Contents Safar/Rabi al-Awwal 1423 - May 2002
Cover Issue 5 Volume 15
The last few weeks have provided us a period of hypocritical contrasts.
Substance abuse is a huge problem in the world. Drugs are consumed for either hedonistic pursuits or as a means to escape from a miserable life. Whatever the reason, both are intrinsically tied to Capitalism, the ideology of freedom. Some take drugs to practise their freedom to create heaven on earth. Others take drugs to escape from the hell created by freedom...
News from around the world
The Puppet Masters
Coup and Counter Coup in Venezuela
Mahathir proposes Gold Currency
The Golden Lamb
Jenin: Yet Another Muslim War Crime Story
Democratic deficit or Intellectual deficit?
The American - Israeli Relationship Paradigm
Next Stop: Iraq
The intensification of the conflict in Palestine brings the spotlight upon, amongst other things, the nature of relations between the United States and Israel. It has long been a bone of contention amongst Muslim politicians, thinkers and writers as to why there is an apparent bias in favour of Israel. Some have concluded that there is a Zionist conspiracy to control US affairs. To support this hypothesis many an example is brought forth to explain Jewish exertion over the American body politic...
Musharraf’s Referendum for American Imperialism
On 5 April during a televised broadcast to launch his refer endum campaign, General Musharraf declared before the nation, “Ladies and Gentlemen the world has changed in the wake of the September Eleven events. What is our role in the changing world? I am proud to note that we have been able to raise our stature. We have saved the economy. We have preserved the national interests...
In recent days the debate over legalising drugs has revealed the inability of the Western political system to deal effectively with this problem, or for that matter any problem based on the creed of freedom. In following its creed to deal with the problem of drugs, the matter remains far from resolved, exposing the impracticality of such a creed.
George W Bush tentatively 'advised' the Israelis to stem their brutal attacks against Palestinian towns and villages, while he and his government rushed to finalise plans for the next assault on the Ummah in Iraq. We had the farce of a UN Inspection Team repeatedly toyed with and then finally denied access to the refugee camp of Jenin...
The Unseen Slaughter of Jenin
As Afghan opposition groups and U.S. armed forces continue their media designed successes in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida, the American debate has quickly turned to the question of where the socalled fight against terrorism should go next. In numerous public statements, President Bush has talked about a wide-ranging campaign against global terrorism. He has not committed to military operations against any other country or terrorist organisation, but he has made it clear that the broader struggle against so-called terrorism will be a long-lasting effort that could include the use of military force in regions beyond Afghanistan...
“We do not get that large a percentage of our oil from the Middle East. Japan gets a lot more ... And one of the reasons that we are sort of assuming this role of policeman of the Middle East, more or less, has more to do with making Japan and some other countries feel that their oil flow is assured ... so that they don’t then feel more need to create a great power, armed forces, and security doctrine, and you don’t start getting a lot of great powers with conflicting interests sending their militaries all over the world.” Walter Russell Mead, a senior foreign-policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations The Atlantic Monthly, January 2002 “International law, since the 17th century, has rested on two principles: national sovereignty and the legal equality of nations, both of which Washington ignores whenever convenient.”
The Khilafah System Was Implemented Continuously
Due to the current situation of the Muslims, it is natural that the Ummah is looking for a solution to its problems and dedicates its resources in order to alleviate itself from the catastrophes that are confronting it. In its efforts to solve its problems, it is also natural that the Muslims would realise that Islam is the only solution because it is deeply rooted in the minds of Muslims and embodies our history, language, culture, and sentiments. As a result of such a realisation, the Muslims would naturally work to bring Islam back into existence...
Musharraf’s Rigged Election
In a result that would send the spin doctors of the UK Labour Party delirious, Pervaiz Musharraf, known by his various titles including General, Chief of Army Staff and President of Pakistan, received a staggering 98 % of the vote in a widely rigged referendum held in Pakistan on 30 April 2002. He follows in the rather unauspicious footsteps of other corrupt rulers in the Islamic world. In September 1999, President Hosni Mubarak was elected to his fourth six-year term when he supposedly received 93.8 % of the votes cast, with a 79.2 % voter turnout. Not to be out done, Saddam Hussein, the dictatorial ruler of Iraq, achieved an almost unanimous Guinness Book of Records 99.96% ‘Yes’ vote, with a 99.47% turnout, leaving only about 3,300 unaccounted voters...
May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
Khilafah Magazine · www.khilafah.com · firstname.lastname@example.org
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu The last few weeks have provided us a period of hypocritical contrasts. George W Bush tentatively 'advised' the Israelis to stem their brutal attacks against Palestinian towns and villages, while he and his government rushed to finalise plans for the next assault on the Ummah in Iraq. We had the farce of a UN Inspection Team repeatedly toyed with and then finally denied access to the refugee camp of Jenin. This was to conduct an enquiry after the inhabitants had suffered weeks of terror under Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships. Contrast this with the entire foundation of US sanctions and aggressive acts against Iraq over the last few years, also on the basis of denial of UN Inspectors. One precipitated aerial bombardment and the other gained further support for Ariel Sharon. Finally, we had the ‘General’ Election in Pakistan where to nobody’s surprise Pervaiz Musharraf achieved victory, although only one candidate ran. Musharraf thus justified to the world his democratic credentials - although he fooled none but himself. The irony was that while this charade was going on the US was deeply engaged in discussion with its other key ally, Crown Prince Abdullah, who was far too important to allow popular support to get in his way. Thus, the illegitimate states continued their savagery, while the armies of the Ummah remained sidelined; the law of the mighty remained supreme while the law of Allah has yet to be realised; and the treacherous rulers ran their selection campaigns while the right to give bay’ah was denied. There is a well known saying, ‘You fool me once, shame on you; You fool me twice, shame on me.’ The situation of the Ummah is now such that we cannot afford to allow ourselves to be shamed and humiliated any longer. Our hopes should not lie with UN Inspectors. We should recall that a recent 7600 page UN report admitted, after almost seven years, that in the UN ‘safe-haven’ of Srebrenica 7000 Muslim men and boys were separated from their families, herded up and slaughtered like cattle. The response to these acts of barbarity was the resignation of a minor European Cabinet. The real executors, the US government, are today on friendly terms with the Serbs. What hope do we then hold for any enquiry into Jenin? What hope do we hold from our rulers? Those who witness atrocities in Gujrat and label them an internal matter; who preside over vast resources yet claim they have no power against the aggressor; who call themselves servants of the holy places yet do not implement the Sunnah. If any had legitimacy then it has long been lost; if any had respect then it has long been sold; and if any were sincere then they have been proved otherwise. Allah (swt) has not asked us 4
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
to remain content in a situation such as this. He has commanded us to gain life from Islam and He has ordered us to establish his Deen. Though the tyranny of the tyrant may be cruel then so it was for Musa (as) against Firaun. Though the situation may be dire then so it was for Yusuf (as) while he was in the well. Even though the help may seem far so it was for Muhammad (saw) against the Quraysh. Indeed, the help of Allah (swt) and his Victory is always near. O Muslims, there is none that you can rely on except for Allah (swt). There is none who can undertake the tasks necessary but you. The changing of your situation will not come from others, but from your own nation. The honour, security and protection that is a necessity will only be realised by the reestablishment of the Khilafah ruling system. With a Khaleefah at its head, empowered by the Shariah, and supported by the Ummah, it will act to bring the vast resources of our nation together in order that it achieve its rightful status of dominance.
Published by Al-Khilafah Publications Suite 298, 56 Gloucester Road, London, SW7 4UB
Editor Dr Imran Waheed Editorial Board Jalaluddin Patel Abdul Hamid Jassat Asim Khan Dr Saqib Latif Dr Baber Qureshi Editorial Advisers Dr Abdullah Robin Walid Gubara Ammar Zalloom Asif Khan Ahmad Jassat Hassan Mujtaba
Sisters Editorial Advisors Dr Nazreen Nawaz Sameena Asghar Hodan Abdullah News Samiul Muquit Production Badrul Rashid Yassir Satti Mokbul Hussain Publishing Nurul Amin
Rasoolallah (saw) stated in a hadith recorded in the Sahih of Muslim: “The Imam (Khalifah) is like a shield, from behind which the Muslims fight and by which they protect themselves.” The onus today is on the people of influence and power, those from the armed forces, to realise their potential, seize the opportunity and fulfill their destiny. From a band of warring tribes 1400 yrs ago, the Ansaar of Allah rose and ignited the sands of the Arabian desert, sweeping away the false gods and oppressive regimes, and established a State mightier than the mountains. This change is required from the Ansaar of today as has always been their responsibility. For them is not contentment in being spectators but being those in the midst of the fury of war. For them is not being idle whilst the war cries are raised, but whose marching feet echo through the valleys of this world. For them is not acceptance of defeat but passionate sacrifice ending in promised victory. O Ansaar, will you yet remain asleep while your Ummah bleeds. O Ansaar, will you stand back while the oppressor refuses to take heed. O Ansaar, will you not realise the pledge and establish our Deen? O Muslims, O Ansaar, hear the words of your Rabb:
No Copyrights Since Islam rejects copyrights and patents you are free to reproduce articles contained within this publication. It is our kind request that when doing so you cite the author and source of the article.
Translation of the Qur’an It should be perfectly clear that the Qur’an is only authentic in its original language, Arabic. Since perfect translation of the Qur’an is impossible, the term ‘Translation of the Meaning of the Qur’an (TMQ) has been used, as the result is only a crude meaning of the Arabic text.
Subscription details Subscription charges:
“O you who believe! Be you Ansaar of Allah, as said Isa ibn Maryam (as) to the Hawariyeen, ‘Who are my Ansaar in the Cause of Allah?’ The Hawariyeen said ‘We are the Ansaar of Allah!’” [TMQ As-Saff: 14] Hassan Mujtaba
£20 per annum including postage UK $35 per annum including postage USA To subscribe to Khilafah magazine please refer to: Internet Site: www.khilafah.com email: email@example.com or write to:
Khilafah Magazine, Suite 298, 56 Gloucester Road, London, SW7 4UB
Suppression of the Da’wa Continues
Quoted from Internet Press:
The Unseen Slaughter of Jenin
Spark Weekly Political and Scientific Newspaper A Eastern Turkistan News Agency Publication
Mass Arrests Started in Hotan Our correspondent Abdullah Pamir reports from the Homeland: Over last 10 days in 7 out of 10 administrative units of the Hotan region the Chinese police arrested over 800 Uighurs on charges of being involved in the “Hizbu Tahrir” organiza tion. Among the arrested there are many teachers, intellectuals, religious leaders, entre preneurs, and even the farmers. The arrests were mainly conducted in the Qariqash region, and then in Lop region, Yurunqash district, with overall number of 70 arrested people. The Chinese regime continues arresting Uighurs, and the police make searches and arrest people day and night, causing horror in the Hotan region. The official circles did not comment on these events even though the arrests reached the mass level. The “Hizbu Tahrir” religious organization was organized in Uzbekistan, and many members of this religious party were arrested in Uzbekistan. However, such an organization never existed in Eastern Turkistan. Nevertheless, the Chinese government has used this religious radical group’s name as a political label against the Uighur national liberation movement. The Chinese launched a mass cleansing of Uighurs – supporters of the national liberation -in the Hotan region. We will closely follow the fur ther development of this process.
On April 19th 2002 The UN Security Council voted unanimously to dispatch a fact-finding team to investigate events in the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin.
The resolution expressed concern at "the dire humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population" and called for the development of "accurate information regarding recent events in the Jenin refugee camp through a fact-finding team."
Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN envoy to the Middle East, visited the Jenin refugee camp and called the scene "horrifying beyond belief." He said, "The smell was horrible -- decaying corpses below the rubble. And we saw, for instance, a 12-year-old boy being -- with some people digging with their hands -they were digging him out, and his burned completely, demolished body. We saw, for instance, two brothers who were digging out their father and their other brothers below the rubble, the corpses in pieces. It was horrible, an absolutely unbelievable scene." "And what we also know after our visit is that must be about 2,000 people who do not have roofs above their heads. They need shelter immediately. We also know that there is an acute need of food, water, and medicine. The electricity system is completely destroyed. The water pipes are cut. It is a scene of catastrophe of major proportions. It looks as if there has been an earthquake there."
