Tonight BBC2 will air a 90 mins documentary entitled “Battle for Islam”. It will show the broadcaster, writer Ziauddin Sardar, travel to Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia in order to explore and create “different interpretations of Islam”. Among the interviewees is Sheikh Musharraf, who provides thoughtful insights into his brand new enlightened moderation path for revival of the Ummah.
One of the main points put across by the author is that the Shariah law is not divine, bur rather a “jurists’ law” that ought to be “changed, modified and reformulated - in its entirety”. He further argues that some Muslim scholars are now demanding to investigate and lay out new sources of legislation compatible with the modern ideas of democracy, tolerance and human rights.
This program is once again another attempt by the BBC, two weeks after the disgraceful documentary on the MCB, to change the course of Islam in order to make it compatible with the Western secular liberal values, and specifically by targeting and attacking core concepts such as one Ummah and the rule of the Shariah through the implementation of the Khilafah. In order to be more credible this time, the BBC has chosen a self-claimed Muslim to broadcast the documentary. This documentary is nothing more than part of the psychological warfare launched by the Western crusaders in order to further undermine this Ummah from the path of revival.
The Muslims must not stay silent in the face of such ideological onslaughts and take up the task of confronting these very corrupt ideas that the Western goverments and their agents wish us to adopt, namely man-made Secularism and Capitalism. These attacks are not new in the History of this Ummah. We should always bear in mind that the Prophet (saw) and his (saw) companions used to get defamed and affronted by the ruling power of their time, ie the Qu’raish of Mecca.
September 12th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Well writen piece.
But there’s no point always pointing fingers at others! Why don’t you do a better documentary for Islam?
Shouldn’t we trust the presenter’s sincerity that he went out and tried his best to understand the problem with Islam?
Look at Europe and America - when did they become civilised? After the renaissance. When will any of our Muslim countries have our renaissance?
Are you seeing the problem now?
September 12th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Well, the problem is that this Ummah is divided and under the rule of the Western Capitalist nations. There is no need for renaissance in Islam as we already gave the kitaab from Allah (swt). What we need on the other hand is revival by establishing the rules and principles that emanate from the Kitaab and Sunnah in society such that society in the Muslim lands can achieve peace, tranquility and prosperity. In order to achieve this revival, Muslims need to carry the dawah and call upon the elit, ie the militaries, to adhere by Islam in its totality and reject totally the man-made Kuffar Political system of Secular capitalism.
Anyway, if that presenter was sincere in trying his best in understanding the problem with Islam, then it means that he was extremly ignorant of the Deen and May Allah (swt) forgive him for the ignorance that he spread in the community.
Regarding making better documentariesfor Islam, then you should know that brothers are already doing it like the salsalabil production team.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Interestly a non-Muslim collegue was speaking to me about the same program - he had easily spotted the one-sided nature of the program. But Allah alone knows best what the intention of the presenter is.
I think the whole basis of the discussion was incorrect. The problem has never been with Islam, but with the absence of Islam.
Alot of Muslims have fallen short, by trying to emulate the European renaissance. Not understanding the renaissance that took place in the 7th Century. The amazing transformation took place on the Arabian peninsula, was purely because of Islam.
The light of our civilisation only faded because we began to abandon the very tenets upon which it was built.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:22 pm
My take is that the main problem of the Islamic world is that most of it is ruled either by puppet regimes, or by illegal regimes which seized power by force. Legitimacy has been a fundamental problem with the Islamic world ever since the fall of the Khilafah Rashidun.
Military dictatorship is one of the worst types of government, as military dictators tend to cripple their own armies due to fear of coups. In Saddam’s Iraq, for example, the best officers and generals in the Iraqi army were summoned back to Baghdad for discussions - discussions which ended in an unmarked grave.
Legitimate government does not necessarily mean democracy - the West rose to power under hereditary monarchy. It seems though that such a system is incompatible with Islam - in the Ottoman Empire new Sultans felt compelled to murder all their brothers for fear of succession struggles. There was nothing like this in any Western country!
