—-
Ideas before bullets
By Asim Salahuddin

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE01Df02.html

The current crisis of militancy gripping Pakistan is the most serious threat to the integrity of the state since the loss of East Pakistan in the war of 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh.

Pakistan today is surrounded by hostile neighbors, is crippled economically and is slowly being crushed under the weight of world public opinion that it is a terrorist state, which is being generated by its supposed ally America. With Balochistan province already rumbling with a separatist insurgency which has not yet thankfully gained popular traction, the armed conflict which is being fought with Taliban forces in Swat, Buner and Dir is threatening to roll back the writ of the Pakistani state to just the provinces of Sindh and Punjab.

A solution must urgently be found to prevent further bloodshed on both sides of this conflict. The problem, however, requires a detailed analysis and also a solution that provides a lasting fix and not just another short-term truce or treaty that will be broken.

The roots of the current conflict between the Pakistani armed forces and Taliban fighters can be traced to the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. This conflict is a direct spillover from the fighting in Afghanistan against the Americans and a reaction against the support of the Pakistani state for America’s war and its actions of bombing and killing its own Pakistani citizens at America’s behest.

The opponents of the Pakistani armed forces, the Taliban, are not a coherent or unified group. Made up of various factions known collectively as the Taliban you have Central Intelligence Agency Taliban, Afghan Taliban, Russian Taliban, Punjabi Taliban, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Taliban, Tehrek-e-Taliban and others.

These numerous factions have varying agendas, with some being armed resistance to US occupation, some being armed resistance to Pakistani attacks, others still being those who are funded and equipped by foreign intelligence agencies to create unrest and strife in Pakistan.

Varyingly, apart from those foreign-sponsored groups using the following reasons as cover, these groups are demanding an end to the bombing of Pakistani territory by American and Pakistani armed forces and an end of Pakistani support for the American occupation in Afghanistan. Some groups, failing this, want an end to interference from a Pakistani state which has proven itself incapable of looking after both the needs and security of its people.

In origin, the demands of the Taliban do not constitute a military threat to Pakistan. These groups are not foreign invaders seeking to control land or territory as part of some imperial adventure, as America is in the Muslim world. The principle grievances of these groups are political. The challenge to the Pakistani state therefore is from Pakistanis, civilians who have taken up arms against the nature and policies of the state.

This problem is further being driven by America in collusion with the Asif Ali Zardari government of using force to wipe out any resistance to the American occupation of Afghanistan, as it lost the battle for hearts and minds a long time ago.

It is interesting to note that this is actually a complete continuation of the policies of the General Pervez Musharraf era, and that the popular change which people were expecting with the departure of the military dictator nearly two years ago has not materialized.

America and the Zardari government are actually instrumental in creating and perpetuating this crisis in order to turn Pakistani public opinion in favor of America’s imperial campaign in Afghanistan and the wider Muslim world by repackaging this conflict from being America’s war to Pakistan’s war, as the people have rejected the colonial ambitions of the US and its “war on terror”.

This was one of the key sound bites issued by Zardari as he came to power, which was a pledge for Pakistan to adopt America’s “war on terror” as Pakistan’s own war.

The fact is that this is America’s war, not Pakistan’s. Pakistan is being pushed into a conflict with its own people and neighbors. Pakistan is being directed towards civil unrest and ultimately breaking point, and this is in accordance with the American plan for Pakistan.

Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters, in his article “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look” for the US Armed Forces Journal, proposed a new map of the Middle East which showed the breakup of country, with only Sindh and Punjab remaining as Pakistan. It is now well established that both America and Britain are trying to fragment or Balkanize Pakistan for four principle objectives.

This question and similar ones are usually thrown into the political and media circles to re-visit the exhausted subject of integration. Ever since 9/11 and more particularly after 7/7, the debate about being British and its ramifications have started to become more imposing and trying to shape a dominant  public opinion on the matter. However, for the government, there is a risk of  being so stringent with a definition about Britishness. The very fact that these question are being discussed in light of a community who live according to a different value system, they risk alienating them further and reducing the likelihood of ever integrating them successfully into a liberal democratic society.

British or Britishness is an invented political identity, its roots originating from the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when James VI, King of Scots, ascended to the thrown of England, thus uniting Scotland and England under one monarch. Ever since then in British History it has been used to assert an identity on other communities. An example would be in 1607 large tracts of land in Northern Ireland fell to the crown. A new settlement was started, made up of Protestant settlers from Scotland and England. Over the years the settlers, surrounded by the hostile Catholic Irish, gradually cast off their separate English and Scottish roots, becoming British in the process, as a means of emphasising their ‘otherness’ from their Gaelic neighbours.

