Britain and France) in Africa, in the last bastions of European domination. America's aspirations to dominate Africa led to a new kind of rush towards Africa; Clinton declared officially the participation of America with Africa in the law of the African Growth and Opportunity (AGOA). The first papers of the law were introduced in 1998, and were approved later in May 2000 AD. The main direction of the U.S. administration is working to combine the economies of African countries that fall under the direct control of Britain and France to the American sphere of influence. Writer Philip Limari summed up the predicament faced by Europe in Le Monde Diplomatique Newspaper, especially by France, saying: "At the end of March, President Bill Clinton would have made his first visit to Africa, it seems that the former colonial powers are torn and unable to reach any constructive ideas, where the United States began to focus on the continent as one of the pristine areas in front of the investors in the United States." [Philip Limari, "Washington Preparing for the Invasion of Pristine Land" Le Monde Diplomatique: 1998]
B. To counter the U.S. moves, Britain and France put centuries of old competition between them in Africa aside at least temporarily, seeking to cooperate on a number of fronts to thwart U.S. efforts aimed at colonizing large parts of Africa. In 1999, the United Kingdom and France launched a campaign for a new partnership with Africa. British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in a visit with his French counterpart to Ghana said that the initiative was not for another colonization under another different guise, but it is to show partnership in Africa, and that the main common diplomatic goal of the French and British is to solve the conflicts in Africa, where he said: "Our goal is to achieve stability, Britain and France have numerous trials in Africa... this is not a conspiracy, what we are doing is introducing a partnership." French Foreign Minister Hubert Verdun said, "We strengthen ourselves so that Europe is able to adopt a new policy towards Africa." [World: Africa - A New Era in Partnership, BBC, 11 March 1999]. The new partnership was based on the agreement of Saint-Malo, which took place in the Franco-British summit in 1998, which became the cornerstone of all forms of future cooperation between the two countries. In 2003, at the summit meeting between the two countries, the final declaration of the meeting stated: "In this context, we refer to the commitment we made at the Saint-Malo Summit to unite our efforts to promote peace and stability in Africa, and therefore we propose to our partners in the European Union to study how they can contribute to conflict prevention and peacekeeping in Africa, including through independent operations in the European Union, and in close cooperation with the United Nations." ["Franco-British Summit: Declaration on the strengthening of the European partnership, cooperation in the field of security and defence", Le Touquet." French Embassy in London, February 2003].
It is clear from this that Europe, (Britain and France) are aware of the vicious attack of America on Europe's political influence in Africa, and that the risk of this attack affects the interests of both countries, in this case, they co-operate together against U.S. intervention.
Thirdly: When is the Conflict between Britain and France, and when is it between Britain and France on one side and America on the other:
When observing political conflicts between America, Britain, and France, it is clear that the conflict between the British and French will be in the country which America have no interest in, or in a country that America is distracted from with other crises of priority to it, especially if the crisis was a major military one such as the American aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq. In this case, the struggle can be between Britain and France depending on their respective interests in that country.
But if America's ambitions are on a particular country and it is not preoccupied by any crisis, and is working to introduce its influence in that country, the conflict will be between Europe (Britain and France) and the U.S., because Britain and France realize that America with its political ambitions in that country want to weaken both sides (Britain and France) conflict will be between them and America with the difference in the methods of each.
This is the most probable view in terms of the broad outlines of the conflict, when and how. With exceptions in some specific cases where it may deviate from the above-mentioned, but in origin this is the most probable.
Fourth: Purpose of the King's visit to the four African countries, which came after the visit of Ross to the region:
A. One analysing the visit of Ross, Secretary-General Moon's Envoy, will find that it came before the King's visit in the month of October 2013 and then in 28/01/2014, and it was clear in his visits that he aimed to hound Morocco regarding its relation with the Western Sahara, and was discussing the referendum and human rights as entrances for the separation of Western Sahara from Morocco, and then to establish the desert as a pillar of America from which to enter its influence, especially political and economic in place of Europe in the African countries concerned... as we have said before, Britain and France realize that the American political and economic attack in Africa is detrimental to their interests... Gaddafi was implementing of the European English policy and attacked the American policy in Africa. It seems that Britain felt that the best suited for this role after Gaddafi is King Mohammed VI, he was assigned with the task by Britain with the support of France, because the American danger affects the interests of both countries. In this scenario, the Anglo-French conflict and confrontation disappears and turns into a conflict with America to ward off the danger away from both of them. This is why the King carried out this role; it is to focus on two prominent issues:
First, gathering support for the self-autonomy rule initiative in the Sahara as a final solution without self-determination, without any separation, but to remain part of Morocco... and the second is signing of the economic projects to cut the road in front of America, which uses it to access its influence in Africa.
