‘Freethinkers’ Vs Islam and the Burden of Proof

How often do we hear the familiar questions; - “Prove that God exists?”, “Prove that Muhammad (SAW) is a Prophet of God?”, “Prove that the Quran is the word of God?” These questions are reasonable; the Muslims should and have provided answers on these subjects. However, the problem arises when the so-called ‘freethinkers’ pose such questions to launch a subjective interrogation with preconceived ideas of right and wrong. As if, they have no burden of proof to justify their criteria and dogmas.

They construct a framework of dialogue where they assume the position of judge, jury and executioner by demanding not just answers but ‘proof’ of innocence, from the Muslims as if they are on trial in a court of law! The framework of ‘dialogue’ in essence is a one-way traffic lane: the Muslims are required to produce proof and the ‘freethinkers’ will fire away with their allegations and issue judgements while slyly avoiding the need to prove their own premise. Consequently, the burden of proof is conveniently shifted entirely upon the Muslims turning the ‘debate’ into an inquisition!

Eventually the ‘freethinkers’ take on the liberty to use their ‘free’ minds to express the so-called allegations against Islam using the most vulgar language like the depraved criminal hoodlums!Any neutral observer applying commonsense will appreciate the fact that a debate across two different value systems (ideologies, civilisations or religions) by rational necessity, demands that the burden of ‘proof’ should be a two-way process. Meaning that both sides need to provide evidences to: justify their respective positions and cross-examine each other’s viewpoints! And ideally, neutral arbiters or agreed common set of criteria should be used to determine the validity of the proofs. Otherwise, both sides will only end up trading accusations, counter accusation, continuously diverging, and never converging. Under such premise, it is no longer a debate but the whole exercise is futile.

In reality, the common trait amongst these so-called ‘freethinkers’ is their obsession with demonising Islam while simultaneously lacking the ability to elaborate on their alternative that is as comprehensive and convincing as Islam with its more than 1.5 billion followers, 1500 years of survival and its constant rising popularity. Dispensing allegations and criticisms, without providing a comprehensive alternative that can rival Islam proves that these ‘freethinkers’ are intellectually bankrupt as well as cowards and hypocrites; - because even a school child knows how easy it is for a hooded individual to call everyone else ugly!

The clearest evidence of their hypocritical and cowardly nature with pretence of being ‘rational’ lies in fact that they do not elaborate on their alternative solutions as vociferously as they express criticisms of Islam and Muslims! My recent interaction with one anti-Islamic fanatic who runs a hate-filled website fulltime confirmed this point. He said he was on a mission to take Muslims out of Islam but I asked him where to. Eventually and reluctantly, he started to mention about his so-called alternative formula but there was no section elaborating that anywhere on his hate-filled website! Well, why not? Because, he is driven by blind hatred of Islam, otherwise his alternative formula would have had prominence on his website. After all the provision of a comprehensive alternative to Islam is by far the most powerful and rational approach to convincing the Muslims to leave Islam!

In reality, none of these ‘freethinkers’ have produced anything that is original other than what has been borrowed from the Orientalists. He goes on to label the entire 1.5 billion Muslims as “animals” and “sub humans” like a typical intellectual midget with a heart of a racists Nazi. Note while labelling the Muslims as animals he also confesses that he was born into a Muslim family, so that must make him an animal too unless of course he admits to being a bastard child, thus maybe only half an animal!

These irrational rationalists constantly bark on as to why Muhammad (saw) is not a Prophet based on the various subjective allegations. If we disprove those charges, all we are achieving is the innocence of the Prophet (SAW) with respect to those charges but it does not establish his Prophet-hood. Otherwise, do we then assume any individual who is innocent of those allegations is a Prophet? If they were objective in this issue, they would have defined what constitutes Prophet-hood in the first place and then argue from that basis against the Prophet-hood of Muhammad (SAW). Such examples proves that these ‘freethinkers’ are not really interested in impartial analysis but foul mouth and hurl insults under the cover of raising allegations.

Eventually they degenerate to a position when they claim that their position is self-evident, so we should take their word for it! They begin to sound like real fanatics trying to shove down other people’s throats of their self-evident ‘truth’. This is after barking at the Muslims for not providing evidence, accusing them of being blind followers.

On the other hand when the ‘freethinkers’ are asked to provide justification for their alternative solution, that is after eventually getting to know what the alternative is in the first place, they demonstrate the most irrational behaviour, churning out contradictory statements. Again this is after bragging about their rationality and their reliance upon reason as ‘freethinkers’ as the following example will demonstrate! Another ‘freethinker’ who arrogantly calls himself a house of glowing wit, argued that secularism in Europe brought progression in the fields of science and technology, therefore the Muslims should adopt it blindly. But when I highlighted that secularism also brought countless genocide using these scientific advances, which continues to this day. It also produced colonisation, mass exploitation and the extreme forms of racist ideologies like Nazism all resulting in immense human misery.

