The Real Challenge before Islamophobes

[Harold F. Schiffman]

The Real Challenge before Islamophobes
by Abid Ullah Jan

Abid Ullah Jan, the author of "A War on Islam?,""The End of Democracy" and
"The Musharraf Factor: Leading Pakistan to Inevitable Demise", is a
regular contributor to Media Monitors Network (MMN). Please, follow this
link to read a chapter from his latest book. His book, "Afghanistan: The
Genesis of the Final Crusade," will be released shortly.


The Real Challenge before Islamophobes
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Saturday April 15 2006)

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

"The existing 57 Muslim states are no more than colonial encroachments on
the ruins of an Islamic entity. These encroachments were erected only to
make Muslims feel at home rather than to have them think about living as
one Ummah. Presently, there are 57 Muslim countries, with 57 policies and
57 Shirk-infested national anthems, divided interests and unclear
strategies. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab
League are useless for the same reason. Ummah, thus, is the most dreaded
word for those who harbor hatred for Islam. "

"We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as
locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this
issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy. We have
to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of
having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for
which we should display no tolerance."

-- Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, Daily Telegraph, U.K., April 15, 2005.

To the anti-Islam alliance of neo-cons, Evangelicals, Christian-Zionists
and capitalists, the ideology of Islam is the challenge to overcome.
According to the principles of Islam, there is no basis for division among
Muslims with respect to place of birth, ethnicity, culture, language,
national boundaries or nationality. This ideology also nullifies the
concept of nation-states as a major foundation for separation among
Muslims. These modes and systems of identification are invalid because not
only they would force Muslims to worship their respective states and their
secular laws, but also because they would divide their interests. That is
why the United States and its allies shiver to the core when Muslims refer
to the concept of the Ummah and establishing an Islamic state or Khilafah.

In fact the concept of Ummah and Khilafah runs contrary to the
totalitarian designs of the religiously motivated persons on the media,
academia, political and military form of the war on Islam. Just six days
after the fall of Berlin Wall, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell
presented a new strategy document to President Bush Senior, proposing that
the US shift from countering Soviet attempts at world dominance to
ensuring US world dominance. Bush accepted this plan in a public speech,
with slight modifications, on August 2, 1990. The same day Iraq began
invading Kuwait. In early 1992, Powell, counter to his usual public dove
persona, told the United States Congress that the United States requires
sufficient power to deter any challenger from ever dreaming of challenging
us on the world stage. Powell clearly expressed his desires. He said, I
want to be the bully on the block. Powells early ideas of global hegemony
were formalized by others in a February 18, 1992 policy document.[179] The
then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney stated that part of the American
mission described in the 46-page document was to convince potential
competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more
aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.[180] This
strategy, called Pentagons Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years
1994-1999, was finally realized as policy when Bush Junior became
president in 2001.[181]

Nick Cohen summarized the totalitarian policy in the Observer in these
words: America's friends are potential enemies. They must be in a state of
dependence and seek solutions to their problems in Washington.[182 ]The
policy document was prepared by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, who had
relatively low posts at the time, but under Bush Junior became Deputy
Defense Secretary and Vice President Cheneys Chief of Staff, respectively.
The document conspicuously avoided mention of collective security
arrangements through the United Nations, instead suggested the US should
expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond
the crisis being confronted.[183] Senator Lincoln Chafee (R), later noted
that Bush Juniors plan for preemptive strikes was formed back at the end
of the first Bush administration with that 1992 report.[184] In his last
days in office as Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney released a document,
called Defense Strategy for the 1990s.[185] This document reasserted the
plans for US global domination outlined in an earlier Pentagon policy
paper. But because of Clintons presidential victory, the implementation of
these plans had to wait until Bush Junior came to power in 2001 and Cheney
becomes vice president. However, Cheney and others continued to refine
this vision of global domination through the Project for the New American
Century think tank while they wait to reassume political power.[186]

Zionist influence continued to play a role in this crusade for global
dominance. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an
Israeli think tank, published a paper entitled A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm.[187] The paper is not much different from
other Israeli right-wing papers at the time, except the authors: the lead
writer is Richard Perle, now chairman of the Defense Policy Board in the
US, and very influential with President Bush. Several of the other authors
now hold key positions in Washington. The paper advises the new,
right-wing Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu to make a complete break with
the past by adopting a strategy based on an entirely new intellectual
foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation
the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism ... The
first step was to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq would
destabilize the entire Middle East, which would allow governments in
Syria, Iran, Lebanon and other countries to be replaced. Israel will not
only contain its foes; it will transcend them, the paper concludes.[188]

These hegemonic designs made the totalitarian feel scared of anything that
could challenge the status quo or which could become an alternative to the
kind of order they had in mind for re-creating the world in their own
image. Thus, any intnetional or unintentional reference of effort in the
direction of uniting Muslims is considered a serious threat. The recent
statements from U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, President
George W. Bush and British Home Secretary Charles Clarke reveal this
deep-seated fear. Before we can move toward understanding the root cause
of this fear, it is necessary to take a look at these three statements,
which appeared within a weeks time. On September 30, 2005, Rumsfeld said:

Those voters are demonstrating again today that there exists no conflict
between Western values and Muslim values. What exists is a conflict within
the Muslim faith--between majorities in every country who desire freedom,
and a lethal minority intent on denying freedom to others and
re-establishing a caliphate. Rumsfeld has been constantly repeating this
idea for quite some time, using the word caliphate. In an interview with
Spiegel, he repeated the same theme on October 31, 2005,[189] and
specifically mentioned it in his briefing before the Department of Defense
on November 1, 2005.[190] On November 20, he said on CNNs Late Edition,
Think of that country being turned over to the Zarqawis, the people who
behead people, the people who kill innocent men, women and children, the
people who are determined to reestablish a caliphate around the
world.[191]