3 April 2002
"This evil must be pulled up by the roots from Tajik land". Mahammadsaid Ubaidulloev, Dushanbe's mayor, on Hizb ut Tahrir Keston News Service 21 Mar 2002
On April 3rd 2002, Ariel Sharon, already known as both butcher and animal, sent Israeli Forces to Jenin to clear out what Israel referred to as a terrorist haven. What actually occurred in Jenin is still a matter of contention, the Israelis say only a few dozen combatants were killed, but the overwhelming evidence suggests atrocities of a far, far greater scale.
In response to growing international concern over reports of human rights violations by Israeli Forces in Jenin, an Amnesty International delegation, which included a professor of forensic medicine, visited the area late April.
They found conclusive evidence for the following:
Failure to give civilians warning or time to evacuate Jenin refugee camp before
Apache helicopters launched their first attacks. •
Allegations of extra judicial executions
Failure, for 13 days, to allow humanitarian assistance to the people in the camp who were trapped in the rubble of demolished houses or running out of food and water.
Denial of medical assistance to the wounded in the refugee camp and deliberate targeting of ambulances.
Excessive use of lethal force and using civilians as a "human shield".
Ill-treatment, including beatings and degrading treatment, of Palestinian detainees.
Extensive damage to property with no apparent military necessity.
Amnesty International delegate Professor Derrick Pounder said: "What was striking is what was absent. There were very few bodies in the hospital. There were also none who were seriously injured, only the 'walking wounded'. Thus we have to ask: where are the bodies and where are the seriously injured?"
With this happening in Palestine we must ask the question: Where are the Soldiers of the Ummah? Do her Generals no longer fear their Rabb Allah the Most High, do they not wish for Jannah in the Akhirah?
O Armies in the Muslim lands! Is it not time that you yearned for the Jannah? Has not the time come for you to seek the honour and dignity of this world and the Hereafter? Does it not shake you when you see, so close to your homes, the massacres inflicted on your brothers in Palestine at the hands of the Jews, who are the most severe in their hatred of the Muslims? Is not your primary function to protect Islam and fight the enemies of Allah, the Jews who have usurped the land of Israa (Night journey) and Mi'raaj (Ascension)? Is your function only to protect the thrones, ceremonies and festivals? Allah (swt) has obliged you to remove these thrones (of these rulers) who conspire with the enemies of Allah (swt) against the blood of the Muslims. Allah has obliged you to help your brothers who are seeking your help in Palestine. May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
News From Around The World
The Puppet Masters Professor Cees Wiebes’ findings, published as the Dutch inquiry into the Srebrenica mas sacre, would seem to be one of the most powerful reports of recent years, exposing the Western governments’ involvement in the Bosnian war. Its publication apparently led to the resignation of the Dutch Government in April after the inadequacies of the Dutch forces at Srebrenica were laid bare.
of further distress is the readiness with which UN intervention is proposed and accepted as a means of ensuring peace or protecting civilians in any situation around the globe.
“When it is said to them: ‘Make not mischief on the earth,’ they say: ‘Why, we only Want to make peace!’ Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 11-12].
in other countries, undertaking both assassination and coup attempts, as well as more overtly simply dictating both foreign and internal policies as she deems fit. Edgardo Lander, a professor of sociology at the Central University of Venezuela claimed “This was a coup d’etat that had been planned for quite a long time…Each of the main participants had visited the US state department very publicly in the preceding months to get approval.” Otto Reich, Bush’s key policy designer for Latin America, met these visitors. Had they discussed the coup down to its timing and chances of success?
Samiul Muquit In 1995 Muslim refugees had sheltered at a UN defined ‘safe-haven’ in Srebrenica, where Dutch forces had been assigned to protect them. However, the Bosnian Serb troops advanced under the command of Rako Mladic, and threatened by this, Dutch soldiers handed over the civilians to the Serbs. What ensued was the slaughter of at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslims. This act of resignation by the Dutch Government in response to the Wiebes report is simply an empty gesture, conveniently coinciding with a general election due next month. Instead, the blame should be borne by the entire UN, which had falsely declared that it would protect the innocent. The report exposed the Bosnian war as one of the dirtiest in the history of the UN, with covert operations, signal interception and double-crossings. The findings published in “Intelligence and the war in Bosnia, 1992-1995” state that various factions within the UN supported and supplied the armies involved in this war, in open violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants. Agencies of the US, Iran and Turkey purchased weapons and smuggled them through Croatia, with the US “very closely involved” in the airlifting of troops and weapons. The Croats themselves also obtained massive quantities of illegal weapons from Germany, Belgium and Argentina, with Israel’s Mossad being linked to the Serbian side. The UN protection force, UNPROFOR depended on the US’s surveillance technology for intelligence, but this allowed them to simply turn a blind eye to their frequent night-time flights. The Bosnian war was controlled by these various nations as they tried to gain influence in this region, the fighters on the ground being the meagre pawns in this game. However, what is a cause
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
Coup and Counter Coup in Venezuela April saw a great deal of upheaval and violence in the city of Caracas, Venezuela. What had started as a peaceful protest against the government of Hugo Chavez ended with bloodshed. The marchers were calling for the resignation of Mr Chavez outside Miraflores, the presidential palace. They were discontented with the way he had managed their affairs, and in particular with his policies for restructuring of the state oil company, PDVSA. Shots were then fired indiscriminately by armed supporters of Mr Chavez, resulting in a death of several people. This caused a tremendous amount of outrage from various factions in the country, including the military. The military intervened; a succession of officers publicly denounced the incident and said that the killings were “not tolerable”. Subsequently tanks surrounded Miraflores and in the early hours of the following morning chief of the armed forces, General Lucas Rincon, stated that Mr Chavez’s resignation had been demanded and accepted. The new president, Pedro Carmona was appointed rather unsurprisingly by the Army. What occurred next apparently took the generals by surprise. There were huge pro-Chavez protests on the streets of Caracas. Consequently, the military undertook another coup 48 hours later, this time to reinstate Mr Chavez. The extent of US involvement was the primary question. It is well known that the US has a long history of interference
This incident in Venezuela is proof, if proof was required, that real power in a modern state or any state for that matter lies in the hand of the strongest faction, and that this faction especially in the developing World, is most often the military. It would seem then that the coup d’etat is one of the most practical meth ods to change the status quo within any state. Saleh Ahmed
Mahathir proposes Gold Currency The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir, proposed that the gold Dinar should be used for international trade to prevent a repeat of the currency crisis, which devastated Asia in 1997-98. He said that paper currency has no intrinsic value thus making the exchange rate “arbitrary and subject to manipulation as we saw during the Asian financial crisis”. His address at the two-day conference on Islamic capital markets emphasized the need for a unified currency for international trade. However, it was stated that the gold Dinar would not replace the existing currency of any nation. He added by saying that according to Islamic law, the Dinar is a specific weight of gold equivalent to 4.3 grams. It seems that Dr. Mahathir has somewhat changed his views towards Islam and the Islamic economic system. In an earlier speech at Imperial College he criticised those calling for an Islamic State, alleging that they had no real proposals for the structure and functioning of an Islamic government, thereby exonerating himself and his government from the sin of implementing Kufr.
Such statements imply that Allah (swt) did not guide us in all spheres of life. The truth is that Islam provides detailed laws relating to all matters. Great scholars of the past such as Qadi Abu Yousuf and eminent scholars from the last century like Taqiuddin an-Nabhani wrote books on Islamic economics and governance. There lies a wealth of resources on socio-economic affairs waiting to be re-implemented. At his London speech a number of students were motivated to address Mahathir and provide him with two books detailing the Islamic economic system. These were the “Economic System in Islam” written by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani and “Funds in the Khilafah State” written by Abdul Qadeem Zallum and they demonstrate that the gold standard should be the only base to currency and suggest the ratio of 4.25 grams to one Dinar. Finally, it should be understood by all Muslims that implementation of Islamic laws is not done to achieve economic benefit. Rather, we implement the laws of Allah (swt) out of obedience and partial implementation of Islam is not suffi cient. Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“Then is it only a part of the Book that you believe in, and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty” [TMQ AlBaqarah: 85]. Sharif Hafezi
The Golden Lamb The birth of a lamb this spring in the Ferghana valley was hailed as a miracle, not because this in itself is a miraculous event, but because the lamb has what looks like inscriptions on its flanks. Muslims from the region travelled to Ferghana to see this lamb, which was born in the village of Durmen in the Akhundabaey region of Uzbekistan. Its black fleece has white spots, which appear to be the Arabic for ‘Allah’ on one side and ‘Mohammed’ on the other. The visitors were reported to have come from nearby villages as well as from other Central Asian nations, Turkey, China and the Arabian Peninsula after widespread coverage in the Uzbek newspapers and TV stations. Some of
News From Around The World those interviewed said that the lamb was a sign of the Day of Judgement and came to touch it and donate money to its owners. Despite the different views on the ‘holiness’ of the lamb one thing has been agreed upon, that this is the will of Allah (swt). Abdulla Akhmedov, chairman of the Durmen village council said, “It is the will of Allah, Allah himself gave Khudoiberdi [the owner] this joy … It was meant to be.” The authorities in the Ferghana valley, are not trying to stop this ‘mass pilgrimage’. The area faces many problems including unemployment, declining living standards and the uprising of Islamic sentiments amongst the people. This event provides a nice distraction for the masses. The authorities would hope that the people go to see the animal rather than meet members of Islamic groups with an eye for actually living by the Islamic deen. The incident is reminiscent of the Jews who made a cow idol as soon as Musa (as) left them, to deviate the people. This time the Jew, Islam Karimov hopes that a lamb will deviate the people and remove the threat to his tyranny. Local press reported that an Uzbek member of Hizb ut-Tahrir commented on the lamb by saying, “It is not the lamb that is holy, but he who created it - we should worship Allah not the animal”. Saqib Latif
Saudi Balance Following an economic conference in New York two months ago a delegation of Saudi businessmen and professionals dispersed across the US to try and mend the image of this frail nation in the light of the September 11th attacks. This was deemed necessary as 15 of those identified as being involved were of Saudi nationality. The mission was clear: to detach Saudi Arabia from terrorism and redefine its role as an ally and partner, even if on the same unequal footing, to the US. But despite the waving of US flags by the delegates they came under criticism for not addressing their own nation, where exist many sympathisers for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The open disapproval also targeted Saudi institutions such as the religious police, the education system and increasing anti-US sen-
timents. A senior Saudi official said, “We don’t tend to talk about our feelings and that was interpreted as guilt …As the Americans got angry, we kept quiet and that made them more angry.” The Americans are correct in demanding that the Saudis should address the problems of their nation but what should be propagated is not Western culture. A major problem in Riyadh now is that many young men are leaving bits of paper with their phone numbers in public places in the hope of snaring a date is this the result of implementing a muddled social and economic system that relies only partly on Islam? One 21year-old Saudi man said, “It takes forever to find a well-paying job and forever to save money to get married.” Wedding costs can total more than $50,000. Shopping centres have become the setting for ‘blind-date’- a perfect match for the Western culture sold there. This is in addition to a black market in alcohol, heroin, amphetamines and hashish, which remains a deep secret of Saudi society.
withdraw, I mean it,” in reference to Israel’s reoccupation, it was clear from his actions that he meant nothing of the kind. Sadly enough one political commentator smugly remarked, “The last Jewish leader to listen to a Bush was Moses”. Jenin was reduced to rubble after the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) rolled in on Sharon’s command. Hundreds of individuals are still unaccounted for and bodies remain buried deep under destroyed buildings. Eyewitness accounts tell of the atrocities carried out by the IDF, including the attempts to cover up the killings by piling dead bodies beneath wrecked houses and the cre ation of mass graves. In addition the IDF, in violation of the Geneva Convention, refused entry to relief agencies, ambulances and media for six days, fuelling speculation that evidence of the atrocities were being concealed. Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN’s Middle East envoy described Jenin as “horrifying beyond belief” and a “blot on the history of the state of Israel”. In fact a more apt quote would be that “the state of Israel is a blot on the history of the world and the Islamic Ummah”.
In the struggle to befriend the West, policies of cultural westernisation have left a dent in the social structure, the last bastion of Islam left existent. No balance exists between secularism and Islam - only misery. Along with the import of culture will they also import illegitimate pregnancies, drug abuse and the destruction of Islamic morals?
The West or the impotent Muslim rulers will not assist to change the situation and history will bear testament to the fact that this will not be the last Muslim massacre. The finger of blame then for accomplices to any other tragedy will point in only one direction.
