:sl: Only the Khilafah will truly eradicate torture
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
The year is 1942 and Heinrich Müller chief of the Gestapo, Nazi Germany's feared secret police, is writing a memo
outlining the introduction of new "Verschärfte Vernehmung" or "enhanced interrogation techniques." The memo lists some of these enhanced techniques as:
· Simplest rations
· Hard bed
· Dark cell
· Deprivation of sleep
· Exhaustion exercises
· Blows with a stick (in case of more than 20 blows, a doctor must be present)
In 1946, after the defeat of Nazi Germany three German officers – Bruns, Schubert and Clemens stood trial
in Norway accused of the murder and torturing of Norwegian citizens under German occupation. All three were convicted of war crimes for using this "Verschärfte Vernehmung" that the court clearly described as "torture." All three were sentenced to death.
In their defence the three Nazi's argued that the victims were part of an illegal insurgency against the German occupation of Norway. Members of this insurgency "were not in uniform and bore no special marks of distinction on such occasions; nor did they carry their weapons openly. They had, therefore, no rights as soldiers according to Article 1 of the Regulations on Land Warfare (Hague Regulations)".1 In other words they were "unlawful combatants" upon which international law did not apply.
One year later another war crime trial took place across the Atlantic in America. This time a Japanese soldier was sentenced to 15 years in prison for war crimes after using water-boarding against a US citizen during World War II.
60 years later…
It is January 2002 and John Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the US Justice Department is writing a memo
clarifying the legal position of detainees captured from the war in Afghanistan. He unequivocally states that "these treaties do not protect members of the al Qaeda organization, which as a non-State actor cannot be a party to the international agreements governing war. We further conclude that these treaties do not apply to the Taliban militia". In other words they are "unlawful combatants" upon which international law does not apply.
According to ABC News
in mid-March of the same year, the CIA got authorization to use "enhanced interrogation" techniques on detainees from Afghanistan. These techniques included:
· Water-boarding: prisoner bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning
· Cold cell: prisoner made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water
· Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor
· Belly slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury
On 8th March this year, George Bush vetoed
legislation that would stop the CIA using these "enhanced interrogation" methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding". He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".
The US position on torture was summed up by former US president Jimmy Carter in an interview
on October 10th 2007 when he said, "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law."
The similarities between Nazi Germany's stance on torture and the United States are disturbing to say the least. The term "enhanced interrogation" used by the CIA is an almost direct translation of the Gestapo term "Verschärfte Vernehmung." According to John Yoo these interrogation techniques are not torture since they are not "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." This argument is almost verbatim of that made by the Nazis who argued that "the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement".2
Jon Yoo in an LA Times editorial said
, "the Taliban militia lost its right to prisoner-of-war status because it did not wear uniforms, did not operate under responsible commanders and systematically violated the laws of war." Is this not exactly the same justification given by the Nazi's against the Norwegian insurgency that they "were not in uniform"?
Muslims are no strangers to torture. The tyrannical governments in the Muslim world routinely torture their citizens and are so skilled at it that America "outsources" much of its interrogation to them through its "extraordinary rendition" programme. The dungeons in Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Morocco and Uzbekistan are full of believers whose only crime are their love for Islam and a desire for the return of the Khilafah ruling system.
Egypt in particular is so brutal that even growing a beard is enough for the authorities to arrest, torture and imprison the person. Imad Kabir was filmed being tortured and sexually assaulted by police officers. The video even made its way on to the Internet. But instead of the police officers being prosecuted the victim was jailed for three months for 'resisting authority.'3
Examples such as these convinced many Muslims that for the Muslim world to emerge from the "dark ages" it must adopt the western values of Human Rights and democracy. However, America's legalisation of torture in the 21st century exposes the fundamental problem with man-made western values – there are no fixed principles of right and wrong. Torture in World War II was illegal but today it is legal. Democracy is the "ruling of the people, by the people for the people." If the people decide torture is a necessary evil then it can be legalised simply by voting on it. Tony Blair admitted this when he said, "Let no-one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing." 4
Israel is heralded as the only democracy in the Middle East. Until 1999 torture of Palestinians within Israel itself was legal. The continuous killing, torture and oppression of Palestinians are legal and Israeli governments seen as not upholding these "values" are simply voted out by the people.
