Thought for the day . . . . TFTD.ws

US presidential nominations

TFTD: US presidential nominations The world is watching with close interest the developments of the US nomination process. It is widely agreed that whoever ends up in the White House, American politics will be different.

Q: Does it really matter to us WHO is elected? Or are they all equally bad (or good) in terms of inadvertently promoting our goals?@ (Rummani)

Public apology

TFTD: In an (almost) unprecedented symbolic gesture, the Prime Minister of Australia yesterday presented an apology to the aboriginal people for the laws and policies of successive governments that had caused degradation and suffering decades ago.

Q: In the interests of social cohesion and 'setting the record straight', would a future khalifah offer such a public apology for past injustices and for the darker pages of our history?

Outside the fold

TFTD: In order to function and survive, a newborn state must either accept the existing world order (presuming they would recognise the new stat's existence) and work WITH the international community, or opt for isolation, working instead OUTSIDE the community of nations.

A radically ideological state may not only opt for the latter, but may also attempt to undermine international institutions by seeking to establish its own alternative world order (complete with its own instituitions) in line with its own world-view and values.

Q: If the proposed Islamic State were to do this, what common global values could it use as a foundation for such institutions? What other incentives might it offer potential defector states?

Entitled by law

TFTD: Entitled by law Are residents in the Islamic State ENTITLED by law to have provisions made to accommodate their religious convictions, even if these were to differ from the khalifah's adoption?

For example, would Shabina Begum have had the right to demand her school accommodate her jilbab, if the khalifah had adopted that the jilbab was not obligatory?

Would this apply to other faiths too?

Smelting away

Muslim Lords, Muslim MP's, Muslim neighbourhoods, Islamic schools, Islamic banks, Islamic parties, Shariah TV,  and now we're told bits of the Shariah might become law in the UK.

However hard they try, the non-Muslims seem unable to resist the overwhelming tide, and integration into Muslim society seems inevitable.

Q: Is this what was meant by "smelting society in our crucible"?

Bugged

TFTD: Can the acquisition of covert surveillance recordings by the state be justified by public security concerns?

Real Tareeqa?

TFTD: It is sometimes said that the state (in the form of the executive authority of the khalifah) is the physical manifestation of the Tareeqa, or the method that implements, sustains and propagates the Islamic way of life.

Q: Considering that the khalifah is, in theory at least, acting ON BEHALF of the people, and it is these people who maintain his authority, hold him to account and ensure the rules of Islam aren't violated, is it right to describe society as being the real Tareeqa?

Demons in the ballot box

TFTD: Events in Kenya and Iraq both serve to demonstrate how a popular election process is prone to exploitation by religious, ethnic and tribal leaders. Policies and political ideologies are hardly mentioned. Politics in such climates is bitter and factional.

There is no reason to believe the caliphate elections (or indeed the elections for the council of representatives) will be any better.

Q: Slogans aside, how do you envisage this (real and significant) problem to be tackled?

Devastated by democracy

TFTD: Devastated by democracy There is no longer much doubt that Kenya is destined to join the club of nations devastated by democracy, torn apart along ethnic, tribal, sectarian or political lines.

Once proud nations such as Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Palestine and Morocco, are now struggling to simply remain intact, after the collapse of their brief affairs with democracy.

Rather than help bind the differing factions, the ballot box has served to re-ignite and formalise past differences, plunging the countries into civil unrest, violence and disintegration.

Q: What super-glue is available out there to help mend such nations? (Rummani)

Opposition benches

TFTD: In a democracy, the term "opposition" (or "loyal opposition") is used to refer to the main political grouping that opposes the policies and actions of the executive government, often presenting themselves as a "government in waiting".

Depending on the nature of the electoral system, these oppositions can also be nominal/tokenistic, consist of a coalition, or may not even exist as such (in the case of proportionally representative systems). Oppositions can play a crucial role in holding the executive to account and leading public debate.

Q: Would you envisage a future Islamic caliphate having such a thing as an opposition? How would you anticipate it functioning?

Taking the mick

TFTD: President Bush recently completed a whistle-stop tour of the middle east where he was welcomed and publicly entertained with unprecedented warmth and hospitality.

In contrast to many of Bush's visits abroad, hardly a word was said in protest nor did we witness a single banner reflecting public sentiment. Even in "non-ideological" states such as Brazil, Guatemala and India, the public expressed more indignation when Bush came to town.

