Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Healthcare in the Khilafah

Barack Obama signed the controversial US healthcare bill into law today after months of heated debate.

US Healthcare has been under the spotlight in recent years and gained international focus after Michael Moore released his documentary, "Sicko" three years ago. In it, he focused on the failure of the American healthcare system. Particular attention was given to the Insurance Companies and how their purpose was not to help people in need but rather to increase profits. The solution proposed was to have a public healthcare system similar to those in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba.

With an economy in disarray and the rising costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars, you may wonder what is wrong with the US's priorities? The debate over health care in the US centers on whether there is a fundamental right to healthcare, or who should have access to healthcare and on the quality achieved for the high sums spent.

Medical debt is cited as the single biggest factor in 62% of all personal bankruptcy in the United States.

50 million Americans do not have health insurance.

Approximately 18,000 of the 50 million die every year because they do not have health insurance.

The US does not view health as a basic right, but as a privilege. Barack Obama is challenging this view through his reform bill to provide universal health care through health insurance for all. This has been met by wrath from the right wing,

The US does provide a government funded programme the biggest being Medicaid and Medicare. But generally it is up to individuals to obtain health insurance. Most get coverage through their employers, but others sign up for private insurance schemes. Under the terms of most plans, US citizens pay regular premiums, but are required to pay part of the cost of their treatment before the insurer covers the expense. This is the situation of the 250 million people who have health care. It has become a common occurrence for those with health insurance, having to incur much debt after the deductibles for health insurance are removed, causing a significant number to even sell their homes.

So how will a future Khilafah address the issue of healthcare?
Taking care of people's affairs

Islam is a unique system revealed by Allah سبحانه وتعالى that provides the needs for both the individual and society. Allah سبحانه وتعالى being Al-Khaliq - The Creator of all that exists - will evidently know what is best for us. With His infinite knowledge, His system will be able to provide solutions to any problem that human beings have or will encounter. With regards to governance, the Khalifah is entrusted in applying the laws of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. The Khalifah is directly responsible before Allah سبحانه وتعالى for any issue that affects citizens in the Islamic State.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, "He who has been ruler over ten people will be brought shackled on the Day of Resurrection till justice loosens his chains or tyranny brings him to destruction." [Tirmidhi]

The ruler does not only have to respond to the people under his care but must also answer to a higher authority, Malik-al-Mulk (The Owner of All Sovereignty). As such, he must fulfil the obligations placed upon him as this is not only a mandate of the state but is the Ahkam of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Therefore the Khalifah must care for every citizen's need and ensure that they are not facing any undue hardships such as lack of access to healthcare or even long wait times.

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Whoever is put in charge of any of the affairs of the Muslims and remains aloof from them and pays no attention to their needs and poverty, Allah will remain aloof from him on the Day of Resurrection, and will pay no attention to his needs and poverty." [Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim]

The above hadith clearly shows the weight that lies on the shoulders of those in authority. When Umar ibn Abdul Aziz became the Khalifah, he was seen to be rather gloomy. His servant asked him why he was so sad and worried. Umar replied, "Anyone in my shoes should be so; I must deliver and grant all the nation's citizens all their rights, whether they demand them or not."

The care of those under the authority of the state is not judged based on the annual budget or political aspirations but rather it is based on the rights afforded to them by Allah سبحانه وتعالى. This obliges the Khalifah to provide them with the utmost care to the best of his ability regardless of whether the citizens are aware of this right or not and whether they have asked for it or not.
Healthcare in the Khilafah

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Each of you is a guardian and is responsible for those whom he is in charge of. So the ruler is a guardian and is responsible for his subjects." [Bukhari & Muslim]

The Imam is responsible for managing the affairs of the people. One of the basic needs that the Khilafah must provide for is healthcare. When the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم as head of state in Medina was given a doctor as a gift, he assigned him to the Muslims. The fact that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم received a gift and he did not use it, nor take it, rather he assigned it to the Muslims is evidence that healthcare is one of the interests of Muslims.

Since the state is obliged to spend on providing a free healthcare system for all, then part of the Bait ul-Mal's budget must be for healthcare. If insufficient funds are available then a wealth tax will be imposed upon the Muslims to meet the budget deficit.

Unlike the Capitalist system, the Islamic system views the provision of healthcare to its citizens from a human perspective and not an economic aspect. This means that the leader of the Islamic State looks to provide adequate and good quality healthcare to the people, not for the sake of having a healthy workforce that can contribute to the economy but for the sake of fulfilling his duty of looking after the needs of the people in obedience to Allah سبحانه وتعالى.
Medical excellence in Islamic history

When Islam is implemented as a complete system, it provides a means to excel in all fields such as science and technology. In the past, individuals under the Khilafah made a tremendous contribution to the medical field.

The Khilafah was blessed with many first class hospitals and doctors in several of its cities: Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Cordova, Samarqand and many more. Baghdad alone had sixty hospitals with in-patient and out-patient departments and over 1,000 physicians.

Public hospitals like the Bimaristan al-Mansuri Hospital, established in Cairo in 1283, had accommodation for 8,000 patients. There were two attendants for each patient who did everything for his/her comfort and convenience and every patient had his/her own bed, bedding and vessel for eating. It treated in-patients and out-patients giving them free food and medicine.

There were mobile dispensaries and clinics for the proper medical care of the disabled and those living in the villages. The Khalifah, Al-Muqtadir Billah, ordered that every mobile unit should visit each village and remain there for some days before moving to the next.

From the above historical accounts, we see that when the Khulafaa' properly implemented the rules of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, then and only then did a society truly thrive and succeed. However, it is important to keep in mind that material advancement does not equate with true success - seeking the pleasure of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. For the Khulafaa' it was not about simply providing medical services, rather it was to fulfil the needs of the citizens entrusted to them for which they will be held accountable for.

View on the News 24-03-2010

Secret unit finds Muslims and non-Muslims blaming UK government for using terror attacks to justify aggressive foreign policy
The Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), has published for the first time some of the reports from focus groups it has conducted on the attitudes of Muslims and members of the public to terrorism. The unit was started three years ago to provide better information across government departments on how their messages on terrorism have been received. A report, called Understanding Perceptions of the Terms ‘Britishness’ and ‘Terrorism’ found that many in the focus groups could “understand why some UK Muslims resort to extreme violence.” It found that many Muslims believed terrorists were themselves victims who had been manipulated by others into believing it was their religious duty to fight back against British policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The research also found that many Muslims believed that the British and US governments are themselves “terrorists” for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Some argued that terrorists could be labeled “freedom fighters” and a small number who participated in the groups said they believed al-Qaeda was a “media or US government creation used to demonise Muslims.” Worryingly for the UK government, both Muslims and non-Muslims said they believed the Government “used terrorist attacks to justify aggressive foreign policies in Iraq and Afghanistan” and several added that it had “increased rather than diminished the threat of terrorism within the UK” by increasing the risk of reprisals.

