KMAG APR 2010 ver02:Kmag template201x269 · report, makes 36 recommendations amongst these are to...

US/ISRAEL/UK THE MODERN DAY OUTLAWS - ISLAM, POLITICS ANDELECTIONS - THE CONVICTION OF DR. AAFIA SIDDIQUI: DEMOCRACY ONTRIAL - TO TORTURE OR NOT TO TORTURE? A QUESTION THAT TROUBLESTHE WEST - EU DEBT CRISIS – THE LATEST CHAPTER IN THE GLOBALECONOMIC CRISIS - INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY: CELEBRATION ORCOMMISERATION

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-THANI - JUMADA AL-AWWAL 1431 ··· APRIL 2010 ··· ISSUE: 11

ROGUE STATES

NEWSBITES

2 :: Khilafah Magazine :: April 2010 www.khilafah.eu

THE POLITICS OF GREEDOn the eve of UK elections Britishpoliticians have been embarrassed by asting campaign that has highlighted theclose relationship between politicallobbyists and former high ranking cabinetministers. Labour and Conservativepoliticians were recorded literally fallingover themselves to offer their services tocompanies for gaining access to thecorridors of power.

Former Defence Minister Geoff Hoon wasegregious in offering himself tocompanies seeking to conclude lucrativedefence contracts through his insideknowledge of the upcoming defencereview. Former transport secretaryStephen Byers boasted of how he hadsaved a national rail carrier millionsthrough an elaborate scheme involvingexisting Labour ministers. Of course allinvolved denied the scheme outright thenext day, but one wonders when the factsagreed to the strategy he’d described.

Lobbying in Washington is a hugebusiness which has been tainted by fraudand scandal. The UK seems to befollowing suit with the legislators only tookeen to enable “themselves” to take uplucrative “consulting” work when out ofoffice.

It is amazing that what would beconsidered “corruption” in the eyes ofmost Muslims is considered “lobbying”and “consulting” by the system in thewest.

US DOUBLE STANDARDS EXPOSED BY12TH GRADERAmerica’s double standards were onceagain exposed in February when USSecretary of State Hillary Clinton wasasked a simple question, by a student,regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons duringa meeting in a Saudi college. MariyamAlavi, a 12th grader in Jeddah askedClinton: if the Americans “so vehemently

oppose Iran's nuclear program, then whyisn't the US asking Israel to give up theirnuclear weapons?”

It was a straight forward question,perhaps on the minds of millions ofpeople around the world. However, duringher three day trip to Qatar and SaudiArabia, Hillary Clinton was not able toprovide “a straight answer”.

The US and Western powers accuse Iranof pursuing a military nuclear program,whilst keeping silent about Israel’snuclear arsenal, which reportedly hasabout 200 nuclear war heads. Iran, as asignatory to the Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty, maintains that its nuclear programis peaceful and for energy relatedapplications only.

However, with blatant hypocrisy beingshown from a world power such as theUS, with a history of invading Muslimcountries such as Iraq, Afghanistan andnow Pakistan, and with a hostile nuclearally Israel, it could easily be argued thatIran must have nuclear weapons as anecessary deterrent against foreignaggression and invasion.

CHILDREN 'OVER-EXPOSED TO SEXUALIMAGERY'A recent UK Home Office report warnsthat children are being ‘over-exposed tosexual imagery’. It highlights a change inperception in young people ofthemselves, with boys becoming moremacho and girls presenting themselves aspermissive and sexually available. Thereport, makes 36 recommendationsamongst these are to implement parentalcontrols on mobile phones, video gamesand a ban on ‘sexualised’ music videosbefore the TV watershed. The author ofthe report, Dr Linda Papadopoulos, saidthat “Both the images we consume andthe way we consume them are lendingcredence to the idea that women arethere to be used and that men are thereto use them”.

Whilst the report should be commendedin recognising the problem, it misses thefundamental point as to why it ishappening and hence presents ineffectivesolutions. The over-sexualisation of societyas a whole, not just children, is occurringbecause people believe in personalfreedom and view the attainment of

sensual gratification as paramount.Attempting to curb physical access bycontrolling the various tools whichtechnology presents without dealing withthe fundamental concepts that drivepeople to act the way they do is futile.Unless society is cultured with a set ofvalues that establish the role of womanthat is entrenched in respect, honour anddignity, then any ban on accessingsexualised content shall result in similarattempts such as the US in the early 20thCentury to ban the consumption ofalcohol.

IRAN AND SYRIA ALLIANCEOn 25th February, Ahmadinejad theIranian President flew to Damascus fortalks with Bashar al-Assad days after theUS appointed an ambassador to Syria aftera five-year gap – a move seen by some asthe start of a diplomatic thaw. During thetalks they renewed their alliance witheach other by introducing a reciprocal“No Visa policy” for their citizens. Theyrepeated their opposition to Israelihostility and US interference in theregion.

Some may argue this is a gesture towardsunity amongst Islamic countries or evendare one say it, a sign of defiance againstUS wishes as stated by Hilary Clinton, theUS wanted Syria “generally to begin tomove away from the relationship withIran, which is so deeply troubling to theregion as well as to the United States.”

Let’s not be hoodwinked into thinkingthat actions such as these initiated byMuslim rulers in anyway defy US policy orallows their position to be tenablebecause of their mute response to Israeliatrocities as well as their brutaloppression of those that speak againstthem. Obviously this Alliance is of nobenefit for the Ummah.

Asalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi waBarakatahu

If this edition of Khilafah magazine hasa theme, it is that the articles highlightthe bankruptcy of the Western ideology.It is a way of life that has spent decadesasserting its moral superiority on themyth that it believes in human rights,the free market, the rule of law, rightsfor women, democracy andinternational law. Yet, events show evermore clearly that Capitalism does notbelieve in these things in the way itclaims. Rather, it views these matters as‘fair-weather friends’; exploiting themfor their own interests andchampioning them when it suits them.

If ever proof were needed that the Westignores international law and the ruleof law, it is its appeasement of Israel’sexecution without trial of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai; and the exposure ofBritish and America complicity intorture. If ever proof were needed that the Westdoes not care for human rights orwomen’s rights – it is the case of DrAafia Siddiqui – kidnapped, incarceratedand convicted in a sham trial in theUnited States.

If ever proof were needed that the freemarket has failed – it is the EU Debtcrisis – explored in one of our pieces. Similarly, our critique of InternationalWomen’s Day and the sham of Iraqi self-governance amply illustrate the rhetoricon rights and democracy thatconsistently fails to match the reality of

the fruit born of the tree of Capitalism.

But one forthcoming event, not in theMuslim world but in the heart of theWestern world, will perhaps betterillustrate the dilemma the West faces:that is the general elections in Britain,expected in May 2010. In Britain, thereis a palpable lack of confidence in thepolitical system. The two main partiesare seen as having very similar policies– only with differing styles ofmanagement. Politicians are seen ascorrupt, having been exposed asfraudulently claiming expenses. Fewpeople see the problems of a society indecay being solved by the system. Thepeople of Britain are learning the harshtruth: that whoever wins, it will bemore of the same failed secular,capitalist system.

Yet, despite the obvious failings of thesystem some insist on calling Muslimsto vote in Britain’s parliamentaryelections. This is despite the fact that allthe parties have policies that endorsethe bloodshed and occupation inMuslim lands, oppressive anti-terrorlaws that selectively harm Muslims,support for Israel and policies thatwould rob the poor to support wealthybankers. This is despite, as is explainedin a detailed article addressing theIslamic rulings on elections in thisedition, that the system is built on thesovereignty of man and not thesovereignty of Allah.

Elections in the West are no longer seenas a positive advert for democracy. The

hype that surrounded Obama’s electionone year ago has been replaced by aharsh reality of a failing economy andfailed wars. The result in Britain willsimilarly produce no change, which istragic for Muslims and non-Muslimsalike - suffering from life under globalCapitalism.

Our message to Muslims around theworld is to learn the lessons from this.The infatuation with the West is over.Now is the time to look at the Islamicpolitical system left behind by theMessenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihiwasallam) – the Khilafah as analternative to the failed politics in theMuslim world. That is the only hope forus, and indeed the rest of humanity.Anything else will only persist inbringing humiliation and misery.

