Saturday, 19 March 2011

Yemeni forces massacre dozens of protesters



At least 46 workers were killed and scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, when security forces opened fire on a march of tens of thousands demanding an end to the dictatorial regime of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
The event exposes the staggering hypocrisy of the US and its imperialist allies, who are now preparing to bombard Libya in the name of protecting its people from the Gaddafi government. The US has meanwhile tacitly encouraged its stooge Saleh to snuff out working class opposition because of Yemen’s critical location near the oilfields of Saudi Arabia and the sea lanes connecting the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean.
In the aftermath of the massacre, President Obama issued a statement calling on “all sides” to follow “a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation.” The statement amounted to a stamp of approval for the mass killing.
Friday’s massacre marked the bloodiest day in the one-month-old uprising of workers, tribesmen and youth. The march, which was called to mourn the killing of seven protesters at the hands of the regime last week, stretched for more than a mile along a road near Sanaa University.
Security forces in the front of the march opened fire on the unarmed demonstrators as they rose from their knees after morning prayers. Simultaneously plainclothes policemen began to fire on the demonstration from the rooftops of nearby buildings.
“As soon as we got up from prayer they started firing from the tops of multiple buildings in the area,” Essam al-Maqtary, a Sanaa resident shot in the leg, told a Western reporter. “The baltageya [thugs] lit tires on fire so nobody could see exactly where they were and so they couldn’t be recorded on video.”
Hundreds of wounded and dying demonstrators were transported to a nearby mosque. Injuries to the dead and wounded revealed many gunshot wounds in the head, neck, and chest. Saleh’s forces were shooting to kill.
“They shot people in the back of the head as they were running away,” Mohammed al-Jamil, an Indian doctor treating the wounded, told theGuardian. “Whoever did this wanted these people to die.”
After the massacre, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and a nationwide curfew.
In a testament to the determination of the Yemeni workers and youth, the massacre failed to break up the demonstration, which continued to swell and push toward the city center. Later in the day, protesters began to chase armed gunmen. Bystanders tossed onions down to demonstrators to help them deal with the effects of tear gas.
“Though many in the crowd ran for cover when the shooting started, a crowd of mostly tribal men from the outskirts of the capital appeared to stand firm,” reported New York Times correspondent Laura Kasinoff from Sanaa. “A man walked through the crowd with a microphone yelling, ‘Peaceful, peaceful! Don’t be afraid of the bullets!’ ”
“I actually expect more than this, because freedom requires martyrs,” said an unemployed tribesman from outside Sana named Abdul-Ghani Soliman. “This will continue, and it will grow.”
Demonstrators raided the buildings where gunmen were hiding, capturing and beating several. In at least one case, they detained a man with military identification.
Other demonstrations took place after Friday prayers in the cities of Aden, Amran, Hodeidah, Ibb, and Taiz.
A Western journalist in Sana, Erik Stier of the Christian Science Monitor, reports that the demonstrations have become progressively larger, and that the proportional size of the working class component, as compared to the students, has grown. A similar development occurred in Egypt in the days leading up to the collapse of the Mubarak regime. In Libya, by contrast, the “opposition” appears to have been constricted to a relatively small number of tribal elites and former Gaddafi associates.
“As violence has increased in frequency in recent weeks, the opposition crowd at the university has evolved in response,” Stier notes. “Thousands of tribesmen coming from Yemen’s mountainous regions to the north and east have joined calls for the fall of Mr. Saleh’s regime. They now appear to make up at least half of the opposition demonstrators.”
At least 90 demonstrators have been killed in Saleh’s bid to stay in power, though the true figure is certainly far higher. Thousands more have been injured or arrested.
The massacre in Yemen follows a similar assault on demonstrators in Bahrain only two days ago, in which at least seven were killed. Taken together, the two events suggest a degree of coordination, likely involving the peninsula’s major power Saudi Arabia, which sent heavily armed military forces into Bahrain on Tuesday.
Such maneuvers could not be possible without the advanced knowledge of the US, whose intelligence agencies and military are closely integrated with all three regimes. With the attention of the world gripped by the disaster in Japan and the impending military actions against Libya, it can only be concluded that the Obama administration has given a green light to the bloody crackdowns in the Arabian Peninsula.
The sheer brutality of Saleh’s attack on peaceful demonstrators at least matches any single effort by the Gaddafi regime to crush protests in Libya. Yet there have been no calls from the imperialist powers or the Arab League for punitive action against Saleh, who has ruled the Arab world’s most impoverished country for 32 years.
In his Friday statement, Obama limply called on Saleh “to adhere to his public pledge to allow demonstrations to take place peacefully.” A statement issued from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also stopped short of condemning the murderous assault by the Saleh regime. “With regard to Yemen, our message remains the same,” she said. “The violence needs to end, negotiations need to be pursued in order to reach a political solution.”
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement saying he was “deeply troubled” by the violence and calling on “all to desist from any provocative acts that might lead to further violence,” implicitly placing half of the blame on the demonstrators.
The Arab League has revealed itself to be a tool of imperialism. In the case of Libya, its demand for the imposition of a no-fly zone has provided the US, France and Britain their most important pretext for bombing the North African country.
In the case of Yemen and Bahrain, however, the Arab League has made no such call for foreign intervention.
“What is happening in Yemen is extremely disturbing and it is a source of deep concern,” Hissam Youssef, the chief of staff of the Arab League’s secretary-general, told Al Jazeera. “We have asked for dialogue, we have asked for responding positively to the demands and concerns of the people, and we are continuing our consultations in this regard.” This comment was notable for stopping short of even a call for restraint. (WSWS)

