~ The Caliphate's Time Has Come ~

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zman
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 46
  • Views Views 8K

Zman

IB Veteran
Messages
586
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
:sl:/Peace To All

From Baghdad To Bishkek, The Caliphate's Time Has Come

By Simon Jones,
In Tashkent
Jul 31, 2005, 22:26
AxisOfLogic

Uzbekistan's unending tragedy - 15 years of unremitting repression of its Muslims (well, make that a century) - has reached a critical impasse. With the massacre of up to 1,000 innocents in Andijan, the mood in the country is set against Karimov: there is no graceful exit for this once wily balancer of clan greed, untempered by any basis in Islamic principles of social justice and public service.

But K and Uz are not alone. A recent analysis of Tunisia (see Le Monde 6/5) describes the poverty and anomy of life under its repressive, secular, pro-US dictator Ben Ali, with his playtime democracy, prohibition of all Islamic parties and general discouragement of Islam, and above all the fear to make even the mildest public criticisms. We can say ‘ditto’ more or less for Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Then there are such embarrassments as Dubai, which is building a high tech Disney-style archipelago replica of the world for the super-rich, or the Emirates, which imports Russian and Uzbek women as sex slaves. It is very hard to find a Muslim country which reflects the austere social justice of the Koran. But then, it is hard to find a Muslim country which is not a US-client state. Malaysia and Iran come to mind, and in their own very different ways, they offer some hope.

In his July 4th speech this year, President George Bush hailed the new era of democracy, the result of US battles "from Bunker Hill to Baghdad". Leaving aside Bunker Hill and what's left of the American Revolution, we can already see the democracy that the US is bringing to Baghdad and Kabul - the kind where the living envy the dead, of whom there are hundreds more with each passing day.

No. The Call Should Be: 'From Bishkek To Baghdad, The Caliphate's Time Has Come.'

And ironically, though Karimov loudly proclaims himself its greatest enemy, he is unwittingly one of its greatest assets, constantly raising its spectre in justification of his persecution of Uzbek Muslims.

Irony:

never has the Muslim world been so enslaved to kufr (anti-Islamic) countries and leaders, and yet never has it been so demonized and despised by them.

While western media construct fantasies to the contrary, this is the sad, tragic reality.

K's Contribution To The Caliphate:

K's relationship with Islam is complex. In 1990, when he was campaigning for president in Uzbekistan's only relatively free election, he addressed an Islamic meeting of 40,000 organized by the religious movement Adolat (Justice) in Namangan, even praying on stage, to the delight of the demonstrators. He promised its charismatic leader, Tahir Yuldashev, the future founder of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, that he would build lots of mosques and let Islam flower, that "the road should be opened to become friends with and get help from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey, so that we can become a united Muslim state."[1]

Coincidentally, after securing his election, K also promised his secular nationalist rival, Mahammad Salih of Erk, who had come a respectable second, that he would be a strong nationalist leader and allow the flowering of secular democracy.

Apparently, he was convincing as both leaders were taken in and initially supported him. Of course, he reneged on both these incompatible promises and proceeded to issue death sentences on both his nemeses.

(The heroic Yuldashev died fighting to overthrow K; the wily Salih lives comfortably in Norway and recently met with Secretary of State Rice.)

US Choices:

Now that the US willingly or unwillingly has chosen to bring on another of its CIA velvet revolutions, what are its alternatives?

It looks like the pressure is on to allow the legal operation of only pro-US, pro-market nationalist parties Birlik, headed by Pulatov (living in exile in US), and Erk, headed by Salih (living in exile in Norway), plus Hidoyatova’s Free Peasants party and Umarov’s Party of Agrarians and Entrepreneurs.

[Update: the business leaders associated with the unofficial opposition 'Sunshine Coalition' are now being persecuted and some are fleeing the country. One of Umarov's sons, Guliambek, was poisoned but survived; the other, Sardorbek, fled the country.]

Recently a Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan was set up in the US by these and other US-sponsored Uzbek dissidents, bringing its favourite sons together in one happy, politically correct opposition force much like Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

In short, a mirror image of the phony independent parties set up by K to give a semblance of democracy (National Democratic, Patriots, etc).

Not a word about religious parties or greater freedom for Muslims to organize, and certainly no intention of promoting Muslim unity.