Many commentators have stated what they feel it means to be  Brtish in Modern Britain. Starting with Scottish Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he has mentioned several measures to promote Britishness, one of them being recapturing the Union Jack from the Far Right. “All the United Kingdom should honour it, not ignore it. We should assert that the Union flag by definition is a flag for tolerance and inclusion.”  A report commisioned by Gordon Brown on British Citizenship suggested that all school leavers should take an oath of allegiance to the Queen in order to develop a “sense of  belonging.”                                                                                                  

 Jeremey Paxman, a well known journalist and authour comments that  “I am more comfortable with my English identity. There are important residual values there, such as respect for the rule of law and for democracy and, I suppose, religious overtones too.”  Sharmi Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty feels it’s about underlying values that are capable of embracing not just British people but the best aspirations of democrats around the world. Another audacious view is from Michael Boyd, Artistic Director of the RSC, “The thing I like most about Britishness is its messiness and incompleteness. I am a good example of it myself: I was born in Belfast, brought up in London and educated in Edinburgh. I like the unfinishedness of the idea of Britishness and I think that’s what is shaping about it. It is part of our problem, but it is also defining.”

Having briefly highlighted the current context of discussion and its historical roots, is it a commendable way to engage with the Muslim Community in discussing or imposing such a controversial term? People who go on and on about it are usually the people trying to force the Muslim Community to behave a certain way based on their perception of best values for humanity. The government, ministers and certain think tanks that provide fodder to government legislation are usually the source  to stoke up what intended to be a harmless issue of having a cohesive society to a divisive topic where the people of influence try to impose their agenda on the Muslim Community in Britain.  

I think the first step in any conflict resolution is to talk to one another. It is given the problem today is that the British Society is unable to be fully inclusive of all the migrant or indeed some indigenous people. The majority being those who share a faith in Islam. So, ultimately to become fully inclusive what does the British Society need or to be brazen, deficient in, in order to resolve some of the problems faced in society? Quoting a 14yrs old boy at high school in response to school leavers taking an oath to the queen, ” It’s kind of dumb. Most people have proper faith in their own country, trying to get them to have allegiance to this one gets in the way. It’s more important to create better housing for people with youngsters. Getting rid of tower blocks would stop things like gang culture.” 

A recurrent theme in this subject is the issue of values. The notion of shared values is one of the conerstones of being British. I think there lies the answers to the questions asked earlier. A proper debate should ensue on what exactly are British Values and its validity. Starting from here will allow a level playing field where people on opposing sides will be able to air their views without being labelled as extremists or Anti – British.

 Right, enough on advertising Britishness, as Boris Johnson says “it’s quite unBritish to keep bashing on about Britishness.”

Last week BBC Panorama aired a documentary made by Richard Watson, the BBC appointed expert on terrorism and extremist groups. It was the prelude to what is to come in the strategy of dealing with difficult Muslims that are obstinate in not fully integrating with British Values. What was the stimulus for such a program? The recent sentencing of  a man with Asperger’s Syndrome, 22 yrs old, Nicky Reilly and the recent demonstrations against the Israeli action against Gaza.

The government, coinciding with the program, leaked draft policies of how a new direction is going to be initiated, the next stage in suppressing Islamic values code name CONTEST 2. Already at its disposal, it has a multi-prong attack . Funding projects in the local Muslim communities via the councils in holding projects for Muslim Youth, the PVE program and funding those so called Islamic organisations that either call overtly or covertly for liberal, secular values. It appears they have realized that dealing with stopping terrorist attack is not enough but get to the root of the problem, namely, Islamic values.  Now, they defend their stance with the word Islamist values, but we are not so gullible to fall for such a pathetic attempt of dividing the followers of the religion of Islam.

Since this project will be targeting “extremists” with “hate-filled ideologies,” I guess it will be useful to know who will now be included in it. Following are some of the concepts that are being targeted:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against  Israel 

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So this is the new XXL size net to trap or pressurise Muslims who hold these views.  I wouldn’t be surprised in the future when CONTEST 3 or 4 comes out they will include those Muslims who are under 25yrs still being virgin, or have not have an STD screening at their local health centre, not registered with the local Pub and lastly not being able to present a white, British man as one of your best friends! (Time to update you facebook friends list) Its absolutely ridiculous! You can see step by step, glorification of terrorism laws were implemented to shut the critics of the War against Terrorism, then came Preventing violent extremism program rolled out in schools and now CONTEST 2 to marginalise those that hold “extremist” views, try hazarding a guess whats going to be next?

