Michael Jackson and the Burqa

“Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”

- President Obama

The death of Michael Jackson, and the speech made by President Sarkozy of France regarding Burqa may seem unconnected, but not for the community of believers (Muslims). This connection is not alluding to the numerous reports of Michael Jackson reverting to Islam, that may or may not be true, but for sure, his brother Jermaine Jackson has reverted to Islam for sometime. In the subsequent points, the connection between the two events will be elaborated.

In life, nothing is guaranteed except death, yet the society is shaken, whenever a well-known personality dies before attaining old age, as life is taken for granted. Despite all the technological advances humanity is no closer to conquering death. A person can have a sudden heart failure or become terminally ill in their youth, or die of old age. As the Quran states ‘every soul will taste death’, there will never be an exception.

For the dominant secular creed, death is the end, reflecting its underlying materialist philosophy. Accordingly, they advocate the essence of life is simply to meet the carnal desires until death arrives. In that case, human beings are no different to animals in terms of their purpose in life. However, human beings have something unique - that is the ability to think and develop ideas. Hence, they exhibit progression, as each successive generation makes advances on the knowledge inherited. In contrast, animals are somehow pre-programmed to perform the same task, using the same methods and means; it hunts, kills, devours, and procreates.

Therefore, unlike animals, our awareness through the faculty of thinking tells us human beings must have some higher purpose in life, everything around us has been designed to permit the limited life span to flourish. How could one arrive at this point through mere chance?

If we accept the rational premise that life has a purpose, and our existence is not a mere coincidence, then it follows death cannot be the end, there is more to come. For the believers, death is merely a temporary stop on one long journey; it marks the beginning of what is to come, the next eternal life. This life must have some consequence for the next life; otherwise, the two events are disconnected which would make life on earth meaningless.

The connection between life on earth, death and the life in the hereafter manifests in following the divine injunction that permits the believers to navigate the difficult terrains of life. One of those divine injunctions is the dress code for men and women in society. This is the connection, for a believer wearing the veil is a divine injunction that has implication in this life, and in the hereafter when they are bought to account for their deeds.

Exhibiting modesty by covering our body is another visible sign that marks the distinction between human beings and animals. Indeed, every society enforces a minimum level of clothing, indicating the natural disposition of human beings. Therefore, a nudist camp like homosexuality is diverging from the normal straight path. For the believers minimum level of clothing to be worn in public is prescribed by the divine revelation, whereas the secular and liberal societies the goalpost is constantly moving. The recent comment made by Sarkozy raises this debate as to what should be the desired level of clothing enforced in society.

His comments would have been taken more seriously, had he not concealed it behind the pretence of concern for the welfare of Muslims women. If that was the case, he could easily have found groups of Muslim women in his country to speak on the issue, especially who may have removed the Burqa after being forced to wear it in a liberal society like France. Of course, he could not come up with such evidence. Such pretentious speech of Sarkozy echoes the recent statement made by Barak Obama in Cairo: ‘We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.’ If Sarkozy is that concerned about the welfare of women, he could have started to tackle real issues like domestic violence or the seedy industry of prostitution and porn that runs into millions of Francs. Perhaps then, he might have been crowned by the Pope as the new mini-Emperor of France.

There are reasons why Sarkozy could not present the argument with a degree of honesty as elaborated by the following points:

• One of the fundamental values of a liberal secular society is personal freedom, the right of the women to choose, be it covering up with a Burqa or stripping down to a miniskirt with a low-cut top. Sarkozy’s attempt to deny this right of choice is inconsistent with his secular values. Furthermore, many would point to the underlying motive of a ‘man’ to oppose the right of a woman to wear modest clothing. Maybe this is why he is married to a former nude model!
  
  
• It is implied by Sarkozy and the secular culture in general that replacing the modest clothes with attires that provokes the male sexual instinct is a sign of modernity and progression. If removing the clothes is a sign of progression, then why have any limitations at all in the first place. Make the entire country a nudist camp. In short, the boundary drawn in a secular society is arbitrary, which in any case is constantly moving.
  
  
• Sarkozy makes a flawed assumption about the cloth being forced upon the Muslims women. If it was Afghanistan or Saudi, one could assume that but surely not in liberal France. A woman in Burqa is a confident woman sending a message that I am not available for any predatory male on heat! A woman like that can only be accessed with a dignified marital contract. For sure, such a woman is very intimidating for many men who prefer to have that ease of access.
  