B. This has been evident during the King's visit to the four African countries, noting that these countries did not recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) when it was announced on 22/2/1982, except for Mali, which recognized it at first then changed its position and withdrew its recognition on 23/09/2013 after the first visit of King on 19/9/2013. The King paid it a second visit to thank it for the withdrawal of its recognition. Morocco is interested to be reinstated in African Union Organization which it withdrew from on the 12/11/1984 due to the organisation's recognition of the Republic of the Polisario, this visit discussed this matter as well.
Based on this, it can be said that the King's visit was intended to support the initiative for self-autonomy rule in the Sahara as a final solution and that it remains under the Morocco's rule, and the accompanying economic projects for this definitely attempts to force America out of the region politically and economically. The following outstanding statements made during the visit to the four countries confirm this:
- Mali was the first leg of the tour, from 18 - 23/02/2014. He visited it last year in September where he participated in the inauguration of the new president of Mali, Ibrahim Abu Bakr Keita on 19/09/2013. At first Mali recognized the Polisario Republic, and then withdrew its recognition on 23/9/2013 after that visit... It is known that Abu Bakr came to power through French sponsored elections, which removed the coup brought by America in Mali led by Amadou Sonogu on 22/3/2012. In the final statement of the visit, it stated:
"Regarding the situation in the Sahara... President Keita praised the serious and credible efforts by Morocco in order to move forward towards a peaceful negotiated and final settlement on this issue. On the other hand, the president expressed regret for the absence of Morocco from the African Union, and stressed to the king his commitment to work by mutual agreement with his African counterparts, for the return of Morocco to the fold of the Organization of the African Union." End. In the statement also: "The President appreciates highly the collaborative efforts in economic, social and cultural fields exerted by the King, through the signing of 17 agreements covering a number of sectors between the two countries, and in order to strengthen economic cooperation between Morocco and Mali..." End.
- The Ivory Coast did not recognize the Republic of the Polisario since its inception. The king's visit was from 23/2 - 03/03/2014, it is stated in the final statement: "Morocco and the Ivory Coast confirm that the continuation of the Sahara conflict 'poses a threat to the unity and security of the region'. The new Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara support the self-autonomy rule plan proposed by Morocco as a political solution to end the conflict, it being the perfect solution."
- Whereas Guinea Conakry, also did not recognize the Republic of the Polisario since its inception, the king's visit had been from 3 - 03/05/2014. The following came in the final statement: "... The visit resulted in the signing of several agreements in the economic and political areas... the two leaders chaired a ceremony presenting the Sharif Phosphate Office with a gift which is a fertilizer and animal food supplements, they launched a unit to convert the grain in order to improve agricultural production... and on the issue of the Sahara, the President expressed his support for the Moroccan initiative to grant broad autonomy for the Sahara, which is a serious and credible effort by Morocco in order to reach a final settlement of this conflict. The president highlighted the important role played by Morocco for the unity of the continent, and expressed his commitment to work for the return of the kingdom into the fold of the African Union, in respect of the territorial integrity of Morocco."
- And the most country visited by King Mohammed VI is Gabon, where he visited several times in the past few years... and the last visit was 5-03/08/2014 then stayed there for a break until 13/3/2013. It is known that Gabon is independent but it is actually a French colony, which also does not recognize the Republic of the Polisario. It states in the final statement: "... the King and President presided over an informal session during which the signing of an agreement between the two countries took place, it establishes a strategic partnership in the field of fertilizer industry and related industries... and two leaders welcomed the convening of the economic Forum during the visit, which was crowned by the signing of several contracts, treaties and conventions... President Ali Bongo expressed his strong support of his country for the request made by the Kingdom of Morocco which aims at obtaining the status of observer in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)". Also, in the statement, "... and on the issue of the Moroccan Sahara, President Ali Bongo is keen to renew the support of the Gabonese Republic to a strong and durable Sahara with a Moroccan identity and united territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco... and also confirmed that a peaceful and permanent settlement for this regional conflict can only be reached on the basis of the Moroccan initiative to grant the Sahara self-autonomy rule within the framework of the sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco." End.