Rumsfeld and his supporters continue to ignore this fact: Muslims have
never before been bent on killing themselves and others to establish
Khilafah. Throughout the bloodshed, these questions have remained
unanswered: Where were these Muslims before the United States invasion?
Why didnt they try to establish Khilafah in Iraq when Saddams government
was falling? Even if Saddams regime was not on its last legs, according to
Rumsfelds assumption, more tyranny existed under Saddam Hussain than
exists now. Yet Saddams military power was a cap pistol compared to United
States military power. Why did caliphate-lovers previously not express
their determination? In an historic speech on October 6, 2005, Bush
expressed the same fear when he discussed the objectives for the war in
these words:

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still
others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it is called, this ideology is very
different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits
Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by
terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that
denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the
idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews
and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, whom they
regard as heretics.

British Home Secretary Charles Clarke repeated the same fear of Khilafah
on October 5, 2005:

What drive these people on are ideas. And unlike the liberation movements
of the post World War II era in many parts of the world, these are not in
pursuit of political ideas like national independence from colonial rule,
or equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed, or freedom
of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at
least in principle, negotiable and in many cases have actually been
negotiated. However there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of
the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Shariah
law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between
the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech.
These values are fundamental to our civilizations and are simply not up
for negotiation.[192]

Therefore, the only justification left for the United States invasions and
occupation of Muslim countries is to save humanity from the curse of
Khilafah. Is the United States realizing the curse of Khilafah now, after
invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq under other pretexts? No, it
is not. It has now become obvious that waging a war on Khilafah was the
primary U.S. motive to demonize the Taliban and to engage in pre-9/11
planning for invading and occupying Afghanistan because their presence and
policies were considered a threat to the world order envisioned by the
totalitarians in the United States.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think
tank was formed in the spring of 1997 around the time of appearance of the
Taliban on the scene. PNAC issued its statement of principles with the
stated aims: to shape a new century favorable to American principles and
interests, to achieve a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully
promotes American principles abroad, to increase defense spending
significantly, to challenge regimes hostile to US interests and values,
and to accept Americas unique role in preserving and extending an
international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our
principles.[193] These principles matter because they were signed by a
group which has now become a rollcall of todays Bush inner circle.[194]
According to ABCs Ted Koppel, PNACs ideas have been called a secret
blueprint for US global domination.[195]

To understand the motive of these totalitarians behind invading
Afghanistan, what we need to understand is the basic concept of Islam,
which the Western totalitarians are so strongly associating with terrorism
and are attempting to prove as evil without letting people understand the
reality of Islamic belief.

Khilafah does not appear in a vacuum without an ideological and spiritual
background. Nor is its objective the creation of an empire that will rule
the world for the sake of ruling. One has to understand the purpose of
life in Islam to comprehend this religions requirements for the collective
life of Muslims. Islam means submission to Allah and His Will. Once a
person submits himself or herself to Allah and comes into the fold of
Islam, that individual is required to live in accordance with the way of
life prescribed by the Quran and Sunnah. From the Islamic perspective, any
standard, law, value and way of life to which one submits and follows
becomes his Deen (way of life).[196] That is why the Quran has stressed:
Lo! The Deen with Allah is Islam (Quran 3:19). At another place in the
Quran, Allah has pointed out that with the establishment of Islam, He has
rewarded the people completely: This day have I perfected your Deen for
you and completed My favor unto you and have chosen for you as Deen
Al-Islam (Quran 5:3).[197]The overall objective of collectively submitting
to the Will of Allah is to establish a society and system of true justice
on Earth. The current political establishments in Washington and allied
capitals would consider such an idea to be a threat to their power.

To achieve worldly objectives, human beings have been submitting
themselves to different powers and ideologies throughout human history. In
the present age, most of humanity has submitted to the power and authority
of the state and the ideology of the separation of power between church
and state. In Islam, both religion and state are part of the Deen, and
submission is allowed only to Allah and His Law. It means that no sphere
of life is free from living according to the Will and Law of Allah.[198]
Living according to any standard other than Allah is the greatest sin
(Shirk, as it is called in Islam).[199]

In the Muslim world today, all discussions on Shirk and Tawheed (the
oneness and uniqueness of Allah) have been limited to religion. The
concept of state has been left alone, as if Allahs Will, Law and Standards
do not apply to the state at all and as if the state acts in a vacuum
without any dealings with human beings for whose guidance the Quran is
revealed. That is why present-day Muslims consider someone bowing down
before a statue as Shirk, no matter how much that person may insist that
he or she believes in the oneness of Allahthe prerequisite for being a
Muslim. However, at the same time, a majority of Muslims do not consider
submitting themselves to laws, standards, systems and a way of life other
than those prescribed by Allah as Shirk. This is because the
self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in particular have diminished the concept
of Deen in modern-day thinking. The overall thinking of Muslims is shaped
in world where the secular European model or a public order (or state) has
replaced the concept of Darul Islam. The secular model has taken
sovereignty away from Allah and given to the State. And that is an act of
Shirk!

