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 .... 

Child Marriage: Is it an Afghan Problem Only?

The Islamophobic media of the far right, and the more subtle elements within the mainstream media, have continued to construct the view that child marriage is exclusively an Afghan problem, and the Islamophobic narrative given as explanation is - it stems from their Islamic heritage, and using crass language, they go on to cite the lone example of Prophet Mohammed’s marriage to Ayesha, and conveniently ignore all the other marriages to much older women.

Throughout large part of the history, this was not an issue; the Christian nemesis did not make much of an issue, as the mother of Jesus, Mary, at the age of 12-14 married Joseph, who was considerably older around the age of 90. Indeed, in the old days, marriage between an older man and a younger woman in her teens was the norm in most societies. In contrast, Western liberal societies view such marriages with scorn, instead the young ones gain the experience by having unlimited pre-marital sex with various partners, a bit like polygamy, but we dare not call it that! According to one government report [1], almost all Americans are engaged in per-marital sex and there are similar trends in Europe.

Read More ...

The Niqab Ban Furore, Miley Cyrus and the Silence of Feminism

“One of the major arguments being lobbed around this week as to why Muslim women shouldn’t be wearing veils in public is because they are a symbol of male dominance in society. As if knicker skimming dresses aren’t? ... On the streets of our cities every night of the year there are girls in outfits created purely for the pleasure of men.”                                           

 Alison Phillips Journalist

A woman’s right to choose is at the heart of feminism; also endorsed by the liberal ideology of ‘freedom’. So, they argue that Hijab or the Niqab should not be enforced in society, and it should be left to the prerogative of the individuals. But surely, the notion of choice also implies that women should not be forced to remove it either.  Accordingly, I was expecting to hear feminist voices coming to the defence of the right to wear the Niqab, along with the bare-breasted women from ‘Femen’ running through the streets of London, waving their fists, demanding the same. A disclaimer, I used the term bare-breasted as an adjective, and this should not be taken as my personal desire to see these semi-nude women behaving like cavewomen; it’s not dignified for any woman or man to behave in this way, in my book.

Would the feminist and the liberal camp have remained silent, if the situation was reverse, say a group of women in Iran or Saudi wanted to parade in their miniskirts or bikinis? I know it’s not as raunchy as Miley Cyrus, nevertheless, raunchy enough for a conservative Muslim society. You can bet on them coming out of their holes, waging a campaign to ‘save’ the Muslim women again, and the current fad of Zionist inspired Islamophobia would guarantee favourable and ample media coverage.  

Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria: Who Done It?

Like a real life game of ‘Cluedo’, we know the weapon, the victims, the place and the time. Only the identity of the perpetrator remains a mystery.   The primary suspects are the Syrian regime or the rebels; both sides have the capability to deliver these nasty weapons, as for motive, there is a degree of uncertainty.  The Syrian regime is winning the war on the ground, and the use of such weapons would only unify the rest of the world against them, thus, such an action looks irrational and counter-productive.  Especially in light of the fact that Obama already stated the use of chemical weapons was a line that could not be crossed. Moreover, the immediate and equivocal Syrian response, requesting an UN inspection team to verify the matter seems to point to their innocence.

Could the rebels have done this? One cannot imagine they would use chemical weapons on their own people, to perpetuate an uncertain military response, with an uncertain outcome, unless it was done by a lunatic fringe extremist group among the rebels.   

Let’s ask: cui bono (to whose benefit?).  An attack on Syria would benefit its rival, Israel. For sure, they have the experience (e.g. Lavon affair) and the capability to engage in a covert operation, if needed in collusion with the CIA, to deliver these weapons and manufacture a crisis. Of course, there is a difference between logic and truth, it does not always follow that the party who stands to gain the most benefit is automatically guilty.

Modern Day Feminism is a Fig Leaf for an Anti-Islamic Crusade

A picture is worth a thousand words is the age-old proverb; an image can certainly convey many ideas instantly. However, a deceptive image tells a bigger story, it spawns lies and disseminates hate on a larger magnitude. It is the hate-filled Islamophobic fascists that have been busy tarnishing the Muslims as a whole, by cherry picking certain actions, hiding behind certain political terms, and operating behind the ubiquitous mass media.  

