The Muslim world is dominated by the West, overtly via military and economic means, but also covertly through the manipulation of language. Control a person's language and you limit his thinking and control his ability to articulate what he desires.
Take a simple word such as 'Democracy'. By associating it in the minds of the Muslims with freedom from tyranny and oppression, they have made it a common call across the Muslim world. You hear it chanted on the streets from Cairo to Tripoli, and these chants carried by the global media to every corner of the planet, clear undeniable evidence of the desire for democratic reform in the Muslim world?
But where is the danger in this? Surely a word can mean many things to many people, and what is important is what the intended meaning by the one who uses it? If Muslims choose to label their liberation as 'Democracy', what harm could it bring?
Most words are indeed harmless; they just convey a simple meaning or description. But some words carry a depth that cannot be conveyed by a few lines in a dictionary. They carry the weight of history behind them, and they carry a meaning which is intertwined with a belief about life itself.
'Democracy' is such a word.
Far from being a simple collection of letters, it is a word that was forged through centuries of bloodshed across Europe. It is a word which is associated with freedom from the oppression by tyrannical Monarchies, who through a twisted collaboration between themselves and the Christian clergy had maintained dominance over the people by claiming themselves and their bloodlines 'chosen' by God. So the eventual backlash against this situation was not just about removing dictatorships, but removing religious dictatorships. This struggle is an intrinsic part of the collective psyche of the western world; when they talk about the right of people to govern themselves, they also mean the prevention of religious interference in ruling - whether this is explicitly stated or not.
So in essence the word is actually a part of a culture. It comes with not just a linguistic meaning but also a history and a set of values, all of which are inextricably linked to this single word 'Democracy'. When understood in its true context, it becomes clear why using such a word is dangerous. Muslims marching on the streets in the middle-east understand the linguistic meaning, which they see as something which fits with their own demands; the right to elect your own ruler, the right to have an independent judiciary, the right to hold you rulers to account etc. But they do not appreciate the history behind the word or the values that are part and parcel of it, and as such are unaware that they are sending out message to the world which they did not intend.
Imagine a human-rights charity who decided that a swastika would be a suitable logo for their organisation, being ignorant of the symbol's association with the Nazis. So, being ignorant of the history and values that come with the symbol they proudly display it on their leaflets and posters. Would this convey the message they wanted?
Similarly while the Muslims believe they are simply calling for their rights by adopting the term ‘Democracy', the world views such a call for the removal of Islam from governing and for the implementation of secular liberal values.
It is through this confusion over the use of language that particular words such as 'Democracy' can be used as weapons against the Muslims. The word is pumped endlessly through the media and via secular political groups, until it becomes a slogan for the struggle and adopted by the masses, unaware of what it means.
What an unforgivable crime it would be if the sincere efforts and sacrifices of the Ummah to rid themselves of the chains of colonialism and dictatorship merely resulted in them replacing one set of chains with another, ones which they hang around their own necks?
But the crime would not be theirs. They would have done their part in this global struggle, the failure would be ours. For every part of this Ummah has a role to play; for some this is a physical struggle, putting their lives on the line. For others this is an intellectual struggle, to see through the words spoken by politicians and to expose the real agenda.
So let us take a stand against the imposition of a foreign culture in the minds of our people through these words. Let us draw a clear line between Islam and Kufr, as clear as the difference between praying in a church or praying in a mosque. Democracy is part of a culture that is foreign to Islam. Democracy is a Western construct and therefore foreign to the Muslim world and Democracy is much more than elections. We have our own unique history and culture, and our own system which is distinct from that of the west: the Khilafah. It encompasses the right to elect the ruler, to hold him to account and remove him if he contradicts Islam. We have a judiciary to uphold the rule of law and the many other state institutions that the Muslim world demands, but it does not do so at the expense of the Islamic values that are demanded just as strongly.
أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِنْ دُونِي وَهُمْ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ ۚ بِئْسَ لِلظَّالِمِينَ بَدَلًا
"Do you take him and his offspring as protectors apart from Me when they are your enemy? How evil is the exchange the wrongdoers make!" (Kahf, 18:50)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Manzoor-ul Haq
said:
 |
To pursue the matter further what I read and benefitted from, I quote weighty words of Moinul Hussain [The Amanah of language in the politics of Muslims]: Whatever is meant by the chants for 'freedom' it can be said for sure that it definately means freedom from Mubarak's despotic rule and any other western backed leader and a government free from western influence and control. However, the message the active political parties are giving to the people and to western governments are of particular interest as these different groups who are calling for the removal of Mubarak are offering to replace it with what they call 'Islamic Democracy' or 'shura' and 'freedom' .... .... |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
john
said:
 |
Do you beleive that the "arab Spring" is an opportunity to bring about a Caliphate? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
ΜΩĦΛМ£Д Ismail
said:
 |
Democracy is "mob rule" - that is, two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. A Republic, on the other hand, is rule by the Law, a constitution - Islamic Shari'ah in the case of the Muslim world. Whereas "democracy" makes into law the will of the majority - usually at the expense of the minority - a constitution protects minority rights. As any observer of history can see, the will of the majority can be manipulated quite easily by social engineers over a period of time - because the majority of people will tend to accept anything as long as it is implemented gradually. Islamic Shari'ah, when applied justly, is an example of such a constitution. The United States constitution is another (heavily influenced by Islamic principles might I add). But one area where the Islamic constitution differs is it proposes to establish this legal dominion wherever Muslims are. The U.S. constitution was limited to the continental U.S. - and I say *was* because it is largely dead. The U.S. constitution is being eviscerated by the all powerful will of the masses - who have been first scared and then outwitted to accepted their own subjugation with legislations like the Patriot Act and PDD51 which virtually invalidate the U.S. constitution... Democracy is the gradual march to oligarchy (rule by the few, the few who have the most connections and resources). A REPUBLIC is the best form of government for the masses. One can see this very clearly in the Roman Empire versus the Roman Republic (and the United States *republic* verses the current United States Empire). When government shifts from a republic to a "democracy" - its only a matter of time before it becomes a dictatorship. And that dictatorship is not the iconic "one-man show" we have been led to believe by the media - it is the dictatorship of the few, an OLIGARCHY. Julius Caesar, kings, queens, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, were not in power through their own accord - they were placed in such positions by people who stood to gain from their manipulation. Oligarchs gain as long as the public doesn't know their identities, as long as the public thinks that one man or woman is actually in charge, as long as the public actually believes that economic turmoils, wars, revolutions and disasters are caused by factors different from their real causes - the advancement of the interests of the few at the expense of the many. Oligarchs have been running the world for a very long time, and will probably continue to do so. However, their power fades when the MAJORITY recognize that they have been the tools of their own enslavement and really start to take back their sovereignty bestowed upon them by their Creator. Only then can a planetary Republic be established, one based on (the real) universal Truth and Justice. One that places Him at the center. Only then will there be a true and lasting peace. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Shane
said:
 |
MashAllah, this article is really good and speaks what most dont see. Very good. Pls forward this via leaflets outside UK Masjids. Khayr |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Shaban M Omar
said:
 |
I am very certain that Muslims are not only confused with democracy but the wordt word change also has lost its value in their minds too.Yes, people need change but what change? the world suffered a lot under feudalism then the change was made to capitalism though these can be termed as ideological change but still the world continue to suffer so what next to be done? Indeed people now should under stand that the world now needs divined ideological change.Fortunately that change lies on Islam.ISLAM is unique divine system meant to deliver people from all atrocities to better atmosphere where rule of law,good governance and an accountable leader will be achieved |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Slave of Allah
said:
 |
Unfortunately, this article failed to put forth the real argument against the use of the term "democracy". What was rightfully portrayed was that "democracy" is taken by most people in both Muslim and Non-Muslim countries to mean "something which fits with their own demands; the right to elect your own ruler, the right to have an independent judiciary, the right to hold you rulers to account etc.". What was not made clear, but which MUST be made clear is that democracy as a system of government means not only elections, but also, and PIVOTALLY, "the right of the people to make any law in any form they want through a process designed by human minds (as enshrined in the man-made constitutions of these countries.) If you ask any thinking Muslim this question -- "Brother, as you know you and I shall stand before our Lord on the Day of Hashr. Will you then say to His face that you had the right to make laws on the earth?" Almost invariably, the Muslim will answer in the negative. When you point out to him that democracy (demos + kratos = common people + rule = rule of the people) says exactly that you have the right to make your own laws, whereas to be a Muslim and to implement Islam means that you acknowledge that all required laws have already been given to mankind by Allaah (SWT) in the Qur'aan, the Sunnaah, the ijmah of the Sahabah, and by kiyaas, and that if a new situation arises, we must resort ijtihaad, then most Muslims do indeed understand the fault in democracy. I would think that this is the message that has not yet got through to the masses of the Muslims, and which should be emphasized. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
