Question:
American airstrikes on Sirte continue at the request of the Sarraj government. Military sources close to the Presidential Council forces in Sirte confirmed that "the US Air Force carried out eight airstrikes yesterday, Monday, on ISIS strongholds in the city..." (Al-Arabiya.net, 2016/8/9). However, it is well known that the Sarraj government in Libya was established under the Skhirat Agreement in Morocco, and the primary actor in this agreement was Europe, particularly Britain. The policy of this government, in line with European policy, was to reject American military intervention. So why has it agreed now? Has Sarraj's policy shifted away from the European line? May Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
The Sarraj government is still following the European line—more precisely, the British one. Its approval of American military intervention does not mean it has become politically loyal to America. Rather, Britain pushed it toward this as a step to entice America into making the Tobruk parliament approve the Sarraj government. This is because America, despite its outward approval of the Sarraj government due to the political promotion Britain created in public opinion, has remained practically opposed to it. America has been creating problems for it through Haftar and his group and has not allowed the Tobruk parliament to approve the Sarraj government. Thus, Sarraj's move was motivated by Britain to request American military intervention to entice America, in the "hope" that it would make the Tobruk parliament approve the Sarraj government. To clarify this, we review the following points:
1- The Sarraj government was formed with European support, especially from Britain, which managed to conclude the Skhirat Agreement on 2015/12/17. Britain was obstructing military intervention in Libya because it did not need it, as it controlled the political medium and the government was subordinate to it. It obtained international resolutions to prevent military intervention. However, America insisted on intervention and has carried out unilateral strikes since November of last year, the last of which was in February when it killed 49 people in a camp in Libya, most of whom were Tunisians. This is because the American presence in Libya is weak, so America wants to rely on military intervention and has supported its agent, Haftar, to pursue this role. America admitted its weak presence in Libya; Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said on 2016/5/17: "The United States still has a small presence in Libya whose mission is to try to identify the parties and groups that may be able to assist the United States in its war against the Islamic State" (Al-Shorouk Al-Tunisia, 2016/5/17). The obstacle to facilitating the work of the Sarraj government was America's condition that Haftar have a primary role in the army, after which the Tobruk parliament would recognize the Sarraj government. However, the Skhirat Agreement stipulates otherwise. The international envoy has repeated this on several occasions; the international envoy to Libya, Martin Kobler, stated on 2016/8/7 on Al-Ghad TV that "the political agreement stipulates that the Presidential Council is the Supreme Commander of the Libyan Army and all Libyan parties must respect this agreement... and decisions must be made to determine who will be the head of the army command, the chief of staff, and the heads of the naval and air forces, and they must be under the umbrella of the Presidential Council." He said: "I have been trying for weeks to communicate with General Khalifa Haftar to discuss the issue of unifying the Libyan army..." and demanded "the convening of the Libyan House of Representatives with all its members to approve the Government of National Accord... and that the House of Representatives approved the political agreement after reserving one article," referring to Article 8 related to Haftar's position, which states: "All powers of the senior military, civil, and security positions provided for in the effective Libyan laws and legislation shall be transferred to the Presidency Council of the Council of Ministers immediately upon signing the agreement..." This article is the subject of the dispute.
2- Britain realized that America wants military intervention and is actually practicing it. The Africa News Gate reported on 2016/1/8 that "the US Africa Command officially announced its military intervention in Libya according to a 5-year action plan aimed at tightening the noose on terrorist groups in Africa, specifically in Libya." Thus, America decided on a policy of launching military raids or military intervention without an international resolution and began to actually carry them out because it did not achieve what it wanted through direct political actions. After that, the White House announced on 2016/1/28 that "President Obama chaired a meeting of the National Security Council dedicated to discussing the situation in Libya. He stressed that the United States will continue to attack the Islamic State in any country it is found in, including Libya if necessary, and directed his national security advisors to counter the group's attempts to expand in Libya and other countries." Nevertheless, America is concerned from a legal perspective that its intervention be at the request of the Sarraj government as a legal facade. So, Britain ordered Sarraj to ask America to intervene, giving its intervention a legal character. He then proceeds from this "service" he provides to America as a hope that America will reduce its support for Haftar and make the Tobruk parliament give confidence to the Sarraj government!
