A Moderate View in a Radical World

2012 – Will it be a Happy New Year?

2012-01-02T18:08:00.000-08:00

We have just entered 2012 and there are no signs of Armageddon as predicted by some, but it’s still early days. However, I would happily bet that the world would go on past 2012, because to date nobody can predict the relatively small phenomena like earthquakes and hurricanes, therefore, what are the chances of predicting the end of the world? As the year comes to an end, most people utter “Happy New Year”, yet few reflect on the statement: will it be a ‘happy’ one? Will there be peace and prosperity for all? Will it be a greener planet, where conflict, crime and poverty are eliminated; and in societies families and communities take precedence over the few greedy making extortionate profits?

They say by examining the past you understand the present, which in turn allows you to prepare for the future. Hence, the pertinent question is: what have we learnt from the events of 2011?

At the end of the year, the West is still struggling with the debt crisis, economic stagnation, rising unemployment and trying to prevent the collapse of the Euro-Zone; despite the Arab Spring, real democracy and freedom has not materialised in the Arab world; Africa is rich with natural resources and minerals, yet it is still working on becoming self-sufficient trying to eliminate basic poverty; Palestinians are still looking for a homeland, Iraq has an uncertain future, the feuding Afghans will never unify; and for sure India will move on to become a greater power with China and Brazil. Then you have the Muslims in the West debating the important subject of saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy New Year", otherwise they are still making noise about how they were the leading nation 800 years ago!

In terms of financial crisis, almost everyone blames the greedy bankers, men in suits making extortionate profits in good times, and given huge bonuses for failures through bad times; in return they produce nothing tangible. The Capitalist West is stuck in limbo, the greedy bankers and traders create the wealth, thus they cannot be curtailed; everything needs to be done so they can flourish to create the wealth. The entire society is dependent upon them. It means they cannot be punished when they get it wrong; they are bailed out by tax-payers as bankruptcy is not an option for them. When things are good, they get all the benefits, and the rest are waiting for it to trickle down. It’s a win-win situation for the city boys.

It’s not further regulation or deregulation, the system is rotten at the very core and this need to be changed for a permanent cure. The Muslims have the solution, because Islam prohibits interest; it also prohibits using paper money (fiat) as currency that allows wealth and credit creation out of thin air, creating huge debts; and Islam also forbids using money as a commodity, which encourages traders to play with it in their casinos, regardless of the consequences for the entire nation. Money is simply a medium of exchange and it should be kept as that.

Many commentators are of the view that the Arab Spring has been the most significant event in 2011, something what the Americans were trying to instigate with their firepower in Iraq over a decade ago and failed miserably. But suddenly the mass uprising for democracy was ignited in Tunisia and rapidly spread to other countries, confirming that true liberation can only come from within and not from an invading army.

The event was read as a clear rejection of the model of a global Islamic State, as espoused by radical Islamic groups. From the evidence, it is pretty clear that the radical groups do not remotely have a popular mandate, and hence their reluctance to participate in elections with their perfect solutions, against the secular groups who are at least engaging at a practical level with their imperfect solutions.

Finally, the Arabs expressed their desire to establish their version of democracy fused with conservative Islamic values, rather than a radical theocratic state that is hostile towards the West. Or maybe it is the West that is inherently hostile towards such a state having an intolerant nature. The most uncomfortable question remains unanswered: if the Arabs can rise for self-determination why that is restricted to certain states? Why can’t the Palestinians have an independent state? Or the people in Saudi, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar elect their government?

The unlawful killing of Usamah Bin Laden was not questioned by anyone. Why he was not captured and put on trial? Did the US really fear his eloquent tongue, rather than anything else? In any case, this event timed nicely with the policy to withdraw US troops from Iraq, thus giving ammunition to conspiracy theories. There was no celebration in Iraq, except the ones showing contempt for the sadistic US forces.

Then came the unexpected act of terrorism from the far right, a lone white man in Norway went on a killing spree. Why unexpected? Because, everyone has been brainwashed to expect that such acts can only be carried out by radical Muslims; remember the initial reaction to the Oklahoma bomber. Why the term radical? You don’t hear of radical IRA in the UK or radical Basques in Spain or radical Maoist in India. Another paradox of propaganda, a lone suicide bomber has earned the title of being a radical but a F16 pilot dropping far more powerful explosives is somehow benign in comparison.

Regardless of your view on terrorism, there was concurrence that the actions of the Norwegian man were a genuine act of terrorism, rather than an act of retaliation that is politically motivated. This time, it really established the fact that terrorism was not the monopoly of the Muslims; even major newspapers admitted the uncomfortable statistics that terrorism from Muslims is very small in comparison to other sources of terrorism, but this was all admitted in small print rather than massive headlines. In fact, if there was no interference in the Islamic world, and if the Palestinians were given justice, there would be no acts of violence from the Muslims towards the West. I would happily take bets on that too. I wish some bookies would take up my challenge and make me a rich man.

In short, have we learnt that there can be no peace without justice?

Will the media stop selective coverage of the small retaliatory actions from the Palestinians and turn a blind eye to the daily violence of the Israelis, which is suffocating an entire nation like a python. When does a massacre of a civilian population by an organised army become a right of retaliation? Especially from a nation that is always begging the world to recognise its past suffering. Don’t cry terrorism when you are terrorising others.

This was followed by the summer riots that led to the death of the son of Mr. Tariq Jehan in the city of Birmingham, which appeared to be racially motivated. His compassionate response of forgiving the criminals prevented a further riot and an escalation of violence. Finally, the arrogant media was humbled and humiliated, those pen-fascist journalists and commentators stopped and took note. Some even came forward and admitted their guilt of demonising the Muslims for decades and were asking for forgiveness. Maybe 2012 will be marked by a sharp decrease in hypocrisy and double standards from the media and the Muslims residing in the West under the security and protection of the Western governments will also start to show gratitude, instead of constantly criticising.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 03/1/2012

London, UK

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

The US Exit from Iraq: What were the Reasons for this Costly War?

2011-12-19T06:57:00.000-08:00

Finally, following the announcement made by President Barak Obama, the last batch of US troops are exiting Iraq very soon; the inhabitants of Fallujah are rejoicing by burning the US and Israeli flags; for sure so are the relatives of the victims of this unjust war, especially those who survived the gruesome torture in Abu-Ghraib and other prisons. The rest of the masses in Iraq were indifferent, ‘ungrateful’ to their liberators! This is a suitable point to reflect and speculate -what were the reason(s) behind this costly war?

One can imagine the US officials stating to the troops “mission accomplished”, a cliché often seen in Hollywood films. What was that mission? To locate Iraq’s WMDs. Regardless of your viewpoint, according to the ‘official’ figures, the blood of 100,000 Iraqis and almost 5000 US soldiers confirmed that Iraq had no WMDs; thus, Saddam Hussein and the rest of the world were telling the truth. In contrast, George Bush with his neo-conservative Zionist cabal were lying through their teeth, thus the huge mass protests within and all round the world; the maxim of democracy, majority opinion rules was discarded as irrelevant, it was war as usual.

Ironically, the pre-war evidence furnished only corroborated the view that Iraq’s WMD was a false pretext. The UN inspectors failed to produce any evidence, not even one bomb; despite the pleas from UN Inspector, Scott Ritter, this was ignored! The British Cabinet Minister, the late Robin Cook who was a physicist stated that you cannot hide Nuclear weapons, because they are easily detected from space. The heap of lies piled up with a fabricated ‘dodgy’ dossier to outlandish claims of a 45 minute threat posed to British forces was entertained for the tabloid mobs.

Even afterwards, when all sides accepted that Iraq did not have any WMDs, unlike the Israelis or the Americans, there was no talk of war reparation and immediate withdrawal of troops with an apology. Instead, the lie about Iraq’s WMD continued with a new spin, the Zionist neo-con dominated media propagated that they were shipped to Syria or Iran. Most probably transported on Aladdin’s magic carpet by Saddam’s elite forces, enabling them to bypass all the troops and the high tech monitoring that were placed in the region during the war!

The invasion also revealed certain truths about both sides. It ignited a sectarian war, with regular suicide bombings that were never witnessed in the past under the reign of Saddam Hussein. This implies the Arab-Baathist regime failed to unify the nation, as the fault lines were just lying dormant, until ignited by the US invasion.

Concurrently, it also reconfirmed the violent sadistic culture that is a feature of US culture and way of life. Numerous clips surfaced showing the US soldiers brutalising the Iraqis, and the initial denials by the mainstream media was eventually halted by the revelation of the gruesome images from the sadistic torture chamber of Abu-Ghraib. This was later described by one US Senator as their “boys letting off some steam”; indeed it was not the Mujahedeen, but GI-Joes raping and sodomising innocent young boys, women and men, besides raping women is rife within the US forces, so the soldiers do not require much training!

Apart from the human cost, the financial cost runs into trillions of dollars, which has compounded the US debt problem. What did the US really achieve from all this? Abundant supply of cheap oil as often stated by the red comrades and conspiracy minded Islamic activists? This maybe partially true as Iraq has been looted to some extent, yet that has not covered the cost of war, even the reconstruction contracts are now going towards countries that did not participate in the war. A more bizarre theory that the war was to prevent rivals like China and India to acquire the oil, this is not enough to explain the motive behind waging the costly war as the gains would be implicit in that, it prevented some of the resources going to their rivals. The costs still outweigh the benefit. In any case, the issue of oil is overplayed here, the US has plenty of oil and it can access that from numerous other places just as cheaply.

What about ideological motives such as spreading democracy and freedom? This is probably a secondary or a lesser objective, because if the US was that committed to such values, then it would not ally with non-democratic nations. Moreover, the US has not been enthusiastic in embracing the recent genuine movement for democracy in the Middle East, shown by its lethargic response to support the Arab Spring, and committing only when it is sure of the outcome. Otherwise, it supports the causes selectively when it conforms to the foreign policy of Israel. Hence, it shows plenty of support for the Syrian uprising, but not those in Bahrain, Kuwait or Saudi.

Could the Iraq invasion have been primarily an emotional response to 9/11? The US needed to demonstrate its firepower to the Muslim world, in order to show that it means business. Therefore, Iraq was primarily revenge for 9/11, their lust for blood and vengeance was satisfied, like a vampire needing to feed on human blood. It explains partially the brutal behaviour of US Soldiers and why many stated openly that “I got my revenge”. If so, how does that sit with the born-again Christian, George Bush and the Catholic Blair guided by their loving God into war who allegedly teaches that you should “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy”, but did the Iraqis slap the cheeks of the Americans or the British in the first place?

Maybe it was a combination of all of the reasons stated and more, however, that was still disproportionate to justify this war, because there is no tangible or intangible benefit, the only thing is, US has gone deeper into debt, and Iraq became more violent and instable; it is left with a corrupt dictator and the country is barely holding together along the sectarian and racial fault lines.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 19/12/2011

London, UK

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Nuclear-Israel versus a Nuclear-Free Iran

2011-12-13T13:14:00.001-08:00

Facts are the best antidote against poisonous media propaganda. Nuclear-free Iran is militarily weaker than nuclear-Israel, backed by the mighty US; based on the disparity of military capabilities, any impartial observer would identify the likely aggressor. In this case, this is corroborated with a substantive track record of invading and attacking other nations. Unlike Israel, Iran has not invaded anyone in the last 300 years or more; it lives peacefully with all its neighbours.

From the 1950s, Iran was virtually colonised through the CIA installed puppet, Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was eventually ousted by the popular revolution in 1979, led by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. In response the US, in collusion with the other western powers, initiated a proxy war through Saddam Hussein of Iraq that lasted for almost a decade. The country is now surrounded by hostile US military bases, and there is constant talk of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, largely incited by the neo-conservatives, the far right and the Zionist commentators.

There has already been much provocation of Iran: mysterious explosions, computer viruses, economic sanctions, and assassination of the leading physicists that are a hallmark of Mossad and the CIA. Tensions heightened recently as the British government froze Iranian assets, and expelled the diplomats, in response to the embassy raid, so the war drums beat louder.

Historically, Iran has been the victim; now facing so much hostility, it has ample reasons to arm itself. And despite all the provocation, it has confined itself largely to verbal ‘responses’ that are construed as a cause for military action by the Zionist dominated media. Ironically, it would be ‘progressive’ for the Israelis to attack Iran, because unlike the defenceless Palestinian civilians, Iran is a fully functional state that is equipped to fight. Like you wonder how a boxer would perform against a better opponent, after knocking out an inferior one.

In terms of military capability, Israel certainly has the advantage thanks to the constant flow of US aid and blind support, but Israel would struggle in terms of spirit and determination that is also required in any war; the zeal of the criminal is always less than its victims. If the subdued Palestinians were given half a chance they too could demonstrate this point.

Whilst the nuclear-armed, overtly racist regime of Israel is engaged in the gradual pogroms of the Palestinians, security for Israel is used as justification for an attack on Iran. If anyone is need of security, it is the Iranians confined to their borders, like the Iraqis were prior to the US-led illegal war. If Iran possessed nuclear arms, the enemies would think twice about attack; nuclear North Korea is an example of this. Had Japan possessed the bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have taken place either.

Why not construct a nuclear-free Middle East as proposed by the vast majority of the region and the world? Then you get the usual excuse, Israel needs it for its security, facing hostile neighbours. Those neighbours are not equipped to fight any war; they are largely civilians governed by monarchs and despots. Is it possible the neighbours are hostile in the first place, because of Israel’s cruel behaviour towards the Palestinians? Everybody wants and needs security, especially the countries which have been invaded, bombed and surrounded by hostile troops. That certainly doesn’t include Israel or the West.

The issue of ‘security’ for Israel translates to maintaining the ability to invade its neighbours with impunity, and continue the eradication of the Palestinians. Israel’s security is just as fictitious as Iraq’s WMD claims. The real truth is: Israel wants to maintain its position of being the regional bully and thus prevent any other powers from rising. Eventually, Israel will fail, because a growing conservative Turkey is asserting itself, and the Arab Spring may eventually produce a more resolute Egypt or better, a unified North-African block where the governments will reflect the interests of the masses.

The issue of intervention in Iran is not new; in 1951, the CIA helped to oust the elected Prime Minister Mossadegh, and install the puppet Shah. This no doubt came in response to the nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry by Mossadegh. At the time, Iran’s lucrative oil was controlled by the British owned Anglo-Iranian oil company. Oil may have been the primary motive in the past for intervention; today it is maintaining the regional status-quo, where Israel can continue its program of annihilating the Palestinians with impunity. For the sake of justice and stability, these outdated colonialists need a bloody nose, and an attack on Iran might paradoxically produce that, as Iran for sure will retaliate. And that can only be good for peace and prosperity for the majority of the people in the region.

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

Apostasy: According to the Scriptures (Part II)

2011-12-08T16:58:00.001-08:00

Without doubt, according to the major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism), apostasy is a major sin. Most other religions would probably have the same viewpoint; otherwise, if the follower can exit the religion with full impunity, in this life and in the hereafter, then the core values cannot have any real significance. Being indifferent to apostasy implies a lack of conviction in the fundamental values; this axiom is applicable to religious and secular apostasy.

Whilst there is concurrence on apostasy being a sin, there are differences in terms of the punishment prescribed for such actions, and each religion deal with the issue in accordance with the laws prescribed. However, can any religion really prescribe punishment for apostasy in the first place, given that all religions encourage apostasy of non-believers?

By rational necessity, any religion endorses its viewpoint as being the only option; otherwise, it would struggle to justify its own existence. Therefore, the de facto position is that all religions, implicitly or explicitly, encourage non-believers to become apostates of their respective religion. Indeed, all the converts to any religion are apostates of their former religion or beliefs. The prophet (saw) of Islam encouraged the pagan Arabs, Christians and Jews to apostatize from their old religion, as did the early Christians within the Roman Empire, and all the Christian and Muslim activists around the world continue to operate on the same principle today. It is inconsistent to expect other religions to permit apostasy with impunity, and concurrently use punishment to prevent apostasy from within.

Furthermore, in the early period of revelation in Makkah, Islamic texts challenged the non-believers in various ways, and asked them to reflect and come to the truth. It is asking the non-believers to engage the mind, and ‘select’ the right religion, meaning that people should be free to become apostates of their former religion and should not be persecuted for that. Hence, the criticism of the pagans for persecuting the early believers is well established within the Islamic literature; otherwise the pagans were right to punish the early Muslims.

A challenge implies it’s a two-way process, where the playing field should be level, the rules should apply equally to both sides; thus, one can win the argument and attract followers, and concurrently there is also the possibility that one can lose the argument and some followers. Otherwise, it is not a challenge but a direct order to non-believers to become Muslims; however, that would not make any sense as there would be no jurisdiction over the non-believers in the first place.

Therefore, to punish apostates would seem contradictory to its message of challenging others to enter the religion of Islam or Christianity or any religion, compounded by the fact that all religions thrive on apostasy from other religions.

However, according to the old Biblical laws, the punishment for any form of apostasy is death. In the chapter of Deuteronomy 13:6-9 it states:

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods, do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death."

The Church used to burn heretics at the stake, which culminated in the formation of the brutal Inquisition. This was not confined to the Catholics and the Pope. In 1553, John Calvin, the founder of the Calvinist movement burnt the Spanish physician, Michael Servetus, at the stake for doctrinal heresies.

With the rise of secularism, the church was divested of its powers, and can no longer carry out executing penal codes for apostasy. Moreover, it would be problematic to reconcile this with the central message of “loving your enemy”, and by definition a Christian apostate would be considered one, more so if the apostate was belligerent.

Under Islamic law, there are differences in terms of the punishment prescribed for the various forms of apostasy, and in the next article, the textual evidences are scrutinised in more detail.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org, http://twitter.com/#yaminzakaria)

Published 29/11/2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

Apostasy - It can be religious and secular (Part I)

2011-11-29T16:29:00.000-08:00

The death penalty issued for apostasy against the Iranian pastor, Yusef Nadarkhani, evokes memories of Salman Rushdie’s ‘Satanic Verses’ affair. At the time, I found it amusing to see how the West was demanding the right of free speech for Salman Rushdie to offend, and concurrently denying the same right to Ayatollah Khomeini for expressing his fatwa. Surely, if Salman Rushdie can speak, so can the Ayatollah of Iran? Yes or no? If Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa is a call to violence, then isn’t the Satanic Verses the cause? Or is the book all benign based on objective research? You have to laugh at the level of hypocrisy, and the West can get away with it having the power of a ubiquitous media, with which it can roar like a lion or howl like a pack of wolves silencing their victims.

Iran

has subsequently retracted the verdict, facing mounting pressure from other states and human rights organisations. Nevertheless, it provides another excuse for the Islamophobes, not that they need one, to launch their usual diatribe against Islam and Muslims. Many of those Islamophobes, lacking elementary education, are unaware that penal codes for apostasy also exist within the Biblical text, and it was applied far more frequently and rigorously in Christian Europe than under Islamic rule. Indeed, like the issues of adultery, homosexuality and idol worshiping, apostasy is not specific to Islam. But the problem is the Muslims have a greater tendency to adhere to Islamic laws, unlike the followers of the Judeo-Christian text.

Before the facts are gathered, the secular-Mullahs trotting the media and the internet have issued their verdict, based on the premise that apostasy law contradicts individual freedom. As we know, such freedom exists for individuals like Salman Rushdie, but not for the Ayatollahs. Of course, in a secular framework, religion is reduced to a trivial personal matter for the individual to accept or reject. Hence, most secular constitutions guarantee freedom of religion because it has been rendered powerless in society. Naturally, under such a framework, it seems harsh to issue any kind of punishment, let alone the death penalty for a trivial personal issue like religion.

Often the verdict of these secular-Mullahs will contain references to the acts carried out during the era of medieval Christian-Europe, when ‘witches’ were burnt at the stake, and rival sects (Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox) slaughtered each other using the same argument of heresy. Well things worked differently in the Islamic world; scan through history, the Muslims never engaged in such activities, unless the acts of apostasy were a pretext for an armed uprising which rarely occurred. But I am sure, even the secular-Mullahs would see the need and the right of the state to defend itself.

In exploring this issue, the first question that should be asked is: what is apostasy?

The conventional view is that it is an act of abandoning one's religious faith, the term apostasy is synonymous with religious-apostasy. Therefore, it has to be understood in the context of a religious state, where citizenship is determined by one’s belief; hence, apostasy is tantamount to treason against the state and society.

What underpins an act of apostasy is rejection of the current system and the core values. The term is probably derived from the Greek word “apostasia” meaning defection or revolt, which can take place in any society, be it religious or secular. Indeed, secular nationalistic states also have the same notion of apostasy, which they call treason, for example a person siding with the enemy, especially during conflict. Therefore, it is disingenuous for secular societies to argue that apostasy only exists within religious states.

