Khilafah Magazine August 2003

Khilafah magazine

Jumada Al-Thani/Rajab 1424 - August 2003

Contents

Cover Issue 8 Volume 16

4

EDITORIAL

16

DEMOCRACY

5 POSTER 6

NEWS

8

W M D ROCKS LONDON A N D WASHINGTON

BY THE IRON FIST

19

SO Y O U WANT TO DRIVE A FERRARI ?

21

DEPRESSION

-

AN

EPIDEMIC OF WESTERN SOCIETY

11 23 DIVISION INTO 73 SECTS

' ISLAMOPHOBIA'

THE PRODUCT OF A CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS

26

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN POLITICS

14

THE WEST TREATS ITS POWS LIKE IT TREATS THE R E S T OF

THE WORLD

30

THE DILEMMA OF MUSLIM IDENTITY IN THE WEST

August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

3

Khilafah magazine

Published by Khilafah Publications Suite 298, 56 Gloucester Road, London, SW7 4UB www.1924.org · magazine@1924.org

Editorial

indistinct, their values have become tarnished with the secular ones and their vision has been constricted to the narrow horizons of the Dunya.

The Muslim who prays five times daily yet has a mortgage, the Muslim who sends his children to learn Qur'an at a Madrassa but is not bothered by his wife wearing Western dress, the Muslim who feels for the Muslims of Iraq but plays the National Lottery and the Muslim who shuns Riba only to vote Labour or Conservative on polling day have all been affected in one way or another by the Western thoughts and values.

Assalamu Alaikum Barakatahu,

wa

Rahmatullahi

wa

s increasing numbers of people in Western society embrace Islam and a new generation of Muslims establish themselves in the Western world, building on the sacrifices of our parents, we increasingly find ourselves looking inwards as we seek to comprehend the very different challenges facing our generation.

A

The recent war on Iraq caused some deeply unsettling questions regarding our identity and political allegiances to resurface. This combined with the increased 'Islamophobia' in the Western world and the effects of globalisation highlight some of the new challenges facing us. Indeed many Muslims remain uncertain about our future and how we can fit in with British society.

For some time now, Western politicians, commentators, journalists and prominent personalities have all engaged in a discussion about the present state of the Muslim community in Britain. In this discussion, Muslims have been asked to answer several questions: Are you with us or with the terrorists? Are you British or Muslim? Where does your allegiance and loyalty lie?

Upon studying and analysing the reality of these discussions about the identity, values, allegiance and loyalty of Muslims, it is evident that there has been a deliberate attempt to sideline the clear Islamic view with regards to Muslims in Britain.

Muslims living in the West, including Britain, have undoubtedly been affected by the Western way of life such that their identity has become 4

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

It must be recognised that undoubtedly Islam has mapped out a unique, distinct and characteristic identity for Muslims that is based solely on the Islamic Aqeedah. It is the Islamic Aqeedah alone that determines the identity of the Muslims, the values he adopts and the vision he aspires to.

Allah (swt) has revealed Islam to provide guidance to mankind. The guidance implies that we recognise that Islam has the authority to regulate our lives in their entirety. Muslims in Britain cannot have the attitude of taking the guidance of Allah (swt) in the ibadat (acts of worship) while leaving the guidance in matters concerning politics, economics and ruling to the others.

Muslims are obliged to steadfastly adhere to the rules of the Islamic Shari'ah in all matters and realise the fallacies and errors of the Western thoughts, values and way of life. Islam must be the sole reference in life for Muslims in Britain when bringing up children, marrying, addressing the problems of the community, embarking on business ventures or solving disputes.

O Muslims! Islam is a trust (amanah) on the necks of the Muslims and Allah (swt) will account us for this trust on the Day of Judgement.

Living in the West is not easy and we will surely face many hardships. The choice is ours - either we succumb to the thoughts of Kufr or we stand as a lofty pillar against them. We know that the people in the West - the non-Muslims - live in utter darkness. Their materialistic ideology has taken morals out of society, taken modesty away from women, taken honesty away from trade and taken the innocence away from our children. If we live according to Islam in its entirety, no matter the hardships we face, then our community will be a shining light, like a lamp on a dark night, guiding through our good actions and through our complete adherence to our Deen.

Editor Asif Dawood Editorial Board Dr Imran Waheed Asif Khan Ahmad Jassat Jalaluddin Patel Abdul Hamid Jassat Sajjad Khan

News Editor Dr Samiul Muquit Production and Publishing Mokbul Hussain Kosser Mohammed

Khilafah Magazine is a monthly magazine published in London with a wide distribution across the Muslim and non-Muslim world. The magazine is dedicated to articulating the case for Islam as an ideology that deals with all human problems, whether individual or societal. Islam must be understood ideologically and has a defined political and ruling system – the Khilafah System. We maintain that the 'Clash of Civilisations' is not only inevitable but imperative. As the Capitalist ideology dominates the world today, the only challenge to it must come from Islam.

We write to inform, inspire and create a movement for true intellectual revival.

No Copyrights Since Islam rejects copyrights and patents you are free to reproduce articles contained within this publication. It is our kind request that when doing so you cite the author and source of the article.

Translation of the Qur’an It should be perfectly clear that the Qur’an is only authentic in its original language, Arabic. Since perfect translation of the Qur’an is impossible, the term ‘Translation of the Meaning of the Qur’an (TMQ) has been used, as the result is only a crude meaning of the Arabic text.

Subscription details Subscription charges: £20 per annum including postage UK €40 per annum including postage Europe $60 per annum including postage USA To subscribe to Khilafah Magazine please refer to: Internet Site: www.1924.org email: magazine@1924.org or write to:

Dr Imran Waheed

Sisters Editorial Advisors Dr Nazreen Nawaz Ruksana Rahman Sameena Asghar

Khilafah Magazine, Suite 298, 56 Gloucester Road, London, SW7 4UB

please make cheques payable to ‘khilafah publications’

August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

5

News WHO KILLED DR. KELLY?

In a desperate attempt to absolve itself of any blame, the government has launched an independent judicial enquiry. This is a seasoned political stunt, designed to give the appearance that the government has nothing to hide and wants to uncover the truth. Whilst many will eagerly await the results of the enquiry, significantly, it will not investigate the main issue of whether or not the government produced misleading intelligence reports.

With these investigations often running on for many months, if not years, it seems as though much of the public outrage will dissipate by the time the findings are published. In the process, the government will have successfully side stepped the issue on weapons of mass destruction whilst stifling any debate on Kelly's death.

Shiraz Maher

By now, it has become a tired cliché, but Aeschylus' famous maxim "In war, truth is the first casualty" is particularly poignant when considering Dr David Kelly's death. Caught in the midst of a futile war of words between the government and the BBC, the pressure of being the subject of a ruthless examination by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, eventually proved to be too much. The entire fiasco surrounding BBC allegations that the government's dossier on Iraq had been 'sexed up' has fuelled a ferocious debate.

Chaos has ensued from what started out as little more than a sideshow. Kelly's appearance before the Select Committee should have been little more than a routine affair. Yet it ended in tragedy when police confirmed the grizzly news that Kelly had bled to death in a field, having slashed his wrist. He had told his wife that he was going for a walk, apparently leaving

home with a knife and a packet of painkillers.

In the fallout from this event, attention has shifted away from the initial issue of whether or not the government deliberately misled the people. It is now dominated by the curious circumstances surrounding Kelly's suicide. Despite these late developments, no one is prepared to accept responsibility. The BBC continues to protest its right to make the allegations whilst the government remains unapologetic. The Prime Minister, in response to questions on whether or not he would resign over the issue replied; "You've got to have broad shoulders in this job ... I've got them."

6

will only be sent once he resigns his post. The unfortunate fact is that, whilst negotiations continue for a ceasefire, more and more Liberians will die in the bloodshed.

the capitalist system. The Muslims who advocate the creation of such groups imagine that they will be able to influence the policy decisions of the government.

Liberia has a history with the United States. It was established by freed American slaves sent to the West coast of Africa by anti-slavery societies. The name of the country means ‘Liberty’ and the coat of arms of the country reads "Our love of liberty brought us here."

History has proven time after time that capitalist governments, like that in Britain, are ultimately driven by material interests, above all else. Even the integration of minority groups into the mainstream is seen in this respect.

The interests and sentiments of its minority Muslim group or even the majority of the population will be disregarded when necessary, as illustrated in the recent Iraq conflict.

The outcome of groups like MFL is that the Muslims integrate into the capitalist political system, driven by partial interests like Halal food in schools, while turning a blind eye to the colonialist nature of capitalist governments. These outcomes will further subjugate the Muslim countries while spelling disaster for Muslims residing in the UK.

Despite the admiration the Liberian nation has for the US, we see that the US administration in its neo-colonialist arrogance has not been returning the favour and is quite happy to see a nation near catastrophe than to jeopardise the opportunity to deal with a more US friendly regime and gain access to a strategic part of Africa.

Mohammed Ashifuddin

LIBERIA IN TURMOIL "MUSLIMS FOR LABOUR"

There have been calls for international humanitarian intervention following the outbreak of a third rebel assault on the Liberian capital, Monrovia. For the past four years, rebels have been engaged in a bitter conflict with government troops to oust Liberian President Charles Taylor from power. This four-year war is just the latest round of a fourteen-year old civil war, which has cost thousands of innocent Liberian lives. The latest conflict has disrupted water and food supplies and deprived shelter for those Monrovians trying to keep away from the fighting.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was quoted as saying; "Liberia today is poised between hope and disaster," adding that the Liberians fighting must; "understand they will be held accountable for any humanitarian disaster the fighting causes in Monrovia." Annan also urged that peacekeeping forces be deployed so that a similar outcome as that in neighbouring Sierra Leone could be achieved.

However, despite calls by current President Taylor, who is prepared to resign and accept an offer of asylum in Nigeria once peacekeepers enter the country, he has been told by President Bush and the rebels that peacekeepers

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

This month, Parliament was home to the official launch of a new group entitled "Muslims for Labour" (MFL), which aims to create a strong new channel of communications between the Labour party and the Muslim community. Attending the launch were representatives from community groups, local councillors, MPs and two cabinet ministers.

The formation of the MFL received high accolades from Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt who said at the launch; "Ministers, as well as the Labour Party, need to have a much fuller and richer dialogue with the Muslim community in our country and the creation of this new organization is a major step forward." Muslim MPs Muhammad Sarwar and Khalid Mahmood have also given their full backing to the creation of the pressure group urging Muslim youth to participate within mainstream politics.

The Labour party has been quick to try and build bridges with the Muslim community, which has been both angered and dismayed at the stance taken by the government in the recent Iraq conflict. This has led to many Muslims becoming disillusioned with the western political process and western capitalist political parties.

The creation of such groups aims at renewing the faith of the Muslims in western politics by encouraging Muslims to make their voices heard and to seek certain partial interests within

Ibrahim Karir

NEW GLOSSY MAGAZINE - AMERICA'S LATEST WEAPON AGAINST THE MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST Not content with their unjustifiable invasion and killing of innocent Muslims in Iraq, the American administration, headed by President Bush, has launched a new "Intellectual War" against the Muslims in the Middle East in the form of a magazine. The magazine, printed in the Arabic language and called "Hi Magazine" has recently been sold across the Middle East and has specifically targeted the Muslim youth in the region.

The first issue of the magazine, published by the State Department, contained articles on Jazz music, sand boarding, Arabic poetry in the US and yoga. Ironically, there is also a section on relationships entitled; "Making Marriage Work", which seems all the more amusing given the fact that at least 43% of all marriages in the US end in divorce according to statistics published by leading US newspaper USA TODAY. There is also an article on "Life in American Universities", which has interviews with Muslim Students enjoying the so-called "Freedom of thought", which the US allegedly has to offer.

The American administration claims the magazine is designed to show a positive image of America and highlight the similarities between the youth in

The magazine is just part of a broader media attack on the Muslims in the region. In a speech to the Southern Centre for International Studies in Atlanta the director of the White House's Office of Global Communications, Tucker Eskew, cited plans to spend $62m developing an Arabic language television network, which, along with the magazine will serve as a two pronged attack on the Muslim youth.

In light of the growing anti-American fervour in all of the Muslim lands, these moves are aimed at improving the American image in the Middle-East, which is dear to America only for its resources and strategic location. What is more dangerous, however, is that this tool also promotes western values and kufr concepts. The pen is used here in conjunction with the sword as it has for centuries to attack Islam and its values.

This time the Americans are not making any secrets about their true intentions.

Mr. Eskew admitted; "We're fighting a war of ideas as much as a war on terror".

Following September 11th, many Muslim citizens of the United States have been made to feel apologetic for their beliefs. Due to propaganda, many American kafir have begun to look upon their Muslim neighbours as terrorists. Now, without any reason, or any proof they can be treated like the criminals people think they are. Their privacy can be totally violated if the FBI thinks they are connected to some kind of terrorism. Because of the stigma already attached to Muslims after the bombings, it is easy to see how one only has to have an Islamic name or be a Muslim youth perusing a science degree at a university, let alone take an interest in speaking out against the homogenisation of the Muslim Ummah into 'modern Islam', to be reprimanded under this new act. For those who do speak out, simply by exercising the nation's ‘constitutional right’, of which they are citizens, they become suspect.

The selective nature of freedom of speech provides a continuing source of amazement. When the Constitution of the United States was first written, it differentiated between men, women and slaves. Only white men were entitled to its rights. This was later amended, but apparently it has not been put into practice. Otherwise, how could one justify that for Christian or a Jew to criticise an aspect of government is acceptable, but that for a Muslim, it is an issue of national security?

Saddam Hussain's sons had been hiding in since the collapse of the regime.

After no less than three failed attempts to storm the building by the infamous 101st Airborne division, the US troops resorted to bombing the building by Apache helicopter fire before storming the building again to find the dead bodies of Uday and Qusay on the second floor along with their henchmen and affiliates.

In a supposed effort to inform the Iraqi people that Saddam's sons had indeed been killed, the US civilian administration ordered the publication of the photos of the two dead men despite some concerns from their military. Colonel Dan Smith, a retired military intelligence officer, said; "We objected to the showing of bodies of American servicemen. It's ironic that we turn around and display dead folks now." Ironic it is that when pictures of the bodies of British soldiers killed in Basra were aired by Al-Jazeera, the US and British administrations condemned these outright, citing Geneva conventions, and barred the relaying of that footage on their own news stations in London and Washington. However in this case, and throughout the war, they gloat over gory images beamed home from reporters on the "Liberation" of Iraq in an effort to allay the fears of the British and American people that they were losing the war.