Lebanese army fires on Israeli jets

The Lebanese army says it has opened fire on two Israeli warplanes that were violating the country’s airspace at medium altitude. “The army’s anti-aircraft guns fired at two Israeli warplanes overflying Hasbaya in southeastern Lebanon,” the Lebanese army said in statement. Israel’s regular overflights across southern Lebanon are in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the statement added. The resolution calls on Tel Aviv to stop invading Lebanon’s sovereignty by land, sea and air. Resolution 1701 was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council in August 2006 that brought to end Israel’s 33-day war on Lebanon, during which Israeli forces failed to achieve any of their objectives. The violation occurred amid Israel’s escalating war threats in the region. The army says Israeli warplanes have entered Lebanese airspace on an almost-daily basis during the past months.

Turkey presses for major constitutional changes

Turkey’s pro-American governing party and the country’s staunchly secular judiciary traded insults on Tuesday over whether to overhaul the country’s Constitution. Senior judicial bodies, responding to constitutional changes proposed Monday by the leadership of the governing Justice and Development Party, called the proposals unlawful and a direct challenge to the judiciary’s independence. But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, argued that the proposals derived from international practices and would promote a more democratic state. The party has proposed major structural changes to the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors, both strongholds of the secular state; these would give the government more oversight authority over the courts. Both bodies have been critical of the governing party’s ‘roots in political Islam’ and criticized what they called government infringement on the judiciary.

British military intelligence ran renegade torture unit in Iraq

Fresh evidence has emerged that British military intelligence ran a secret operation in Iraq which authorised degrading and unlawful treatment of prisoners. Documents reveal that prisoners were kept hooded for long periods in intense heat and deprived of sleep by defence intelligence officers. They also reveal that officers running the operation claimed to be answerable only “directly to London”. The revelations will further embarrass the British government, which last month was forced to release documents showing it knew that UK resident and terror suspect Binyam Mohamed had been tortured in Pakistan.The latest documents emerged during the inquiry into Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel worker beaten to death while in the custody of British troops in September 2003. The inquiry is looking into how interrogation techniques banned by the Government in 1972 and considered torture and degrading treatment were used again in Iraq.Lawyers believe the new evidence supports suspicions that an intelligence unit – the Joint Forward Interrogation Team (JFIT) which operated in Iraq – used illegal “coercive techniques” and was not answerable to military commanders in Iraq, despite official denials it operated independently.In a statement to the inquiry, Colonel Christopher Vernon said he raised concerns after seeing 30 to 40 prisoners in a kneeling position with sacks over their heads. He said those in charge said they were from the Defence and Intelligence Security Centre, based at Chicksands, Bedfordshire, the British Army’s intelligence HQ.

Taliban say not involved in Kabul peace talks

A Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said his movement, which refers to itself as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the country's name when it ruled from 1996-2001, had not altered its position: that no talks could be held until troops withdraw. "The Islamic Emirate has a clear position. We have said this many, many times. There will be no talks when there are foreign troops on Afghanistan's soil killing innocent Afghans on daily basis," Mujahid said. Although direct contacts between the government and senior Taliban officials have been denied by both sides, Western officials say they believe indirect and lower-level contacts have taken place throughout eight years of war. The outgoing U.N. mission chief in Kabul, Kai Eide, said last week he had held meetings with Taliban representatives over the past year, which ended abruptly this year when Pakistan arrested the number two Taliban leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. Some Afghan officials have said the government had made contact with Baradar, and blame Islamabad for arresting him to ensure that it has leverage over any future talks. Karzai's spokesman has said the government had no "direct" contacts with Baradar, but declined to comment on whether it had had "indirect" contacts.

Greece and the impending worldwide crisis of government debt

The debt crisis in Greece is ample proof that the world is still reeling from the global financial crisis that occurred in the aftermath of Lehman Brothers' collapse in September 2008. Initially only a handful of governments like Pakistan, Ukraine, Iceland and some Eastern European were affected by the credit crunch. These countries had to borrow money to meet their debt obligations and ensure fiscal stability.

But now, the crisis threatens to overwhelm several European countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal and may even spread to countries like Britain and America. Just this week the IMF said that the crisis of the past two-and-a-half years had affected public finances across the globe in a way not seen since the Second World War. In 2007, when the credit crunch began, 40% of countries sampled by the IMF were running budget surpluses, but by 2009 this had dropped to 10%. Countries with deficits higher than 3% of national output (gross domestic product) increased from 20% to 70%. In advanced economies, the ratio of debt to GDP was projected to rise from 73% in 2007 to 109% in 2014, the highest it has been since the early 1950s.

IMF revelations come at a juncture, when deep fissures have emerged amongst world's leading capitalist countries, as they struggle to grapple with the prevalent debt situation. The transatlantic relationship is under a new strain as America and EU bicker on how best to restrain hostile speculators and aggressive hedge funds. Whilst in Europe, schisms between Europe and Germany over aid to Greece have undermined the European Union's collective response to the crisis. Germany is averse to providing financial help to Greece as she believes that Greece has not learnt from its mistakes of the past such as the exaggeration of fiscal accounts. Others in Europe have detested IMF interference and have called for a European fund to bailout debt stricken European economies-much to America's annoyance. So how did the West allow the global financial crisis to spread its tentacles so far and wide?

If one recalls the crisis was limited to the banking sector, but soon engulfed the whole financial sector as well as big corporate companies across the world. In a frantic effort to offset the global financial crisis, America and Europe spearheaded world-wide initiatives such as quantitative easing, introducing huge fiscal stimulus packages, buying financial assets (government and company bonds) and lowering of interest rate. These measures at best provided a temporary respite, but came at a huge cost.

Governments around the world had to borrow heavily from the international money markets to finance such initiatives. In essence the money was used to prop-up the ailing banking sector, by transferring private debt into public debtor or in layman's eyes taking tax payers' money and giving it to the rich financial institutions at the expense of everyone else. Very little of the money was used restructure the archaic financial system or invested to increase the manufacturing capability of the nations. Consequently, governments were saddled with huge mountains of debt and people were left out of pocket. International speculators quickly seized on the inability of governments to reduce enormous debts on their balance sheets. The speculators hedged and forced the currency of such countries to depreciate.

