Khilafah Magazine January 2012

O you who believe, respond to the call of Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to that which would give you life...

SAFAR - RABI AL-AWAAL 1433 A.H ··· JANUARY 2012 ··· ISSUE: 19

ELECTIONS UNDER DEMOCRACY ALWAYS PROTECT THE 1% - CAPITALISM & THESEARCH FOR MORALITY - GOLD STANDARD: THE FUTURE FOR A STABLE GLOBALCURRENCY - DEBT CRISES: LESSONS LEARNED - PREVENTING OURSELVES FROMSPEAKING OUT: HOW MUSLIMS ARE IN GREAT DANGER OF SELF-CENSORSHIP -THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE CURRENT RULERS - US OCCUPATIONS TO CONTINUEIN THE MUSLIM WORLD - REFLECTIONS ON THE ISLAMIC WORLD 2011: WAITINGFOR THE 5TH WAVE OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD, THE REVIVAL OF KHILAFAH

Global Economy:in need of a New Vision

NEWSBITES

2 :: Khilafah Magazine :: January 2012 www.khilafah.eu

OBAMA CONFIRMS THE US AS A POLICESTATEOn one of the best days of the year forkilling bad news (31 Dec) President Obamaquietly signed into law the National DefenseAuthorisation Act (NDAA). Despiteconfirming that some of the provisions ofthe act “are unacceptable” Obama confirmedthe law which enables anyone labeled a“suspected terrorist” to be arrested and heldindefinitely in military custody.

Obama has said: “[I have] seriousreservations with certain provisions thatregulate the detention, interrogation, andprosecution of suspected terrorists”. He alsostressed in his signing statement that he feltthat his administration would not resort tothe unfair arrest and detention of US citizensunder the provisions of the new law. As aHarvard law graduate Obama understandsfull well that these words have no legalvalue whatsoever and that if he had foundparts of the law unacceptable then it wouldhave been a matter for him to refuse it andsend it back to the lower house foramendment.

Such a draconian law is not, however,unprecedented for western democracies. In1933 Article 1 of the February 1933 "Decreeof the Reich President for the Protection ofPeople and State" suspended German civilliberties under the pretext of “protecting”democracy. Restrictions on personal liberty,the right of free expression of opinion,among other matters were easilyimplemented. A course which Adolph Hitlerhappily took advantage of shortly thereafter.

CHINA POLICE DESTROY LOCAL MOSQUEIN QINGHAI PROVINCEHundreds of Muslims fought with armedpolice who demolished a mosque in northChina in the first week of January. Theviolence between local Muslims and 1,000armed police began after police declaredillegal a newly renovated mosque in theNingxia Hui Autonomous Region and movedto destroy it. The Mosque was first built in1987 and refurbished last year. China’scommunist government monitors religiousactivity closely and places stringent approvalconditions on the building of all mosques,churches and other places of worship as a

way to prevent their becoming centres foranti-government activity.

“Clashes happened and more than 100people went missing,” Jin Haitao told AFP. Hesaid many villagers’ injuries were caused bypolice using high-pressure water cannon todisperse those trying to stop destruction ofthe mosque.

The Hui are one of several Muslim minoritygroups in China. Two people were killed and50 injured after police fired tear gas andused knives and batons to beat back ethnicHui Muslim protesters in Taoshan village,Hexi township, as part of the governmentprovocations. China in recent years has seenseveral outbreaks of violence againstMuslims, mostly as the mainly MuslimUighurs of the northwest Xinjiang regionsuffer under government oppression and thelarge scale immigration of ethnic HanChinese into the region.

EGYPT ELECTIONS BROUGHT FORWARDTO MEET PROTESTERS’ DEMANDSEgypt’s military rulers have declared that theelection for the parliament’s upper housewill be completed on February 22, andpower will then be handed over to civilians,according to the state news agency MENA.Originally, the election to the Shura was totake place in three phases from January 29to March 11. Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi’snew decree states the Shura will meet forthe first time on February 28, nearly amonth earlier than previously planned. Asthe election to the lower house is to end inmid-January, this means Egypt will progressat a swifter pace towards writing a newconstitution. Since President Hosni Mubarakwas deposed in February 2011, the SupremeCouncil of the Armed Forces, headed byTantawi, has ruled Egypt.

It appears that the military, which is nowwitnessing ever increasing numbers back onthe streets with demands for real change, areseeking to accelerate a process whichentrenches their (military) veto position inthe new constitution and confirms Egypt asa secular state. This will lessen the timeavailable for protests to accelerate.

PAKISTAN HAS LOST OVER 3,000 SOLDIERSAND 40,000 CIVILIANS IN US WARThe Dawn reported late in 2011 that 3,097Pakistani soldiers and 40,309 civilians hadbeen killed to date in the tribal regions inthe American “war of terror”. The militarylosses which amount to the equivalent oftwo brigades includes two 2-star generalsand one 3-star general as reported byDirector-General of Military Operations

Major General Ashfaq Nadeem who wasspeaking to the parliamentary defencecommittees.

With Pakistan embroiled in politicalscandals, assassinations, unprecedenteddrone attacks and a frozen politicalcredibility radical change is sorely needed.

US SIGNS $30 BILLION ARMS DEAL WITHSAUDI REGIMEIn Dec 2011, the Obama administrationannounced a weapons deal with SaudiArabia including F-15 fighter jets valued atnearly $30 billion. As well as boosting much-needed US trade, the USA will be furtherstamping its footprint in the oil-rich region.

The justification for such trade is usuallypresented as a potential threat from Iran.Certainly, the Saudi regime has never shownany evidence of using any arms it buys fromthe US to defend oppressed people in theMuslim world – or indeed elsewhere. It did,however, mobilize its troops in two regionsin recent years. Firstly, in Yemen, supporting the regime ofAli Abdallah Saleh by attacking Houthi tribespeople. Secondly, by aiding the repression ofpeople in Bahrain by the regime who roseup in protest in 2011. “When you look at the size of this package,what does it tell you about U.S.-Saudirelations?” said a senior Saudi official, whospoke anonymously because he was notauthorized to speak publicly. “It says it’s verystrong and very solid. Any disagreementsfrom time to time don’t affect the corerelationship.”

The weapons package has been consideredsignificant in size and technicallysophisticated. Under the terms of the $29.4billion agreement signed on Dec. 24, SaudiArabia will get 84 new F-15SA jets, as well astraining, logistics and maintenance –together with upgrades to 70 F-15s in theSaudi fleet.

US officials said the planes were intended tohelp Saudi Arabia protect its sovereignty butwould not diminish “Israel’s qualitativemilitary edge.”�

This last few weeks saw thelaunch of a timely report titled“Gold Standard: The Future fora Stable Global Currency” from

Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain. The on-goingglobal financial crisis, as well as theArab risings, dominated 1432/2011 –and look set to dominate 2012.

As long ago as February 2009, USDirector of National Intelligence DennisC Blair said, “The primary near-termsecurity concern of the United States isthe global economic crisis and itsgeopolitical implications”.

Almost 3 years later and this crisis hasevolved to proportions that still has thepotential to meltdown the entirefinance system, lead to destructivehyperinflation and the fragmentation ofthe Eurozone.

Although the Euro crisis has dominatedheadlines across the world in the lasttwo months (mainly because a defaultby one of the struggling Europeaneconomies could be like a spark in aroom full of gas) it is the weakeningdollar, its impact on world prices, itsprovocation of other countries whodislike America’s competitiveadvantages, and the unreconstructedworld of interest-based and derivativesfueled global finance that are the reallyserious issues facing the world.

Increasingly people across the world –

most strikingly in the ‘Occupy’ protestsin Western cities – are seeing thatCapitalism has manifestly failed and theworld needs new solutions.

But people are often unclear as towhere new ideas will emerge from.

Arguably where change is happeningfastest is the Arab-Muslim world, thoughnot in the economic sphere. It stillremains in a huge state of flux withmatters most brutal and heated in Syria.

Elections were held in Egypt andTunisia, though cannot yet be said tohave brought a real change for thepeople. In Tunisia, parties like Hizb ut-Tahrir, that challenged the status quowere prevented from contesting – andthe Islamic party Ennahda, who wonthe largest share of the vote, seemedpressured in to burying their Islamicheritage in order to pacify interestedparties in the West. In Egypt, the armyjust about admitted the system wasdesigned to keep out Islamic parties –who still managed to capture anestimated 70% of public support.

The need for political and economic‘change’ seems to remain the on-goingtheme for 1433/2012.

The nature of that change is set to bethe subject of the debates to come.

Islam – which was the basis of an

enlightened global civilisation in thepast – will be at the forefront of thisdebate.

Islam’s robust view of constitutionalgovernment, accountable ruling, electedrepresentation and independentjudiciary, contrasts markedly with theappointment of unelected bankers andfinanciers in Italy and Greece to‘manage and manipulate’ their waythrough the next few months andyears.

Moreover, Islam’s economic system thatprohibits riba and insists on gold andsilver as currency (literally bullion,coinage or paper which is 100% backedby gold or silver) and would never havebrought the world to the brink ofeconomic collapse, whilst working tocirculate wealth as widely as possible.

The coming months will see a debatebetween the ‘Gold Standard’ of Islamicideas - against the paper-thin crumpledideas of ‘Disaster Capitalism’, whichpeople increasingly see for what it is.�

Khilafah Magazine :: January 2012 :: 3www.khilafah.eu

EditorialDR. ABDUL WAHID

To paraphrase President Obamaafter the 2010 midterm elections,secular liberals have just receivedthe mother of all “shellackings” in

the elections that have just taken place inthe Muslim world. In Tunisia, in Morocco,in Egypt, voters in their millions clearlyexpressed their opposition to secularliberal values and their strong desire forIslamic government. Indeed, the mostsurprising thing was that liberals were sosurprised at the result. For many westernanalysts, elections seem to automaticallyequate with electing liberals, for somereason they can’t seem to fathom thatpeople may actually want .... Er to vote fora different political vision. While mostwestern commentators judge popularsentiment by their Twitter timelines, thereal Islamic revival has been occurring invillages, towns and cities all across theMuslim world. While the west continuesto be mesmerised by the actions of

prominent individuals, ordinary peoplehave been sacrificing on a daily basis toinitiate real change. This is illustrated by aGoogle Executive who was put at thevery top of Time magazine’s list of the100 “most influential people in the world”for his protests against Mubarak. Now, oneUS official says with mocking effect to aFinancial Times Columnist: “He may be themost influential man in the world, butunfortunately he doesn’t seem to havemuch influence in Egypt.”

However before Muslims get carried away,they should be aware like ordinarywestern citizens, the political system hasbeen already rigged against them.Worldwide protests have broken outacross the globe under the Occupymovement, for a reason. From New YorkCity, to Athens, to London, protestorsacross the globe are now standing upagainst the inequalities of the globalcapitalist system. Fed up with the bankers,the financiers and the excesses of WallStreet, people now believe that thesystem is rigged, that politicians arecorrupt and that the 99% aren’t getting afair shake. Non Muslims will be familiarwith the gambling mantra that no matterhow many times you try to win money,the odds are always with the house. It isthe same in western politics where theodds are always stacked against the 99%!