No to imperialist intervention in Libya

The World Socialist Web Site categorically opposes any military intervention in Libya. The drive toward war, which was given the green light by the UN Security Council on Thursday, has nothing to do with the humanitarian pretexts offered up by the major powers. Rather, it represents the violent imperialist subjugation of a former colony.
The bombing of Libya by French, British and American planes will not protect human life, but will transform the country into a battlefield with thousands of innocent victims. This is an imperialist war. Libya is an oppressed, former colonial country. The WSWS rejects fundamentally and in all circumstances military attacks by imperialist powers on such countries.
Moreover, this war will take place without any democratic legitimacy. There is not the slightest indication that it is supported by the populations of the countries involved. Once again, huge sums are being spent on a war even as the same governments declare there is no money for social programs.
Those who say a military attack on Gaddafi’s bases would bolster a democratic opposition movement against a bloody dictatorship must answer the following question: Why are the great powers not applying the same criteria in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the regimes they back employ brutal violence against any opposition? And what of Bahrain, headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet, where Sheikh al Khalifa has shot down unarmed protesters with Saudi support? What about Gaza, where these same powers stand by as the Israelis massacre Palestinians? What about Yemen, where the Western-backed President Ali Abdullah Saleh on Friday shot dead some 50 protesters?
Not a single government or newspaper that supports a military strike against Libya has taken the trouble to explain these glaring contradictions. However, the real target of the violent action against Libya is clear, if one considers the logic of recent events.
It is only two months since the Tunisian ruler, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, was overthrown in a popular uprising. One month later, he was followed by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. As a result, the Western powers have lost two of their key allies in the region.
As with Gaddafi himself, the US and Europe had collaborated closely with these dictators until the last minute. France, which is now shouting the loudest for military action against Libya, even offered Ben Ali police assistance when the uprising against him was in full swing.
Only a few weeks later, the great powers are preparing a military intervention in North Africa. Coincidence? Only someone who is politically blind can fail to see the relationship between these events.
The domestic opposition to Gaddafi, a brutal tyrant and a close ally of the Western powers, may initially have expressed real grievances of the Libyan people. But in the underdeveloped desert state of Libya, forces quickly materialized that were ready to do the dirty work of the great powers. They were to be found in the figures making up the so-called National Transitional Council, who not only guaranteed international oil companies unhindered exploitation of the country’s mineral wealth, but also called for the bombing of their own country. The Transitional Council is composed of senior officials of the old regime who turned their backs on Gaddafi in response to the shift by the imperialist powers.
Military intervention in Libya, whose energy resources have made it the object of imperialist intrigues for decades, is being used both to secure access to oil and to contain the revolutionary movements in the region, which are increasingly directed against the interests of the imperialist powers and capitalist property. A military presence in Libya, which is bordered by Egypt to the east and Tunisia to the west, would help the major powers to intimidate revolutionary movements throughout the Arab world.
Reference in the UN resolution about excluding the military occupation of the country by foreign troops is hogwash. Military necessity has its own logic. Officially, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are “occupied” by American troops, but this does not change the fact that in both countries tens of thousands of American soldiers have taken up permanent residence.
It is significant that it was the Arab League that called for a no-fly zone over Libya, giving the US and its imperialist allies a cover of “regional support” for military intervention. The representatives of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other emirates, who are in the process of arresting, torturing and shooting opponents of their own regimes, have voted in favor of a military intervention for the supposed purpose of strengthening democracy in Libya!
The major powers are acting with extreme recklessness. Apart from the greed for oil and domination, they seem to have no thought-out strategy. President Sarkozy, who received Gaddafi four years ago with great pomp in Paris to negotiate trade deals worth billions, recognized the National Transitional Council as the official representative of Libya without even consulting his own foreign minister, let alone his NATO allies.
No one seems to have considered the likely economic, geopolitical and security implications of a longer war in Libya, a country on the Mediterranean in the immediate vicinity of Europe. Those expressing warnings of the consequences of military action come mostly from conservative circles of the military, who, after Afghanistan and Iraq, have little desire for another military adventure.
Both President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron also have their own domestic political reasons for intervening. A year before the next presidential elections, Sarkozy is falling in opinion polls and hopes to make up ground through an aggressive foreign policy.
Cameron faces growing opposition to his austerity measures and—echoing his model Margaret Thatcher’s 1982 Malvinas war—hopes a war against Libya can divert attention. Since the British army has been weakened by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is barely able to intervene independently, Cameron has worked hard to engage the US.
The imperialist adventure against Libya is reawakening old divisions in Europe. The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) is once again in tatters. Germany abstained in the vote on the UN Security Council, stressing it would not be party to any military intervention. It thus found itself in a bloc with Russia, China, India and Brazil against NATO allies France, Britain and the United States—a development with far-reaching implications.
These divisions result from the imperialist character of the war. It is significant that for the first time since the Second World War, Britain and France are jointly involved in a military conflict and have taken a position opposed by Germany. One should also recall that the last clash between German and British armies happened in North Africa.
Germany does not in principle reject taking military action against Libya, and the German government has pushed for tough economic sanctions. However, it has to date based its influence in North Africa and the Middle East less on military than on economic factors, and fears losing out in any military adventure. “Germany fully supports the economic sanctions, because the rule of Muammar al-Gaddafi is over and must be stopped,” said UN Ambassador Peter Wittig to justify Germany’s abstention. “But the use of the military is always extremely difficult and we see great risks.”
While there are disagreements within the European and American ruling class over a military offensive against Libya, among the “humanitarian” imperialists there is full and enthusiastic approval. This category also includes political tendencies that support military operations in the name of an abstract “humanity,” ignoring class issues and questions of history—such as the Greens, Social Democrats, the Left Party, etc.
Since the German Greens supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, they have become enthusiastic supporters of war and play an irreplaceable role in the imperialist war propaganda. The same applies to the preparation for a military intervention against Libya.
The Greens have attacked foreign minister Guido Westerwelle because he did not support the resolution in the UN Security Council. “We have a responsibility to defend human rights,” parliamentary faction leader Renate Kuenast said. The Social Democrats also attacked Westerwelle because he does not favor the war effort.
Green EU Parliament representative Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a major figure in the 1968 student movement, campaigned aggressively for the recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council and the establishment of a no-fly zone. The parliament finally adopted such a resolution on March 10 by an overwhelming majority.
In addition to the Greens, a variety of pseudo-left organizations in France have demanded recognition of the National Transitional Council. A resolution to this effect from the Committee of Solidarity with the Libyan People bears the signatures of the Communist Party, the Left Party and the New Anti-Capitalist Party. President Sarkozy is now fulfilling their demand and launching a military offensive.
The World Socialist Web Site calls on workers and young people to reject the war propaganda under a humanitarian guise with the disgust it deserves. The fight against political oppression, social exploitation and war is inseparable from the building of a socialist movement that unites the international working class in a struggle against capitalism and imperialism. (WSWS)