Acts of apostasy can be physical or verbal and it can be belligerent or passive. Thus, there are various grades of apostasy and accordingly the various levels of punishment associated with it. The secular societies often claim to permits verbal apostasy under the pretext of free speech. However, that is not true. In the UK, tiny groups like Al-Muhajiroun have been banned for speaking out against British core values of democracy and freedom along with criticism of their foreign policy. Even relatively passive individuals who have confined expressing their opinions to books are punished. Professor David Irving is one example, serving a prison sentence for expressing his opinion on the Holocaust. Only if he was living in a free country like Iran, he could speak his mind without the fear!

Apostasy is a universal notion that exists in all societies, in various forms. It is defined according to their respective values; there are different levels of apostasy and punishments associated with it. Apostasy, to be precise religious-apostasy is more complex than just changing faith, and it will be explored in more detail in the subsequent article, with a specific reference to Islamic law.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org, http://twitter.com/#yaminzakaria)

Published 29/11/2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

The Case of Babar Ahmad and the Politically ‘Puritanical’ Muslims

2011-11-09T04:46:00.000-08:00

Babar Ahmad, a computer programmer from South London, was initially arrested back in 2003. In the middle of the night, the British police stormed in. By the time he was dragged to the police station, his body had sustained over 70 injuries. Only six days later, he was released without charge; however, in August 2004, he was rearrested by Scotland Yard acting on a US extradition warrant, which he has been fighting ever since. Almost 88 months have expired, and he is still locked up without conviction and the US has presented very little credible evidence. Otherwise, he would have been tried in the British courts, especially given the large amount of anti-terror legislation that has come into existence post 9/11.

The mainstream Muslims in the UK campaigned hard and successfully secured 100,000 signatures, for the e-petition “Put Babar Ahmad on Trial in the UK”; hence, passing the mark required to start a parliamentary debate. And hopefully, a favourable outcome will create enough pressure to prevent extradition of Babar Ahmad to the US, where he faces the prospect of being tried in a kangaroo court and incarcerated.

It’s a glimmer of hope that a genuine debate will take place in line with the spirit of democracy, rather than stifled to suit US interest. The Tory leader of the Commons, Sir George Young, is already plotting to muzzle this issue. Such a situation should make the Muslims in the UK think about ways to exert greater influence on the MPs (Members of Parliament); lobbying, voting, and liaising with them, so that they represent the voice of the British Muslim citizens. Often, we see the angry youths complain that the media and the MPs are biased towards Israel and hostile towards the Muslims; that is because the Zionists in collusion with the Islamophobes are actively working with them in various ways, and are reaping the rewards of their effort, unlike the Muslims.

The politically puritanical groups scoff at the non-Islamic political system, argue against political participation, refuse to partake in the election process to elect an MP, but yet, they see no problem in liaising with MPs to persuade them to take a more favourable stance towards the Muslims, and consequentially they would exercise their powers as MPs to achieve that. This is a bizarre argument, how can you argue that it is un-Islamic to participate in electing the MPs, but it is acceptable to seek benefit from the MPs exercising their powers in parliament to prevent a ban on a Muslim group, or in this case, prevent an extradition of a fellow Muslim. Why would the MPs listen in the first place, if they knew you would abstain from voting or providing any other types of support to them?

Moreover, if you permit anti-Islamic MPs to get elected, they are unlikely to listen even in cases where injustice is blatant. Is it not better to ensure they are stopped in the first place, rather than remain placid, permit them to get elected and then try to convince them of your case?

If the argument is that Babar Ahmad should not be tried by the un-Islamic man-made laws, then why are they supporting the petition that is calling for Babar Ahmad to be tried by the non-Islamic man-made British Laws? Accordingly, a more radically fringe group refused to participate in this campaign, the argument being Babar Ahmad should not be tried by a non-Islamic court; therefore, either Babar Ahmad should break out of jail or a special task force of Mujahideen should free him, otherwise he has to be patient, and if he dies, he will reap the rewards in the afterlife. It’s unlikely that Babar Ahmad the victim sees the case from this point of view.

Commonsense dictates the US and the British legal systems are not equal in this matter; surely the one likely to give a fairer hearing is the one that should be pursued. The example of the Prophet also illustrates this simple point; he could have sent his Companions to the Roman territories to escape persecution, but instead opted for Abyssinia; because he knew the Christian King was just and informed the early Muslims that they would get a fair treatment, according to their non-Islamic laws. Indeed, this is what happened subsequently, when the delegates of the pagan Arabs tried to get them extradited back to Mecca, and the King refused.

The issue of non-participation in the non-Islamic political system is often heard from fringe groups, who have provided no alternatives, other than an idealistic hope, wait for a super Caliphate or an army of Mujahideen to rescue the situation. There are no explicit instructions in the Quran and the Sunnah, which forbids the Muslim communities living in a non-Muslim country to participate in the political process, with a view to protecting and furthering their interests. Surely, everyone recognises that to prevent the extradition of Babar Ahmad, political participation is unavoidable, as only the MPs (the legislators) and the courts can halt this process.

Islam places an obligation on all of us to be good to our neighbours wherever we are; this would encompass our duty to play a more active and constructive role in any society. It clearly implies that we should participate with a view to prevent injustice in general, and protect our interests. To abstain from the political process and then to moan about the MPs and the system being biased makes little sense; likewise, to argue that it is prohibited to elect an MP but yet permitted to seek help from the MPs in their capacity as MPs, is hypocritical.

Over the years, the only ‘contribution’ these fringe groups have made is to hold back the rest of the community and create discord. Almost all the Mosques, Schools, Charity organisations and various other institutions have been built in the UK by the ordinary Muslims, liaising with the MPs and Counsellors. Where the MPs were not involved, their contribution was in the form of silence as they could have led an active campaign to halt many of these projects, like many have done in other European countries. Had the Muslims been sufficiently active like the tiny number of Zionists, Babar Ahmad would have been freed sometime back.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org, http://twitter.com/#yaminzakaria)

Published on 08/11/2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

A Global Caliphate: Reality or Fantasy?

2011-11-01T17:34:00.000-07:00

Groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) are vocal in calling for the unity of Muslim nations under one global Caliphate. Unification can bring about peace and prosperity, provided this is achieved through mutual cooperation, instead of being forced through military invasion. Even tiny Kuwait fought for independence from Saddam Hussein’s invasion back in 1991, despite the fact that both nations have a common language, religion, culture, and history. A similar attempt to unify the racially diverse nations of today would certainly result in war on a larger scale, given the size and diversity of these nation states.

It is a historical fact that the Muslim world never unified fully as one body under a single Caliphate for the large part of its history, which begins from the first Islamic state in Medina to the collapse of the Ottoman State in 1924. A large section of the Islamic world was never under the authority of the Caliphate; some parts for only a short period of time. Just 25 years after the demise of the Prophet (saw), unity fractured as wars flared up. Muawiyah, the governor of Syria from the clan of Banu Ummayah refused to submit to the authority of the new Caliph, Ali (ra), who was from the rival Banu Hashim clan. Muawiyah demanded that the murderers of the third Caliph, Uthman (ra), are captured and put on trial first, since Uthman was from the same tribe. This suggests Muawiyah was partly motivated by tribal allegiance.

Is there any legal justification for Muawiyah’s action? Did Ali (ra) refuse to capture and bring the criminals to the court? To demand that the Caliph does a certain action before he is given the bay’a (approval through the oath of allegiance) is surely undermining his authority. This pretext of avenging the blood of Uthman (ra) manifested in the resurfacing of the pre-Islamic tribal feud between the two tribes and led to war. Eventually, a ceasefire was put in place, which meant Muawiyah became an autonomous ruler over Syria and Ali was in charge of the remaining territories of the Caliphate. Although Muawiyah did not lay claim to the Caliphate, it was effectively divided into two, with two rulers co-existing.

After the demise of Ali (ra), Muawiyah succeeded him. He then imposed his son and firmly established his family in power to form the Umayyad dynasty that lasted for around 150 years; then a major split occurred as the Abbasids took over the Caliphate and Umayyad rule was largely confined to Spain. With the passage of time, more nationalistic conflicts broke out; for example the costly Arab-Berber wars. Consequentially, the Caliphate fragmented further.

The Caliphate was largely nationalistic in terms of its ruling authority; the Arab Umayyad only produced a ruler from within; the Abbasids did the same, as did the Turkish Ottomans; the other racial groups remained subordinate. The racial feud between the Turks and Arabs was a major cause of the destruction of the last Ottoman State. The Caliphate could not erase nationalism.

One cannot ignore this historical experience. It testifies something about human nature; achieving full unity through force amongst the diverse groups is virtually impossible, unless it comes from within and that is unlikely to happen. If full scale unity could not be sustained in the past when the Caliphate was relatively monolithic and small, the chances of that happening now is negligible, because racial and geographical boundaries are far more entrenched, compounded by the size and complexities of the various nations. Yet, the view of HT is that a new caliphate can use force to unify, if the initial encouragement fails to achieve unity. It demonstrates naivety, because any attempt to force unity will definitely lead to costly wars, and resentment, defeating the purpose of the Caliphate in the first place, which is to unify and strengthen the community.

If the Companions were of the view that more than one ruler is not permissible, they would have cited the relevant Hadiths, and demanded that Muawiyah should submit to Ali and reunify the regions. Throughout Islamic history, the scholars, thinkers and movements never called for reunification of the Islamic lands under one Caliphate, even as the Caliphate disintegrated in front of their eyes. Given that scholars are experts, it is unlikely that they have all overlooked this issue out of negligence or shortcomings. A more plausible explanation is they considered reunification of the Islamic lands as secondary, as long as the rulers were applying Islamic laws.

Moreover, if this reunification was an important issue, this would have been stated in the classical texts with frequency and elaboration, as we see with subjects like prayers, fasting and Hajj. This gives further credence that the subject of appointing a leader and unification of the lands is left for the people to determine amongst their community as they see fit; thus, appoint an Imam at the Masjid like you appoint a ruler over your society. It is also plausible that those who were of the view a single Caliph is obligatory for the entire Muslim world, have resigned to the reality that such an opinion cannot be achieved in practice, as shown by the long turbulent history of the Caliphate. Indeed, the Sokoto Caliphate in Africa, the Muslim rule in India and Indonesia, existed for centuries side by side with the Ottomans. Some of them may not have carried the title of Caliph, or Sultan or Imam or Amir, but in reality they were rulers just like a Caliph.

This also raises the uncomfortable question: would the Creator oblige something on the community which it cannot fulfil as shown by the long history? Maybe the obligation to unify is in reality an ideal that the Muslims should aim for, something recommended. This means a re-examination of the evidences is required with a view to applying them to the current situation that is unique.

One of the main evidences cited by groups like HT in support of a single global Caliphate and the prohibition of having multiple rulers is the well-known Hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim and other books: which states that if a Caliph is established, and if a second Caliph emerges to challenge his authority, the latter should be killed, as such an act constitutes rebellion. In that case, why did the Companions not cite this Hadith and demand that Muawiyah should be fought against and tried for his clear rebellion? Ironically, some even sided with him. Were they not aware of this Hadith, and which was narrated through them? This anomaly is for the scholars and the Muhaddiths (experts on Hadiths) to explain. If you rely on this Hadith, then there are grounds for arguing that Muawiyah and possibly Aisha (ra) should have been put on trial. On this point, groups like HT have been conveniently silent! If you cite this Hadith then you have a duty to explain why the companions collectively failed to apply this. No one is above the law, as the Prophet (saw) said he would even cut the hand of his beloved daughter Fatima if she stole.

Moreover, the Hadith is referring to a second Caliph challenging the authority from within the same state. If the Caliph emerges in another distant land, in practical terms they could not be fought unless a full scale war is declared. But can a Caliph elected in one country, go and invade another Muslim country and impose himself? This brings us to the point of the scope of the Caliphate.

As stated earlier, HT believes that a Caliph can impose unity through force, yet they say the Caliphate is a contract between those who give their bay’a and the ruler. Which means his jurisdiction should be confined to that nation as only they have given him the permission to rule over them. Therefore, if a Caliph is appointed in China, why should he have the right to invade Africa, where he may not even be known by his name? Also, if the Companions and scholars tolerated the fragmentation of the Caliphate over the years, then by greater reasoning, distant nations where the Caliphate never entered can exist as independent states.

The notion of bay’a means a global Caliphate requires a global bay’a. He is not a legitimate Caliph for all Muslims but only those who have given him bay’a. Therefore, the evidences cited to appoint a Caliph or an Amir or a Sultan or an Imam, pertains to the community one is taking the baya from. Also, the context during the time of the Prophet and, subsequently, the Caliphate was that the Ummah (Muslim People) was relatively small and monolithic, so the appointment of a Caliph was synonymous with all the Muslims who happen to reside in one place. In those days, the borders were fluid, whereas today the Muslim nations are much larger, diverse and firmly established with borders.

However, it could be argued that there is a duty on others outside the state to join the new Caliphate, but this has to come from within, and it will only happen if others accept the new Caliphate elsewhere and give their bay’a.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org, http://twitter.com/#yaminzakaria)

Published on 1/1/2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

Gilad Shalit the ‘Goliath’

2011-10-19T11:35:00.000-07:00

The ubiquitous picture of the Israeli prisoner, Gilad Shalit, with the skewed media coverage creates the impression that he is the central subject in this episode of exchanging prisoners, and everything else is periphery. Hence, everyone knows the name, the face and the story of this Israeli soldier, who has family and friends, whereas the Palestinians remain nameless and faceless, as if they are not human.

One Israel soldier for a thousand Palestinians, as if the timid looking Gilad is a modern day Goliath, balanced by the many Palestinians who are supposed to be physically weaker like David. The obvious question is: why has Israel agreed to this asymmetrical exchange of prisoners; for sure it does not perceive Gilad Shalit as a modern day Goliath who is worth a thousand Palestinians.

In terms of reasons, one can certainly exclude the possibility of

Israel

suddenly being benevolent towards the Palestinians, based on its track record. An emotional and a cynical explanation would be that Israel has become accustomed to killing a thousand Palestinians or more for one of its own, thus, they have naturally agreed to an asymmetrical exchange of prisoners. Since Israel is holding thousands more Palestinians, including children, it can afford to exchange one thousand Palestinians for one Israeli soldier, with plenty more in its jails.

According to a UN¹report, since the occupation in 1967 at least 750,000 Palestinian civilians, including children, have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by Israel. It states: “The Bureau is alarmed by credible well-documented reports of the systematic abuse; mistreatment; medical neglect; denial of due process, legal assistance and visits; arbitrary detention; humiliation; and torture to which Palestinian prisoners are subjected on a daily basis at the hands of the Israeli occupying forces, in blatant contravention of international humanitarian and human rights instruments, including the Geneva Conventions.” Therefore, Gilad probably had a holiday in comparison to the experience of the Palestinian prisoners!

Moreover, the release of a large number of Palestinian prisoners will help to reduce some of the burden of maintaining so many prisoners; in times of austerity everyone needs to cut back.

The media have confined themselves to examining the political motives behind this episode of prisoner exchange, but the truth is - Israel is forced to save one of its own at any cost, because Israeli soldiers are becoming scarce with a moderate population growth, compared to the growing number of Palestinians, and even more so when compared to the larger, Arab and Islamic world. This relative scarcity is compounded by the high risks associated with serving in the armed forces, in return for very little financial reward. This is probably the central reason for the Israelis to accept this deal.

The Israeli regime needs to assure the existing and potential Israeli soldiers that it will do its utmost to save them, to maintain their morale and the supply chain. Such a mindset to save Israeli lives at any cost can also be seen in its gruesome attack on the Palestinians from distant using high-tech weapons.

Many young Israelis are increasingly facing the moral dilemma of serving in a state that has surpassed the racist Apartheid state of South Africa, and is becoming more like Nazi Germany. Although the Zionists may have substantial influence and control over the mass media, but they do not over the other media outlets like the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter which are having some impact on the minds of younger Israelis. Maybe, we will see an Israeli spring that calls on their government to give justice to the Palestinians.

This exchange of prisoners has done nothing to improve the chances of having peace in the region, as

Israel

is determined to see that a Palestinian state will not come about. Being the far stronger player, it has the ability to sue for peace on the basis of 1967 borders for a two-state solution. The entire world believes in a two-state solution except the Israelis. How ironic; a nation that came into existence through the UN is now opposing its mother’s wishes to give birth to a Palestinian state.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org, http://twitter.com/#yaminzakaria)

Published 19^th October 2011

, London

www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com,

1) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gapal1211.doc.htm

Is Islam a Threat to the West?

2011-09-29T15:31:00.000-07:00

Threats can be real, or perceived from a souring relationship with an adversary. However, it can also be construed as a pretext to justify wanton aggression; the invasion of Iraq, using the pretext of a WMD threat is a well-known example of this, as was the disproportionate Israeli ‘retaliation’ in 2008 that resulted in a massacre of largely defenceless civilians in the Gaza ‘concentration camp’.

The ‘rocket’ attacks of Hamas done in retaliation were amplified through the Zionist dominated media as substantive, to justify the disproportionate Israeli response. The facts show, the damage caused by the so-called rockets was like a minor nuisance, in comparison to the death and destruction inflicted by the Israeli armed forces. In the end, the score sheet read: about 10 Israeli dead against 1,800 Palestinians, plus the injured. The same argument can be brought against the US decision to use the Atomic bomb over Japan, who posed no threat as it was on its knees. In fact, Japan requested the US through Stalin to ‘negotiate’ the terms for surrender, but Harry Truman, a cruel bloodthirsty leader wanted to test the weapon, so he bombed two cities populated by ‘Orientals’ with no military significance.

For any nation to demonstrate the threat, it has to show that:

a) The threat itself is not a response to one’s earlier aggression.

b) Provide actual evidences of the impending threat.

Using those two criteria, one can assess the validity of the Islamic threat that has become popular in the West, especially amongst the far-right in the post-9/11 era.

From the perspective of the West, it would be naïve to dismiss the Islamic threat as merely post-9/11 propaganda to justify the aggressive foreign policy towards the Islamic world. The substance of that threat was largely manifested by non-state actors waging guerrilla warfare, or what is commonly known as acts of terrorism. Even a cursory glance at the events chronologically shows that these acts of ‘terrorism’ are one of retaliation and hence, self-induced by the West. The threat stems from its own actions. If the war did not continue over Iraq after the First Gulf War with crippling sanctions, 9/11 would most probably not have occurred; likewise, if the Blair regime did not invade Iraq using the pretext of WMD, there would have been no 7/7.

In recent times, there has been the talk of an Islamic threat from within the West, especially by the right, and the murderous act of Anders Breivik has bought this to the forefront. The substance of this perceived threat is construed out of the natural expansion of the Muslim population, and their unwillingness to assimilate. The crude language used by the far right, and odious columnists like Melanie Phillips, shows a clear undertone of xenophobia and racism.

Nobody can dispute that there is a clash of values between Islam and Western Liberalism, otherwise the two would be synonymous and the debate would not arise. Often some Muslims have responded to the allegation of Islamic threat by claiming that Islam is compatible with liberalism, but that is fundamentally flawed; the prohibition of interest, gambling, homosexuality and sexual promiscuity are few obvious examples of this clash of values.

However, Muslims are not insisting on applying Islamic law on the rest of society; therefore, how is this clash of values a threat in a democracy that is supposed to be multicultural and upholds the notion of freedom of belief? Where is the notion of freedom, if the West is unable to tolerate the differences? It seems the Islamic threat stems from the lack of clarity of the Western values of freedom. Indeed, this can be seen in the double-standard policy of the West, who are supporting the rise of the Arab masses to determine their future but not when it comes to Palestinians trying to free themselves from the tyranny of Israel.

Moreover, the Muslims in the West are not the ones imposing Sharia through military invasion in distant lands, and they are law abiding citizens at home. If the values of the West are superior, the Muslims will naturally adopt them but why should they be compelled to assimilate in a free society? The banning of the veil as one example goes against the notion of individual freedom; if freedom is to be supreme, then the choice of the bikini or the veil must be there.

As for the expansion of the Muslim population, it is not some conspiracy to take over; it is the consequence of upholding strong family values. Concurrently, the relative decline of the population in some western countries is the result of toxic liberal values, which encourage men and women to seek other goals in life than raising a family. If I was to be as crude and racist as the far–right, I would simply gloat and state that Muslim couples are always sober and have a healthier libido!