He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says: "Anddo not incline to those who do wrong,or the Fire will seize you; and youhave no protectors other than Allah,nor shall you be helped.” [TranslatedMeaning Quran Surah Hud 11:113]�

Khilafah Magazine :: April 2010 :: 3www.khilafah.eu

Dr Abdul Wahid

Editorial

The recent political assassination ofMahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai hasraised the issue of state terrorism –Governments using cold-bloodedmurder to eliminate politicalopponents. The specter of statesponsored killings harks back to an ageof lawlessness where the law of thejungle reigns supreme. Intelligenceagencies, spy drones, car bombs are justsome of the means states have used tokill political adversaries and with themfamily members, wives and children aswell as bystanders. Such assassinationsavoid due process and the rule of law:holding trials, calling witnesses andgathering evidence. In effect the ones

ordering the killing acts as judge, juryand executioner.

Israel, the US and Britain portray animage of law abiding states firmlycommitted to international law anddiplomacy to achieve political ends. TheUSA and Britain are two of the fivepermanent members of the UN SecurityCouncil holding crucial UN vetopowers. All three are signatories ofnumerous international human rightstreaties as well as the GenevaConvention.

In reality what these states actually doresemble is the law of the jungle. Israel

has a notorious history with scores ofpolitical assassinations and attemptedkillings. US spy drones have recentlybeen active ‘taking out’ alleged Al-Qaedaleaders in Afghanistan and Pakistanwhile the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) has an infamous history forsponsoring terrorist groups to rivalcommunist and socialist governments incentral and south America. America andBritain have been partners in crimelifting and kidnapping alleged suspectsand depositing them in secret prisonsin eastern Europe well hidden from thescrutiny of the international humanrights agencies. Winston Churchillsanctioned the assassination by its


US/Israel/UKthe modern dayoutlaws

Arif Samad

Special Operations Executive of the SSGeneral Reinhard Heydrich, amongothers, in World War II, and Britain’ssecret services’ ‘license to kill’reputation, though trivialised in movies,has very real murderous results.

Israel – the rogue state

In an audacious operation, using avariety of international passports overtwo dozen Israeli operatives allegedlyassassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, aHamas political opponent, in Dubai.Among most commentators there’s verylittle doubt that Israel’s Mossad wasbehind the murder of Mr al-Mabhouh.This is because Israel’s secret service,Mossad, has form in this type ofterrorist diplomacy. As on previoussimilar occasions Israel has neitherconfirmed nor denied the killing.

This is one of many examples of Israel’smilitarist diplomacy as recentlyhighlighted in a Financial Times article,Israel’s perceived lawlessness hurts itscause, 26 February 2010.

• Ali Hassan Salameh, a top aid toYassir Arafat, was killed by a car bombin Beirut, 1979

• Khalil al Wazir (Abu Jihad), PLOleader, assassinated in Tunis in 1988.

• Abbas Musawi, Hizbollah cleric,was attacked by Israeli gunships insouthern Lebanon with his wife, son,and four others.

• Attempted murder of KhaledMeshal of Hamas in Amman withMossad agents, using Canadianpassports, being captured in 1997

• After earlier failed attempts, SheikhAhmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, founder ofHamas and a quadriplegic, was gunneddown in Gaza after Fajr prayer by Israelihelicopter gunships in 2004.

In 2006 Israel invaded and decimatedneighbouring Lebanon, and not for thefirst time. In 2009 Israel bombardedGaza day and night for threecontinuous weeks murdering about 60

people daily including many womenand children.

In spite of being frequently hailed asthe only democracy in the Middle East,Israel does not adopt trials, judgementsand convictions in such situations orbelieves that such legal processes donot apply to it. Its roguish behaviour isastonishing, yet it walks theinternational stage portraying itself avictim being vulnerable to so calledhostile Arab states.

US – the unilateralist

The US lawless charge sheet is evenlonger then Israel’s. In January 2010 the US were reportingthat their CIA drones had killedPakistan’s Taliban leader HakimullahMehsud in Pakistan. The drone attackclearly targeted the alleged suspectkilling an additional 12 people in the

attack. In 2009 the then Taliban leaderBaithullah Mehsud was killed in anAmerican drone strike on his house inSouth Waziristan.

Indeed, since the US’s undeclared waron Pakistan, CIA unmanned dronesflying thousands of feet in the sky havekilled scores of alleged militants as wellas hundreds of civilians. These arepreemptive strikes eliminating suspects– not tried or convicted of an offence.

In Iraq, Blackwater a private securityagency, with close links to the USgovernment and military has beenentangled in controversy following theUS’s invasion and occupation in 2003.In February 2010, the US sponsoredIraqi government ordered Blackwaterstaff to leave the country after a dozenpeople were killed by Blackwaterguards in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.


The numerous CIA attempts toassassinate Fidel Castro, the communistleader of Cuba, date back to the 1960s.In the mid 1980s Lieutenant ColonelOliver North pleading America’s fifthamendment - declined to answerquestions based on his constitutionalrights – about the Iran-Contra scandal.Later declassified reports showed theCIA used money from arms shipmentsto Iran and drug sales to fund the rebelContras in an attempt overthrowNigaragua's socialist government.

More recently, the CIA have beeninvolved in extraordinary renditions –kidnapping suspects and shipping themto secret prisons for interrogation inother countries, where they have nolegal protection or rights. A 2007Council of Europe report accused 14European governments of permittingthe CIA to run detention centers orcarry out secret flights between 2002and 2005.

Britain – the supremacist

Britain, a pivotal member of the lawlesstriangle, has been collaborating withthe US on rendition flights. Between2005-2007 Tony Blair and Jack Strawconstantly denied Britain’s involvement

in rendition flights. In February 2008,David Miliband admitted to parliamentthat two US "extraordinary rendition"flights landed on UK territory in 2002. There have been numerous newsreports of countless other renditionflights to have used British airports,namely Prestwick in Scotland.

Northern Ireland exposed the depths ofBritain’s lawlessness. Loyalist deathsquads in Northern Island, withdocumented links to Britain’s securityforces, targeted suspected Republicansfor assassination in the 1970s and 1980swhile the SAS killed three unarmedIrish Republican Army (IRA) membersin Gibraltar in 1988.

There have been reports of BritishSpecial Forces clandestine operations inIraq following the US’s invasion in 2003.British agents have been caughtwearing Arab dress and some withweapons, when Iraq was destabilised bya spate of bombings in market squaresand religious sites.

Recent reports from documents in theNational Archives at Kew disclose thatAnthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, inJuly 1943 approved a plan to assassinateMussolini at his headquarters in Rome.

Winston Churchill sanctioned theassassination by its Special OperationsExecutive of the SS General ReinhardHeydrich, among others.

Conclusion

Despite cover ups, official secrets acts,and non-disclosure practices there arenumerous accounts, reports andevidence of the lawlessness of Britain,the US and Israel that has been broughtto light by the recent assassination ofMahmoud al-Mabhouh of Hamas, Israel’spolitical opponent, in Dubai.

This contrasts with the internationalstanding of the three outlaws and theirpublic pronouncements proclaiminghuman rights. The three justify theirlawlessness by claiming to be at warwith their adversaries. However, it isludicrous to claim that theseindividuals, who remain suspects untilbrought before a court of law, posed anexistential threat to the existence ofBritain, the US or Israel. If it’s justifiableon the basis of war then why go tosuch great lengths to cover up theassassinations and attempted killings? Ifthese three are so sure that they are onthe right side of justice and thesuspects are the criminals why notbring them to a court of law – what arethey afraid of, what are they trying tohide. Indeed, these three lawlessoutlaws (like a brutal gang) cover foreach other’s crimes. The US has used itsveto in the UN Security Council dozensof times to protect Israel.

When the lawless dominate, as we seetoday, injustice will prevail without anymeans to recourse. Only when theKhilafah state is established will thesethree lawless states be held to accountin any meaningful way.�


86 years ago, on 3rd March 1924, wewitnessed the demise of the Khilafahand the establishment of colonial rule inMuslim lands. Until then Muslims knewthe Khilafah was their political system -although in practice it had deviated fromthe ideal standard, as expressed in thefirst generation of Islam. There followed,many years later, the introduction ofevery type of politics except the politicsof Islam; and a host of rational andtextual arguments emerged to justify theimplementation of non-Islamic (kufr)political models.