“And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so [i.e. become allies, as one united block under the Khilafah to make victorious Allah’s religion], there will be fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption” [TMQ AlAnfal: 73].
Jenin: Yet Another Muslim War Crime Story As details of the Srebrenica mas sacre were being unearthed, another war crime was being perpetrated in the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin. Both occurred under the full glare of the international community, who have been accomplices in the murder of innocent Muslims. Both could and should have been prevented; yet we are now left with a UN sponsored ‘fact finding’ team, the composition of which is still being deliberated. There is little hope of any significant action other than a slap on the wrist for Israel; a state which explicitly flouts UN resolutions and even defies the ranting of George W Bush. Despite Bush’s demand, “When I say
Democratic deficit or Intellectual deficit? The recent first round results in the French presidential elections showed the true brittleness of democracy.
manner. The shocking defeat of leftist Lionel Jospin by the old fascist Le Pen left the French people wondering what on earth had gone wrong. Had France really abandoned its great multicultural values in favour of some strange desires, or was it just that most people couldn’t be both ered? A cursory inspection of the number of votes for each candidate revealed that Le Pen, Le Toad, had accrued roughly the same number of votes as he had done in the last election. Jospin, however hadn’t received enough to outweigh this amount since people felt that there was no way that he could lose, so they wouldn’t bother voting; and in any case they didn’t feel strongly enough about the final outcome since the perception was that all the likely winners were equal and there was no change to be sought. Unless Le Pen were to win of course. This incident highlights how little faith people have in their political systems and the full extent of voter apathy in Europe. It seems that the only people who can be bothered to vote are the twisted neo-fascists, whose numbers, whilst not increasing, are enough to cause a potential upset. So now the French must resort to the old Machiavellian favourite “the ends justify the means” by collaborating together to back current president Chirac in order to save themselves from a self-inflicted nazi regime. In Islam of course problems such as accidentally electing completely the wrong person, which the overwhelming majority of people happen to disagree with, cannot occur due to the nature of the conditions which are placed on the electing of the Khalifah because the choices will be between mature, sane and just men, who agree to implement nothing but Allah’s (swt) hukm and who are capable of making the decisions required of them as only such men may become the Khalifah. The undisputed truth of Democracy, is that surely it is a lie. Dawud Masieh
Since the earliest days of democracy the political philosophers discussed the principal of democratic deficit. This is the idea that the electorate, for whatever reason - be it apathy, corruption, disenfranchisement or non-agreement with the choice of representatives - would not be correctly represented in an effective
May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
Between Fiction and Realism
THE AMERICAN - ISRAELI Relationship Paradigm Truman, towards officially recognising Israel and gaining crucial votes in one of the tightest elections in years. During a White House meeting 2 days before Israel was proclaimed independent in 1948, US Secretary of State George Marshall told President Harry Truman that he would vote against him in the election later that year if the President recognised Israel. His statement was contained in a top-secret memorandum of conversation during a dramatic meeting on 12 May 1948. Marshall was unsuccessful as Truman followed the recommendation of his White House advisers such as Clark Clifford who pressed for immediate US recognition of the new Jewish State. Marshall said, “I remarked to the President that, speaking objectively, I could not help but think that the suggestions made by Mr Clifford were wrong…the transparent dodge to win a few votes would not in fact achieve this purpose. The great dignity of the office of President would be seriously diminished. The counsel offered by Mr Clifford was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international.”
he intensification of the conflict in Palestine brings the spotlight upon, amongst other things, the nature of relations between the United States and Israel. It has long been a bone of contention amongst Muslim politicians, thinkers and writers as to why there is an apparent bias in favour of Israel. Some have concluded that there is a Zionist conspiracy to control US affairs. To support this hypothesis many an example is brought forth to explain Jewish exertion over the American body politic.
American funding of Israel to the tune of billions of dollars every year financially, and via sale of military hardware is seen as the most obvious example. Each year for most of the last decade the US has given Israel about $3 billion in official aid, making it by far the largest recipient in the world. Israel accounts for about one-third of the entire foreign aid budget, even though less than 0.1 per cent of the world’s population lives in Israel, and the country already has one of the world’s highest per capita incomes. Put another way, Israel’s 6 million people receive more US aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined (excluding Egypt and Colombia). The fact that notable politicians on the US side have had Jewish connections over the years - Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright and Dennis Ross to 8
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
name a few - strengthens this conception that there is an in built bias in the political-diplomatic sphere. The recent conflict provides a case in point. On his visit of the region in April, US Secretary of State Colin Powell initially cancelled a meeting with Yasser Arafat after a suicide bombing in Israel, whereas he refused to publicly condemn or even question the Israeli leadership over its alleged massacre in the township of Jenin. A correct analysis of the US-Israeli relationship paradigm is required to lead Muslims towards the correct conclusion as to what their response is with regards to the conflict in Palestine.
US patronage of Israel: Origins and Benefits The American patronage of Israel has evolved from its initial beginnings to a main plank within its geopolitical strategy for the Middle East. During the 1948 elections, US foreign policy planners faced a dilemma with regards to America granting recognition of the fledgling Israeli State. It was by no means certain that the US would initially recognise Israel. State department officials were at odds with White House officials advising the incumbent President
Under-Secretary of State Robert Lovett was also strongly opposed to US recognition of Israel and told Truman that it would be “injurious” because it was, “A transparent attempt to win the Jewish vote.” An insight into Truman’s attitude can be taken from his frequently repeated statement to Paul Porter, a Washington attorney appointed as the ambassador to the Arab-Israeli peace talks in Geneva later in 1948; “I won’t tell you what to do or how to vote, but I will only say this. In all of my political experience I don’t ever recall the Arab vote swinging a close election.” Truman’s conferring of legitimacy on the new state of Israel began decades of tussle between officials at the State department and other active participants to shape the nature of US policy in the Middle East and in particular with that of Israel. It is a relationship that is far more complex than the casual observation that the Americans run their policy at the behest of dictates from the Jewish lobby. One in which America attempts to place Israel as a subordinate nation in its grand strategy towards the Middle East, whereas Israel led by many an astute, and stubborn politician seeks to wrest itself from American might and be an independent architect of its own destiny.
US benefits in the Middle East Over the years Israel has provided itself a useful ally to the US in the Middle East. Whilst it has placed the US in a position of playing a delicate balancing act between oil producing Arab nations and its support of Israel, the US accrues many benefits.
“One thing that the world can count on is that we will not allow Israel to be crushed.” President Bush, America
The fact that the US is at the epicentre of any past, present and future negotiations with Israel and the Arabs means that it has a perpetual role as the architect of a Middle East according to its dictates. Her plan through successive administrations has always been towards making Israel comply to UN resolutions 181 and 242 which means an Israel which exists peacefully side by side with a Palestinian State within fixed borders. Whilst nudging towards this end goal through a mixture of cajolement, diplomacy and enticements, the US has over the years gained much from Israel. An Israel which is diplomatically, politically and militarily isolated from the outside world means that US interests and dictates will not so easily be dismissed by an Israeli administration. Diplomatically, politically and militarily isolating Israel from the world serves US interest; Israel has to take US interest and view into consideration. The US has a stake at the table for shaping her interests in the Middle East, which she has described as, “a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history.” Historically America has the Israeli relationship to her advantage. In the Cold War where the Soviet Union and US fought in regions for spheres of influence and protecting their own balance of power, the US saw Israeli support as crucial. In the advent of any escalation of tension with the Soviets, Israeli support was seen as vital in the eastern Mediterranean as it was by far the largest military power in the Middle East. Israel has provided the US with political and moral support. US Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick submitted a document to the Senate Appropriations sub-committee on Foreign Relations in 1983 in which she cited Israeli US convergence during the 37th Session of the UN General assembly. In 1982 the country that voted more than any other with the US was Israel; Washington and Jerusalem agreed on 86.2 % of all the votes undertaken.
US policy divergence with Israel Despite the fact that Israel and the US share much in common with regards to the Middle East, there is major divergence on certain issues, namely the basis and scope of the Peace Process. In 1948 the Truman administration included Israel in a regional arms embargo, forcing Israel - then struggling in its war of Independence with 5 Arab countries - to turn to all sorts of sources for badly needed weapons. This arms embargo against Israel basically remained in effect throughout the 1950s. It was not
“Provocative, ill-timed and internationally illegal”, stated US Senator Mark Hatfield. Even the US press condemned Israeli actions; “Israel’s sneak attack...was an act of inexcusable and shortsighted aggression”, said a New York Times editorial, written by editorial page editor Max Frankel. “[The attack] did severe damage to the hope in which Israel’s true security must lie: the hope of realistic relations with all its neighbours”, New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis criticised.
until the early 1960s that the US concluded its first arms deal with Israel. During 1956 and 1957 Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles used extensive economic and political pressure on the young government of Ben Gurion to force a unilateral withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza after the Suez war. They also privately threatened Israel that if it did not withdraw from occupied territories the US Justice department may open an investigation into the tax-exempt status of the United Jewish Appeal and other charities providing vitally needed funds to Israel. It is over the nature and course of the Peace Process that we find many strains in the US-Israeli relationship. The current Peace Process has reached gridlock on numerous occasions since the 1993 Oslo Accords, due in part to the intransigence of hard-line Israeli opinion. Represented on a mainstream level by Likud politicians this line of thought values the security of Israel over all else and is wary of the premise of peace as seen by US foreign policy planners namely that of ‘Land for Peace’. Hardliners such as Shamir, Netanyahu, et al would rather peace was reciprocated unconditionally. The price of foregoing land in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan is for them too high a price to pay for peace. For the US this should be the cornerstone and premise for all discussions. Much of the impasse that has plagued the peace process for the last few years can be attributed to this. Other than the gridlock on the peace process USIsraeli relations have on numerous occasions reached friction. When Israel, through the Jewish lobby, has sought to oppose steps seen as vital to US security interests in the region, for example its efforts to halt the sale of AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia during the Reagan years, it failed. Israel’s 1981 bombing of an Iraqi nuclear reactor brought strong rebuke from Reagan’s administration.
America has also voiced disapproval of the Israeli aerial strike against PLO headquarters in Beirut, and the Knesset’s legislation to extend Israeli law to the Golan Heights, which America has never acknowledged as Israeli land. In 1989 James Baker, George Bush senior’s Secretary of State was severely critical of Israel’s intransigence on negotiations. In James Baker’s Speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Convention given in July 1989 he said; “For Israel, now is the time to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel. Israeli interests in the West Bank and Gaza, security and otherwise, can be accommodated in a settlement based on UN Resolution 242. Foreswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; reach out to the Palestinians as neighbours who deserve political rights.” When Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir labelled Baker’s speech as “useless”, Mr. Baker publicly rebuked Israel, “When you’re serious about peace, call us.” In October 1991, Bush and Baker effectively blackmailed Israel into attending the International Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid by threatening to withhold promised loan guarantees needed by Israel to help settle the flood of Jewish new immigrants out of the former USSR. The Clinton government clashed with Binyamin Netanyahu over the latter’s insistence on releasing Jonathan Pollard as part of peace negotiations with Arafat. Pollard is the only person in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for spying for an American ally. Currently serving his 17th year for espionage in revealing sensitive secrets to Israel, the US has been insistent on his remaining behind bars despite his aid to a close ally. As part of his sentence Pollard spent 7 years in solitary confinement, in the harshest unit of the harshest prison in the Federal system - FCI Marion. In October 2001 The White House scolded Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, dismissing as “unacceptable” his assertion that as the United States builds international support for its ‘war on May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
Between Fiction and Realism
“Each nation must work out its own salvation, and if it cannot stand on its own feet, it cannot stand at all…No amount of aid will permanently bolster up a people that abandon itself...”
terrorism’, it was prepared to sell out Israel the way Britain and France betrayed Czechoslovakia before World War II. When American interests are at stake she will muster her might to bring Israel into line. The fact that she sees Israel as a useful ally and has helped her considerably is not the same as being a compliant nation to Israel or the Jewish lobby’s dictates. America operates according to the political dictum, “Although in international affairs weak allies can be useful, they should not be in a position to commit the strong to a course of action.”
