Khilafah Megazine April 2003

Today Muslims are witnessingcrusader forces waging war oncemore against Islam and the Muslimpeople. The US together withBritain, have unleashed theirarmada of forces to ransack the Muslim land of Iraq,so as to fulfil their colonialist aspirations...

The American imperial crusade against Iraq is evident forall to see. The bombs have been raining down onBaghdad to a level never witnessed in any militaryexpedition in the past and aptly referred to as 'shock andawe' by the Americans. The use of the term 'war withIraq' obscures the true hegemonic ideals of the Bushadministration...

CCRRIISSIISS OOFFGGLLOOBBAALLIISSAATTIIOONN KKEEYY

TTOO WWEESSTTEERRNN CCRRUUSSAADDEEIINN IIRRAAQQ

ContentsMuharram - Safar 1424 - April 2003

KhilafahCover Issue 4 Volume 16

April 2003 Khilafah Magazine 3

EEddiittoorriiaall

NNeewwss ffrroomm aarroouunndd tthheewwoorrlldd

4

"Our armies do not come toyour cities and lands asconquerors or enemies, but asliberators" the Britishannounced. Lt. Gen. StanleyMaude's army routed theIraqi's, having entered thecountry through Basra, beforemoving swiftly north...

Bush: "The day of yourliberation is comingsoon"

Powell admits using falseevidence...

IIRRAAQQ UUPPDDAATTEE 8

5

UUSS VVIISSIIOONN FFOORRPPOOSSTT SSAADDDDAAMM IIRRAAQQ

TTHHEE TTRREEAACCHHEERRYY OOFFTTHHEE RRUULLEERRSS OOFF

MMUUSSLLIIMMSS IINN TTHHEE 44TTHHCCRRUUSSAADDEE

TTHHEE BBAATTTTLLEE OOFFMMUUTTAA''

IIRRAAQQ -- TTHHEE CCRRAADDLLEEOOFF CCIIVVIILLIISSAATTIIOONN

The eyes of the world are fixedupon the land of Iraq, the plight ofits people and the evolution of theongoing war. However the landknown in recent years as Iraq ispossessed of an incredibletapestry of history which has seenthe rise and fall of entirecivilisations,

1. Israel and it’s myth ofinvincibility 2. Protests inMuslim countries 3. Franceready to oppose America 4. Coaperate America Makes akilling .5. For Queen &country 6. Oil funds toreconstruct Iraq’s dependance7. Saudi’s Grand Mufti callsfor patiance & obediance

They promised shock and awe. They promisedpsychological warfare. They promised liberation.They delivered bloodshed. The crusading forcesare now fighting their way to Baghdad, no flowersto greet them on streets but plenty of bullets. ...

10

612

17

20

23

magazine

GGaalllleerryy

In the 8th year of Hijrah, Rasulallah (saw) sent outinvitation letters to all the rulers of the powerfuldisbelieving states and the arrogant superpowerscalling them to Islam. He (saw) sent al-Harith bin'Umair al Azdi, with a letter to the ruler of Busrainviting him to Islam. It was intercepted bySharhabeel bin Amr al Ghasani, the governor of al-Balqa and a close ally to Heraclius, the Romanemperor...

A picture paints a thousandwords. But what if the picture hasbeen doctored by the Americanarmed forces prior to mediarelease, how many of these wordsdo you now believe?

RREEPPOORRTTIINNGG TTHHEE WWAARR-- TTHHEE NNEEWWSSIINNDDUUSSTTRRYYEEXXPPOOSSEEDD

14

EEXXPPOOSSIITTIIOONN OOFFCCAAPPIITTAALLIISSMM -- TTHHEECCOORRRRUUPPTTEEDD CCRREEEEDD[PART 3] DEMOCRACY

No matter how fearless, enduring and resilient acivilian population, it needs outside support whenfighting state-backed military occupation. And inthe case of Occupied Kashmir, right from the timewhen the noble Muslims of the FrontierProvince...

25

TTHHEE FFAALLLLAACCYY OOFFIINNTTEERRNNAATTIIOONNAALL

LLAAWW 18

Until recently, the notion of one ortwo nations attacking a sovereignstate without the support of theUnited Nations would have beeninconceivable. Internationalpolitics used to revolve aroundmultilateralism and internationallaw. Today, America hasfashioned for itself a new politicalclimate; unilateralism andnational interest...

Khilafah Magazine April 20034

EditorialKhilafah Magazine · www.1924.org · [email protected] magazine

EditorDr Imran Waheed

Editorial BoardAsif KhanAhmad JassatJalaluddin PatelAbdul Hamid JassatSajjad Khan

Sisters EditorialAdvisorsDr Nazreen NawazRuksana RahmanSameena Asghar

No Copyrights

Since Islam rejects copyrights and patents you arefree to reproduce articles contained within thispublication. It is our kind request that when doingso you cite the author and source of the article.

Translation of the Qur’an

It should be perfectly clear that the Qur’an is onlyauthentic in its original language, Arabic. Sinceperfect translation of the Qur’an is impossible, theterm ‘Translation of the Meaning of the Qur’an(TMQ) has been used, as the result is only a crudemeaning of the Arabic text.

Subscription details

Subscription charges:

£20 per annum including postage UK€40 per annum including postage Europe

To subscribe to Khilafah magazine please refer to:Internet Site: www.1924.orgemail: [email protected]

or write to: Khilafah Magazine, Suite 298,56 Gloucester Road, London,SW7 4UB

Published by Khilafah PublicationsSuite 298, 56 Gloucester Road, London, SW7 4UB

Khilafah Magazine is a monthly magazinepublished in London with a wide distributionacross the Muslim and non-Muslim world. Themagazine is dedicated to articulating the case forIslam as an ideology that deals with all humanproblems, whether individual or societal. Islammust be understood ideologically and has adefined political and ruling system – the KhilafahSystem.We maintain that the 'Clash of Civilisations'is not only inevitable but imperative. As theCapitalist ideology dominates the world today, theonly challenge to it must come from Islam.

We write to inform, inspire and create a movementfor true intellectual revival.

News EditorDr Samiul Muquit

Production and PublishingMokbul HussainKosser Mohammed

They promised shock and awe. They promisedpsychological warfare. They promisedliberation. They delivered bloodshed. Thecrusading forces are now fighting their way toBaghdad, no flowers to greet them on streetsbut plenty of bullets. The brave Muslims ofIraq, with their simple weaponry resist thewestern crusaders in a way that brings hope forall Muslims around the world.

It is now clear for all to see, especially theMuslims who work to restore the rule of Islamand bring life to their ideology, that Western'Civilisation' is dead. Dead and buried. TheWest has failed to convince the Muslims oftheir ideology, Capitalism. They have failed toconvince us of Secularism. The hypocrisy ofdemocracy has become transparent. Thecharade of International law and the U.N. hasbeen exposed. The entire Muslim World todaycalls for a change, and this change is no longerinspired by the western people or the westernideology, but in spite of it. We have seen fromAmman to Rawalpindi, Mombasa toDamascus, huge demonstrations against thewar. Unlike the demonstrations in the West(which have largely retained the status quo bycalling for the Western ideological solutions)these demonstrations are against the rulers ofthe Muslim world, calling for the 55 odd'cartoonic' states to stop their acquiescencewith the Crusaders and send their armies tointervene. Many of these demonstrations havebeen suppressed by the governments. Indeedthese states are on their last legs. Even Americahas given up on them, choosing instead todirectly colonise the Muslim World as Britaindid before it. The new American Viceroy willbe an American diplomat; at least this is whatthey hope.

The time has come for a change. The time hascome to remove the rulers plaguing theMuslim world, either directly through themasses or through the strongest elements. Andit is to these strongest elements that theMuslims in the West must direct their attentionto. In reality, Khilafah has been established - itnow needs to be announced. The people areready, the rulers have failed, what is left is fora general in Syria or Egypt, Pakistan or Turkeyto feel sufficiently agitated that he picks up thephone. The Muslims in the West need to calllouder for Khilafah, louder than they ever have- to send that final message that the Ummah isready. Any work that detracts us from Khilafahdetracts us from saving the Muslims of Iraq.

We believe, by the will of Allah (swt), changeis not far away. Then let the believers rejoice.

Jalaluddin Patel

THE KHILAFAHHAS BEEN ESTABLISHED

(IT NOW NEEDS TO BE ANNOUNCED)


ReferenceGallery

News


From Around The World

ISRAEL AND ITS MYTH OFINVINCIBILITY

The Israeli economy has been continuingto slow down and is currently in its thirdyear of a recession that is believed to bethe worst in its 54-year long history.Israel's economy contracted by 1% in2002 after a 0.9% fall in 2001 and thebudget deficit is running at 6%, twice theforecast for 2003. This has led Israeliofficials to run to their usual 'ally', theUS, to beg for an estimated aid packageof $10 billion. Other reports clearly showthat the standard of living in Israel hasconsiderably declined recently.

"It is the deepest recession that we haveever experienced in this country," saidUriel Lynn, chairman of the IsraeliChamber of Commerce. "We have lostabout $2.5 billion in terms of businessproduct". Financial observers areblaming the 30-month-long Palestinianintifada against Israeli occupation andthe global economic slowdown to haveplunged Israel into its third year ofrecession.

US State Department official RichardBoucher confirmed: "The request hasbeen made by the Israelis … we arelooking at it. We are considering it". TheIsraeli appeal comes despite being thelargest recipient of US military aidannually totalling $3 billion. Last yearIsrael spent more than 10% ofgovernment spending on its militaryexpenditure, compared with an averageof about 2-3% in the UK and 5% in theUS.

This scenario begs the question as to whyIsrael- the so-called regional'superpower'- is suffering from suchacute economic downturn? Is it the casethat Israel is fighting a fully-fledgednation with its state of the art militarythat led to this dire situation?

Nevertheless, if one examines the realityof Israel's opponents it illustrates that theZionist entity is fighting a force thatcomposes of a few stone throwers anduntrained individuals determined toliberate their land from an occupyingforce. The fight against a few civilians iscausing Israel's economic, military,political and psychological ruins. Indeed,had there been an independentideological Khilafah State with itsmodern military then Israel by nowwould have been in dire straits.

The myth that Israel controls Americaand thus it is an invincible entity isnothing but pure illusion. The US is acapitalist nation and thus does not bear adivine burden of maintaining Israel.Rather the US considers her interestsbefore the interests of others. The 'unity'

between capitalist nations is purely basedupon self-interest. Therefore, even withthis current geographically disunitedUmmah, had there been the political willon the corrupt rulers of the Muslims toliberate the Muslims of Palestine fromthis rogue state with pre-emptive strikes,it is indeed far less than impossible.

Wakil Ahmed

PROTESTS IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES -SHOW DIVIDE BETWEEN RULERS ANDTHE RULED

Scores of demonstrations have takenplace against the US led war on Iraq inthe Muslim world. Many Muslims havevented their anger at their owngovernments' lack of action to stop thewar and also to stop assisting in the warby providing military bases.

This discontent has led to massdemonstrations in many Muslimcountries including Egypt, Syria, Qatar,Kuwait and many more countriesincluding Indonesia, where protesters inJakarta, shouted anti-US slogans. "Wecondemn the evil aggression againstIraq. Hizb ut Tahrir, the group whichorganised the rally, said in a statement.

The Muslims of India were also enragedat the unjust war with over 15,000Muslims marching in Calcutta chanting"This war is anti Islamic," Reuters newsagency reported.

In Pakistan, demonstrations took placealmost every day, the largest of whichwas attended by up to 500,000 people.These protesters' view is the same as thatof the rest of the Ummah as they chanted,"this is a war against Islam."

The feelings of protesters throughout theMuslim world were reflected in some ofPakistan's most prominent newspapers.

"America has sown the seed of discordamong the Islamic Ummah," said aneditorial in Nawa-i-Waqt, one of thelargest Urdu-language newspapers.

The Nation, a Pakistani English-language newspaper fronted the editorialheadlined "The dogs of war," which said,"...the Muslim states must decidewhether they will combine for theircommon defence, or be picked off one-by-one, at the aggressor's choice". As forthe Muslim states it seems they havealready opted for the latter. Many otherpapers around the Muslim world hadsimilar reports.

Whilst many Muslims all over the worldare taking part in mass demonstrationsdemanding that their governments assistthe Muslims of Iraq, the rulers are doingquite the opposite by aiding and assistingin the murder of their brothers and sistersby allowing the use of military bases,remaining silent over this unjust invasionand secretly funding the war, inexchange for personal benefits.

As the pictures of mutilated Muslimchildren are shown the resentment of theMuslims grows towards their rulers whoidly sit back and watch the massacre ofMuslims yet again.

Kosser Mohammed

FRANCE READY TO OPPOSE AMERICANAND BRITISH POST-WAR PLANS FORIRAQ

The clash between America and Franceover Iraq continues even after Americaattacked Iraq. French President JacquesChirac said on 21st March that Francewould oppose a new United Nationsresolution that would allow the UnitedStates and Britain to administer post-warIraq.

At a European Union Summit, Chiracsaid he would "not accept" a resolutionthat "would legitimize the militaryintervention (and) would give thebelligerents the powers to administerIraq." Chirac said, "That would justifythe war after the event."

British Premier Tony Blair had urged his14 colleagues at the Summit to support anew UN resolution to authorize a post-Saddam Hussein "civil authority in Iraq."

So far America and Britain have notstated publicly that they are planning toseek Security Council authorization toadminister post-war Iraq. But Chirac'scomments warn Washington and Londonthat France would oppose and perhapsveto any such resolution.

Chirac said he had blocked anydiscussion with the British on the costsof Iraqi reconstruction, saying it waspremature at this point. Blair suggestedreconstruction funds could come fromthe sale of Iraqi oil. "We are at themoment destroying. Let us wait to seewhat has happened before we startreconstruction," Chirac said.

This pre-emptive manoeuvre by Franceis nothing but a warning that it will notallow America and Britain to share thebooty between themselves. France too isa colonial power, and it has a longhistory of occupation of Muslimcountries. France had earmarkedcontracts in Iraq worth billions of dollarsbefore America decided to invade Iraq,and it is this that France is desperatelytrying to secure. This same problem alsofaces Germany and Russia and is clearlythe motive in opposing the war.

It must be remembered that Capitalistnations do not have permanent allies orpermanent enemies. Only their interestsare permanent, and it is these intereststhat shape their foreign polices. So,provided that the precious Iraqi oil andcontracts are shared between the colonialpowers, France will be the first in thequeue to secure its interests.

Shabir Ahmed

CORPORATE AMERICA MAKES AKILLING

As western governments scramble tocollect the war booty in Iraq, theirrelationship with their corporate mastersbecomes increasingly evident. Whilst USdefence contractors are once again usingthe conflict to exhibit their weaponsystems to buyers around the world,other corporations with close links to theUS administration are already makingmoney providing 'logistical support'during the war.

The Iraq reconstruction plan is billed asthe biggest reconstruction project sincethe Second World War, with thepreliminary work alone estimated to beworth up to $900million according to theWall Street Journal. US Agency for

News


From Around The World

International Development has alreadyinvited bids for contracts from five largeUS corporations: Halliburton, BechtelGroup, Fluor Corp, Parsons Corp, andthe Louis Berger Group.

UK PLC fears of US companies gettingthe most lucrative contracts led PatriciaHewitt, the Trade and Industry secretary,to seek assurances from the USgovernment that British companies(including Amec, Balfour Beatty,Costain and Thames Water) will beoffered a role in the reconstruction ofIraq.The Financial Times said "SomeBritish executives believe Britain shouldbe rewarded for the supportive stance ithas taken on Iraq and UK companiesgiven a substantial role. They fear thatBritish aid will be channelled throughinternational agencies and the EuropeanUnion, where French and Germancompanies will benefit" ( 24/03/03). TheUK's P&O is bidding for sub-contracts torebuild Umm Qasr even before coalitionforces have finished destroying it!