Furthermore, it is rather shallow to assess a merit of a civilisation by its scientific achievements instead of how those were utilised. In frustration, he then argued those actions were not the product of secularism as nobody killed or colonised in the name of secularism. Well, if that is the case did the scientist also invent in the name of secularism? So why attribute good fruits to the tree and leave the bad fruits out? This is clearly irrational behaviour in the absence of a rational explanation. In frustration, he did not want to answer these points despite bragging about his ‘wit’ and he deleted my email responses and kept sending me his diatribe. Thus, the ‘freethinker’ transformed himself into a non-thinker! The dialogue was now one-way monologue with the fanatic trying to shove down my throat his viewpoints.

When they argue against Islamic teachings ironically they express criticism using values that are rooted in religion. As an example the ‘freethinkers’ show disgust at the marriage of Prophet Muhammad to the former wife of his adopted ‘son’ (Zaid Bin Harith). Of course, the purpose of such an action was to dissolve the notion of adopted ‘son’ in Islam as Prophets by definition define morality and ethics; or else, Prophethood is more or less meaningless and irrelevant. But the real contradiction is why the ‘freethinker’ found the marriage of a man supposedly to the former wife of his adopted ‘son’ to be offensive in the first place, since in his mind the adopted son was effectively held the same status as a real son. So, where did he get that value? Surely, if ration is the criteria which he constantly boasts about, who can place a limit and where, on such issues. Who and how one can determine the rights and wrongs of these matters. Clearly, the ‘freethinkers’ carry preconceived ideas about morality and ethics that has religious roots, yet they use that to wage a war against an established religion (ideology) hypocritically.

Thus the ‘freethinkers’ are in reality hypocritical-thinkers, non-thinkers, superficial-thinkers. In fact, they are the ones that display fanaticism and real blind-faith that they refuse to see the contradictions in their so-called alternative formula. Others degenerate to exhibit silence and to hide their embarrassment they go into an abusive mode.

Any impartial observer who really undertook an objective study of Islam, then one of the first questions would have been posed is: who is the author of the Quran. Especially considering that the Arabs of the time, including the most hostile opponents of Islam never claimed that the Quran was the words of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) or any other living Arab. Actually, some of the opponent categorically stated that Quran was not the words of Muhammad (SAW). The decisive words (Mutawatir Hadiths) of the Prophet transmitted to us are clearly distinct from the wordings in the Quran in terms of style. The style is very much part of the character of the person.

Also, why suddenly at the age of 40 Muhammad (SAW) started to produce such words as the reality is that even the most talented individuals will evolve from a certain point. There are no evidences to suggest that Muhammad (SAW) had complied similar works prior to producing the Quran, with the Quran representing the apex of his works. Muhammad (SAW) was not even known to be one of the poets or writers in the pagan Arab society. Nor does the Quran itself evolve in its style from the beginning to end, it remains consistent. This is unusual as any work of man has strengths and weaknesses. To answer these questions it necessitates examining the Islamic sources from the established Islamic scholars before examining the viewpoints of the opponents of Islam.

Then comes the questions of how do we know, how can we trust all these narrations. Life itself works on this principle of trust. We do not assume that human beings are natural liars unless we have evidence. Are we certain that our parents are who they say they are? Did we witness the copulation, the successive growth of the embryo to the birth? What do we do when a stranger tells us not to go in a certain direction as danger lies ahead? How do we react? Therefore, on what basis one can doubt multiple corroborative narrations about these events, confirmed by scholars across the board, but these ‘freethinking’ hypocrites are willing to believe any old theory as fact!

The fact is Islam continues to gain followers in the heartland of ‘freethinkers’. In frustration, they lower themselves to fight on their four limbs! In essence, these so-called ‘freethinkers’ are irrational reactionaries obsessed with Islam. Surely if Islam is inherently evil, people would automatically abandon it but instead Islam continue to gain converts in the heartland of the ‘freethinkers’. But thinking about such things would overload their ‘freethinking’ mind.

Too many Muslims have fallen for these traps laid by these malicious ‘freethinkers’ who put on a mask of rationality and logic by poising questions that evolve into interrogation as if they have no position or alternative to justify. For example, if one is not convinced about the evidence provided with respect to the existence of God then that does not automatically mean that a case has been made for the absence of God. They usually get away with this as they are not forced to place their alternative to Islam on the agenda during these pseudo dialogues.

The proof of the existence of God must be accompanied by what proof is there to support the absence of God. Likewise, the proof for Muhammad as the messenger of God must be accompanied by the secular perspective on what constitutes messenger and why Muhammad does not add up to that criterion; or whatever the alternative viewpoint they hold. The same goes for Quran, if one claim it is not the word of God then they must have a set of criteria for what constitutes the word of God! When the tables are turned on them watch the ‘freethinkers’ shrink into little hobbits and run for the nearest hole!