Stalin Without Socialism:

By obsessively condemning the idea of Islam as the formative principle of Uzbek society, K takes his direction from an earlier dictator who ruled over Uzbekistan. His style and methods are chillingly like those of Stalin in everything except Stalin's concern for basic economic standards for the masses. There is no social security net anymore, and K can't seem to understand that his self-exaltation and cold-blooded disdain for his people is his nemesis, that violence will now increase until a full-blown crisis, including international isolation and possibly intervention, is reached.

Because Stalin could point to the solid socialist achievements of his ruthless reign ('Islam without Allah'), and because he had control over a huge territory, his rule was safe as long as his terror apparatus was intact.

Thus, the 1920-30s movement for a united Turkistan was easily repressed and indeed forgotten as the USSR consolidated itself as a political system without meaningful internal borders, and ancient Turkistan was carved up into competing, dysfunctional Central Asian 'republics'.

Furthermore, the pressure for a modern-day caliphate was not so great where all Muslims could interact in work and culture, and where basic social needs were met.

Logic Of The Caliphate:

But 'Caliphate'? Yes!

By first promising the idea, and then ruthlessly suppressing even the normal practice of Islam, let alone any mention of some hare-brained caliphate, Mr K has made himself captive to it and, like Lady Macbeth, must wash and wash again from his bloodied hands the guilt for his political intrigues.

By continually harping about Hizb-ut-Tahrir and its program of trying to revive the political unity of Muslims, he merely provides greater legitimacy to the idea.

A unique feature of this part of the Muslim world is that it has experienced both socialism and capitalism and knows first hand the weaknesses of both, so the argument in a nutshell, to paraphrase Lenin, would be something like "the 21st century Caliphate = communism + the Koran."
An Islamic Explanation Would Take The Following Form:

Muslims base their identity first and foremost on Islam, and Islam being a universal religion, they naturally will overcome kufr nationalism and work together to realize the ideal state, based on the Koran's detailed and surprisingly robust program.

The very concept of nationalism is a western one and became the predominant political force surprisingly late, only with the triumph of capitalism and the ascendancy of secularism in the 19th century.

It reached its most criminal forms in Nazi Germany and today in Israel.

It must be abandoned in favor of the unity of all Muslims, rejecting the nationalist regimes sponsored by imperialism - first British and now American - to keep Muslims divided.

These politics, once reversed throughout the Muslim world, would of course lead to all Islamic countries working together.

Yes, Mr K, that's what the dreaded caliphate is all about. And what's so wrong with it?

Why shouldn't Muslim countries throw off their western masters and use their immense clout to fight the real sources of terrorism - USrael and its secular quislings like you?

History Of The Caliphate:

The Caliphate refers to the first great flowering of Islam and its rapid spread to form a mighty spiritually-based empire with various centers from the 7-14th centuries in the Middle East and Central Asia. The Caliph is the leader of the Ummah (community of Islam).

The word caliph (khalifa) is Arabic for stewardship of nature and family, a key obligation of all Muslims (vs. the Old Testament "dominion over nature").

The Caliphate was unquestionably far more civilized than feudal Europe, despite a near death blow from invasions by the Mongols (who were NOT Muslim) and the Europeans in the 10-12th centuries.

For a while in the 8th century, it even looked like Christianity might reconcile with this latest monotheism, but Rome suppressed its revisionists and eventually the disastrous Crusades turned ecumenism back a thousand years (just as Bush's present Crusade is ensuring that no compromise is possible with the Muslim world).

It was only with the rise of capitalism and imperialism that the Ottoman Caliphate was overpowered by a now secular, materialist monolith, and destroyed by the ‘winners’ of World War I, with the spoils divided among the Judeo-Christian empires of Britain, France and later the US and Israel.

In reality, the present war against Islam began in the late 19th century and has continued ever since.

While Jewish and Christian cultures embraced the soulless materialism of capitalism, Islam remained and still remains unwilling to reform itself to suit the needs of Mammon.

However, the onslaught by the capitalist powers and the former Soviet Union has had its toll on the Muslim world, setting up small malleable states with secular governments now dominated by the US.

The aim is to continue to westernize Muslim societies, by seduction or force if necessary, to make them willingly accept US (make that USraeli) imperialism. But the final count is not in.

Present Nadir and Rebirth:

Islam has shown incredible resilience in the face of this unremitting attack, which has increased exponentially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, or rather, because of it and the blow that collapse dealt to the left in the West.

Since then, it's been full steam ahead for the USraeli imperial project, leaving Muslims (plus Cuba's communists and Venezuela's Bolivarians) as the only significant countervailing forces.