Home           Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)  

UN Libya Resolution: The latest Colonial Project

The UN Security Council has backed a resolution on Libya that supports a no-fly zone and “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. After days of bickering over differences Western allies have, with the absence of China and Russia, managed to pass a resolution that in theory imposes a no fly zone, and allows the West to carry out military strikes under the justification or more likely guise of protecting civilians.
After much discussion, the Americans have now not only backed the British and French resolution on Libya but beefed it up. All of this has taken place as the forces fighting Colonel Gaddafi have been losing their strongholds which were gained when many of Gaddafi’s forces defected. In observing the last two weeks and the current UN resolution we make the following points:
  1. Western leaders can not be trusted. The West has a long history of pursuing its colonial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention, liberal interventionism, human rights and protecting people from their rulers. Intervention in Sierra Leon, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan led to prolonged wars with the deaths of numerous civilians at the hands of the West – who were there in an apparent peace mission.
  2. Western talk of intervention in Libya comes when Europe armed Gaddafi and stood by as he killed all those who opposed him. Western complicity with brutal dictators is not an exception but the norm. The US armed both Iraq and Iran when they went to war in the 1980’s, the West supported the overthrow of Ben Ali and Mubarak, but freelanced over the fact that they armed them and had cordial relations with them.
  3. The imposition of no fly zones is an ominous sign, as this was the same pretext used against Iraq in order to weaken it paving the way for military action. Whilst the West has been clearly exposed in its colonial adventure in Iraq, it is peddling the same justification to intervene in another Muslim country. US intervention in World War II led it to maintain bases to this day in both Japan and Germany 60 years later.
  4. In the same week the West constructed a UN resolution against Libya, Saudi Arabia sent its army into Bahrain. Libya shares an artificial border with the most powerful Arab nation, with the region’s largest army in Egypt. Intervention by Muslim armies would bring a swift end to Gaddafi.
  5. Whilst the West has called for joint operations with Arab countries in the region, it is merely to bring international legitimacy to this new colonial venture. The fact is Egypt can single handily remove Gaddafi and bring an end to this massacre in Libya. Egypt shares a border with Libya and has a fleet of 839 fighter aircraft, with total ground troops of 1.3 million. The Muslim world does not need any more foreign intervention whatever the justification. The intervention of Muslim armies is what is necessary to end the wanton killing by Gaddafi and his spent regime. (Ends)

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Where next for Arab uprisings? Democracy or Caliphate?