Though elections are a critical part of anypolitical system (including the Khilafah’s),the elections we saw in the Muslim worldlike the ones we see in the West, aredeeply flawed. The political processthough largely free and fair, has nocorrelation with the exercise of power in

western society. Economic policy is notdecided by elected politicians, but by therich banking lobby. Policy towardsPalestine is not decided by politicians, butby the influential Jewish lobby. Policyover defence procurement isn’t decidedby elected politicians but by the armslobby. Power is distributed amongstdifferent politicians or institutions, not tohave checks and balances, but toencourage division and to stop strongleadership. Indeed elections are anecessary smokescreen to allow theillusion of societal participation to coverthe real reality that power is exercised byan unelected elite. Having multipleinstitutions such as lower or upperhouses or constitutional restrictionsensures nothing can get done which istoo radical.

It is this shadow political system, like theshadow financial system that is the realproblem in western society. Like bankswhose activities were so opaque, sodevastating, so beyond accountability, theshadow political system works behind thescenes buying politicians, writinglegislation and shaping policies. In thewest elections are routinely held, whetherto elect someone to Parliament, someoneto Congress or someone to lead a country.But who elects the lobbyists, theindustrialists, the financiers, the pressbarons, the army generals, the peoplewith the real power in the country, thepeople who can make or breakpoliticians, who can grease their palmsand who have constant access. Theanswer is no one and that’s the crux ofthe problem that elections don’t resolve.Elections operate within a rigged system,


ELECTIONS UNDERDEMOCRACY ALWAYSPROTECT THE 1%

SAJJAD KHAN

one that allows you to play the game butonly according to rules writtenbeforehand by an unelected group. Thereal question for us is not whether tohave elections or not, it is whetherelections can truly disrupt the powerparadigm in any given society?

The elections just held in the Muslimworld will emphatically not change thestatus quo. Elections in Egypt, Tunisia andMorocco were all held under a rigged set

of rules. In Morocco they allow anoppressive King to maintain real power. InEgypt, despite overwhelming support forIslamic rule, the remnants of Mubarak’sregime and the Supreme Council of theArmed Forces (SCAF) are still dictatingthe rules of the game. In Tunisia thecatalyst of the change has a systemdesigned to ensure that no one electedgroup can gain sufficient strength. TakeEgypt for example, here the Islamicparties got over two thirds of the votes inthe elections, yet what powers do theseelected politicians have, what powers willthe People’s Assembly (Lower House) orthe Shura Council (Upper House) reallyhave? The answer is minimal! Indeed withthe constitutional process appointeesbeing rigged, a new Presidential electiondue in June 2012 (who will constrainParliament) and SCAF still heavilyinvolved in writing the rules of the game,it is clear that the political system is beingrigged to protect the 1% in Egypt.Most people thought that after Ben Ali,Mubarak and Gaddafi that the Muslimworld would embrace an enlightenedagenda. Voting and Elections shouldmatter after all! Yet rather than “change”,vested interests are fast protecting thestatus quo both in domestic policies andthose executed on the international stage.

On the domestic stage, accountabilityremains weak with real power remainingwith a shadow elite, in Egypt SCAFcontinues to arrest and torture protestors,and attempts to reform the economycontinue to benefit the rich and theirwestern backers. On the internationalfront, the regimes have carried on the

same old strategy, supporting relationswith Israel, allowing the presence ofwestern bases and continuing to supportother dictators in the region. No wonderso many people are getting sodisillusioned.

This would change under a truly Islamicsystem where an elected leader is givenreal power. Under Islam’s tried andtrusted political system, tackling poverty,jobs and housing for all citizens

irrespective of their faith would beprioritised. Unshackled from a politicalbureaucracy, the elected Khalifah cantruly get things done, unshackled byfrequent elections he can make long termdecisions, unrestricted by the lobbies hecan make decisions to benefit people notcorporations. As many Muslims arediscovering they can still have elections,accountability and justice under theKhilafah, and without signing up for arigged process, the west’s democraticfacade, or to some backward theocracy.

This failure to transform government inthe Muslim world from a position thatserves the elites, rather than those whoare the most vulnerable in society, is aptlyillustrated in Morocco. King Muhammad isas legitimate as Mubarak and Gaddafi, yetthe west has no problem with thisparticular dictator. The west areenamoured with the King, because he ismore geared at helping Wall Street thanthe Muslim Street, Israel rather than thePalestinians, Elites rather than theCommon Citizens. The King like otherdictators in the region blames Islamistsfor violence, yet ignores the violence ofhis own security forces. They argues thatIslamists would usurp power, yet see noirony in their own family usurping power,they claim secular constitutions wouldprotect everyone, yet are happy to tortureIslamists in hell holes for wanting adifferent type of system. They claim towant to generate wealth for the masses,yet all they really want is personal wealthin bank accounts in Switzerland andLondon

But it is not just the dictators who havebecome diminished, the western systemwhich is portrayed as the role model forthe Muslim world has debased itself.Firstly through the financial collapse andthen by the degeneration of politics sosevere, that unelected technocrats arenow running Greece and Italy. Never inthe field of politics has so much westernpropaganda been spouted by so manypeople advocating so few solutions.

Now, some will dismiss thecharacterisation of the west’s politics asnothing more than an ideological andconspiratorial rant. Yet what isn’t in doubtis that western politics are now fullyfledged soap operas, who’s up and who’sdown, who’s winning and who’s losing,rather than about bettering the lives ofpeople. Nor is it in dispute that the westtoday is led by a bunch of pygmies notgiants, that it has a capitalist system thatprioritises greed not justice and that it hasa political system institutionally designedto camouflage who’s really in charge. Toparaphrase another US president AbrahamLincoln, It is truly a system of the 1% forthe 1% and by the 1%.�


SAJJAD KHAN

They claim to want to generate wealth for the masses, yet allthey really want is personal wealth in bank accounts inSwitzerland and London

The recent speech (December2011) by British Prime MinisterDavid Cameron marked the 400thanniversary of the King James

Bible. Cameron remarked that Britainshould be proud of its Christian heritage,and that Christianity has “helped to shapethe values which define…” Britainpolitically, culturally and morally. Cameronmakes a valid point that Christianity hasinfluenced many aspects relevant to Britishheritage such as architecture, literature,culture, music and politics, and perhaps insome respects been a source of referenceby individuals to fill the moral void withinsecular society.

This is certainly not the first instance thatCameron has openly highlighted the moraldecay in society. Following the UK riots ofAugust 2011, Cameron vowed to tackle“slow-motion moral collapse”. This analysisfaced a fightback from Tony Blair whocommented: “Blaming moral decline for theriots makes good headlines but badpolicy”. There is clearly a difference of

opinion from a political perspective onwhat is the cause of moral decline.Cameron believing the very cause is one offamily breakdown; Blair on the other handattributes the moral decline to disaffectionand alienation of youth from the socialmainstream. Both Cameron and Blair viewmoral decline as a problem of individualsor the family but fail to identify the realcause behind the moral decline whichstems from the roots of capitalism.

Morals & Institutionalised MoralityMorals are related to conduct. Conduct isnot just a set of actions, but actionsundertaken with reason or intention. Anaction is viewed as moralistic based on aclear criterion of right and wrong. Inwestern society, what is morally repulsiveon one occasion can become morallyacceptable on another. Take the example ofgay marriages – until the 21st Century –this practice was morally unacceptable.This inconsistency is due to the everchanging notions of what society views tobe right and socially acceptable and what

it doesn’t. Therefore gone are the dayswhere Britain’s morals were shaped byChristian teachings.

In the early works of the philosopher JohnDewey, entitled “Essays & Outlines of aCritical Theory of Ethics”, he describeshow a child grows up within moralinstitutions and through this develops amorality:

“The child is born as a member of thefamily; as he grows up he finds that othershave possessions which he must respect.He runs upon the institution of property...as he grow ... he finds persons outside ofthe family of whose actions he must takeaccount of as he respects his own:society.... Then he finds the politicalinstitutions; the city, state and nation. Hefinds an educational institution, the school,the college; religious institutions, thechurch etc., etc. Everywhere he finds menhaving common wants and thus proposingcommon ends and using co-operativemodes of action”.

According to Dewey, institutions promotemoral codes of conduct, and the individuallearns this in his lifetime. WesternCapitalism has no fixed moral code ofconduct that is intrinsic within Capitalism.Therefore, morality must be borrowed andis somewhat institutionalised. For example,it is an expectation that schools not onlyteach a National Curriculum, but alsoaddress the morality dilemma by creating a‘liberal’ sense of right and wrong. Thechurch is just another institution to helpcompensate for the moral void ofCapitalism. Changes in society mean thatsome moral codes of Christianity are oftenviewed as outdated. What is evident is thatfrom Moses and the 10 commandments, tomodern day Christianity, Christianity hasprovided nothing more than moral codes

www.khilafah.eu6 :: Khilafah Magazine :: January 2012

Capitalism & theSearch for Morality

RUKSANA RAHMAN

which are devoid of systems of governinggiving way to secularism. Thereforesecularism was a compromise reached dueto this aspect. For Cameron to now goback to Christian roots and ask the Churchfor some help to tame secular society ishighly hypocritical.

TENSIONS: INDIVIDUAL VS COMMUNALMorals are not a unique system inthemselves in society, but allow individualsand society to hold a value position. Theview of right and wrong in Capitalismhowever is a difficult balancing act, sinceits view of right and wrong continues tochange. The Criminal Justice System is aclear example of the ever changing moralframework that society is held to believe isacceptable and right. Secularism hasproved that when man is the decider ofwhat is right and wrong, the moral codecan no longer be saved by theremembrance of Judeo-Christian roots orthe 10 commandments.

Secular society in the UK prides itself ontolerance of other religions and of theacceptance of religious freedoms.Individuals are ‘supposedly’ left to adhereto different moral codes from a variety ofsources under the condition that they arelaw abiding. Therefore, where theindividuals religious view of right andwrong conflicts with what the lawupholds, the law comes first. Furthermore,the idea of freedom and the hedonisticideals of maximising pleasure, means thattensions exist between an individual’s viewof right and wrong and that of society. Forexample, promiscuity Vs chastity,exploitation Vs honour, consumerism Vscharity, Individualism Vs altruism. Thereforereligious expression or conduct is tolerablebased on people’s tolerance/silence of the‘norm’ despite its conflict with anindividual’s value or moral position.Therefore, the notion of tolerance inwestern society is a myth. Thepredominant societal thoughts, values andthe law is what will always prevail.

What is Causing Moral Decline?Throughout the discourse amongstpoliticians, what has been fundamentallyleft out is the discussion of the dominantideas in society that hinder peoplesmorality and values. What has been missedout is the acknowledgement that society isa greater teacher than the individual. Theseparation of religion from state, means

that morals are sought by individuals fromreligion, or what is dominantly viewed asright or wrong by society. Perhaps whatmust be questioned are the very ideas offreedom and liberty and how this hascontributed to moral decay in society.Surely, it is the values of materialism andthe idea of freedom to own as much asone wishes that encouraged city bankersto invest in order to satisfy their greed –regardless of consequence. Such examplesprove that the ideas of capitalism are thereal cause behind moral decline. Despitethis most obvious link between moraldecay in society and the ideas and valuesof capitalism, Cameron believes that theway forward is ‘Muscular Liberalism’.