Jewish Lobbies in the United States There is no doubt that the Jewish community is a highly organised political force in America. Two organisations in particular dominate; one of those groups is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Long regarded as the most effective foreign-policy lobby in Washington, AIPAC has an annual budget of $19.5 million, a staff of 130, and 60,000 members. Those members constitute a powerful grass-roots network that can be activated almost instantly to press Congress to take this action or that. The other major group, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is less well known. Made up of the heads of 51 Jewish organisations, the President’s Conference is meant to reflect the broad spectrum of opinion among America’s 6.1 million Jews. By charter, it is supposed to act only when there is a consensus among its members. In practice, however, largely one man, Malcolm Hoenlein - who has tilted it decisively to the right on critical issues involving Israel in recent years - runs the organisation An example of their political power on the ground is that on April 15th 2002, thousands of people gathered at a mass rally in Washington in a show of support for Israel. More than 1,200 busloads of demonstrators from more than 15 states and from neighbouring Canada joined the event on Capitol Hill. Former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and members of the US Congress were among scheduled speakers at The National Solidarity Rally for Israel, which was the latest in a series of demonstrations across the United States, as rival supporters of Israel and the Palestinians try to galvanise public opinion. Mr Wolfowitz told the crowd that US President George W Bush, “Wants you to know that he stands in solidarity with you.” 10
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
Critics within America argue about the problems a dominant Jewish lobby has had on the US policy in the Middle East. They argue that in the absence of the Israel lobby, America’s elected representatives would surely have made aid to Israel conditional on Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. It is this largely unconditional nature of US support for Israel that compromises its Middle East policy.
that he had planned to drag out talks for ten years!
The truth about America’s Israel lobby is this: it is not all-powerful, but it is still powerful enough for US policy planners to take consideration of their reaction and efforts.
Their attitude shows their understanding that over dependence on one nation’s patronage is dangerous to one’s own survival. So whereas US grants and loans can be used as leverage for their political ends, the Israeli hawks have been mindful of too great an entanglement.
Israeli interests - the quest for Independence Sisely Huleston an English journalist said in 1954; “Each nation must work out its own salvation, and if it cannot stand on its own feet, it cannot stand at all…No amount of aid will permanently bolster up a people that abandon itself - on the contrary, foreign help, too much and too long, will weaken the fibres of the assisted nation, and will make its end all the more certain and rapid.” Israel has long realised that in the game of nations nothing comes for free; the loans, grants and military assistance of America come at a price. Whilst assistance is welcomed it can never be a substitute for autonomy in one’s own affairs. The right wing PM Menachim Begin summarised this when he said; “We know what the US wants from us, they want Israeli policy to be determined by any officer in the State Department, but this will never happen, because Israel is not a banana republic.” Begin’s Likud Party represents a strand of thinking that is wary of close entanglement with the US. Successive Likud Prime Minister have had to be wrestled to the negotiating table and have driven hard bargains from their US counterparts. By and large the Likud politicians do not place much credence in the US based premise for peace in the Middle East. Yitzak Shamir rejected UN involvement in the Middle East Peace process. As far as he was concerned UN resolution 242 had already been honoured by Israel in exchanging land for peace under the Camp David agreement, which resulted in the Sinai being given back to Egyptian control. In October 1991 Shamir reluctantly participated in the Middle East Peace Conference in Madrid while insisting on expanding Jewish settlements on the occupied Arab territories. The bilateral talks between Israel and its Arab neighbours made no progress as Shamir having lost the June 1992 elections, revealed
Ariel Sharon’s track record for obstructionism is well known. In 1982 he stated that “The establishment of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the only way of preventing the intentions of the US to force Israel to accept a peace treaty which will be a threat to the State of Israel.”
Conclusions Much of what we see in international politics is not a question of black and white, but the complexities are described as differing shades of grey. It is true to say that the Jews have a highly efficient political force that can help represent their interests and views in the political medium of the US. However to conclude from this that the branches of US government that determine US foreign policy; the Government, National Security Council, the State Department and the CIA, form policy based on Jewish dictates is wholly incorrect. Had this been the case there would be no support at all in the US administration for the notion of a Palestinian State, there would be no effort to inspire life into a Peace Process which at times has been in seemingly terminal relapse. Instead a green light would be given to Israel to do what it pleases. Doing so obfuscates and clouds the fundamental bases of conduct in international affairs. Namely that nations operate to protect and project their own interests. There was, and is, a compelling interest for the US to be involved in the Middle East. Incorrect analysis leads towards incoherent and incorrect action. In the minds of many Muslims it leads to the view that AIPAC should be rivalled with for the affections of the US administration. For the policy makers in the Islamic world it has meant wallowing in self-pity, as they mistakenly believe the task of changing the course of affairs in the Middle East is out of their hands. Ahmer Feroze
Having spent over a century struggling to get rid of a British Raj, the Muslims of Pakistan must now bear witness to Musharraf’s efforts to impose an America Raj
MUSHARRAF’S Referendum for American Imperialism
n 5 April during a televised broadcast to launch his referendum campaign, General Musharraf declared before the nation, “Ladies and Gentlemen the world has changed in the wake of the September Eleven events. What is our role in the changing world? I am proud to note that we have been able to raise our stature. We have saved the economy. We have preserved the national interests. This is our achievement.” This is how the General described his achievements to the people. But Musharraf’s real achievement has been to go far further than any previous ruler, military or civilian, in subjugating Pakistan’s affairs to the Western Kuffar states, particularly America. What is the true reality of Musharraf’s economic achievement? General Musharraf’s economic strategy has consisted of pleading and begging in front of the Western loaning institutions for the restructuring of repayments on old loans and for the release of new loans. This provides the economy with a temporary cash injection, but also deepens the debt trap and the corresponding drain on the country’s resources in the form of marked-up repay-
ments to the West. Furthermore, the new loans have come with even more cruel conditions; in order to appease the IMF, the government has recently implemented the General Sales Tax (GST) on medicine, which punishes the poor for being ill, and has also decided to levy GST on electricity in full. And just like the Hindu bunya (money lender) of old, the IMF forces Muslims to give up their assets and means of provision when they do not keep up with repayments, demanding the privatisation of prized national assets such as the OGDCL and PTCL. Meanwhile, the government is so enthusiastic about foreign ownership that it is even prepared to inflict hardships upon its own citizens to encourage the looting of their assets: on 5 April, Musharraf justified the ruthless rise in gas prices as necessary to entice foreign firms to fall upon Pakistan’s abundant gas reserves. So, the true reality of Musharraf’s economic achievement has been to further weaken the country’s economic foundation leading to its wholesale surrender to the West. What is the true reality of Musharraf’s achievement with regards to the national interests? General Musharraf’s national security strategy has been to further intensify American hegemony over Pakistan. By admitting American troops onto Pakistani soil, General Musharraf is repeating the fatal error of the Mughals, who accepted the request of the British East India Company to maintain their own standing armies for the protection of the Company’s trading interests; but in the end it was these troops that replaced centuries of Muslim rule with British Imperialism. America is no less imperialistic than the British and is already deepening its roots into every area of Pakistan’s defence services and capabilities. Not content with the physical occupation of Pakistani soil, American personnel interrogate Pakistan military officers serving in the ISI and supervise raids in the Central Punjab heartland. But perhaps worst of all, the government is strengthening America’s control over Pakistan’s hard-earned nuclear bomb including comprehensive restructuring of research facilities, American interrogation of Pakistani nuclear scientists and an increased American intrusion into the management of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, through the involvement of the IAEA. Having spent over a century struggling to get rid of a British Raj, the Muslims of Pakistan must now bear witness to Musharraf’s efforts to impose an America Raj. So, the true reality of Musharraf’s achievement with regards to the national interests has been to work to open the Pakistani interior to the Americans, thereby reintroducing physical colonialisation to South Asia more than 50 years after British military forces withdrew from this land.
What is the true reality of Musharraf’s achievement with regards to political reform? General Musharraf’s political strategy has been to strengthen his personal control over Pakistan so that he is better able to impose the Western agenda. The state run, state financed referendum clearly exposes the reality of devolution; the new local councillors are mere pawns of the ruler, easily threatened with the withdrawal of development funds. Musharraf’s amended anti-terrorism law now forbids Islamic criticism of government policies and introduces serving military officers onto the bench to preclude any resistance from civilian judges. The new Draft Police Ordinance even proposes detention without charge and forcible entry into houses without warrants, amongst other measures. Despite the so-called open media policy, Pakistan is being converted into a police state where any accounting of the ruler can be ruthlessly suppressed. As an absolute military dictator, Musharraf is in a far stronger position than either Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif whose ambitions were always limited by the authority of the President or the Chief of Army Staff. And once Musharraf extracts a “yes” from the people of Pakistan on April 30, the President General will be in an even stronger position than he is in now; the deceptive political face will be thrown aside and the true dictatorial face will emerge. So, Musharraf’s real achievement with regards to political reforms has been to succeed in imposing absolute military dictatorship without resorting to imposing martial law. And what is the true reality of Musharraf’s achievement regarding international stature? General Musharraf’s strategy has been to use every opportunity to project his personal standing internationally, instead of projecting the interests of his country. Musharraf’s continues to prove to the West that he is their man and that he will succeed in taming an unruly Pakistan. In fact, America is heavily reliant on Musharraf to exert her will over Pakistan; Milton Bearden, the former CIA chief in Sudan and Pakistan, said on 2 November 1999, “Gen Musharraf may represent a last good chance to bring the powerful force of US values to bear on the course Pakistan will choose for the new millennium.” Consequently, America defends Musharraf’s long abeyance of the constitution and heaps praises on him as a favourite son, whilst at the same time the US authorities continue to withhold critical military supplies, new technology, and already-paid-for F16s. The US authorities also continue to make false allegations about Pakistan’s human rights record, apply international pressure to Pakistan’s jihadi groups and detain hundreds of Pakistanis in America without charge after September Eleven, assuming them to be guilty until proven innocent. So, May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
NEXT STOP: IRAQ
Musharraf’s real achievement with regards to international stature is an entirely personal one; where the West sees him as a loyal agent, who struggles with his own people to bring them to submission to the West. This is the true reality of Musharraf’s achievements. From his first day in office, he has worked to further subjugate Pakistan to the West and to America in particular - all the time masking each step he takes by proclaiming it as a victory for Pakistan. So supporting America’s horrendous bombing of Afghanistan is explained as raising Pakistan’s stature in the world. And undermining Pakistan’s leverage on Kashmir by banning jihadi groups is explained as eliminating sectarian violence. And selling national assets is explained as attracting foreign capital. And creating a police state is explained as combating terrorism. And, now, there is Musharraf’s so-called referendum, about which we would just like to ask a very simple question: Is there a single aware person in this entire country who believes that this referendum is fair or that it will reveal the true opinion of the masses? Allah has blessed the Muslims of Pakistan with the Iman, the abundant economic resources, the capable military, and the gifted sons and daughters, that are all requisites for success. But Pakistan must liberate itself from Western imperialism in order to achieve this success. Moreover, the people of Pakistan must change the system of government that enables a loyal American agent to rule over this country for America’s interests alone. The system in this country is a colonialist system, left behind by the British, and now used by America to continue colonialism of this land and these people. Muslims will only achieve liberation from the West and her agents when they replace this western colonialist system with the Islamic Khilafah, which is the system of government revealed to man by his Creator, Allah, subhanahu wa ta’ala.
“O you who believe! If you help (in the cause of) Allah, He will help you, and make your foothold firm” [TMQ Muhammad: 7] Hizb ut-Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan 26/04/2002
s Afghan opposition groups and U.S. armed forces continue their media designed successes in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida, the American debate has quickly turned to the question of where the so-called fight against terrorism should go next. In numerous public statements, President Bush has talked about a wideranging campaign against global terrorism. He has not committed to military operations against any other country or terrorist organisation, but he has made it clear that the broader struggle against socalled terrorism will be a long-lasting effort that could include the use of military force in regions beyond Afghanistan. Here we look at the history and reasons for foreign presence in the Gulf, and link that to the present policy of the U.S in that region, and the possibility and reasons for extending the war on terrorism to one of the key “axis of evil” member states, Iraq.
U.S. Oil Policy in the Middle East after the 1991 Gulf War Securing the flow of affordable oil is a cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy. The U.S. strategy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq, designed to ensure that neither Iraq nor Iran is capable of threatening neighbouring Gulf countries, is inextricably linked to Washington’s oil policy. Currently, U.S. domestic oil production supplies about 50% of total U.S. consumption. Foreign sources provide the rest, primarily Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, and several African countries.