I’d say this had another negative effect in that it made Muslim rulers too absolute in their power - impossible to overthrow (like Charles I or James II of England, or Louis XVI of France) or push aside in favour of rule-by-committee (like George I and II of England) if they became inept.
The Muslim world should not copy the old Khilafah Rashidun slavishly though, any more than Western nations should slavishly copy the Roman Republic.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Interesting example with the Ottomans. Even though they were the last remants of Islamic authority, the ’sick man of Europe’ was still one of the world powers (3rd largest Navy). Even though it was on its death bed, the Muslim ummah was in a far better situation under its rule than after its demise.
The way of the Khilafah Rashidun is the way Muslims aspire to be, since they formulatively based every action on Islam. Legislation is based on nothing else but Islam, but administratively whatever is best can be followed. I have studied a draft constitution for an Islamic State, and have been amazed at the level modern thought that has gone into it. If you know arabic go to http://www.alokab.com
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:26 am
Actually George, go and check http://www.caliphate.co.uk There is also a blog maintained by the webmaster. The link to the blog is through that website.
If you want know more about the Islamic thinking and philosophy (as well as a lot of other stuff), then check http://www.bringbackjustice.com
ciao
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:57 pm
I think I see fundamentally what was wrong with the Khilafah Rashidun - it concentrated too much power in the Khalifah’s hands (ie it was essentially a benevolent dictatorship). Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely! That’s why you don’t get very many benevolent dictators…
By the way, I have noticed some other possible weaknesses in the constitution proposed:
Article 8: Setting Arabic as the sole language of the State - wouldn’t this anger non-Arabs?
Article 185: Muslims are paranoid about colonialism for understandable reasons. But do you really want to reject ALL alliances with foreign states? May the Islamic state not want to have client states of its own (eg the Ottomans had Wallachia and Moldavia), or may it not need to form alliances with convenience in order to fight off an overwhelming enemy coalition? (eg alliance with the EU and/or China against a Russo-American coalition, or with the USA against a Sino-Indian alliance)
Before I go though I have three more questions to ask:
1. What is the official title of the Islamic state? For example, the Ottoman Empire’s official title was “Devlet-i Aliyye” (Sublime State).
2. Which city would be its capital? Baghdad? Medina? Istanbul? Damascus? Some other city within the present Islamic world?
3. What markings would be carried by the planes of the Islamic State’s Air Force?
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:31 pm
One of the reasons why the previous Khilafah fell into decline was because the checks and balances of accountability were lost during the 7th century. Accountability foremost lies in the hands of the citizens of the state, which means they have to be very politically astute and responsible. Then there are the political groups and the Majlis al-Ummah who will also be constantly & harshly accounting the Khalif.
Previous history shows that it wasn’t the Khalifs that were the problem, but the Wali’s; who when given too much power, began to challange the authority of the state. As such nowadays, a Khalif would have rotating Wulah, and if a Wali was shown to have become popular or powerful (regardless of how well he performed), he would be removed or reassigned from his post.
Re: Article 8 - Arabic language is the official language of the state. This does not mean that people are not allowed to speak in their native dialects. The importance of this issue comes from two points: 1, the strength of the Islamic thought is based on the strength of knowing the Islamic sources - which requires a qualified understanding of the arabic language. 2, The projection of authority, especially in relation to other states.
Re: Article 185 - The Khilafah will obviously have a foreign policy, which by definition means its relationship with foreign states. From its inception, the state will begin relations with non-belligerent states, which are primarily Africa, South America and SE Asia. Based upon Islamic propogation, trade & tranfer of expertise.
Re: 3 Q’s
1 - I’ll try to find this one out. As I understand anything will go.
2 - One of the things that defines the equality of Islam is that it is a religion not based on the race of people. Most likely the capital will be wherever the state first arises. This probabily will be within Central Asia, possibly Tashkent - but Allah alone knows best these matters.
3 - Don’t have a clue, unlikely to be the crescent/moon though. Whatever is deemed the most practical and visible. I do know that different brigades will have different insignia’s.
