[As policy I don't moderate posts on this blog, brothers are free to write what they wish, I view the diversity in opinions as something that is a unique gift to Islam. Re: This Post - I say - Sometimes the truth hurts and sometimes it can be conveyed with different styles. So please do add your comments. -- Afs-M]
The Iranian President`s remarks that Israel should be wiped off the map has caused furore among the Western governments, governments that wiped the Khilafah off the map only 81 years ago. Although these remarks will be viewed as mere rhetoric by the majority of the Muslims as no real concrete steps have ever been taken by the Iranian government in order to achieve that objective (Actually, it is a well-known fact amongst intelligence analysts that Israeli and Iranian government officials cooperated through secretive channels during the Irangate- Contra affair in the 80`s and against Saddam Hussein), the real question that matters for our Ummah is how to achieve this objective.
In other words, what is the practical method to remove the brutal Zionist occupation from Palestine, which is after all a life and death issue, i.e. an issue of utmost importance? We all know, as Muslims, that Islam is the Haqq (Truth) revealed by Allah (swt) and is a complete way of life that has answers to all of man’s problems. Furthermore, in Islam, every idea has a specific detailed method linked to it in how to establish or achieve that idea in life (a concept known in Arabic as Fikrah - Tareekah, i.e. Idea - Method). For example, we all know that praying 5 times a day to our Creator is an obligation as it is explicitly mentioned in the Qu`ran. But this doesn’t mean that we pray according to the way that our limited minds deem to be correct. The way we pray has also been revealed by Allah (swt) through numerous Hadith. So, we know exactly the number of rakah to be performed for each Salah, the times at which they must be prayed, the verses and the duas that must be recited, the order of the various body positions, the prayers that are recommended after and before the compuslory ones, etc… The same goes for Hajj, Ramdhan,… But what about politics? When we think about world politics, and especially the calamities befallen in the Muslim world, do we link the solution to the Qu`ran and Sunnah? Unfortunately most of us don’t and we tend to only use our limited minds thinking that Islam, like Christianity and Buddhism, is a religion that only deals with the relationship between the individual and his Creator and not with the relationship with other individuals in society and in the world as the Western governments have succeeded to a certain degree in divorcing Islam from life’s affairs in most of the Muslim world.
Anyway, returning to our problem, the solution is very clear. Individuals or armed groups by themselves do not have the resources and capability to defeat and remove the military occupation of an enemy state, only a state has such capabilities. Now, wouldn’t it make sense to unite all our various strengths and resources (military, economic, financial, logistic, manpower…) of the Muslim world into a single entity as the Europeans try to do now and the Americans have done it with United States of America. After all, there is an adage that says “In the union there is strength.” Furthermore, the solution revealed to us through the life of the Prophet (saw) is that he (saw) did not try for the first 13 years of revelation to overthrow the despotic Quraishi regime in Makkah while not having established the Islamic state, known also as the Khilafah, which he did in Madinah.
May Allah (swt) make this Ramadhan the last one without a Khilafah Rashidah, a shield behind which the Muslim`s life and honour is protected, and may He (swt) grants us victory after it in the destruction of this filthy state of Israel, Ameen!
October 31st, 2005 at 5:52 am
Salaam, Brother.
Let me begin by saying that I realise that this comment may be a little off topic.
Let us consider the ramifications of Iran’s President making such a statement. Your post quite correctly notes that unless a greater degree of unity is established, the stated goal of the Iranian President could not can be achieved.
Iran is part of no such unity. His statement is quite against the views of many member states of the United Nations, in particular, America and Britain. George Bush said of Iran (and others) in his 2002 State of the Union speech:
“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
The war in Iraq was justified by WMDs. Even if the subsequent lack of such weapons had raised the bar required to wage war, Mr Ahmadinejad’s soon-to-be nuclear state seems to be working hard to provide a “smoking gun”.
If Bush ever needed an excuse, he has one now.
Your post clearly states that without following the correct method from Qur’an and Sunnah, the Muslims will forever be oppressed, and I wholeheartedly agree. Rather than free an oppressed people, Iran’s incapable President may have signed a death warrant for more innocent people.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:53 pm
I disagree to a certain extent with your post. With the quagmire in Iraq, the Americans have their hands tied for now. It is highely unlikely that the US with her Coalition partners will try to invade Iran, a country whose population is around 70 million. At best, she will opt to bomb strategic and nuclear facilities, but this option could worsen a lot more the situation in Iraq by encouraging the Iranian government to financially and militarily help the resistance in Iraq. Iran will most likely be punished by economic sanctions, but then it doesn`t change a great deal the situation since there has been a US embargo on Iran for more than a decade.