"The triumph of Islam will most likely come after severe crisis - social, economic and ecological - leading to the military abandoning the kufr regime [Uzbekistan looks like a case in point] and through a coup d'état proposing a pro-Islamic system to stabilize the society now bankrupt and suffering economic collapse." Think Nasser or Chavez.

There is the distinct possibility that soon the international order will collapse, along with the US dollar as world currency and bank-created fiat money, with or without the 'peak oil' wildcard.

So this scenario is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Look for more about Iran and Malaysia's gold dinar as the dollar continues to sink.

Funny how capitalism's physical nemesis - oil - is found predominantly in Muslim countries, along with its spiritual nemesis - the Islamic ban on fiat money and usury and other (wise) restraints on economic activity.

Funny how precisely the Muslim world holds all these keys to the world's economic salvation.

No doubt Marx would chuckle if he were to be told that:

"Yes, world capitalism is doomed to collapse, but so is socialism, and it is ancient Islam that will survive to rebuild economic relations built on stewardship of nature, social justice, the gold standard and prayer."
Central Asia As A Crucial Link In The Logic:

Just as the secular attempts at pan-Arabism by Gaddafi, Nasser and Hussein failed, Kemal Ataturk's earlier flirting with pan-Turkish nationalism in Central Asia collapsed as the Soviets consolidated their grip in the 1920s and replaced the binding force of Islam with socialism.

However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the pressure or desire for such a union of all Muslim Central Asian states is much more compelling, and with the revival of Islam in Turkey, it is in a position to dispense with its wannabe fascination with secular Europe and turn to embrace the Muslim world to the east.

The only solution to the 'Kurdish' problem is to base society on its one common denominator: Islam.

Already, Afghanistan and Iraq, with their US-controlled governments, have formulated constitutions based on Islamic law and Iraq has begun to work closely with Iran.

The only way to hold Iraq together and to end the stand-off in Afghanistan is (excuse the mantra) to appeal to the one common denominator: Islam.

The pseudo-nationalism promoted by Central Asian leaders to secure their power and state theft has meant that they are all pathetic backwaters, unable to create meaningful common economic spaces. Borders, visas, customs, etc. are all used to fill corrupt officials’ pockets, hindering any rational economic revival.

The blatant manoeuvrings here of Europe, USrael, China, and Russia, each with its own anti-Muslim, anti-Central Asian agenda, makes it especially urgent that Central Asia unite.

Interestingly, even in the present state of political disarray, both Kyrgyzstan, with its 'tulip revolution', and Uzbekistan, with its ruthless pro-US (oops, anti-US) dictator, are trying to close their US bases, suggesting there's a compelling logic to resist US hegemony, even without that unity.

Ironically, the very suppression now of Islam throughout the region only adds fuel to the desire to rebuild society without Big Brothers imposing their secular fantasies.

Once Islamic-based parties such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir are allowed to organize openly, honest citizens will be able to criticize the horrendous mess here. This is what ‘democracy’ should be about.

It would also empty the jails of many thousands of devout Muslims in Uzbekistan.

So what if an Islamic party comes to power and Central Asia becomes greater Turkistan?

So what if women wear headscarves?

I suspect local Russians would be much better off than under the present clan-based mafias and the ever-present spectre of official or opposition violence.

Of course, it would mean a drastic reduction in prostitution and restricted alcohol sales.

And a big move away from the trashy American culture that floods the TV and airwaves here.

A small loss.

Long-Term Scenario:

The focus of Central Asian politics should be to unite the 60 plus million Central Asians, with their rich resources and ethnically close peoples, as a political and economic block to resist the various imperial agendas, to ensure the dignity and livelihood of the largely Muslim, Turkic peoples living here.

Combine Turkey's 70 million, Iran's 70 million, Pakistan's 140m and the Middle East, and we can see a superpower in the making second only to China, one based on social justice, not greed and violence.

This will be the first step in uniting all Muslims from Morocco to the Philippines.

Once the Central Asian states shake off the western imperial yoke, including their erstwhile 'friend' Russia, and join with their Turkish cousins, their example will inspire the Arabs to the west and the Asians to the east.

Whereas, once upon a time, the Caliphate emanated from Mecca, now it will be renewed from the home of the medieval Islamic renaissance, the home of Biruni, Avicenna and Ulugbek.

