https://nambikaionline.wordpress.com/

https://nambikaionline.wordpress.com/
http://themalayobserver.blogspot.my

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

UNMO-MCA FEARS THAT ITS OWN THEOCRACY COULD BE TOPPLED BY A DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT





The term “Islamic caliphate” often stirs fear of an Islamic uprising where Muslims will acquire global political control. Some, like Sean Hannity, claim that giving control to al Qaeda will lead to an Islamic caliphate. And although caliphate is the English rendition of the Arabic term khilafat, the two terms have different connotations.
Since the revolution began in Egypt, many pundits have continually warned of a possible radical takeover in Egypt that will ultimately resurrect an imperialist caliphate. The system of caliphate is apparently obligated to wage war to bring the world under Islamic rule — and then to enforce Sharia law.
This is a far cry from the actual origins and significance of khilafat. Whereas caliphate implies a politico-religious Muslim state governed by a political leader, khilafat refers to the Islamic institution of spiritual successorship. The word khilafat means succession, and the khalifa is a successor to a prophet of God, whose goal is to complete the tasks of reformation and moral training that the prophet instituted. Therefore, khilafat can exist and flourish without a state, much like the papacy in Catholicism, which provides spiritual guidance and unity.
The Islamic understanding of khilafat is based on the Quran, the teachings of Muhammad (the prophet of Islam), and the examples of the first four khalifas in Islam after the Prophet’s demise. Prophet Muhammad prophesized that a period of khilafat would follow his demise, then monarchy, autocracy would follow, and, after a hiatus, khilafat would be re-established upon the precepts of prophethood.
The first four khalifas were close associates of the Prophet and known for their integrity and great devotion. Of great significance is the qualification of “rightly-guided” that has been used to distinguish them from the caliph-kings who followed.
The reign (632-661) of the rightly-guided khalifas is often remembered as a golden age of Islam. Muslims would often define themselves and their theology according to the way they assessed the glorious, albeit turbulent and short-lived, events of that formative period.
After the assassination of the last of the rightly-guided khalifas, debate over successorship resulted in a major split in Islam into Sunni and Shia branches. Spirituality was lost and replaced by a political institution, or caliphate. Muawiyah declared himself leader of the Muslims and, thereby, laid the foundations of a long line of caliphs or dynastic monarchies — in accordance with Muhammad’s prophecy.
This reign of caliphs continued for centuries until Ottoman sultan Selim I captured the last caliph of Cairo in 1517. The Ottoman sultans then claimed the title of caliph and brandished it for four centuries until Kamal Ataturk, founder of the Turkish Republic, abolished it in 1924.
Osama bin Laden and a number of fundamentalist political parties have called for the restoration of caliphate to unite Muslim nations — either through peaceful political uprising or through force. Two influential and radical pan-Islamic groups, Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood, seek to restore the caliphate as a militant Islamic institution.
But, what Muslims need is a spiritual khilafat. Any attempts to impose caliphate are doomed to fail not only because it diverges from the true Islamic system of khilafat but also because of the disunity among Muslims to elect a leader.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, however, stands out. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah — Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India — the Community was founded in 1889 and spans over 195 countries with membership exceeding tens of millions. After the demise of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in 1908, a large number of followers gathered and unanimously elected the first khalifa. Since then, four more khalifas have been elected, who have focused on serving the faith and transforming the faithful, as opposed to establishing a Muslim state.
From its inception, the Ahmadiyya Khilafat has categorically rejected religious militancy in every form. When faced with bitter persecution, it practices patience and perseverance. When subjected to intolerance, it preaches peace and tolerance. It champions the cause of the dispossessed and works towards uplifting the oppressed through international humanitarian efforts. It has conquered no land and possesses no earthly dominion, but it wields its influence over the hearts and minds of millions as a force for good in the world.
So there need not be any fear of the true Islamic concept of khilafat. This Islamic system of leadership does not threaten to gain any political control, nor does it pursue the establishment of a politico-religious state. Let us walk away from this understanding of caliphate and understand that khilafat can serve to guide Muslims and spiritually reform the world