3- Thus, American intervention began openly at the request of the Sarraj government—that is, at the request of a government that considers itself legitimate! As stated by US Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook on 2016/8/1: "The strikes came at the request of the Libyan Government of National Accord." This request is a major crime, and Sarraj's statement on 2016/8/1 on official Libyan television does not help him: "The Presidential Council, in its capacity as the Supreme Commander of the Army, decided to request direct support from the United States of America to carry out specific airstrikes against ISIS strongholds in the city of Sirte and its suburbs... and these operations at this stage come within a specific timeframe and will not exceed the city of Sirte and its suburbs... and will be limited to technical and logistical assistance." This does not help him, for Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said the opposite: "The strikes do not have an end point at this specific time... and in the future, every single strike will be coordinated with the Government of National Accord and will require the approval of the Commander of US forces in Africa" (El Khabar Al-Jazaeria, 2016/8/2). For the first time, America found an opportunity for the Libyan government to officially allow it to launch raids in Libya, and it announces it will not stop at these raids but will do more; however, it will inform the Libyan government when it carries out the strike as a notification under the name of coordination! It links this to its command in Africa, meaning within America's policy in Africa, and that its command there will take over operations. The target here is not just Libya, but all of North Africa! Similarly, Sarraj's statement about not agreeing to the entry of ground forces does not help him, as Agence France-Presse reported on 2016/8/10: "The head of the Libyan Government of National Accord, Fayez al-Sarraj, announced Wednesday that his country does not need foreign forces on Libyan soil to help the forces fighting ISIS," in an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. Meanwhile, the American Washington Post revealed on Tuesday, 2016/8/9, that "US special forces are on the ground and are providing direct support for the first time to Libyan forces fighting ISIS in the Sirte region"! It is clear from all this that Sarraj's statements are for local consumption only and are as far from the truth as the East is from the West!
4- America views intervention as a consolidation of its influence in the region. In this context, US President Obama announced the day after the strikes, on 2016/8/2, that "supporting the Libyan government's battle against ISIS is in the interest of US national security... and the airstrikes were carried out to ensure that Libyan forces can complete the mission of fighting the militant group and promote stability." He added that "the United States, Europe, and the world have a great interest in achieving stability in Libya because the absence of stability helped exacerbate some of the challenges we witnessed regarding the migrant crisis in Europe and some of the human tragedies we witnessed at sea between Libya and Europe" (Reuters, 2016/8/2). The American President considers this to be in the interest of his country's national security, which means it is an important matter related to the American presence in Libya. Otherwise, what is the relation of American national security to Libya unless it is related to American influence there? Obama claims he is doing this not only for his country's interest but for the interest of Europe and the world, as if America is the one that will achieve stability for Europe specifically, while it is competing with it there. This means it is working to extend American influence there and then bring Europe under its control, succeeding it if it can in colonizing a Muslim country that Europeans have long colonized and plundered its wealth.