Like most Muslims, I have become accustomed to seeing numerous anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim images appearing on social media networks, and the internet, such images would get censored if it were aimed at any other community. One would be hard pushed to find similar material appearing from Muslims; at most you see posters from victims and angry mobs on the streets demonstrating in response to an American-Israeli led atrocity or another video insulting Islam published in the name of free speech.  

The above image depicting a woman with an acid-burnt face along with an adjacent image of burnt pages of the Quran, implying the two are somehow connected, and the caption boldly suggests the two are alternatives. It alleges those who are busy protesting against burning of the Quran are the same people who implicitly endorse burning a woman’s face with acid, because they do not display the same reaction. What about those who are not protesting against the burning of the Quran, are they all exonerated?

The Trouble with Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins speaks like a colonial relic resurrected from the past, and naturally he is out of touch with the current society; he speaks pejoratively about Muslims that seems to be coloured by his obsession with Darwin’s race-centric evolution theory.  His recent jibe on tweeter about the less evolved Muslims having less Nobel Prize than Trinity College went viral, and it is part of his catalogue of smears against the voiceless Muslim community. For years, believers from all sections of society have tolerated his unrestrained arrogance in propagating atheist dogmas, as if he had witnessed the creation of the universe.

Why is the man so impatient? Nobody in this world is contesting the certainty of death. And soon Dawkins will have his answer regarding afterlife, which in turn will answer the questions about the creation and purpose of life on earth. I pray that it is sooner for his sake - he seems unsettled, and from the believers’ perspective, this is expected, because atheists do not really have full conviction that life is a coincidence, a product of evolution, and it simply ends here. Our intelligence has propelled us to ask why we exist, and our observation of life and the universe clearly tells us nothing happens by chance, for example leaving building materials in a field will not result in the creation of a building by chance. Hence, there is always a lingering doubt in the back of the atheist’s mind; otherwise, they would exhibit more serenity than believers, who are agitated by the notions of accountability in the hereafter.  It is this deep uncertainty that drives the likes of Dawkins to knock on our door and push to debate the issues, because it is fundamentally about his insecurity.

Trials of Love and Loyalty

The 49-year-old widow of the Apple founder Steve Jobs has moved on, she has found her new partner; already the critics and sceptics are at it. It’s too soon, only two-years have passed by, how could she fall in love with another man so quickly? Does it mean she didn’t really love him? The cycle of speculation and gossip continues. One can understand grounds for criticism in cases where an aging octogenarian tycoon has left a younger beautiful widow, who runs off the next day with his fortune and a young male model, but that, is not applicable here. 

In some religious cultures widows do not remarry at all, enduring loneliness until the end of time, whilst a widower is free to continue. For example, In Hinduism the marriage of widow is taboo, it is enforced rigorously by society among some castes; the logic is, if the widow remarried, she can possibly conceive her reincarnated dead husband in her womb, and a husband cannot be a son too, thus prohibition of marriage for widows. I assume they were not willing to take risks with contraception either!

The Inexplicable 'Zero Option' for Afghanistan

The formal announcement of an exit date for the US troops has been largely met with criticisms, because it gives the opponents a schedule to prepare and plan, and creates the impression, the US has lost and is running. Instead of exercising further damage limitation exercises, the US senior officials announced that President Barack Obama was now considering the ‘zero option’ - total withdrawal of US forces after 2014. This seems detrimental, whilst a bilateral security agreement between Kabul and Washington is being negotiated to determine the size of the US forces to remain after the US exit; their role will be to aid the nascent Afghan National Security Forces ( ANSF) to maintain peace and stability. 

Naturally, the announcement of the ‘Zero Option’ has been criticised widely by military experts and diplomats. The former commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, retired Gen. John Allen stated: “They don't want us in large numbers, but they want us there in enough numbers to help to continue to develop the ANSF." On the surface this announcement of the ‘Zero Option’ seems like the US is announcing total capitulation. However, given the recent political development with the efforts to get a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, it could mean two things: 

Read More... 