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:15 pm
Re Walis - you seem to be talking about why the State broke apart - I was talking about Muawiyah’s seizure of power.
In the proposed modern Islamic state, how would the Khilafah be prevented from becoming a tyrant (as usually happened historically), by bending the ulama to his will - either by bribery or by brute force?
Anyway, doesn’t a system rotating wulah (that’s the plural of wali, right?) encourage any given wali to ruin his province immediately before being moved out, to prevent his successor from collecting more tax revenue and/or conscripts than he did? (That could get him executed for corruption!)
Also, on the capital question, I was suggesting the Middle East because I assumed that it was desireable for the capital to be in a reasonably central location. And wouldn’t a capital in Central Asia make the Russians nervous? They do have the Trans-Siberian Railway to worry about you know…
Another question - it seems you insist on incorporating all Muslim lands in the state. Wouldn’t that create a similar problem to that of pre-’71 Pakistan of having large populations geographically separated from the main contiguous block of territory, but on a larger scale (as it would apply to Malaysia and Indonesia as well as Bangladesh?)
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:51 pm
Lots of questions. If there is a maybe a specfic question that you would like me to focus on, I can try to make an attempt.
One of my uncles is a professor of anthropology (coincidently doing research at the moment in Durham Uni), and he repeatedly barrages me with similar questions. But such answers require detail, something which a comment board is not well suited for.
Just a note to your final paragraph. The Islamic State will naturally incorporate all Islamic lands, either through invitation or war. Though it will take time, and will depend on how well it positions itself in the international arena and within the hearts and minds of the Muslim Ummah.
With such a wide difference in geography, the challenges faced by the state will be enormous, but wont be impossible to solve. I recently heard a presentation by some Muslims on how the state will possibly configure its power generation to distributed generation as opposed to in situ localised generation i.e. an example of how people are already planning such eventualities.
If you don’t mind, can I ask if you are a Muslim?
Take care.
November 24th, 2005 at 11:30 am
By the way, don`t hesitate to ask AK questions on the Khilaafah itself on his blog whose link you can get from http://www.caliphate.co.uk, he is is auite clued up on it as well.
November 24th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
With such a wide difference in geography, the challenges faced by the state will be enormous, but wont be impossible to solve.
You seem to be a very idealistic person - think of me as the Scully to your Mulder
I’m not Muslim myself, and it is my view that the Muslim world needs to become more like the West in certain aspects. I’m trying to discover which of these aspects are important (I think Ataturk went too far).
November 24th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Lol. Funny, because personally I view myself more like Scully than Mulder. Maybe in the future, I might have an opportunity to show you how thus so far, the idealism has been translated into actual planning (if I ever finish off the Phd application for Durham).
If today is meant to be difficult, isn’t it amazing to hear how they successfully managed for centuries the running of lands so vast - when the only means of communications was the pen and transport the camel.
Muslims can take everything, except the beliefs of the West. Primarily that means science, tech & industry not beliefs, values and creed.
November 24th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
I think that one of the worst weaknesses of Muslim societies is that traditionally, Muslims have been willing submit to Khulufah who seized power by force. Western states after the fall of the Roman Empire have by contrast drawn a very strong distinction between “legitimate ruler” and “usurper”.
Rule by birthright and rule by election are both far superior to rule by might, because there is only one heir to the throne (in theory at least), or one election winner, whereas any general with an army has might. (Thought the Ottoman system, where rulership was determined by lethal palace intrigue, was even worse.*)
Succession by might invites frequent coups and civil wars, and forces rulers (eg Saddam Hussein) to cripple their own armies to protect themselves, which of course makes the state vulnerable to outside invaders.
How would you respond to the suggestion that “an Islamic state can never be modern, because you can’t have a modern state without interest-based economics”? This supposition doesn’t seem obvious to me…
*By the way, why were the Ottomans so paranoid about assassination? Was it because the Ottoman state was dependent on the devshirme - an illegal institution? (IIRC enslaving dhimmis is illegal under Shari’ah.)