The lack of response to Al-Qaeda and the subsequent Arab Spring shows the Muslim world are not interested in waging Jihad against the West, they only want to acquire basic human rights, freedom to determine their government, social justice and economic progress - that includes the Palestinians. The so-called Islamic threat is merely a pretext for the far-right, the gutter tabloids and odious columnists suffering from envy, racism and xenophobia. The riots in London and Greece, coupled with the general debt crisis and the eurozone crisis, show that the West is facing a real threat from its economic model; it has created a dangerous situation by turning its banks, and industry (stocks and shares) into a casino for traders to play on. The unnatural fiat money system compounds this instability.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 28/09/2011

UK, London (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com, http://twitter.com/#yaminzakaria)

9/11 – Revisiting Islam versus the Capitalist West

2011-09-07T11:35:00.001-07:00

After a decade, the zeal for war seems to have waned on both sides. It would be premature to say permanent peace is on the horizon, but certainly, the ‘war on terror’, a coded term for war on Islam and Muslims, is not as pronounced since the early days of post 9/11.

In my humble opinion, there are certain political and economical factors that have led to the changes in the course of history, even if that change is a temporary deviation.

Within the

, the nasty neo-conservatives that operate through the Republican Party were replaced by the more pliant looking Democrats. And surprisingly, the Americans elected the first black President. They have come a long a way from the days of running slave labour camps in the farms and plantations. The election of black Obama can be translated as the benign silent majority of the US population speaking through the ballot box against the neo-conservative extremists.

Barack Hussein Obama began well, in the historic Cairo speech he made grand statements; it was an attempt to reach out to the Islamic world after a decade of overt hostility shown from the Bush dynasty. However, very little has materialised, Guantanamo remains open, Israel has continued to build settlements in the occupied territory; whilst operations in Iraq were scaled down, drone attacks have increased significantly in Pakistan and Afghanistan, killing many civilians.

Most likely Barack Obama hit the solid Zionist wall that encircles the US establishment, and succumbed to the reality of their grip on US politics; just look at the reception Netanyahu received from the US Congress recently. There has to be a radical revolution inside the

to release the clutches of the Zionists, the neo-conservative extremists and the Christian-Zionist nut cases beating the drums of Armageddon.

The West in general faces a mounting debt crisis; this hampers the ability to wage expensive wars in distant lands. The disproportionate response to Al-Qaeda has back-fired to some extent it seems; apart from the cost of invasion and occupation, using expensive military hardware against primitive devices has an obvious financial toll. Naturally, the US is withdrawing its troops to cut back on ‘defence’ (another euphemistic term for war) spending and has taken a back seat over Libya and

Syria

. After all, Usamah Bin Laden has been killed with many other major players of Al-Qaeda, the rest of Al-Qaeda and Taliban activists are on the run, and their infrastructure is severely damaged, so the political justification for retreating is there.

After crying wolf about Muslim terrorists for decades, and the media portrayal of terrorism as exclusively a Muslim problem, the West has had a rude awakening to the real perpetrators of terrorism at home. The mass killing in Norway by a far right extremist, the riots in the UK where the Muslims were the victims and helped to curtail the riots and the usual acts of terrorism in the US under reported as acts of delinquent individuals have finally hit home. According to The Sunday Times, last year out of the 249 terrorist attacks in the EU only three were carried out by Muslim groups.

In the Islamic world, after a decade it seems clear that the Al-Qaeda strategy has failed; the majority of the masses sympathised with the reason given by these types of groups, but far less concurred with their methodology of attacking civilians regardless of the justification. Some argued that the Al-Qaeda approach was incorrect for legal reasons, forbidden under Islamic law; others pointed out that the West should not be confronted militarily, as it’s futile and counter productive. As they say, don’t fight the crocodile in the water.

On the political front, the masses did not respond to the Caliphate like system where Sharia Laws are applied, primarily because the attitude and the examples set by the radical Jihadi-Salafee groups have not gone down well. They are seen as harsh and intolerant to everyone else. The rush to apply the penal codes to demonstrate the Islamic nature of the state is short-sighted and contrary to the example set by Prophet Mohammed (saw), who showed through numerous examples, that penal codes should be applied as a last resort; the victims are encouraged to exhaust the alternative course of actions first.

More pertinently, the pre-requisites should be in place before applying the codes. Everyone knows the example of the second Caliph of Islam (Umar Al-Khattab) suspending the penal codes of theft during famine, similarly, after centuries of living under non-Islamic systems, there should be extreme caution in applying the Islamic penal codes. It would make sense to suspend the penal codes until the society is given a chance to catch up and the conditions are firmly in place first. Hence, the more substantive issues should be tackled, like poverty, health and education.

The focus should have been on building the institutions for a popular government that can be held accountable, and demonstrate economic and political progress, rather than to seek conflict. The only country that managed to show signs of stability was Somalia under the Islamic Courts Union, but that was put to an end by the US-backed Ethiopian invasion, because it was viewed as an Al-Qaeda like government, and thus had to be fought as part of the policy of the war on terror.

The Arab Spring confirmed the rejection of the Caliphate system as portrayed by the Islamists and Jihadists. The Arab masses waved their national flags, called for freedom and democracy, with even the bearded and the veiled ones chanting Allah Akbar and joining en masse. The system they are calling for is elected constitutional government, where the rule of law should prevail, devoid of corruption and nepotism which runs deep in most of the Muslim nations.

As each dictator is unseated, the rebels discover the level of public wealth accumulated and squandered over the decades, along with the true extent of torture dispensed to many of the opponents of the former regime. But note, the Arab Spring is still in its infancy; maybe at some point the Arab Spring will turn to an Islamic Winter. The devout ones will tell you, one step at a time. Once the basic infrastructure is in place we can make gradual progress towards the introduction of Islamic laws. Following the example of Turkey, the more moderate Islamic parties may well take leadership in the long run; the Caliphate in some form may well be on the horizon again, Insha’Allah (If Allah wills).

With the rising economic powers of China, Brazil and India coupled with the declining power of the US, there might be a return to a multi-polar world; it is difficult to predict if war or peace will dominate but for sure the appetite for further conflict has diminished as each side is busy fixing their internal problems.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London

, UK

Published on 4^th September

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

The Art of Taxation is not to Tax

2011-09-06T15:32:00.000-07:00

Tax is almost as old as civilisation itself. The conquering emperors of the past would raise taxes to wage wars. Many historical rebellions, civil wars, and uprisings have been driven by resentment against taxation. In recent history, income tax was introduced by William Pitt the Younger 200 years ago, to fight the Napoleonic wars. Today, tax is associated with providing public service and national ‘defence’, which is a euphemistic term for war.

There is a constant debate between the right and left of politics about the level of taxation. The former advocates lower taxes, because they argue that tax saps incentives of those who create wealth, and the latter says taxing is about protecting the poor and needy of society, so they advocate higher taxes.

There are four axioms in this tax debate.

First, any society consists of people of various capabilities; hence, one will always find some who are the bottom of the social ladder and always in need of help. It’s not just referring to those who are poor by their physical or mental incapacity, some able bodied section of the population will be relatively the poorest in society. In addition, the need to provide certain public services like national defence makes the case for taxation obvious.

Only the eccentric philosophers and idealists have argued against tax as some form of legal theft, encroaching on individual rights. However, the reality is we live collectively, and certain aspects like national defence, can only achieved collectively through taxation. To put it simply, it’s the pooling of money (tax revenue) in a society to achieve certain objectives which necessitates a collective approach.

Second, regardless of your political affiliation everyone more or less concurs that tax should be paid in proportion to your income; the rich should pay more than the poor - simple. It should be proportional at the least or even better progressive within reason, whereas regressive fixed tax like VAT (Value Added Tax) is morally reprehensible. The rich should certainly pay their share, but that does not happen often due to the use of tax consultants and lawyers exploiting legal loop holes, which it could be argued were created and left there deliberately.

The super-rich not paying enough tax made the headlines after the recent comments of the US tycoon, Warren Buffet and Europe’s richest woman, Liliane Bettencourt. Both said they are not taxed enough; in fact their employees pay more tax as a percentage! This challenges those who say that tax cripples the rich, preventing them from creating wealth, and it will force them to move elsewhere as we have been hearing for decades and through the recent financial crisis caused largely by the bankers.

Third, the private sector, through taxation, largely funds the public sector and taxing them out of business would reduce tax revenue in the long term. This idea is often used by the right to set taxes that lead to bigger GDP where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; the latter should wait for the wealth to trickle down. The problem is the super-rich also hoard their wealth or invest it outside the country.

Fourth, tax should aid a better distribution of wealth, which means a larger middle class and a stronger economy - good for everyone. It should not be the few super-rich obese trickling down crumbs to the starving masses, but rather there should be more people consuming a fairer share, so that you have a good section of the population displaying lean and healthy bodies. Yes, there is an obesity epidemic.

To resolve this debate between the right and the left - is it simply a matter of striking a balance, so that the rich are not put out of business and concurrently the poor along with the public services are protected? Tax is not the most effective tool as it compels people to act in a certain way, it is far better to motivate someone to act from within, you will get far more out of them this way, the carrot is generally better than the stick.

Therefore, the emphasis should be to motivate the rich to contribute more to society; that does not mean giving more taxes to the government, as one of the arguments is governments often waste money. This is true - in the past I have worked in the public sector, and have seen this with my own eyes. Nor does it mean unfettered charity by the rich. There should be prudent investment that borders on philanthropic decisions, injection of funds into small businesses for example or setting up new ones in deprived areas. The super-rich with the normal-rich can easily set the economy on fire without getting anywhere near bankruptcy.

The culture or habit of the rich is hoarding. They should be made to realise that if they spent their huge sums of excess money, it would be better for everyone in the long run. If there is a general contraction of the economy, their business will also feel that contraction. The super-rich know this simple fact. However, there is a lack of collective sprit to implement this. I would never take my business overseas to increase my profit margins, it’s not an act of patriotism, but simply that it is in my business interest to see the local economy flourish and I am making my contribution.

In the short term I could make more money by employing cheap foreign workers, at the expense of making the local labour force redundant, on a collective scale this will hit the local economy hard. When there is a loss of company revenue, the ones at the top should take the cut, as more unemployed labour force means the local demand for the goods will fall, eventually biting everyone harder. It is essential to keep the business engine operating, and this means keeping many of the ordinary workers in employment and shedding the fewer ones from the top prudently.

Moreover, there has to be a change in philosophy on this issue of ‘incentive’ for the rich. Agreed, the rich needs to have the incentive to make money, but they should be taught to realise how much is ‘enough’. Because, there is a physical limitation for everyone with regards to consumption. For example, if a billionaire chooses to buy thousands of pairs of trousers, and shoes, there isn’t enough time in his life to enjoy those goods. This open license to create an infinite level of wealth as the minimum should be reassessed. It comes from the rotten economic theory or assumption of ‘scarcity’ of resources. The resources are not scarce; there is enough to meet the needs of everyone.

If the rich accept that ample financial security is achieved well before they have a million in their account, and if they could be motivated to work harder for society with their excess wealth, that would remove this futile nagging debate over the level of taxation.

Finally, there are those who have grown accustomed to the benefit culture in the UK. I can accept tax for those in need or those in the poverty trap, but there is no way I can accept that I should pay taxes for someone who refuses employment due to some personal inconvenience. It is not infringement of their human rights to be forced to take up employment when available; it is infringing the rights of the hardworking tax payers for those lazy bums.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radiclviews.org, #yaminzakaria)

Published on 06/09/2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

Can Libya Reap the Fruits of the Arab Spring?

2011-08-26T11:48:00.001-07:00

Just as Saddam Hussain portrayed himself as the new Salahuddin Ayyubi of the Arab world, Muammar Gaddafi projected himself as the new Omar Mukhtar of Libya. Salahuddin Ayyubi fought the marauding crusaders, and Omar Mukhtar fought the Italian invaders, whilst the Arab dictators spent their life oppressing their citizens and empowering their family and tribes. Is there any comparison between the brave and heroic struggle undertaken by Omar Mukhtar, and Gaddafi’s cowardly acts of oppressing and killing Libyan citizens over the last forty years? The world only caught a glimpse of Gaddafi’s reign of horror through the shocking events in Benghazi that ignited the people of Libya to overthrow the regime.

Colonel Gaddafi has always been the Arab Idi Amin, an eccentric clown to the outside world, and a cruel monster when dealing with his opponents. As the rebels close in on Gaddafi, Moussa Ibrahim, the spokesman for Gaddafi, is beginning to sound like Ali al-Sahhaf, better known as comical Ali, for his lurid and absurd claims. Gaddafi’s superficial rhetoric belongs to the 70s, when the government-controlled media was the primary source of information, but the world has moved on, you cannot fool this Facebook generation; they are technologically savvy with instant access to information from numerous sources.

It is technology, the will power of the oppressed masses and the assistance provided by NATO that has bought success for the Libyan freedom fighters. This has definitely provided another much needed boost to the Arab Spring, especially lifting the spirits of the brave and resilient people of Syria fighting the Alawite tyrant. Despite the early start in Tunisia and Egypt, they have yet to deliver a stable government elected by the masses. If the National Transition Council (NTC) led by Mustafa Abdul Jalil succeeds to form a new government, based on free and fair elections, and manages to bring about political stability that could inspire and start the domino effect in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and the rest of the Arab world, marking the second-phase of the Arab Spring.

Hence the question: what are the main obstacles to achieving political stability in Libya?

Fortunately, Libya does not have any sectarian issue as the nation is mainly Sunni, but it has tribal feuds and past grievances from the 40 years of oppressive rule. After the recent events, it would be a safe bet to assume that Gaddafi and his family are unlikely to return to power. However, resistance might prolong from his tribal members. No doubt, the NTC are reaching out to members of Gaddafi’s tribe to join the leadership to neutralise this primitive tribal allegiance. Indeed, overcoming this primitive tribal affiliation and building a sense of nationhood, where Libyans see themselves as equal citizens, will be a real challenge for the new regime.

There have already been some reservation expressed about the NTC, and the elected government that succeeds through it, because it might comprise of people from the old regime who switched sides to mitigate their past crimes; if they have blood on their hands, they should stand trial with Gaddafi. Concurrently, there should be the utmost effort to avoid creating an atmosphere of vengeance, which would isolate and prolong resistance from Gaddafi’s tribes and supporters. To the credit of the NTC and the freedom fighters, this has been avoided so far, but its early days. What Libya needs is a new start, therefore, fresh elections should ensure that only those people with clean hands are contesting for power.

The political framework desired by the Arab masses in general is clear; a powerful legislative body, an independent judiciary with an executive body whose power is limited. They want a stable constitutional government that is accountable, where the rule of law prevails, providing opportunities based on merit rather than tribal affiliation and bribery. The Arab masses want to trade their dictators for freedom. However, freedom does not equate to Western values; will the West endorse the genuine notion of freedom which would permit the people of Libya to ‘choose’ their government and the values which they represent?

It seems the politicians in the west may have recognised, or have been forced to accept, that long term trade through a genuine representative government is far better than short term gains acquired through nasty dictators. The freedom to ‘choose’ may mean an Islamic orientated government rather than a militant secular one. In reality, the actual government formed is likely to be a moderate secular regime which carries Islamic influences, naturally as Libya is predominantly a Muslim nation. The government would have a mandate based on a constitution that incorporates Islamic values.

With political stability in oil-rich Libya, economic progress would follow, and wealth would trickle down to the neighbours; Libya, with a small population, needs the labour force from its neighbours to boost the economy. The economic injection might transform North Africa, which in turn could revive the African continent as a whole: finally delivering the fruits of the Arab Spring. A revived Arab world may also help to provide some economic stimulus to Europe, whose economy has been slowing down and heading towards another recession

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 26^th August 2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

Is it the End of the American Century?

2011-08-18T16:36:00.001-07:00

China is sitting on a mountain of money, whilst the US is sitting on a mountain of debt exceeding $14 trillion and 100% of its GDP. The Chinese are the largest foreign holder of the US federal debt with $1.2 trillion in treasuries, and in addition approximately two-thirds of $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves is estimated to be in dollars. It’s rational to expect the poor to get into debt, but not the rich, and certainly not the largest economy in the world. After the historic down grading of the US government's credit rating by Standard & Poor, China as the leading creditor raised concern, demanded that the US should "cure its addiction to debts" and "learn to live within its means".

This is a strange paradox; China as a socialist nation has become wealthy using the Capitalist free market model, whereas the leading capitalist nation has gone into severe debt, as if they were managed by some inefficient communist regime. It is even more ironic that the capitalist US is in debt to socialist China.

Like an untreated disease, sustained debts can become fatal, and lead to bankruptcy. In ancient societies, bankruptcy meant enslavement to the creditor, one of the ways human chattels came into existence. However, it would be premature to predict the US going into bankruptcy at this stage. Nevertheless, just being in debt is a form of slavery, and given that the US upholds the values of ‘freedom’, it is surprising that successive governments have allowed the national debt to creep up over the years.

Whatever the causes of debt, the consequences are clear. For sure, the US cannot maintain its position as a superpower, unless it deals with this problem. They are forced to reduce government expenditure, and increase tax revenue through economic growth, which looks unlikely as the recent figures show the US economy is slowing down, dangerously heading towards another recession. The US is planning to cut its defence budget by $1 trillion. This is already visible; it has started to withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has taken a back seat over Libya and Syria; an indication of its decline of power and influence in the region. Concurrently, other nations like China, India and Brazil continue to grow in strength, all experiencing economic and demographic growth. But, will this lead to the US being dislodged from its position as the sole super power. If so, will it mean a return to the bipolar world of the 20^th century or the multipolar world of the 19^th century?

Economic strength is paramount for any nation, least of all a superpower. The rise of any nation is partly indicated by its economic success; with increasing economic wealth it builds up its reserve, some of that translates to enhancing military capabilities. However, economic and military strength is not sufficient to take long term leadership. For example, the Mongols led by Genghis Khan, came and conquered, then more or less died with his demise; whereas an empire like Rome, built on ideas and principles with a system in place, lasted for centuries. Hence, ideological conviction based on a philosophy, coupled with flourishing cultural values is another essential factor for maintaining leadership.

The US offers democracy, liberalism, and dominates the word culturally; the spread of English language and popularity of American technology, food, music and clothes are obvious. And unlike the US, China has offered very little: it’s gradually abandoning communism, it embraced the free market economy in the 80s, and it’s only a matter of time before it succumbs to the popular demand for democracy and the liberal values of the west. Eventually, the world will witness a Chinese-Spring or a Chinese Gorbachev, and China will become another capitalist state.

The US debt may be short term in the scale of things. It has plenty of spare capacity having one of the lowest levels of taxation. A country with vast natural resources and continues to lead the world in innovation and technology. Many multinationals have grown from the entrepreneurship of individuals with foresight and very little capital. The US can balance the books and maintain its leadership.

Moreover, the fundamental problem of US debt is much more due to political factors than economics; many are blaming the recent wrangling over raising the US debt ceiling as an example of that. Another example is the knee-jerk response to 9/11, causing the debt to grow. The US launched two full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, costing billions. It was Al-Qaeda’s strategy to get the US dragged into a Vietnam like quagmire, and drain its resources. Just compare the figures for launching a cruise missile and firing some light armoured weapon, the difference is huge. In some sense Al-Qaeda has succeeded, as the US capitulation in the Middle East has started, but this may be temporary. The American century may be receding, but it has certainly not vanished from the radar.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 16^th August

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

The Riots: is it Poverty or Greed?

2011-08-09T03:47:00.001-07:00

There is chaos in the stock market, and on the streets of London. Is there a connection between the rioters and the investors? The common thread is economics, as some argue that a lack of economic opportunities is causing, or at least contributing, to these riots; the youths dissatisfied are expressing their anger. Well so far, most of those wearing hoods and with faces covered have prepared for a different agenda, and that is looting. To date, no one has come forward elaborating the case for their violent dissent, and under those circumstances, one can only infer their motive from their actions. Indeed, lack of economic opportunities seems to be the primary cause, because the rioters are breaking into the shops creating economic ‘opportunities’ for themselves!

If anyone seriously wants to examine the issue of economic opportunities, then they should look at places like Somalia, Ethiopia and other parts of the world where children are begging or working like slaves, to support families. They do not have the ‘luxury’ to riot for a Plasma TV or Nike trainers and they would be more than content with what we throw away on a daily basis here in the West. If those kids rioted for basic necessities, that would be a genuine ‘riot’!

