When I was at school, there was a group of ostracised kids that no one would dare approach for one reason or another. Let me introduce you to a few..
The Cookie Monster: perpetually hungry boy, round belly, will try to steal your lunch
Big Hannah: big hair which stands on end when vexed. Big set of lungs, even bigger fists (scary, scary girl)
Snotty Samantha: Self explanatory
The Thunderbirds: group of obsessive boys who spend playtime re-inacting episodes…word for word.
Dracula: favourite pastime- punching himself in the mouth until it bleeds then chasing year one girls..seriously disturbed
Skid Kid: had a bout of diarrhoea on the way to school (GRRROOOOOOSSSSS)
I think its fair to say that these girls and boys were best avoided. Although in defence of Skid Kid, I don’t think its possible for the smell of an unfortunate accident to linger for life!
But these examples don’t compare to the real danger that lurked around the happy playground of a small village school. DUN DUN DUN… enter BEN BIFFLE, a.k.a The Wolf Man. He can only be described as an angry boy with a very short temper. He was always armed with stink bombs, a penknife, a lighter and attitude. The minute he said ‘Wha cha lookin at?’ you knew you life was about to flash before your eyes.
One day, I made a Big Mistake. Ben was carrying two trays of PVA glue, pots, spatulas and a bundle of newspapers (a bit stupid I thought) and so the inevitable happened. He dropped the trays and slipped in the glue. He tried to style it out but it didn’t work. And so I made my Mistake. Worse than asking me what I was looking at, he asked what I was laughing at..eek!
I spent the last lesson before the lunch break sweating. When playtime came around, I tried to make myself inconspicuous on the playground which wasn’t easy, being the only one wearing hijab! And so the inevitable happened again - Wolf Man started charging in my direction. Had I not had the reflex action of turning and running in the opposite direction, I might have ended up like Skid Kid :o) I was SO scared!
However, I was fortunate to have an older brother at the same school so that’s who I ran to. He took Wolf Man behind the Old School Building and had ‘words’ with him. And then it was all good again.
Eleven years on and things haven’t changed much. The Big Bad Wolves of the world still exist, the only difference being they’re now in sheep’s clothing. Using the guise of President, Prime Minister, the UN, constitutions, they are able to manipulate and terrorise their victims with deceitful stealth.
Whilst as a child I had my brother to protect me, the situation today is far from ideal. The ummah is missing the greatest shield of all:
The Prophet saw said: “Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves.” (narrated by Muslim on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah)
With the absence of the Khilafah and its imam, lands are stripped of rightful rule, laid bare and raped before the eyes of the world, left with no one to turn to once the damage has been executed. Everyone hears the cries but who is able to wipe the tears? Without a practical system to account the criminals it is not possible to implement change.
The system of Islam is unique in its ability to offer rights to every individual regardless of gender, race or religion. Surely this fact can and must be recognised by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as the true protection of any people comes in the form of the laws of Allah swt, not those of man.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
But in a Westhphalian era, how can it be possible to have such a huge state come about? I mean how would you ensure that all the Muslim states would approve to unify under one state? To a lot of people, this really look unrealistic.
January 22nd, 2006 at 7:36 pm
I think a more fundamental problem is the fact that Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia are Muslim lands geographically separated from the main contiguous block of territory.
Economically this could lead to these lands suffering colonial-type exploitation by the Middle Eastern “core”, much as Bangladesh was exploited pre-1971 by West Pakistan.
Such a state would also be unviable militarily. A state with noncontiguous territories is only viable as a military power if it dominates the oceans. This was doable for the British Empire (whose homeland was an island and thus invulnerable to land invasion), and for the United States (which has a completely friendly northern neighbour and weak southern neighbours), but would be impractical for an Islamic superstate, whose core lands would have long frontiers with potentially hostile nations (European Union, Russia, China, India).
January 23rd, 2006 at 12:12 am
All your doubts can be answered by referring to history where we can see that the Islamic state did exist and dominated the world, even when seafaring technology was introduced. No part of the Islamic state was treated like a colony, not even countries in Africa, which were so well off that there was no one there to give zakat to.