To counter rampant speculation, many experts advocate strong austerity measures to reduce government debt. However, reducing debt through cutting back on fiscal spending or raising taxes and interest rates is no remedy to dysfunctional capitalist economies that are on the verge of extinction. Unless the Capitalist States are prepared to back currencies with gold and silver, abolish privatization of public utilities, change property ownership laws that lie at the very heart of speculative economies the world will continue to head towards an economic catastrophe not witnessed before.
It is during such times that Muslims around the world must rise to expose the fallacies of the capitalist economic system and become strong advocates for the return of the Caliphate. Only the Caliphate can lift the world out of its economic misery and restore economic systems and policies that are just for black and white, rich and poor, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

More Muslim blood spilt in Hyderabad Riots

Hyderabad is being described as sliding back into the Stone Age as a fourth day of riots hits the city. Curfews have been implemented and extended. Reports are emerging of mobs running riot, homes being set alight, looting, with one person stabbed to death. Pedestrians and people in their cars were targeted by the mobs and many of them had their vehicles set alight.

India since its creation has been rocked by communal riots, where minority communities have been massacred. The Gujarat massacre in 2002 led to nearly 1000 Muslims being butchered with the help of the local police. This is not the first time events have simmered beyond control in India's Southern city of Hyderabad. Hyderabad saw its worst communal riots in 1989, which were triggered after Marri Chenna Reddy took over as chief minister, frustrating the attempts of another powerful faction in the Congress which wanted to see its leader in power.

This latest wave of riots comes at a time when the central government has dithered over its pledge to grant statehood to Telangana, a region of Andhra Pradesh state that would encompass Hyderabad. Telangana activists have speculated that the best way to capture New Delhi's attention is to threaten the economic security of Andhra Pradesh's prized IT hub, Hyderabad. This would not be the image Indian policymakers wish to portray to investors.

The Indian central government has thus far been extremely vague on the details and timeline of the Telangana statehood plan, with no mention of the status of Hyderabad. Redrawing the map and placing Hyderabad in an undeveloped Telangana state under a fledgling government authority would cause intense concern for investors. With rumours circulating that Hyderabad could instead be declared a union territory, separate from Andhra Pradesh and a newly created Telangana state and be run directly by the government in New Delhi, this would completely derail the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) political party's ambitions. When India's central government allied with the TRS to come to power, congress promised the creation of an independent Telangana state. The central government now loathes the prospect of placing Hyderabad's economic future in jeopardy for the sake of Telangana claims to statehood.

Whilst the details of the riots are still emerging it appears that Hindu groups replaced flags planted by Muslims in the locality with Hindu Saffron ones during the Hanuman Jayanti festival on Saturday 27th March 2010. A similar communal clash occurred in Kurmaguda-Santosh Nagar area of the old city the previous week when green flags were removed by some people to put saffron flags on the occasion of the Hindu festival of Ram Navmi.

A survey report of the riot-affected areas in the Old City by Cova by a citizen activist group, has thrown light on the fact that the clashes were orchestrated. "Armed mobs were brought in and the whole thing was planned. What we could gather was that the various localities were first surveyed by a group of 30-40 youths who left after initiating chaos. Then the armed mobs followed and attacked each other," a member of the group said.

Many in congress are describing the current riots as being orchestrated. Eyewitnesses confirmed what politicians alleged. While armed instigators wore masks and carried out an SMS campaign to spread attacks across the Old City, locals said that outsiders orchestrated the violence. One resident described: "I am a resident of this locality for the past several years and can recognise all the trouble-makers. Normally, when trouble breaks out, we look for a local face so that we can make peace through them and sort out the issue without violence. But in this instance, there were no locals and these people ignored our pleas," said a Begum Bazar businessman.

Has this episode all been engineered? This has already been established. On Monday 29th March 2010 Hyderabad City Police Commissioner AK Khan, briefing the media about the clashes described the clashes in the Old City as an ‘organised attempt' by some persons which would be probed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT). Khan said, "It looks like some persons incited the violence deliberately."

Observers have said that there were no riots even after the Mecca Masjid, Lum bini Garden and Gokul Chat bomb blasts in the city. "That is because the masses from both the communities are not interested in trouble. This clearly shows a sinister hand behind the incidents," an analyst said.

Such communal riots have historically been used by politicians to achieve their own political ends. The Gujarat massacre in 2002 was used by Narendra Modi to hold onto his seat of Chief Minister of the state of Gujrat. Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh's most densely populated district last saw such riots in 1989 when Marri Chenna Reddy took over as chief minister, frustrating the attempts of another powerful faction in the Congress which wanted to see its leader in power.

In an attempt to force the government's hand on the issue, Telangana activists have previously caused major disruptions in the city and surrounding areas through strikes, blockades and sporadic attacks on businesses. Some Telangana political activists are now accusing members of the ruling Congress party of sparking this recent spate of communal riots in an attempt to stave off a decision on Telangana, claiming that the riots were designed to support Congress assertions that the division of the state would lead to an escalation of Hindu-Muslim tensions.

This episode once again shows how cheap Muslim blood has become, where the enemies of Islam spill the blood of Ummah to achieve their own political ends. Across the world a number of nations have spilt Muslim blood to achieve their political objectives. The US has killed over 500 000 Muslim children to gain Iraq's coveted oil fields. Zardari and Musharraf both spilt Muslim blood to please their masters. The blood of the Ummah is now spilt by the Muslim rulers.

When the Romans invaded Malatya, (part of Turkey today), in 840 many of its citizens were killed, whilst the women were taken as slaves, it included a Muslim women who was a descendent of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. On hearing about her cries Al-Mu'tasim Billah, the Khaleefah led a huge army to the ‘Amuriyyah fort, where she was imprisoned. Overrunning the fortresses and then conquering the territory, the Muslim woman was freed from her chains. The fort was destroyed and Al-Mu'tasim said to her ‘be a witness with your grandfather Al-Mustafa, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, that I came to rescue you'.

It was the Khilafah that defended the honour of the Muslims, caring little for the geographical boundaries and borders.
Abdullah bin Umar said - I saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم doing tawwaf around the Ka'aba saying "How sweet/ good are you and how sweet is your scent. How great are you and how great is your sanctity. By the One who the soul of Mohammad biyadihi the sanctity of a believer is greater with Allah than your sanctity." [ibn Majah]

Monday, March 15, 2010

International Women's day: Celebration or Commiseration

The 8th March 2010 saw the 100th anniversary of International women's day in which women come together globally to celebrate the political, social and economic inroads that women have made in the last century. It is an official holiday in China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The UN gave it official recognition in 1975.