  
• Even the reference to the imposition of Burqa in places like Afghanistan and Saudi cannot be argued against, as every society enforces a certain code of dress. If the parents were not enforcing Burqa on their daughters perhaps, they would be enforcing the miniskirt, or some other dress code.
  

It is amusing that Sarkozy refers to the issue of dignity of women as if he is an expert to speak on the subject with his record of accomplishment! The Burqa does not degrade the woman, but the scanty dress designed to provoke the male interests is what degrades women, projecting them into sexual objects to be devoured by predatory men, like Sarkozy. If you still doubt this point, try this simple test. Ask a group of women randomly picked, give them two choices, to strip in front of a crowd down to their undergarments or go fully covered, see which path would they choose?

Yamin Zakaria
UK, London

Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2009
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com/

The Massacre of Muslim Civilians is always: ‘Self-Defence’ but never Terrorism

The Anglo-US-Israeli axis continues to market the murdering of Muslims civilians as the result of self-defence, through its media outlets. Any impartial observer seeing the carnage in Iraq , Lebanon and now in Gaza would conclude differently, because it is obvious who is being terrorised and slaughtered. Naturally, the gruesome images from Gaza have caused the ordinary masses in all parts of the world to take to the streets and protest; this is unprecedented in our recent history.

It is disgusting to see the pro-Israeli commentators having the ‘chutzpah’ to claim that Israel has the higher moral grounds, whilst committing mass murder in the concentration camp of Gaza . The sheer barbarism shown by Israel has full endorsement from the US and British governments. Most Israelis do not feel remorse for the killing of gentiles. In the US , you see the pro-Israeli Jews [1] are celebrating the bloodletting. I will elaborate later on the Israeli barbarism. There is also tacit approval of this carnage from the Arab regimes, deduced from their silence and inaction.

As a mark of true democracy, Israel and the US are ignoring the mass protests, and the resolution 1860 issued by the UN General Assembly that reflects the opinion of the vast majority of the world’s population. The vote was unanimous, 142 in favour, 4 against and 8 abstentions. This is why the democracies have setup the Security Council, so that UN can reflect the interests of the tiny minority!

The assembly president, Nicaragua 's Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann said [2]

"The violations of international law inherent in the Gaza assault have been well documented: collective punishment; disproportionate military force; attacks on civilian targets, including homes, mosques, universities, schools."

He also pointed out the ungrateful nature of the Jewish State and said:

“It seems to me ironic that Israel , a state that more than any other owes its very existence to a (1948) General Assembly resolution, should be so disdainful of United Nations resolutions,"

There was also consensus that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza and there were calls for further investigation. Had a fraction of this being done by a Muslim country, the US troops, not the UN troops with blue helmet would have already been sent on bombing missions.

Israel knows the world is becoming desensitised to shedding of Muslim blood, because it is easy to justify killing on a mass scale once you have demonised the population. Sounds familiar, yes the tactics used by the Nazis. The victims have learnt well from their Holocaust experience it seems! The business of marketing and exploiting holocaust continues to this day.

There is no oil in Palestine except the olive oil, which explains why the US-run organisation, the UN is paralysed. Now remember, the so-called world community of US-led coalition moved to save the ‘poor’ Kuwaitis from Saddam Hussein, back in 1991, as if there was moral crusade to restore justice, international law and nothing to do with oil.

The Zionists have excelled not just in killing defenceless women and children but the propaganda campaign that goes with it. They have abundant money, influence and resource at their disposal, with the added advantage of knowing the Arabs will use their oil money only to build more shopping malls to make way for Zionist companies like Starbucks and Marks and Spencer. Frequently repeating a point, regardless of is merit is effective when the quality of the audience is so poor, like the docile and illiterate masses in the US . Therefore, the Zionists are constantly propagating the following points, which the media amplifies:

a) They repeat constantly, Hamas is a terrorist organisation and not the democratically elected body. This terrorist label is given irrespective of who is actually being terrorised and slaughtered. The underlying ‘logic’ is Hamas made weapons delivers terror but the US-Israeli weapons do not! However, in reality it is Hamas and the Palestinians who are being terrorised and slaughtered since 1948. Hamas are terrorists in their lands but the imported Jews coming to occupy lands are innocent victims, what an irony.

