Khilafah Magazine March 2011

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

RABI AL-AWAAL - RABI AL-THANI 1432 A.H. ··· MARCH 2011 ··· ISSUE: 15

THE AFTERMATH OF REVOLUTION IN EGYPT - THE SUDAN REFERENDUMTHE AMANAH OF LANGUAGE IN THE POLITICS OF MUSLIMS - WORLDFOOD HUNGER DISASTER BECKONS AS GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISISDEEPENS - THE WEST, STATE MULTICULTURALISM AND ITS FAILURE -XENOPHOBIA AND TRUE NATIONAL IDENTITY - RATIONALITY, RELIGIONAND ATHEISM - EGYPT’S COPTS NEED THE CALIPHATE

TIME FOR REALCHANGE

TIME FOR REALCHANGE

NEWSBITES

2 :: Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011 www.khilafah.eu

MUBARAK FALLS AS THE DEMAND FORISLAM GROWSAmidst the massive celebrations markingthe fall of a 30 year tyrant and dictatorcompeting media outlets have beenchampioning western liberal solutionsand posing the question of where theunderlying sentiments of the Egyptianpeople lie.

Headlines hailed the multi-million peopledemonstrations and “unified calls fordemocracy” and constitutional reform.Unsurprisingly western commentatorshave been loath to recognize the partIslam has to play in the hearts and mindsof the demonstrators, but the westernpoliticians and academics certainly areaware.

In survey and poll after poll, managed byPew and US universities the demand forIslam is clear and growing.In the February 2009 Pew survey of theMuslim world. 70% of Egyptians supportthe establishment of a Caliphatethroughout the Muslim world, and 81%support strict application of Sharia law.Those hailing the recent drive for changeon the basis of secularism will be verydisappointed that the most recent surveyof the Egyptian people (in Dec 2010) feltthat it was Good for Islam to play a largerole in Politics (with only 2% feeling itbad).

CAMERON OPENLY ATTACKS POLITICALISLAMDavid Cameron chose a Munichconference of global leaders on the 5th ofFeb to launch an attack on multi-culturalism, the bedrock of UK interfaithand cultural tolerance. By linking beliefsand values which contradict with secularliberal values to “extremism”, violence andIslam - Cameron effectively is attemptingto redefine Islam and isolate anyonedaring to suggest that Islamic politicalthoughts can have validity. In other

statements the government has defined“extremism” to include desire to re-establish the Caliphate in the Muslimworld, and calling for the defense againstinvasion of Muslim lands.Vikram Dodd in the Guardian highlightedthe hypocrisy of ignoring the effect ofillegal wars via an aggressive foreignpolicy in motivating violence.Cameron also appears to be setting up theMuslim community for continued attacksfrom the far right with greater publicityshowered on an overtly anti-Islam marchby the EDL on the same day as hisspeech.

The leader of France’s National FrontMarine Le Pen praised David Cameron forwhat she says is an endorsement of herparty’s far-right views on multiculturalismand immigration.

“It is exactly this type of statement thathas barred us from public life [in France]for 30 years,” she told the Financial Times.“I sense an evolution at European level,even in classic governments. I can onlycongratulate him.”The future looks bleak under Cameron’snew “Muscular liberalism”.

LEAKS REVEAL DEEPER PALESTINIAN-ISRAEL SECURITY TIESLeaked documents published in Januaryshow extensive collaboration betweenPalestinian security forces and their Israelicounterparts, a relationship Israelicommanders say has been key to securitygains in the West Bank. Among the mostexplosive revelations were minutes of a2005 meeting in which Palestinianofficials appear to be plotting with Israeliofficials to assassinate a Palestinianaccused of militancy in Gaza. The leaksaggravated unease in the Palestinianterritories, following revelations showingthe Palestinian leadership offeringextensive compromises to Israel in peacetalks. Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite

channel released what they say areinternal Palestinian negotiating-teampapers dating from 1999 to 2010. Earlierleaks showed Palestinian negotiatorsoffering concessions to Israel in privatethat went beyond the Palestinianleadership's public expressions ofdefiance. The leaks brought a publicoutcry that forced Palestinian PresidentMahmoud Abbas to issue a public defenseof his administration's leadership of peacetalks. Palestinian forces were deployedoutside al-Jazeera's office in Ramallah.

WIKILEAKS: EGYPTIAN ‘TORTURERS’TRAINED BY FBIThe US provided officers from theEgyptian secret police with training at theFBI, despite allegations that they routinelytortured detainees and suppressedpolitical opposition.According to leaked diplomatic cables,the head of the Egyptian state securityand investigative service (SSIS) thankedthe US for “training opportunities” at theFBI academy in Quantico, Virginia. TheSSIS was repeatedly accused of usingviolence and brutality to help prop up theregime of President Hosni Mubarak. InApril, 2009, the US ambassador in Cairostated that “Egypt’s police and domesticsecurity services continue to be doggedby persistent, credible allegations of abuseof detainees.”

Omar Suleiman, head of security forMubarak, and current public face of thepost Mubarak military regime wasinstrumental in the agreement betweenEgypt and the US over “extraordinaryrendition” enabling foreign torture ofsuspects outside of US jurisdiction. American calls for stability, democracyand human rights in the region lookrather hollow against its very checkeredhistory of support for tyranny over thepast 40 years. The decline in acceptanceof western solutions in the Muslim worldmirrors the quickening decline of the US’sclient regimes.

A WIND OFCHANGEIN THEMUSLIMWORLDThe recent events we have witnessed inthe Middle East have been historic innature, staggering in their speed andmonumental in their consequences.

What began in the streets of Tunisia hasspread to Egypt with effects now beingseen as far wide as Algeria, Yemen, Jordanand Syria.

Political change has been seen from thedawn of time and has been the Sunnah ofthe Anbiyah. Ibrahim (as), in breaking theidols in the temple, was seeking a politicalchange. Musa (as) in challenging Fir’awnin his own court was seeking politicalchange. The Messenger of Allah,Muhammad (saw) having received thedivine Message did not confine it tohimself. In challenging first the Makkans,then the Byzantine and the PersianEmpires, he was engaged in politicalchange that would transform the world.

But even from what we see from recenthistory, political change can happenunexpectedly. Great Britain, thesuperpower of the nineteenth centurybecame bankrupt by the middle of thetwentieth century. We observed the

apartheid in South Africa fall quickly andMandela rose from political prisoner tobecome head of state. The fall of theBerlin Wall in 1989 heralded revolutionsin Eastern Europe and confined the SovietUnion to the dustbin of history.

Until recently, many told us that politicalchange was impossible in the Muslimworld: that the regimes were too strong,that public opinion was too weak, and thewest too powerful and that the armycould not be turned.

To those critics, sceptics and naysayers:Mubarak and Ben Ali are your answer.What we observed in Egypt and Tunisiahas not been a victory for secularism, buta celebration of people’s desire forchange.

In both Tunisia and Egypt, the regimeshave not proven to be strong but weak. InTunisia the arrest of Mohamed Bouazizi(the trigger for the uprising) in December2010 led to President Ben Ali’s downfallby January 2011 and President Mubarak’sby February 2011

Popular opinion – motivated by decadesof oppression, poverty and bankruptforeign policy have used the moderntools of communication to bypass theregime’s clumsy attempts to censoraccountability. Far from being weak,public opinion has been vociferous,ferocious and relentless – just ask Ben Aliand Mubarak. Far from the west beingpowerful, governments in Washington,London and Paris have been scramblingto catch up. Having spent decadessupporting these dictators, they have no‘Plan B’. Exhausted by wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, the west has lost its aura ofpower; after the excesses of the War onTerror it has lost its moral leadership andafter the greatest financial crisis since the1930’s it has lost its legitimacy to lead.

Lastly and most importantly the army hasshown it is not prepared to alwayssupport the regimes, a game changerwhen it comes to political change.

Contrary to what many westerncommentators believe, there is a verystale appetite for western secularsolutions in the Muslim world. Surveys ofthe Muslim world consistently showstrong levels of support for theestablishment of a unified Caliphate andthe implementation of an Islamic system.After Egypt and Tunisia, the domino effectis therefore on, and change in the MiddleEast will have geo-strategic implicationsthat will not only impact the region butthe entire world.

But we must realise for real change tohappen in the Muslim world, it cannotinvolve just a change of personnel; it mustinvolve a change of system. Real changeinvolves replacing the political, economicand social systems from the bottom upwith proven solutions emanating from theIslamic creed and not implementing somehalf baked cosmetic reforms originatingfrom the west.

Political change is indeed difficult.However, staying silent over oppression isnot so straightforward either.

Political change in the Muslim worldcannot be to achieve glory, or to angerthe west. It must be because our Creatorhas commanded us to implement a justsystem, the Khilafah – where the weakare strong, the leaders accountable andprosperity is enjoyed by all. The Khilafahis not concerned about the few who arerich but the many that are poor; not onlyconcerned about maintaining the rights ofwomen but also fixing the wrongs ofmen. It is not an extremist ideology and itis not ideology dominated by purematerialism.

