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

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

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

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

A Global Caliphate: Reality or Fantasy?

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

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

Gilad Shalit the ‘Goliath’

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

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

Is Islam a Threat to the West?

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

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

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

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

b) Provide actual evidences of the impending threat.

9/11 – Revisiting Islam versus the Capitalist West

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

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

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

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

The Art of Taxation is not to Tax

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

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

There are four axioms in this tax debate.

Can Libya Reap the Fruits of the Arab Spring?

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

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