As the Arab world convulses, much of the American discussion is focused on whom we should help, whom we should help topple, how much it will cost, how will it affect our already-taxed military personnel, and whether our leaders in Washington have any kind of plan for dealing with the changing regimes and allegiances. All valid issues. But a wider view of the changes shows that the ouster of rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, the possible fall of Gadhafi in Libya and Saleh in Yemen, and the upheaval in Bahrain and even Syria, could create a climate for a move to restore an Islamic Caliphate — a political union of Muslims under one ruler, a Caliph.
photo:cbn.com
The Islamic world has been without a Caliph since the secular leader of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, banished the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1. But a Caliphate is the historical norm, a Caliph having ruled over Muslims for most of the time since Muhammad’s disciples instituted it in the 7th century. The fact that a defeat by the “infidel” powers of the West-Christians-led to the end of the last Caliphate, is a sore that festers throughout the Arab nations and the wider Muslim community.
The Arab autocrats who have fallen or are in danger in 2011 (with the exception of Bashar Assad in Syria) were all either allies of the U.S. or contributed something to U.S. interests in the region. Early signs from Egypt are that the next government there will be more hostile to America, more hostile to Israel, more Islamist than the Mubarak regime and more dangerous to millions of Christians who live there. In fact, in all of the countries being roiled – Bahrain, which houses the U.S. 5th Fleet and is located on the world’s most strategic oil lanes; Yemen, whose dictator has helped fight the strong al-Qaeda presence in his country; and Libya, whose rebel leader fought the U.S. in Afghanistan — are likely to produce leaders who blame the United States and Israel for the problems their people face.
Arab societies in the Middle East are steeped in anti-Semitic teaching, and millions believe they are victims of a worldwide Jewish and Zionist conspiracy (whose chief puppet is the United States) to control the world’s wealth. Combine that with the drift toward Islamism in non-Arab Turkey, which has been moving away from the United States and Israel and toward Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a scenario for a re-formation of the Caliphate emerges, with the former Ottomans at the center.
Author Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim now a Christian, believes the revival of a strong Caliphate would be a catastrophe for the West. He writes in his book, God’s War on Terror, that once a Caliph is in office he is mandated by law to carry out jihad: “Jihad under a Caliph would be genuine ‘old school’ jihad – not a bombing here or an attack there. It would become the modern world’s first true full-scale global religious war. It would involve everything that the Islamic world could throw out, from economic jihad to withholding oil to cyber jihad to multi-front military conflicts.”
Skeptics say that with Sunni and Shia Muslims deeply divided, the prospects of a restored Caliphate are dim at best. But stranger things have happened. They’re happening now.
http://news.maars.net/blog/2011/03/28/toward-the-rise-of-an-islamic-caliphate/
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Egypt's al-Azhar shuns Western action in Libya
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72M07B20110323
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's highest Islamic authority, al-Azhar, on Wednesday condemned Western military "aggression" in Libya but said it supported what it called the legitimate demands of the Libyan people's revolution.
Western warplanes have flown more than 300 sorties over Libya and more than 162 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired in the United Nations-mandated mission to protect Libyan civilians against government troops.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has said that Western powers pounding Libya's defences are "fascists who will end up in the dustbin of history".
Azhar, one of the oldest seats of Sunni Islamic learning, warned the United States and Britain against "dividing Libya and destroying its natural and human wealth, as happened in Iraq," the state Al Ahram newspaper said.
But the Cairo-based body also condemned Arab governments who oppressed citizens for decades. It said their leaders should not stay in office if that would lead to more bloodshed.
"They should leave their posts. That is the least they can do to repond to their people, who have endured them and been patient for so long," the paper quoted a statement as saying.
While Western air power has grounded Gaddafi's planes and pushed back his troops and armour from the brink of rebel stronghold Benghazi, disorganised and poorly equipped insurgents have failed to capitalise on the ground and remain pinned down.
Arab backing for a no-fly zone was crucial for the passage of the United Nations resolution allowing foreign military intervention in Libya.
But no Arab country except Qatar has said it would contribute to the operation.
Azhar condemned Arab and Islamic institutions for a failure to address political and economic problems, which in turn led to the wave of popular uprisings shaking the Arab region.
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's highest Islamic authority, al-Azhar, on Wednesday condemned Western military "aggression" in Libya but said it supported what it called the legitimate demands of the Libyan people's revolution.
Western warplanes have flown more than 300 sorties over Libya and more than 162 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired in the United Nations-mandated mission to protect Libyan civilians against government troops.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has said that Western powers pounding Libya's defences are "fascists who will end up in the dustbin of history".
Azhar, one of the oldest seats of Sunni Islamic learning, warned the United States and Britain against "dividing Libya and destroying its natural and human wealth, as happened in Iraq," the state Al Ahram newspaper said.
But the Cairo-based body also condemned Arab governments who oppressed citizens for decades. It said their leaders should not stay in office if that would lead to more bloodshed.