Despite the fact that Muslims say that Islam is a way of life, there is
hardly any reaction to the reality that the prevailing mode of life in the
Muslim world is un-Islamic. Similarly, none of the Muslim states conducts
its business purely in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah.[200]
State and public life are free of religion, but when it comes to religion
itself, we witness extreme reactions. For example, any blasphemous remarks
or physical desecration of the Quran automatically receives a knee-jerk
reaction from Muslims, such as the reaction to the publication of a
cartoon of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). The basic reason is that despite
rejecting the concept of separation of church and state, this concept has
still heavily influenced and affected Muslim mind. They have literally
accepted this concept and find no problem living by it. Similarly, they
think that the state is the ultimate form of human governance. In
addition, even the best possible Muslim efforts at living according to
Islam are limited to thinking inside the box of the nation-state system.

With the nation-state system, the world map is set in one style in which
each state has the legal authority to make rules binding on its
inhabitants. The relationship between government and religion varies from
state to state. At the minimum, governments are not hostile to religion as
was the case in the former Soviet Union. Most governments accept at least
minimum respect for religion because of popular feelings and support for
religious beliefs.

Similarly, efforts are underway to standardize and reduce cultural
differences as much as possible. The speed of these changes varies from
region to region, but the ultimate objective and direction are the same
everywhere (except in the United States where Bush and company are
establishing theocracy with no qualms). Not only is the separation of
church and state globally established, but also religioneven in its
limited and misunderstood formis not considered the basis of human
organization anywhere in the world. The single, authentic standard for
human organization is state and nationality. Therefore, development of the
human mind has taken place within the framework of nationhood since the
introduction of the concept of nation-states. In fact, adding Islam before
or after a countrys title shows only ignorance about Islam as well as the
concept of the modern state.

Modern-day religious, political, military and intellectual crusaders are
fully aware of the basic requirement that Muslims must live by Islam. In
their view, verbal submission to Allahs Will by itself has no meaning.
However, todays Muslim leaders in all walks of life are trained to adopt
the principles of imperialist powers, which are focused on maintaining the
existing state of affairs. Thus, for Muslims the problem of division,
external interference and subjugation begins at home. In total contrast to
common practice of limiting Islam to a few rituals, Islam is the basis,
not only of the overall governing system, but also of human organization
among Muslims at the local level. The only basis of social organization
and collective identity for Muslims is no less, and no more, than the Deen
of Islam. The concept of separation of church and state is contrary to the
basic principles of Islam because it is a form of Shirkthe greatest sin in
Islam. Separation of church and state means living by standards other than
those revealed by Allah (Quran 5:48-49, 6:89).[201] The whole concept of
separation of church and state is in opposition to the concept of Tawheed.
The reason is simple: according to the Quran, the only standard for human
organization is Islam (Quran 21:92 and 23:52-53).[202] In Islam, the basis
of system and organization is the Deen of Islam. The limit of this
organization is the Ummah of Islamthe nation that fully believes in Allahs
oneness (Milat-e-Tawheed), and applies that belief to practical situations
in their everyday lives.

The concept of Darul Islam (the home of Islam) is too broad to be
accommodated within the modern concept of the state. It is impossible to
have both at the same time. The ultimate form of organization of the
Muslim Ummah is Khilafah, which is a complete negation of the concept of
the state. That is why the mere mention of Khilafah forces the
well-established major powers of the day into quick knee-jerk reactions.
No matter how rudimentary and flawed were the attempts of the Taliban at
establishing an Islamic Emirate, the modern-day religious crusaders were
scared because this process of establishing an emirate was leading Muslim
minds to many questions and clarifications. The influence of these
religious crusaders, as mentioned in chapter 1 and 2, forced activists in
the political, academic and military ranks to join the 21st century
crusade.

The chain reaction of questions and answers as a result of the Talibans
actions could lead to an understanding of the Islamic concept and standard
of human organization. A continuation of the Taliban government would have
led to purificationnot dominationof Islamic thought. This purification of
thought in the Muslim world is the first step towards the establishment of
an Islamic society, free of every kind of un-Islamic influence.

The fear of discussion, debate, and crystallization of Islamic thought
among Muslims is evident from Patrick Buchanans declaration of war on the
Muslim world. Writing in his book, Where the Right Went Wrong, Buchanan
makes a case for religious war in these terms:

If a clash of civilizations is coming, the West is unchallenged in wealth
and weaponry. Yet, wealth did not prevent the collapse of Europes Empires,
nor did awesome weaponry prevent the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Rome
was mighty, Christianity weak. Christianity endured and prevailed. Rome
fell. Americas enemy then is not a state we can crush with sanctions or an
enemy we can defeat with force of arms. The enemy is a cause, a movement,
an idea.[203]

Accordingly, following this line of thinking, the Taliban were not a
military threat. They did not challenge the United States. Even the
Taliban had no clear thought-out strategies. They only had a strong
determination and intention to make living by Islam possible despite
claims to the contrary that the 21st century is not a time to fully live
by Islam. This attitude was giving rise to a debate among Muslims and a
movement in the direction of Talibans stated intentions.[204] The fear of
discussion and debate on this issue is evident from British Home Secretary
Charles Clarke's statement, saying: There can be no negotiation about the
re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the
imposition of Shariah law; there can be no negotiation about the
suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation
about the ending of free speech.[205]

Of course, there can be no negotiation with Rumsfeld and company on the
issue of how the Muslims need to live their lives after they submit
themselves to Allah. But Rumsfelds repetition of no negotiation reflects
the morbid dread of the purification of polluted Islamic thought as well
as attempts at suppressing free speech when it comes to making the public
understand the basic concepts of Islam. For example, it is a revolution in
itself for Muslims to realize that there is no basis for classifying human
beings on the basis of ethnic origin, language, place of birth and
nationality. Allah does say, however, that He has made people into
different tribes only for the sake of identification. The sin comes in
treating others differently on the basis of these classifications and
erecting the wall of nation-states between them, which pits one Muslim
state against the other for worldly interests.