MUSCULAR LIBERALISMHow best to integrate Muslims into secularsociety has been a continuing dilemmaamongst politicians. Resolving tensionsbetween values of secular society and thatof Muslims etc. has led European countriesto adopt a political stance on how best tointegrate Muslims into these predominantsecular thoughts and values. Those inclinedtowards the far right promote the idea ofcoercive assimilation. This means thatMuslims are good citizens – not only byadhering to the law, but also by theadopting and supporting of ideas such asfreedom, equality, separation of religionand life, democracy, and materialism. Suchideas contradict the very essence of Islam.This staunchly secularist mindset hasresulted in politicians banning ‘religioussymbols’ (including the hijaab and niqaab)in public – such as in France. Britain hasclaimed to be a value-neutral and tolerantsociety. However Cameron has objectionsto the way the UK has handled thetensions between values. Cameron haslearnt how ‘not to’ become a passivelytolerant society from his mainlandEuropean counterparts: “Frankly, we needa lot less of the passive tolerance ofrecent years and a much more active,muscular liberalism. A passively tolerantsociety says to its citizens, as long as youobey the law we will just leave you alone.It stands neutral between different values.But I believe a genuinely liberal countrydoes much more; it believes in certainvalues and actively promotes them.”(Cameron: 2011)

Therefore, muscular liberalism will attemptto actively promote certain values andideas in society; despite the contradictions

that may exist between a person’sindividual beliefs and values and whatCapitalism wishes to promote. Such anoutlook promotes coercive assimilationand further highlights the tensionsbetween the individual morals and that ofsociety.

Responsibility of Muslims in BritainIn the light of the belief of Cameron toactively promote certain values thatsecularism upholds – namely individualfreedom and liberty, western forms ofsocial justice, materialism and so on.Muslims must be clear in understandingtheir beliefs, values and view of moralitythat emanate from Islam. As Muslims in thewest, we must maintain a distinct Islamicidentity; ensuring that our morals, valuesand ideas remain intact. We must alsoexpose the integrationist agenda to strip usof our Muslim identity to that of a British,secular identity – in agreement and inacceptance of western ideas and values. Wemust also remain steadfast to our roots asMuslims of being a part of the MuslimUmmah, whose pain and suffering globallybecomes a concern for the Ummah as awhole.

Allah (swt) reminds the believer:“Whoever follows My guidance shallneither go astray, nor fall into distressand misery. But whoever turns awayfrom My reminder (neither believes inthe Qur’an nor acts on its orders), verily,for him is a life of hardship, and We shallraise him up blind on the Day ofResurrection.” [TMQ Ta-Ha: 123-124].�

7 :: Khilafah Magazine :: September 2010www.khilafah.eu Khilafah Magazine :: January 2012 :: 7

RUKSANA RAHMAN


Hizb ut-Tahrir has released anew booklet setting out thearguments in favour of usinggold and silver as money. The

report refutes the key arguments againsta return for gold and silver as currencyin the Islamic world and wider. Wepresent its executive summary here.

Executive SummaryGold is again in vogue. In early August2011 gold rose to over $1,900 per ounce– and it would surprise few people if itrose still further. Not for the first timefears over inflation and politicalinstability have led investors to seekshelter in gold. Silver, similarly, reached a30-year high at almost $50 an ounce.With Fiat currency (especially the USdollar) expected to lose value, gold andsilver have proved their worth onceagain. Gold is in effect the world’sreserve currency in times of crisis as itcan be trusted to hold its value. Thispaper argues that gold is not just fortimes of crises but should be themonetary base of choice to ensurefinancial integrity, economic stability andsustainable growth.

While it is not surprising that Islam’sviewpoint on money is the use of goldand silver with 100% reserve backing,this paper sets out, then refutes the 10main arguments cited against the GoldStandard in light of recent and historicprecedence. Some of the key points addressed in thisreport are as follows:1. The charge that only the Fiatmonetary approach, with its cheap credit

and endless currency creation, canmitigate the business cycle, is adisingenuous argument given that it is itscause. 2. At the heart of the criticism of theGold Standard is the aversion andirrational fear of deflation. Flexiblelabour markets are a necessary conditionto counter the negative effects of fallingprices in product markets enablingbusinesses to remaincompetitive/profitable underdeflationary conditions.3. The evidence on inflation for the UKat least, is clearly at odds with theargument that the Gold Standard causesdeflation. Between 1800-1914, UK priceswere almost as likely to fall as to rise,when average annual inflation was closeto zero.4. The real problem is not that there istoo little Gold but the fact there are toomany dollars.

5. Whilst the production costs of papermay be regarded as negligible comparedto the costs of extracting, mining andtransporting gold, it’s the total costs tosociety of Fiat money that areconsiderable.

6. The gold standard is not compatiblewith the fiat system and to be effective itrequires a non-interest based economy.

7. Islam makes a 100% reserve currencyobligatory not optional. This is based onvarious Quranic textual evidences.

8. Islam obliges a full gold silver system,whose discipline allows for balance of

payments adjustment without theintervention of central banks.9. The benefits of the gold standard aremanifestly profound: a system of stabilitywithout major cyclical effects;independent of governmentmanipulation; devoid of inflationaryfiduciary issue, currency debasement,international crisis and long-term balanceof payments deficits.

10. Converse to Gresham’s law, strongcurrencies will soon become thepreferred media of exchange, enablingthe gold standard to quickly resume itsposition in the world.

The only system of governance thatunequivocally insists upon the GoldStandard as a benchmark is the Islamiceconomy as applied by the Islamic State(Khilafah). In Islam a dual metallicstandard with gold and silver is applied.No fiat money will be issued by the state,and any paper currency must be 100%backed by gold and silver.

Gold and silver are both ideal asmediums of exchange: they have intrinsicvalue (including jewellery and industrialuse) are widely available, cannot bedominated (monopolised) and there is aregular growing supply of them to meetthe needs of growing economies.The financial crisis has exposed just howmuch fiat currency systems are at themercy of the banking system, makingphenomenal profits while exploitingwider society. Islam in contrast providesa non-interest environment in whichthere is less incentive to take money outof circulation.

“In order that it does not merely makea circuit amongst the wealthy”[Translated Meaning Quran Al-Hashr 59:7]

The full report [Gold Standard: TheFuture for a Stable Global Currency] isavailable for free download from:http://www.hizb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Gold-Standard.pdf�

�

Gold Standard: TheFuture for a StableGlobal Currency

Looking at today’s debt crisisafflicting the west and comparing itto the height of the Third Worlddebt crisis in the mid-1990s it is

possible to see some stark differences inthe way the capitalist west exploited andbrutally punished the poor in some of thepoorest countries around the world.

The financial crisis of 2008 has exposedthe western world’s colossal debt and tomany this has come as a big surprise. Debthas commonly been associated with theThird World or Developing countries. Tofind the western world steeped in debt formuch of the post war period and pre-dating this suggests there is somethingfundamentally wrong with the capitalistmodel of growth and prosperity which hasdominated the globe for the last 200 years.

The current crisis has also exposed theduplicity and sheer injustice of the west inaddressing the current debt crisiscompared to how western nations andmultilateral institutions such as the IMFand World Bank (WB) dealt with ThirdWorld debt.

Third World debt has had a punishingimpact on poor developing countries -we've all seen the pictures of emaciatedbabies in the arms of frail mothers in Africa- which are the natural consequences ofthe heavy burden debt repaymentsimposed on poor countries.

African states went into a downward spiralof debt, extortionate interest repayments -which stunted economic growth - thatthen led to debt re-scheduling, higherinterest payments and even greater debtexposure. Ironically this was the effect ofthe IMF/WB prescription to the ThirdWorld debt crises in the form of structuraladjustment programmes which made thesituation much worse rather thanalleviating the problems.

It does not take an IMF or WB economistto see the flaw in the so-called WashingtonConsensus – which proscribed such harshmedicine to the Third World debt crisis - ascountries lost much of their exportrevenues to debt interest payments and asa consequence already inadequate welfare

budgets were severely cut. These welfarepublic services in any case were little morethan shacks for health clinics and schools.

The IMF/WB or the Paris Club of donorsshowed little sympathy or empathy andthere was little debt forgiveness in the1980s and 1990s with the main creditorsarguing that allowing countries to defaultwould open the flood gates to moredefaults and that the Third World defaultingwould be catastrophic for the worldeconomy.

In contrast we’ve seen more debt offeredto the debt stricken in Europe withtrillions poured in to rescue governmentsand banks. Indeed, the Greek governmenthas had its debt reduced by 50% and haseffectively defaulted on its loans twicewithin a year.

Yet there is no moral equivalence betweenthe situation of the African peoples whobarely scrape an existence and mostEuropeans with basic amenities, consumerdurables, and cars who are being forced totake pay cuts of 10%-20%. For the latter it’slittle more than a life style change, whilefor the former its survival itself.

Indeed, charities and developmentalorganisations have estimated that millionsof people in the Third World have died notfrom droughts or floods but from thesystemic failure of the IMF/WBprogrammes which led Africangovernments to drastically cut back onalready meagre basic amenities.

The Centre for Economic Policy Researchconducted a survey of the Impacts of IMFStructural Adjustment in Africa: Growth,Social Spending, and Debt Relief [1] andproduced the following findings:

• Developing countries worldwide


Debt Crisis: Lessons learned

MOHAMMED ARIF

implementing Enhanced StructuralAdjustment Facility (ESAF) programs haveexperienced lower economic growth thanthose who have been outside of theseprograms. It will be years before thesepopulations recover the per capitaincomes that they had prior to structuraladjustment.

• While African countries urgently needto increase spending on health care,education, and sanitation, IMF structuraladjustment programs have forced thesecountries to reduce such spending. InAfrican countries with ESAF programs, theaverage amount of per capita governmentspending on education actually declinedbetween 1986 and 1996.

• Neither IMF-mandated macroeconomicpolicies nor debt relief under the IMF-sponsored HIPC (Heavily Indebted PoorCountries) Initiative have sufficientlyreduced these countries' debt burdens.Poor countries continue to divertresources from expenditures on healthcare and education in order to serviceexternal debt.

In an insightful 1999 study [2] MiltonIyoha of the University of Benin, Nigeriarevealed the nature, scope and severity ofSub-Saharan debt. Iyoha showed how thecolossal growth in African debt sappedaway vital export earnings and thereforeretarded the continents economic growth.With much of what the continent earnedfrom selling raw materials (up to 20% ofexport revenues) returning back to the

west in the form of debt interestrepayments Africa’s desperate people weremade destitute. Meanwhile the westernworld took Africa’s valuable naturalresources for nothing, in effect.

Yet even though Sub-Saharan Africanexternal debt (debt that’s owed to foreignbanks and institutions) grew, ‘thanks’ tocompound interest, from $84bn in 1980 to$223bn in 1995 (Iyoha, 1999), while theWestern Hemisphere’s external debt in1995 was some three times as much atover $620bn. [3]

Fifteen years on in 2010 the WesternHemisphere’s external debt has grown toover $1 trillion [4] with bailoutsamounting to $4.5 trillion while Sub-Saharan debt stands at a mere $218bn (seechart). Indeed, western political leadersmade decisions overnight to bail out theirbanks with hundreds of billions (and nowtrillions) of dollars but have watched fordecades dragging their feet over debtforgiveness as hundreds of millions

suffered under Third World debt. Another aspect of Third World debt of the1970s and 1980s was the way in whichwestern nations used it to prop updictators and as a bulwark against theinfluence of the Soviet Union. Legallyknown as odious debt the west used loansas ideological and political weapons tomaintain a hold on so-called newlyindependent states by literally financing ageneration of political leaders andnurturing a political class that was at bestAfrican in name alone and was western forall intents and purposes.