Today the dictators in the Muslim worldand their western backers are on thewrong side of history. Their time ofreckoning is near, their position is weakand the winds of political change areblowing hard. The regimes are out of time,they are out of date and Insha’Allah verysoon they will be out of power.�

Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011 :: 3www.khilafah.eu

EditorialDR. ABDUL WAHID

“And mix not the truth with falsehood,nor conceal the truth while you knowthe truth.” [Al-Baqarah 2:42]

The ‘Winter Revolution’ in Egyptleading to the humiliating descent ofPresident Hosni Mubarak after 18 days,has sent shock waves amongst therulers in the Arab world and amongstthe principal backers of these regimes,America and Britain. People wereunified upon removing Mubarak andwanting a change of system. But the

unanswered questions in thebackground – is how and what rule, dothe people of Egypt want? There is‘official’ talk of a transition of power tothe army council, small amendments tothe secular - ‘Gamalist’ constitution, andtransition to democratic elections toput in place a civilian government thatwill be accountable to the people andhelp return Egypt back to ‘normality’.This is simplistic talk from a regimethat ultimately tried very hard to secureitself and yet there are some very

important points and lessons to takefrom these momentous events.

Firstly, what could not be clearer is thatthe power brokers in Egypt were thearmy. The mass protestors, fully aware ofthis, were wary not to criticize thearmy. Any real change requires changingthe minds of these power brokers.Currently, the army leadership haveopenly said they favour the existingconstitution, which means whateverother changes they make, the change of


The Aftermathof Revolutionin Egypt

BURHAN HANIF

system people called for is somethingnot on the table.

Secondly, it is worth remembering thata revolution does not always result inindependence or liberation. Middle Easthistory is littered with examples of this.Egypt from the time of itsindependence from Britain is testimonyto that. All too often the euphoria overthe demise of a tyrant like Mubarakseems premature when people realisethey are no more liberated than theywere prior to the uprising.

In 1906 a dispute occurred betweenBritish military officers and locals inEgypt, known as the DenshawaiIncident. Many neutral Egyptians joinedthe nationalist movement on the backof this, which linked to other incidentsresulted in the 1919 revolution andeventually Egypt’s independence fromBritain in Feb 1922. But the resultingconstitution introduced in 1923 basedon the parliamentary system meantEgypt continued to suffer instabilitydue to increasing British politicalinvolvement and interference. The‘second’ revolution by the Free Officersin 1952 merely led to British influencebeing replaced by American influence,which has remained since then.

America and Britain, like vultures, aremonitoring and seeking to direct thepolitical events to maintain influenceand control, whilst the Egyptian armyseeking to maintain its control, lacksthe anchor of Islam to keep it fromstraying into their shark-infested waters.

True independence arises when thesystem, institutions and rules areestablished upon the beliefs and valuesof its people; and the people of powerprimarily protect the society and stateinstitutions based on these beliefs,repelling any foreign influence in theprocess. This is currently lacking inEgypt and therefore makes it an easytarget for continued dependency underthe guise of ‘independence anddemocracy’.

Thirdly, comparisons with the ‘OrangeRevolution’ in Ukraine (2004/05) have

been made. However, politicalcorruption remained in Ukraine and didnot wither under their new democracy.Hardly surprising when westerngovernments, which are the ideologicalhomelands of democracy have systemicpolitical corruption at their heart; andregularly show they will compromisetheir core secular values for the sake ofnaked political interest. Many people inthe west have lost confidence in thedemocratic political class and low voterturnout is now endemic. Even countriesin the Muslim world that haveembraced or have been forced toembrace democracy have not solvedpolitical corruption or the lack of directaccountability.

Fourthly, no democratic politician hassaid how democracy will resolve thesocial and economic issues that Egyptfaces daily, caused by its blindembracement of the capitalist financialsystem and adoption of secular values.Western nations have growing social,moral and economic issues. Racism,religious intolerance and mockery,spiralling crime, individualism,materialism, social breakdown of thefamily unit and growing immoralityhave become hallmarks of westernsocieties. Moreover, the financial crisisoriginating in the west is part of thecause of rising prices in Egypt andelsewhere.

The people of Egypt, indeed the entireMuslim world, need to go further thanremoving the dictator – a great andwelcome achievement though that is.We need an entire system that is builtupon the core beliefs of its people. Thisis Islam and the Islamic political systemi.e. the Khilafah. It is only under theKhilafah, that the people of Egypt willbe liberated and independent. Underthe Khilafah, it is the people, who havethe authority to appoint the leader andhold him and state institutionspolitically accountable. Likewise, underthe Khilafah, the society will achievesocial, economic and moral prosperityfor its entire people, both Muslim andnon-Muslim. Islamic political history istestament to this.

“You are the best nation brought untomankind, enjoining what is right andforbidding what is wrong and believe inAllah.” [Al-Imran:110]�


BURHAN HANIF

The January 9th referendum onsecession in southern Sudan wasmonumental in nature and devastating inits consequences. It sets a dangerousprecedent and constitutes a fundamentalbreach in the status quo. This was for anumber of reasons:

1. First the Muslim world requires moreunity, not more secession. Divided overfifty states has led it to become weak,ineffective and powerless.Notwithstanding the clear Islamic textson the criticality of political unity,

dividing Sudan into two weaker statesmakes no geopolitical sense in agrowing dependent world. Sudan waspart of Egypt once upon a time, now itwill divide further and what’s stoppingfuture divisions occurring either in thenorth or in the south in what wasAfrica’s largest country. Sudan is one ofthe largest countries in the world withthe vast Nile river water basin, large oiland mineral reserves, luxuriant soils andenormous wild game herds. The south ofSudan is hardly homogenous and mostof the civilians that have died over the

last two decades were as a result offighting between warring southerntribes. In today’s world, scale is criticalwhich is why countries like China, Braziland India have such huge potential, andwhat Sudan has become with secessionis sub scale. While states today should bebreaking down walls between them,secession just builds them up higher andhigher. It makes no strategic sense todivide the country which as we know inplaces like India, Palestine, Cyprus andIreland will only encourage futureinstability and wars further down theroad.

2. Secondly the hypocrisy of theinternational community is breathtaking.Barack Obama who is an admirer ofAbraham Lincoln cannot have failed tosee the irony of a President he admireswho took his nation to war to preventhis country from splitting into two. Yettoday he and others supports anothercountry’s secession and calls it anhistoric step. If secession is so historicfor Sudan, why did Lincoln fight a civilwar at such cost in lives and treasure tomaintain the United States of America? Ifsecession in Sudan is so historic, whywon’t the United Kingdom allow it forScotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?Why won’t Spain allow it for the Basque

The SudanReferendum

SAJJAD KHAN

www.khilafah.eu6 :: Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011

region or Canada for Quebec or India forKashmir? Why is it in the Muslim worldthat people are encouraged to secedewhether it is Bangladesh, East Timor ornow southern Sudan, yet for East andWest Germany political unity was goodand eventual Korean unity is stillconsidered a laudable political goal?

3. Independence for the south of Sudanis a charade. Many of the issues that

need to be addressed have not beenresolved; such as how would the oilrevenues be shared, or what happens toSudan’s $35 billion debt or the future ofoil rich Abyei. Outside the capital cityJuba there is no development and ifpeople believe that independence willgive the southern rural areas muchbenefit, they will be hugely disappointed.80% of services in the south (health,education, water and sanitation) areprovided by non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs). A state that cannotmeet its people’s basic needs isn’t aviable one. A state that is dependent onforeign aid and organisations to functionisn’t a sovereign country. A state that hasoil in its jurisdiction but which reliesexclusively on northern pipelines,refineries and ports is hardly credible.

4. Supporting unity for Sudan does notmean acknowledging that people,whether they be in the south, or inDarfur or even outside the privilegedclass in the north, have not beenoppressed. They have been oppressed,successive governments have let thewhole of the people of Sudan down andterrible atrocities have taken placeagainst Muslims and Christians. Howeverthe solution to this is not secession, as

today’s freedom fighter will simplybecome tomorrow’s oppressor. Thesolution is not a new state in Juba but achange in governance and leadership forthe whole country. A sincere leadershipwho can implement a system that willmanage people’s affairs justly regardlessof their creed, tribe or colour. The southhas not been oppressed because of toomuch Islamic law, but too little. Thehistory of Africa, the Middle East and theBalkans have largely demonstrated withsome aberrations that when Islamic rulewas implemented properly, non Muslimswere treated humanely as citizens andtheir rights were always protected.

What Sudan shows us is that there is noletup in the west’s ongoing crusadeagainst the Muslim world andpropaganda against the return of theIslamic system. Not content withoccupations in Palestine, Iraq andAfghanistan, they continue to treat theMuslim world as their privately-ownedchessboard. Egged on by theinternational community with reports ofover 500 cheering news organisationsbeing in the future capital of southSudan Juba, it is clear that the westcontinues to promote division andfragmentation in the Muslim world.Whether it be in Sudan, in Palestine, inIraq or Afghanistan it is clear that manywould like further fragmentation anddivision. In Iraq the current US VicePresident is on record in calling for thecountry to be divided into three. InAfghanistan the former US Ambassadorto India amongst others is calling fordivision of the country. In Palestine thewest continues to support Israelioccupation of Muslim land. Ever sincethe infamous Sykes-Picot agreementwhere Britain and France sought todismember the Ottoman state, the majorpowers have sought to continue withtheir policy of divide and rule in theMuslim world. Sudan is just the latestlitany of this corrosive foreign policy.�

7 :: Khilafah Magazine :: September 2010www.khilafah.eu Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011 :: 7

What Sudan shows us is that there is no letup in the west’songoing crusade against the Muslim world and propagandaagainst the return of the Islamic system.