Corporations like Halliburton are alreadyprofiting from war time contracts.Thousands of Halliburton employees areworking alongside US troops in Kuwaitand Turkey under a package deal worthclose to a billion dollars. Notsurprisingly, Vice President DickCheney, former chief executive ofHalliburton, still draws "deferredcompensation" of up to a million dollarsa year from the company. "The Bush-Cheney team have turned the UnitedStates into a family business," saysHarvey Wasserman, author of The LastEnergy War. "That's why we haven't seenCheney - he's cutting deals with his oldbuddies who gave him a multimillion-dollar golden handshake. Have they nograce, no shame, no common sense?Why don't they just have Enron runAmerica? Or have Zapata Petroleum(George W. Bush's failed oil-explorationventure) build a pipeline acrossAfghanistan?"

In fact it is Capitalism in general and notjust this US Administration thatrepresents rule by and for the corporateinterest. It is the false rules andprinciples underlying Capitalism thatinevitably lead to a concentration ofpower and a policy of colonisation.

Abid Javaid

FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY

Over the past few months, we witnessedthe British government struggling toconvince a sceptical public that war withIraq was necessary. Despite buildingjustification for aggression against theIraqi people on a number of different

platforms - ranging from Iraqipossession of weapons of massdestruction to the immoral andoppressive nature of Saddam's regime -opinion remained deeply divided.

However, as widely predicted, with theonset of armed conflict the mood of thepublic has shifted enormously, such thatthe people are now firmly behind theirgovernment's decision to go to war.Various opinion polls and surveys haveconfirmed that an increasing section ofthe British public is indeed supportive ofthe action being undertaken.

There are those who have given priorityto their sense of patriotism, their love forthe nation, over and above misgivingsabout the rights and wrongs of theconflict and have decided to weigh inwith the general patriotic mood of thenation and support the government'sstance and back their troops operating inIraq.

Others, sensing the difficulty of goingagainst the prevalent public feeling andnot wanting to be labelled as unpatriotic,have attempted to reconcile theiropposition to the war with loyalty to thecountry.

For example, it is this that has led to theLiberal Democrats adopting the ratherparadoxical position of remainingstaunchly opposed to the war (given thatit was not sanctioned by the UN) but atthe same time supporting the Britishtroops stationed in the Gulf.

And Dr. Rowan Williams, theArchbishop of Canterbury,representative of that long time bastionof compromise, the Church of England,reaffirmed that the conflict is wrong andimmoral, but also publicly blessed thearmed forces of the nation!

Many Muslims living in Britain havefound themselves in this same apparentdilemma. There is a sense of expectationfrom the public, that being resident here,Muslims should demonstrate theirloyalty first and foremost to Queen andcountry. In the current situation, it wouldseem that 'unpatriotic' Muslims run therisk of a potential backlash from both thepeople and the media.

However, in Islam, there is no concept ofpatriotism, of blindly supporting andidentifying with others, regardless of thelegitimacy of their actions, simplybecause they occupy the same land andnation.The Prophet of Allah (saw)showed us that in the Islamic society,allegiance is not given to family, tribe ornation. Indeed, the loyalty is solely tothe Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnahof His Rasul (saw).

Islam demands that all actions be just,justice and injustice being defined byAllah (swt). And Islam clearly forbidsaiding and supporting those who dowrong, even if they are family members.That is why the actions and policies ofthe Islamic State are subject to scrutinyfrom the Ummah, and deserve hersupport only when they are in conformitywith the commands of Allah (swt).

Ghayyas Hussein

OIL FUNDS TO RECONSTRUCTNOTHING OTHER THAN IRAQ'SDEPENDENCE.

Whilst the war against Iraq and its peopleis concluding, American policy thinkersand officials are focusing their thoughtsto post war Iraq. What is envisaged is an'American friendly' regime or evenregimes that would pay for the Americanand British destruction, and further forthe war that caused it.

This post war thinking is being portrayedto the world as a humanitarian concernfor the people of Iraq but in reality thiscould not be further from the truth.Actually, suggestions have been made tosay that profit made by selling Iraqi oilresources would cover the cost ofreconstruction and may even go to fundthe costs of the war.

Given current oil prices, which areconstantly manipulated by America andothers, Iraq would only pull in roughly$14 billion a year, whereas the actualcost for re-building Iraq calculated byAmerican policy makers is nearer to $25billion a year. This figure can then alsobe projected against the knowledge thatAmericans would further push down oilprices after the war is concluded. AlsoIraq's foreign loans and debt which someestimate is running over $200 billion,would ensure that most of the post waroil revenue would go towards servicingthese loans and debts. The figures justdon't balance. But this is not a concernfor the American administration, whichhas already granted contracts for oil richports like Umm Qasr to the likes ofAmerica's own Halliburton (headed atone time by Dick Cheney).

To conclude, the people of Iraq will befurther subjugated to oppression andtyranny under criminals whose trackrecords make Saddam appear merciful.

Adil Jan

SAUDI'S GRAND MUFTI CALLS FORPATIENCE AND OBEDIENCE

Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh told pressagencies on Sunday March 23, that inlight of the current US led war on Iraqthe believers should remain patient andcalm "obeying the leadership under allcircumstances." His remarks which werealmost as treacherous as the Al Saudfamily itself are reflective of the extent towhich public disenchantment in thekingdom has reached.

Scores of previously passive Muslimyouth have been agitated into thinkingabout the affairs of the Ummah in lightof America's blatant war against Islamand the Muslims. Their choice is clear;Islam. Not only have they made theirchoice, but they have also identified thatthe cause of the Muslims' humiliation isdue to the complicity of our rulers.

All this makes uneasy going for Saudi'sruling family who know no shame.These traitors to Islam and the Muslimsare now hiding, attempting to legitimisetheir position of cowardice andsubservience by issuing fatawa. They'refooling no one. The 'sheikh' was alsoquick to advise the Muslims "don't rushfor Jihad." Since 9/11 and the subsequentbacklash against the flailing kingdom inAmerica, Saudi is now trying desperatelyto portray herself as a moderate state.She is caught in a triadic struggle. On theone hand she is trying to strengthen herties with the Bush administration, whilstguarding against bitter internal rivalrieswhich are accentuated further by therising tide of Islam on the streets ofRiyadh and Jeddah.

Shiekh Abdulaziz would also do well toremember his obligations as a scholar.He should look to the example of ImamAhmad bin Hanbal (ra) who spoke thetruth, even though it cost him dearly. Ifthis is beyond him, then he should moveout and make way for the sincere Ulemawho will not tremble before tin pottyrants and who will not attempt toconceal their treachery.

Shiraz Maher


BUSH: "THE DAY OF YOUR LIBERATION ISCOMING SOON"

In his address on 17 March, George Bush promisedthe Iraqi people that: "The day of your liberation iscoming soon". Clearly seeking to convince theMuslims to believe that this American led crusade'spurpose is to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyrannyof Saddam. The same drivel was espoused byWashington before the war against the Muslims ofAfghanistan was waged. We were told that the peopleof Afghanistan needed liberation from a tyrannicaland brutal regime. Yet 18 months on, exactly whatliberty and freedom do the people of Afghanistan nowenjoy, and has the Bush administration honoured themany promises she made prior to the conflict? Thusfar only 16% of the money promised to rebuildAfghanistan after its liberation has arrived. US troopsstill guard Karzai a former Unicol advisor whoAmerica hand picked, and the 'liberation' killed tens ofthousands of innocent people.

Beyond the promise of creating strong democraticinstitutions, America was also keen to draw attentionto the issue of our sisters in Afghanistan. Referring tothem as mistreated and oppressed the White housepromised they would elevate the status of women.Despite the western definition of this being dubiousenough, Bush personally went on to block $134million of aid earmarked for Afghani women citingdomestic issues as a reason. It was then decided that$2.5 million would be donated of which only$120,000 has been delivered to date. In similarfashion, at the Tokyo conference, America promisedto rebuild Afghanistan and not to neglect her like theydid in the past. The Bush administration boldlypledged $4.5 billion towards the rebuilding of Afghaniinfrastructure although less than $300 million has everbeen delivered.

In the last 18 months, America still struggles todismantle that single so-called terrorist organization.Few of its supposed leadership have been capturedand none have ever been charged, let alone tried.Scores of militia and tribal warlords continue to roamAfghanistan without any sense of law whilstassassination attempts on Loya Jirga members are aregular occurrence. The peace and security promisedby Washington shows little sign of materialising.

Whilst US intervention in Afghanistan has broughtnothing but the colonisation of yet another Muslimland we must ask, what else can we expect from these21st century crusaders? In the past it is clear that the

West has promised much and delivered little. Iraq maywell be liberated from the tyranny of Saddam, but shewill only go on to be enslaved by the shackles of thecolonialists. Liberation can never be the replacementof one secular state with another. And how does theimposition of sanctions that have killed tens ofthousands of people and their daily bombardment intwo wars amount to their liberation?

Shiraz Maher

POWELL ADMITS USING FALSE EVIDENCE

Although the war is well under way and the world'seyes are focused on the crusader attack on Iraq it mustalways be remembered that this war is founded uponlies and manipulation of the facts.

The documents Colin Powell used when he stood infront of the UN Security Council to present the'evidence' the US had gathered against Iraq waspronounced counterfeit by International AtomicEnergy Director, General Mohamed El-Baradei.When Colin Powell was asked about this he said, "Itwas provided in good faith to the inspectors and ouragency received it in good faith, not participating ... inany way in any falsification activities." He furthersaid, "It was the information that we had. We providedit. If that information is inaccurate, fine." Unable toconvince the UN or obtain a war-permittingresolution, Powell's absence during the war speaksvolumes coming from an administration that haswashed its hands now of the shackles of the now deadInternational law. Rumours of his upcomingretirement abound, Powell perhaps numbers amongstthe wars casualties.

The evidence Tony Blair used in front of his nationwas plagiarised from a document written by auniversity student in years gone by. The only thingthat is evident from this evidence, is that the desperatemeasures employed by the US and Britain forinstigating the war are clearly government spin andthe real underlying reasons for the campaign aretherefore something else.

The US and Britain claim to be acting for their'national' interests which can be translated into the'corporate' or 'economic' interests because it is US andBritish construction and petroleum firms that willbenefit from this war. It is not surprising therefore thata subsidiary of Halliburton, has won a multi-milliondollar contract to oversee any fire fighting operations

in Iraqi oil fields after the American invasion, or thatAmerican construction firms Bechtal, the FluorCorporation, and the Louis Berger Group have alsobeen given contruction contracts to rebuild Iraq'sinfrastructure after the war. One wonders if thechairmen and shareholders in such companies loosesleep over the devastation being wrought and a cynicmay suggest they are licking their lips in anticipation.

Their lies have even widened to include the 'liberation'of Iraqi people. Now Rumsfeld is talking about the"open hostility" of the Syrian regime in it's aiding ofIraq. The Muslims would wish this were true butcoming from the mouth of Rumsfeld one can onlywonder where will their lies take the colonialists next?

Asad Ali

CRUISE MISSILE ATTACKS BAGHDADMARKET

The irony of this fake war has become evident not toolong into its advent, as the people for whom theinvading allied forces have come to 'liberate' are theones who are suffering the most at the hands of theattacks. The 'shock[ing] and awe[full]' tactics havecome in two main forms, direct missile attacks onresidential areas and siege tactics designed to makethose encircled tend towards acts of desperation.There have been two major missile attacks in Baghdaddirectly aimed at residential areas. These both hitmarket areas and at times when they were at theirbusiest. The first attack was reported to have killedaround 30 people and second killed over 50. Scenes ofsevered hands, headless corpses and the skeletalremains of an Iraqi mother and her three smallchildren in their burnt out car were displayed in AbuTaleb Street after the first attack. The US army gavethe feeble excuse that Iraqi missile launchers wereplaced amongst residential areas and that Saddam wasresponsible for this atrocity. The second attack tookplace in the Shawala market, which is at the head of aresidential area in an impoverished part of Baghdad.Disturbing scenes at the Noor hospital showed thatmany of the dead were children, the latest casualties tobe 'liberated' from the US. Either the precisionweapons of the Kuffar are not so precise or their'Shock and Awe' involves the killing of innocents.

Sickening siege tactics employed by the British armyaround the Southern Iraqi town of Basra havedestroyed water and power supplies whilst alsocutting off food supply routes around the town.

IRAQUPDATE


the source. At present we are still waiting for thisuprising to occur.

4 The Executions - After the Al-Jazeeranews channel broadcast pictures of the bodies of twoBritish soldiers the ‘Sun’ claimed that the two menhad been executed. This was reiterated by Tony Blairat the Camp David press conference but had to bequickly retracted by a an official to the prime ministerwhen the families of the dead soldiers denied they hadbeen executed but instead said had died in the line ofduty.

Often what is not seen or spoken itself speaksvolumes. Though there are cameras with the troopsand often shots of firing not one casualty (Iraqi orotherwise) is shown. In fact Rumsfield and theAmerican regime have directly attacked the Al-Jazeera news channel for showing their fight in a badlight and stirring the emotions of the Arabs. The truthis Muslims rejoice when the enemy is repelled, andtheir hatred and defiance would be heightened atseeing the death of their brothers and sisters. Incontrast Regimes in the West realise the frail publicopinion of their people would turn against them totallyon witnessing the deaths of the innocent people of Iraqand the deaths of their own soldiers, killed in a warthat the people themselves did not want. This perhapsexplains why an English version of the al-Jazeerahwebsite launched in late March was taken down byunknown hackers after only two days. The WesternNews controls the public opinion and all WesternNews channels are in the control of the states whohave an obvious vested interest in doctoring what isshown. That is why farcical situations occur whereRumsfeld denies the loss and capture of a USHelicopter and its two pilots whilst simultaneously al-Jazeera is showing their capture!

5 The Basra tank 'column' - A report fromcorrespondents with the British army surfaced that120 Iraqi armoured vehicles had been spottedbreaking out of Basra in broad daylight towards theBritish forces in the Faw peninsula. The next day themedia was filled with reports of gripping encountersbetween British tanks & jets and Iraqi armour until itwas discovered that rather than the 120 Iraqi vehicles,there had only been three!

Dr Baber Qureshi

RUMSFELD WANTS US POW'S TO BETREATED AS VIP'S

The Geneva Convention resurfaced convenientlyagain after it had been ignored during the conflict thattook place in Afghanistan. America claimed that Iraqhad contravened the Geneva Convention when ittelevised pictures of five captured US soldiers on IraqiTV which were later shown on Al-Jazeera. DonaldRumsfeld stated that "the Geneva Convention make itillegal for prisoners of war to be shown pictured, andhumiliated. This is something the US does not do."Strangely this came a day after a viewing of a Ministryof Defence video of Iraqi soldiers being frog marchedwith their hands on their heads in single file. Of coursewhen Rumsfeld mentioned that this is not "what the

US do" he had forgotten about the imprisonmentwithout trial of Muslims held in Camp X-Ray,Guantamo Bay. When he said it was "illegal forprisoners of war to be shown pictured, andhumiliated" it had temporarily escaped him that theywere shown on film to the world blindfolded andkneeling in the dirt. Americas own clear contraventionof the Geneva Convention and the inhumaneconditions these people have been detained in withouttrial or charge further exemplifies the US tendency touse international law for serving its own purposes.These incidents should help the Muslims todemonstrate to the world that these texts that they holdto be sacred, such as the Geneva Conventions and theUN Charter, are not worth the paper that they arewritten on.