Torture is forbidden in Islam
The principles of good and bad are fixed in Islam. Torture was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (saw). Regardless of the majority opinion or the benefit and harm established through its use shari'ah has forbidden torture.
Muslim narrated from Hisham bin Hakeem, who said; "I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say; 'Allah will punish those who punish the people in the Dunya.'"
He (saw) also said: "There are two types of the people of Hellfire I have not seen yet; some people who have whips like the tails of oxes by which they flog the people." 5
Islam has also forbidden the violation of people's sanctities, dignity, funds and honour, and the dishonouring of the sanctity of their homes.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in belief: his blood, his wealth and his honour." 6
Only the Islamic Aqeeda can truly prevent torture
The majority of torture inflicted upon Muslims by the western powers takes place in the occupied lands of Iraq and Afghanistan. Blinded by hatred US and UK troops take revenge against Muslims they are fighting or in many cases against ordinary civilians including women and children.
The 2005 Haditha massacre
in Iraq is a vivid example of this. After a US marine was killed in a roadside bomb, US soldiers blinded by hatred went on a rampage killing 24 Muslim men, women and children.
In response to the Haditha massacre US troops in Iraq were given 30 days of ethics lessons
in "core warrior values." However, similar to the west's outlawing of torture, "core warrior values" in western armed forces are not fixed principles. They are "paper values" that in the heat of battle are simply thrown away.
The reasons western troops fight in the first place is one of the fundamental causes of their behaviour. Soldiers fighting for fun, money or status will leave all civilised military conduct if it doesn't achieve any benefits for them. Most of the torture in Iraq has only come to light because US and UK troops took "trophy" photos of the abuse so they can show their friends and family back home. Videos of US troops fighting to heavy metal music, reveling and laughing as they shoot Iraqi's are readily available on the Internet.
With no firm belief in the hereafter, the death of close friends in battle and the constant stress of fighting will lead to western troops committing atrocities such as Haditha or the many more that go unreported.
Only soldiers with a strong belief in Allah (swt) and conviction in accountability for all their actions no matter how small, will uphold true "warrior values" in the heat of battle.
Allah (swt) says in Surah Al-Zalzala:
"Whoever has done an atom's-weight of good will see it, but whoever has done an atom's-weight of evil will see that." [TMQ 99:7-8]
This Day of Judgement is a frightening day for those who disobey Allah (swt).
Allah (swt) says in Surah 'Abasa:
"The Day man will flee from his own brother, his mother, his father, his wife, his children: each of them will be absorbed in concerns of their own on that Day."
The sharia has specified the valid reasons Muslim soldiers (mujhaideen) can fight for. It has also detailed rules of war that must be adhered to even in the heat of battle.
The primary reason for fighting jihad is not for any material, nationalistic or sectarian interests. Rather it is performed purely to make Allah's word the highest.
A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."
Prisoners of War
1300 years before the Geneva Convention Islam forbade the mistreatment of prisoners of war. There is no such concept as "unlawful combatants" in Islam. The sharia rules on dealing with captives i.e. releasing or ransoming them were explicitly stated in the Holy Qur'an.
After the Battle of Badr the Prophet (saw) ordered the Muslims to treat the prisoners of war so well to such an extent that the captors used to give the captives their bread (the more valued part of the meal) and keep the dates for themselves.11
Torture in western judicial systems
In much of Europe, medieval and early modern courts freely inflicted torture, depending on the crime and the social status of the suspect. Torture was deemed a legitimate means for judges to extract confessions or to obtain the names of accomplices or other information about the crime. In the Middle Ages especially and up into the 18th century, torture was deemed a legitimate way to obtain testimonies and confessions from suspects for use in judicial inquiries and trials.