Yes, the time for reconstituting the Caliphate, uniting Muslims throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, has come.
The free ride that British and US imperialism (and the Soviet Union) have had, training and propping up secular political leaders (fluent in English or Russian and trained in the UK, US or Moscow), is over.

The Soviet Union pushed too far in trying to incorporate Afghanistan into the socialist fold, and the US has gone one better (i.e., worse) with its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and its attempts at soft landings for other Muslim states-in-trouble are not panning out. Uzbekistan is a fine example of this.

There is no way out except by turning to Islam as the only force capable of overriding the greed and downright evil of secular politics.

This is not an easy road.

Imperialism will not give up without a fight, and just as it ably assisted in destroying the Soviet Union, it is hard at work undermining any Islamic alternative.

We can only thank Allah (and maybe his Catholic and secular fellow travelers in Latin America) that there is still a light at the end of the long, dark tunnel.

Source:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_19466.shtml
 
I am warming up to the Caliphate idea. With so many fewer Muslim countries, that would have to help the parking problems around the UN.

It would, however, kill tourism in Bali.
 
IMO the Islamic world is nearing its end.sad but true.with increasing liberalism and secularism,Islamic practices are disappearing in some places.
 
:sl:/Peace To All

The Second Coming Of Saladin

By Pepe Escobar
May 18, 2007
Asia Times Online
(Hong Kong)

The best lack all conviction
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
- W B Yeats, The Second Coming

DAMASCUS - The discreet green-and-white tomb of the greatest warrior of Islam, Saladin - by the splendid Ummayad Mosque in the former seat of the caliphate - may be the ideal place to meditate on if, where and when Islam may be shaken again by the advent of a new Saladin, nine centuries after the illustrious deeds of the great Muslim general.

Saddam Hussein, not least because he was also from Tikrit (although Saladin was a Kurd), fashioned himself as the genuine article - fighting (twice) the infidel Christian armies of the US. He is now no more than a martyr for a minority. Osama bin Laden carefully fashioned his iconography as a cross between Saladin, Che Guevara and the Prophet Mohammed. But as in the immortal line in Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, "his methods are unsound"; despite the marketing success in the expansion of the al-Qaeda brand, bin Laden will never be able to capture the collective conscious of the ummah.

The new Saladin might be the son of a Palestinian refugee victim of the Nakhba ("catastrophe") 59 years ago. He might be a computer wizard too sophisticated to be tempted by al-Qaeda's Salafi-jihadism. He might be an angry young man straight out of the "sanctions generation" in Iraq - deprived of everything while he was growing up, courtesy of the "international community".

He won't be a tourism developer in Dubai, self-styled "city of captivating contrasts" (between the Western/Arab business elites and the South Asian slaves, maybe?). He won't be the pampered son of the Sunni business aristocracy in Damascus showing off his Porsche Cayenne. He won't be a billionaire international playboy posing as politician a la Saad Hariri in Beirut. He won't be a gas-dealing executive in gas nirvana Qatar.

Divide and Rejoice:

Conditions are more than ripe for the advent of a new Saladin - after the Nakhba, the 1967 lightning Israeli victory against the Arabs, the failures of pan-Arabism, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli attack on Lebanon, the limited appeal of Salafi-jihadism, the non-stop stifling of nationalist movements by Western-backed brutal dictatorships/client monarchies.

When the future Saladin looks at the troubled and dejected Middle East, the first thing he sees is US Vice President Dick Cheney shopping for yet another war - skipping the "axis of evil" (Iran, unofficial member Syria) and ordering support from the "axis of fear" (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, the Emirates) in his relentless demonizing of Iran. After inflating sectarianism in Iraq, this time the imperial "divide and rule" weapon of choice is Arabs vs Persians.

The administration of US President George W Bush may have taken a leaf from former colonial power France - which invented Greater Lebanon as a confessional state, thus prone to perennial turbulence - to apply it in Iraq. But plunging Iraq into civil war to control better it is not enough (and there's still the matter of securing the oilfields).

Forcing a practically de facto partition of Iraq into three warring crypto-states - a Kurdistan, a southern "Shi'iteistan" and a small central, oil-deprived Sunnistan - mired in a sea of blood in the heart of the Middle East is not enough. For Cheney, the industrial-military complex and assorted Ziocon (Zionist/neo-conservative) warriors, the big prize is the subjugation of Iran. Because Iran, apart from its natural wealth, is the only power capable - at least potentially - of challenging regional US hegemony.