None of these was ever convincingenough to remain unchallenged, despitethe huge investment of resources to

establish their validity – includingconstitutional reforms, harsh impositionby rulers and the promotion of fringejuristic opinions.

These attempts to justify kufr continueto this day and have taken on a newcontext with the presence of Muslimsliving outside of Muslim majoritycountries. The arguments to legitimisethe participation in secular democracymight be carried by sincere people, whofeel that Muslims need a means toengage politically in a manner thatachieves their interests, as well as bycharlatans who see a chance to furthertheir own interests. However, thearguments of those who are well

meaning often reflect their own inabilityto solve political problems, and it is thisthat drives them to redefine Islam’s rulesrelating to the subject.

The obligation of ruling with IslamThis is an established obligation,understood from the following ayat: "It is not (fitting) for a believer, man orwoman, when Allah and His Messengerhave decreed a matter that they shouldhave any option in their decision. Andwhoever disobeys Allah and HisMessenger, he has indeed strayed in aplain error." [TMQ 33:36]

"And whosoever does not judge bywhat Allah has revealed, such are theKaafirun (disbelievers)." [TMQ 5:44]"And whosoever does not judge bywhat Allah has revealed, such are thezaalimun (unjust, oppressors)."[TMQ 5:45].

"And whosoever does not judge bywhat Allah has revealed, such are theFaasiqun (transgressors)." [TMQ 5:47]

"Indeed, the Rule is for none but Allah.He has commanded that you worshipnone but him." [TMQ 12:40].

Furthermore Allah (swt) has forbiddenthe believers from referring to a lawother than the Shari’ah of Allah. He madeit a negation of Iman if someone didwhen He (swt) said; "But no, by yourLord, they can have no Imaan, until

www.khilafah.eu

Islam, Politicsand Elections

Muzammil Hussain

8 :: Khilafah Magazine :: April 2010

they make you the judge in all disputesbetween them, and find in themselvesno resistance against your decisions,and accept them with full submission."[TMQ 4:65].

He also criticised the hypocrites forreferring to other than what Allah hasrevealed:

"Have you seen those (hypocrites) whoclaim that they believe in that whichhas been sent down to you, and thatwhich has been sent down before you,and they wish to go for judgement (intheir disputes) to the Taghut (falsejudges) while they have been orderedto reject them. But Shaytan wishes tolead them far astray." [TMQ 4:60]

"Do they then seek the judgement of(the Days of) Ignorance? And who isbetter in judgement than Allah for apeople who have firm belief." [TMQ5:50]

Classical scholars have commented uponthese ayat. Ibn Kathir (d. 774H) said“Allah ta’ala makes Inkaar (i.e.vehemently objects to) those who turnaway from Allah’s Shari’ah; the laws thatare good for the Muslims; the laws thatforbid what is evil. Allah rejects thosewho follow laws of personal desires andwho adopt laws of Kufr such as the lawsenforced by the Tartars who were underthe control of Genghis Khan” Tafseer IbnKathir [explanation of Surah Al-Maidah,Ayah 50].

Their opinions show the clarity withwhich Muslims understood theimportance of ruling by Islam andnegation of ruling by other than Islam,which illustrates why it is so important

for Muslims to be careful when beingtempted or bullied into trying to justifyparticipating in Kufr systems. Arguments used for justificationThe most common justification from a‘textual’ stand point for thepermissibility of participating in Kufrpolitical systems has been using theincident from the life of the prophetYusuf AS which is mentioned in theQur’an al Kareem. It is alleged by theadherents of this opinion that Yusuf ASpartook in ruling in the regime ofPharaoh despite the foundation of thisregime being the divinity of Pharaoh. Itis suggested that the disputed principlein usul-ul-fiqh namely Shariah-min-qablana (the Shariah from those before)can be used to justify participation. Thisprinciple asserts that there is acontinuation of the Shariah given toprevious prophets until the day ofjudgement; hence if a rule is notabrogated by the Shariah given to themaster of Prophets, Muhammad (saw),then the rules continue to be applied.Thus if it was permissible for Yusuf AS toparticipate in a kufr system, then it isjustifiable today.

The fallacy of these positions aremanifest: a discussion concerning thevalidity of this principle is superfluousto this discussion as even if the disputedprinciple is accepted, the prohibition ofruling with kufr is clear from the ayatpreviously quoted in this article. Thus itcannot be claimed that the Shariah issilent on this matter or the rule has notbeen abrogated as the texts proving theprohibition of ruling with kufr aredecisive in both transmission andmeaning.

Furthermore it is inconceivable that

Yusuf AS who is an infallible messengerof Allah could participate in shirk whenhe (swt) says as stated in the Quran: “The rule is for none but Allah” [TQM12:40]

Moreover, when analysing the Ayah’sconcerning the situation of Yusuf ASwithout the incumbency of apreconceived opinion it is clear that theposition held by Yusuf AS was anadministrative position rather than alegislative or ruling position, more akinto a civil servant than a ministerialposition. (Yusuf) said “set me over thestore houses of the land; I will indeedguard them with full knowledge” [TQM12:55]

The role of Yusuf AS was to administerthe collection of cereals from theharvests that exceeded demand and todispense them in years when there wasa shortfall in the grain production, anddid not require any legislation. Hence, itdoes not fall into ruling but ratherremains administration.

Other arguments include themisapplication of the principles ofmaslaha. However, more recently somehave even argued that voting is actuallynothing more than a ‘shahadah’ orwitnessing of which candidate is thebest – or least worst – for Islam andMuslims. As we will see, this ismisunderstanding of the reality ofvoting.

Voting and Elections Elections are a style employed to electindividuals who have the capacity ofrepresentation (tawkeel) andauthorisation. The ruling of ibahah(allowance) applies to such elections asone of the mubah styles. It is NOT merewitnessing of a candidate and toconsider it so is, in our view, an obviousmisunderstanding and misrepresentationof the reality.

The style of election is not a newpractice. In the bai’ah (pledge) of Al-Aqabah, the Messenger (saw) said to al-Aws and al- Khazraj, as it came in theseerah of Ibn Hisham: “Select for mefrom amongst you twelve chiefs, who

www.khilafah.eu

Khilafah Magazine :: April 2010 :: 9

will be responsible for their people,including themselves…” This means heasked them to select and elect theirrepresentatives.

Indeed, in the Khilafah state there willbe elections as a means to elect a Majlisal Ummah, which is a body for shura(consultation), accounting the rulers andelecting the Khalifah.

However, ruling on elections when it islinked to any particular issue is the sameas ruling on that issue.Hence, if the election is for somethinggood and permitted in Islam it ispermitted. But if it is for something that

the Shariah considers bad and forbidden– it is haram.

Secular democratic systems include theelection of the ruler, members ofParliament and National Assemblies,political parties’ lists of candidates, localcouncils, and directly elected mayors.The Shari’ah rule regarding this electoralparticipation relates to the reality of whysomeone is to be elected. When theelection relates to a prohibited action,then the election is haram, because it isto elect people to undertake a haram. Ruling in secular democratic models areon the basis of kufr and haram;parliaments undertake the action oflegislation without referring to Allah(swt) i.e. it undertakes actions of kufrand sin. Thus, participation inpresidential, parliamentary and councilelections in such a system is forbidden,because they are a type ofrepresentation (tawkeel) over prohibitedactions. In this regard, there is nodifference between electing a Muslim orkafir, because the election is related tothe actions that have to be undertaken. Furthermore to vote for candidates fromsecular political parties is also haram,because the election is not for a person

but for a manifesto, which contradictsIslam. When a Muslim votes for apolitical party, he does not vote forindividuals in their individual capacitybut votes for a manifesto adopted by aparty, with whatever it contains, whetherthis falls within the framework ofsomething permitted by the Shari’ah orit is haram or explicit kufr.

Voting and democracy are NOT the samething

The issue of democracy is oftenconfused with the issue of voting.Democracy is a political instrument in asecular system whose foundations lie in

the separation of religion from life. It isthe means by which people make laws. Voting on the other hand is simply amechanism to choose between two ormore alternatives. For example, we couldchoose the political system adopted byour state by voting and we could choosewhether we drink tea or coffee byvoting. What makes voting in aparticular situation halal or haram is theissue being voted for.