This resembles how the British forcefully assimilated the Aborigines in newly colonised Australia in the 19th Century. Sold as being “for their own good”, policies to assimilate Aborigines into British culture went to the extent of  defining how the natives brought up their children which included forceful separation of  Aboriginal children from their parents. These children became known as ‘the stolen generations’ and are still searching for their families. This British policy is now widely acknowledged as having largely contributed to the destruction of Aboriginal families and society, on 13 August, 1997 a Statement of Apology was issued to the Aborigine people.

In Islamic tradition there is to be no compulsion in deen – i.e. no one is compelled to believe in Islam’s views – whether political, social or spiritual. In an Islamic state, non Muslims would be like any other citizen insofar as they have to obey the law of the land – which is based on Islam. Muslims in Britain are going to be MUSLIMS living in Britain, being pressurised into a political compartment or position is not and will not compel Muslims to relinquish their values or views.

Finally, a quote from Baroness Cox (who chaired the parliamentary screening of Geert Wilders’ film 2 weeks ago), said:“it is not enough for the vast majority of decent, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims to renounce terror in principle: they also need to renounce the view-frequently expressed by Islamists-of an inevitable war between Islam and the rest of the world. If they choose to live in Western liberal democratic societies, they must accept the values of liberal democracy-as Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and others have done for many years.”

Of course, I’m not referring to Pakistan. I’m describing America.

In Texas and 36 other American States, there are laws in place that can – and do – lead to state-sanctioned killing. In Texas alone there have been over 400 people put to death. If you commit a crime in New Jersey, the worst case scenario is that you end up in prison. However, if you cross an imperceptible line into Pennsylvania… too bad. The local wali (Governor) of the state wants to cook you in an electric chair.

The same legal system also allows states to decide who can go to school and what is studied, how much money the government will take in taxes (in Washington, for example, there is no income tax), what the speed limit is, whether prostitution is legal or not, set the age of consent for sex (anywhere from 14 to 18 years), and whether gay marriage is recognized. In fact, when it comes to prostitution, there are multiple laws within the same state, varying from county to county.

You would be forgiven for thinking that this might lead to a measured response to the events in Pakistan, but no. Instead we read headlines like “Sharia to be law 80km from Islamabad“.

A region of Pakistan known as Swat Valley has been allowed to establish what is being described as “sharia”.  Instead, this punitive system is anything but sharia.  It is a means for punishing people for their actions.  Without the correct education and social system in place, this can only be described as oppression.  So, in a nutshell, the Pakistani government has gone from oppressing its people, to… harshly oppressing its people.

To further prove that it isn’t the true Islamic legal system – a system in which the commandments of Allah are paramount – the so-called sharia can be overridden by the people of the national government.  That’s not Islam, that’s just secularism!

Take a guess what the American government thinks about this, the same people that have been dropping bombs on Pakistan.  Surely they would hate the “Islamization” of a country bordering Afghanistan, China, India, and Iran?  Nope.  As reported by the Telegraph:

On Tuesday night however, US officials in Islamabad privately backed the deal as an attempt to drive a wedge between Swat’s Taliban, which is focused on its demand for Sharia law, and the al-Qaeda-linked Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud.

So-called “sharia” is being used to divide Muslims.  The Swat Valley isn’t even going to be allowed a military, so at any time they can be removed at the behest of the American government.  In fact this is part of the plan since the establishment of “sharia” is only in exchange for a ceasefire with the Pakistani Army.  Notably, this is in same region (the “NWFP”) that the Americans are bombing, most recently killing at least 26 people on Saturday.

What have the people of the Swat Valley achieved? No sharia, no military, overruled at any time by a kufr legal system, and the two groups of people who were on the brink of unity are instead being divided. The Pakistani government is just allowing its enemies to chop each others hands off.

“Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.” [Surat al-Baqara, verse 85]

The only upside of this debacle is that it is a sign that the people of Pakistan do want to be ruled by Islam, even if they aren’t getting it just yet.

These rumblings have increasingly been reported in the media in the last decade as the call for a Green Environment gathers pace. Industries and Governments around the world have discovered a new venture of finding out the “Global Carbon Footprint,” and as a result a new industry in itself has emerged. I am not against saving the planet and the notion that there needs to be more consideration taken now, more than ever, for the environment, but measures such as birth control compels me to highlight the tacit mistakes that are being committed which if transformed to law, would be a disaster.