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Published in 22/02/2205

Is ‘Free’ Speech a Product of Secular Intolerance?

Response to the article “Is it only Mr. Bean who resists this new religious intolerance?”¹

Driven by secular intolerance and xenophobia, once again Islam and Muslims are maligned in the abovementioned article using the age old excuse of ‘free’ speech. Across the Atlantic Ocean their American cousins are much more candid where anti-Islamic diatribe is constantly propagated and often with vulgarity. Although the holy-secular-warriors brag about their opposition to all religions but in reality they are primarily targeting Islam and Muslims. That begs the question, why, and why use vulgar anti-Islamic diatribes as opposed to debate the issues objectively. The following points will try to explicate the reasons.

A) Cowardice – When the human instincts functions devoid of basic ethics the weak ones are inevitably targeted. Since the Muslim communities virtually have no voice in the corporate run mass media they are an easy target for the vultures. So, it has become fashionable to engage in Islam-bashing and the more powerful and influential communities like the Jews are carefully avoided. Just the threat of anti-Semitism leads them back to the top of the tree waiting for the next victim; the issue of ‘free’ speech is forgotten.

Newspapers columnists like Charles Moore (author of the abovementioned article) ‘bravely’ criticizes behind the protected influential positions just like the Anglo-US forces are bombing from high altitude and torturing the kidnapped Iraqi civilians including women and children! These Newspaper columnists, for once could set a real example of their commitment to ‘free’ speech by giving the Muslims an equal voice so that the discourse is a fair one. Instead, they abuse their monopoly position by incessantly feeding the masses with anti-Islamic tirades and propaganda, reminiscent of the mindset of priests living in the dark ages!

B) Capitulation – Only the Islamic world has not ceded to the secular fanatics and their moderate allies under the guise of reformation or modernization. Islam by default is the final challenge for the holy-secular-warriors. The Christians for example have complied with the secular definitions of what religion should be for the sake of getting accepted. One can see their desperate measures, from endorsing homosexuality, capitulating to feminism, to the selling of Christianity by exploiting the poverty of others. If the Christians are willing to tolerate the constant abuse hurled at Jesus (PBUH) why should that be a yardstick for the Muslims or anyone?

C) Secular Hypocrisy – Ulterior motives results in the selective application of principles thereby exhibit hypocrisy. The US selectively invaded a weak Iraq under the pretext of a security threat but simultaneously avoided confrontation with the Nuclear North Korea. Likewise, the holy-secular-warriors are selectively attacking Islam even though their arguments could be much more applicable against other religions. For example the Talmud clearly endorses blatant RACISM as it upholds the fundamental concept of God’s chosen race. The status of the gentiles (non Jews) is like the animals literally as according to the Talmudic edict, gentiles have been created to serve the Jews, they are to be enslaved (Goyeem). Numerous other edicts from the Talmud make this very clear.

Like typical hypocrites the holy-secular-warriors fear to confront the Jews and they run like cowards, barley holding up their trousers. Do we not frequently witness their hypocritical politicians getting caught with their pants down after lecturing about ‘morality’ then attempt to do a similar exit?

D) Xenophobia - As most Muslims tend to be of non-White origin they are targeted openly under various pretexts but the underlying motivation is racism. This is self-evident when you observe the increasing number of the rightwing organizations have taken an anti-Islamic stance from the old position of being anti-foreigner. The shift may also reflect a change in the sentiments of the general native white population. Of course, the media is always doing its best to increase the xenophobia through writers like Charles Moore.

E) Secular Intolerance – Why resort to vulgar anti-Islamic diatribe instead of engaging in a civilized dialogue? Mr. Charles Moore [1] admits that ‘free’ speech has limits and it should not be used to incite violence. How those limits are decided and enforced is another matter but it inherently contradicts the very notion of being ‘free’. Such notions of freedom can also exist under absolute dictatorship! However, Charles Moore simultaneously argues that in a modern liberal society one should be able to “attack all beliefs”.

So where does one draw the line, as abusing the values of others would naturally lead to anger, potentially translating into violence. This is where secular hypocrisy and intolerance begins. They expect everyone to endure any amount of abuse of religious values but when it suits them they curtail criticism under the guise of ‘incitement to violence’ as it was done with Sheikh Abu-Hamza and Sheikh Faisal.

Secularism has no sacred values other than their material interests; therefore, they are happy to lower the level of discussion using abusive language to all areas and only restrict criticisms to their defined areas of interest. However, the primary reason for using abusive and vulgar language is due to intolerance towards Islam. This intolerance is natural since the secular hypocrites are unable to pose an intellectual challenge by providing an alternative coherent set of values and principles. They define themselves primarily by criticizing Islam. Despite their constant propaganda of the ‘backward’ and ‘evil’ Islam it continues to gain converts in the heart of their own territory. Paradoxically the level of conversion increased after 9/11. If Islam is so primitive and insignificant then how can it pose a threat and why so much resource is allocated to containing it?