"They should leave their posts. That is the least they can do to repond to their people, who have endured them and been patient for so long," the paper quoted a statement as saying.
While Western air power has grounded Gaddafi's planes and pushed back his troops and armour from the brink of rebel stronghold Benghazi, disorganised and poorly equipped insurgents have failed to capitalise on the ground and remain pinned down.
Arab backing for a no-fly zone was crucial for the passage of the United Nations resolution allowing foreign military intervention in Libya.
But no Arab country except Qatar has said it would contribute to the operation.
Azhar condemned Arab and Islamic institutions for a failure to address political and economic problems, which in turn led to the wave of popular uprisings shaking the Arab region.
Monday, 21 March 2011
Egypt Vote Shows Islamist Influence .
Egypt Vote Shows Islamist Influence .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704355304576214611275129754.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook
CAIRO—Egyptians' embrace of a set of proposed constitutional amendments in this weekend's referendum is the clearest sign yet that leadership of the country's revolution may be passing from youthful activists to Islamist religious leaders, according to analysts.
More than 70 percent of Egyptians vote yes to constitutional reforms in first free referendum in 30 years. Video and image courtesy of Reuters.
.Electoral officials said 77% of Egyptians voted to accept a set of proposed amendments to Egypt's constitution that will, among other changes, limit the presidency to two four-year terms and ease restrictions on independent political participation, according to results announced Sunday.
The proposed changes were opposed by protest leaders and by presidential front-runners Mohammed El Baradei and Amr Moussa. Both men urged Egyptians to reject the amendments, written by lawyers and judges nominated by Egypt's military. Protest leaders and opposition politicians instead pushed for an entirely new constitution that would limit expansive presidential powers.
The results from Saturday's referendum signal a shift in Egypt's continuing revolution: The protest leaders, once celebrated as heroes and martyrs, are no longer the leading voice in Egypt's transition to democracy.
In their place are popular religious leaders, whose strong backing of the amendments held sway. These leaders see approval of the amendments as an avenue to political power and a means of preserving the country's Islamic identity. With their influence in what appeared to be Egypt's first free and fair election, these political playmakers show how they are positioned to help define Egypt's democratic future.
The powerful Muslim Brotherhood, a once-illegal Islamist political group, was joined in supporting the amendments by leaders of the Salafi Islamist movement—which follows the ultra-conservative brand of Islam widely practiced in Saudi Arabia—and residual elements of the former ruling National Democratic Party, or NDP.
Opponents of the amendments, which included many in the youth movement, said the Muslim Brotherhood allied with the NDP as part of a cynical power grab: The approval of the amendments has set the stage for parliamentary elections this summer, for which only the Brotherhood and the NDP have the organizational structures to compete.
Posters and leaflets distributed throughout the country said that voting "yes" on the 10 amendments—not one of which made any mention of religion—was a spiritual obligation. Some of the posters bore the Muslim Brotherhood name, but the group denied they put them up and said in general it hadn't used religious rhetoric to promote the amendments.
Prominent Salafi clerics openly championed the amendments, telling satellite television audiences that a "no" result would lead to the drafting of a new constitution that might exclude a controversial article in Egypt's existing constitution that embraces Sharia, or Islamic, law as the root of all legislation in the Egyptian parliament.
The nature of the campaign led some Egyptians to describe their "yes" votes as a religious obligation.
"This is a nightmare for intellectual Egyptians," said Nabil Abdel Fattah, a political analyst for the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-funded think tank based in Cairo.
"All the youth accepted the results of the referendum as a form of democracy. But at the same time, they felt very deceived by the dangerous role the religious groups played against them," Mr. Abdel Fattah said. "They felt that their revolution is being aborted and there is a huge, huge threat to the unity of the country from using religious campaigns."
Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church—whose adherents account for about 10% of the country's 80 million people—came out against the amendments, which they said amounted to an Islamist power-play.
The youth-led campaign against the amendments revealed the limits of the protest leaders' mass appeal among Egypt's largely impoverished, under-educated population.
For weeks after Mr. Mubarak stepped down on Feb. 11, protesters remained in Tahrir Square, where they agitated for concession after concession from Egypt's new military leaders. Among their successes were the dissolution of the country's hated State Security services and the ouster of Mubarak loyalists from the country's cabinet.
As the protests continued well past Mr. Mubarak's resignation, most Egyptians yearned for a return to normalcy. Egypt's military has yet to lift a nightly curfew that has limited business hours and Egypt's stock market still has not reopened nearly two months after it closed on Jan. 27.
Except for the Brotherhood, which played a pivotal role in the protests, the majority of the demonstrators were secular-minded, well-educated liberals who shared little in common with Egypt's conservative majority.
The "yes" campaigners sought to portray the youthful protest movement as rich kids who could afford to perpetuate the political and economic uncertainty that followed Egypt's revolution.
One activist said that with Mr. Mubarak gone, the Egyptian people have multiple political options beyond the protesters.