Without delving into the pros and cons of uncontrolled population growth, I would like to step back and look at the factors that have bought us into these trepid circumstances in the first place!

Ever since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the world has never seen in its history the astounding utilisation of natural resources, expansion of populations, destruction of natural habitats and species and lastly the new phenomenon of consumerism especially in the 21st Century. The Industrial Revolution created an unusual situation: for the first time in history products were available in outstanding quantities, at outstandingly low prices, being thus available to virtually everyone. The newly emergent middle class arising at the turn of the twentieth century continued to grow and feed the consumerism drive which has played its part in Globalisation.

Consumerism is an equation of personal happiness combined with the consumption and purchase of material possessions. Allow me to elaborate. A couple of decades ago once you had bought a car (let’s say a Nissan Cherry) the next time you buy a car would probably be after another decade. Nowadays people are exchanging their cars every three years (if not sooner)! Laptops are upgraded every two years and mobile phone promotions are held annually. The sheer desire to acquire a new product constantly either for luxury or status is the main culprit for the pervasive environmental degradation we see today.

What I have just described is exactly what has been happening in America and Europe for decades. But since China and India have emerged as the new Kids on the Block in the Economy world, does it now transpire for the Western Thinkers to start questioning about the environmental impact these populations will cause for adopting the consumerist life! Emulation is also a core component of 21st century consumerism. As a general trend, regular consumers seek to emulate those who are above them on the social hierarchy. The poor strive to imitate the rich and the rich imitate celebrities and other icons. One needs to look no further than the celebrity endorsement of products to realise that the American or British population rarely make their own lifestyle decisions.

It is the validity of personal happiness linked with purchasing and possessing materials as the ultimate objective of life that I question and believe to be just another example of the many rotten fruits of capitalism. I’m not advocating that everybody should live in a block of flats and drive Skodas. Nor am I advocating that we should live grey, mundane lives in a cave with no source of entertainment.

I am simply pointing out the obvious; if every individual is pushed in society to have a car, mobile phone, plasma TV, wireless Internet, iPod, large houses, buying expensive gifts for your girl friend on Valentines Day etc. you will naturally come to a point where no resources will be available to feed this addiction. An addiction created by the western world and its colonialist past.

Opponents of the anti-consumerist movement, namely, libertarians believe that no person should have the right to decide for others what goods are necessary for living and which aren’t, or that luxuries are necessarily wasteful, and thus argue that anti-consumerism is a precursor a totalitarian society. Twitchell, in his book Living It Up, sarcastically remarked that the logical outcome of the anti-consumerism movement would be a return to the sumptuary laws that existed in ancient Rome and during the Middle Ages, historical periods prior to the era of Karl Marx in the 19th century.

Ironically, Jonathan Porritt could now be labelled as one that calls for sumptuary laws!

In Islam it clearly delineates what is a necessity for living and what is a luxury. Obtaining luxurious items or earning tremendous amount of wealth is neither forbidden nor discouraged. However, based on the revelation from the Creator, it instructs how a society should function, where the real pursuit of happiness remains, what is the position of material wealth in the Islamic faith and more importantly how the environment should be treated. There is no draconian or appalling idea of population control which quite frankly would not correct the environmental problem the west or in fact the world faces today.

What is required is a fundamental change in living habits which can only happen when there is a change of fundamental ideas about life. I can see this can be a bit difficult for some people right now as they are probably too busy pondering about the Brit Awards right after they have watched the Baftas!

Erdogan has also made some fiery statements regarding Gaza and is slowly being viewed as one of the harshest opponents of Israels’ aggression. Erdogan, speaking at a municipal election campaign rally in Anatolia, said Israel was

“perpetrating inhuman actions which would bring it to self-destruction. Allah will sooner or later punish those who transgress the rights of innocents.”

If you look past these statements and his “walkout” at the summit, it’s very clear that Turkey is Israel’s greatest ally in the region.

• Turkey has a long history of close ties with Israel. It was the first Muslim country to recognize it in 1949.
• In 2006 the Israeli foreign ministry characterised its relationship with Turkey as “perfect”.
• Turkey is Israel’s 8th largest trading partner and their annual trade is worth around 4 billion dollars.
• Turkey and Israel have a military alliance. Their militaries have conducted joint exercises particularly their navies. Israeli pilots even trained in Turkish air space, flying training sorties from a Turkish base near Ankara. Israel has supplied unmanned air vehicles to monitor Kurdish rebel activities in Turkey’s southeast.
• The Erdogan government appointed General Buyukanit’s as Chief of Staff of the armed forces, he is known to be pro-Israeli and one of his jobs has been to weed out anti-Israeli sentiment among Turkey’s senior military brass.
• In 2006 the Jerusalem Post reported that Israel and Turkey were negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel.