So far, we have inferred their motive from their deeds, but what about deterrence. Once again, this is another proof that the legal system in the UK is inadequate in terms of deterring crimes; hence, despite the presence of CCTV cameras and crowds of people, the looters are destroying property, and openly committing theft. Even in poverty stricken countries, the youths do not rampage like this, because the retribution is swift and ‘adequate’.

Apart from the legal deterrence, values should prevent such acts from taking place, and that should be the biggest deterrence. What and where are those values? Everyone moans that parents and teachers should inculcate moral values in the children, but they are collectively up against a hostile society, where materialism and greed are the fuel for its engine. From cradle to grave, the masses are bombarded with media images and peer pressure for the need to acquire the latest: gadgets, trainers, clothes, cars. In capitalism greed is a virtue, not a vice. It is the combination of greed (the culture of materialism), freedom or lawlessness, coupled with a lack of legal deterrence that has encouraged the rioters to openly loot.

It is unfortunate that some are trying to ‘justify’ these criminal acts using the age-old excuse that the police are racist; they deny the allegation of justification by stating that they are merely explaining the causes for such criminal behaviour. If the racism of the police is the cause then the battle should be with them, and not with the properties and shops.

What will the outsiders make of this? Responses will vary depending on location and circumstance. However, most certainly, the citizens of Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq will say: like Norway, London and the other cities of the UK are getting a very small taste of what we have been subjected to for decades, and this is ongoing. In the US, another gunman struck, killing eight people and such events are seen frequently. How ironic that after allowing Islamophobes to tarnish the Muslims with the terrorism brush, the West is experiencing terrorism directly from Islamophobes and from within, meaning the non-Muslim section of the population. For now, it has silenced those venomous snakes that spread anti-Islamic poison.

The Muslim citizens should not be spectators. They should follow the example of the Prophet (saw), who created peace between feuding tribes by engaging with them. There is a responsibility to come forward and engage with the wider society to create peace and security for all, perhaps open the Mosques and invite everyone to a constructive dialogue, and in the month of Ramadan, the least we can do is offer prayers for peace.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 09/08/2011

London

, UK

(www.radicaviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

Ramadan – Wealth and Poverty

2011-08-04T16:25:00.000-07:00

Don’t worry; this is not a religious sermon. I am neither an Imam, nor a priest of any kind. Although fasting in the month of Ramadan is a spiritual act for Muslims, it may offer valuable lessons that are beneficial to all humanity, and provide some insight into human nature.

To abstain from consuming food and drink, and sexual intercourse, is to break from the usual routine. By observing this annual fasting it gives the hard working organs in the body a bit of a rest, allowing them to recuperate, like the annual service done on a car. For a more in-depth analysis of the physical benefits of fasting one can consult a medic, and there is plenty of literature out there. I am more interested in the collective social benefits that can be derived from the notion of fasting.

In countries like the UK, in the summer time, this period of fasting extends from 3 AM to approximately 9 PM. My non-Muslim colleagues curiously ask me every year: do I really abstain from food and water for almost 18 hours every day for the entire month? The experience and the fear of the pangs of hunger, make human beings think about the fragile nature of life, and the value of food and drink. You would think the human race would naturally do their utmost not to waste food and drink, which is essential for survival, yet, despite witnessing poverty, there is huge wastage every year in the wealthy nations of the world.

Apart from abstinence, Ramadan is also a time for giving and sharing. Whenever I would go to the beautiful Mosque (Masjid) in Medina or some other major Masjid with a couple of dates to break my fast, I would come back home with a bag full of food, as everyone rushing to give away something and collect the reward from their Creator. If the Muslims were in this frame of mind for the entire year, there would surely be a huge reduction in hunger.

When you witness so many people walking away with more food than they brought in, it proves that when the majority are actively engaged in giving and sharing there is an abundance of food. This is something I experienced during my university years; we used to attend the weekly gathering at the local Mosque run by the group Tablighi Jamat. For most of us, it was an excuse for socialising; the students were not really interested in the boring sermons that were needlessly repeated over the weeks. After the lectures came the main event – dinner.

Some individuals brought food for themselves, but many others did not. It was shared as people grouped themselves in an ad hoc manner and ate on the floor. At the end, surprisingly everyone was full, and plenty of food was left over. How was that, given that not everyone brought food? It demonstrates a simple point about sharing and satisfaction. When the food is shared there is more available and individual consumption is not likely to be as high, because they don’t feel compelled to finish everything, and know that there are others who need to eat as well. So one eats just enough to satisfy the hunger; otherwise, human beings tend to eat more than their bodily requirement as individuals. Human greed is the age old vice, even mentioned in the ten commandments of the Bible. The proof of greed is there all around us, obesity is a problem in most wealthy nations.

If we amplify this model of sharing, most communities can collectively satisfy themselves; those with excess food and those with very little will balance out, and those with little requirement and those with more will also balance out; thus, the extremes of gluttony and poverty can be avoided to some extent. But, in the real world, there is famine in Africa and obesity in the western world. Despite all the technological advances, poverty has not been eliminated. Rather than a space-race, a race to eliminate poverty and disease would have been far more useful.

Those fasting in Ramadan should certainly appreciate poverty, where people are forced to fast continuously; the people in Somalia today will not have an abundance of food and water waiting for them when the time approaches to break their fast. The solution to poverty suggested by Islam is to share and distribute, and the general command is to circulate wealth. There are many verses that extol the believers to donate money, not because it is a favour to the poor, but to relieve the obligation on their neck. On the Day of Judgement, it is the wealthy and rich with excess wealth that will be accounted and not the poor and destitute. The solution seems to be focused on the ‘distribution’ of the wealth rather than production of wealth; because mankind will naturally produce driven by need. The real test is: can they collectively share the wealth amongst them where people of different capabilities and needs exist?

A knee-jerk response to poverty is to maximise production and accumulate; this is the doctrine of capitalism, and individuals are taught to be greedy and selfish, which dents the notion of wealth circulation. Those who have acquired wealth do not let it trickle down enough.

In contrast to hoarding, there is something magical about sharing, it binds the human family, which we appreciate less and less because living in a materialistic society, our values and our traits tells us to accumulate as much as possible, even if it means to monopolise the market and deprive others. I often wonder with amazement how large corporations with billions in their pockets would go to great lengths to deprive the small competitor. Isn’t there enough for everyone? How much can a human being consume in his life time? Why are there billionaires and millionaires? Can you really consume that much money over a life time? Even if we live for an average of 60 years, a third of that is spent sleeping.

The experience of hunger through fasting should also lead to a change in attitude towards food; it should be treated with respect, not wasted needlessly. Yet, our habit is to accumulate more food than we can consume out of fear of poverty or driven by greed. The households in the UK and other wealthy western nations, including oil-rich Muslim countries waste large amounts of food every year, even through the recession. Just think, if you spent less, the excess money could be given in charity which would mean helping someone in genuine need, rather than wasted food ending up in the bin. It might be one small contribution to eliminate the food-mountains in one place, and transfer some of that to where it is scarce.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 3^rd August 2011

London, UK

(www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blosgspot.com)

Debt Reduction and Economic Growth through Distribution of Wealth

2011-08-01T05:00:00.000-07:00

Facing competition, businesses in the private sector must be efficient and profitable to survive in the market place. A similar principle is applicable to the business of government in the public sector; although, it does not operate to make profit and faces zero competition, it has to generate enough revenue to meet its expenditure. Otherwise, the need to borrow money to manage the deficit arises, leading to the problem of debt. On both sides of the Atlantic, nations are suffering from debt; this is particularly acute for some of the nations in the Euro zone.

The government answer to the national debt problem has been to impose higher levels of taxation, and introduce new taxes where possible, coupled with a reduction in government expenditure. However, the problem is, taxes reduce disposable income, thus a decrease in consumer spending, and reducing government spending has the same effect; the end result is a contraction of the economy as the demand for goods and services falls. Since, the bulk of the tax revenue comes from the private sector, a contraction in the economy will result in tax revenue falling, offsetting the initial rise in tax revenue acquired through higher tax.

This UK economy is slowing down and heading towards contraction, this is supported by the recent figures; economic growth (GDP) in the UK was 0.2% in the second quarter, down from 0.5% in the previous quarter. Other nations are also slowing down through imposing a similar policy to reduce the debt.

Therefore, instead of raising taxes, if the revenue could be generated from another source, the economic slow down leading to economic contraction could be avoided; this could be achieved through economic growth, coupled with a tight fiscal policy that ensures that government money is not squandered, inefficient departments made leaner, and cutbacks on peripheral spending.

The classical route to stimulate growth is to make a demand-stimulating Keynesian investment by the government. However, that does not always work in the long term; it leads to inflation, causing a contraction in the economy because consumer spending power is reduced by higher prices. Another alternative route to economic growth is to redistribute wealth. It is better to have 10 individual with assets of 100,000 dollars each, instead of one millionaire, because concentration of wealth in the hands of the few means spending power is reduced; an individual can only do so much, whereas redistributing wealth to a greater number of the population leads to greater levels of demand.

Hence, the government needs to pursue a policy that leads to circulation of wealth rather than accumulation in the hands of the few; for example monopolies and oligopoly should be discouraged and most of all the absurd trickle-down theory, which suggests the wealth of the rich, will somehow trickle down to the rest. There are many societies you find extremely wealthy few with the vast majority having very little; the rich hoard their wealth and use it to generate more wealth for themselves.

Take the recent example of the petrol price increase, which resembles an oligopolistic market as it is dominated by a small number of companies. No surprise, Chevron, Shell, Mobil and BP are reporting a higher level of income from the increase in oil prices. The prices are not going up due to rising cost of production or a sudden rise in demand, or the war in Libya because the over all oil supply is not affected, there is plenty of spare capacity in the market.

If war is the cause of the price rise, but that price does not fall when the conflicts come to an end, the price has been moving steadily in one direction, because these oil companies collectively have a monopoly in the market. They are making more money in times of recession, because petrol is a necessity. These companies are contributing to the recession through higher prices, as the masses have less money to spend. A fall in petrol price would be a fantastic injection across the economy; this can be achieved by opening up this market to free competition.

Therefore, instead of raising taxes, lower the profit of these large corporations, so the masses have more money in their pocket to spend and stimulate growth; it would be good for everyone in the long-term including those oil companies. This is just one small example; a general approach to create better wealth circulation would set the economy on fire.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 1/08/2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blosgspot.com)

Stop the EDL Terrorists: An open letter to the British MPs

2011-07-27T10:53:00.000-07:00

Dear Sir/Madam

In light of recent events in Norway, and the subsequent revelations of Anders Breivik’s link with the far-right movement (EDL), we are naturally worried about a potential terrorist act in the United Kingdom.

We would urge the government to take pre-emptive measures under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and curtail the activities of movements like the EDL. This is an excellent opportunity to show that such legislation (PTA) was not construed to be applied selectively against Muslims in the UK. This will help to build bridges and marginalise the radicals on both sides.

The government should look for signs of radicalisation and its sources; hence, those who are particularly violent and vocal in the EDL should be detained in Belmarsh. It might be better to hand them over to the Americans who have acquired a certain level of expertise in interrogation (‘torture’); water-boarding may indeed prove to be useful in saving innocent British lives.

This would send a message that any terrorist or potential terrorist would be subjected to these sorts of preventative measures. In addition, it would be prudent to take measures against the conveyor belt of far-right terrorism by monitoring the voices of BNP, UKIP and other commentators who stoke hate towards the Muslim community. For example, Melanie Phillips is well-known for her venomous comments, and such hate will eventually translate into violence. Would nasty comments towards the black community be tolerated? Hence, why are the Muslims selectively subjected to this kind of treatment?

In this recent case in Norway as well as the Oklahoma bombings, the media initially speculated that the act was the work of the Muslims, tarring the entire community, creating suspicion and doubt. Therefore, the media should also be given clear directives how to deal with sensitive topics so that communities are not divided and ethnic minorities are not marginalised and subjected to verbal assault; the need for this has become self-evident in the light of the recent scandals (hack-gate).

Yours sincerely

Yamin Zakaria (www.radicalviews.org)

White-Christian Terrorism

2011-07-26T17:11:00.000-07:00

“I am waiting for all Christians now to stand up and apologise for this terrorist atrocity and to set up a Prevent scheme to hunt down any Christians who show signs of radicalisation. We need universities, lecturers, doctors and police on board to stop and search all white people, especially those wearing crucifixes”

- Yvonne Ridley

First it was the greedy bankers causing the financial crisis, then the slimy politicians exposed with the expenses scandal, and now it’s the turn of the media and the police; the revelation of corruption in the British media (hack-gate), and its incestuous relationship with the politicians and the police have shocked many. It seems like a terrible month, the economic debt crisis is spreading like a virus on both sides of the Atlantic, coupled with the Christian terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, running wild in Norway killing indiscriminately. Are these small signs of a greater divine punishment to come?

In a secular age, religious prophecy has no relevance. Even credible political analysis is dismissed as conspiracy theory or left-wing propaganda, unless it emanates from the mainstream journalists and commentators, then it forms part of the mental psyche of a nation. When it comes to such experts it does not have to be credible and no evidence is required, paradoxically in this age of science and reason, people seem to have blind faith in them. For example, the initial media speculation that the terrorism in Norway was the work of Muslims went unchallenged; there was no subsequent apology given for slurring the Muslims, very similar to the events of the Oklahoma bombings. The Media has a nasty lizard like tongue, the recent exposure have shown the tip of this. If I were to speculate like the media, I could say the Divine is at work, exposing the real crooks, and passing a message: look in the mirror before you demonise others or succinctly expressed in the Biblical statement “let those without sin cast the first stone”.

Let’s apply this type of wild speculation that emanates from certain nasty politicians that like to appeal to the fear of the majority white population, you find plenty in the Conservative and the Labour camp; take Jack Straw as an example with his comments about Pakistani men hunting for white flesh. And using his line of arguments, there is a problem with home-grown terrorism of the far right, the white Christian community. The infamous Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh, the killing in Dunblane, the killing in Port Arthur in Australia, the frequent shootings on the college campuses, the mindless serial killers, now the tragic events in Norway confirm the problem with Christian Terrorism amongst certain sections of the white European and Western community.

Talking about terrorism, the media labelled the act in Norway as a product of a mad man, but clearly the culprit gives ample justification making his political motivations clear. It is generally accepted that terrorism is a violent act that is politically motivated; therefore, the act in Norway was one of terrorism. And the Media’s failure to apply the same standard shows blatant hypocrisy that is compounded with racism. It is easier to label and demonise Muslims as terrorists who are foreign and often with a different skin colour. Listening to the radio, the presenter asked: people don’t seem to have a problem in this country living next to an Irish family despite the fact that Irish terrorism has exceeded the terrorism of Muslims. Why is that? Why is there a double standard? Well it partly shows a feeling of racial hatred as Muslims tend to be foreigners, and partly the fruits of media propaganda that has made the terrorism exclusive to Muslims, which is as valid as Iraq’s WMDs!

Eventually, the motivation of Anders Behring Breivik surfaced; he was saving Norway and Europe from the Muslim threat, this was supported by some callers to the radio station, which can be summed up as: they are breeding too fast, they are of different colour, they threaten our way of life, even though they are law abiding citizens living peacefully, not forcing anyone to change their way of life. If breeding is the problem, one can always propose castrating the Muslims. This sort of primitive thinking was deployed by Hitler against ethnic minorities in Germany, and we thought Europe and the West had eliminated this disease.

How do we protect ourselves from similar threats in the future is the pertinent question. The Norwegian terrorist has already admitted his link to the far right movement of the EDL (English Defence League), which in turn is linked to the BNP (British National Party). He also stated that there are more sleeper cells like him. Therefore, one should ban the potential, EDL and BNP terrorists; and as a pre-emptive measure some of the extreme members should be incarcerated in Belmarsh Prison under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or better, send them to Guantanamo Bay, where water-boarding might prove to be useful for saving innocent British lives!

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 26/07/2011

London, UK (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

The Debt Crisis: Causes and Cure

2011-07-19T13:03:00.000-07:00

In the 1980s we had the epidemic of AIDS; today its debt. There were lots of speculations or conspiracy theories regarding the origins of the AIDS virus being man-made, but for sure, there are no doubts regarding the current debt being synthetic. It is not just the UK, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece - the disease of debt has gripped most of the Western world including the US, which is also the largest economy in the world.

With the exception of the US, one may ask, how can a nation fall into debt, when it is not involved in any major wars or experienced natural calamity? It can be put down to one thing, living beyond ones means; the government budget is no different to a household budget, when expenditure exceeds revenue, debt arises, it is as logical as one plus one equals two. The immediate remedy seems to be – borrow and reduce government expenditure which results in the poorer section of society suffering most.

Before the cure, one should at least examine the causes of the debt. The government books should be audited by the public, detailing out the expenditure and revenue, so that one can determine how the debt has arisen. This should be an inherent process, given that Western nations brag about their democratic credentials that state governments are accountable to the masses.

One of the reasons given for the decline in tax revenue is the aging population. They are economically unproductive and place a burden on government expenditure; the more productive younger generation is becoming scarce as people are having less children. This can be attributed to fanatical liberal values replacing traditional family values; women are encouraged to pursue a career before motherhood, and men are encouraged to lead a bachelor’s life of fun or become homosexuals. Marriage and children are viewed as economic liability that constrains the ‘freedom’ of the younger partying generation. A booming economy needs a plentiful labour force that generates wealth and creates the demand for goods and services. Indeed, countries with a steady growing population like India, China, and Brazil are emerging economic powers. Chinese capital is now flooding into Europe; there is talk of China bailing out Greece. It sounds like the East India Company has finally arrived from the East!

Another major factor hitting the government purse is waging wars in distant lands and keeping military bases around the world; such activities are economically unproductive and expensive, especially for countries like the US. Agreed, some of the expenditure of keeping those bases is covered by some of the docile Arab regimes and their like, but still that is not enough to balance the books. As for the wars, there might have been some financial gain in oil-rich Iraq, but for sure barren and oil-less Afghanistan was a loss in terms of the war booty. Hence, the US is cutting back, it is withdrawing gradually from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has taken a backseat over Libya. The expensive space project that is rooted in the cold war conflict, which has cost billions, has been brought to an end. If the masses are suffering at home, why seek aliens?

Apart from an aging population and war, you can add government mismanagement, which the political parties love to debate over and over. However, there is a greater cause for debt: that is the system of credit creation through printing money that is not backed by gold or silver; fiat money functions on the basis of mass conviction, as it has no intrinsic value.

Going back to basics, debt should match actual wealth in society, this is the natural equilibrium. How can anyone lend me money if they do not possess it in the first place? If one party can create wealth simply by printing money or lending actual money backed by gold and silver that it does not own, then one is also creating debt out of thin air, this is an unnatural process and to be frank dishonest. If I had three friends who asked me to keep £1000 pounds of gold for safekeeping for a year, would it be right for me to lend that money to another party with interest without their consent, thereby making myself richer by £3000 without doing any work? This is what the Banks do, its theft legalised. If the society collectively is creating wealth out of nothing, then it is also creating debt out of nothing as that money is lent.

The injustice here is: due to the money lent by the banks which are not theirs in the first place, the debtor has to generate real wealth by employing real effort to repay that loan. The Greeks for example will borrow paper money and then have to graft hard to repay that loan with interest. Of course, they too can print money, but then the money will depreciate in value enhancing the debt problem. Even if the Greeks were loaned that money with zero interest rates, it is still inequitable and a source of instability, because the banks as creditors are not the owner. If the money was lent in the form of real assets, in gold or silver by the real owners, that would limit the scale of loan and the debt; the system would be in equilibrium.

Therefore, when governments know money can be printed by the banks, as if they have Aladdin’s lamp with a genie, the appetite for borrowing increases. In contrast, if the money was intrinsically linked to tangible wealth like gold and silver, it would limit the capacity for borrowing and in turn it would limit the growth of debt; gold and silver cannot be printed unlike money. Hence, debt would not arise, unless there are exceptional circumstances like war or natural calamity. This can be corroborated from history, the Ottoman State as an example had its currency on the basis of gold and silver, and it never went into debt until the very late stages suffering from war, corruption and decay.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published on 19^th July 2011

(www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

Anti-Islamic Hate Speech is Now Legal in the Netherlands

2011-06-26T14:00:00.000-07:00

Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch Politician has been acquitted of all charges in his hate speech trial in Amsterdam. According to the Judge, comparing Islam to Nazism might be offensive, but it falls within the scope of free speech. Naturally, Geert stated, “It's not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands”. The judge also pointed out that Geert Wilder’s comments are often “crude and denigrating”, however they are not illegal; they included racist remarks like “head rag tax”. Why the term “head rag”? It sounds like the pejorative racist term “rag-head”, frequently used by the Americans.