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
The U.S. is strongly committed to protecting Gulf oil, although only about 10% of oil used in the U.S. is imported from the region. During the Cold War, U.S. strategy was primarily aimed at ensuring that Gulf oil did not fall into hostile hands (i.e. the former Soviet Union). Gulf oil was and remains important because of its impact on the global economy. U.S. competitors in Europe and Japan depend much more on Gulf oil than the U.S. does: 30% of European oil imports and nearly 80% of Japan’s come from the Gulf. The U.S. exerts significant influence on these countries through control of the Gulf oil. The Gulf Co-operation Council states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain) and Iran and Iraq together jointly possess 64% of the world’s proven oil reserves. The most important among the Gulf-states is Saudi Arabia, which alone controls 27% of the world’s oil supplies. Saudi Arabia’s light crude is particularly sought after in the market by U.S. industries for sophisticated uses such as production of airplane fuels. Furthermore, money generated from Saudi oil sales to the U.S. often translates into Saudi arms purchases from the U.S. weapons dealers (thereby allowing the U.S. to keep as much of the oil revenues as possible). For the last decade or so, Gulf monarchies have invested higher percentages of oil profits in land, hotels, real estate, factories, and other enterprises in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. As a result, increasing income of the oil-exporting states is linked to profits from unrelated businesses in oilimporting states rather then from the sale of the oil
itself. This gives the Gulf oil states some stake in keeping the oil prices relatively moderate, since they share financial interests in the oil-importing countries. The Gulf-war made clear the U.S. commitment to the security of the Gulf States and the supply of oil. Washington maintains military and naval installations in Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, regarding the presence of these U.S. forces as central to keeping the pressure on Iraq and Iran to secure the flow of oil and prevent any threat to oil in the international waterways. According to the U.S. based Institute of Policy Studies, the U.S. is far too dependent on oil, and its policy puts little emphasis on developing energy alternatives. Therefore, in effect, the task to control the Middle East oil involves the removal of foreign competition.
Recent US-Iraq Policy There are many potential targets for a possible postAfghanistan phase of the “war on terror”; Abu Sayyaf guerrilla bases in the Philippines, so-called terrorist bases and training camps in Somalia, Syria and the Lebanon as well as Iraq (along with Iran and North Korea as the three states making up the “axis of evil” defined by the U.S. President in his State of the Union address to the U.S. Congress in January this year). Numerous outside analysts and Bush administration officials are already making the case that the next phase in the war on terrorism should be an effort to overthrow the Iraqi regime-if necessary, with U.S. military force. As early as November 26, President Bush himself appeared to raise the ante on the Iraq debate, stating that Saddam would, “find out”, what was in store for him if he failed to heed international demands to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. While Bush’s statement may have been nothing more than a reiteration of existing U.S. policy (a follow-on from Clinton’s era), it was interpreted by many as a conscious effort to remind the world of the dangers posed by Saddam and to begin to create a legal and political predicate to justify an eventual American attack against him. It is clear from the recent machinations by the new Bush government that it intends to aggravate the situation in the Gulf and incite agitations therein under the pretext that Iraq did not abide by the ceasefire conditions of the Second Gulf War related to the removal of weapons of mass destruction. She depends upon United Nations reports, reports emanating by the Ministry of Defence or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or press reports published by the media, which are all of her making e.g. the recent satellite photographs produced, at the Security Council’s Iraq sanctions committee, where before
and after pictures of lorries entering military bases near Baghdad and emerging as rocket launchers were presented. The U.S. had started rigorously and actively, from the first day of the Bush administration taking over, to assemble what she calls “allied states” to review the regime of sanctions with a new system which they call “smart sanctions” that permits the entry of consumer goods and prevents military goods or those with dual usage. Many states, including the Arab ones, have agreed and she is in the stage of putting down the details. Iraq occupies a large space in the thinking of the new administration. This became clear since the time of the previous administration. On 9/1/2001 then US Secretary of State Madeline Albright said: “The United States will continue putting pressure on Iraq even after the period of President Clinton”. Accordingly, Bush announced his policy in the early days when he said in his press conference on 22/2/2001: “...We will review the current sanctions policy and will review the options about how the sanctions will be effective...and we expect from him (Saddam) not to develop weapons of mass-destruction. If it appeared to me that he is doing that, then there will be consequences.”
full-blown insurrection against Saddam Hussein, taking off from territory he does not control...” The proposed territories of Kurdistan are highly strategic. They encroach upon many other territories, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. It is therefore no surprise neighbouring countries and others are concerned about America’s attempt to create a Kurdistan. In fact, the colonialists of old had great designs on Kurdistan. One of the clauses of the “Sayfar” agreement (Paris, 1920) related to the Kurds. This agreement determined how the fragmentation of the Islamic State’s territories should take place. It stated that Kurdish territories situated east of the Euphrates should be granted self-rule, and a committee consisting of British, French and Italian officials should be in charge of implementing the clause.
American Interests in the Region
America merely continued where the old colonialists left off. America has been working for this from the time that Abdul Kareem Qasim took authority in Iraq in 1958. For decades she has been supporting the Kurdish separatists. The U.S. press reported the full extent of CIA funding for Kurdish separatist groups, “In the first years after the 1991 Gulf War, the CIA funnelled tens of millions of dollars to the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella group of members of Iraq’s Sunni Muslim, Shi’ite Muslim and Kurdish communities. From bases in Salahuddin and near Irbil, in northern Iraq, the congress operated radio and television stations, published a newspaper and conducted military raids into government-held territory.” (The Washington Post, 16 November 1997). Following on from that, in recent times, the “Iraq Liberation Act” allowed the U.S. president to spend up to $97 million to provide military assistance and training to Iraqi opposition groups.
Only the naive would not see that America had concerns other than the damage caused by so-called weapons of mass destruction. After all, nobody is disarming Israel, which has proven weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the U.S. cares little for anything when it comes to her interests. One such interest (within Iraq) is the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. This has been the longterm U.S. interest in the region with respect to Iraq for some time now. In 1997, acting spokesman of the U.S. government, James Foley was asked, “Would autonomy for the Kurds in northern Iraq be consistent with U.S. support for the territorial integrity of Iraq?” His carefully worded answer made it clear that there is a lot of sympathy in Washington for such a possibility in Iraq. In contrast, Richard Perle (former U.S. assistant secretary of Defense for International Security) did not beat about the bush. In an article he wrote for the Washington Post on the 8/2/1997, he wrote, “this strategy aims at eliciting a
However, we know from history, any plan will require time to come to fruition. And so we saw the Americans refuse to aid the Shi’ite and the Kurdish uprising at the end of the Gulf war, for fear of bringing to power (amidst the resulting power vacuum that would naturally ensue) an “unknown entity”, hence the U.S. preferred to live with a crippled devil they knew rather than the devil they did not. As well, the crippled Saddam served to remind timid Arab and third world regimes what would be in store for those who did not toe the line of the “sole superpower” and the new world order. Some spinoff’s for the U.S. of isolating Iraq (in the short to medium terms) were the access to cheap oil and ability to sell weapons that consumed as much of the oil revenue as possible, by allowing Iraq in a periodic manner to seemingly threaten its neighbours. Another policy advanced by the U.S., was to ensure that none of Israel’s enemies developed or acquired
What those consequences are, only time will tell, but from observing the events in the region since the Second Gulf-war, one can begin to see what the broad outlines of the U.S. policy with respect to Iraq are, and identify the specific American interests in the region.
May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
Next Stop: Iraq
The United States, it argued, must continue to dominate the international system and thus to “discourage” the “advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or ... even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” 1992 draft of the Pentagon’s Defence Planning Guidance The Atlantic Monthly | January 2002
weapons of mass destruction as a counterpoise to Israel’s arsenal of dozens of nuclear missiles targeted at the Arab capitals. This factor led to a profound power imbalance in the region. It also forced the weak Arab regimes to continue arming and relying on U.S. protection, whilst at the same time paying for the costs of a U.S. protection force, as in the case of Saudi Arabia. In 1998, the Clinton administration’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Sandy Berger, defined the strategy that the U.S., “can and will pursue is to contain Saddam in the short and medium terms, by force if necessary, and to work towards a new government over the long-term”. How long is the long-term? At the time, the U.S. was not committing itself to a date or deadline. “Change will come to Iraq at a time and in a manner that we can influence but cannot predict”, explained Clinton’s Assistant for National Security Affairs. Perhaps that time is fast approaching.
Conflicting Interests over Iraq The Gulf War was brought to an abrupt end by Britain. She was the one who pulled out her forces first and declared an end to her fighting. This forced the Americans to pull out as well, instead of going all the way to Baghdad to instigate a regime change. The U.S. had to pull out; otherwise the alliance would have been exposed as not an alliance to liberate Kuwait alone, but a one-state U.S. agenda to install its own puppet in Iraq over the sitting British puppet. In a similar vein, Britain continues to play her snake like role in this affair. Saddam himself also foiled US plans, for example, when in April 1996 America tried to reconcile the two main Kurdish groups. America scheduled a ceasefire between the two fighting Kurdish groups in August 1996. However, Saddam disrupted this plan, by aiding the KDP in seizing the PUK strongholds of Irbil and Suleimaniyya. He did this to restore the balance of power between the two Kurdish parties, thus protracting their struggle. America though was running, in parallel, covert operations in northern Iraq to overthrow Saddam. The CIA called its programme the Iraqi National Accord or Wifaq. When Iraqi forces moved into Irbil, the CIA agents and members of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) were flown out to Guam and then to America. America then retaliated by bombing military targets in the south of Iraq and declared the widening of the no-fly zone in the south. This indicated that America was still keen on dividing the south as well as the north. All of these events serve as the backdrop to Saddam’s showdown with America. 14
Khilafah Magazine May 2001
After the post-September 11th threats to Iraq, at the time of writing Washington had considerably toned down its military dictate, as disclosed by the National Security advisor Condeleeza Rice, who said on the 7th of April “The President has not decided to use military force” (CNN). Further clarification was as outlined by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the US will deploy new weapons inspections to resume their hunt for Saddam’s suspected arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. All this to portray America with the moral authority, provide justification for a future conflict, or a US presence in the Gulf. As friction between the inspectors and Saddam is inevitable, America could use this avenue to accrue real justification to meet her aims.
Volatility of the International Arena More than anything, the drama over Iraq revealed yet again that international relations boil down to competing interests. The image of fairness, morality, justice, goodwill and seeking to remove weapons of mass destruction is merely a very thin veil to conceal the actual mechanics. In the post-September 11th world, in fact, in the post-1924 world (after the destruction of the Islamic Khilafah State) human life, misery and despair are inconsequential when it comes to material interests. Furthermore, the current crisis (and previous crises) highlights a fundamental characteristic of the interplay between nations. There is no such thing as a collective will or a harmonious international community. Rather there are perpetual jealousies between nations, evolving around their perpetual competing interests. It is this that leads to perpetual conflicts between them as seen in Iraq. These two facts have great implications when the Khilafah State returns to represent the Islamic Ummah on the international arena. Firstly, the Ummah must expose to the world the ugly face of current international affairs. This will help to win over the hearts of the nations that are victims of it, nations such as those within South America and Africa. Nations that have for decades and centuries been the feeding grounds for nations like America and the European powers. The Prophet (saw) showed how important it is to do this. Initially Quraish were held in high esteem by other tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. They were seen as the model of karamah (dignity). Over a period of years, the Muslims exposed their real nature. One such ayat was revealed in the year 2 AH, just before the Great Battle of Badr, “They will ask you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say, fighting therein is a grave offence, but graver in the sight of Allah is to prevent access to the
path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the sacred Masjid and drive out its people from there. Tumult and oppression are worse than killing” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 217].