November 21st, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Even if the Muslim world were to reunite successfully, it could never destroy Israel without suffering cataclysmic damage return from Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons. Note how wary the United States is with respect to North Korea, a rogue state whose nuclear arsenal is far smaller than Israel’s.
If the United States of America, the mightiest superpower in history, is incapable of defending itself against nuclear ballistic missiles, what chance the Islamic world?
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Hello George, thanks for your comment. I see your name around alot on other blogs (presuming your the same George).
Its a question I’ve asked several times to Muslim activists and intellectuals.
Answer: When the Muslim world does unite, its objective is not to destroy Isreal, rather to liberate its land (all of it) and place rule under Islamic jurisdiction (for all faiths).
If Isreal was to pre-emptively strike at its neighbours, it would risk being caught in the fallout. Even if it was foolish enought to do so, the Caliphate would not retaliate (in my opinion) like-for-like, but commit to a full scale conventional invasion. This is more than possible, as there are forces that surround are sufficeintly capable of swamping Isreal. If Muslim forces are under sincere Islamic leadership, there is generally no stopping them. Thats what Isreal and the US understands best, therefore - so many client states. Can’t remember clearly but I think it was Ben Gurion who said “The first line of defence for Isreal, are the Arab rulers…”
Sorry for the jumble, if your around i’ll try to adress my points more clearly.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Thank you for your response.
Ben Gurion’s point was probably made at a time before Israel acquired nuclear weapons (or at least, nuclear missiles). My real point is that if Israel was about to be “swamped” by Muslim armies it would launch its nuclear weapons at Muslim cities in revenge. The first ballistic missile was the Nazi V-2. The V stood for “Vergeltungswaffe” (vengeance weapon).
That’s the reason why I’m totally opposed to attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers - they convince the Israelis that Arabs are genocidal monsters, and that therefore they would have nothing to lose by nuking the entire Middle East into oblivion were they on the verge of losing a conventional war.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:28 pm
I forgot also to mention the point that even if the Arabs are no longer considered genocidal, the Israeli leadership may still nuke them out of selfishness, if they believe that they are personally doomed (ie that they will be executed for their crimes).
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Thanks for your replies.
Its a tough issue to ponder upon. Regardless of being nuked or not, the Muslim army will have no choice but to at least make life&death attempts at liberating Palestine.
Re: Killing civilians, true say and I agree with you.
What the hardest thing to fathom or imagine, is how will any future Islamic State orienteer itself in the game of nations? Middle East, USA, Capitalism, so many issues to address in the world arena. My understanding is that it will immediately reach out to states like Japan and Brazil (tech expertise and resources trade). Its political manoeuvering will expose Western foreign policy and its true altruism in its actions will reflect a positive attitude, from which difficulty will arise when others want to demonise or attack it.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:02 am
When you talk of “how any future Islamic State will orienteer itself in the game of nations”, I noticed that it didn’t sound anything like the “new Nazi Germany” that many people seem to assume a restored Caliphate would be…
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:21 am
Hi George,
I disagree with you. It is a well-known fact among geopolitical analysts that if all the Arab countries (not even all the Muslim countries) were to reunite, Isreal would not be able to survive as a state. Regardless of its nuclear deterrent, Israel has such a small population (6 million, 20% of which are not Jewish) and almost no natural resources (most importantly water that she imports from Jordan, the Dead Sea can only meet one third of the Israeli demand), she and her citizens will not survive. The Israeli Jews will be forced to leave. Actually, Shimon Peres was asked once by his peers why he was so wary of the Muslims and he replied that the Muslims just before Salaludin were in a far worse situation than they are today. You have to be realistic, you cannot kill 1.4 billion Muslims just with nukes. Wars don`t happen this way. By the way, you should read the Stratfor`s analysis on Isreal, written by George Friedmann (who happens to be himself an AMericam Jew).
November 23rd, 2005 at 12:19 pm
My response to Jacare is this:
North Korea is a total pariah state, hated by the rest of the world. Without US support and short of natural resources, Israel would become a starving wreck of a nation.