Ahmad Jassat

JORDAN OPENS UP IRAQ'S WESTERNFRONT

The extent of the treachery of the rulers of theMuslims in the region was highlighted further whenreports were leaked of a surprise attack being plannedby the US in conjunction with the government ofJordan. The report which quoted a top Jordaniansource, stated that the US were planning to launch anattack on Iraq's Western front from Eastern Jordanwith the use of 400 American tanks and 7,000 troopsfrom the Safawi military base, half way betweenAmman and the Iraqi border. Tanks and heavymilitary equipment have arrived by ship in theJordanian port of Aqaba and have been deployed inthe east in attempted secrecy. Marwan Muasher,Jordan's Foreign Minister, still insists that no morethan 2,000 American and British troops are in thecountry and then only for defensive purposes despitethe reports and in spite of allied special forcescommandos have been using Jordan to infiltrate intothe western Iraqi desert for days now onreconnaissance missions. The political diplomacyKing Abdullah is playing is fine balanced as Jordandepends on Iraq for 100% of its oil, half of whichcomes free and the other half bought at the discountprice of $19 a barrel. On the other hand it depends onthe US for $500 million in civilian aid and $200million in military aid.

Intriguingly the welfare of the Muslims of Iraq doesnot feature in any of the calculations which KingAbdullah and his accountants have made. They woulddo well to heed the will of their people who pouredonto the streets in support of the Muslims of Iraq.Mass demonstrations took place in the major cities ofCairo, Damascus, Amman, Tehran and Lahore wherepeople vented their anger at the US & British whilstalso pointing the finger at their own regimes for theirinaction in failing to come to the aid of their fellowMuslims.

Asif Khan

Initially Basra was not listed as a military target butafter stiff resistance from the Iraqi forces this decisionhas been reversed and the population of over 1 millionare being attacked from the air and the ground.Pictures showing civilians escaping the town andscavenging for food and water supplies from theBritish Army attempted to illustrate the helpful natureof the invading forces whilst omitting to demonstratewhy they had to flee and beg for sustenance from thehands of their slayers in the first place. The questionthat lingers is what other atrocities are being inflictedupon innocent civilians that are going unreported inBaghdad, Basra, Nasiriyah, Umm Qasr and Kerbala?

Faisal Raja

US HAS TOTALLY LOST THE PROPAGANDAWAR

The axiom; 'the first casualty of war is the truth' hasnever been more apparent than during this conflict.Twenty four hour satellite news coverage of the warhas been continuous and for the first time the US ledinvading forces have included embedded media teamsamong the forces. This has led to highlysensationalised reporting with pictures of live combata regular and popular feature. The question that arisesis that why has this occurred? The plain and simplereality is that if you have the media embedded withinthe force the main point of information for thejournalists will always be the commander in the fieldand hence the best way of controlling the informationflow. The media is a very powerful tool in transferringinformation to opposing forces and hence has theability of influencing morale, a key factor of anyarmy. The other key area that needs influencing ispublic opinion that can swing wildly either waydepending on images transmitted or reports in thepress. Hence we have seen an absolute host of lies fedto the media. However, in actual fact, this time this hasbackfired in the face of the Allied forces. Generalpeople have lost trust for the Western news sources.The following are examples of blunders that helpedbring about this remarkable outcome:

1 The 'taking' of Umm Qasr - After the firstnight of fighting a report was fed from the Royalmarines that the port of Umm Qasr had been securedby Allied forces. Days later reports surfaced that fiercefighting was still taking place for control of the port.

2 The Chemical Weapons Factory - Thenews the politicians had been waiting for broke whena Jerusalem Post correspondent travelling with the US3rd Infantry reported that a plant near Najaf had beendiscovered. US television network Fox immediatelyran the story along with the London Evening Standardbut later these reports were deemed as speculative atbest by General Tommy Franks himself and also byformer weapons UN inspectors.

3 The Basra Uprising - With allied forceshaving difficulties breaking into the town of Basra areport on BBC News 24 broke that an uprising againstthe Iraqi forces had begun. The story was broken byRichard Gaisford, a GMTV correspondent embeddedwith the British who cited "military intelligence" as

"Our armies do not come to your cities andlands as conquerors or enemies, but asliberators" the British announced. Lt.

Gen. Stanley Maude's army routed the Iraqi's, havingentered the country through Basra, before movingswiftly north. Maude's Anglo-Indian army hadinvaded Iraq wanting to 'free' its people from theirdictators. That was on March 8th 1917. The tragicirony is all too apparent now that Bush is mirroringthese duplicitous sentiments. Mimicking Maude'slies on March 18th as Bush delivered his ultimatumto Saddam, he had a notable message for the Iraqipeople. He assured them "The tyrant will soon begone…The day of your liberation is near…It is toolate for Saddam Hussein to remain in power." Hefollows in the footsteps of General Sir EdwardAllenby who 'liberated' Palestine, shortly afterMaude had 'liberated' Iraq. Keen not to be left out,the French arrived to 'emancipate' Lebanon and Syriaa few years later. It would seem then that the Westhas been 'liberating' the Middle East for years, andthis time should be no different. Their far fromillustrious history is littered with broken promises,fake smiles and cloaked intentions. Beneath theveneer of Bush's fanciful rhetoric it is important toestablish exactly how the future map of Iraq mightlook, and why its eventual design is so important topolicy makers in the Whitehouse.

A REASON FOR WAR?

Whilst trying to build public opinion for a war onIraq the Bush administration attempted to use arange of reasons to lend legitimacy to its plans,initially building the case for regime change, bypointing to Saddam's brutal past. Later the real issuewas, we are told, about Iraqi's weapons of massdestruction. Failing that, the CIA tried in vain todraw tenuous links between Iraq and Al-Qaedamaking it a legitimate target in the 'war on terror.'Whatever the reason, many have incorrectly drawnthe conclusion that the current trend of militarism,belligerence and gun boat diplomacy so widelyemployed by Washington should be seen as aproduct of September 11th. An examination of thosein Bush's cabinet before they came to office revealsa quite different story.

Six years ago a new-conservative think tank, the

'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC) wasestablished. What distinguishes PNAC from otherthink tanks is the nature of its founding memberswho include America's vice-president Dick Cheney,Lewis Libby, his chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld, thedefence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defencesecretary and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's specialenvoy to Afghanistan.

In 1998 PNAC pleaded with Bill Clinton to usemilitary force against Iraq and remove Saddam frompower. They wrote, "We urge you to seize theopportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy thatwould secure the interests of the U.S. and our friendsand allies around the world. That strategy shouldaim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein'sregime from power. We urge you to turn youradministrations attention to implementing a strategyfor removing Saddam's regime from power…webelieve the US has the authority under the existingUN resolutions to take the necessary steps, includingmilitary steps, to protect our vital interests in theGulf. In any case, American policy cannot continueto be crippled by a misguided insistence onunanimity in the UN Security Council." The letterwas signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perleamongst others.

Following Clinton's refusal to accept their advicethey persisted in writing to the former Speaker of theHouse, Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican leaderTrent Lott. Unashamedly they advocated thatAmerica "establish and maintain a strong USmilitary presence in the region and be prepared touse that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf- and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam frompower…only the US can lead the way indemonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and thattime is not on the side of his regime." They go on toobserve the perils of leaving Saddam unchallenged,noting that "the safety of American troops in theregion, of our friends and allies like Israel and themoderate Arab states, and a significant portion of theworlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard…theonly acceptable strategy is one that eliminates thepossibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten touse weapons of mass destruction. In the near term,this means a willingness to undertake militaryaction…in the long term, it means removing Saddam


and his regime from power."

Hence, it becomes clear that invading Iraq andremoving Saddam from power was a long standingobjective of the current Bush administration.September 11th was not a defining moment for USpolicy makers, nor does it represent a turning pointin Washington's attitude. The Project for the NewAmerican Century set up by the men who nowsurround Bush said that what America needed was"some kind of catastrophic and catalysing event -like a new Pearl Harbour." September 11th,provided them with that catastrophic and catalysingevent, and a pretext for carrying out their plans.

Given that Iraq has dominated the thinking of policymakers in Washington for so long, it is important toevaluate exactly why she remains such a lucrativetarget.

AFTER SADDAM

For weeks the Pentagon was in close liaison withWhitehall over the framework for how Iraq shouldbe governed after Saddam. They opted for a militaryadministration to run Iraq, much as the alliedgovernments did in Germany and Japan after theSecond World War. The ambitious plan proposes avast civil administration which will administer Iraq'saffairs from healthcare to education to security.

The plan is in three stages. The first phase is called'stabilisation'. This would see US military rule withkey administration posts being occupied byAmerican generals, diplomats and aid workers whowill report directly to the Pentagon. Commentatorssuggest that around 200,000 US and allied troopswill be stationed throughout Iraq during this phase,which will reportedly last up to eighteen month. Theoverall head of this de facto Iraqi government is mostlikely to be General Jay Garner, who conducted theAmerican campaign in Afghanistan.

The second phase is that of 'transition'. An Americanmilitary governor will rule alongside a civilianleader palatable to the international community. Atthe moment Washington's plan here is hazy. It is notknown who could fill such as role with the UNalready withdrawing her services. America favours

US VISION FOR POSTSADDAM IRAQ


fighting. The lawlessness and fragmentation thathave undermined previous Afghan regimes appearsto be rampant once again. The US pledged itself totaking a lead role in the creation of the AfghanNational Army (ANA) under the auspices of theGeneva process. Having pledged an initial sum of$50 million towards the programme, she set out toequip and train 18,000 troops. The Pentagon willnow only commit itself to developing 3000 troops. Inthe end it is a pitiful force, hardly able to meet thedaunting security challenges that confront the ATA.Other problems have also precipitated the desertionof one third of the initial recruits which include alack of ethnic balance, a shortage in resources andunenthusiastic support from US administrators.

Despite officially pledging her support for thecentral government of Hamid Karzai, US forces areknown to be frequently allying themselves withregional warlords in the hunt for Al-Qaeda andTaliban remnants. This duality is serving to causegreater fragmentation and inflames internal rivalriesin the Afghan political sphere. Additionally, thestaggering sums of money pledged by America at theTokyo conference have not yet materialised. To dateless than 16% of what was promised has beendispensed, depriving Afghanistan of the vital cashinjections she requires to rebuild her shattered andneglected infrastructure.

Washington's plan for Iraq seems to mirror the boldpromises and brazen commitments that were made toAfghanistan. Yet it would appear that after securingher strategic objectives, American forces were quickto make a hasty retreat and disregard theirresponsibilities. It is likely that the problems facedby Karzai's interim government will be similarlyexperienced by any Iraqi transitional administration.

AMERICA'S OBJECTIVES IN IRAQ

It would be foolish to neglect the most obvious USobjective in Iraq, which is to secure access to her oilreserves. This is clearly a vital issue for the Bushadministration as sanctions had dramaticallyrestricted her supply of oil onto the world markets.Despite the Saudi regime showing no sign ofreversing its current trend of slavish subservience tothe West, why is Washington suddenly so keen todiversify her choice of suppliers? Having securedhighly lucrative rights to Saudi oil after the fist gulfWar, the Clinton administration contented itself withbuilding and developing this relationship. However,the irrepressible rise of political Islam around theworld, and in the Middle East in particular is causinggreat concern in the Washington, prompting her tobecome increasingly paranoid about the potential ofher political vulnerability given her currentdependence on Saudi oil. To reduce her vulnerability,she must maker her pool of resources as diverse aspossible.

In a recent article published in the Washington Postthey found that "Arabs are increasingly funnellingtheir frustrations through the politics of Islamicparties…the shift away from secular nationalism hasaccelerated in recent years and is evident in thestreets of Baqaa and Jordan's other refugee campswhere symbols of piety have accompanied the

growing prominence of Islamic activists in theteachers union and political organising." Later, theynote that, "sentiments heard more and more oftenacross the Middle East, express thinly veiled disgustat what [Arabs] see as the impotence among the Arabworld's own rulers in the face of US and Israeliactions…[they consider that] the leaders haveweakened them."

It is precisely these kinds of sentiments which causegreat concern amongst policy makers in theWhitehouse. The once politically inert and powerlessstreets of the Middle East are now beginning to showsigns of life. Cairo, Sanaa in Yemen, Bahrain, Jordanand Lebanon have all witnessed large scale andvociferous protests by Muslims enraged at America'sbellicose foreign policy. This revival has in part beenattributed by some commentators to the creation ofnew forums for debate. Much of the Arab press hadpreviously been subject to heavy censorship. Theadvent of organisations such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabia satellite news coupled with internet accessmeans that the Muslims are now able to accesscontinuous and unrestricted information about thestate of the global Islamic Ummah. This break fromstate controlled news services has served to elevatethe political consciousness amongst the masses andhas focused their discontent on the real problem - therulers.

The results are clear. In the first Gulf War, Americaexperienced minimal opposition as she set up campin Riyadh and bombarded Iraqi forces. This time, herplans have met with widespread and unusually vocalopposition from a broad cross-section of the Muslimcommunity. The growing sounds of discontent on theArab street have reached such a level that bothWashington and the Arab regimes are finding it hardto turn a deaf ear to them.

Consequently, to maintain her sphere of influence inthe region American policy is in need of a re-think.Her plan to station up to 200,000 troops in Iraq underthe auspices of American generals will place her atthe heart of the Middle East. Iraq borders sixcountries. Its strategic position is unparalleled andserves as an invaluable watchtower over the entireregion. US control over her territory will allowAmerican troops to react quickly and decisively toany dynamic threat which challenges her interests.Washington will clearly be planning to scale downthe size of her bases in volatile countries such asSaudi, whilst offsetting this against an increasedforce in the region housed in Iraq.

The complicity of the repulsive Muslim rulers isonce again patently obvious. Their spineless regimeshave allowed the crusaders free reign over thewaterways, airspace and land of the Muslims. Onlythe Islamic Khilafah will build a strong ideologicalstate that will reverse the current trend of slavishsubservience to the West. Only its sincere leadershipwill reunify the Islamic lands, protect the Muslimsand manage the affairs of the people effectively toalleviate their suffering. z

Shiraz Maher

Norman Schwarzkopf, who led the Anglo-UScoalition forces in the first Gulf War. Now a civilian,he is a vigorous campaigner and supporter of theBush family. Cynically the EU opposes this,favouring a European candidate to counter Americaninfluence. The third phase of the scheme is the mostcontroversial and least planned. It is the period of'transformation'. Clearly, by this point Washington ishoping for the creation of a pro-American regimethat eschews the nation's recent history and embracespro-western concepts. What makes this part of theplan so vague is that there is no consensus over whocould meet such requirements. Cheney and thePentagon have favoured the Iraqi National Congress(INC) for some time and have advocated a leadingrole for Ahmed Chalabi. It is a non starter. The CIAand State Department distrust the INC and envisagea future vision for Iraq that doesn't feature them.

The gaping holes in Washington's plan may at firstseem careless. There is no clear strategy delineatinghow transition from one stage to the next should takeplace. It is still unknown, and subject to intensedebate, exactly who should occupy the roles forstages two and three. The most notable omission inthe plan is the absence of any firm timeline. Despitethe occasional passing reference to an estimatedtimeframe, America's plan for a post-Saddam Iraqfails to specify a clear time period after which an exitstrategy will be implemented. That is assuming, ofcourse, that she has an exit strategy. The ambiguityand secrecy surrounding America's plan serves avery important purpose. It will allow her militaryapparatus unrestricted and unbridled access acrossIraq whilst she secures her strategic objectives.

CAN WASHINGTON'S PLAN SOLVE IRAQ'SPROBLEMS?

Reconciling Iraq's powerful Sunni Muslims with thepoor Shi'a majority and the semi-autonomous Kurdswill not be easy. Their separatist desires will only befurther agitated by the imposition of a nationalist andcentralised bureaucracy in Baghdad. In anticipationthe US State Department has already expressedconcern that there may be a lot of 'score settling'taking place between Iraq's many factions. The INCand other Iraqi dissident groups have alreadyillustrated that their burning ambition to gain poweroverrides any concerns about elevating the conditionof their people. Serving slavishly to westerndemands, it is unlikely that they will have much timeto devote to their people. There is also the stickyquestion over what will happen to the billions Iraqowes in external debts, most notably to Russia andFrance.