"The protest leaders, they aren't as effective as we thought," said Bassem Fathi, one of the youth activists. He said Egyptians rallied behind the protesters because they represented the only alternative to Mr. Mubarak. "Now, Egyptians are having a lot of choices," he said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704355304576214611275129754.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook
CAIRO—Egyptians' embrace of a set of proposed constitutional amendments in this weekend's referendum is the clearest sign yet that leadership of the country's revolution may be passing from youthful activists to Islamist religious leaders, according to analysts.
More than 70 percent of Egyptians vote yes to constitutional reforms in first free referendum in 30 years. Video and image courtesy of Reuters.
.Electoral officials said 77% of Egyptians voted to accept a set of proposed amendments to Egypt's constitution that will, among other changes, limit the presidency to two four-year terms and ease restrictions on independent political participation, according to results announced Sunday.
The proposed changes were opposed by protest leaders and by presidential front-runners Mohammed El Baradei and Amr Moussa. Both men urged Egyptians to reject the amendments, written by lawyers and judges nominated by Egypt's military. Protest leaders and opposition politicians instead pushed for an entirely new constitution that would limit expansive presidential powers.
The results from Saturday's referendum signal a shift in Egypt's continuing revolution: The protest leaders, once celebrated as heroes and martyrs, are no longer the leading voice in Egypt's transition to democracy.
In their place are popular religious leaders, whose strong backing of the amendments held sway. These leaders see approval of the amendments as an avenue to political power and a means of preserving the country's Islamic identity. With their influence in what appeared to be Egypt's first free and fair election, these political playmakers show how they are positioned to help define Egypt's democratic future.
The powerful Muslim Brotherhood, a once-illegal Islamist political group, was joined in supporting the amendments by leaders of the Salafi Islamist movement—which follows the ultra-conservative brand of Islam widely practiced in Saudi Arabia—and residual elements of the former ruling National Democratic Party, or NDP.
Opponents of the amendments, which included many in the youth movement, said the Muslim Brotherhood allied with the NDP as part of a cynical power grab: The approval of the amendments has set the stage for parliamentary elections this summer, for which only the Brotherhood and the NDP have the organizational structures to compete.
Posters and leaflets distributed throughout the country said that voting "yes" on the 10 amendments—not one of which made any mention of religion—was a spiritual obligation. Some of the posters bore the Muslim Brotherhood name, but the group denied they put them up and said in general it hadn't used religious rhetoric to promote the amendments.
Prominent Salafi clerics openly championed the amendments, telling satellite television audiences that a "no" result would lead to the drafting of a new constitution that might exclude a controversial article in Egypt's existing constitution that embraces Sharia, or Islamic, law as the root of all legislation in the Egyptian parliament.
The nature of the campaign led some Egyptians to describe their "yes" votes as a religious obligation.
"This is a nightmare for intellectual Egyptians," said Nabil Abdel Fattah, a political analyst for the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-funded think tank based in Cairo.
"All the youth accepted the results of the referendum as a form of democracy. But at the same time, they felt very deceived by the dangerous role the religious groups played against them," Mr. Abdel Fattah said. "They felt that their revolution is being aborted and there is a huge, huge threat to the unity of the country from using religious campaigns."
Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Church—whose adherents account for about 10% of the country's 80 million people—came out against the amendments, which they said amounted to an Islamist power-play.
The youth-led campaign against the amendments revealed the limits of the protest leaders' mass appeal among Egypt's largely impoverished, under-educated population.
For weeks after Mr. Mubarak stepped down on Feb. 11, protesters remained in Tahrir Square, where they agitated for concession after concession from Egypt's new military leaders. Among their successes were the dissolution of the country's hated State Security services and the ouster of Mubarak loyalists from the country's cabinet.
As the protests continued well past Mr. Mubarak's resignation, most Egyptians yearned for a return to normalcy. Egypt's military has yet to lift a nightly curfew that has limited business hours and Egypt's stock market still has not reopened nearly two months after it closed on Jan. 27.
Except for the Brotherhood, which played a pivotal role in the protests, the majority of the demonstrators were secular-minded, well-educated liberals who shared little in common with Egypt's conservative majority.
The "yes" campaigners sought to portray the youthful protest movement as rich kids who could afford to perpetuate the political and economic uncertainty that followed Egypt's revolution.
One activist said that with Mr. Mubarak gone, the Egyptian people have multiple political options beyond the protesters.
"The protest leaders, they aren't as effective as we thought," said Bassem Fathi, one of the youth activists. He said Egyptians rallied behind the protesters because they represented the only alternative to Mr. Mubarak. "Now, Egyptians are having a lot of choices," he said.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Hundreds of Islamists stone Egypt's ElBaradei
Hundreds of Islamists stone Egypt's ElBaradei
By Mona Salem (AFP) – 10 hours ago
CAIRO — Islamists hurled stones and shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace laureate and a secular contender for Egypt's presidency, as he tried to vote Saturday in a referendum on constitutional amendments.
