The future of Bosnia lies in the Khilafah
Abdul-Kareem, writes from Bosnia-Herzegovina
After touching down in Sarajevo and a brief stop at passport control we made our way outside the airport to catch a taxi. Up until this point, the flight, the airport, the baggage collection, everything was perfectly normal as you'd expect from any European capital. We flagged down a taxi, managing to haggle a fairly reasonable price despite the soaring petrol prices, and proceeded to our destination. The taxi ride from the airport is where you begin to notice that this is no ordinary European city. The NATO army truck driving past and rows of derelict houses punctured by machine gun holes give indications that this now calm city was once the scene of a terrible war. Our taxi driver speaks of war criminals, The Hague and his time fighting with the army, but this is not the Second World War. This is a war that ended just thirteen years ago in the heart of Europe.
Islam entered Bosnia nearly 600 years ago through the Ottoman conquests in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The famous Sultan, Muhammad al-Fatih who opened Constantinople and fulfilled the Prophet Muhammad's (saw) prophecy that one day the Muslims would conquer the city, also opened up much of Bosnia to Islam. Dotted around Sarajevo and the towns and villages across Bosnia are hundreds of mosques, many that can date their origins back to this time. With the azan echoing across the towns and villages five times a day, Bosnia takes its place as an integral part of the Muslim world, and its people part of the wider Muslim Ummah who love Islam. Despite suffering some of the worst atrocities imaginable at the hands of the Christian Serbs and Croats, they never gave up their religion and remained steadfast in the fold of Islam.
Bosnia, like all Muslim countries today is a playground for the competing interests of the international powers. The major players in the Balkans - the US, Russia and Western Europe all vie for influence through the UN, EU and NATO in addition to their historical links with the governments of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. America claims it intervened in Bosnia and later Kosovo for defending Muslims, whereas in actual fact it followed the long established principle 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' America's enemy's enemy in this case was Russia and its subordinate Serbia.
Like all Muslim countries today, whilst the ordinary people struggle to survive, the governments and foreign powers get richer. Very little of the foreign investment makes it way to the ordinary man on the street. They see bright, new shopping malls being built but rarely could they afford to shop there. A similar situation exists in many Gulf countries hidden away among the seven star hotels, artificial islands and indoor ski slopes.
The Bosnian economy is extremely weak with over 50% unemployment. Many families survive on the handouts of family members now living abroad in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the UK. Because of this, the EU, the real power in Bosnia, is supporting efforts to develop Bosnia's tourist industry. Croatia is already a popular tourist destination, and there are hopes Bosnia can follow suit. Major reconstruction work is taking place to build new motorways linking the north and south of the country and luxury hotels are springing up in some of the major cities. Following in the footsteps of other Muslim countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt, tourism is one industry the west is very happy for the Muslim world to adopt. Tourism ensures the economy remains un-industrialised and poses no threat to the western industries. It also provides a means for western culture to permeate the country with alcohol, casinos and scantily clad women becoming the norm. Any Islamisation of the country is fought against severely by the governments in the name of protecting the tourist industry and hence the economy. Egypt is a prime example of this. It's one of the world's top tourist destinations but is also one of the world's most repressive regimes where torture and imprisonment without trial is routine.
The Bosnian government showed its true colours recently when it began efforts to deport all the mujahideen who travelled across the Muslim world in the early nineties to protect Bosnia during the war. These mujahideen were given Bosnian citizenship, many married Bosnian women and started families. Now they face the prospect of losing everything and being deported back to the most oppressive Muslim countries like Algeria, Syria and Egypt to face almost certain torture and imprisonment.
Bosnia, as with many Muslim countries suffers from underlying ethnic tensions. Deeply rooted nationalism among Serbs and Croats is what led to the outbreak of war in the first place in 1992. The wounds from the war have still not healed despite a relative calm on the surface. Flashpoints exist in some areas notably between Muslims and Serbs in Srebrenica and Muslims and Croats in Mostar. The rape camps, massacres, torture and genocide Muslims suffered are not easily forgotten. These atrocities, many committed under the watchful eyes of the UN, showed Bosnian Muslims that there is no one to protect them. I remember during the war speaking with one Bosnian soldier who simply said, 'the Serbs have Serbia, Croats have Croatia, who do the Muslims have?'
Despite strong nationalistic tendencies, for the ordinary people whether Muslim, Croat or Serb they all suffer from the same basic day to day problems of rising food and petrol prices, unemployment, crime and government corruption. Separating on the basis of ethnic or nationalistic identity does not resolve these basic issues for the common man.
In contrast the Islamic Khilafah is not a nationalistic state or a state just for Muslims. Citizenship in Islam is based on someone permanently living within the territories of the Islamic State regardless of their ethnicity. Catholics (Croats) and Orthodox Christians (Serbs) can easily live as a religious minority in the Khilafah without compromising their religion, as long as the deeply rooted nationalistic ideas are removed. All citizens have access to justice, security and the economic benefits of a stable Islamic economy. This may seem like a dream to some, but Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together under the Ottoman Khilafah in the Balkans for many years until the period of decline.
Interestingly, Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are all seeking EU membership. They are willing to unite together for the economic benefits this will bring to their nations, even though they must sacrifice some of their national sovereignty. The recent arrest of Radovan Karadzic and his extradition to The Hague is a stark example of this. Karadzic is a national hero in Serbia and there is widespread opposition to his arrest. There have even been death threats made against the government which are being taken seriously after the assassination of a former Serb Prime Minister just a few years back. Despite all this Serbia is willingly to sacrifice a national hero to pursue EU membership talks.