So we shouldn’t be duped by these empty symbolic acts, Turkey and Israel might be having a lovers tiff, but that’s all it is.

One last point to mention is that if the Turkish people can give Erdogan a hero’s welcome for walking out in protest, imagine the welcome he’d get if he used his resources as a deterrent to end the conflict once and for all. It just takes one brave man and the whole Ummah will be behind him, inshAllah.

We have to remember that it was Britain that helped to create Israel in the first place and has been supporting it and helping to arm it for the last 60 years.

In 2007 when David Cameron was discussing the proposed British boycott of Israeli academic institutions he went as far as saying that he believed there was something “in the DNA” of Conservatives that was “profoundly impressed” by what Israel has achieved, and he also declared himself a Zionist.

What sort of record does Britain have in “resolving” crises in the Muslim world? Iraq and Afghanistan are just two examples. Over a million people dead and millions displaced. Surely it would be better for us to lobby our MP’s NOT to get involved and to leave us to sort out our own affairs?

As far as the UN is concerned, a resolution that disadvantages Israel would likely not be passed as the USA would veto it. The UN has been turned into the mouth piece of the Security Council and nothing will be passed that counters their interests. To add insult to injury Israel has already bombed UN buildings in Gaza. Even if a resolution was passed would it make any difference? Israel has broken 66 UN resolutions in its history – more than Iran and North Korea combined – and has also regularly flouted international law.

Israel doesn’t even follow its own laws issued by its own courts. Regarding the building of settlements on Palestinian land, Peace Now said “[The data] indicates the direct violation of Israeli law carried out by the State itself, driven by the architects and leaders of the settlement movement.”

Even if we were to receive verbal condemnation by the British government and by the UN this is simply not enough. This is a time that requires immediate defense of the Palestinians and this can only be done by the Arab armies. So instead of utilising all our energy in lobbying our MP’s, let’s try to ratchet up enough pressure on our rulers to send the armies, and if the rulers are not willing then they should step aside and let someone else lead us instead. Hamdulillah we have already seen the fruits of this work, as high ranking Egyptian army officers have been arrested because of their despair at Mubareks reluctance to defend the Palestinians.

The Prophet (saw) said

“The master of martyrs is Hamza and the one who accounts the tyrant ruler and is killed doing so”

May Allah give our brothers the victory in defending their land and move the Arab armies to help them. Ameen.

Objectively, there will be a change in the future tenants of the White House. However, in terms of what Senator Obama will have to offer the world and specifically the Muslims, statements made by the Illinois Senator certainly leave room to be skeptical. When in conversation with Muslims about their opinion of Obama, they generally feel that no one could be worse than Bush, thus by default, Obama will be better. This, coupled with the fact that he has a Muslim middle name, people assume that he must have some partiality towards Muslims and dealing with Muslim countries.

Muslim thinkers and leaders in the West have spoken, written, blogged and supported at great lengths Obama’s run for Presidency. What drives this motivation and panglossian sentiments for Obama is perplexing despite explicit statements about his aggressive views on Iran, his zeal to continue bombing Pakistan and his unstinting support for Israel’s continuing brutality against the Palestinians. No real hope there, I suppose. As a matter of fact no real change from Bush’s foreign policy. What is more ironic is that President Bush had actually visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. just after 9/11, whereas Mr. Obama refused to visit one single mosque in his campaign. Surely this must be noted as a deficiency in character for turning his back on Muslim-American voters.

Looking at it from a domestic perspective, unprecedented contributions were handed out from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from his unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? He constantly mentions helping the “middle class” but only time will tell as to whose interests he surely fulfills.

Adrian Lester said, “Rosa Parks sat, so that Martin Luther King could walk, Martin walked so that Obama could run, Obama ran so that our children could fly…” Each individual mentioned here tells a story of the struggle and sacrifice black individuals made to remove the concept of White supremacy and arrogance, thus the black populace being overjoyed and proud. What is not taken into account is why such situations existed in America in the first place and still do despite Obama being elected.

America can never be changed by one man. Not its colonialist foreign policy, its capitalist ideology and values nor its unshakable institutions. Its historic relationship with Israel, its overbearing interference in the Muslim world and unquenchable thirst for natural gas and oil and maintaining itself as the top superpower of the World. The American Administration, no matter who is in it, will always safeguard and maintain the above status quo.