Secondly, the Ummah must realise that the enemy nations have conflicts with each other. In the time of the Prophet (saw), it was noticed that former allies of Quraish deserted them, when they saw that the Islamic State had a greater benefit for them. Many of them left pacts with the Quraish to establish pacts instead with the Islamic State. As the late British peer Lord Palmerston would put it, they had no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. When the Quraish were eventually conquered by Islam, no tribe came to their defence. These are but two of the principles that the upcoming Khalifah will bear in mind Inshallah when steering the State in the international arena. They reveal that the material benefit not only serves as a drive for secular nations to engage in the international arena, it is also their Achilles heel. This surely must be borne in mind for those that have the noblest of all motives to engage in the international arena, the dominance of Islam. Finally, as Muslims we know that forces of evil have always been present in this world and will remain so, but they become dominant only when the forces of good are weakened by internal problems. Today, the great problem facing the Muslim world in the face of the American hegemony and attack is that we lack a true, just and sincere leader to give direction to the 1.5 billion Muslims throughout the world. We need to take lessons from history. In 1258 CE, Halaku Khan ransacked Baghdad, killing 1.6 million people in the city. It was a complete scorched earth policy. They came, they looted, they destroyed, they burned, they killed, they left. After Baghdad, Halaku Khan marched towards Syria and Africa wreaking his destruction and pillaging lands in his path. Everyone who came in the way of Halaku Khan was routed and destroyed. He seemed so invincible. In 1260 CE, at ‘Ain-Jalut, in Galilee, the forces of Sultan Bayburs dealt him a terrible defeat. The inspiring force behind the Sultan was Shaykh Izzuddin, a great scholar and reformer who urged the Sultan to move on and turn back the Mongol tide. His rousing sermons drew back the Muslims to Islam in thousands. When a people turn to Allah (swt), Allah’s (swt) help turns to them. Within two years the whole of Ash-Sham (modern day Syria) had been liberated from the Mongols. What is more, due to the great work carried out by the scholars of that time, within
Quotes US Hegemony
40 years of Halaku’s invasion of Baghdad his descendants had accepted Islam. Today, the Ummah, faces a situation not too dissimilar to the time of Halaku Khan. No one knows upon whom and where the self-declared U.S. war on terrorism will turn upon next, and what country will be unfortunate enough to be next in the U.S. firing line. At this time, like the Mongol invaders, the U.S. also seem invincible. Likewise, it may be hard to envisage a rolling back of the U.S. hegemony, a removal of U.S. forces from the Hijaz, and the opening up of Kufr lands to Islam, but history shows that when the Muslims are united under a single Khalifah, they are able to accomplish many things, by the leave and will of Allah (swt). Indeed, the need of the hour is to work to re-establish the Islamic Khilafah State, which is that entity which will work to secure the interests of this Ummah against the hegemony of the Kuffar, and will seek to establish its own Islamic world order so as to take the people from the darkness into the light.
“So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for you must gain mastery if you are truly believers” [TMQ Ale’Imran: 139]. Asim Khan
“We do not get that large a percentage of our oil from the Middle East. Japan gets a lot more ... And one of the reasons that we are sort of assuming this role of policeman of the Middle East, more or less, has more to do with making Japan and some other countries feel that their oil flow is assured ... so that they don’t then feel more need to create a great power, armed forces, and security doctrine, and you don’t start getting a lot of great powers with conflicting interests sending their militaries all over the world.” Walter Russell Mead , a senior foreign-policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations The Atlantic Monthly, January 2002 “International law, since the 17th century, has rested on two principles: national sovereignty and the legal equality of nations, both of which Washington ignores whenever convenient.” “The Bush administration is a crusading government. There seem to be many in the administration who are convinced that military force can impose desirable political solutions. They think that Ariel Sharon has been doing a good job.” William Pfaff, Empire isn’t the American way IHT- Tuesday, April 9, 2002
Old Colonial Britain “Instead of sending big armies to fight costly Continental wars, Britain, for instance, relied on its navy to blockade those states bidding for mastery of Europe and on its financial power to underwrite coalitions against them, and stuck its allies with the greater part of the blood price of defeating those powers that aspired to dominate the Continent.” The Atlantic Monthly, January 2002
Hindu Extremism “Hindu extremists, armed with swords and rifles, are reported to have “exploded houses and mosques” with LPG and oxygen cylinders, and are reported to have been supplied with trucks loaded with gasoline and gas cylinders. They are also reported to have been paid Rs 500 ($12.50) per day, and provided food, water, wine, and medical aid. If arrested, their legal expenses were to be covered by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and if they were killed, it is reported, their families would be given Rs 200,000 ($5,000).”
“The people who demolished the mosque at Ayodhya are now senior ministers” Pankaj Mishra, The Guardian Weekend Magazine, April 6th 2002
UK-US Special Relationship “We are US allies in Afghanistan and other parts of the world, against terrorism, but we do not support each and every step taken by the US”, Hilary Synnott , British High Commissioner to Islamabad, The Dawn, 22 March 2002 Friday
UK Public Perception of UK-US Special Relationship “If Gordon Brown wants to raise even more money for the NHS etc, perhaps he should abolish the Foreign Office and the MoD. UK foreign and defence policy is largely determined in the United States, so surely we no longer need to maintain these expensive bureaucracies in the UK. A simple phone line to Washington would suffice.” Chris Webster, Guardian letters page, 17 April 2002
The US & Israel “The Bush administration - fearful of offending the Israelis - allowed him to do what he wanted. In response to the wicked Palestinian suicide bombings, Bush expressed outrage. In response to Israel’s aggression, he called for restraint - and then did nothing.” The Independent, 08 April 2002
Israel “Left to his own devices, Ariel Sharon may yet turn out to be the ultimate suicide bomber” David Clark - Special Advisor to the Foreign Office till May 2001 The Guardian , 10 April 2002
Afghanistan “There’s no chain of command, no authority to issue an order,” said Izzat Wasifi, son of an influential tribal leader in Kandahar. “No one is ruling Afghanistan except the Americans right now. If not for them, we’d be in the hands of the Taliban or in civil war.” Izzat Wasifi, 11 April 2002
The Wisdom Fund, 18 Mar 2002
May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
DECRIMINALISING CRIME Substance abuse is a huge problem in the world. Drugs are consumed for either hedonistic pursuits or as a means to escape from a miserable life. Whatever the reason, both are intrinsically tied to Capitalism, the ideology of freedom
n the defence of freedom, Islam is often accused of being unable to deal with modern day problems. In this article we look at why the contrary is true.
In recent days the debate over legalising drugs has revealed the inability of the Western political system to deal effectively with this problem, or for that matter any problem based on the creed of freedom. In following its creed to deal with the problem of drugs, the matter remains far from resolved, exposing the impracticality of such a creed. Substance abuse is a huge problem in the world. Drugs are consumed for either hedonistic pursuits or as a means to escape from a miserable life. Whatever the reason, both are intrinsically tied to Capitalism, the ideology of freedom. Some take drugs to practise their freedom to create heaven on earth. Others take drugs to escape from the hell created by freedom. The UK Office of National Statistics found that the pursuit of freedom does not create a heaven on earth. It found almost one in six UK adults have contemplated suicide at some point in their lives. Below we analyse the various justifications put in favour of legalising drugs and identify the real crisis behind the issue. Drug abuse is not new, however the crime epidemic fuelled by the need for drug takers to pay for their habit has pushed politicians to address this issue. They have pumped resources into the police force and enacted one initiative after another, but drug related crime continues to rise, putting an everincreasing demand on the taxpayer and the police force. Much police time is taken in arresting both drug pushers and drug takers, taking limited police resources away from other policing matters. Seven out of ten crimes are drugs related according to one 16
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
UK Home Office study. UK Government figures also show that over a third of adults have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives. According to Drugscope, a UK policy think tank, there are about 266,000 problem users in the UK. By whatever measure, drugs are a serious problem for wider society. The call for the legalisation of drugs is not just restricted to cannabis. Various people giving evidence to the UK Commons Home Affair’s committee earlier this year (March 2002) urged MPs to legalise heroin. Mr Gillespie, father to a son who died of heroin abuse, appealed to MPs to legalise heroin so that it could be regulated to prevent “impure” heroin from killing young people. Others made this call too. Of the various arguments put forward on this issue, they broadly fall into two categories, pragmatic and ideological. It may be argued that in the case of Capitalism it is one and the same, nevertheless we analyse these arguments.
Pragmatic: “Alcohol is a drug and legal, so why can’t heroin be?” Alcohol is a drug and has been legal for many years. It is viewed in the West as a sign of their civility in that it can be enjoyed at social gatherings. If that is the case with alcohol, then why not other drugs? That is the gist of the argument. The Guardian newspaper (29/3/2002) reported that heroin addicts steal an estimated £43,000 a year. If alcohol is the cause of so many ills in society it is hardly a justification to legalise drugs, even so, this
cannot be the basis for legislating. Many laws in the past have been considered to be wrong and have been repealed or changed. So basing a new law on an existing law does not guarantee its correctness. For example, it could have been argued in the past that since slavery was legal, the enslavement of women too should be legal, as both blacks and women were considered inferior to the white male. The contrary argument is equally valid too, in that if drugs are illegal why can’t alcohol be banned? This highlights the inability to base one law on an existing law. If A is illegal and B is legal, do you make A legal or make B illegal? This dilemma is due to the absence of a comprehensive reference point upon which to base laws. “Legalising drugs and regulating its sale will reduce crime. Prohibition does not work.” It is claimed that the money gained through the sale of illegal drugs are used to finance other crimes. Also the impurity of drugs sold by dubious people poses a major health risk to drug users. A cursory look at alcohol - a regulated drug - which is only sold by license, and only to over 18s, undermines the above claim. The BBC revealed (26/3/2002) that 20% of all 11 to 15 year old drank alcohol. Regulation of alcohol has done little to curtail under aged drinking. Neither is there any legislating to stop its abuse. A person over the age of 18 can drink as much as they like to the point of becoming senseless. It is not illegal to drink to the point of becoming “leg-less” and so losing the control of ones ability to stand up. This may be classed as an individual’s freedom to drink what they like, but this type of alcohol abuse costs the British National Health Service £6 billion a year, which is
The fundamental problem in legalising drugs is not the issue itself, but rather freedom placing man as the legislator. Man is unable to legislate in the absence of full knowledge and with his inherent weakness shouldered by the tax payer. With regards to prohibition, Rowena Young the author of a government think tank report said, “There is not a single piece of evidence to show prohibition works.” This is true; prohibition of drugs cannot work within the context of a Western society since the law would be in contradiction with its creed. The creed stipulates individual freedom whereas the banning of drugs contradicts that same freedom. In such a situation the laws can result only in failure. Prohibition would only work if there existed a symbiosis between the creed and the legislation. When people believe in the laws that are applied, the laws can succeed. In the West the freedom of the individual contradicts with legislation curtailing a person’s freedom. “It is impractical to police the current drug laws.” Brian Paddick, until very recently the Commander of Lambeth Police in south London, said in a recent discussion on drugs, “We need to take the criminality out of it by legalisation and strict control.” So many people are taking drugs, that it is not practical to arrest them all. Many politicians, chiefs of police and others have admitted to taking “recreational” drugs. Society in the West would cease to function if all drug takers were put in prison. One government report stated that 1 in 5 of all people arrested were on heroin. The report also estimated that each heroin addict stole goods worth a staggering £43,000 a year! (The Guardian, 29/3/2002). This argument goes hand in hand with the above argument to de-criminalise and regulate drugs. The police and the government are quick to point that this will greatly reduce crime figures. If this argument is taken to its natural conclusion, it would conclude that all crime that is problematic be legalised, that way society would be crime free. No longer would car theft and muggings be classed as crime. This is preposterous. Such an argument only exposes the inherent contradiction and the impracticality of it. Such an incoherent argument only underlines the inability of man to deal consistently with life’s problems.
Ideological Those who hold the concept of freedom sacred, the bedrock of Capitalism, argue that man is free and should be allowed to eat and drink without interference, as long as he causes no harm to others. A former chief constable of Gwent Francis Wilkinson has said that the legalisation of cannabis is a logical consequence of the Human Rights Act.
This oft-quoted mantra of freedom is used as a blanket justification to permit all things. No society practises freedom, rather they all have laws and regulations to organise and protect society. Allowing man to be absolutely free results in chaos. Those who call for freedom, do so in relative terms and not absolute, since that is impractical. If freedom is relative then who has the right to define freedom? If man is free then why should one man dictate to another the definition of freedom? So whether a society claims to be free or not, someone has to lay down the law. Hence the real issue is not of whether a society is free or not, clearly all societies have laws. The real question is who has the right to legislate, man or the creator of man? The other equally irrelevant ideological argument posed is that of democracy. If the majority of people believe that drugs should be legalised, then who are the minority to insist on its illegitimacy. The UK Liberal Democrat party’s Home Affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said, “I think public opinion is also being pragmatic and saying, well, I might not want to use it myself, but this should not be a policing priority, and there are many things we want the police to do, and many crimes we want them to deal with, and actually people using cannabis for recreational activities isn’t anywhere near the top of our list.” The opinion of one expert is often better than the majority opinion of a thousand lay people; hence the majority opinion is not always correct. More than this, the human mind is unable to qualify an act as legal or illegal, since this is a matter of opinion. Alcohol has benefits as well as harms. Even if man agreed that the harm outweighed the good, he would disagree on the approach. For example, both Britain and France agree about the harm alcohol causes. However Britain believes this is best dealt with by liberalising drink laws so as to avoid binge drinking. France on the other hand is tightening its laws.