Similarly, a future Khilafah that manages to project its Islamic values internationally showing the strength of the Islamic aqeeda and its systems, will see many countries willingly annexing their lands to the Khilafah even though they must give up their national sovereignty in the process.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 16547
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (18)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Dawud Beale
said:
 |
Alhamdulillah I am a white british revert to Islam and inshAllah plan to join hizb ut tahrir in full support of the idea of establishing the khilafah state. My wife has also aggreed to join and I am currently recruiting many other members who i know think things need to change. May ALlah bless you all for your good work and let us not let a repeat of the bosnia war happen again where all muslim rulers stood idilly by while the kuffra systematic slaughter the mu'min like chicken. Oh wait tahts already happening in gaza, afghaninstan, iraq etc etc. May ALlah bless us with a khilafah state inshAllah |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jan Hamza
said:
 |
Yazaak Allahu khayran brother, I have used this 'letter' in an article and translated the last part about the Khilafah and the Balkans. I also visited Bosnia's capitol Sarajevo and will visit Kosovo this year insha Allah. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Turkish Mughal
said:
 |
EU is nothing but just a moderate version of Crusades, Holy League and Inquisition. Turks will again occupy whole of balkans....inshAllah.... The Future of Bosnia is indeed in Caliphate. not in EU. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Socrates
said:
 |
Dear Abdul-Kareem, The majority of people especially those in power in Europe and America understand very well that Islam is not a conventional religion. This is why they want to secualrise Islam by pushing for a reformation similar to what happened to Christianity. If Islam was a religion only there would be no need for a war on terror because Islam was simply stay in the mosque and not encroach on society. Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953. This group has been out of the mosque for almost sixty years now. The current war on terror began in 2001, and not because Islam had left the mosque. This war is clearly not related to the nature of Islam and if the Indians or Chinese had used Bin Laden’s terror tactics, we would be at war with them. In my view, the majority of Western people don’t have an opinion about the conventionality or not of Islam, but they understand that some people justify the rejection of harmonious community relations through reference to religious texts. The West does not want to ‘secularise Islam’ for its own sake, but we do want re-assurance from Islamic citizens on limiting political point-scoring through the destruction of airliners, skyscrapers, buses and trains. I think I have misunderstood something important here – on 14th August, you said that “in Australia, Britain and other European countries where Muslims are being forced to leave their Islamic values in order to integrate.” which you later clarified as “So when I talk about leaving Islamic values, what I mean is Islamic Political values.” I took this to mean that you were distressed that Muslims had to leave their values to participate in politics – perhaps this is not a concern for you after all? “Islamic political values do not prevent Muslims from discussion. Muslims in the west are obliged to stand up for their rights and values. People can engage strongly in politics without being in government.” You seem to be saying that the limitations non-Muslims will have in the future Caliphate are acceptable because of the barriers facing some Muslims to political participation in the West. Is this a better summary of your position? It seems to me that our differing views about future society shape the way that we think about politics today. I want Muslims to fully participate in liberal democracy, because I believe this is the universal society in which we all, Muslims and non-Muslims, will live eventually. In comparison, you seem comfortable with limitations in the West, because eventually non-Muslims will be limited in the Caliphate that you believe is coming. I should not be surprised that because we have different beliefs about future society, we have different aspirations for the citizens today. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul-Kareem
said:
 |
RE: Socrates * In the case of Judaism, if you look at Israel, as I understand there is a popular but hotly contested view that it is a Jewish state that should use Jewish law, making Judaism both spiritual and political. Judaism does not contain detailed laws governing social, economic, ruling, judicial and foreign policy aspects. Israel is a secular state. For strict Orthodox Jews Israel is illegal according to the Torah and shouldn’t exist. Jewish law in Israel consists of personal aspects such as worship, morals, food and clothing. * The former communist states, which you describe has political only, had a spiritual aspect, by mandating atheism as the national ‘religion’. Communism is an ideology and therefore is based on a fundamental idea or belief in materialism. However it denies the spiritual aspect and religion and this idea of materialism is purely political. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t answer the question of why were are here and what is our purpose in life. It does answer it by saying we evolved from material. * Christianity is definitely both spiritual and political. Christianity does not contain detailed laws governing social, economic, ruling, judicial and foreign policy aspects. Christianity is a self-confessed spiritual religion with no political aspect because of the principle mentioned in the bible: “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” When Christianity was ruling Europe this was known as the Dark Ages. What happened in reality was that Kings ruled with any laws they wanted and this was seen as “God’s will” rubber stamped by the clergy of the time. Christianity does contain general moral values because it’s a religion such as the ten commandments and right to life. When these encroach on society then you will get conflict as happens in the abortion debate. This doesn’t mean Christianity has detailed political systems that can rule society. Europe only progressed when it separated the Church and state and adopted a new idea called secularism. European societies united around this idea and it spawned the capitalist ideology which allowed it to progress. In summary, as an ideology, it seems to me that Islam is pretty similar to other religions. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the last prophet and was sent to ALL of mankind unlike the previous prophets who were sent to particular nations. Since there are no more prophets ordinary Muslims must rule society. Therefore the message of Islam is universal and detailed enough to govern society and resolve any problems human beings will face until the world ends. The majority of people especially those in power in Europe and America understand very well that Islam is not a conventional religion. This is why they want to secualrise Islam by pushing for a reformation similar to what happened to Christianity. If Islam was a religion only there would be no need for a war on terror because Islam was simply stay in the mosque and not encroach on society. If you are a citizen in the West, how are Muslims to achieve the social and political changes they want? How will Muslims live in harmony with non-Muslims if Islamic political values prevent Muslims from discussion and compromise? How can Muslims grow support for the Caliphate, and Islamic values, if you do not engage politically with non-Muslims? Islamic political values do not prevent Muslims from discussion. Muslims in the west are obliged to stand up for their rights and values. People can engage strongly in politics without being in government. The role of political parties in Islam is not to rule as the Caliphate is not a partisan system where parties are elected to power. Political parties’ primary role is accounting the government and its policies. In the west Islamic political parties will account the government and defend the Islamic values. However, since we are not working to establish the Caliphate in the west we realise that we cannot live 100% by sharia without the Caliphate. We are limited to voicing our opinion, attempting to influence decision makers and engaging with the media. Muslims are engaging with non-Muslims in the west on these very issues. I suggest visiting the website of an Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir (http://www.hizb.org.uk) for details on their work in the west which should give a clearer picture. Looking forward to the Caliphate, how will the Caliphate live in harmony with non-Muslim nations if the leader’s Islamic political values prevent discussion and compromise? This now moves on to foreign policy and international relations which is a massive topic. To re-iterate Islamic political values do not prevent discussion. The Caliphate will not be isolationist. Far from it. We are obliged to engage with other nations with an objective to spread our values to them. Ideological nations seek to spread their ideology to others. Look at the Soviet Union during the Cold War or America today and the spread of democracy in the Middle East and former Communist states. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concluded many treaties with foreign states when he ruled the first Islamic State in Medina. The Caliphate throughout history has signed numerous treaties with foreign nations covering many aspects. Abraham Lincoln signed a treaty with the Caliphate in the 19th century to protect American shipping routes in North Africa. Treaties by their nature are about compromise and reaching a mutual agreement. Islam has even detailed emergency treaties that can be signed in particular circumstances which give big advantages to the opposite side. However, this is never at the expense of compromising the values of Islam or any sharia legal rule. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Socrates
said:
|
Thanks for the comprehensive update Adbul-Kareem, and an apology – I did not read the author line, and I thought that you and Abdullah were the same person. Based on your writing and other material on the website, I am now well aware of your view of Islam as a political philosophy as well as a religion. My point in responding to your Letter from Bosnia was that I did not understand why the non-Muslims would agree to join a future Caliphate. From my point of view, the issue of politics in the Caliphate is not the rules for leadership, but the desirability of the rules for leadership for non-Muslims. I now understand that you expect that non-Muslims would convert once the Caliphate is established, and so the nation would join the Caliphate. Taking up your further discussion, it is interesting that you describe Judaism and Christianity as ‘conventional religions’, which do not have a political angle and work within secular states, whereas Islam is an exception. In my view, the framework you have outlined for these ideologies/religions is not so simple. * In the case of Judaism, if you look at Israel, as I understand there is a popular but hotly contested view that it is a Jewish state that should use Jewish law, making Judaism both spiritual and political. * The former communist states, which you describe has political only, had a spiritual aspect, by mandating atheism as the national ‘religion’. * Christianity is definitely both spiritual and political. In Europe until the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was heavily involved in politics – authorising the Crusades to the Holy Land for example. The Pope directly ruled much of Italy (the Papal States) for about 1000 years (800 – 1800). Even today, the Catholic Church in Australia has threatened to expel Catholic members of parliament that vote in favour of abortion or stem-cell research. In summary, as an ideology, it seems to me that Islam is pretty similar to other religions. “So when I talk about leaving Islamic values, what I mean is Islamic Political values.” It is interesting that you are talking about this in the context of life outside the Caliphate. Once you revive the Caliphate, Muslims will be able to migrate there, and as the majority (or only) religion, set the rules as you see fit. But outside the Caliphate, and before it is established, you are a citizen of some nation. If you are a citizen in the West, how are Muslims to achieve the social and political changes they want? How will Muslims live in harmony with non-Muslims if Islamic political values prevent Muslims from discussion and compromise? How can Muslims grow support for the Caliphate, and Islamic values, if you do not engage politically with non-Muslims? Looking forward to the Caliphate, how will the Caliphate live in harmony with non-Muslim nations if the leader’s Islamic political values prevent discussion and compromise? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul-Kareem
said:
|
RE: Socrates and Abdullah. As you state, the Caliphate requires *belief* in Islam whereas the US requires leaders to ‘support’, and ‘preserve, protect and defend.’ This is a crucial difference - since belief is not required, leadership roles can be open to all citizens, of any religion. The systems are not the same. The inclusion of Muslims in leadership roles in the US and UK contrasts with the exclusion faced by non-Muslims in the new Caliphate. If this is not second-class citizenship, then what is it? Let me clarify what I mean by belief, ideology and religion in the context of ruling. This should hopefully answer a lot of the questions. Broadly there are three types of relationships in life. 1.Relationship between a person and God (Religious and spiritual beliefs) 2.Relationship between a person and himself (morals) 3.Relationship between a person and others (societal transactions, government and politics) A conventional religion like Judaism or Christianity deals with the first two relationships i.e. they are spiritual beliefs related to the individual. When it comes to societal affairs, government, politics and economics, they “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” i.e. they are secular. They have some general moral values which impact society such as strong family values or love thy neighbour. But they do not have detailed systems for life’s affairs. An ideology is a belief, idea or set of principles (whatever terms you life) that produce a unique viewpoint on life and from which systems of life are derived. This can cover all three relationships or it can confine itself purely to societal affairs by ignoring the other two relationships. Capitalism and Communism are examples of ideologies. Communism rejects God completely and Capitalism doesn’t reject or confirm religion it simply detaches religion from life. This is known as secularism. Even though they are not religious Communism and Capitalism are based on a fundamental idea which I am calling a belief. Belief in the context I am using it is therefore not confined just to religion. Islam is an ideology not simply a religion. It covers all three relationships above and believes the Creator Allah (God) guided human beings in all aspects of life from prayer to politics and foreign policy. The Islamic belief is therefore spiritual and political. In summary you have: Spiritual belief only – Judaism or Christianity Political belief only – Communism or Capitalism Spiritual/Political belief – Islam Having built this framework we can apply it to the issue of ruling. In the west they follow the Capitalism ideology. They implement secular-democracy and follow the basic values of freedom and individual choice. The legislator in a capitalist system is a human being. Through parliament or congress they vote on what is good and bad, and what laws should be implemented. Those in government positions believe in this ideology and rule according to it. Their political belief is Capitalism/Secularism. However, because Capitalism doesn’t care about the spiritual belief of a person then this is why any person with a spiritual belief Jew, Christian, Hindu or someone with no spiritual belief like an atheist can happily partake in the ruling structure. So you can have a Jewish Democrat, Christian Democrat or a Hindu Democrat. Their political beliefs are completely separate from their spiritual beliefs. Now the problem comes with Islam, and this is the reason for the whole debate in the west on values and integration of Muslims. They want Muslims to be like the Jews and Christians i.e. they hold a spiritual belief in Islam but their political belief is secularism and democracy. If a Muslim does this then he can join the government. So when I talk about leaving Islamic values, what I mean is Islamic Political values. Individual beliefs, praying, fasting even clothing are not a problem for the west although the hijab does touch on societal affairs and encroaches on this political belief to some extent. This is why there is a debate on whether to ban it or not in some countries. In Islam there is no separation between religion and politics. Islam is a spiritual/political belief. It is completely forbidden to vote for good and bad since these values are fixed by sharia. Legislation is derived from sharia and not from the mind of human beings or for the interests of large corporations as we find in the USA. Although the oaths may not explicitly state the issue of belief in capitalism, secularism and democracy this is implied and in fact the whole nation generally believes in this. It only becomes an issue when an alternative ideology emerges and becomes a challenge to Capitalism. This is why in the US there was McCarthyism where anyone suspected of Communist tendencies was persecuted and thrown out of their positions. Religion wasn’t the issue but the Communist ideology was. Therefore a Communist could never become part of the Capitalist US government. In the Caliphate the sharia has made belief in the Islamic ideology a condition for ruling positions. The Islamic belief cannot be separated into Spiritual beliefs and political beliefs. It is one inseparable whole. Therefore to believe in the political aspects of Islam you must also believe in the spiritual aspects as a condition. There can be no separation. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Socrates
said:
|
Dear Abdul, My point in this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of the rules of the future Caliphate, or my superficial Western views on equality. The Caliphate is not a democracy. While it is interesting to compare the systems, they are not equivalent. Unlike democracy, Caliphate citizens have differing rights depending on their religion. It is hardly surprising that the Caliphate is attractive to Muslims, given the privileges that they would enjoy in comparison with other citizens. Your contention is that the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina lies in the Caliphate. You refer to it as Muslim land, but Muslims are a minority, albeit the largest minority. I did not understand the reason that the Serbs and Croats citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina would agree to their nation joining the Caliphate. After all, they would be second-class citizens, for example, not being able to take on leadership roles; and they have alternative choices, for example, joining the EU instead. You agreed with this, and said that you believed the Serbs and Croats will become Muslim once the Caliphate is re-established, so the minority problem goes away. If this were to happen, I agree that the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina would vote to join the Caliphate. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdullah
said:
 |
Socrates, "As you state, the Caliphate requires *belief* in Islam whereas the US requires leaders to ‘support’, and ‘preserve, protect and defend.’ This is a crucial difference - since belief is not required, leadership roles can be open to all citizens, of any religion. The systems are not the same. The inclusion of Muslims in leadership roles in the US and UK contrasts with the exclusion faced by non-Muslims in the new Caliphate. If this is not second-class citizenship, then what is it?" You point to difference in form only. If I, as the predisent of the US, have to preserve, protect and defend secularism and democracy, does it matter whether I believe in it or not? Surely actions are more important that what is in the heart. If the Khilafah had a condition of the head of state preserving and defending Islam, that would negate the belief of any non-Muslim in the position anyhow. This has nothing to do with second-class citizenship, but all to do with ideology and practical measures of preserving the implementation of the ideology. Your argument about dhimmis being discriminated is a result of your Western conception of 'equality' requiring that everying be identical for everyone. This is superficial. Your argument can be flipped on its head by a simple example: In the Caliphate, all mature Muslims, men and women, must pay zakat which is 2.5% of savings. Non-Muslims are exempt. The non-Muslims pay jizyah, but this is only their men (not women) who are able and its rate is less than zakat. According to your logic, this would mean that the Caliphate discriminates against Muslims! Which is ridiculous, but therein lies the superificiality of your analysis. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Socrates