Mohammed Tahir Malik Kosser Mohammed

THE (UN)PATRIOT(IC) ACT A new argument rages on in America as the Justice Department investigates and compiles allegations of abuse of its selfdefined civil rights and liberties. These allegations are related to an Act which apparently contradicts the US Constitution by allowing the secret monitoring and arrest of individuals.

Worst affected have been the Muslims in this homeland aspect of the US waron-terror. America has shown itself to be a police state with increased police and FBI presence in institutions such as universities.

On October 25, 2001, about a month after the WTC bombings, congress passed the Patriot Act. This act, which was passed without any debate or hearing, allows for the searching and/or seizing of any information from any individual without proof of a probable cause. Not only does this act relinquish any semblance of due process, but it also violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

SADDAMS DEAD SONS - A REPRIEVE FOR THE OCCUPIERS?

Throughout the war, Iraqi prisoners were paraded for the cameras, dead bodies were shown on the highway into Baghdad and many more images were aired of human suffering being inflicted on the Muslims.

The double standards and selective application of international conventions in America's so-called "War against Terrorism" becomes apparent here as in the past - one can only expect the same in the future as the nature of Capitalism is based on hypocrisy.

Majad Hussain

With daily attacks against US occupying troops in Iraq, a cover-up under way in both Washington and London over the case to go to war and the continued failure to find any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq the killing of Saddam Hussain's two sons, Uday and Qusay may have given a break away from the pressures and dilemmas faced by Bush and Blair.

On Wednesday after a lengthy gun battle in an affluent suburb of the northern city of Mosul, American troops bombed the building which

COMMON CIVIL LAW FOR ALL INDIANS The Indian Supreme Court has recommended that the civil legal code be made equal for all citizens, such that all civil issues like marriage, divorce and inheritance be subject to single national laws. Presently, the Indian constitution allows members of different faiths to follow their own religious laws, but under the new law all citizens, including Muslims, will be subject to Hindu or secular laws.

According to the Supreme Court; "a common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies."

This type of law has long been pushed for by the ruling fundamentalist BJP. Restriction of religious action contradicts India's "secular" and "democratic" status, which is meant to guarantee the freedom to practice one's faith or tradition.

Earlier in the year, contradiction in India's constitution was apparent when the Gujarat State passed a law that effectively prevents Hindus from converting to other faiths, namely Islam. Some other states have also passed the law, in which prospective religious converters require state permission before abandoning the Hindu faith for another.

The laws being passed in India are clearly to hinder the masses of Hindus from abandoning the beliefs and traditions of their forefathers. By forcing Muslims to live by kufr laws, it is hoped that they will become less attached to Islamic values and laws, and start adopting the Hindu or secular values that are being propagated. This call for integration into kufr societies is not restricted to India, but rather mirrors the calls for integration all throughout the non-Muslim world. The concepts of "British Muslims", "European Muslims", "Indian Muslims" and "multiculturalism" are all but styles the West has adopted in hope of integrating Muslims into non-Muslim societies.

In contrast to the treatment of religious minorities in "democratic" or secular countries like India, which theoretically allow the practices of other faiths, the non-Muslim minorities or Dhimmis of the Islamic State were guaranteed religious rights. They were allowed to practice their faiths, none were forcibly converted and civil issues such as marriage and divorce were subject to one's own religious laws. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that after centuries of Muslim rule, churches and temples still stand in lands such as Iraq and India; in contrast, just decades of non-Muslim rule has resulted in mosques such as the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya to be dismantled and thousands of Muslims to be persecuted or killed.

Suhel Ahmed

News

America and the youth in the Muslim lands. To further aid this cause all the articles in the magazine have been written by Arab Americans in Washington and stringers in the Middle East.

August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

7

WMD ROCKS LONDON AND WASHINGTON AB I D M U STA FA

A

day after receiving rapturous applause from both houses of the US congress, the Blair government was shocked to learn of the sudden death of Dr David Kelly - a UK government arms expert. Dr Kelly was a senior arms advisor to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and was thrust into the public limelight during the hearing on the dubious Iraq dossiers, conducted by the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Dr Kelly's presentation before the Select Committee was no accident, but a product of conscientious planning between Downing Street and the MoD. The purpose was to undermine the claims made by Andrew Gilligan of the BBC, who accused the government of manipulating intelligence in the dossiers to persuade the British public that military action was warranted against Iraq. Immediately afterwards, the government came in for strong criticism, as it stood accused of concocting diversions away from the main aspect of the inquiry i.e. whether intelligence on Iraqi WMD was fabricated by the British government.

Labour member Andrew Mackinlay of the Select Committee asserted that Dr Kelly had been used to divert MPs from their inquiry. He asked: "Have you ever felt like the fall guy? You have

8

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

been set up haven't you?" Neither has the BBC escaped criticism after its admission that Dr. Kelly was the only source behind its allegations against the government. But one thing is for certain; the long running dispute between the BBC and Labour government has attracted much domestic and international criticism over the claims made by America and Britain over Iraq's ability to both possess and deploy WMD. The fact of the matter is that Britain has a long standing tradition of inviting world criticism over its foreign policy ventures, especially where they involve her so called 'trusted' ally America. This can be clearly seen in her attitudes towards Iraq.

Ever since America announced her intention to change the regime in Iraq, Britain worked tirelessly to prevent it from happening. Her efforts to avoid a war with Iraq became abundantly clear when Blair managed to convince George Bush of the need to seek UN approval for waging war on Iraq. By persuading America to opt for the UN route, Britain was able to delay the war for six months. During this period, she mobilised public opinion, politicians, church leaders, leading societal figures and

numerous organisations to oppose the war against Iraq. Despite her best efforts at rallying domestic and world public opinion against the war, she could not prevent America from attacking Iraq.

In the end, she was forced to join America and attack Iraq without UN approval. She did this in order to preserve her interests in the region, fully aware that if America was allowed to go alone, American companies would seize Iraq's oil wealth. By participating in the war, Britain ensured that her companies would be in an advantageous position to share in some of the spoils. Soon after the collapse of the Baathist regime, America and Britain moved swiftly to secure the oil of Iraq. Oil contracts worth billions were cancelled with Russia, France and China and placed in the hands of the occupying powers Britain and America.

However, Britain was not satisfied with this status quo and feared that America with her superior military strength would eventually bring the whole region under her control. She is also apprehensive of the present US administration which is dominated by neo-conservatives. The

wmd rocks london and washington

neo-conservative's agenda calls for US foreign policy to work outside the framework of international law and treaties. For the past fifty years, a corner stone of British foreign policy has been to use international law to secure her interests by limiting rival powers to interfere in her affairs.

comprehend the full extent of the damage caused to American interests in Iraq or the setback to American plans to change the regimes of Syria and Iran in the near future.

The tussle between the BBC and the Labour government has had a dramatic affect in stimulating the American media and the

It is expected that the issue of WMD will continue to dog both the British and American governments in the run up to the next elections.

In the case of the British government, its stance on the WMD issue has immensely weakened its credibility.

In light of these realities, Britain works continuously to undermine America and her influence in the region. Britain realises that America is deeply unpopular in the world and that world opinion is still doubtful of American motives for attacking Iraq. Armed with this knowledge, Britain intensified her efforts to discredit the motives for going to war with Iraq i.e. the threat posed by Iraqi WMD to the security of the world. Her aim behind this campaign is not only to discredit America's intelligence services, but also to damage the reputation of the Bush administration which used a host of intelligence reports to justify its war against Iraq.

To accomplish this aim, Britain mobilised its media, politicians, secret intelligence agencies and all the organs of government. By carefully orchestrating a conflict between the media (especially the BBC) and the Labour government, Britain was able to conceal her aim.

For instance on Thursday 10th of July, the British Prime Minister's official spokesman said that it was Mr. Blair who was the authentic voice at the top of government. "He is absolutely confident that we will find evidence not only of weapons of mass destruction programmes but concrete evidence of the product of those programmes as well." This statement was contradicted by the BBC political editor Andrew Marr who said that "very senior sources" in Whitehall had virtually ruled out the possibility of finding weapons in Iraq. The dispute between the BBC and the Labour government still continues today.

However, to most observers it appears as a domestic dispute and they are unable to

politicians to wake up from their slumber and ask serious questions about the Bush administration's motives for going to with Iraq. "It ought to be the subject of careful scrutiny... with regard to what (President Bush) knew, what actions were taken, what statements were correct and which ones were incorrect," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said. Congressman Dick Gephardt - who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the US Presidency in 2004 said, "President Bush's factual lapse in his State of the Union address cannot be simply dismissed as an intelligence failure."

Last month, the pressure intensified and resulted in George Bush and his administration conceding that the evidence about Iraq purchasing uranium from Niger was inaccurate. Ari Fleischer said, "Given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement." Also, the head of the CIA, George Tenet, was forced to issue an apology for the CIA's failure to check claims that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger.

He may well become America's first casualty of the WMD saga.

The Bush administration has tried in vain to divert the WMD issue by making the case that Al-Qaeda's link to Iraq was the prime motive.

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11," Rumsfeld said. This reason and others put

forward by the administration have failed to stem domestic and international criticism.

The whole incident is far from over. As long as WMD are not found in Iraq and Tony Blair and his Foreign Secretary continue to pursue the claim that weapons of mass destruction will be found, albeit weapons programmes as they now prefer to call it, then the pressure will continue to mount on the Bush administration. It will be pressured into explaining its motives for going to war with Iraq. Addressing the commons, Blair said, "For me, the jury is not out". Later he added: "The reason why I believe that the intelligence we put before people last September is correct is that the alternative thesis is that, having spent years obstructing the inspectors, having finally in December 1998 driven them out of the country because they could not do their work any more, he then voluntarily decided to destroy all his programmes but not tell anyone about it. That strikes me as inherently implausible." To add fuel to the fire, it was reported by The Independent on the 13th of July that the British government circulated a document amongst foreign leaders which advocated the use of force against rogue states.

The timing of its release only emphasises the resolve of the government to raise more questions then answers about the real motives for going to war with Iraq.

It is expected that the issue of WMD will continue to dog both the British and American governments in the run up to the next elections.

In the case of the British government, its stance on the WMD issue has immensely weakened its credibility. The failure of the parliamentary inquiry to arrive at an independent decision has prompted politicians from all sides of the political spectrum to demand a public inquiry.

Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, who quit the Cabinet over Iraq, said: "It is time that the Government came clean and published the extra evidence they claim proves there was a uranium deal." Michael Ancram, Shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "We believe that an independent judicial inquiry is the most sensible way of establishing the facts." Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman, said: "Day by day the case for an independent scrutiny of the lead up to the war against Iraq becomes irresistible. Only full disclosure can restore the reputation of this Government." This has led to some Labour MPs August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

9

wmd rocks london and washington

expressing a total lack of trust in Tony Blair's leadership and has resulted in calls for his resignation. Labour MP Brian Donohoe told BBC Radio Scotland: "If I don't see the evidence that's overwhelming in terms of the weapons of mass destruction having been there, I'm not going to call, but I do believe that the position of the Prime Minister in these circumstances is untenable and that he would have to resign."

To make matters worse, the death of Dr Kelly and growing calls to extend the scope of the inquiry to cover the reason for going to war with Iraq are adding to the government's predicament. This is because the government realises that an independent judicial inquiry exploring the reason for going to war with Iraq will be extremely damaging and will unravel a catalogue of lies and deceit. Worse still, the inquiry may last the tenure of Blair's rule and gradually stifle all attempts to win the next general election. In other words it is like opening up a fresh wound which slowly drains the life of its victim. Nevertheless it is difficult to see how the government can resist calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the WMD affair.

There are three factors, which make it almost impossible. Firstly, Dr Kelly's death has spurred a new public momentum to get to the bottom of the WMD issue, which will be hard to ignore.

Secondly, Blair's admission before US congress that weapons may never be found has given fresh ammunition to his critics - both inside and outside the Labour Party. Addressing the American Congress, Blair said, "If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that is at least responsible for human carnage and suffering.

That is something I am confident history will forgive." Commenting on Blair's statement in the Guardian, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former UK Defence Secretary, said, "This attempt at moral blackmail will not do. The issue is not whether the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. Of course it is... but there is no intention of the British government to support wars in order to get rid of them (dictators)." Thirdly, in an unprecedented move the White House released intelligence information underpinning the evidence used in Bush's State of the Union address. The move comes as the White House tries to shift the blame on the British government for suspect intelligence. The move is designed to 10

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

force Tony Blair to reveal his intelligence source behind the Niger claim. Democrat Ed Markey, while welcoming Prime Minister Blair at the joint session of congress said, "The American public needs to know the truth. You hold the key". In the light of these factors, it is extremely unlikely that the Blair government will continue to refuse a public inquiry into the WMD matter.

Another worrying development for the Blair government is that some pro Labour supporters already sense that Blair's days in office are numbered and have begun to vilify him. The owner of the New Statesman, George Robinson (a former treasury minister) has produced a scathing attack on Blair in his magazine. The magazine portrays Tony Blair as a psychopath and psychotic. It also says the chancellor Gordon Brown would be a bigger vote-winner than the Prime Minister because Mr Blair "has lost so much public trust over the Iraq war". Internal conflicts aside, those outside the Labour party are echoing similar sentiments. The electorate and the wealthy capitalists who control the media are increasingly losing faith in the Blair government.

A poll conducted by Sky News in the aftermath of Dr Kelly's death forecasts that 65% of the viewers want Blair to resign over the affair.

These developments will further destabilise the Blair government - both in the eyes of his party and the electorate. Unless Tony Blair can bridge the credibility gap between the government and his party, between the party and the electorate and is careful not to alienate the wealthy capitalists, it is unlikely that Labour led by Blair will win the next election. In a recent speech to parliamentary Labour party members, Tony Blair warned that the party must not self destruct through divisions.