He (SWT) said ‘Help you one another inBirr and Taqwah (virtue, righteousnessand piety); but do not help one anotherin sin and transgression. And fear Allah.Verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.’[TMQ 5:2]

Voting for a candidate in any politicalparty cannot be separated from themanifesto and values enshrined in theconstitution of that party. Hence, if theparty is based upon kufr then voting fora candidate from that party even if he orshe is a Muslim is a grave sin, as itconstitutes support and help for sin andtransgression. Hence voting forcandidates from any political partywhose constitution is based on kufr isstrictly forbidden whatever the

perceived interest may be.

On the other hand, voting in electionswhich are permitted i.e. choosing thechairman of a mosque committee ispermissible by consensus.

Do Muslims have to vote in order tobenefit their community?

Various scare tactics are used to coerceMuslims to vote for candidates from anyof the three main political parties in theUK namely Labour, Conservative andLiberal Democrats. Muslims are told thatthat if we do not vote then we will haveno voice and our rights and privilegesdue to us will be stolen.

Firstly, this is invalid because Muslimsneed to first accept that we are boundby what Allah and His Messenger havegiven to us and if it is haram then wecannot accept the argument that theends justifies the means.

But even rationally this is a fallaciousargument. The reality in Britain showsthat Muslim politicians have rarelysupported the cause of Muslims, insteadparticipating in a witch hunt againstIslam, siding with the governmentagainst Islam. For example,parliamentary records show that themajority of Muslim MPs backed 30 daydetention without charge and voted forthe war in Iraq.

How could it be permissible for Muslimsto vote for parties that represent thesepolicies?

Furthermore, the things Muslims havesecured - whether halal meals in schoolsor the opening of mosques - have allbeen achieved either through awarenesscampaigns, self sufficiency or byresorting to pressure like others insociety do. It has NEVER beendependent on participation in thepolitical system.

Another argument is that if Muslimsdon’t vote for the main parties in Britainthen the far right will gain power andexpel all Muslims from this country.

www.khilafah.eu

...if the party is based upon kufr then voting for acandidate from that party even if he or she is aMuslim is a grave sin, as it constitutes supportand help for sin and transgression.


This ignores the reality of the position ofMuslims in Britain. The total Muslimpopulation does not exceed 3% of theUK population and so the problems ofthe Muslim community would not besolved by resorting to these harammeans. It is not that Muslims all need to vote inthe political system (especially when themain political parties have such blatantlyanti-Muslim policies) but rather we needto persuade the 97% who are not-Muslimthat they should not support anti-Islamicparties or policies. Even a small swing inthe voting habits of the non-Muslimcommunity in Britain would more thancancel out any strategic voting on thepart of the Muslim community.

When could a Muslim vote or stand in aNon-Islamic System?

To answer this, on must have anunderstanding of the role that theperson is looking to be elected to. Therole of Members of Parliament can besummarised as:

1. Holding the government to account

2. Working towards legislation3. Votes of confidence for government

actions, treaties, wars etc.

The first of these actions is acceptableaccording to Islam as long as the personholds the government to accountaccording to Islam. With respect to thesecond and third actions, thegovernmental systems in the World todaygenerally, and in the West morespecifically, are un-Islamic systems. Thebasis for their legislation is not to referback to the Shari’ah, but rather thesource of law is man. In Britain, thesource of the law is the decision of theparliament. Therefore, it is impermissibleaccording to the Shari’ah to legislatewithin such un-Islamic systems, andlikewise to support them or giveconfidence to them.

Therefore, it would only be permissiblefor someone to run for election withinnon-Islamic systems according to thefollowing conditions:

1. If the candidate announces clearlythat they do not believe in the system,that they are running on an Islamic basis,and that they are running in order tospeak in Parliament as a forum forcalling to Islam and not for legislating..

2. Not to co-operate or campaign withanyone running on an un-Islamic basis,whether by joining their party oroffering support in exchange for theirsupport, since their manifesto would becontradictory to Islam and support forthem would be support for somethingun-Islamic.

3. For the above two points to bewell known amongst the electorate, suchthat there is no doubt over them withthe general public.

If a candidate fulfilled the above threeconditions, it would be permissible tovote for them. Conversely, it would beimpermissible to support for or vote forany candidate which did not fulfil theseconditions since such support and votewould be a support for something un-Islamic, and Allah said: “And co-operateupon what is good and righteous, and donot co-operate on sin and enmity”

So What Should Muslims Do in non-Muslim countries?

Muslims are offered the choice to eithermelt fully into British society andcompletely adopt its norms and values;or else to completely isolate ourselves inghettoes. These false choices. Isolationand assimilation are not options.

In our current situation in the West,there is an urgent need to preserve ourIslamic identity, carry Da'wah and inviteothers to Islam. This is only possible byinteracting with the society, whilekeeping our distinguished character andidentity and also not by integration andhence melting away in the surroundingsociety.

There is a need for Muslims to establisha strong Islamic schooling system orsome effective culturing throughmosques and madrassahs for theoverwhelming majority who are in the

mainstream system.

Moreover, we must be a unitedcommunity exerting a media presence,exercising pressure on the powercentres in society to force them toacknowledge those things which areright. Acting in a coordinated way toexert pressure for well-defined andlimited objectives means harnessing ourcurrently limited resources andconcentrating them on a small target andhence a higher probability of achievingsuccess.

Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:"…Whatever the Messenger broughtyou, take it and whatever He forbadeyou abstain from it. And fear Allah, forHe (swt) is fast (strict) in punishment."[Al-Hashr:7]

The interests of Muslims are primarily toavoid hell and attain paradise bybelieving in Allah and abiding by theShariah. The attainment of materialbenefits whether they are houses, cars,businesses and a comfortable life aresecondary matters. ‘Be sure We shall testyou with something of fear and hunger,some loss in goods or lives or the fruits(of your toil), but give glad tidings tothose who patiently persevere.’[TQM2:155]

It is not in the interest of Muslims thatwe compromise our Islam and melt intosecular British society, striving formaterial gains whilst being afflicted withthe same eficiencies. Rather it is ourinterest that we maintain our Islam in allspheres of our lives even if it means theloss of some material possessions.

We are obliged to carry this messagewhich has been entrusted to us to therest of humanity. It is simply not enoughto say we believe and leave it at that, weare obliged to lead mankind from thedarkness of kufr to the light of Islam.

“And who is better in speech than hewho invites to Allah and does righteousdeeds and says I am one of theMuslims” [TQM 41:33]�


On Wednesday 3rd February 2010, Dr.Aafia Siddiqui, a scientist extradited fromPakistan to the US, was convictedfollowing a long drawn out trial thatbegan August 2008. Dr. Siddiqui wasconvicted of attempted murder forshooting at US officers during aninterrogation in Ghazni, Afghanistan.

Dr. Siddiqui, a mother of three wasreported to have ‘disappeared’ with herthree children whilst visiting her motherin Karachi. Journalists, Islamic groups andhuman rights organisations suspectedthat she was abducted by PakistaniIntelligence and handed over to the FBIin March 2003. After five years of

uncertainty as to her whereabouts, shewas presented in front of journalists inJuly 2008 in Ghazni, Afghanistan. Theissue of concern here is what actuallyhappened during these five years. It isalleged that Dr. Siddiqui’s second husbandwas Amar Al-Baluchi, nephew of KhalidSheikh Muhammad (alleged planner of9/11), which would have placed her highup on the CIA’s wanted list of Al-Qaidaoperatives. Both lawyers and humanrights organisations were of the opinionthat she was held at a US detentionfacility in Bagram for many years whereshe was tortured to the point of losingher mind and later transferred to the USin August 2008.