b) In contrast, Israel is not a state terrorist or terrorist of any sort no matter how much terror and carnage it delivers. No matter how many women and children they kill. Rather, Israel is often glorified in the West as the only democracy in the Middle East despite having clear characteristics of an apartheid state. Concurrently it implies the Arabs are too uncivilised to be democratic.

c) Hamas is portrayed as the belligerent aggressor, because they launched thousands of ‘deadly’ missiles. Israelis have suffered negligible casualty from those homemade missiles in comparison to what is happening in Gaza . Therefore, it is far easier to repeat that thousand of missiles launched from Gaza , as it is too embarrassing to justify the killing of 1000 Palestinians for a handful of Jews. Especially from a nation, that upholds the ethos of - an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

d) As usual, the ‘weak’ and ‘vulnerable’ Israel is defending itself, as the US defended itself against the mighty Saddam Hussein armed with WMD! There is no mention of the continuation of the siege imposed over Gaza and breaking of the cease-fire back in November by Israel . History conveniently begins where Israel can be made to look like the innocent victim acting in self-defence. Common sense dictates that the act of self-defence is repelling an advancing enemy, meaning the threat is real and active. The Hamas rockets came in retaliation to the continuation of the subjugation of the Palestinians

e) The most recent fantastic claim is Hamas is out there to kill every Jew. Here comes the business of marketing holocaust again. Israeli Jews once again faces total annihilation. Even if the Hamas statements are true, but can you blame them for saying that. Is this not the result of Israeli barbarism? Israelis should remember that the victims of Gaza would one day seek vengeance and dispense collective punishment.

The Zionist entity has shown barbarism before like in Sabra and ShatiIa, Qana and Jenin. In Gaza , they went a step further, and it is not just the killing of innocent civilians. In the Channel 4 interview [3], Mark Regev, the Israeli Prime Ministers spokesperson was asked why the Israeli Defence Force was preventing the Red Cross from reaching the dead and wounded civilians for three days. He was specifically asked why the starving children waiting for food by the corpses of their mothers were denied aid from Red Cross – which is not in the business of propaganda. Red Cross were eventually made to walk for one mile to get to the victims. Such behaviour is disgusting from a people who constantly wave the holocaust flag and howl of being victimised – if they have really suffered so much, they ought to behave at least like human beings and not beasts.

Yamin Zakaria (http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)

London, UK

----------------

[1] http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FABqq_jjRRo

[2] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3657034,00.html

[3] http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wB689pXh-Bw

Gaza: “The best of gentiles (goy) should be killed”

Gaza is not a war but a cowardly massacre of civilians. There is very little remorse in the Jewish community as they continue to defend Israeli state-terrorism. No surprises there, as the blood of a gentile (goy) is not the worth same value as the blood of a Jew. [1] This is what fundamentalist Jews and the fanatical Zionists believe in, such values have shaped their mindset over centuries. These fanatics have an influence over the Israeli foreign policy like the neo-con jackals over the US foreign policy.

So far, 800 Palestinians killed, the figure is rising and the number of Israelis is less than 20, a good proportion of them are soldiers. Yet, the Israelis are constantly claiming to the terrorised victims, as if they are on the verge of another holocaust. This ludicrous view is amplified by the

Dajjal ² like one-eyed media of the west.

Now picture this, what if the Muslims killed that many Jews using the same cowardly methods of bombing civilians from high altitude:

• It would have been declared as another holocaust with cries of anti-Semitism, and another dose of holocaust based films for the next decade. As if, the Jews have a permanent monopoly over suffering.

• The mini Joseph Gobbles that litter the western Media would have started to voice their usual anti-Islamic diatribe. Note actions of Muslims are always identified with Islam but actions of a Jewish state are never attributed to Judaism.

• The neo-con fascists and Zionist-Christian jackals would have started to call for annihilation of the Palestinians, which they dream about day and night as the fulfilment of the so-called biblical prophecy. Funny, how you can call for genocide in the name of religion.

• Barak Obama would have been vocal, instead of silent. He and Gordon Brown would have issued their condemnations and sympathy. Their words would have matched by their deeds.

• The UN, which seems so helpless now, would have got busy issuing resolutions that would have been implemented. When was the last time a UN resolution was issued in favour of the Arabs/Muslims and was implemented?