In the words of President-Elect Barack Obama in his victory speech, “At this defining moment…” Muslims around the world including in America need to ask themselves if they genuinely seek change in the dire situation of the Ummah, is the President of the United States of America the man to bring hope to the region?

Beginnings of a new cold war? How about talk of a World War III? Most people I’ve talked to about the current conflict in the Caucasus seem nonplussed about it all, vainly hoping that the dust has settled on the matter, thus allowing them to leave their brains at home, maybe in a jar….resting beside their body on a comfy sofa, watching in an amused stupor the end festivities of the Olympics.

Shame really. Though politics can be complex, and political thinking itself is highly demanding, it should be the hallmark of an elevated Ummah. And I mean Ummah here, not just individuals. Special individuals will always exist in the Ummah. But the realm of political thinking should be shared not just by individuals, but also by groups, and indeed the state itself.

Remember that the Ottoman Caliphate was not destroyed by military actions, but primarily though political means. The Europeans did not fire a single shot, before they had already fractured the political sanctity of the state via the establishment of the Young Turks and various other entities built on dividing the state along nationalistic lines. The political naivety of the Ottomans also lead them to supporting the Germans in WWI, which ended in disaster for the Muslims. How else would the French General Henri Gouroud even have the gall to kick the great Salahuddin Ayubi’s grave and leave us with this acrimonious statement “The Crusades have ended now! Awake Saladin, we have returned! My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent.”?

Where politics is the looking after the affairs of the people, and political thinking is the adjudication of events that affects the affairs of the people, then in my personal view, we should be seriously bothered about the events in the Caucasus. In the context of the Muslim Ummah, let me try to elaborate with some simple viewpoints.

Gaining the Political High Ground

Public opinion isn’t a done deal. Governments and media are constantly assuaging the masses with a constant concoction of lies and weak facts. Pax Americana has been playing the world like a giant monopoly board, but then along came the Russians, who like to play the game of chess. In return, the US have lost out on the political high ground.

Constant talk by US and European politicians of protecting ‘Georgia’s territorial integrety’ and Russia acting like its in the 19th century have rung hollow with the Russians. The Russians have succeeded because the West built the political basis for invading other nations. It tooks years of engendering an international opinion that ‘pre-emptive strikes’ and the ‘war on terror’ are needed. The West then set the stage with the disentegration of the Balkans, and the outright destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians have handily now decided to follow the same script.

I’m not saying that the Russians have done a total coup de grâce on the West. Astute observers would recognise that the independence given to Abkhazia and South Ossetia hasn’t been afforded to Chechnya or Dagastan. In fact Europe, the US and Russia are no better than each other. However, in the least, recent events illustrate that it is easy to break the political dominance of one set of ideas over the other. In saying this, I would hope that alarm bells would be ringing the minds of the Muslim masses, that its time for them to start shaping the politics of the world. Political thinking about this crisis would go along way in healing the political sclerosis that has set in with the Ummah.

Ceasing to be Minor States

Implicit in the news that we have been hearing is that this isn’t a conflict between Russia and the Georgians, but between Russia and the US. Commentators are all the rage about the new Russia: flush with petro-roubles and vexed about NATO encirclement. Nor is there any shortage of play with the words ‘Russian bear’. Some commentators are even excitedly discussing a new Monroe Doctrine for the US, like it wasn’t obvious that the US now views the whole world as its ‘sphere of influence’.

Isn’t it sad though to note what the Georgians are feeling like right now? That their country is just a big target board for Russian and NATO artillery. That the West only really loves them because of the nice oil and gas pipelines that travel through their idyllic hinterland. That they have a ruler who is admired by the US for clearly being its stooge.

If you feel sad for the Georgians, then you recognise the definition of being a minor state. Minor because you can only hold a semblance of sovereignty before a major state trumps its sovereignty over you. Hold your thoughts now, and start drawing parallels with the 50+ Muslims states that litter the global map. Is is it hard not to be cognizant of the similarities in our own minor states?

A single ruler that is unifying his lands once more, reinvigorating religion, battling corruption, using the vast resources at his disposal to the benefit of his people, strengthening his armies and making clear that his nation will not tolerate any bullying. Ahh, so you thought I was talking about a Khaleefah. No, thats just Putin. I have no love for Putin, and he is no example for us, may Allah azza wa jal curse him. But surely there is a lesson in it for us?

Allah knows best.