ISLAM AGAMA SYUMUL

FIRMAN ALLAH SUBHANAHU WA TA'ALA; "Wahai orang-orang yang beriman! Masuklah kalian ke dalam Islam secara keseluruhan, dan janganlah kalian mengikuti langkah-langkah syaithan, kerana sesungguhnya syaithan itu adalah musuh yang nyata bagi kalian." [TMQ AL-BAQARAH(2):208]

MASA ITU EMAS

KEMBALILAH KEPADA EMAS DAN PERAK

Utusan Malaysia melaporkan bahawa matawang tempatan secara umumnya menunjukkan prestasi memberangsangkan dari segi peningkatan nilai pada tahun ini, khususnya sejak dasar tambatan ringgit dimansuhkan oleh kerajaan pada 21 Julai 2005. Sejak awal tahun ini, nilai ringgit telah menunjukkan prestasi cemerlang berbanding matawang rizab antarabangsa iaitu dolar Amerika Syarikat (USD) selaras dengan asas ekonomi Malaysia yang terus kukuh, peningkatan tinggi pasaran ekuiti, kenaikan harga komoditi dan kejatuhan dolar AS itu sendiri. Sejak diapungkan semula pada 21 Julai 2005, nilai ringgit terus melonjak sebanyak 13 peratus daripada paras RM3.80 berbanding dolar AS. Nilai matawang tempatan jika dibandingkan dengan USD pada masa ini telah meningkat sebanyak 4.6 peratus, berbanding nilainya pada awal Januari lalu. Nilai ringgit pada 3 Januari dibuka pada kadar 3.5125 sedolar AS, melonjak dan melonjak ke paras tertinggi dalam tempoh 10 tahun pada RM3.3122 sedolar pada 13 Disember lalu, sebelum kembali stabil pada paras 3.352 sedolar semalam. Penganalisis berkata, aliran meningkat matawang tempatan itu pada tahun ini adalah sejajar dengan peningkatan matawang negara-negara serantau, ekoran polisi dolar lemah yang diambil oleh AS. Kerajaan AS terpaksa menurunkan kadar faedah sebanyak tiga kali secara berturut-turut kepada 4.25 peratus dalam usaha merangsang semula aktiviti ekonominya, yang terjejas teruk akibat krisis gadai janji subprima. Langkah AS itu juga telah menyebabkan harga komoditi utama global yang diurusniagakan bersandarkan dolar, termasuk minyak mentah, bijirin dan minyak sawit melambung naik [UM 26/12/2007].

Dalam perkembangan yang berkaitan, lebih kurang sebulan lepas, Presiden Iran, Ahmadinejad menggesa untuk memulau Dollar Amerika (USD) sebagai alat pertukaran untuk urus niaga komoditi petroleum memandangkan USD telah jatuh secara kronik sejak 12 bulan yang lalu. Beliau berkata "They [the US] get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper," (Amerika mengambil minyak kita dan membayar kita dengan sekeping kertas yang tidak berguna) Mengikut Ahmadinejad lagi, perolehan semakin berkurangan kerana penurunan nilai USD sebagai alat tukaran di pasaran dunia, yakni apabila petroleum dijual dengan USD. Dia juga menggesa supaya urusan jual-beli petroleum menggunakan matawang lain, bahkan dia mengatakan bahawa negara-negara OPEC bersetuju untuk mencairkan simpanan USD mereka kepada matawang lain. Jepun misalnya, telah mengorak langkah membeli petroleum dari Iran dengan matawang Yen. Dalam pada itu, Rejim Arab Saudi - sekutu rapat Rejim AS - sibuk membela penggunaan matawang USD dan menyerang pendapat Ahmadinejad. Kenyataan rasmi dari Rejim Saudi menggesa agar tidak dibangkitkan isu ini, bahkan mereka memberi amaran bahawa perkara sebegini akan menurunkan lagi nilai USD.
Penulisan Sautun Nahdhah (SN) kali ini menyentuh secara ringkas bagaimana untuk kita menukar standard matawang yang benar (hak) dan mengelak dari menggunakan matawang asing sebagai sandaran/standard nilai. Sandaran kepada matawang asing, selain bertentangan dengan hukum syarak, secara realitinya ia akan mendedahkan kita kepada ketidakstabilan matawang/ekonomi kerana selama mana ‘sekeping kertas’ digunakan sebagai sandaran nilai, maka selama itulah matawang/ekonomi akan terdedah kepada persepsi dan spekulasi. Bukti sudah sekian lama terpampang jelas di depan mata bahawa nilai matawang/kertas tersebut sentiasa terumbang-ambing jika berlaku ketidakstabilan baik dalam ekonomi mahupun politik, malah dengan ‘kata-kata/perbuatan’ seorang manusia sahaja, nilai matawang boleh merudum. Oleh yang demikian, langkah-langkah yang benar (menurut Islam) perlulah diambil untuk mengelak krisis kewangan seperti tahun 1997 dari berulang dan menjatuhkan ekonomi umat Islam.

Sandaran Matawang Wajib Emas Dan Perak

Bila kita melihat kepada dua laporan di atas, kita boleh membuat kesimpulan bahawa, greenback atau USD sebenarnya digunakan sebagai standard nilai untuk perdagangan antarabangsa, terutamanya untuk urus niaga minyak mentah, bijirin dan kelapa sawit. Senario kejatuhan USD di pasaran kewangan antarabangsa yang berterusan secara relatifnya telah menaikkan nilai ringgit. Jadi, kenaikan nilai ringgit sebenarnya bukanlah kerana kekukuhan nilai ringgit itu sendiri, tetapi kerana penurunan nilai USD. Kejatuhan nilai USD inilah yang telah menyebabkan Ahmadinejad menyarankan agar ditukar penggunaan matawang USD ke matawang lain. Pandangan ini, walaupun nampak bernas, namun teramat serong dan keliru. Ini kerana kejatuhan USD akan sebenarnya mengurangkan lagi kekayaan di dalam sesebuah negara yang memegang kuantiti besar USD, terutama di dalam rizab mereka. Lagi pula, menukar matawang USD kepada matawang lain belum tentu dapat menstabilkan pasaran matawang dan ekonomi itu sendiri. Ini kerana, jika USD yang sudah berpuluh tahun dianggap kukuh, malah menjadi sandaran matawang dunia, itu pun boleh jatuh, apatah lagi matawang lain, yang belum pernah terbukti ‘kekuatannya’ di peringkat antarabangsa dan yang mana ‘nilai kertasnya’ tidak jauh berbeza dengan ‘nilai kertas’ USD. Apakah gerenti yang ada bahawa matawang baru ini akan terus kukuh? Apa pun, aspek yang paling penting bagi kaum Muslimin dalam hal ini ialah aspek hukum syarak, maksudnya kewajipan menggunakan sandaran emas dan perak bagi penggunaan matawang. Hal inilah yang tidak pernah dipandang atau diperhitungkan oleh pemimpin umat Islam.

Semua sedia maklum bahawa wang kertas yang ada pada kita sekarang hakikatnya adalah sekeping kertas yang ‘tidak bernilai’. Ia boleh diconteng sesuka hati; mudah dikoyakkan dan apabila terkoyak, ia langsung sudah tidak bernilai; ia mudah terbakar dan akan hangus apabila dibakar. Wang kertas yang ada sekarang hanya ‘bernilai’ kerana pemerintah (melalui undang-undang) menyatakannya bernilai (legal tender) dan mereka ‘memaksa’ kita agar menerima nilai yang tertera di atas kertas tersebut. Sebab itulah, walaupun jenis kertas yang sama, saiz yang sama dan tebal nipisnya pun sama, kemudian diletakkan angka 10 di situ, maka ia akan bernilai RM10, manakala jika ditulis angka 50, maka ia akan bernilai RM50. Dan apabila kerajaan ingin mengeluarkan wang kertas yang baru dan melupuskan wang kertas yang lama, kerajaan hanya perlu ‘menyatakan’ dan memaksa kita (melalui undang-undang) bahawa wang yang lama sudah tidak boleh dipakai. Maka pada tarikh itu juga, wang kertas yang tertulis RM50 di atasnya tadi, akan terus menjadi ‘sekeping kertas’ yang langsung sudah tidak bernilai, kecuali sebagai ‘sekeping kertas’ semata-mata.

Islam dalam bentuk penyelesaian yang jelas telah menggariskan kepada kita bahawa matawang dalam Islam bukannya ‘wang fiat’ yang disandarkan kekuatannya kepada undang-undang (legal tender), tetapi Islam telah meletakkan satu ‘benda’ yang benar-benar bernilai untuk digunakan oleh manusia – emas dan perak. Seiring dengan ini, Islam telah meletakkan hukum-hakam yang khusus untuk penggunaan wang ini (emas dan perak) dan menjadikannya wajib untuk dijadikan sandaran. Sebagai seorang Muslim, kita mestilah melihat penggunaan matawang ini dari perspektif syarak, bukannya dari perspektif ekonomi semata-mata yang seolah-olah langsung tidak ada hubungan dengan agama. Kita adalah umat Islam dan kita wajib mempelajari dan melaksanakan ekonomi yang digariskan oleh Islam, bukannya belajar dan melaksanakan ekonomi dalam acuan Kapitalis yang hanya berhukum dengan hukum akal. Justeru, pengembalian kepada standard matawang emas dan perak bukanlah semata-mata untuk menyelamatkan ekonomi negara, malah yang paling utama adalah untuk menyelamatkan diri kita dari azab Allah, jika tidak berhukum dengan hukum Allah. Sandaran matawang kepada emas dan perak merupakan hukum syarak yang jelas di dalam Islam, yang wajib dilaksanakan oleh Negara [sila lihat perbincangan lanjut dalam SN072 Emas Dan Perak – Antara Manfaat Dan Tuntutan Syarak].