• This would have been another excuse to give a bigger donation to ‘helpless’ Israel. How else can the West atone for their past anti-Semitic sins, other then to help the Israelis to kill even more Palestinians, and seize more lands?

• All the moderate-coolies who have gone mute now would have raised their hypocritical-ugly heads and issued condemnations of terrorism. Yet these heartless ‘people’ cannot see the carnage done to the Palestinians.

The paradigm presented by the media has always been the helpless holocaust victims of Israel surviving to live against the Hamas terrorists. So let us ask who the terrorist are in this latest episode.

• Terrorist is the one who kills civilians. Israel has killed far more civilians, including 200 plus children. Yet, the media portrays the democratically elected Hamas as the terrorists group. It simply means the Jews in Israel are worth more than the Palestinian gentiles are.

• Terrorist is the one who delivers terror. So who has delivered more terror, the Israelis equipped with the lethal US made weapons or the Hamas with their home made primitive rockets?

Be it Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq, the number of victims tell another truth. The Muslims are not the terrorists, but the largest victim of organised state-terrorism.

Now we will see the age-old excuse of being the Holocaust victim and anti-Semitism. Any criticism of Israel is blocked by this stick of anti-Semitism and the holocaust victim card. Firstly, the problem is not anti-Semitism, as Arabs are also Semitic and Nazis no longer rule, but the real problem is the Semitic-Terrorism of Israel issues under the pretext that they are still the victims of a holocaust trying to survive. Secondly, why do they expect us to remember only Jews who perished in Nazi Germany, what about he 20 million Russians who gave their life? What about the loss of British and Americans lives? Are they worth less? Is it because they are gentiles?

All the blame is shifted on the shoulder of Hamas for firing a few primitive rockets into Israel. Those rockets were fired in response to earlier Israeli terrorism back in November. That was in response to Israeli Special Forces attack on Gaza killing six people, and not to mention the continuing oppression over Gaza by siege and blockade that has turned it into a concentration camp. Ironically, this is built by the very people who constantly moan about the concentrations camps built by the Nazis. The fact is: the Palestinians are no more of a threat to Israel than Jews in the Ghetto were a threat to the Nazi state.

Israel and its Jewish community should understand if those rockets can be justification for this slaughter in Gaza, then surely the argument would equally apply in the other direction. Israeli has the upper hand now, but one day Salahuddin and his army will return, then the Israelis will be repaid in kind, cries of anti-Semitism, and holocaust victim will not save them. They will not be given the security and comfort as it was given in the past, when the Christians in Europe were persecuting them.

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

[1] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07182.html, Simeon b. Yoḥai

[2] This is the name given to the anti-Christ in the Islamic sources, he would have one eye, and the other would be deformed. According to the prophecy in the Islamic sources, the one-eyed Dajjal would have substantial following from the Jewish community.

They were once victims of a Holocaust: Really?

"It's a horrifyingly sad place (Gaza) because of the desperation and misery of the way people live. I was unprepared for camps that are much worse than anything I saw in South Africa."
- Edward Said

The carnage in Gaza follows the carnage in Lebanon, Jenin, and Qana. The list will continue to grow as Israel with American fuel maintains the onslaught against the Palestinians and other Arab states. In line with the Jewish tradition, the Israelis are claiming to be the innocent victim. Just the body count alone tells the real story of who is the real victim in this asymmetric conflict.

It is difficult to fathom how a nation can behave in such a belligerent manner after it had allegedly lost six million in a relatively recent Holocaust, that took place during the Second World War, and some are still alive from that episode. If a nation genuinely suffered such losses in one tragic episode, they would show utmost restraint in killing innocent civilians. Moreover, one would expect them to be at the forefront in opposing the persecution of another group of people, let alone engage in such activities.

If it were the Germans instead of the Palestinians, that would make sense, as vengeance is a natural response. However, the Palestinians and Arabs had no connection with the Nazis in Germany. Europe commits the crime against the Jews; the people in the Middle East (Muslims and Christians) pay the price. This is unjust and illogical. Even more so, when you consider that historically the Jews have always prospered under Muslim rule, particularly under the ‘fundamentalist’ Caliphate that was constantly waging Jihad!

From Istanbul to Granada, the Jews lived happily without facing the regular inquisitions and pogroms of Christian Europe. A challenge for the Muslims is to convey the facts to the ignorant American masses, undoing the brainwashing done by the nasty mass media filled with mini Joseph Gobbles, so that they would at least see the Middle East with their two eyes, instead of one, like a one-eyed Dajjal.