The clear implication of this verdict is that Islam can be criticised without limits; consequentially, the followers of Islam will be demonised, like the Nazis used to demonise minorities, preparing the grounds for committing genocide. Hence, after World War II, many European nations introduced hate-speech laws to prevent the scapegoating of minorities. After this verdict, it’s difficult to envisage how anyone can be prosecuted in the Netherlands for hate-speech against Islam, and by implication its followers.

Will the same standards of - criticising without limits - apply to other groups? Therefore, can the Muslims in the Netherlands question the holocaust, homosexuality, absolute gender equality and the liberal sexual practices which include incest? Maybe someone from the far-right like Geert will invoke the theory of evolution, and argue that the black species are closer to the apes in Africa, not as evolved as the white Europeans, hence their backwardness compared to the advanced Western civilisation. This may sound offensive, but according to the judge’s verdict it will not be illegal, and fall within the spectrum of free speech.

The bitter truth of free speech in Europe is that, it is defined by - how much you can insult Islam and Muslims. For sure, if Geert were an Imam speaking about the Jews or Zionist-Jews in a far more moderate tone than comparing them to Nazis, he would have been ostracised by the usual hysteria of anti-Semitism, and would likely be facing charges of incitement to hate. Why do the Jews and in particular Zionist-Jews deserve special protection while the Muslims are fair game?

Where do the boundaries of free speech lie? According the judge, it is the direct call for violence. However, when one permits crass comments being made about an entire community, the gates of violence are being opened because provocation is the cause of violence. Hence the verdict and the subsequent elaboration by the judge sounds like Double-Dutch!

Is Geert Wilders a racist? Like most far-right groups, Geert denies his views towards Muslims are racist, because they are not a racial group. This is a fig-leaf that barely covers their private parts! Geert is looking at the issue from a racial point of view; protecting the Dutch culture (‘race’) from the foreign threat, thereby excludes other racial groups. The foreigners that he primarily targets are Muslims, who are composed of various racial groups. Hitler could have used the same argument of denying racism, if the Jews, the Slavs and the Gypsies had a similar common factor.

Therefore, Geert denies that he hates Muslims, because he does not want to appear like a racist bigot, and makes the ludicrous statement “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam”; if you hate Islam then you hate the carriers of Islam. In the absence of those carriers, those values would cease to be relevant in the first place. The complaint of Geert exists, precisely because there are many followers of Islam applying the values of Islam.

Let us examine the one-liner arguments of Geert Wilders.

Islam and Nazism

He alleges that Islam is like Nazism. It’s strange for any far-right politician to make accusations of Nazism, when such a position in the political spectrum is where a Nazi party would operate from. Nazism and Fascism originated in Europe, where far-right groups still operate, looking for opportunities to make political gains. One of their central traits is blaming minorities for the problems of the majority population, so they resort to bashing minorities; Hitler did this to the Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs - Geert is doing this to the Muslims.

The comparison of Islam to Nazism is absolutely absurd. Nazism resurrects racial barriers as it is based on racial superiority; it divides society and creates animosity. Accordingly, Nazis seeks to exclude those who are not part of the racial group; namely foreigners. Geert Wilders is the one who fits the description of a Nazi, as he is doing his utmost to exclude other groups, and refers to his fears of the foreigners threatening to overrun Dutch culture that is primarily a racial identity. Racial barriers are permanent, if one is born into a racial group, he could not become part of another racial group by migrating and adopting their way of life.

In contrast, Islam fundamentally opposed racial superiority, and works to break down racial barriers as it calls on mankind to unify. The demarcation between Muslim and non-Muslim is primarily in terms of the viewpoint towards the purpose of life in this world and the hereafter, like any other religion. However, Islam attempts to erase those demarcations by calling the rest of humanity towards it. You can convert to Islam or Christianity but you can’t become Dutch or German if you are born into another racial group.

Quran and Mein Kampf

Geert claims the Quran is similar to Mein Kampf; one wonders if he has read either of the two books. Where are the similarities? Which Chapter of the Quran resembles a chapter in Mein Kampf? Does Mein Kampf talk of the purpose of life, the creation, the Prophets sent by God and the hereafter? If they are similar, why has the Quran generated a billion followers unlike Mein Kampf? Is there a single academic institution in the West that would validate this claim with any form of elaboration?

If we look at the race-based ideology of Geert Wilders, with his talk of the threat of immigration from those who are not racially part of Dutch Society, he is far closer to Mein Kampf than the ideas expressed in the Quran. Islam always welcome others, the Quran preaches to humanity and reaches out to them.

Then they bring out the usual secular arguments against Islamic laws, which can’t be found anywhere in Mein Kampf! The problem with these Islamophobes is amnesia or denial of their own heritage. Whatever argument is brought forward against the Quran is more than likely to be applicable to the Biblical text, the basis of Judeo-Christian civilisation. Just pick any subject, for example, there is constant noise about how Islam is unfair to women, although the Muslim women are not the ones making the complaints. If gender equality is the criteria, then Christianity and Judaism have the same problem. Almost all the Prophets of God in the Biblical text are men, Christianity is based on the sacrifice of the only ‘son’ of God, which implies daughters were not good enough as a sacrifice and one can proceed to make an endless list of sexual discrimination.

Debating Islam?

Geert also stated that it is good news to be critical of Islam, and the Muslims would have no issue if that were the case, because there is clear distinction between making objective criticisms based on research and evidence, as opposed to making crude remarks which have no scholarship behind them in any academic institution in Europe. If Geert wants to debate instead of rant and exhibit his foul mouth, then he can easily challenge the Islamic world to an open debate. The problem is, the Muslims want to raise the level of discussion and engage in a civilised debate, whereas odious characters like Geert wants to lower this debate to a series of verbal exchanges that emanate from drunken racist hooligans.

The Netherlands is a very tiny nation in Northern Europe, which is likely to be even smaller in the future; instead of entertaining racist bigots like Geert, the Dutch nation should try to find its place amongst the vast majority of the World’s population, 1/5^th of whom at least are followers of Islam.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on the 26^th June 2011

UK, London

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Lesser of Two Evils: Is it the Arab Regimes or the Israeli Regime?

2011-06-12T15:29:00.000-07:00

The images with the numerous reports of the latest crackdown by the Syrian regime are shocking, showing absolutely no regard for the rights of ordinary people. Throughout the Arab Spring, the Arab regimes have demonstrated the same pattern of brutality towards peaceful demonstrations. The sight of close family members occupying key positions making lucrative trade deals, gives the impression that governments in the Arab world are a family business. If the country is governed like a private fiefdom, the citizens will be regarded as tax-paying tenets at best or as mere slaves, who can be disposed of when they start to make demands; therefore, the regimes will naturally behave like the masters, rather than the servants of the nation.

Unlike the powerful response seen during the initial phase of the Arab Spring, the recent reaction in the Arab world towards the events in Syria has been lukewarm. Perhaps the masses have become desensitised after witnessing gratuitous violence over a sustained period, like we have become accustomed in the West to the Israelis killing the Palestinians or the Americans killing innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with their high-tech drones.

These oppressive Arab regimes are still trapped in the post-colonial era, desperately trying to maintain censorship, which has been rendered powerless by the Internet and mobile phones. All the efforts to circumvent the power of the information highway have failed. Consequentially, giving impetus to the Tsunami of people who are demanding that governments should be accountable and free from corruption and nepotism; they should be the servants of the nation and not its masters.

The Arab regimes are quick to attack Israel on the Palestinian issue, but this is lip service for domestic consumption, often exercised for political expediency. These regimes are client of Israel indirectly, because a client of the US means a client of Israel. One does not have to be politically savvy to realise that Zionists virtually write the Middle East policy for the US government. The power of the Israeli lobby and their influence cannot be denied; since 1980 they have given more than $97 million to congressional candidates; the recent reception Netanyahu received in the US Congress shows it stands with the Israeli government, above the US President. Whilst the ordinary Arab activists along with countless others are struggling to boycott Israelis goods, the Arab regimes are investing millions in the Israeli economy through the US, as the surplus oil money amounting to trillions of dollars, are recycled through the US-Zionist banks.

Israel has not oppressed its citizens like the Arab regimes; therefore, the pro-Israeli camp will argue that Israel deserves the conceited title of being the “only democracy in the Middle East”. Of course, the implication is: the primitive Arabs have yet to evolve to become democratic states. Such racist opinions are unlikely to alter, despite the passing of the Arab Spring, or the Arab Summer or the Arab Winter! But, credit has to be given where it is due. I have heard from Palestinians who reside in Israel that the Israeli government gives them better rights than the Arab regimes. It is also true, that dissension in the Arab world is usually met with imprisonment, torture, and even death; the prisons are filled with political dissidents.

Whilst the Israeli regime does not brutalise its own citizens to the same level as the Arab regimes, Israel’s hideous face is exposed when you examine the treatment of the Palestinians and the general contempt towards the Arabs. However, the Arab regimes have also shown similar levels of cruelty towards other Arab states, revealed through the various conflicts, and Iraq being the most recent where hundreds of thousands have perished. This is expected, because, if they can brutalise their own citizens, they are likely to do far worse to others.

Hence, the Israeli regime can be considered slightly better than the Arab regimes, because it excels in terms of treating its own citizens. This maybe a crude measurement, but it still has some level of legitimacy when you examine the facts. However, both regimes fall on the negative side of the scale, they are both evil, but one less so. In that case, what’s the implication of the rational principle of “lesser of two evils”? It means the Arabs and the Muslims should exhibit greater levels of criticism against the Arab regimes, than they have shown against the Israeli regime. Indeed, it was rare to see any form of mass demonstration against the despotic Arab regimes anywhere, prior to the Arab Spring.

What if Israel decides to join in and help the West in Libya or elsewhere, in order to halt the massacre of civilians? By the principle of: “lesser of two evils”, the Arabs and the Muslims would be obliged to endorse the Israeli participation. This may sound uncomfortable to some, but this is a possible reality, and a reality partially created by the masses tolerating these illegitimate regimes. Yes, you will reap what you sow!

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 12/06/2011

London, UK

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

How to Appoint a Khalif: Oath of Allegiance (Bay’a) or Election?

2011-06-06T10:53:00.000-07:00

The milestones, for the process of appointing a leader by the masses, in any system are identical: nomination, selection and affirmation. First, the various candidates are nominated and declared; then the selection process decides the winner from amongst the nominated candidates, who effectively becomes the leader. Finally, the appointed leader affirms this publically through some sort of ceremony, for example, the US President’s inauguration, where the elected President takes an ‘oath’ to uphold the constitution, and start the Presidency. The third stage is merely the confirmation process, to openly declare what has already been decided in the selection stage.

In the tribal society of 7^th century Mecca, the process of nomination and selection was vastly simplified and merged, but the nation states of today, in comparison are far more complex and larger; various candidates will compete for power from amongst the millions of citizens. Hence, the processes are far more formal and structured. When the system is framed, these processes are codified, and the masses agree to obey the leader who is appointed through the selection process, this is where the contract takes place. The obedience of the masses is given to the leader appointed, on the condition that he upholds the constitution, and the laws and values.

This nomination and selection process has varied with time and place; hence, the Prophet (saw) was silent about who should succeed after his demise, and he was also silent about the process of appointing a Khalif; this is reflected in the variations in the appointment of the first four Khalifs, and the subsequent chaos that ensued through the rebellion of Mu’awiyah.

Given the complexity and the size of the nation states of today, there is broad endorsement for determining the leader in the selection process through election. The fact that the winner has the majority of the votes reflects a level of consensus, otherwise there is likely to be instability, especially where there are linguistic, sectarian and racial divides.

A similar process has to be used to appoint a Khalif. In any Muslim country, no individual will command complete support; there will always be various candidates competing for power, with varying levels of support. Election is the fairest way to determine the winner, as mass participation is a reality in today’s society, whereas in the tribal society of the 7^th century, the matter of leadership was decided by the few.

Once the candidate wins in the selection process, he is the Khalif by definition, to whom the oath of allegiance is given as an affirmation. There are clear evidences to obey the Khalif and give him the oath of allegiance (Bay’a). Note the Bay’a is given to the Khalif not that the Bay’a makes the Khalif, yet, there is confusion that some people argue that Bay’a is used to appoint the Khalif. One cannot offer their Bay’a to someone on the assumption that he will become a Khalif in the future; otherwise, such a Bay’a is nothing more than an expression of support or a vote for a particular candidate competing for the position of Khalif.

In reality, the Bay’a where one offers the pledge to obey the leader can only be given to someone who is already in a position of authority. Once a legitimate Khalif exists, the obligation to give him the Bay’a is stated in many Hadiths. Thus, Bay’a is the affirmation of a leader, it reaffirms the contract, it is not a means to appoint a Khalif and that has never been the case; this can be corroborated by examining the appointment of the first Khalif.

After the demise of the Prophet (saw), some of the people gathered in the court of Banu-Sa’ida, to appoint a leader. However, there were no formal processes in place; the nomination and selection took place at the same time, it was simply a matter of narrowing it down to one person. One candidate was from the Ansar (helpers of Medina) and three were proposed from the Muhajir (emigrants of Mecca). As part of the elimination process, it was agreed that the leader should be from the Quraysh of Mecca, who were already seen as leaders of the Arabs, and thus would be acceptable to the majority. This automatically ruled out the Ansar after they accepted this point of view.

From the Quraysh, the three candidates were proposed based on their seniority as companions. They all concurred on Abu-Bakr and he was selected as the leader, and given the Bay’a as affirmation there. Next day, he took Bay’a from others as confirmation of his leadership and acceptance. The masses came to give the Bay’a to the new Khalif. Note, this process was more or less confined to Medina; it being the centre of authority, where most of the influential and significant personalities resided, and their consent mattered as they represented the many. Other tribes did not actively participate, distance and time being a factor.

Another reason for the significance of Bay’a is that tribal societies are unruly (especially the Bedouins), as tribes functioned autonomously and they could rebel at any point in time. This is particularly important for Mecca, where various tribes came together and appointed a leader; the affirmation process was significant as each tribe functioned autonomously, each one like a unit or a miniature version of a nation. The oath of the tribal leaders confirmed their obedience and the masses they represented. Similarly, when the two leaders representing the two major tribes of Medina (Aws and Khazraj) offered their allegiance to the Prophet (saw), it represented all the members of the two tribes.

What if there was a dispute next day, and the people refused to give their Bay’a to Abu Bakr? One could only speculate in such a scenario there would have been further dialogue to decide on another candidate, and they would go through the nomination and selection process again; this sort of problem would reflect the lack of formalisation or codification of the process of appointing a new leader. The only person who was alleged to have some reservation was Ali, however, both the Shi’a and Sunni sources confirm that Ali did not lead a rebellion, at the very least he accepted the leadership with some regret perhaps, but this means he approved.

This selection process, and the subsequent Bay’a given needs to be codified, this will prevent rebellion like that of Muawiyah - subsequently Islamic history was plagued with such cases, leading to the state’s fragmentation. The Bay’a is simply an affirmation process; one can hold public ceremonies where the influential people come to offer their allegiance to create further stability and quell any opportunists seeking to rise up using any pretext; collective affirmation in public would strengthen the legitimacy of the new Khalif.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 7/6/2010

London, UK

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Did Serbia Sacrifice Mladic for EU Membership?

2011-06-04T07:13:00.001-07:00

Indeed, the needless massacre of Bosnian Muslims is a fact; the graveyards are still there, with the grieving relatives to testify. I remember the clip shown on the BBC, the Bosnian Muslim men being off loaded from the truck, and then shot in the back like animals. It is difficult to imagine that the ordinary Serbian masses would condone such barbaric acts; and if there is a contrast between the ordinary Serbian masses and the small number of criminals like Mladic, then it proves the point that a few men can tarnish an entire nation, just like a few drops of urine can spoil a glass of milk!

The Serbs as a nation are still unrepentant, one poll shows 40% regard him as a hero, and 51% are against the extradition; perhaps it’s their sense of nationalism and patriotism, combined with a defensive mood after the NATO bombings that prevent them from acknowledging these war crimes. Even individuals who admit the guilt in their hearts are reluctant, to condemn the war crimes and genocide as they would be seen as traitors; it does take a lot of courage to go against popular opinion and express the truth.

So, was it mere luck that Ratko Mladic was found and arrested? For sure, it was not because the Serbian government feels the need to atone for their past sins, otherwise they would have made the effort to find and arrest monsters like Mladic and Karadzic 15 years ago, and compensate the Bosnian victims.

Serbia needs to cooperate with the war crimes prosecutors to start negotiation for gaining entry to the lucrative EU club. The recent arrest prevented the outright rejection of Serbia’s bid for EU membership, as the chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal at The Hague, revised his earlier view presented at the UN. Hence, the real motive for arresting Ratko Mladic lies in gaining membership of the EU, for the same reason the Serbian regime also arrested Radovan Karadzic in 2008.

Handing over war criminals is one of the hurdles Serbia needs to cross. The other hurdles will be further internal reforms so that it matches the democratic standards set by the EU, and reign in the nationalists in order to normalise the relationship with the former province of Kosovo. With the arrest of the major war criminals almost coming to an end, the EU will start to consider Serbia as a candidate and start negotiation.

In addition, there is demand from within; one cannot fail to observe the gap between the young generation on the streets of Belgrade, Novi Sad, and Nis, who want to be part of the Europe Union, and the status-quo that reminds you of a country still living in the old communist block of the 70s. The youths want to transform their nation to resemble the wealthy nations of Western Europe.

The pressure to join the EU also arises from Serbia’s neighbours making progress and gaining entry, which will give them greater opportunity to make economic progress through movement of trade and labour. Nobody wants to remain poor and isolated, whilst the neighbours are getting richer. Slovenia is the only former province of Yugoslavia that has gained membership of the EU since 2004, and Croatia looks to be next, expected to join in 2013. Both of these nations are culturally closer to Western Europe. In fact, the Croatians see themselves as the demarcation line between Western Europe and the outside world. Montenegro is also a candidate.

If Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro succeed in joining, it will also exert pressure on Muslim dominated Bosnia, Albania, and Turkey for membership. One can only speculate what its impact will be, adding a substantial amount of Muslim population into the EU which was originally seen as a fortress for Christian Europe. Will it lead to integration and create harmony in a cultural melting pot, or will it result in the rise of xenophobia, hate and conflict? Ideas and values may flow both ways - these new Muslims of the EU may enhance the case for democracy to the Arab and Islamic world, which is already feeling the pressure for reform from the recent Arab spring, and concurrently many more Europeans may embrace Islam through direct interaction, which would dissolve the Islamic-demons created by the hostile mass media. Another remote possibility is the creation of a new Islamic block, where Bosnia, Albania and Turkey merge with the new progressive Middle East that may arise from the Arab spring.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published on 04/06/2011

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Is Rape ‘Legal’ in the West?

2011-05-19T07:10:00.000-07:00

I know the title will cause offence to some, but perhaps it’s time that they learn to swallow their own medicine of ‘free’ speech, that is frequently used to insult Islam and Muslims; and in the spirit of free speech, I am going to elaborate on the title, rather than throw crass insults at an entire group of people. Thus, based on the example of some or even many, I won’t be tempted to class all white males as rapists or serial killers and make the tenuous link to their religious or racial identity. Those who are committed to free speech would be expected to persevere and remain, whereas the bigots and the nasty foulmouthed Islamophobes have probably already exited the room. Anyway, without further ado, let us proceed.

Everyone knows the bifurcation of, the Muslim terrorists versus the West; just the choice of words implies the latter is the ‘innocent victim’ fighting terrorism. Similarly another division exists, the Muslims as oppressors of women, and the West as the flag bearer of women’s rights. Remember, this women issue was one of the pretexts for the Afghan invasion. However, ironically, the US armed forces are filled with rapists, as their statistics and conduct shows. Who in their right mind would even trust the sick soldiers of Abu-Ghraib to guard their daughters and mothers for a few hours? When you see the behavior and the mindset of these soldiers in the numerous YouTube videos, it makes you cringe with disgust!

Therefore, consider, how many rapists have been found in Al-Qaeda or in any major Islamic movement, against the numerous rapists that fills the US armed forces? Yet, paradoxically the former stands accused of being oppressors of women, and the latter as liberators. The thought is amusing, because no matter how much you verbally demonise or promote, a group or an individual, the deeds will speak louder and expose the paradox. Who remembers the ‘fanatical’ Osama Bin Laden of the media, whose speeches and interviews shows a very calm and a rational person?