It is obvious from all this that the king's visit to these countries is strongly correlated with the Sahara issue, and to stop the American political and economic interference, and that this was commissioned by Britain and by the approval of France. Moreover that the King took over the role Gaddafi in guarding the interests of Europe (Britain) in Africa on the face of America's political and economic attack.
Thus the rulers in Muslim countries stimulate the service of the interests of the Kaffir colonists, putting the interests of Muslims behind their backs, They sold their Akhira cheaply for the Dunya of others not theirs and did not take heed in what came over the people before them of disgrace in the Dunya.
وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَخْزَى وَهُمْ لَا يُنْصَرُونَ
"But the punishment of the Hereafter is more disgracing, and they will not be helped"
(Fussilat: 16)
7 Rajab 1435 AH
6/5/2014 CE

Ain Al-Hilweh Fighting: Prohibited Blood in the Sacred Month!

O our honourable people in Ain Al-Hilwa... O Muslim Youth who are protective of their Deen
We call you, rather we are reaching out to the Deen, dignity, and protection in you, for your blood and the blood of the Muslims which is shed over the land in Ain Al-Hilwa.
We implore you for the sake of Allah to listen, and open your hearts before your ears...
We call those amongst you who carried out the shootings which injured, killed, and terrorised people in Rajab, the sacred month of Allah, which is sanctified even by the Arabs in their Days of Ignorance, so what about you, the Muslims!!
Narrated in Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said in his Farewell pilgrimage:
إن الزمان قد استدار كهيئته يوم خلق الله السماوات والأرض، السنة اثنا عشر شهرًا منها أربعة حرم، ثلاثة متواليات: ذو القعدة، وذو الحجة، والمحرم، ورجب مُضر الذي بين جمادى وشعبان
"O People! Time has gone back to how it was at the time Allah created the Heavens and the Earth. A year has twelve months, four of which are sacred, three consecutive, Thul-Qi'dah, Thul-Hijjah, Muharram, and Rajab of Mudhar (tribe that adhered to its sacredness), which comes between Jumaadaa and Sha'baan."
We are not here to explain the rules of permissibility and prohibition of fighting in the sacred month, but we are reminding you that there are days of Allah when committing a sin is grave for the wrongdoer, let alone the murderer who terrorises people, children and the needy! And we remind you of the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the hadeeth (agreed upon):
سِبَابُ المُسْلِم فُسُوقٌ وَقِتالُهُ كُفْرٌ
"Insulting a Muslim is a crime and fighting him is Kufr"
The Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم description of fighting between Muslims as Kufr, is an indication of the gravity of the sin to Allah Azza Wa Jal.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم even confirmed the prohibition of striking fear or terrorising a Muslim. He صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited petrifying the Muslims by any means. Once the Sahaba (ra) were travelling with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, they stopped to rest, one man went to sleep, some men then took a rope that belonged to him, one of them passed the rope on the body of the sleeping man, he sprung in fright. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم then said:
لا يحل لمسلم أن يُروع مسلمًا
"It is not permissible for a Muslim to terrorise a Muslim."
This is regarding the one who passed a rope over his sleeping brother's body, then how is the case for the one who fires shots and missiles?
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم even prohibited pointing a weapon at a Muslim. He صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
من أشار إلى أخيه بحديدة فإن الملائكة تلعنه، حتى وإن كان أخاه لأبيه وأمه
"Whosoever points a piece of iron towards his brother, he shall be cursed by the Angles, even if he was his paternal and maternal brother"
This is a warning from pointing any harmful tool, that could lead to killing, like the knife and other sharp tools, even in jest, how is the case then for the one who points his gun at a Muslim's face? Even more the one who shoots, and is serious in killing him?!