Washington's proposition makes no attempt toaddress these potential hurdles making her chancesof success in post-war Iraq unlikely. The Bushadministration professed the same lofty ideals beforeattacking Afghanistan. Yet since the establishment ofthe Afghan Transitional Administration (ATA), ledby Hamid Karzai there have been notable problems.A rise in insecurity has been marked by a number ofhigh profile attacks and assassination attemptsagainst the central government. These audaciousmoves have been coupled with renewed interethnic

March 2003, to demonstrations across Pakistan on23 March 2003 amounting to three and a half millionMuslims, speaking out against the crusadersinvasion!

But what of the response of the rulers of Muslimcountries who have tremendous resources, to stopthe invading Crusaders. The rulers, rather thendefending Iraq, through their vast array of armedforces, or through economic sanctions against USand Britain, by imposing oil embargoes to theinvaders, have shown betrayal and treachery to theMuslim Ummah, by aligning with their true masters:the Crusaders, in their war and invasion of Iraq.

The rulers of the Muslim countries alone haveprovided the decisive support to the Crusaders forthem to wage this war on the Muslims of Iraq. Theyhave provided access to their land, airspace,waterways, and military bases, enabling theCrusaders to deploy their forces into strategiclocations to launch and manage their invasion ofIraq.

Whilst UAE, Kuwait, Turkey and Qatar have openlyprovided their land, military bases, airspace andwaterways to facilitate the Crusaders invasion ofIraq, others like Saudi Arabia and Jordan haveprovided equal support to this treachery, butofficially deny their participation, due to increasingMuslim public outcry against the crusading invaders.

Washington Post reported on 20 March 2003, theSaudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, saying"Arabs would blunder by actively backing Frenchand German efforts to forestall a war against Iraq",further stating "Once we join the club, then we cannegotiate what Iraq will be like after the war… Butwithout being part of the club, then we have no rolein the day after." A view, which the Washington Postsaid "Egypt, Jordan and other Arab states friendly tothe United States have begun to privately endorse".


The Saudis not content with words of support to theCrusading invaders, continue to provide theCrusaders usage of the 10,000 strong Prince SultanAir Command and Intelligence Center, together withaccess to Saudi airspace. A move, which CSMreported "has made the war much easier for theAmerican military".

In Jordan, Reuters reported Prime Minister Ali AbuAl-Ragheb saying about Jordan granting the USaccess to its border with Iraq: We are talking about afew hundred on the American side, but there will notbe any large U.S. force in Jordan and it has norelation to any military campaign against Iraq".However British ITV News Channel reported onFriday 21 March 2003, over 1,500 US Special OpsForces together with a number of Israeli Soldiers hadbegun moving into Iraq from its border with Jordan.

Turkey not content with US refusal to guaranteepayment for Turkey granting access to deploy 70,000Crusader forces on its border with Iraq, finallysettled for selling the Muslims of Iraq by providingover flight access to the Crusaders.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan the Head of Turkey's rulingparty was reported in the Turkish press to have saidthe permission for land forces would not be granted"without a written signature" on the financialpackage Turkey would be provided.

Other Muslim Rulers claim neutrality whilst theCrusaders rampage the blood and tears of ourmothers, daughters, brothers and sons of Iraq.

The Muslim Rulers realising their treachery and themounting opposition in the Muslim countries againstthe Crusader invasion of Iraq, have not altered theirposition of support to the crusading forces, but haverather began a campaign of deceit, treachery andsuppression against their own populaces, whilstcontinuing to support the Crusader invasion of Iraq.

Today Muslims are witnessing crusader forceswaging war once more against Islam and theMuslim people. The US together with Britain,

have unleashed their armada of forces to ransack theMuslim land of Iraq, so as to fulfil their colonialistaspirations.

Public opinion, particularly amongst Muslims isreaching boiling point at these outrageousdevelopments. Muslims worldwide from allstratospheres of society are increasingly becomingaware of the real motivations of the United States: itscapitalist aspirations, of enslaving the Muslims, andusurping their resources.

In the Middle East, the once secular Muslimintellectuals, professionals and journalists are alsonow speaking vociferously against the United Statesand British hegemony over the Muslims.

On 19 March 2003 Egypt's largest daily, al-Ahrameditor-in-chief Galal Dewidar wrote "There is aninevitable result for this war… "It is the increase ofhatred towards anything American because of the USrush into war".

On 21 March 2003 the Asia Times reported HusseinAbdel Razeq, a columnist with al-Ahali newspaperin Cairo, saying in a telephone interview "whilesome Iraqis may indeed welcome US troops asliberators from a tyrant and that Arabs would greetmore freedoms, they clearly reject a change by forceand perceive the US aggression as the start of anoccupation.".

The Los Angeles Times reported Hassanein Keshk, asociologist at Egypt's National Research Center, agovernment-funded think tank saying, "With theoccupation of Iraq, the streets will explode.".

Demonstrations have raged to unprecedenteddegrees in Muslim countries, from Tens ofThousands in Cairo and over 30,000 in Yemen on 20

THE TREACHERY OF THE RULERS OF MUSLIMS INTHE 4TH CRUSADE


Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in an attempt todishearten Muslims was reported in the WashingtonPost on 22 March 2003 saying: "To say that we canput off the war would be fooling ourselves". Whilstcontinuing to grant US forces flyover rights overEgypt to facilitate their crusade.

King Abdullah of Jordan not to be surpassed byPresident Mubarak summed up the mood of therulers when he said that "a miracle was needed toavert the war on Iraq".

Simultaneous to the launch of 'Shock and Awe'bombing, King Abdullah went onto JordanianTelevision, as marches arose in Jordan in oppositionto the war, and urged Jordanians to put the interestsof Jordanian stability (the Kings hegemony) abovetheir concerns for Iraq. He stated "I am one of you, Ishare feelings of every one of you." Such soundbites, do not fail to highlight his treachery infacilitating the Crusader forces in launching theirattacks upon Iraq from Jordan's borders!

Through the Organisation of Islamic Conferences(OIC) and the Arab League, the Muslim Rulers haveshown their discord even whilst attempting to cajolethe Muslims into thinking they are attempting toprotect the interests of the Ummah.

Recent OIC and Arab League meetings on 23rdFebruary, 26th February, 1st March and 25th March2003, have been riddled with slurs and attacks oneach other and exposing one another as agents of thecolonialist.

On 26th February 2003, at the OIC Summit,Kuwait's minister of state for foreign affairs,Muhammad al Sabah interrupted a speech by Iraq'sVice-President, Izat Ibrahim and exemplified hisgreat statesmanship with the words "shut up youdog". Not to be outdone in his diplomaticqualifications, the Iraqi representative responded:"Shut up you minion, you agent, you monkey".

At the Arab League meeting on 1st March 2003, atSharm el-Sheik, Libyan Dictator Colonel Gaddafiaccused Saudi Arabia to have made a pact with thedevil, and stated, whilst addressing Saudi CrownPrince Abdallah "America is used to protect thisregion because the latter is a very important sourceof energy".

Crown Prince Abdallah retorted with "Who broughtyou to power? Who brought people like yourselvesto power? Tell us the truth, who brought you topower", and according to the Washington Post on 8thMarch 2003, had accused Colonel Gaddafi to be an"Agent for Colonizers".

After un-surmounted public outcry in the Muslimlands, the Arab League Foreign Ministers latestposition on the Iraqi Crisis, set in a seven pointagenda, called to the United Nations SecurityCouncil, to stop the United States and British attackon Iraq. This attempt to deceive the Muslims throughsuch rhetoric neglects to point out the equal rights ofthe US and Britain, as permanent members of the

ironically houses one of the greatest militarymachines in the Muslims lands. Rather then utilisingthe armed forces of the Muslims in defence of theMuslims of Iraq from the Crusaders and/or theliberation of Palestine from the clutches of the Jews,the Egyptian regime has unleashed its resources toarrest, imprison and torture Muslim men and womenwho oppose the western crusade in Iraq.

Suppression has reached such degrees that evenHRW, began to lambaste the Egyptians for theirpersecution of their populace. HRW highlighted howthe 21-year regime of Hosni Mubarak had beenshaken by recent protests in Egypt. The securityforces have used water cannons, clubs, dogs, andeven stones against thousands of demonstrators atTahrir Square, Al-Azhar Mosque, Talaat HarbSquare, Ramses Street, and the State BroadcastingCorporation. HRW said "Among those beaten orarrested are university professors, students,journalists…" It further reported one pregnantfemale activist who was on her way to the protests atthe American University in Cairo, "was beaten,bound and blindfolded, and her whereabouts havestill not been established".

Through these facts we see the real strength of theUS ability in invading Iraq. It is not the USA claimto its vast military armada, but the treachery of therulers of Muslim countries, who through theirtreachery, humiliation and complacency, haveenabled the colonialists to engage in their slaughter,massacre and rampage over the Muslims of Iraq.

In these dire times Muslims must remove the realweapons facilitating the Crusader invasion of theMuslim lands, the despicable regimes that haunt theMuslims lands, and impose the dictates of theircolonial masters upon the Muslims, causing themisery and humiliation of this noble ummah.

Today Muslims must work vociferously to removethese treacherous regimes, and re-establish the nobleIslamic khilafah state, an Islamic obligation, wherethe Muslims once more would be unified under asincere leadership founded and embedded with theIslamic ideology, to liberate our lands, lives andhearts from the clutches of the Crusader imperialists,and to protect us, under the banner of a sincereleader, a Khaleefah, defending the believers.

Rasullallah (saw) said:

"The Imam is a shield, you fight from behind himand are protected by him." z

Ahmer Sajid

United Nations Security Council, to Veto any suchSecurity Council Resolution.

The Arab League further stressed once again, "thecommitment of Arab Countries abstaining toparticipate in any military act that jeopardizes thesovereignty of Iraq, its security and InternationalLegality". Whilst failing to address, the cleartreachery of facilitating the Crusaders in theirinvasion of Iraq through providing the Crusaderswith the usage of their land, military bases, airspace,and waterways.

The Muslim Rulers had further begun to rallyGovernment funded scholars to oppose the war, andto try and silence growing resentment against theregimes in Muslims lands for their treachery andcomplacency against the Crusader forces.

Reuters reported on 19th March 2003, Egypt's State-appointed Head of Cairo's al-Azhar Al-SharifIslamic Research Academy, Mohamed SayedTantawi saying "a war on Iraq would not be a war onIslam, and that calls for 'jihad' (holy struggle) werenot a call to arms".

On Monday, March 24, 2003 AFP reported SaudiArabia's grand mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al Sheikhappealing for calm, patience and "obeying theleadership under all circumstances". He furtheradvised young Saudis not to rush to heed calls forjihad, against the aggressors. Saying: "Jihad isdeclared by the imam of the ummah (a Muslimcommunity) and its leader ... we should not dragourselves into matters whose goals we are unawareof."

The Muslim Rulers further began and increased theoperation they had been planning to the samecalculated accuracy as the Crusaders preparations forthe invasion of Iraq, by beginning suppression andrepression of their own populations, who rise up inopposition to the invasion of Iraq and thecomplacency and compliance of the Muslim Rulers.The Rulers fearing that their own regimes maybe atrisk, as public opinion in the Muslims lands isreaching the point where the very foundations oftheir power bases are beginning to shudder. Now areengaged in policies of severe persecution andrepression of their own populations, who oppose thecolonialist and rally the masses against the regimesin Muslims lands, facilitating the Crusaders.

As riots and protests erupted throughout the MuslimsLands, Hanny Megally, executive director of HumanRights Watch's (HRW) Middle East and North Africadivision stated "The crackdown many feared hascome."

In Yemen as over 30,000 Muslims marched on 20thMarch 2003, police began using live ammunitionupon the demonstrators, resulting in three Muslimbeing killed and many others injured. Further inJordan HRW reported thousands of people foughtagainst Riot Police.

The greatest suppression arose in Egypt, which

true.

On the other side, there are those who believeeverything the BBC and CNN say is gospel. Theserious monotone voice of John Simpson or theinterrogating Paxman will unearth the truth.

Of course the truth can not be attained by suchsimplistic perspectives. Rather we need tounderstand the reality of the media within thecontext of the ideology upon which it is built.

NEWS - IN A RICH MAN'S WORLD

In the capitalist, democratic society, the news likejust about any other service is an industry; itspurpose is making money. Similar to theentertainment industry which is built on theproviso of entertainment in exchange for money, anewspaper is established to exchange news formoney.

So when an editor employs a journalist, he does sobecause s/he thinks the journalist can write storiespeople will want to read, not what they shouldread in terms of the truth. This is why newsagencies are not charity organisations, butbusinesses. This explains the phenomenon of the'tabloid' press which by far is the largest sector ofthe news industry. The 'tabloid' newspapers aremore concerned with entertainment than withtelling the news. Thus we have seen how what isbranded as freedom of speech or expression in theWest, translates in reality to the freedom to lie anddishonour. All Muslims in the West haveexperienced first hand how the news industry hasbeen used to vilify the image of Islam andMuslims. Ironically this has not only beenexperienced first hand by Muslims but is acommon problem for Western politicians andcelebrities.

Rupert Murdoch's The News Corporation owns132 newspapers, 22 US television stations and theHarper Collins publishing company, so that it can


Apicture paints a thousand words. But whatif the picture has been doctored by theAmerican armed forces prior to media

release, how many of these words do you nowbelieve?

During the Iraq conflict we want to know how thefight is progressing and we'll turn to the media tokeep abreast of the ever-changing news. Butunless we know what to believe and what not toread too much into, there is a real danger that webecome misinformed and ignorant about the truthand look to the world's problems without clarity.Allah (swt) has commanded us

"O you who believe ! If a fasiq (rebellious person)comes to you with a news, verify it" [TMQ Al-Hujurat 49:6]

Thus, by greater reason when a disbeliever letalone a belligerent brings the news we must verifyit.

In any war, the most intense battles take place onthe media front line. Winning the public mood andsupport for military action 'back home' are asessential to the battle command as is securingBaghdad.

Millions of pounds have been poured into feeding(and using) the media frenzy in this war, for themedia's need for a new story, a different angle, andthe all too elusive exclusive.

There are two approaches to understanding themedia during such times. On one side, there arethe conspiratorialists; ideas such as 'the Jewscontrol the media'. Some think that a billionairebaron, sat in his soft leather chair - with fluffywhite cat in hand - pushes the buttons of the press.Everything is designed to produce a piece ofdisinformation which will procure both yourattention and make you believe that which is not

make lots of money. This is why it owns mediacompanies in six continents.

In Britain, News Corporation has 31.7% share ofthe print media, the Mirror group has 27.1%,United News has 16.2% and Associated News has12.7%. The point to note is that only fourcompanies own 87.7% of the whole print industryin Britain. The broadcast industry is much thesame. It does not take a great leap of faith totherefore foresee how the media can be affectedby the government who has the capability ofgiving such companies legislation to either letthem expand or put them out of business; likeBlair recently changing the law to allow Murdochto buy channel 5.

The way the media functions can also often leavethe process of news gathering and distributionvulnerable to abuse. Immense amounts of moneyare spent on Public Relations so that companiescan use the media industry to its own advantage.

Governments are no different. Alistair Campbell,the king of New Labour's spin doctors, was part ofBritish Prime Minister Tony Blair's entouragewhen they first came into power. His sole dutywas to promote positive news to journalists andimplement damage control if a minister embroiledin scandal.

In the Kosovar crises, Campbell was sent toBrussels to make sure that all the news storieswere effectively controlled by the government. Atthis time NATO's headquarters were used as amedia centre. Javier Solana, the NATO SecretaryGeneral, told them: 'You can have anything youwant.' The old maternity hospital of Brussels wasconverted into a news room by knocking tworooms into one. Dozens of news 'spinners' wereflown in from America and Britain, civil servantswere drafted in from No 10, the Foreign Officeand the Ministry of Defence.