One would expect rape to be almost non-existent in societies that claims to be the leaders in upholding and promoting women’s rights, but the reality shows otherwise. There is a huge gap between the political rhetoric of women rights and the actual values that determines the actions of rapists. Noble values like women’s rights mean nothing to hot blooded males who are in a situation to commit the offence. Thus, rape is pervasive in all spheres of society, from the date-rape of teenagers to the brutal serial rapists stalking the streets at night. Even men in position of power and influence, stand accused. The Italian Prime Minister is going through the trial for having sex with an underage Muslim girl, committing statutory rape. Now, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of International Monetary Fund (IMF) is up for trial on charges of rape and numerous sexual assaults.

Given the statistics, can we use Jack Straw’s line of argument and pose the question: is there is a problem with white European men, who prey on women, see them as easy meat? No, because rapists come in various colours; the common factor is the mindset and values that drives them.

In terms of contributing factor, people fiercely debate the provocative dress worn by women. Of course, no matter how she dresses that does not mean she deserves to be raped, but the rapists do not see it that way. Similarly if I leave valuables in my car that does not mean my car should be broken into, however, the thief would not be persuaded by such arguments. Indeed, the empirical evidence shows, women in modest clothing like Hijab or Niqab, rarely gets targeted for rape. By bowing to feminist pressure, the society at large continues to ignore the role of women in agitating the male instincts; remember only in an ideal world, one could be act freely without facing any repercussion.

With so many rapists and potential rapists (past surveys have revealed many men would carry out the act if the opportunity prevailed), there is never going to be a shortage of support to ban clothing like the Niqab and the Hijab. Wasn’t it the men in France who led the campaign to ban the Niqab? I am pretty sure Mr Dominic Strauss-Kahn is a supporter of the ban.

After the furore caused by Ken Clarke’s remark about “serious rape” (implying some rapes not so serious), politicians of all persuasion coming forward to profess that they view rape as a serious crime, yet, they are almost oblivious to the light punishment prescribed for such crimes.

If rape is a serious crime, it should carry a serious level of punishment as a minimum. On the contrary, the minimum level of punishment prescribed is five years, with early plea that gets reduced to half or a third, and the offender is likely to serve half of that, just over a year. Such light punishment implies there is tacit permit to tolerate such things; it seems rape is treated more like minor offence, almost legal. What happened to being the flag bearer of women’s rights?

In contrast, under Sharia laws, rape is classed as one of the worst crimes, Hiraba (waging war against society), and accordingly serious punishment is prescribed, a slow execution that can involve an agonizing death. Going back to Jack Straw, the answer for those Muslim rapists is to apply the Sharia Laws on them, and see how fast they vanish. You will then have to work hard to convert the rest of society to see the merit in ‘Muslamic’ (Shariah) law! Remember, proper legal enforcement is only one side of the equation, modification of our (men and women) behaviour, is the other side of the equation.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published 19^th May 2011

London, UK

(www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

Osama Bin Laden and the Moral Paradox

2011-05-09T04:49:00.000-07:00

“Despite the religious rhetoric and the bloody means, Bin Laden is a rational man. There is a simple reason why he attacked the US: American Imperialism. As long as America seeks to control the Middle-East, he and people like him will be its enemy”

– (Michael Mann, Incoherent Empire)

The conflict between Osama Bin Laden and the US President, reminds me of the parable of Alexander the Great and a captured pirate, narrated by St Augustine in the “City of God”. The Emperor places the pirate on trial and angrily demanded of him, “How dare you molest the seas?” To which the pirate replied, “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor”.

If Osama the Pirate was captured and put on trial, one can imagine the eloquent and rational Osama retorting to the simplistic allegations of terrorism, by pointing out that it is a small reaction to the greater terrorism of the state (state-terrorism), which is euphemistically termed as “foreign policy”. The pirate effectively turns the table and puts the emperor on trial, and asks: I kill 3000 in response to your orgy of killing hundreds of thousands, and that makes me a terrorist, whilst your act is somehow moral and lawful, how can that be the case, it is you who should be on trial, but the world is governed by might is right; thus, leaving the emperor speechless.

The US made no effort to apprehend the frail and unarmed Bin Laden; they could have given him the option to surrender, instead, the unlawful execution on a foreign soil was preferred. Surely, by putting Bin Laden on trial, the US could have exposed the fallacy of AL-Qaeda’s ideology and methods. However, deep down the US knows its guilt, and the fear was Bin Laden would have managed to put the US on trial. From the onset, the US violated international laws by the terrorist acts of bombing Afghanistan, instead of following the due process of law like the Taliban, who offered to hand over Bin Laden, provided the US could furnish evidence. Subsequently, the US continued to act as a pirate state, it invaded Iraq on a false pretext and killed at least 100 times more than the 3000 killed in 9/11. Hence, execution made sense, because the US feared Bin Laden’s tongue.

A similar policy is being pursued with the numerous attempts to execute Anwar al-Awlaki, rather then apprehend him and put him trial, as one would expect a civilised nation to do. Why does the US resort to such crude methods given that it claims to have intellectual superiority over the ideology of the ‘terrorist’? It could easily provide a challenge to Anwar al-Awlaki and demolish his ideas, which would do far more damage than simply killing the man, and giving strength to his ideas and inspire others to follow. A series of debate on TV would generate huge interest, but the US fears loosing the ideological battle, even though it would have the advantage having full control over the media coverage. Such an exchange would probably perturb lot of the audience in the US, and some left in a state of confusion, as they are not used to open debates on such matters.

How ironic, that after lecturing about free speech, the US pursues a policy to silence someone through execution, rather than have the courage to debate the issues even in their own territory. The whole point of free speech is permitting the opponents right to be heard, as Professor Chomsky stated, unless you permit your opponents a fair and equal voice, then you do not really believe in free speech.

The conflict has been portrayed by the US in the simplistic image of Hollywood; simply we Americas are the good guys, against the bad guys (Al-Qaeda). Why are they bad? Because, the bad guys are needed to make the case for the heroes, just like the movies! There is no serious attempt to elaborate on the causes the drive the bad guys. If you shift through the puerile name-calling, paradoxically, Al-Qaeda seems to have the higher moral grounds, as shown by the following points:

a) 9/11 and 7/7 – the immediate response to the unlawful execution of Osama Bin Laden was to selectively highlight the victims of 9/11 and 7/7 as justification. However, if they were certain of Osama’s guilt, then why not capture him and put him on trial? Simply because, the US do not have sufficient evidence to convict him in an independent court of law. For the argument sake, let us assume Osama was guilty. If human lives are valued equally, then why the selective outrage for the victims of 9/11 and 7/7? Where is the outrage when the innocent civilians were killed daily in the Islamic world prior to 9/11 and it continues post 7/7? Oh we know, for the emperor that’s just "foreign policy”, otherwise such acts are terrorism!

b) Torture – the US has been systematically incarcerating and torturing innocent people; Abu-Ghraib is a reminder of such inhumane behaviour, where prisoners were tortured just for the fun of it, even young children were raped and sodomised. In contrast, the few prisoners captured by Jihadi groups that are related to Al-Qaeda were treated in accordance to the Sharia principle, thus you can exclude: children, gang rape, sodomy, porn-torture, etc. If they were executed, it was in response to the US actions – but never for some sadistic reason or some form of sexual perversion or xenophobia which the US soldiers and civilians display.

c) The killing of innocent civilians – this is main accusation laid against Al-Qaeda, as if they are the only ones who are guilty of this. You hear the constant name-calling, Bin Laden the ‘mass murderer’. If Bin Laden earned this title by killing 3000 or more, then what do we make of Bush and Blair over Iraq? What about their client, the Israelis who have murdered thousands of Palestinians? Anyone examines the accumulated figure of Palestinian casualty from 1948 (Israeli casualty figures are insignificant in comparison), it points to a policy of systematic genocide of an innocent population. If you delve into history, the killing of innocent civilians started with the use of explosives and air raids over populated cities, here the West has excelled.

After the demise of Osama Bin Laden, they ask: is the world a safer place. Of course it is - it is safer for the Anglo-American-Israeli axis to bomb and invade more countries with impunity! The roots of the conflict are not embedded in the ideology of Al-Qaeda, but the injustices felt by the actions of Western countries. In fact, it was this injustice that gave birth to Al-Qaeda.

The price of peace and security is justice for the victims. Nobody has asked about compensating the Iraqis for the criminal invasion built on lies. Or is this only reserved for the victims of 9/11 and 7/7? What about the killing of innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan by the drone attacks and the casual Israeli raids that continues to kill Palestinians? They are just statistics, whereas each victim of 9/11 or 7/7 is a tragedy, a story to be told. It’s this type of double standard that inflames the situation; the most obvious one is the preferential treatment given to Israel, who are constantly urged and requested to follow UN directives that has been sitting on the shelf. In sharp contrast, the Muslim countries are bullied and bombed into compliance in the name of UN resolutions. There can be no peace without justice, and the resistance will continue regardless of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published on 9/5/2011

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Death of Usamah Bin Laden: Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

2011-05-02T07:40:00.000-07:00

The reaction says it all, there is celebration in the streets of New York, whilst silence in the streets of the Islamic world; freedom fighter or terrorist depends on whose perspective. There is no doubt many in the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world (e.g. Latin America), are privately mourning the death of Usamah Bin Laden, seen as a symbol of resistance to Western imperialism. Unlike Saddam Hussein and his ilk, Usamah Bin Laden died fighting like a Mujahid, as the old proverb says, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

It is disgusting the way the media constantly highlights the 3000 that perished in 9/11, as if the American and western lives are more valuable than others. The message construed is simple, its Bin Laden and 9/11, there are no other casualties and no other factors. Indeed, the entire narrative is false. They say 9/11 marks the beginning of the conflict, whereas the conflict started from the end of the First World War; the Arabs seeking independence were betrayed (Sykes-Picot treaty) for their support to the Allied forces. Their lands were carved up to suit the interests of the colonialists, who facilitated the migration of the Zionists to Palestine, paving the way for the creation of Israel. Eventually, the Arabs were ‘rewarded’ with Israel and the Palestinian Diaspora (nakba) for their cooperation and service to the colonialists.

What is even more absurd about the simple narrative of Bin Laden and 9/11 is that America is portrayed as the victim. Just the thought makes you laugh, it’s like you have to imagine the US Soldiers dressed as benign priests, rather than killing Iraqis for fun, as the numerous clips leaked on the internet with the awful images of Abu-Ghraib confirms!

Prior to 9/11, 500,000 Iraqi children were killed through barbaric sanctions, and post 9/11 almost a million innocent Iraqis died for those mythical WMDs! To date, nobody has been bought to account for the illegal war built on lies. The losses of innocence are conveniently classed as collateral damage that can be swept under the carpet like dirt! Has anyone been bought to trial for the carnage in Gaza, when the Israelis unleashed disproportionate force on the civilian population, committing a clear act of state-terrorism?

It is simplistic to call Usamah Bin Laden a terrorist, when his opponent has murdered much more civilians in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, that pre-dates 9/11. Likewise, to call Usamah a religious fanatic is hypocritical, when George Bush is the one claimed to be talking to God,who allegedly inspired him to launch the war on the innocent people of Iraq. It is ironic that the Christian God of ‘love’ would order one to wage to war, rather than to turn the other cheek!

Regardless if you agree with the methods used by Usamah and his men, as an individual he outdid his opponents. He was far more eloquent than George Bush, a semi-literate guy with a drink problem, who often embarrassed the US by his numerous idiotic statements. Usamah also had far more integrity than Tony Blair, unlike Blair he never lied and was generous with his wealth, constantly helping the needy, Jason Burke elaborates on this in his book, Al-Qaeda. Whereas it took a lot of media pressure for Tony Blair (who did so well out of the Iraq war), to make some nominal contribution to the British soldiers who suffered losses.

The most important question is – did Usamah succeed to any level or was he a total failure. This depends on how you define success and failure, but we can avoid the debate, by looking at his main objectives. First was to create the Arabic Nahda (revival), this never materialised; despite the war waged over Iraq and the revelations of the gruesome events of Abu-Ghraib, the masses in the Arab/Islamic world did not revolt. In fact, the only uprisings we have seen are the recent revolutions sweeping through the Arab world, where the call is unanimous for a democratic government that is free from corruption and nepotism. The masses want secular freedom and democracy, rather than a Caliphate or an Islamic Emirate, they are no longer burning the American flags and chanting anti-Western slogans, they have come to realise that they need to take responsibility and clean their homes.

Secondly, Usamah failed to topple a single regime in the Arab/Islamic world. This is largely because he misread the situation, whilst many sympathise with his grievances, but do not support the creation of an Islamic State or an Islamic Emirate. It means one has to engage the masses in the Arab world politically to make the case for an Islamic State, how such a state can overcome the numerous issues that divide the Arab and Islamic world, and bring about unity. Thus, instead of waging wars on the West, they should have focused on building a stable prosperous Afghanistan based on the Sharia model that could act as a shining example. They could have shown how the various tribes of Afghanistan unified, overcoming their historical animosity; this would have had greater resonance in the Arab and Islamic world. However, the Taliban remained largely Pashtun based, and the Arabs remained as their guests, despite professing unity based on the Islamic laws and values.

Yamin Zakaria (Abu Usamah)

London, UK

Published on 02/05/2011

yamin@radicalviews.org

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Will the Secular Revolution End the Arab-Zionist Regime of Egypt?

2011-02-02T18:37:00.001-08:00

The policy makers, commentators and analysts are speculating how far this revolutionary current will go in the Arab world, which was triggered by the tragic suicide of a young Tunisian graduate, Mohammed BouAzizi. It is painful to imagine what this young man was going through moments before he took his life. The cruel irony is he was punished by the police for trying to make an honest living; after failing to gain employment, he committed the ‘crime’ of selling vegetables in the market without a permit.

The Arab world as a whole is not poor. Many in Tunisia and Egypt are suffering from poverty, but their neighbour, Libya, is soaking in oil-money and Algeria is relatively wealthy. Across the Red Sea, Yemen, Syria, Palestine and Jordan are poor, however Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Abu-Dhabi, and Kuwait are drenched in oil-money. This division between the rich and poor nations is not entirely natural, because the borders were drawn after the First World War by the colonial nations; by that time, oil was discovered which was essential for the armed forces and the navy. Therefore, colonial Britain and France ensured the lands were divided to suit their interests and the US continued to endorse the same policy, because the division of Arab lands also helps to provide Israel with greater security; one of the reasons for the massive military intervention in 1991 to maintain the Kuwaiti borders. For Israeli’s security, the continuous funding of the various Arab-Zionist regimes like Mubarak becomes a necessity for the US. After the decades of funding, naturally the US is reluctant to support the call for his removal.

Using various ideologies, the Arabs have tried to remove the colonial shackles. First was Arab nationalism, inspired by Jamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt who gained immense popularity after the Suez crisis. The UAR (United Arab Republic) experiment in 1961 between Egypt and Syria ended in a disaster, as did the other initiatives by Nasser of Egypt. The Arab League has always been a social gathering, where clowns like Colonel Gaddafi and others put on a display. Arab unity was never going to work, because they could not overcome primitive nationalism. Most of the governments have been carving out their own dynasties. Everyone wants to keep it in the family.

Arab Socialism was another experiment that did not even take off. With the exception of Syria, which is nominally Socialist, everyone else belongs to the Capitalist free market camp. You can never curtail the human desire to poses wealth; profit is and always will be a central force in any economic system. Apart from the desire to own private property and make profit, the Arabs in general believe in God. Thus, Arab Socialism was dead, even before the demise of communism in Russia and China.

After the failure of nationalist and socialist movements, the Islamic movements started to surface in the late 70s and managed to offer some resistance to the constant aggression of Israel, supported by the US. In recent times, they had some success at political level, as they advanced in Egypt, Palestine, and Turkey through the elections. The FIS in Algeria came within an inch of acquiring power. However, after the Jihadi experiment (9/11 and Iraq), it seems everyone is taking a break, and reconsidering their approach to liberate the lands from colonial agents. A wise move indeed.

Whilst the Islamic movements take a respite, it seems the secular forces are on the move to free the Arab world. The current uprising in Egypt is largely secular and nationalistic, everyone is waving the Egyptian flag instead of the black and white Shahadah (there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger) flag in Arabic. There are no signs of Islamic slogans or placards, the Muslim Brotherhood has kept their distance and this is prudent. In desperation, the pro-Zionist elements are finger pointing at the Muslim Brotherhood for the Egyptian uprising, a glimmer of hope that the US might instigate a move with some Egyptian Generals to crackdown on the protestors and arrest the Muslim Brotherhood, and save the Arab-Zionist regime of Mubarak.

The King of Jordan and Saudi are the two other significant Arab-Zionist regimes. However, the US and Israel would not permit the current fervour for democracy to manifest in these countries, unless the odds were stacked in its favour.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published on 2/02/2010

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Tunisia, Egypt; Is the Arab world moving towards independence?

2011-01-30T08:35:00.001-08:00

For the first time in recent history, the Arab masses in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, and elsewhere have turned their anger towards the decadent regimes, rather than the US; they are not burning the US flags but government buildings. The regime changes may signify gaining real independence and breaking free from the last shackles of the post-colonial model, which was setup after the First World War. The masses are seeking to liberate their country from these self-serving regimes; indeed, liberation always comes from within.

If the demonstrations were taking place in the streets of Tehran, instead of Egypt or Tunisia, there would have been a prompt and unanimous response from the Western governments, demanding a regime change; instead, the US has suggested further `democratic’ reforms to quell the demonstrations. This sort of response only adds further resentment, as it suggests that Mubarak’s regime has some level of democratic credentials. According to the `election’ results, for the last three decades Mubarak has been winning with a substantial majority, so where are his supporters now. Everyone knows the Egyptian elections are farcical, especially when you muzzle the opposition.

The Western governments are pressing on the Mubarak regime to respect the rights of the people to express their views, and to lift censorship placed on the mobile and internet, communications. The central point about democracy is not just about the right of the masses to express their opinions, but such opinions should be implemented by the government as their representatives. In the case of Egypt, they are demonstrating for a representative government, and the removal of the current dictatorship.

There is great reluctance to label Mubarak as a dictator by the US and other Western governments, primarily because he has done tremendous amount of work in stabilising the region in favour of Israel, and keeping Hamas and the Islamic movements inside Egypt, at bay. In the build up to Iraq war and after, the US was desperately looking for a mass uprising similar to Egypt, but it never materialised. However, Iraq was allegedly worth invading to remove a relatively popular dictator (not the mythical WMDs), whilst the current unpopular dictators of Egypt, Saudi and the other Gulf States are worth giving support; that is the reward for being subservient to American interests. All this serves as a reminder that national interests and not principles of democracy dictate the US foreign policy in the region.

Even if Mubarak manages to remain in power, the regime is unlikely to continue after his demise. The likelihood of a possible power vacuum emerging has naturally raised discussion on the types of government that is likely to succeed. There are two main candidates: Islamic orientated government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood or a pro-western secular regime. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel prize-winning former UN official, has gained some attention, however, at this stage, it looks unlikely that he commands enough support to take power or form a stable government. As for the possibility of a pro-Islamic regime emerging, the Islamophobes and the Zionist dominated press are already busy scare mongering with speculation of violence escalating, as a Islamic government is likely to give greater assistance to the Palestinians. On the contrary, a strong Egypt and Iran could provide stability by acting as a counter weight to the rabid dog, Israel, by putting it on a leash, so that it stops biting Palestinian women and children.

Whatever government comes to power, it should not be an issue for the West, if it is the people's choice! As lovers of democracy, surely they should respect the outcome of a free and fair election. Of course, Hamas might have something to say about this who won the election with a landslide victory! Regardless of, who or what, succeeds in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere, if the Arab world is to make progress, it needs to build a stable government that is accountable to the masses, where the rule of law prevails, corruption and nepotism is erased. These few changes can transform the Arab world substantially, setting the pace for greater unification under the banner of Islam or Arab nationalism. If the domino effect proceeds towards Syria and beyond, the Arab world could finally gain independence, and who knows, another Salahuddin could emerge.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published on 30/1/2011

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

It is not Pakistani culture, but the toxic culture of ‘freedom’, which promotes rape.

2011-01-09T14:36:00.000-08:00

Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary in the Blair government is a war criminal who relayed to the nation about the mythical WMDs in Iraq, and now he has alleging another `truth’ about the so-called Pakistani cultural problem of rape. One must not forget that he is doing this as a representative of his loyal, Pakistani and Muslim, voters in Blackburn who have helped him to retain his seat in parliament. However, it seems that his remarks are aimed at appeasing the BNP (British National Party) and UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), voters. Is Labour trying to regain some lost grounds?