At the turn of the 20th century women began to see the fruits of their battle to gain the right to vote; and following a conference for working women in 1910 in Copenhagen, Clara Zetkin, (leader of the Women's Office for the Social Democratic Party in Germany) spearheaded the launch of a day for the recognition of women's rights.

Women globally have made some progress since the industrial revolution when scores of women entered the work place. The discussion of women's rights began to take shape in the early 1800s when women were denied the right to vote, denied the right to own property, they were denied entitled entitlement to inheritance, denied education and were generally employed as home helps and paid a meagre wage.

The Enlightenment saw the ‘rights for women' movement become political. John Stuart Mills the political theorist wrote: "We are continually told that civilization and Christianity have resorted to the woman her just rights. Meanwhile the wife is the actual bondservant of her husband; no less so, as far as the legal obligation goes, than slaves commonly so called."

By 1915 most European states had given women the right to vote. The United States and Britain had had passed laws which protected the property of women from their husbands and their husband's creditors. The fight for education for women saw the emergence of the first university for women in the US in 1821, in 1841 women were formally allowed to teach at universities. In 1873 mothers were granted guardianship for children in cases of divorce.

In the 1970's Equal Pay Act's and the Sex Discrimination Act's were passed across the Western world. The National Organisation for Women was founded in 1966 in the US. The organisation lobbied aggressively to secure equal pay for women. Women now make up 50% of the degrees earned at college, compared to the figure of less than 20% at the turn of the 20th Century. Also in the US, 36% of all doctors are women.

It is these successes many around the world come out and celebrate every March 8th. However, a closer scrutiny at the real situation draws a much dimmer picture. Richard H. Robbins in his award winning book Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, he noted: "the informal slogan of the Decree of Woman became: women do two thirds of the world's work, receive ten per cent of the world's income and own 1 per cent of the means of production."

Globally the statistics and facts released every year about the emancipation of women suggest that women have regressed to the position that they were in prior to the Enlightenment era. Two thirds of all children denied school are girls around the world and of the world's 876 million illiterate adults, 75% are women.

Domestic violence is the biggest cause of injury and death of women world wide, ironically the UN officially commemorates an International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on the 25th November each year. In the US only nearly 45% of domestic violence is reported to the police. The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. Of these, 21.6% were younger than the age of 12.

In the workplace, a recent survey by the Fawcett Society found that of the 2,742 board seats available in the top 350 companies listed on the London stock exchange, only 242 were occupied by women, and most of those were non-executive directorships. Those who have entered London's prestige's City have found they are potentially only an object of desire for men and not much else. A survey by the BBC News Online (Laddism in the City, 10/4/2001) showed the plight of many women working in the city; many say they are "touched up by both colleagues, contacts or competitors...and think objecting could be bad for business". ‘Team building' meetings and ‘client facing' often take place in strip clubs or seedy bars and, as one women put it, opting out is not an option; "You had to be part of the gang... they see it as seriously affecting their profits (if you miss these events.)"

In the Muslim world women in Bangladesh suffer from acid battery attacks at an alarming rate; women in Pakistan are raped for daring to make an allegation of rape. Tribal laws saw Mukhtar Mai in 2002 gang-raped on orders of a tribal council for acts allegedly committed by her brother.

The feminist movement has gone full circle. German writer and TV newsreader Eva Herman recently wrote that "Let's just say it loud, we women have overburdened ourselves - we allowed ourselves to be too easily seduced by career opportunities." She recommends women exchange the cold sphere of work for the "colourful world of children" and discover their "destiny of nurturing the home environment."

Regardless of the introduction of laws and global women's organisations, women remain disadvantaged. Some argue that the Gender Equality movement has further entrenched the problems that women suffer since they are now expect to be equal to a man, work as hard as a man, and commit as much as a man. This notion is contradictory since "gender" points to the biological differences between men and women, "gender equality" eliminates gender from the discussion entirely. A research paper by Professor Jacqueline Adhiambo-Oduol concluded that: "A built-in tension exists between this concept of equality, which presupposes sameness, and this concept of sex which presupposes difference. Sex equality becomes a contradiction in terms, something of an oxymoron." (Adhiambo-Oduol. J. ‘The socio-cultural aspects of the gender question, US International University-Africa, Dec 2001)

Islam on the other hand is not gender based. It came as a mercy to mankind and not to cause a battle of the sexes, which will always bring about an imbalance. Whilst women were struggling with the right to vote, women in Madina during the time of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and subsequently were entitled to vote and had an obligation to assume a political voice. It was a woman who accounted Umar ibn Khattab (the second rightly guided khaleefah) when he attempted to set a limit on the dowry that women could request. Aisha (ra) was revered for her extensive knowledge, often giving rulings to the shahabah when there was a dispute.

Women are permitted to be employees and employers. She can trade, be a teacher, nuclear physicist, own and sell property and enter into various economic transactions. Annemarie Schimmel, the influential German Orientalist and scholar stated: "Islamic progress meant an enormous progress; the woman has the right, at least according to the letter of the law, to administer the wealth she has brought into the family or has earned by her own work."

It was Fatima al Fihri under the Khilafah that built the first university in 841 CE. A well educated woman herself, she opened the al-Qarawiyin in Fez, Morocco. Amongst other subjects, the sciences were also taught at the university.

Women faced the protection of their honour under the khilafah. It was khaleefah Mutassim who sent an entire army to the Roman Empire upon hearing that a Muslim woman had been dishonoured by a Roman soldier.

Upon understanding the real protection and nurturing that a Khilafah state would bring men and women alike, is it any wonder that there is an overwhelming call for its return. The vast majority of those polled in a Gallup survey in 2005 said that they would want to see Shari'ah as the sole source of legislation. It is only the Khilafah that will ensure the rights of all citizens, men and women, Muslim and non- Muslim. History pertains to that fact. Islam is as applicable today as it was before the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924. Allah سبحانه وتعالى tells us as much in the Holy Qur'an:
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا
"This day I have perfected your deen for you and completed my favour upon you and chosen Islam as your deen." (al-Maidah, 5:3)

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The Insignificant Settlement of Danish Newspaper Politiken, the Hateful Criticism and the Fraudulent Cheers

In light of the settlement between some Muslim organisations and Politiken on the reprinting of the hateful cartoons of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, the following points should be clarified:

Firstly: The settlement includes a pseudo-apology in which Politiken doesn't apologize for the insult of the Messenger, but for the sore and pain caused to the Muslims by the insult. At the same time the newspaper reserves the right to repeat the same insult as the newspaper insists on what it describes as "the right to reprint the cartoons"! In return, Politiken has demanded that the Muslim organisations abandon prosecuting the newspaper. This ridiculous apology equals saying to a man after beating him: "I will not apologise for beating you, but for the pain that arose subsequently. And moreover, I reserve the right to beat you again, when it suits me. As a condition, you will not get my apology unless you cease to complain about my beating!"