Today’s debt crisis by contrast aims toeconomically and commercially exploitweaker nations in Europe. Germany, Britain,the US and France, though hugely indebtedthemselves, have dictated the debtrepayment terms and now essentiallycontrol the fiscal policy of weaker

European states like Greece, Ireland andItaly. The disposal of Greek, Irish and Italiannational interests will now be controlledby privatisation policies decided in Berlin,London, Washington and Paris.Ultimately the Third World and Eurozonecountries are victims of capitalism whichis the big winner in both cases. Weakerstates are exploited by economically morestronger and politically more powerfulnations. Resources and wealth get evermore concentrated in the most powerfulnations with ever greater numbers in therich as well as the poor nations becomingvictims of capitalism.

In such a climate, and with the demise ofCommunism, only Islam implemented instate and society can offer hope to weaknations. The Islamic Khalifah state will notexploit poor nations with interest basedloans simply because all interest (riba)contracts are prohibited in Islam. This, at astroke, will remove compound interest -the main contributor to the everexpanding debt burden on desperately

poor nations. At the same time the Khilafahwill not be driven solely by self-interest inits foreign relations and economic treatieslike western capitalist states because itsmain objective is to present Islam as asolution for all humanity.

[1] http://www.cepr.net/index.php/a-survey-of-the-impacts-of-imf-

structural-adjustment-in-africa/

[2] http://www.aercafrica.org/DOCUMENTS/RP90.PDF

[3] http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/economic-

indicators/Total_External_Debt_US_Dollars/1995/

[4] http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/economic-

indicators/Total_External_Debt_US_Dollars/2010/

�


MOHAMMED ARIF

Afew weeks ago I attended agathering that discussed the latestmanifestation of Prevent, theBritish government’s counter-

extremism strategy. The gathering broughttogether grass-roots activists, studentrepresentatives, youth workers, post-graduate students and lecturers, as well asmembers of Muslim groups.

There seemed to be a consensus in theroom that Prevent was a problem. Onecomment made from the floor summarisedthe key problem with Prevent, and wasmet with broad agreement (including froma non-Muslim academic who has studied

the government’s counter-extremismpolicies over the years, and who could inno way be said to have a bias against theUK police and security establishment).Prevent, it was said, was NOT aboutpreventing violence and terrorism. It wasan ideological agenda that aimed to‘westernise’ Muslims because of a mistakenbelief that the more Islamic you are, themore of a potential threat you pose.Similarly, the British government’s policy(and that of many European governmentsand the United States) is that the moreIslamic a Muslim country becomes, themore of a threat it poses to their interests;and hence the foreign policies of these

governments support regimes in theMuslim world that suppress any form ofIslamic political expression.

There were other comments from both thepanel and the floor that said that the aimof Prevent was to create docile Muslims;that the police were compromising theircommunity policing strategies by alsoworking on a strategy that was aboutchanging peoples’ beliefs and ideas; thatpolice and local councils had hijackedyouth and community projects for part ofthe Prevent agenda; that profiling, mappingand surveillance were most definitelytaking place in Muslim communities; andthat Muslims in local areas faced a difficultdecision whether to engage or not.

There were disturbing anecdotes of policeintimidation, not visible to the widercommunity and which consequently failedto draw criticism; as well as the cowinginto silence of Muslim students because ofthe anecdotes about terror suspects being‘radicalised’ at University.

LOOKING FOR A WAY FORWARDThe meeting did not have time to explorestrategies of how to tackle this problematicsituation, which shows no sign of goingaway. There was some talk of buildingalliances with civil society; and someinformal discussion before and after thepanel discussion about various legaloptions Muslims might try. Onecontributor, who had been targeted

Preventing ourselves fromspeaking out: HowMuslims are in greatdanger of self-censorship

www.khilafah.eu

Dr Abdul Wahid

Khilafah Magazine :: January 2012 :: 11

repeatedly by local police in a mostintimidating manner, made a passionateplea for Muslims to disengage with thePrevent strategy at all levels and take all(legal) measures - no matter howunpopular they seem to others and nomatter how much criticism they draw - tostand up for their rights.

All of these suggestions had validity - butfailed to address a central problem. If Prevent is about challenging peoples’ideas and beliefs - where are the voicesspeaking out defending and explainingthose ideas and beliefs in a robust way.Where are the Imams and scholars whoshould be teaching Muslims the truthabout their faith, at a time when others arebullying Muslims to abandon or reinterpretthese same issues.

There is a very great danger that Muslimscould find that, whilst retaining a legalright to express all those aspects of Islamthat are currently labelled as ‘extremism’,they will remain silent simply for fear ofbeing labelled ‘extremists’; or for fear ofbeing marginalised by the state.

‘EXTREMIST’ IDEAS OR ‘EXTREMIST’POLICY?There have been various definitions usedfor ‘extremism’ over the years. Part of thereason that terms like ‘extremism’ and‘terrorism’ remain ill-defined is so thatpoliticians can implement their plansaccording to their own political agenda.A Muslim who travelled from the UK toLibya to take up arms against Gaddafi’sregime would be lauded as a freedomfighter, fighting against an oppressiveregime in a struggle Britain supports. A Muslim who travelled from the UK to

Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan or Iraq, totake up arms to fight against occupying oroppressive military forces would belabelled a terrorist and face charges ofanything from acts preparatory toterrorism, to actual intent to committerrorism. And if any friend or familymember were to know that someone waseven considering travelling, they too wouldbe committing an offence under anti-terrorism legislation, unless they shared(even vague speculative) information withthe authorities.

But the central thesis in Prevent is that it’scertain ideas that create an ideologicalframework in which ‘terrorism’ canflourish and propagates grievances that areused as justifications. So, it is argued thestate has to intervene to change peoples’ideas.

The main agencies of the statecommissioned to do this are the police andlocal authorities - with universities, schoolsand health workers all being expected toflag up possible ‘extremists’ who may need

‘deradicalising’.

Coupled to this, other commentators havenoticed, that politicians have sent a clearsignal to the media, schools, police etc that‘extremist ideas’ are dangerous and need towatched out for.

So, a hostile climate exists across thewhole of Europe towards Muslims whopublicly express their Islamic beliefs. Thiscan range from the wearing of hijab orniqab to arguing for Shari’ah law and aCaliphate as the system of government inMuslim countries currently governed bytyrannical dictatorships or corruptdemocracies. Other issues, such as gendersegregation, holding fundamental beliefsthat contradict the dominant neoliberalopinions in the world, and political stanceson Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan - can allqualify as ‘extremist’ ideas.The execution of Prevent on the ground -during stop and search operations, arrests,and at airports, ports and rail terminals

includes detailed questioning about thereligious and political views of theindividual.

All of this it’s the policies of the Britishstate (echoed across Europe) that areextreme, rather than the beliefs.

‘BATTERED PERSON SYNDROME’Abused people often adopts a guiltcomplex believing the abuse was theirown fault; or become conditioned by theirabuser not to say or do the things thatprovoke the abuser’s anger - no matterhow mundane or reasonable those thingsmight be.

I fear this is the current psychological stateof some sections of the Muslim community. The need to qualify ourselves before wespeak - to say that we condemn ‘terrorism’at best look demeaning - and at worst lookas if it is we who have to compensate for aguilt complex.

One contributor at the meeting asked why,at the emotional funeral of the three young

Muslim men killed in Birmingham duringthe 2011 riots, a speech had to be madedenouncing terrorism?

During media interviews, seminars,conferences - and now it seems at births,weddings and funerals Muslims have to saysomething distancing themselves from9/11, 7/7 and other such acts. Even a recent conference that wasleafleted and advertised to the Muslimcommunity as being one celebrating thelife of the blessed Prophet (peace andblessings be upon him) was spun to themedia as being a gathering that was an‘anti-extremism’ rally.

Silencing ourselves & becoming apologistsIt would be a useful exercise to considerwhat proportion of press releases issued inthe past 12 months from Muslimorganisations have been ‘defensive’ - i.e.saying things that seem primarily aimed tocounter impressions of ‘extremism’. Even when addressing the crimes of the

DR ABDUL WAHID


It is all very well fighting for rights in the face of anoppressive state or bullying media - but what are you fightingfor, if you silence yourselves in the very manner thatadvocates of the Prevent policy want you to?

Norwegian mass murderer Anders BehringBreivik, some Muslims felt compelled toraise the fact that they were opposed toviolence and terrorism, not realising thatyou can sound like you are protesting yourown innocence a little too hard sometimes. Contrast these apologetic messages withthe proportion of robust responses toideological attacks on our faith - or indeedanyone’s religious beliefs.

How many times have we let insults aboutwomen’s dress, or Islamic rules, or theentire Shari’ah continue, without actuallyexplaining, challenging or provokingthought in the minds of the accusers abouttheir own values system?

When we do address such issues, howmany times is it from the viewpoint of‘rights’ or freedom of expression - withoutchampioning dignity for the Islamic rule, aswell as the one who sought to practice it? Surely, speaking out and standing up forIslamic principles is part of the faith andcharacter of Muslims. Even if someone sawthemselves as an equal citizen with someself-worth, they wouldn’t worry aboutwhat anyone else felt about their politicalbeliefs, as the only real expectation of mostcitizens is to obey the law.

It is all very well fighting for rights in theface of an oppressive state or bullyingmedia - but what are you fighting for, if yousilence yourselves in the very manner thatadvocates of the Prevent policy want youto?

To only ever speak behind the shield ofwell-meaning socialist activists, or borrowtheir political language may seemappealing to some, particularly as it allowsthe Muslim community some opportunityto speak. But this not only meanscompromising on a lowest commondenominator form of message, it neutersour own community of any courage orresources to undertake independentexpression when we face issues thatothers with different political or socialviews disagree with. Moreover, as has beenseen in some of the more aggressive anti-fascist or anti-capitalist demonstrations inBritain, as well as in mainstream politics,we have increasingly seen less concerngiven to which political tactics are actuallylegitimised by the Shari’ah and which arenot permitted.

THE RESULTThe result of this timid mindset would be agroup of Muslims who would only engagepolitically if they had cover from othergroups in society; who would continue toapologise for things they haven’t done;who accept every norm of geopolitics,even if it is not correct from an Islamicviewpoint (like the division of Muslim landinto ever smaller countries, or thelegitimisation of the Israeli occupation ofPalestine in a two-‘state’ model) or actuallyharmful to their interest; who would betoo scared of being labelled ‘extremists’ tospeak out or say the right thing on Islamicissues; who silenced themselves overatrocities committed in Muslim countriesbecause of western foreign policy; whocared so much about what westerngovernments thought of them that theylived their lives in constant hope ofattaining their favour, and consequentlyallowed themselves to be trampled upon;and who would break fast with therepresentatives of governments who breaktheir brothers’ bones.

I make no apology for saying: May Allahsave us from that!

This is not merely a betrayal of the legacyand sacrifice of the Prophets (peace beupon them all), their companions, andgenerations of martyrs who suffered at thehands of oppressors. It is a failure to learnfrom others who strove for recognition oftheir status in the past.