Anyone who accepts Islam becomes part of the Ummah and is obliged to live
by the Law and standards of Allah alone. Unless one leaves the fold of
Islam, there is no compromise on this basic principle. But with this
obligation, one is bestowed with some inalienable rights as well. Unlike
Israel, where an estimated 300,000 immigrants are considered non-Jews by
the rabbinate and the government, and face problems in getting
citizenship,[206] just coming to the fold of Islam is good enough for one
to immediately become part of the Ummah and a citizen of the Islamic
State/Emirate/ Darul Islam regardless of the place of birth and ethnic
origin.

Both Muslims and non-Muslims routinely call Muslim majority countries
Islamic states. Muslims are made to believe that even if all Muslim
countries are amalgamated into a single Islamic entity, it will still be
comprised of land, population, rulers and the ruled. So whats the
difference? Therefore, the Muslim mind has accepted the present divisions
of territory into several Muslim countries as perfectly valid.
Furthermore, some Muslims believe that if some Islamic articles are added
to the constitutions of Muslim countries, this change will make these
states Islamic. Others are of the opinion that there is no need for such
additions to the constitutions. All these distinctions are part of the
attempts to limit Islam by putting it into the box of nation and
nation-states.

For nationalizing Islam and eliminating differences between a single
Islamic entity (Darul Islam) and un-Islamic states, many countries with
Muslim majorities have been attempting to model themselves on un-Islamic
states for a long time. As a result, even well-known scholars and leaders
of religious parties are confused about the difference between an Islamic
and an un-Islamic state. They try their best to avoid discussion on the
difference between a Muslim and Islamic entity. As a result, most Muslims
are under the impression that if the majority of the population is Muslim
and their leaders proclaim to be Muslim, the difference between an Islamic
and an un-Islamic state is reduced to an Islamically permissible fraction.
In fact, even if the division of Muslims into several states is perfectly
valid, still it does not help Muslims become a single Ummah as required by
the Quranic injunctions.

Dictators, such as General Pervez Musharraf, feel proud to speak on the
issue and tell the world that Muslims cannot live by Islam the way they
lived under the Khilafah in the 7th century.[207] He hardly realizes that
the existing 57 Muslim states are no more than colonial encroachments on
the ruins of an Islamic entity. These encroachments were erected only to
make Muslims feel at home rather than to have them think about living as
one Ummah.

Ummah is the most dreaded word for those who harbor hatred for Islam. For
Islamophobes, Muslims division in many nations and many states is not a
problem at all. However, any thought of the emergence of a single Ummah on
the part of Muslims becomes extremism and totalitarianism for
Islamophobes. The reason is simple: In the absence of divided Muslims; in
the absence of Muslim puppet kings, dictators and generals, the
occupiersalong with their multinational corporations and IMF and World
Bankwill have no way to carry out their policies of social, cultural and
economic exploitation. Edward W. Said noted in 1996:

[no wonder] that most Islamic countries today are too poverty-stricken,
tyrannical and hopelessly inept militarily as well as scientifically to be
much of a threat to anyone except their own citizens; and never mind that
the most powerful of them -- like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan
-- are totally within the US orbit. What matters to experts like Miller,
Samuel Huntington, Martin Kramer, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Steven
Emerson and Barry Rubin, plus a whole battery of Israeli academics, is to
make sure that the threat is kept before our eyes, the better to excoriate
Islam for terror, despotism and violence, while assuring themselves
profitable consultancies, frequent TV appearances and book contracts.[208]

If there were an Ummah, it would be unimaginable that a part of the
Islamic state would be reeling under foreign occupation, with the rest of
the Ummah standing on the sidelines. Presently, there are 57 Muslim
countries, with 57 policies and 57 Shirk-infested national anthems,
divided interests and unclear strategies. The Organization of Islamic
Conference (OIC) and the Arab League are useless for the same reason. It
hardly hurts the interests of any of these states if the United States is
occupying Afghanistan and Iraq today, plans to invade Syria tomorrow, or
attacks Iran the next day. The United States has cut the body into pieces
and feels free to attack any part of that body when it sees fit with no
fear of any real opposition or resistance. Interestingly, many of the
leading warlords, such as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, present
Arabs different from Muslims. While referring to Muslims, they would write
Arabs and Muslims, as if Arabs are not Muslims.[209] The effect of such
propaganda is extremely serious. Even those who are against occupation and
oppression of Muslims around the world start speaking in the same language
that confirms these divisions among Muslims.[210]

The sovereignty and independence of Muslim nation-states are yet another
big joke. On the one hand, school textbooks in these countries are filled
with patriotic lessons, and national radio and television stations never
stop blaring songs to deify the state and promote national chauvanism. On
the other hand, however, these states are no more than mere puppets in the
control of their colonial masters. Pakistan is a sad story, but a very
important example in this regard. There are certain aspects, such as
occupation of the country by the national army and being a nuclear power,
that are worthy of attention. Pakistan has failed to use its military
power to deter enemies and defend the countrys much-vaunted sovereignty in
a global order in which independence of Muslim states is hardly more than
a joke.