Bagaimana Mengubah Matawang Kepada Dinar Dan Dirham

Kita perlu sedar bahawa kita sekarang hidup di dalam realiti ekonomi/dunia Kapitalis dan kita sedang menuju kepada sebuah Negara Khilafah yang akan menerapkan semula sistem matawang sebagaimana pada zaman pemerintahan Rasul dan para sahabat dahulu. Pada masa pemerintahan Khalifah Abdul Malik bin Marwan (dari Bani Umawiyyah) telah dicetak dan diterbitkan matawang dinar dan dirham syarie. Keduanya berlaku sebagai matawang dan alat perantaraan pertukaran dalam semua bentuk transaksi barang mahupun perkhidmatan. Baik dinar mahupun dirham, dicetak pada standard tertentu merupakan timbangan berat (wazan) tertentu yang bersifat tetap. 1 dinar syarie setara dengan 4.25 gram emas, sedangkan 1 dirham syarie setara dengan 2.975 gram perak. Pada masa itu mata wang yang beredar hanyalah dalam bentuk logam emas (dinar) mahupun perak (dirham). Dalam keadaan di mana transaksi-transaksi yang bernilai besar terlibat dan matawang yang berbentuk logam emas atau perak tidak praktikal untuk dibawa atau dipindah-pindahkan, Negara sememangnya boleh menggantikannya dengan wang kertas, wang plastik, wang polimer atau bahan-bahan lainnya yang bersifat praktikal. Syaratnya, wang kertas atau wang polimer tersebut mestilah tergolong dalam kategori paper money (paper money adalah matawang yang dikeluarkan oleh kerajaan atau bank pusat dan merupakan kertas yang dicetak yang boleh berputar sebagai pengganti) di mana nilai nominalnya mesti dijamin oleh Negara, setara dengan nilai nominal emas atau perak yang ada di dalam simpanan negara. Dengan kata lain, emas atau perak wajib dijadikan sandaran di mana paper money yang berlegar di pasaran mestilah menyamai nilai emas atau perak yang ada dalam simpanan.

Sebagai seorang Muslim, kita mengharapkan pemerintah Muslim yang ada agar menerapkan segera sistem matawang Islam sebagaimana yang telah diterapkan oleh Rasulullah, namun harapan kita telah lama berkecai dek mereka lebih kasihkan Sistem Kapitalis yang buruk dan busuk ini. Jadi, kita hendaklah bersedia untuk menerapkan hukum Allah dari sekarang dan apabila Negara Khilafah berdiri nanti (Insya Allah dalam waktu terdekat), langkah-langkah praktikal untuk menggantikan matawang yang ada di tengah-tengah kaum Muslimin saat ini terus dapat dilaksanakan. Buat masa sekarang, beberapa perkara perlu diperhatikan. Di antaranya adalah jumlah matawang yang beredar, harga emas atau perak di dalam mahupun di pasaran luar negeri, jumlah emas dan perak yang sedia ada dan jumlah simpanan Bank Pusat (yang umumnya berbentuk dolar AS atau matawang asing yang kukuh - hard currencies - lainnya). Kesemua ini perlu diperhalusi agar kita dapat memback-up penggantian matawang kepada dinar dan dirham. Pada prinsipnya, simpanan (baik emas atau perak ataupun matawang asing) yang dimiliki Negara Khilafah pada masa berdirinya nanti harus mampu memback-up penggantian matawang yang ada di dalam masyarakat. Jika simpanan yang sedia ada ini tidak mencukupi, secara praktikalnya penggantian matawang akan sukar dilaksanakan (untuk maklumat mengenai simpanan rizab dalam Bank Negara, sila layari http://www.bnm.gov.my)

Komponen jumlah wang yang beredar di dalam masyarakat pada umumnya dinyatakan sebagai agregat kewangan yang dikenali dengan M1, M2, dan M3. M1 disebut juga dengan wang transaksi, iaitu wang yang benar-benar digunakan dalam berurus niaga, meliputi wang syiling, wang kertas dan deposit permintaan (akaun cek/akaun semasa). Jumlah syiling dan wang kertas dinamakan dengan wang dalam edaran (currency), yang biasanya meliputi seperempat atau seperlima dari jumlah M1. Mengikut laporan Bank Negara Malaysia, jumlah matawang dalam edaran adalah RM34,888 juta sedangkan jumlah M1 adalah RM159,020.80 juta. Deposit permintaan adalah wang yang disimpan di bank atau lembaga kewangan, untuk akaun cek (akaun semasa). Dengan jenis akaun ini, kita dapat membayar suatu transaksi dengan cara menulis atau menandatangani buku cek, jumlahnya adalah RM124,132.80 juta. Agregat lain yang sering mendapat perhatian adalah M2, yakni yang disebut dengan wang dalam pengertian luas (broad money). M2 ini merupakan M1 + Separuh Wang Kecil (Narrow Quasi Money - NQM), yang mana NQM ini meliputi deposit tabungan, deposit tetap, NID (Negotiable Instrument Deposit), repos (perjanjian jualan semula bond), deposit matawang asing dan lain-lain deposit. Secara umumnya NQM tidak termasuk wang transaksi, karena tidak dapat digunakan sebagai alat tukar untuk seluruh pembelian. Meskipun demikian ia boleh ditukar kepada bentuk wang tunai dengan cepat tanpa kehilangan nilainya. Oleh itu, M2 disebut juga dengan near money, karena dapat ditukarkan menjadi wang tunai dengan mudah. Mengikut laporan BNM jumlah M2 adalah RM768,323.70

Pada umumnya, M1 dan M2 inilah yang dijadikan acuan utama untuk mengetahui dan mengawal wang edaran yang berlegar di dalam masyarakat. Masalahnya sekarang, apakah Negara Khilafah akan mengganti M1 saja atau akan mengganti M1 dan M2 sekali gus (meski inilah pilihan yang paling tepat dan lebih selamat)? Kemudian, apakah rizab simpanan yang dimiliki negara saat ini mencukupi untuk menjamin jumlah nilai nominal M1 dan M2 yang ada? Apakah emas atau perak yang dimiliki negara (dalam simpanan rizab atau yang akan dibelinya di pasar emas internasional) telah cukup tersedia? Jika jawapannya ya, Negara Khilafah saat berdirinya nanti terus dapat menggantikan matawang yang ada menjadi dinar dan dirham yang syarie dengan lebih mudah Ini tentu dengan beberapa anggapan, misalnya tidak ada hutang yang harus dibayar pada waktu itu, atau tidak ada pelarian emas dan perak ke luar negeri.

Di Malaysia, jika ingin menukarkan sistem matawang kepada dinar dan dirham dan diketahui jumlah wang yang beredar (misalnya) M1 = RM159,020.80 juta, M2 (katakan 5 kali ganda) = RM768,323.70 juta, sedangkan harga emas di dalam negeri 1 gram = RM94.00, jadi Negara Khilafah paling tidak harus memiliki rizab sekurang-kurangnya menyamai dengan jumlah M1 = RM159,020.80 juta untuk menukarkan wang dalam edaran dan juga deposit permintaan. Secara umumnya, angka-angka yang disebut di atas dapat diringkaskan seperti di bawah. Nilai satu dinar syarie ialah 4.25g X RM94 = RM399.50

Agregat Kewangan Jumlah dalam juta Unit Dinar Syarie (DS)
Rizab BNM RM345,229.20 DS864.20 juta
M1 RM159,020.80 DS398.00 juta
M2 (M1 + NQM) RM768,323.70 DS1,923.20 juta

Jadual menunjukkan bahawa jika rizab Bank Negara dalam bentuk jongkong emas dan matawang asing digunakan untuk menukar matawang, ia adalah mencukupi. Jadi, secara umumnya rakyat akan dapat menukarkan semua matawang dalam edaran kepada sistem matawang Islam. Masalah cuma akan timbul sekiranya semua pendeposit NQM mengeluarkan simpanan mereka dalam jumlah yang besar untuk dicairkan kepada matawang DS, tetapi kes semacam ini sukar untuk berlaku. Namun jika ia tetap berlaku, maka Negara Khilafah boleh mengeluarkan surat jaminan untuk membayar balik dalam bentuk DS (bila Baitul Mal nanti sudah memperolehi hasil pendapatan negara) sebagaimana Rasulullah Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam pernah memberi jaminan untuk menggantikan hamba Bani Hawazin yang dipulangkan balik kepada kaumnya, Rasulullah Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam bersabda “Sesungguhnya saudara kamu ini (Bani Hawazin) datang kepada kita setelah mereka bertaubat, aku sendiri akan memulangkan kepada mereka tawanan perang dari bangsa mereka, sesiapa daripada kamu yang suka untuk berbuat kebajikan, pulangkan tawanan masing-masing kepada mereka, barang siapa yang suka untuk mendapatkan bahagian yang pertama dari ghanimah kelak, yang bakal diberikan oleh Allah nanti kepada kita, maka hendaklah dia memulangkan tawanan” [HR Bukhari, Tabari, Baihaqi dengan jalan Ibn Ishaq]. Riwayat ini menerangkan kepada kita bahawa Rasulullah memberi jaminan untuk menggantikan hamba yang dipulangkan balik kepada Bani Hawazin, dengan hamba yang akan ditawan pada masa akan datang, ini menjadikan dalil bahawa Pemimpin Negara boleh membuat jaminan pembayaran.