SAJJAD KHAN

The use of language has played a pivotalrole in the popular uprising in Egypt.Islamic groups and secular parties,western governments and their mediaoutlets have all played a part. UnlikeWikileaks, the US government’sstatements about the sensitive future ofEgypt and the growing number ofpolitically unstable Muslim countrieshave become more like codedinstructions.

It has become obvious to all whatPresident Obama’s call for an ‘orderlytransition’ has meant to the ongoingrevision of US policy in the region. TheUS government is utilising everyavailable moment to build a credibleopposition party that will win any futureelections and maintain the kind of‘stability’ and serving of her intereststhey have enjoyed for the last 30 yearsof Mubarak’s rule.

The media have helped ‘oil the wheels’by broadcasting or at least throwing adisproportionate amount of limelight onthe demonstrators’ slogans calling for a‘secular, democratic government’.However, in reality the vast majority ofprotesters clearly showed Islamicsentiments and called for both theremoval Mubarak and a change ofsystem. Even secular liberal politicalcommentators have warned that the callfor ‘democracy and freedom’ does notnecessarily connote the meaning mostwestern governments would accept.

After years of establishing cordialrelationships with these tyrannicalregimes across the Middle East, toexpect western governments and theirmedia institutions to behave anydifferently would indeed be naive. Mostare absorbed on creating a narrative forthe reasons for the uprising and thepolitical will of the people by reporting‘the facts’ through their secular liberallenses. For example, there have beenmany articles claiming that this was a‘secular’ revolution in Egypt, becausepeople were suffering due to ‘the priceof bread’. Only someone so blinded bytheir secular predisposition wouldoverlook the fact that the price of breadis linked to the states economic policyi.e. the secular ruling regime, has only todo with the alternatives within thesecular-capitalist model. This is at theexpense of ignoring the people callingto remove Mubarak and his system withchants of ‘Laa ilaha ilallah’ and ‘AllahuAkbar’.

It is not difficult for Muslims to see thelink between ousting Mubarak and hisregime –dependant on the US for US$1.5 billion in foreign aid per year andlets its people go hungry – and replacingthis decrepit regime with a governmentthat follows Islamic rules of feeding,clothing and sheltering its citizens whilstnot allowing itself to be dominated byexternal powers. Otherwise, it wouldmake no sense that parties in Egypt basetheir ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘morality’ on

their Islamic credentials and not‘humanist values’. Religion has a largepart to play in politics even if thewestern media try to twist the facts totheir liking.

A similar ‘treatment’ has been given toreports that the Muslims in Egypt arecalling for ‘freedom’. If freedom meansthe removal of western backed dictators,that the authority to elect its leader iswith the Ummah, and that sovereignty isto the law of Allah (swt), then we willnot find a single Western government ortheir media outlets offering a warmembrace to this definition. Whatever ismeant by the chants for ‘freedom’ it canbe said for sure that it definitely meansfreedom from Mubarak’s despotic ruleand any other western backed leader,and a government free from westerninfluence and control.

However, what in interesting is that thegeneral feelings and thoughts of thepeople themselves and how this isreflected in their chants, slogans andbanners and their behaviour towards thearmy and the security forces. Recentsurveys indicate that Muslims want tochange their current government to amore ‘Islamic government’. Researchconducted by the University of Maryland(WorldPublicOpinion.org) shows that74% of the Egyptian people wanted a‘strict’ Shari‘ah law applied per their2006 survey. Furthermore according toPew Research Center’s ‘Global AttitudesProject’ survey conducted in 2010 havepresented similar results of 95% of theEgyptian people saying that it would begood if Islam played a large role inpolitics, indicating that public opinionhas hardly changed leading up to theEgyptian uprising and contrary towestern assertions.

However, the message the activepolitical parties are giving to the peopleand to western governments are ofparticular interest as these differentgroups who are calling for the removalof Mubarak are offering to replace itwith what they call ‘Islamic Democracy’or ‘Shura’ and ‘freedom’. It seems there isa clear need for Muslim groups in Egyptto outline exactly what the Islamic


THE AMANAH OFLANGUAGE IN THEPOLITICS OFMUSLIMS

MOINUL HUSSAIN

system has to offer and how it wouldwork and how it differs from thedemocracy and freedom the west haveto offer. Sadly on this point, for somemovements, the Daw’ah to Islam hasbecome disjointed away from thequestion of how Muslims should liberatethemselves from their western backeddictators, and what system of law toreplace them with.

This has caused a gravemisunderstanding in relation to whetherthe people want the democratic systemthat produces the likes of Mubarak orwhether Islam has an alternative rulingsystem altogether. The responsibility forclarifying these matters and forspreading the clear message of Islam isthe Amanah of the Islamic groups. It isimportant to note that the language usedby these Muslim groups will have aneffect on how people think and how aparty will rule and brings into questionwhether the aims are even Islamic at all.It is clear that a democratic system,which gives rise to many parties whobelieve essentially in the same things,

will obstruct this Ummah from realisingits true Islamic political system (theKhilafah). The reality of democracy is notjust a process of electing, it is a systemfound on principles that are a totalanathema to the principles the Khilafahsystem is built upon at its peak, wheresovereignty is to man and not to Allah(swt).

Our Messenger of Allah said: “The beststruggle (Jihad) is the word of Justice infront of the oppressive Ruler” [AbuDawud, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah]In contrast to this Hadith, what was thelanguage used to speak to Mubarak’sgovernment and his vice president, tothe western governments and to theEgyptian people? Are they calling forimplementation of Shari‘ah, an Imam orKhaleefah as the head of state? Are they

calling for sovereignty for Allah (swt) orsovereignty with the people? These areimportant questions to ask as we areobligated by Allah (swt) to speak thetruth with clarity and therefore we mustuse terms that are not alien to Islam.The point here is that even if certainterms are used with good intent, Allah(swt) has warned us not to say one thingand mean another. Allah (swt) haswarned us that even if a term carries apositive meaning, if that term carriesanother meaning that is contrary toIslam, it is better not to use it.Allah (swt) commands: “O you whobelieve! Say not (to the Messenger)Ra’ina but say Unzurna (make usunderstand) and hear. And for thedisbelievers there is a painful torment).Neither those who disbelieve amongthe People of the Scripture (Jews andChristians) nor Al-Mushrikeen (theidolaters) like that there should be sentdown unto you any good from yourLord. But Allah chooses for His mercywhom He wills. And Allah is the Ownerof great bounty)” [TMQ Surah Baqarah:104-105]

According to the famous Mufassir IbnKathir and many other commentators,Allah (swt) commanded the believers toavoid the word Ra’ina when addressingtheir ruler and the Messenger of Allah(saw) because though it meant ‘take careof us’ or could be said in a way thatcould mean ‘our shepherd’, in a slightchange of dialect or pronunciation itcould also mean ‘you impulsive fool’ or ‘aproud ignorant person’ or other insultsin the Hebrew language.

The people of Bani Israil in Madinahused to call out to the Messenger ofAllah (saw) ‘ya Muhammad Ra’ina’ toinsult him (saw), so Allah (swt)commanded the believers to abandonthat word and use ‘Unzurna’ whichmeans ‘make us understand’ instead. The

purpose of this was for the sake ofclarity and to avoid ambiguity or givingthe slightest chance to misinterpretingwhat was said. If Allah (swt) is warningthe ‘believers’ that they should not evenuse a good word (Ra’ina) at the slightestrisk of conveying the wrong message,then there is no doubt that all Muslimgroups must take note of this as theirstatements shape the thoughts of thisUmmah. Changing the thoughts of theUmmah is the role of the group and isthe means to bring about change.Today, we have a situation where someIslamic groups and secular politicalparties alike call for social justice, humanrights, ‘being in accordance with UNresolutions’ and ‘democracy is Shura’instead of choosing more clearer wordsthat express a meaning that is inagreement with Islam. The belief thatterms like democracy and freedom carryan embedded meaning within them is intotal contradiction to integral aspects ofthe Islamic ‘Aqeedah. Allah (swt) issovereign, the ruler of the Heavens andthe Earth and He (swt) has commandedus to implement the book of Truthwhich is al-Qur’an. “And who is betterthan Allah in judgement for a peoplewho have certainty?” [TMQ SurahMa’idah: 50]�

Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011 :: 9

MOINUL HUSSAIN

www.khilafah.eu

Today, we have a situation where some Islamic groups and secularpolitical parties alike call for social justice, human rights, ‘being inaccordance with UN resolutions’ and ‘democracy is Shura’ instead ofchoosing more clearer words that express a meaning that is inagreement with Islam.

Across the world, food prices haverocketed over the past few months, withthe UN reporting they had surpassed therises seen during the food crisis of 2008.

The issue came into sharper focus withthe uprising in Tunisia, but also unrest inEgypt, Algeria, Jordan, and Libya to namebut a few, with even the much toutedhigh growth economies of China andIndia being forced to introduce foodsubsidies.

The world economy is already at such adifficult juncture and now people arebeing forced to pay a lot more for theirfood, adding to the political fall out. Theimpact on poorer countries can be seen ifwe look at the price of staple crops, suchas wheat, corn and sugar - which have

nearly doubled since July 2010. The priceof meat has also increased, largely becausecorn is used in the feed for rearing farmanimals.