Something positive to offerMuslims are, for the most part, a veryaverage bunch of human beings - exceptfor one thing - and that is our beliefs andvalues.

It is our Islam that dignifies us, yet this isthe very thing we are being expected tostop expressing: in France, in any sort ofpublic manifestation (including prayer) andin Britain in a more focused, political way. But many of us can see that the societieswe live in are far from perfect. If wesilence ourselves from speaking aboutIslamic values, the Shari’ah, Khilafah - or ifwe fear to be critical of the systems, valuesor policies of the states where we live - weare not merely letting ourselves down, weare letting those around us down by notholding a mirror to society.

We have, in Islam, a way of life that givesthe much needed answers - not only forMuslim countries - but an example for thewhole of humanity. We have answers to theeconomic and social problems that troublewestern countries today; and an antidote tothe rampant materialism and consumerismthat dominates the world.

How do we share this most precious gift ifwe silence ourselves?

A SINCERE REMINDERMy thoughts are not meant as an attack onanyone. None of us is perfect; and anyonewho has engaged in political or socialactivity will have made mistakes along theway.

But in the context of the policies directedat Muslims in Britain and Europe today, it isvital people understand the greater dangeris the one we face from ourselves - bysilencing ourselves, avoiding controversialissues and failing to uphold the verybeliefs that give us life. �

DR ABDUL WAHID


The Ummah (Islamic nation)around the world is rising andseeking to reclaim the authorityfrom rulers of the Middle East. In

country after country we are seeing thepeople lose their fear of the regimes thathave been suppressing, repressing,torturing and imprisoning them andstanding in the way of their politicalaspirations. Some of these rulers havefallen, and others are living precariously;and the momentum is for change.

FATAAWA LEGITIMISING RULERSAlthough the Ummah is seeking to changeits rulers certain Ulama have given fataawalegitimising the rule and authority of therulers of their respective countries. Oneprominent example is the fatwa of the‘Council of Senior Scholars’ in Saudi Arabiawhich gave the fatwa that even protestsand demonstrations are not permitted asSaudi Arabia is a legitimate Islamic state,below is some key sections of the fatwa:

‘Protection of the community is of thegreatest principles of Islam. It is from thegreat issues that Allah commanded in HisHoly Book, and condemned whoeverabandoned it. Allah Almighty says: “Andhold fast, all together, by the rope whichGod (stretches out for you), and be notdivided among yourselves…” [TMQ Āli-‘Imran: 103]

This is the principle of protection of thecommunity, which the Prophetcommanded upon all citizens, commonand elites alike, as he (saw) said: “Allah’shand is with communion” (narrated byTirmidhi). He (saw) also said: “Whoeverheld back the hand from obedience, will

meet Allah on the Day of Resurrectionwithout any justification for himself; andwhoever died without the pledge ofallegiance on his neck, had died a death ofignorance” (narrated by Muslim). He (saw)again said: “He who wanted to separate theaffairs of this nation when they are unified,you should kill him with the sword,whosoever he is”(narrated by Muslim).’Source: http://islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/fatwa-council-senior-

scholars-kingdom-saudi-arabia-warning-against-mass-demonstrations

Another pertinent example in light ofrecent events is the response of certainUlama in relation to the uprisings in Syria.It has been argued that to protest is acause of fitna and civil war leading tobloodshed and therefore Muslims shouldnot oppose the regime but work with theregime to bring about reforms. SayyidRamadan Buti for example described thesituation in Syria in light of the followinghadith: he describes events in Syria underthe label of ‘al-haraj’. This is a term found ina Hadith narrated Abu Hurayrah that theProphet said, “Time will pass rapidly, gooddeeds will decrease, miserliness will bethrown (in the hearts of the people)afflictions will appear and there will bemuch ‘Al-Harj.” They said, “O God’s Apostle!What is “Al-Harj?” He said, “Killing! Killing!”He described the situation as one of fitnaand civil war and those demonstratingwere rebelling against the legitimate rulersof Syria. He has criticized thosedemonstrating of being ignorant of salahwhile praising the Ba’thi ‘Alawi rulers ofthe Syrian regime.

VIEW OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARS ABOUTREBELLING AGAINST RULERSThe scholars have differed on whether it is

permitted to rebel against rulers who areoppressive (zalim) or transgressors (fasiq).Many have said that it is not permitted torebel against a fasiq or zalim based on anumber of ahadith, here are two examples:it is narrated that the Prophet (saw) said::“Anyone who dislikes something from hisamir should be patient. Anyone whoabandons obedience to the amir for even ashort time dies the death of the Jahiliyyah(ignorance).” [Agreed upon] “You have tolisten to and obey the Ameer, even if he hityour back and took your property, listenand obey.” [Muslim] As-Shawkani said:“Those who viewed the obligation ofrebelling against the oppressive rulers,challenging them with the sword andstruggling against them with fighting, haveused as evidence some general importsfrom the Book and the Sunnah, concerningthe obligation of enjoining the ma’roof andforbidding the munkar. There is no doubtthat the ahadith we mentioned in Al-Musannaf in this subject are absolutelymore specific than those general imports;besides these ahadith are mutawatir inmeaning as understood by those who haveknowledge in the Sunnah.”

Many of those who said one cannot rebeldue to the rulers zulm or fisq qualified itby saying it is allowed as long aswidespread bloodshed can be prevented.Here are a few quotes:Imam al-Ijee: ‘The Ummah has the right toremove the ruler for a reason that obligesit and if it leads to civil war then the leastof the two evils should be followed.’ Al-Mawaqif p.100Ibn ‘Abideen: ‘If a just ruler is appointedand then he becomes oppressive and afasiq then he should not be removed but


The Illegitimacy ofthe Current Rulers

KAMAL ABU ZAHRA

he deserves to be removed if it does notentail civil war.’

Al-Shawkani: ‘…..the scholars in generaltake the view that oppressive rulers shouldbe removed if possible without civil war oroppression or it is obligatory to be patient.’Nayl al-Awtar vol 7, p108However, this does not mean their absoluteobedience to the rulers. The ahadithquoted above are talking of not rebellingagainst the rulers due to theirmisappropriation of the people’s rightsand not about obeying the rulers in thematters, which are a clear violation of theShari’ah. Rather, when the ruler commandsa clear munkar the Muslim must disobeythat command and cannot say he wasfollowing orders. Also this does not refer tothe rulers who are making kufr buwaah(explicit kufr) by abandoning the Shari’ahand substituting it with secular laws, whichclearly and unequivocally contradict thedefinite rules of Islam. Nor does thisinclude those states whose basis is notIslam but secularism or socialism etc.Therefore, to use these ahadith whichoblige Muslims to obey oppressive rulersas long as they implement Islam, for rulerstoday who rule by what Allah has notrevealed is a clear misapplication of thetexts. Although the writer of this articledoes not take the view that rebellion is theway for change in our countries, this doesnot mean current rulers are legitimate andnor does it mean we should not accountthe rulers by any permitted style at ourdisposal and ask the people of power toremove them and appoint just rulers intheir place.

WHAT IS A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY INSHARI’AH?A state becomes Islamic when its rules andpolicies derive from the Islamic ‘Aqidah(creed) i.e. when their basis is the Qur’anand Sunnah; meaning the sovereignty lieswith the Shari’ah. That is why obedience tothe rulers is restricted and not unqualified.Allah (swt) says:“O you who believe! Obey Allah, Obey HisMessenger and those in authority fromamongst you; and if you differ, then referit to Allah and His Messenger, if youbelieve in Allah and the Last Day.” [Al-Nisa: 59]

This noble verse in Surah al-Nisa comesafter verse 58, which focused on the rulerswhen they were enjoined to rule by justice

– which is nothing other than what Allah(SWT) has revealed (i.e. the Qur’an and theSunnah). In this verse, the focus is on theMuslims under the authority of the rulers,and their responsibility. In this respect themessage of this ayah is addressed to theUmmah at large and we can learn from itthe following matters:

The ayah (verse) begins with theimperative (command) form verb ati’u(‘obey’): the subject of obedience (i.e.those who obey) is in plural form, meaning‘ALL those who believe in Islam’; and theobject of obedience (i.e. the one who isobeyed) is Allah (swt). The verse thenrepeats the command ati’u (obey) and thistime the object of obedience is theMessenger (saw). The repetition of theword ‘obey’ and the order indicates thetwo basic reference points that Muslimshave: the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thereforeanything in contravention of Qur’an andSunnah must be disobeyed, and anythingfrom the Qur’an and Sunnah must beobeyed. This is the principle upon whichMuslims are told to live by and this is theprinciple on which Muslims are instructedto view their rulers. Here the word forrulers, or those in authority, is ulul- amr(literal translation: ‘the people ofCommand’). It is not restricted to theKhalifah, but also includes the wali’s(governors), wazirs (ministers) and allthose who have authority, especially sincethe word has been used in the plural form(ulul-amr and not the singular waliyul-amr).

It is significant that the ayah does not

repeat the verb ati’u when it comes to theRulers, as it did in respect to Allah and HisMessenger; this is an additional indicationalongside the clear verses and hadith thatstate that rulers must obey Allah and HisMessenger in their ruling and exercise ofauthority. For example the Messenger(saw) said: ‘There is no obedience (whenthis results) in disobedience of the Creator.’[Sahih Bukhari] Here the mantuq (directlyapparent meaning) is an absoluteprohibition of following an order that goesagainst the order of Allah (swt) –whosoever makes that order. This hadithcame specifically in the context ofauthority and ruling. Its mafhum (impliedmeaning) indicates that just as the personcannot obey a ruler who commandeddisobedience to Allah (swt); so in the sameway, a ruler or amir cannot order, enactlaws or rule by anything that is in violationof what Allah (swt) has ordered.

Consider for example the following hadith:It has been reported that ‘Ali (ra) said, “TheMessenger of Allah sent a troop under thecommand of a man from Al-Ansar. Whenthey left, he became angry with them forsome reason, and said to them, `Has notthe Messenger of Allah commanded you toobey me?’ They said, `Yes.’ He said, `Collectsome wood,’ and then he started a fire withthe wood, saying, `I command you to enterthe fire.’ The people almost entered the fire,but a young man among them said, `Youran away from the Fire to Allah’sMessenger. Therefore, do not rush until yougo back to Allah’s Messenger, and if hecommands you to enter it, then enter it.’

www.khilafah.eu Khilafah Magazine :: January 2012 :: 15

KAMAL ABU ZAHRA

When they went back to Allah’s Messenger,they told him what had happened, and theMessenger said, ‘Had you entered it, youwould never have departed from it.Obedience is only in righteousness.’”(Reported by Bukhari volume 9, book 91,number 363). Here the Messenger (saw)stated that obedience is only in the ‘ma’ruf’(good) and not in the ‘munkar’ (evil). Sothe one in authority cannot commandanything but ma’ruf, and people cannotobey anything but ma’ruf. What is ma’ruf iswhat Islam has defined as good, andmunkar is what Islam has defined as evil. Itis not left to the discretion of man todecide these matters.