Secondly: The subsequent criticism of this settlement from the Danish media and politicians confirm their fierce hatred for Islam and the vast disregard of the feelings of the Muslims. And it reminds us that the hateful cartoons of the Messenger came a few days after the Minister of Culture encouraged cultural people and artists to insult the Qur'an and the honored Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم! Hence, the cartoons at the time were a culmination of the hateful strategy, which Western media and politicians led against the Muslims under the shadow of the war against "terror"!
Thirdly: Because of the treacherous regimes in the Islamic world, who remain passive towards the repeated insults to the sanctities of the Muslims and towards the persistent aggression against the Muslims, every hateful soul has the audacity to insult the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. This crowd of wretched rulers has thus brought forth a humiliating state, which makes some Muslims satisfied with a pseudo-apology coupled with absurd reservations! Worse still is that some shameless Muslims praise and rejoice over this pointless settlement in order to legitimise their cooperation with hateful Western politicians and institutions! While politicians repeat phrases such as "freedom of expression must not be compromised", which means that the insults towards the Messenger should continue without prejudice, these Muslims claim that the settlement confirms that the way forward is dialogue and cooperation with hateful politicians, who are also taking part in the aggression against the Muslims in Afghanistan at the moment!

Finally, we Muslims should know that the insult towards the Messenger is not resolved through conciliation with media, which reserves "the right" to repeat the insult. On the contrary, it must be resolved through the establishment of the Khilafah-State, which has the capacity to put a final end to the repeated insults to the sanctities of Muslims. The Khilafah-State, that begins with showing recognition of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم by implementing the Shari'ah, which he conveyed. It is now clear that the trade boycott, demonstrations, protests and condemnations of the Muslims at best result in a pseudo-apology with absurd reservations! Because there are some hateful and arrogant enemies who only understand the language of force! And effective sanctions against the enemies of the Muslims, be they political, economic or military sanctions, can only be achieved by the presence of the Islamic Khilafah-State. We therefore call on the Muslims and especially the powerful among them to cooperate with Hizb ut-Tahrir to overthrow the regimes in the Islamic world and establish the shield, Khilafah-Rashidah, which protects our sanctities, implements the Shari'ah of the Messenger and puts an end to the violations, which the Islamic nation is continuously experiencing.

Media-Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir - Scandinavia
28th of February 2010 CE

Gaddafi's Deceitful call for Jihad

The Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi in a long running dispute with Switzerland declared "Let us wage jihad against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression. Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against Muhammad, God and the Koran." Such a declaration is unusual for most of the Muslim rulers who have become accustomed to selling out the Ummah.

The response of the international community has been the usual outrage. "Such declarations on the part of the head of state are inadmissible in international relations," said Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the UN chief in Geneva. Philip Crowley, US State Department spokesman said "...a call for jihad against any country or individual has the potential to harm and is not something the United States takes lightly." Whilst the EU said "If these reports are correct, they come at a most unfortunate moment." The international community saw fit to comment on this largely bilateral affair between Switzerland and Libya; they however remained silent when Switzerland banned the construction of minarets in December 2009.

The row began after the arrest of Gaddafi's son Hannibal and his wife in Geneva in July 2008. They were accused of assaulting two servants while staying at a luxury hotel in the Swiss city, though the charges were later dropped. Libya retaliated by cancelling oil supplies, withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss banks, refusing visas to Swiss citizens and recalling some of its diplomats. Switzerland retaliated by blacklisting 188 high-ranking Libyans, denying them entry permits.

Whilst both nations have used this tit-for-tat quarrel to achieve other aims, Gaddafi is most certainly not sincere to Islam by calling for Jihad. In 1977 Colonel Gaddafi, openly announced that the ahadeeth mentioned by the tongue of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم are of doubtful authenticity because they were compiled two hundred years after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Globally the concept of Jihad has been maligned by the West. Unfortunately some from the Ummah even embarrassed about the concept of Jihad and began calling for struggle against ones nafs (desires) using a fabricated hadith in their attempt the change the meaning of Jihad. The West has a long history with the Ummah who on many occasions through jihad successfully defeated Western Christian attempts at defeating the Ummah. Having Jihad declared against you by the Khilafah was something the whole world feared in the past; such was the standing of the Khilafah and the Ummah. Today Jihad doesn't create fear in the West whilst the Muslim rulers embarrass the Ummah as they act as lackeys for the West when they do call for Jihad.

There are many examples from Islamic history where the Khilafah undertook manoeuvres, was proactive or threatened the enemies of Islam creating fear across the world, what follows are some examples:


- Byzantine Emperor John V was forced to sign an unfavorable treaty with Orhan in 1356 that recognised his Thracian losses (Balkan Peninsula). The son of Osman, Orhan I, conquered Nicaea in 1331 and Nicomedia in 1337 and established the capital in Bursa. During Orhan's reign the Khilafah was organised as a state with a new currency, government and a modern army. Osman married Theodora, the daughter of Byzantine prince John VI Cantacuzenus. In 1346 Orhan openly supported John VI in the overthrowing of the emperor John V Palaeologus. When John VI became co-emperor (1347-1354) he allowed Orhan to raid the peninsula of Gallipoli which gained the Uthmani's their first stronghold in Europe.

- In 1783 the first US navy boat started to sail in international waters and within two years was captured by the Uthmani navy near Algeria. In 1793 12 more US navy boats were captured. In March 1794 the US Congress authorized President Washington to spend up to 700 000 gold coins to build strong steel boats that would resist the Uthmani navy. Just a year later the US signed the Barbary Treaty to resolve the Uthmani threat. Barbary, was the term for the North African wilaya's of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, under the rule of the Ottomans.