All of this leads to the obvious questionof why?

Some mainstream commentators haveattempted to explain away these rises byattributing them to bad wheat harvests inRussia, Canada and Pakistan, due toextreme weather last year. Others stillhave attempted to give more nuancedarguments by claiming that risingeconomic prosperity in Asian countriessuch as China who are consuming morewheat, corn and meat products arecausing the surge in food commoditypricing.

When one examines each of theseexplanations, they do not stand the test ofscrutiny. The world has seen countlessfailed harvests before, yet no price riseslike these.

The argument about China’s increasedconsumption has some truth. But Chinaitself is one of the world’s biggestagricultural producers. The huge Chinesepopulation, like India’s, did not appearovernight, certainly not in six months. So,if the global price of food was affected byChina and others you would expect tosee a steady and consistent rise in theprice of food over several years to reflectthis growing demand, not dramatic doubledigit percentage increases month aftermonth over the last six months.

Moreover, after the 2007-2008 food crisisthe price of wheat, corn and othercommodities suddenly fell after previousrapid rises over several months.

So what is going on?

1. THE FOOD COMMODITIES MARKET The unpleasant truth which actuallyexplains these price rises now and backin 2007/08 is linked to the implosion ofthe financial system that hasoverwhelmed the major Westerneconomies. This together with the natureof the capitalist system that regulatestrading in commodities such as corn andwheat that can be traded as futurescontracts on the derivatives markets iscentral to this hyperinflation in foodprices. Another key issue is that only a few big


World Food Hunger DisasterBeckons as Global EconomicCrisis Deepens

ATIF SALAHUDDIN

food commodities traders are active in thebig financial markets. The Americancompany Cargill, the world’s biggest foodcommodity trader, enjoys huge control infood commodities trading; Cargill’s profitshave tripled year on year in the secondquarter of their current fiscal year. Itwould be easy for such commoditiestraders to hoard their stocks, causing theprice of commodities to rise. This is whySouth Korea has recently announced thatit will form its own commodities tradinghouse in order to cut costs.

The Financial Times in London reportedin January 2011 that “South Koreangovernment-backed think-tanks last yeargrumbled that Seoul was being forced topay unduly high prices for grains becausethe market was dominated by bigcommodity dealers.”

2. THE DEVALUATION OF CURRENCYLEADING TO INCREASED PRICES Food trading is only part of the picture. Tosave their financial system from collapse,America, Britain and the Franco/Germanled Eurozone flooded their bankruptbanks with ‘liquidity’. They did this byincreasing their borrowing from thefinancial markets and bearing recordbudget deficits.

They then resorted to creating money outof nothing, which they deceptively term‘quantitative easing’. Billions and billionsof dollars, pounds and euros, have beenprinted and poured into the Westernfinancial system. America has had tworounds of quantitative easing, with $1.7trillion created in the first round in 2009and $600 billion in the second, known asQE2 in 2010, with expectations forbillions more yet to come. It is no coincidence that the priceincreases first occurred in 2007/08 whenthe American real estate market collapsed,the banks lost billions and then went onto receive bailouts whilst investorsscrambled to find new areas to invest in.

3. THE FUTURES MARKETThe inflation of food prices has beencompounded by the ability to trade food

commodities such as wheat on thefutures markets. This type of contractworks with a buyer agreeing to buy acertain amount of wheat in the futurefrom a trader/producer at a price agreednow. This has caused havoc with foodcommodity prices. This is becausecontracts such as these can be sold on toother buyers and sellers and leveraged inother deals, whereby the contract itselfbecomes of value. They are also used asthe underlying asset to be traded on thederivatives markets i.e. where both thebuyer and seller enter into a contractdeliberately acquiring risk, effectively‘betting or hedging’ on whether theunderlying commodity price will eitherrise or fall and seeking to reap quickprofits by simply buying or selling at theright time within pre-defined conditions,having no intention to take actual delivery

of the commodity itself.

At the height of the original financialcollapse in 2008, speculators andinvestors observed that almost everythingin the economy was contracting, due tospending being cut by consumers andbusiness alike, because the credit haddried up. However, these speculatorscorrectly hypothesised that demand forfood commodities should still remainfairly consistent; the world maybeentering a financial crisis but people stillneeded to eat. They began to buy upwheat, corn and other food futurescontracts as valuable instruments inanticipation of huge profits.

As more buyers purchased these futurescontracts, the prices rose even higherover a short period of a few months. Theresult is not only are these prices fixed inadvance, but fixed at far higher rates thennormally would be the case within anordinary supply and demand relationship.This type of speculative market has actedlike a magnet for investors andspeculators such as investment banks,who, flush with bailout funds andquantitative easing capital, invested infood commodities, helping to distort itsunderlying price.

4. THE WORLD ECONOMY LINKED TOTHE DOLLAR What America does with its economy andmore importantly to its currency, indeedmatters to the rest of the world. Nearly allthe major commodities traded on theworld markets, including wheat, corn,sugar, oil, gas, and gold, are alldenominated in dollars. This is why thedollar today is known as the reservecurrency of the world. So when moredollars are created the value of the dollarwill fall as the entire stock of dollars isdiluted and the price of goodsdenominated in dollars will inevitably rise.This is why the price of oil and gold hassurged, with gold reaching record highs asthe dollar erodes in value.

Many countries around the world,particularly in the Muslim world such asSaudi Arabia, UAE and Malaysia, have theircurrency pegged to or closely tracking thedollar, so they are effectively importingAmerican inflation every time Americaturns on its printing press.

CAPITALISM IS THE CAUSE THAT ISLITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE It is clear to see that central to theproblems destabilising the worldeconomy are the very mechanisms thatform the core part of the capitalisteconomic system. In this case it is the fiatcurrency system that provides no realfixed value to the currency used fortrading. Secondly by allowing the tradingof essential commodities such as wheatand oil on the financial markets as futuresand derivatives contracts without evenhaving ownership of the underlying assetis the other major problem.

PRINTING MONEY MEANS THIEVINGFROM OTHERS IN THE WORLD This manipulation of the dollar is nothingless than theft of real wealth fromordinary people; pilfering from the rest ofthe people, who see the value of thedollars in their pocket fall whilst theAmerican government gets away withpaying its debts with nothing butessentially paper.

Such behaviour in trade is explicitlyprohibited by Islam. Allah (swt)commands in the magnificent Qur’an:“Give full measure when you measure,and weigh with a balance that is

www.khilafah.eu Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011 :: 11

ATIF SALAHUDDIN

It is ironic that the very (supposed) champions of free tradehave actually monopolised the trade of food commodities andartificially helped to force prices up.

straight: that is the most fitting and themost advantageous in the finaldetermination.” [TMQ Surah Al-Isra:35]

In the Islamic economic systemimplemented by the Khilafah state thebimetallic gold and silver standardbacking would be mandatory for anycurrency issued by the Islamic state, beingfully convertible upon demand. TheShari‘ah defines the Islamic currency asgold dinars and silver dirham’s along withtheir corresponding weights in gold orsilver. This would end such blatantinjustice with the people.

Ron Paul, congressman and the new chairof the American House’s subcommitteethat will oversee the role of the FederalReserve, was candid enough to admit this,commenting on Ben Bernanke’s rolesaying “There is something fishy about thehead of the world’s most powerfulgovernment bureaucracy, one that isinvolved in a full-time counterfeitingoperation to sustain monopolisticfinancial cartels, and the world’s mostpowerful central planner, who sets theprice of money worldwide, proclaimingthe glories of capitalism.”

A FAIR TRADE IN COMMODITIES

Islam prohibits price fixing andmonopolies on commodities. TheMessenger of Allah (saw) said: “Whoevermonopolised is a wrongdoer.” I wasnarrated by Abu Hurayrah (ra) that, “A mancame and said, O Messenger of Allah, fixprices. He (saw) said: “Rather Allahreduces and increases.” [Abu Dawud]

It is ironic that the very (supposed)champions of free trade have actuallymonopolised the trade of foodcommodities and artificially helped toforce prices up. Their practice ofproviding subsidies to rich American andEuropean farmers has helped to destroyfarmers in poorer developing countries,ones who are then forced to buy frominternational markets, thus ensuring theworld cannot produce food grains to itsmaximum potential capacity.

Another immense change under anIslamic system in the Khilafah state wouldbe the ending of the trade of commoditieswithout actually owning them. TheMessenger of Allah (saw) said: “It is notallowed to borrow and sell, nor of twoconditions in one sale, nor a profit that isnot secured nor the sale of what you donot have.” [Abu Dawud] and “Whoeverbuys foodstuff, he should not sell it untilhe receives it.” [Bukhari]

Under Islam owning a commodity orservice is required before being allowedto trade with it. This is unlike theCapitalist system where trading hasbecome comparable to a grand casino byallowing the same commodity to betraded many times over under variousfinancial instruments without evenleaving the original owner.

THE WORLD’S HUNGRY PEOPLE NEEDTHE ISLAMIC ECONOMY

At a stroke by implementing the Shari‘ahrules of Islam, the two biggest causes ofthe current food crisis would be resolved– currency manipulation and feverishspeculation.

Yet the Khilafah state would also havefurther rules and policies to develop theagricultural sector. The Khilafah statewould ensure that the Shari‘ah rulespertaining to agriculture were enforcedand that a sound agricultural policy wasdeveloped and implemented.