Muslim World call neighbouring armies to intervene and stop the bloodshed in Libya

Gaddafi and his supporters are still spilling Muslim blood in Libya from Zawiyah to Misurata and from Ras Lanuf to Bin Jawad where this criminal and his cronies have not hesitated in using all weapons at their disposal. All this happens, while contacts intensify between the capitals of the colonial powers in the West to agree on how to divide the spoils among themselves.
The matter has reached such that America, Britain, France and Italy, and even India have mobilised their naval fleets and aircraft carriers, AWACS aircrafts off the coast of Libya with their pretext of humanitarian intervention as well as the transfer of fleeing persons to Tunisia and other arguments that do not deceive anyone from the obscured fact of the old colonial greed in extending their hands on the resources of the country and enslaving its people. In the thick of all this, the Egyptian army stands on the sidelines motionless at all that is happening as if Libya was located in the European or American continent. Hizb ut-Tahrir, a political party that takes care of the affairs of Muslims and their interests according to the rulings of Islam, considers it important to declare the following:
1. We remind all the Muslims that they are one ummah, they have one Lord, the One and Unique, one Prophet, One Book, one qiblah, their peace is one and their war is one.
2. We remind the Muslims that they must help their brother; rejoice in his joy, feel his pain when he is afflicted as has come in the noble hadith: “The Example of the believers in their love for each other, their nearness and compassion for each other is like one body; when one limb suffers pain the rest of the body breaks out in sleeplessness and fever” (Muslim, Sahih #2586). And from the Prophet (saw) where he said:“The believers are like one building – each re-enforcing the other…” (Bukhari, Sahih #6026).
3. We remind them too that the lesson in this is being bound to the `Aqeedah and not bound to the Sykes-Picot agreement and what it established. This is a colonial treaty utterly invalid and rejected and any resulting spurious conditions imposed by the coloniser is also rejected. Islam required the Sykes-Picot agreement to be rejected and dissolved as well as all its implications and terms.
4. That our Lord and Helper – the Mighty and Exalted – will gave help to the oppressed where He says in his Majestic Book: “And what is the matter with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and of the weak — men, women and children — who say, ‘Our Lord, take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors, and make for us some friend from Yourself, and make for us from Yourself some helper?’” [ TMQ An-Nisa 4:75].
We direct this urgent call to the Muslim Ummah and her armies:
Firstly: O army of Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco; O Muslim army commanders, officers and soldiers! Come immediately to the aid of your brothers in Libya in order to strike a crushing military blow to the criminal Gaddafi and his entourage of mercenaries and the bloodbath they preside over.
Secondly: O armies of the Muslim leadership, officers and soldiers! Refuse and forbid any foreign interference in the affairs of Muslims in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. Are you not an army to defend this nation, its faith, blood and soil?!
Be up to this responsibility and stand as men and by your action make history for yourselves.
Thirdly: We urge you, O sons of the Ummah to support the armies in order to prevent the interference of these unbelieving and greedy foreign countries. We do not want to repeat the tragedy of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and other countries.
Fourthly: We strongly appeal to the Islamic Ummah to urgently come forward and support the people in Libya and Tunisia to overcome the difficult ordeal in which they live in these fateful days. We appeal also to any initiative to provide them with the needed supplies, medicine, clothing and so on, just as we call on the people of Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria, to come to support their brothers in Libya, by all means available and to help people displaced by the hell-bound Gaddafi and work too to secure a decent livelihood for them and obtain the necessary healthcare, and provide them with everything they need of support.
And we conclude with the open invitation to all Muslims to work with us to raise the word of Allah high through the pledge of allegiance to the Khalifah who will rule with the laws of Allah and to cut the hands of the greedy colonialists in our country and our affairs. The only way to liberate the Ummah from the West and those following behind her lies in the establishment of the Khilafah which we were informed about by the Noble Prophet (May Allah bless him and his family) when he said: “Verily the Imam is a shield behind whom you fight and are protected”. (Ends)

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Saudi\GCC sends troops to help Bahrain’s ruler but not people being massacred by Gadaffi