The case of the Bush administration is quite different, as the WMD issue has not impacted the political medium or affected the American people in the manner it has done in Britain. Many people in America still believe that WMD were discovered during the war. Another factor which has limited the exposure of the issue is that the wealthy capitalists, the Jewish lobby and other powerful interest groups are fully supportive of Bush. Their combined influence over the media, government institutions and their ability to muzzle anti-war campaigners has shielded Bush from much criticism. With his recent trip to

Africa, he has also won the backing of the pharmaceutical industry and the black vote.

Unless events take a dramatic turn, it is unlikely this issue will significantly affect Bush's election campaign. Already he has raised more money to finance his re-election campaign then all the Democrat challengers put together. Nonetheless, Bush will not escape from the issue unscathed. It will leave a lasting blemish on his administration.

In future, Bush will find it difficult to convince the world of the threat posed by WMD when attempting to justify regime change in other countries, notably Syria and Iran.

In conclusion, Britain will continue to use the issue of WMD to inflict maximum damage on the credibility of the Bush administration and its ability to use intelligence to justify new conflicts, even if this means that the Blair government must be sacrificed in the process.z

‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ THE PRODUCT OF A CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS WAL EE D GU B AR A

2. In Manchester a 20-year-old Muslim woman was battered about the head and body by a young white man, with a hammer on a crowded tram.

3. A woman in Swindon was hospitalised after being beaten with a metal baseball bat because she wore Khimaar (headscarf).

"You shall certainly be tried and tested in your wealth and properties and in your personal selves, and you shall certainly hear much that will grieve you from those who received the Scripture before you (Jews and Christians) and from those who ascribe partners to Allah, but if you persevere patiently, and become Al-Muttaqoon then verily, that will be a determining factor in all affairs, and that is from the great matters, (which you must hold on with all your efforts)." [TMQ Ale-Imran: 186] Today we face an important test that will determine the future of Muslims in this country and how Muslims are perceived by others in Western society.

In the post September 11th era, one can find more than ever, that there is a trial of Islam and unlike most trials where the defendant is innocent until proven otherwise, the verdict of guilty has already been passed and Muslims have since then been eager to present the defence of their Deen.

Muslims are accused of being terrorists, violent, backward, oppressive towards women, ignorant and uncivilised, barbaric, inferior and unable to engage in productive debate; a rigid people caught in their ancient ways that are incapable of producing a positive contribution to the changing face of humanity.

Without doubt in today's climate, to be a Muslim in Britain or elsewhere in the West is to be under suspicion with every move monitored and scrutinised. It is to be under threat and at the receiving end of prejudice, discrimination, and alienation as well as being open to verbal abuse and physical attack.

In the last two years there has been an alarming rise in 'Islamophobia', with many incidents of antiMuslim prejudice being widely documented by NGOs. In total there have been 674 reported cases and many others that have not been officially reported out of fear of reprisal, including three allegations of anti-Muslim motivated rapes. In all the cases documented, 51% fell under the category of serious and violent crimes, 28% under the category of verbal and written abuse, 16% were psychological pressure and harassment, 3% under the category of discrimination and 2% miscellaneous. Some of the incidents reported included the following: 1. Muslim adults and children were attacked physically and verbally. They were pelted with fruit and vegetables, hit with umbrellas at bus stops, punched, spat at and publicly doused with alcohol.

4. In Glasgow, a 20-year-old female student was assaulted with a bottle whilst on a bus by a man who called her a "Muslim bas***d."

5. Two Cambridge University students had their headscarves ripped off, in broad daylight outside a police station.

6. Saba Zaman, who in July 2001 had her scarf pulled off and two of her ribs broken in Tooting, London, was stopped and searched by the police three times in as little as two weeks.

7. A woman and her children were chased into their home in Swansea by up to eight men who called them terrorists and then threatened to bomb their house. Foyzul Bari age 47, a businessman, said he returned home to find his family "shocked and shaken" by the incident.

8. A girl aged seven at a West London primary school, was told by dinner ladies that Muslims were killers.

9. There was an attempted arson on a Muslim nursery in Surrey whilst the children and their teachers were still inside.

10. Dog excrement and fireworks were pushed through the letterboxes of Muslims and bricks were August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

11

‘islamophobia’ - the product of a clash of civilisations

thrown through their windows.

11.In West London shortly after September 11th, an Afghan taxi driver Hamidullah Gharwal, was attacked and left paralysed from the neck down by three passengers in his cab.

12. Mosques and Asian-run businesses around the country were vandalised.

13. Nine pigs' heads were dumped outside a mosque in Exeter. Many mosques were said to have not reported attacks because of the fear of reprisals.

be taught, as Gibbon famously imagined, in the schools of Oxford." [Charles Moore: "Time for a More Liberal and 'Racist' Immigration Policy," The Spectator, 19 October 1991] In an article published in The People entitled, "Slaughtering goats, burning books mutilating teenagers…and still they want me to respect their Muslim ways," Carol Sarler writes, "With the wishy-washy excuse that 'it's their culture', we are supposed to tolerate idiots slaughtering goats on streets in Kensington, groups of idiots burning books on streets in Bradford and wealthy bigger groups building mosques on streets everywhere."

14. Muslim graves have been desecrated.

Certainly the above incidents are a rude awakening for the Muslims amongst us buoyant with their pride in British citizenship, nationality and identity.

Through the attacks and discrimination that ensued on the street level, in the media and through the institutionalised 'Islamophobia' displayed by the UK government the message was clear; Islam is the enemy and you are a Muslim. For whilst all of the victims in these incidents have had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11th, they have been nonetheless painted with the same brush and targeted mercilessly.

Today the trend continues. During the colonial war on Iraq, attacks against Muslims increased again. In a council estate in Wrexham, 200 men with metal bars, knives and petrol bombs began to attack Kurdish asylum seekers calling them terrorists, with one man severely hospitalised as a result. In Portsmouth, an Iraqi woman was subjected to abuse, firstly by being threatened and then attacked by two white men with baseball bats, for wearing Khimaar (headscarf) and then having her home vandalised by pelting with bricks. In June of this year, Awais Alam aged 45 from Walthamstow and a father of three, was beaten to death by two white men because he refused to accept their racist and anti-Muslim remarks.

Despite these violent attacks and the environment of threat and intimidation that Muslims are currently facing, the media irresponsibly as ever continues to fuel 'Islamophobia' through its unabated attack on Islam 'ISLAMOPHOBIA' IN THE MEDIA Over the years we have read numerous popular press articles attacking Islamic customs and culture. For example: "You can be British without speaking English or being Christian or being white, but nevertheless Britain is basically English-speaking, Christian and white, and if one starts to think that it might become basically Urdu-speaking and Muslim and brown, one gets frightened and angry … because of our obstinate refusal to have enough babies, Western European civilisation will start to die at the point when it could have been revived with new blood.

Then the hooded hordes will win, and the Koran will 12

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

And whilst not content with their anti-Muslim remarks alone, some even went as far as to state that it is justifiable. The Daily Telegraph's Peregrine Worsthorne in an article entitled "I Believe in Islamophobia" (1 March 1997) wrote: "To worry about contemporary Islam is not mad. It would be mad to do otherwise."

comes to Islam, the acceptance is something a liberal cannot properly offer…We are not allowed to pick and choose: love the food and pinch the kohl but reject the beaten wives, hate the suppression of women and find repugnant the Halal butchery."

On the 22nd October 2002, the Evening Standard's Brian Sewell wrote in an article under the heading "A noose around the globe", "The fact remains that Islam has always been militant; the urge to conquer and convert began with the great imperial thrust of Mohammed himself…And what will Islam gain? It will secure the old certainties of poverty, disease, the suffocating conformism compelled by the beatings, amputations and hideous executions of Shari'ah law."

INSTITUTIONALISED 'ISLAMOPHOBIA' Such attitudes would not have been tolerated had they been about Jews or Sikhs. Newspaper editors would think twice before printing anything considered even mildly discriminatory towards

The anti-Muslim prejudice that Muslims are subjected to is nothing more than a manifestation of this clash of civilisations between Islam and Western Capitalism.

Back then, Islamophobic attitudes were more or less centred around themes and prejudices of Islam being inferior and uncivilised, and Muslims being raving barbaric lunatics who like to make animals suffer and behave like "demented yoyos bobbing their heads up and down on a prayer mat" as described by The People newspaper.

Today however, after 9/11 the fears instilled in the public about Muslims in the press are more disturbing and the resulting prejudices more frightening. It is no longer only about fear of cultural differences and customs that we are now labelled as "terrorists," in the minds of many and a threat to the fabric of Western society which must be stopped.

More recently, the BBC drama series "Spooks" depicted a Mosque in Birmingham as home to a terrorist cell, recruiting children to commit terrorist attacks in British schools and playgrounds; the consequence of which was further attacks on mosques and Muslims.

The Daily Telegraph, under the heading, "A religion that sanctions violence" depicted Islam as a major threat to peace. The Daily Express's Carol Sarler wrote in reference to the Quran: "Now as far as I am concerned, this is no more than a bloodthirsty little book that is firmly rooted where it should have stayed - in the times and values of the early seventh century when it was written." She further went on to say in reference to the advocates of "Multiculturalism": "…they seek allowance for cultures other than the indigenous to be accepted in their entirety - and the bottom line is that when it

them, for these are minorities protected by the law.

Unlike Muslims, each is considered to be an ethnic group and a "race" and therefore protected by the Race Relations Act 1976.

Today even the BNP (British National Party), realising the blatant gap in the law has changed its racist rhetoric, as it now has a much more appealing message to the masses, a more saleable product, enabling it to win seats in local councils and gain a foothold into local politics. "Islam out of Britain," is its recent campaign for which it has set up an "Ethnic Liaison Committee" to allow anti-Muslim elements from the Sikh and Hindu communities to participate.

The discrimination against Islam and Muslims has resulted in a person being able to print, distribute and openly call for the killing of all Muslims and then admitting it openly, as with the case of James Sinclair, a 31 year-old fork-lift truck driver from Peterborough. His leaflets urged people to find, beat and kill Muslims as well as burn mosques. For this he was sentenced to only 82 days in prison. In addition to this the Judge had the audacity to state, "there is no evidence any violence was provoked by these leaflets" to justify the light sentence, whilst ironically the same legal system sentenced Sheikh Faisal to nine years imprisonment under some little known Victorian law.

Muslim teenagers can get prison sentences of 4-9 years for rioting in reaction to racist provocation and attacks, whilst rioters in Belfast are given fines and sentences as lenient as 6 months for throwing petrol

‘islamophobia’ - the product of a clash of civilisations

bombs at the police.

The UK government continued to hark on about Saddam's oppression of the Kurds as justification for invading and colonising another independent state whilst it placed Kurdish asylum seekers including women and children in detention centres, which are in essence Category 2 prisons, accusing them of "slumming."

Tony Blair claims to be sensitive to Muslim concerns about the war on Iraq and yet Mohsin Khan, 24, a reservist RAF pilot, who refused to fight in the war and says as a Muslim he cannot fight other Muslims, was arrested and charged with being "absent without leave."

The UK Home Secretary David Blunkett boasts about "multiculturalism" and then calls political Islam "intolerance in the guise of cultural difference."

'ISLAMOPHOBIA', CAPITALISM AND ISLAM Certainly this dread and hatred of Islam should come as no surprise, as this is an Ummah caught in a struggle from day one to make Islam a beacon for humanity to follow. As a result, over the centuries, Muslims have been both feared and detested by some, as much as they have been welcomed and loved by others, for the Sunnah of the Earth is that truth and falsehood will continue to clash until falsehood is no more.

threat, because it represents terrorism, religious fanaticism and exploitation of social and economic justice." [A TV interview reported by Inter Press Service 18 February 1995] And hence Muslims will continue to live under intimidation in the West because of this. They will experience prejudice and alienation despite the reassurances given by the British government and its praise of Islam as a great religion. Indeed this is within itself a policy of the "carrot and the stick."

The carrot of Muslim Lords and MPs and the stick that if you reject Western politics you are an extremist and fundamentalist who will be open to attack by right wing extremists. The carrot of new rules to allow Muslim male police officers to wear turbans and women officers to wear Hijab with their uniforms and the stick of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 where Muslims can be arrested and detained without evidence or charge.

The carrot of 'Halal mortgages', more mosques, Islamic schools and the stick of Islamophobic media institutions that depict mosques and schools as terrorist breeding grounds resulting in violent attacks against them and hence a fear by mosque committees to discuss political Islam and the Ummah's affairs.

Carrot and stick, checks and balances until Muslims sever themselves away from the global Ummah.

Until they consider themselves British before Muslim, until they accept the Western politics and reject the Islamic politics, until they integrate fully into British society, until they assimilate and dispose of Islam from their life's affairs as one disposes of the old, dirty and tattered clothes.

"Nay, We fling the truth against the falsehood (disbelief), so it destroys it, and behold, it (falsehood) is vanished" [TMQ Al-Anbiyah: 18] The anti-Muslim prejudice that Muslims are subjected to is nothing more than a manifestation of this clash of civilisations between Islam and Western Capitalism. It began with the Crusades, which led to the colonisation of Muslim lands, to the destruction of the great Khilafah and the establishment of despotic rulers chosen by those who consider Muslims as the enemy, to suppress the Deen. Today it is expressed through the West's so called "war on terror".

It is no coincidence that the demonising of Muslims began just as the threat of Communism began to recede, for Islam remains to be the only ideological challenge left to confront Capitalism. The "red menace" of Communism is no more and Islam is what threatens this decadent ideology and by all accounts this Deen is a formidable enemy. Willi Claes, former Secretary General of NATO, once said: "Muslim fundamentalism is at least as dangerous as Communism once was. Please do not underestimate this risk…at the conclusion of this age it is a serious

must share these treasures with Muslims and nonMuslims alike.

Muslims must also familiarise themselves with the exploitative and decadent Capitalism so that they can refute it and challenge its falsehood. They must show its colonialist foreign policy and oppression of others and destroy it intellectually.

Treat the womenfolk as Allah (swt) ordered, with kindness and compassion. Honour them, treasure them, protect them for they are the "vessels of value" that tomorrow's generation nourishes on today. Let the Kafir learn from Muslims how women are honoured and respected in contrast to how they are treated in Western society today as sex objects, abandoned single mothers and battered wives where today in Britain according to senior Metropolitan police officers, there are around 35,000 cases of domestic violence per month, while most incidents go unreported.