As discussed in detail in chapter 1, for modern-day crusaders, sovereignty
and independence of states mean nothing. Vittorio E. Parsis, who teaches
geopolitics at the Catholic University of Milan, presents the crusaders
vision as described in chapter 1 and 2 of this book and support to the
renewed alliance between the United States and Europe in his latest book
Lalleanza inevitabile: Europa e Stati Uniti oltre lIraq (The Inevitable
Alliance: Europe and the United States Beyond Iraq) published by Bocconi
University in Milan (2003). To the author, equality of all states is an
untenable legal fiction.

Giving ones life in defense of so-called sovereign Muslim states has no
value or permission in Islam. These Muslim states give priority to
defending the interests of the United States and its bullying allies over
protecting the rights of their people at home and other oppressed Muslims
abroad. In the context of suffering Muslims in Palestine and Kashmir, did
General Musharraf not clearly tell his nation in a televised address on
January 12, 2001, that we are not responsible for Muslims and Islam
everywhere? His exact words in Urdu were: Hum Koi Islam Ke Tekkadar to
Naheen. The use of this slang in the context of Palestine and other
trouble spots throughout the world means that we are not solely
responsible for defending Islam and Muslims in other places in the name of
Islam.[211]

Thus, the state and Ummah (Millat) are two extremes at the opposite ends
of the spectrum. States limit Muslims to specific geographic boundaries
and make them think about their internal affairs alone. In contrast, Ummah
makes Muslims think globally about living by Islam as well as addressing
problems and needs of all Muslims. However, in most Muslim countries these
extremesmulk-o-millat(state and Ummah)are put together by the media and
public in their daily routine and used as complementary or inseparable
realities. State and Ummah are in total contrast to each other. However,
their combination in daily speech shows Muslims ignorance of the basic
concepts behind these terminologies. This way, Muslim loyalties and
patriotism have been divided. Ummah or Millat has been subordinated to
each Muslim state. So is Islam. For some, their respective nations have
become Millat for them.

As a result of nationalizing Islam in nation-states, Islam in every Muslim
state requires loyalty to the government. Islam in Kuwait, for example,
has the responsibility to save the Kuwaiti Sheikhs and support their
policies. In Saudi Arabia, Islam requires support for the King. In every
Muslim country, it is considered Islamic to save the state. There is an
army of religious scholars in every state. When it comes to defending the
rulers and state in the name of Islam, there is no dearth of Quranic
verses and Ahadiths to which reference is made. Things take a strange turn
when the interests of Muslim states clash with each other. In that kind of
case, Ijthihad[212] in one state stands in total contrast to the Ijthihad
of religious scholars in the other. Popular Ijthihad of religious leaders
everywhere has to follow state policy because they are bound to look at
the problem from the states perspective. Thinking or working for Muslims
collective benefit has no place in Muslim thought or action today.

Every state has to put its interests at the forefront and give priority to
addressing its own national problems. During the first Gulf War, for
example, supporting American forces was absolute Kufr (disbelief) for
Iraqi scholars; whereas for Saudis, inviting and hosting American troops
were not only valid but also compulsory from their Islamic perspective.
This is exactly how the architects of dividing the Muslim Ummah into
nation-states wanted it to be. They could then favor one side and watch as
Muslims fought against one another over who would be the lucky recipient
of their good graces.

As a result of the Ummahs division into several nation-states, Islam has
had to remain under government protection. In return, it has to serve the
governments agenda as if it were a slave. Muslims are trained to think in
terms of their respective states before interpreting Islam. The recent
barrage of French and American fatwas by local Muslims against terrorism
is a telling sign of progress in this regard.[213] A serious question in
this regard is: If application of the same Quranic injunctions starts
changing at different places and times, how many different types of Islam
would emerge with the passage of time? That is why secularists in Muslim
countries argue that religion must be kept out of state affairs to avoid
such confusion. Setting Islam aside is not so difficult. What is difficult
for Muslims is to toss out Islam from their public life and still remain
Muslims.

Therefore, the roots of present confusion in the Muslim world lie in the
introduction of nation-statesnot the misinterpretation of Islam. Western
colonialists have erected state boundaries among Muslims to such an extent
that Muslim masses and scholars can hardly overcome these barriers. With
all their flag-waving and nationalistic slogans, Muslims can hardly see or
recognize themselves as a single Ummah. These boundaries are as much
ideological as they are psychological. To possess an Islamic perspective,
it is imperative to set aside various national perspectives and all
lessons of living and dying for the respective 57 Muslim states. Working
for the cause of Islam, and working for the cause of a nation are poles
apart.

Swimming against the flow of the so-called national interest is almost
impossible for any single individual or organization in the Muslim world.
It is not only nerve-wracking and exhausting, but is also impossible. To
the contrary, swimming with the flow of the so-called national interest is
both convenient and satisfying. It gives one the opportunity to taste
success. It is not that all Muslims are blind to the reality that there is
no place for secular systems and nation-states in Islam. It is actually
almost impossible to overcome the prevailing mindset and ignore the
established national slogans and priorities against public views.

In Muslim countries, the masses can hardly think outside the box of the
concept of nation-states. Anything other than the prevailing system and
order seems like implausible ideas with no link to realities on the
ground. Of course, some organizations have taken a stand on principles.
The result, however, is obvious. The public in general, has lost interest
in these organizations. In some cases, they had to give up and quit their
stand on principles. Public acceptance and a stand on Islamic principles
have become inversely proportional to one another: The more one takes a
stand on Islamic principles, the less popular acceptance he or she
receives. To put pressure on existing governments in Muslim states,
selfless religious leaders have to understand the broader context of the
challenge before Muslims. They also have to take masses into confidence.
Without winning the hearts and minds of the public, it is impossible to
make an impact on a national level.