When Islam emerged in the 7th century it formally abolished the torture of suspects that was prevalent in the Persian and Roman Empires that dominated the world at that time. The shari'ah was far superior to the man-made Roman law that much of Europe is still based upon and which justified the legality of torturing suspects. As Nick Cohen said
, "When medieval Europe discovered that Roman law allowed the torture of suspects, everyone from the Scots to the Spanish embraced the rack."
European Museums are full of medieval torture devices that are a historical record of European "justice".
Torture in the Islamic Judicial System is forbidden
Many of the legal principles contained within shari'ah and implemented through the Islamic judicial system were not adopted in Europe until over 1000 years later. It can be argued that even in the 21st century these legal principles have been abandoned with torture, imprisonment without trial, guilty until proven innocent and hearsay evidence all being used against Muslims under the guise of the 'war on terror.'
In the Khilafah, although historically many Khulafaa' abused their executive powers the judiciary in the Khilafah was independent and solely based on sharia.
There are two types of judicial independence - institutional and decisional independence. Institutional independence means the judicial branch is independent from the executive and legislative branches. Decisional independence is the idea that the judge should be able to decide the outcome of a trial solely based on the law and case itself, without letting the media, politics or other things sway their decision.12
Historically, decisional independence always existed in the Khilafah. Under the Abbasids they established the Dar al-Adl (House of Justice) which made the judiciary institutionally independent as well. The future Khilafah will also enshrine an institutionally independent judiciary embodied in the Mahkamat ul-Mazalim (Court of Unjust Acts).
The Sharia explicitly states that a judge must give an honest, knowledgeable and unbiased judgement on a case.
The Prophet (saw) said: "Judges are of three types, one of whom will go to Paradise and two to Hell. The one who will go to Paradise is a man who knows what is right and gives judgment accordingly; but a man who knows what is right and acts tyrannically in his judgment will go to Hell; and a man who gives judgment for people when he is ignorant will go to Hell.
The Shari'ah also specifies how the judge should act within the judicial court sitting.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "Whoever Allah tests by letting him become a judge, should not let one party of a dispute sit near him without bringing the other party to sit near him. And he should fear Allah by his sitting, his looking to both of them and his judging to them. He should be careful not to look down to one as if the other was higher, he should be careful not to shout to one and not the other, and he should be careful of both of them."
Islam mandated the right to innocence until proven guilty centuries before principles of Habeas Corpus were developed in the West. The Qadi (judge) in the Khilafah can only pass judgment in a judicial court and suspects must be brought before the Qadi.
Narrated Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr: "The Messenger of Allah has ordered that the two disputing parties should sit before the judge." 15
Britain formally adopted this principle in the 17th century Habeas Corpus Act 1679. However, there is an ongoing debate that terror suspects should be detained without charge for up to 90 days abandoning this long held principle. Currently they can be held for 28 days without charge.
Innocent until proven guilty
The Presumption of Innocence exists in a shari'ah court where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The responsibility of providing the evidence is on the plaintiff (the one who initiates the law suit) not the defendant.
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "It is the plaintiff who should provide the evidence, and the oath is due on the one who disapproves." 16
The fate of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is evidence enough that this principle does not apply to Muslims. Even though they have been held for years without any trial US Vice-President Dick Cheney said
, "The important thing here to understand is that the people that are at Guantanamo are bad people. I mean, these are terrorists for the most part."
Burden of proof
The burden of proof required to convict someone of an offense in a Shari'ah Court is far higher than in any western court. The shari'ah court does not accept circumstantial evidence as a legal proof, and only trustworthy witnesses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim are allowed to give testimony.
Forced confessions extracted under torture are not accepted as proof in a Shari'ah Court. If there is any doubt over the confession of the individual it is thrown out and the punishment waived. Perpetrators of the torture will be severely punished.
One of the principles of the Islamic Punishment System is that it's better to release a guilty person than punish an innocent person. Ultimately there is no escape from justice. If a guilty person avoids punishment in the dunya they will have to answer before Allah (swt) on the Day of Judgement.
It is narrated from Aisha (ra) who said, The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "Avert the hudud from Muslims as much as you can. So if there is a way out for him, let him off. For verily, it is better for the Imam to err in pardon than to err in punishment.