The racist comments of Jack Straw alleging that some Pakistani men preying on white girls, because they are ‘easy meat’ has been swiftly condemned by his fellow Labour MP, Keith Vaz, who pointed out the inherent problem of stereotyping an entire community based on the actions of a few. The stats show that overwhelming number of rapists comes from the indigenous white population. On a more specific issue of gang rape there is a disproportionate representation from the Afro-Caribbean community¹, does this mean it is a racial problem; nobody would dare say anything here and risk a riot. One can extend that logic to ask, why there is a disproportionate number of Jews involved in the porn industry, but for sure, it has nothing to do with the Torah. What about the serial killers who are predominantly from the white population, does this mean the entire white community have a case to answer. In fact, Mr Straw’s brother has been convicted for indecently assaulting a girl, in addition, his son has been convicted for supplying drugs², applying his argument there is a inherent problem within his family.

One must also ask what Jack Straw was implying about the white girls; why are they available in the first place as easy meat? Why are those girls roaming the streets leaving themselves exposed to being exploited by any rapists? It would be helpful for Jack Straw to focus on the supply of ‘easy meat’ and not just the demand for it. The rapists are not selective about race. Those Pakistani men would not pass the opportunity, if their victims were Asians or of any other race. The Judge correctly concluded that the race of the perpetrators and the victims is entirely coincidental.

Therefore, the issue of rape is not about race or culture, but the values of the perpetrators. What went wrong here? Were those Pakistani men not fully integrated into the British society? From their appearance and actions, it is far more likely they are consuming alcohol in the pubs and frequenting the nightclubs in the weekend, rather than the Mosques (Masjid) listening to some bearded ‘fundamentalist’. Just ignore the racial element; they are like the typical BNP/EDL activists or the football hooligan. Had those Pakistani men been practising Muslims, such an act would have been highly unlikely. Maybe it is the wider community that needs to consider integrating with the Muslims and adopt our values. In such times of austerity, it would save millions, as the Muslims are not the ones found drunk on the streets every weekend placing a heavy toll on the Police and the NHS.

Now is a good time to reflect and consider the Islamic viewpoint on rape, which would argue that if you really cared about those women, you would punish the perpetrators adequately. Under Sharia Laws, rape is an act of war against society; those men would have been executed in public. For sure, rape would decline considerably if the society were made aware of the serious consequences; naturally, rape is rare in any Islamic society that is governed by the Sharia Laws and Islamic values. Dispensing such harsh punishment is a reflection of how Islam views the seriousness of the crime of violating a woman’s honour; such an act constitutes declaration of war on society. In contrast, the liberal punishments dispensed by free societies are a reflection of how little emphasis it puts on the honour of a woman. After all what’s the big deal about losing one’s virginity, since being a virgin has become an abnormal state in most liberal societies. Therefore, Sharia Laws are not barbaric; it actually protects the women by imposing harsh punishment on the perpetrator, whereas the liberal laws of a free society implicitly encourages rape, such laws are barbaric from the point of view of the victims.

Apart from the lenient laws, rape is also encouraged through the liberal values imposed in society; men and women are let loose under the culture of sexual freedom, naturally, the bull will seek to spread his seed as much as he can using his physical prowess. A healthy strong male would not pass the opportunity to implant his seed even by force, hence, numerous surveys have revealed that many men have spiked up the drinks to commit date rape. No matter how much the Muslims are lectured about women’s rights, issues of rape and other forms of exploitation exposes the hypocrisy of the West banging on about women’s rights, that there is little regard for women in terms of protecting her honour in a free society. The American soldiers did not invoke women’s rights bible when they continued to rape women and children in Abu Ghraib without remorse. This is expected from the US forces, as rape is rife within³, it reported in 2003 that one third of the women have been raped⁴. These soldiers are in turn reflecting the larger society where rape is common, where 1 in 6 women has experienced an attempted or completed rape⁵. One has to bear in mind that this only reflects from what has been reported to the authorities, the real figure is likely to be higher.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

¹http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gang-rape-is-it-a-race-issue-1711381.html

²http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/jack-straws-brother-found-guilty-of-indecent-assault-on-girl-16-698881.html

³http://www.radicalviews.org/index.php/analysis/gender/230--rape-rampant-in-us-military-.html

⁴http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/

⁵http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Why are the Islamic Movements so Deluded?

2010-12-24T15:41:00.000-08:00

By being in denial is to cause a self-inflicted wound, failure to acknowledge the facts will inexorably lead to one’s demise. Saddam Hussein punished one of his General for giving an accurate assessment of his imminent defeat during the first Gulf War. In the second Gulf War, the world witnessed the American tanks moving into the Iraqi capital, through the mass media. Ali Sahhaf, the Iraqi Information Minister continued to broadcast the imminent victory of the Iraqi forces, according to him the US troops were defeated and committing mass suicide at the gates of Baghdad, and that there were "no US tanks in Baghdad". For his performance, he was given the title of Comical Ali.

This disease of being in denial is not confined to secular Arabs; the religious ones also suffer from the same complex. During the first Gulf War, I was conversing with Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad about the situation, and to my surprise, he seemed optimistic. He stated to the reporters that the foreign forces would be annihilated; his reasoning was based on the battles that took place during the crusades, when the Muslim forces eventually expelled the foreign forces. Because the invaders were defeated and expelled in the past, it will happen again.

According to the Sheikh, Saddam Hussein laid a trap for the American forces, and when the Iraqi army took the town of Khafji inside Saudi Arabia, hopes were raised that American forces would suffer heavy losses. However, deep down I knew this is would be reversed quickly by the superior US firepower and technology. Indeed, it was, the entire event was televised like a movie. The fierce Apaches, F16s, Stealth Bombers decimated the Iraqi forces with ease, and Khafji was retaken easily. Iraqi Scuds were like crude slingshots of cave dwellers, when compared to the laser guided technology used by the US forces.

Before 9/11, Usamah Bin Laden stated that the US was weaker than the Soviets; implying that it was going to be easier to fight the American forces, after the Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan. Such naive statements were naturally dismissed by the educated faction in the Arab world, journalists and commentators saw this as further confirmation of the sheer gullibility of the Jihadist camp. The US-Soviet comparison was based on ignorance; the US is part of the capitalist block that has continued to dominate the world for the last four hundred years, whereas communism only lasted about 60 years.

Today, many inside the Islamic movements continue to believe the US forces have lost the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; they view the US as a weak nation that is on the verge of collapsing. Such idiotic claims are just as comical as the show exhibited by Comical Ali. Of course, there is resistance and the US has suffered losses, but nothing compared to the losses that it has inflicted, using a fraction of its firepower. It is a fact the US forces have successfully invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, destroyed the infrastructure, killed and maimed hundreds of thousands. Their soldiers have invaded the homes of ordinary Muslims, raped their daughters and mothers, sodomised their sons, imposed puppet regimes, and yet this is supposed to be a victory? Even if the US forces decided to leave these places, they have already made their point. The war was about projecting US power, reminding the Islamic world, the Jihadist camp in particular, that this is what we can do under the guise of international law, and spreading democracy and human rights.

Military power in the international arena is relative; it is not how much firepower you have in absolute terms, but in relation to your competitors. After the demise of the Soviets, for the first time in recent history we have a unipolar world that is dominated by a single super power. The massive budget allocated to research and development has meant the creation of more powerful conventional and semi-conventional weapons. Therefore, the US military strength in relative and absolute term has increased over the last two decades. There are more US bases in the Islamic world; its cultural influence continues to grow as it penetrates the homes of the masses using the ubiquitous media.

It is time for the Islamic movements to recognise the real world, and come out of their fantasy about being victorious and stupid conspiracy theories that are product of elderly Arab men gossiping in coffee houses. Warfare has changed considerably; a Woody Allen type of character can easily eliminate a brigade of fierce Mujahideen from the cockpit of a F16. The battles are not determined by the bravery of soldiers, but by possessing the means to fight a state with immense firepower. Since in practical terms, only a state can fight another state that brings to the subject of the return of the Islamic State (Caliphate). Unfortunately, this word seems to have intoxicated those who advocate the Caliphate, their thought process is simplistic - once the Caliphate returns, it will unify the Muslim nations and displace the US leadership. Of all the people, one would expect Islamic activists to be sober, and take heed from history. Therefore, remember the Caliphate was destroyed once by the Capitalist state, thus they can do this again, the return of the Caliphate would be just the beginning of perilous journey.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published on 25^th December 2010

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

The Irish Crisis and the Fiat Money

2010-11-24T12:12:00.000-08:00

“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero.”

Voltaire, Philosopher

‎"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing."

Ralph M. Hawtrey, Secretary of Treasury, England

Over the last three years, the Irish economy has gone from boom to the verge of bust, needing a major bailout. In a globalised world, the economies of nations are interlinked. If Ireland went down, it would definitely hurt the UK, Ireland is the fifth largest export market; the trade is worth around £23.8 billion. David Cameron emphasised this in his statement: "We export more to Ireland than we do to Brazil, Russia, India, China combined”. In addition to economic ties, there are ties of culture, language and history.

Therefore, the British government and the Euro were compelled to organise this bailout, in order to halt the potential domino effect, from the collapse of the Irish economy, creating another dive into recession. Spain and Portugal seems to be going in a similar direction with a growing budget deficit, and there is already talk of them being bailed out in the future.

In the chaos of recession and bailouts, they have lost sight of the causes of the problems. As a non-Economist, I believe that Fiat money is a contributing factor towards the cycles of booms and busts. The Fiat money system is inherently unstable, its merit depends on maintaining the conviction of the masses that the intrinsically ‘worthless’ paper money has some value; when they lose total faith, it results in the nightmare scenario - a run on the banks and the entire thing collapses, leading to the ultimate bust. This is the most critical situation, thus rare in history. In most cases, when the economy is not going towards a major bust (recession), it is in a state of boom or normality.

Another factor that contributes towards the instability of the Fiat money is the quantity in circulation. The economic geeks have various terms and means of measuring this. In essence, the quantity is controlled by the banks rather than determined naturally through market forces to reflect the actual level of wealth generated in the country. Of course, that would mean abandoning the Fiat system, and pegging the currency to something like gold or silver.

This Fiat system allows the banks to print money, creating wealth out of nothing, this will naturally cause imbalance, because the banks can go on creating and lending, the rest can go on inflating their debts. No wonder the rich get richer and poor get poorer. The more you lend the more money you make, excessive lending also led to the increase in risk of many defaulting and depreciation of currency. This is how the recession started in the US housing market, and like a virus infected others.

The subsequent lending process by the banks is a greater problem, as money is lent from the deposits made by the public, with the pretext that it owns the money. Therefore, the debtors owe the bank, rather than the depositors; this is fraud on a mass scale.

The banking system is also unnatural, because the medium of exchange (money) should not be subjected to manipulation by a section of the population, and this is precisely what the bankers do. In a natural environment, real economic wealth is created by the efforts of all and traded through barter or exchanged via a currency like gold and silver. Just examine the long human history and one would struggle to find cycles of booms and busts.

What the Euro should be bailing out is the actual system in place; replace the Fiat currency with gold and silver, or some other commodity with an intrinsic value that is not monopolised by a group of people. Consequently, the banks would not be able to create credit out of thin air and place the masses under constant debt. Lending would be backed by actual wealth – not pegged by the printing of paper money. Any money lent must be done with the permission of the depositors as the money belongs to them.

Most important is that the banks should only take a commission on the money being lent to cover their services, and profit earned from the money lent should be shared out amongst the depositors, because they are the ones who own the money. This would conform to the spirit of democracy, as it would remove the monopoly of the banks, and the power would go back to the people rightfully.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 23^rd November 2010

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Where is your evidence for holding demonstrations?

2010-11-19T04:22:00.001-08:00

We are all familiar with the characteristic expression of the self-righteous groups (evidence-brigade): “brother we follow Quran and Sunnah, not ration”. Thus implying, unless the evidence is explicitly stated or concurs with their interpretation, it is not valid, and you are classed as a deviant who is halfway up the apostasy road. During the previous general election, these self-righteous groups were engaged in the usual inquisition, demanding textual evidence which permit the tax-paying and law-abiding Muslim citizens of UK to vote. I do not want to discuss the subject of voting, but rather how they approach the subject of evidence: which tantamount to - either you accept our interpretation or else you have no evidence. They will pass their ‘fatwa’ - you are not following Quran and Sunnah but ration, as if they do not employ their mind, which in some sense is probably true!

The reality is – everyone including the evidence-brigade employs ration in construing their arguments, they do that by interpreting the evidences in various ways, and make various kinds of analogy, extrapolation and deduction, as one would struggle to find literal evidence on voting or the numerous activities that they (evidence-brigade) do, be it holding grand conferences or the regular demonstrations outside the embassies of various Muslim governments.

It is challenging to make these people see the contradiction in their argument, as they are guilty of what they accuse others of in terms of evidence; in order to fulfil this challenge I decided to turn the table and ask them, what precise evidence permits you to demonstrate against the Muslim governments here in the UK. The answer comes immediately: “it’s simple my dear brother, the Prophet (saw) permitted his companions to demonstrate in Makkah outside the Kaba, so we demonstrate against the Muslim governments here in the UK”. How does this evidence give a legal permit to demonstrate against the Muslim governments whilst residing in a distant non-Muslim country? Note the following points in relation to the above evidence cited:

The first obviously discrepancy is the demonstration in Mecca was against the non-Muslim government, but the evidence-brigade in the UK are demonstrating against the Muslim governments.

One can argue the evidence of the demonstration held in Mecca indicates that it can only be done against the regime where one resides. The Prophet could have also demonstrated against the other tribes in Arabia, but he (saw) did not organise any such demonstration, the only one he permitted was against the local tribes of Mecca. Thus, based on that evidence, if you live in the UK, you should demonstrate against the British government. Moreover, like the government of Mecca, the government of the UK is a non-Muslim government.

In Mecca the Prophet’s position was weak, subsequently he moved to Medina and established the Islamic State which grew strong, still no demonstrations were organised or held there against the government of Mecca, even though he had ample reasons to do so.

Using the literalist approach one can say the evidence is restricted to demonstrating only in Mecca, applicable only for a similar situation where the people have resorted back to idolatry.

Since we need to draw evidence from similar circumstances, we will liken the first Islamic State of Medina to the Muslim majority countries of today. The Muslims living under the authority of non-Muslims outside the state of Medina could be equated to the Muslims living in the West. Are there any evidences of the companions residing in the non-Muslim areas resorting demonstrations against another tribe, in another location? Negative.

Then the evidence-brigade bring the next piece of evidence, that it is a right and a duty to speak out against the tyrants, giving example of Hamza (ra), the uncle of the Prophet who spoke out against the tyrants of Mecca. Leaving aside that Hamza (ra) addressed a non-Muslim tyrant, the evidence once again shows that such activities should confine to the local area; moreover the Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia did not demonstrate against the leaders of Mecca. They simply lived their lives in a peaceful manner, under the authority of Negus, the Abyssinian king. Therefore, some people could argue demonstration is a form of innovation (bidda).

The only way you can use those evidences as justification for holding demonstration is by giving a liberal interpretation that the Prophet sanctioned demonstrations against any rulers in any part of the world, and ignore the fact that the demonstrations were only held against local non-Muslim rulers. Other evidences may also corroborate this position, but still you are using your ration and extending the scope of those evidences. The point is, whether it is voting or holding demonstration, neither case you have literal evidence, they are built on certain rationalisation of the textual evidences. Will these self-righteous groups see this fundamental point that nobody has a monopoly over textual evidences? Therefore, do not exhibit so much arrogance, we all follow Quran and Sunnah to the best of our ability and employ our ration, but it is just that you (evidence-brigade) need to recognise this.

Moreover, the puritanical attitude displayed by the evidence-brigade towards voting is perplexing. Why are they are so zealous about voting? The answer is it supports a non-Islamic system. In that case, by greater reason you should show the same attitude towards other forms of contribution that upholds the system even more. Yet, why are they so happy to continue to live and make far greater contribution to this society in other ways.

Note the following axiom. If you are going to live in any society as a law abiding and tax-paying citizen, your contribution is inevitable and as long as you continue to reside in that way, you will be contributing in numerous ways, which will be much greater than voting. If the argument is you should not be supporting the non-Islamic system, then you must be actively involved in trying to change the system or prepare to migrate. A more balanced and sensible approach takes into account our inability or weakness, thus we live peacefully like the Muslim migrants did in Abyssinia and concurrently work to improve our situation within the framework, as best we can. Therefore, our participation is not endorsement of the system but recognising the real world: we are all willing participants. Just think of the daily contribution that we are all making to this country and how we use all the facets of this society.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published on 19 November 2010

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Day of Arafat and Eid-ul-Adha

2010-11-15T01:40:00.000-08:00

Peace and blessings upon you all on this Day of Arafat. As the Hajjis pray on the Mount of Mercy, may He spread His Mercy and Blessings upon the Earth.

Wish everyone a happy EID tomorrow.

Yamin

Burning the Quran and the Satanic Verses: Is there a difference?

2010-09-10T04:59:00.000-07:00

Whilst some Muslims around the world demonstrate with rage, others find this cheap media stunt by the US Pastor, Terry Jones, rather amusing; he appears like the typical ignorant rugged hillbilly with a tiny band of followers. From his interviews, he fits the profile of those ignorant Americans raised on a diet of Zionist Fox News and baseball, who would struggle to comment on the US history and geography, let alone the rest of the world.

His interview on CNN bought a smile to my face, as it did to the CNN Presenter who was trying to clarify the justification for burning the Quran; it is obvious that he lacks ability to articulate his case, compounded by the fact that he has not even read the Quran or any scholarly literature that elaborates on the subject. Indeed, he sounds like a man who does not read much.

His allegations that Quran advocates violence is laughable, as the same teachings can be found in the Bible, some of the laws derived from the Old Testament are much harsher than the Quranic laws. It seems the pastor is also unfamiliar with the Bible. If we talk about the actions or reactions of some Muslims, that needs to be assessed against the actions of violent Christian-America. I am not talking about the daily shootings at schools and shopping malls, rape, bombings, and the high level crime rate inside America, but the killing of innocent people in distant land.

This is the nation that dropped the Atom bombs and chemical weapons on innocent civilians; over last century it has killed millions for profit, and continues to do so in the Middle East. Allegedly, their ‘loving’ Christian god commanded George Bush to carry out the slaughter of innocent people. Numerous videos depict the cruelty of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are often killing civilians for sheer enjoyment, true to their sadistic nature. The Pastor needs to take closer look at his nation with its awful history.

The Muslims should have ignored Terry Jones, and by the usual emotional reaction of some it has only given him far greater media attention than he deserves. I guess for sensitive issues like this, the hearts and emotions rule over the mind.

It’s ironic that a ‘Christian’ pastor, whose flock constantly peddles the message of ‘love’ and ‘forgiveness’ can demonstrate so much blanket hate towards another community. Such hypocrisy is not surprising, as many prominent US-based preachers have consistently demonstrated this over the years. How many have swindled money from their docile flocks? How many TV-Evangelists have been caught with their pants down after lecturing about sexual morality? What bout the numerous claims about healing, later exposed as fraudulent. Not to mention the recent revelation of those celibate Priests sexually molesting children.

Far from the central Christian message of ‘love’, this pastor represents a new breed of extremists: Christian-Zionist, who has anything but love; these people are simply evil. Incidentally, why is the Pope silent on this issue? Where are the prominent Christian Priests issuing condemnations? Had this been Muslims burning the Bible, the entire Muslim community would have been put on the docks. For the actions of few Muslims, we are all frequently held accountable; the same principle should also apply here with Terry Jones.

Let us leave aside the religious dimension, most of us live in a secular society; thus, let us examine the secular arguments of free speech which underpins this issue. This has resurfaced the old debate of the right of freedom of speech against ‘selective’ curbing of it, to prevent incitement to hate and violence. In defence of Terry Jones, the issue of freedom of expression is pointed out, along with the example of the Muslims burning the Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie, in the past. The obliging media selectively pushes the arguments of incitement to hate and violence to the back, and the argument of the right of free speech for Terry Jones is brought to the front. It works in reverse for the Muslim action and reaction, as it is always measured against the principle of incitement to hate and violence, rather than a right to express their viewpoint.

Both, the Satanic Verses and the actions of Terry Jones are provocation, and not a reaction; one can also include the Danish Cartoon in this category. Rather, the Muslims will point out, if the media opposed the book burning of Satanic Verses, why did they not demonstrate the same level of opposition to the burning of the Quran. Moreover, the ‘Satanic Verses’ is not a sacred scripture with millions of followers around the world. Thus, if anything, the response to curtail free speech of Terry Jones should have been greater. This merely confirms that media consistency is the exception, and media-hypocrisy is the norm.