For example under Islam any landownerwho does not cultivate the land for morethan three years would have that landconfiscated and given to the poor whowould be free to use it.

Also, Islam addresses the issue of

distribution because the noble Messengerof Allah (saw) said: “The Son of Adam hasno better right than that he would have ahouse wherein he may live, a piece ofclothing whereby he may hide hisnakedness and a piece of bread and somewater”. [Tirmidhi]

This means the ruler is obliged toguarantee housing, clothing and food forevery single citizen of the Islamic state.This would be achieved by ensuringrelatives of a person in need paid for thecost of such provision as this becomes anobligation under Islam upon them. Failingthat or if a whole community was under afamine, the Khilafah state would beobliged to fulfil these basic needs fromthe state’s assets.

The American led western capitalistsystem is bankrupt today; both in terms ofits wealth and its morals. They areimposing economic policies on the rest ofthe world that are literally killing people.Yet America is not alone in such ventures.The pound, the euro, the rouble and theChinese renminbi are all fiat currencieshaving no fixed value. In fact there is nocurrency in the world today that isbacked by the gold or silver standard.

Today the world faces a choice; thecapitalist financial system can eithercontinue with its devastating shocks andinequality, or the world can look for anew viable alternative in the Khilafahstate once again. The Khilafah will revivefairness and put equity back intointernational trade, giving poorercountries their due right, instead ofseeking to undermine, exploit andultimately defraud them.

Allah (swt) instructs us in the Qur’an:“But seek the abode of the Hereafter inthat which Allah has given you andneglect not your portion of the world,and be kind even as Allah has been kindto you, and seek not corruption in theearth; lo! Allah loves not corrupters.”[TMQ Surah Al Qasas:77]�


ATIF SALAHUDDIN

In February 2011, David Cameronlaunched an incredible tirade against 30years of multiculturalism in Britain. Hewarned that multiculturalism wasincubating extremist ideology and directlycontributing to home-grown Islamicterrorism. He said,

“We have failed to provide a vision ofsociety [to young Muslims] to which theyfeel they want to belong. We have eventolerated segregated communitiesbehaving in ways that run counter to ourvalues. All this leaves some young Muslimsfeeling rootless. And the search forsomething to belong to and believe in canlead them to extremist ideology.”

Cameron is not alone in his rant againstmulticulturalism and its failure toaccommodate Muslims. In October 2010,Angela Merkel the German Chancellorunequivocally declared:

“The approach of saying, ‘Well, let’s just gofor a multicultural society, let’s coexist andenjoy each other’, this very approach hasfailed, absolutely failed”.

Merkel’s remarks came soon after ThiloSarrazin’s diatribe against multiculturalism.In August 2010, the former executive boardmember of Germany’s central bank(Deutsche Bundesbank), condemnedmulticulturalism and claimed Germany’sintelligence was in decline because ofMuslim immigrants. Elsewhere in Europe,boisterous voices are reverberating in thecorridors of power warning about dangersof multiculturalism. And all too oftenMuslim adherences to Islamic values inWestern societies are cited asdemonstrative examples of the failure ofmulticulturalism.

The rallying cry against the concept ofmulticultural societies is not limited to

Europe. On September 28th 2010,Australia’s former Prime Minister JohnHoward said,

“This is a time not to apologise for ourparticular identity but rather to firmly andrespectfully and robustly reassert it. I thinkone of the errors that some sections of theEnglish-speaking world have made in thelast few decades has been to confusemultiracialism and multiculturalism”.

He further added that some sections ofsociety have gone too far inaccommodating Muslim minorities. InAmerica, the daily assault onmulticulturalism by conservatives andother right wing politicians is polarisingAmerican communities and is accentuatingtensions between Muslims and non-Muslims. The plan to build a Masjid closeto ground-zero is just one manifestation ofthis struggle. Clearly then, multiculturalismas envisaged by its proponents has failedto deliver what it was supposed to do i.e.protect groups or communities againstintolerance and discrimination perpetratedby society or dominant groups withinsociety.

Concepts like multiculturalism anddiversity signify that in liberal democraciescoexistence can be fostered betweendifferent groups without the erosion oftheir respective identities or culturalnorms. However, these concepts althoughwidely employed in the lexicon of modernpolitical philosophy are not new. Ratherthey are derived from one of the mainpillars of Western liberal political thought –pluralism. Like other Western concepts,the origin of pluralism is firmly rooted inthe birth of secularism. Back then anumber of philosophers were incensed atthe manner by which various Christiandenominations were forced to assimilateand conform to the standards and virtues

mandated by the Papacy. Theyendeavoured to safeguard the religiouspractices of such groups by campaigningfor greater tolerance and leniency to beshown to them by the rest of society andother dominant groups. Initially, this meantthat such groups were spared physicalpunishment and financial penalties.However, they were barely tolerated, andwere subject to torrents of racial abuse,extreme discrimination and forcedexclusion from different facets of society.For instance, they were deniedemployment, precluded from educationalinstitutions, and suffered from restrictionson travel movements. But as time passed,other thinkers sought to extend theboundaries of pluralism and pressed forweaker groups to be granted greateropportunities to express their religious and


THE WEST, STATEMULTICULTURALISMAND ITS FAILURE

ABID MUSTAFA

cultural identity in all aspects of societallife, besides the designated areas ofworship. In some cases the thinkersmanaged to convince the state to extendprotection against persecution of a group’s

cultural identity and race, and removeimpediments to employment previouslybarred. Hence over the centuries, theconcept of pluralism underwentprogressive elaboration by Westernphilosophers and thinkers, as well asselective application by Western States.Despite numerous revisions and reviews,divergent views over pluralism’s meaning,its applicability and value to society stillpersist. Some advocate that pluralismshould be limited to a mere tolerance of agroup’s cultural identity and nothing more.Others equate pluralism with the right fordiverse groups to freely express andcelebrate their cultural identity withoutfear and restrictions imposed by society ordominant groups.

Towards the middle of the last century, thelabour crisis in Europe spurred an influx ofimmigrants to European shores. Attemptsby Europe to absorb people fromnumerous diverse cultural and ethnicbackgrounds posed a number of challengesto the cohesiveness of their respectivesocieties – chief amongst them were

housing, marriage, education, health care,welfare benefits and employment. Tensionsfrequently surfaced between theindigenous populations and theimmigrants, as both competed for limitedresources. During this period, severalthinkers and a handful of politicianscriticised the inability of Westerngovernments to assimilate immigrants.They suggested alternative solutions topreserve social cohesion based onpluralism, and advocated cultural diversityunder the guise of integration. In 1966, RoyJenkins, a British politician, presented anew pluralistic vision for Britain. He said,

“I do not think we need in this country a‘melting pot’ which will turn everybodyout in a common mould, as one of a seriesof carbon copies of someone's misplacedvision of the stereotyped Englishman... Idefine integration therefore, not as aflattening process of assimilation but asequal opportunity, coupled with cultural

diversity, in an atmosphere of mutualtolerance”.

This became known as Jenkins formulaand was widely employed by policymakers to establish guidelines and laws formulticulturalism. In the next 40 years,pluralism or multiculturalism – as it cameto be widely known – was introduced inalmost every aspect of life, so much so,that indigenous populations perceivedimmigrants and other minority groups toenjoy greater benefits then themselves.Subsequently, relations between the hostand immigrant communities rapidlydeteriorated, many questioned the wisdombehind multiculturalism, and some evenwent as far as calling for its abolition.Therefore, even before the events ofSeptember 11, 2001, multiculturalism,which was coveted as a panacea for socialcohesion, was an abject failure.

Multiculturalism or pluralism is awhimsical idea that is conceptually flawedand unworkable in practice. This is becausepluralism encourages groups to promote

their cultural identity irrespective of theirpolitical influence or financial strength.Naturally the strongest group uses itspolitical prowess and financial muscle topersuade politicians to define legislation,which vigorously defends and endorsestheir culture and values at the expense ofother groups. Additionally, the mostpowerful group manipulates the media andthe educational establishments to activelypromote its culture, this leads to widespread acceptance amongst the indigenouspopulation. In this way, the strongestgroup’s culture becomes indistinguishablefrom the state’s culture. Weaker groups findthemselves culturally squeezed,discriminated against and in conflict withthe state. Such groups are coerced by boththe state and society to dilute their culturalidentity to fit in. Those groups that refuseto tamper with their cultural identity areostracised and consigned to live in ghettos.In extreme cases they are expelled fromthe host nation as happened to the Romagypsies in France.

Islam does not subscribe to the west’snotion of pluralism where the strongestgroup decides which culture is legallybeyond reproach, and which group’scultural identity is to be singled out andsubject to unfettered criticism. Islamstipulates that life, honour, blood, property,belief, race and the mind are to beprotected by the Islamic State. Islam doesnot distinguish between individuals orgroups in such matters. All are treated asthe citizens of the Caliphate and areguaranteed these rights, irrespective oftheir political influence, financial strengthor whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims. Islam also protects the rights ofnon-Muslim groups to retain and asserttheir cultural identity within limits, andwithout any fear of retribution orvilification of their identity. The Messengerof Allah (saw) said: “One who hurts adhimmi (non-Muslim citizen of theCaliphate), he hurts me and the one whohurts me hurts Allah”. Islamic history isunrivalled in its capacity to protect therights of non-Muslim minorities andimmigrants under the shade of theCaliphate.�


ABID MUSTAFA

Multiculturalism or pluralism is a whimsical idea that is conceptually

flawed and unworkable in practice. This is because pluralism

encourages groups to promote their cultural identity irrespective of

their political influence or financial strength.