Indeed, now more than ever in these perilous times all Muslims must be ambassadors of Islam. They should not fear reprisals or intimidation, aggression or discrimination, when threatened with being stripped of citizenship or racist backlashes by the advocates of integration. Remember Allah's (swt) words:

"Is not Allah Sufficient for His slave? Yet they try to frighten you with those besides Him" [TMQ AzZumar: 36].

Peregrine Worsthorne in the early 1990s said, "Islam was once a great civilisation worthy of being argued with. But now it has degenerated into a primitive enemy fit only to be sensitively subjugated."

"Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion. Say: "Verily, the Guidance of Allah that is the (only) Guidance.

And if you were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur'an), then you would have against Allah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 120]

He is half right and now it is up to Muslims to prove once again through their efforts, by intensifying the Da'wah and working for the return of Islam and the re-establishment of the Islamic State. That of surety it remains the greatest of civilisations and the only civilisation able to solve humanity's affairs, manage society and bring peace and prosperity to this Dunya. z

Muslims must be engaging not defensive, they must be initiating not reactive. Muslims must challenge these prejudices and stereotypes since that is the only way that non-Muslims around can ever see Islam in a different light.

Muslims must enlighten themselves with the Islamic culture, broaden their knowledge about Islam and instil pride in the youth with it. Let them know of Islamic history, the greatness of the Islamic way of life, the glory under the Khilafah and the pivotal contributions to science and humanity. Muslims August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

13

muslims and the office dilemmas

THE WEST TREATS ITS POWS LIKE IT TREATS THE REST OF THE WORLD Zubair Hussaini

T

he shocking images of the medieval style treatment carried out on the Muslim POWs since their capture by the USA in Afghanistan and their transportation to Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has shocked the whole world. For the past 18 months, over 600 prisoners of war (POWs) have been held in appalling conditions under the US military authorities. Among the prisoners are two Muslims from Britain, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, a father of four children.

The oppression of the POWs by US personnel started when they were first transferred to Guantanamo Bay and has continued ever since.

They were initially brought over in US cargo planes with their hands bound behind their backs, blind folded and ear muffed to prevent talking or listening to others. Upon arrival the US government deliberately released pictures of the POWs in bright orange jumpsuits to add to their humiliation and send a message to the world of how the US intended to treat these captives.

Since then it has emerged that the detainees have been held in cells of no more than 2 x 3 metres in length, restricted to 30 minutes of outdoor exercise a week, denied any contact with legal representation or with their families. Many captives have had their beards forcibly removed.

Other POWs have complained that they have been refused the right to offer their daily prayers and have had their food 'spiked' with alcohol.

President Bush recently gave the go ahead for the first six of the captives to be forwarded for trial under a military tribunal held in secret, with the option of pleading guilty to their alleged crimes and receiving a 20 year sentence or pleading innocence and being liable to the death penalty if 14

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

In the US war against Afghanistan in 2001, 800 POWs comprising of Afghan civilians, Taliban conscripts and alleged Al-Qaeda members, at Qala-i-Janghi fort near Mazar-i-Sharif, were brutally killed by a combination of US Special Forces, CIA personnel and Northern Alliance troops. The POWs were kept in caged rooms with little ventilation or provision for a number of days. The US authorities used investigators to interrogate the POWs and then subjected them to bombs from warplanes and helicopter gunships which resulted in many deaths.

found guilty. Those not forwarded for trial will be held indefinitely.

WESTERN ABUSE OF POWs Western treatment of POWs and civilians throughout the world shows a grim record of torture, killings, and oppression. During World War II, Allied troops held thousands of Japanese and German POWs in appalling conditions. The Americans alone had over 500 POW camps and captives were widely mistreated and abused to extract intelligence information by whatever means necessary. Moreover, American citizens of Japanese and German origin were routinely rounded up, detained and imprisoned in large internment camps. More recent examples include the treatment inflicted by US troops in numerous atrocities against POWs and the civilian population in Vietnam. There were a number of infamous massacres such as on the Nogunri village in the Korean War and the My Lai massacre where civilians, women and children were initially captured by US forces, interrogated and finally shot and their villages burnt and destroyed.

ONLY POWs FROM WESTERN COUNTRIES SHOULD BE TREATED WELL By contrast, Western POWs are expected to be given the full rights and protection under the rules of international law such as the Geneva Convention. The US made a big issue of the alleged mistreatment of American troops captured in Iraq and claimed that the portrayal of US captives on Iraqi TV violated their rights as POWs. A recent ruling in the US courts has upheld a claim by 17 POWs and their families that they are due compensation for the torture and injuries inflicted upon them by Iraqi forces in the first Gulf War. The judge has awarded settlement of $1bn and US legislation permits the money to be taken from frozen Iraqi assets.

Similarly, the US has made attempts at protecting its own troops from the threat of legal action through its exemption from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Through bribes, intimidation and 'get out clauses' with other countries it has managed to secure pledges so that

the west treats its POWs like it treats the rest of the world

US personnel will never be tried under the ICC or any foreign court for any crimes US soldiers and citizens may have committed abroad.

It is abundantly clear that the West shows no shame in the hypocrisy and double standards that it uses when treating POWs. Non-Western nations are expected to fulfil the rights of Western POWs and treat them in a favourable and just manner.

However, no such protection is afforded to POWs and civilians when the perpetrators of the crime are Western states and military personnel.

Moreover, Western states are quick to use their political might to manipulate any existing international treaties and conventions by finding legal loopholes. For example, the US government has repeatedly claimed that the POWs held in Guantanamo Bay are not POWs but "unlawful combatants" that are not subject to the rules and norms of the Geneva Convention. In reality of course, such euphemisms exist only to allow the US to treat its captives in any way it feels fit.

Furthermore, the selection of Guantanamo Bay has been made as it sits outside conventional jurisdiction of any other courts thus allowing the US to detain captives for as long as they like in appalling conditions with the opportunity to find the "verdict" of their own choosing.

What allows the US and other Western states to wilfully flout their own standards and laws such as the Geneva Convention is that their own foreign policy interests drive Capitalist nations.

Western states are primarily concerned to further their foreign influence and domination particularly within the Muslim world. Human rights and international law are only a tool to use against the weaker nations so that they become compliant to the Western agenda. Capitalist nations give no allowance or credence to ethical, moral or humanitarian considerations such as the treatment of POWs. Therefore, the US brutality in its treatment of the captives in Guantanamo Bay is clearly meant to elicit information from the POWs to aid the West's fight in the "war on terror" and send a message to the Muslim Ummah of American strength and might.

ISLAM'S TREATMENT OF POWs By clear contrast, the Islamic ideology lays down clear guidelines on the rules of fighting and the treatment of captives, civilians and POWs. The Khalifah is responsible for war policy and the treatment of POWs within the rules of Islam. He would be accountable before the Ummah and Allah (swt) for his actions in such matters. This is unlike the Western regimes where junior officers or commanders usually have to take the blame, whilst government officials absolve themselves of all responsibility.

"When you meet those who disbelieve, strike the necks until when you have inflicted severe slaughter upon them then bind strongly the fetters. Then afterwards either the release or the ransom until the war lays down its burdens" [TMQ Muhammad: 4] "And they give food inspite of their love for it to the poor, the orphan and the captives saying: We feed you seeking Allah's countenance only. We wish for no reward, nor thanks from you" [TMQ Al-Insan: 8-9].

Islam obliges that POWs are well looked after and not harmed or abused in any way. During the time of the Prophet (saw) captives were looked after well, and they were provided with provisions and clothing if they had none. Imam Abu Yusuf states that prisoners must be fed and well treated until a decision is reached regarding them. Indeed, after the battle of Badr the Muslims soldiers fed the POWs from Quraysh bread whilst they limited themselves to dates.

A further example can be seen in the manner in which Al-Hurmuzan, the famous Persian commander, was treated as a POW. Al-Hurmuzan had been a staunch enemy of Islam fighting against the Muslims in the conquests of Iraq and reneging on numerous peace treaties with the Khilafah State. Upon his capture he was brought before Umar bin Al Khattab (ra) who asked of him: "Why did you not respect your pledges of peace?" Al-Hurmuzan replied "I am afraid you will kill me before I tell you" and gasping like one faint with thirst he begged for some water. "Give it and let him drink in peace," retorted Umar (ra).

"Nay," said Al Hurmuzan trembling, "I fear to drink, lest someone slays me unawares."

"Your life is safe," said Umar (ra), "until you have drunk the water." Al-Hurmuzan, believing that he had got the assurance from Umar that he was looking for, poured the water on the ground.

Umar (ra) ordered another cup of water to be brought, but Al-Hurmuzan said he was no longer in need of water. "I wanted not water," he said, "but safety and now you have given it to me."

Eventually, Umar (ra) had to yield and honour his commitment of protection. Al-Hurmuzan witnessing the justice of the Muslims, later embraced Islam and lived in Madinah for many years.

In the battle of Hunayn, all 6000 prisoners were set free upon capture by the Muslim army.

Alternatively, various kinds of ransom and compensation were demanded by the Muslims in exchange for the prisoners such as teaching Muslims to read or write calligraphy, money in gold and silver and also spears and ammunition.

At the battle of Badr the Prophet Muhammad (saw) ransomed the 73 captives to the Quraysh at a ratio of 2:1.

The rules of fighting in Islam give clear guidance for the mujahideen and Islam prohibits the killing of non-combatants.

Abu Dawud narrated from Anas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said,

"Go forth in the name of Allah, with the help of Allah and on the creed of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill a perishing old man, a child or a woman and do not betray. Gather together your booties and be righteous as Allah loves the righteous."

Muslims in Britain must not be intimidated by Western propaganda or infatuated by the Capitalist way of life. Rather, we should take this opportunity to expose the lies of the West in the conduct of their foreign policy and expose the principles their degenerate ideology is built upon.z

The Islamic ruling on captives is that the Khalifah is given a choice between releasing the prisoners and demanding a ransom. Allah (swt) says,

August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

15

DEMOCRACY

BY THE IRON FIST AZA R H U SSA IN

INTRODUCTION t a time when the whole basis of the invasion of Iraq is being questioned due to the absence of any WMD (weapons of mass destruction) being found, many people have begun to question not only the legitimacy of war, but also the lies and deceit used to justify the war in Iraq. The Americans aim to impose democracy on the people of Iraq by force with the promise of a better way of life. Some Muslims have accepted this plan with open arms, whilst the majority reject their presence and their conspiracies to install a puppet government. These events have raised questions in the minds of the Muslims, not only about the compatibility of Islam and democracy, but also about the way in which a system supposedly based on the free will of a people is forced upon them despite their rejection of it.

A

THE CURRENT REALITY IN IRAQ The US, upon removing the regime of Saddam Hussein, expected to be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people. To their shock, this has not been the case, and they have been left looking into the barrel of a gun, waiting to shoot. There has been no jubilant reception of the troops, though doctored images by the Western media have attempted to portray otherwise. For the Iraqi people, basic personal security, civil services and sound administration are virtually non-existent.

Overall, the military campaign continues, and American soldiers are being killed, while life for the Iraqis has deteriorated.

Surveying the reality in Iraq, it becomes quite evident that the occupying US forces have done very little to bolster their image amongst the local population. By raiding Iraqi homes in search of weapons and suspects, the US forces are trampling 16

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

on a particularly important Muslim sensibility: the sanctity of the home. US troops have been raiding homes in search of members of Saddam Hussein's toppled regime and illegal weapons since the fall of Baghdad. The raids have become much more frequent in recent weeks. Iraqis complain the raids expose women to soldiers when they are not properly dressed, thus raising questions of honour as well as terrifying children. They say the soldiers force doors open rather than use keys on offer, go through personal belongings and humiliate the men in front of their families by cuffing their hands and ordering them to lie face down on the ground.

Some Iraqis have been stripped naked and forced to run in the streets. Others have had their money stolen and possessions taken by the invaders.

In their conceited arrogance, it becomes apparent that the US officials did not develop any real postwar plans, because they believed the Iraqis would welcome US troops with open arms, and Washington could then install a favoured regime in place. Today, US forces face instability in Iraq,

where they are losing soldiers almost daily to escalating guerrilla attacks. The financial burden of occupation is exploding to almost $4 billion a month, and withdrawal appears many years away.

On the ground, this translates into more adversity for American troops. On 10th July in Iraq, insurgents killed two more soldiers, and an Iraqi police contingent demanded that the Americans who trained them leave the police station. Hours after the attack, President Bush said that the United States would not be deterred from its mission in Iraq despite the persistent security threat posed by Iraqi insurgents. Such is the scale of attacks against the occupiers that the US military has handed responsibility of policing the Iraqi town of Fallujah to the Iraqis. Iraqi police and the US appointed mayor requested the move, saying it could help reduce anti-American attacks. Fallujah has been the scene of many ambushes against US troops and Iraqi officers have complained of being caught in the crossfire. A backlash against the US presence in the town 50 kilometres west of Baghdad intensified after US soldiers shot and killed at least 15 demonstrators in April.

In recent weeks there have been increasing reports of Iraqi men, women and even children being dragged from their homes at night by American patrols, or snatched off the streets and taken, hooded and manacled, to prison camps around the capital. Children as young as 11 are claimed to be among those locked up for 24 hours a day in rooms with no light, or held in overcrowded tents in temperatures approaching 50 centigrade (122F).

On the edge of Baghdad International Airport, US military commanders have built a tent city that human rights groups are comparing to the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The Americans have also set up another detention camp in the grounds of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison,

democracy by the iron fist

west of Baghdad. Many thousands of Iraqis were taken there during the Saddam years and never seen again. Such behaviour merely fuels the growing hostility between local people and the soldiers.

Elizabeth Hodgkin, of Amnesty International, who has a bulging case file of arrests, said: "I cannot believe the Americans are so stupid and insensitive as to behave like this after all the trouble they have had over Guantanamo Bay. They must treat their detainees humanely and let them have visits from family and lawyers."

US troops are edgy and angry as ambushes and casualties rise. Eighty-five US soldiers have died since President Bush declared a cessation of hostilities on 1st May. They are struggling to maintain morale because the growing number of sniping, bombings and attacks by rocket-propelled grenades are making them nervous and resentful.

The longer this goes on, the more difficult it will become for the US to install a stable puppet regime to look after their interests in the region.

