Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
Ruling by Islam in the UK
By Yamin Zakaria
Al-Jazeerah, ccun.org, May 17, 2010
If David Cameron succeeds in becoming the next Prime Minister
and keeps his pre-election promise, the group Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) faces the
prospect of a ban. The group is characterised by its noble quest to
re-establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world, which will be the starting
point to unify the Muslim nations and remove the oppressive regimes,
establish peace and justice. The leadership of HT reassured the previous
regime that it has no intention of calling for the Caliphate in the UK, and
resorted to considerable amount of lobbying to prevent the ban, and it seems
they succeeded in persuading the MPs to renew the current legislation that
permits the group the operate. However, the statement of HT is
misleading on the subject of the Caliphate for UK. Far as I remember, the
Islamic opinion adopted by HT is that - the Islamic State will have no
permanent fixed borders, until the entire world is brought under the domain
of Islam. Thus, it may not call for the Caliphate today in the UK, but
bringing UK under the domain of the Caliphate is not to be excluded in the
future. Either pragmatism or fear caused the group’s leadership not to
clarify its position on the issue. If bullets and bombs are used to
spread democracy, then surely they can use the same tools for spreading the
domain of Islam. But, remember, the fundamental objective of the Caliphate
is not material conquest or oil-piracy - it is the spread of Islam. Thus,
minimising civilian casualty is an inherent feature of the Caliphate, not a
convenient political slogan to exercise after inflicting massive collateral
damage, because annihilation would defeat the objective of spreading Islam.
If you want to minimise civilian casualty, then /Jihad/ is the best option!
I am perplexed by the controversy over the Caliphate. It existed for
over a thousand years; people of different races, culture and religion lived
together and prospered. One can still see the main tourist attraction in
Spain is the Alhambra, which is the product of the Caliphate. The
non-Muslims never faced the Islamic Inquisition or any form of Pogroms,
unless the ruler had deviated significantly from the basic principles of
Islam. I cannot think of one example of persecution or atrocities committed
against non-Muslims under the Caliphate. Therefore, it seems the
controversy is a by-product of the war propaganda, as the UK government
continues to pursue the American-led war on terror by terrorising the
civilians in the Muslim world. *Maybe, it also reflects the deep insecurity
of leading democracies, as they fear the possible challenge posed by a
future Caliphate. Why not debate groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir on the
ideological alternatives rather than impose a ban? Why are the democracies
so afraid to have an open discussion on this issue? Such a reaction tells me
that they are a bunch of intolerant freedom-fundamentalists, operating
behind their media Niqab!* * * * *If we live in a democratic
free society, then everyone has the right to express an opinion on how we
should govern ourselves, unless it is a dictatorship of democracy! The
Communists and the Socialists are calling for a specific type government, as
Muslims we should have every right to call for the Caliphate in the UK.* The
entire universe is the creation of God and the whole world should be
subjected to the divine laws, rather than exploitative capitalism. The
fundamental divine laws are fixed; it is not possible for anyone to
manipulate it without violating the laws. For example, one could incarcerate
any non-Muslim simply by inventing a term like illegal-combatants. The
majority Muslim population could not even debate if the rights of
non-Muslims can be retracted. Everyone knows the score under the
Caliphate, and no slimy politician can wag their lizard tongue to tell you
otherwise. Perhaps, one day the UK may become a Muslim majority
nation, as the Muslim population continues to grow at a rapid rate in
relation to non-Muslim community who are experiencing a slow growth in
population, largely caused by a breakdown of family values with their zeal
for freedom, and promoting things like homosexuality; also the number of
converts to Islam continue to flow despite the adverse media propaganda.
Then the introduction of Sharia laws would be natural, and in compliance
with the principles of majority rule, that is assuming the Muslims continue
to aspire to this. Of course, nobody knows the future, a meteor might strike
or a devastating earthquake and a Tsunami might change the entire picture,
or the Muslims may assimilate and lose their zeal. At present, the
Muslims in the UK are content to live as peaceful democratic citizens, and
are busy preserving their identity and interests, as they face a rising tide
of Islamophobia. The Niqab has been banned in Belgium, so has the Minaret in
Switzerland; no purpose-built Mosques are allowed in some European countries
and media is constantly spitting on the Muslims; the new Jews of Europe they
say. Naturally, the pressure to assimilate is increasing. Adopting an
isolationist approach of the past is no longer an option, nor is the
community in a position to call for the Caliphate in the UK. The only option
left is to engage with the majority non-Muslim population that can only
benefit the cause of Islam and Muslims. Those who have employed the
antagonistic approach in the past should reflect on their record of success,
which is very little. Bulk of the converts to Islam has come through the
interaction of the ordinary Muslims, as has bulk of the institutions like
the numerous Mosques, Charity organisations, and community centres. Taking a
simplistic view that antagonising the non-Muslims is a sign of success, only
demonstrate a superficial understanding of the example of the Prophet and
his companions. In general, the early Muslims did not adopt a
confrontational approach, in Medina there were rarely any examples of
confrontation; in Mecca, the antagonising was largely initiated by the
non-Muslims for various reason. As the Quran says, */“Indeed Allah
is with those who are patient” /* Yamin Zakaria
([email protected])
London, UK
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
www.radicalviews.org
|
|
|