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:31 am
At the time the Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads, the Islamic state was still contiguous (well, except for Al-Andalus, but that doesn’t really count as there was no enemy navy contesting the Straits of Gibraltar at the time).
After the Abbasid putsch, the Islamic world was no longer politically unified, and has never been so since. The Ottomans would later dominate the Middle East, but there were still independent Muslim states (Safavid Iran, Mughal India, sultanates in South East Asia).
January 24th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Unification of lands is born through unity of ideas.
Capitalism as a governing system is failing, something which is recognised even by the people who advocate it, and yet it unifies world rulers. Neighbouring countries are hardly best friends and there is continuous competition between economies (China being the biggest current threat) but they are all unified on the core values, allowing the system to flourish (be it superficially).
The cohesiveness of any society, local or global, is dependent on belief in its doctrine. When this doctrine becomes tainted or distorted, it will inevitably lead to a diminishing understanding, which is ultimately what lead to the fall of the Khilafah.
Although the muslim lands face new geographical technicalities, the original methodology for establishment of a state is still applicable today.
Was political disunity after the Abbasids due to lack of contiguous lands, or a result of the decline in thinking?
Furthermore, Islam does not create boundaries around enemies. As a system, it is salvation for all; the non muslim, the atheist, the capitalist. It has much to offer to all countries with man’s best interests at heart.
Never say never! :o)
January 24th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Be it from Bangladesh to Indonesia, when asked about their identity and destiny, more and more people now say ‘Islam’. For them, the size or continuity of an Islamic state is not an issue - the call growing with such strength, that whether it (whoever runs the state) is prepared or not, an Islamic State will form (InshAllah).
Soveriegn Westphalian states never really passed beyond Europe, whilst Globalization is pushing the international system beyond what the Peace of Westphalia initiated.
Strangely much of mankind’s history has always been defined by Empire states. Our era is not exempt.
January 24th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Capitalism as a governing system is failing, something which is recognised even by the people who advocate it, and yet it unifies world rulers.
I find it very interesting that the people here mostly tend to think in terms of a dichotomy between Islam and capitalism. Pro-capitalist Muslims do exist - for example the Minaret of Freedom Institute - who argue a case for free markets based on Islam and not on western neoliberalism. (Are you saying “Capitalism” when you mean “Neoliberalism” by any chance?)
January 25th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Personally, if I am talking to friends or peers, I rarely start distinguishing the sub-forms of Capitalism. Since in their generality they emanate from the same creed. Much the same way Marxism, Leninism, De Leonism, Hoxhaism, Trotskyism and Stalinism fit under the bracket of Communism. So I guess the author of the post equates Capitalism and Neoliberalism as the same. Neoliberalism is just the sharpest knife out of the same knife block.
I can’t say much for the organisation in question. I’ve been reading their material over the past weeks, but not enough to make a sincere judgment.
If this blog was being written in the era of the Cold War, you would find the contributors making judgements on both Capitalism and Communism. Muslims have always been answering other civilisations; the Greeks and Romans were similarly challenged at their times. The danger being when the focus on why its being done is lost i.e. emergence of the Mu’tazilah.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Neoliberalism is an ideology, capitalism is merely a way of running an economy…
January 25th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
George:
By “ideology” we mean a doctrine about life from which a system emanates. This system should be able to solve problems that we face, be they economic, social or political.
It is true that Capitalism emerged initially as a system of private investment with minimum Government involvement, however, it soon evolved to play a part in all aspects of life.
If we study the current reality of the UK or US we find that the people are generally united on the doctrine of Secularism. Hence, Human Beings are left to organise Society as they please. The System that emanated from this doctrine is often referred to (in a general sense) as Capitalism.
Adam Smith, David Riccardo and even Karl Marx spoke of Capitalism as an ideology in the way that I defined above. Thinkers from the US such as Hayek, Friedman and Ayn Rand have also discussed Capitalism as an ideology even though they differed greatly on other issues.
You can probably list a 100 different types of Capitalism that vary slightly here and there but ,for the sake of simplicity, if they are united on Secularism, the infamous “Freedoms”, the view that society is composed of individuals, and a criteria of benefit and harm, the authors of this blog will call it “Capitalism”.
Babs-M