The verse also obliges the obedience tothe command of the Messenger (saw) andlinks that to the rulers. As long as therulers or those in authority obey theMessenger (saw) then there is theobedience to him, otherwise there is noobedience. It is ludicrous after saying thatthere is no obedience in the disobedienceto the Creator, that there can be obediencein the disobedience to the Messenger(saw) as the ayah obliges obedience toAllah and His Messenger. That is why theMessenger of Allah, may Allah bless himand grant him peace, said in a hadithreported by Abu Hurayrah, ‘Whoever obeysme has obeyed Allah and whoeverdisobeys me has disobeyed Allah. Whoeverobeys the amir has obeyed me andwhoever disobeys the amir has disobeyedme’ [Agreed upon]. As for the statement‘whoever obeys the amir has obeyed me

and whoever disobeys the amir hasdisobeyed me’ in the above hadith or thefollowing one: ‘Anyone who dislikessomething from his amir should be patient.Anyone who abandons obedience to theamir for even a short time dies the deathof the Jahiliyyah (ignorance)’ [Agreedupon]: This does not mean absoluteobedience to the rulers. These ahadith areabout not rebelling against the rulers dueto their misappropriation of the people’srights, but not about obeying the rulers inthe matters that are a clear violation of theShari’ah. Rather, when the ruler commandsa clear munkar, the Muslim must disobeythat command and cannot say he wasfollowing orders.

The verse then concludes that if there is adispute over a matter, between theMuslims and their rulers, and then the finalarbiter must be Allah and His Messenger(saw). It states: “if you differ, then refer itto Allah and His Messenger, if you believein Allah and the Last Day.” Just as theyoung man in the above hadith disputedwith his amir when he commanded themto enter the fire, and referred the matter tothe Messenger; we are also obliged to referto the Islamic reference point i.e. theQur’an and Sunnah when there is adispute. The last words of the ayah enjoinon the believers the importance ofreferring to Allah and His Messenger inruling, by drawing attention to the fact thatnot to do so is a negation of iman; hence itsays: ‘…if you believe in Allah and theLast Day.”

This is how the Sahabah (ra) understoodthis matter and nothing shows this moreclearly than the speech of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq when he assumed the post ofKhalifah: “Help me if I am in the right; setme right if I am in the wrong. The weakamong you shall be strong with me untilAllah willing, his rights have beenvindicated. The strong among you shall beweak with me until, if Allah wills, I havetaken what is due from him. Obey me aslong as I obey Allah and His Prophet; whenI disobey Him and his Prophet, obey menot.”

The conclusion therefore is that a rulerbecomes legitimate only when he bases hisrule on the Kitab and Sunnah, i.e.sovereignty is for the Shari’ah, and it is forthis reason that obedience becomesobligatory. We are not asked by the ahadithto give ‘our backs and property’ for noreason, i.e. if a ruler oppresses people, butrules by Islam, we are still obliged to obeysuch rulers, and not obey them in a sin;while at the same time accounting andadvising them to stop their injustice.

This is in relation to the requirement ofthe basis of the state to be Islam byreferring only to the Kitaab and Sunnah. Asfor the rules implemented, these also needto be scrutinized, as it is not enough for astate to declare in its constitution that itrefers only to the Qur’an and Sunnah. It isa requirement for a state to be legitimatethat it refers to the Qur’an and Sunnah forall its rules, for example Bukhari narrateson the authority of Junada b. abi Umayyahwho said: We went to ‘Ubadah b. as-Samitwhen he was sick and we said: May Allah(swt) guide you. Inform us of a Hadithfrom the Messenger of Allah (saw) so Allahmay benefit you from it. He said, theMessenger of Allah (saw) ‘called upon usand we gave him the Bay’ah, and he said,of that which he had taken from us, thatwe should give him the pledge to listenand obey, in what we like and dislike, inour hardship and ease, and that we shouldnot dispute the authority of its peopleunless we saw open Kufr (kufr buwah)upon which we had a proof (burhan) fromAllah.’

This Hadith states that Muslims should notoppose the rulers unless they see anexplicit kufr. The explicit kufr is the rule bywhat Allah has not revealed. The Hadith


KAMAL ABU ZAHRA

states in the nakira (indefinite form), thismeans any act of kufr and this includesruling by non-Islamic rules. However, theonly condition to this is that it must bedefinite and explicit and not a matter thatis open to dispute in Shari’ah. So based onthis Hadith if the rules and laws in a stateexplicitly contradict the Shari’ah, this canalso indicate that the basis of that state isnot Islamic and hence that state would notbe legitimate.

SAUDI ARABIA AND THE SYRIAN REGIMEHowever, when we apply the abovediscussion and look to the case of theSaudi regime, we find that the basis of itsrule is not the Shari’ah, as indicated by itspersistent and constant explicitcontravention of the Shari’ah; here are afew examples:

1. Saudi is not only a member of thisnationalistic organisation, but it is one ofthe founders. Article 8 of the Arab LeagueConstitution states, “Every participatingmember of the League must respect theestablished ruling system of the otherparticipating states in the League, it shouldconsider it as a right of these states andobligate it self not to do any action that isaimed at changing their systems.”

2. It is well known that Saudi is a memberof the UN. According to article 92 of theUN constitution, the International court ofJustice (ICJ) is the main judicial branch ofthe UN. The ICJ performs its duties basedon a system that is part of the UNconstitution and must be respected andapproved by every member state. Article94 states “Every member of the UN is tosubmit to the ICJ in any case in which heis a part.”

3. The Arab Monetary Fund, based in AbuDhabi, is a huge Riba institution that wasestablished by an agreement on 4/7/76 inMorocco. Saudi is the biggest shareholderin it; it receives, as every one else in theFund, Riba of an average of 3.2% on itsshares.

4. Saudi and the IMF (InternationalMonetary Fund)It is worth mentioning that Saudi has the6th largest share and power of rate. It had3.5% of the total shares that enabled it tooccupy a permanent seat in the executiveboard. The IMF gives international loansbased on interest, they also restructure

economies based on capitalist non-Islamicprinciples.

5. The ruling system of Saudi is amonarchy and not Khilafah.

6. The system of the Saudi Arabcitizenship decided by the ministersCouncil resolution #4 on 25th January1974 and approved by the king in hisspeech in High Council #8/5/8604 on22nd February 1974 to put it in effect.

7. The law of reviving the dead land usedto be according to Islam, where if a personworks a piece of land that becomes his.This was the case until an edict was issueddeclaring the nullification of this Islamiclaw starting from 1987 onwards.

8. The Saudi royal family claimsownership over the natural resourcesincluding the Oil fields. Islam prohibits theprivate ownership of natural resourcessuch as oil.In addition to the laws instituted by SaudiArabia the royal family have alsoundertaken political policies thatcontradict Islam including:

• Backing of the sanctions in Iraq afterthe first gulf war

• Allowing American and western troopsto enter Saudi to attack the Muslims of Iraq

• Giving clear skies to Israeli airplanes toattack Iran, ‘The Times June 12, 2010 SaudiArabia gives Israel clear skies to attackIranian nuclear sites’

• Saudi sends troops into Bahrain to helpsupport the monarchy and crush theopposition

• Saudi giving asylum to tyrantsincluding former Tunisian president Ben Aliwho banned the hijab amongst other nonIslamic rules he implemented. They alsogave asylum to Nawaz Sharif, Idi Amin andrecently helped treat Abdullah Salehpresident of Yemen who ordered theshooting of unarmed peaceful protestors.

The flagrant and persistent violation ofShari’ah by the Saudi regime, even afterhaving been accounted by the ‘Ulama andthe da’wah carriers means that the aboveconstitute explicit kufr (kufr buwah).Consequently, their rule is not legitimate

and they need to be removed by thepeople of power (nusrah) and a just rulerappointed in their place.If we now look to the case of Syria andlook to its constitution then the issue iseven clearer, we find that the constitutiondefines Syria as a secular socialist statewhere recognition of Islam is only as themajority religion. This means from its verybasis the Syrian regime is illegitimatewithout even requiring us to look to therules it implements. The Syrian regimenever claimed to be Islamic and yet wehave scholars justifying their rule andcriticizing those who have come outopposing these illegitimate regimes.

CONCLUSIONWe have seen from the above discussionthe legitimacy of a ruler is determined bythe basis of the state in question. If thebasis of the state is Islam and solely Islamthen it is an Islamic state, if the basis isother than Islam or a mixture of Islam andnon-Islam then that is not an Islamic stateand the rulers in that state are notlegitimate. Whether the basis of a state isIslamic or not can be determined in twoways:

a) Study of its constitution where the basisof the state is stated. If it is socialist,secularist, capitalist, etc then it is not anIslamic state. It must state that its laws andrules all derive from the Qur’an andSunnah.

b) Scrutiny of the laws and rules itimplements. If the laws and rulesimplemented contradict the Shari’ah in anexplicit manner and after it being drawn tothe attention of the rulers the rulerspersist in implementing such rules, thenthat is indicative of the incorrect basis ofthat state and such a state cannot beIslamic or legitimate.

If we apply the above principles we findthat not a single country exists in theMuslim lands that can be classed aslegitimate as they all either make nonIslam is their basis and/or implement rulesthat explicitly contradict the Shari’ah.Given this reality it then becomes theobligation of Muslims to seek the Islamicmethod to remove such rulers and appointa just Muslim ruler who will rule by theKitaab and Sunnah.�


KAMAL ABU ZAHRA

Since the summer of 2011 variousUS officials have madestatements about the drawdownof US forces in Afghanistan and

Iraq (now reportedly completed inDecember 2011). These wars whichhave now lasted longer than WW2 andare considered by many an analyst tohave set in motion the end of theAmerican century.

With an escalation in suicide attacks inAfghanistan, an uncooperative Pakistan(according to US officials) and with Iranfirmly in control of Iraq, one wouldconsider the withdrawal of US forces assomething contrary to protecting USinterests. After incurring astronomicalcosts in maintaining the US warmachine in the Muslim world are wefinally witnessing the end of the US inthe region? Has it been defeated?In both Iraq and Afghanistan the US has

achieved its short to medium termsaims, but not without many problemsen route. The current events are areorientation of US resources in orderto secure its longer term strategicinterests in the region.

IRAQThe US had its eyes on Iraq and itscoveted oil fields going back to GeorgeBush senior. 9/11 finally presented theNeocon government with itsjustification to launch a full scaleinvasion and implement regime change.A strategy of using military force toenforce ‘democracy’ on the regionensued and after a month of fightingthe US occupied the country andwithdrew half its troops. It was afterthis the Shi’ah in the South of Iraqlaunched their insurgency, whilst theSunnis around Baghdad made the USoccupation a living nightmare. Within a

few months of the invasion, the US veryquickly became marred in aninsurgency that today has greatlyaffected US prowess around the world.

By 2005 the US was well and trulydrowning in Iraq and comparisons werebeing made with Vietnam. It becameclear to all that the US had massivelyunderestimated the enemy and whilst ithad rapidly removed Iraq’s conventionalforces the unconventional elements inIraq had brought the US army to astalemate. A position from which the USwas never going to win the war, but itwas a war it was not prepared to loseeither.

It was at this juncture the US begandiscussing selective engagement withIran. Whilst the Baker-Hamilton reportto congress in 2006 contained such aproposition, engagement with Iran had


US Occupations toContinue in theMuslim World

ADNAN KHAN

already begun, in order to contain theShi’ia insurgency.