The terms of the treaty were:








The Khilafah of the past was feared throughout the world. Any attack on any Muslim was considered an attack on the whole Ummah and was dealt with severely. Today the Muslim rulers like Gaddafi sit idly when the Muslims of Palestine are butchered by the Israelis. They in fact participate by having cordial relations with such nations. The Muslim rulers will continue to use Islam to show the Ummah they have some semblance of the deen in them. The Ummah however will never be deluded at the acts of the rulers who have shown on numerous occasions that they are the enemies of Islam.

Monday, March 08, 2010

Marjah and War Propaganda

NATO forces launched a major offensive in Afghanistan in early February. Despite their claims of bringing peace, justice and security, the reality is that these forces have brought only death and ruin to the people of Afghanistan. Just as they did in Iraq, the Capitalist nations lie about their objectives and the facts on the ground to sell their war to the people of the world. We should be aware of this propaganda and see through the lies. We must realize that at the heart of the war lies their ambition to impose Capitalist system on Afghanistan; a system which has brought ruin and misery to mankind.

On February 13th, 2010, NATO forces led by America launched a major offensive, named ‘Operation Moshtarak’, in the town of Marjah located in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. According to Major General Nick Carter, commander of NATO in south Afghanistan, some 15,000 troop are involved in the operation to take control of Marjah, an alleged Taliban stronghold.

This operation took place less than two weeks after all the parties involved in the Afghan conflict met at various European venues to hammer out a deal to bribe the Taliban, offer reconcilable elements of ‘normal lives,' and bring the Taliban leadership into some sort of political settlement. Before the ink had even dried on the various communiqués that were issued, US Marines, with support from the Afghan military, launched the operation – the first major offensive since Obama’s inauguration and reputably the largest operation since the beginning of the war in 2001.

Western media reports of Operation Moshtarak are promoting the line that this is different from previous operations: the priority of the occupying armies is to protect Afghan civilian life. According to the US Gen Stanley McChrystal, the Americans are putting the protection of civilians at the heart of the military operation. Similarly, the British have allegedly adopted a policy of "courageous restraint".

Invasion of Afghanistan: Behind the Rhetoric

President Obama in his West Point Address in December 2009, briefing the world on his War on Afghanistan and Pakistan, claimed that America would “speak out” on “human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples.” Similar promises were recently made by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He claimed that his troops were doing their best to make sure civilians were not killed. However, the climbing death toll in Afghanistan illustrates the emptiness of these statements and promises. Since the operation began, the following has occurred:

• On February 21st, 27 were killed and 12 injured in a NATO airstrike. The dead included 4 women and 1 child.

• On February 15th, 3 locals had died in separate incidents. The occupying forces shot them because they feared they were insurgents.

• On February 15th NATO reported that 5 civilians were killed in a NATO airstrike; they were deliberately targeted in the mistaken belief that they were planting roadside bombs.

• On February 14th, 12 people, including six children, died in an artillery strike.

NATO is not alone in propagating lies about the war. The UN has also entered into this arena. In January 2010, the UN announced a 14 percent increase in civilian deaths from 2008. The report claimed that 70 percent of civilian deaths last year (1,630) were caused by the insurgents. According to the UN, NATO and allied Afghan forces were responsible for 25 percent of the deaths (596), down from 39 percent (828) in 2008. However, the report was incomplete as it only accounted for areas where the media had access. In other words, the data came only from areas where NATO and its puppets from the Afghani government were in control, raising many doubts about the credibility of the data and report. More importantly the report tried to blame the deaths on the people resisting occupation – the people who are sacrificing life and limb to defend their homes and families! If these fighters are not supported by the local population, then who is giving them sanctuary, supplies and food?

Afghanistan: A War of Occupation

The war in Afghanistan is clearly a war of occupation. The goal is for the US to dominate the country to secure its economic and strategic interests in the region. The US, for decades, has sought to install a permanent foothold in the Central Asian region that includes Afghanistan. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor of US President Jimmy Carter, highlighted in “The Grand Chessboard” the need to acquire the “potential economic prize” within the Central Asian region. He described that an “enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold”. To make this vision a reality they tried to work with the Taliban. As revealed in the book "Bin Laden, the forbidden truth” (authored by two French intelligence analysts), the US threatened the Taliban with the terms, “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs”. So when they refused, America did fulfill its promise of burying Afghanistan under a carpet of bombs.

Canadian troops are also being sent for economic purposes.However, this policy is to appease the US and secure the $2 billion (per day) worth of trade with the US. Therefore, failing to support the US war in Afghanistan may jeopardize the economic growth of Canada.
Media and War: Seeing through the lies
Allah (swt) revealed:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَأٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا

“Believers, if a fasiq (transgressor) brings you news, verify it first.”[TMQ 49:6]

Based on this ayah, it is an obligation for Muslims to verify news about political events, especially those that relate to the Ummah.

Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the media in the Capitalist nations lie when conducting their wars be they against Muslims or non-Muslims. Such lies are necessary to sell wars to the citizens of their countries. The idea of manipulating the masses began in World War I. During this time, a significant part of the US population had recently emigrated from Europe to escape the perpetual wars that had plagued the continent. Therefore, they were not eager to support the initiative to take the US into World War I. To resolve this problem, President Woodrow Wilson and his administration set up the “Committee on Public Information” to disseminate propaganda in order to whip up the sentiment for war.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the US President George H. Bush (father of the last president, George W. Bush) repeatedly lied about Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators. The source of the lies was the false testimony of Nayirah, who was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the US. Hill & Knowlton, a public-relations firm, had prepped her to make these lies, so that the American-led invasion of Iraq could be sold to the public.

In 2003, Scott Ritter came public with the allegations that British Intelligence had recruited him in 1997 “to convince the public that Iraq was a far greater threat than it actually was”. The operation, code-named “Operation Mass Appeal”, was designed to create public opinion for the sanctions that killed approximately 2 million Iraqi children.

On the build up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration attempted to use the sale of uranium (i.e. “yellow cake”) to Iraq, Saddam’s connection to Al-Qaeda, and the fact that it had weapons of mass destruction to persuade the public that their case for war was legitimate. However, all these claims have been proven false.

The bombing campaigns in the north western areas of Pakistan conducted by Bush and now Obama have attempted to portray the targets as being terrorists. In reality, they are targeting regular people to destabilize the country.

Thus, we must not believe what the media reports on wars against the Ummah, unless we can independently verify them.

When reviewing the empty promises of Obama, we recognize that they sound familiar. In fact, similar pledges were made by his predecessor, President Bush, who stated that his invasion of Iraq would bring about “a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law”. Today we see the reality of Iraq with over 1 million people displaced because of the US led invasion of the country.