1000 troops from Saudi Arabia today crossed into Bahrain to help quell ongoing unrest there. The United Arab Emirates has said it is also ready to send troops to Bahrain as part of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) efforts and other GCC countries could follow suit. The GCC comprises Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Bahrain, a tiny kingdom, is home to the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet and is crucial to America’s military interventions in the region and the Obama administration has supported the Khalifa family through the unrest in contrast to its later efforts to remove the leaders of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt when it saw the public mood against them. The US today supported the arrival of Saudi troops in Bahrain. “We’ve seen the reports that you’re talking about. This is not an invasion of a country,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told a news briefing.
From this we can see that
• Despite claiming that they cannot intervene in Libya to save people being slaughtered by Gadaffi, the western backed rulers of Saudi Arabia, UAE and others are more than capable of sending troops to protect their fellow western backed ruler in Bahrain.
• Muslim countries do not need UN authorisation before deploying forces.
• Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others have troops and modern military equipment and do not need to rely on Western forces if they decide to act.
• These puppet regimes are capable of ignoring the colonial borders between the Muslims should they chose to act.
We should highlight these points to all so that the people of the region speak with one loud voice and demand that the Muslim armies of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and the areas surrounding Libya intervene to 1) save their brothers and sisters from the massacres of Gadaffi and 2) prevent intervention by the greedy colonial powers whose interventions brought death and devastation to Iraq and Afghanistan.
“And what is the matter with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and of the weak — men, women and children — who say, ‘Our Lord, take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors, and make for us some friend from Yourself, and make for us from Yourself some helper?” [ TMQ An-Nisa 4:75].(Ends)

Sunday, 13 March 2011

should western powers intervene? against Deadly crackdown in Libya and Yemen



Can Khilafah be established through Multiple States..?