ElBaradei was hit in the back by a stone thrown from the crowd of hundreds but managed to escape unhurt and slammed as "irresponsible" the holding of a referendum without adequate law and order.
"We don't want you," the mob shouted, throwing stones, shoes and water at the former UN nuclear watchdog chief as he turned up at a Cairo polling station, five weeks after president Hosni Mubarak was ousted by mass protests.
"He lives in the United States and wants to rule us. It's out of the question," one of them said.
"We don't want an American agent," said another.
ElBaradei beat a retreat to his car and left without voting at the polling station in Muqattam, a largely poor district in south Cairo.
"Went 2 vote w family attacked by organized thugs. Car smashed w rocks. Holding referendum in absence of law & order is an irresponsible act," he wrote on Twitter.
ElBaradei's brother Ali said he was unhurt. Muqattam is close to the scene of recent deadly clashes between Egypt's Christian Copt community and Muslims.
Members of the crowd interviewed by AFP before the assault identified themselves as Islamists without elaborating on their precise allegiance.
An official from the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most organised opposition movement, denied members of his group were involved.
"There are many types of Islamists. It's impossible that it was Muslim Brotherhood members, 100 percent impossible. We work with ElBaradei and coordinate with him," Gamal Nassar told AFP.
An estimated 45 million Egyptians were being asked to say "yes" or "no" to a package of constitutional changes intended to guide the Arab world's most populous state through fresh presidential and parliamentary polls within six months.
ElBaradei, a staunch opponent of the planned changes, is widely respected on the world stage for his work as an international diplomat.
But under the Mubarak regime, he came under repeated criticism for his frequent trips abroad and was accused of being out of touch with the reality of Egyptian life.
He went to vote in Saturday's referendum on constitutional reform after returning from a speaking engagement in New Delhi sponsored by India Today.
The main advocates of a "yes" vote have been the Muslim Brotherhood -- powerful and well-organised despite being outlawed under Mubarak -- and elements of the former ruling National Democratic Party.
Critics say they are the ones who stand to benefit if elections are held too quickly, without giving time for groups stymied by three decades of authoritarian rule to organise at grass roots level.
Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gem9Kx0MIS57hXR6bplIhQAG11LA?docId=CNG.4ff2e782ea3c513ce60adb517b709f8e.6e1
By Mona Salem (AFP) – 10 hours ago
CAIRO — Islamists hurled stones and shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace laureate and a secular contender for Egypt's presidency, as he tried to vote Saturday in a referendum on constitutional amendments.
ElBaradei was hit in the back by a stone thrown from the crowd of hundreds but managed to escape unhurt and slammed as "irresponsible" the holding of a referendum without adequate law and order.
"We don't want you," the mob shouted, throwing stones, shoes and water at the former UN nuclear watchdog chief as he turned up at a Cairo polling station, five weeks after president Hosni Mubarak was ousted by mass protests.
"He lives in the United States and wants to rule us. It's out of the question," one of them said.
"We don't want an American agent," said another.
ElBaradei beat a retreat to his car and left without voting at the polling station in Muqattam, a largely poor district in south Cairo.
"Went 2 vote w family attacked by organized thugs. Car smashed w rocks. Holding referendum in absence of law & order is an irresponsible act," he wrote on Twitter.
ElBaradei's brother Ali said he was unhurt. Muqattam is close to the scene of recent deadly clashes between Egypt's Christian Copt community and Muslims.
Members of the crowd interviewed by AFP before the assault identified themselves as Islamists without elaborating on their precise allegiance.
An official from the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most organised opposition movement, denied members of his group were involved.
"There are many types of Islamists. It's impossible that it was Muslim Brotherhood members, 100 percent impossible. We work with ElBaradei and coordinate with him," Gamal Nassar told AFP.
An estimated 45 million Egyptians were being asked to say "yes" or "no" to a package of constitutional changes intended to guide the Arab world's most populous state through fresh presidential and parliamentary polls within six months.
ElBaradei, a staunch opponent of the planned changes, is widely respected on the world stage for his work as an international diplomat.
But under the Mubarak regime, he came under repeated criticism for his frequent trips abroad and was accused of being out of touch with the reality of Egyptian life.
He went to vote in Saturday's referendum on constitutional reform after returning from a speaking engagement in New Delhi sponsored by India Today.
The main advocates of a "yes" vote have been the Muslim Brotherhood -- powerful and well-organised despite being outlawed under Mubarak -- and elements of the former ruling National Democratic Party.
Critics say they are the ones who stand to benefit if elections are held too quickly, without giving time for groups stymied by three decades of authoritarian rule to organise at grass roots level.
Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gem9Kx0MIS57hXR6bplIhQAG11LA?docId=CNG.4ff2e782ea3c513ce60adb517b709f8e.6e1
Friday, 18 March 2011
Thursday, 17 March 2011
61% of Americans believe the emergence of an Islamic caliphate is "likely"
61% of Americans believe the emergence of an Islamic caliphate is "likely" in the next 10 years, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, and intelligence officials say the call for a caliphate, while once fringe, has developed over the past few years into a global movement spanning many Muslim countries.