Q: Does this suggest that the Arab rulers are so confident of the apathy and impotence of both their populations and their militaries that they can treat them with such open disdaint and contempt, secure in the knowledge that the masses are only ever mobilised by hunger?

Or is this the silence that precedes a storm, and are the Arab streets in fact simmering on the brink of an eruption to replace these agent rulers with a khalifah?

Dismantling state institutions

TFTD: Dismantling state institutions in order to reconstruct them according to ideological recipes is easier said than done, as the Americans have learnt at great expense.

While there have been few modern-day examples of successful state engineering in such a manner, the idea still has currency in ideological circles, and is supported by robust rationale.

In the simplest of terms, the building blocks of any new state must be based on ideological principles consistent with that of the state, and no amount of reform could possibly achieve this.

Q: Would you envisage an instant dismantling of existing state instituions (such as the armed forces, intelligence apparatus, the media, workers unions, judiciary, societies, associations, lobby groups and political parties) and insist they be resurrected under the auspices of the embryonic caliphate?

Fudge to save lives?

TFTD: Successive waves of negotiators have until now failed to reach a settlement between the parties involved in the Kenyan election dispute. The opposition accuse the incumbent president of falsifying the election results, and have mobilised their supporters causing widespread unrest and violence.

Whatever settlement is eventually reached, it is certainly going to fall short of the constitutional demands of each of the two parties, but may nevertheless diffuse the situation on the streets.

Given the sanctity of human blood, and bearing in mind the events surrounding the civil wars that scarred the early years of the khilafah, would you say it was more important in politics to adhere to the letter of the law, or to achieve a compromise that minimised unrest?

No visa? No treatment

TFTD: The Home Secretary's decision to have the terminally ill cancer patient Ama Sumani removed from the hospital where she was receiving treatment and escorted to her home country of Ghana, has sparked (at least) two debates:

1. Should the state have treated her case with particular compassion, given her life expectancy and her financial means, or were they right in adhering to the letter of the law?

2. Should the state offer free health care to all, regardless of nationality? Nb Ms Sumani was denied a bone marrow translant because she was a "foreign national".

Q: How would you expect an Islamic state to have treated Ms Sumani?

Safeguarding my throne

TFTD: In some states, the executive is charged with the responsibility of upholding, safeguarding and preserving the constitution, as the constitution is the thing to which all citizens subscribe, and is the focus of their belief and loyalty, rather than the person of the ruler. There are few such states, but they tend to prosper and progress.

In other states, the constituions are manipulated to safeguard and preserve the executive, usually in the form of the rulers themselves, as they see themselves as the deserving focus of the citizens' loyalty and devotion. Such states tend to be unstable and short-lived, and suffer from sectarianism and factional struggles.

Q: What can be done to ensure a future caliphate resembles the former model?

"Shall never prosper"

TFTD:  The Prophet (saas) is reported to have said, upon hearing that the Persians had appointed Chosroes's daughter as their Queen, "Those who put a woman in charge of their affairs shall never prosper".

Assuming the narration is authentic, two questions arise:

1. Does the hadith imply the Persians might have prospered had they appointed a male?

2. If the Prophet (saas) found it necessary to use this particular aspect of a the enemy's ruling system to demonstrate one particular Islamic ruling, does that suggest the Muslims would have otherwise considered adopting parts of alien ruling systems?

"Do not request such posts"

TFTD: The month of Muharram heralds an anticipation of change, with election fever gripping the US and Londonstan.

Classical Islamic scholars have forbidden the seeking of posts of ruling and authority, often quoting the hadith "Do not request such posts, as we do not appoint those who request it".

Q: Does that rule out the possibility of organising expensive, high-profile election campaigs like that of Senator Clinton? If not, should candidates benefit from state (or party) funding, or should they fund themselves privately?

State of denial

TFTD: There is a general consensus amongst Arab nationalists and Islamists that Israel is an illegitimate entity and hence unworthy of recognition.

This is sometimes seen as a form of delusionary denial unique to the Arab mindset; a refusal to face the reality of their political impotence.