North Korea though IS a starving wreck of a nation, but shows no sign of disappearing because no-one is willing to sacrifice Seoul (targeted by North Korea’s artillery) and maybe one or more Japanese cities (targeted by North Korean nuclear missiles), in order to finish it off.
Israel is Islam’s North Korea.
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Your analogy between North Korea and Israel is incorrect. If Israel becomes cut of her resources, the people will not starve, they will just go away (probably by ships). Also, no one wants to remove North Korea from the map, the North Koreans did not steal that piece of land from anyone.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Firstly, I think the NK issue is more complicated. US foreign policy in the region is based on containing China. NK is threat to SK, Taiwan and Japan and thus a threat (though not a major one) to US interests. But the US knows that NK does not have the capacity to directly (as in majorly) threaten its economic and imperial ambitions. As such, the US prefers diplomacy, while NK knowing it can still be player, milks the situation for as much as it can get e.g. the aggressive posturing, bravado etc.
On another blog, you made a comment that an Islamic State should be allowed to form. It would then discredit itself (much like Iran) and serve as an example to Muslims with ‘Khilafah’ type aspirations. If Europe or the US decided this was the best plan of action, I would be overjoyed. Then again, it wasn’t all that long ago when the Muslims were knocking on the gates of Vienna.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Firstly, I think the NK issue is more complicated. US foreign policy in the region is based on containing China. NK is threat to SK, Taiwan and Japan and thus a threat (though not a major one) to US interests.
Ah yes, Korean reunification could indeed open up various cans of worms. China would probably not tolerate US troops in a united Korea, but if the US troops pulled out of Korea, Japan would probably get nervous and want to remilitarize, which would in turn worry both Korea and China.
On another blog, you made a comment that an Islamic State should be allowed to form. It would then discredit itself (much like Iran) and serve as an example to Muslims with ‘Khilafah’ type aspirations.
I vaguely recall making such a comment, but I’ve forgotten which blog it was on. How strong is the anti-IRI opposition in Iran by the way? Is it a mass movement suppressed by force, or simply (as Zadeh Amin, a pro-IRI blogger I only discovered after making said comment, argues) a tiny minority of North Tehran dissidents, blown out of proportion because they can speak English?
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:36 pm
The US is already pushing for Japan to change its constitution to allow for offensive capability. Plus there are the numerous bases popping up in the Philippines. But China is aware of alot of this - the withdrawal of the US from Uzbeckistan was pre-dominantly from Chinese and Russian pressure.
Iran is the one country, where regardless of who says what, it is always to difficult to try to make a thorough analysis of the situation. Whilst Iranians I speak to in the UK, don’t seem to care for anything.
But I have noted that anti-IRI demo’s tend go hand in hand with pro-Isreael demo’s.
November 24th, 2005 at 11:25 am
US troops have been stationned in South Korea for more than 50 years, so there is nothing to indicate that China will not tolerate the presence of US troops in a reunified Korea. There are current discussions in Japan that Japan might acquire nuclear weapons from the US in case a war with China happens. By the way, it is not reliable to know what is the public opinion in Iran by just discussing with Iranian dissidents in the West, a lot of them are pro-monarchy. There is a lot of anger in Iran about the regime but I don`t see any revolution in the short term.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Your analogy between North Korea and Israel is incorrect. If Israel becomes cut of her resources, the people will not starve, they will just go away (probably by ships).
The soft-Zionists would leave - the fanatics would stay. And those fanatics would now control the nukes.
Would the Muslim world be willing to sacrifice over 100 million Muslims (a single H-bomb, targeting the Aswan Dam, could exterminate Egypt) in order to destroy Israel?
Also, no one wants to remove North Korea from the map, the North Koreans did not steal that piece of land from anyone.
No, but I suspect that the South Koreans view North Korea as an illegal entity.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
I’m guessing Jacare hasn’t spotted your comment, so I guess I’ll just have go.
The threat of Mutually Assured Destruction is not just present with the Khilafah and Isreal, but with many different states esp US, Russia & China. Each situation will merit its own approach.
The Khilafah has no need or want for a situation where the land of Isreal is destroyed, just the removal of what is the political entity of Isreal.
The foreign policy of the Khilafah dictates that political and diplomatic measures are first taken, then military action. If Isreal does go for the fanatic approach, then it will only accelerate a full scale invasion. The 67 & 73 wars are interesting examples e.g the collapse of the Bar Lev line.
I’m going to re-read some issues about this, then I could come back with some clearer answers.