By Salina Khan
Murfreesboro: “No good can come out in keeping silent to the government or in speaking out of ignorance.”
That saying of Imam Ali, one of the successors of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him and all other prophets of God), was quoted in the United Nation’s 2002 Arab Development Report. It encouraged Arab countries to take his example of establishing a regime based on justice and democracy.
It is true that Islam guides Muslims on all aspects of their lives, from encouraging modesty to prohibiting usury to instructing on governance. Islam also says Muslims must obey the laws of their land and does not allow its adherents to forcefully impose Islamic laws on any country, not even their own! Thus, you don’t hear any of the 10 million Muslims living in this country advocating for Islamic legal law, or Shariah, in America.
The posturing that anti-Shariah legislation, such as the bills introduced in February by Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, is needed in Tennessee to combat terrorism is flawed in many ways. (While the authors have proposed an amendment to remove religious references, the intention of the bill remains the same.) One, Shariah laws themselves prohibit acts of terrorism. So that would now make it a double negative. Secondly, there are already laws on the books to prevent people, regardless of their faith or ideology, from involvement in any type of terrorist activities. Thirdly, American Muslims, if left alone, do not engage in terrorism. In fact, they are on average more law-abiding as a group than the average American. Last but not least, if we study Tennesseehistory from its inception, it’s obvious that most, if not all, acts of terrorism, including bombing, burning, lynching and even genocide, were committed by people who were not Muslims.
So why is one state after another introducing “anti-Shariah” legislation? Some say lawmakers are doing it to garner votes by playing off people’s fears. Others say they are trying to distract people’s attention from the real problems we are facing, such as increasing poverty, joblessness and homelessness.
But I think the roots of this bitter tree go much deeper than that. Political analyst Noam Chomsky once said we Americans have a bad habit of demonizing the group we are busy oppressing and exploiting. First the enemy was the “savage” Native Americans, next came the “subhuman” Africans and then the Japanese-American “spies.” Now it’s the Muslim “terrorists” as we endeavor to control more of the Middle East, the latest frontier being oil-rich Libya.
Unless Americans are made to fear and hate Muslims over here, they will not agree to invade, bomb, and rob them over there.
Most people weary of Islam and Muslims point to the tragedy of 9/11 to justify their anti-Muslim rhetoric and laws. Mr. Ketron once said 9/11 turned the pages of history. Well 2/11, the day the Egyptians ousted dictator Hosni-Mubarak, has shut the book on that ugly chapter by revolutionizing the image of Muslims all around the world. For 10 years, by flashing pictures of Osama bin Laden and others of similar ilk on the news, the media, politicians and their corporate sponsors repeatedly told the world who Muslims are and how they work. But now everybody knows the Muslim masses use peaceful means of protest, like we saw in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and like I am are doing here, to express ourselves.
The truth is Islamic radicalism was not a problem until we went to Afghanistan in the 1980s and trained Afghanis and others to fight against the Soviets. And homegrown Muslim terrorism was unheard of until government officials started hiring people to infiltrate mosques and entrap Muslims.
Continuing to support anti-Shariah laws for all the reasons I have stated is a grave injustice. The people of this great state are counting on their leaders to always do what is right and not what is convenient, popular or profitable. I would encourage our leaders to take a step back, study American history and U.S. foreign policies to develop a keen sense of insight, so they can distinguish between truth and falsehood and guide this state to unity, diversity and prosperity for all.
The next time we go to the ballot box in Tennessee, voters should heed the following advice of Imam Ali also included in the UN report mentioned above.
“Choose the best among your people to administer justice among them. Choose someone who does not easily give up, who is unruffled by enmities, someone who will not persist in wrong doings, who will not hesitate to pursue right once he knows it, someone whose heart knows no greed, who will not be satisfied with a minimum of explanation without seeking the maximum of understanding, who will be the most steadfast when doubt is cast, who will be the least impatient in correcting the opponent, the most patient in pursuing the truth, the most stern in meting out judgment, someone who is unaffected by flattery and not swayed by temptation and these are but few.”
Indians are rightly excited by the jasmine revolution that has overthrown autocracies in Tunisia and Egypt, and may oust Muammar Gaddafi in Libya too. They hope that the jasmine revolution will spread to the rest of the Middle East, bringing some sort of democracy throughout the region. However, there is one huge difference between North Africa and the Persian Gulf. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are all Sunni-majority states ruled by Sunni autocrats. But it may surprise readers to learn that the Persian Gulf coast is entirely a Shia majority area, much of which is ruled by Sunni autocrats. Hence popular revolts in the Gulf nations may or may not evolve into democracy, but will certainly evolve into Shia-cracy. This terrifies the Sunni rulers.
Arabs hate the term “Persian Gulf” and call that body of water the “Arabian Gulf.” Yet the most appropriate name may be “Shia Gulf”. The Shias in the north coast of the Gulf are Persian and those in the west and southern coasts are Arab, but all are Shia regardless.
Iran and Iraq are Shia-majority countries where Shias are in power. But in other Gulf countries, the Shia majority is ruled by Sunni sheikhs— in Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Even the Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia (which produces and exports most of its oil) has a Shia majority, although the country overall has a Sunni majority. The Saudi king has one big advantage over other Sunni rulers of the region: he is revered by all Muslims, Shia or Sunni, as the guardian of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This makes Saudi Arabia less vulnerable to a popular Shia revolt than Bahrain (where demonstrators are already choking the streets), Kuwait or the UAE. Yet the Saudis are paranoid because all their oil lies in the Shia-majority eastern region.
This is why the Saudi king has just announced that he will spend a whopping $ 11 billion on improving welfare and housing in the Shia-majority region. He wants to buy off potential revolutionaries. Whether he will succeed remains to be seen: Bahrain’s Shia demonstrators have refused to be bought off with grants of $ 2,250 per head. Some months ago, the WikiLeaks of US confidential diplomatic papers revealed that many Gulf sheikhdoms—including Bahrain and the UAE—wanted the US to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. The sheikhs claimed they feared armed invasion or bombing by Iran. In fact, their real fear is that a rising Iran will induce their own Shia subjects to revolt and demand democracy. The Sunni sheikhs have long cultivated the US to keep Iran at bay. But this simply induces disgust on the part of many Shia subjects, who view their rulers as not just Sunni oppressors but American stooges too. Bahrain is a small island off the Saudi Gulf coast, linked to it by a motorable causeway. Whereas Saudi Arabia is an ultra-conservative Muslim state where women must wear burqas and are not even allowed to drive cars, Bahrain is a freewheeling, westernized state where women can wear short skirts and dance all night in nightclubs. It has an elected lower house, but real power vests with the king. The democracy movement in Bahrain started off as a secular one, yet inevitably became coloured by the Shia-Sunni split.
Some analysts hope for a peaceful transition from autocracy to democracy in the Middle East. Muslim autocrats have sometimes evolved into leaders of political parties in democracies. Two examples are Gen Zia-ur Rahman in Bangladesh and Gen Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. It is just possible that some such transition could occur in North Africa too. But this will be impossible in the Gulf, since any political party formed by the Sunni rulers will be thrashed by Shia rivals. Hence Gulf sheikhdoms are more likely to opt for the Gaddafi path of bloody suppression than the Mubarak path of exiting in favour of democracy.
This creates a moral and financial dilemma for the US. It swears in theory by democracy, but in practice dreads the replacement of Sunni sheikhs by Shia-cracies in the Gulf. It also fears that Shia revolts in the Gulf may disrupt oil supplies and send prices soaring, above all if the democracy fever spreads to Saudi Arabia.
Iran loves the thought of a completely Shia Gulf. But it also fears that its own theocracy could be toppled by a democracy movement, and that tempers its enthusiasm for the jasmine revolution. When democracy seems inconvenient to so many powerful forces, its prospects in the Gulf cannot be too bright. Its prospects in North Africa are much brighter.

No comments:

Post a Comment