"I'm more scared now than when we went to war," said 1st Sgt. Benjamin Moore of the Army's workhorse 3rd Infantry Division that led the assault on Baghdad. "At least then you had your lines drawn, you knew where you stood, where the enemy was. But now you don't know who the bad guy is. It's hard to trust the Iraqis."

CHALLENGE FACING THE US The challenge facing the United States is not merely how to introduce "democracy" to Iraq but how to bring about a liberal, constitutional democracy - a popular government that also protects the rule of law and basic rights. If there is anything that democracy experts agree on, it is that you can't easily manufacture the conditions for liberal democracy. No quick fix replaces the hard work of building trust in laws, establishing checks and balances, encouraging civil debate and so on.

Recent attempts to impose democracy in countries such as Cambodia, Bosnia and Angola have failed dismally.

One model for transforming Iraq is America's post World War II occupation of Japan and the resulting democracy that emerged. There it is argued, the US entered the country as alien and anti-democratic as any Middle Eastern dictatorship. However, the US militarily imposed a liberal constitution and brought the public around to democracy almost overnight, chiefly by encouraging and supervising elections.

Efforts to democratise a country require more than modern liberal ideas; they require a class of people who embrace those ideas and make them effective.

Had a sophisticated modern bureaucratic class not been on hand to accept and implement democratic reforms, the American occupation of Japan would

not have succeeded. To be sure, excessive bureaucracy can suffocate democratic liberty, but modern bureaucracies are generally democratising forces. They embody intrinsically modern, democratic ideas - where the government office is distinct from the individual who holds it, for example, and that rules apply to all with equal force. They blow apart traditional social relations, relations that are often powerful barriers to democratic reform, by centralising authority and power in a national government. This, however, is a na誰ve view because those who share the resulting culture are in contradiction to western culture and values. They will not be susceptible to embracing the western viewpoint in life; therefore, the analogy is incorrect.

The influence of so-called fundamentalist Islam in the Arab world reflects a culture deeply inhospitable to democratic and liberal principles.

In a recent "National Interest'' article, Adam Garfinkle explains that, whereas democracy asserts that political authority lies with society, that the majority rules and those citizens are equal before the law, Arab societies vest political authority in the Qur'an, rest decision-making on consensus and understand law and authority as essentially hierarchical. They lack such essential cultural preconditions for democracy as the idea of a loyal opposition or the rule of law or the separation of church and state. It is no surprise that not one Arab Muslim country qualifies as "free" in Freedom House's annual survey, and that a disproportionate number of Arab regimes qualify in the "worst of the worst" category, the least free and least democratic on earth.

There are many problems with the democratisation approach but the most serious of these concerns is its great difficulty with regards to its implementation. Muslim, particularly Arab, political cultures are simply not so malleable that within a generation or two they can be transformed into liberal democracies. There are few genuine democracies in the Muslim world and none in the Arab world. This is no coincidence. In different degrees, Muslim societies lack three prerequisites for democracy; the belief that the source of political authority is intrinsic to society, a concept of majority rule, and the acceptance of all citizens' equality before the law. Without the first, the idea of pluralism, and the legitimacy of a "loyal opposition", cannot exist. Without the second, the idea of elections as a means to form a government is incomprehensible. Without the third, a polity (organised government) can be neither free nor liberal, as these terms are understood in the West.

The incompatibility of the Islamic values with Western is because of its fundamental basis (the creed). This will mean that the Americans will have to force democracy upon the Iraqi people with an iron fist. Ironically, what worries the West and drives their fear is what would happen if democracy were used to establish Islam. That is why Donald Rumsfeld made it quite clear that they

would represent the political and democratic aspirations of the people of Iraq, but not political Islam. Muslims of Iraq will never be able to properly implement the system of Islam under democracy.

How ridiculous and disgusting it is that the colonialist democratic countries like America and Britain boast and brag of democratic values and human rights, yet at the same time they trample all over the humanitarian and ethical values. 'Human rights', especially those of Muslims, hold little value. Thus, Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan and today, Iraq, are a slap in the face to them, as these regions highlight the contempt for their own laws that they claim to uphold. Their behaviour exposes the extent of their deceit.

DEMOCRACY: A SYSTEM OF KUFR WHICH CONTRADICTS ISLAM The Muslims in Iraq cannot accept democracy as it contradicts their belief and gives sovereignty to man. Only Allah (swt) is sovereign and is allowed to legislate. So how can the Muslims of Iraq accept a system that is loyal to its US masters and serves the interest of the colonialists as well as allowing man to be God? Democracy is established on the basis of sovereignty. Democracy is for the people and the people are the source of authority. It emanated from the creed of separating religion from life, and consequently separating religion from the state.

Democracy is the rule of the majority, and the selection of rulers and the members of parliament are decided by the majority of voters. All decisions in democracy are taken by the majority vote.

Democracy advocates the general freedoms, which are freedom of belief, opinion, ownership and personal freedom. These freedoms must be provided to every individual citizen, so that he can exercise his sovereignty and direct it by himself.

The most important element of democracy is that it makes the human, rather than the Creator, legislator. This is only logical for those who call for the detachment of religion from life, because this detachment means the transferral of legislative rights from the Creator to the human being. But the Muslim is not allowed to make his own legislation because we have been given the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) that we must follow and implement in our lives.

For Muslims to adopt democracy means to disbelieve in all - may Allah (swt) forbid - the decisive and conclusive evidences, among which are many Qur'anic verses which oblige them to follow the law of Allah (swt) and to reject any other law. Moreover, these verses consider anyone who does not follow or implement the law of Allah (swt) as a kafir, a zalim or a fasiq:

August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

17

democracy by the iron fist

"… And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are non-believers (Kafiroon)" [TMQ Al-Ma'idah: 44].

"… And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are oppressors (zalimoon)" [TMQ AlMa'idah: 45].

"… And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are transgressors (fasiqoon)" [TMQ Al-Ma'idah: 47].

Thus, whoever does not rule by whatever Allah (swt) has revealed, denying His right to legislate, as is the case with those who believe in democracy, is a kafir according to the explicit words of the Qur'an. By rejecting Allah's (swt) command, man is rejecting those decisive verses, and denying a conclusive text makes a person a kafir as the Muslim Fuqaha' agreed unanimously.

The kafiroon and their agents who rule the Muslim countries, as well as all those who call for democracy, whether they be individuals or movements, realise that the basis for democracy is the rejection of the laws of Allah (swt) by putting man in the place of the Creator. For this reason, they do not present democracy from this perspective, but instead claim that democracy means people ruling themselves by themselves, with equality and justice prevailing among the people with the accountability of the ruler being guaranteed. Although democracy explicitly implies the rejection of the laws of Allah (swt) and following the law of His creation, the advocates of democracy intentionally avoid addressing the issue of rejecting the law of Allah (swt).

The kafir want the Muslims to adopt their thoughts, systems and kufr laws and implement them instead of Islam; thus, they stray away from Islam and become under their control. Allah (swt) warned us of this in the Qur'an when He (swt) said:

"Never will the Jews and Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion. Say: verily, the guidance of Allah that is the only guidance. And if you (O Muhammad) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of the knowledge, then would have against Allah neither any Wali (protector) nor any help" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 120]

18

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

Also Allah (swt) said:

for their full implementation. It is unacceptable to leave any of these pillars of Islam in this state. Our worship to Allah (swt) is incomplete without their full application.

"Whatever the Messenger brought to you take it, and whatever he forbade you, leave it" [TMQ AlHashr: 7]

Islam is the only system that can bring unity and calm to all Muslims of Iraq, whether they are Sunni or Shi'a. After decades of oppression and misery the people of Iraq will only respect a ruler who governs them by Islam and provides safety and security, thereby removing the US influence from the region and building a State which has weapons to protect against its enemies and ward off the designs of the kafir.

Democracy for Iraq will mean forcing the Iraqi people to accept a US controlled regime. This will be no better than the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. The West uses the cover of bringing democracy to colonise the Muslim and Third World countries to secure their interests.

It is clear from the above that the Western culture, values and viewpoints about life and democracy all contradict with Islam and its rules. They are kufr thoughts, culture, systems and laws. It is due to ignorance or deception that some claim that democracy is from Islam or that it is Shura.

Shura is to voice one's opinion in the mubah (or permissible) issues, while democracy encompasses every issue. Democracy is the legislation of constitutions, systems and laws, which man makes from his own mind and which he legislates according to the benefit that his mind perceives, rather than divine revelation. Thus, democracy is absolutely forbidden.

Allah (swt) has promised the Muslims that Islam will be victorious over kufr. We need to believe in this and work in earnest to make the word of Allah (swt) the highest by bringing back the righteous Khilafah which will act as the guardian over the Muslims and look after their affairs according to Islam. Inshallah, it can then dominate the globe and bring the justice and beauty of Islam to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The kafir nations such as America and Britain clearly harbour a vile hatred for Islam and Muslims. Allah (swt) has warned us of this when He (swt) said:

ONLY THE ISLAMIC KHILAFAH CAN UNITE THE MUSLIMS AND TAKE CARE OF THEIR AFFAIRS The Islamic State is established on the Islamic Aqeedah. It is not allowed by the Shari'ah to be separated from that in any way whatsoever. So when the Messenger of Allah (saw) established the State in Madinah on the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah, the verses of law had not yet been revealed. He made the Shahada, "There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah", the basis of the Muslim's life. Through it, Islam obliged Muslims to maintain the Islamic Aqeedah as a permanent basis for the State. Islam ordered them to raise arms and fight against the appearance of flagrant kufr (kufr bu'ah) in the State. The Messenger of Allah (saw) was asked about the tyrant rulers: "Should we not then resist them?" He (saw) said:

"No, as long as they continue to establish prayer among you." i.e. as long as they rule by Islam.

The remaining pillars upon which the Islamic way of life is built have the Shahada as their foundation.

They follow the same principle. Their implementation must be taken from Islam. Each of them remains suspended in part while the Islamic State is not existent, as they depend upon the State

"O you who believe! Take not into intimacy those outside your ranks. They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin. Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths. What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the signs if you have wisdom" [TMQ AleImran: 118] CONCLUSION Three points become apparent from the above discussion. Firstly, the Iraqis are not welcoming the occupying British and American troops; rather the resistance against the occupation is gathering momentum. Secondly, any forcing of democracy by the fist upon the Iraqi people can never succeed because democracy contradicts our belief and has no place in Islam. Finally, only the Islamic Khilafah can unite the Muslim Ummah and bring safety and security to the world. Therefore, we should be devoting our time, money and lives to work for this righteous cause and bring back Islam as a system by removing these kufr regimes and replacing them with the Islamic State. z

SO YOU WANT TO DRIVE A FERRARI? FAI SAL C H AU DH ARY

his summer billboards across the country herald the arrival of the latest drivel from the Hollywood production line, the feature film "2fast 2furious". Essentially, the film glorifies car crime yet the youth will gaze in admiration as their screen heroes tear around corners at breakneck speed, while performing dangerous stunts in the hottest sports cars.

T

Amongst some of the Muslim youth, we find an almost cult-like following of the fast and furious lifestyle. Friday nights are spent "cruising" around the neighbourhood with the roof down and rap music blaring to the extent that it shakes the car. Many a pointless journey is conducted up and down the same road in a somewhat bizarre ritual. This street racing and dangerous driving is a desperate attempt to be "cool". For many of the youth, a fast car means independence and an

opportunity to emulate the rich and famous. Many will compete with friends to have the biggest and meanest engine and ownership of such a car is viewed as a coming of age.

A fast car complete with the latest accessories: sub-woofer speakers, tinted windows and steel alloys deliver status and respect amongst peers.

Unfortunately, there are other accessories which come as standard but are not advertised by the car companies; namely greed and pride (takkabur).

The Muslim elders are not immune to these concepts of pride and arrogance either and we find similar behaviour in the community with respect being granted to those with expensive cars, such as a Mercedes S class or BMW 5 series.

As a result the car is viewed as a means to command respect and flaunt wealth. These

concepts of arrogance and pride stem from individualism and are a repercussion of the capitalist creed. It is common for an individual in the West to spend his entire life attempting to keep up appearances. People will cast envious looks at their neighbours who have the latest sports car gleaming in the driveway, much to the joy of the owner.

The fast car has fast become symbolic of success in Western society and the lack of such a commodity is associated with failure in life as well as leaving one open to ridicule from his social peers. The type of car an individual drives has even gone as far as defining what strata of society he can associate with or even belong. A few years ago, if people were seen driving a Skoda or a Lada it would be difficult for them to sever the disdain of such a thing from their August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

19

so you want to drive a ferrari?

The youth should be encouraged to compete in the good deeds and the pursuit of Allah's (swt) pleasure. The role models for the Muslim youth should be the Sahabah (ra) and not film stars in Ferraris.

character. Image conscious youth would single them out in the road and mock at them.

With such an intense pressure to appear something great before others the ideals of Western life will become numerous. Hence, the fastest and most fashionable car does not remain so for long, and soon after, a new image will the one revered on the streets.

Clever advertising is beamed out through the Western media to tempt people to desire recognition and glorification in the neighbourhood. Recently, Toyota advertisements showed people lying to others, claiming that the Toyota was their car. One car advertisement boldly states; "The car might get you more respect than you think". Many rap stars have incorporated expensive cars into their music videos and include semi-naked, scantily clad women sprawled over the car.

In the mind of the people especially the youth, this creates a desire to purchase these vehicles to recreate what the West deems to be the glamour lifestyle of women chasing you and people idolising you for your image. In addition to this, for those who are not old enough to drive, they are groomed from an early age as fast cars are common in computer games, granting them an opportunity to live out their fantasies and moonlight as get-away drivers for the Mob. This need to play out ones' fantasies and compete amongst peers for the most respected image is a natural consequence of a capitalist society based on benefit and individualism.

on His servant?" For this reason you must change your state so that your friend is not grieved by you."

It is worth mentioning at this stage that Islam also does not prohibit the ownership of vehicles to transport people, whether they are "flashy" and expensive or not. After all, the car is a material object and is not specific to any civilisation and so it is not forbidden. However, the car can be used for different means, either to take the children to the masjid or to drive around the streets in an attempt to attract attention and envy.

In Islam, the concepts of pride and arrogance are shunned and indeed prohibited because they contradict the Islamic personality. On the authority of Abdullah ibn Masood, who said; "The Holy Prophet (saw) said;

'One who has the slightest bit of arrogance in his heart, will not be able to enter paradise.