In October 2005 two teenagers, ZyedBenna and Bouna Traoré, wereelectrocuted and a third, Muhittin Altun,sustained serious shock injuries whilsthiding in a power substation. Theseyouths of a Paris ghetto were beingchased by police. They had beenwrongfully accused of a break-in. Thelevel of police-brutality, and intimidationin these Parisian suburbs, at that time,was such that they ran from the police.They scaled the walls of the powerstation where they met their terriblefate. This incident was the spark. Thesiege atmosphere was the kindling. Thecombination gave rise to theconflagration of French suburbia in theautumn of that year. Around this period,the then interior minister, NicolasSarkozy, announced a crackdown onurban crime. He ordered speciallytrained police to tackle 25neighbourhoods across France. Whilstvisiting one such area Argenteuil, hedescribed the inhabitants of the ghettoas “racaille”; scum. Many of theinhabitants of Argenteuil considered histerminology to be a deeply offensiveattack on immigrant members of Frenchsuburban communities.

Many of Sarkozy’s critics also saw it thisway. However it could be argued thatthe phrase ‘scum’ was taken out ofcontext. He was merely referring to theactual criminal minority that wereblighting the lives of the generally lawabiding citizens. Further it could beargued that he was mis-interpreted.

Racaille could mean rabble; an accurateattribution to such undesirables. It doesseem that his language and policies areconsistent with a general politicalphilosophy towards those that heconsiders to be outsiders and foreigners.Years later, this time as President, NicolasSarkozy implemented another push forlaw and order. Similarly this wasassociated with rioting. Measures wereintroduced following a weekend ofrioting in two cities, Grenoble and Saint-Aignan, in July 2010. The push was toround-up hundreds of Romany (gypsy)immigrants from Bulgaria and Romaniaand send them back to their homecountries. The French governmentdismantled Romany camps. Sarkozyannounced two other policies: thecriminalisation of entire families, ratherthan just individuals, and the stripping ofcitizenship from immigrants withcriminal convictions.

Similar to five years earlier his policymanifested a xenophobic and raciststreak. This was clearly directed at Roma,travellers and other immigrants. Francedoes not stand alone in its attack on theRoma. Sarkozy seems to have beentaking lessons from Silvio Berlusconi,whose government has increasinglyfocused on Roma as targets of stateviolence and xenophobia. Similar thingsare happening in places ranging fromSlovakia to Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.Even within the countries, Romania andBulgaria, to which France has chosen tosend the inhabitants of the cleared

camps, their plight is dire.

A common feature of the two sets ofriots was that they were sparked byincidents involving male youths thatwere perceived as outsiders. The irony isthat the individuals involved in theparticular incidents (the Romany andsecond generation immigrants of NorthAfrican origin) were all full Frenchcitizens. The French experience over thelast decade raises question; who isFrench and who is foreign. Citizenshipand nationality may have plain andprecise legal definitions, but in realitythese are nebulous notions. Doesnationality begin and end with thepossession of a passport or identitycard? Do individuals belong to a nationonce they have obtained nationality? Dothose who are stateless have no identityor belonging? For those second andthird generation descendants of migrantsto Europe, particularly those that are notwhite, the answer to this is often clear.The feeling of belonging and national

www.khilafah.eu Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011 :: 15

Xenophobia andTrue NationalIdentity

SALIM FREDERICKS

identity is often just not there. Royalweddings have little meaning to thesepeople. National disappointment atsports events similarly induces littleumbrage. And ‘successful’ invasions ofother countries by joint national armiesproduce no urge to participate invictory parades.

Within the context of the UK, it may beasked who are considered British sons ofthe soil? There is the famed sector ofBritish society known as the cockneys.Their culture has been discussed andcelebrated in art, literature bothhighbrow and lowbrow on a globalscale. So who are the cockneys?Essentially they are the working-classinhabitants of East London. A moreprecise definition of a cockney is onewho is born within earshot of the Bowbells (the bells of St Mary-le-Bow,Cheapside). So, what if twins are bornon the Bow Road that are not calledRonnie and Reggie, but rather they arecalled Rashid and Rashad; they are notwhite but brown skinned, born andraised as Muslims, are they cockneys?Would the white salt-of-the-earthcommunity accept them as the paradigmof cockneyness? Xenophobes wouldconsider them outsiders. At what pointin time would they be considered to becockneys?

There is a famous building on Brick Lanein East London; the cockney heartland. Itwas built by French Huguenots as aProtestant Church by refugees that fledfrom Catholic oppression to London inthe 1740s. Later this became a Jewishsynagogue (1897) following the influx ofJews into the area from Eastern Europe.Currently the building is the ‘LondonJamia Masjid’ Mosque frequented largelyby Muslims of Bangladeshi origin. So didthe Huguenots, Jews and the Muslimsever become classed as cockneys? Didthey, or do they ever become genuinecockneys? What is the definition of their

status? This highlights the problem ofidentity being attributed to merely beingborn on a square mile of soil. Are anindividual’s character, behaviourthoughts and concepts defined by theroad, street or avenue that he or she wasborn upon?

Modern European states have all hadcomplex relationships with nationalidentity. Whole nations have gone in andout of existence as kingdoms,principalities, dukedoms and republics.Centuries of wars, migration, sanctuaryseeking and settlement havecharacterised the shifting sands ofEuropean national identities. It isdifficult to analyse the centuries ofhistorical baggage that have influencedmodern Europe.

In contrast we may look to South Africato find a state that, despite its complexand even bloody history, emerged with aclear vision of what it planned torecreate itself as. It was to have a definedstarting point based, not on historicalbaggage, but on truth and reconciliation.The New South Africa was to become amodel ‘rainbow nation’ where all coloursof skin and all tongues were equal. Thefoundation of the state, born of a bloodypast, was of soul-searching and deepcontemplation of what it meant to beSouth African. What it meant to learnfrom history. What it meant to forgive

the wrong doings of the past andchannel all of the negativity into a desireto build a nation better and strongercentred around equality for all underone banner without discrimination. Tomany this was not a pipe dream but arealisable modern nation state with noplace for bigotry, prejudice andxenophobia. In 2008 riots across thecountry left scores dead. Tens ofthousands were displaced and thousandsleft the county to neighbouring statesthat were in themselves in a state ofchaos. This was the result of xenophobicattacks. People came from Zimbabwe,

Malawi, Mozambique and Somalia to theSouth African Shangri-la to make betterlives; having fled from war, oppressionand biting poverty. They were met withmurder and mindless violence. That wasxenophobia in post apartheid SouthAfrican style. These tensions have neverreally gone away and were swept asidelargely to the euphoria associated withthe hosting of the FIFA World Cup.

What is national identity? How cannations get their citizens to buy intotheir identity? The answer to this is withgreat difficulty. The notion that peopleare bound together automatically merelybecause they share the same piece ofland is born of fuzzy logic. Similarly, theidea that members of a family, tribe orrace are automatically unified in thoughtsentiment and deed is fanciful. A truecommunity is bound together by thethoughts, ideas and concepts that theycommonly possess and the politicalsystems that influence their day-to-daylives. We are who we are because of theideas we adopt, hold or develop. Ourthoughts and our emotions reflect whowe really are, not the place we wereborn and not to the tribe we were borninto. People should be judged on theirviews and opinions, not on their skincolour or language.�

A true community is bound together by the thoughts, ideas andconcepts that they commonly possess and the political systemsthat influence their day-to-day lives.


Religious teaching, insofar as it seeks toinfluence the political sphere, should besubject to rational scrutiny, arguesRussell Blackford.

For those of us cultured upon theunderstanding that all teachings must besubject to rational scrutiny this may notbe a ground-breaking thesis. It isnevertheless an argument increasinglymade by advocates of a ‘new’ atheism.Applying scrutiny to the argument itselfhowever reveals that behind theinnocent promotion of rationality liemany cobwebs that betray such anadvocacy.

All truth-claims, religious or otherwise,should be subject to rational scrutiny.Rationality in its true broad sense andnot the narrow self-serving sense all toocommon found in atheist circles.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc,for example, defines atheism as:

“the acceptance that there is no crediblescientific or factually reliable evidencefor the existence of a god, gods or thesupernatural.”

This definition makes the conflation,intentionally or ignorantly, betweenrational evidence and scientific evidence,such that the former is restricted to the


RATIONALITY,RELIGION ANDATHEISM

‘UTHMAN BADAR

latter. In reality scientific (empirical)evidence is one type of rationalevidence, but not the only type. Othertypes include the likes of logic, reportsand conceptual analysis.

Logical syllogisms based on soundpremises and a valid structure is entirelyrational. The proposition that all men aremortal combined with the observationthat Tom is a man establishes rationallyand necessarily that Tom is mortal.

Numerous unrelated people informingDick that they’ve been to Canada andthat it’s a wonderful place provesrationally even for him (who has neversensorially-perceived the existence ofCanada) that it exists. Our acceptance ofthe concept that human beings are theproduct of a mother and father, allowsus to establish, on analysis of thisconcept and its rational extension, thatHarry had a great great grandfather.