In the courtroom, Assistant US AttorneyChristopher La Vigne told jurors in NewYork; ‘She saw her chance to killAmericans and she took it’... ‘Not only didshe have the motive and intent to harmthe United States, she had the know-howto do it’. Siddiqui's defence lawyer, LindaMoreno, described the forensic evidenceas weak with government's eye-witnessescontradicting each other in theirtestimony. Dr. Siddiqui maintains that sheis innocent and described how she washeld in a secret prison where childrenwere tortured (Reuters). Family membersof Dr. Siddiqui vehemently protestedagainst her trial and subsequentconviction. Dr. Fauzia Siddiqui, sister ofDr. Aafia Siddiqui spoke in her defencesaying: "My sister is innocent - she hasbeen tortured and detained for years...She is a victim of American injustice."

In the same month, the case of BinyamMohammed vs the UK government wasrevealing to say the least. On the 10thFebruary 2010, Britain’s highest judgesruled against the appeal by UKgovernment for non-disclosure of ‘secretintelligence information’ relating to thetorture of Binyam Mohammed by the US.Foreign Secretary; David Milliband putforward the argument that doing sowould compromise future intelligencesharing between UK and the US whichwould be a risk to national security.Binyam Mohammed has been consistentin arguing that the UK government knew

The Conviction of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui:Democracy on Trial

Ruksana Rahman


about his torture under US custody. InAugust 2008, the high court judgementconcluded that much of the casecompiled against Mohammad wereconfessions extracted under torture inBagram air base. More recently the highcourt allowed the release of paragraphsdescribing his treatment to be ‘cruel,inhumane and degrading’, which in thewords of Mohammed’s lawyer; CliveStafford-Smith, are ‘crumbs’ and that‘There is really no denying that theBritish knew all about it’.

Such cases unearth questions about themisnomer of governments such as the UKand the US, and put a question mark onthe collusion of Pakistani authorities whocare little to protect the honour anddignity of women. How many‘miscarriages of justice’ have happenedupon the sons and daughters of this

Ummah under the behest of such war-driven nations and subservient Muslimrulers? Furthermore some searchingquestions must be asked about the veryprinciples of the Western Justice Systemwhich can allow the cruelty,dishonourment and torture of humansand the fabrication or concealment ofevidence for national interest.

Principles of Western Judiciary

According to the European Conventionfor Human rights, there are somefundamental principles and values thatmust underpin the western Judicialsystem. Western nations for decades haveclaimed the superiority of the Westernjudicial system, and the view it has on thehuman being, the protection of his rightto a fair trial, his right to liberty andsecurity. They have claimed for decadesthat the Judiciary views people as equals,and that the accuser and the accused allstand before the law as innocent untilproven guilty. Some of these pillars of theJustice system include the following

which have been stated in the Europeanconvention for Human Rights.

Article 5: Right to liberty and security Section 2: Everyone who is arrested shallbe informed promptly in a languagewhich he understands, of the reason forhis arrest and any charges made againsthim

Article 6: Right to a fair trialSection 2: Everyone charged with acriminal offence shall be presumedinnocent until proven guilty according tolaw

It seems that such laws look good onpaper, but in the case of the Bagram andGuantanamo detainees, it is as disparateas it is discriminatory. This can be evidentwhen actions are reviewed closely withthe western view of judicial rights.

The judicial process whether in the UK,Europe or elsewhere, all have acommonality, which is that such judiciallaws are subject to change and applied inways to serve the interests of the State.Laws such as the Geneva Convention areapplied when it suits the interests of thenation, and flouted when it no longerserves to be of benefit.

Taking the example of Muslims heldcaptive at Guantanamo Bay; upon theirarrest, they were not given ‘Prisoners ofWar’ status, because this will secure thosearrested rights according to the GenevaConvention. The US government tooksteps to hold them captive in lawlessCuba where no International Law cangive rights to Muslim suspects. RatherMilitary rule dominates even in theJudicial proceedings. Binyam Mohammedwas one such detainee who went onhunger strike to protest against theconditions in the facility and the lack ofaccess to a judicial review. A formermilitary lawyer with contacts in the US

military legal establishment said that thefirst group of defense lawyers thePentagon recruited for Guantanamobalked at the commission rules, whichinsisted, among other restrictions, that thegovernment be allowed to listen in to anyconversations between attorney andclient.

The right to arrest and hold so-called‘terror suspects’ without charge, trial orlegal representation based on suspicionfor long periods of time contradictsarticle 5 of the European Convention ofHuman Rights, which demands the rightof the individual to have the legality ofhis detention determined speedily by acompetent court. Further to this thenotion of proof ‘beyond reasonabledoubt’ does not seem to be applicable inthe case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui whosedefence lawyer described the forensicevidence as weak: no bullets, shell casingsor bullet debris were recovered from thescene and government's eye-witnessescontradicted each other in theirtestimony (Reuters). This contradicts thevery ethos of ‘innocent until provenguilty’. Rather the jury decisions inferthat it is better to lock them up even ifthere is minimal evidence beyondreasonable doubt, because it is better tobe safe than sorry. Judges and humanrights activists have commented thatsuch moves are a direct contradiction tothe Western judicial values.

Muslims have become a target because ofthe contradictory nature of man-madelaw which is left up to the whims of manto implement according to their ownbias, prejudices and viewpoint towardsothers. Man-made legislation and thejudiciary will therefore always target thevulnerable and the groups or individualsthat most threaten state interest. SuchJudicial rules from man will thus besubject to continuous change to suit thestate agenda and interest. Thereforeequality or human rights are fancy wordswhich should not tickle our taste buds,because they do not exist in reality.

Islamic View of Justice

In Islam, the commitment to truth andjustice is absolute and is not influencedby the whims and desires of human

...Muslims held captive at Guantanamo Bay; upontheir arrest, they were not given ‘Prisoners of War’status, because this will secure those arrestedrights according to the Geneva Convention.

www.khilafah.eu

beings or the time and place in whichthey are made. The rules of Islam arefrom Allah (swt), the Creator and not thelimited and imperfect minds of humans.The Islamic rules are divine rules madeby the one who knows humans best, andare not subject to the wishes of a ruler.Moreover, the Islamic Shar’iah hassecured rights for its citizens such thateach person knows what is expected ofthem. The rules of Islam are applied uponall citizens (Muslim and non Muslim)with equal effect such that no individualor group is targeted or favoured intreatment or punishment.

Allah (swt) says:“And judge between them according towhat Allah has revealed, and do notfollow their whims, and beware of themlest they tempt you away from some ofthat which Allah has revealed to you”[TMQ Al-‘ Imran: 49].

The Prophet (saw) said:“He who harms a person under covenant(non-Muslim citizen), or charged himmore than he can, I will argue againsthim on the Day of Judgement’ [Narratedby Yahya bin Adam].

Islam has laid down certain general rulesthat act as a contract between the peopleand State such that the laws and rules insociety can never violate or exceed.Neither is the Khilafah State a ‘PoliceState’ that can force and coerce its peopleinto submission. Spying, harming, andtorturing of the people, Muslims andNon-Muslims, are prohibited. Rather, Islamguarantees people’s sanctity, dignity,funds, honour and property.

Allah (swt) says“O you who believe, avoid suspicion asmuch as possible, for suspicion in somecases is a sin, and do not spy on eachother” [TMQ Al-Hujurat: 12].

Islam has laid down specific rules so as tokeep the judge or ruler from corruptionand to ensure justice within society. Forexample, judges within the Khilafah Stateare appointed for their Taqwa andknowledge to ensure the correct judicialprocess and Islamic verdict is issued. Ifcorruption were to exist, then there is aseparate court known as the ‘Muhkamatul

Mudhalim’ the Court of Unjust Actswhere the judge, wali or the Khalifah canbe tried for any injustices upon thecitizens of the Islamic State. This is instark contrast to the current ‘brush itunder the carpet’ policy we witnesscurrent governments adopting.

The Prophet (saw) said“The Messenger of Allah has ordered thatthe two disputing parties should sitbefore the judge” [Narrated by AbuDawood]

One such example is of the accusationmade by Ali (ra) who was the Khaleefahat the time, against a Jewish citizen of thestate. Upon termination of the war atSiffin, Ali (ra) returned to Kufa, where hesaw his shield in the hands of a Jewishman. Due to their dispute over whoseshield it was, they went to the Court ofShurayh to settle the dispute. The judgerequested for witnesses to be providedby Ali (ra) to confirm his side of the story,and Ali (ra) said that Kambar and al-Hasanwere his witnesses. But the judge ruled infavour of the Jew and replied that ‘Theevidence of a son is not admissible infavour of the father”. That was in favourof a non-Muslim and not in favour of theKhaleefah. As a result of this, the Jewembraced Islam.