It would seem strange to include the topic of the legality of multiple Islamic states as an issue of importance related to the method [of establishing the Khilafah]. But since it has been included under this topic it then must be addressed. Firstly the opinions of the classical scholars and the modern scholars shall be put forward. Secondly the evidences will be discussed and finally a conclusion will be reached on its legality.
The opinion of the classical scholars:
There seems to be a general agreement of the classical scholars on the illegality of more than one Islamic state. To quote all the scholars who hold this opinion would lead to an endless list. It will suffice to quote the following:
Imam Qalqashandi in his book Subhl Al-Asha says “It is forbidden to appoint two Imams at the same time”
Ibn Hazm in his book Al-Muhalla says “It is permitted to have only one Imam in the whole world”
Imam Sha’rani in his book Al-Mizan says “It is forbidden for the Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two Imams whether in agreement or discord”
Imam Jozairi says in his volumious work, Al-fiqh Ala Madhabi Al-Arba’a ” The Imams of the four schools of thought agree that the imama is an obligation…….It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Imams in the world whether in agreement or discord”
But their is seems to be an opinion that seems to allow this. Imam Mawardi says in his his book Al Ahkam Al Sultanyia “It is not allowed for the Muslim nation to have two Imams at one time, but a group has deviated and allowed it”. Imam Nawawi has also discussed this, “The scholars have agreed that it is not allowed to give the contract (of the pledge) in the same period of time even if Dar- Al -Islam spread (extensively) or not. Imam Haramain said in his book Al Irshaad “Our scholars have said that it is not allowed to have the contract (of Allegiance) with two people in one area and their is an Ijma on this.” He also says “If the distance between the two Imams is seperated and the area between them is enourmous then their is a possibility to this position..”. Imam Nawawi goes on to say “…This is a corrupt position against the (agreement) of the salaf and Khalaf, and the apparent wordings of the hadeeth”. From this we can derive three points
1- That an isolated group in the period of Mawardi (364-450 A.H, 974-1058 A.C.) held an opinion that it was allowed
2- That Imam Al Haramain said that their was an ijma on it being forbidden. It must be understood that the Ijma must have come from the period afterwards as Imam Mawardi came in a period preceding Imam Al- Haramain ( 419-478 A.H , 1028-1085 A.H).
3- Imam Al-Haramain considers it a future possiblity that the allowance of more than two leaders, if the distances are extremely great, may be allowed. It must be noted that he considers it a possiblity. It seems that he is leaving the door open for future research. Imam Nawawi though rebuttles this harshly and closes the door firmly with the statement ” This is a corrupt position against the agreement of the salaf, khalaf, and the apparent wording of the hadeeths!!”
The door was opened again eventually with the position of Imam Shokani in his book “Al- Sail Al-Jirar” and Sadiq Bin Hassan Al-Kanooji Al-Bukhari, the author of the book “Rawdat Al-Nidia”. In fact Sadiq bin Hassan quotes form Imam Shokani’s book in order to put forward his understanding. The text is as follows.
Imam Shokani says ” …..after the spread of Islam, the expansion of its area,…..for every part their was a Wilaya to an Imam or Sultan ,………and every area would not follow the orders or prohibitions of the (sultan) of the other ………..Their seems to be no objection to a number of leaders and sultans, and it is a duty to follow everyone of them after the pledge to that area which gives the orders and prohibitions.
Also if the leader of the other area has anyone that revolts against him in his area then the ruling is death if the person does not repent. Also it is not a duty for the people of the other area to obey him nor fall under his protection because of the great distances between these two areas. This is because (the people) will not be able to know the news of the Imam (in the other area) or the sultan owing to the distances between them, not knowing who dies or lives. As a result the duty of obedience, will be a burden beyond one’s capacity. This is known to anybody who looks at the position of the people and nations, for the people of China and India will not know the leadership in Morocco let alone obey it…….know this as it is suitable to the Islamic principles, corresponding to the evidences. So leave aside what might be said against this, as the position of the nations of Islam in its first period compared to now is more clear then the sun in the daylight!!…….” .
The position of the Modern Scholars.
The position of the modern scholars and groups have split regarding this issue. From those who see the illegality is Shiekh Taqi-id-deen Al Nabahani, the founder of Hizb Al-Tahrir. In his book Nitham Al Hukm Fil Islam he says ” It is not allowed to have a multiple number of Khilafas, as it is not allowed for the Muslims to have two Khalifs in one period of time……”.
Regarding its legality a number of opinions have been put forward. Quamaruddin Khan in his book “The Political thought of Ibn Taymiyah” says “But this authority need not be one single unit Ibn Taymiyah for the first time in history endeavours to justify juridically that it may be divided…………..Ibn Taymiyah naturally does not use the modern terminology to express this idea, but he is very clear on this issue. In the beginning of the Siyasah, discussing the famous verse of the Quran, dealing with the question of trust authority and obedience, he observes, “The ulema say: the first verse is revealed about the rulers; it is obligatory on them to return their trusts………”. Here obviously Ibn Taymiyah is considering the possibility of many rulers and not of one supreme ruler of the community”.
Again Abu Zahrah in his book “Islamic Unity” says “The political position regarding unity must be fulfilled by this meaning i.e. the five duties that have been mentioned previously-for it is the goal to have this unity. It is not necessary for this accomplishment that the nation be unified (as a single unit). In fact it will be fulfilled strongly if the state is not one. Hence as a result it should not be our intention from this unity the establishment of a unified Islamic state, that will include all the Islamic principalities. This is because all the Islamic principalities are spread throughout the world…, nor is their a capital in the centre acting as a Qutb in which the Islamic rulings rotate around from which the orders and prohibitions are sent……………..On top of this the distancing between the continents …has lead to customs and habits…….and it is necessary that the system that takes this path be in accordance with this norm in agreement with the customs and habit, as long as they are good and do not contradict Islam. And even on top of this we cannot call for one nation so that the kings and presidents are not offended!!,…………..fearing that the crown will be lifted from their heads……….Hence the political union cannot be with one nation as this is not possible, and if it was possible it would not be easy to accomplish, and if it was easy to accomplish it would not be beneficial…..!!!!