Apabila semuanya sudah cukup dan tersedia, Negara Khilafah nanti hanya perlu mencetak dinar atau dirham syarie, kemudian rakyat diberi tempoh masa untuk menukar matawang mereka kepada dinar dan dirham, dengan kadar RM399.50 untuk DS1.00. Contohnya Negara Khilafah memberikan masa 3 bulan untuk semua RM ditukar kepada DS, sebagaimana BNM dahulu pernah memberi masa untuk melupuskan syiling RM1. Proses ini mirip dengan apa yang terjadi di negara Kesatuan Eropah tatkala negara-negara anggotanya secara hampir bersamaan mengubah matawang mereka kepada matawang Eurodollar. Perbezaannya adalah, dalam Negara Khilafah nanti, nilai nominal wang yang beredar (baik pada M1 mahupun M2) dijamin dan disokong (disandarkan) oleh emas atau perak yang nilainya setara dengan jumlah wang yang beredar dan jumlah ini disimpan di dalam Baitul Mal negara sebagai jaminan (guaranteed); sedangkan Eurodollar, sama dengan USD, berbentuk fiat money, iaitu sekumpulan kertas yang oleh pemerintah dianggap sebagai legal tender dan masyarakat ‘diwajibkan’ menerimanya sebagai alat pembayaran/transaksi yang memiliki nilai tertentu. Inilah yang berlaku sekarang di mana negara-negara yang ada waktu ini (termasuk Malaysia) yang menganut fiat money boleh mencetak sebanyak mana pun matawang kertasnya dan dengan nilai nominal berapa pun, tanpa diback-up oleh jaminan emas atau perak. Praktis ekonomi Kapitalis inilah, pada satu titik dan keadaan tertentu, legal tender ini pasti akan runtuh dan selonggok ringgit atau dolar sekalipun akan sama nilainya dengan setompok sampah sarap (kertas) biasa di waktu keruntuhannya.

Dengan demikian, usaha kita untuk memiliki dana yang tersedia dan mencukupi (simpanan rizab) harus dimulai dari sekarang (meski Negara Khilafah itu belum lagi berdiri), iaitu dengan mencegah pelarian emas atau perak ke luar negeri. Langkah-langkah praktikal yang mampu menjaga dan menambah emas atau perak sedia ada antara lain:-

(i) Negeri-negeri kaum Muslimin pada masa kini mestilah mengurangkan atau bahkan menghentikan import barang-barang ke luar negeri. Sebab, hal ini hanya akan mengakibatkan pelarian modal ke luar negeri;
(ii) Meningkatkan eksport ke luar negeri, dengan mengambil pembayaran dalam bentuk emas/perak atau jika kita (perlu) mengimport, kita membuat pembayaran dengan matawang asing yang ada dalam negara, khususnya USD;
(iii) Menghentikan dan mengambil alih perusahaan-perusahaan perlombongan (termasuk lombong emas dan perak) yang dikonsesikan kepada pihak asing. Dengan begitu, negaralah yang akan mengeluarkan, mengawal dan menjadikannya sebagai rizab untuk sandaran nilai penerbitan dinar dan dirham yang syarie;
(iv) Negara boleh mendesak untuk setiap urus niaga perdagangan dengan luar negeri untuk menggunakan standard dinar dan dirham (atau matawang yang berasas pada logam emas dan perak). Dalam hal ini, Negara Khilafah nanti dapat memperoleh keuntungan kapital berupa emas dan perak dari pembayaran komoditi strategik yang diperlukan oleh dunia internasional, seperti minyak.

Berdasarkan penjelasan ini, tidak mungkin suatu negara dapat menerapkan dan mengubah matawangnya menjadi dinar dan dirham yang syarie, kecuali negara tersebut mampu melawan hegemoni politik, ekonomi, dan militer negara-negara besar saat ini, terutama AS. Sebab, AS tidak akan tinggal diam terhadap keberadaan negara lain yang akan menghancurkan sistem ekonomi kapitalis yang dibangun untuk melayani kepentingan-kepentingannya di seluruh dunia. AS menghendaki seluruh negara yang ada di dunia merujuk pada greenback atau USD, karena hal ini dapat dijadikan senjata dan alat imperialisme baru AS untuk menghancurkan atau mengeksploitasi kekayaan negara-negara lain di dunia. Ini bererti, keinginan untuk mengubah matawang negeri-negeri umat Islam yang ada pada hari ini menjadi dinar dan dirham syarie yang bersandarkan emas dan perak (yang nilai nominal dan intrinsiknya sama) harus disertai dengan keinginan yang kuat umat Islam untuk memiliki Negara Khilafah yang besar dan bersatu dan akan menjadi negara super power di dunia.

Khatimah

Wahai kaum Muslimin! Sistem matawang yang syarie tidak akan berhasil diwujudkan di dalam sebuah negara yang terkongkong oleh dominasi ekonomi Kapitalis dan sangat bergantung pada kekuatan ekonomi global (terutama ekonomi negara-negara kafir Barat). Untuk itu, umat Islam mahupun para penguasa kaum Muslimin saat ini harus mula menyediakan simpanan rizab (dalam bentuk emas dan perak) agar bila berdirinya Negara Khilafah (dalam waktu yang terdekat, Insya Allah) kaum Muslimin dapat menerapkan secara kaffah seluruh hukum-hukum Islam, termasuklah hukum-hukum tentang matawang. Kalian wahai saudaraku, sekarang hanya ada dua pilihan sahaja, apakah kalian ingin terus kekal berada di bawah telapak kaki Kapitalisme yang penuh dengan kotoran dan najis ini, atau kalian bersungguh-sungguh berjuang, berkorban, dan bekerja keras untuk menerapkan hukum-hukum Allah melalui tegaknya negara Khilafah ar-Rasyidah yang mengikuti manhaj Nabi Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa Sallam. Buatlah pilihan yang boleh menyelamatkan kalian dari azab Allah kelak.

Rights of non-Muslims


Non-Muslims have an honourable status in the Caliphate. They are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract), which means they enjoy the full rights of citizenship. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: “Whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed me.” The rights of non-Muslims are enshrined within statutory Islamic Law ( shariah ) and cannot be reversed by legal precedent or the whims of any government. This provides stability and security to the non-Muslims allowing them to live their lives without fear of losing their rights some time in the future. Contrast this with western governments who are introducing more and more draconian anti-terror legislation targeting the Muslim community in the name of combating terrorism and national security.

Imam Qarafi (Classical Islamic Scholar) summed up the responsibility of the Caliphate to the dhimmi when he said: “It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the People of the Dhimma to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely, and even tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbour, even though the Muslim would have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violates their rights.”
The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

Historically, when the Caliphate was ruling Jerusalem , it protected the holiest Church in Christianity - The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The keys to this church have been held for centuries by the Nusseibeh Muslim family who until today still open and close the doors on a daily basis.

Furthermore, Sir Thomas Arnold in his book 'The Call to Islam' states: “We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organised persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years.”

Tony Blair's speech on the Caliphate


In the first of three speeches outlining his vision for British Foreign Policy, Tony Blair reiterated his view that, "terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core."

He first referred to this "ideology of the terrorists" as he calls it, after the 7/7 bombings last year in his infamous "evil ideology" speech. This speech linked the establishment of a Caliphate that the majority of the Muslim world want to see re-established, as part of an "evil ideology" the ideology of the terrorists.

Blurring the lines between mainstream Islamic ideas such as the Caliphate and its non-violent work, with terrorism, has become Blair's main policy since 7/7 culminating in the Terrorism Act 2006. Interestingly, in his latest speech, he attempts to make a distinction between the past Caliphate that was "leading the world in discovery, art and culture", and the vision Muslims have for the future Caliphate that he refers to as "pre-feudal".

Blair said, "But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was breathtaking. Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. The standard bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian."

Although he praises the past Caliphate as tolerant and breathtaking, he means this in the context of the early Middle Ages. Since the Qur'an in his view is a reforming book and way of ahead of its time in attitudes to governance, he is making the case that Islamic Democracy rather than an Islamic Caliphate is the way forward for the Muslim World. The past Caliphate was fine for that era but cannot be applied in modern times. This can be seen from his speech when he said, "It should be our task to empower and support those in favour of uniting Islam and democracy, everywhere."

Opposition to the Caliphate has been at the core of Britain's Foreign Policy for centuries. Lord Curzon the British Foreign Secretary in 1924 said, "We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity."

Tony Blair's speech should be viewed in this context, and is no different to that of Lord Curzon in its underlying message. This is why Blair maligned the vision of a future Caliphate by saying, "their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive".

"Islam's concept of governance" enshrines: the rule of law, representative government, accountability by the people through an independent judiciary and the principle of representative consultation.

Its "position on women and other faiths" is that it's a government built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed and is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping. All of this is established by the Holy Qur'an, a book in the words of Tony Blair that "is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance."

After the destruction of the Caliphate by Britain in 1924, the Muslim world in Blair's words, "found themselves caught between colonisation, nascent nationalism, political oppression and religious radicalism. Muslims began to see the sorry state of Muslim countries as symptomatic of the sorry state of Islam."

The continuing instability, wars, poverty and tyrant dictators that are plaguing the Muslim world are a direct result of the loss of the Caliphate to govern people's affairs. When any country loses its system of government it will be plunged in to chaos and anarchy. Iraq is a prime example of this. What happened to Iraq in 2003 is what happened to the entire Muslim world in 1924.

Only by the re-establishment of the Caliphate will this continuing instability in the Muslim world finally come to an end.

Superior conduct of the Caliphate's Armed Forces


For Iraqi’s the question is not if, but when, the next atrocity against Iraqi civilians will be uncovered.

From Abu Ghraib to the Haditha massacre, where 24 women and young children were brutally murdered by US Marines; it’s easy to lose count of the rape and murder committed by coalition forces in Iraq.

After the Haditha massacre, General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "Clearly the individuals involved - if they are responsible for the things they are being accused of - have not performed their duty the way that 99.9% of their fellow marines have."

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that 99.9% of US forces conducted "themselves in an exemplary manner".

Sadly the conduct of the other 99.9% of US troops is far from "exemplary" and the Haditha massacre is just the latest in a string of abuses that have come to light in Iraq.

A report filed by Iraqi police on 15th March accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people, including five children and four women, in a house in Ishaqi. Video footage released by the BBC showed the aftermath of the massacre where gunshot wounds to the bodies of the adults and children were clearly visible.

Seven marines and a navy sailor are being held over claims they murdered an Iraqi on 26th April in Hamandiya and then covered it up.

This is not to mention the torture at Abu Ghraib and countless other atrocities committed since the occupation of Iraq three years ago.

These latest abuses are only the tip of the iceberg in what has become the "norm" amongst US and coalition forces operating in Iraq. Even the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has criticised coalition forces for what he describes as habitual attacks against civilians.

The response from the US Military to this endemic abuse has been to order troops to undergo "ethics training" where they will receive lessons in "core warrior values". Lieutenant-General Peter Chiarelli, commander of the Multinational Corps in Iraq said, "As military professionals, it is important that we take time to reflect on the values that separate us from our enemies. The challenge for us is to make sure the actions of a few do not tarnish the good work of the many."

The age-old colonial myth that western troops fight as gentleman under strict rules of engagement against a barbaric and savage enemy who have no rules, has clearly been put to rest in Iraq.

Far from winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people through the superior conduct of their armed forces, the coalition troops are hated by ordinary people who cannot wait for their departure. Khalid Nisaif Jassim whose pregnant sister was shot by US troops as she was rushed to hospital in Samarra said, "God take revenge on the Americans…. They have no regard for our lives."

Historically the armed forces of the Islamic Caliphate were renowned for their tolerance and superior conduct in battle. The sharia contains strict and detailed rules of engagement for Muslim soldiers fighting jihad.

Muslim soldiers are not blinded by hatred, committing massacres and atrocities as we have seen with the Haditha massacre. Muslims are very conscious when fighting of not transgressing the limits set by the creator - Allah (swt).

Dying as a martyr (shaheed) on the battlefield is the highest honour in Islam, the reward of which is immense. To gain this reward and status the soldier must fight for the correct reasons and not for anger, pride, money or sectarianism.

Prisoners of war are not tortured and mistreated as we find in American run prisons.

The Caliphate's armed forces aim to minimise any collateral damage during battle. They won’t have the 'trigger happy' attitude of American troops who routinely shoot entire families at checkpoints as they did to Khalid Nisaif Jassim's pregnant sister.

When the Christian armies launched a holy war against the Caliphate in the Crusades, the streets of Jerusalem were knee deep in blood from the slaughtering by the Crusader armies. However, when the Caliphate's armed forces under the command of General Salahudin Ayyubi re-conquered Jerusalem, the Crusader army was allowed to surrender and given safe passage back to Europe.

With the re-establishment of the Caliphate the world will once again witness the exemplary conduct of the Caliphate's armed forces as it did with General Salahudin Ayyubi and his army during the crusades.

Turkey's shift towards Islam


Turkey was the seat of the last Caliphate. After Mustafa Kemal officially abolished the Caliphate on 3rd March 1924 he brutally suppressed the Islamic culture in the name of secularism. Yet despite 82 years of brutal secular rule and suppression of their culture, Muslims in Turkey are abandoning western secular culture in favour of Islam.

In November 2002, the Justice and Development Party - an Islamist party, swept to power after Turks abandoned the traditional secular parties.

The current Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan remains Turkey’s most popular politician due to his perceived Islamic credentials. When Erdogan was Mayor of Istanbul, he was sentenced to 10 months in prison for publicly reciting an Islamic poem. His wife also wears the hijab, a growing trend in Turkey where hijab is banned in universities and government offices.

The demand for wearing hijab is now so great that Islamic-inspired swimsuits are appearing on Turkish beaches. “We are the preferred firm of the conservative politicians’ wives,” said Mehmet Sahin, whose company, Hasema, sold 40,000 swimsuits last year and expects a 25 per cent increase this year.

The true inclinations of the Turkish people came to a head earlier this year with the release of the anti-American film called Kurtlar Vadisi or Valley of the Wolves. In the first ten days alone 2.5 million Turks watched the film, smashing box-office records and revealing a deep rooted resentment of American policies in Iraq and elsewhere. The film is based on a real-life incident in which US troops arrested 11 Turkish Special Forces in Iraq and marched them off at gunpoint. The abuse at Abu Ghraib is also portrayed in full. Many politicians have tried to benefit from the public mood behind the film.

Bulent Arinc, the parliament Speaker said, “The film is absolutely magnificent. It is completely true to life.”

Turkey is the only Muslim member of NATO and one of America’s main Muslim allies. Whilst resentment against America and the West is at boiling point in the rest of the Muslim world, Turkey is pushed as an example of a ‘Western friendly’ Muslim state that others should emulate.

But whilst the Turkish government led by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan rushes towards getting Turkey admitted to the EU, Muslims of Turkey have different aspirations.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, in a statement on Al-Jazeera television regarding the tension over the Danish caricatures of Prophet Mohammed (saw) said, “Look at Turkey. I personally want Turkey to be a part of the EU. They are very quickly changing and reforming their laws. The profile of what Muslim societies might be in the future is being sketched out by Turkey.”

Yet Turkey was the scene of some of the largest demonstrations over the insulting cartoons with almost daily protests culminating in a massive demonstration of 50,000 people on 19th February in Istanbul. The protesters called for a boycott of Denmark, where the cartoons were first published, and banners could be seen reading, “The Muslim Turkish nation is with its Palestinian and Iranian brothers.”

After the Caliphate was abolished Mustafa Kemal initiated a brutal drive to destroy all remnants of Islam from Turkish institutions and from the people, forcibly converting them to secularism. He even tried to force the mosques to perform the Azan (call to prayer) and prayers in Turkish. To this day the hijab is still banned in colleges, universities and government buildings. The Prime Minister’s wife who wears the hijab cannot even attend any government functions with her husband.

Despite all these efforts of the Turkish government and military in trying to prevent any resurgence of Islam, the Muslims in Turkey are now rejecting secularism en mass. The aspirations of the people are such that even the current Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was elected by playing the Islamic card and portraying himself and his party as Islamic, defeating the traditional staunchly secular parties.

After the Caliphate was abolished Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary said, “The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam.”

Muslims in Turkey want an end to decades of secular governments who have transformed Turkey from the once international superpower as the Ottoman Caliphate, to a country that cannot even gain justice for its own soldiers when they are captured and abused by America. Turkey’s future prosperity is not with joining the EU or allying with America, rather it is through re-establishing the Caliphate in Turkey that will truly represent the values and interests of its people.

Is the Caliphate a totalitarian, fascist state?


President Bush delivered a speech on 5/9/06 at the Capital Hilton Hotel, Washington DC, discussing the Global War on Terror. The main theme of his speech was the Islamic Caliphate that he referred to as a ‘totalitarian Islamic empire.’

Bush said, “They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology.”

Bush first coined the phrase ‘Islamic fascists’ on August 10th when he delivered a speech addressing the alleged plot to bomb transatlantic airliners.

At the time, some thought this was just another off the cuff remark by a President known for his political gaffs. As the weeks passed and the anniversary of September 11th approached it became clear that this was no off the cuff remark. The US Administration had the Islamic Caliphate squarely in its sights. The true goal of America’s war on terror was laid bare for all to see – the goal of preventing the establishment of a Caliphate in the Muslim world.

Bush said, “I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either.”

Responses to some of the main points in Bush’s speech are below.

1. Linking al-Qaeda to the Caliphate.

Bush said, “The document lays out an elaborate al Qaeda governing structure for the region that includes an Education Department, a Social Services Department, a Justice Department, and an "Execution Unit" responsible for "Sorting out, Arrest, Murder, and Destruction.”

The Caliphate is not the preserve of Al-Qaeda. All Muslims believe in the idea of a Caliphate or Imamate where sovereignty is to the sharia (Islamic Law) alone. The Muslim world has rejected western culture and longs for the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

See the blog article - Muslim World wants the Caliphate

Long before Al-Qaeda even existed, political parties were working hard to establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world through non-violent political work. Islam has laid down a clear methodology for establishing the Caliphate and this does not include violence and killing.

2. Labelling Islam as a “hateful ideology”

Islam is the only ideology that truly melted different races in to one nation (umma); where racism and tribalism were confined to the dustbins of history. Contrast this to blacks in America who had to fight hard for even the most basic rights of citizenship. 40 years later they are still seen as second class citizens by the white American elite, as Hurricane Katrina showed last year.

The non-Muslim citizens of the Caliphate known as dhimmi were protected and not persecuted and forced to leave their religions. Contrast this to Muslims living in the west who face forced conversion to secularism or what they refer to as “European Islam” or “American Islam.” Those who refuse to convert face: imprisonment, rendition and persecution on a level not seen since Nazi Germany.

See the blog article - Rights of non-Muslims

3. Describing the Caliphate as a Fascist, totalitarian empire

Bush said, “This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.”

The Caliphate is not a police state. In the Caliphate a citizen’s house is his castle. The government of the Caliphate cannot spy on its Muslim and non-Muslim citizens as Bush is doing with his illegal wiretapping. Everyone in the Caliphate has the right to express their political opinions freely without fear of arrest or imprisonment.

The Caliphate cannot torture any of its citizens or prisoners of war. It will not follow America’s example and torture prisoners in secret CIA prisons, Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.

Although the Caliphate is not an empire, it will unify all the Muslim lands in the world in to one state. America fought a civil war to preserve the unity of the nation. Europe is uniting through the EU. Why shouldn’t Muslims who share a common culture and heritage also desire unity?

Future of Kurds is in the Caliphate NOT Kurdistan


Turkey has been hit by a wave of bombings in the past few weeks. The worst attack so far happened on Wednesday when 10 people were killed and 14 injured in Diyarbakir, south-eastern Turkey. This follows previous attacks in Istanbul and the coastal resort of Marmaris.

The Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAK) fighting for Kurdish independence claimed responsibility for the attacks, warning on its website that it would turn "Turkey into hell".

With Saddam Hussein now on trial for using poison gas against Kurds in Halabja, and Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, banning the Iraqi flag from being hoisted on government offices; there is a renewed effort by Kurds for establishing an independent Kurdish state (Kurdistan) in the region.

As Jalal Talabani, Iraqi President and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), said, "I don't think that Kurds will abandon their aim of establishing an independent Kurdish state."

The rationale behind establishing an independent Kurdish state is that only a Kurdish government could truly represent the culture and interests of the Kurdish people. Living in Turkey and under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, the Kurds saw the suppression of their Kurdish culture, curtailment of their rights and numerous atrocities committed against them.

This line of thinking views the Kurdish problem as one of ethnicity, rather than governance. Under the new Iraqi government, Kurds have been given greater autonomy and are now governed by Kurdish leaders, yet for ordinary Kurds they still suffer from corruption and oppression.

Kurds in Northern Iraq suffered years of bloodshed in the mid nineties because of constant infighting between the two main Kurdish parties – the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP).

In 1996, the KDP headed by Massoud Barzani, even sought help from Saddam Hussein – the Kurds worst enemy, to help capture Irbil from the PUK. Relations between the Iraqi Kurdish groups and the Turkish based Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) weren’t much different. In September 2000, fighting broke out between the PUK and PKK in the Qandil range of north eastern Iraq where the PKK had seized approximately 50 villages.

Protests by ordinary Kurds against the PUK and KDP came to a head earlier this year in Halabja where thousands gathered to commemorate the anniversary of the poison gas attack on the town. Furious Kurds stormed and destroyed a museum dedicated to the memory of the Halabja attack which for ordinary people has become a symbol of the Kurdish regional government’s oppression and tyranny. Many Kurds accuse their regional government of stealing donations gathered to help survivors of the poison gas attack.

"Kurdish officials used Halabja to gather money," said Tara Rahim who came to Halabja to honour her sister Zara killed in the attack. "Millions of dollars has been spent, but nothing has reached us," she said.

The problem in Iraq as elsewhere in the Muslim world is not one of ethnicity but rather the governing system. Saddam Hussein not only oppressed Kurds but he brutally tortured and murdered thousands of his own people whether Kurd, Arab, Sunni or Shia. He even executed his two son-in-laws!

The underlying culture of the Kurdish people is Islamic. They share the same Islamic culture as the rest of the Muslims whether in Turkey, Iraq or elsewhere. The most famous Kurd in history was Salahudeen Ayyubi. He is honoured not just by Kurds but by all Muslims, from all ethnicities, because of his liberation of Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam.

Some of the largest demonstrations against the blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) took place by Kurds in Turkey. 50,000 demonstrators gathered in the city of Diyarbakir, scene of the latest bombing, waving green Islamic flags and chanting Islamic slogans.

Turkey suppresses the Islamic culture of all its citizens whether Kurd or Turk. Women are banned from wearing hijab in university, madrassas are closed down and Islamic politicians arrested. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of Kurdish, Arab, Sunni and Shia Islamic scholars who opposed his rule.

The new Iraqi President Jalal Talabani may be Kurdish, but the lives of ordinary Kurds wont change unless the governing system changes. The only government, truly representative of the Kurds and the rest of the Muslims is the Caliphate, also known as the Imamate.

The Caliphate is a government built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed and is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping.

The solution to the Kurdish problem is not further division. The future of Kurds in the region lies in the Caliphate and not an independent Kurdish state. Any Kurdish state in the region would be used by the west to fuel further division and regional conflicts. Ultimately this state would become yet another failed nation state that fulfils western interests rather than the interests of its people.

Women in the Caliphate


For many westerners the idea that "Islam oppresses women" is a well established fact. The rights of women in Islam, especially those living under an Islamic system, is a hotly debated topic where much misunderstanding exists.

Some of the statements made concerning Islam's treatment of women are ludicrous, fictitious and comical in some instances.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a discredited ex-Dutch MP, who lied about an arranged marriage to secure Dutch citizenship, is one of these so-called champions of Muslim women's rights. Her note to fame came after she wrote a screenplay for a film called Submission directed by the murdered film director Theo van Gogh.

The film's title is a direct translation of the word "Islam" and portrays four naked Muslim women after they have been beaten and raped by male members of their families. Verses from the Holy Qur'an concerning women are then superimposed on their naked beaten bodies. Someone with even the slightest knowledge of Islam knows that accusing the Qur'an of encouraging rape, especially by family members, is a ludicrous claim to say the least.

Unfortunately, when discussing the rights of Muslim women this level of argument is all too common.

Bush's recent speech on the Caliphate, cited examples from the Taliban to paint a picture of the Caliphate as "a land where women were imprisoned in their homes…girls could not go to school…women were publicly whipped."

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Taliban's rule, how will the soon to be established Caliphate deal with women?

It's important to understand that the attack on Islam's treatment of women comes not from Muslim women themselves but from mainly from non-Muslims who have an outsiders view on the issue. This need many feel to "liberate" Muslim women from the shackles of their family prison or from the hijab are not shared by the majority of Muslim women.

In a poll conducted by The Gallup Organization, and reported in the New York Times article - Muslim Women Don't See Themselves as Oppressed, Survey Finds - showed clearly the aspirations and concerns of Muslim women. Their main concerns were the lack of unity among Muslim nations, violent extremism, and political and economic corruption. All concerns that only the Caliphate will address.

"The hijab, or head scarf, and burqa, the garment covering face and body, seen by some Westerners as tools of oppression, were never mentioned in the women's answers to the open-ended questions, the poll analysts said."

The survey also found that "an overwhelming majority of the women polled in each country cited "attachment to moral and spiritual values" as the best aspect of their own societies."

Islam is unique when it comes to treating the problems of men and women. In "man-made" systems and religions, where human beings (mostly men) decide their own values and legislative systems, women will inevitably suffer oppression and exploitation. Men don't understand what its like to be a women so how can they possible legislate laws for them?

Islam was revealed from the creator of men and women – Allah (swt). This ensures that women do not suffer under man-made laws that suit the interests of men only.

Islam recognises that men and women have different natures and therefore different roles to play in society.

Here are a few points regarding the position of women in the Caliphate:

EDUCATION

Seeking knowledge is obliged on men and women. It's especially important for women to have a high level of Islamic education as they are the primary source of knowledge for their children whilst growing up.

It's obligatory on the Caliphate to provide the best education and medical services possible to its citizens. It is therefore necessary to have an abundance of women doctors, nurses and teachers to fulfil these roles.

Article 173 of the draft constitution states:

"It is an obligation upon the State to teach every individual, male or female, those things which are necessary for the mainstream of life. This should be obligatory and provided freely in the primary and secondary levels of education. The State should, to the best of its ability, provide the opportunity for everyone to continue higher education free of charge."

WORK

The primary role of a woman is a mother and a wife. She is not burdened with having to work to support herself. This burden falls on her male guardians – either her husband if she is married or her father or brothers. If she has no guardian then she is entitled to state benefits and not obliged to find work.

Having said this, women are allowed to work and play an important role in the society beside their role in the family. Women doctors, teachers, nurses, judges, police officers are all necessary for the society to function. Women may feel embarrassed discussing marital disputes or asking sensitive questions related to women only issues to a male judge. Women judges, especially in the family courts will be needed by the state.

Even if a Muslim women works she is under no obligation to spend money on the family. She may be rich but the burden falls on the man. The husband or family has no right to touch the finances of the women under his care. Muslim women must pay their taxes if they work such as Kharaj, ushr and zakat. Non-Muslim women citizens (dhimmi) are exempt from paying the Jizya (head tax) even if they work.

GOVERNMENT

Women are obliged to voice their political opinions and account the Caliphate government. They can be judges, heads of government departments, members of the House of Representatives (Majlis ul-Ummah) and they can vote for the Caliph. Due to restrictions imposed by their creator – Allah (swt) who knows them better than they know themselves, they cannot hold the position of Caliph or any cabinet posts. Muslim women will have no issue with this as they work hard to obey their creator and gain His pleasure.

FAMILY LIFE

Honour killings, domestic violence and mistreatment of wives is completely prohibited by Islam. The aim of marriage is to achieve tranquillity through a partnership between husband and wife.

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, "The one who has the most perfect Imaan (belief) amongst you is the one with the most beautiful morals and the best of you is the one who is best to his wives." [Tirmidhi]

RULE OF LAW

Men and women are treated equally under the law. The only differences are when it comes to the number of witnesses required to convict a person. Generally, two women witnesses are equal to one male witness. This doesn't mean that women have half the status of a man as some claim, rather this law is decreed not by man but by the women's creator – Allah (swt). Again women accept this position willingly as obedience to Allah (swt).

Much has been made of Islam's adultery laws saying they unfairly target women. Examples are cited from Pakistan and from under the Taliban.

The adultery law applies equally to men as it does to women. For a court case of adultery to be proven, four trustworthy witnesses whose testimonies are thoroughly investigated, must testify to have seen the actual penetration. If the accuser cannot provide these four witnesses he himself will face lashing. If the accused women testifies under oath that she was raped then even with four witnesses she wouldn't face punishment.

It should be noted that in ordinary court courses for example for theft and murder require 2 witnesses. Adultery requires 4 witnesses who MUST see actual penetration. In practice, its virtually impossible to get 4 witnesses to this crime. The evidence for all adultery court cases during the early years of the Caliphate was confession and NOT witnesses. The harsh punishment for adultury (stoning to death) is a detterant punishment showing the society the strong value of marriage. An example adultery court case is given below.

Some Muslims in Basra became critical of the conduct of Mugheera. Among them was Abu Bakra Thaqeefi whose house across the street faced the house of Mugheera. One day a strong wind blew and the windows of the houses of Abu Bakra and Mugheera got opened through the force of the wind.

Abu Bakra saw through his window that in this house Mugheera was locked up in an uncompromising state with a woman. He thought that the woman was Umm Jamil. He had some friends with him, and they also saw Mugheera involved with a woman.

Abu Bakra Saqeefi wrote to Umar accusing Mugheera of adultery. The report was endorsed by four witnesses who had seen Mugheera in an uncompromising state with a woman.

Umar took prompt action. Umar appointed Abu Musa as the Governor of Basra and removed Mugheera from the office. Mugheera was summoned to Madina to face the trial. Abu Bakra and the other witnesses who had made the complaint were also summoned to Madina.

At the trial, Mugheera pleaded not guilty. His defense was that the woman in question was his wife and not Umm Jamil. With great indignation he averred that Abu Bakra and the men with him had no right to interfere in his privacy.

Abu Bakra on the other hand maintained that the woman was Umm Jamil. Three other witnesses corroborated the statement of Abu Bakra. The fourth witness Ziyad stated that he had seen the event, but he had not seen the face of the woman and did not know who she was. The other witnesses were cross examined, and it was found that there were some weak points in their evidence. They were asked whether the woman had her back or her face toward them. They said that she had their back to them. They tried to make out that even from her back she could be identified as Umm Jamil. They argued that the scandal of Mugheera and Umm Jamil was very common in Basra, and that lady was none else but Umm Jamil.

Under the Quranic law in order to press the charge of adultery definite evidence of four witnesses was necessary. As in this case the fourth witness was not sure of the identification of the woman, Mugheera was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Abu Bakra and his companions who had leveled the charge were punished with lashes for making a charge which could not be established.


HIJAB

Women in the Caliphate are obliged to wear the headscarf (khimar) and the long dress (jilbab). They are not obliged to cover their faces, although if they want to follow this Islamic opinion and wear the burqa they can.

Hijab is not an issue for Muslim women as the survey cited above makes clear. The west has an obsession with the hijab and women's clothing in general. In France, the home of Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent they became so obsessed they banned the hijab. This oppression of women, forcing them to remove their clothing and walk around in clothing more pleasing to men's eyes, would never happen in the Caliphate. The fact that countries have to ban the hijab, shows the growing number of Muslim women that love the hijab and want to wear it. It also shows the complete failure of the western views of women that are pushed as "universal values" for humanity.



Before those in the west jump to conclusions about Muslim women start making up rules for them, they should ask Muslim women what THEY want. The Gallup Organization survey makes it clear that what Muslim women want is Islam and the unity of the Muslims, i.e. the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

Pope Benedict XVI insults Islam

Pope Benedict XVI insults Islam


Speaking at the Regensburg University in Germany this week, Pope Benedict quoted from the Byzantine Emperor - Manuel II Paleologus.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said.

"He said, I quote: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."'

Although the Pope said he didn’t intend to insult Muslims, Reverend Robert Taft, a specialist in Islamic affairs at Rome's Pontifical Oriental Institute, said it was unlikely that the pope miscalculated how some Muslims would receive his speech.

Quoting Manuel II Paleologus was by no means an unintentional error.

Manuel II Paleologus was a 14th century Byzantine emperor who was no stranger to war. He ruled at time when the Ottoman State had conquered most of the Byzantine provinces and was at war with Muslims for most of his life.

The Pope conveniently left out the fact that the Catholic Church launched a fourth crusade only 200 years prior to Manuel II reign, resulting in the crusaders ransacking Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire. The crusades are a clear example of the relationship between violence and faith, the main theme of the Pope’s speech, yet instead he chose to focus on Islam.

Quoting from Manuel II is equivalent to quoting Ariel Sharon or George Bush on Islam. In no way can this be described as intellectual debate.

Muslims are all for intellectual debate. Unfortunately, when it comes to Islam critics prefer to launch cheap insults whether in the form of cartoons, speeches or offensive terminology. Terms such as terrorist, fascist, violent and evil are all becoming synonymous with Islam thanks to the American campaign to suppress Islam otherwise known as the ‘war on terror’.

In post-renaissance Europe, the Caliphate was severely declined and intellectually weak. The intellectual onslaught from Europe lead many of the Caliphate's ruling elite to become infatuated with the western culture. Eventually this resulted in the destruction of the Caliphate in 1924. This is similar to Communism’s decline and eventual destruction after America won the cold war. The cold war wasn’t won militarily but through the power of ideas.

After Communism ceased to be a threat, America and Europe turned their attentions to Islam and tried to do the same as they did with Communism. This is where their problems started.

Islam, unlike Communism did not contradict human nature by denying God and did not contain intellectually weak ideas such as dialectics. Instead Islam was based on an intellectual creed with ideas that people of all levels of understanding could easily grasp. The only problem was that many Muslims were unaware of the true power and potential of their beliefs.

America’s ‘war on terror’ which Europe also bought in to, exposed the western culture once and for all.

Torture, rape and murdering of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan exposed the fallacy of human rights.

Imprisonment without trial and lowering the burden of proof for terror suspects exposed their rule of law.

Drawing insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) in the name of free speech, whilst banning Muslims and Islamic groups from speaking out in support of their brothers resisting occupation, exposed the lie of freedom of expression.

Nowadays, Muslims and many non-Muslims are rejecting the western culture and turning towards Islam. France exposed its complete failure in convincing Muslim women of the superiority of its ideas when it banned the hijab. Banning hijab, closing down schools and mosques and imprisoning people for their political thoughts is the sign of an intellectually weak government not a strong one.

Those living in the Caliphate can express their political opinions and account the government without fear of punishment. The Caliphate welcomes intellectual debate through its media outlets internally within the state and internationally with other nations. In fact, this forms the cornerstone of the Caliphate’s foreign policy where it attempts to spread its values to other nations.

Contrary to what the Pope said, Islam was not spread by the sword, even though the Caliphate is an expansionist state that aims to spread its values beyond its borders.

The non-Muslims (dhimmi) living in the lands conquered by the Caliphate were not forced to leave their beliefs. They were not obliged to adopt any the values of the host society. The only requirement of the dhimmi was to obey the law of the land and pay their taxes.

The speed at which Islam spread in the first century after its inception is unparalleled in history. This could not have occurred through military campaigns alone, or through forced conversions in the lands that it conquered. What in fact happened was that as Islam spread to new lands, the inhabitants of those lands adopted the Islamic ideology as their own, and then they themselves carried Islam further. The Ottomans who spread Islam to Europe were not Arabs but Turkish nomads from Central Asia.

Darfur requires an Islamic Solution, not more Colonialism

The ongoing crisis in Darfur, Sudan, has received much coverage in the media in recent weeks. Significantly it has been the focus of attention for many Western politicians, particularly George Bush and Tony Blair, a focus perhaps only second to Iraq when it comes to foreign affairs. The coverage presented has reported that the ruling 'Islamic' government has helped arm Arab militias, the Janjaweed, which the government has been using to attack the native 'African Black' populations in Darfur as it seeks to suppress these people. The US government has gone as far as calling the actions 'genocide' on the part of the Sudanese government.

Certainly it is true that fighting is taking place in Darfur. In fact many aid agencies estimate that hundreds of thousands may have been killed, with estimates varying from 50,000 up to half a million, with up to another 2.5 million people being displaced. Yet much of the media and more importantly, many Western politicians, have chosen to ignore many of the facts surrounding this conflict.

It is important to recognise that the Government, Janjaweed and the rebels in Darfur are Muslim. Unlike the civil war in Sudan which ended in 2003 which was fought by the primarily Muslim north against the predominantly Christian South, all parties in this conflict are Muslim. Thus the presentation of the conflict as one of 'Arabs' against 'Africans' is not accurate and at worst misleading. All of the people are black, indigenous and Muslim. Sudan is a country of more than 40 million people, 70% of whom are Muslim, made up of more than 80 different ethnic groups and tribes, speaking many different languages including Arabic. Of these nearly 8 million live in Darfur, an area roughly the size of France.

Studying Sudan's past history gives pointers to the basis of Darfur and the whole of Sudan's current problems. Sudan is a country that only achieved independence from British rule in 1956. Prior to that it was captured by a proxy Anglo-Egyptian force, with Egypt itself part of the British Empire. Darfur was captured in 1916, after which financial support from Khartoum for outer regions such as Darfur ebbed away creating wealth disparities. As in other similar conflicts, poverty is one of the issues fueling the current conflict today. After it's independence it struggled with internal conflict before in the 1970s it overcame this and adopted policies more independent from the West. In 1983 the civil war in Sudan restarted which finally came to an end in 2003, in which the Americans supported the rebels. No sooner had a peace agreement been agreed, the Darfur conflict had started. Sudan's short history of sovereignty has seen little peace.

The other point of fact which is not widely reported is that Darfur is rich with oil and gas, as is the rest of Southern Sudan. The oil from Darfur accounts for $4 billion of revenue for the Sudanese government, over half the government's income. Most importantly the current Sudanese regime has close ties with China, which has strong oil interests in Darfur. America has oil interests in neighboring Chad but has been shut out of Sudan.

It is remarkable that despite all apparent concerns for the people of Darfur, issues such as oil and rivalry between powers such as China and America are conveniently largely overlooked in the mainstream Western media. Indeed towards the South in neighbouring Uganda there is also internal strife, lead by the Lord's Resistance Army, where similar ethnic killings are taking place, with rebels operating from Southern Sudan, yet very few people would even be aware of this. As with other developing countries, countries such as Sudan are vulnerable to external forces that, in pursuit of their interests, covertly exploit local problems and help foster opposition to the central government. Little wonder then that the Darfur rebels seem surprisingly well armed and funded. If America chose to launch an illegal war and invasion of oil rich Iraq, how can one reasonably expect America not to be motivated by the same in Darfur again?

The assertion that Sudan's government is 'Islamic' is equally not true. Superficial bits and pieces from Islamic law do not constitute an Islamic state or a Caliphate; an Islamic state can only be comprehensive in all aspects including legislative and ruling systems, not piecemeal. Moreover the spilling of innocent Muslim blood such as that in Darfur, in which the government has clearly played a role, is not allowed and is a severe crime under the Shariah. Sudan's government is like most others in the Muslim world, oppressive towards it's own people having illegitimately seized power. In this case it was by a military coup prolonged by the facade of rigged elections, whilst being courted by outside powers such as China, who having their own interests at heart provide diplomatic and military support. How many other such Muslim regimes in the world do we not see in similar situations today?

The UN resolution passed, supported by Britain and America, calling for the deployment of up to 20,000 UN peacekeepers to replace the current 7000 African Union force only seeks to create an avenue for foreign powers in Sudan as a first step towards loosening control over Darfur by the Sudanese government.

By looking further back at Sudan's history again, one can see the inspiration for a real solution to the problems at hand. Islam was introduced into North Africa hundreds of years ago, with Islam entering much of the Darfur region as well as other parts of Sudan in the 14th century . Most of the Muslim rulers modelled their ruling on a Sultanate system of governance, although not directly under the control of the Caliphate. This brought together people of irrespective of ethnicity and prosperity ensued. Today the way forward must be the reestablishment of an Islamic political system, the Caliphate that will look after the affairs of all the Muslims in Darfur and help heal the ethnic divisions. Any outside enforced solutions can only serve predatory interests at the expense of the Muslims in Darfur.

Alexander Litvinenko - Martyr of Islam

Alexander Litvinenko - Martyr of Islam


Prophet Muhammed (saw) said: "The master of martyrs is Hamza bin Abdul-Muttalib and a man who stood to an oppressor ruler where he ordered him and forbade him so he (the ruler) killed him." [Al-Haakim]

The high profile martyrdom of Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB Colonel turned writer who became Muslim two days before he died, exposes the brutality of Russia and its complete disregard for human life whether at home or abroad.

Litvinenko was poisoned with the highly toxic radioactive isotope polonium 210. Traces of polonium 210 have been found in restaurants, hotels and homes across London. Thousands of people fearing their exposure to the radiation have gone for testing.

Although speculation is rife as to who was behind Litvinenko’s murder, there is no doubt that the trail of polonium 210 goes all the way back to Moscow. On his death bed Litvinenko explicitly named Russian President Vladimir Putin as being directly involved in his murder.

With the media focussed primarily on the polonium trail there has been scant coverage of the real reasons behind Litvinenko’s murder. Some politicians such as Home Secretary John Reid have sort to discredit Litvinenko. He told the cabinet “not to make assumptions” about Litvinenko’s death, pointing out that the former spy had been “involved with” organised crime as well as the KGB, Chechens and exiled Russian oligarchs.

Its vital we never forget what Litvinenko was famous for. He was famous for writing a book exposing Russia’s 9/11 – the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings where 300 civilians were killed, as an inside job. In the aftermath of the bombings Putin immediately blamed Chechen rebels for the attack and used it as a pretext to launch a second brutal war against Chechnya after having been defeated there just a few years prior.

Litvinenko’s death comes only weeks after journalist and author Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead. Again just like Litvinenko she is famous for her opposition and exposure of Russia’s dirty war in Chechnya.

Since 9/11 and Russia’s signing up to the war on terror, the west has turned a blind eye to the suffering of the Chechen people. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has a green light to pursue its dirty war in Chechnya with impunity.

If some find it hard to believe Russia would slaughter its own citizens in pursuance of political objectives just look at the polonium 210 poisoning. Litvinenko’s assassin(s) could have killed him using any number of methods. Yet they chose a poison that not only killed Litvinenko but endangered the lives of countless other ordinary people.

In 1944, Stalin started the persecution of the Chechens by deporting the entire population, and their Ingush neighbours, from the Caucasus to Central Asia. Communism and the Soviet Union may be dead but its cruel and brutal methods live on in Putin, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Shanghai 5.

A new report by Human Rights Watch reveals that torture in Chechnya is “widespread and systematic”. Russia’s man in Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov runs his own private force charged with executing “enforced disappearances”. Human rights groups have estimated the number of disappeared between 3,000 and 5,000 in the last seven years, although many consider this to be a conservative estimate.

Chechnya’s population numbers around 1 million. During the first and second wars in Chechnya, between 150,000 and 200,000 civilians died. That is a staggering statistic taking into account the population. Today, the capital Grozny can be described as nothing more than a wasteland. By comparing the pre-1999 aerial shots with those taken after Russian carpet-bombing one can partially appreciate the horrors.

Uzbekistan, a member of the CIS and close ally of Moscow, is another country the world has forgotten. With the help of Russian troops and intelligence agents they staged a prison breakout and a subsequent massacre of 7000 civilians in Andijan. The massacre dwarfed that of China in Tiananmen Square, but the world was silent.

Hizb ut-Tahrir which has born the brunt of oppression by the Uzbek regime has produced a disturbing report of the treatment of its members in Uzbekistan. Craig Murray, former Ambassador to Uzbekistan has also written a book exposing the attrocties committed by the Uzbeks.

Chechens, Russians and all peoples of Central Asia are crying out for an end to the totalitarian states that suppress them.

The only alternative for Russia and Central Asia is the return of the Islamic Caliphate to the region. The Caliphate will abolish torture, spying on its citizens and imprisonment of political opponents. Instead it will establish the rule of law, representative and accountable government and an independent judiciary to put an end to the totalitarian regimes that exist.

Alexander Litvinenko's janazah at Regents Park Mosque in London

We must take an important lesson from Alexander Litvinenko’s death by seeing how highly Allah looks upon the one who speaks the truth even if it leads to his death. Two days before his death, Allah guided Litvinenko to Islam, wiping off a lifetime of sin and rewarding him for his last action of speaking the truth to the tyrant ruler Putin, making him the best of martyrs (shaheed).

Litvinenko takes his place alongside the thousands of Muslims who have been martyred in Uzbekistan and other countries simply for exposing the treachery of the tyrant regimes in the Muslim world.

Those Islamic political parties and Muslim dissidents, journalists and authors working tirelessly against the tyrant rulers of this world cannot lose. If they die, they become the best of martyrs; and if they achieve their goal they help in bringing the Caliphate one step closer.

May Allah guide those non-Muslim dissidents, journalists and authors to Islam so their noble actions of speaking the truth can count for them when they die.

America's warm relations with the Caliphate


In nearly every speech delivered by George Bush nowadays he mentions the word Caliphate.

The re-establishment of the Caliphate is seen as a nightmare scenario by many in the US administration. A state America could never do business with.

But is this necessarily the case?

Historically, America had a warm relationship with the Ottoman Caliphate. There were cultural exchanges and trade links between the two countries. Abraham Lincoln, who signed the first treaty between America and the Caliphate in 1862, certainly saw the Caliphate as a state America could do business with.

Details of this relationship between America and the Ottoman Caliphate are as follows.

In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with the Ottoman Caliphate.

