FG's Charges Against IMN Should Scare All Muslims

Sharia

After protests by Shiites forced the Buhari regime to speed up legal proceedings on the illegal detention of the leader of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria , Sheikh Ibrahim Yakub Zakzaky, the government has been

In the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the ‘Holy Kingdom’

King Salman (R) and MBS

Saudi loyalists and the world’s media are erroneously portraying Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), as the architect of the recent radical moves by the Saudi government. 

On Tuesday 5th March, British newspaper, Guardian, cited an anonymous source, who said King Salman and the crown prince he selected himself are increasingly at odds on issues such as Yemen war.

They try to obfuscate the fact that the crown prince was installed by his father, King Salman, who is still alive and well. A prince is a prince and is ever a subordinate of a King pending when he becomes King himself. 

Bin Salman will never order the arrest of anyone in the kingdom without the knowledge and tacit approval of his father. 

Hence, the vision 2030, secularization of Saudi Arabia, the bloody war in Yemen, arrest and murder of Islamic scholars and activists, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October, normalizing ties with Israel and all other initiatives that have been ascribed to the crown prince have been in error; those initiatives were fashioned in the name of the king, and the kingdom; the prince is only a henchman- a patsy or better still; a fall guy. 

The kingdom figured it would be highly immoral for a reigning king to directly spearhead such vain ambitions so, they put the spotlight on a neophyte whose naivety could be blamed in the wake of criticism. 

The similitude of this is America recruiting a mentally unstable Donald Trump to do the dirty deals for the current period so that the ‘holy’ name of American policy would be left intact. 

In the future, American politicians would only look back and say, ‘It wasn’t America’s fault, we only happened to have a lunatic for president at that time.'

South Africa: Xenophobia or Resistance

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines xenophobia thus: 

fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.

The Problem

From 2016, there has been a growing presence in the media of killings perpetrated by South Africans against foreigners; especially black foreigners. To a great section of the world’s population, these killings qualify the perpetrators for the title ‘savages’. 

The question is often asked, ‘Why should you kill people for coming to your country?’ Some have wondered, ‘The world came to your aid against apartheid and now you feel you don’t need the world?’

These and probably several other thoughts come to the minds of observers. In the midst of all these, there are still those who want to know the answer to one question, why exactly are the locals behaving this way?

From observations and conversations, it has been gathered that the locals have resorted to this measure because they feel cheated. They feel they are being maltreated on their own land and the influx of foreigners is exacerbating their misery. Do they have a point?

The Beginning

The Dutch began their invasion of South Africa in 1652 while the British came in 1795. The first invaders however were the Portuguese who came in 1485. As is the norm with white conquerors; they enslave their conquered by every sense of the word ‘enslave’. 

After decades of animal-like treatment of South Africans (apartheid), the white conquerors declared an end to it in 1990. The ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ setup under Mandela in 1995 ensured that the whites remained in South Africa and maintained ownership of lands and resources stolen from the locals. 

In a nutshell, the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ ensured that the natives of South Africa will remain disadvantaged for life. 

The natives of South Africa have remained the poorest people in their wealthy country just like in other countries Europeans conquered and insist on occupying. 

While many blacks have risen to middle or upper classes, the overall unemployment rate of black people worsened between 1994 and 2003 by official metrics. 

Poverty and inequality remain widespread, with about a quarter of the population (majorly blacks) unemployed and living on less than US$1.25 a day.

Hidden Truths

In the media, westerners want to maintain the idea that all the inhabitants of South Africa love one another and are living in peace. Soap operas and TV shows have been created to drive home this idea which has thrived for so long but obviously, it is failing. 

According to demographics in South Africa, white people in South Africa constitute 8% of the population; ironically, they own 77% of valuable land in the country compared to 1.2% owned by the natives.

The Conspiracy

This injustice is possible because the whites have cemented their grip on the country, how?

The whites instigated mass migrations from other continents and races to South Africa, and are granting them full citizenship with all the concomitant privileges. This is means the dominance of the black population was and is still being diluted. 

The repercussion of this is that it will be impossible to ask the whites to leave the country on the grounds that they are foreigners because for the blacks to get their country back, they will have to ask all foreigners to leave. 

This will put the natives of South Africa in direct confrontation with the powerful countries of the world from which the foreigners have migrated. What is going on in South Africa is not progress in diversity; it is a systematic blackmail of the local black population. 

This ploy has been utilized in at least four other countries: Canada, America, Australia, and New Zealand. The white occupiers paint a happy and united picture of these countries but, for the locals, it has always been a nightmare.

If progress in diversity is the case then, why are the original inhabitants of these countries always the poorest people in them?

In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Aborigines are the poorest. In America, the Red Indians are the poorest;  and in South Africa, the Zulus and other ethnic natives are the poorest. 

Theory has it that the white occupiers who are usually the richest in these countries more often than not, prefer to employ foreigners over locals to prevent the chances of the locals becoming financially formidable enough to fight to regain full control of their land.

Wouldn’t the natives of South Africa be right to want to stem the in-flow of foreigners to their land? 

World media has found it difficult to debunk allegations that South Africans are being short-changed but any attempt by the locals to emphasize this point is never seen in good light and this influences the perception of the outside world of South Africans.

New Government Efforts

On Tuesday 27^th February 2018, the radical left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, who control only 25 of the parliament’s 400 seats, brought a motion seeking to change the constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation. Crucially the move was backed by the ANC, which controls 249 seats, and was passed.

Speaking in parliament, EFF leader Julius Malema said “it was time for justice” on the land issue. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land,” he said.

In 2018, South Africa President, Cyril Ramaphosa, announced plans to reclaim land from the white occupiers. American President, Donald Trump, and whites across the West responded in hostile words. Rallies in Australia labeled the South African government ‘racist’.

The Way Out

The only solution to the violence against foreigners in South Africa is the alleviation of the poverty bedeviling the natives. African countries must join the call for the end to apartheid in all its forms; including ‘economic apartheid’. 

You will never make progress as a people if you make up 80% of the population of your country but have access to only 1.2% of the natural resources.

Conclusion

It can never be denied that blacks are the most disadvantaged people in South Africa and that the inflow of foreigners puts them at a greater disadvantage.  So, the next time you think of calling the natives of South Africa ‘xenophobes’, put yourself in the shoes of someone who has been beggared in his fatherland.