Yet the trademark Cheney threats - with the standard high-tech aircraft-carrier background - are not cutting much ice. Al-Jazeera has been rhetorically bombarded by everybody and his neighbor - from retired Egyptian generals to Emirati political analysts - stressing that the Middle East will not support another US war. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, in a swift move, has just been to the United Arab Emirates - the first visit by any Iranian leader since the Emirates became independent in 1971, and all the more crucial because of a still-running dispute over a bunch of Persian Gulf islands.

The House of Saud - for which the only thing that matters is its own survival - desperately wants a solution as soon as possible for the Palestinian tragedy, before they may be buried six feet under by the terrible sandstorms blowing from Mesopotamia (think of hordes of battle-hardened Salafi-jihadis coming home after fighting the US in Iraq).

King Abdullah is not bent on antagonizing Iran. On the contrary: the most important guest at the recent Riyadh conference was Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki. Saudis and Iranians want to prevent US-provoked sectarianism in Iraq from spreading regionally. And King Abdullah wants a better deal for Sunni Arab Iraqis (hence his identification of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as an Iranian puppet).

While Cheney wants to pit Saudi Arabia against Iran, a discreet, behind-the-scenes Saudi-Iranian pact of no aggression may be all but inevitable, diplomats tell Asia Times Online. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said as much on the record: "Stop any attempt aimed at spreading sectarian strife in the region."

Iran of course can be very persuasive, holding some tasty cards up its sleeve - such as hard-earned intelligence directly implicating the Saudis in training the Sunni Arab muqawama (resistance) in Iraq on explosive form penetrators (EFPs), which the Pentagon foolishly insists come from Iran. Everyone in Iraq knows it is operatives from "axis of fear" allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt - and also Pakistan - who have provided the Sunni Arab guerrillas in Iraq with technology and training on improvised explosive devices and EFPs.

Thus we have another Bush administration foreign-policy special: Cheney coddling guerrilla-arming Sunni Arabs - who are facilitating the killing of American soldiers in Iraq - to support an attack on Shi'ite Persians (allied with the Iraqi Shi'ites supported by the Americans ...).

Anyway, Iraqi Shi'ites are more than winning the US surge game. The surging US soldiers are fighting various strands of the Sunni Arab resistance and al-Qaeda in Iraq. Meanwhile, the officially ensconced Badr Organization and its shady death-squad spinoffs are free to apply a lot of deadly pressure on the Sunni Arab civilian population. The Mehdi Army, on Muqtada al-Sadr's orders, is just lying low - not taking the bait of fighting the Americans. Nothing will change the reality of this surge picture in the next few months.

About That Clash:

A possible Saudi-Iranian entente would be a classic case of local powers taking the destiny of the region in their own hands. In a parallel register, in southern Beirut - prime Hezbollah territory - there are plenty of banners in front of buildings destroyed by Israel last summer. They read: "The Zionist enemy destroys, the Islamic Republic of Iran builds."

Unity in the Muslim world is not a chimera: crypto-scientific Western babble of the "Arabs are extinct" variety is plain silly, as are nonagenarian Bernard Lewis' pontifications on the "clash of civilizations" - the "perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage". The new Saladin would tell Lewis to get a grip on reality and admit that the unabated political repression, tremendous social inequality and prevailing economic disaster all over the Middle East are direct consequences of decades of "divide and rule" Western imperialism plus some extra decades of non-stop meddling coupled with rapacious, arrogant and ignorant local elites.

The new Saladin knows how the US and Britain initially supported the Muslim Brotherhood - and then the Brotherhood supported the birth of Hamas. He knows how the US and Britain initially supported Iranian clerics - especially the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - against the shah. He knows how the US and Britain initially supported the Taliban. The aim was always to stifle any form of progressive, secular movement by socialists, communists or Arab nationalists.

A possible Saudi-Iran entente is still a dream. There is the parallel emergence of a coalition of top members of the "axis of fear" - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan - with Turkey and, of all players, Israel. Common objective: the containment of Iran. And not only Iran, but also Hezbollah and Hamas. King Abdullah was persuaded of this strategy by notorious Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka "Bandar Bush", former Saudi ambassador in the US for 22 years, a close friend of both Bush and Cheney, and now the head of the Saudi National Security Council.