Most Islamophobes are overt racists or closet racists. It is the culture of war on terror that has encouraged them come out and target Islam and Muslims, which has been fanned by the mainstream media for decades, significantly increased post 9/11; the racist Islamophobes are enjoying the free ride. Since racism has become unacceptable, the overt racists are quick to deny their racist motive, and make the technical argument that targeting religious group is not a racist action; however, when you prod under their white skin by examining the behaviour and track record of its prominent members, the racist agenda becomes clear. For example, the disparity in response to the decades of IRA bombings in the UK to the single incident of 7/7 makes it obvious. The entire Irish community was not put on the dock, they were not viewed with the same level of disdain, and the response was confined to the perpetrators, nor were there any calls for repatriation or curbing immigration from Republic and Northern Ireland. The National Front never marched into the areas populated by the Irish community.

In the UK, the EDL (English Defence League) fits this profile of being over racists using the cloak of opposing radical Islam. I think it would be more accurate to call it ‘reactionary’ Islam to the ongoing oppression in the Islamic world. If you oppose radical Islam, then why is the basis of your organisation a racial one? Surely, being English has nothing to do with opposing radical Islam? Even their name gives the game away. The EDL and their ilk of racists are adopting a more politically correct slogan, and concealing their racist agenda behind targeting Islam and Muslims. To support their claim of being non-racist, the EDL present the likes of Gurmit Singh, but the core organisation is simply an unofficial branch of the BNP (British National Party).

A partial solution to this problem is to engage them intellectually. It’s unlikely the majority of the followers of EDL or Terry Jones know the issues in depth; they do need educating. In the UK, I am sure, many Muslims would happily engage with the EDL followers when they are sober, over the nation’s favourite food: the Indian curry!

From the days of the Civil Rights movement to the LA riots of Rodney King shows line of progression, protests can and will eventually turn violent. The oppressed ones will rise in revolt eventually. If you demonise a racial group, you will get a violent reaction eventually, and why that should be any different for a religious group. Soon, such a reaction might take place in a large scale, and gradually the targeting of a religious group might become as unacceptable, like racism is at present.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published 10/09/2010

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Nationalism and the long road to the Caliphate

2010-07-07T07:35:00.000-07:00

Almost 70 years has elapsed, since the last major conflict erupted in the West, which ended in 1945. All the signs indicate peace is likely to continue, as ties between the Western nations are strengthened through various treaties, reinforcing their allegiance to a common set of values. Europe in particular, there exists is a momentum towards greater unification; the European Union (EU) has evolved from the European Economic Community (EEC) that was formed back in 1957. After the recent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has passed another milestone.

Note the pace of unity in Europe has taken into account the desire of each nation to maintain its national identity; without coercion or any form of threat or intimidation, they relinquish part of their sovereignty, for the greater good. This notion issue of pooling some national sovereignty for benefit was raised by former Conservative foreign secretary, Francis Pym, a proponent for European Union. In his book, “The Politics of Consent”, he argued national sovereignty was less about territorial or national integrity, much more about the ability of a nation to determine the welfare of its own citizen.

After the demise of the Iron Curtain, the EU has continued to expand to incorporate the former Eastern European block countries. In addition to economic benefits, such expansion ensures the old fault lines of religion and ethnicity does not cause instability, which happened after the breakup of Yugoslavia. The West ended the conflict in 1995 through the Dayton peace accord. Now, Croatia and Macedonia are set to become part of the EU, for sure, Bosnia and Serbia will follow in the future. Germany has also signed a historic peace accord with Russia, turning a new chapter as they look to end the historic animosity between the two nations.

From Napoleon to Hitler, history tells us nationalism is the fuel of nation states, and one of the primary factors for causing numerous bloody wars. Yet, the nation states of Europe, USA, Canada, Russia and others have managed to maintain close ties, and avoid conflicts. Therefore, what has changed over the last 70 years in the West? This paradoxical behaviour can be attributed to the following reasons:

With scientific advances, the ability to cause mutual destruction has increased significantly, making war very costly to all sides. This was recognised by the West after the First World War. Europe lamented on the mass casualties caused by the use of explosives, mustard gas, air raids, machine guns, and especially the gruesome trench battles, the most notable was the battle of the Somme. They said ‘never again’ and formed the “League of Nations” which was supposed to prevent future wars. The organisation failed, and subsequently the Second World War was ignited, which ended with the Americans dropping the Atom bomb on the Japanese cities; this finally made the point about cost of wars. No wonder, the Third World War was a cold one.
The experience of the great wars also propelled the West to find a solution to avert future wars; the obvious remedy was to forge unity amongst nations through establishing multilateral treaties and economic blocks. The creation of common market brings mutual economic benefit and in turn creates political stability. It generates opportunities for everyone. For example, those nation facing labour shortage, which is a crucial factor for economic growth, could access the labour force from other countries, where they may have been out of work. This in turn stimulates the local and the regional economy. Instead of fighting for spoils, the West has learnt to work together and share the benefit. Multinationals companies in someway reflect that ethos.
At a political level, the Western democracies have been able to create stable government that is held accountable to the masses, where the rule of law prevails; it may not be perfect, but there is no other example in the world that can rival their record of accomplishment, since the end of Second World War. This helped to create internal stability, enabling the nations to forge a common ideological outlook and unify.

It seems the West has finally managed to tame primitive nationalism. Even countries like India with many racial groups, languages and religions has been relatively successful in maintaining unity, in comparison to the more monolithic Muslim nations of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

In contrast, the Muslims nations have failed miserably, where primitive nationalism is so pervasive that they cannot unify even on nationalistic grounds. For example, the Arab League could not unify the Arabs at any level. Egypt did not think twice to abandon Arab unity and signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979; similarly, the Arab nations sided with the US forces during the Iraq war, legitimised as American ‘Jihad’ no doubt! The ordinary Kuwaitis were waving and kissing the American flag, thanking the American ‘Mujahideen’ for expelling Saddam Hussein’s army. Then collectively they imposed the brutal economic sanction on Iraq. After the removal of Saddam Hussein, Iraq split along racial and sectarian lines. The Palestinians to date are helpless, whenever the Israelis decide to slaughtered them, the entire Arab world remain spectators, issuing condemnation after condemnation.

Elsewhere in the Islamic world, its the same story, the bearded Afghanis sided with the Kafir (disbeliever) Americans, and fought the fellow Muslims of Pashtun origin (Taliban). Of course, they will argue it was the American ‘Mujahideen’ helping them against the Kafir Taliban! East Pakistan seceded to become Bangladesh, after it could no longer maintain unity with West Pakistan. The Turks and the Kurds has been fighting a similar battle for decades. Recently, the barbaric killings driven by primitive nationalism was seen in Kyrgyzstan. One can go on listing numerous other conflicts amongst Muslims propelled by nationalism and intolerance of other racial groups. This is an irony given that nationalism contradicts the Islamic teachings, which demands that Muslims live as a unified body under one ruler: the caliphate. This is challenge, how do the Muslim nations overcome these nationalistic barriers and forge unity.

There are those who are oblivious to the real world, and ignorant of the history of the Caliphate, they purport that only the Caliphate will magically being about unity and remove nationalism. This is a poor assumption, as the history of the Caliphate shows otherwise. From the very early phase, the forces of nationalism was active, the battle between Muawiyah and Ali (ra) echoed the old rivalry between the two clans of, Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya. Muawiyah probably carried nationalistic sentiment as a late convert to Islam, who saw the supremacy of Islam, linked with the ascendency of Banu Hashim over his tribe. Otherwise, he was destined to become the leader of Mecca. In addition, Ali had killed many prominent family members of the Banu Umayya during the earlier battles. Thus, most of the clans from Banu Umayya fled to Damascus, and joined Muawiyah to raise the revolt against Ali (ra) of Banu Hashim.

After the death of Ali (ra), Muawiyah and his son Yazid plotted to suppress the Banu Hashim clan; this policy led to the killing of the grandson of the Prophet at Karbala, concurrently the other prominent companions from Banu Hashim were silenced and confined to Medina. This paved the way for Banu Ummayh to dominated to dominate the Caliphate, so the Umayyad dynasty as born. Subsequently, they were succeeded by the rival Arab dynasty, the Abbasids, whose roots can be traced back to Banu Hashim.

The Arab Caliphate only produced Arab rulers, their outlook towards the non-Arab Muslims was coloured with prejudice, to the extent that non-Arab Muslims were made to pay the Jizya tax at one point that is reserved for non-Muslims. Tariq Bin Ziyad, the Berber Muslim general who conquered Spain was humiliated by the Arab Caliph of Damascus. Eventually, a costly civil war erupted between the Arab rulers and the Berbers of North Africa; otherwise, the frontiers of Islam would have reached the Scandinavian countries. The Ottomans were no different; they only produced Turkish rulers from their family, in the later phase they even gave primacy to the Turkish language over the Quranic Arabic texts.

There is no specific textual evidence that illustrates how the current Muslim nations can forge unity. One cannot cite the Prophet’s reign, as he was the de facto leader of all Muslims. Nobody could setup a rival state without giving disobedience to the Prophet; therefore, at that time disunity was not possible without committing a grievous sin or apostasy. Therefore, one can only refer to historical examples as a guide. However, are there any examples of Muslims countries unifying with the Caliphate ‘willingly’? Unfortunately, the initial fragmentation of the Caliphate increased with the passage of time. Any subsequent unification was brought through the use of force, and such methods will not work today for two reasons:

Firstly, the cost of war has increased substantially; it will be detrimental to the Muslims as a whole, the costs will outweigh the benefits.

Secondly, such unification will be short term, as the masses today are far more informed and politically aware; thus, unlikely to accept the authority of another nation.

The test of human history shows nationalism will not be eradicated, but it can be contained, as the West has done gradually over the last 70 years, and the Caliphate did in the early years. If states with a nationalistic ideology can unify, surely the Muslims should be able to achieve the same with ease, because the Islamic teachings commands the believers to unify and discard nationalism.

Many will point to the failures of organisations like the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries), but this can be largely attributed to the leadership of the post-colonial generation. As the new generation of leaders emerges in the Islamic world, unification will be easier if there is a collective effort. Like the unification of European countries, this has to be achieved gradually by setting modest objectives, and continue to build on their experience. If the nations cannot cooperate at a basic level, then to expect the nations to merge instantly is the height of naivety.

The Islamic movements and activists should act as a catalyst by gradually introducing Islam in society and government, based on Islamic teachings they should promote the concept of electing rulers who will be held accountable to the masses, where the rule of law prevails. In each country these movements should encourage their respective governments to strengthen their ties and start to pool some of their sovereignty for the collective benefit, with the ultimate aim of producing a single Caliphate.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

Published on 7/7/2010

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

American Independence Day: A Cause for Celebration or Mourning?

2010-07-03T17:34:00.001-07:00

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" - Dr. Samuel Johnson

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 was composed by a committee consisting of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston and Roger Sherman. Thomas Jefferson did most of the writing, with input from the committee. This was followed by the formation of the US constitution in 1789 and the first 10 amendments to it, collectively known as the “Bill of Rights”, passed in 1791. All these sets of documents have contributed significantly towards shaping the political history of the US. The core principles embedded in those documents form the basis of US-democracy; hence, the political institutions (Congress, Supreme Court and the President) should be functioning in accordance with those principles.

No matter how well intended and clearly worded the principles laid down are, what really matters is how those principle have been interpreted and applied. Just as the best judge is the deeds of an individual rather than the words uttered. Therefore, let us examine how the Declaration of Independence was applied by the founding fathers and the successive generations. Thomas Jefferson wrote the famous words in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

By the time the declaration was made, the European colonisers made the Native Americans virtually extinct, who were liquidated with ease when they got in the way of economic expansion, denied those “inalienable rights”. Before the apologists beat their breast over this assertion, remember that Native Americans could not have been subjugated, slaughtered and then herded like animals onto barren reservations, without the executive arm of the US legislature, that “forked tongue” player, the US army.

The reality of American society was all men were equal except the African-Americans. Therefore, it is perhaps convenient or a coincidence that Jefferson’s original draft included a denunciation of the slave trade, but it was edited out. In any case, Jefferson along with George Washington, James Madison, George Mason and many others who signed the declaration, continued to hold blacks in bondage. Recent scientific evidences have confirmed the rumours of Jefferson having illegitimate children through the black slaves held in captivity. Benjamin Franklin, who is reputed to be the staunchest opponent of slavery, but this position, was adopted later. In his earlier life, he profited from the domestic and international slave trade, complained about the ease with which slaves and servants ran off to the British army during the colonial wars of the 1740s and 1750s, and staunchly defended slave-owning rebels during the Revolution.

Patrick Henry, who was the heroic fighter for independence, did even better, not only did he continue to hold black slaves, but he removed any Native Americans that dared get in the way of his making a killing in westward real estate. The African-Americans continued to suffer, subjected to mob violence, lynching, hanging and the continuous economic exploitation, used as cheap labour in the plantations and factories. Thus, it seems, the founding fathers meant that only the white men are equal and have those noble “inalienable rights”! This is how the founding fathers applied the declaration and surely, if the roots of a tree are weak it cannot bear good fruits.

Take the first amendment - the right to exercise free speech. The question is - it is a right for whom. The Arizona State Supreme Court, ruled in favour of the Tucson newspaper based on the First Amendment for publishing a letter that urged Americans to kill five Muslims, in retaliation for each death of an American soldier in Iraq. This was not treated as an incitement to violence, but the right to exercise free speech! A test of this law would be the same American court invoking the First Amendment, if someone wrote a letter calling for the execution of five pro-war Americans for every Iraqi killed - fat chance!

Perhaps, many of the African-Americans would easily identify with the court ruling, as it is the first step towards legitimising mob violence against another minority. We may get modern forms of mob lynching, hanging and burning of Muslims on the cross by those men in white hoods. However, thanks to modern day communications and the inflow of migrants, they have helped to elevate many Americans above this sort of behaviour, even though it runs deep in their culture and history!

The First Amendment is conveniently invoked, when some American citizens are calling for the indiscriminate execution of fellow American citizens. In contrast, when Shabir Ahmed, an Imam, spoke out against the United States, there was no First Amendment to protect him; he was fired from his local Mosque in Lodi, California. Shabir Ahmed merely voiced his opposition to the current US foreign policy; he did not incite anyone to kill. When such hypocritical behaviour is exhibited, one can see the merit and relevance of Noam Chomsky’s elaboration of the First Amendment: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those who we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration was finally adopted by the Continental Congress at the Pennsylvania State House. For sure, many Americans will celebrate the annual ritual of their independence day on the 4^th July, but how many will reflect on the consistency (or lack of) in the behaviour of the nation, both past and present, compared to the towering words of Thomas Jefferson pronounced in the declaration of independence. How many Americans will remember the lessons learnt from the events that culminated in forming the Declaration of Independence? Below are the three of those significant events:

a) The unpopular Stamp Act of 1765 issued by the colonial British government, causing immense resentment. The act levied a stamp duty on various legal documents and publications in the British colonies in North America. Money raised through these taxes, was predominantly used to pay for the standing army protecting the fur trade in Canada, acquired from the French after the Seven Year’s War.

b) Following the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts passed in 1767 by the British Parliament, which placed a tax on common products, such as lead, paper, paint, glass, and tea added more fuel to the fire; the Americans grew increasingly hostile to British attempts to levy more taxes on the colonies.

c) Then the Boston Tea Party in 1773, this incident is perhaps the straw that broke the Camel’s back. The act allowed the British East India Company to sell the tea imported from China directly to the colonialist market without paying the colonial tax, which allowed it to undercut the local merchants. In response, a Boston mob threw over 340 crates of tea into Boston Harbour as a political protest. By 1775, fighting broke out; the 13 colonies sought independence from British rule and its despotic British King, George III.

The history of US post independence has not proved much different to its former colonial masters. From the Spanish American war ignited by the fictitious Yellow Journalism, to the Iraq war initiated by the mythical WMDs, tells the same story, millions killed to make way for the American Empire. The numerous military bases around the world testify to this Empire, the US has merely replaced the British Empire.

Americans ought to remember the main significance of the Declaration of Independence, which is the quest for freedom of their nation from colonial Britain. At the very least, they should understand the rights of those occupied to resist the occupiers. Yet, ironically, the US gives unequivocal support to colonial Israel, and almost no consideration to the oppressed Palestinians, who are tainted as terrorists, rather than freedom fighters, like the founding fathers of the US.

Far from being a champion of fighting colonialism, the US continues to exploit other lands through installing puppet regimes and oppressive dictators around the world. When they fail, it resorts to the old fashion colonialism of direct militarily occupation using dubious pretexts. Likewise, the “Bill of Rights” did not prevent the continuation of slavery, mob violence, hanging, lynching and other forms of brutality that continues until today; the world continues to witness, the torture and incarceration of innocent people through the US-led wars of fighting terror.

If there is anything to celebrate, it is the world seeing through the hype of these “forked tongues” writing noble constitutions, declaring one thing, and then applies barbarity and subjugation to the contrary.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)

London, UK

Published 4/7/2010

www.radicalviews.org

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

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

2010-06-14T10:56:00.000-07:00

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 (yamin@radicalviews.org)
UK, London
Published on 14/06/2010
www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
1http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE64T2AI20100530

The US Foreign Policy: Disarm the Muslim World and Arm the Israelis

2010-06-08T06:22:00.001-07:00

By disarming the Muslim countries one by one, the neo-conservative US policy serves the Israeli objective of ‘securing’ its expanding borders, which at present is confined to building settlements (land theft) in the occupied territories. When this episode is forgotten, Israel will try to occupy another piece of land using the pretext of security, no doubt the world will be told, Israel was compelled to act in self-defence; thus, creeping towards its ultimate dream of creating Eretz (greater) Israel that runs from the Nile, to the Euphrates. The latest attempts to intimidate nuclear-free Iran by nuclear Israel, reflects that long term Israeli ambition.

Here are the facts:

Iran has not attacked any of its neighbours over the last 60 years, unlike belligerent Israel.

Iran is a signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) treaty, and has no nuclear weapons.

With the direct help of the US, Israel has been armed with nuclear weapons, and the power of its conventional forces continues to increase in relation to the surrounding countries.

Israel continues to build more settlement in the occupied territories, openly violating the UN resolutions in place.

In direct contravention of International Law, Israel denies the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and concurrently permits any Jews to come and settle in occupied Palestine.

In addition to state terrorism, the inhumane and illegal blockade of Gaza has turned it into an open concentration camp, and corroborates Israel’s brutal policy of ethnic cleansing.

Israel refuses to become a signatory of the NPT, and denies the international inspection of its nuclear weapons.

Recently, United Nations ratified a resolution aimed at creating a Middle East without any nuclear weapons, which is casually ignored by Israel.

All the 189 signatories to the NPT agreed for the establishment of a Middle East without nuclear weapons. For this purpose, they have called on all Middle East nations to attend a conference to be held in 2012. Israel has confirmed they will not participate in this collective peace process.

The agreement also, stressed "the importance of Israel's accession to the treaty and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards." Israel will not sign the NPT treaty.

Israel and the US oppose this unified move from the International community, the same old excuse of Israel’s security, and it rants about the ‘threat’ from nuclear-free Iran. Over the years, the numerous military adventures undertaken by Israel have proven that its conventional force provides adequate security, not to mention, the mighty US is always ready to help should Israel need it.

Therefore, what does Israel do? It sends two of its submarine equipped with nuclear weapons to the coast of Iran. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons with its record of disproportionately killing Arab civilians is not a problem for the US. Why should it be? The US has excelled in that arena. As for Israel, it continues to commit state-terrorism, assassination, and now piracy in international waters; from Ban Ki Moon to Obama and every other western leader looks on with regret after regret, whilst privileged Israel continues to ignore and plead the usual ‘argument’ of: we are victims acting in self-defence.

After disarming Iraq, the first step towards disarming Iran is to ensure that it remains nuclear-free, whilst helping Israel to increase its strength. Power in international arena is always relative. That would leave Turkey as the only other Muslim country in the region. Perhaps, Turkey has spotted that, even as a NATO ally it too will be subjected to the same US-Israeli policy eventually and the noise is being made about saving the Armenians are ominous. This may partly explain why nationalist Turkey has have started to take a radically different stance on its relationship with Israel and the Arab countries, in recent times.

Yamin Zakaria
Published on 08/06/2010
London, UK
www.radicalviews.org
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com