What are the Secular ‘Ethics’?

The incoherent secular ‘ethics’ was demonstrated by Charles Moore’s own example as he casts a slur on the Prophet (SAW) by mentioning the old question - if the Prophet (SAW) was a Pedophile as he married the young Aisha. Words were deliberately selected to denigrate the Prophet (SAW) and injure the feelings of the Muslims. In the same way Prophet Ishmael was described as a Bastard child by the Xenophobic and Jewish controlled media to denigrate the Arabs, yet benign terms like ‘love child’ are used to describe the illegitimate children of their celebrities.

The definition of pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. Where as the marriage of the Prophet to his only virgin wife was conducted after puberty in line with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Furthermore, prepubescent sex with a child as young as 3 is sanctioned in Judaism not Islam; the Rabbis are permitted to have non-penetrative sex with them. So if the young age is really an issue why the hypocritical silence?

It seems peculiar for the likes of Charles Moore to suggest that it is immoral for two individuals with a considerable age difference to marry or engage in a relationship. Consider the following points. Why a marriage between heterosexual couples with disparity in age is more immoral than homosexual marriages that are licensed by the same liberal principles? It is the same liberal societies that are permitting all forms of sexual deviancies from bestiality, cannibalism to genuine pedophilia activity. In fact in the US there is an organization (NAMBLA) seeking to legitimize pedophile activity and the Danish government has refused to ban pedophile websites.

By the liberal criteria of freedom two consenting adults (meaning post puberty as defined by Islam) should be able engage freely in a marital relationship. Finally, if the secular west is really opposed to young people engaging in sex then why do they subject children to Porn-culture and casual sex? And teach them the tricks and provide them with the necessary tools to avoid the consequences of illicit sexual activities!

Non Muslims under Islamic Rule

Charles Moore also claimed that Dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State) are oppressed as they have to pay the Jizyah tax. But he ignorantly or conveniently does not mention that the Dhimmis are also excluded from many other taxes that are levied upon the Muslim citizens. Consequently, the Dhimmis as are either financially better off or in the same position as the Muslim citizens! The point of Islamic conquest (Jihad) is to gain converts not to engage in wanton killings and plundering like that is happening in Iraq and has happened for the last 400 years or so. Let’s remind Charles Moore that it was not the Muslims that took the crown jewels from different parts of the world back to Mecca or Medina! Oppressing the Dhimmis would defeat this central objective.

There are no historical records of where Dhimmis have revolted due to the oppressive Jizya in fact the non-Muslims enjoyed far greater levels of security and prosperity under Islam than they found in Europe amongst their co-religionists. The brutal Spanish inquisition and the conflict between the Latin and Orthodox Church in the Balkans are two a clear reminders.

Furthermore, minorities are the second class citizens in a secular state not the Dhimmis! How? The rights of the Dhimmis are protected by the clear Islamic texts and the laws are fixed and permanent. The same cannot be said of the minorities in secular societies as the Jews found out under the Nazis, Rodney King is a recent example and now the Muslims are beginning to find the same. Minorities have rights subjected to the democratic majority approval who are at liberty to change those rights.

The incarceration at camp-X-ray and the brutality of the US-run prisons in Iraq are a reminder for those who think we are talking in the realm of hypothetical possibilities. There is nothing to stop Europe or the US resurrecting the gas chambers if the majority approves. Secular West in fact has only recently learnt to exercise a bit of tolerance after centuries of intolerance.

Christians have lived under Muslim rule for centuries and their presence in the Islamic lands is proof of the vicious lies that are circulating in the Western media. If the Muslims were as intolerant as the Christian leadership the Christian communities would have been annihilated in places like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, suffering a similar fate of the Muslims in Spain. So, this is emanating from the mainstream press imagine the utter garbage in the tabloids. This shows that the West is still medieval when it comes to dealing with Islam and Muslims.

The Muslim Response

The Muslims being tolerant have not resorted to vulgar abusive language in the face of such vicious attacks. Despite the historic crimes that are being committed in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan they have not generated chauvinistic outbursts. However, the readers need to contemplate the following points to get a glimpse of how the Muslims would have responded to the constant denigration in the mass media if they had the mentality of the holy-secular-warriors.

The Muslims could have coined the term “a nation of Bastards” based on the statistics of huge number of children (30% to 50%) in the West born out of wedlock. Given the recent pictures from Abu-Ghraib and the carnage in Fallujah as corroborative evidences of that bastard nature! Or they could have also used the label “a nation of pimps” as the flesh trade is flourishing in the West. In fact, women can be purchased cheaper than cattle. The Muslims could have referred to the Pig like behavior using the old saying “what you eat is what you are” as it is the only animal that does not fight for its mate when another pig approaches it!