See full article below:
Will A Nuclear Caliphate Rise From Unrest In The Mideast?
By PAUL SPERRY Posted 03/15/2011 06:55 PM ET
View Enlarged Image
With the Muslim world reaching a boiling point, U.S. intelligence fears that the unrest could create a power vacuum exploited by al-Qaida and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
Both share a goal of bringing the Mideast under a single Islamic ruler, who could control world oil supplies and possibly even nuclear weapons.
The Obama administration finds the idea of such a "caliphate" preposterous. It isn't even concerned about the prospect of Islamist regimes emerging from the revolts. Many of the Mideast protesters are "secular," the White House believes.
Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough called it a "lie" that Muslims want a universal Islamic state. "People across the Arab world are proving the point," he said, by calling for free elections.
Still, 61% of Americans believe the emergence of an Islamic caliphate is "likely" in the next 10 years, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, and intelligence officials say the call for a caliphate, while once fringe, has developed over the past few years into a global movement spanning many Muslim countries.
The University of Maryland recently surveyed Muslims in Indonesia, as well as Egypt, Pakistan and Morocco, and found that 77% agree with al-Qaida's quest to "unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state."
Experts say the movement is driven in part by growing anti-Western sentiment, but also by a longing for the "golden era" of Islam. At its height, the Muslim empire stretched from Spain in the west to the borders of China in the east.
The Maryland study describes the caliphate as a "collective identity" issue even among Muslims with a nationalistic bent, and a "strong motivator" within the global Muslim community. If so, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida may have soft fields to plow in Mideast countries ousting secular, pro-Western leaders.
"This issue will continue to overshadow other geopolitical issues," said Doug McLeod, a researcher with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror at the University of Maryland.
The pious movement traces its roots to the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist group founded in Egypt in 1928. Its bylaws call for Muslims to "fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state."
Its spiritual leader is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, arguably the most influential Islamic scholar in the region. After 9/11, he issued a fatwah calling for "the spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world and includes both the East and West, marking the beginning of the return of the Islamic caliphate."
See full article below:
Will A Nuclear Caliphate Rise From Unrest In The Mideast?
By PAUL SPERRY Posted 03/15/2011 06:55 PM ET
View Enlarged Image
With the Muslim world reaching a boiling point, U.S. intelligence fears that the unrest could create a power vacuum exploited by al-Qaida and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
Both share a goal of bringing the Mideast under a single Islamic ruler, who could control world oil supplies and possibly even nuclear weapons.
The Obama administration finds the idea of such a "caliphate" preposterous. It isn't even concerned about the prospect of Islamist regimes emerging from the revolts. Many of the Mideast protesters are "secular," the White House believes.
Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough called it a "lie" that Muslims want a universal Islamic state. "People across the Arab world are proving the point," he said, by calling for free elections.
Still, 61% of Americans believe the emergence of an Islamic caliphate is "likely" in the next 10 years, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, and intelligence officials say the call for a caliphate, while once fringe, has developed over the past few years into a global movement spanning many Muslim countries.
The University of Maryland recently surveyed Muslims in Indonesia, as well as Egypt, Pakistan and Morocco, and found that 77% agree with al-Qaida's quest to "unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state."
Experts say the movement is driven in part by growing anti-Western sentiment, but also by a longing for the "golden era" of Islam. At its height, the Muslim empire stretched from Spain in the west to the borders of China in the east.
The Maryland study describes the caliphate as a "collective identity" issue even among Muslims with a nationalistic bent, and a "strong motivator" within the global Muslim community. If so, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida may have soft fields to plow in Mideast countries ousting secular, pro-Western leaders.
"This issue will continue to overshadow other geopolitical issues," said Doug McLeod, a researcher with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror at the University of Maryland.
The pious movement traces its roots to the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist group founded in Egypt in 1928. Its bylaws call for Muslims to "fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state."
Its spiritual leader is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, arguably the most influential Islamic scholar in the region. After 9/11, he issued a fatwah calling for "the spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world and includes both the East and West, marking the beginning of the return of the Islamic caliphate."
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Are Muslims calling for democracy or elections?
Are Muslims calling for democracy or elections?
Surveys show the silent ‘majority’ of Muslims want Islam yet the western media persists in trying to portray the uprisings as pro-democracy.
“…democracy is more than elections”(1).
Tzipi Livni – Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Washington Post, February 24, 2011.
Brave protestors are still on the streets struggling against many of the tyrannical Arab regimes. The world continues to watch the efforts of once-ordinary people who finally shook off their fear of their dictatorial regimes and chose dignity instead.
In the aftermath of the uprising an important question remains unanswered; are Muslims calling for democracy or elections?