November 24th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
With the upcoming Khilafah state, rulership will be orginally decided by the Ahlul hali wal ‘aqd or roughly trans. ‘the people who tie & bind’, basically the army and influentials whose support was sought to undertake the coup. Beyond this, the Khalifs are only chosen through elections and not through heriditary kingship.
The complacency and lack of political activism in the Ummah, allowed the dynastic type mentalities to grow within the ruling clans. Thus the close comparison to modern dictators in terms of fear, security, paranoia, janisseries etc. Although cased by the Uthmani’s, similar tendancies were apparent within both the Ummayads and Abbasids.
This issue is something that Muslims need to be actively aware of, lest the same fate afflicts them in the future.
Despite the advances of globalisation, the question posed would have been more difficult to answer for a situation described 20 years back. Today, the world economic order is in such a quandry, that the Islamic economic system can succeed merely by offering an alternative to those who have had all hopes crushed by the reality of the free market.
The foundation of the Islamic econ system is based on the importance of distribution of wealth as oppossed to the production of wealth. Plus the bi-metallic standard is worlds apart from the current fiat model. More details can be found here. Yes, please do and try to read the book, and not the group behind it.
November 28th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
The complacency and lack of political activism in the Ummah, allowed the dynastic type mentalities to grow within the ruling clans. Thus the close comparison to modern dictators in terms of fear, security, paranoia, janisseries etc. Although cased by the Uthmani’s, similar tendancies were apparent within both the Ummayads and Abbasids.
Why “Uthmanis” rather than “Osmanlis”?
Now to my main point - I think an important cause of the rise of tyranny in the Islamic world was that most of the places conquered by Muslims during the Khilafah Rashidun era were places whose people had been “broken” by over a thousand years of tyrannical rule.
It started with the Assyrians - their vicious empire destroyed the kingdoms of the ancient Middle East, and punished rebels so cruelly that people in the region got into the habit of abject submission to anyone who seemed strong. By the time the Assyrian Empire was destroyed, the damage was already done.
That’s why the Achaemenid Persians were able to build such a huge empire - and also why the going got a lot tougher for them once they advanced into Asia Minor - a land which had never been under the Assyrian yoke.
It also meant that the Mesopotamians and Egyptians - the first peoples with organized militaries - lost their traditions and fell behind the rising Greeks.
Once Alexander the Macedonian united Greece under his rule (and note how hard this was for him), he conquered the entire Persian Empire with ease, as the local populations instinctively submitted to his rule as there was no ideology to motivate them to fight back.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Sorry for the belated reply, I didn’t see your comment.
Ottoman-Osmani-Usmani-Uthmani — from the 3rd Caliph Uthman (ra). Like Ibn Abbass is to the Abbasids.
I was going to write a long comment, but I had to stop and think carefully.
I don’t entirely agree with your point, but maybe thats because I’m unclear as to what you’re saying. Why would ruling over an easily appeased and subjegated population lead to the rise of tyranny?
The early tyrants like al-Hajjaj/Waleeds/Yazids (2,3&4) were from a period when the primary population were still Arabs.
I see two distinctions. 1) The tyranny of the rulers and 2) The tyranny of the system.
No 1. is what has been observed within Islamic history, but has generally been confined to the ruling and educated classes (i.e. those who can oppose).
No.2 was rarely an occurance in early Islamic history (although more after 19thC). Since the very objective of Jihad is to remove the barriers that prevent the spread of Islam. As such a tyrannical and oppressive rule would never been sincerly accepted by the populaces so quickly (as it did).
Sorry, bit rushed.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Sorry for the belated reply, I didn’t see your comment.
Ottoman-Osmani-Usmani-Uthmani — from the 3rd Caliph Uthman (ra). Like Ibn Abbass is to the Abbasids.
I was going to write a long comment, but I had to stop and think carefully.
I don’t entirely agree with your point, but maybe thats because I’m unclear as to what you’re saying. Why would ruling over an easily appeased and subjegated population lead to the rise of tyranny?
The early tyrants like al-Hajjaj/Waleeds/Yazids (2,3&4) were from a period when the primary population were still Arabs.