Israel is claiming that it acted in self-defence, in response to the rockets fired by Hamas. As if it was entirely a unilateral provocation from Hamas without any prior cause. Let us assume the Israeli claims to be true. It is also true that Israel possesses huge technological advantage, with a fully equipped conventional armed force in comparison to Hamas. Even the analogy of David and Goliath would not be apt here. Under such circumstances, they should have sent ground troops, selectively targeting the Hamas fighters. Instead, they took the easy option, resorted to the aerial bombardment, which is indiscriminate by its nature, and not surprisingly led to the killing of innocent civilians and destroyed the infrastructure of the place bringing more chaos and suffering. Thus, everyone is talking about the cowardly disproportionate Israeli response.

How is the civilian casualty justified now? Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, told the US media “"Unfortunately in a war ... sometimes also civilians pay the price". Then, the same argument should apply when Hamas kills Israeli civilians, but it does not. If we are to be consistent both sides are terrorists for engaging in killing civilians, otherwise the label of terrorism should be discarded as nothing other than a term of war propaganda. It also follows, the more civilians you kill, the bigger the terrorist you are. So it is Israel that wins the title here but overall trailing well behind the US

Indeed, if this situation were reverse, for example, Tel Aviv bombed by Syria or Iran, the mass media would have gone into a frenzy calling it Arab Terrorism or Islamic Terrorism. For sure, the UN would have been a lot more active, producing endless resolutions. If the Muslims can create Islamic terrorism, surely the Jews can create Judaic terrorism. Accordingly, can the Arabs/Muslims call the bombing of Gaza as an example of Judaic terrorism or Jewish terrorism?

There are ample grounds to claim, this sort of Israeli action is the product of the racist, Talmudic laws and values, which considers the gentiles (non-Jews) to be less than human beings. It is no secret, the Jewish ideology considers the Jews to be the chosen race of God, and the rest by implication are something less. Perhaps this is why Israel sees the death of 3 or 4 Jews as enough to kill 300 or more Palestinians in line with its Judaic based ethos.

Let us not forget Christian terrorism. Iraq can be a prime example of that, since George Bush, Tony Blair and many others in the US Administration have openly professed as being devout Christians. According to George Bush, God inspired him to wage this crusade in Iraq; the WMD was the Holy Grail demanded by King George Bush. Note the tacit approval of the Vatican and the Orthodox Church by their silence. For the US, the killing of foreigners in a large scale has been part of its Secular-Christian heritage, from the genocide of Native Americans to the Arabs. Historical facts clearly point to that tradition of the Wild West.

The reality of Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan shows one thing, the Muslims are the ones being terrorised; they are the victims of state-led terrorism. Let us apply commonsense and ask: which inflicts more terror, a F16 fighter plane or a primitive home made rocket? Who has been terrorised, the Jews living in fortress Israel with 4 or 5 casualties or the Palestinians in Gaza with 400 plus? Truth is indeed the first casualty of war.

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK
Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2009

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Crucifixion: Is it Murder or Suicide or Blood Sacrifice?

Instead of the usual knocks on Sunday morning, the Christian missionaries knocked on Good Friday morning. They are always on a mission to convert the world, so I was given an invitation to a sermon about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was not the spirit of commercialised-Easter but this friendly visit made me ponder about the essence of the event.

I respectfully declined the offer as over the years the Christians have argued that I should first have faith, then submit to Christ and let the Holy Spirit enter my body somehow. Only then, I would understand the notion of trinity, crucifixion, and resurrection. Therefore, conviction somehow follows blind faith. However, I would have thought the process should be reverse; conviction of the mind should lead to faith. This is how we tend to operate in real life.

So what is the meaning of this crucifixion? If we are to judge an action solely based on the physical act, then the event of crucifixion represents nothing more than a heinous crime and betrayal. Killing an innocent man is nothing more than an act of murder. For which there was no retribution from God, the crime went unpunished. What moral lessons can we take from it? The guilty party here are the Romans, the Jewish mob, and God himself with the Holy Spirit are spectators - they did nothing to save the son of God (Jesus).

What did Jesus do? He made no effort to escape the punishment. It could be argued that he committed suicide, in the same way if someone does not make an effort to escape from a building that is on fire. Can suicide be the basis for a religion? Are we to follow such an example? If so, then how?