While An-Nasa'i narrated, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
إذا أشار المسلم على أخيه المسلم بالسلاح فهما على جرف جهنم، فإذا قتله خرّا جميعاً فيها
"If a Muslim points a weapon at his Muslim brother then they are both standing at the edge of a cliff above the hellfire, if he kills him they will both fall in it."
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم also ordered taking precaution and heed and to stay away from all that can lead and cause harm to Muslims. Bukhari and Muslim Narrated that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:
إذا مر أحدكم في مجلس أو سوق وبيده نبل فليأخذ بنصالها، ثم ليأخذ بنصالها، أن يصيب أحداً من المسلمين منها بشىء
"Whosoever passes by a gathering or the market while holding a dart, and then let him cover its blades...then let him cover its blades, so that it does not harm the Muslins in any way."
Let alone the one who fires shots aiming to kill and terrorise Muslims even inside their homes, and roams around with his weapon, missiles, and bullets in the markets targeting the chests of Muslims??!!
Instead of reflecting on the historical significance of this month like the Israa' and Mi'raj of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, those who commit such acts, and recall them on the way your Prophet (alaihi wasslam) and his incidents as mentioned above in order to revive them. Instead of remembering the entrance of Salahudin to Al-Quds to conquer it - while they are the sons of Al-Quds- in this month as conquerors steering their actions in the right direction. And instead of remembering the destruction of the Muslim's state, the Khilafah, and the blow to Islam in its ruling system that took place in this month too, that they not plunge their weapons in the face of prohibited blood and direct them towards the correct target under the shade of the rule of Islam towards the Kaffir colonialist West... Instead of all this, they face one another with weapons, callously regarding the terrorising of Muslims and shedding their blood and their sacred months... but until when?
We still continue to reach out to whatever is left of the Deen in your hearts... to stop and account yourselves and remember Allah سبحانه وتعالى to return to your senses before it's too late making you regretful, and you meet Allah سبحانه وتعالى with your weapons dripping with prohibited blood. Then what will you do with "La ilaha ila Allah" which is professed by all your people? What will you do with it when you are standing before Allah, who accounts for every atom, Subhanahu?
To our people in Ain Al-Hilwa, we say, stop the oppressors, and express your rejection to this futility, do not accept to be firewood for the disputant's projects in Ain Al-Hilwa for Lebanese and regional agenda, so that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم warning does not befalls us:
إذَا رَأَيْتَ أُمَّتِي تَهَابُ الظَّالِمَ أَنْ تَقُولَ لَهُ أَنْتَ ظَالِمٌ فَقَدْ تُوُدِّعَ مِنْهُمْ
"If you see my Ummah afraid to account the oppressor then they are ruined." (Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad)
Yesterday and today's demonstration by the best among you, your youth, and sons is part of this expression of your rejection to the widespread killing and fighting, and a support and steadfastness for the sincere and protective amongst your sons to stop the oppressor and his oppression. Rather to make the oppressor and his master to think a thousand times over before carrying out their oppression and grievances...
This is for the sake of Allah who guides to the correct path.
Hizb ut Tahrir Wilayah Lebanon
16 Rajab 1435 AH
15/5/2014 CE

Nine Years Later, America offers false sympathy over Andijan Massacre in Uzbekistan!

The American Embassy in Uzbekistan issued a statement on the ninth anniversary of the heinous massacre perpetrated in May 2005 CE by the tyrant of Uzbekistan and his henchmen in the city of Andijan. The security forces at the time killed protestors who came out to express their rejection of the catastrophic living conditions and the policies of the oppressive regime against them.
The statement reads: "Today, the United States remembers the events that took place in Andijan nine years ago and extends heartfelt sympathy to all who suffered during and as a result of that tragedy. As a principle the United States encourages reconciliation, accountability and respect for the rights of all citizens as the best means to ensure future peace and stability".
With these empty words, the United States government wants to dance on the wounds and the pain of our Ummah in Uzbekistan. It sheds crocodile tears for the victims of the criminal Karimov, yet it is not ashamed to launch hundreds of attacks via drone planes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. This is in addition to its civilized 'honor' track record, which is the pride of the world in the prisons of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram (this is without presenting its pristine colonial record in the extermination of the American Indians, the enslavement of Africans and the chemical agent Orange and its achievements in Vietnam ... and the list goes on)!!