said:
|
Dear Abdul-Kareem, “Therefore the reality of any nation is that the Head of state and all ruling posts must uphold the constitution and believe in the underlying values the state is based upon. In the Caliphate, the sharia has made belief in Islam a condition for being the head of State (Caliph) and holding any ruling position or important government post. Civil servants are excluded from this and dhimmi can be civil servants. If this is oppression then the same applies to the other systems in Australia, US, UK etc.” As you state, the Caliphate requires *belief* in Islam whereas the US requires leaders to ‘support’, and ‘preserve, protect and defend.’ This is a crucial difference - since belief is not required, leadership roles can be open to all citizens, of any religion. The systems are not the same. The inclusion of Muslims in leadership roles in the US and UK contrasts with the exclusion faced by non-Muslims in the new Caliphate. If this is not second-class citizenship, then what is it? “I strongly believe that when the Caliphate is established the power of the Islamic values will resonate throughout Europe including Bosnia.” The Serbs and Croats were ruled for four centuries by the Ottoman Caliphate, and they retained their religious identities. However, I concede that if there is wholesale conversion by the non-Muslim citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, then the future of that country is in the Caliphate. Looking at the other issues raised: 1. Public debate Leaders do face outcries when they propose sharia laws, whether they are members of parliament or the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is the nature of democracy, as the people tell their leaders of the concerns that they have. An outcry is the democratic system working, not failing. In Australia there are outcries about climate change, water policy, indigenous inclusion, and poverty. In the specific case of the sharia debate in the UK, is the outcry threatening? Or a strong indication that more education is needed before the citizens will embrace Islam or consider joining the Caliphate? “When the perpetrator is a Christian there is no outcry. He is simply a bad apple. However, when the perpetrator is Muslim there is outcry." I can’t speak for what happens in Bosnia-Herzegovina or the UK, but in Australia, the outcry about religion really only arises where the person’s religion is relevant to the case. For example: * Cronulla – the outcry arose from differing opinions on the clothing women are allowed to wear in public, based on the religious belief of some Australians. Not a happy time for the Australian community, but the effect of religion on community behaviours is a valid discussion. * Fritzl – a huge outcry, but his religion is not mentioned because he did not justify his appalling actions through reference to his religious beliefs. Another example is the long-standing and heated discussion about Christian, and particularly Roman Catholic, belief on legislation for abortion and stem-cell research. In Australia, Muslims are not singled out for special treatment – outcries relating to religion arise when action or policy is justified through reference to passages in religious texts. 2. Values “MP’s must effectively abandon their Islamic values to get elected and adhere to their party’s policy.” You have made repeated references to Islamic values, but I am still unclear on what they are. Why do Muslim leaders in the West have to abandon them in order to participate in governing? Keith Ellison seems to have made this transition, presumably with his Islamic values intact, including the requirement that he support the US constitution. 3. Migrants and citizens “When people choose to emigrate to Australia is their main concern whether they can become the Prime Minister or an MP or vote for them?” The concerns of migrants and citizens are different. People probably do migrate for quality of life and economic opportunities rather than leadership positions. However, as a citizen or choosing to become a citizen, I think that the issue of leadership roles is significant. Whether life would be better or worse for non-Muslims in the Caliphate goes beyond the issue of leadership roles. Note that in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Serbs and Croats would not be migrating, but they would need to convert to Islam in order to fully participate in Caliphate society, in land they have lived in for centuries already. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul-Kareem
said:
|
RE: Socrates Why must the leaders believe in the constitution and ideology of the state? Let’s use the US as an example. Oath of Office for US President “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” [U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1)] Oath of Office for US congressman such as Keith Ellison: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.” [U.S. Constitution Article VI, clause 3] Legally you cannot take any ruling position within the US unless you support the constitution and the values and ideology it is based upon. Could a Muslim become a US President? On paper someone could say yes. But look at the problem Obama is having simply because he has a Muslim father. He is paranoid of some Americans believing he is Muslim or having some inclinations to Islamic values. At one of his speeches they even removed two headscarf wearing Muslim women from the stage so there would be no confusion! For someone to be elected to the US congress they MUST uphold man-made secular law above sharia law. They must legislate with a law other than sharia. It is no different in Australia although the oaths may not explicitly mention the constitution. Even for a Muslim to become a citizen of Australia let alone an MP, they have to subscribe to “Australian values.” A few years back Treasurer Peter Costello in a speech to the conservative think-tank The Sydney Institute said, "Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don't come to Australia.” Education Minister Brendan Nelson after Peter Costello’s speech made the headlines said that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should “clear off.” I don’t believe there are any Muslim MP’s in Australia (I may be wrong) so the question of Islamic values in government hasn’t been raised yet. But if a Muslim MP as part of his campaign said he wanted to bring Islamic values and some sharia laws into Australia when he was elected there would be outcry. This happened in the UK when the Archbishop of Canterbury simply suggested Muslims should be given the right to use sharia law in some of their civil disputes. The nation went wild condemning the Archbishop and the sharia. Therefore the reality of any nation is that the Head of state and all ruling posts must uphold the constitution and believe in the underlying values the state is based upon. In the Caliphate, the sharia has made belief in Islam a condition for being the head of State (Caliph) and holding any ruling position