The strategy was in fact masterminded by a pedestrian version of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Cheney; Bandar; US deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams; and former US ambassador in Iraq and Afghan jack-of-all-trades Zalmay Khalilzad. What the popular masses in the Middle East think about this is of course irrelevant. In majority-Sunni Egypt, for instance, the most popular politicians are by far Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Khalid Meshal from Hamas, and Ahmadinejad. Two Shi'ites and a Sunni amply supported by Shi'ites.

About That 'War On Terror:'

The Bush administration is cunningly trying to spin the theme of "Sunni solidarity" to push the dagger of fitna (dissent) even further into the heart of Islam, always focusing on the same target: total, unchallenged domination of the Middle East.

Cheney could not but have also enlisted Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf (who facilitates US intelligence on countless covert ops inside southeastern Iran organized from Balochistan in Pakistan). Some players are getting itchy, though. Turkey had to announce on the record that it would not join any "anti-Shi'ite alliance". Turkey cannot afford to antagonize Iran - not with the coming November referendum on the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan.

The new Saladin also sees that the "war on terror" is far from over - metastasized into more subtle forms of Islamophobia, and still directly related to the attempted oil grab in the "big prizes" of Iraq and Iran. The privileged strategy to conquer fabulous natural wealth in the lands of Islam has been predictable from the start; building a case against the "barbarian", "uncivilized" and "pre-modern" Muslim world; vilifying Islam as a religion and Muslim culture and mores; promoting de facto discrimination and in may cases outright racism against Muslims in the wealthy north; equating Islam with terrorism.

The new Saladin knows it as much as virtually the whole 1.5-billion-strong ummah knows it.

And then there's the Shi'ite world. As long as US so-called elites fail to understand the phenomenal power of Shi'ism, any brilliant armchair strategy they cook up is destined to fail miserably.

Shi'ites in Iraq will never be co-opted by any US agenda - no matter the Himalayas of wishful thinking involved. They will never sacrifice their collective consciousness - forged by oppression and exclusion - nor their profound sense of historic victimization to the benefit of a made-in-America "liberal" utopia. Shi'ites will continue to stress their tremendous hostility to Zionism; to their society being corrupted by Western - especially US - popular and trash culture; and most of all to imperial designs on Muslim lands and natural wealth. It's in the DNA of Shi'ites to see themselves as the guardians of true Islam.

The Hour Of The Wolf:

So where will the new Saladin come from?

He could be Nasrallah - who forced the formerly mighty Israeli army to back off, and who will inevitably prevail in a majority government in Lebanon through democratic elections.

He could be a young Sadrist who has never entered the Green Zone, and who before that was a member of the "sanctions generation", growing up in absolute marginalization. Now he goes to al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, he will get his diploma, and he will be better equipped to fight for the true liberation of Iraq. He could be Muqtada al-Sadr himself - the legitimate popular leader of a national-liberation movement.

He could be the son of a Palestinian refugee who grew up in Damascus or Beirut, got an education, emigrated to Canada to perfect his skills, learn from the best the West has to offer, and then one day come back and enter politics with a vengeance.

He could be a Muslim Brotherhood intellectual in Syria. He would fully back the Sunni Arab resistance in Iraq. He would fully back deposing the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. He would fully back Hamas. As a Muslim Brotherhood Saladin, he would fight for a Sunni Arab Greater Syria capable of talking some sense into Israel.

He could be a Saudi-trained Sunni Arab sniper in Baghdad who posts his killing videos as manifestos on the Internet. Or he could even not be an Arab, but a Persian - a resistance hero in case of a tactical nuclear US strike.

The soul of Saladin may be impatient for an heir. So are hundreds of millions in the ummah. What rough warrior, its hour come out at last, slouches toward Jerusalem, Damascus or Baghdad to be born?

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007).

He may be reached at [email protected].

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Source:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IE18Ak01.html
 
Last edited:
Of course if Saladin were alive today he would probably be called a "traitor" by some Muslims on this forum.

It is unfortunate that war is how we find our "heroes", when the best leaders are those who go unnoticed and forgotten, because their contributions were stability and peace. I hope a capable Muslim leader does arise, hopefully in a place that really needs one, like Iraq.
 

How is that?

Because Saladin was more concerned with peace than war. Yes, he took back Jerusalem by force, but he also lived in peace with the Kingdom of Jerusalem when he could have taken if by force long before he did. There were people calling him names back then, because he refused to commit to war to reclaim Jerusalem.
 