Campbell wrote a six page guide to information

REPORTING THE WAR - THE NEWS INDUSTRY

EXPOSED


Army Act 1955Broadcasting Act 1990Children Act 1989Children and Young Person Acts 1933, 1963and 1969Civil Service Reform Act 1978Contempt of Court Act 1981Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988Criminal Justice Acts 1925, 1987 and 1988Customs Consolidations Act 1876Data Protection Act 1984Defamation Act 1952Domestic and Appellate Proceedings(Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968Family Law Act 1986Financial Services Act 1986Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934Indecent Displays (Controls) Act 1981Interception of Communications Act 1985Judicial Proceedings (Regulations of Reports)Act 1926Magistrates Courts Act 1980Magistrates Courts (NI) Order 1981Matrimonial Causes Act 1973Naval Discipline Act 1957Northern Ireland (Emergency Powers) Act1975Obscene Publications Act 1959Official Secrets Act 1911 to 1989Police Act 1964Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984Prevention of Corruption Act 1906Prevention of Terrorism (TemporaryProvisions) Act 1989Public Order Act 1986Race Relations Act 1976Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974Representations of the People Act 1983Sexual Offences Act 1956Sexual Offences (Amendment) Acts 1976 and1992Telecommunications Act 1984Theft Act 1968Trade Union Reform and Employment RightsAct 1993Tribunal of Enquiry (Evidence) Act 1921Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949

Source: Stephenson, H. Media Freedom and Media Regulation.

On the 10th of March, Kate Adie, veteran BBCwar correspondent, told Irish national broadcaster,Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio Sunday Showthat the Pentagon attitude is: 'entirely hostile to the

warfare which detailed deployment of 'talkingheads', the spinning of 'lines' and the techniques ofaggressive rebuttal. There was a chain ofpropaganda command; all news stories from thebattle field came through Campbell and the NATOSecretary General.

So how does the media work and how can youcontrol it?

EDITORIAL COMMAND

When a journalist comes into the news office he isgiven his days work by the news editor. He may betold to go to a local church and report the Vicar'sdeath or he may be told to go to Iraq and report thewar. If you influence editorial decisions than youcan, to a certain degree, control which stories thejournalist will have an opportunity to report.

The BBC is a classic example of this. Establishedas a public service, it is monitored by 12 men andwomen called the Board of Governors who areappointed by non other than the Prime Minister.The government finances these Governors and theCorporation through the licence. In times of crisesthe BBC is expected to tow the government line.

It was reported that an internal memo, written byDirector of News Richard Sambrook andcirculated throughout the BBC, was putting thestaff under pressure to keep dissent over Iraq offthe air. The memo advised staff to 'be careful' andthat it was 'important' to have voices 'to articulatethe Bush/Blair line'. The memo indicated agrowing nervousness in the Corporation.

'Can I share a growing concern', wrote Sambrookin the email sent on 6 of February, nine daysbefore the Stop the War march. 'Listening tophone-ins and emails it seems to me we areattracting some of the more extreme anti-warviews.' While acknowledging that the public isagainst 'unilateral US action', Sambrook went onto complain that those 'motivated to call in oremail are, to my ear, frequently from the moreextreme end. The "lets have regime change inWashington London and Israel" variety. We maysometimes unwittingly be nobbled by anti warcampaigners (I heard exactly the same questionphrased the same way on 5 programmes in oneday)'.

In a study on the media reporting during theFalklands crises it was found that of the 390bulletins recorded over the period of 1 May to 14

June 1982, 141 of them were about the families ofthe soldiers in Britain. 71 dealt with familieswaiting at home, 51 with partings and reunionsand 18 with memorial services. 'but during thewhole period of the fighting we found only onecase of a bereaved relative's doubts over thecampaign being quoted.' Later in the day, thosenegative remarks were edited out and replacedwith interviews of soldiers' wives being asked'how do you pass your time?'

GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND THEOFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

Despite the fanatical belief in the freedom ofspeech in the West, there is no question but thatthe government influences the way in which themedia reports events.

In 1985 Home Secretary Leon Brittan put pressureon the BBC Board of Governors to withdraw fromtransmission an upcoming edition in the televisiondocumentary series Real Lives that portrayed twoNorthern Irish politicians, Loyalist GregoryCampbell and Republic Martin McGuiness, on thegrounds that McGuiness was an apologist forterrorism. The Governors did as they were told,precipitating a storm of protest and a one-daystrike by BBC journalists.

Under the Official Secrets Act of 1911 and 1989,the government has the power to dictate what canand cannot be published. Using these laws thecourts are empowered to send you to jail for 14years if you, 'obtain, collect, record orcommunicate to any person any information thatmight be or is intended to be useful to an enemy'.To do so for 'any purpose prejudicial to the safetyor interest of the state' is illegal.

The act is powerful because it is general in itswording, leaving it solely to the government todictate what the State considers to be worthy ofkeeping secret. Every broadcast and article youwill read during this war will have to be in linewith this law. Effectively meaning everything yousee will have been vetted.

The Press is free to print whatever it wants as longas it is OK with the;

Administration of Justice Act 1960Adoption Act 1976Air Force Act 1955Aliens Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1919


for them to report. The result will be journalismbased upon government sources and quotes. Thisis why the government releases10,000 pressreleases every year.

Another form of this same philosophy are lobbyjournalists. These are senior journalists who haveexclusive contact with senior politicians and aretreated to private chats and bites of news yet to bepublished. Such news is often printed under theterms like: 'according to senior figures in thegovernment', and, 'my sources tell me'. This isanother system by which the government passesinformation to the public and influences what isbroadcast and published.

In the current Iraqi crises, the Americangovernment built a state-of-the-art news centre inQatar . Seven hundred journalists were gatheredfrom across the globe, working for a plethora ofnews agencies, and it is these 700 hundredjournalists that are broadcasting news you watchon television.

The BBC alone has 35 reporters in the MiddleEast, 17 of them 'embedded' - along with hundredsof reporters from the American networks andother channels - in military units. Now theinvasion has begun, they will lose their freedom towrite what they want.

The BBC reports which are not from such unitsare preceded by the phrase 'The Iraqi governmenthas monitored this report'. What they do not say isthat the other reports from the Allied forces arecontrolled by the American and British Army.Affecting your perception of the truth.

Robert Fisk predicted the situation on 16 Marchbefore the war began. 'I'll hazard a guess rightnow, we shall see many of the British andAmerican journalists back to their old trick ofplaying toy soldiers, dressing themselves up inmilitary costumes for their nightly theatricalperformances on television. ' He was right.

So the next time you see a convoy of tanks trundleacross the desert on the BBC, and the same row oftanks on Sky TV, it is no coincidence but just twojournalists - standing side by side with the Alliedforces, being housed together, fed together andcatered by the British and American armed forces- sending their reports back to the news room.

PHOTO POOLS

So we're back to the picture painting a thousandwords. But where do you get the picture from, ormore to the point, how do you get to the centre ofthe action to take a picture in the first place?Either you spend hours trying to get the perfectshot or you join the photo pool. This is wherejournalists will all agree to share photographs, and

these are often provided - very graciously so - bythe army themselves.

On the 15 March, most of the British newspapershad the same front page of massed British troopsin Kuwait, complete with arranged tanks andperfectly formatted helicopters. This was afaultlessly planned photo-op organised by thearmy for those same 700 journalists they gatheredbefore the war. The orchestration is everything,the pictures posed, the angles chosen by 'minders',much as the Iraqis are attempting in Baghdad.

There are few freelance journalists who take thetime and effort to go and take pictures themselves.In the last Gulf War, the allied forces bombarded aconvoy of civilian cars trying to escape using themain road to Baghdad. Very few pictures wereever published of the carnage, which becameknown as the 'mile of death'.

PICTURES NEVER MEANT FORPUBLICATION.

These pictures were taken by a freelance journalistwho took the risk of going to the scene himself butwas never published.

NEWS SOURCES NO ONE QUESTIONS

Towards the end of February Colin Powellpresented America's proof that Saddam Hussainhad weapons of mass destruction to the UN. Onthe whole the main stream media reported whatwas said because the source was so authoritative. The New York Times and The Washington Postsaid, without a smidgen of scepticism, it was a'masterful indictment' (James Hoagland) 'thatwould convince any jury' (William Safire)."

A more damning illustration is the statementPowell made about Saddam's 'use of mustard andnerve gas against the Kurds in 1988' that killed'Five thousand men, women and children.' This istrue, but he did so with the blessings of the many

free spread of information.'

'I am enormously pessimistic of the chance ofdecent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs,'she said.

DEFENCE ADVISORY [DA] NOTICES

There is another layer of media filtering whichtakes place before publication and these are calledD notices. D notices are issued by a manemployed by the Ministry of Defence, whose jobis to look at any potential news stories whichwould be considered unsuitable for publication bythe Ministry of Defence,

Although the code is voluntary, all mainstreampress will abide by the code as a matter of practicebecause the reasons of accepting the D notices areto protect themselves from legal action from thegovernment.

Thus if the article a journalist files to his editor isnot in accordance with a D notice issued by theMinistry of Defence it will not be published.

The 5 DA Notices in force since 1993 cover thefollowing subjects;

1. Operations, plans and capabilities. 2. Nuclear and non-nuclear weapons and

operational equipment3. Cyphers and secure communications4. Identification of specific installations5. United Kingdom security and

intelligence services and special forceswww.dnotice.org.uk

LAZY JOURNALISTS

Often journalists are looking for a story, a picture,a good introduction and an interesting set ofquotes. For this they need to get a camera, findsomeone to interview and ask the pertinentquestions.

PR companies realise this, so what they offer tothe journalist are a set of good and news-worthyquotes, a photo opportunity and a nice angle forthe journalist to go to the news room and type upa story which requires little effort. The best PRcompany is the government itself.

The mainstay of all journalism is regular andreliable sources of news. Court cases, localcouncil meetings, central government pressbriefings and the Houses of Parliament. All ofthese are influenced, if not directly controlled, bythe government. If you can dictate whatinformation is fed to the media via these avenuesyou have a good control of the media. The idea isto drown the media with all the stories you wish


Reaganites who now serve Bush - includingPowell.

'The Kurds have not forgotten that Secretary ofState Colin Powell was then the national securityadviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan'sdecision to give Hussein a pass for gassing theKurds,' said former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia,Peter Galbraith. [now professor of national-security studies at the National War College inWashington, D.C.].

And finally…

The media industry is complex, there are nosimple command obedience relationships whereone force controls and dictates everything themedia says. But in times of war, the governmentwields considerable control, via editors and theOfficial Secrets Act on much of the media.

It is imperative that we keep ourselves informedand this is easier if we keep the following pointsin mind.

Everything broadcast and published in thenewspapers will contain fact as well as comment.'The Allied forces pounded Baghdad withhundreds of missiles creating a sense of real terroramongst the populace', is such an example. Fromthis sentence all you really know is that Baghdadhas been bombed. Whether this bombing was a'pounding' and what emotions were raisedamongst the people is opinion. You take the firstand make you own mind up about the second.

But more essential is to realise that we only hearone side of the story. Where are the press briefingsfrom Iraq? Where are the journalists reportingfrom where the Iraqi army is fighting? What isreported is based firmly on a Western vantagepoint.

What you read and watch in the news is not allfalse. But there are filtering processes, whichwhen taken into account, mean the news is not soblack and white. But the lies are, more often thannot, not in what you do read and watch, but whatnever reaches your screen in the first place. z

Dilpazier Aslam

The American imperial crusade against Iraq isevident for all to see. The bombs have beenraining down on Baghdad to a level never

witnessed in any military expedition in the past and aptlyreferred to as 'shock and awe' by the Americans. The useof the term 'war with Iraq' obscures the true hegemonicideals of the Bush administration. The Bushadministration is intent on integrating Iraq into a globaleconomy and imposing a political system designed inWashington as it did in Afghanistan. This will ensureeconomic and political survival for the West due to theuninterrupted access to Iraqi oil and an abundant supplyof cheap labour of over 20 million workers, not tomention access to the Iraqi consumer market. A questionon the lips of the public despite numerous attempts byBush and Blair to convince them of the arguments infavour of war is why the Bush administration afterSeptember 11th has actually embarked on militaryaggression against Iraq, a country which it hassuccessfully contained through the United Nations forthe last 12 years and is of no imminent threat to the West?The answer lies not with the desire to liberate Iraq froma dictator but with the crisis in corporate America andcapitalist globalisation. Globalisation, as a term has beenmanufactured in American research units and has cometo prominence in the last 20 years. It has captured theimagination of political elites, whom have jumped on theglobalisation bandwagon promoted by US triumphant-ists, business theorists and free market economists.Broadly speaking globalisation refers to theintensification of economic activities across boundaries,leading to the integration of production, capital andfinancial markets. Policies, such as liberalisation andderegulation adopted by countries either willingly orthrough international pressure have increased the accessto foreign markets. Access to markets is being pursuedand pushed under the rubric of globalisation. This hasfacilitated the expansion of global capital and created a'global casino' with over $1.3 trillion dollars beingtransacted everyday as result of a press of a button in,New York, London or Tokyo. In the last 20 years, thisprocess has embraced south East Asia, China, SouthAmerica and even the Middle East.A world economy has emerged in which Trans-nationalcorporations (TNCs) are more powerful than mostnational economies. Sovereign states are nowsubordinate to international economic and financialforces, while supra-national bodies like the World TradeOrganisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund(IMF) and the World Bank (WB) set the economicagenda for countries to follow. The rosy picture of anever-expanding global economy depicted by the likes ofthe IMF and WB has come to a crashing halt. The Pesocrisis in Mexico in 1995, the Russian Rouble crisis in1998, the 1997 financial collapse in Asia, the bursting ofthe dot.com bubble and the slow subdued economicrecovery after September the 11th have created a globaleconomic crisis. This is particularly evident in the United States itself,where unemployment is soaring, the dollar is losing itsvalue and major corporations like Enron and WorldComhave gone under as a result of fraudulent operations.Millions of Americans have lost savings and pensionplans through the sharp fall in the stock market. A similarstory of economic shock is taking place in Britain, wherea panic-stricken Bank of England has cut interest rates totheir lowest level for 50 years.In conditions of economic meltdown as described above,

the impetus for market expansion and domination takes amore pressing desire. Today in the 21st century, politicsis all about facilitating the work of the market and theforces of the global economy above all otherconsiderations. Bush and Blair are the chief advocates ofa new world order based on intensive globalisation. TheUS and British economies are among the most exposedto this process, far more than Germany and France.However, pockets of resistance to this new monolithicpower have emerged, such as Iraq and North Korea.They stand outside the vision of the global capitalisteconomy championed by the likes of Bush and Blair.Bush and Blair have a uniform view of a "civilisedworld" based on the "values" of freedom and democracy.This provides the ideological drive for both the "war onterror" and the invasion of Iraq. This is the same"democracy" that has allowed abandoning its ownconcept of human rights in the name of the "war onterror". In the United States, at least 1,000 people areheld in detention without trial, while prisoners aretortured in Guantanamo Bay's camp X-ray. This iscarried out by a president who blatantly stole the 2000election and represents only corporate interests. InBritain, a state of emergency officially exists to justifyopting out of the European Human Rights Act whileasylum seekers are targeted by New Labour. We are entering a new period where force and mightalone decides how the world is to be ordered anddirected. It is, in many respects, a return to the colonialistmentality of the past. The United States in particular willtake no interference with this militarist project. This isclearly apparent as it freely abandons treaties on theenvironment, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons andflouts international law when it suits her interests. Goingto war without UN backing clearly highlights this point.The only thing growing in the US is the defence budget.It will rise a further 15% in the coming year, with specialattention to developing new types of nuclear weapons.The US government is moving to a permanent warfooting in order to impose its civilisation on the rest ofthe planet.There is clearly an element of insanity in the wholebusiness. The idea that two Western powers can impose atotally alien culture and economy on a whole worldthrough what is being called "domino democracy" isdesperate in the extreme but in fact highlights their innatecapitalist nature and intent. To oppose the attack on Iraqis to reject the destructiveness of the capitalist systemand the governments that promote corporate greed,exploitation and corruption. Therefore, it is the objectiveof all Muslims to expose the true motives behind thisbombardment of our brothers and sisters In Iraq.Innocent Muslims are being killed in the pursuit ofeconomic gains by the capitalist nations, whom are readyto see the spilling of blood as long as their economies andbank balances are booming. Not only must we highlightthe true intent but we must put forward the true solutionthat will lead mankind from the shackles of enslavementunder capitalism to liberation under the Islamic Khilafahstate.

