The killing of the hostages and their armed captors at a gas production unit near Ain Amnas in Algeria, received round the clock coverage from the entire world media. The incident occupied the headlines of all Sunday newspapers last week on both sides of the Atlantic, and the coverage continued for several days after that. Nevertheless, I believe that an important aspect of the event was overlooked by the Western media, while another detail was also missed by our own press. I can accuse George W. Bush of being responsible for the latest terror attacks that claimed dozens of lives, since they are the result of the “war on terror" declared by the Bush administration. This war was lost in every country, after the latter provided weapons to help governments there against al-Qaeda terrorism, but ignored the other causes of rebellion in some countries. Mali – specifically – became independent in 1960. The Tuareg, who live in the north of the country, or what is called Azawad, first rebelled in 1962, and then again in the following years, up until the Tamanrasset Agreements on January 6, 1991, when the government pledged not to interfere in the financial and internal affairs of the region. But these promises were not fulfilled, and the government soon used the U.S. weapons sent to it to fight al-Qaeda after 2001, in its war on the Tuareg, who would have initially accepted autonomy in their regions. After the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, well-armed Islamists flocked from Libya to the Tuareg regions, after which the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad was founded. The movement was able to expel Mali's army from the north and declared independence on April 6, 2012. France ignored this history, which it knows very well, and sided with the government in Bamako in its war against the Tuareg separatists. France was aided by the U.S. and Britain, and President Francois Hollande is saying now that French troops would not withdraw until terrorism is defeated. I say that the current problem would not have existed if France had helped Mali resolve its internal problems in the first place, before the influx of fundamentalist and extremist groups, including al-Qaeda terrorists, to the region. There is no objection whatsoever to the importance of defeating terrorism, but the other causes that brought the likes of al-Qaeda to the region must be taken into account. For one thing, the kidnappers of the oil workers said that their attack was in retaliation for the French intervention in Mali. As concerns the terrorists who were killed along with the hostages, I read again and again that they had told Muslim oil workers that they did not want to harm them, and only wanted to kill the foreign Christian workers (and any Jews if present among them). The terrorists contravene true Islam, and I even say that they are its enemies who pretend to defend it. I do not know where they learned their religion and who taught it to them. I wrote many times about the Covenant of Umar to the Christians of Jerusalem. The Caliph expelled the Jews from the city, but gave them the chance to take their belongings with them or sell them, and safe passage out of Muslim countries. And once again, I say that the text of the Covenant of Umar is superior to the Third Geneva Convention on the protection of prisoners of war [...]. The Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab must have relied on the Prophet's covenant to the Christians of Najran, in his position on the Christians of Jerusalem: In the first command of the covenant, the Prophet granted the Christians of Najran a “charter of protection given by God and his Apostle to [...] the Christians who belong to the religion of Najran or any other Christian sect. It was written to them by Mohammad, messenger of God to all men, in pledge of protection on behalf of God and his Apostle." In the second command, he said that he ordered the Muslims who will come after him to preserve his pact to the Christians of Najran, to recognize it and to observe it, and said that whoever shall contravene it would have defied God's pact of protection and broken his promise. The following provisions of the Prophet's covenant have no parallel in current international treaties. To be sure, they stipulate the protection of lives and properties, stress the freedom of worship, and prohibit attacks on places of worship or priests, and even urge Muslims to help them. In short, the terrorists know nothing about the Prophet's covenant or the covenant of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, and probably did not even hear of them. For this reason, they dare kill people who are supposed to be protected in the countries of the Muslims, on the grounds that France supports the government in Bamako – as though the oil workers were consulted and had approved the conduct of the French government. All I say in conclusion is that these terrorists are the enemies of the Islamic nation. [email protected]