Another upholder of this opinion is the poet Iqbal. He says “It seems to me that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of nations which recognises artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for the facility of reference only and not for restricting the horizon of its numbers”. It personally does not seem clear to me that Iqbal does support it but this seems to be the opinion of Mazeheruddin Siddiqi the author of the book “Modern reformists thought in the Muslim World
Finally the group “Young Muslims U.K” seems to put forward this position in a way. I think this is where it relates to the method to establish the Islamic Khilafa. In one of its leaflets stating it objectives it says: “……..4-Building the Muslim state 5-Building the Khilafah, by gathering and unifying the Islamic Governments around the world, 6- Witnessing to Mankind, becoming the leader of humanity taking it away from the clutches of Shaytan” From this it seems they believe in the universality of the Islamic Khalifate but seem to legalise the presence of multiple Islamic states to achieve this.
The Evidences put forward by those who see the legality of Multiple Islamic States
1-The evidence that the enormous distances between the states will lead the people to not know the leaders in the other Islamic states. As it is obligatory for the people to have the authority of Islam ruling over them and the pledge of allegiance to the ruler owing to the hadeeth “Whoever dies without the pledge of allegiance(to a Caliph) dies the death of Jahiliyaah( the death of ignorance of the pre-Islamic period)” and many other evidence. Hence if the distances prevent the people from knowing the existence of other nations, let alone the leader, then it becomes a burden beyond ones capacity as washing ones arm up to and including the elbow for wudu when it is amputated!!!. This is because of the ayah (( ……Allah does not burden the soul beyond its capacity)). Abu Zahrah also sees the impossibility owing to the rulers wanting the crown on their heads.
2- The ayah (( O Mankind, verily We have created you from a male and female and made you into peoples and tribes to know each other…….)). From this ayah Abu Zahrah deduces the legality of having different people and tribes and therefore I assume different nations.
3-The Ayah ((…..Help each other in righteousness and piety)). Abu Zahrah I assume uses this ayah to show that the nations should co-operate on righteousness and piety. If they fight to take over each other to unite the Islamic nation, I assume they will not be working towards righteousness and piety I assume.
4- Having more then one Islamic state will not be beneficial and according to the hadeeth “Their is no harm or harming in Islam” It will be in fact Haraam!!
Discussion of the evidences
1- The evidence of ((…..Allah does not burden the soul beyond its capacity))
The discussion of this evidence will centre on two points. First the issue of distance and allegiance. Secondly the issue of the “crown of the king”.
Their is total agreement that Islam does not burden one beyond one’s capacity, and that once someone does not have the ability to what Allah has ordered owing to it’s impossibility then the burden is removed. The disagreement is on placing this principle outside of its context. First the Muslim is required to obey what he hears from the Imam whether it is by direct link to the caliph or by the amirs that the caliph appoints to remove the difficulty of the wide expanses. For these Amirs will be following the instructions of the Caliph and they will pass their orders to their subjects. This is confirmed by the hadeeth of the prophet “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. Whoever obeys my Amir Obeys Allah, Whoever disobeys my Amir disobeys Allah”. Where is the impossibility in this ?!!! Imam Shokani may have had an excuse because of the technology of his time. But where is the excuse for the brothers now!!!!. Their is none. Rather with the televisions, radios, telegraphs, etc we are able to communicate with each other even if one is in China and the other is in Morocco. The Muslims may be in a bad technological state. But they are not this bad!!!! Secondly it is not a duty for every Muslim to directly co-operate in giving their allegiance to the caliph. This is confirmed by the Ijma of the sahabaa that the Muslims fought in battles with the death of one caliph, only to continue to fight without going back to give allegiance. Can we say that these Sahabaa died a death of Ignorance!! Rather it a duty on the nation as a whole if some do it, the sin is removed form the rest. That is the rest will obviously have their allegiance to the caliph but it need not be by direct participation. Finally whether our Kings and Rulers might object is really not an evidence. Pharaoh objected to Moses. Would that have been an excuse for Moses to stop!!!! May Allah protect us from this pathetic pessimism.
Hence from this since the cause was the “impossibility of the action” then the ruling is removed. This is because of the principle that the cause encircles with the ruling, if it is removed then the ruling is removed.
2-The Discussion of the Ayah ((……and made you into people and tribes to know each other…..))
Many a nationalist has used this ayah. But I would have not expected this to come from one of the Shiekhs of Azhar!!! People getting to know each other does not remove the responsibility of them being united. Their is no indication by the explicit text or the understood text or by an indication or by a specific cause that we are not allowed to have one leader or in fact more then one leader as this ayah is totally unrelated to this issue. Secondly this ayah destroys the premise of nationalism by ending with ((………..Verily the most noble of you is the most God fearing and Allah is most knowledgeable and aware)) . The most God-fearing is the one who wants to unite the Muslims and says that their is no difference between Arab and non-Arab except by Taqwaa. Thirdly the Salaf have defined knowing as knowing the various lineages i.e. to know which tribe one is from and not as knowing each other as separate nations with separate Khalifs.
3- The Discussion of the Ayah ((……..Help each other in righteousness and piety….))
Their is nothing to discuss. It has nothing to do with the topic. It is like me quoting the ayah which I have chosen randomly (( That the people of the book may know that they have no power……))
4- The Hadeeth “Their is no harm or harming in Islam”