Of course evaluating actions is not always simplistic process of equating it with the physical act. One has to take into account motive and context. For example, the case of manslaughter and murder is distinguished by establishing the intention of the perpetrator not just the act itself. Therefore, the Christians will argue that crucifixion was not suicide, nor was it a simple crime. Jesus (son) and God the Father with the Holy Spirit planned this event in advance; the act was deliberately orchestrated by God, as an act of blood sacrifice for atonement.

In that case, how is Christianity different to paganism, where human sacrifices were also used? Even the metaphorical reference to eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ makes me revolt, as it reminds me of cannibalism. The concept of shedding the blood of some innocent person for the crimes of others in the past, and the crimes of those in the future seems to run contrary to common sense and justice. Maybe this is why you need to have faith before conviction! Of course having blind faith makes the process of conviction redundant.

Sometime back, this notion of crucifixion triggered my response to a fanatical Evangelical Christian from the US, who described Islam as being built on bloodshed, as if we have the equivalent of crucifixion. For some reason it is the US that seems to exclusively produce these foul mouthed zealots, like they have a monopoly of producing disturbed teenagers who go on shooting rampages, real terrorists operating right under their noses. Anyway, I reminded the foulmouthed fanatic of the irony of his claim, given that the central doctrine of Christianity is about bloodshed and sadistic torture. Mel Gibson, a devout Christian portrayed this well in his film the “Passion of Christ”. Hence, the Christians are in no position to accuse anyone of being bloodthirsty.

I elaborated further by reminding him of what Jesus said in the Bible, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Historically the record of the Christian Church is awful compared to Islam, any impartial observer can testify to this. The church could never match the tolerance shown by the Muslims. No inquisitions, no commercial slavery, no extermination of the indigenous populations, no bloody crusades, not to mention the decades of brutal wars between the Catholics and Protestants.

We still have the historical non-Muslim community in Islamic lands. However, where is the historical Muslim community of Europe? They were slaughtered either by the Inquisition or by the crusades. The recent security enjoyed by Muslims living in Europe can only be attributed to secular values not Christianity.

The conclusion is obvious, the reformation that was initiated by Martin Luther needs to move on the next phase, remove the absurd notion of Trinity and Crucifixion; thus Bring Christianity inline with the other monotheistic religions.

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK


Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2008
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Barbaric Laws or Barbaric Crimes?

I remember my boss at work expressing his disgust towards the Sharia Laws, without substantiation, he used the emotive term of barbaric to describe the Islamic penal codes. My response was equally swift, I replied that I preferred to live by barbaric laws rather than allow barbaric crimes to take place. I retorted further, that he is simply being naive and would concur with my point if he ever became victim of the numerous crimes that are talking place within our society. As to what constitutes the correct level of punishment that fits the crime is entirely subjective and depends on ones beliefs. Thus to label one set of punishment as barbaric is simply as irrational, superstitious and fanatical as the medieval mindset that once flourished in Europe.

I also pointed out that people who advocate lenient punishments are rewarding criminals and perversely punishing the victim further; and this proves that they are the ones devoid of compassion and are really uncivilised and barbaric at heart! Turning the table on my boss, made his pale cheeks red, and most probably he had become accustomed to discussing (bullying) with moderate Muslims who are always ready to apologies on their knees.

To expose his hypocrisy, I asked him why he keeps choosing to label the Islamic penal codes as barbaric when he could apply the same label to the penal codes that are applied in places like the US. Then he went on to argue the same idiocy that we have become accustomed to hearing from the western media: killing people using western methods is more civilised than non-western methods. Therefore, gassing, poisoning, or burning someone using napalm is supposed to be less painful, and thus more humane than decapitation by a sword. Maybe we should scientifically establish this by experimenting with those who believe in reincarnation, as to which method of execution causes less pain!

Apart from the rabid anti-Islamic venom, the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury led to some discussion about the appropriate penal code and the constant rise in crime. Criminal laws in any society are supposed to serve a dual purpose: retribution and deterrence. It is doubtful that liberal secular laws provide sufficient deterrence; young adolescent children know that laws gives them protection when committing serious crimes, hoodlums and thugs rampage, rapists and murderers know that if and when they get caught, they are only likely to serve part of their sentence, confined to a cell that provides for their basic needs adequately. Consequently, we see the high levels of crimes, which are always rising.