Such is the superiority of Islam whichviews the human from a human point ofview – worthy to be living under thejustice of Islam and not be subjected toprejudices and the whims of man. Such asystem would not only provide tranquilityto the Muslim but also to the nonMuslims.

“And let not the emnity and hatred ofothers make you avoid justice. Be just:That is nearer to piety, and fear Allah.

Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted withwhat you do.” [Al-Ma’idah, 5:8].

Protecting the Honour of MuslimsThe cries of our dear sisters, brothers andchildren are heard and felt and theUmmah yearns for protection. One thatshe knows will come from a sincereleadership – the Khaleefah - rather thanrulers driven by self-interest and benefit.Muslim women across the globe – eastand west may share uncomfortable andchallenging experiences which test theirstrength of values and convictions. Maythe case of Dr. Siddiqui and others be asource to strengthen us even further tobe the voice for the voiceless. The case ofDr. Aafia Siddiqui is also testament to theneed for the long awaited return of theKhilafah, a shield that can protect thehonour of Muslims once again. Whatremains certain is that to enjoy this statusrequires diligence, perseverance, opendiscussions and challenging of alternativeideas to be granted such a victoriousposition once again.

“We complained to the Messenger ofAllah (saw) while he was resting in theshade of the Ka’ba, and said to him: ‘Willyou not ask for victory for us? Will younot pray for us?’ He replied: ‘There was atime before you where a hole would bedug and a man would be placed in it anda saw would be placed on his head andwould be cut in two; he would bebrushed with brushes of steel, whichwould tear through his flesh and bone,and not even this would make him leavehis Deen. By Allah, this matter will becompleted so that a rider would ridefrom San’a to Hadhramawt not fearinganything but Allah and the wolf from hissheep, but you are a people who rush.”[From Khabab ibn Al-Aratt: Bukhari].�

Khilafah Magazine :: November 2009 :: 13


In the hit Fox TV thriller “24” CounterTerrorism agent Jack Bauer (played byKiefer Sutherland) usually gets his man.And more often than not it will involve afair dose of urgent persuasion. Althoughillegal (and the programme makers stressthe illegality of his actions) Jack Bauer willroutinely cut off his opponents fingers(with a cigar cutter), inject all manner ofchemicals, or simply beat them to neardeath in the interests of gathering a vitalmorsel of information. It’s an example ofthe “ticking bomb” scenario – faced with aticking bomb, all formalities and rules goout the window. Of course in a 24 partseries with each part representing only 1hour of Jack’s frantic life, not a minute canbe lost – so much so that the torturetactics appear regularly – on average every2 hours in fact! While “24” doesn’trepresent reality, it has managed veryeffectively to desensitise the Americanpublic to the use of torture.

But Binyam Mohamed is no fictionalcharacter, and the repeated torture hesuffered at the hands of his captors wasno illusion. Where was the ticking bombin his case? What was the urgent life ordeath information that had to be extractedwith the greatest reluctance? In his case,and those of many others, the ‘tickingbomb’ is as real as Saddam’s WMD.

In Binyam’s case, a US judge reported thathis “trauma lasted for two long years.During that time he was physically andpsychologically tortured. His genitalswere mutilated ... All the while he wasforced to inculpate (incriminate) himselfand others in various plots to imperilAmericans.”

The supposed ‘ticking bomb’ scenariosinitially used to justify the use of torture,have now been replaced by sustained and

routine torture of detainees in the offchance that some useful intelligence canbe gained. Supposed “life saving”emergency action is now intimidationand humiliation as witnessed atGuantanamo bay, Bagram Air base, AbuGhraib and many other less publicisedrendition centres.

The 1984 UN Convention against torturethat Western states supposedly uphold isexplicit. It defines torture as “theintentional infliction of severe pain orsuffering whether physical or mental”.The US only ratified this law 10 yearslater in 1994 and have been reigningback on it ever since. President Bush setout a new directive redefining whatconstitutes torture in a communiqué ofAugust 2002: “the infliction of painequivalent to serious physical injury, suchas organ failure, impairment of bodilyfunctions or even death”. Anything lessthan such a draconian beating merelyconstitutes “coercive interrogation” in theUS leadership’s eyes.

The British government, despiteprotestations of principle against torturein all its guises, is in reality complicitwith American policy. The BinyamMohamed case has exposed thehypocrisy of their position. BinyamMohamed complained that British agentsattended his interrogation/torturesessions. A case confirming Britishinvolvement (MI5 and MI6) in his tortureby the CIA, was tried at court in 2009.Despite attempts by the UK foreignsecretary, David Miliband, to suppress theevidence, citing that such disclosure

Jamal Harwood

To Torture or Not toTorture? A Questionthat troubles the West


would harm national security because itwas given in confidence by the USauthorities, the government lost the caseat the high court. On 14 December 2009,Miliband appealed against the high courtruling, that CIA information on BinyamMohamed's treatment, and what MI5 andMI6 knew about it, must be disclosed.

The British government’s excuses for theirattempted and failed cover-up run hollow.There was no vital and confidentialinformation extracted from BinyamMohamed only that they tortured him andBritish agents happily watched/assisted.Furthermore if you make it known thatyou are prepared to accept the unreliableintelligence gained via torture, you arehardly doing anything to discourage thecontinuation of such torture – which

further exposes the lie that they reallyoppose its use.

The subsequent decision of the UKAttorney General that MI5 and MI6 willnot be investigated or prosecuted inconnection with their complicity in thetorture of detainees, only adds to the clearimpression that such detestable and illegalactivity is now being officially condonedat the highest levels.

The Debate

Some people in the West feel sad thatprinciples of ‘human rights’, that some inearlier generations fought hard for inEurope, such as the outright forbiddanceof torture, have now so easily fallen by thewayside in the so-called “free” world.

But outside those individuals who doactually care about these principles, thereare leading legal or journalistic figureswho are not merely debating theabhorrent idea but actively trying to justifyit, which shows the depths to which somewill stoop in their “war on terror”. In arecent article, the media commentator

Bruce Anderson not only declares it a rightto torture, but states Britain has a “duty” totorture, even advocating the torture of asuspect’s family to achieve the desiredaims.

It is little wonder that trust and respect forthe secular values espoused by westerngovernments hold little acceptanceanywhere in the Muslim world. Pre-emptive strikes for regime change, militaryoccupation, and now pre-emptive tortureto elicit confessions, desired intelligenceor to simply bully, show the true face of amorally bankrupt regime, and Muslimshave already experienced enough of thoseon our side of the fence. Democracy andfreedom are merely slogans designed toattract the unthinking to their side, whenin reality the old doctrine of “might is

right” holds the true leadership. The battlefor ideas was lost long ago. They disqualifythemselves even before the startingblocks.

But there is also an inherent schizophrenicidentity crisis in Western states. On onehand there is a strong claim of aprincipled commitment to human rights.But in truth these states regularly discardtheir human rights ideals for narrowinterest based/utilitarian ideals. Moreover,much of the argument against torture isnot that it is wrong in principle, but that itsimply does not work, as if it would be anyless repugnant if it had a modicum ofsuccess. The hypocrisy of such people thatadvocate human rights but hide behindlegal injunctions and court actions to keepsilent the truth of what their securityservices have done, does not do them orthe system they represent any good.

If they really had confidence in theprinciples they profess then surely theywould have confidence that the argumentsdriven from these principles would winthe debate. But the only plausiblealternative explanation of this

contradiction is that they (the rulingestablishment in the West) know that thesystem is not truly fit for purpose. Hencethey maintain an elaborate charadenecessary to at least keep concernedindividuals amongst the general publichappy. But many Muslims are not so easilydeceived.

Islam

Islam in contrast prohibits torture or anymistreatment of prisoners of warwhatsoever. A common criticism ofShariah law is that it is absolutist on someissues, but this includes an absoluteprohibition of torture.

The Messenger (Sall Allahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: "Providing a proof isincumbent on the plaintiff and giving anoath is a must on the defendant, if hedenies.'