Conclusion The fundamental problem in legalising drugs is not the issue itself, but rather freedom placing man as the legislator. Man is unable to legislate in the absence of full knowledge and with his inherent weakness. Here lies the problem. Various principles are used to justify an opinion not because they are correct, but because they afford the opinion some respectability. In many cases the real criteria for an opinion is merely benefit or pleasure.
“It may be that you hate something and it is good for you and it may be that you like something and it is bad for you, Allah knows and you do not know” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 216]. What is beneficial to one person is not necessarily beneficial to another. Which is why laws are inconsistent with the principles used for their justification. For example some call to legalise drugs based on the reasoning that prohibition is unworkable. However, this same argument is not used for car theft, which is also a problematic crime. Thus, the drug causing the greatest addiction in the West is not heroin or even crack cocaine, but rather the slogan of freedom. It is a slogan behind which politicians hide whilst subjugating a society to their whims and desires. The intoxication induced by freedom has befogged the minds of many until they are unable to recognise the fraud of freedom. Mazhar Khan
Man’s inability to objectively legislate is exposed by the contradictory laws on the statute books. Alcohol is legal, but cocaine is not. Polygamy is illegal but adultery is not. Laws are in a state of constant flux and inconsistency. A thing that is legal in one country is illegal in another. The same thing in the same place may be illegal at one time and then legal at another time. Since man is influenced by his environment, his pronouncements are relative and never objective. In order to pronounce a substance as legal or illegal, man is in need of a sound basis to which to refer to. Only a divine basis can be a valid basis to do this.
May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
THE KHILAFAH SYSTEM D WAS IMPLEMENTED CONTINUOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF ISLAM
ue to the current situation of the Muslims, it is natural that the Ummah is looking for a solution to its problems and dedicates its resources in order to alleviate itself from the catastrophes that are confronting it. In its efforts to solve its problems, it is also natural that the Muslims would realise that Islam is the only solution because it is deeply rooted in the minds of Muslims and embodies our history, language, culture, and sentiments. As a result of such a realisation, the Muslims would naturally work to bring Islam back into existence. Today, more Muslims are beginning to return to their Islamic roots, and we are exerting a tremendous amount of energy and resources in order to change our situation. In the attempts to create a revival, those movements who are working to re-establish the Khilafah, have faced questions and obstacles, such as whether the Khilafah State existed, and was Islam ever implemented throughout its history?
The root behind this questioning As a consequence of the cultural and political invasion of the West on the Muslims - which heavily concentrated on destroying concepts related to bringing Islam as a system - many ideas related to the method of Islam became weak, or completely misunderstood.
The Islamic Ummah must take the initiative and objectively re-examine its history by scrutinising its sources. No longer can the Muslims afford to dwell on the dark images and continue to repeat the attacks of the Orientalists.
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
“Those Muslims who tried to revive the institution of the Caliphate…. were merely holding on to a fantasy that was a comfortable panacea for the painful realities of their daily lives.”
There were some who were infatuated with the West, and smitten by their ideals, who denied the Khilafah state existed. The West ensured that the Muslims, by their own initiative, would refuse central concepts such as the Islamic political system, to the degree that when the Khilafah’s death certificate was signed in 1924, a scholar and Azhar graduate named Ali Abdul Raziq, plagiarised a French book and immediately issued it claiming that Muhammad (saw) never acted as ruler, imam, judge, or political leader, and that the Khilafah was not a part of Islam at all. He also claimed that the Muslims would convene and choose any political system to take care of their worldly affairs, but emphasised that Islam is exclusively for the individual and such a political system would not constitute a part of Islam. After issuing the book, Al Azhar issued a fatwa calling for the destruction of his certificate and claiming that he had left the fold of Islam. In spite of Azhar’s response, that book was published immediately after the death of the Khilafah, leading one to conclude that the publishing of such a book was precisely timed to coincide with the destruction of Khilafah. Today, Farish A Noor, a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist said in an article dubiously entitled, Restoration of the Muslim Caliphate remains a Pipe-Dream, “Those Muslims who tried to revive the institution of the Caliphate…. were merely holding on to a fantasy that was a comfortable panacea for the painful realities of their daily lives.” Another cause for the questioning of the ruling system of Islam is sinister too. There are those who are clambering to keep the Kufr systems, by passing fatawa which are contradictory to Islam, and which deny the existence of the Khilafah state in history as the Islamic political system, due to the fact that they wish to please their masters from amongst the corrupted rulers. Furthermore there are those who are defeated by pessimism who constantly see darkness and despair, and are afraid to go out of their houses. Moreover there are those who have simply misunderstood the reality of history, and the events of the past, and state that Islam had its period, for a very short period only. The West exerted a tremendous effort to alienate the Muslims from Islam, employing several tactics in order to achieve this aim. Among their many manoeuvres, they succeeded, through the Orientalists, in constructing a picture of the Islamic history as a grim era full of oppression and tyranny. As a result, many Muslims use such a scenario to counterattack any movement seeking to re-establish Islam in the realm of life. In order to legitimise their
arguments, they present two particular points. They bring the example of the Umayyads and Abbasids and claim that their rule was that of a monarchy; and they cite stories of problems and incidents that occurred in history, exaggerate them in scope, and use them to justify their claim that Islam was not implemented. Examining the validity of such claims requires a more thorough and exhaustive study of the history.
The Khilafah State is well defined The Khilafah state is well defined, and scholars in the past and present have presented the Khilafah structure in detail. It is beyond the scope of this article, to discuss the details, but the book issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir called “The Ruling System in Islam”, clearly illustrates the details of the ruling system, showing the basis of the Khilafah State, and revealing its pillars in an eloquent manner.
The argument that the Khilafah lasted for 30 years There are some who have misunderstood the divine texts, and claim that the Khilafah lasted for 30 years. They base their understanding, by taking in an isolated manner an honourable hadith, which was narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which states that the Prophet (saw) said, “The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulk after that.” Some people translate the word mulk as Kingship. To deal with this understanding we need to look to the hadith, and what it is addressing, and we need to look to this honourable hadith in context with other hadith. The 30 years that are mentioned is related to the period of the Khulafah Rashidah. So if we look to the period of the Khulafah Rashidah and look to the sum of the first five Khulafah it comes to exactly thirty years: two years and three months for Abu Bakr (ra), ten and a half years for Umar (ra), twelve years for Uthman (ra), four years and nine months for Ali (ra), and six months for al-Hasan (ra). The hadith then mentions that there will be mulk afterwards. If we look to this word, “mulk”, it has many meanings. Just by glancing at the famous Arabic dictionaries, like “Al- Muhit” of Fairuz Al-Abadi, it clearly illustrates this. The word mulk amongst other things does mean kingship, but also it means the one having charge over all the people, and also the word “hukm” (rule), is synonymous with the word sultan (authority), and mulk (dominion/rule). Those who refer to this hadith claim the Umayyads and later generations were monarchies because even
the hadith mentions the word Mulkan, which is derived from Malik, or ruler. Such an argument is built upon a false interpretation because the word Mulk as stated above means “dominion/rule/authority” and the word Malik can either mean “a ruler” in any context or “a ruler within a monarchical system.” Thus, rulership does not immediately connote kingship or monarchy but can mean the rulership in any system. Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur’an the word Mulk, in the context of rule, amongst other ayat:
“By Allah’s will they routed them; and Dawud slew Goliath; and Allah gave him dominion [Mulk] and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And were it not for Allah’s repelling some men with others, the earth would certainly be in a state of disorder; but Allah is Gracious to the creatures” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 251]. Nobody can claim that Dawud (as) was a king because he would have to declare himself sovereign, an impossible act for a Prophet. In this context, Dawud (as) was given the authority to implement the revelation he received from Allah (swt), in the same manner that the Khalifah has the authority to rule only by Islam. Also if we look to other hadith, they mention that there will be 12 Imams, which is a Shari’ah term to mean Khulafah, which can indicate that there were 12 Khulafah in the first three generations. As narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah (ra) that Muhammad (saw) said “The Islamic deen will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled by twelve Khulafah, all of them being from the Quraish” [Sahih Muslim]. In another hadith, amongst many others, the Prophet (saw) has indicated that their will be many Khulafah, It has been reported on the authority of Abu Hazim that he said: “I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years, and heard him informing about the Prophet (saw), he said: ‘The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’a and they will number many.’ They asked; ‘What then do you order us?’ He (saw) said; ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them, one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with’” [Sahih Muslim]. May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
Even the Tartars, who ransacked Baghdad and directly occupied the Islamic State, could not escape the influence of Islam. When the Muslims finally expelled them, they accepted Islam, and carried the banner of Islam to Russia and the Far East Also the example of the Sahabah, Tabieen, and TabiTabieen, and the great Mujtahideen amongst them, is clear that they recognised Khulafah after Hasan (ra) and gave bay’ah to them freely, such as Khalifah Muawiya, Khalifah Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra), and Khalifah Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (ra), and even those much later on such Khalifah Abdul Hamid II amongst many others.
The argument the Khilafah was a tyranny To legitimise their claims that Islam was not implemented during its history or that Islam cannot be implemented, some individuals refer to incidents described in history books that portray life under Islamic rule as a dismal existence in which oppression, misery, and persecution were the norm. In reality, these books often follow the footsteps of the Orientalists whose career was to attack and undermine Islam from every angle. The contents of such books point to isolated incidents that do not speak for the Ummah or the general state of affairs, and cannot be used to develop a clear picture of the society and the contemporary events that faced it. Many of these sources, if not all of them, are plagued with distorted facts and inflated statistics. Moreover, such books contradict common sense. For instance, Khalifah Haroon al-Rashid is often the target of malicious attacks by these books that accuse him of a myriad of crimes - ranging from adultery to alcoholism to theft - as well as portray him as a tyrannical despot who sponsored mass executions and ruled the people with an iron fist. Yet the same Khalifah Haroon - who spent alternating years performing Hajj and waging Jihad, who built a water transport system that the Saudi regime cannot build today with their wealth and resources, and who saw the Islamic civilization rise to its zenith under his reign - was also nicknamed “Al-Rashid” and called the “Sixth Guided Khalifah.” Many other contradictions and distortions are found in such books that aim only at undermining Islam and presenting a distorted picture. Yet, even tyranny is not a cause for the invalidation of the Islamic ruling system, as the hadith mention; “’The best of your Imams are those whom you love and they love you, and pray for you and you pray for them, and the worst of your Imams are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse them and they curse you.’ We asked; ‘O Messenger of Allah! Shall we not then declare war on them?’ He said; ‘No, as long as they establish Salah amongst you’” [Muslim from Auf bin Malik]. So the hadith is indicating that the rulers need to be obeyed, as long as he implements the Shari’ah. 20
Khilafah Magazine May 2002
The Islamic Ummah must take the initiative and objectively re-examine its history by scrutinising its sources. No longer can the Muslims afford to dwell on the dark images and continue to repeat the attacks of the Orientalists. Islamic history remains a history full of glimmering achievements and a shining example of civilization that portrayed humanity as a society of unparalleled justice, mercy, and advancement, for thirteen centuries.