Imam Ghazzali, Amidi, Ibn Hajib have reported an Ijma on not acting on general evidence before looking for specific evidence. It is the agreement of the scholars that when we are faced with a new situation we first look for a specific evidence then a specific Illah (cause), then a specific Ijma(consensus), then a general evidence, and then we finally ( if this Usul is taken) go onto principles like Masalih Mursala. Or else we end up in chaos!! For example, if we need to collect money to build a mosque but the only possible means is by acquiring a mortgage, we could say that building a mosque is a good thing as it gets the youth of the street, so having a mortgage is allowed based on the principle, Their is no harm or harming ( in Islam). This is a wrong way to go about things, as it is clearly forbidden in the ayah ( Allah has permitted trade and forbidden Interest……….). Hence our interests should be in line with the Islamic code of life and this is the best way to remove any form harm in our society. From this we get the correct understanding. This is just a copy of the answer to the same point in “power sharing”. It deserves no more. It is more harmful to have more than one Islamic state. It is beneficial to have one . That is all their is to it.
As it can be seen the upholders of the issue of Multiple Islamic states have not even a thread to hold on. But rather the statement of Imam Nawawi stays ” This is a corrupt position against the agreement of the salaf, khalaf, and the apparent wording of the ahadeeth!!”. In fact Imam Nawawi was referring to Imam Al Haramain. At least he had an excuse!!. Rather in fact the Ijma remains the Ijma of the scholars to those who take this including Imam Shokani and Imam Al-Haramain as they only allowed this under certain circumstances, and the Ijma of the sahaba. Yes! The Ijma of the sahaba. It is narrated that Al-Habbab Ibnu Munthir said:
“When the Sahabaa met in the wake of the death of the prophet at the saqifaa of Bani Sa’da, (they said) “One Amir from us and one Amir from you” (from the Muhajiroon and Ansaar) Upon this Abu Bakr replied “It is forbidden for the Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The sunnah would then be abandoned , the bida’a would spread and the Fitna would grow , and that is in no one’s interest” (not even in the interest of Abu Zahraah!!!!) The Sahaaba heard this and consented. Hence it becomes a matter of Ijma.
As for the ahadeeth of the prophet they are numerous. I will quote some:
The prophet said “When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the later of them”
The prophet said “Whosoever comes to you while your affairs are united under one man, intending to divide your staff or dissolve your unity kill him!!”
It is narrated from Abu Hazim ” I was for five years with Abu Hurairah and I heard him narrate from the prophet that he said “The prophets used to rule Banu Israel. Whenever a prophet died another succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khalifs and they will number many. They asked “What then do you order us? He said :Fulfill Allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their due. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with”
These Hadiths clearly show that we should give our allegiance to one Caliph after another, the key word being ONE!!.
To finish I would like to clarify a few points. First the so called fatwaa of Ibn Taymiaah.
I was shocked beyond belief when I read a book called “The Political thoughts of Ibn Taymiyah” by Quamaruddin Khan where he puts forward that Ibn Taymiyah allows multiple Islamic states at one period of time!! He says on p122-123 ” But this authority need not be one single unit, Ibn Taymiyah for the first time in history endeavours to justify juridically that it may be divided………. Ibn Taymiyah naturally does not use the modern terminology to express this idea ( No Kidding!!!), but he is very clear on the issue. In the beginning of the Siyasah discussing the famous verses of the Quran, dealing with the question of trust (amanah), authority and obedience, he observes, “The ulema say: the first verse is revealed about the rulers; it is obligatory on them to return the trusts to their owners…………..” Here obviously Ibn Taymiyah is considering the possibility of many Muslim states at a time; that is why he is talking of rulers and not one supreme ruler of the community.”!!!??? What utter rubbish!!!! By this understanding when I say parents refers to fathers and mothers, from the ayah “From what is left by the parents and those nearest related……..” Surah Al Nisah Verse 7, I have allowed “for the first time in history” a family to have more then one father and mother at the same time, be they divorced or not!!!??? . This makes most orientalist seem conservative!!. May Allah protect us from this.
Secondly it could be said that to have one Khalif is Fard, but one can have many amirs. That is correct but it is the Khalif who appoints the Amirs and the not the amirs who appoint the Khalif. I doubt anyone would say this as it is obvious and agreed upon by every scholar of Islam.. But just in case ignorance will show its ugly head, I will Quote Imam Ashunahji (Al-Qurafi) In his book Al Farooq:
” Whatever the prophet of Allah did on the authority of leadership it is NOT allowed for anybody to perform it except by the permission of the imam following the messenger of Allah because the reason of his work was in the capacity of a leader” and he continues
“……………….appointing judges and wali’es, dividing the booty…………are the responsibilities of the Khalifah…..or his assistants or deputy(that have been appointed), and it is not allowed for anybody except him.”
The evidence for this is provided by the hadeeth of the prophet “The Imam is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock”. They could say their is no Khalif. The answer is go get one!!! Would anyone dare to say that he could not get married as it needed the condition of two male witnesses. The issue is the impossibility of the condition. Only then can it cancel the ruling. Otherwise like marriage a condition does not abrogate a ruling. It is not impossible to get a Khalif therefore this argument is invalid.
It could be said “What leads to a Wajib is a Wajib”. The answer is simple. What leads to wajib has to be halaal and not Haraam. Having more than one leader is haraam by Ijma. Finally it could be said that the hadeeths of the prophet refer to his locality and was only for his time. This is probably one of the most dangerous arguments. Not because it is strong but because it can destroy Islam. Specification of the ruling has to come from the text. This is from the mind i.e..
The prophet said “When the oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifs, kill the later of them”(If it is in my time or locality!!!)
It could be said that we have to gradually implement Islam and this is a method. InshaAllah the discussion of the method of Gradual Implementation will be discussed next.

[NOTE - The author's section on Gradualism is found here>>>] (Iculture)
Home         Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)