The horrific Andijan massacre where the blood of the demonstrators was shed was recorded in the American Embassy as events its perpetrators are unknown. America is only interested in trading with the feelings of the victims and their families. When the American wolf is disguised dressed as a lamb, while weapons of mass destruction and killing does not stop in Iraq, nor in Syria, nor in Afghanistan, then we can see the truthfulness of the Prince of Poets, Shawqi, when he wrote,
The Fox emerged one day in the preacher's clothes
Mistaken is the one who thinks that the Fox follows a Deen.
The European Union is not any better than its twin the U.S., after the sham sanctions that do not feed hungry mouth, the Union was allowed by Karimov to send the Red Cross delegation for scheduled visits to some prisoners, The Union was in joy and made a song and dance that its sanctions paid off, but we did not hear from them when the Red Cross canceled its next visit after realizing the deceit of Karimov and his henchmen! As for the Muslim rulers, they are all busy fighting the Dawah Carriers who are working to establish the Khilafah, and they compete in preparing evil tricks on how to oppress them, oblivious to the fate of their predecessors, the pharaohs and tyrants.
O Islamic Ummah:
Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَقِفُوهُمْ إِنَّهُم مَّسْئُولُونَ
"And stop them; indeed, they are to be questioned"
(As-Saffat: 24)
The victims of the crimes of the Pharaoh of Uzbekistan are crying out to your conscience and your Iman in Allah سبحانه وتعالى and are crying out for your support. It is narrated in the Hadeeth:
«الإمام جنة يقاتل من ورائه ويتقى به»
"Verily, the Imam is but a shield who is fought from behind and is protected by"
Remove your sin by working for the establishment of the Khilafah and pledge allegiance to the Imam, to be liberated from colonialism and from its local agents, and win the glory of both realms.
Othman Bakhach
Director of the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
Tuesday, 28 Rajab 1435 AH
27/05/2014 CE
Issue No : 1435 AH /038

Q&A: Sterilization

Question:
Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuhu
Our respected Sheikh, I have a medical question that is in need of a very urgent reply, I am a doctor working in a Gynecology Obstetrics Hospital in which Cesarean section operations are performed if it is necessary for the woman, as well as if the life of the fetus or her life were at risk.
There are some pregnant women who suffer from illnesses that make pregnancy difficult for them, and experience a very difficult circumstances, compelling them to not to get pregnant or to space between childbearing periods of at least 3-4 years, so she is forced to use contraception methods. But for some women, the contraception methods do not work with them for the required spacing, which threatens her life because she is exposed to performing many closely-spaced Cesarean sections. Some women suffer from cartilage in the vertebrae, and others incur severe hemorrhage, hence doctors resort to sealing the fallopian tubes permanently so that she no longer bear children if she already has children, so it has become common that women come to the hospital and ask for their fallopian tubes to be sealed claiming that she cannot become pregnant and that she cannot use contraception methods, asking for the closing of her fallopian tubes permanently while her age does not exceed 36 years of age, and others are 32 years of age. So she insists on the doctor to perform for her a Cesarean Section to tie (ligate) her fallopian tubes permanently.
What is the Sharí rule upon this doctor who is following the case of a woman during her pregnancy stages, and sees that pregnancy is difficult for her and that it is necessary for her to perform the operation of permanently sealing her fallopian tubes? And what is the ruling upon the doctor who only follows the woman's statements without further investigation whether her statements are precise?
From: Haitham Alamour

Answer:
Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu,
Temporary contraception is allowed according to the well-known evidences related to Al-Ázl (Coitus Interruptus/withdrawal)...
As for permanent contraception and the causing of infertility, it is Haram. Using medications to permanently prevent pregnancy and cut off offspring, as well as performing surgeries that prevent pregnancy permanently and cut off offspring is Haram. It is not allowed to perform them, because the ruling of castration applies to it, it falls under it and takes its ruling, because these usages cut off offspring, as castration ends it, and explicit prohibition has been stated regarding castration. It was narrated by Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas (raa) that:
«رَدَّ رسولُ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم على عُثمانَ بنِ مظعونَ التَّبَتُّلَ، ولو أذنَ له لاخْتَصَيْنا»
"Allah's Apostle forbade 'Uthman bin Maz'un to abstain from marrying (and other pleasures) and if he had allowed him, we would have gotten ourselves castrated."