None of these conclusions are scientific,for they do not involve the applicationof the scientific method. Yet all of themare rational.

So why do atheists persist in wantingscientific evidence for theist assertions?It seems the convenience of a straw manis appealing. Theists, by and large, readily

admit that science cannot prove theexistence of God. Not because itrequires ‘faith’ (unless you’re an adherentof fideism, an untenable position in ourview) but because of the limitations ofthe scientific method itself.

As for rational evidence for theexistence of God, that has beenfurnished, debated, refined andpresented centuries ago. Argumentsbased on logic and conceptual analysisgo as far back as Aristotle and Plato,through the Muslim scholastictheologians such as al-Ghazali and al-Razi, and to Western Christian thinkersof medieval Europe such as Aquinas andBonaventure as well as Enlightenmentthinkers such as Leibniz and Clarke.

The Kalam Cosmological argument forexample – the strongest proof in ourestimation – was developed by Muslimscholars as early as the 11th Century CE.

The argument is profound yet simple:the material world we sense around uscomprises of temporal phenomena thatdepend for their existence on othertemporal phenomena and so forth. Sucha series cannot continue to infinity, for ifit did no one thing would satisfy itsdependence and nothing would exist.The fact that things do exist necessarily

implies a finite series and, in turn, theexistence of a being who determinedboth the existence of this series and thespecific attributes or properties thatdefine it.

By rational extension, this being must beeternal and without beginning,otherwise it is temporal and forms partof the series. It must also be sentient fora timeless cause producing a temporaleffect requires an independent will.Finally, effecting so grand a creation asthe universe and all that it containsnecessitates knowledge and power.

Thus, by use of reason alone – noreference to scripture, ‘leaps of faith’ orassumptions – we deduce the existenceof an eternal, necessary andtranscendent being attributed withknowledge, power and sentience,otherwise known in the Englishlanguage as ‘God’.

There are of course various objectionsto arguments like the above. Interestedparties can navigate the hundred pagesin the recently published BlackwellCompanion to Natural Theology devotedto the presentation of a simplifiedvariation of the Kalam CosmologicalArgument together with all objections,responses and counter-arguments.


‘UTHMAN BADAR

It is not the intent of this piece to assessany of these, but merely to show thatrational arguments do exist, have existedfor a long time, and are the subject ofserious scholarly debate and discussion.

The problem with the atheist approachis that it refuses to recognise thatrational arguments exist in the firstinstance. When presented, the mereraising of some objections or doubt isassumed sufficient to somehow negatethe argument.

Such a search for certainty in the proofsof opponents coming from the heraldsof science has a touch, a good doserather, of irony about it. Perhaps theydon’t know that science at its essenceemploys inductive reasoning and moreoften than not substantiates itsconclusions in terms of probability andconfidence.

Deeper epistemological considerationssuch as the varying strengths of differenttypes of proofs, deductive v inductivereasoning, the structure, sources andlimits of different types of knowledgeare certainly missing from the populistatheist characterisation of ‘science vs.religion’. A characterisation fit for achildren’s comic, but not for serious andsincere public discourse.

The result, at any rate, is a posturing thatis anything but rational. The militantatheist bandwagon – driven by Dawkins,Hitchens, Harris and Dennett –continues to paint their theistopposition as irrational simpletons whofavour superstition and myth overreason and science.

Worse still, the atheist approach fails toapply the rational scrutiny it calls forupon its own assertions. Even as anegating proposition, atheism makesnumerous assertions, implicit if notexplicit, that needs to be substantiated.

Is the universe eternal? Can an infiniteregress of temporal causes actually exist?Where does that leave the bulk ofmodern astrophysical evidence whichpoint to a beginning of the universe?

If the universe is not eternal and had abeginning, this implies that somethingcame from nothing. Can somethingcome from nothing? An absurdproposition, surely?

Furthermore, if the case is simply one ofscience not having yet answered the keyquestions about the origins of theuniverse, then is not a reasonableexplanation (if not certain in the atheistview) better than no explanation? Arescientific explanations ever certain inthe first place?

Further, the denial of God leaves atheistswith little room but to subscribe tosecular humanism, leading to moreassertions that need substantiation.

Why should church be separate fromstate? Why should religion be singled outfor exclusion from influencing publicaffairs? Religion is after all oneworldview from amongst many.

The reality is that secularism is taken forgranted to be the best way whilst it is atits core irrational. It is the result of acompromise solution for ageographically, historically, andcontextually specific problem, that ofpre-enlightenment Europe. Thecenturies-old oppression of the Churchwas sought to be repelled by advocatingthe separation of religion from state. Butthis represents a classical flaw ofjumping from a particular case to auniversal conclusion.

An analogous case would be our arguingthat because George Bush’s capitalist,liberal regime in America wasoppressive, capitalism and liberalism

should have no influence in society.

Devoid of a rational argument forsecularism (compromise solutions arenever strictly rational), advocates resortto a rather romanticised view of it as aneutral system which allows for apluralist society where everyone is freeto practice their individual beliefs. Yetsecularism is built on a specificworldview and is no more neutral thanany other ideology. It disallows thoseparts of other worldviews whichcontradict with it, just as they would.

We then also have assertions such as theespousal of human reason as a basis formorality. But how can the human minddetermine good and evil? It will surelylead to a subjective morality? How is anobjective morality and, in turn, moralobligation to be established? What is theontological basis of morality?

These are just some of the corequestions that need definitive answersfor atheism and its associated ideologiesto substantiate themselves. Merecriticism of opposing views, asaggressive as it may be, will not cover forholes in reason, or be a substitute forrigorous validation.

Perhaps when atheists start applyingrational scrutiny to their own beliefsthey’ll realise that ‘new atheism’ is littlemore than a novel product of modernand post-modern thought, and amanifestation of all their deficiencies,inclusive of bells and whistles.

In any case, our response to the call forrational scrutiny of religious teaching is,quite simply, bring it on.

‘Uthman Badar is the mediarepresentative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia,the local chapter of the largest globalIslamic political party.�


...the atheist approach fails to apply the rational scrutinyit calls for upon its own assertions.

‘UTHMAN BADAR

Prior to the overthrow of HosniMubarak, the world’s attention hasfocussed on Egypt’s Coptic Christiansafter a bomb exploded outside a churchin Alexandria killing 21 people andinjuring 70 more. The attack sparkedclashes between Egyptian police andCopts protesting against governmentinaction in protecting their communityand places of worship. “Now it’s

between Christians and the government,not between Muslims and Christians,”shrieked one Christian woman as severalhundred young men clashed withhelmeted riot police in the street outsidethe targeted church hours after the blast.

This attack follows discussions about thesituation of Christians in Iraq and inPakistan; both secular and unstablestates, riddled with insecurity.

At a protest in Shubra, downtown Cairo,some 500 Muslim and Coptic activists,politicians and other civil society leadersshouted the slogan, “Not a police state,not a religious state, we want Egypt tobe a secular state.”

Egypt is a secular state where religiouspolitical parties are banned and thosecalling for the implementation of Islamiclaw (Shari‘ah) in society (Islamists) are

heavily persecuted. Copts in Egypt doface oppression but so do Muslims andthe cause is not Shari‘ah but the absenceof Shari‘ah in Egyptian society. In theabsence of any religious restrictions onthe conduct of ministers, politicians,judges and police, ordinary Egyptians –both Muslim and Christian – must sufferat the hands of policies which furtherthe interests of the ruling party, theirfamilies and supporters. This is whyEgypt is a police state, ruled under astate of emergency since 1967 apartfrom 18 months between 1980 and1981. The law of emergency is used torestrict any non-governmental politicalactivity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organisations, andunregistered financial donations areformally banned. Some 17,000 peopleare detained under the law, andestimates of political prisoners run ashigh as 30,000.


Egypt’s CoptsNeed theCaliphate

ABDUL KAREEM

In one horrific example of police abuse,Imad Kabir, a Muslim, was filmed beingtortured and sexually assaulted by policeofficers. Instead of the police officersbeing punished the victim Imad wassubsequently jailed for three months onthe charge of ‘resisting authority.’

The law of emergency is applied underthe excuse of fighting terrorism whichmeans clamping down on the Islamistopposition, who are the only threat tothe brutal Egyptian regime. However, asDr. Abdullah al-Ashaal, professor at theAmerican University in Cairo said,

“I think the terrorism is from thegovernment for neglecting the needs ofthe people and not serving the nationalinterests. This intensifies the tensions inEgypt…And if any terrorism arises, it isbecause of the government policies –raising prices, the detention of peopleand the injustices which are prevailingeverywhere.

In regards to some of the issues blamedfor inflaming tensions between Muslimsand Copts in recent years such askillings, kidnappings and forcedconversions, those with a wider politicalagenda use them as evidence to claimMuslims are oppressing Christians andIslam should be further removed fromsocietal affairs, i.e. more secularism.French President Sarkozy’s comment,that

“We cannot accept and thereby facilitatewhat looks more and more like aparticularly wicked program of cleansingin the Middle East, religious cleansing,”

shows how the issue is being inflamedby the west to justify meddling in theaffairs of the Muslim world. Thehypocrisy of Sarkozy’s statement is clearwhen we look at France and otherwestern countries silence and inactionover the Rwandan genocide where800,000 Christians were actuallycleansed from the country.