If the suspect retracts their confession or there is doubt over their sanity then the confession is rejected.
It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah who said, "A man of the Muslims came to the Messenger of Allah while he was in the mosque and said, 'O Messenger of Allah, I have committed zina.' He turned away from him until he replied four times. When he testified over himself four times, the Prophet (saw) called him and said, 'Are you insane?' He said, 'No.' He (saw) said, 'Are you a muhsan (married)?' He replied, 'Yes.' So the Prophet (saw) said, 'Go with him and stone him.'"
Amnesty International estimates
that 75% of the world's governments currently practice torture. With America using the 'war on terror' as an excuse to legalise torture this will only worsen the plight of those languishing in the prisons of brutal dictators around the world. Uzbekistan literally boils alive its Islamic opposition and the west turns a blind eye since quelling any Islamic political movements falls under the 'war on terror.'
The world is crying out for a state to stand up for all the oppressed peoples whether Muslim or non-Muslim and make a firm stance internationally that torture is unacceptable. This state is the Khilafah that through its implementation of the high Islamic values will become a much needed beacon of light in the current climate of darkness.
Allah (swt) says in Surah Ibrahim:
"Alif Laam Ra. This is a Scripture which We have sent down to you [Prophet] so that, with their Lord's permission, you may bring people from the depths of darkness into light, to the path of the Almighty, the Praiseworthy One." [TMQ 14:1]
1 Law-Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Volume III, London, HMSO, 1948 http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/bruns.htm
3 BBC News Online, 10 January 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6249027.stm
4 Tony Blair, Downing Street Press Conference, 5 August 2005, http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page8041.asp
5 Narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurairah
7 Bukhari, Muslim
11 Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, 'The Sealed Nector,' translation of Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 275
12 A Legal framework primarily used in the US for discussing the judicial branch of government
13 Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 24, Number 3566: Narrated Buraydah ibn al-Hasib
14 Baihaqi, Darqutni, Tabarani
15 Abu Dawood, Book 24, Hadith 3581
17 Abdurrahman Al-Maliki, 'The Punishment System,' translation of Nidham ul-uqubat, Dar Ul-Ummah, Beirut, Second Edition, Chapter: THE EVIDENCE (AL-BAYYINA) OF ZINA
The Return of the Khilafah
Thursday, 03 April 2008
The collapse of the Soviet Union was heralded as a landmark event in history as it proved the superiority of Capitalism over Communism and the emergence of a new world order. Although Communism won many to its ideology over a period of 70 years, it crumbled in the face of the arms race with the US and lost credibility amongst its adherents. Western intellectuals such as Francis Fukuyama labelled the collapse of communism as the end of the development of ideas, as Capitalism had triumphed against its only challenger.
The US launched the global war on terror soon after the events of 9/11. Afghanistan and then Iraq were both invaded and after 5 years such nations remain occupied with the US and coalition troops unable to subdue the resistance. Prior to the demise of Communism, the Islamic world was not even considered a threat to Capitalism but the intensity of the western intellectual, ideological and physical attack on the Muslim world has reversed this position. However, the Capitalist world in leading this war on terror assault, which their own populations have doubts upon, have inadvertently accelerated the process of change that has been gaining momentum for decades and is now about to reach its imminent end point.
The Muslim world: Past and Present
When the Khilafah was destroyed in Turkey in 1924, much of the Muslim world had been under occupation for decades. The British managed to turn the Arabs against the Turks with the help of the Saud family
. The intellectual onslaught against the Khilafah and Islam and the inability of the scholars of the Khilafah in Turkey to address the industrial revolution and modern developments at the time led to many Muslims questioning the applicability of Islam. Such a view turned into a political movement (the young Turks) who eventually managed to rid themselves of Islam. North Africa was occupied for nearly a hundred years going back to the Napoleonic wars. Support for the Khilafah in its dying days came from some Muslims such as the Khilafat Movement
in India who sacrificed much but were unable to turn their call into a mass movement.