Looking at San Francisco, Jerry Springer, Abu-Ghraib and the Internet would it be constructive if the Muslims generalized by calling the West a nation of: homosexuals, necrophilia, serial killers and rapists. Or could the Muslims not look at the British history selectively and paint them as a ‘nation of pirates and thieves’; the process is being repeated now in Iraq. Or they could have reflected on the American history describing them as a ruthless greedy nation with an insatiable appetite for wealth and blood.

I am sure Mr. Moore and others would immediately burst into frenzy, newspaper headlines would be filled with venomous responses. But the more objective and enlightened individuals would recognize such name calling would not lead to a dialogue but a confrontation. The end result would be an increase in hatred and bigotry instead of mutual respect and understanding.

The Muslims to the contrary are happy to engage in an open civilized debate. They do not have a history of inquisitions or burning heretics at the crescent! There is no Islamic literature where volumes of information containing lies, vulgar profanities targeted against other faiths. Even the awful medieval crusades did not lead to such materials emerging in the Islamic world and that is true even to this day. Besides the mass media, if you search the Internet, there are many hateful anti-Islamic websites run by secular hypocrites and the foul mouth missionaries but one would be hard pressed to find any that is run by Muslims.

The likes of Charles Moore ought to realize that by vilifying Muslims it can end up in helping the cause of Islam by raising curiosity amongst the native population. During the time of the Prophet the pagan Arabs also engaged in a similar vilification campaign which only led to an increase in the number of followers as has happened due to the propaganda post 9/11. Islam has great resilience; it has stood many tests of time and continues to remain strong this day. History and the current reality proves that the West are only capable of containing Islam through the annihilation of Muslims e.g. Spain but never through intellectual dialogue!

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

Copyright © 2004 by Yamin Zakaria.

Published in 1/12/2004

¹http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/11/do1101.xml

Is it ‘Islamic’ Fascists or Freedom-Fascists?

Like most ‘ism’, Fascism was founded in Europe and it was practiced by Europe. What is the connection between Fascism and Islam? The mythical connection only exists in the vicious propaganda machine; they have coined the term Islamo-fascism to serve that purpose. In reality, Islam and Fascism are poles apart. The central pillars of Fascism advocates militant nationalism, which is clearly forbidden in Islam. Therefore, Islamic-Fascism or Islamo-fascism is an oxymoron.

According to the fascist ethos of ‘guilty until proven innocent’, Bush issued the guilty verdict of: “Islamic Fascists”, even before the suspects in custody had a chance to reach the court and state their case. They are 22 British Muslims of Pakistani descent and 2 British converts to Islam; all stand accused of a plot to blow up ten aircraft in mid-flight over the Atlantic. The media (CNN-FOX-MSNBC) was already reporting “Terror in the Air” as if something had already happened, while ignoring the real “Terror in the air” that was being delivered by Israel to the Lebanese civilians. I wonder what kind of fascist was Timothy McVeigh, who did the atrocity against the people in Oklahoma.

The British authorities described the plot as an attempted murder on an unimaginable scale, as if it involved 10 nuclear weapons instead of 10 civilian aircrafts. Why is it unimaginable? Ten planes with an average load of 300 people makes it around 3000, like another 9/11. Now imagine this, multiply that figure by 100, you have rivers of blood from Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, to Lebanon. Of course, they have no problem imagining this, as the value of Muslim lives is not the same as Western civilians; - this is the real FASCISM. Because the exaltation of one race/nation, results in relegating other races/nations to an inferior status, they become expendable for the causes of the master race. So, killing the inferior races/nations in large number is simply collateral damages, makes it sound almost legal, while any retaliation from the victims is described as violent, terrorist and even fascists.

George Bush is perhaps irate as to why Blair did not follow his example of incarcerating the “Islamic Fascists” in Camp-X-Ray style and then lecture the Islamic world about human rights! But surely, incarceration is exactly what the fascist do, probably one of its defining features. Wait, I think I understand the ‘logic’ of Bush: you have to become a fascist to fight those, whom you consider fascist in the first place.

Bush is not alone in depicting his fascist behaviour with stupidity and hypocrisy - recently the European commissioner of Internal Affairs, Franco Fratini demanded that Muslims should respect other people’s religion. Good grief, did he mean that Muslims should start by drawing derogatory cartoons of historical Christian and Jewish figures (as the Muslims are not allow to mock the Prophet Jesus, Moses, David etc) to show ‘respect’, as the Muslims have been shown ‘respect’? Does he want us to produce nasty novels and films that are anti-Christian and anti-Jewish under the banner of free speech? Does he want the Muslims to invent equivalent terms for ‘sand-niggers’, ‘rag-heads’ and ‘towel-heads’? Is that the kind of respect, Franco Fratini is referring to?

He also had the chutzpah to demand that Muslims should ‘respect the right of life’, when clearly the Muslim civilians have been the largest victim of Western and Israeli terrorism for decades. Can anybody deny this fact? Of course, what Franco means is that Muslims should show restraint and preferably turn the other cheek in the face of such an onslaught, as Western lives are worth more than the lives of Muslims. Such overt racism is a clear example of fascism.