5- As we said earlier, Britain ordered Sarraj to request American intervention in the "hope" that America would reciprocate by reducing its support for Haftar and making the Tobruk parliament approve the Sarraj government. But Europe at the same time realizes that America does not care about Haftar or anyone else as much as it cares about these agents serving its interests. If it could drain the European blood from Sarraj so that he becomes purely hers, it would then be easy for her to marginalize Haftar or even cast him aside. But this is if she can drain the European blood from Sarraj and he becomes purely hers, not in exchange for such a request for intervention! Therefore, Europe takes into account that America might stall on the Tobruk parliament's approval until it achieves more blackmail of the Sarraj government and then prolongs the military intervention to serve its interests, so its military influence continues and Sarraj comes under American military hegemony. Therefore, Europe exploited the announcement of American intervention to announce its own intervention, which it had been hiding, so that the military arena in Libya would not be left to America alone. Thus, the intervention becomes open, and European countries intervene and no longer need secret intervention as France did when its soldiers were killed. Then there would be European forces in Libya that would not allow American forces to do whatever they want, but rather they would have a share of the "cake"! Thus, talk about European intervention in Libya began openly. The Sunday Times revealed on 2016/8/7 that "British special forces previously participated in fighting ISIS in Sirte alongside the Presidential Council forces and used new weapons to confront the group's snipers who were on the roofs of high buildings in District 700." The British Ambassador to Libya, Peter Millett, expressed on his Twitter page his "welcome of Libya joining the international coalition to fight ISIS," referring to the American raids on Sirte. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault also expressed "his country's welcome of the step by the Libyan Government of National Accord to request international assistance in the form of US airstrikes, in a phone call between him and Sarraj, the details of which were published by the French Foreign Ministry." The French Minister expressed to Sarraj "his country's readiness to strengthen its cooperation with the Government of National Accord in all cases, foremost of which are security and resisting terrorism." France is trying to play both sides to satisfy America, so it supports Haftar in the east in his fighting and its soldiers are killed, while at the same time explicitly declaring its support for the Sarraj government in Tripoli in the west! Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni said: "Italy welcomes the air operations launched by the United States on some targets belonging to ISIS in Sirte, which came at the request of the Government of National Accord to support forces loyal to the government... and expressed his country's readiness to meet a Libyan request for all forms of assistance, including military" (Anadolu, 2016/8/3). Italian Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti said that "Italy will likely allow the use of its airbases and airspace to launch strikes on ISIS elements in Libya if the United States requests it" (Reuters, 2016/8/3).
6- Thus, the political system in Libya resulting from the Skhirat Agreement drafted by Britain has begun to announce that it allows America to intervene! It did not feel shame before Allah, His Messenger, and the believers in requesting a disbelieving colonial state to intervene militarily in our lands! Although they intervene because of the betrayal of the rulers in our countries, for it to be at the request of these rulers is even more disastrous and bitter. Furthermore, Sarraj, like other agents, feels no embarrassment when he acts one way today and the opposite tomorrow; yesterday he protested, albeit timidly, against French intervention, and today he cheers for American intervention and even requests it with his own tongue!! Agents carry out what they are ordered; deaf, dumb, and blind, they do not understand. All this is in the hope that America will agree to make the Tobruk parliament give confidence to Sarraj and his government!
7- The official request from Sarraj for America's military intervention and the subsequent announcement of European military intervention has made Libya a hot arena not only for political conflict, despite its danger, but also for military conflict, which is even more dangerous!! It is a major crime for which its perpetrator and whoever participated in it will bear a share of disgrace in this world and the severest punishment in the Hereafter:
سَيُصِيبُ الَّذِينَ أَجْرَمُوا صَغَارٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا كَانُوا يَمْكُرُونَ
"There will afflict those who committed crimes debasement before Allah and severe punishment for what they used to conspire." (QS Al-An'am [6]: 124)
Allah, the Mighty and Powerful, has forbidden for the disbelievers to have a way over the believers, and seeking help from the disbelievers gives them a way over the believers:
وَلَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا
"And never will Allah give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them]." (QS An-Nisa' [4]: 141)
And Allah, the Mighty and Compeller, has forbidden taking the disbelievers as allies and has made whoever takes them as allies among the hypocrites, for whom is a painful punishment:
بَشِّرِ الْمُنَافِقِينَ بِأَنَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا أَلِيمًا * الَّذِينَ يَتَّخِذُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَيَبْتَغُونَ عِنْدَهُمُ الْعِزَّةَ فَإِنَّ الْعِزَّةَ لِلَّهِ جَمِيعًا
"Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment - Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely." (QS An-Nisa' [4]: 138-139)
The Messenger ﷺ forbade seeking help from the disbelievers: On the authority of Urwah, from Aisha (ra), that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
إِنَّا لَا نَسْتَعِينُ بِمُشْرِكٍ
"We do not seek help from a polytheist." (Narrated by ad-Darimi in his Sunan).
