Monday, 14 June 2010

Palestine: Two-State solution of Hamas or wait for the Caliphate

Hamas, the elected government of Palestine recently stated that it is prepared to accept the two-state solution[1], according to the UN resolution, which demands total withdrawal of Israeli troops to the 1967 borders, and the implementation of resolution 194, meaning repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. East Jerusalem with the holy cites of Masjid Al-Aqsa would be under the control of Hamas. The other major party, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), also concurs on this viewpoint; thus, a two-state solution seems to be representative of the vast majority of Palestinians living in the occupied territories.

This is contested by the minority view that opposes any form of agreement with Israel, and calls for a military solution: removal of Israel as an entity going back to pre 1948 borders. In practical terms, only a state can remove another state. To match the strength of Israel backed by the mighty US forces will require a strong unified state or an alliance of Muslim states. In Arab-Islamic history, such unity existed only under the Caliphate; the current nationalistic and secular regimes have been a total disaster in terms of confronting Israel.

The military solution via the Caliphate is merely wishful thinking; those who are vocal about this are not living in Palestine facing the daily Israeli oppression. None of the Muslims countries are prepared to give military support to the Palestinians, this makes resisting Israeli occupation very difficult, let alone liberate Palestine. Furthermore, the re-establishment of Caliphate to liberate Palestine as a long term solution requires one to overcome several major hurdles:

  • There is no visible mass movement in the Muslim countries calling for the re-establishment of the caliphate. Nobody knows when the Caliphate will return. It could be tomorrow or it could take a thousand years, by that time there might not be any Palestinians left in the region.
  • If the Caliphate is established, it would need to maintain its existence in the initial period and grow in strength, before it can help others. That could take substantial amount of time, and the task of liberating Palestine would be difficult, especially if it is established in distant lands. Like Muslim Spain, the Palestinians might be eradicated, if they simply continue to wait for the Caliphate to rescue them.
  • The Caliphate would need to unify the various Muslim countries to gain strength, which is a very difficult task, because each nation seeks to preserve its national identity. This is not something new, even from the early period of the Caliphate the presence of nationalism was visible and remained throughout its history. The ruling body of the Caliphate was confined to each dynasty, the Ottomans never produced an Arab ruler, and the Arab dynasties never produced a leader of non-Arab origin.
  • One has to consider, the Caliphate may collapse after it’s re-established. The West destroyed the Caliphate once, and they can do it again. The gap between the Muslim countries and the West in terms of military strength continue to increase, this is a fact.

We see politically naïve, hyper Islamic activists in distant West, waving the Caliphate as the ‘solution’. If a solution exists, why is it not being applied to rescue Palestine? Because, the ‘solution’ is only theoretical at the moment, they have not even managed to cross the first hurdle of establishing the Caliphate. Moreover, if they only reflected on history, they would have seen that Spain was lost in the presence of the Caliphate, so was Palestine for approximately 100 years before it was liberated by Salahuddin Ayubi. Then the bloody Mongol invasion of Baghdad, the entire city is destroyed, the Khalif is executed. The Ottoman Caliphate gradually lost all its territories, until it was dismantled completely in 1924. Hence, the Caliphate is not a guarantee to solve all problems. One has to keep all options open.

Therefore, what should the isolated Palestinians in the occupied territories do now, in terms of dealing with Israel? They are the ones living under bombs, bullets and sanctions, facing systemic eradication; it is a matter of survival for them as a nation. It is their prerogative to decide which direction they should take. Should they resist the Israeli occupation or make a truce or should they confine to the effort of re-establishing the Caliphate?

Palestine is not going to be suitable place for the re-establishment of the Caliphate, as it is under occupation; they can do very little to rebuild the state elsewhere being imprisoned, and fighting for survival, trying to meet the basic necessities of life. Maybe those hyper activists living comfortably in the West should migrate to places like Gaza with their families, and live there for a while, and contribute to this process of dealing with the Israelis demonstrating how many real ‘solutions’ they can deliver.

More than likely, once they get glimpse of the real hardship, and face the Israeli firepower, they would run back to the West with a wiser head. Over the years, how many of them have gone to Palestine and lead by example to show how the Palestinians should not have truce, and continue to resist the Israelis on their own. Can you name one equivalent hyper Islamic-activist to the likes of Rachel Corrie? It was the collective effort and sacrifice of non-Muslim and Muslim peace activists, carrying aid to Gaza that brought it to world’s attention once again. No matter how many aid ships leave from the West, none of these hyper Islamic-activists will be on board or provide any help to raise funds, as they sit in the West, confine their ‘radical’ solution to talking about the Caliphate.