Judging from Bush’s level of education and his past comments, it is doubtful that he understands the meaning of either term: Islam and Fascism. Calling Muslims fascists is another example of how Muslims are demonised by ideologies/ideas that are alien to the Islamic civilisation but ironically such ideologies/ideas are rooted in Western civilisation. Finding historical figures and events within the Islamic history that can be equated to the era of the Nazis is impossible.

The violent track record of the Nazis is a cyclical phenomenon that is found within European history, but very few would admit to it. One can go back to the blood-thirsty medieval Crusades of Christian Europe, then came the era of secular European colonisation from the 15^th century onwards that annihilated millions of people. Finally we have the high-tech genocides by the US and Europe that has made the 20^th century the bloodiest in human history. Naturally, unable to find real Islamic demons, Bush and his cohorts resorts to demonising Muslims with their demons of the past and present.

Since Islam and Fascism is an oxymoron, this only leaves the followers of Islam, the Muslims. It would only be fair to label the Muslims as Fascists, once they have managed to acquire the track record of Fascist like states, but then they would no longer be Muslims in any case. Listed below are some examples of fascist states and if the Muslims managed to replicate these, then they would qualify to be called Muslim-Fascists (not Islamic-Fascists):

• When the Muslim nations invade and kill over 100,000 innocent civilians based on lies, then you can then call them fascists.

• When the Muslim nations have killed 500,000 children by applying economic sanctions then call them fascists.

• When the Muslim soldiers (Mujahideen) gang rape 14-year-old girls and then burn their bodies, then call them fascists. Ask yourself, would you trust your young daughters with such degenerate US marines or the noble Mujahideen who have never carried out such vile acts? Can you honestly answer this question?

• When the Muslim soldiers sodomise little boys in front of their father, rape little girls in front of her family members, and call such activities as ‘softening up prisoners’ or ‘letting off some steam’, then you may call them fascists.

• When the Muslim soldiers behead thousands using high-tech weapons, not just a few using the low-tech weapons of knife then bestow upon the Muslims the title of fascists.

• When the Muslim soldiers slowly behead people to their deaths using napalm, phosphorus and other similar nasty weapons then call them fascists.

• When the Muslims nuke cities killing 100,000 plus civilians that is on the verge of surrendering then call them fascists.

• When the Muslims annihilate substantial population of a country, like the annihilation of the Native Americans or the Aboriginal of Australia then call them fascists.

• When the Muslims build gas chambers and concentration camps killing thousands then call them fascists.

• When the Muslim mob wearing white hoods, lynch and hang certain racial groups then call them fascists.

• When the Muslims start to demonise a community, as prelude to mass-murder then call them fascists.

• When the Muslims deprive the poorer countries of its natural resources and economic wealth, through the instrument of loans and imposition of dictatorships then you can call them fascists.

All nation states are dormant fascist states, as they depict extreme forms of nationalism it becomes an active fascist state. We get a glimpse of this amongst football hooligans when they start to exhibit nationalism/patriotism by defaming the opponents and foreigners using racial slur. If one is truly opposed to fascism, then one should start by abolishing nation states. A nation state is a pre-cursor to fascism and this is why even certain Muslim states depict fascist behaviour towards its citizens. The regimes of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Uzbekistan are some examples of regimes that are violent as fascists.

According to Islam, the identity of a Muslim is not defined by race; it is defined by adhering to certain set of ideas. You cannot cross the boundaries of race but you can adopt a certain set of ideas and convictions to become a Muslim, regardless of your racial origin. Therefore, the distinction between Islam and Fascism is as clear as the distinction between Islam and democracy, freedom, nationalism, capitalism etc.

However, the Zionist dominated media continues to try and depict Muslims as Fascists. For example, they insinuate that Hitler was aided by Muslims because of their alleged hatred of Jews and their natural inclination towards fascism, where as the truth is: some Muslim movements sought Hitler’s help to free themselves from British colonialism, after suffering from the betrayal of Sykes-Picot. At this rate, with the help of FOX-TV, Hitler will eventually become a Turk and his Mein Kampf is an exegesis of the Quran! Mussolini will be transformed into a Libyan, with his followers in black-shirts and a turban! The fascist axe will turn into a crescent shaped sword.

The world faces a real danger from the fanatical fascists that promotes genocide and mass murder in the name of freedom and democracy. Beneath their call for this ideology is their material interest, making greater profit, securing market and raw materials. These are freedom-fascist, democratic-fascists, capitalist-fascists, Zionist-fascists, neo-con-fascist, they all have the same root and the same mission, kill millions call it liberation, when the victims retaliate label them as fascists, terrorists etc. Fact is, the Muslims are numerically the biggest victim and any retaliation from them is described as fascist or terrorists.