One of the companions said, 'O Messenger of Allah! Some people like nice clothes and shoes.'

The Holy Prophet said, 'Allah is Elegant and Beautiful, and He likes elegance and beauty.

Arrogance is rejecting faith and considering others lower than yourself.'" [Muslim]

Islam does not prevent man from progressing materially and earning money. It is narrated that many of the Sahabah (ra) such as Uthman ibn Affan (ra) were wealthy. It is reported that Abu Hanifah (ra) saw one of his companions wearing a poor garment, so he ordered him to wait until the assembly had departed. He told him; "Lift the prayer mat and take what is under it." The man lifted it and there were 1000 dirhams under it. He told him; "Take these dirhams and change your state with them." The man replied that he was wealthy and did not need the money. Abu Hanifah said; "Have you not heard the hadith,

"Allah loves the trace of his blessing to appear

Muslims in the West should shun these capitalist values and seek to promote their own values. The

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

It is narrated that Imam Ali (ra) was once amongst a group of the Companions who said to him; "O Commander of the faithful, we have never seen a man who is more virtuous, more learned, more companionable, friendly, and God-fearing than 'Abd Allah ibn Masood." Ali said; "I beg you by Allah, is this true from your hearts?" They said; "Yes." Ali said; "O Allah, I testify in front of you that I say about him like what they said and more.

He read the Qur'an and did what is lawful in it and avoided what is forbidden. He was knowledgeable in religion and scholarly in Sunnah."

It must be understood that the Sahabah (ra) and early generations will not become the reference point until the basis of this capitalist society is exposed and its fallacy made apparent. Living in the West provides the Muslims with many tests the distractions are numerous and the Muslims must always be weary that they do not become complacent or greedy.

Hence, respect in Islam is granted based on taqwa and possession of the Islamic Personality; it is these qualities that the Sahabah (ra) would compete upon, not material wealth.z

Therefore, as the hadith demonstrates, arrogance does not necessarily stem from material wealth but rather from the concepts that the individual carries. It is possible for the Muslim to earn money until he is wealthy yet remain humble and in possession of the Islamic personality. However, if the purpose behind accruing wealth and driving an expensive car is to achieve status amongst people, this will inevitably lead to arrogance and pride. The Sahabah (ra) used to fear excessive praise. Abu Bakr (ra) said; "O Allah, you know me better than myself. And I know myself better than what they think of me! Pardon my sins and do not call me to account because of their undue praises."

20

youth should be encouraged to compete in the good deeds and the pursuit of Allah's (swt) pleasure. The role models for the Muslim youth should be the Sahabah (ra) and not film stars in Ferraris.

DEPRESSION AN EPIDEMIC OF WESTERN SOCIETY A SIF DAWO OD A ND NA DE EM ASL A M

n the UK, suicide is the second highest killer of men under the age of 24 each year, second only to death resulting from road traffic accidents.

70% of recorded suicides (between 4000 - 6000) are linked to depression. Depression has been referred to as the 'common cold of psychiatry', with an estimated one in five people affected by it at some point in their life and more than 2.9 million people in the UK are diagnosed sufferers at any one time.

capitalist ideology defines for man his purpose in life, his motivations, his goals and the means by which to achieve them. In addition to this the ideology of Capitalism, upon which all Western societies are built, is based upon the separation of religion from life i.e. secularism. This basis advocates that the critical questions about the origin of life and the world where man lives and what man will experience after death, are irrelevant to man's life and it is not necessary to offer an answer for them.

I

Depression is recognised as a medical condition that requires treatment and is one of the commonest conditions seen by the family doctor, with the average GP seeing one clinically depressed patient during each surgery session. Some of the common symptoms of depression include lack of motivation, sleep disturbances, weight gain or loss and change in appetite.

It affects people from all walks of life, including the rich and famous. Famous people, who have professed to suffering from it, include Vincent Van Gogh and Abraham Lincoln. Sufferers that are more recent include high profile celebrity figures such as Ruby Wax, Mariah Carey, Stephen Fry, Stan Collymore and Paul Gascoigne.

Research conducted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) has highlighted the prevalence of depression in modern Western society. Research has concluded that of the ten most important disorders in developed countries (i.e. Western societies) depression was at number one. In respect of lost years due to premature death, depression was second only to cardiovascular diseases. It is further estimated that by the year 2020 depression will be second to chronic heart disease as an international health burden.

The prevalence of depression in Western societies is widespread and research shows a growth, year on year in the number of cases diagnosed, treated and even those culminating in suicide. However, what is less clear is why this is such a wide scale problem in Britain and in Western society in general and the failure of modern medicine to curb its effects.

A clear understanding of the intellectual needs of the human being is required and only then can the answer to why Western civilisation has generated such instability within its population be sought.

DEPRESSION - A FRUIT OF CAPITALISM A deep and enlightened study of the human being will unravel that the human being is far more than just a materialistic animal driven by the sole objective to maximise the material pleasures of this life. It will uncover that striving to satisfy the needs through experiencing pleasures, such as acquiring wealth and status, are all but a shallow understanding of the human existence.

In fact the epicentre of the problem lies in the reality that the above principles are the ones by which the

Furthermore, it distracts man from pursuing satisfactory answers to these questions by tempting him to follow his desires and live to satisfy his needs. So much so that descriptions for Western life such as "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die" or "live for today" or "you only live once" have all become common in explaining the motivation of Western society. Multiple obsessions, such as the mass following of football teams and other sports, DIY addicts, Hollywood and the pub culture are rife.

These are all symptoms of a society driven to enjoy life, as if there was nothing more to it than the pursuit of pleasure.

If one were to study the intellectual needs of the human being it would become evident that those questions, which Capitalism ignored and diverted from the attention of man, are without doubt the most important questions in the life of any human being. Whenever man faces a calamity whereby he cannot understand why such a problem has afflicted him, only the intellectual answers to the questions about the origin of life and the role of the Creator will equip him to endure the course of his suffering.

These answers agree with his nature and will August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

21

depression - an epidemic of western society

prevent him from straying into confusion, bitterness and misery.

For example, commonly used descriptions to provide an answer for bereavements such as "his number was up", "when your time comes" or "everyone's got to go sometime" are offered as consoling remarks to try to accept the death.

However, for the one suffering the death of a loved one these shallow words offer little comfort and it will lead to misery as he tries to comprehend why death has occurred and why it has affected him and why he did not take measures that could have prevented it.

Islam offers an intellectual basis, which is built on a certain conviction in the Creator Allah (swt), by contemplating on His (swt) creation such as the sky and sea and the miracle of His (swt) revelation, the Holy Qur'an. Such conviction never leads the Muslim to be confused, when he considers the nature of his existence but rather it gives him certainty in the truth of Islam. The confusion, misery and illness of thought suffered by Western society such as "if God existed he wouldn't do this or that", "no one really knows if God exists" or "God is whoever you want him to be" can never exist in those who believe in Islam.

Allah (swt) says in the Qur'an;

Similarly, Capitalism offers no intellectual support to those who suffer the problems of financial ruin, divorce or failure in their careers or business.

Furthermore, Capitalism's answer to the goal in life being the pursuit of pleasure is such a shallow deception of the reality of man's existence that in the course of people's lives in Western society every person at some stage will question this basis.

This anxiety is often known as the mid-life crisis when people realise that they basically do the same thing day after day, week after week and year after year and all they achieve is getting older, and nearer to death. This realisation that their life constitutes working every day, shopping and chores at the weekend, two weeks summer holiday abroad and Christmas when they overindulge, leads to a sense of failure in life and an almost wasted existence. It begins to provoke thought in what is actually achieved by living just to put on weight and buy a bigger car and second house.

However, unfortunately, as Capitalism offers no solution to this, often what happens is people side step the cause of their depression and attempt to restructure their lives in a blind search to fill their void in life.

It is apparent from the above issues that Capitalism is an ideology that contradicts the nature of the human being and fails to prepare him intellectually for the journey of life. Furthermore, an insight into the way Islam brings complete tranquillity to the human being and prepares him completely to proceed through the challenges of life will demonstrate how Capitalism is not only inadequate, but in fact a danger for the human race.

ISLAM - THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND An understanding of the intellectual basis of Islam reveals how it equips the human being to endure all calamities and be aware of the correct goal in life so he would feel achievement, joy, success and peace, even if his needs were not satisfied. Moreover, it would expose the danger which capitalism poses and how its intellectually deviant basis is leading to the abnormal epidemic of depression and is progressing to the complete malfunction of the human being.

22

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

In addition, Allah (swt) informs us in surah al-A'raf:

"To every people is a term appointed. When their term is reached, not an hour can they delay it, nor (by an hour) can they advance it (in anticipation)."

[TMQ Al-A'raf: 34] Therefore, Islam equips the Muslim to never fall into despair or depression when calamity strikes him, but to understand that this is something that Allah (swt) controls and man cannot influence.

Furthermore, these calamities act as a reminder for man to review his actions and to ensure he maintains himself on the path of obedience to Islam, as opposed to driving him to confusion.

Allah (swt) says:

"Will they not look at the camels, how they are created! And the heaven, how it is raised! And the Mountains, how they are set up1 And the earth, how it is spread!" [TMQ Al-Ghashiyah: 17-20] When faced with calamity, the Muslim would feel pain or sorrow, as would any human being.

However, it would not ordinarily push him towards the depths of despair or depression. This is because Islam has lifted the burden of material failure in this life from the Muslim. The understanding of Qadaa' (fate), Rizq (sustenance) and Ajal (lifespan) give solace to the Muslim that wealth, health, life, family and those calamities that occurred from outside his control are all from Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) will not account him in these issues. So if Allah (swt) was to reduce or remove any of these provisions, then the Muslim would accept this with patience and understand that this is from his Lord (swt).

Allah (swt) says in Surah Saba:

"Prophet, say to them, My Lord gives abundantly to whomever of His servants He wills and sparingly to whom He wills. What ever you spend, He replenishes it by other provisions; He is the best of providers." [TMQ Saba: 39] Allah (swt) says in surah Ash-Shura:

"Allah is very kind to His servants; He gives whatever He pleases to whom He wills; He is the All - powerful, the Almighty." [TMQ Ash-Shura: 19]

"Do they not see that they are tried every year, once or twice? Yet they turn not in repentance, and they take no heed." [TMQ At-Taubah: 126] Islam gave the correct objective in life when it made adherence to Allah's (swt) law and His (swt) worship the objective in life, and He (swt) has informed us in the Qur'an that we would be tried on the Day of Judgement regarding our adherence to his laws.

Islam has never neglected the needs of man and obliged him to work to secure them but it never made them the goal in life, as this is equivalent to the existence of animals.

Hence, the beauty of Islam has bought tranquillity to all believers, as Islam agrees with man's nature, it gives an intellectual conviction with proofs and it does not penalise man on failure in areas he cannot control. It gives him tranquillity and happiness through the realisation that regardless of what happens in life, as long as he is obedient to the Hukm Shar'i then he is succeeding in his life's objective.

CONCLUSION Depression is just one of the illnesses of the capitalist ideology and is one of the many miseries that this corrupt way of life is imposing upon the world. Western civilisation will continue to spiral down these diseases in their society and attempts to correct or reverse them will never succeed completely, as the essence of the problem lies in the very foundation of their thought.

Islam is the only saviour, to rescue the suffering people of the West and bring to them peace and tranquillity, after their misery and despair. z

DIVISION INTO 73 SECTS ASI F KH A N

I

n early July, at least 50 people were killed and dozens injured in an attack on a mosque in the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta.

This act of sectarian violence was believed to be between different Islamic 'sects'. The perpetrators of the crime were not captured and nor were they identified. Some claims suggest that it was the work of the Indian Secret Service attempting to destabilise Pakistan, while other fingers pointed to groups such as Lashkar-al-Jhangvi.

Atrocities such as this are often a result of certain Muslims, through an emotional mindset, passing Takfir (a call of disbelief) on others on the slightest difference of opinion. Justifications are used which are wildly inaccurate, such as the claim that some believe Ali (ra) to be god incarnate, which even Shia reject as an act of Kufr. Or some of them base it on certain hadith that the Ummah will be divided into 73 sects.

(2/503), Ahmad (4/102) and al-Haakim (1/128) among others, with similar wording but with the following addition; "Seventy two in hell fire and one in the Jannah: that is the 'Jama`ah.'" Some scholars, such as ash-Shawkani and al-Kawthari mistakenly said that this addition is weak. Ibn Hazm wrongly said that it was fabricated.

In another variation, Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu `Amir `Abdullah bin Luhay said; "We performed Hajj with Mu`awiyah bin Abi Sufyan.

When we arrived at Makkah, he stood up after praying Dhuhr and said; 'The Messenger of Allah (saw) said;

The Messenger (saw) said;

"The Jews were divided among themselves into seventy one or seventy two sects, and the Christians were divided among themselves into seventy one or seventy two sects. And My Ummah will be divided among itself into seventy three sects." Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, al-Hakim and Ahmad among several others, reported this Hadith. At-Tirmidhi said; "Hadeethun Hassanun Sahih".

'The People of the Two Scriptures divided into seventy-two sects. This Ummah will divide into seventy-three sects, all in the Fire except one, that is, the Jama`ah. Some of my Ummah will be guided by desire, like one who is infected by rabies; no vein or joint will be saved from these desires.''"

It is important that Muslims understand this honourable hadith in the correct context. Thus, with the help of Allah (swt), a detailed presentation of the meaning of the hadith, its historical manifestations, and its impact on the way Muslims view each other will be given. This hadith has been used by certain people to disparage others; so some who follow the Ijtihad of Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab consider those who do not, as being of the sects that will enter the hell fire. Some who followed the Shafi'i school said this about the Hanafi School and Hanafi about the Shafi'i and so on.

Some Sunnis said the same for the Shia, and vice versa.

The hadith mentions the word "Firqah"; this word is a lafz mushtaraq, or homonym. It is a word, which has many meanings. Allah (swt) mentions this word in different contexts in the Quran;

This hadith was also narrated by Abu Dawood August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

23

division into 73 sects

"Nor should the Believers all go forth together: if a contingent (firqah) from every expedition (taifah) remained behind, they could devote themselves to studies in religion, and admonish the people when they return to them, - that thus they (may learn) to guard themselves (against evil)" [TMQ At-Taubah: 122] Here, the word firqah is used to mean group or expedition.