Q: What is it about Israel that makes it any LESS worthy of recognition than any other state in the region, such as, say, Lebanon? (Rummani)

4 W's of gradualism

TFTD: The secret of good governance isn't WHO's law is implemented, rather it's HOW and WHEN to transform ideas into policy, and HOW, WHEN, with WHO's support and with WHAT resources, to implement these policies on the ground.

Getting these 4 W's right or wrong marks the difference between a successful statesman and a failed politician.

However, balancing the 4 W's is just another description of gradualism, something that is often described as contrary to Islam.

Q: (How) can the two views be reconciled?

Political Islam?

TFTD: There are those who claim that 'political Islam' means campaigning to promote issues of interest to Muslims and to secure Muslim rights. To others, 'political Islam' simply means behaving Islamically while engaging in normal politics. Others believe political Islam requires holding conferences, marches and petitions about global issues. There is also a growing minority who believe political Islam involves such actions as blowing up commuter trains.

Q: Given the diversity of opinion, each claiming to have been derived from the Islamic texts, is it any wonder there is growing scepticism about whether there is such a thing as political Islam?

Apologists?

TFTD: It is widely perceived that the War on Terror is in fact a war on Islam and the Muslims.

Q: (How) Is it possible to stand up for Islam and the Muslims without defending terrorism and the terrorists?

Idiots guide to torture

TFTD: The coinciding of yesterday's revelations about the torture of top Al-Qaeda suspects, with the unravelling CIA "videogate" inquiry, has re-ignited the debate about whether or not torture can ever be justified.

The fashionable view is that torture is never justified, being an affront to human dignity and a violation of basic human rights. There is also a view that maintains that safeguarding human life is paramount, and causing discomfort, pain or anxiety can sometimes be justified in the interest of saving lives.

There is also a view claiming the debate is irrelevant, as all such matters are subject to a pre-determined divine ruling that can be arrived at via a process of Ijtihaad.

Q: If this is the case, what is the divine ruling on torture?

Wall of silence

TFTD: Another week, another capital, another scene of carnage and bloodshed. Although the casualties are almost all Muslims, the finger is quickly pointed at the Islamists. After the initial chorus of condemnation, questions are again being asked:

"What do those Islamists want?"
"What does killing Muslim bystanders have to do with establishing an Islamic state?"
"Isn't Islam supposed to promote peaceful coexistence of people?"
"Why aren't the Islamic groups doing more to combat this terrorism carried out in the name of Islam?"

Q: Considering the dangers such activities pose to society, why aren't those groups who consider themselves the vanguards of public opinion more vocal in their condemnation of such groups? 

Slice of the cake

TFTD: One proven way to avoid political unrest is to obtain the support of the main political stakeholders for the constitution by giving a sense of ownership of the political process.

This can be achieved by giving them a slice of what they would otherwise be fighting over, i.e. power. The parties are kept continually engaged by regularly re-apportioning the slices according to the level of popular support they each demonstrate.

While far from being perfect, such a mechanism at least has demosurated success at shifting the struggle from via battlefields to the polling booths.

Q: Isn't that what democracy is really about, rather than "legislation by man"?

Could this be the problem?

TFTD: Part of the obligation to maintain political unity by preventing armed conflict, is to study the REASONS for the failure of previous such attempts.

The methods mentioned recently (by ruling clans, claims of divine ordination, ruthless dictators and xenophobic fanatics) are all similar in their attempts to keep people out of effective politics, rather than encouraging them to engage in non-militant political activity.

Q: Could this be the problem?

Mouthful of adjectives

TFTD: And if the demise of the "dictatorship in a republic's clothing" isn't bad enough, there's at least one alternative being suggested that's seems even more likely to fail (that is, fail in the task of engaging and uniting political factions in the interest of unity and stability).

And yes, we've tried this one before too.

Its the autocratic self-righteous governance of the Islamist political literalists (how about that for a mouthful of adjectives!)

Their failure to bring about political consensus is a direct result of the bi-polar "zero-tolerance""attitude of ideological partisanship and is part of the nature of the beast, and hence cannot be avoided even with the best of intentions.

Q: So where does that leave us, in our quest for political consensus/harmony?

Don't you dare...

TFTD: Another tool used to maintain state unity and prevent the outbreak of politically-motivated conflict is fear.

We've tried that one too.

Experience has shown that populations are unlikely to engage in any form of political activity if they are  lead to believe that this will result in serious repercussions such as imprisonment, persecution or loss of livelihood.