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com

Published in 21/08/2006

Is there a Divine ‘Method’ to Re-Establish the Caliphate (Khilafah)?

Rational necessity coupled with the undisputable evidences in the Islamic texts makes the existence of the Caliphate obligatory for all Muslims. Therefore, in the absence of the Caliphate, its restoration is also an obligation.

Only the Islamic Liberation Party (Hizb-ut-Tahrir) has made the claim that it has extracted the divine method from the Islamic texts through the process of Ijthad (scholarly exertion). The method, meaning that one must undertake the steps as part of an obligation to re-establish the Caliphate. This article disputes this, the points listed below elaborates upon this.

a) The method has been built entirely upon the evidences related to how the first Islamic State was established by the Prophet (SAW) and His companions. Naturally, the pool of evidence extends from how the Prophet (SAW) and His companions took the various steps from the beginning of the divine revelation in Mecca to the migration (Hijra) to Medina. First point to note is there is no evidence in the Hadiths or the Quran that explicitly or implicitly states how the Islamic State should be re-established.

The method is primarily built on extracting the evidences that led to the changing of the non-Islamic system to the Islamic System that manifested in the Islamic State in Medina. Those acts are applied to our current situation to re-establish the Islamic state by changing the non-Islamic system prevailing over Muslims. The common factor being that we are trying to change the political system governing a society. However, reason dictates that one must also look at the differences as well as the similarities in making an analogy between two different scenarios. There is a fundamental difference between the Prophet (SAW) establishing the first Islamic State in the primitive Arabian society, and of our situation of re-establishing the Islamic State amongst Muslims.

Since the two scenarios are so different, one would argue the differences outweigh the similarities thus the evidences extracted from the Seerah (Life of the Prophet) is not even applicable, let alone binding. Hence, one can argue that the establishment of the first Islamic State cannot be a reference point as we are re-establishing the state amongst Muslims.

There is a further significant problem in that the non-Islamic system of Medina was changed and not Mecca, thus the focus should be on those acts related to Medina and this is elaborated in the next point.

b) It is also fact that the Prophet (SAW) brought the entire religion of Islam, which included the establishment of the Islamic State in Medina. Deciphering which acts contributed towards the establishment of the Islamic State in Medina is very much subjective; and difficult given that the state was established in Medina which was transformed largely by Musab Bin Umayr (RA) who had minimal contact with the Prophet (SAW) and functioned almost autonomously.

Thus, with respect to the method, one can legitimately question the value in citing all the actions of the Prophet (SAW) in Mecca, which was geared towards changing the Meccan society, and it is fact that Mecca did not change; in fact it rejected the Prophet (SAW) until the end when it was opened up by force.

The evidences should be taken primarily from the actions of those who made Medina the first Islamic state. Reason dictates that if one is seeking evidences in relation to changing the society then clearly most of the episodes in Mecca should be ignored as it did not change through the actions of the Prophet (SAW) prior to migration to Medina. Rather Mecca remained hostile.

On a side point, those who are incessantly arguing for re-establishing the Islamic State in the Arab lands should note the Arabs in Mecca were amongst the best in Arabic, understood the miraculous nature of Quran very well and related to the Prophet (SAW), yet they rejected the message of Islam. So much for the Arabic language being the factor as the example from Mecca shows otherwise!

c) The claim that a given set of actions stated in the method should be applicable for all time to change different societies is false; - ironically the example of the Seerah proves this as Mecca did not change but Medina did. Therefore, the actions of the Prophet (SAW) showed that they were an attempt to change the society, which may work in some cases and not others, hence cannot be binding for all cases.

Furthermore, there is no corroborative evidence to make those steps obligatory especially given that we are referring to a situation (Seerah) that is fundamentally different to our situation of re-establishing the Islamic State. At most, one can make the case that one is permitted to emulate the steps taken by the Prophet (SAW) in establishing the first Islamic State, but they are not obligatory.

The only action that we can argue as applicable is the interaction with the society that we are attempting to change, and this was carried out by the Prophet (SAW) and His companions. In any case this is self-evident and dictated by rational necessity; and this is so general, thus to claim it is part of the method is meaningless. If we observe history, we see many examples where such changes took place through interaction. In terms of the details as to how one should interact with the society depends on the situation, as stated earlier, the actions failed in Mecca but not Medina. Thus, one is not obliged to follow those actions of the prophet (SAW) and His companions in trying to change the society.

As for the claim that seeking of Nusrah (help from those with ability to change the system) is also, part of the method is elaborated in the next point.

d) Once again the seeking of Nusrah is also dictated by ration as part of the actions that can be undertaken to change the society, however to claim that this is binding for all times as it is considered part of the method is false.

First there is no corroborative evidence for this, and secondly this contradicts the reality as in some cases seeking Nusrah may not be possible. For example, a dictatorial hostile regime would ensure that the persons holding the reigns of power are loyal thus getting Nusrah from them is impossible or unlikely. This is the case in many parts of the Islamic world further corroborated by the failure of HT to attain Nusrah over the last 50 years.