The arguments made against the Islamic Sharia often hinges around the issue of women’s rights, but paradoxically the punishment prescribed by the Sharia for crimes against women is far severe, than the liberal secular laws. If women’s rights is paramount, yet why so little weight is given to the crimes committed against women under western secular laws, which is reflected in the lenient punishment dispensed. Can the women in such societies venture alone in the streets at night? In some places, they fear to tread alone even during the day. For sure, certain places even men would avoid in fear, so if women’s rights had any meaning they would feel secure in all place and all times. I know that women and children roam the streets freely without fear, through the night in most Muslim countries. Except the simpleton, most people know the argument of women’s rights is not an honest one but political, because this is not raised and applied to other cases except against Islam and Muslims. Just like the selective application of UN resolutions against the Muslim countries.

Then the argument moves onto the issue of majority and minority. Only a minority of the population are committing such criminal acts, but that is little consolation to the victims. The same argument was applied to the ‘minority’ of soldiers committing brutal acts in Iraq. Surely, by the same criteria, the actions of 9/11 and 7/7 were also acts of minorities, yet the entire Muslim population has been placed on trial by the media.

Some will argue that dispensing severe punishments for serious crimes is simply going down to the level of criminals, these people rarely speak as victims but idealistic individuals living in a bubble. They remind me of the flower power generation, high on some drugs, singing the song of imagine there is no crime or criminals. If you are going to advocate such arguments, in that case let us dispense with the penal code altogether. For sure, you are not going to get the criminals submitting to your moral barometer.

So, let us move to the 21st century, and debate honestly the need for appropriate penal codes that serves as a good deterrence. If a criminal is punished severely, those witnessing it will think twice before committing such crimes. I am not saying the West must adopt the Islamic penal code, but it is hardly constructive to blindly criticise that as barbaric, when acts of barbarism is being facilitated at home by lenient penal codes.


Yamin Zakaria
London, UK

Is Pakistan Ready for the Caliphate (Khilafah)?

“They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology.” “I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either.”

President George W Bush

“They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair

After lecturing about freedom and democracy, Bush and his ilk have the audacity to dictate to the Muslim masses as to what form of government they can adopt. How does this reconcile with Bush’s constant rant about promoting freedom in the Muslims world? It can only mean one thing - the Muslims will be ‘free’ as long as they confine their choice to western secular values! This should be obvious even if you are a shortsighted moderate or a long-sighted ex-Islamist serving penance!

Therefore, we see the militant US enforcing secular values using threats, sanctions, and military force; concurrently it stifles popular political movements. This magnitude of duplicity must surely be classed as one of the miracles of this high-tech era! The Caliphate is equated with a hateful ideology, as if Islam gave birth to the heartless Capitalism or militant nationalism (Nazi ideology and its variants). Islam does not uphold the concept of a master race or a chosen race or the material interest of a nation above anything else; such ideologies are the sources of systematic genocide and hate.

As Pervez Musharraf set the election date (January 8, 2008), many are debating as to which direction Pakistan will go. Will it be secular democracy or military dictatorship or Islamic parties gaining strength like the recent cases in Palestine, Egypt and Turkey? How a Muslim majority country like Pakistan views the notion of the Caliphate. In theory, any Muslim nation should be inclined to the concept of being unified by a single Caliphate. This is what was demonstrated by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) when He replaced the tribal bonds with the Islamic belief, manifested in the Islamic State. This continued under the successive rulers (Khalifs), and as the Islamic state expanded it unified people of different races and colours, there were no colonies, no slave camps no systematic genocide or deliberate acts of state terrorism against innocent civilians.

It is interesting that many Pakistanis continue to believe their country was established to uphold Islam. This is a misconception. It is doubtful that the founding father, Muhammad Jinnah was even a Muslim; he was either a Parsee or the more popular view that he was born into the heretical Shiite sect of the Ismaili Khoja. His second marriage to a Parsee is illegitimate under Islamic law; his habit of eating ham sandwich and drinking wine is further evidence of his distance from the basic Islamic values at a personal level, so how can one expect such a man to call for the establishment of an Islamic state. In fact, Jinnah opposed the Khilafah movement led by the Shukat Ali brothers, whilst it was supported by Mahatma Ghandi who was a Hindu, how ironic. Jinnah’s vision was to create a secular Muslim majority state and not an Islamic state governed by Sharia laws; this can be seen from his statement to the constituent assembly on the 11th August 1947:

“You may belong to any religion caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.”

