The Islamic State of Terror and the Rise of neo-Khawarij

As a former member of the Islamic Liberation Party (Hizb-ut-Tahrir, HT), I can really sympathise with my former colleagues and other groups in their struggle to build a genuine Islamic State that would be a source of security, justice and prosperity for all. In the past, the Islamic State was exactly that, a system built on the actual teachings of Islam, where people fled to seeking sanctuary. During the Medieval Inquisition in Europe, the Jews fled to the Islamic State seeking protection. They were offered that and they prospered for centuries. The Muslim Spain is another example of where the society flourished at all levels with Jews, Muslims and Christians living side by side.

I can hardly believe my eyes, as the events have unfolded this year in various parts of the Muslims world. It seems the notion of the Islamic State (The Khilafah or the Caliphate) has been completely hijacked by wild extremists acting in the name of Islam, and their actions are far removed from the action of Prophet Mohammed (SAW), and the actions of the early companions and the generation of Muslims rulers that followed.   

Afghanistan’s Radical Ruling on Women’s Rights

Afghanistan continues to be examined through the ubiquitous eye of the international media concerning the subject of women’s rights and historically, the American-led war on Al-Qaeda was conveniently switched, to a war to liberate the oppressed Muslim women of Afghanistan, when Al-Qaeda was dismantled. As part of the subject of women’s rights, which is more or less equated with - saving the oppressed Muslim women, various debates on issues like  the wearing of the Burqa or Hijab (modest clothing), education for girls and arranged marriages continue to take place. With the recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai, the girl who was shot by the Pakistani branch of the Taliban, because she was demanding education for girls, the plight of Muslim women has once again become the centre of media attention.

 Read More.....

Why Israel can violate International Law with impunity?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, immediate economic sanctions were applied followed by military action; when Russia invaded Ukraine, economic sanctions followed; Israel invades Gaza, breaks humanitarian laws, ignores human rights and the Geneva convention, and continues to defy international law by building settlements in the West Bank, of which 60% is under military occupation, and no action is taken against sacred Israel. In fact, it’s still poor Israel, the victim, ‘defending’ the borders by attacking: hospitals, schools, water plants, sewage works and even small children playing on the beaches are not spared.

Which border is Israel protecting, given the continuing annexation of the remaining territories of Palestine? Even if we accept Israel is under attack, the right to defend is not unconstrained, and yet, the Israeli response has been. And rightly many have raised the issue of Israel’s disproportionate response to the ineffectual Hamas rockets. What is Israel really defending here? How many casualties and how much damage has Israel suffered compared to the Palestinians? Can anyone show one image of an Israeli house being reduced to rubble?  On the contrary, the CNN reporter captures a group of Israelis cheering the attack on a hill top; they feel safe enough to stand on the border, and watch Gaza being bombarded with drones and missiles as if they are at a drive-in movie. So, where is this fear of Hamas and its rockets?

Gassing Gaza: Is Israel ‘defending’ itself once again?

“When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defence. Call it what you like, it's not defence.”

Professor Noam Chomsky

President Obama wants to broker a ceasefire, but what is the credential of the US to play the role of an impartial broker? This is the country that has armed Israel to the teeth, it continues to finance their existence and turn a blind eye to the creeping colonisation of the remaining territories of Palestine; with unrestrained access to the US media, the Zionist narrative is fed to the American masses, who above all, stand by Israel, no matter how many Palestinian civilians are killed and maimed, whilst the Israeli casualty figures barely reach double figures.  

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth

Please remind us again - is Israel the only democracy in the Middle East, where the rule of law prevails! It is nauseating to put up with jibes that are not only false, but carry an obvious racist undertone, implying that the Arabs are not civilised enough to be democratic. Israel could have proven its democratic credentials by capturing the culprits that killed the three Israeli teenagers, and then trying them through the courts. Instead, it embarked on the usual route of issuing collective punishment on the entire Palestinian people by bombing Gaza, carrying out arbitrary arrests of ‘suspects’, and invading Palestinian houses at will, as if they have no basic human right of privacy; such behaviour is reminiscent of the Nazis in Germany hounding the Jews, and not a modern democracy.

It is not enough that Israel continues to use the victimhood of Nazi Germany, known as the holocaust industry, to make political mileage, but they go further and use that perversely to justify the persecution of the Palestinians in a way that is replicating the Nazi behaviour. To some extent this makes sense, as the defenceless Palestinians are far easier to blame and target, than confronting the mighty Germans.