The question exists because Western news reporters and camera crews report demonstrators calling for democracy but what does this mean to them? CNN and the BBC may report that they use the phrase democracy but there’s an unsurprising bias, particularly when the Western media scour the streets for those who can explain their ideas in English. Do we take these calls at face-value or do we investigate if that’s what they are really calling for?
There’s no doubt ‘democracy’ is recognised as a contested and elusive term(2). So we could take a simple meaning which depends on procedural elements such as civil rights, particularly fair elections; the rule of law; equality before the law; economic opportunity and a fairer distribution of wealth; accountability and transparency as well as an end to the corruption of crony capitalism. All of this fits within what many ascribe to democracy.
However, we could also take a deeper meaning of democracy that includes Western values, not least the notions of secularism and that legislation comes from man. This meaning of legislation through popular will and separation of church from state is essentially a rejection to the Right of Allah SWT, as al-Hakim, to be the sole legislator and as al-Malik, to be sovereign alone.
Awareness of this conflict between the two definitions means it is clear we must guard against employing the term ‘democracy’ so carelessly.
One answer on what the people want comes from the explicit calls for Islam by demonstrators from Tunis and Cairo to Sana’a to Benghazi, easily available on YouTube but conspicuous by their absence in Western news reports.
Another comes from the calls of the Islamic jurists motivating the people to rise on the basis of Islam. Al-Arabiyya reported the publication of a statement of 90 ‘Ulema from various countries supporting the uprising but condemning democracy adding:
“In democracies, people might vote for things that are prohibited in Islam like establishing brothels, allowing homosexuality, drinking alcohol, and usury, and prohibiting the call for prayers or the veil”(3)
This was supported by a fatwa by the Network of Free ‘Ulema of Libya telling all Muslims it was their Islamic (rather than democratic) duty to rebel stating:
“They (the government and its supporters) have thereby demonstrated total infidelity to the guidance of God and his beloved Prophet (SAW)…this renders them undeserving of any obedience or support, and makes rebelling against them by all means possible a divinely
ordained duty” (4)
Yet another answer comes from the objective polling data taken from reputable bodies. The Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project asked Muslims if democracy was preferable to any other kind of government in a report published in January, 2011(5). They found strong agreement in Lebanon (81%), Turkey (76%), Jordan (69%), Nigeria (66%), Indonesia (65%), Egypt (59%) with Pakistan trailing in behind (42%).
However, when Muslims were asked in the same poll if Islam was seen as a positive rather than negative influence in politics it found impressive margins in favour of Islam in Indonesia (91% positive to 6% negative), Egypt (85% to 2%), Nigeria (82% to 10%), Jordan (76% to 14%) and Pakistan (69% to 6%). A separate Pew report on Religion & Public Life from April 2010 found substantial majorities of Muslims polled in sub-Saharan Africa who favoured making shari’ah the official law of the land including Djibouti (82%), DR Congo (74%), Nigeria (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia and Mozambique (both 65%), Kenya (64%) and Mali (63%)(6).
This coincides with previous polls. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland conducted a major survey in February 2007 in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Its summary concludes:
“On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate”(7)
The Centre for Strategic Studies (CSS) at the University of Jordan surveyed Muslims in Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria back in February 2005(8). It found approximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt stated that the shari’ah must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be “one of the sources of legislation”. By comparison, in Lebanon and Syria, a majority (nearly two thirds in Lebanon and just over half in Syria) favored the view that shari’ah must be one of the sources of legislation.
So the desire for rights is clear and the desire for Islam is clear. The people may sometimes use the term ‘democracy’, which will be eagerly seized on by western media networks, but there is clearly awareness that Islam provides the rights that people want.
Some Muslims, fearful of being labelled extremists have gone to great lengths to downplay any fervour for Islam in governance while the Western media have reported events to support their bias for democracy. However, this should not lead to confusion. Muslims have risen, with iman in their hearts. They’ve put their lives on the line facing tanks, jets, artillery, machine guns and snipers, chanting loudly that they want the fall of their regimes and that they want their rights.
There is certainly more to democracy than elections and it should not surprise any of us that the people of a Muslim-majority region want Islam.
Notes:
1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022305364.html
2 http://www.globalbarometer.net/GBS_Oct_2010/08.%20Bratton%20Print.pdf
3 http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/21/138583.html
4 http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE71K1TQ20110221
5 http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1874/egypt-protests-democracy-islam-influence-politics-islamic-extremism
6 http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/sub-saharan-africa/sub-saharan-africa-full-report.pdf
7 http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php?nid&id&pnt=346&lb=brme
8 http://www.css-jordan.org/SubDefault.aspx?PageId=37&PollId=140&PollType=3
Surveys show the silent ‘majority’ of Muslims want Islam yet the western media persists in trying to portray the uprisings as pro-democracy.
“…democracy is more than elections”(1).
Tzipi Livni – Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Washington Post, February 24, 2011.
Brave protestors are still on the streets struggling against many of the tyrannical Arab regimes. The world continues to watch the efforts of once-ordinary people who finally shook off their fear of their dictatorial regimes and chose dignity instead.