I see two distinctions. 1) The tyranny of the rulers and 2) The tyranny of the system.
No 1. is what has been observed within Islamic history, but has generally been confined to the ruling and educated classes (i.e. those who can oppose).
No.2 was rarely an occurance in early Islamic history (although more after 19thC). Since the very objective of Jihad is to remove the barriers that prevent the spread of Islam. As such a tyrannical and oppressive rule would never been sincerly accepted by the populaces so quickly (as it did).
Sorry, bit rushed.
November 29th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
The early tyrants like al-Hajjaj/Waleeds/Yazids (2,3&4) were from a period when the primary population were still Arabs.
Were they peninsular Arabs though? The lands affected by the pre-Islamic tyranny I mentioned include many lands presently considered Arab, such as Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Iraq…
December 1st, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Sorry, I can’t recall the point I was trying to make with the Al-Hajjaj etc issue.
I’m currently reading Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class. An interesting read, if not a bit dry. Its a very withering satire on modern Capitalism. What catches my attention is his description of class evolution. Its remarkably accurate, and he presents it as an irrefutable description of all societies. Yes true, for Europe but not for many other nations, especially not for early Islamic societies. This comes back to the discussion at hand. You have made certain assumptions, but maybe they have been based on a set of specific realites (like Veblen with Europe).
So re: first assumption (trying to read your mind).
Do you think that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely [sic]? Is this a definite fact? Because if it is; then this would always be the case for the Khalifs. Then what of examples of people of who have near absolute power, yet they epitomise the antonym of corruption e.g. Umar ibn Abd Al-’Aziz.
Sorry mate, just tired, if your still around, tell me i don’t make sense.
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:49 am
Do you think that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely?
Yes - I suspect that Umar didn’t have much opportunity to be corrupt because of the stress involved in controlling a new and rather poor Islamic state facing very powerful enemies.
Same reason why we don’t hear of Prussian kings living in luxury while the country fell to pieces…
December 5th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Hi George,
Afs M is away for a week or so, he will come back and reply to your comment (s). By the way, Umar ibn Abul Aziz is a different Khalif from the rd one and more famous Umar ibn Al Khattab, who was a companion of the Prophet (saw).
December 8th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Jacare: Lol bro, don’t underestimate your own knowledge. I do read all those e-mails you send me.
George: If there is an article you wish to write regarding many of the issues you have raised, I’d be more than happy to publish it on the blog. Then the comment feedback would hopefully raise an interesting discussion.
Yes, the Khalif in question was Umar ibn Abd al-’Aziz not Umar bin Khattab (ra). Who came straight after Suleiman II, who as far I understand was a man who did not deal lightly with his political opponents. Umar ibn Abd al-’Aziz was by many (muslim & non-muslims) recognised as the ‘fifth’ of the Khulafaa ar-Rashiduun. His reign although short, was characterised by prosperity, sincerity and justice, at a time when he could have easily done as he pleased (strength of the state - absolute power.
It comes down to the point where I fundamentally disagree with you. Even if all the riches of the world were available to him, a person who has a strong level of Iman(belief) and Taqwa (God-consciousness), would not barter the hereafter for this life.
This may sound idealistic, as if the position is only available for a angel. But I find examples abound within my daily life of meeting Muslims who share immense responsibilites.
Thanks for the comment on ‘Pat’s 700′ post, enlightening stuff, you really should start your own blog
December 13th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Maybe just on a final note, do you think you would become a tyrant, if you had absolute power? Would not your values, ideas, concepts, character and unbringing affect how indifferent you may believe that you will become?
December 16th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
I can reply now I have a Blogger account!
I suspect power corrupts to some extent, but also that the corrupt are more likely to seek power in the first place.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Lol, we actually put the anon feature back up.
Looking forward to see your blog (appears inactive at the moment).
I saw two films recently that set thoughts racing in my head: Lord of War and Syriana.
Although only films, they did effectively espouse the unrelenting and corrupt nature of those who seek wealth and power through the arms/oil industry. How easily an honest man can turn into a monster by the very whim of pleasures that are ethereal.