Most dictatorships know that fact only too well. Indeed, finding ways to perpetuate this belief has been the secret of the continued existence of such regimes.

But as was the case with other techniques, it couldn't go on for ever.

Q: Tribal dynasties, divinely-ordained monarchs, repressive dictators... what next?

Appointed by God

TFTD: One technique commonly used to prevent armed power struggles was the perpetuation of a culture that substantiated the claim that the incumbent ruling class were somehow divinely ordained to be in authority, i.e. it was beyond debate.

Although this political mechanism was used successfully over at least 4 millenia by the Pharaohs of Egypt, the monarchs of Europe, the ruling dynasties of China and  successive Shia states, it is now of only historical relevance due to peoples' increased political awareness and higher expectations.

Q: Can you suggest any other such political/cultural techniques?

Ideologically neutral

TFTD: Maintaining the peace (by devising means to ensure political divisions and grievances didn't escalate into armed conflict) preoccupied the ruling classes of all the main civilisations such as that of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and modern Europeans.

Q: To what extent are these means "ideologically neutral", i.e. capable of being transferred between civilisations? Is it not in our interests to adapt and adopt the best of these practices into our own political culture?

"Teddy? What is meaning zis word?"

TFTD: The Islamic notion of justice appears itself to be on trial recently, albeit by the media, after a few high-profile judgements (eg in Saudi Arabia and Sudan), made by Muslim judges in Muslim states according to what is seen as Sharia law, were greeted with almost universal outrage and condemnation.

Q: Given the centrality of justice to any political ideology, what PR tricks do we need to maintain a semblance of credibility?

Breaches of the peace

TFTD: Just as it is prohibited for people to rebel against a legitimate ruler and to engage in any form of sabotage or guerrilla combat, shouldn't it also be prohibited for the ruler to permit (by action or inaction) such rebellions and uprisings?

Shouldn't ensuring political grievances do not escalate into "breaches of the peace" be an essential part of the Method?

Isn't documenting these arrangements the primary function of a state's constitution?

Isn't ensuring the smooth implementation of these constitutional arrangements the main business of politics?

One for all...

TFTD: The Islamic texts attach great emphasis to the issue of Muslim political unity, with severe admonition for any move that might undermine unity, allegiance or obedience to the ruler.

Yet the formation of diverse political schools and factions is inevitable and part of human nature. It is a sad fact that despite the texts, from the time of the 3rd of the Khulafaa Rashidoon these political differences manifested themselves in the form of insurgency, mutiney, insurrection, assasination, civil war and disintegration.

Q: Surely the command to maintain unity and allegiance should, by extension, obligate the exploration and introduction of such procedures, mechanism and structures that would safeguard our unity and prevent such violations..?

Truth by democracy?

TFTD: Last night's disrupted debate at the Oxford Union (including such controversial figures as the BNP's Nick Griffin and historian David Irving) itself sparked a wider debate about freedom of expression.

Those who boycotted or disrupted the event are of the view that giving bigots a platform lends legitimacy to their arguments and permits them to be propagated.

Supporters and organisers oppose the notion of "truth by democracy" and advocate exposing rather than silencing fascist arguments, thus favouring debate.

Q: Where should the line be drawn in terms of what can and cannot be said? Perhaps more importantly, who draws that line?

"We don't DO God"

TFTD: "The public might have been less willing to give him the triumph of three consecutive general election victories if they'd known the extent to which ethical values would overshadow pragmatism," said Menzies Campbell about Tony Blair's religious convictions.

To Campbell, politics is about pragmatic pursuit of ideals, with no place for arbitrary ethical values such as those imposed by religion.

Q: To what extent would you agree, if at all?

Ultimate limbo

TFTD: Lebanese president Emile Lahoud stepped down last night at the expiry of his term, plunging the beleaguered country into yet more uncertainty, as a bitter dispute erupted as to who now holds executive authority.

Before midnight, the president passed authority to the military, as he did not recognise the government as legitimate. The Prime Minister rejected this move, declaring direct executive authority should lie with cabinet until a successor was elected.

The opposition in parliament are determined to thwart attempts to call such a vote, bringing the country into what has been describad as "the ultimate state of political limbo". Civil war looms ominously on the horizon.