Furthermore, even if someone in a position of Nusrah became convinced of the method that the person(s) would feel obligated to resign from the position as the clear-cut verse that states one cannot be part of a hostile regime ruling by non-Islamic laws. This would nullify the ability to attain Nusrah. Hence, the claim that Nusrah is part of the method is false and it is only permitted to seek it in cases where it is suitable.

The party has also misconstrued the relationship between Nusrah and the use of force, which is discussed in the next point.

e) The constant claim made by the party (Hizb-ut-Tahrir) that it is a non-violent party that is seeking a peaceful change like that which occurred in Medina is false. If we look into the details, the tribes were ready for battle and willing to take on anyone who challenged the authority of the Prophet (SAW) as He entered Medina, and the second pledge given to the Prophet (SAW) by the 12 from Medina included the pledge to fight. Thus, violence was intrinsically linked to the Nusrah of Medina even though it did not occur, but that is incidental. Any change of system in the current times would involve fighting, unless the authority gave up the reigns of power willingly, but that is something one cannot determine or enforce.

In terms of precise evidence for changing the non-Islamic System to an Islamic one, the closest evidence is the Hadiths, which makes explicit references to changing a ruler by the sword if he deviates from the Caliphate. This is used by the Jihad orientated groups. The obvious implication is to use force to restore the caliphate and all the current secular states are in a deviated state. But again, this rule has to be applied with caution as it could lead to substantial loss of life, and this is not decisive either to argue that this is the only method to re-establish the Caliphate.

f) Some dubious arguments have been brought forward by some of the members of the Liberation Party claiming that there is a principle that every obligation (fardh or wajib) must have detailed explanation of how that should be achieved. The implication is that re-establishing the state is an obligation thus there must also be a detailed explanation how that can be achieved. The principle is not from the books of Islamic Jurisprudence, in any case it is irrational as the principle makes little sense in many cases the how (or the method) of an obligation is part and parcel of the definition. For example, the subject of prayer (Salah), the how or the method of the prayer does not exist as the definition of prayer contains how. This is composed of the various acts like the reciting Fathia (a chapter from the Quran), Ruku (bowing) Sujood (prostration) etc. Likewise for fasting, the notion is self-contained, fast by definition means abstaining from food, water and sex for certain duration.

In some cases the method to perform a specific obligation is separate from the obligation itself but there is no rule to say this has to be defined. Note these examples to clarify the point even further –

· It is obliged to fight the enemy in the battlefield but the method to fight the enemy is not defined. It is left to the people to use the appropriate means available to them.

· It is obligatory to cut the hand of the thief but the method is not defined. One can use a sword, and axe or some other sharp object.

· Likewise, it is obliged to re-establish the state but the method has not been defined but left to the people.

· This final example actually proves the point even further. It is obligatory to call the people to pray. The method was not defined initially and the companions with the Prophet (SAW)did not say we have to wait for the revelation to clarify the matter as there is a principle that every obligation must have a method - instead they began to consider the various methods to call people to prayer, until the revelation came to specify the Adhan.

Hence there is no such principle that states that the explanation of the obligation showing how it should be carried out must exist, in some cases the how of an obligation does not, in other cases it does and defined by the text or left for us to decide.

This then brings up the question, what is the correct method to re-establish the Caliphate. The short answer is there is none. There is no explicit text that states you must undertake these sets of actions to re-establish the state.

Therefore, we can use any permissible act to achieve the re-establishment of the state based on the principle of Ibaha, which states that all acts in origin are permissible until the text has forbidden it. So one can use charitable work or missionary type of work, but not acts like adultery to re-establish of the caliphate. This also confirms to the reality as the nature of society has changed significantly since the time of Mecca and different circumstances will require different sets of actions. As stated earlier that Mecca did not respond but Medina did even though bulk of the evidence and effort was focused in Mecca.

One can argue the core elements of society have remained the same like the presence of individuals, political authority and a system governing the various relationships; however, this would be an oversimplification of the problem and naive.

In a tribal society, the power resides with the few tribal leaders, whereas a nation state is far more complex with various facets. Therefore, to bring about a change to a nation state will require a different approach. As stated earlier it may be impossible to gain those (Nusrah) who have the position to alter the society.

In the context of the current times, it is almost a pre-requisite for mass support, thus one may have to resort to agitating the masses to create a mass revolution or uprising, which may eventually turn out to be bloody as we cannot always control how these things will turn out. But where is the evidence from the Seerah that we can agitate the masses to revolt and over turn the society, if Nusrah is the only way to bring about change? Medina did not involve mass agitation; rather it was the product of the people in key position being convinced of the call of Islam and finding it as a convenient solution to their endless feuds. The public opinion played little role in a tribal society.

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

Copyright © Yamin Zakaria 2007

(http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com)