The Ramadan Message and the Emergence of British Islam

The video message of Prime Minister David Cameron, and the tweet from President Obama, wishing the Muslims well, as they begin observing the month of fasting in Ramadan is really a nice gesture; it makes as small contribution to neutralise the acidic clash of civilisation, which is manifested in the various conflicts around the world. Many of us, Muslims and non-Muslims are still bitter about the illegal Iraq war and Western leaders continue to turn a blind eye to the Israeli python strangling and suffocating the Palestinians – but we also need to acknowledge the just intervention in Libya that helped to prevent a bloody massacre by the Libyan dictator, and the masses in the West are now more sympathetic towards the Palestinians. Many of us also wanted to see Western troops, preferably helped by Turkey and other Muslim nations to remove the murderous Syrian regime.   

It is not just the Muslims who are reluctant to acknowledge the positive gestures emanating from Western leaders; the British comedian, Frankie Boyle, replied to President Obama’s tweet  “I wish Muslims of America & around the world a month blessed with the joys of family, peace and understanding” with the following “the ones you force-feeding in Guantanamo or the ones you bombing” and it went viral.  Indeed, had Obama closed down the camp as he promised, his tweet would have been amplified in the Islamic world.   

Imams’ Sermons and the ‘British’ Street Groomers

Last Friday, Imams in various mosques around the country delivered a political sermon (khutba) for a change - it was not about the awful situation in Syria or Burma, but on the domestic issue of street groomers; the men in question entice vulnerable young girls with gifts, drugs and alcohol for sexual exploitation, and if necessary employ violence to keep them in chains. Imams do not need to deliver sermons or pass a fatwa, it is common knowledge that adultery, rape, prostitution, drugs, and alcohol are explicitly forbidden in Islamic law, and the jurists are unanimous on this. The sermon sent out a political message - it implied some level of collective guilt on the wider Muslim community, as if they have to bear some responsibility for the actions of the street groomers. One is naturally compelled to ask the simple question: what’s the connection between the street groomers and the wider Muslim community? Is it simply their Muslim names and heritage? Had the street groomers committed armed robbery or murder, would a similar sermon be delivered?

What about the fact that the street groomers are predominantly British; many were born and raised here through the education system, so should the society not feel the collective guilt too, and deliver a similar sermon? Of course, the media deploys the race card in a subtle manner, the British tag is conveniently dropped and they are described as Muslim or Pakistani street groomers. They are not as British as Tommy Robinson, Nick Griffin, Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Gary Glitter, Mark Bridger, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady!  The adjective of ‘Muslim’ or ‘Pakistani’ implies the acts are somehow linked to their religious or cultural roots, no relation to their British identity and the values of the wider society that ‘ironically’ permits alcohol (drugs) and casual sex, as opposed to the Islamic heritage of the street groomers.

Is there a Shia-Sunni conflict brewing in the Middle East?

In times of conflict, religious, ethnic, linguistic traits are accentuated and the sectarian dimension is no exception. With the direct involvement of Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, the Syrian conflict accelerates towards becoming a sectarian one and small skirmishes along the sectarian line have already occurred across the border in Lebanon. The Shia axis of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Alawite regime is balanced by the Sunni dominated rebels, supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and the Gulf states. Assad is no more an Alawite Shia as was Saddam Hussein a devout Sunni, both subscribed to the doctrine of socialist orientated Arab nationalism, devoid of Islam. A dubious ideology when you consider that Arab civilisation began with the birth of Islam.

The US intervention in Iraq and the subsequent altering of the balance of power has resulted in the Shia-Sunni tensions; a dominant Shia-led regime emerged replacing the Sunni denominated Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein bringing a long line of Sunni rule to an end. The end result is seen through the tit for tat bombings between Shia and Sunni killing many innocent civilians. Across the border Iran has been building up its military capability to its credit, increasingly asserting itself as a regional power.

The US stance has shifted from a pro-Sunni position during the heyday of Ayatollah Khomeini, when Shias were the extremists, to a more pro-Shia stance in Iraq, against the militant Sunni inspired Al-Qaeda type movements of the post 9/11 era. It is reminiscent of a former British Prime Minister’s remark - no nation has permanent friends or enemies but only its interests.