The situation at the time was summed up by David Fromkin, Professor, and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago "Massive amounts of the wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able to organize and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty
A scrutiny of these created nations shows that they were artificial constructs with no coherent value system. We see that Muslim societies in fact are fractured on what values should be the basis of society. In some cases, we find that some issues amongst people are settled according to Islamic concepts; in other cases, we see them settled upon Capitalist and even Nationalistic ideas. In fact, many of the problems such as poverty, unemployment, development, male and female relations etc are settled according to local customs and even tribal judgements. Hence, we find that the nations the colonialists artificially created cannot move forward (progress) since Muslims are attempting to deal with problems in multiple ways rather then a single agreed upon basis, this is what results in the mismanagement of resources. By not having a consistent reference point, the artificially created nations are disjointed and the nation as a whole fails to move in a unified direction.
This means that despite the colonialist onslaught, Muslims did not adopt Capitalism as a basis for their nations. This is particularly the case when the contradiction between these concepts and the Islamic Aqeedah became clear. One example of this is that despite the best efforts of the West in spreading her foreign culture, like the pursuit of freedom in life's' affairs in the Muslim lands we find that Muslims did not give up the social system of Islam, the fabric that held together Islamic societies was still Islam. In fact, the Ummah preserved her belief and took neither dialectic materialism nor secularism for their Aqeedah. Therefore, it can be argued that the Ummah maintained her identity as an Ummah and she did not give up her Islamic views about life, even though her understanding of Islam was not always clear.
In fact, despite lacking the ability to extract pristine concepts from the Islamic principles we find that today Muslims worldwide are yearning for a return to living their life by Islam. Take the example of Turkey, the only country to renounce Islam completely in its constitution. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk sought to destroy Islam in Turkey and he thought the Turkish people despised their Islamic heritage. However, after just a few decades, pressure on the regime mounted steadily and by the 1950'sTurkish governments started to play up Islamic sentiments in order to maintain their grip on power. By the 1970's Turkey had politicians who were avowedly Islamic with the incorporation of Necmettin Erbakan in the cabinet.
Within the last 12 years, the people of Turkey voted for an 'Islamic' government twice. This proves that the Islamic feeling in Turkey was not temporary. This is what lead to then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1997 to lament the 'drift of Turkey away from secularism.'
Such is the heightened sensitivity in the Turkish army today that it purges its ranks every year of any Islamic influence. So the Turkish people never adopted Capitalism which for so long had dominated Turkish politics and are now inclining towards Islam - a far cry from the events post 1924.
The Turkish example is just one of many; Islamic influence in Algeria was so great that the FIS managed to win a landslide victory. Similarly, the people's love of Islam in Afghanistan saw the establishment of an emirate, although not Khilafah, built upon Islam.
What we are witnessing currently is Muslims all over the world are reacting as one body to the onslaught against their brothers and sisters. Even the Muslims in Palestine, themselves under occupation, held marches and rallies in solidarity with the Muslims of Afghanistan and Iraq. Muslims feel revulsion when the concept of 'freedom of expression' is used to attack Islam, as can be seen by the case of the cartoons printed of the Prophet (saw) in Europe.
The question that needs to be asked is if the values the Ummah wants to live by are different to the values that are implemented over them then why do the Muslims continue to abide by these values and allow the rulers who implement them to rule over them? The answer to this is that the rulers in the Muslim world do not maintain their power by sharing a close affinity with their people, but rather through brutal methods of force and torture in order to subjugate the masses. This point is well established and does not need explanation. This has been the case for many years now and is not a new development.
The widening gulf between the Ummah and the rulers
If we look at the recent history of the Muslim world and the relationship between the people and the rulers, we can see that this relationship has become tenuous and now the Muslims hold concepts and sentiments that fundamentally contradict that of the Muslim rulers. We can see in Pakistan Pervez Musharraf's attempts to introduce western culture through 'enlightened moderation' has been largely discredited. We see Turkey on the eve of the second Gulf war was forced to turn down $20 billion in aid by the US as the Ummah considered such cooperation aiding the killing of Muslims in Iraq. We have also seen attempts by the Muslim rulers to normalise relations with Israel continually fail.