The US turned to countries surroundingIraq to save its self from bleeding todeath. Iran’s proxy the Islamic SupremeCouncil of Iraq (ISCI) a group createdin Tehran in 1982 gathered the majorShi'ah factions to partake in Iraq’sgovernment, bringing to an end theinsurgency in the South. Syria played anactive role in infiltrating the Sunniresistance against the US in Iraq andpassed on valuable intelligence to theUS led coalition. Syria’s influence overthe Sunni resistance fighters thatoperated in Iraq was emphasised by theBaker-Hamilton report.

Similarly Turkey played a central role inensuring the US constructedarchitecture came together. Turkey hada policy of maintaining contact with allgroups in Iraq. Moqtada Al-Sadr heldmany in Ankara focused on the politicalprocess in 2009, the deadlock after theMarch 2010 elections saw PrimeMinister Nouri al-Maliki, the leader ofISCI and Iyad Alawi travel to Turkey inorder to gain its support in forming thenew government. Similarly the Semi-autonomous Northern Iraq has seenover $5 billion in investment fromTurkey.

In this way the US was able to stem theinsurgency, construct a political system,which the various factions have nowentered and through which they willfight for their interests. This allowed theUS to withdraw its troops in stages asthe insurgency was stemmed.

The US has achieved its strategicinterests in controlling the flow of Iraqioil. This is through the nature of theagreements to extract oil in the country.Usually governments and oil companiesagree to so-called “Production SharingAgreements (PSA).” Under a PSA, agovernment gives the oil company therights to a certain share of the provencrude oil reserves, in return forpumping up (extracting) crude oil.Governments usually grant oilcompanies a share of the crude oil inthe range of 30 - 70%. However the

contracts in the case of the Iraqi crudeoil are ‘Service Contracts (ST).’ Underthe ST an oil company is onlycontracted by the government toperform the service of pumping up thecrude oil. For each barrel it pumps up,the oil company is then awarded aremuneration fee. But ownership of thecrude oil remains in the hands of thegovernment. In this way Iraqi oilremained within the control of the USsponsored Iraqi government that isdependent on the US. The US controlsIraq’s converted oil fields by ensuringno other nation gained access to theoil.

With the day-to-day politics firmly inthe hand of proxies of Syria, Iran andTurkey, this allows the US toconsolidate its position in the region.Combat troops are now no longerneeded in Iraq and a smaller morespecialised force can protect USinterests. This is why the US drawdownin Iraq saw thousands of troopsrenamed as transition troops ratherthan combat troops in 2010.

The reduced level of troops is possiblein tandem with the expandeddiplomatic mission because the US hasbeen largely successful in its intentionsin Iraq, setting in place the intendedpolitical, military, and economicelements for Iraq to remain firmlywithin American sphere of control. Asthe New York Times reported inSeptember, the debate over specificnumbers and figures is unimportant.“The administration has already drawnup plans for an extensive expansion ofthe American Embassy and itsoperations, bolstered by thousands ofparamilitary security contractors.”

The US plans to maintain as it does inmany other countries, large embassiesstaffed by civilians and militarypersonnel overseeing the training andequipping of Iraq’s security forces foran indefinite period. The StateDepartment is expected to have up to17,000 employees and contractors forthis ongoing “diplomatic presence”,which has been described as necessaryto provide “situational awareness

around the country, manage politicalcrises in potential hotspots such asKirkuk, and provide a platform fordelivering economic, development andsecurity assistance”. Providing housing,workspace, medical facilities, andsecurity for a legion of civilian workersrequires exorbitant funds, expansiveland use, and construction which is notyet finalised in all areas as well assecurity contractors to protect them.

AFGHANISTANAmerica had its eyes on Afghanistanwell before the events of 9/11. Whentroops were deployed to Afghanistanthe Bush administration maintained avery small military footprint and this iswhat set him apart from the Obamaadministration that escalated the USmilitary footprint. Both administrationsplanned to use Pakistan to win the warin Afghanistan in order to maintainAmerica’s long term presence inAfghanistan in order to:

1. Prevent Russian and Chinesedomination of Eurasia

2. Prevent the emergence of theKhilafah State

3. Control the hydrocarbon resources ofthe Caspian Sea and the Middle East

4. Control the security and the transit ofhydrocarbons from the Caspian Sea andthe Middle East

Obama’s strategy, which called for amassive escalation was in reality justanother in a number of nominallydifferent strategies announcedthroughout the decade of war. All ofthem had roughly the same theme,more troops and more attacks, and hadthe same results, an ever worseningsecurity situation.

Through using Pakistan as well as Iranin its solution for Afghanistan the USunder Obama executed plans for a longterm strategic presence, from largecombat force to small focussed specialoperations force. US bases will alsoremain within the country which theUS has secured. The US is in the process


ADNAN KHAN


of expanding the Bagram, Kandahar andMazar-E-Sharif military bases inAfghanistan with an allocation of over$300 million. The expansion of USmilitary bases in Afghanistan is runningcounter to the commitment to beginwithdrawing troops from Afghanistanby the end of 2011.

A large CIA and Joint SpecialOperations forces (JSOC) presence will

remain in the country for theforeseeable future. Lt. Gen. JohnMulholland, a former colonel with USspecial operations forces told the NewYork Times in August “We’re movingtoward an increased special operationsrole,” together with US intelligence,“whether it’s counterterrorism-centric,or counterterrorism blended withcounterinsurgency.”

The problem the US has faced inAfghanistan unlike in Iraq is that it hasbeen unable to placate the Taliban intoits political system and has thus reliedon the corrupt and inept Hamid Karzai.

Bombing Afghanistan to the stone agehas failed. Whilst a combination ofbombing and negotiations is also notworking. The debate betweennegotiations and military strikescontinues to divide the US government.

There continues to be indifference inthe Afghan strategy between themilitary-intelligence and the Obamaadministration. The military and the CIAhave argued strongly against negotiatingwith the Taliban. In June 2010, CIAdirector Leon Panetta declared publicly:"We have seen no evidence that theyare truly interested in reconciliationwhere they would surrender their arms,where they would denounce al-Qaeda,where they would really try to becomepart of that society."

Several current and former Americanofficials say the United States has triedthis bomb-them-to-the-bargaining-tableapproach before. In the 1990s, it helpeddrive Serbian leaders to peace talks inDayton, Ohio, but it has resulted in littleso far with the Afghan Taliban. MullahUmar confirmed in his Eid al fitrmessage that negotiations are takingplace.

The Obama administration's December2010 strategy review produced apotential alternative to that military-CIAapproach. An intelligence assessmentcirculated just as the 50-page classifiedreview of progress in Afghanistan andPakistan was being completed,concluded that Pakistan was not likelyto agree to carry out a major militaryoperation against the Haqqani group,regardless of US pressures. It alsosuggested that, without such a changein Pakistan's policy, the US militarystrategy in Afghanistan couldn'tsucceed. That strengthened the hand ofthose who had been sceptical about themilitary's approach to the problem. Theresult, according to sources familiarwith the document, was that thestrategy review suggested the need fora "political approach" to the insurgencyin general and the Haqqani network inparticular.

Hilary Clinton confirmed that in hervisit to Pakistan in October 2011 sheused her meeting to reassure thePakistanis that they would play acentral role in such reconciliation talks.“We’re at the point where Pakistanishave told us they’re going to squeezethe Haqqani network,” a senioradministration official said. “They’resatisfied they’ve got a way forward onreconciliation. They’ve got a role toplay.” That first exploratory meeting was

held secretly in the United ArabEmirates between a midlevel Americandiplomat and Ibrahim Haqqani, abrother of the tribal network’spatriarch. Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha,the head of the ISI, brokered themeeting.

It appears the US is looking to dividethe insurgency by negotiating bilaterallywith the Haqqani network and MullahUmar’s Taliban. This process does notrequire a large military footprint whichallows Obama to make good on hiselection pledge of withdrawingAmerican troops from both theatres.Whether the US can placate the Talibanremains to be seen.

CONCLUSIONSThe US is not about to abandon itsstrategic interests but changing themanner in which it plans to achievethem as during its decade of warvarious challenges and obstaclespresented themselves that led to achange of strategies and how USinterests would be protected. The USquickly abandoned its aim of setting upa democracy in Afghanistan as theTaliban launched its insurgency tohaving a client state with an acceptabledictator.

The withdrawal of US troops isprimarily for Obama’s re-election hopesas the US caucuses are now starting(January 2012), with the Presidentialelection in December 2012. The USwith the help of its regional surrogateswho have protected US interests inreturn for crumbs, have allowed the USto not be embarrassed or bleed itself todeath. The US is confident that it canachieve its interests with a smallermore specialised force alongsidethousands of contractors. The New YorkTimes reported in October 2011 thatthe Obama administration is planning amassive troop surge into Kuwait andthe surrounding region, as well as amajor naval build-up in internationalwaters in the area. The US mostcertainly has no plans to abandon itsstrategic interests in Eurasia. �

ADNAN KHAN

...the Obama administration is planning a massive troopsurge into Kuwait and the surrounding region, as well as amajor naval build-up in international waters in the area. TheUS most certainly has no plans to abandon its strategicinterests in Eurasia.


WESTERN COLONIALISM IN THEISLAMIC WORLDThe year 2011 has passed. In general,there are not many fundamental changesthat have occurred in the Islamic world.The Islamic countries are still the objectsof the imperialist countries of capitalism.Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stilloccupied. American military bases spreadacross the Islamic world especially in theMiddle East, a reflection of the Americanoccupation agreed upon by puppetgovernments.

Although the U.S. has withdrawn itstroops from Iraq in early December, theUS continues to strengthen its position inMiddle Eastern countries. The Chairmanof the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff toldmembers of Congress that the U.S. muststrengthen its military presence in Kuwaitto counter the growing Iranian influence

in Iraq and in the Gulf region. The U.S.,which has 29,000 troops in Kuwait, 7,000in Bahrain and Qatar, 3,000 in the UAE,and 258 military personnel in SaudiArabia, wants Kuwait to accommodate itstroops withdrawn from Iraq, which isestimated at 24,000 troops.

While the U.S. Defense Secretary, LeonPanetta said on the 13th of October tothe members of congress that 10,000 U.S.troops would be withdrawn fromAfghanistan before the end of this year asplanned, 23,000 troops sent by BarackObama to Afghanistan will remain tooccupy the region until the summer of2012.

In the field of economy, the rich Muslimcountries become the objects ofexploitation of the multinationalcompanies of the imperialist world from

Morocco to Marauke (Indonesia), whilemost people of the Islamic world are stillliving in poverty.

The U.S. are also still using the repressiveclient regimes who become the puppetsto suppress the struggle for Sharia andthe Khilafah, as continues in Uzbekistan,Tajikistan, Kazhakhstan, Bangladesh, andPakistan.

Uznews.net published a report entitled:“Torture of prisoners indicted forreligious crimes continues, new reportssay” [1] telling that the Human rightsactivists reported new cases, such astortures, and new forgery charges inUzbekistan prisons in order to jail peoplefor religious reasons and those whosesentences are close to being served. Theleader of the Initiative Group ofIndependent human rights campaignersin Uzbekistan (IGNPU), Surat Ikramov, hasraised the case of two brothers, indictedfor their membership of the banned Hizbut-Tahrir movement.