or important government post. Civil servants are excluded from this and dhimmi can be civil servants. If this is oppression then the same applies to the other systems in Australia, US, UK etc. “but Muslims are welcomed as Muslims in Australia.” Only Muslims in Australia can really answer this. But I still remember the Cronulla beach incident where thousands of Australians rioted in response to a criminal act committed by some Lebanese. There were photos of Australians wearing T-Shirts with 'Lebs out' and 'Ethnic cleansing Unit'. I am not saying all Australians are like this but the same underlying hatred that exists in Europe is also simmering in Australia. Many hideous crimes are committed in Australia and Europe such as Fritzl in Austria. When the perpetrator is a Christian there is no outcry. He is simply a bad apple. However, when the perpetrator is Muslim there is outcry. As a potential non-Muslim in a future Caliphate world, this is a *big* issue for me. What evidence makes you believe that this is not an issue? …The problem here is that the rules of shariah mean that the dhimmis are oppressed simply through having less rights than Muslims. This is not about individuals agreeing or not. The discussion is wider than this. When people choose to emigrate to Australia is their main concern whether they can become the Prime Minister or an MP or vote for them? Their reasons for emigrating range from quality of life, economic factors and security for those fleeing persecution like those fleeing Bosnia during the war. Thousands of non-Muslims in Britain choose to live in Dubai even though it’s a dictatorship where no one has a choice in government whether they are Muslim or not. Yet, non-Muslims happily live there because they enjoy the standard of living, low crime rates etc. Moreover, Jim Davidson one of Britain’s famous comedians (or not depending on your point of view) emigrated to Dubai fours years ago and recently said Dubai was a far safer place to live than the UK because people there respected the law. He was referring to the lawlessness currently gripping the UK where no one feels safe. In the Caliphate the dhimmi do have representatives in the states central majlis council to represent the non-Muslim citizens and raise concerns they have. This is more than Australia, UK and the US, because the Muslims who join these governments as MP’s must effectively abandon their Islamic values to get elected and adhere to their party’s policy. Perhaps the Muslims of Bosnia would be worse off in the EU, but the Serbs and the Croats will be worse off than Muslims in the Caliphate – and they make up 60% of the Bosnia-Herzegovina population. Is this simply because Serbs and Croats couldn’t hold a ruling position? Again it depends what the vital interests are for the Serbs and Croats at that particular time. If it’s simply an issue of nationalism and bonding on ethnicity then I can’t see Serbs and Croats wanting to live in a Caliphate. However, if other interests take priority such as economy, crime, family breakdowns, security which are issues in the UK then this may change. Why would the large populations of non-Islamic citizens in these so-called Muslim lands seek to join the Caliphate, particularly when they are not currently ruled by Islam? When the Caliphate is established there will be a new cold war similar to the last cold war except this time its between Islam and Capitalism and not Communism and Capitalism. During the last cold war the battle was fought ideologically and Capitalism won. However, Communism did spread to many countries despite its problems because certain aspects such as social equality resonated with the people. Pro-Communist governments arose in Africa and South America in addition to those in Europe and Central Asia. The future cold war between Islam and Communism will see Islamic values spreading internationally as they once did. Although many people become Muslim after individually reading and researching about Islam as I did, the majority in the past became Muslim after living under its systems. After witnessing the brutal rule of the Byzantines and Persians the simple message of the Muslims that they came to bring people from being slaves to man to slaves of God had a very powerful effect. One famous example is when the judge ruled in favour of a Jew who stole the armour of the Caliph Ali (see the judiciary section). The Jew became Muslim after the judgement because he knew such a system was not from man but from God. In today’s world when people are slaves to the capitalist system working and working simply to live and prop-up huge corporations then this message will also have a similar effect. What I can’t find in your body of work is valid reasons why non-Muslims like me would agree to such an arrangement. In countries like Bosnia, where Muslims are the largest minority, but not the majority, how will you persuade the rest of the citizens? I strongly believe that when the Caliphate is established the power of the Islamic values will resonate throughout Europe including Bosnia. Islam is one belief that can unite old warring factions. The early Muslims used to fight many tribal battles against each other before they embraced Islam. Once they embraced Islam they became brothers and became one nation. Similarly in Bosnia, if the Serbs and Croats embraced Islam en mass once the Caliphate is established then these former warring peoples would become one. The issue of 60% is therefore irrelevant in this case. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Socrates
said:
|
Dear Abdul, Continuing our discussion “Any land ruled by Islam is considered Muslim land regardless of the people. … What matters is the system in transfering a non-Islamic land (dar ul-kufr) into Islamic land (dar ul-Islam).” Why would the large populations of non-Islamic citizens in these so-called Muslim lands seek to join the Caliphate, particularly when they are not currently ruled by Islam? I am really struggling to understand why they would do this. Also, how does land become "not dar ul-Islam"? How do you ‘transfer out’? “In any system of government the person in a ruling position MUST believe in the constitution and the ideology of the state.” Why must they? In Australia, we have had long discussions about the issue of a republic from Prime Ministers, which would require significant changes to the constitution. The Americans regularly change their constitution through the constitutional amendment process. The UK doesn’t even have a constitution, so they can make big changes to the role of the House of Lords for example. In Australia, there have historically been big differences in ideology in the ruling parties, with some seeking to set up semi-communist societies compared with the current push for more free-market liberalism… Why must the leaders believe in the constitution and ideology of the state? “When Keith Ellison, the first Muslim senator in the US wanted to take his oath on the Qur'an there was an outcry.” And yet, he was able to take up this ruling position, and is now both an active member of Congress and an active Muslim. He is a full citizen with the same rights and restrictions as everyone else. Neither