Mohammed Zahid

CRISIS OF GLOBALISATION KEYTO WESTERN CRUSADE IN IRAQ!


Until recently, the notion of one or twonations attacking a sovereign state withoutthe support of the United Nations would

have been inconceivable. International politicsused to revolve around multilateralism andinternational law. Today, America has fashionedfor itself a new political climate; unilateralism andnational interest.

America has effectively sidelined the UN and as aresult politicians and commentators havequestioned the role of the UN as the bastion ofinternational law. The new strand of Americanthinking is that the UN should deal with minorissues such as the violation of human rights andbecome the arbiter in minor disputes, but thoseissues concerning American national interests willbe dealt with by America unilaterally. This hasobviously highlighted the fallacy of the UnitedNations and its raison detre; international law.

Muslims should think politically with regardsthese issues and ask some fundamental questions;is there such a thing as international law, and doesthe United Nations exist for moral and altruisticobjectives? What is the Islamic alternative to theUN and international law?

DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW ACTUALLYEXIST IN REALITY?

The concept of international law does not actuallyhave any real meaning. It is like the notion of'peaceful war'; theoretically wonderful, butpractically unattainable. This concept is flawedfrom its basis, and it is no surprise that we havewitnessed the effective sidelining of the UnitedNations by America.

This is because the international law thatWesterners and Easterners alike religiouslyespouse to is not really a law for the world at all.For it to be an international law, it must beuniversal, applicable to all nations and ideologies.However, the reality of international law is that itis only a law that suites the strong nations whoview life from the capitalist viewpoint. It does nottake into account the viewpoints of any other wayof life. For example, the United Nations humanrights convention holds that people have the basicright to freedom of speech which fundamentallydisagrees with the Islamic 'aqeedah since anybodywho attacks the prophet (saw), the Shari'ah or thedeen is liable to punishment. The same can be saidabout the Chinese government's reaction to theTiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989 whichviolated many human rights accords andconventions, but did not contradict theCommunist ideology since criticism of the state inCommunism is a punishable offence.

So how is it possible to apply these conventionson those nations which do not hold the Capitalistviewpoint in life? This by definition means thatinternational law is not a universal law applicablefor all nations irrespective of customs, norms andideologies but it is actually a law only for thecapitalist community, since it is based on thecapitalist ideology. Therefore, we can see thatresolution 1441 which the UN passed and whichgave the basis to attack Iraq should not be calledan international law, but rather it is an Americaninspired capitalist law aimed at colonising Iraqwhich contradicts Islam and should be rejected byMuslims.

Furthermore, the concept of international law and

International Community fundamentallycontradicts the sovereignty of nations. Any strongnation will look to implement policies andsolutions which are in its interests, and will notcede its sovereignty to another nation, institutionor super-state. This is a basic fact and explains thenumber of Security Council decisions that havebeen flouted by Israel, America, France, Britain,Russia, China and other nations.

So does America refer to the Geneva Conventionwhen it comes to holding captives at GuantamoBay who to date have not been formally chargedwith any crime? In fact America does not evenrefer their cases to the jurisdiction of internationallaw. Does Britain refer to the UNHCR [UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees] whenit comes to the influx of refugee's to this country,or does it make changes to its national law toallow it to better serve its interests? Did Francerefer to international convention when it imposedits hegemony over Algeria after the Muslims ofAlgeria voted to live by Islam by a sweepingmajority?

All these examples highlight this very basic point;that strong nations do not cede their sovereignty toany other nation or institution. However, somepeople point to the European Union as an exampleof a super-state that supersedes the sovereignty ofits member countries; the European Central Banksets its own interests rates, the EU has its ownforeign policy and so on. But these points do notreally establish any real credibility forinternational law, but rather establishes credibilityfor EU law. Therefore, EU law is sovereign for themember countries in the European Union and notinternational law. Therefore, the European Union

THE FALLACY OFINTERNATIONAL LAW


America and Britain decided to disobey the law, ashas been the case a number of times in the past,who is it that can enforce it upon them?Furthermore if these powers whilst implementingthe international law flouted it at the same time,again no country could take them to task. TheAmerican invasion of Afghanistan based on themost spurious of evidences is a classic example ofthis point; not only was this a violation ofinternational law, but most of the nations of theworld did not willingly support this war, yet nocountry could take America to task over it.Therefore, the enforcement of the internationallaw by the strong countries on the weak is nothingbut aggression and a form of colonialism.Therefore, it is very clear that it is impossible toimplement the general international law on allcountries.

INTERNATIONAL TRADITIONS DO EXISTIN REALITY

What may be confusing is the distinction betweeninternational law and international traditions.International traditions have existed for centuriesand are implemented by a moral obligation. Theyexist because nations need some generalconventions in order to communicate and formalliances and so forth. For example, it is aninternational tradition that messengers anddiplomats should not be killed when they areconveying a message. This is a deep rootedtradition and is implemented by the force of publicopinion, since any nation which kills a foreigndiplomat will be seen as an aggressor nation andwill enrage people around the world. However,these traditions are not and cannot beimplemented by an international body.

HOW TO BRING ABOUT PEACE, JUSTICEAND PROGRESS FOR HUMANITY

It is clear that international law does not andcannot actually exist. What we have actuallywitnessed is in fact the manipulation of the idea ofinternational law by the powerful states to give thefake legality to their colonialist agenda. Forexample, Iraq was attacked during the first gulfwar by an American led coalition because it wasdeemed to have invaded Kuwait. Yet only a fewmonths prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait,America invaded Panama without a UN mandateor resolution. This is one of the many examples ofthe manipulation of international law by thepowerful nations to suit their political ends.

Muslims should be under no illusions that the onlyway to bring about peace, justice and progress forhumanity is by adopting an ideology that is basedon the truth. This will manifest in Muslims unitingunder the Islamic ideology which is practicallyimplemented by the Khilafah state. Allah (swt) hasrevealed:

will not cede its sovereignty to international law;otherwise it will lose its independence.

A secondary difference between the EU law andinternational law is that EU law is only applicableto member countries, since they have willinglymade the European law sovereign over their lands,since they share a common ideology, a commonobjective and common interests. Hence theirsovereignty has been transferred to the EU, andeffectively the EU can be viewed as another statelike Britain or America. However, internationallaw is applicable whether a nation accepts it ornot; it is applied irrespective of the ideology of thenation, its customs or interests. This definitelycontravenes sovereignty and if this is enforced it isreally a form of colonialism. This is exactly whatwas meted out to the Palestinians by internationallaw when the UN authorised the colonisation ofAl-Quds to the Zionist Jews in 1948.

A final point to consider is that for every nationthe law must be accompanied by an authoritywhich orders it. Without this authority the law ismeaningless. For example, if suddenly in Britainthe authorities stopped implementing the lawpeople in this country would seize theiropportunity and violate the rights of others,commit injustices and so on. This wouldeffectively make the law meaningless. The UnitedNations does not have any real authority on itsown to implement its laws. Hence we find that inreality, international law is actually meaninglesssince it is not ordered by any real authority.

When the United Nations sends its troops underthe banner of the UN, this should not be confusedwith authority. This is because these troops weregathered by an alliance of nations and not by theinternational authority itself. This means that it isnot the United Nations that ordered the authority,but actually the alliance of nations that ordered it.So, when the UN troops went into to Bosnia andso pathetically capitulated to Slovodan Milosovicand Ratko Mladic, the UN law was not ordered bythe United Nations itself but by the Dutch,Canadian, British et al troops.

This distinction is very important because whenthere is no alliance of nations to implement aparticular law or resolution then the UnitedNations is powerless and its law is meaningless.When Ariel Sharon committed his genocide inSabra and Shatila, international law was violatedbut there was no alliance of nations willing tobring Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government tojustice. Therefore, we can see that the UnitedNations does not have any real authority of itsown and hence international law is meaninglesson its own.

Another facet to this is that if the United Nationsis relying on international alliances to implementits resolutions then this is really an aggression andnot an implementation of law. This is because if

"And whosoever does not rule by what Allah hasrevealed, such are oppressors" [TMQ Al-Ma'idah:45].

Thus Muslims should not loose sleep over the factthat international law has been undermined sinceit is one of the most dangerous and oppressiveconcepts to have ever gained popularity. It isironic that the new political climate ofunilateralism on the basis of 'liberation' withoutregards for international law may well be aconducive climate for the coming Khilafah state.This is because once established, the Khilafahstate can then undertake its own actions internallyfree from the constraints of UN international laws,for example implementation of Hudud law. It willalso be free to exercise its will in its foreignpolicy, unilaterally and in contravention of the UNby engaging in Jihad due to the very precedent theUS has established.

Today, Muslims must understand that on apractical level they must reject international lawas a basis for their solutions since it contradictsShari'ah and heaps misery on the world. SecondlyMuslims must challenge the rulers of the Muslimcountries who slavishly obey international lawwhen the same international law is used as thestick to beat their people with. These rulers mustbe challenged and removed; pressure must be puton them so that those people who are able to bringabout change will find it easier to do so if themasses are with them. Thirdly Muslims shouldjoin with those who are seriously working forKhilafah upon the method of the Prophet (saw)and aid them in every way they are able.Insha'allah these practical actions will help us tore-establish the Khilafah so that we can trulyliberate the people of Iraq, America and the wholeworld. z

Jilani Gulam


chained their soldiers together so they could notbreak and flee despite dwarfing the Muslim army.They fought one another at Dhat al-Salasil - theBattle of the Chains. But they faced a man whohad been given the mighty title of Sayfullah - theSword of Allah, by the Prophet (saw) himself. TheMuslim army was victorious and inflicted a seriesof defeats against the Persians. The Persiansrallied briefly under the general Rustum, but in636 CE at Al-Qadisiyah, a village south ofBaghdad, Rustums army fought a Muslimcontingent who found themselves outnumberedsix to one, yet were crushed and Rustum slain.Thus ended Persian resistance and Mesopotamiabecame one with the Islamic state.

Arabic replaced Persian as the States adoptedlanguage and eventually became the language ofthe people, the people embraced Islam inthousands and the Muslims married from theirconverted women, and their converted men fromMuslim women. Umar (ra) ordered the building oftwo garrisoned cities to protect the Khilafah's newland: Kufah the main city and later capital ofImam Ali (ra) and the founding of Basrah whichwas also to become a port.

THE IDEOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE

The Khilafah flourished including Mesopotamiaand its people. This is a natural consequence of a

society adopting an ideology to live by. Anideology is a comprehensive idea discoveredthrough studying man, his life and the universe heinhabits. Being a comprehensive idea it canprovide answers to any problems man faces andorganise the systems of society without need oflooking elsewhere.

THE GOLDEN ERA

In 750CE the Abassid Khilafah began, in 762CEBaghdad was founded and shortly afterwardsmade the Capital of the Khilafah. Under Islam,Baghdad became not only the centre of power inthe world, but a world famous centre of learning,commerce, and culture producing a blaze ofscientific and literary glory in each and everyfield. It was the intellectual peak of the World andmany consider this the time when Islam reachedits zenith, the Golden Era of the Abassids.

Again the Tigris and Euphrates were essential inthe production of agriculture, more than enough tofeed the second largest city in the World behindConstantinople. Harun ar Rashid, the shade ofAllah on the Earth was Khalifah from 786-806AD. The Khalifah has been called one of therighteously guided Khulafah, and his shiningexample blazes like a beacon for each and everysubsequent ruler.

The eyes of the world are fixed upon the landof Iraq, the plight of its people and theevolution of the ongoing war. However the

land known in recent years as Iraq is possessed ofan incredible tapestry of history which has seenthe rise and fall of entire civilisations, and heardfor millennia past, the clamour of battle upon itssoil. It is a land where the footsteps of the previousMessengers and Prophets walked. It is a landwhich contains the two rivers Dilja and Furat (theriver Tigris and Euphrates).

THE COMING OF ISLAM

It was the Khalifah Umar ibn al Khitaab (ra), theAmir al Mumineen, who sent forth theMujahideen to open the land of the Persians, whoruled over Iraq, to Islam. In 634 CE, 18,000Muslim soldiers under the leadership of Khalidibn Waleed (ra) arrived at the perimeter of theEuphrates. Freeing and liberating Iraq from theoppression of man made systems. The Persiansvastly outnumbered the army of the righteous, butKhalid (ra) had only these words for them:

"Accept the faith and you are safe, otherwise paytribute. If you refuse to do either you have onlyyourself to blame. A people are already upon you,loving death as you love life."

The Persians did not accept either, instead they

IRAQ-THE CRADLE OF CIVILISATION


The land of Iraq, has brought forth thinkers, thelike of which the world had never seen. It was aland which was the centre for thought, only whenthe Khalifah State implemented the ideology ofIslam. One Muhammad ibn Idris al Shafi'i theMujtahid of his time arrived in Baghdad in theeighth century and debated with ImamMuhammad ibn Hasan Shaybani, the great studentof Imam Abu Hanifah. Here Shafi'i founded hisSchool of Jurisprudence, codified Usool for thefirst time in his Risalah and taught his illustriousstudent Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal. Imam Ahmedwas born in Baghdad and passed away there also.Clearly Usool and Fiqh thrived in this period. Sodid all other sciences. A number of hospitalsincluding teaching hospitals were opened. AbuJafar Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khawarizimidiscovered algebra and has been credited withinventing the number zero. His Kitab al-jabr w'almuqabalah taught the Europeans algebra upontranslation and the erroneous translation of hisname during the European renaissanceimmortalised his name in the term Algorithm aswell!

THE WORLD CONQUEROR

A Mongol tribal leader, Temujin united thefragmented Mongol tribes and with them, at theturn of the 13th Century, conquered Siberia andNorthern China, overrunning Beijing. Turning his700,000 strong horde west toward the Khilafah.He destroyed Samarkand in Uzbekistan, Balkh inAfghanistan, Merv in Turkmenistan andNeyshabur in Iran. All the people of these citieswere put to the Sword. Temujin changed his nameto Genghis Khan -which meant Universal Ruler orWorld Conqueror. This is reminiscent of theAmerican Capitalist horde led by the new tyrantGeorge Bush.

Genghis Khan believed his gods were superior tothe one God of the Muslims and sought to proveexactly this by conquering the entire Islamic State.

"I am the punishment of God. If you had notcommitted great sins, God would not have sentpunishment like me upon you" (Genghis Khan).

When he died in 1227 fighting the Tangut of NorthEast China in terms of square miles conquered, hehad become the greatest conqueror of all time.

In 1258 Temujins grandson Hulagu Khan attackedBaghdad. They were an unstoppable force ofdestruction that day, the Khalifah Al-Musta'simBillah was killed, trampled underfoot along withhundreds of thousands of believers put to death inthe streets of Baghdad which piled high withcorpses and rivers of blood. The Mongols enteredon the day of Ashura and The Abbasid Empirecame to an abrupt and bloody end. It was said thatthat the rivers turned blue from the books of the

Khilafah which were destroyed, and the streetswere red with the blood of the Muslims.

Turning North the army then devastated the landsof As-Sham taking Damascus in 1259. The Capitalof the Khilafah was destroyed, the armies defeatedone after the other by the fast cavalry and militarycapability of the Mongols. The World conquerorsseemed invincible to some Muslims whodespaired. The terror of the slaughter the Mongolsinflicted wherever they went had dismayed theMuslims and broken their morale. Despite this in1260CE the Mongols were not only defeated butbanished from the Muslim lands at the legendaryBattle of Ain Jaloot. We will see how defeat turnedinto victory and this amazing feat was achieved.