In the aftermath of the uprising an important question remains unanswered; are Muslims calling for democracy or elections?
The question exists because Western news reporters and camera crews report demonstrators calling for democracy but what does this mean to them? CNN and the BBC may report that they use the phrase democracy but there’s an unsurprising bias, particularly when the Western media scour the streets for those who can explain their ideas in English. Do we take these calls at face-value or do we investigate if that’s what they are really calling for?
There’s no doubt ‘democracy’ is recognised as a contested and elusive term(2). So we could take a simple meaning which depends on procedural elements such as civil rights, particularly fair elections; the rule of law; equality before the law; economic opportunity and a fairer distribution of wealth; accountability and transparency as well as an end to the corruption of crony capitalism. All of this fits within what many ascribe to democracy.
However, we could also take a deeper meaning of democracy that includes Western values, not least the notions of secularism and that legislation comes from man. This meaning of legislation through popular will and separation of church from state is essentially a rejection to the Right of Allah SWT, as al-Hakim, to be the sole legislator and as al-Malik, to be sovereign alone.
Awareness of this conflict between the two definitions means it is clear we must guard against employing the term ‘democracy’ so carelessly.
One answer on what the people want comes from the explicit calls for Islam by demonstrators from Tunis and Cairo to Sana’a to Benghazi, easily available on YouTube but conspicuous by their absence in Western news reports.
Another comes from the calls of the Islamic jurists motivating the people to rise on the basis of Islam. Al-Arabiyya reported the publication of a statement of 90 ‘Ulema from various countries supporting the uprising but condemning democracy adding:
“In democracies, people might vote for things that are prohibited in Islam like establishing brothels, allowing homosexuality, drinking alcohol, and usury, and prohibiting the call for prayers or the veil”(3)
This was supported by a fatwa by the Network of Free ‘Ulema of Libya telling all Muslims it was their Islamic (rather than democratic) duty to rebel stating:
“They (the government and its supporters) have thereby demonstrated total infidelity to the guidance of God and his beloved Prophet (SAW)…this renders them undeserving of any obedience or support, and makes rebelling against them by all means possible a divinely
ordained duty” (4)
Yet another answer comes from the objective polling data taken from reputable bodies. The Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project asked Muslims if democracy was preferable to any other kind of government in a report published in January, 2011(5). They found strong agreement in Lebanon (81%), Turkey (76%), Jordan (69%), Nigeria (66%), Indonesia (65%), Egypt (59%) with Pakistan trailing in behind (42%).
However, when Muslims were asked in the same poll if Islam was seen as a positive rather than negative influence in politics it found impressive margins in favour of Islam in Indonesia (91% positive to 6% negative), Egypt (85% to 2%), Nigeria (82% to 10%), Jordan (76% to 14%) and Pakistan (69% to 6%). A separate Pew report on Religion & Public Life from April 2010 found substantial majorities of Muslims polled in sub-Saharan Africa who favoured making shari’ah the official law of the land including Djibouti (82%), DR Congo (74%), Nigeria (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia and Mozambique (both 65%), Kenya (64%) and Mali (63%)(6).
This coincides with previous polls. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland conducted a major survey in February 2007 in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Its summary concludes:
“On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate”(7)
The Centre for Strategic Studies (CSS) at the University of Jordan surveyed Muslims in Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria back in February 2005(8). It found approximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt stated that the shari’ah must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be “one of the sources of legislation”. By comparison, in Lebanon and Syria, a majority (nearly two thirds in Lebanon and just over half in Syria) favored the view that shari’ah must be one of the sources of legislation.
So the desire for rights is clear and the desire for Islam is clear. The people may sometimes use the term ‘democracy’, which will be eagerly seized on by western media networks, but there is clearly awareness that Islam provides the rights that people want.
Some Muslims, fearful of being labelled extremists have gone to great lengths to downplay any fervour for Islam in governance while the Western media have reported events to support their bias for democracy. However, this should not lead to confusion. Muslims have risen, with iman in their hearts. They’ve put their lives on the line facing tanks, jets, artillery, machine guns and snipers, chanting loudly that they want the fall of their regimes and that they want their rights.
There is certainly more to democracy than elections and it should not surprise any of us that the people of a Muslim-majority region want Islam.