Sultan Abdul-Hamid II (1876-1909), the Ottoman Caliph who is respected by Muslims throughout the world for his refusal to sell Palestine to the Zionists, had a warm relationship with the United States.

At the very beginning of his period in office, Abdul-Hamid observed the centennial of American independence (1876) by sending a large number of Ottoman books to be exhibited at Philadelphia and subsequently donated to New York University.

Abdul-Hamid was the first foreign head of state to receive an invitation to the Columbian Exposition of 1893, held in Chicago, to honour the four-hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America. Although he did not personally attend, a total of one thousand people from Jerusalem visited the exposition. The World Parliament of Religions held its inaugural meeting in Chicago at the same time, and the Caliph’s representatives exhibited a large number of Ottoman wares and built a miniature mosque.

Abdul-Hamid asked Samuel Sullivan Cox, the American ambassador in Istanbul and the organizer of the first modern US census, to introduce the Muslims to the study of statistics.

Ottoman-American cooperation in foreign policy took place over the Muslim uprising in the US-occupied Philippines. The American ambassador Oscar S. Straus (a Jewish diplomat, incidentally, who was welcomed by the Caliphate at a time when his colleague, A. M. Keiley, was declared persona non grata by the Austro-Hungarian authorities simply for “being of Jewish parenthood”) received a letter from Secretary of State John Hay in the spring of 1899. Secretary Hay wondered whether “the Sultan under the circumstances might be prevailed upon to instruct the Mohammedans of the Philippines, who had always resisted Spain, to come willingly under our control.”

Straus then paid a visit to the Caliph and showed him Article 21 of a treaty between Tripoli and the United States which read:“As the government of the United States of America . . . has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmans; and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the partners that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two countries.”

Pleased with the article, Abdul-Hamid stated, in regard to the Philippines, that the “Mohammedans in question recognized him as Caliph of the Moslems and he felt sure they would follow his advice.”

Two Sulu chiefs who were in Mecca at the time were informed that the caliph and the American ambassador had reached a definite understanding that the Muslims “would not be disturbed in the practice of their religion if they would promptly place themselves under the control of the American army.” Subsequently, Ambassador Straus wrote, the “Sulu Mohammedans . . . refused to join the insurrectionists and had placed themselves under the control of our army, thereby recognizing American sovereignty.”

This account is supported by an article written by Lt. Col. John P. Finley (who had been the American governor of Zamboanga Province in the Philippines for ten years) and published in the April 1915 issue of the Journal of Race Development. Finley wrote:

“At the beginning of the war with Spain the United States Government was not aware of the existence of any Mohammedans in the Philippines. When this fact was discovered and communicated to our ambassador in Turkey, Oscar S. Straus, of New York, he at once saw the possibilities which lay before us of a holy war. . . . [H]e sought and gained an audience with the Sultan, Abdul Hamid, and requested him as Caliph of the Moslem religion to act in behalf of the followers of Islam in the Philippines. . . . The Sultan as Caliph caused a message to be sent to the Mohammedans of the Philippine Islands forbidding them to enter into any hostilities against the Americans, inasmuch as no interference with their religion would be allowed under American rule.”

Later, President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Ambassador Straus for his excellent work, declaring that it had saved the United States “at least twenty-thousand troops in the field.” All thanks to the caliph, Abdul-Hamid II.

The international situation today is completely different to that of Abdul-Hamid’s time. America’s obsession with the Muslim world’s resources and its war against political Islam, under the guise of the war on terror, has made it an enemy of Muslims everywhere.

But how long can America sustain its war on terror and its hold on the Middle East?

America’s international standing has been shattered by the Iraq war. It continues to pump $billions in to this war with no real end in sight. This huge drain on the American economy cannot continue indefinitely.

With the imminent establishment of a Caliphate in the Muslim world America needs to make some difficult choices. Either it can continue its hostility towards the Muslim world, dragging it deeper in to an unwinnable war, or it can sign a treaty with the Caliphate withdrawing its armed forces in exchange for continuing oil supplies. Such a treaty would be humiliating on both sides given the massive hostility between the two counties, but better that, than more innocent blood is shed.

The Caliphate: tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime


Latest Home Office figures show that one in four British people have been victims of crime.

Crime is at such epidemic levels that Britain’s prisons are at bursting point with the government releasing prisoners early to free up spaces.

British people have the lowest level of confidence in the ability of the Government to get a grip on criminal behaviour, according to a recent poll carried out by Ipsos MORI. Of those questioned, 43% placed crime as their top concern.

Another poll revealed that one in five adults, nearly 10million people, want to move abroad citing crime as a major contributing factor.

These figures are not surprising given the growing lawlessness sweeping Britain especially among its youth. Government incompetence over crime and the diversion of scarce police resources in to clamping down on law-abiding Muslims under the guise of fighting terror is all contributing to this problem.

Although there is more chance of someone winning the lottery than being a victim of terror, £millions is wasted dealing with fantasy terror threats that are more about publicity than security. The botched Forest Gate raid left a law-abiding Muslim family destroyed after their home was raided and one of their sons shot. Their name was rubbished in the media and their family home had to be virtually rebuilt after the police search. According to Scotland Yard the raid cost £2m of taxpayers’ money.

The Terrorism Act 2006 was another government publicity stunt. When this Act was going through parliament and the full implications of some of the clauses became apparent, doubts began to grow over whether this new Act was actually about stopping terrorism or was there some other agenda.

John Falding whose girlfriend Anat Rosenberg died during the 7/7 attacks, told BBC Radio he thought the new laws were a public relations exercise.

“Most of the (new) provisions are covered by existing legislation and my first thought was that this was just a bit of public relations by the government,” he said. “Suddenly we have this grand new anti-terrorism act. But then, when I look more closely at the provisions and see how widely they're drawn, I think there must be another agenda here. It's so catch-all. Ally this to other measures that the government have taken throughout the civil liberties field and I started to get concerned -- and I don't feel reassured that this is going to help us much in the fight against terrorism.”

The government response to this spiralling crime problem has further fuelled people’s disaffection with the whole criminal justice system. Criminals are more and more given non-custodial sentences to ease the prison population, and in the unlikely event that a criminal is actually sent to prison they face being released less than half way through their sentences.

Government policy on crime and terrorism is clearly playing a part in failing to solve the growing crime problem. But it’s the lawlessness and crime culture among the population, especially the youth that is playing the major part.

Researchers for the Institute for Public Policy Research found British youth among the worst behaved in Europe with ABSO’s being seen as badges of honour for many people. Crime, drugs, alcohol abuse, dysfunctional families and sexual promiscuity are plaguing not just Britain but most, if not all western societies.

The culture underpinning this growing lawlessness is rampant individualism due to the society’s belief in freedom and liberalism.

Tony Blair alluded to this at the launch of his 5 year strategy on crime back in July 2004 when he said: “The 1960s saw a huge breakthrough in terms of freedom of expression, of lifestyle, of the individual's right to live their own personal life in the way they choose… But with this change in the 1960s came something else, not necessarily because of it but alongside it. It was John Stuart Mill who articulated the modern concept that with freedom comes responsibility. But in the 1960's revolution, that didn't always happen.”

This often cited doublespeak of ‘freedom with responsibility’ has no reality for most people. Secularism has eroded religious morals of responsibility and as such the growing trend is ‘freedom from responsibility’, where freedom is mandatory and responsibility at best is optional, and at worst totally ignored. Muslims in Britain are not immune from this trend. The call for Muslims to integrate and adopt the secular culture of Britain has led to the same criminal behaviour being found in the Muslim community as found in wider society.

Would a future Caliphate fair any better in its approach to crime or is criminal behaviour just a fact of modern life?

The Islamic Caliphate takes a two pronged approach to crime.

Firstly, it creates a culture of God Consciousness (taqwa) and community responsibility among the society. Even when no police are watching them, Muslims will still obey the law because they know Allah is watching them and will account them for all their actions no matter how small when they die.

Allah (swt) says, "And We are nearer to him than his jugular vein" [TMQ Qur'an 50:16]

Islamic law (shariah) contains many edicts about the rights of neighbours and responsibility to the community at large. There is no concept of turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour or ignoring those in distress.

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, “On every person's joints or small bones (i.e. fingers and toes), there is charity every day the sun rises. Doing justice between two people is charity; assisting a man to mount his animal, or lifting up his belongings onto it is charity; a good word is charity; every step you take towards prayer is charity; and removing harmful things from pathways is charity.” [Bukhari & Muslim]

Secondly, the Caliphate has a strong and effective criminal justice system. Islam is known for its harsh punishments and these act as a deterrent for those weaker individuals tempted to disobey the law. Those accused are afforded full judicial rights in a court of law. Islamic courts do not accept circumstantial evidence as a legal proof, and only trustworthy witnesses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, are allowed to give testimony. Confessions extracted under torture or duress are inadmissible.

One of the principles underpinning the judiciary is that it’s better to let a guilty person go free than punish an innocent person. This attitude together with a high burden of proof will minimise miscarriages of justice in the Caliphate.

People in Britain and elsewhere are crying out for a society where people have respect, responsibility and play by the rules. This is evidenced by one in five people thinking of emigrating. As Tony Blair said, “They know there is such a thing as society. They want the society of respect. They want the society of responsibility. They want the community where the decent, law-abiding majority are in charge. Where those who play by the rules do well, and those who don't get punished.”

Secular liberal democracy has not and cannot deliver this. Only the Caliphate can do this as it did for over 1300 years.
 

MENGENAL HIZBUT TAHRIR