Since its inception the political fault lines in Pakistan have always surfaced, as it has constantly alternated between military and civilian rule. With the passing of time tension along ethnic lines have increased as different groups are calling for autonomy, further compounded by the secular and religious forces pulling in different directions. In contrast, India with far greater levels of diversity of ethnicity, religion, and language has demonstrated political stability and economic progress and it looks set to become a major power.

After the events of 9/11, Parvez Musharraf surrendered instantly in response to the threats made by the US for cooperation, and signed up to Bush’s war on terror; aided the brutal bombing of Afghanistan, gave the Americans a freehand to incarcerate anyone to the notorious camp-x-ray. This is an irony since Pakistan was created to provide security for Muslims. It was an ideal opportunity to teach the West about the meaning of true democracy, as Parvez Musharraf could have put the issue of providing US bases to bomb Afghanistan to the Pakistani masses or the parliament, before giving the Americans a free hand.

Parvez Musharraf continues to use the excuse of preserving the security of Pakistan, yet anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that the US has been busy scheming to disarm (neutralise) Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Simply because the US will not tolerate any Muslim country having nuclear weapons, for the same reason it has been busy preventing Iran from developing nuclear technology. This is part and parcel of its so-called strategy of war on terror, which is a war on Islamic values and the entire Islamic world. Yet, the simpleton moderates continue to believe that the war on terror is directed at the handful of people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Instead of debating issues of security, economic prosperity, social cohesion, foreign occupation, the various parties are fighting to secure power on superficial slogans, petty criticisms of others. All points to the fact that, the major parties vying for political power is about securing their interests; further corroborated by their past track record. With Musharraf retiring from his army post, the return of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the showdown for January election is on but the result is a forgone conclusion, a choice between secular democracy and military dictatorship, thus continuing the cyclical process of alternating between military and civilian rule. Altering the faces without a radical reorganisation of the political system and economic wealth, nothing will have changed, thus the masses in Pakistan are despondent.

The only alternative to the current system in Pakistan is Islam - and that raises the inevitable question of what the current Islamic movements can offer. It is highly unlikely that Pakistan will make the leap towards the Caliphate in this upcoming election, but the Islamic parties can begin to muster support on the road to establishing the Caliphate.

With limited resources available, the groups should be efficient and focused on the objective. The ordinary masses may be in favour of Islamic rule or they may not be hostile to it. Therefore a significant effort must be directed towards the power structures within Pakistan, which consists of the armed forces and secular elite, the latter being the most influential. It is imperative for the Islamic parties to make the collective effort to de-secularise the secular strata of Pakistan and the key members of the armed forces. This is necessary to secure power.

Instead, the Islamic movements are often busy fighting each other to gain followers from rival groups to join their ranks. Some are unfortunately intolerant to the extent that it has no capability to accommodate even legitimate difference of opinions, some even go to the extreme of killing fellow Muslims as is seen in the frequent Shia-Sunni feuds; this sort of behaviour is often exploited to alienate the masses form the more capable Islamic groups.

Failure of the Islamic movements can also be attributed to their idealism and detachment from the reality. For example, those calling for the Khilafah are still insisting on non-participation in the election process, as it would legitimise system of democracy. Participating in election is no different to giving obedience to the secular laws or paying taxes; all such acts are participation within the system, thus gives it legitimacy. There is nothing to prevent anyone from participating in election making clear that the manifesto is to implement Islam, and it will not be subjected to any kind of referendum in the future.

Another major reason for participation is to build leadership for the group, and in particular, its ideas, to an extent this has been demonstrated in the election results in Palestine, Egypt and Turkey where the Islamic movements have started to gain. These are perhaps the small milestones to the long road of building the Caliphate. Make no mistake about it, the establishment of the Caliphate will require a collective effort, therefore groups have to function within that framework and not the mindset that they have a monopoly on the issue.

The Muslims in Pakistan are in need of a better alternative because the current system has failed and this is self-evident. However, when will the Islamic parties begin to organise themselves and make a collective effort towards the long road of the Caliphate, change the destiny of Pakistan?

Yamin Zakaria
London, UK
Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2007