If I thought the decision of Hamas to have a two-state solution was prohibited by Islam, I would first seek clarification from them. They also have learned Scholars amongst them. It is easy to shout from a distance that it is prohibited to agree any truce where it acknowledges the right of Israel to exist, when you are not the one with burden of responsibility and actually suffering; thus the Palestinians take a different view. They will no doubt argue it is one of necessity for them and the armchair critics residing in the West have no appreciation of the real situation to pass such a verdict in the first place.

If there was a truce with the Israelis, the Palestinians can get some breathing space to flourish, focus on building the society and wage a demographic war as they continue to increase their population, and concurrently try to convert the Jews and the pseudo-Jews of occupied Palestine. The truce does not prevent those working for the long term solution of the Caliphate to continue and if they can establish the Caliphate, the treaty is not binding on them, as they were not a party to the contract in the first place.

In addition, the truce can always be repudiated in the future when the facts on the grounds change. When the Caliphate becomes strong, a pretext can always be construed with a little imagination. Thus, a truce does not mean the occupied land is being given up permanently.

Yamin Zakaria (
UK, London
Published on 14/06/2010,


  1. Dear Bro,

    The Two state solution is not a truce it’s a “solution” and is accepting Israel as a state. If by “hyper activists” you mean HT so I think you must be aware that HT is present in Palestine since its inception and is going through all the sufferings from day one.

    Moreover, how would you substantiate your argument of having a permanent Zionist entity to which a common Jew even does not agree. You have not a single reference from the seerah or other sources of Islam.



  2. Quote -
    "One has to consider, the Caliphate may collapse after it’s re-established. The West destroyed the Caliphate once, and they can do it again. The gap between the Muslim countries and the West in terms of military strength continue to increase, this is a fact. "

    It took west more than 200 years of efforts to destroy caliphate. There was always a gap between Islamic State and western military might, starting of Badr to Salahuddin, this has been seen repeatedly.

    The caliphate got destroyed, the destruction didnt happen from direct foreign force but from within. Hence your supposition - "this is a fact" - is false.

    All other issues you raised are either purely from pragmatic view or suppositions about the past from which we have learnt.

    I doubt whether Hamas itself is very clear about accepting Israel even if Hamas is given a State. Therefore, it is premature to advocate this idea seriously.

    In a nutshell you are proposing to have a deal based on present situation which might change in next 2,3,4,5 years. This is a time when Hamas/Muslims dont have any bargaining power, hence we shall only be selling ourselves cheap.

    We know for sure as a part of the emaan that palestine will be liberated. Lets keep trying, this is not a furniture or gold we are talking about, it is rightful claim to a large territory and if the owners dont give up their claims generation after generation then who are we to impose a deal upon them?

  3. Salam Naeem

    I am not proposing anything, because like you I am not a in a position to do so. The Palestenians may decide to have truce and make further concessions, because of their plight. Nobody is helping them, and it's little use shouting from a distance -its haram. If you feel that strong about it, then go there and help them to implement your solution.
    This is the central point in this article.

    The Caliphate got detroyed for many reasons, internal decay to the rising power of European nations. In the last 100 years, the various reforms were an attempt to catch up to the West. It seems they were moving towards a parliamentary system, where the Khalif would be held accountable and his powers would be limited by the elected body.

    I suggest you read up on that period. I intend to write a series of articles on this. Look at my other website - under History section.


  4. If Khilafat means one Muslim nation under one flag - it's as impossible as it was since the downfall of Ummayyia dynasty. What can be achieved after getting rid of the western puppet regimes from the 57 Muslim nation state - a union of Muslim countries following the the EU example - a loose confederation of Muslim nation-states.

    The so-called 'two state', proposed by the notorious Balfour Declaration (1917) - when the illegal zionist settlers declared state of Israel in 1948 on 54% of Palestinian land and the restof 46% was divided among Trans-Jordan and Egypt. The only viable and peaceful solution is a ONE democratic-secularist Palestine state with equal rights for foreign Jews and native Muslims and Christians.

    We are about to hear a new USrael plan to further divide the Palestinian people.

  5. If you've had done your research properly you'd have realised that the vast amount of those people (HT) who oppose the two-state solution actually live in the muslim world and are actually burdened with the sufferring. so your comment about 'armchair critiques' is just a cheap shot and a bit dishonest.
    would've been a valid point if everyone, like yourself,was living in the west and just criticising whats going on in the muslim world.

  6. Dear Bro,

    As I mentioned in my previous post that the "hyper activist" you are referring to are there since inception, so they are not shouting from distance rather they are fulfilling their Islamic obligation.


  7. The Palestinian Authority: Above and Beyond the Law?

    Written by Manal Bader Sunday, 05 September 2010 17:59
    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    As Palestine struggles under ruthless Zionist occupation, the citizens of the West Bank and Gaza face a more callous opponent, that of the Palestinian Authority.