On 22nd of September 2011, theKazakhstan regime passed a law that bansperforming prayers at the governmentalinstitutions and departments [2]. Thisincludes the prohibition of spreading ofIslamic propagation in any places thatbelong to the government. Under the law,all mosques and places of prayer in allgovernment premises should be closed.

In Bangladesh, as reported bywww.islamtoday.net on January 18th,2011 citing The Guardian, revealed theinvolvement of British intelligence in thetorture centers in Bangladesh, which wasadopted by the then Labour Partygovernment. According to a report madeby Jacqui Smith, the former UK HomeSecretary, that she was very concernedabout the use of torture in Bangladesh byBritish intelligence agencies. Besides thepolitical opponents of the ruling party,the victims of torture in Bangladesh arethe Islamic Hizb ut-Tahrir activists whowork for the establishment of IslamicSharia.

THE FATE OF MUSLIM MINORITIESMeanwhile, the fate of Muslim minoritiesin the areas mostly controlled by non-Muslims is very sad. Massacre,

Reflections on the IslamicWorld 2011: Waiting for the5th Wave of the Islamic World,the Revival of Khilafah

FARID WADJDI

discrimination, harassment are among therecurrent cases experienced by theMuslims in Russia, in Pattani in Thailand(under the Buddhist regime), in India,Khasmir, and Sri Lanka (under the Hinduregime), in Moro (Phillipines), inXianjiang (under communist China).

According to www.islamtoday.net datedAugust 12th, 2011 based on a report bythe Pew Forum on Religion and PublicLife, it was revealed that Muslims areharassed in 117 countries, including inthe European countries which ban faceveils (niqab) and calls for prayer. China isthe most imposing country in therestriction on religious freedom and theimplementation of religious rituals,followed by France which ranks third forthe banning of the face veil (niqab).

Muslims in Uighur are prevented fromperforming pilgrimage. "We cannot get apassport," said Mehmet Ali (not his realname), told the newspaper TheHindutimes.com, on October, 31st.Mehmet said to perform pilgrimage, theMuslims in Uighurs have to pay 70,000yuans. It is not the cost of the pilgrimagethat becomes the problem, but thedifficulty to get a passport. The Chinesegovernment deliberately complicates theprocess.

Almokhtsar.com, (23/11/2011) reportedthe destruction of a mosque in thedistrict of Mullaitivu, in the Northern

Province of Sri Lanka by Hinduextremists, which then built a center formeditation and yoga. In fact, the Muslimshave lived in this area since 1965, andthere were 165 Muslim families at thetime.

THE FATE OF MUSLIMS IN THE WESTERNCOUNTRIESThe same fate has been experienced bythe Muslims in the countries that claim touphold democratic and human rightsvalues. Islamophobia which is mixed withXenophobia has increased in Europe. Thesupport for ultranationalist groups hasgrown. The hatred and violence againstMuslims start from vandalizing mosques,insulting Prophet Muhammad (SAW),performing criminal actions due to thedifference of religion and race, until thethe state's officials take action such asbanning the use of Muslim clothing(niqab), and construction of newMosques. All is done in the name of thestate security and the obligation of thestate’s to maintain secularism.

According to the FBI, the crimes and themisdemeanors against Muslims haveincreased by 50% from 2009 until 2010.Islamtoday.net (15/11/2011) reportedthat the total number of acts of violenceagainst the Muslims have increased from107 cases in 2009 to 160 cases in 2010.

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)provides assistance to the District of NewYork Police Department (NYPD) to spyon American citizens, [3] especially theMuslims. Since September 11 attack, withthe help of CIA, NYPD has sentundercover officers into the minorityenvironment as part of the humanmapping programs, AP news agencyreported on Wednesday (24/8).

French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo,named Prophet Muhammad as "chiefeditor" [4] for its latest edition to markthe victory of the Islamist party Ennahdain Tunisia. The magazine will be renamedto Sharia Hebdo. "To celebrate the victoryof the Islamist party Ennahda in Tunisia,Charlie Hebdo, named Muhammad as itschief editor for the upcoming issue," themagazine said in a statement.

Interestingly, despite the massive and

systematic stigma against the teachings ofIslam and Muslims, the number of nativeEuropeans and Americans who convertedto Islam keeps increasing. It happensespecially amongst the educated middleand upper class European women. Basedon the research of a British institute"Faith Matters", the number of the Britishcitizens who’ve embraced Islam hasreached 100,000 people, with 5,000 newconverts to Islam every year.

This fact is in sharp contrast to theattacks on the Islamic teachings withrespect to women. The teachings of Islamfrom Allah (SWT) is in accordance withhuman nature, and satisfies the rationalthoughts of man because it is built on theprinciple of tauheed (oneness of Allah),which is capable of defeating thenegative stereotypes which attempt tokeep the community away from Islam.Although practiced only partially insociety, the comprehensive Islamic Sharia- like the doctrine of love in the family,integrity to maintain the honour ofwomen and family, respect of the elderly,to clothes that keep Muslim women frombeing exploited cruelly by capitalism, hasattracted many people to embrace Islam.

THE CHANGE OF DIRECTION IN THEMIDDLE EASTA great difference stems from thedevelopments in the Middle East: thecollapse of the repressive regimes.Starting with the fall of Zainal Abidin binAli in Tunisia, the resignation of Mubarakin Egypt, until the violent end ofGaddafi’s repressive regime in Libya.Currently, some areas in the Middle Eastremain in a period of upheaval such asYemen and Syria. Countries that havebeen 'under control' of their rulers willcertainly be carried away such as Jordan,Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and others.

The people’s movement with full courageis able to subvert the regimes. While themovement is at the crossroads, the U.S.and its allies want to change the directionof the movement. They intend to changeit to democratisation. The U.S. shamelesslyclaims to be the hero that drives changein the Middle East, even though it is theviolent entity that has been supportingthe repressive regimes of the region.Then, they change the direction claiming


FARID WADJDI

to side with the people, after knowingthat they can no longer take advantage oftheir puppet regimes.

However, the West knows that the changein the Middle East cannot be separatedfrom the Islamic factor that has becomethe culture and the emotion of theMuslims there. Regardless of theirwrapping the ideas of capitalism withIslam. So, they come with the terms of addaulah al Madaniah (civil state / civilsociety), al-Islam al mu'tadil (moderateIslam) which is a poisonous term.Dangerous because the core of its idea isthe acceptance of the system ofsecularism, democracy, and pluralismwhich are contrary to Islam. What theymean by moderate Islam is Islam thataccommodates the Western thought suchas democracy, human rights and pluralismand those who accept the policy of theWestern colonialism in the name ofopenness and inclusivity.

The question is whether the West will beable to succeed with this strategy? Willthey bring a meaningful change for theMiddle Eastern societies? The answer isvery clear. The West will fail again. Inaddition, the offer of their Western ideaswrapped with Islam will also fail. It isbecause those ideas preserve the Westerncolonialism which is the core problem inthe Middle East and Islamic lands whilepreserving the ideology of capitalism andforeign intervention.

Unfortunately, the parties in the elections- which are the Islamic parties - aretrapped by Western pressure to upholdWestern ideas such as democracy,liberalism and pluralism. The party thatwon in Tunisia, Nahdha, promised that itwill not change the principle ofsecularism that has become the stateprinciple of Tunisia. As quoted from thesite http://english.alarabiya.net (5 / 11),anNahda Party that will rule Tunisia afterthe collapse of Zainal Abidin bin Ali willfocus on democracy, human rights and afree market economy in the plans tochange the constitution. The party willnot use religion as a reference in theconstitutional draft that will be preparedto assure that Tunisia remains a secularstate.

Some Islamic-based parties are making asecret agreements with the Westerncountries, which is an act of politicalsuicide. From the point of view of Sharialaw, this is also unlawful to cooperatewith the muhariban fi'lan countries(countries which are openly fighting themuslim countries) which have killedmillions of Muslims and plunder thenatural wealth of the Islamic world. Onceagain, without Sharia and Khilifah, thiswill surely fail.

Only by implementing Islamic Sharia inits totality which is a proof of faith anddevotion to Allah, will the victory beachieved. This is confirmed by Allah(SWT) in surah A'raf [96] of the Quran, inwhich Allah says: “If the people of thetowns had but believed and feared Allah,we should indeed have opened out tothem (All kinds of) blessings from heavenand earth; but They rejected (the Truth),and we brought them to Book for theirmisdeeds.”

WAITING FOR THE 5TH WAVEInsha Allah, the ummah will enter thefinal wave of the journey for the return ofIslam after the collapse of the Khilafah in1924. The 1st Wave was the era when thecolonial countries directly occupied theIslamic world.

They sent troops to the Islamic lands;however, they realized that this wouldlead to failure. The Muslims would easilymove, because the enemies are clearly intheir sight namely the foreign troops. Thiswould fail besides it was also relativelyexpensive.

The 2nd Wave came when the Westerncolonialist gave ‘quasi’ independence tothe Islamic lands. Their independencewas quasi because they did not reallygrant them full independence. Thoughthe majority of colonial troops werewithdrawn from Islamic lands, theoccupation continued through the handsof the puppet rulers. They also ensuredwhat is applicable is the Western system,not Islamic law.

Then, Muslims entered the 3rd Wave. Atthat time, the western-backed puppetrulers repressively acted against theirown people, because they preferred to

serve their imperialist masters. To gainsupport from the Western countries, theylet the natural resources in the Islamiclands be plundered and exploited whiletheir people live in poverty. On the otherhand, every effort in the struggle forSharia was crushed repressively becausethis would threaten the interests ofcolonialism.

They arrest, torture, and kill those whostruggle for Sharia. These types of rulerscome one after another in the Islamiclands either in the form of kings,presidents or prime ministers. Amongthem were Suharto in Indonesia, SaddamHussein in Iraq, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt,Zainal Abidin bin Ali in Tunisia, andGaddafi in Libya.

Then, came the Muslim ummah in the 4thWave, where the West gave democracywrapped in Islamic terms. They are tryingto mislead the Muslims. However, thiseffort will also surely fail. The conditionof failure is reinforced by the weakeningof the major countries of the capitalistworld such as the United States andEurope. The crisis in the Westerncountries will make them unable to fullysupport the new puppet rulers whomthey rely on.

Insha Allah, the Muslims will enter the5th Wave soon, in which the ummah canno longer be deceived. They realize thatany system which is originated from theWestern colonial ideology will notprovide the goodness, whether it iswrapped by Islamic terms or by othermisleading words or not. The ummah willin turn firmly reject democracy, pluralism,liberalism, and other misleading ideas.

At that time, the ummah will just trust inIslam with its Sharia and Khilafah. Thereis no other choice for the ummah exceptsupporting the establishment of Shariaand Khilafah. Then the ummah will givetheir trust entirely to a group of da’wahcarriers which seriously work for theimplementation of Sharia and Khilafah.They no longer believe in the wickedscholars who become the accomplices ofcolonialism. It is at that time theestablishment of Khilafah is in sight. InshaAllah! (Eramuslim.com, 12/21/2011).�

Khilafah Magazine :: January 2012 :: 23

FARID WADJDI

www.khilafah.eu

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, Suite 301, 28 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3SSTel: 07074 192 400 - www.hizb.org.uk - [email protected]

hizb.org.uk

Documents

Khilafah Magazine January 2012