:sl:/Peace To All

Interesting opinion piece. But I don't believe a caliphate can really come in modern society without first there being stability and prosperity. I just don't see how collapse of the current world order brings a Caliphate any closer. How will destruction of that order suddenly create stable institutions to rule, thwart tribalism and bring unity? Doesn't chaos usually breed clans and tribalism? Doesn't chaos usually mean less education and welfare, making it easier for despotism to rear its ugly head? I just don't see it. How will this caliphate consolidate itself in such instability?

Sorry, but it seems wishful thinking. It seems to assume that collapse of the current order will mean that Muslims, who are currently deeply divided on pretty much everything, will pull together, put down their weapons and sing the Islamic version of 'Kumbaya' together. Anything is possible of course, but in my opinion the Caliphate will reemerge only after liberalism and democracy have thrived in the Muslim world. Muslims are ideologically inclined to cooperate, so I can imagine the Muslim world developing similarly to the European Union, through small steps in which sovereign states grant some of their powers to a supranational entity, towards an "ever closer union". But this can only happen after a big middle class develops with the power to tame rulers, after all, despots are generally not inclined to give away power to others.

Just my $0.02.
 
Interesting opinion piece. But I don't believe a caliphate can really come in modern society without first there being stability and prosperity. I just don't see how collapse of the current world order brings a Caliphate any closer. How will destruction of that order suddenly create stable institutions to rule, thwart tribalism and bring unity? Doesn't chaos usually breed clans and tribalism? Doesn't chaos usually mean less education and welfare, making it easier for despotism to rear its ugly head? I just don't see it. How will this caliphate consolidate itself in such instability?

Sorry, but it seems wishful thinking. It seems to assume that collapse of the current order will mean that Muslims, who are currently deeply divided on pretty much everything, will pull together, put down their weapons and sing the Islamic version of 'Kumbaya' together. Anything is possible of course, but in my opinion the Caliphate will reemerge only after liberalism and democracy have thrived in the Muslim world. Muslims are ideologically inclined to cooperate, so I can imagine the Muslim world developing similarly to the European Union, through small steps in which sovereign states grant some of their powers to a supranational entity, towards an "ever closer union". But this can only happen after a big middle class develops with the power to tame rulers, after all, despots are generally not inclined to give away power to others.

Just my $0.02.

Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists etc are pretty much divided on everything. Humans in general are divided on everything so what's your point?

Between matters of religion their is only shiah (pff not Islam) and Sunni's and the rest are trivial matters. Were not divided on anything +o(
 
Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists etc are pretty much divided on everything. Humans in general are divided on everything so what's your point?

Between matters of religion their is only shiah (pff not Islam) and Sunni's and the rest are trivial matters. Were not divided on anything +o(

Didn't you just prove his point?

Let me see if I can answer that....YES..you did.

You say the Shia are not part of Islam...they say they are. That seems rather a big discrepancy. We are not talking about fish and game regulations. Nor are we talking about a couple of dozen kooks living in some cave. We are talking about > 100 million people.

BTW...the debate about the propriety (under Islam) of killing thousands of non-believers just to make a point seems not so "trivial" to me.
 
Last edited:
Interesting opinion piece. But I don't believe a caliphate can really come in modern society without first there being stability and prosperity. I just don't see how collapse of the current world order brings a Caliphate any closer. How will destruction of that order suddenly create stable institutions to rule, thwart tribalism and bring unity? Doesn't chaos usually breed clans and tribalism? Doesn't chaos usually mean less education and welfare, making it easier for despotism to rear its ugly head? I just don't see it. How will this caliphate consolidate itself in such instability?

Sorry, but it seems wishful thinking. It seems to assume that collapse of the current order will mean that Muslims, who are currently deeply divided on pretty much everything, will pull together, put down their weapons and sing the Islamic version of 'Kumbaya' together. Anything is possible of course, but in my opinion the Caliphate will reemerge only after liberalism and democracy have thrived in the Muslim world. Muslims are ideologically inclined to cooperate, so I can imagine the Muslim world developing similarly to the European Union, through small steps in which sovereign states grant some of their powers to a supranational entity, towards an "ever closer union". But this can only happen after a big middle class develops with the power to tame rulers, after all, despots are generally not inclined to give away power to others.

Just my $0.02.

I'd have to disagree here. Reading about countless wars and times of instability in my history lessons at University, if it is one thing I've learned, it is that chaos gives birth to stability. The end result doesn't necessarily have to be good, it can be bad too.

Also your hypothesis about the coming of caliphate after a firm foundation is established, might be, in my opinion, a little flawed.

The prevalent ideas in European Union are democracy and freedom. Yes, I agree that many Muslims like the appeal of democracy and also freedom. But when you examine the state of affairs of the whole country, you'd find secularism dominates any other. However, when you study Islam and the rule of Caliphs, you'd notice that Islam would remain the foundation of the Caliphate. The moment people stray from their religion, the whole concept of rule of Caliph falls.

The prophecies made by our prophet tell us that there will be chaos before the Caliph arrives and that Imam Mahdi (the caliph that Muslims will follow) will receive inspiration in one night and the followers will believe him. Since I'm a muslim, I believe it too.

I haven't really studied the Christian Prophecies much, but I believe I read somewhere that they too believe that Isa (as) [Christ] will arrive in the midst of chaos. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Jews also have a similar concept with their Mosiach.

It is a matter of belief. Some take the statistics provided to them to heart and some reject them and claim it runs in cycles. Inconclusively, you can hypothesize about the circumstances under which the caliph will appear or be established based on what is happening and you can relate to present day things. Doesn't necessarily make you right.
 
Islams Ummah has ended, Iran might be the last islamic nation in the world, and it will soon end to.

Pam arabism, is on the rize. If you call the persian gulf, the persian gulf in the Emirates, you will go to jail. Its the arabic gulf there.

The caliphate dream is over.
 
The Ummah is in a mess, but InshaAllah will rise again. If not now, then later on InshaAllah. Had the Ummah been on the end, Islam wouldnt be the "fastest" growing. We are where we are because of our own mistakes, so we are in humiliation in front of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. I disagree with your statement that the Ummah has ended. All of us here are very close to our faith, imagine others in the world. And to top that, we have some other Muslim brothers and sisters who are way better, MashaAllah.


Islams Ummah has ended

Wish if u must. If it pleases you.

Peace
 
Last edited:
The Ummah is in a mess, but InshaAllah will rise again. If not now, then later on InshaAllah. Had the Ummah been on the end, Islam wouldnt be the "fastest" growing. We are where we are because of our own mistakes, so we are in humiliation in front of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. I disagree with your statement that the Ummah has ended. All of us here are very close to our faith, imagine others in the world. And to top that, we have some other Muslim brothers and sisters who are way better, MashaAllah.

Islam is the fastest growing religion cause they are the poorest nations. So they have more children. Once upon a time Lebanon was a christian nation, the christians had 1-2 children, the muslims had 5-10, Africa is mostly islamic, the poor nations like Indonesia has the worlds largest muslim population.

Then we have forced conversions, its not much but still
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53258

Then we have people that want to be diffrent, they dress funny as young to defy their parenths, then defy society by becoming muslims. These are extremly rare.

Wish if u must. If it pleases you.

Peace

It does.
 
"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, 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)]
 
Islam is the fastest growing religion cause they are the poorest nations. So they have more children. Once upon a time Lebanon was a christian nation, the christians had 1-2 children, the muslims had 5-10, Africa is mostly islamic, the poor nations like Indonesia has the worlds largest muslim population.

Then we have forced conversions, its not much but still
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53258

Then we have people that want to be diffrent, they dress funny as young to defy their parenths, then defy society by becoming muslims. These are extremly rare.



It does.

Is that seriously the only comeback you guys have? Its the only thing coming out of your fingers to a remark like that. It really is getting old, perhaps something different to intrigue my mind? Regardless of how many children are being born, some of those no longer remain Muslim. So that really doesnt mean anything.

Then we have people that want to be diffrent, they dress funny as young to defy their parenths, then defy society by becoming muslims. These are extremly rare.

Says who? We have lots here and its only a forum. I have a ton of them at my college and its only a college. Anymore unstatistical opinions?
 
Last edited:
Is that seriously the only comeback you guys have? Its the only thing coming out of your fingers to a remark like that. It really is getting old, perhaps something different to intrigue my mind? Regardless of how many children are being born, some of those no longer remain Muslim. So that really doesnt mean anything.

No you won't get anything different... but, it really shouldn't matter...
يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِؤُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ {61.8}

:w:
 
Why, is it some kind of contest?

On the basis of fractional growth rate, Scientology crushes Islam. Scientology was made up by a koooky science fiction writer. :'(

Ditto Mormonism :D (note: Mormonism was not made up by a crazy science fiction writer)
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top