(Agreed upon)
Úthman bin Mathóon came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said:
«يا رسولَ اللهِ إني رجلٌ يَشُقُّ عليَّ العُزوبَةُ فأذَنْ لي بالاخْتِصاءِ، قال: لا، ولكنْ عَلَيكَ بالصِّيامِ»
"O Messenger of Allah, I'm a man who is finding single-life difficult, so allow me to castrate myself, he said: No, but perform fasting" and in another narration he said:
«يا رسولَ اللهِ، أتأذَنُ لي في الاخْتِصاءِ؟ قال: إن اللهَ أَبْدَلَنا بالرَّهْبانِيَّةِ الحَنيفيَّةَ السَّمْحَةَ»
"O Messenger of Allah, do you allow me to castrate myself? He said: Allah سبحانه وتعالى replaced us with the monastic Hanifi tolerant (religion)."
And it was narrated by Anas (ra) who said the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to command us to marry, and prohibited us from celibacy completely, and would say:
«كانَ النبيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْمُرنا بالباءَةِ، ويَنْهى عنِ التَّبَتُّلِ نَهْيَاً شديداً، ويقولُ: تَزَوَّجوا الوَدودَ الوَلودَ فإني مُكاثِرٌ بِكُمُ الأُمَمَ يومَ القيامَةِ»
"Marry the child-bearing, for I shall outnumber the other nations with your numbers of the Day of Judgment."(Extracted by Ahmad)
Also, cutting off offspring is contradictory to what the Legislator made the purpose of marriage being for offspring and child bearing, thus Allah سبحانه وتعالى said in presenting the blessings bestowed upon the people:
وَاللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا وَجَعَلَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَزْوَاجِكُمْ بَنِينَ وَحَفَدَةً
"And Allah has made for you mates (and companions) of your own nature, and made for you, out of them, sons and daughters and grandchildren"
Therefore, permanent sterility operations are Haram for both men and women.
However, if a woman became pregnant, and the proficient trustworthy doctors decided that keeping the fetus in the mother's womb threatens the mother's life by death, and the death of the fetus with her, then in this situation, it is permissible (Mubah) to abort the fetus, and save the mother's life. Saving life is something that Islam called for...
As for a woman's saying that she is ill and fears for her life from pregnancy, it is something far from reality, how many women became pregnant while being ill, and continued their pregnancy, giving birth to a full-term and healthy baby... And Allah سبحانه وتعالى granted her good health... However, as we said previously if she becomes pregnant and the continuation of her pregnancy will threaten the mother's life with death and the death of the fetus with her, decided by proficient and trustworthy doctors, then it is permissible to abort the baby.
Accordingly, sterility is Haram. Treating the woman throughout her pregnancy is required, and maintaining her life throughout her pregnancy is also required if this pregnancy threatens her life with death, and the death of the fetus with her by the decision of proficient and trustworthy doctors, then aborting the pregnancy is permissible. As for treating her by making her permanently sterile based on the woman's request, then that is Haram.
Doctors should not disparage this matter, they should exert their effort in diagnosing the pregnancy and the illness... for it is a trust, and the doctor should adhere to that, and should not sell his Akhira with an offer of the Dunya, regardless of the amount.
فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الْآخِرَةِ إِلَّا قَلِيلٌ
"But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter."
(At-Tauba: 38)
In conclusion, I advice husbands and wives to increase their offspring, and to pledge to them a righteous upbringing, because as the number increases the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم will "boast" of them on the Day of Judgment.
Al-Bayhaqi also narrated on the authority of Abu Umamah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
تَزَوَّجُوا فَإِنِّي مُكَاثِرٌ بِكُمُ الْأُمَمَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ
"Marry one another, for I will be boast of your great numbers in front of other nations (on the Day of Judgment)".
Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak also reported like this Hadith according to the two Sahih, narrated by Ma'qal Bin Yasar (ra), and al-Bazar in his Musnad narrated by Anas bin Malik (ra), and others.
Allah Almighty looks after the righteous men and women.
Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah
23 Rajab 1435 AH
22/5/2014 CE
The link to the answer from the Ameer's page on facebook: