If you wish to unsubscribe please do not reply to this email but send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words "unsubscribe kmag [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without quotation marks) in the body (not the subject) of the email. ---------------------------------------------------------- Khilafah Magazine March 2000 http://www.khilafah.com Levy says he meant what he said about killing Lebanese children During the recent upsurge in Israeli attacks upon the Muslims civilians of Lebanon, the Israeli government expressed the real feeling that it harbours about the Muslims. The Israeli state-run radio quoted Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy as saying that “what I said yesterday was not a slip of the tongue nor a bout of anger, I meant what I said.” He went on “if Israeli citizens were attacked, our reaction would be swift and harsh.” While speaking before the Knesset the day before this broadcast Levy said “we’ll kill Lebanese children if our citizens were attacked.” It comes as no surprise for us that our enemy boasts about his lust for Muslim’s blood. Allah forewarned us; “They say rank hatred, but what their hearts conceal is far worse” [Al- Imran: 118]. If that is what he said can we imagine what his heart conceals? Our Aqeedah does not allow us to remain unstirred by the disbelieving occupiers who would fight us and desire to rid us from our own lands. Then our belief does not allow us to treat these Dhalimeen anything but harshly while they prevent the sublime mercy of Allah from reaching the world’s people. “Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out, of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.” [Al-Mumtahinah:8]. Were it not for the deception, suppression and silencing of mouths, and the despair that the enemies and their agents, the rulers, have succeeded in cultivating in the minds of the peoples, the Ummah of Muhammad could never allow itself to remain silent, as their rulers submit below such hated people to clamber for small offerings of peace. It took them about half a century of deception, acting and staging, expulsion and silencing of voices until they managed to bring the peoples to the point of despair, hence the submission and silence over injustice, humiliation and contempt. The people do not conspire against themselves, rather it is the agents, the deceiving rulers who conspire against them with their masters, the Kuffar, to bring them to the point of despair and submission. The Arab rulers’ all revealed their lack of manhood when they cowered under international pressure and offered peace to the occupying Jews. Now even those supposed men of the so-called ‘Islamic States’ of Pakistan and Iran arrange secret meetings with the occupying Jewish foes, as happened in last month’s Singapore Air show. Could this noble Ummah ever really submit to the worst of creation? Never! For Allah says: “You are the best of peoples raised up for mankind, you command the good (al-Ma’ruf) and forbid the evil (al-Munkar), and you believe in Allah”. [Al- Imran:110]. She is the best Ummah and she carries the best Message to humankind. This is not imaginary, rather it is fact. It stamped it’s mark on history, and should stamp its mark on the present and future history. It is this fact that the colonialist powers fear, a fact which they try to efface and mislead the Muslims from, in order that we remain in a state of despair and submission. So vanish despair from your hearts and trust your Deen and trust your Lord Who says: “So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers”. [Al- Imran:139] ------------------------------------------------------------ Compassionate amongst the believers “(They are) strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.” [Al-Fath:29] There are many texts in the Qur’an and the Sunnah talking about the brotherhood of the believers, the friendliness amongst the Muslims and their good advice to each other through good words and nice speech. Nevertheless, when the events in the Islamic countries are followed today, one is astonished by the severity of Muslims when accusing each other. Whether as groups or as individuals, Muslims accuse each other of Kufr (apostasy), ignorance, or being puppets of the foreign powers most of the time. Some groups even started digging back in the past and trying the dead, which are already before the Dayyan (the Ultimate Judge - Allah). Didn’t the Muslims read what Allah said: “Muhammad is the Rasool-Allah, and those who are with him are strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate among each other,” [Al-Fath:29] “(They are) lowly with the believers, mighty against the unbelievers,” [Al-Maidah:54] and “The believers are but brothers.” [Al-Hujurat:10] Yet some Muslims have become mighty against the believers, lowly with the unbelievers! Didn’t they know of what their Rasool-Allah said: “Cursing a Muslim is fosooq (wrongdoing), and fighting him is kufr (apostasy).” “The example of the believers in the mutual compassion, mercy and sympathy is like the body: if a body organ suffers the whole body would lay down for it with sleeplessness and fever.” Different nations have already gathered against the Muslims aiming at the eradication of their Deen. They also aim to create confusion in their identity and a delay in their revival. So what’s with the Muslims being busy with the mistakes of each other, taking one another as enemies and mocking each other? Wasn’t it enough what the kuffar did to the Muslims during the crusades or during the courts of inquisition in Spain, until they demolished the Khilafah. Isn’t it enough what the kuffar are now doing to the Muslims in Chechnya, Kosovo, southern Lebanon, Palestine and Kashmir: killing, raping, looting and violating all hurumat (sanctified rights) of the Muslims. We understand that the rulers and their supporters fight each other for position, privileges and benefits. But what would the average Muslim fight each other for? It is true that many nations had - and still have - internal fights, though they follow the same religion, like the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland. But that is not justifiable for the Ummah of Muhammad which is the best among nations and the conveyer of the final message to all people. Allah says: “Say: He has power to send calamities on you, from above and below, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, giving you a taste of mutual vengeance, each from the other.” [Al-Anam:65] So do we give each other the taste of vengeance instead of giving it to our enemies? Isn’t that because we have become separate groups with different creeds? Isn’t it because we have become different states hostile to each other? Imam Ahmad narrated from Mu’ath bin Jabal (ra): I came to the place of the Rasool-Allah and I was told: He left earlier. Everybody I passed by told me: He passed earlier, until I found Him standing in prayer, so I stood behind Him, and He prayed a long prayer. So I said: Oh, Rasool-Allah, you prayed a long prayer! He said: “I prayed in both hope and fear. I asked Allah I for three things, He granted me two of them but not the third. I asked Him not to destroy my Ummah with drowning, and He granted this to me. I asked Him that no foreign enemy should prevail over them, and He granted this to me. And I asked Him not to place their vengeance amongst each other, but He rejected this one.” And Narrated Imam Muslim that the Rasool-Allah said: “Allah has collected the earth for me, so I saw the East and the West. Verily, the rule of my Ummah will cover all that has been collected for me of the earth. I was given the two treasures: the red one and the white one. I asked my Lord that He may not destroy my Ummah with a large-scale famine, and that He may not impose on them a foreign enemy that may violate their security. My Lord said: Oh, Muhammad, if I issue a decree it can not be prevented. I have granted to you that I will not destroy your Ummah with a large-scale famine, nor will I impose on them a foreign enemy that may violate their security even if people from all over the world gather against them, unless they destroy each other and enslave one another.” It is inevitable that we dispute in matters that are disputable by nature, since people are different in terms of abilities and understanding. The Sahaba (ra) had disputes in understanding the scriptures. But the dispute must follow a good manner. It should be based on the rule: “If the hadith turns out to be sound then it is my opinion (madhab) and you may throw away my first opinion,” and the rule: “What I hold is right but can possibly be wrong and what other people hold is wrong but can possibly be right.” Based on these two rules there can be a discussion that may end with a good result that convinces both sides. Thus each side should bear in mind the possibility of abandoning his opinion and giving the other side his due credit during the discussion. The debate will not reach the level of hostility, accusations or fight as long as the basis for solving any dispute is predefined. Allah has defined for us the authority that we cannot dispute or neglect. He said: “And in whatever thing you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to Allah.” [Ash-Shura:10] and “If you dispute anything among yourselves, then refer it to Allah and His messenger if you do believe in Allah and the last day.” [An-Nisa:59] It is not permissible to dispute over matters of creed, thoughts or rules that are definite. Such disputes can happen only on a minimal scale: “My Ummah does not unanimously agree on apostasy (dalalah).” This kind of dispute shall not be tolerated: “Whoever reverts from his Deen, then kill him,” to protect the Aqeedah (creed). “If the pledge of allegiance is given to two Khulafaa (head of the state), then kill the latter among them,” to protect the unity of Khilafah. “Whoever comes to you while your matter is unified behind one man, and attempts to break your unity or disperse your grouping then kill him,” in protection of the unity of the Islamic Ummah. And thus all the voices that involve in discrediting and accusing other Muslims must shut. Especially those who target the workers to support the Deen of Allah that are guardians to the Halal (permissible) and Haram (prohibited) of Muhammad. Those workers that call for the revival of the Ummah from its decline and the awakening of the Ummah from its sleep, so that it assumes its position as the best Ummah sent for all people. The Ummah must unite against its enemies (which are many) and must tighten the rows so that no cunning enemy can penetrate them. And the Ummah must unite in working for the resumption of the Islamic life, following the method of Rasool-Allah : “Verily, this is my way leading straight, so follow it.” [Al-Anam:153] ------------------------------------------------------------ Clinton's Visit The current world's most high profile missionary will visit Pakistan on the 25th March. To aid his call to the world, Pakistan's rulers have offered to give him a platform. His is not a mission of mercy or a message of truth. It is one of disbelief. He is inviting the world to subjugation and enslavement. He is calling the people of the region to abandon whatever remnants they have of Islam in favour of the capitalism. The Pakistani rulers have made available for him; national television, press, public platforms and many other resources. With echoes of how the Latin American countries go out of their way to make the Pope of Rome's visit fruitful for the Catholic call, Musharaf has gone out of his way to accommodate the Clinton call. Analogous with the Pope, Clinton will not tell the truth of his invitation. His mission of kufr and falsehood will be veiled behind a purdah of empty words such as peace, human-rights, globalisation, prevention of terrorism and conflict. Clinton's openly pronounced pillars of faith to be conveyed are; regional peace and security, preventing of nuclear proliferation, conflict avoidance, prevention of terrorism and the promotion of democracy. A peek under the veil exposes him creating an environment of colonialist exploitation. Also preventing Muslims from threatening US by gaining nuclear competency, forbidding the marouf, which is Jihad against the India, and preventing Islamic da'awa carriers by labelling them terrorists. Rasool-Allah was a head of state. As Muslims we are able to compare and contrast His behaviour and attitude with that of Pervez Musharaf. When Quraysh had violated the treaty of Hudaybiyah, Abu Sufyan went to Madena to seek an extension of the treaty. When he approached Muhammad He was ignored completely, then he went to Abu Bakr who declared 'If I had only an ant I would fight you with it'. Even Abu Sufyan's own daughter and wife of Rasool-Allah, Umm Habbiba (ra) gave him a short shrift. She would not even allow him to sit down in Rasool-Allah's quarters. This treatment is an example for the Muslims to see how a criminal, terrorist, Iraqi child-killing, atomic weapons detonating mass murder and adulterous hypocrite should be treated. But instead we see the ruler of Pakistan crying like a child on international TV, pleading to this man to visit. Did Rasool-Allah offer Abu Sufyan a soap-box to promote his call? There is shame on those who help the kuffar spread their filth amongst the Muslims. "When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we only Want to make peace!' Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not." [Al-Baqarah:11-12] ------------------------------------------------------------ Hardnews Honour Crimes - Jordan In Jordan, The Islamic Work Front passed a fatwa preventing the cancellation of one item in the Jordanian penal code. Item-340 gives those who commit crimes against women under the pretext of defending honour lighter sentences, amid increasing demands raised by activists in defence of women’s rights to remove this item which is considered a direct reason for the phenomenon of “honour crimes” in Jordan. The fatwa read, “omitting item 340 of the punishment law is a violation of the Islamic Sharia and this might help encourage adultery.” A demonstration was held in Amman near the parliament, calling on PM’s to reconsider their previous stand in which the parliament failed to pass laws against “honour crimes”. The Islamic Work Front, which opposes change to current laws, and having different views from the demonstrators, was permitted to take part in the demonstration and express its position in favour of keeping item 340. According to official figures, almost 28 Jordanian women are killed annually in “honour killings”, some suggest this number is much greater because such killings often take place in rural and Bedouin areas and are hidden by the society to avoid social scandals. It may be argued that Article 340 encourages individuals to punish the perpetrators, knowing that only a light sentence will be received. Some may regard these killings as equitable and just. These types of murders are not specific to Jordan. The problem has been highlighted recently in Pakistan, where the parliament failed to pass a motion condemning the principle of “honour killings”. This attitude reflects a wider problem. Which is that we often have an understanding of what Islam’s judgement is on an issue but the way Muslims implement the judgement is detached from the practical approach that Islam also stipulated. Shariah tells us what the law is, but also tells us the method of how to carry out the law. It is the duty of the State (Khilafah) to ensure that justice prevails by a fair legal process. In the case of fornication or adultery the Islamic method stipulates that four witnesses must be produced in court and it is the Judge who will order punishment if guilt is proven. The punishment being lashing or stoning. Where there are no witnesses the accusing husband will have to testify four times and on the fifth time makes an oath of condemnation (al-Li’an). If the accused wife accepts, the punishment is given. However if the accused wife bears witness to Allah that the accusations are a lie, the punishment will be averted. In such a case the judge will separate them and they can never come together again. Indeed this was the situation with the Sahabi Hilal ibn Umayyah (ra) when one night he returned home and found a man with his wife. He witnessed with his eyes and ears. The next day he took his case to Rasool-Allah r. What is important is that in both situations (with or without witnesses) accusations of zina are dealt with by the State and it exacts punishment where guilt is proved. Islam does not encourage individuals to take punishment into their own hands. It sets out a clear system of dealing with punishment. This is exemplified in how Hilal (ra) dealt with his wife’s adultery. He understood that it is the State’s responsibility to deal with the adulterer when he took the case to the Prophet . Bangladesh’s “language martyrs” Thousands of Bangladeshis have taken part in a ceremony led by President Shahabuddin Ahmed to pay homage to those known as language martyrs. Government and opposition politicians joined hundreds of thousands of people at the Shahid Minar mausoleum in Dhaka to lay floral wreaths. Crowds sang songs in praise of those they regard as martyrs. The “language martyrs” were killed, 48 years ago, by police firing at a demonstration. They were shot following orders issued by the central government of what was then West Pakistan. They ruled that only Urdu would be the official language of both the eastern and western wing of Pakistan. Bangladesh split form Pakistan in 1971 following a bloody war. 21 February has long been observed as national martyrs day in Bangladesh, this year the date had extra significance, because the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has decided to observe it as worldwide international mother language day. UNESCO say the day is to be used to help protect ethnic languages from being lost in the world globalisation process. This exemplifies how the issue of language had been used to express patriotic emotions but also how it had been used as an excuse for the authority to brutalise its citizens. In the post 1971 period the whole event has further been perverted by using it to celebrate the ignorant ideology of nationalism. Martyrs day commemorates the fact that Muslims had unity, of sorts, but then became even further divided. That is, one nation state became two nation states. What should make us suspicious is the fact that the UNO (a chapter of UNESCO) have shown so much interest in the event. The UNO was established to ensure that these nation states exist and that the false boarders are re-enforced. The Security Council bolsters the barriers by physical force, whilst UNESCO bolsters these borders by effecting the hearts and minds of the people who live within them. This role of UNESCO as agent provocateur in this respect is reminiscent of the role played by the Jews of Medina. They reminded the Aws and Khazaraj (the two tribes of the Ansar) of their old petty differences. On one occasion a youth from amongst the Jews was sent to incite remembrance of the battle of Bu’ath where the Aws had been victorious over the Khazaraj, and he recited poetry to bring about division between them. As a result there was a call to arms. When the news reached Rasool-Allah r, He r said, “O Muslims, remember Allah, remember Allah. Will you act as pagans while I am present with you after Allah has guided you to Islam, and honoured you thereby and made a clean break with paganism; delivered you thereby from disbelief; made you friends thereby?” Allah I then revealed: “... hold fast together to the rope of Allah, and be not divided; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favours on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace you became brothers...” [Al-Imran:102-103] Diplomatic status for Arab League The French Parliament recently agreed to grant the Arab League office in Paris diplomatic status, in a move it described as a “strong signal” to re-launch co-operation between Europe and the Arab states. After the senate voted on the law that authorises the French government to endorse an agreement signed in November 1987 on the opening of an Arab League office in Paris. In order to wield influence to further their interests in Islamic lands, a common tool of the kuffar in the 1900’s, has been one of creating an organisation of countries and then manipulating them through it. Following the destruction in 1924 of the Islamic State, the Middle East was divided into 21 Arab states. These states were themselves severely divided as a direct result of the policies of the Western powers. The Arab League, was a colonial organisation established by Britain in order to enforce and perpetuate the fragmentation and the disunity between the Arabs and the Muslims, so making them less resistant to her will. To achieve her plan Britain invited delegates from Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, the Saudis and the Yemenis to a conference in London in early 1939. Anthony Eden, the then foreign minister, suggested the idea of the establishment of the Arab League. He said, “Britain would like to secure the friendship and co-operation of the Arabs in the event of war. It is natural to consolidate the cultural, political, and economic bonds between the Arab states, and the British government will fully support any agreement to this plan.” As far as the people of the region are concerned such unions have brought no benefit. Politically, the countries that make up the League are still weak. More importantly it has served to divert the people’s sight away from the re establishment of the Islamic Khilafah State. A service that France may this time, be seeking to employ. Article 8 of the Arab League Constitution provides an apt example: “Every participating member of the League must respect the established ruling system of the other participating states in the League, it should consider it as a right of these states and oblige itself not to do any action that is aimed at changing their systems.” Islamic rule is for Muslims and non-Muslims When the Nigerian state of Zamfara announced in October that it would implement Islamic Shari’ah, the Nigerian head, General Obasanjo, in response to the question of Shari’ah in Zamfara state, said: “People have their own way of doing things. But I don’t think it will last: and people should not hit their heads against the wall.” The recent violence throughout Nigeria that was prompted by Christians’ opposition to the imposition of Islamic laws, has raised the question of whether religious laws can be imposed upon non-religious people. When Khatami’s secular reformers in Iran won a majority in last month’s elections, Western journalists raised the same question. Iran has been praised by the West for its return to the “civilised world”. This question is echoed over Sudan. The Sudanese government refuses to apply any Islamic laws upon the non-Muslim people of the south. These cases highlight the suggestion that Islam is a religion, which is unsuitable for application upon the Kuffar. The implication being that religious laws are for religious people only, to be submitted to voluntarily. Sheikh Ismail Abe, of Nigeria, said “it is un-Islamic for any body, group, organisation or government to enforce any law, particularly Islamic laws in an area, without seeking the agreement of other non-Muslims living in the area”. Such is the pressure from the Western nations to put down any suggestion of Islamic ruling. Yet every society needs to have one system of law to govern the relationship among people. No country or state within a federation would apply one set of laws for one section of the society and then another set of laws for another section. That would result in chaos. Yet the demand to exclude non-Muslims in the application of the law persists. Muslims living in other parts of Nigeria are not exempt from the non-Islamic laws imposed on them. The same applies to Muslims globally. The law of the land is imposed on all citizens, and irrespective of its source. There are major differences between a religious-theological state and the Islamic State. The former is a holy state by “appointment” of God. The Islamic State’s authority is derived from the Islamic Ummah, however, the sovereignty belongs exclusively to the Shar'a. The ruling authority belongs to the Ummah and it delegates this authority to a person. This person is not considered priestly, perfect or infallible. He is not above questioning. Any Muslim has the right to question the actions of the Islamic State. The Islamic State is a State established to rule and govern the affairs of the people, not only the Muslims, but all people. The function of the Islamic State is to apply Islam as a creed and a system within its jurisdiction and to carry the Islamic da’wah to other nations. The application of the Islamic System upon the People of the Dhimma (non-Muslim citizens of the state) should not be viewed as a religious or theocratic application of Islam; on the contrary, it is a legal system. All citizens of the Islamic State regardless of their sect, religion, race, and nationality are to follow the Islamic System as a legal system and not as a religious obligation as long as they carry the Islamic State’s citizenship. Thus, the penal code is implemented upon the non-Muslims as it is upon the Muslims. The validity of transactions will be based on the same standard for Muslims and non-Muslims. The Islamic legal system looks at man as a man and not upon his daily rituals. The Islamic legislation can accommodate all of life’s affairs. All of this is achievable due to Islam being revealed as a universal deen to mankind. Allah I addressed mankind as a human, and not from any other perspective. Thus, anyone in Dar al-Islam accepts its rules and has the same rights and rules from the State’s point of view whether Muslim or otherwise. Any person residing outside Dar al-Islam does not have any rights or privileges from the State even if he is a Muslim. “We sent aforetime Our Messengers with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice; and We sent down Iron, in which is (material for) mighty war, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, unseen, Him and His Messengers: for Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce His Will).” [Al-Hadeed:25] The Islamic rules are certainly the rules that came in the Qur'an to direct people, Muslims and non Muslims, to stand forth in justice (Adl). So they are implemented upon them, regardless of whether the majority of people believe in their basis or not. ------------------------------------------------------------ Language Culture and Politics We convey our beliefs via the vehicle of language. Be this person to person, place to place or from period to period. As humans our actions and behaviour are directly or indirectly controlled by our beliefs. We debate, accept, and reject beliefs through the medium of language. Language is paramount in forging and expressing our concepts. Language and culture There are over 5,000 language in the world today. The ability to communicate through language is a divine trait (Qadr) that Allah instilled in humans. “…He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: ‘Tell me the names of these if you are right.’ ” [Al-Baqarah.31] Western philosophy has disparate views on the origin of language. (see “importance of Arabic” Khilafah Magazine - Nov 1999). As with most issues, Westerners focused mainly on discussing how we developed language rather than acknowledging that it is Qadr. Environment and predominant culture have a distinct relationship to language. In Eskimo there is over 30 words for snow, whereas Aztec employs a single term for the concepts of snow, cold, and ice. Similarly Arabic has several terms for dates. English has many formal words for; money, intoxicating beverages and the act of copulation. In colloquial English the number of synonyms are almost un-quantifiable. This is an indication of the high status assigned to liquid-assets, liquor, and lust in English speaking cultures. Indo-European languages reflect the Indo-European culture. It is thought that 4,000 years ago there was a diaspora of Indo-Europeans from the Caspian and Black Sea areas. Tribes with similar languages and the same culture spread to Asia and Europe. Thus the Indian Veda scripts, Greek philosophy and Norse mythologies are all written in related languages. Polytheism and pantheism are common to all these cultures. Transmigration of the soul, and the separation of the soul from the body are central themes in Hinduism, Buddhism, Persian and Greco-Roman philosophies. The Vikings called their gods Aser, the Persians Ahura and in Sanskrit Asura. These words being dialectal variants of the same word. Commonality is also found in the words for a supreme being in Sanskrit, Persian, Latin and Old Norse; deva, daeva, deus, and tivurr respectively. These same beliefs were held by the Persians, hence the Pagan Arabs of Jahiliya’s affinity for the Persians. Indo-Europeans believed in “insight” as meaning having an inner understanding of an issue. In Sanskrit the word vidya is the same as the Greek word idèa and the Latin, Video. The visual sense, to them, was linked to knowledge and understanding. They had a distinct bias over the other four senses. Hence in English the term “I see” is synonymous with “I understand”. When Christianity spread, from the Middle East, to Europe it was changed to suit the beliefs of the Europeans. Pagan Indo-European principles have their hallmark on 2000 years of Christianity. Semitic languages also share certain words and concepts. The term nabi has the same conceptual meaning in both Arabic and Hebrew, a meaning not accurately represented in the Indo-European ‘prophet’. Nabi is the one that brings information to humans on how to live our lives and answer questions such as why we are here. Key to this definition is that the source of the information is Allah I. Cultural aspects such as a seven day week starting on yawm-al-sabbat is also common, as opposed to the Indo-European day of the god of Saturn ‘Saturday’. The common linguistic nuances between Arabic and Hebrew and how they differ from Europeans are too numerous to mention. This common ground does not mean that Islam is anything other than unique. This is reinforced by certain specific incidences in the Sirat-a-Rasool-Allah r. For example the rebuttal of the accusations of the Jews of Medina regarding fasting on ‘Ashura (10th of Muharam). The Jews charged Rasool-Allah r of imitating their religion when the law came to state that it is recommended to fast on that day. The Muslims were told to keep fast on the day before or after in order to be different from the Jews. Conflict and Controversies Linguistic diversity, in theory, should create few problems. It is akin to skin shade. It is only the most ignorant of humans that consider this to be a source of schism. However when ignorance in the form of nationalism emerges; bigotry always follows. This form of jahilia has characterised a whole century of darkness. Nationalism has been the seeds of strife in the bloodiest period that humankind has ever seen. Language has been the spark to the powder keg in many blood lettings and the rhetoric behind many Jahil movements. For example the Kosovo crisis, the 1976 Soweto uprising, the PKK, Sikh separatists, Tamil Tigers and ETA movements to name a few. Politics Nothing augments the spread of a language more than political power. This has been seen with English and the British Empire. Linguists have a maxim; ‘the difference between a language and dialect is that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.’ Afrikaans epitomises this. This was spoken by peasant farmers in a small corner of Europe. The dialect had no written tradition. Some of its speakers found themselves translocated to the Cape of Good Hope. After the Great Trek north these voortrekkers refined their cultural norms and adjusted their lifestyle to farming of the harsh terrain of their new home. If it were not for the establishment of the political authorities in Pretoria and Bloemfontein this Dutch dialect would not have even been given a name. However it is this language that has the infamy of bringing to the World the word, apartheid. Islam’s spread went hand in hand with the spread of Arabic. “Whereas Latin developed into different languages, such as Italian, French and Castilian (Spanish) in the course of the centuries, Arabic did not split up into separate languages over the same period and in a comparable geographical area. The reason was that Arabic was the language of religion, Islam, as well as of government. This meant that in the first place the written language was shielded from the usual linguistic decay; and secondly, that the colloquial speech did not diverge as widely as might otherwise have been the case. As a consequence the spoken Arabic of countries as mutually remote as Iraq, the Sudan and Morocco, can be described as dialects rather than separate languages.” (J A Haywood, 1965) Islamic revival and decline For seven centuries Muslims have been in intellectual decline. The start of this slow decent into the abyss that we now find ourselves corresponded to the period of the Mamluks and the start of the Ottomans, the change from Arabic to Turkish. The power that is tied-up in the Islamic texts can only be un-locked with the key of Arabic. Arabic is the tool used for accessing all the knowledge contained within the Qur’an. We in turn as an Ummah are only as strong, intellectually, as our clasp upon the knowledge of Islam. The eroding of Arabic from our lives lead to an erosion in our understanding of the texts. Ataturk and the Shah of Iran both took drastic measures to eradicate Islam from the society. Changing the script and purging the language of “Arabisms” were central strategies for the long term suppression of Islam. In later years the rise of the Egyptian film industry, and its accompanying corrupt dramas and low quality Arabic further aided the decline of Arabic. Craftsmen have a saying; ‘look after your tools and your tools will look after you.’ This may be applied to Arabic. If we were to neglect Arabic, which is our tool for life, we will be hindered in our progress through life. Conversely if we are to preserve Arabic this will aid us. The military prowess of the Turks is beyond reproach. However during the early spread of Islam the main characteristics that differed from the Ottoman period was the issue of delivering Arabic to the annexed lands. When they carried Islam to others they did not merely carry the military authority, but they also carried the political authority, the language and the whole general culture of Islam in a very pure form. This was reflected in the intellectual abilities of the newer communities. For example Imam Bukhari collected, compiled and verified hadith. He could reject a hadith based on its style of language. This goes to show that Bukhari must have had a phenomenal understanding of Arabic in order to assess a saying based on linguistic style. He was an exceptional individual in many respects, but in language he excelled. We should also remember that his birth place was far from the Arabian Peninsula. Thus the brilliance of Bukhari says more about the calibre of the community that brought Islam to that region, than it does about the man himself. The example of Bukhari is not isolated. looking through history, it is a minority of scholars after the second/third generation that came from the Arabian Peninsula. Neo-colonialism The domination of Global culture by the English was not an accident. The colonialists controlled and dominated with an iron fist. They also took their languages to the colonies in order to maintain their grip. Disraeli, the British PM at the height of the British Empire said; “Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent.” Britain at that time was not in the business of giving away its hard fought land. Independence was not on the agenda. Disreali though, had foresight. The post WWII quasi independence was a granting of home rule through a constitution written in English by English speakers for the good of the English. British trained lawyers, judges, presidents, PMs and kings were now running the new states. The first rulers of Pakistan and India were more versed in English than in the language of the masses. The reality of independence and the emancipation from the British and the English language and culture is that the official legal language in many countries is still English. Those that have changed have a legal system in chaos. Fifty years after independence the so-called “great” Arab Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan is ruled over by someone who speaks next to no Arabic. ------------------------------------------------------------ Hijacking and Asylum The Aftermath of the Ariana airline hijacking saw a distinct shift in tone in the British media. The ugly face of xenophobic editorship changed the victims of a terrible ordeal into opportunistic exploiters of the system. More than half of the plane’s passengers had filed claims for asylum. The media induced foreigner fault-finding frenzy that followed, whipped up enough emotion for most of the public to brand these people as unwelcome scroungers. The linking of the hijacking with the emotive issue of asylum seeking created a great out pouring of public prejudice and bigotry. The Daily Mail definitely struck a chord within the establishment and amongst the public. MPs are now desperate to show their credentials by proving that they will not allow Britain to be seen as a soft target for would be asylum seekers. The secretary of state even requested that Pakistan offer the claimants asylum, so keen was his desire to be rid of them. The whole issue of asylum has become a matter of fierce debate. Issues raised include ‘how long should an application take? Pending claims cost the country millions of pounds!’, ‘what qualifies a person to be considered eligible?’, ‘how should the applicants be treated while their application is being considered?’, etc. The asylum seeker’s plight in the UK is that of a second class resident, not even a citizen. An applicant is often not allowed to work and must survive only on food vouchers to spend in local stores. Matters such as clothing, haircuts, public transport etc. cannot be purchased. During the Gulf war Iraqi asylum seekers were rounded up and imprisoned even though they had been offered asylum by the UK. In the US a recent example of an Afghani family being forcibly split apart shows the betrayal meted out to refugees, with 5 of the 7 children being re-housed with non-Muslim step-parents. Refugees are treated like lepers in the west, viewed as an economic burden. The roots of the debate run much deeper than the simple racism. It stems from their very view point towards life. When self preservation is the main tenet of the individual’s outlook and mere birth place is the basis of national unity a volatile brew of mistrust and hatred of “outsiders” is created. Inevitably the implementation of this selfish system leads to people isolating themselves in nation states, bundled together on this basis. Conversely the binding together of people based on their beliefs rather than their interests would lead to a distinct absence of ignorant bigotry. Islam brought a system that binds the believers together in a society based upon worshipping their Creator. However, Allah’s mercy enshrouds not only the believers, but the disbelievers as well: “We sent the Messenger as a mercy to mankind” . So, the non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic State are entitled to fair treatment. Islam does not create an ethnically divided society with ghettos for the immigrant communities. Ghettos are a prominent feature of many major cities in capitalist societies. The Afrikaaners called them townships, the American’s, Projects, and the British, Council estates. In food, clothes and shelter all should have some dignity under the Islamic State. Dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens) have rights of protection Rasool-Allah said, “The one who kills a soul that has a covenant with Allah and His Messenger has broken the covenant of Allah. And he will not smell the scent of Al-Jannah, in spite of the fact that it can be smelled from a distance of forty years of travel.” Rasool-Allah also said: "The one who causes harm to a Dhimmi is as if he causes harm to me" The seeking of asylum is mentioned by Allah “And if anyone of the idolaters seeks your protection, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are men without knowledge.” [At-Tauba:6]. Many of the cities of the former Yugoslavia became known as having numerous Jewish inhabitants. These peoples lived there for many centuries. After the expulsion of the Jews by Christian fanatics from Spain the Islamic state gave them refuge. From text and from history we see that there is a great tradition within Islam relating to helping the weak and rejected. The asylum seeker is known as al-musta’min, the one who enters into the safety of another land. Regardless of being a Muslim, non-Muslim, soldier, politician, man or woman the musta’min has statutory rights. Islam has decreed that refugees should be granted protection and allowed to practice their faith. Muslims are obliged to teach refugees, not to terrorise them, to protect them and take them under their care, they are not to betray them even if war broke out between the Islamic State and their country. The detention and persecution of the Iraqis during the Gulf war by the Western countries shows a betrayal of those countries to the people they pledged to grant asylum to. Protection is one of the legal contracts in Shar’a that Allah has commanded us to honour. “O you who believe! Fulfil your undertakings.” [Al-Maidah:1] and Rasool-Allah said: “…whoever kills a refugee by mistake would have to pay ‘diya’ (blood money). If the refugee is killed deliberately then the person responsible for the death will be killed.”