The promise of democracy in Afghanistan has already proven to be false. The recent elections were deemed fraudulent not only by Afghanistan's vote monitoring body, but also by the American official, Peter Galbraith, Amnesty International and international election monitors. In spite of this blatant corruption, America continues to use the discredited Karzai regime.

With respect to the policy of “courageous restraint”, the reality is that the occupying forces will take every measure to protect themselves first and foremost – even if that means shooting Afghan civilians. Such was the case of those deliberately targeted and shot in the belief that they were planting road side bombs.

Media reports about the current operation are only from journalists embedded with the UK and US forces, so it is their version of events in Marjah that is being promoted to a war-wary western audience. It seems that operation Moshtarak has been designed as a way to show a skeptical western audience that by employing a new strategy, some progress is being made.

In addition to the killing of Afghan civilians, there has been hardly any mention of the suffering of thousands of families who have to flee from Marjah ahead of this US and UK assault for fear of their lives. These families fled to Laskah Gah and are now left to fend for themselves in a cold winter month, hardly a good way for western forces to win their hearts! Despite all the talk of protecting Afghan civilians, the reality is that of a brutal war that is still attempting to subdue the Afghan people and is only doomed to fail because the Afghan resistance is indigenous and self-sustaining and, like all occupied people, they will continue to defend their men, women, children and homes against this latest western occupation of another Muslim land.

Based on this analysis, we have sufficient evidence to realize that the wars launched by the Capitalist nations are fundamentally driven by their desire to impose their system on the Muslim world and humanity at large. Consequently, when we witness the media negatively portraying those who resist foreign occupation, we cannot believe such reports as the media always lies to further the nation’s foreign policy. Also, RasulAllah (saw) advised the Ummah to be aware of falling into the same trap more than once. He (saw) said:
“The believer is never stung from the same hole twice.”[Bukhari]

After witnessing the blatant lies regarding Iraq’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction”, we as Muslims cannot honestly believe the claims of Capitalist nations that go to war.
May Allah (swt) make the truth clear from falsehood, and assist us in seeing past the deception. Ameen.

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ (11) أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَكِنْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ

“And when it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers." Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.”[TMQ 2:11-12]

The Challenge of developing the Islamic Personality in the Western Lands












We should take heed in the ahadith about the heart.







It is also reported that the Prophet (saw) said:













The sincere da'wa carrier instead of arrogantly brushing aside these perceptions would deeply contemplate the causes of it and work to rectify it. Those who encountered the atmosphere of the Sahaba or the great scholars of the past were often positively affected by it, even those who opposed the opinions of some of the Ulema would praise them for their piety and knowledge rather than scorn them.

Abu Ismael

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Q&A: Benefiting from Public Property in the Khilafah

The following text is found in the draft constitution:

"Article 140 - Every individual from the individuals of the community (ummah) has the right to derive benefit from public ownership. The State has no right to allow any particular individual to possess, own or utilise publicly owned properties to the exclusion of other citizens."

In our books we find the hadith, "The Muslims are partners in three..." as well as the hadith, "The people are partners in three..." In light of this, the question is as follows.

The article says that benefit from public property is for the individuals of the Ummah, not for every citizen, or for the individuals of the society. As for the ahādith one mentions ‘Muslims' and the other mentions ‘people'. Thus is the case that we have used the principle of interpreting the general in light of the specific and thereby understood that the intent of ‘people' in one of the two narrations is ‘Muslims', and hence there is no right for the Ahl al-Dhimmah in the public property (except for the public utilities, as the evidences clearly indicate), or is there some other understanding in this issue? Barak Allahu feekum.



The word ‘Ummah' is of those words which have more than one meaning [mushtarak]. It is used to refer to one person, a community, the Muslims, the citizens, the deen, etc. The intended meaning in a given usage is determined by an indication [qarīnah].

In the text of the above article we intended by ‘Ummah' the meaning of ‘citizens' [ra'iyyah], and this intent is indicated explicitly; we mention at the end of the article, "to the exclusion of other citizens [dūna bāqi al-ra'iyyah]".

This is with respect to the understanding of the text of the article.As for the understanding of the two ahadith and the derivation that ‘citizens' are intended by the word ‘people' and the word ‘Muslims' in these ahadith, it is as follows:

2- Specification [takhsīs] is clarification [bayān], thus if a general expression is found as well as a more general expression, the matter requires consideration: if the first general word is a clarifier for the second more general word than the former specifies the latter; if not, then both remain general and in need of clarification by specification and the former is an individual case [fard] of the latter (the general is merely one case of the more general).

In the two ahādīth ‘people' is more general than ‘Muslims'. However both texts are in need of a further clarification. This is because if you say that ‘Muslims' specifies ‘people' than the legal rule [hukm shar'i] is that the public property is for Muslims, and this is not the case because it is not for all Muslims. The Muslim who lives outside the Islamic State, that is, is not from its citizens, has no share in the public property of the state, and this is clear.

Therefore we hold that ‘people' is a general word and ‘Muslims' is one case from its cases [afrād]. In seeking the clarification of both words we find the hadith of Burayda, "...then call them to move from their land to the land of the Muhājirīn [dar al-Muhājirīn], and inform them that if they do so then their rights and responsibilities are like those of the Muhājirīn, and if they refuse to move then inform them that they will be like the Bedouins of the Muslims having the responsibilities of Muslims but having no share in the fay' and ghanīma unless they fight with the Muslims." This hadith is explicit in that whoever does not move to dar al-Islam and carry the citizenship of the state then he has no right in the rights of the citizens even if he is a Muslim. Thus both the words ‘people' and ‘Muslims' are specified by the hadith of Burayda by ‘citizens' [ra'iyyah].

Thus we understand the legal rule [hukm shar'i], namely that the public property is for those who live in dar al-Islam and hold citizenship.
3- This is with respect to the derivation of the legal rule from the two ahadith which you mentioned in the question, and it is as follows:

The hadith using the word ‘people' is general.

The hadith using the word ‘Muslims' is one case from the cases of the general.

The hadith of Burayda specifies the general ‘the people' such that its intent is only those who are citizens, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.

4- Notwithstanding the above there are explicit texts which apply to the Ahl al-Dhimma and show that they have a right in the public property. The roads and pathways [turuq] are from the public properties and al-Tirmidhi relates a hadith from Aa'isha (ra) that she said, "The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم had two heavy qitri garments. When he would sit and sweat they would weigh heavily on him. When bazz cloth came from al-Shām with a Jewish man, I said, ‘Perhaps you should go to him and buy two cloths from him to be paid for at a later date.'". This Jew who lived in the Islamic State used the roads of the Muslims for his trade, and these are from the public properties.