jubayer ahamed
said:
 |
democracy is a trap where we will trap ourselves by the propaganda of kufr ideologies and their evil intentions.........so it is a system where people have no right to speak out as we see in middle east.......but they say freedom of speech.......how funny.......its really a hiding..... |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
salahudeen khilafah
said:
 |
assalamu alaikum,ahki Salsabeel, this is the language i have been waiting patiently to see. You have hit the nail dead on so may ALLAH (swt) reward you generously for your efforts. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
 |
Recall how revolutions and ‘change’ have caught up the mass of people in euphoria before. It bears a reminder to jog the memory of revolutions full of hope only to hint at what was the beginning of a gruelling struggle. The American and French revolutions caught the imagination of many people suffering under despots and totalitarian monarchies. During the 1700’s the intellectuals of Europe were trying to challenge the Absolute Authority of Kings and Emperors; and calling for universal and innate values that all human beings share. For example, the common people had the right to express their views and demand their due rights without fear of being tortured and imprisoned. Ruling authorities at the time intimidated those who dared to be outspoken against tyranny. Eventually desperate social conditions, costly wars overseas, and the increased prices of food forced people into popular revolution. In the early 20th Century the Russians and Chinese brought revolutions against old ruling houses and attempted to modernise the backward societies. In the Southern Hemisphere three main periods really stick out. There were lengthy wars of independence from the turn of 19th/20th Century from the Boer struggles against British imperialism and the Far East against European colonisation. India under British occupation saw intellectual challenges to British and Indian princes (puppets). Momentum gathered pace after 1945 from Indo-China and Indonesia to Pan African struggles of independence. Algeria was caught up in a very bitter struggle for freedom from France (scars that remain embedded to this day). North Africa became independent after protracted guerrilla struggles. There was hope and anticipation in these newly independent states. The next phase of revolutions opened up when kings were overthrown, as in the case of Libya, Egypt, and Iraq for example. This ushered in an era where the U.S.A was replacing regimes under Anglo-French-Italian influence under American hegemony instead. Libya became a U.S satellite, providing bases and training ranges for the U.S military. In the present day these popular revolutions aim at the despots who took power roughly from 1960 to 1970. In essence the revolutions are also targeting the entire governments and security apparatus that spies on, imprisons, and tortures people. Yet do these revolutions hint at a final culmination in centuries struggle for freedom? A struggle that has been waged sine the 19th century? Take a closer look |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
|
Remember that N.A.T.O policy means having candidates on both factions. First Hillary Clinton 'warns' (or rather hints) at a civil war. Special Forces already been active in Libya; also unlike the Egyptians and Tunisians; how did the Libyans (in opposition to Colonel Qaddafi) suddenly turn out to be so well armed? The Egyptian military was remarkably ‘neutral’ during the early stages of the massive protests which gained rapid momentum. Indepedent analysis (F.W.Engdahl) mentions concern from the Egyptian military that ailing Hosni Mubarak would pass on the ‘presidency’ (hereditary rule) to his son. Now in Libya, protests turns to conflict; each piece of news (Libyan air force bombing installations and ammunitions dumps) will be seized upon by the western politicians arguing for ‘no fly zones’; and Colonel Qaddafi claiming (amongst silly statements of Al Qaeda trying to destabilise Libya) that American leadership wants him out. Although there is some vein of truth that the American leadership (under coy President Barack Obama) wants Colonel Qaddafi to leave. Remember 2001 and 2003? Who says all regime change needs open invasion? The elite are too clever by half to act in such an obvious manner. The attempts of ‘popular revolutions’ have already been rehearsed: colour revolutions and then the Iranian uprisings of 2009. America can even instigate revolts in Israel should the Israelis not behave according to American interests. Yet the N.A.T.O alliance (centred on Paris, Washington D.C, and London) looks increasingly fazed as the economies of Europe, Britain, and America become increasingly dysfunctional. How can N.A.T.O wage perpetual war when financial centres of major economies are bleeding? This empire is following the pattern of the European empires; a desperate gamble on more wars to sustain the war economy and prevent the collapse of domestic corporate and banking interests. Eventually the rot within will destroy Europe, U.K, and North American from within. Remember the Military-Industrial Complex does not provide for basic necessities and a global economy geared up on mutual annihilation is a grim harbinger for the future. Notice the trends of increasing food prices, nations buying land for crops in Africa (already poverty stricken continent); and the potential for corporations to control prices of all food sources and perhaps even water. Control over ever scarce fresh water supply and increasingly militarisation over the Arctic (led by irresponsible U.S.A/U.K) is careering into an undeclared war against Russia (and by extension Eurasia). We would do well to study and understand the wars for global dominance since 1700. ARTICLE: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa. NATO Invasion of Libya Underway by Keith Harmon Snow http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23481 INTERVIEW: F. William Engdahl on 1st February 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bRVgAiUz_c |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|