Unfortunately, public opinion is shaped by the media, school curriculums
and other indoctrination centers, working day and night to promote the
concept of nation and state since the inception of each Muslim state.
Behind these institutions, there is only one mindset at work: Governments
come and go, but the institutions that shape public opinion stay and work
incessantly. The challenge before Muslims is to change public opinion.
Putting pressure on governments as a result of popularity among the masses
is not difficult. In fact, governments are not the real enemies. Even in
the United States, presidents and Congress are mere puppets in the hands
of the power behind the scene, which is never known to the general public.
These are the real molders and shapers of public opinion.

Today, media, education systems and other sources of indoctrination act as
a chain around the neck of all nations. Acceptable terminologies, such as
public opinion, national interest, national needs, public emotions and
public trends, are creations of the hands that rock the national cradles
as well as rule the world.

In the Muslim world, both religious or political parties and other
organizations always look for a niche in public opinion for their survival
and growth. One has to be acceptable to public emotions and trends to
prosper. Even writers, columnists and political observers cannot progress
unless their views are in consonance with the so-called national interest
and the established order. Lists of such patriotic slogans and phrases are
so meticulously and intelligently crafted that irrespective of ones
political or religious school of thought, everyone fits well in one or
another category that directly or indirectly sustains the nation-state
system. Further individual success in such an opportunities-lacking
environment depends on ones ambitiousness, courage and level of struggle.
The ultimate contribution to Islam and Ummah that a critic of the
government can make remains naught.

So, the impact of much-vaunted public opinion on national security and
national priorities is the beginning of a vast quagmire. One can stand up
to a corrupt, repressive government, but it is hard for anyone to ignore
the indoctrinated public opinion and the media. No matter how much one may
curse the powers behind the scenes, public opinion and national priorities
always remain locked in the iron grip of those powers. The masses live in
denial of reality. This problem is not limited to Muslim states alone:
According to Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of
Freedom Foundation:

Denying reality, the average American exclaims, We live in the freest
nation on earth. We can write letters to the editor and publish books.
Suppose Egypts pharaoh had decreed, From this day forward, the slaves
shall be permitted to complain openly about their condition and to write
pleas to their taskmasters regarding their poor living conditions. Would
this have made the slaves free? Johann von Goethe once wrote that none are
more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. No
words could more accurately capture the plight of the American people.
Having been indoctrinated for so long in their government-approved
schools, Americans rank among the most enslaved people in history. And
their denial of reality does not free them. It simply produces a psychosis
marked by high levels of alcohol and other drug addiction.[214]

Unfortunately, Muslims in most of the Muslim states cannot even claim to
be as free as many Americans. Free people can say no. Free people can
resist plunder of their resources. They can refuse unjust demands for
their time and children. Slaves cannot. There is no freedom without the
freedom to say no. If someone demands that you do something and you can
say no and refuse to do it, then you are a free human being. If you can be
forced to do something or surrender something that you do not wish to do,
then you are a slave. No other tests need be applied. If you are in a
Muslim state and your government cannot say no to an outside government,
asking it to sacrifice your sons and daughters, you are a slave of the
slave. This is exactly what a Muslim state, Pakistan, did after receiving
Bushs with us or against us threat in 2001. Pakistan had no option but to
justify its full-scale assistance both in Afghanistan and later in
Pakistan in the mass murder of fellow Muslims and invasion of their homes
in the name of national security.

A national agenda and priorities never allow one to take a stand on
principles in a Muslim country. This problem further intensifies when the
struggle is extended beyond national boundaries to address the cause of
Ummah or international change. Of course, Ummah is not limited to one
Muslim state alone. How can one think of facing the challenge of
organizing a mass movement against the flow of 57 different national
agendas and priorities, when it is so hard to take a stand on principles
within a single Muslim state against the tide of established norms and
mindset? One has to make many compromises on one Islamic principle simply
to stay alive and keep moving within the national flow. The prevailing
cluelessness among religious parties and Islamic movements about how to
proceed is the result of facing the same dilemma of working for Islam and
national interest at the same time.

The challenge of staying in the national mainstream has become a curse for
those who want to make living according to principles of Islam possible in
society. For establishing Islam and also staying in the national
mainstream, one has to water down his or her agenda according to the whims
of puppets put in place for the modern-day colonialists. This is as true
for a single individual, such as an analyst, as it is true for the
religious parties and organizations. The moment one adds unnecessary items
to his or her agenda, that individual is out of the national mainstream,
which is equivalent to pronouncing death on that individual or
organization. A serious discussion with leaders of national movements and
religious parties would reveal a long list of problems they face. If one
does not consider leadership of religious parties and movements as
superhuman, one has no option but to accept their argument for being
ineffective and clueless. One has to appreciate their courage, but it does
not mean that one has to agree with their approach as well.

In short, if an individual or political party has to stay in the national
mainstream, it would have to keep the load of its principles and ideology
as light as possible. If it is concerned about its ideology and is not
ready to compromise on it, it has to stay out of the national mainstream.
Dr. Israr Ahmad, the founder of Tanzeem-e-Islami in Pakistan, is a living
example of this phenomenon. He sacrificed staying in the mainstream for
the core principles of Islam and paid the price with remaining on the
sidelines: totally marginalized. One has to pick one of these options:
staying in or out of the mainstream. We are well aware of the
insurmountable hurdles faced by those who have opted to stay in the
national mainstream, even if they do not talk about it.