4th of July, American Independence Day: A Cause for Celebration or Mourning?

"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, 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, are the three most significant sets of documents that have contributed towards shaping the political history of the US. The core principles embedded in those documents form the basis of US democracy, and the functioning of the Congress (legislative), the Supreme Court (judiciary) and the President (executive).

Since the US is lecturing other nations on democracy, portraying itself as a blue-print for the rest of the world to follow; therefore, it is only right that the US is held to account against the principles laid out in the above mentioned documents. No matter how well intended and clearly worded the principles laid down are, what really matters is how those principles have been interpreted and applied. Just as the best judge of a man are the actions, along with the words spoken.

Sunni ISIS Caliphate V Shia Imamate

As the events continue to unfold in Iraq, a full scale sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites looks imminent. No surprise that Obama will not commit ground troops, and why should he.  The US interest will be served by funding both sides behind the scenes, whilst politically it will appear to oppose ISIS and play out the role of a peacemaker, and nominal air strikes driven by political expediency will not change the underlying policy.  

The flags, the banners, and the message of ISIS clearly convey they want to impose Sharia laws, and bring about the Caliphate, like it or not. It has sent out alarm bells, the Caliphate will pose a challenge to western hegemony in the region, and the existing regimes will feel the heat and it may destabilise the entire region. This is an overreaction and largely contributed by the self-created Islamophobic climate in the west.

There is no Honour in Honour Killing

From the northern UK cities of Bradford, Rochdale, and Manchester to the rural areas of Pakistan, the grisly issue of honour killing persists. This has recently surfaced in the media, with the savage killing of Farzana Parveen, a 25-year-old pregnant woman, literally bludgeoned to death with bricks and stones by family members, for having married the man she loved. It beggars belief, how anyone can do this to their own flesh and blood. What kind of values do these people carry? Whatever it is, I can see no reference in Islamic law, and the life of the Prophet (saw), to remotely endorse such barbarism and cruelty.

One of the first Quranic injunctions forbade the killing of daughters; the pre-Islamic Arabs used to bury them alive, because it brought shame. For that same reason of ‘shame’, family members of Farzana Parveen collectively plotted and murdered her. It gets worse, in another case, a couple in Pakistan, killed their daughter for allegedly looking at a boy, and another family killed two teenage girls for ‘dancing’ in the rain, yes like most 15-year olds, they were engaged in some form of frolic enjoying themselves; they were not stripping or performing some lewd dance in front of a group of rowdy men.   

Tony Blair - A War Criminal and an Intolerant Extremist

Tony Blair’s recent outburst on Political Islam sounds like an indirect confession. He has contributed towards its rise, and now wants the rest of the world to contain it. His message sounds like an intolerant person who cannot co-exist with an opposing view. If political Islam is the people’s choice then what exactly is the problem Mr Blair? Or Is Blair an intolerant extremist who wants to impose his ways on others?

He is also a war criminal; accordingly, he should stand for trial at The Hague. However, that is extremely unlikely, regardless of his crimes and the evidence presented, because leaders of a western block countries set the rules to subject others, whilst they have total immunity. The empirical evidence corroborates this; the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been largely applied on former leaders of African and Arab countries. In the spirit of equality and progress, we must break from our ‘prejudice’ and pluck out a leader for a trial from the Western block, be it Blair or Bush or even a second rate Dick Cheney will do. It is possible, the US produced a black leader, even though he may not be black enough for some, but at least it’s something.  Likewise, we may get to a point, where the international tribunals are applied to all war criminals, not just the non-white ones.   

Afghanistan in 2014: Peace or Civil War?

The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, received a lot of flak in the press for declaring “mission accomplished” when he visited the troops in Afghanistan recently; it evoked memories of George Bush’s premature declaration of victory in May 2003, as Iraq was disintegrating into a quagmire.

What was the mission in Afghanistan? Initially, it was about removing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, which was accomplished relatively quickly with Western firepower and money, as the loyalties of the Afghan tribes were easily purchased. In this sense, the mission was accomplished a while ago, but the Taliban and Al-Qaeda alliance could easily return if the US-led troops left, therefore, a long-term solution was required. Accordingly, the mission morphed into installing democracy, curtailing poppy production, and promoting women’s rights. The underlying reason is that a stable government would ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven for Al-Qaeda again. 

Read More ....