The Messenger of Allah explained thatproviding the initial proof is for theplaintiff to provide which also indicatesconclusively that the defendant is treatedas innocent until proven guilty. Coersion,the use of force and threatening behaviourtowards the accused is also prohibited.

Hizb ut-Tahrir listed as Article 12 in theDraft Constitution for the Islamic State:Initially every person is innocent. And noone is to be punished except by a rule ofcourt. It is not permitted to torture anyone and whosoever does so will bepunished.

There is no ‘ends justifies the means’argument in Islam, no ticking bombclauses and no conviction without thepresentation of evidence, the right todefend oneself in a valid court of law, andthe right to a fair trial. The fact that tortureexists today in Muslim countries isbecause these countries have adopted an‘ends and means’ argument – where theends are to secure regimes, and the meansare torture to create fear and to keepwestern allies happy. The next Caliphatewill have a constitutional prohibition ontorture absolutely, and there is nothingthat Jack and his friends at Fox can do tochange that.�

The fact that torture exists today in Muslim countries isbecause these countries have adopted an ‘ends andmeans’ argument – where the ends are to secureregimes, and the means are torture to create fear and tokeep western allies happy.


Governments around the worldwelcomed in the second decade of the21st century hoping the economicevents of the noughties could be placedin history, the talk of economic recoverycould finally materialise. The globaleconomic crisis has become symbolic ofthe first decade of the 21st century. Talkof the imminent demise of Capitalismhas given way to the worlds leadingeconomies coming out of recession andpossibly the end of the global economiccrisis. Many of the headlines over theChristmas period brushed aside thecollapse of Dubai’s economic miracle, asmany of the worlds leading economieswere reporting the growth of theireconomies for the first time in over ayear.

However Capitalism never disappoints,positive news is usually followed byanother set of facts which prove theunderlying fundamentals are anythingbut stable. Greece, the cradle of Westerncivilisation, hit the headlines wheninvestors questioned if Greece will everbe able to pay off the £259 billion ingovernment debt it currently owes. The

euro has been battered over the pastmonth as some even started to fear thebreak-up of the Eurozone.

PIGS is the acronym the financialmarkets coined to describe the troubledand heavily-indebted countries ofEurope: Portugal, Ireland, Greece andSpain. Some analysts use PIIGS toinclude Italy - Europe's longstandinglargest debtor. The debt crisis thesenations face means the global financialcrisis is anything but over, there ishowever a number of issues that need tobe understood to gain a clear picture ofthis latest episode in disaster Capitalism:

1. Greece is the latest sick man ofEurope. It is now officially on the longlist of European states that areconsidered the sick men of Europe.European attempts to defend against adeep recession has now created a newcrisis of unsustainable and un-serviceable sovereign debt. Much of thiscan be attributed to stimulus packagespassed by European governments inorder to blunt the effects of theeconomic crisis, especially in preventing

massive layoffs. Europe’s heavyweightsspent massively on stimulation packages- Germany enacted about 81 billioneuros whilst France around 26 billioneuros. At the same time total EU stimulusspending amounted to 280 billion euros.General government debt levels haveskyrocketed across the eurozone, butespecially in the PIIGS countries.However Greece like many of theworld’s premier economies was livingbeyond its means well before theeconomic crisis began. This was a criseswaiting to happen.

2. At the centre of the crisis is thefractional reserve banking system wherea small amount of physical money innotes and coins can be used to createdebts many folds over. The Greek debtcrisis raises some every pertinentquestion’s which all Capitalist nationswill face at some point. Greece has debtsof 300 billion euros, with an economy ofonly 240 billion euros and a governmentbudget of only 91 billion euros. Greecehas to finance debts of 53 billion eurosin 2010. Greece currently is onlysurviving with the help of the ECB’sliquidity provisions – bailouts. Howeveracross the Capitalist world the situationis far worse, Britain’s economy producesjust over a trillion pounds a year, butBritain’s sovereign debt is over £9trillion with a government budget ofonly £800 billion.

3. The Euro was hailed as thereplacement for the dollar. However thefinancial crisis has brought a damningfact to the surface, whilst countries suchas France and Germany will be able toservice their debts, nearly all of theother eurozone nations have pitifulfinancial situations where they have

EU debt Crisis – The latest chapterin the Global Economic Crisis

Adnan Khan


spent well beyond their means and nowthat it is time to repay the debt thefeasibility of meeting the regularmonthly repayments is lookingimpossible. The issue the Euro has facedfrom its inception is the fact that all theeuro zone nations have very divergenteconomies and hence the strength ofthe euro is in the strength of the Eurozone economies and only as strong asthe weakest link.

4. With the dollar in a weakposition due to the position of the USeconomy and the euro taking massivespeculative hits, this may very well bethe beginning of the end of WesternCapitalism. The rise of China hasheralded a shifting of global economicpower from West to East. Chinaovertook Germany as the world’s largestexporter in December 2009, Chinapossesses the world’s largest currencyreserves by far and it will soon providethe majority of consumer goods for theworld’s largest importer, America. IfChina was to develop its political will, itwould be in a strong position tochallenge the US and shift the globalbalance of power.

5. The response to this sovereigndebt crisis reveals that any union be iteconomic or monetary will always lackcoherence without political unification.This episode has shown that the EU inreality is a glorified customs union. TheEuropean Union has today expandedwell beyond its original founder states.

Consensus on how far enlargementshould go and how deep integrationshould be continues to plague theunion. Member states are reluctant torelinquish their sovereignty tobureaucrats in Brussels or leave keydecision making to the two nations thatdominate the EU – Germany and France.A union based upon a confederationmakes the EU a mere customs union –so whilst from an economic perspectivethe EU acts as one block, politicalsovereignty means the union will alwaysremain disjointed. The Lisbon treaty wasin fact an attempt to overcome suchdifferences. Various summits in February2010 by EU member states to deal with

the Greece crisis and its widerimplications, led to no concretedecisions on Greece.

Currently very few specifics on howEurope intends to tackle support forGreece have been agreed. This isfundamentally due to the politicaldifferences that exist within the union.

6. Fundamentally bringing a unionof states into a larger union is a weakmethod of amalgamation. It lacks thecharacteristics found in full unificationwhere a people become one nation. Aunion as a method of binding peoplesand nations is always prone to politicaldifferences as it continues to recognisethe sovereignty of constituent nations,leaving itself open to differences andpenetration from the outside.Amalgamating such nations would bevirtually impossible as they would betoo different. Whilst the Lisbon treatywas meant to streamline decisionmaking, the EU has stalled on such a keyissue due to political differences. AllEuropean states have differing identitiesand this continued obstacle means thepowerful nations within the EU willcontinue to pull the union in a directiondifferent to the other member states.

7. The Islamic way of ruling is toestablish equality between the subjectsin all the regions of the State. Islamgrants non-Muslims who holdcitizenship, the full rights and duties thatMuslims have (except military service).They enjoy the same fairness as Muslimsand are subject to the sameaccountability as them. Furthermore,every single citizen, regardless of his orher creed, enjoys rights that even aMuslim living abroad who holds nocitizenship does not enjoy. Islamconsiders every single region of theKhilafah as an indivisible part of theState and its citizens enjoy the samerights as those in the central region. Inthis way over a generation differentpeoples will become a homogenousentity and this gives it strength, makesthe nation move in one direction –which leads to progress. Muhammed(saw) established Islam in Madina andhe ruled over a people where the

Ummah was a minority. Treaties weresigned with the surrounding Jewishtribes and the rights between theMuslims and non-Muslims were clearlydefined in the Ash-Shifah document,which was in effect a constitution.When Muhammed (saw) passed awaythe whole Arabian Peninsula was underIslamic authority and the Sahabah thenexpanded the Islamic lands to NorthAfrica, the Sub-continent and CentralAsia. By ensuring no region hadseparate legislative, political andeconomic rules, this created a sense ofunity and resulted in many of theconquered embracing Islam when theysaw its inherent justice, they made ittheir own and then carried the call tothe surrounding lands. Muhammed binQasim embraced Islam when Iraq cameunder Islam in the time of Umar (ra),Muhammed bin Qasim then carried thiscall to the subcontinent. In a similarmanner it was under Mu’awiyah thatthe Berbers of Egypt embraced Islam,the Berbers became Muslim and thenTariq bin Ziyad carried Islam to Spain.