the outcry nor his religion posed a barrier to his ruling position. “Islam is unique in recognising that people have different values and doesnt require minorities to 'convert' to Islam for them to live within the system. This is contrary to what is happening in Australia, Britain and other European countries where Muslims are being forced to leave their Islamic values in order to integrate.” I cannot speak for the situation in Europe, but Muslims are welcomed as Muslims in Australia. As far as I am aware, they are no more forced to leave their values and ‘convert’ than any other person living here. Muslims are free to practice their religion and live their lives as they please, the same as everyone else. Unlike a nation ruled by Islam, my nation allows everyone to aspire to a ruling position, Muslims, Christians, atheists, anyone. The rules are the same for all. What Islamic values are they forced to leave? “The issue of being in a ruling position or not is an issue in democracy for non-Muslims but not in the Caliphate.” As a potential non-Muslim in a future Caliphate world, this is a *big* issue for me. What evidence makes you believe that this is not an issue? “In democracy the peoples' representatives may vote in laws to oppress their minorities. This is because legislation comes from man. The terror bills in the UK and Australia are also good examples of this.” At the moment, Australians have a well-founded fear of small groups of Islamic terrorists in the community who are seeking to inflict local versions of the terror attacks in London, New York and Madrid. These counter-terror bills do not oppress minorities because the rules apply to everyone. “Rights of the dhimmi are enshrined within the shariah as the article you read clearly states. Therefore whoever is in power cannot legally oppress the dhimmi.” The problem here is that the rules of shariah mean that the dhimmis are oppressed simply through having less rights than Muslims. And because the rules can’t be changed, there is no prospect for improvement. Perhaps the Muslims of Bosnia would be worse off in the EU, but the Serbs and the Croats will be worse off than Muslims in the Caliphate – and they make up 60% of the Bosnia-Herzegovina population. You see Islam as an alternative way to organise society rather than a religion, which is very interesting, and you have done a lot of thinking on what such a society would look like. What I can’t find in your body of work is valid reasons why non-Muslims like me would agree to such an arrangement. In countries like Bosnia, where Muslims are the largest minority, but not the majority, how will you persuade the rest of the citizens? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul-Kareem
said:
|
RE: Socrates Q. The concept of ‘Muslim land’ You seem to have two reasons for Bosnia-Herzegovina to be Muslim-land – (a) history, since it was conquered by the Ottomans, and (b) demographics, since Muslims make up 40% of the population. a) By the same reason of history, are Spain and Portugal ‘Muslim land’, since they too were once conquered by Muslims? A. Yes Spain and Portugal are Muslim land. Any land ruled by Islam is considered Muslim land regardless of the people. The Khilafah is not an ethnic state whose citizenship is based on race or ethnicity or religion. What matters is the system in transfering a non-Islamic land (dar ul-kufr) into Islamic land (dar ul-Islam). b) You refer to the Muslims as a majority, since they make up 40% of the population. In Australia, the majority would be 50% of the voters plus 1. Why does 40% constitute a majority, rather than the largest minority? A. Yes, largest minority is more accurate. Q. I have read the articles about non-Muslims on the website, which state that non-Muslims are not second-class citizens, and also that non-Muslims may not hold ruling positions because of their religious beliefs. There is one rule for Muslims and a less favourable rule for everyone else. This is second-class citizenship. A. No. This is not second-class citizenship. In any system of government the person in a ruling position MUST believe in the constitution and the ideology of the state. This is why oaths of allegiance are sworn in by the President, Congress members etc. When Keith Ellison, the first Muslim senator in the US wanted to take his oath on the Qur'an there was an outcry. Similarly in the Caliphate how can a non-Muslim who doesn't believe in the ideology of the state be expected to uphold the values of the state domestically and internationally? Islam is unique in recognising that people have different values and doesnt require minorities to 'convert' to Islam for them to live within the system. This is contrary to what is happening in Australia, Britain and other European countries where Muslims are being forced to leave their Islamic values in order to integrate. The issue of being in a ruling position or not is an issue in democracy for non-Muslims but not in the Caliphate. In democracy the peoples' representatives may vote in laws to oppress their minorities. This is because legislation comes from man. The terror bills in the UK and Australia are also good examples of this. In the US the effective legalisation of torture is another example. In the Caliphate the legislative branch of ruling is shariah which cannot be overturned by legal precedent or the whims and desires of the Caliph. Its true there are different opinions within the framework of shariah as in any legal system but this is int he branches of law not the fundamental clear cut issues. Rights of the dhimmi are enshrined within the shariah as the article you read clearly states. Therefore whoever is in power cannot legally oppress the dhimmi. Its possible however that rulers will come who oppress the dhimmi and even the Muslim population. For this reason strict accountability measures are in place in the Caliphate to prevent this. Please see my book "Accountability in the Khilafah" for more details on this. Q. Therefore, if you re-establish the Caliphate, I would be very surprised if the 60% non-Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina voted in favour of joining. Surely they would be better off in the European Union, where the benefits for everyone are plain to see? A. What benefits? The ordinary citizens in many EU countries are not happy withtheir situation. There is a backlash constantly against EU interference especially in the UK. Ireland just voted against the EU treaty. If the EU is such a paradise why are the EU citizens against it? I accept however that there will be economic benefits in joining the EU especially for the former Balkan countries which is a key reason for them joining. However, Muslims in the EU are facing very difficult times which will only get worse. The Serbs and Croats may see benefits in the EU but the Muslims of Bosnia will certainly not. As I said the EU has blood on their hands as they were participants in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia. Arms embargo, Dutch in Srebenica etc. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Socrates
said:
|