"There is among them a section (firqah) who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!"

[TMQ Ale-Imran: 78] Here again the word firqah is used, but in this context, it is something that is condemned, for the action they carried out was distorting the revelation.

So the context will indicate what the meaning is of the word being used.

With respect to the hadith, Allah's Messenger (saw) explains to us how the Jews were divided into seventy-one sects or firqah, and the Christians were similarly divided into seventytwo firqah. Then he (saw) states that this Ummah will divide into seventy-three sects and that all but the one who follows what he (saw) and his companions followed will be in hell.

Thus, stating the division among the Muslim Ummah amid the Jews and Christians is meant as a condemnation of this act. The questions that therefore arise are, in which areas did the Jews and Christians disagree and how did their disagreement lead to the formation of a firqah or sect? The Qur'an al-Kareem, ordered us not to divide as the Jews and Christians did. Thus, it is important to understand in what it was that they differed. a) They disagreed over their Messengers. Allah the Supreme says;

24

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

"And We had given Musa the Book and followed him by Messengers. And We gave Isa the son of Maryam the clear signs and supported him with Roohul Qudus (Jibra'eel). Is it that when ever a Messenger came to you with a matter that you do not like, you turned with arrogance, calling some liars and killing others?" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 87] And He (swt) says;

Upon studying the areas in which they disagreed, one finds that they disagreed in the fundamentals of their Deen. They disagreed on their Prophets, the Day of Judgement, the Unity of Allah, resurrection, heaven and hell, etc. These are disagreements on the foundations of belief. Since Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) ordered us not to divide as the People of the Book did, then we are to avoid that area which their disagreement occurred in. This means that disagreement on the fundamentals of the Deen is condemned.

To explain the above mentioned further, the Tafseer of the ayah;

"And hold tight to the rope of Allah and divide not," [TMQ Ale-Imran: 103], needs to be looked into. Allah (swt) orders the Muslims to hold tight and not let go of the rope of Allah (swt) and not to divide.

'The rope of Allah'

"And We gave Isa the son of Maryam the Clear signs. But they disagreed, some of them believed and some disbelieved" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 253] b) They also disagreed on their Book. Allah the Supreme says;

"The people of the Book did not disagree except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them" [TMQ Ale-Imran: 19] c) They divided between themselves, calling each other kafir. Allah the Supreme says;

Ibn Masood (ra), Ali bin Abi Talib (ra), and Abu Saeed Al-Kuddrri (ra) said it is the Qur'an. Others said it is the Deen of Allah (swt). Others like Ibnul Mubaarak said it is the Jama'ah.

'And divide not' At-Tabari said; "…and do not disperse away from the Deen of Allah and His covenant which he took from you in His Book: that you should be together in obeying Him and His Messenger (saw)."

Ibn Katheer said; "He ordered them to stay in the Jama`ah and not to divide."

Al-Qurtubi said; "Do not divide as the Jews and the Christians in their Deen…and it could mean do not separate based on your desires and interests."

Therefore, the disagreement that Muslims are not allowed to have is in the fundamentals of their Deen, not in its branches. This is due to several reasons:

"And the Jews claimed that the Christians are on nothing, and the Christians claimed that the Jews are on nothing, while reciting the Book. Those who have no certain knowledge said as they did.

Allah will be the Judge between them on the Day of Judgement in that which they disagreed on."

[TMQ Al-Baqarah: 113]

a) The texts that condemn the disagreement order the Muslims not to disagree like the People of the Book who disagreed in the fundamentals as previously explained. b) The Sunnah of the Messenger (saw) permitted disagreements in the branches or Furoo`. c) The disagreement that existed among the Sahabah were in the Furoo', not in the Usul

division into 73 sects

(foundations of the Deen). No condemnation was made about such disagreements in the Furoo'. d) The followers of the Companions (Tabi'een), the generation that followed them, and the scholars of the Salaf (predecessors) accepted the disagreement in the Furoo' but not in the Usul udDeen (foundations of the Deen).

So, for example, Ash-Shafi'i (ra) states in his book Ar-Risalah; "Disagreement is of two types: One that is Haram and the other is not.

Everything that Allah established by the definite proof (Hujjah) in His book or clearly stated by His Prophet is Haram to disagree over by the one who knows of it. As for that which can be understood differently or by analogy, since the text can bare it…there is room for [disagreement] unlike in the clearly stated."

Ibn Taymiyah (ra) in his book al-Fatawa alKubra, Vol. 20, p.256 stated; "Then it [the texts] are divided to: that which is definite in its dalalah (meaning). Its definiteness is established in its chain [of narrators] (Sanad) as well as in its contents (Mata), where we are sure that Allah's Messenger (saw) said it and meant that meaning.

The other which is indefinite in its dalalah (meaning). As for the first, it must be believed in and acted according to. This is indisputable among the scholars in general. The scholars might disagree however in some news whether their chains are definite (Qat'i) or not and whether their meaning is definite or not. An example of such disagreement is with regard to the news transmitted by the one (Khabarul Wahid) that is accepted by the Ummah or the one that the Ummah has agreed to act upon."

So the subject that the hadith discusses is not the differences, which arise from interpretation of the texts, which are preponderant in meaning, but it is condemning those firqah (sects) that have differed in the foundations of the Deen. Indeed, the Sahabah (ra) had disagreed in matters, which were related to the branches of the Deen, but they remained united on the foundations of the Deen.

Subsequently, the great Mujtahideen of Islam differed on many aspects of the Deen, but they were again in the branches. So the "firqah" which are punished in hell fire, are not those groups which have these legitimate differences.

Therefore, those who follow a particular Madhab, such as the Shafi'i, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki or even those who follow the schools of thought from the Shia like the Ja'fari or Zaidi, are not labelled with disbelief.

Rather, those sects that are mentioned in the hadith are those who have left the fold of Islam

such as the Qadiani, who claimed Prophethood after Muhammad (saw), or those Alawi, who claim Ali (ra) to be god incarnate (may Allah protect us from such deviation), or those who deny the punishment in the Ahkirah, etc. Any group that contradicts the definite text of the Qur'an, falls outside the fold of Islam.

The Hanafi scholar, Ibn Abideen stated this fact; "There is no doubt in the disbelief (kufr) of those that falsely accuse Sayyida Aisha (ra) of adultery, deny the companionship of Sayyidina Abu Bakr (ra), believe that Sayyidina Ali (ra) was God or that the angel Jibril mistakenly descended with the revelation (wahy) on the Messenger of Allah (saw), etc. which is apparent kufr and contrary to the teachings of the Qur'an." [Radd al-Muhtar, 4/453].

Ibn Abidin continues; "It is difficult to make a general statement and judge all the Shia to be non-believers, as the scholars have agreed on the deviation and defection of the deviated sects."

Even the Shia scholar of the Qur'an, Allama Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai, writes in his very famous exegesis, Tafseer-ul-Meezan, 12th edition, page 109, published in Iran, regarding the completeness of the Qur'an; "The Qur'an, which Almighty Allah descended on Prophet Muhammad (saw), is protected from any change."

Unfortunately, the ignorance and bigotry of certain groups has led to the passing of Takfir, which had affected the Jews and Christians. It is a way of thinking which regards one's own opinion and views in matters within the Deen as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.

The Muslim Ummah is one. The Qur'an found in the mosques, throughout the world, whether in Karachi, Tehran, Cairo, Madinah, or Algiers is one. Allah (swt) states;

Messenger of Allah (saw) taught us,

"The Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, he doesn't oppress him, neither does he hand him over to the enemy, he doesn't disappoint him, nor does he humiliate him."

Allah (swt) states;

"It is He who has called you Muslim." [TMQ AlHajj: 78] Any disagreement which exists, is something which can be referred to the divine texts,

"…and if you differ in anything refer it back to Allah and His Messenger…" [TMQ An-Nisa: 59] Indeed, it is clear for those who take notice, that the Kuffar have gathered against us and have thrown us all into one bracket and are not going to let a day pass without the spilling of Muslim blood. In spite of the fact that the Kuffar are split in accordance with their benefits, they come together in the war against Islam, and compete in their enmity against it. So should we not gather against them, bonding around Islam, not artificially splitting ourselves into Sunni and Shia and various Madhabs?

"The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, (protect each other by establishing the Khilafah), there would be turmoil and oppression on earth, and great mischief." [TMQ Al-A'raf: 73] z

"Verily, this brotherhood of yours is a single brotherhood, and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore serve Me (and no other)" [TMQ AlAnbiyah: 92] The Shia are part of this noble Ummah; they are Muslim and brotherly love needs to exist between all the Muslims. Indeed the Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, whether he is Shia, Sunni or whatever authority he imitates or whichever Mujtahid he follows. This is how the August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

25

THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN POLITICS NA ZIA JAL A LI

T

he role of women in politics has generally been downplayed throughout history. In 350 BCE, Aristotle, in his treatise "Politics", excluded women along with children and slaves from his definition of a citizen. This prevented her from having a say in government and ruling. Later generations came to defend the decision to exclude women on the grounds that they were not suited to the task because of the differences between the male and female intellect, women's physical strength and inability to maintain their attention.

After centuries of oppression and struggle to gain the same respect, dignity and basic rights which had come all too easily for men, the tide for the woman seems to have turned. In the twentieth century Western world, the historical values of male chauvinism have been challenged.

Sometimes, women have been considered political equals of men, and in some exceptional cases, a few women have even surpassed the level of achievement of their male counterparts.

But despite such changes in recent thinking, the idea of women engaging in politics continues to be a matter that raises much debate in the West and particularly in the Muslim world, which often bears the brunt of criticism in its inequitable regard towards women.

26

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

Indeed the political status of women in Islam is in many quarters still perceived to be on a par with the 'Dark Ages' of European history. Muslim women are assumed to be strictly in the background of the political milieu, having little to say and even less to offer. Whilst the West purports to have completed the process of integration of women into political life by championing democracy and the advancement of women's causes, it attacks the Islamic world for its "oppression of women." In reaction to this, many Muslim women, inspired by the apparent progress made by her Western counterparts, are becoming increasingly vociferous in their call to participate in the political process. But what needs to be scrutinised is the legitimacy of the West's achievement. Have the women in the West truly been liberated? Does Islam really oppress women by not giving them a political voice?

THE LEGACY OF THE SUFFRAGETTE MOVEMENT The political landscape of Britain today, with respect to the role of women, was shaped through vigorous campaigns that began with the demand

for women's voting rights. In 1867 John Stuart Mill initiated the first of many debates in Parliament to install rights that had been denied to women from centuries before. The 1900s saw the formation of the Women's Social & Political Union and the Suffragette movement, the latter of which became famous for its extreme measures, such as engaging in hunger strikes and similar activities that often led to imprisonment. In 1918, women over the age of thirty were given the right to vote and by 1928 the voting age for women was reduced to 21 years, the same as for the men.

The West claims that through democracy and decades of struggle, it has achieved freedom, sexual liberation, equality of the sexes and women's rights. However, in reality, the struggles of women like the Suffragettes continue even today. Eighty-five years after women were granted the right to vote there is still a long way to go until true 'equality' is reached.

Whilst the aforementioned successes for women may exist on paper, the West is still very much a masculine domain. A report produced by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (Unifem), showed that women accounted for only about 14% of members of parliament worldwide in 2002. Further breakdown reveals the following:

the role of women in politics

COUNTRIES

Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany, Argentina, Costa Rica, South Africa, Mozambique

SHARE OF SEATS IN PARLIAMENT 2002

30%- (Target achieved)

Rwanda

25.7%

Uganda

24.7%

UK

17.9%

US

12%

France

11.8%

Japan

10%

In the last general election in Britain, the country actually saw the number of women MPs fall for the first time to 118 (out of a total of over 650).

In the House of Lords there are currently 112 women out of a total of 652 temporal members of Lords. When put in historical context, these figures are even more revealing. In the entire history of British politics there has only ever been one female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher; and, in the last 80 years there have been approximately 4,500 MPs at Westminster of which only around 240 have been women (approximately 5%). These facts provide a glaring indication that the democratic world of politics is in fact far from being an institution that observes the equality of the sexes.

Muslims into Western society and accept its values, it actively encourages Muslim men and women to participate in its political affairs.

Facility is made for the establishment of representative Muslim bodies and individuals who purport to act on behalf of the Muslim community by lobbying the government using the democratic process. Muslim women too are encouraged to have a political voice, the likes of which is otherwise denied to those who reside in Muslim states abroad, where they are subject to the sexual discrimination that has come to characterise such countries. A token gesture of this sentiment is the appointment of the US/UK led CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) in Iraq, which has just appointed 3 women out of 25 members in its Iraq Governing Council.

POLITICS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD When we look to the Muslim world, the situation for women in the arena of politics is no better. In the same report by Unifem, it was found that a number of Gulf Arab states neither gave the women the right to sit in parliament, nor even permitted them the right to cast a vote. The West argues that the lack of advancement for women in the Muslim states is a result of the implementation of Islam and the lack of democracy in these countries. Muslims living both in the West and the Muslim world have begun to accept such rhetoric as fact. Their evaluation that democracy has all the solutions to the problems of the world is arrived at by the simplistic observation of how rich and materially progressive Western societies have become, without consideration to the numerous contradictions and social inequalities that are rife within them.

In an attempt by the West to integrate the

Contrary to what is asserted in the West, Islam and the Ahkam Shari'ah are not being implemented anywhere across the Muslim world today. Instead, what we see is a semblance of democracy (or man made law), or democracy fused with a distorted Islam, both of which are kufr. For example, Benazir Bhutto came into power in Pakistan in 1987 and proceeded to bring democracy into this Muslim land saying, "I would like to be remembered for overturning a military dictatorship and heralding a world of democracy in Pakistan, for bringing in changes which could not be reversed which included an independent press and the move towards free markets‌" Similarly, if one were to examine every Muslim country today, one would find that kufr manmade laws have been implemented, which serve nothing other than to enslave, humiliate and oppress men, women and children.

In light of the characteristics of the politics described above, it comes as no surprise that many Muslims find it unpalatable that something as pure as Islam could have any association with politics; hence the maxim, 'don't mix politics and religion'. This perception is understandable after one refers to accounts of political history across the different ages and considers the consequences of man made laws and their rich legacy of corruption. Allah (swt) says:

"And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed such are the oppressors" [TMQ Al-Maidah: 45].