The period of the ransacking of the Khilafah in 1258-1261 There are some who claim that there was no Khalifah for a period of three years, and the Muslims ignored the duty of the Khilafah system. Again to understand the situation in this period, we need to study what happened. The reality of the Khilafah was that it was very weak centrally, in Baghdad, which was the capital, and a lot of the Wilayat (provinces) became very strong; virtually autonomous. So when the Mongols ransacked Baghdad, and killed the Khalifah, Mutasim in 1258 it shook the entire state as mentioned by Jalaluddin As-Suyuti in his book Tarikh al-Khulafah. The region of Egypt, was controlled by the Walis (governors), who had assumed the title of Sultan. They were the Mamluk’s at the time, who had just defeated the previous Walis, the Ayubi’s. As AsSuyuti mentions: “In the 657 AH the world was without the Khalifah. The Tartars were descending upon the Ummah. The Sultan of Egypt was a boy, Mansur Ali bil Muizz (who was unable to do anything to help the Muslims)…There upon Sultan Qotuz, assembled the nobles and the principal men of the Ummah and there present was Shaykh Izzuddin bin Abdus Sallam who was a celebrated orator, and he said, ‘ Since, the enemy has overrun the Wilayah, it is incumbent upon the whole Ummah to oppose them, and it is lawful to take from the people what they can afford of their sustenance on the condition that the bait al mal be first exhausted…” Then Qotuz, removed al-Mansur as the Sultan, and Qotuz, was then appointed as Sultan of the Wilayah. He then sent for Bayburs and met at Ain Jalut, where the Tartars were defeated, and the Muslims were victorious. In Rajab of 659 AH (May 1261) the Khalifah was proclaimed and given the bay’ah. His name was Al Mustansir Billah Ahmed, he had fled Baghdad in 1258, and when Bayburs became Sultan he set out to visit him, with the Qadis and other officials of the state. The first to give him Bay’ah was the Sultan Bayburs, then the Qadi al Qudaa, Tajuddin Aa’zz, then the Shaykh Izzuddin Sallam, and then
the rest of the influential people. The whole narration shows that the structure of the State was intact, apart from the fact that the Khalifah had been killed and that the Muslims did not have a Khaleefah for 3 years not because of a negligence of a duty, far from it, and it would be wrong to suggest so by the fact that the Muslims concerned for selecting a Khalifah were under an overwhelming power preventing them from doing so. This was the case of the Muslims after the murder of Uthman (ra) where the Muslims remained for five days without a Khalifah before pledging Ali (ra) as Khaleefah. Even the Tartars, who ransacked Baghdad and directly occupied the Islamic State, could not escape the influence of Islam. When the Muslims finally expelled them, they accepted Islam, returned to give the Bay’ah to the Khalifah, and carried the banner of Islam to Russia and the Far East. No other incident in history witnesses that a nation conquered a people, and the conquerors soon carried the culture and ideas of the conquered! Only through the implementation of Islam and the power of the Islamic Ideology could the Muslims have profoundly influenced their invaders in spite of the intellectual decline and fragmentation existing within the Ummah at the time.
The Case Of The Bay’ah Although the Khilafah remained with a single family during the time of the Umayyads and Abbasids, their ruling was not considered a monarchy for the following reasons. The sovereignty was never given to the Head of State, and nor did the Head of State ever claim himself to be sovereign, i.e. the source of legislation, as is the case in the monarchical system. Throughout Islamic history, the Muslims always referred to the Hukm Shar’i as the source of their legislation and not to any particular individual. The office of the Khilafah was never conferred upon individuals solely on the basis of inheritance. Although the Khilafah remained within a single family for several generations at a time, such an incident does not constitute inherited ruling because the Bay’ah was always given. In a monarchy, the son of the King or the ruler, by sole virtue of his family relationship, would immediately assume the ruling position afterwards. During the Islamic history, no Khalifah was ever appointed or designated to his post without the Bay’ah. Those few who did try to assume the position of Khalifah without a Bay’ah performed an illegitimate seizure of power and were quickly removed.
The controversy over the Bay’ah hovers around the incident in which Muawiya took the Bay’ah on his son, and such an incident is used to justify the claims that monarchical rule followed the generation of the Sahabah The controversy over the Bay’ah hovers around the incident in which Muawiya took the Bay’ah on his son, and such an incident is used to justify the claims that monarchical rule followed the generation of the Sahabah. Such a conclusion results from failing to distinguish between misapplying the rules and abandoning them altogether. Muawiya’s case demonstrates a misapplication of the Shar’iah in which the Bay’ah was taken in the wrong manner. Furthermore, Muawiya based his understanding on Abu Bakr’s (ra) actions when he nominated Umar (ra) before the termination of his Khilafah. In the same manner, Muawiya selected his son. Although Abu Bakr (ra) asked the opinions of the Muslims as opposed to Muawiya, such an act does not indicate that Muawiya abandoned the Shari’ah because the Bay’ah was not abandoned. In spite of the misapplication, the Bay’ah was given consistently throughout the thirteen centuries of Islamic rule. The Shariah has laid down 2 points related to the Bay’ah that need to exist for the Bay’ah to be legitimate. Firstly the consent of all the Muslims needs to be sought, and secondly it needs to be done without coercion but by free will and consent. Generally the Bay’ah was given by the Sheikh al Islam or the Ahlul Halli wal Aqd, the notables of the Muslims who represented the Muslims as a whole, throughout Islamic history, although there were notable exceptions, who were accounted by the Ummah, and are seen in a negative light by Muslims of all generations. Thus, the case against the Bay’ah has no basis for claiming that Islam was not implemented.
Conclusion Because the sovereignty belongs to Allah (swt), the Muslims should always surrender to Allah’s (swt) rulings as found in the Islamic texts when discussing any issue, evaluating any idea or concept, or initiating any agenda or action. Regardless of how many justifications or excuses circulate amongst the Ummah, the fact remains that Islam defined a unique political system, provided a detailed and welldefined political structure, established the political system as the practical mechanism to implement and carry Islam, and obliged the Muslims to establish the political system. The Orientalists have capitalised upon Islamic history to portray a bleak picture of life under Islamic rule. Some people, even sincere Muslims, have begun to amplify the Orientalist attacks that succeed only in justifying the claims that Islam is not valid for modern political life. Such claims are not excuses for the Muslims to claim that Islam has no political system or that it doesn’t work. On the Day of Judgment, Allah (swt) will judge the Muslims for their deeds, not their excuses.
The ruling by Islam constitutes an integral part of the belief in Islam because Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur’an:
“They (the prophets) are those whom We gave the Book, Al-Hukm (the ruling), and the Prophethood. But if they disbelieve therein, then we have entrusted it to a people who are not disbelievers” [TMQ AlAnam: 89]. Nobody can claim that Muhammad (saw) was not given the ruling because the Ayah clearly indicates that, as a Prophet, Muhammad (saw) received the ruling along with the Book and the Prophethood. To claim that Islam does not have a ruling system would denote a denial of the Ayah in the Qur’an. Also, “they” in the Ayah is addressed to the polytheists among the Quraysh, and the, “people who are not disbelievers”, refers to the Sahabah. In this Ayah, Allah (swt) is stating that those who disbelieve in any of the three aspects, whether it is the Book, the Prophethood, or the ruling, would be similar to the disbelievers among the Quraish who fought and opposed Muhammad (saw). Furthermore, the Sahabah, in order to fulfil the criterion of, “people who are not disbelievers”, would have to believe in the ruling and work for its establishment. Based upon this Ayah, Allah (swt) likens those who oppose the ruling or those who oppose the work for Islam’s establishment to the polytheists among the Quraish. Thus, any attack against the political system of Islam or those who work to establish it are against Islam itself. Most importantly, the Muslims must understand that, in spite of what history says, Islam is correct: Allah (swt) is still Allah (swt), the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe; the Qur’an and the Sunnah still remain as guidance for humanity and the system from Allah (swt). Islam will always remain for anyone to accept or reject as he or she desires, and no excuses whether they come in the guise of, “Islam was not implemented, so what’s the use?” or any other justification - will change Islam in any aspect. Nations, like people, experience falls and shortcomings that add to the growth of the nation in the same manner that an individual’s failures build experience and knowledge that act as stepping stones for future success.
“We have made you a just Ummah, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you” [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 143].
“You are the best Ummah ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin the good, and forbid the evil, and you believe in Allah” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 110]. The Muslims should aspire towards nothing less because Muhammad (saw) indicated that the Khilafah will return based on the path of Prophethood. Ibn ‘Asakir quoted Yunus Ibn Maysara Ibn Halbas as saying that Rasoolallah (saw) had stated: “This matter (namely the Khilafah) will be after me in Madinah, then in Syria, then in the Jazira, then in Iraq, then in Madina, then in Jerusalem. If it is in Jerusalem, its home country is there, and if any people expel it, it will not return there for ever” [Ibn ‘Asakir, Tahdhib Tarikh Dimashq al-Kabir, Volume 1, p42 (Dar al-Masiyrah, Beirut, 1979)]. Such Ayat and Ahadith should provide a source of confidence in Islam to motivate the Muslims to strive for the supremacy of Allah’s (swt) deen. The Muslims have a responsibility to mankind to establish Islam and carry Islam to the world. Asif Khan
Today, the Islamic Ummah has fourteen centuries of history as a deposit in her ideological account that can be withdrawn and utilised in the challenge to reestablish the Islamic State and attain its rightful status. Allah (swt) mentions the Muslims’ status in May 2002 Khilafah Magazine
News From Around The World
Musharraf’s Rigged Election In a result that would send the spin doctors of the UK Labour Party delirious, Pervaiz Musharraf, known by his various titles including General, Chief of Army Staff and President of Pakistan, received a staggering 98 % of the vote in a widely rigged referendum held in Pakistan on 30 April 2002. He follows in the rather un-auspicious footsteps of other corrupt rulers in the Islamic world. In September 1999, President Hosni Mubarak was elected to his fourth six-year term when he supposedly received 93.8 % of the votes cast, with a 79.2 % voter turnout. Not to be out done, Saddam Hussein, the dictatorial ruler of Iraq, achieved an almost unanimous Guinness Book of Records 99.96% ‘Yes’ vote, with a 99.47% turnout, leaving only about 3,300 unaccounted voters among a population of 8.4 million. In comparison, a rather paltry 58 % turned out for the British General Elections in 2001 where Labour achieved a landslide victory.
Terror War was accomplished in a record time of less than 24 hours. Despite Musharraf and the rulers of the Islamic world having delusions of grandeur it is no secret that a massive gulf exists in the Islamic world between the rulers and the people. These pantomime style, rigged, one candidate elections organised like a military operation fool few from the Muslim Ummah. The fact of the matter is that the people of the Islamic world are fed up by such rulers because they cannot see them solving the problems of the Ummah, resulting in a political vacuum. The failure to solve the problems of the Ummah is intrinsically due to the system through which the existing leaderships attempt to look after the affairs of the Muslims. The need of the time is a political leadership that looks outside of the colonialist system entirely. This can only be achieved by working for Islam’s own unique system, which is the Khilafah Rashida. Dr Imran Waheed
These figures might lead some to think that voter apathy is at its height in the Western world while the people of the Islamic world impassioned with their rulers flock to polling stations to exercise their ‘democratic’ right. Nothing could be further from the truth. Independent observers at Musharraf’s multi-billion Rupee government funded referendum reported a voter turnout of no more than 10 per cent. Anyone who drove around any Pakistani city on referendum day would find empty polling booths across the board except where government employees were forced to attend and vote. Some individuals said that they had cast as many as 500 ballots and the vote count
Israel’s Internal Security Minister, Uzi Landau, who had said that “we’re not facing human beings, but rather beasts”. Robert Fisk : Fear and learning in America, 17 April 2002, Independent “If only God would intervene to defend the world from these enemies of peace. Although they swathe themselves in sheep’s clothing, they are wolves seeking to kill the flock... We Christians of the East, who in the past refused to stand by the Crusaders and stood by our Muslim brethren, are also opposed to the negative deeds of the Western governments biased in favor of Israel despite its arrogance and even though it damages the holy sites. We say to Mr. Bush: During your term, Jesus’ name is disgraced by the attacks on the holy places. Are you a Christian, Mr. Bush? I doubt it. Perhaps you are a Crusader. God alone knows.” Marcus ‘Aziz Khalil, Egyptian Coptic priest Al-Maydan (Egypt), April 22, 2002, as cited in Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), April 24, 2002
Life in Andulucia “Al Andalus, as the Muslims called their Spanish homeland, prospered in a culture of openness and assimilation. A nun named Hroswitha, called it “the ornament of the world.” Her admiration stemmed from the cultural prosperity of the caliphate based in Cordoba, where the library housed some 400,000 volumes at a time when the largest library in Christendom probably held no more than 400.” Maria Rosa Menocal, The New York Times, Tuesday, April 2, 2002
Please address your letters and questions to the Editorial Team, either by email or post at the following addresses:
or write to:
Khilafah Magazine, Suite 298, 56 Gloucester Road, London, SW7 4UB
Published by Al-Khilafah Publications
Khilafah Magazine May 2002