This gulf was not present for most of the last century. We have witnessed how Jamal Abdul Nasser enjoyed the strongest relationship with the people. He was seen as the Arab saviour due to his wresting of the Suez Canal from the British and his stand against Israel. The Muslims believed that Jamal Abdul Nasser was reflective of them. The Muslims hailed Yasser Arafat as one of the lions of Islam; Arafat managed to enlist hundreds of thousands of young Arab men to his rallying call for Jihad against the Israeli occupiers. The Muslim Ummah until the late 1980's were oblivious to the actions of King Fahd and the other Gulf rulers due to their economic prosperity and the influence of the Saudi backed scholars and movements. The same point can be seen around the Muslim world. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled in the Muslim world was always weak, people were apathetic to their failings for a +host of factors. The chasm was initially masked due to the relative strength of Arab nationalism and other ideas such as Ba'athism and Socialism. In some of the Gulf States, economic prosperity masked the underlying chasm. This was the case until the fall of Communism.
With the fall of Communism in 1990, there was a renewed focus on Islam due to its potential to thwart Capitalism's hitherto unchecked advancement. The former secretary general of NATO Willie Claes stated; "The Alliance has placed Islam as a target for its hostility in place of the Soviet Union."
The Muslims managed to resist the cultural onslaught and retained their Deen. This clash resulted in the destruction of Western civilisation in the minds of the Muslims.
Today, this destruction of Western civilisation has led to a new onslaught against Islam. America has realised that cultural colonialism has not worked against the Muslims and now what is required is the direct military colonisation. Paul Wolfowitz said in a press conference in Singapore, "It's true that our war against terrorism is a war against evil people, but it is also ultimately a battle for ideals as well as a battle of minds."
Since the Muslim Ummah rejected the western viewpoint about life, she is naturally yearning for the Islamic way of life. However, this has exposed a gulf between the Muslims and their rulers. The rulers have rejected the Islamic culture and have adopted the western culture and the western agenda. So it is obvious to all that the rulers and the Muslims are diametrically opposed in their viewpoints.
What makes this apparent is the number of events that have occurred over the last 20 years and the intensity of some of these incidents have exposed many of the rulers. These shocks in recent years have united the Ummah tremendously. Prior to the first Gulf war, the Muslim Ummah generally did not sense the American animosity against Muslims. Many thinkers and scholars in the Muslim world could not sense the treachery of the Muslim rulers, and did not see the West as their enemy. However, after the first Gulf war, which was prosecuted under the pretext of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, both the American animosity and the complicity of the Muslim rulers became evident. Not only did the Gulf regimes lose credibility for allowing the American troops bases in the Hijaz and other places, but so too the Islamic scholars who justified the war. Muslims could sense the gulf between themselves and the rulers.
Today we can see that the Muslim rulers are in political chains; trapped between subservience to America and the West and fear of removal by their own people. They are unable to send their armies to fight against Iraq because of the sentiments of the masses; their complicity in the war against Iraq is held in contempt and they are living in fear of change. Muslims worldwide are not accepting the American crusade against them, they now view America as an enemy, and they are fighting against her. They also view all their rulers with hatred and do not wish to be ruled by them as can be seen with Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.
The beginning of the end for the traitors
The removal of the rulers who allow such a situation to prevail can be clearly seen by their desperate actions for survival. Yasser Arafat ordered the firing on his own people when they held rallies in support of Usama bin Laden and against the American war in Afghanistan. Jordanian troops crossed the border and began killing Israeli soldiers during the second Palestinian 'intifada.' Hamid Karzai insists on the use of American soldiers for his personal security rather then his own people and as a result has managed to live through numerous attempts to assassinate him. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan insists on clearing out all the streets when he travels in fear of being assassinated by his own people. Muslim opposition to the repression of the rulers results in the onslaught of the Lal Masjid
by Pervez Musharraf to keep his grip on power. King Abdullah of Jordan obliterated the city of Ma'an because of the feelings and sentiments of the people who were undermining his authority. The Egyptian foreign minister was pelted with sandals when he entered the Al Aqsa mosque in 2005 after a meeting with Israel. We also continue to see the charade of the OIC and Arab summits where the rulers are forced to attack the US to keep their host populations happy. There was even an attempted coup in Qatar in October 2002 led by Pakistani and Yemeni army officers which was thwarted by the arrival of American troops - not an example that bodes well for the current Muslim rulers.