After this Iraq suffered for the first time fromeconomic depression and lost its former glory. TheMonguls had deliberately destroyed the irrigationsystems creating swamps and marshland instead.A tribal system emerged which would persist intomodern day Iraq.

As is so often the case, many of those who witnessthe system of Islam embrace it as did many of theinvading Mongols, the destroyers begun to buildMosques and Schools as Ghazan Khan officiallyadopted Islam as the religion of his state in thebeginning of the 14th Century!

From the 16th Century the Uthmani Khilafah usedBaghdad primarily as a military outpost. TheUthmanis were more interested in further militaryconquest in Europe than the restoration of theState's ex-Capitol to its former glory. For a shorttime the Shi'a Safavids state (who first declaredShi'a doctrines the official religion of Iran) foughtthe Khilafah and gained control of Baghdad twice,in the 16th and 17th Century respectively. Bothtimes the Uthmani Khalifah regained control. Theglory days had passed for the moment, but Iraqremained under the shade of the Khilafah until thebeginning of the 20th Century.

ON THE FOUNDING OF IRAQ AND ITSTIME WITHOUT KHILAFAH

The British landed at Shatt al-Arab and took Basrafrom the Uthmani Khilafah in 1914. Besieged onmany fronts and influenced by the British agentMustafa Kemal who argued there were morepressing targets to defend, Baghdad fell after aseries of bloody battles in 1917.

Of course under the Uthmanis there had been noIraq. Rather there were three provinces under theshade of the State. Mosul in the North, Baghdad inthe centre and Basra in the south. Under Sykes-Picot, Mosul was to go to the French, Baghdadand Basra to the British but the French gave uptheir claim to Mosul in 1920. There were several

revolts that year against British rule, and theBritish felt that without Mosul the other two couldnot function as an independent colony. Moreimportantly there were known to be vast reservesof oil in Mosul. The same year Emir Faisal whohad seen his government in Damascus crushed bythe French was placed under British tutelage asthe King of Iraq. Now Iraq existed in its first guiseas a Kingdom. As there is no concept of NationalAnthem in Islam, the British elected to play 'Godsave the King' at his coronation.

High Commissioner Sir Percy Cox resided overIraq, guarding its oil reserves. The British ownedIraq Petroleum Company was founded. Militarygarrisons guarded the passage to India. Theinfrastructure was a semi-feudal mix of a Shi'adominated South, Kurds in the North who desiredand still desire their own nation state, and the mixof tribal Arabs that had arisen and remained sincethe devastation inflicted by the all conqueringMongols.

Iraq achieved independence in 1932 and wasadmitted into the League of Nations in the sameyear with Britain assuming a neo-colonialist role,leaving behind Arab agents like Nuri Said. Whatfollowed were years of coup and counter coupincluding one by Rashad Ali against the royalfamily and Said had to flee Iraq. After the revoltwas crushed Ali had to flee to Saudi facing thedeath penalty. Meanwhile in Damascus the BaathParty had been established by Michael Aflaq, aGreek Orthodox Christian by birth. The Baathparty doctrines included socialist, anti colonialistand romantic views of the great Arabic traditiongiving rise to a pan-Arabism philosophy. TheParties slogan was 'Unity, Freedom, Socialism' allaimed at the Arabs. Envisioning an Arab culturerenaissance, they only came to power in Syria andIraq. The Baathists aided Rashad Ali in his shortlived revolt. One of the recruits was SaddamHussein.

In 1958 two Iraqi officers, Brigadier Qassem andColonel Abdel Salam Aref brought a bloody endto the monarchy. The King and Prince of the timeAbdul Illah were shot dead when they came out ofthe surrounded Royal Palace to surrender. NurSaid fled and but was found and cornered, butbefore he could be caught he shot himself dead.July the 14th marked the foundation of theRepublic of Iraq which exists until present day.

SADDAM TAKES CHARGE

Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 1958 coup,but he came to power later in a Baathist coupagainst Qassem and Salam Aref, in 1968. Saddam,patronised by the British, envisioned himself as agreat Arab leader though he clearly was a servantfor his masters in the West. He ruled as a tyrantdespot and used to rule with brutality and cruelty.

Faced with a seemingly invincible army, whichhad occupied three quarters of the Muslim landsand now assailed his own, Qutuz did the onlything he could do… and killed the Mongoldelegation leaving their corpses hanging in thestreets.

Secondly he sent delegations of his own tosurrounding Muslims from amongst the Mamluksand rallied them to his cause which was to crushthe foreign aggressor.

Thirdly Qutuz utilised the Ulema for his cause, toremind the people of the obligation of Jihad andunited through them the masses. Qutuz sought aFatwa from the 'Sultan of Scholars' Al-`Izz ad DinAbdus-Salam to impose taxes upon the people toequip the armies. But the noble scholar refuseduntil the governors own money and that of allleaders was spent first, thus the Muslim army wasequipped.

Qutuz ordered his army forward and under theleadership of the Beebers won several skirmishesbefore reaching Gaza, Palestine. Here Qutuzwarned the Crusaders to remain neutral in thisbattle or be crushed. The Crusaders wiselyaccepted Qutuz's proposition. Finally inRamadhan the two Armies collided at Ain Jalootin a massive battle. At the height of the fightingthe Muslims found the tide of battle turningagainst them, it was at this point that Qutuzclimbed high upon a rock and cast his helmetaside so all could see his face and cried "WaIslamah! Wa Islamah!" After capturing everyone'sattention he plunged into the Mongols sword firstleaving a trail of corpses behind. Inspired by theirleaders call, reminded of the honour they foughtfor and fuelled by his examples the Muslim armycut a swathe of destruction through the Mongols.The tide had decidedly turn and shortly all theenemy were slain or taken and those that escapedwere killed in retribution by the people of Shamwho Qutuz liberated completely in the next twoweeks. When even the news of this victoryreached Damascus the Muslims rose up andexpelled the Mongols, all around themMujahideen devastated their ranks and they fledback to the lands from whence they came.

This is exactly what Qutuz did, gathering to himall those capable of fighting and equipping themto do so. Today in the Muslim lands surroundingIraq the Kuffar have entered a potentialslaughterhouse of their own making. Surroundingthem already are the armies of Syria, Saudi, Iran,Kuwait and Turkey. Around them are the rest ofthe Muslim lands.

Instead of sincere ruler like Qutuz who understoodand cared for his people and his duties to them andAllah (swt), we have as rulers a gathering of


As most brutal dictators, he tried to create apersonality cult, by means of the media and wasenforced by his secret police. Examples ofmegalomania can be seen in the huge pictures ofSaddam which adorn every large building.

In 1980 Saddam at the behest of the West, tookIraq to a tragic war with his neighbours in Iran. Itwas in this period much of his weapons of massdestruction were brought at this time fromWestern governments. The war ended eight yearslater after over a million people were killed orwounded.

During this war the Kurds had further tried to findtheir nation by mounting a guerrilla war againstthe Iraqi regime. Due to the war of attrition withIran, Saddam was unable to deal with this but oncefree of the burden of fighting Iran he turned hisattention to the Kurds and wrecked a terriblerevenge. Several attacks were made on the Kurdsincluding the use of chemical and nerve agentsmost infamously at Halabja where 5000 civilianswere killed in gruesome fashion. The West isquick to show these examples in their spin that thewar on Iraq is to remove weapons of massdestruction, even though they sold these veryweapons to him. Do Western governments trade inarms and expect not to share the blame when theyare used to kill? Muslims should not beintimidated by the spin of such governments, whothemselves possess and use such weapons on amuch wider scale. The US still remains the onlystate to have exercised nuclear capability killinghundreds of thousands in a few seconds on twooccasions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

ON HOW TO DESTROY THE ENEMY

Part of the reason that Hulagu Khan was able totake Baghdad is that one of Khalifah Al-Mu'tasimBillah's ministers betrayed him to Hulagu. Al-Alkami promised the Mongols in secret to end anyresistance in return for becoming the next Muslimruler. Convincing Al-Mu'tasim Billah to meet withthem, the Khalifah and his entourage were killed.Yet after Baghdad was taken, Hulagu knew that ifAl-Alkami could betray his people then he couldbetray them too, and he was amongst those to beput to the sword.

After similar treatment of As-Sham and Damascusthe World Conquerors turned their attention to thelast stronghold of the Muslims in Egypt. Theirhatred for the Muslims and their one God wasknown and they had these words for Egypts AmirMahmoud Saifudeen Qutuz:

"We have demolished the land, orphaned thechildren, tortured the people and slain them, madetheir honoured despised and their leader a captive.Do you think that you can escape from us? After awhile you will know what's coming to you..."

cowards and betrayers like Al-Alkami. They willnever release the armies and so it is they who mustbe removed as a matter of necessity. Just asmaking Wudu before Salat is an obligation,because Salat itself is an obligation, removing therulers has become an obligation because sendingthe armies is an obligation, according to the wellknown Shara principle: Whatever leads to a Wajib(obligation) is in itself a Wajib. A sincere men likeQutuz must rise up who will unleash the power ofthe Ummah, the power the colonialists dread.

Their treachery runs deeper still. For if theydenied the use of Muslim land then the war uponIraq, like both this one and the last would not takeplace. It is no more possible for America to launchsorties on Iraq from Washington than it is forBritain to do so from London. Their fighters andtroops are garrisoned in bases in Saudi Arabia,Jordan, and air bases in Turkey whose Parliamentvoted to allow the US use of their airspace socontinuing the legacy of Mustafah Kemal. Theland offensive began from Kuwait. These rulersare holding with Bush and Blair the dagger that isbeing used to kill the believers. A leader must beestablished who will send forth the armies ofliberation, turn off the supply of oil to the west andclose each and every base to the Kuffar.

The unification of the countries under a Khailfahonce more is paramount. The Mamluks aidedQutuz because they were both of the sameUmmah, from the same Khilafah. Qutuz liberatedas-Sham because he and its people were from thesame Ummah. He did not say I am Egyptian andyou are Palestinian so I will not aid you. It was theBritish and the French in the Sykes-Picotagreement in 1917 who gave us these divides so isit not time that these false shackles are removed?

Under the Khilafah this is what occurred to theMongols. The Khilafah was ransacked but theIslamic ideology was till within leaders likeQutuz, Scholars like Al-`Izz ad Din Abdus-Salam,and its soldiers and people. Today we are dividedand without a leader like Qutuz. But the sameAqeedah, the same ideology is in the minds of theMuslims today. By referring to Islam andimplementing its solution there will come anotherAin Jaloot, another Battle of Chains, and otherleaders like Harun ar Rashid or another AmirMahmoud Saifudeen Qutuz.z

Dr Babar Qureshi


In the 8th year of Hijrah, Rasulallah (saw) sentout invitation letters to all the rulers of thepowerful disbelieving states and the arrogant

superpowers calling them to Islam. He (saw) sental-Harith bin 'Umair al Azdi, with a letter to theruler of Busra inviting him to Islam. It wasintercepted by Sharhabeel bin Amr al Ghasani, thegovernor of al-Balqa and a close ally to Heraclius,the Roman emperor. Al-Harith was beheaded. Thiswas a declaration of war on Rasulallah (saw) whomobilised 3000 men to go and discipline thetransgressors. At the time it was the largest Muslimarmy ever assembled except for the battle of Ahzab.

The events and the battle that followed are knownas the battle of Muta' which was the fiercest battleduring the lifetime of Rasulallah (saw). Ali the sonof Imam Hussain (ra) said: "We used to teach thebattles of the prophet (saw) equally as we used toteach the Surah of the Quran al-Karim". Imam az-Zuhri of the generation that met the companionsand reportedly the first to record hadith in writinglikewise said, "In studying the battles (ofRasulallah) lies the knowledge of this world as wellas the akhirah." This is the value of studying thesebattles.

The army of 3000 men made preparations to leave.Al-Nu'man bin Fanhas, a Jewish citizen of theIslamic State, came and stood with the men asRasulallah (saw) was giving them their orders. He(saw) said, "Zayd bin Haritha will be commanderand if Zayd should be killed, then it will be Ja'farbin Abu Talib. If Jafar is killed, then Abdullah binRawahah will be commander. If he should bekilled, then the Muslims should choose one fromamong themselves to appoint over them."

Al-Nu'man then said, "Abu al-Qasim, if you were aprophet and were to name them is such a way,whether few of many in number, they would all bekilled. When the prophets of Bani Israil named acommander and then went on to name hissuccessors if he should be killed, then they wouldall be killed, even if they named a hundred." Hetold Zayd bin Haritha, "Attend to your affairs. Foryou will never return, if Muhammad is a Prophet.'Zayd replied, "I do testify that he is a prophet, aman of truth and piety; may Allah's peace andblessings be upon him."

May Allah (swt) be pleased with Zayd, for AbuHurayrah (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:

"One who died but did not fight in the way ofAllah nor did he express any desire (ordetermination) for Jihad died the death of ahypocrite" [Muslim, 4696]

As the men were bidding farewell to the Muslims,Abdullah bin Rawahah (ra) started to weep. Whenpeople asked him why, he replied, "By Allah! It isnot for my love for this life or my affection for you;I heard Rasulallah (saw) reciting the ayah in Allah'sKitab which mentions the hellfire and says:

"And there is not one of you but shall come to it;this is an unavoidable decree of your Lord whichmust be accomplished." [TMQ: Maryam: 71]

Abdullah b Rawaha, explained; "I do not know howI will be able to escape from it once I've gone intoit." The Muslims then said to him, "May Allahaccompany you and protect you and return you allto us in safety." Abdullah b Rawahah replied to thisin poetry: "But I ask ar-Rahman for forgiveness,and a large wound that bleeds profusely. Or a spearfrom a warrior armed with one that goes throughmy intestines and my liver, So that it will be saidwhen people pass by my grave, 'Allah gave himguidance as a warrior, and he behaved well'"

The army left before the time of Salat-ul-Jummah.Abdulllah bin Rawahah stayed behind and went tothe Masjid. Rasulallah (saw) asked him,

"What keeps you back?" He answered "I wantedto attend the Jummah Salah with you." He (saw)replied "To go forth (to battle) in the morning orthe evening is better than the world and allinside it" or in another narration, "Were you tospend all there is on the earth you would notattain their departure."

The 3000 strong army of Zayd proceeded andcamped at Ma'an in Syria. There news reached

them that the Roman Emperor, Heraclius, hadencamped nearby with a force of 100,000 Romansand with them was a 'coalition of the willing' ofanother 100,000 from other countries. The Muslimscamped at Ma'an for two days to discuss the matter.Some of them said "We should send a message toRasulallah (saw) and tell him of the size of ourenemy force. He will then either reinforce us orgive us some order we can carry out."

Abdullah bin Rawahah, did not accept that, heencouraged his brothers by saying - "Men, whatyou dislike is what you have come forth to seek -shuhadah (martyrdom)!. We are not fighting bymeans of our numbers or strength; we arecombating them only with our Deen by which Allahhas honoured us. Go forth, it will only result in oneof two good outcomes - victory or martyrdom!" Bythis the army was encouraged and they wentforward to the battle.

Clearly Abdullah bin Rawahah was enthused anddetermined to fight in the cause of Allah - On theway to battle, Abdullah bin Rawahah spoke out in apoem which included the following verse, "Many acontented woman our spears rendered divorced,Women who can remarry or stay widowed!"

Abdullah bin Rawahah, had taken with him, on thisjourney, Zayd bin Arqam, an orphan who wasliving in his care. Zayd bin Arqam, who had beenriding in Abdullah's saddlebag, narrated that atnight he heard Abdullah bin Rawahah recite thefollowing lines of verse; " … The Muslims havingcome will leave me in Syria where I long to stay …There I will not worry about plants sprouting, norabout palm trees whose roots need water."