Notes:
1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022305364.html
2 http://www.globalbarometer.net/GBS_Oct_2010/08.%20Bratton%20Print.pdf
3 http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/21/138583.html
4 http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE71K1TQ20110221
5 http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1874/egypt-protests-democracy-islam-influence-politics-islamic-extremism
6 http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/sub-saharan-africa/sub-saharan-africa-full-report.pdf
7 http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php?nid&id&pnt=346&lb=brme
8 http://www.css-jordan.org/SubDefault.aspx?PageId=37&PollId=140&PollType=3
Saturday, 12 March 2011
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Saturday, 5 March 2011
Sheikh Zindani in Yemen calls for "khilafah rashidah" to massive takbirs: March 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcBMJl0ESyY&feature=player_embedded#at=458
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Libyan Islamic scholars issue fatwa for Muslims to rebel
http://islamopediaonline.org/news/libyan-islamic-scholars-issue-fatwa-muslims-rebel
In
In
Source Information
Keywords:
Article Date:
Mon, 02/21/2011 Article Source:
Reuters Language:
English Country 1:
Lybia Location: Latitude:
32.57 Location: Longitude:
13.12 Article Text:
A coalition of Libyan Islamic leaders has issued a fatwa telling all Muslims it is their duty to rebel against the Libyan leadership. The group also demanded the release of fellow Islamic scholar Sadiq al-Ghriani, who was arrested after criticising the government, and “all imprisoned demonstrators, including many of our young students”.
Calling itself the Network of Free Ulema of Libya, the group of over 50 Muslim scholars said the government and its supporters “have demonstrated total arrogant impunity and continued, and even intensified, their bloody crimes against humanity.”
...
[See accopanying link for full article.]
Calling itself the Network of Free Ulema of Libya, the group of over 50 Muslim scholars said the government and its supporters “have demonstrated total arrogant impunity and continued, and even intensified, their bloody crimes against humanity.”
...
[See accopanying link for full article.]
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Imams protest at Awqaf Ministry
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/6713.aspx
Over two hundred preachers and imams call for the independence of Al-Azhar and an end to state security control over choice of preachers in mosques
MENA, Tuesday 1 Mar 2011
Print Send
Imams shout as they demand that Religious Affairs (Awqaf) Minister Hamdy Zaqzouq maintain an Islamic identity in a post-Mubarak Egypt by making Islam the main source of law in addition to demands to remove the state security apparatus and increase public salaries, in front of the ministry in Cairo March 1, 2011. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
Around two hundred preachers and imams from district offices of the Ministry of Awqaf (Religious Endowments) protested in front of the Ministry's main offices for the second day in a row, requesting Al-Azhar's independence and the return of its institutions under one entity that includes the endowments, Al- Azhar institutes and university and the fatwa.
They also requested that Al-Azhar preserve its dignity and stressed that the Islamic Sharia is "the primary source of legislation" as per the second article of the constitution, in addition to the need to improve the conditions of the imams and workers in mosques.
In a memo submitted to the Minister of Religious Endowments, Abdalla Al-Husseini, the imams and preachers requested a "levelling" system similar to other sectors such as that of the judges. They also asked that the leadership roles in the ministry, including the role of Al-Azhar head, be filled through elections and not appointment, in addition to preserving the endowment funds and preventing personal access to them or their allocation to charity projects.
In addition, they requested pay increases, a greater supply of books and the means to enhance their capacities to do their jobs. Removing state security control over the ministry was also demanded, as now they are involved in selection of the imams and preaches. They also asked that corruption and administrative issues be faced, particularly in the district offices in the Governorates.
The protestors came from Beheira, Daqahlia, Monufia, Sohag, Kafr El-Sheikh and Fayoumto protest in front of the Ministry's main offices, asking to meet the minister to discuss their demands.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/6713.aspx
Over two hundred preachers and imams call for the independence of Al-Azhar and an end to state security control over choice of preachers in mosques
MENA, Tuesday 1 Mar 2011
Print Send
Imams shout as they demand that Religious Affairs (Awqaf) Minister Hamdy Zaqzouq maintain an Islamic identity in a post-Mubarak Egypt by making Islam the main source of law in addition to demands to remove the state security apparatus and increase public salaries, in front of the ministry in Cairo March 1, 2011. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
Around two hundred preachers and imams from district offices of the Ministry of Awqaf (Religious Endowments) protested in front of the Ministry's main offices for the second day in a row, requesting Al-Azhar's independence and the return of its institutions under one entity that includes the endowments, Al- Azhar institutes and university and the fatwa.
They also requested that Al-Azhar preserve its dignity and stressed that the Islamic Sharia is "the primary source of legislation" as per the second article of the constitution, in addition to the need to improve the conditions of the imams and workers in mosques.
In a memo submitted to the Minister of Religious Endowments, Abdalla Al-Husseini, the imams and preachers requested a "levelling" system similar to other sectors such as that of the judges. They also asked that the leadership roles in the ministry, including the role of Al-Azhar head, be filled through elections and not appointment, in addition to preserving the endowment funds and preventing personal access to them or their allocation to charity projects.
In addition, they requested pay increases, a greater supply of books and the means to enhance their capacities to do their jobs. Removing state security control over the ministry was also demanded, as now they are involved in selection of the imams and preaches. They also asked that corruption and administrative issues be faced, particularly in the district offices in the Governorates.
The protestors came from Beheira, Daqahlia, Monufia, Sohag, Kafr El-Sheikh and Fayoumto protest in front of the Ministry's main offices, asking to meet the minister to discuss their demands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)