Conclusions

The EU will inevitably be disjointed asthe major powers such as France andBritain view Europe from theperspective of achieving their ownnational interests. The Khilafah offers aunified approach to global affairsthrough the Islamic methods of aunitary state, with one ruler, one foreignpolicy, one economy, one adoptionglobally and the absence of customsand tariffs domestically. A nation orpeople wishing to join the Khilafah arewelcomed, they would come under theauthority of the Khaleefah who wouldhave to provide their security in returnfor their respect for the state and itslaws. They become subjects of the statelike any other citizen irrespective oftheir beliefs. Islam has clearlydesignated the Khilafah as the methodof unifying the Ummah, anything else isdestined to fail, a deviation from Islamand will turn the global Ummah intoanother EU – disjointed and unable toprogress.�


The 8th March 2010 saw the 100thanniversary of International women'sday in which women come togetherglobally to celebrate the political, socialand economic inroads that women havemade in the last century. It is an officialholiday in China, Russia, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.The UN gave it official recognition in1975.

At the turn of the 20th century womenbegan to see the fruits of their battle togain the right to vote; and following aconference for working women in 1910in Copenhagen, Clara Zetkin, (leader ofthe Women's Office for the SocialDemocratic Party in Germany)spearheaded the launch of a day for therecognition of women's rights.

Women globally have made someprogress since the industrial revolutionwhen scores of women entered the

work place. The discussion of women'srights began to take shape in the early1800s when women were denied theright to vote, denied the right to ownproperty, they were denied entitlementto inheritance, denied education andwere generally employed as home helpsand paid a meagre wage.

The Enlightenment saw the ‘rights forwomen’ movement become political.John Stuart Mill the political theoristwrote: “We are continually told thatcivilization and Christianity haveresorted to the woman her just rights.Meanwhile the wife is the actualbondservant of her husband; no less so,as far as the legal obligation goes, thanslaves commonly so called.”

By 1915 most European states had givenwomen the right to vote. The UnitedStates and Britain had passed laws whichprotected the property of women from

their husbands and their husband'screditors. The fight for education forwomen saw the emergence of the firstuniversity for women in the US in 1821,in 1841 women were formally allowedto teach at universities. In 1873 motherswere granted guardianship for childrenin cases of divorce.

In the 1970’s Equal Pay Acts and the SexDiscrimination Acts were passed acrossthe Western world. The NationalOrganisation for Women was founded in1966 in the US. The organisation lobbiedaggressively to secure equal pay forwomen. Women now make up 50% ofthe degrees earned at college, comparedto the figure of less than 20% at the turnof the 20th Century. Also in the US, 36%of all doctors are women.

It is these successes that many aroundthe world come out and celebrate everyMarch 8th. However, a closer scrutiny atthe real situation draws a much dimmerpicture. Richard H. Robbins in his awardwinning book Global Problems and theCulture of Capitalism, he noted: “theinformal slogan of the Decree of Womanbecame: women do two thirds of theworld's work, receive ten per cent of theworld's income and own 1 per cent ofthe means of production.”

Globally the statistics and facts releasedevery year about the emancipation ofwomen suggest that women haveregressed to the position that they were

INTERNATIONALWOMEN’S DAY:Celebration or Commiseration

Ibtihal Bsis

in prior to the Enlightenment era. Twothirds of all children denied schoolglobally are girls and of the world's 876million illiterate adults, 75% are women.

Domestic violence is the biggest causeof injury and death of women worldwide, ironically the UN officiallycommemorates an International Day forthe Elimination of Violence againstWomen on the 25th November eachyear. In the US only 45% of domesticviolence is reported to the police. The

FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapesare reported to the police. Of these,21.6% were younger than the age of 12.

In the workplace, a recent survey by theFawcett Society found that of the 2,742board seats available in the top 350companies listed on the London stockexchange, only 242 were occupied bywomen, and most of those were non-executive directorships. Those who haveentered London’s prestigious City havefound they are potentially only an objectof desire for men and not much else. Asurvey by the BBC News Online(Laddism in the City, 10/4/2001) showedthe plight of many women working inthe city; many say they are “touched upby both colleagues, contacts orcompetitors…and think objecting couldbe bad for business”. ‘Team building’meetings and ‘client facing’ often takeplace in strip clubs or seedy bars and, asone women put it, opting out is not anoption; “You had to be part of thegang… they see it as seriously affectingtheir profits (if you miss these events)".

In the Muslim world women inBangladesh suffer from acid batteryattacks at an alarming rate; women inPakistan are raped for daring to make anallegation of rape. Tribal laws sawMukhtar Mai in 2002 gang-raped onorders of a tribal council for actsallegedly committed by her brother.

The feminist movement has gone fullcircle. German writer and TV newsreaderEva Herman recently wrote that "Let'sjust say it loud, we women haveoverburdened ourselves - we allowedourselves to be too easily seduced bycareer opportunities." She recommendswomen exchange the cold sphere ofwork for the “colourful world ofchildren” and discover their “destiny ofnurturing the home environment.”

Regardless of the introduction of laws

and global women's organisations,women remain disadvantaged. Someargue that the Gender Equalitymovement has further entrenched theproblems that women suffer since theyare now expected to be equal to a man,work as hard as a man, and commit asmuch as a man. This notion iscontradictory since "gender" points tothe biological differences between menand women, "gender equality" eliminatesgender from the discussion entirely. Aresearch paper by Professor JacquelineAdhiambo-Oduol concluded that: “Abuilt-in tension exists between thisconcept of equality, which presupposessameness, and this concept of sex whichpresupposes difference. Sex equalitybecomes a contradiction in terms,something of an oxymoron.” (Adhiambo-Oduol. J. ‘The socio-cultural aspects ofthe gender question, US InternationalUniversity-Africa, Dec 2001).

Islam on the other hand is not genderbased. It came as a mercy to mankindand not to cause a battle of the sexes,which will always bring about animbalance. Whilst women in the Westwere struggling with the right to vote,women in Madina during the time ofMuhammed (saw) and subsequently,were entitled to vote and have anobligation to assume a political voice. Itwas a woman who accounted Umar ibnal Khattab (the second rightly guidedKhalifah) when he attempted to set a

limit on the dowry that women couldrequest. Aisha (ra) was revered for herextensive knowledge, often givingrulings to the sahabah when there was adispute.

Women are permitted to be employeesand employers. She can trade, be ateacher, nuclear physicist, own and sellproperty and enter into variouseconomic transactions. AnnemarieSchimmel, the influential GermanOrientalist and scholar stated: "Islamicprogress meant an enormous progress;the woman has the right, at leastaccording to the letter of the law, toadminister the wealth she has broughtinto the family or has earned by herown work."

It was Fatima al Fihri under the Khilafahthat built the first university in 841 CE. Awell educated woman herself, sheopened the al-Qarawiyin in Fez,Morocco. Amongst other subjects, thesciences were also taught at theuniversity.

Women faced the protection of theirhonour under the Khilafah. It wasKhalifah Mutassim who sent an entirearmy to the Roman Empire upon hearingthat a Muslim woman had beendishonoured by a Roman soldier.

Upon understanding the real protectionand nurturing that a Khilafah statewould bring men and women alike, is itany wonder that there is anoverwhelming call for its return. The vastmajority of those polled in a Gallupsurvey in 2005 said that they wouldwant to see Shari’ah as the sole sourceof legislation. It is only the Khilafah thatwill ensure the rights of all citizens, menand women, Muslim and non- Muslim.History pertains to that fact. Islam is asapplicable today as it was before thedestruction of the Khilafah in 1924. Allah(swt) tells us as much in surat al Maidah:

“This day I have perfected your deenfor you and completed my favour uponyou chosen Islam as your deen”. [TMQ5:3]�


In the Muslim world women in Bangladesh suffer from acidbattery attacks at an alarming rate; women in Pakistan areraped for daring to make an allegation of rape.

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

KMAG APR 2010 ver02:Kmag template201x269 · report, makes 36 recommendations amongst these are to...

Documents

Transcript of KMAG APR 2010 ver02:Kmag template201x269 · report, makes 36 recommendations amongst these are to...