The concept of Ummah and the national mainstream are totally incompatible.
The problems faced by those who are struggling to establish Islam on the
local or national level are an indicator of the bigger problems that a
people will have to face if they challenge nation-states, national
boundaries and national governments on the international level. Defeating
such a challenge on the part of Muslims has now become the sole
justification for the United States invasions and occupations of Muslim
states. For example, no one has so far claimed that the resistance to the
United States occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan is for the sake of
establishing Khilafah. Yet, repeated statements of Bush and his fellow
crusaders, intending to demonize the very concept of Khilafah, expose
their intentions about launching these wars in the first place.

For Afghanistan, the United States had not even as much justification for
launching a war of aggression as it had for invading Iraq. Without
producing a single shred of evidence about the involvement of the Taliban
or other alleged perpetrators, 9/11 was not good enough an excuse to
overthrow the Taliban government and occupy Afghanistan. The real problem
was that the Taliban, irrespective of their misinterpretation of Islam and
crimes against women,[215] were gradually moving towards establishing a
society in which nationality, national interests, and the national agenda
and priorities were gradually losing their influence on Muslim minds.

Any Muslim could go and live in Afghanistan for as long as he or she
wished. Anyone could go and invest in Afghanistan without prior permission
of the Taliban leadership. Social scientists were as keen in helping
Afghanistan, as were nuclear scientists, business people, anthropologists,
religious leaders and technical experts. Most importantly, an environment
was leading to open thought and discussion about the application of
Islamic principles in modern-day life. Regardless of the faulty
application of those principles in some cases in the beginning, the system
was gradually moving in the direction that could have given Muslims an
idea about life in an Islamic society and model of governance. Many
religious leaders in Pakistan had already accepted the broader approach of
the Taliban. Input from religious scholars from abroad would have refined
ways to implement the basic principles of Islam and pave the way to live
according to Islam. That is why the global machinery that maintains the
status quo churned into action against the Taliban quite early and did not
stop until the job was done. That is the reason that Bush and company has
now publicly declared their so-far hidden war on Khilafah. They have done
so well before anyone stands up and demands an end to nation-states in the
Muslim world.

The situation under the Taliban was not forcing religious scholars and
leaders to remain in the national mainstream. In fact, there was no
national mainstream in existence in Afghanistan. Religious scholars were
not bound to worry about molding their opinion not only in favor of the
national interest but also in favor of Washingtons interest. For example,
the visit of Akram Khan Durrani, the chief minister of the North West
Frontier Province in Pakistan, to the Pentagon on July 12, 2005, to
explain the content of a pro-Islam Hasba Bill, which would introduce a
step towards implementation of Islamic way of life,[216] is an excellent
example in this regard.[217] Durrani said that he hopes the US will not
oppose the Hasba bill.[218]

Religious scholars in Afghanistan were not obliged to appease policymakers
or the United States government or seek approval from the Pentagon. They
were part of the policymakers and legislature. They were not worried about
the constant need for promotion on the national media. In other states,
the apparent opportunities, which give religiously devoted people the
illusion to be working for Islam, are actually resulting in the dumping of
the energies of these people rather than channeling them in a positive
direction. This was not the case in Afghanistan. The religious leadership
in Afghanistan was not stuck in a quagmire.

Unlike the rest of the Muslim world, there was no system established in
Afghanistan for officially promoting Shirk. If the Taliban rule was not
fully established on the basis of revealed Deen, at least, there was an
intention to do so; and efforts were underway for improvement and course
correction. None of the rest of Muslim states tried to establish Islam (as
defined in the Quran and Sunnah as a belief and way of life), nor does any
Muslim state use Islam as a basic reason for any conflict it faces with
the outside world.

Of course, the Taliban may not have been so farsighted. Yet there is no
doubt that freedom with regard to discussion, deliberation and
implementation of Islam was good enough to pave the way in the right
direction. Challenge to the status quo of the established division of
territory based on nation-states among Muslims was the most possible, yet
an unintended consequence of the Talibans approach. The Talibans approach
to international relations was more pragmatic than the approach of any of
the other 57 Muslim states. For example, their approach to the issue of
Chechnya was totally different from that of other Muslim states.

The Talibans support to the victims of Russian aggression in Chechnya was
one of the crimes of the Taliban government, according to the Talibans
opponents. The Taliban not only gave de jure recognition to the de facto
Republic of Chechnya, but they also extended clear political support for
the legitimate rights of the Chechen people. A foreign ministry spokesman
in Kabul said on December 20, 1999:

The Chechen question is the question of the whole world of Islam. The
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan considers the silence of the international
community and, in particular, that of Islamic countries in reaction to the
brutal reaction against the Muslim nation of Chechnya, as unkindness and
ignoring the rights of the nation.[219]

The Taliban were supposed to be a bunch of rather uncouth and fanatical
newcomers in the world of high diplomacy. Yet none of the other Muslim
states had the same clarity of thought and the same political
sophistication as shown by these madrassa-educated newcomers to the world
of realpolitik. The Afghan deputy minister of foreign affairs, Mulla
AbdurRahman Zahid, reminded Muslims of the world not to keep silent about
the cruelties, oppressions and crimes committed by the Russians and to
support the legitimate rights of the Chechens because the colonialist
powers are always striving to hinder the unity and solidarity of the
Muslim

Ummah.[220] This was a crucial time in which the Talibans minister
emphasized:

It is incumbent upon the Muslims of the world to strengthen their unity
and their solidarity in the light of Islamic guidance against suppression
and infringement upon the rights of the Muslims of the world. The Muslim
Ummah is capable of resolving its problems itself, thanks to the economic
and political potential at its disposal.[221]

The timing for such a comment and stand on the part of the Taliban was
crucial because the world was totally silent in the face of a Muslim
nations extermination. In the first Chechen war, 1994-96, Russia killed
100,000 Chechen civilians, razed much of the small country, and, in an act
of monumental terrorism, scattered 17 million anti-personnel land mines
across the tiny nation. Russia was driven from Chechnya in 1996, but its
hardliners and Communists vowed to exterminate the Chechen bandits.