Zayd bin Arqam (ra) said "When I heard thesewords from him I began to cry and he tapped meand said, 'Why be sad, silly boy, why be sad if Allah(swt) grants me martyrdom and you ride home onyour own saddle?'" [i.e. you will not have to share]

The eagerness Abdullah bin Rawahah and hiscompanions had for martyrdom and the mentalitywith which they marched forth to the battle inSyria. Allah (swt) the Highest Majesty put them totest as he surely will put us to test. Allah (swt)tested Abdullah bin Rawahah to see if he wouldback up his words and enthusiasm with action,

THE BATTLE OFMUTA'


patience and perseverance.

The army advanced to the outskirts of al-Balqa.There they were met by the Roman and coalitiontroops of Heraclius, at one of the villages of al-Balqa called Mushaarif. The enemy advanced andthe Muslims arranged their forces to meet theenemy in two flanks.

The noble companion Abu Hurrayrah (ra) narrated;"I was present at the battle of Muta' when the kuffarapproached, we saw such equipment, weapons,horses, brocade, silk and gold as no one ever beforewitnessed! I was dazzled. Thabit b Arqam said tome, 'Abu Hurayrah, don't you think that's a hugeforce?' 'Yes' I replied, 'But you were not present atBadr with us, superiority in numbers would notdefeat us'"

The forces then engaged and the battle commenced.Zayd bin Haritha took the banner. Rasulallah (saw)told us that Satan came to him making life seemgood to him and death hateful, making life on earthattractive to him. He said "Now that Iman is firmlyplanted in the hearts of the believers, would youmake life on earth seem good to me?" He thenfought with phenomenal courage and heroismunmatched, bearing the banner of Rasulallah (saw),until he perished amidst the enemy spears thatripped his body when he assaulted the enemy. Inthis way he set a blazing example for those whofollowed, May Allah be pleased with Zayd binHaritha and let him be a real role model for theMuslim soldiers fighting in the battlefields.

Ja'far (ra) then picked up the banner and foughtwith bravery. We learn from this that the Muslimscommanders fight from the front rather than theback of the army. Ja'far held the banner in his righthand which was cut off. Even then he took it in hisleft hand and continued battle until that too and wascut off.

Then with incredible courage and unfailing faith,he hugged the banner to himself with his bleedingupper arms. Facing death and in defiance of hisenemies he then hamstrung his horse, launchinghimself into the enemy until his body was cut intwo by the Romans, while he was reciting the lines,

"Hail to paradise approaching, its waters fine andcool. The punishment of the Romans is near,unbelievers of doubtful decent. It is up to me tostrike them when we clash"

It is said that Allah (swt) has rewarded Ja'far for hisvalour by giving him two wings in Jannah withwhich he could fly wherever he wished. Ibn Umar(ra) said that on that day he stood over the body ofJa'far and he had 50 wounds made by spears orswords and none of them were in his back. ThisWarrior of Allah only advanced and did not retreat.May Allah be pleased with Ja'far, the one who hastwo wings, and make our courage and bravery likehis.

When Ja'far was killed, Abdullah bin Rawahah tookup the banner and advanced with it, on his horse.Then he began to waver and to hesitate and so hespoke the following verses to himself;

"I swear, my soul, that you will indeed do battle orbe forced to do battle. Even though the men areshouting and screaming, why is It I see you hatingparadise? For long you have been at ease; are youanything but a drop of liquid inside a skin bag?" Mysoul, even if you are not killed you'll die anyway;This is the fate of death you are exposed to. Whatyou hoped for has been given to you; if you do whatthey both did, you will have been well directed"[referring to his two companions Zayd and Ja'far].

Then he dismounted and his cousin came upcarrying a meat bone saying "Take strength fromthis, you have suffered much recently". He took itand took a bite out of it. Then he heard a greatcommotion among the fighting men. He askedhimself "are you still alive?", then he threw awaythe bone, took up his sword and advanced, fightinguntil he was killed. May Allah (swt) be pleased withAbdullah bin Rawahah. From this we learn a verygreat lesson indeed. A lesson which is even morepertinent today as we live in times when the Islamicculture is not dominant in the society in which welive. Let us reflect upon the actions of Abdullah binRawahah one of the greatest companions ofRasulallah (saw). Let us ask Allah (swt) that Hegrant us the amazing ability to reconcile all ourfears and hesitation with the Islamic cultureregarding every action that we set out to perform.

Back in Madina it has been narrated that Rasulallah(saw) could see the events taking place and was onthe mimbar (pulpit of the masjid) narrating thestory to the Ansar. He said,

"Zayd bin Haritha took the banner and foughtwith it until he was martyred. Ja'far then took itand fought, bearing it until he was martyred,"after that Rasulallah (saw) became silent and thefaces of the Ansar changed as they wonderedwhether there was anything terrible about Abdullahbin Rawahah. Then he said, "Abdullah binRawahah has taken it now and fought until

martyrdom. They have been raised up to heaven- I saw in a vision - upon couches of gold. Inoticed that the couch of Abdullah bin Rawahahwas slanting away from those of his companionsand I asked 'Why is this?' I was told, 'They wentstraight ahead, whereas Abdullah bin Rawahahhesitated somewhat before proceeding'."

His (saw) eyes then brimmed with tears and wenton to say

"one of the Swords of Allah took it (the banner)until Allah gave them victory." He was referringto the noble companion and military genius, Khalidbin Walid (ra). This was the first time that Khalid(ra), who had recently converted to Islam, wascalled the Sword of Allah (Sayfullah). Khalid binWalid said, "At the battle of Muta', nine swordswere broken in my hand, I finally held only aYemeni broad-sword."When the banner fell from Abdullah bin Rawahah,Thabit ibn Arqam picked it up and cried, "OMuslims, do rally around one man," rememberingRasulallah's (saw) command to elect another andthe importance of being united under a General.That General was Khalid bin Walid who rallied hisfighters around him.

When Khalid (ra) took the banner he did not engagethe enemy again that night. During the night,Khalid ibn al-Walid (ra) drew up a shrewdwithdrawal plan having realised the magnitude ofthe enemy's army compared to the meagre numbersleft to him. Following his carefully drawn up plan,next morning, he attacked. Soldiers at the rear madea calamitous noise and he exchanged the forces ofthe left and the right flanks. Then enemy were nolonger familiar with their banners and disposition,and in conjuncture with the noise of his rearguard,believing them to have been re-enforced, werefrightened and refrained from attacking theMuslims, they were even elated when Khalid didnot attack them. Then Khalid withdrew and took histroops back to Madinah, not victorious, nordefeated, but having achieved quite a considerablefeat.

The leaders of this battle all knew they weremarching against a formidable force whooutnumbered them in manpower and technology,yet they fought heroically, not deserting thebattlefield, nor turning their backs for worldly gain.By this, the honour of the Muslims and Islam wassafeguarded. The proof of this was when Rasulallah(saw) returned to fight the Romans in the battle ofTabuk. When the Romans considered how the smallband of Muslims had fought and that now theywere greater in force and the Messenger of Allah(saw) was amongst them, their hearts were filledwith fear and they retreated giving the Muslims abloodless victory against the worlds leadingsuperpower of the time. z

Ahmad Jassat


Democracy literally comes from the Greekterm Demos Cratus, which means "Peoplesovereignty". The concept itself had its

origins with the Greek philosophers and thinkers.The system of Polis-which theoretically meantthat everyone was entitled the opportunity to vote-became the model political system for majorpowers like the Greeks. The implementation of thedemocratic system resulted in many problems,which caused many of the Greek philosopherswho founded the concept to reject it altogether asimpractical. It was only revived by the Europeannations as a political system after they removedthe church from the political authority they sharedwith the despotic monarchies. Thus the vacuumthat was created, was filled by this system.

Since then The West has adopted Democracy as itspolitical system. The democratic system is not acomplete ideology by itself, but just the name ofthe political system adopted by the secularnations. A common misconception is thatDemocracy is unique to the capitalist nations.Even the former communist Soviet Union claimedthat its political system was democratic; we havethe communist North Korea formally known asthe Democratic People's-Republic of Korea. It isclaimed that its political system was democratic innature because they maintained that the power tolegislate lay with the people or a group from

amongst them i.e. The Communist Party.

Although many shapes and forms of Democracyexist, they all state, or claim to state that thesovereignty to legislate laws and systems resideswith the people. Thus, the underlying factor of alldemocratic states is that the sovereignty, or theright to legislate and act as the source of laws andcodes, is ultimately delegated to human beings.

THE VEIL OF DEMOCRACY

It should be noted that the Greek philosopherswho invented the concept of Democracy were alsothe first to criticise and even reject it. For examplePlato believed that the selection of rulers couldbest be made through the prolonged training ofmen and women, he did not believe in wisdom ofthe masses and preferred rule by the select few orby an enlightened one.

If those who invented Democracy took thisattitude towards their idea and system, then itdoesn't require much research to realise thatDemocracy is a failure. The primary reason isbecause it puts man as the source for legislation.By putting man as the legislator, he is unable todesign a system of laws and rules to organisehumanity and address human problems in thecorrect way, any system that relies on the human

being as the source of laws and systems is boundto fail, as contradiction, disparity and differenceswill occur.

Thus we see nations built upon this basis failing tosolve problems correctly, and inherent problemsexisting within them.

The Capitalist system in practice leads to disparityand contradictions. Experts are assigned to solveproblems. Some of these are normal humanproblems. Others are problems that the systemitself has generated. The result is that loopholesand get-out clauses proliferate dramatically.

A contradiction can be seen with the then UKHome Secretary Jack Straw's commitment to keepMyra Hindley locked up for the rest of her life.The original sentencing judge stated that 'life'meant, "...a very long time". In 1985, this was setat thirty years by the then Home Secretary LeonBritten. Now over thirty years after the originalsentencing, 'life' suddenly means 'for life'. Theright to appeal for parole for 'lifers' is enshrinedwithin the British legal system. The sentence of'life' meaning 'for life' contradicts British andEuropean laws and conventions. The 'MoorsMurders' have remained an emotive issue in theUK solely due to the tabloid manipulation of themasses. Hindley's deeds were hideous, but it is the

EXPOSITION OF CAPITALISM- THE CORRUPTED CREED

[PART 3] DEMOCRACY


press that have sustained her infamy in the mindsof the British people. Three and a half decadeslater, the press still titillate their readers with thegory details of the trial in a manner that has norelationship to the academia of the legal process.She ended up dying in prison. Thus, saving DavidBlunkett from facing the vexed question.

In the realm of government the problems thathumans have created for themselves arenumerous. The US has a relatively young system.It was framed far away from the bitter racial andreligious prejudices of Europe at that time. The'New World' consisted of many peoples that hadpurposely fled from religious intolerance. TheAmericans had the opportunity to take a long hardlook at the European democracies. They attemptedto take the best from Europe and to think deeplyabout forging a utopia. The American constitutionhas been a paradigm and an inspiration for manynations that gained independence fromcolonialism.

The American system, it may be said, wascarefully planned and thought out by rational,intelligent, well-intentioned lateral thinkers. Yet,we see the reality of America is that it is acomplete mess.

Some of the main issues that were mulled andmused over to the greatest depth were enshrined in'The Bill of Rights'. The most famous of whichwas the First Amendment; freedom of religion,speech, press, protest and petition. For twocenturies this has been quoted, used and abused indefence of many issues that even the averageAmerican considers damaging; for example,pornography and white supremacist material,whereas at the same time, these rights which allowsuch things, are ignored when it came to theMuslims incarcerated post 9/11. When this islinked with the Second and Fourth Amendments,we see the chaos that these principles gave birth

too. These being, the right to bear arms and, "theright to secure in their persons and houses, papers,and effects against unreasonable searches andseizures". The interpretation of these amendmentsled to the emergence of the 'Branch-Davidian' sectin Waco, Texas. The whole 'Waco Incident' wasthe direct result of the very things that thefounding fathers held to be so sacred. The US hasalways been the home of weirdo cults, crackpotmilitias and right-wing lunatics.

Satisfactory solutions to human problems, such ascrime, have been elusive to The West for all theabove reasons. They have reached a point ofcomplete desperation. Criminologists,psychologists and sociologists rack their brains tocome up with satisfactory solutions. For example,to combat crime in Britain, they have justextended a trial of electronic tagging of criminals.However, the success statistics have not yet beenpublished. We should not be surprised if this givesa greater than 80% re-offending rate as was seenwith safari holidays, softly-softly, short-sharp-shock and confronting the victims of crime and soon. None of the methods cooked up by humanscan ever produce satisfactory solutions. This isbecause the root remains the same; that man is thelegislator.

THE CAPITALISTS' TAKEOVER OFGOVERNANCE

If we look to every human society, it requires lawsand rules to regulate and organise it. These rulesand laws necessitate that it has a ruling system inorder that it executes and administers the laws ofthe people, and the final decision is left with theone individual. In Islam, the ruler is theKhaleefah. His decision-making is limited to onlythe extraction of solutions from the Qur'an andSunnah. His personal interests, or anything elsefor that matter, have a non-existent impact in rulemaking.

Let us compare this to states of The West. Thegovernments are linked decisively, to the strongestfactions in society, which are the Capitalists.Interest groups and individuals with big moneyhold the sway in policy-making, and in some casesare part of government.

The Capitalists, in essence control governmentpolicy, whether it is foreign policy or domesticpolicy. They influence this by dictating topoliticians the policy to make. This has reached tothe extent that the Capitalists are forminggovernments. A brief look to the present USadministration reveals that its members wereeither heads of massive corporations, or sitting inhigh positions in the firms. By looking at just afew figures within the government we find GeorgeW Bush, who had a seat on the oil company

Harken Energy, Dick Cheney (Vice-President)was CEO of Halliburton Industries; an oil servicescompany that had dealings with Iraq. FormerTreasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, was CEO ofAlcoa the world's largest Aluminiummanufacturer. Secretary of Commerce DonaldEvans was CEO of Tom Brown Inc. a $1.2 billionoil and gas company. Donald Rumsfeld was CEOof G.D. Searle, a pharmaceutical company. ColinPowell was on the board of directors ofGulfstream Aerospace and AOL, and so the listcontinues. This is not unique to the US, butendemic to all the capitalist states. The UK hashad Ministers of State such as Lord Simon ofHighbury, who was chairman of BP, and thenbecame Minister of State for Trade andCompetitiveness in Europe. The Capitalistsfurther exert influence through funding thepolitical parties, by giving huge donations toelection campaigns, by sponsoring conferences,etc these special 'favours' are returned withpatronage, lucrative contracts, and direct policyinitiatives.

This state of affairs in not unique to one politicalparty or the other, but just a reality of Democracyin The West.

This has led to despondency by many within TheWest, to the extent that voting turnouts barelyreach above 50%. Tony Blair's "landslide"election looks much less triumphant when youconsider that 41 percent of the population didn'teven show up to cast a ballot. While the mediatried to portray the election as a tense battlebetween "left-of-centre" Blair and his arch-rivalConservative opposition, many voters saw theparties as virtually indistinguishable.

Blair spent less on health and education thanThatcher, and under Blair's "true radicalism"approach, the gap between rich and poor hasgrown even faster than under former PrimeMinister John Major, a Conservative. So whenfaced with what Margaret Thatcher ominouslycalled TINA, subverting the majority into thinkingThere Is No Alternative, many British voters justgave up.

Islam is the only system that is immune fromprejudice and bias stemming from man. Nor as asource is it at the mercy of man's limitedknowledge. This is the system that is from Allah(swt), our Creator. Allah (swt) is the one whocreated us with so many needs and desires, but He(swt) is the one without needs. Allah (swt) knowsbest our very nature. Nothing of creation escapeshis knowledge. Allah (swt) designed us and,therefore, is the best designer of a system for us tolive by. Surely His (swt) system is the only systemfor man to live by. z

Asif Khan

Please address your lettersand questions to theEditorial Team, either byemail or post at thefollowing addresses:

email: [email protected]

or write to: Khilafah Magazine, Suite 298,56 Gloucester Road, London,SW7 4UB

B

Published by Khilafah Publications

Khilafah Megazine April 2003

Documents

Transcript of Khilafah Megazine April 2003