A closer examination of these crimesagainst Copts shows the motivation isnot necessarily religious. In Egypt, as in

any other country, criminals exist. Someof these criminals are Muslim and someare Copts. Murders take place, and aMuslim may murder a Copt or a Coptmay murder a Muslim. This is crime andcannot be viewed solely through aMuslim vs. Christian lens.

On the allegations of kidnappings andforced conversions of Christians, YoussefSidhoum, the editor of a well-respectedChristian newspaper, says the allegationsare always difficult to prove. Often, hesays, they are love stories that have gonewrong. Very often they are notkidnapping or forced conversions, butrelationships between Christian girls andMuslim boys. Sometimes it is theirparents who say they have beenkidnapped in order to hide their shame,when in fact the girl has married aMuslim of her own choice. “They tend toexaggerate the cases,” he said. “We haveinvestigated lots of cases, again andagain. This is an important issue to usand we go wherever the cases are. “But Idon’t recall since 1997 more than threedefinite cases where we had clearevidence that there was kidnap andforced conversion.”

So what is the way forward for Coptsand Muslims in Egypt? Is the problem agrowing ‘Islamisation’ of Egyptian societyas those with a wider political agenda to

secularise Egypt and reshape Islam areclaiming?

In answer to this we need to examinethe Shari‘ah laws relating to Christianand other non-Muslim citizens living inan Islamic State and look at somehistorical examples of when theseShari‘ah laws were applied on the Coptsof Egypt.

Non-Muslims citizens living in aCaliphate have an honourable status andare referred to as dhimmi (people ofcontract). Their places of worship, livesand property are protected and they arenot persecuted for their beliefs.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Hewho hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and hewho hurts me annoys Allah.”

He (saw) wrote to the people of Yemen:“Whoever is adamant upon Judaism orChristianity will not be tormented for it.”

The classical scholars of Islam alsodetailed the rights of the Muslimstowards the dhimmi. The famous Malikijurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi said:

“The covenant of protection imposesupon us certain obligations toward theahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours,under our shelter and protection upon


ABDUL KAREEM

www.khilafah.eu

the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger(saw), and the religion of Islam. Whoeverviolates these obligations against anyone of them by so much as an abusiveword, by slandering his reputation, or bydoing him some injury or assisting in it,has breached the guarantee of Allah, HisMessenger (saw), and the religion ofIslam”.

Dhimmi are not forced to becomeMuslim or leave their beliefs, values andworships. They are permitted to drinkalcohol, eat pork, marry and divorceaccording to their religions. In all otherareas of society they are viewed andtreated in the same way as Muslimsunless belief in Islam is a pre-requisitefor the action.

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in religion”[TMQ Surah Baqarah:256]

Christianity and other religions do not

have detailed rules and systemsgoverning societal affairs such asgovernment, foreign affairs and economy.Christianity for example adopts theprinciple: “Render unto Caesar the thingswhich are Caesar’s, and unto God thethings that are God’s”

Therefore dhimmi in their societaltransactions will obey the law of theland which in the Caliphate happens tobe Shari‘ah (Islamic law). This will not bea source of conflict since these laws donot contradict any religious rulings. Agood example of this is the spread ofIslamic finance based on Shari‘ahthroughout the western world. Even in acountry such as France, which isstaunchly secular and anti-Islamic, it stillpassed laws last year aimed at makingFrance a hub for Islamic finance. This isnot because France has any love forShari‘ah but because of the economicbenefit derived from the transactions.

The general atmosphere in an Islamicsociety towards its non-Muslim minorityis shaped by the above Islamic evidencesand does not lead to a hostileatmosphere of persecution. However, theCaliphate is not a utopia and crime willexist and a dhimmi might be attackedand murdered by a criminal as happensin all societies.

An accusation brought by Copts inEgypt is that Muslims are not punishedfor crimes against their communities orgiven lesser punishment. In a CaliphateMuslims and dhimmi have equal statuswhen it comes to crimes such as assault,rape and murder. An Islamic judiciaryjudging by Shari‘ah will not applydisparate punishments as found insecular Egypt.

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an: “You who believe, be steadfast in yourdevotion to Allah and bear witnessimpartially: do not let hatred of others

22 :: Khilafah Magazine :: March 2011

ABDUL KAREEM

www.khilafah.eu

lead you away from justice, but adhereto justice, for that is closer toawareness of Allah. Be mindful of Allah:Allah is well aware of all that you do.”[TMQ Surah Maidah:8]

The dhimmi is allowed to be a witnessin an Islamic court against a Muslim andtheir evidence is acceptable. Theconditions of being a witness applyequally to Muslims and dhimmi. Theconditions of a witness are: sane, matureand ‘Adl (trustworthy).

Punishments for crimes are appliedequally to both Muslims and dhimmiwith no distinction. The only distinctionis that dhimmi will not be punished forthose actions which are permitted forthem such as drinking alcohol, whereasa Muslim would be.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Thediyyah (blood money) of the Jews andChristians is like the Muslim’s diyyah.”

It is narrated in a Hadith that theMessenger of Allah (saw) killed a Muslimfor a mu’ahid (citizen of a foreign statewith which the Caliphate has a treaty)and said, “I am the most noble of thosewho fulfil their dhimmah.”

This Hadith clearly indicates that if aMuslim kills a mu’ahid he is punishedwith death. This applies to the dhimmiwho has more rights than a mu’ahidsince the dhimmi is a full citizen of theIslamic State.If we look to the history of Copts inEgypt when they lived under theCaliphate we can see these Shari‘ahrules detailed above being implementedin practice. Whilst there were timesduring the Caliphate when dhimmi didsuffer some persecution at the hands oftyrant rulers we cannot generalise andpaint the entire 1300 year history as oneof persecuting non-Muslims. The factthat Coptic Christians and their places ofworship exist today is proof enough that

the Caliphate did not adopt a policy ofreligious cleansing like Europe did.

Thomas Arnold mentions this point:

“But of any organised attempt to forcethe acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematicpersecution intended to stamp out theChristian religion, we hear nothing. Hadthe Caliphs chosen to adopt eithercourse of action, they might have sweptaway Christianity as easily as Ferdinandand Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or

Louis XIV made Protestantism penal inFrance, or the Jews were kept out ofEngland for 350 years.”

Nabil Luqa Bebawy, a Coptic, religiousauthor compares the conditions ofCopts before and after Islamic rule. Hesaid that Orthodox Christians werebrutally tortured at the hands ofByzantines. The number of Copts whowere killed during the rule of the Romanemperor Diocletian [284-305 AD] isestimated up to one million CopticEgyptians. This is why the OrthodoxCoptic Church called that age the age ofmartyrs and the Coptic calendar starts atthis age.

When Islam came to Egypt, allconditions changed dramatically andCopts witnessed an age of freedom thatthey had not known before. About theJizyah imposed on non-Muslims, Bebawysays that they were part of the “securitypact” made between Muslims and Copts.Jizyah was a tax paid in exchange forexempting Copts from joining theIslamic army.

Finally, Bebawy stresses that the illpractices of some Muslims rulers indealing with Copts are individualbehaviours that have nothing to do withIslamic teachings.

Hani Shukrallah, a Coptic Christian and aformer editor of the newspaper Al-

Ahram writes:

“It is not easy to empty Egypt of itsChristians; they’ve been here for as longas there has been Christianity in theworld. Close to a millennium and half ofMuslim rule did not eradicate thenation’s Christian community; rather itmaintained it sufficiently strong andsufficiently vigorous so as to play acrucial role in shaping the national,political and cultural identity of modernEgypt. Yet now, two centuries after thebirth of the modern Egyptian nationstate, and as we embark on the seconddecade of the 21st Century, thepreviously unheard of seems no longerbeyond imagining: a Christian-free Egypt,one where the cross will have slippedout of the crescent’s embrace, and offthe flag symbolizing our modernnational identity...”

Even during the Crusades when westernChristians invaded and occupied parts ofthe Islamic State, the Copts of Egyptdefended the Caliphate under the rule ofSalahuddin Ayyubi who was thegovernor of Egypt during the AbbasidKhilafah.

Carole Hillenbrand, in ‘The Crusades:Islamic perspectives’ says:

“…Saladin had a private secretary, ibnSharafi, who was a Copt and Saladinsbrother al-Adil put a Copt named ibn al-Muqat in charge of the army ministry(Diwan al-Jaysh). The appointment of aChristian to a position of such power inwar-time and in an area that was militaryso sensitive tells its own story. Indeed,the loyalties of the Copts in the Ayyubidperiod seem often to have lain morewith the Muslims and with their ownlocal interests than with the Crusaders.This was demonstrated in the Crusade ofDamietta in 1218 when the Coptshelped to defend the city, and as aconsequence suffered greatly at thehands of the Crusaders.”These are some of the reasons whyEgypt’s Copts need the Caliphate, and infact all the non-Muslims of the Muslimworld need the Caliphate. �


ABDUL KAREEM

www.khilafah.eu

When Islam came to Egypt, all conditions changeddramatically and Copts witnessed an age of freedom thatthey had not known before.

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

hizb.org.uk

Date post:	12-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khilafah-magazine
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Khilafah Magazine March 2011

Documents