These are just some of the many examples that illustrate the weakening grip on power, which the Muslim rulers are now experiencing, and are an illustration that unless the rulers execute what the people wish to live by, then they are liable for eventual change. This has not gone unnoticed by the US and the rest of the world.
The West is defending its ideology
The subverting of foreign thoughts has historically been the approach Capitalism undertook to defend itself from challenges to its supremacy. The Cold War is the best example of this; the defence of the ideology included the McCarthyism
purges, anti-communist propaganda which was termed the red scare, the space race and arms race. Britain today defends itself by concocting lies (subverting) all those who oppose 'British values' as dangerous, extremist, radical, fundamentalist, a potential terrorist and a national security threat. Thus, western States have no qualms in targeting their Muslim communities by bugging their phones, monitoring their histories, tracking their movements abroad and arresting them with mere suspicion even though they have not actually committed a crime.
Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved to many thinkers that Capitalism gained no currency in the Muslims world, in fact stories of Iraqi's welcoming US troops where found to be lies concocted by the US spin machine. It is clearly no coincidence that the areas that are the ultimate targets of the so-called 'war on terror,' are countries where Islam is pre-eminent as majority populations and the basis for future Islamic governance, are the same countries and regions where strategic resources - most notably oil and natural gas are concentrated. It is also no coincidence that both the 2002 and 2006 versions of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Review demonized Muslims, Islamic countries and Islam, in various guises, as grave threats to US security. The highest US officials were convinced that America's greatest ideological challenge is what they call 'a highly politicized form of Islam', that Washington and its allies cannot afford to stand by, and watch Muslims realise their political destiny, the Khilafah.
As a result senior policy makers including George W Bush have 'warned' of the consequences of the Khilafahs' re-establishment. Bush, in a speech to the American nation in October 2005 stated: "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."
Donald Rumsfeld, during the invasion of Iraq confirmed,"Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic Caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East and which would threaten the legitimate governments in Europe, Africa, and Asia. This is their plan. They have said so. We make a terrible mistake if we fail to listen and learn.
It is for these reasons America has imposed a Viceroy of the Middle East because the Muslim rulers cannot be propped up by an outside force for much longer.
The Muslim Ummah today is ready for change she has rejected the Capitalist viewpoint and wants to live by Islam in State and society. Her sentiments have been in line with Islam as has been seen each time the West has attacked the Deen. Muslim globally can clearly see the rulers are not representative of her; in fact, a widening gulf exists between the rulers and the people. This realisation and the shocks that have occurred upon her in the last few years will eventually move her to change these rulers to those who are representative of her. The reality of change and the historic evidences show that we are on the verge of this change.
What will motivate those who can make this change a reality and take that extra step is the feeling of the general masses; since this will give them confidence and support. In the Muslim world, this is the armies. If we look to the recent past in the Muslim World, we can see that many of the coups and attempted coups were undertaken by army officers looking for change. Pakistan, Qatar, Tunisia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are just some examples of countries that have experienced attempted coups or changes in leadership instigated by the army/influential people in the last 12 years who have had enough of the rulers.
The actions of the West should remove any doubt in any Muslims mind that Capitalism has pulled out all its resources to divide the Ummah and reform Islam in order to put a halt to the winds of change that have galvanised the Ummah. In the West, Politicians and thinkers are openly slandering Islam; they also directly slander political Islam as political ideas always end with governance. In The Muslim world continued US intelligence estimates point towards long-term US military presence and the deployment of rapid mobile deployment forces that can be deployed at a moments notice. Such desperate actions only mean one thing as prophesised by Muhammad (saw) in his hadith:
"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership, which will remain for as long as Allah wills, and then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood." Then he kept silent.
(Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273))