The world started considering the Taliban as a threat because the rest of
the Muslim world was well in line with the oppression of Muslims in
Chechnya. For example, two weeks after the OIC delegations visit, the
Russian Information Agency (RIA) reported from Tehran:

Iran does not oppose the Russian campaign in Chechnya and supports Russias
territorial integrity, though it calls for a political solution to the
conflict, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi told a news conference
after meeting his Ukranian counterpart, Borys Tarasyuk, in Tehran.
Proliferation of any form of terrorism and religious extremism is
unacceptable, the minister said.[ 222]

This was the time when the United States was proposing sanctions on the
Taliban and at the same time the administration of Bill Clinton was
largely financing Russias genocide in Chechnya. The United States supplied
Russians with attack helicopters loaded with advanced night-vision devices
to combat terrorism, said the White House. Clintons national security
adviser, Sandy Berger, had conceded: Clearly Russia has the right to fight
terrorism within its borders.[223] At a time when U.N. sanctions were
imposed on Afghanistan for being under the tyranny of the Taliban, Clinton
called for the liberation of Grozny by Russia.

This straightforward approach and stand on principles was considered as
Talibanization. That is why the world had to face the chorus of
Talibanization of Pakistan and other Muslim states in the Western media.
The Taliban were unknowingly challenging the standards of Muslim
organization in the world. Their standards were no more a persons place of
birth, race or nationality. As long as one claimed to be Muslim, the
secular standard of citizenship hardly mattered for the Taliban to forge
strong bonds of brotherhood. They declared the Quran as their
constitution,[224] which was the first step towards removing secular
standards for human organization and governance. The Taliban were not
focusing on changing the faces in power. They were changing the system and
the whole approach to governance. Modern-day elections are nothing more
than changing faces and gaining legitimacy to the established order. The
big threat is when there are calls to change the system and not just the
faces. Unlike Pakistan and other Muslim states, the Taliban not only
achieved physical independence but also psychological and ideological
independence to go about making such changes.

That is why the stealth crusade had to target Afghanistan.[225] In the
planning for doing so, it is not easy to point out just one group of the
stakeholders in the prevailing international order. For example, from a
close examination of the agenda of evangelical groups in the Muslim world,
it appears that, as a whole, Christian fundamentalism is no longer just a
religious mission. It has become part and parcel of the mainstream
politics and foreign policies of the West. According to Yogindar Sikand,
an analyst from India:

As is widely believed, many evangelical groups working in the Third World
are simply fronts for Western agencies and governments, helping to promote
their vested interests and strategic goals. This is most readily apparent
from the cozy relationship between Christian fundamentalists and the
current Bush administration. Right-wing American Christian groups are
known to be sources of immense financial support to Israel. They are also
vociferous backers of Americas imperialist designs on the Muslim world,
seeing these as a divinely mandated crusade against the forces of evil.
These Christian groups also served to promote American interests abroad.
Several of them received generous funding from far-right American
government lobbies, CIA front organizations, American big business and
right-wing think tanks. Many missionaries were appointed as sources of
vital information for the CIA, and were used to bolster American hegemony
by indoctrination and spreading American propaganda.[ 226]

To consolidate the fear of having Muslims live according to Islam, this
mission against Islam is carried out on all fronts, particularly the media
front. The Taliban happened to be just one target of this global struggle.
Even thinkers such as Edward Said did not get it specifically right when
he concluded that books, like Millers The Islamic Threat, are symptomatic
because they are weapons in the contest to subordinate, beat down, compel
and defeat any Arab or Muslim resistance to US-Israeli dominance.227
Unfortunately, it is not the matter of the United States and Israel alone.
When it comes to a very different way of life and law, the Muslim world
stands in total contrast to the rest of the world. All those who have a
stake in the prevailing world order would do anything to not let Muslims
live as an Ummah with their own way of life according to the Quran,
because this will put before humanity another model of social organization
and governance: a step towards establishing a just order.

That is why Muslims who aspire and struggle to live by Islam are demonized
as extremists, who want to work for the dominance of political Islam. To
further dehumanize a whole culture on the ground that it is (in Bernard
Lewiss sneering phrase) enraged at modernity is to turn Muslims into the
objects of a therapeutic, punitive attention, and close all doors to the
possibility of even discussing whether living by Islam is really a threat
to humanity. These Islamophobes took full advantage of the Talibans rule
by magnifying their shortcomings to the extent that Muslims can hardly
muster enough courage to stand up and say they want to establish a society
in which they can live by Islam, let alone demand unity of Muslim Ummah,
and live under a single Islamic entity: Khilafah, Caliphate, Emirate,
Islamic State or whatever one may call it.

Note:

For the references in this write up, please refer to the author's latest
book: Afghanistan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade.



Find this article at:
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/29221