Dear Abdul, Thanks for your response. A few followup questions... 1. The concept of ‘Muslim land’ You seem to have two reasons for Bosnia-Herzegovina to be Muslim-land – (a) history, since it was conquered by the Ottomans, and (b) demographics, since Muslims make up 40% of the population. a) By the same reason of history, are Spain and Portugal ‘Muslim land’, since they too were once conquered by Muslims? b) You refer to the Muslims as a majority, since they make up 40% of the population. In Australia, the majority would be 50% of the voters plus 1. Why does 40% constitute a majority, rather than the largest minority? 2. Actions speak louder than words “when people see how a Khilafah treats its non-Muslim citizens, regenerates poverty stricken countries in Africa with its immense oil and takes a strong moral stance internationally on issues then this will show the strength and superiority of the Islamic ideology which many peoples will want to accept.” I have read the articles about non-Muslims on the website, which state that non-Muslims are not second-class citizens, and also that non-Muslims may not hold ruling positions because of their religious beliefs. There is one rule for Muslims and a less favourable rule for everyone else. This is second-class citizenship. Therefore, if you re-establish the Caliphate, I would be very surprised if the 60% non-Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina voted in favour of joining. Surely they would be better off in the European Union, where the benefits for everyone are plain to see? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Abdul-Kareem
said:
|
RE: Socrates Thank you for your questions. Q. Could you clarify what you mean when you say that Bosnia is a 'Muslim' country? A. The land of Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia and the other Balkan states that were ruled by Islam previously under the Ottomans are considered as Muslim land. In the current reality, the Balkans has been carved into many seperate countries that historically were simply provinces within the Khilafah and later under the Austro-Hungarians. I refer to Bosnia as Muslim country today since it has a majority Muslim population (40%). Although I admit the situation on the ground is more complex, since Republica-Srpska now occupies towns that used to have large Muslim populations like Banja Luka and Srebenica, whereas now this is no longer the case after the ethnic cleansing. Q. Would non-Bosniac citizens of the Federation or Srpska agree with you? A. When I mention Bosnia is a Muslim country and Muslim land this does not exclude the Croats and Serbs from living there or imply that a future Khilafah governing the area would be for Muslims only. Religious minorities can live happily as dhimmi (non-Muslim citizens) within the Khilafah. Please refer to the Dhimmi article in the Khilafah section of this site. In the present reality the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia would not agree with me. There is still too much nationalism and mistrust for this to be the case. But in the future when a Khilafah is established somewhere in the Muslim world then this would change. Actions speak louder than words, and when people see how a Khilafah treats its non-Muslim citizens, regenerates poverty stricken countries in Africa with its immense oil and takes a strong moral stance internationally on issues then this will show the strength and superiority of the Islamic ideology which many peoples will want to accept. This happened historically when Islam spread into the lands formerly ruled by the Byzantine and Persian empires. Q. Do you mean the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or just the bits where there are only Muslims? A. The entire region is Muslim land. Q. Also, I am surprised at your conclusion that "The future of Bosnia lies in the Khilafah", since if Bosnia joins the EU, wouldn't that suggest that the citizens see their future with the West? The Bosnian government is pushing to join the EU not the ordinary citizens. Muslims in Bosnia remember very well the role the EU played in the ethnic cleansing of Muslims because they were worried about the establishment of an Islamic state in the heart of Europe. There are too many examples to list but they are a matter of historical record. Bosnia is a very poor country and is far from being in a condition to enter the EU. For ordinary Bosnians discussion on the EU isn't a major talking point or something they think will happen soon. If joining the EU is sold on the basis of improving the economy, security and stability of the country then the majority will support it, because its the best of a bad situation currently. However, in the future when a rival superpower to the EU emerges ie the Khilafah then things will be different. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Socrates
said:
|
Dear Abdul, Interesting reading. Could you clarify what you mean when you say that Bosnia is a 'Muslim' country? Would non-Bosniac citizens of the Federation or Srpska agree with you? Do you mean the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or just the bits where there are only Muslims? Also, I am surprised at your conclusion that "The future of Bosnia lies in the Khilafah", since if Bosnia joins the EU, wouldn't that suggest that the citizens see their future with the West? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
 |
Hopefully these are helpful for background, including an article by Professor Michel Chossudovsky: Dismantling Yugoslavia; Colonizing Bosnia. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html http://www.socialismtoday.org/38/nato38.html Salaams |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Zeital
said:
|
In more recent times the break-up of Yugoslavia began when the U.S.A sought to break up a rather successful and independent socialist state. Iraq had been militarily defeated, the U.S.S.R had collapsed (and Russian Federation was very vulnerable), so Yugoslavia was another state for U.S.A and close allies to seize and covet for strategic reasons. The U.S.A had successfully enticed the U.S.S.R to engage in Afghanistan, and the Iran-Iraq war has served the purpose of cementing America's role as sole superpower. When the Cold War was at its height the U.S.A was actually prepared to resort to drastic measures to DEFEND Yugoslavia against the U.S.S.R (as Yugoslavia was independent of the Warsaw Pact and non-aligned). How interests change. Turn back to the nineteenth century when Britain and vying against Russia leading to the Crimean War. Remember Benjamin Disraeli as the so called ‘honest broker’ over the Balkans, after Tsarist Russia defeated the Ottomans after 1878. Austria-Hungary and Russia coveted Bosnia, Bulgaria, but Germany, France and Britain supported independent flimsy states, in place of complete Russian domination. The Balkans was (and still is) a place for great power rivalry, like the Caucasus region, (Armenia in particular), and Mesopotamia. In our time we see conflicts in Chechnya, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldavia resurface, as Russia struggles to keep out NATO, led by Anglo-U.S motives. Same geographical location, and similar players. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Write comment
| < Prev |
|---|