Although the orientalists may have painted a grim picture of Islamic political history, objective study shows that after Islam was revealed the face of politics was transformed forever. When before, primitive warring factions dominated the political arena in Arabia, Islam brought a system unlike any other, which was revealed by Allah (swt) and was free of the corruption and selfish motives of man-made law. It was a system that produced Muslim politicians whose role was one of looking after the affairs of people in accordance with the laws of Allah (swt), each aware that they were accountable before Him (swt) for their actions.

ROLE OF MUSLIM WOMEN IN ISLAMIC POLITICS Islam advanced as a political system which, for the first time in the history of man, commanded the involvement of not just men, but also women, to the action of commanding the ma'ruf (good) and forbidding the munkar (evil). This is the utmost of political actions. Women were thus permitted, indeed obliged, to account the ruler, call for the implementation of Islam and work to establish the deen of Allah (swt) on earth by way of the intellectual and political struggle. Like any man, she had to concern herself with the affairs of the Ummah. Allah (swt) says:

"The believers, men and women, are protecting friends (Awliya) of one another; they enjoin the ma'ruf (that which Allah commands) and forbid people from munkar (that which Allah prohibits); they perform Salat, and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and his Messenger. Allah will have mercy August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

27

the role of women in politics

on them. Surely Allah is All-mighty, All wise" [TMQ At-Taubah: 71] Islam came with the Shari'ah commandments, which it obliged on the man and the woman.

When it clarified the Shari'ah rules (Ahkam Shari'ah) which treat the actions of each of them, it did not give the issue of equality any attention nor did it give it the slightest consideration.

Rather it viewed that there was a specific problem which required a solution. So, it treated it in its capacity as a specific problem regardless of whether it was a problem pertaining to a man or a woman. Thus, the solution was for the action of a human, for the problem-incident, and not for the man or woman. Therefore, the question of equality or the lack of equality between the man and woman is not the subject of discussion. This expression is not present in the Islamic legislation.

Hence, equality between men and women is not an issue for discussion, nor is it an issue which forms a subject in the Islamic social system. The woman being equal to the man, or, the man being

of politics, a woman is not permitted to hold positions of ruling such as Khalifah, his Mu'awin (assistant), Wali (governor), 'Amil (Mayor) or any other activity categorised as ruling. This is in view of a hadith narrated by Abu Bakrah that when the news reached the Messenger (saw) that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as queen over them he (saw) said,

"People who appoint a women to run the affairs shall never succeed."

It should not be assumed that a woman is prevented from leadership because she is in some way inferior or incapable of carrying out this role. Rather, the Islamic evidences specifically prohibit this function for her, and Allah (swt) knows best. As a result of ahkam such as these, there is no question in Islam of men and women being at odds with each other, engaged in some form of historical battle for power and prestige.

Unlike the example of the West, where women are put in direct competition with men in a male-

After the birth of Islam, women were engaged in politics as never before. It was now their duty to carry the call of the Da'wah and to enjoin the ma'ruf (good) and forbid the munkar (evil) within society.

equal to the woman is not a significant matter which has influence over the societal life and nor is it a problem which is likely to occur in the Islamic life. It is but a phrase which is only found in the West. None from amongst the Muslims holds this view except those imitating the West, which has violated the woman's natural rights in her capacity as a human. Hence, she called for the restitution of these rights.

Islam commanded the Muslim woman, as it commanded the man, to be concerned with the affairs of the Ummah. She is permitted and encouraged to partake in political life so long as this does not compromise her primary role as a wife and mother. In Islam it is an obligation for a woman to carry the Da'wah and account the ruler.

However, the contribution of the woman is not exactly the same as that of the man. In the sphere 28

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

dominated environment, in Islam both their roles complement one another, so that they can work in unison for the pursuit of the pleasure of their Creator, Allah (swt). He (swt) says:

"Do not long for the favours by which Allah has made some of you excel others. Men shall have a share of what they have earned, and women will have a share of what they have earned. Do not envy each other, but ask Allah to give you of His bounty. Allah has knowledge of all things" [TMQ Al-Nissa: 32].

Women, however, are granted to partake in any political role outside of ruling, such as appointment in government to civil service where she is considered an employee, or in areas like judiciary in the position of judge where she exercises her own verdict according to her view of the evidence presented in a court of law. She may also be a member of the Majlis al-Ummah which, unlike a Western parliament, is not considered a ruling structure but rather a body that accounts the ruler on his implementation of Islam, monitors him and expresses its disapproval when it perceives that he is not fulfilling his duties with regards to the affairs of the Ummah.

While in the West women had to struggle even until the twentieth century to gain the right to vote for a leader, Islam gave her this right some 1400 years ago. Not only was she permitted, but she was expected to give her bay'ah (allegiance) to the Khalifah, alongside the men.

MUSLIM WOMEN OF THE PAST IN ISLAMIC POLITICS After the birth of Islam, women were engaged in politics as never before. It was now their duty to carry the call of the Da'wah and to enjoin the ma'ruf (good) and forbid the munkar (evil) within society. So it began with some of the Sahabiyyat (ra), who found themselves in positions where even the Messenger of Allah (saw) sought advice from them on political matters.

Umm Salamah (ra), one of the wives of the Prophet (saw), was consulted by him at the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. She advised him in such a way as to defuse the tensions that had arisen amongst the Sahabah (ra), who were disappointed at the thought of engaging in peace with a people who had oppressed them so bitterly in the past. This was a demonstration of her great political insight and wisdom.

The political rights of women in Islam included the authority to give a treaty to a non-combatant from a non-Muslim attacking force. When the Messenger (saw) came to Makkah, Umm Hani bint Abi Talib, afforded protection to certain relatives of hers. She went to the Messenger (saw) complaining that despite her promise of protection, her brother Ali bin Abi Talib (ra), wanted to execute two of these men because they were known for harming the Muslims and fighting against them. Thus, we observe that Umm Hani bint Abi Talib performed a significant

the role of women in politics

political action by granting asylum to these men.

Although women have not been permitted to take on a role of leadership, we still saw women in the past active within the State in other permitted areas. It has been reported from Umar ibn alKhattab (ra) that he appointed al-Shifa, a woman from his folk, as a market judge, who was empowered to pass judgement on violations of the public right.

Ensuring the State's adherence to the Shari'ah, and accounting any deviation, is an important responsibility for women just as much as men. A famous example of this was when a woman accounted the Khalifah Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) after his sermon in the mosque where he suggested a limit on the amount that could be asked for dowry. Once the khutbah ended, a woman stood up and asked, "Who are you to place a limit on what Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) have not placed a limit upon?"

Umar realised his mistake and replied, "The woman is right and Umar is wrong." This shows how the women of that time understood the Shari'ah and were not afraid to raise matters directly with the Khalifah in public.

PRACTICAL POLITICS OF CONTEMPORARY MUSLIM WOMEN The Ummah of the blessed Messenger (saw) is facing a test whereby the Islamic State is absent from life. The once united Ummah of the Messenger (saw) has been torn to pieces and scattered across the face of the earth. In the absence of the State, she has no honour, no political voice and she is oppressed by a multitude of leaders who answer to the beck and call of the West, embroiled in its game of dirty politics. However, the absence of the State and the prohibition of implementing man-made law does not mean that Muslims are absolved from any role in politics. Rather, the duty has fallen upon all Muslims, men and women, to unite and work to re-establish Allah's (swt) Deen by way of a political struggle; for a political problem can only be resolved through a political solution.

"Let there arise from amongst you a group that calls to the Khayr (Islam), enjoins that which is ma'ruf (right) and forbids that which is munkar (wrong), and they are the ones who have attained success." [TMQ Ale-Imran: 104] Such work necessitates that Muslims are politically aware and not na誰ve about the world around them. It has thus become an obligation for every Muslim man and woman to rise in this crucial moment in time, and join such political movements and participate in their work of accounting and removing the rulers that subjugate our lands.

"The Muslim men and the Muslim women, the believing men and the believing women, the devout men and the devout women and the truthful men and truthful women, the enduring men and the enduring women, the humble men and the humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and the fasting women, the chaste men and the chaste women, and the men and women who engage much in Allah's praise-for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and a great reward" [TMQ Al-Azhab: 35] z

For women, their role in politics requires them to be active in the circles in which they live. They must call their families, old friends, new friends, acquaintances and the like to join in the political struggle in the name of Allah (swt). It is incumbent for every husband to encourage his wife, and every wife to encourage her husband, in this noble cause. Every mother must embrace this great responsibility and inculcate her children with strong Islamic concepts, producing a new generation of politically aware and active Da'wah carriers.

CONCLUSION Unlike many other ideologies or civilisations, Islam, from its very beginning, recognised the political rights and duties of women. Politics in Islam is not the taking of man-made systems such as freedom and democracy and giving them an 'Islamic flavour'. The view of Islam, for both sexes in politics, is one of total submission to the will of Allah (swt), not of the subjugation of women to the will of men. Both are ordered to pray, fast, pay the Zakat, carry the Da'wah and spread the word of Allah (swt). All Muslims, regardless of gender, must look to Islam in working to resolve their political problems. For this, there is promise of a great reward from Allah (swt), Inshallah.

Working as a collective group or party has been ordered by Allah (swt):

August 2003 Khilafah Magazine

29

THE DILEMMA OF MUSLIM IDENTITY IN THE WEST AB I D M USTA FA AN D A H M AD JA SSAT

ince September 11, Muslims living in the West have come under increasing scrutiny and their future in Western societies has been a subject of much debate. The centrepiece of this newfound enquiry is whether Muslims can be successfully accommodated in Western secular societies. Often, Western commentators cite that unless Muslims fully accept Western values they will pose a constant threat to their secular way of life. Opponents argue that Muslims can be integrated into mainstream society as long as they adopt secular values in societal and political matters. They stress that Muslims can continue to practice their religion provided it does not interfere in political matters. Some Muslims have gone a step further and argued that there is no contradiction between Islam and Western secularism.

However, the vast majority do not subscribe to this view and nor do they outwardly express it - for them the issue is far from black or white and more complex than meets the eye.

betrayed by Western governments. This betrayal did not serve to deter Muslims from repeating the vicious cycle which still continues today.

S

The complexity lies in the Muslim psyche. Muslims in the West are torn between two different types of loyalties. On the one hand they are expected to maintain loyalty to the Western secular state and on the other hand they believe in Islam, which is a comprehensive Deen that encompasses all aspects of life. Often there is conflict between these two disparate views leading to an identity crisis i.e. "am I British or am I a Muslim?" In other words, Muslims in the West live in a constant state of anxiety and are unable to reconcile the feelings that arise from these divided loyalties. For instance, Muslim youth are eager to play for the English cricket team but despise the UK's role in the recent war on Iraq. Parents, who insist that their daughters wear the Islamic dress when attending Mosques to learn the Quran, see nothing wrong in their daughters wearing non-Islamic dress to

Please address your letters and questions to the Editorial Team, either by email or post at the following addresses: email: magazine@1924.org or write to: Khilafah Magazine Suite 298, 56 Gloucester Road London, SW7 4UB

B

Published by Khilafah Publications

30

Khilafah Magazine August 2003

go to school in order to further their education. The Muslim grocer, who prays five times a day, attends the mosque regularly and gives Sadaqah, but is not ashamed to sell alcohol.

There are numerous examples which are commonly found in the Muslim community and make the same point i.e. The identity of Muslims is confused and they are unable to determine which basis - Islamic or British/Western - should be the sole reference point for their identity, values and vision.

At the heart of the confusion is the inability of Muslims to convert their pure Islamic sentiments into Islamic thoughts. The linkage of their Islamic Aqeedah to contemporary matters has also been variable and this has led to inconsistencies in behaviour. The sole reason behind this is that Muslims are content to analyse these Islamic sentiments through the prism of Western thoughts, without realising that this process would perpetuate the confusion and prolong the identity crisis. For example, since the early nineties, Muslims in the West have strongly identified themselves with the plight of the Muslims of Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq and the Balkans - the deeply rooted Islamic concept of Ummah evoked in them the feeling of solidarity with their fellow Muslim brethren and motivated them to take action.

But unfortunately this Islamic sentiment was squandered each time it was connected with the Western concepts of seeking UN support and international law. They did this even though they fully realised that the UN was controlled by the same Western states that were responsible for the appalling situation of these Muslims. However, this did not deter them from calling upon the UN to intervene and on each occasion Muslims in the West were severely

Similarly, by participating in the non-Islamic political systems the Muslims were able, to a degree, to facilitate the process of building mosques and Muslim schools but they were also willing to accept the restrictions that a secular state applied on these institutions. These include the curbing of Islamic activities in the mosque which fall outside the secular framework, the willingness to promote the agenda of British political parties within the mosques and the acceptance of the national curriculum within Muslim schools even though it is designed to produce personalities based upon the Capitalist Aqeedah and viewpoint on life, and not the Islamic Aqeedah and its viewpoint on life. In all of these issues, Muslims in the West still struggle to solve these problems because the underlying issue of identity has not been resolved. Housing, economics, men-women relationships, mosques and schooling are just a few of the problems that afflict Muslims in the West as they grapple with the identity dilemma.

After September 11 there was great hope that Muslims in the West would be able to deal with the identity dilemma since for the first time they could openly witness the fallacy of prominent Western thoughts like human rights, freedom, democracy, pluralism, etc. practiced by states such as Britain and America. This should have naturally led them to abandon these Western thoughts and sever the link between these thoughts and their pure Islamic sentiments and Aqeedah. Regrettably, this has yet to transpire and Muslims in Western countries still remain in a form of confusion and suffer from an identity dilemma.

Unless the Muslims discard the Western thoughts and use their pure Islamic Aqeedah and sentiments to arrive at the correct Islamic thoughts they will never be able to escape from this identity dilemma. Western governments are aware of this and continuously seek to undermine these pure Islamic sentiments by connecting them to Western thoughts under the guise of terms like 'integration', 'British Muslim' and other similar slogans. They realise the power of the Islamic creed and thoughts and how it forms the backbone of the Islamic identity.

The question is: when will the defining moment come when Muslims in the West realise this and mould their identity, values and vision solely on the Islamic ideology? z