And al-Tabarani narrated in Al-Mu'jam al-Kabir from Khubaib bin Abdur-Rahman bin Khubaib, from his father, from his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
فَإِنَّا لَا نَسْتَعِينُ بِالْمُشْرِكِينَ
"For we do not seek help from the polytheists."
And al-Hakim narrated in his Mustadrak on the authority of Abu Humaid al-Sa'idi (ra), who said:
فَإِنَّا لَا نَسْتَعِينُ بِالْمُشْرِكِينَ
"For we do not seek help from the polytheists."
In conclusion, these governments existing in western Libya and eastern Libya are agents of the West, both its European and American wings. The Libyan people, who are protective of their religion, country, and Ummah, must work to overthrow those governments that enabled the disbelieving West, the enemy of Islam and Muslims, to violate the land of the Mujahideen and the carriers of the Noble Qur'an. Furthermore, it is also their duty to restrain those militias and organizations that fight among themselves, shedding forbidden blood and declaring each other as disbelievers. Shedding forbidden blood and declaring a Muslim a disbeliever are two grave matters to Allah (swt) and His Messenger ﷺ. Regarding the shedding of forbidden blood, al-Tirmidhi narrated in his Sunan on the authority of Abdullah bin Amr that the Prophet ﷺ said:
لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا أَهْوَنُ عَلَى اللَّهِ مِنْ قَتْلِ رَجُلٍ مُسْلِمٍ
"The vanishing of the world is more trivial to Allah than the killing of a Muslim man."
And an-Nasa'i narrated in his Sunan on the authority of Abdullah bin Amr from the Prophet ﷺ who said:
لَزَوَالُ الدُّنْيَا أَهْوَنُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ مِنْ قَتْلِ رَجُلٍ مُسْلِمٍ
"The vanishing of the world is more trivial to Allah than the killing of a Muslim man."
As for declaring a Muslim a disbeliever, al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Abdullah bin Umar (ra) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
أَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ قَالَ لِأَخِيهِ يَا كَافِرُ، فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهَا أَحَدُهُمَا
"Whichever man says to his brother, 'O disbeliever,' then it has certainly returned to one of them."
And Muslim narrated from Ibn Umar with the wording that the Prophet ﷺ said:
إِذَا كَفَّرَ الرَّجُلُ أَخَاهُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهَا أَحَدُهُمَا
"If a man declares his brother a disbeliever, then it has certainly returned to one of them."
And it came in Al-Adab al-Mufrad from Abdullah bin Umar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
إِذَا قَالَ لِلْآخَرِ: كَافِرٌ، فَقَدْ كَفَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا، إِنْ كَانَ الَّذِي قَالَ لَهُ كَافِرًا فَقَدْ صَدَقَ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ كَمَا قَالَ لَهُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ الَّذِي قَالَ لَهُ بِالْكُفْرِ
"If he says to the other, 'Disbeliever,' then one of them has committed disbelief. If the one he said it to is a disbeliever, then he has spoken the truth; but if he is not as he said, then the one who said it has returned with disbelief."
Thus, the shedding of forbidden Muslim blood is a very grave matter, and declaring a Muslim a disbeliever is also a very grave matter.
In the final conclusion, we realize that in the good land of Libya there are many men, mujahideen, heroes, pious and pure, by Allah's permission. These are the ones in whom we seek goodness. Let them stand a stand of truth and sincerity against that quartet of evil: the colonialist disbelievers, the treacherous and rogue rulers who are hostile to the Sharia of Islam and the Righteous Khilafah, and those who proclaim the Khilafah in vain while shedding forbidden blood in its name to distort it. This evil quartet must be stood against with a stand of truth and sincerity. Despite all this and that, we do not despair of the spirit of Allah; rather, we hope for the return of the true Khilafah, the Righteous Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood, which will protect the security of the people and care for their affairs. Through it, Islam and the Muslims will be honored, and the disbelievers and hypocrites will be humiliated.
وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمْرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
"And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know." (QS Yusuf [12]: 21)
9th of Dhu al-Qi'dah 1437 AH
2016/8/12 CE