Further the Companions consented that the Christians of al-Sham could drink from the rivers of al-Sham just as the Muslims did; so too those who remained upon Zoroastrianism in Irāq and Bahrain. Similarly, the Copts in Egypt could drink from the Nile and water their animals. And all of them used to gather firewood from the forests.

3 March: Dark days for the Ummah since the destruction of the Khilafah

The 3rd of March is a date that is etched into the history of the Muslim Ummah as one of its darkest days ever. It was on this date in the fateful year of 1924 CE that the last vestige of legitimate Islamic rule was ended. The office of Khilifah was abolished by the treacherous Mustafa Kamal and the Muslim Ummah has since then been plunged in to darkness and humiliation. Thus any trace of the Uthmani Khilafah was extinguished as the 101st Khaleefah of Islam, Abdul Mejid II was exiled from the now secular Republic of Turkey.

His banishment from the land of Anatolia with little more than a suitcase and some cash was the beginning of the humiliation that the Muslim world has suffered to this very day. With what was described as the shield of the Muslims by the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم - now in exile, the Ummah was set to be subjected to numerous tragedies that would involve against it murderous wars, foreign occupation, economic strangulation, political manipulation as well as a cultural colonialism that sought to distance the Muslim world from the concept of Islamic ruling and the obligation of living under the Khilafah.

With the sole legitimate leadership of the Muslims, the Khilafah, destroyed the lands of Islam were divided in to numerous statelets and disputed territories. These new entities were established along the lines of ethnicity, sectarianism and racism by the colonialist powers of the day in an attempt to ensure that Muslim Ummah would never rise again. Nationalism that was nurtured by the colonialists in the run up to the destruction of the Khilafah helped to ensure that these new entities would remain at loggerheads, never to think of uniting again. In addition, the blessed land of Palestine was occupied, its inhabitants dispersed so as assuage the West’s guilt and a great injustice was committed in establishing the state of Israel. Any attempts to replicate the power of a unitary leadership of the Muslim world were replaced by pathetic and impotent bodies such as Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC). These organisations were designed to perpetuate disunity and division as they preserved the borders and barriers betweens Muslims that the colonialists had established. These states have never had the interests of Islam and the Muslims at heart. This can be seen to this day, as the OIC and Arab League issue countless resolutions on issues such as Palestine and Iraq without ever actually doing anything to change the status quo. These resolutions are but lip service by the insincere leaders of these entities to the cause of Islam, designed solely to pacify their Muslim populations into thinking that Islam cannot solve the Ummah’s problems.

These rulers have committed far more heinous crimes against the Muslims than simply issuing empty resolutions. Western colonialism put in place a motley crew of dictators, monarchs, autocrats and downright puppets that have served their colonial masters in a manner more loyal than their own populations. Successive rulers have betrayed the interests of Muslims. With their brutality and lack of self-respect seemingly having no limits, the Muslim rulers are falling over themselves in an attempt to please. For example, Qatar today hosts the largest airstrip in the Middle East, to be used exclusively by the US Air Force to bomb Muslim lands and control the skies of the Middle East. Bahrain, which previously hosted the naval forces of the British Empire, now serves as the base for the US Navy’s 5th Fleet. Almost every nation in the Muslim world today has facilitated the military aims of the various colonial at some point. Present day Pakistan, in a clear contradiction of General Musharraf’s own motto of “Pakistan First”, is engaging in a war with his own people whilst compromising the sovereignty of the country in allowing US troops to act with impunity. Deploying his powerful military not to defend Muslims from aggression, he has made the Pakistani Armed forces nothing more than mercenaries. They are forced to act as mercenaries by the regime for some paltry economic aid for a corrupt government whilst the blood and honour of their brothers and sisters is violated on a global scale. Due to these tyrannical rulers the armies of the Muslim world have been held back, shackled to their bases, unable to come to the aid of their brethren in Chechnya, the Balkans, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else that conflict rages.
Since the destruction of the Khilafah in 1924 there has been an assault on the resources in the Muslim lands. Starting with the 100-year contracts signed with western oil companies to drill for oil in the 1930’s, lucrative contracts are being signed by western agencies for natural resources that rightfully belong to the Ummah. The most recent of which have been the colonial style Production Sharing Agreements (PSA’s) for Iraqi oil. These agreements mean that Iraq oil will be privatised, ending up in the hands of foreign, mostly US, oil companies. In addition to this, these agreements spell out that these oil companies will make up to a massive 75% profit on the oil, with 65 of Iraq’s roughly 80 known oil fields being offered to these companies for exploration. In the words of Dick Cheney during his time as Haliburton CEO in 1999 who said, "By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies.” Even the wealth that has been generated has not been utilised by the rulers for the benefit of the people or to secure long-term independence and self-sufficiency. A lack of investment in education, employment and technological infrastructure means that billions of dollars are wasted on importing resources, which could be developed at home. It is shocking that Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer, can only produce 57% of the nation’s daily petrol consumption due to a lack of refineries.

The Muslim world has indeed seen destruction, devastation and calamity for the past 83 years. However, the signs of awakening for the return of the Khilafah are now clear for all to see. The proof of this can be seen in the growing gulf between the rulers and the ruled; the speeches and Khutbahs in universities and mosques throughout the Muslim world that call for a sincere and rightly guided Khaleefah to lead the Ummah; witness the mass demonstrations against the bombing and killing of innocent Muslims by US and UK forces in Karachi, Jakarta, Hebron, Dhaka and other places; the increasingly brutal methods and oppression that the regimes are forced to use to quell the desire for political change such as in Egypt and Uzbekistan. It can also be seen by the actions of the colonial powers who realise that the rulers they imposed upon the Muslim world have no support and no legitimacy, hence they are forced to resort to occupying Muslim lands and cementing their presence through military bases. The global reawakening for Khilafah can also be seen in the desperate and pathetic attempts by the regimes and their scholars, who they have bought for a cheap price, to malign, slander and attack the idea of Khilafah. They lie by saying that the Khilafah cannot be established in the modern age, that Islam and politics do not mix, that sectarian differences are too great, that the western powers are too powerful and that the Ummah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم can never be unified. All of the efforts of the enemies of Islam will be in vain for Allah سبحانه وتعالى has promised the believers that the Khilafah will return on the method of the Prophet and there is no power or might other than Allah سبحانه