Q: Don't such events strengthen the case for a single ruler possessing all the powers of the state? Doesn't this show the failure of the doctrine of separation of powers and limited terms of office?

Like a beacon

TFTD: For almost a millenium, the Muslim world served as a source of enlightenment and inspiration for the rest of the world, with Muslims excelling in the the arts and the sciences at an unprecedented scale.

Like a beacon, the Muslim caliphate and kingdoms guided and attracted scholars from the four corners of the globe, and Muslim books were translated into many languages, serving as the foundation for subsequent institutions of knowledge. Indeed the Muslim contribution to knowledge over the ages cannot be denied even by our worst enemies.

Q: Was the Muslims' contribution more notable in the field of Hadaara or Madanniya?

Not again!

TFTD: The legacy of the tribal Arab mentality that shaped the identity of the early khilafah contributed to centuries of political fossilisation and later intellectual stagnation. This reflected itself in almost all aspects of public life, particularly in the Ottoman state.

It is a sad fact that toward the end of the 19th century the caliphate, to many, had become synonymous with backwardness, dogma, oppression, xenophobia, Turkish imperialism, exploitation and ignorance: a political system fit for the middle ages.

Q: Given that the caliphate lacked the political means to address the problems of its time, isn't it strange that generations after its abolition, we should be looking back to it as a solution to the political problems of today?

Like Kryptonite

TFTD: Like Kryptonite, exposure to civilised Europe in the 19th century sapped what little energy the floundering Ottoman giant still had. At this point it was widely recognised as being politically, intellectually and militarily unfit for purpose, and beyond repair.

Several last-ditch efforts were made to salvage the situation, most of which involved bulk imitation or adoption of European models. These revitalist efforts culminated in the formation of new nation states following the occupation of most Ottoman territory and the inevitable abolition of the sultanate.

Q: How come Islam wasn't proposed as an ideological solution to the political problems of the ailing state?

Politics? Now that's a thought!

TFTD: For centuries, the Muslims were perfectly happy not to busy themselves with matters of ruling and politics, leaving this instead to the aristocratic ruling clan. This total lack of interest in politics is reflected (by its absence) in eleven centuries of our literary heritage.

This changed in the wake of the Enlightenment era in Europe, as we witnessed for the first time, political accountability, separation of powers, constitutions and active civil society.

Q: Was it any wonder then that by the end of the nineteenth century the Ottoman state had all but collapsed?

Another week, another Chief Justice

TFTD: Today the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Abdul Hamid Dogar dismissed the charges of unconstitutional conduct that had been brought against the head of state by the previous Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.

It is worth mentioning that Chaudhry was dismissed by Musharraf after ruling that the latter's suspension of the constitution was illegal. Dogar was appointed in his place, and clearly sees the law rather differently than his predecessor.

There are those who are proposing that such power struggles could be avoided by granting the future caliph all the powers on the state: judicial, executive, legislative and military.

Q: Is it politically realistic to expect (yet another) military coup to bring about a strong, stable and accountable leadership?    

Isn't it time we started talking of the formation of a constitutional caliphate, where the people, the parliament, the judges and the army, jealously guard their powers and rights from usurpation, thereby strengthening both society and state?

(today's TFTD kindly suggested by Hash Brown)

Forget it!

TFTD: The politically-savvy Umayyads put people's minds at rest when it came to issues of succession and access to power, by spelling it out in black and white terms: forget it!

Their "arranged bay'ah" system of kinship outmaneuvred even their most cunning opponents, and counfounded and baffled the most nit-picking of jurists. Despite all its shorcomings, the Arranged Bay'ah survived virtually unchanged for centuries, adopted by successive dynasties and regimes, and accepted unchallenged by the people.

The secret of the success of the Arranged Bay'ah was incredibly simple: it worked.

Q: Isn't it rather much to expect people to reinstate a defunct ruling system after having reviously abolished it, yet at the same time to do that without the one thing that made it work?

Corridors of power

TFTD: In contrast to the Khulafaa Rashidoon, the Umayyads understood politics, not for what it was supposed to be, but what it had become in practice: a struggle to seize, consolidate, maintain and monopolise power.

And monopolise they certainly did, treating power as the rightful property of their aristocracy, devising numerous political mechanisms to ensure there was no repeat of the rebellion and mutiny that scarred the latter years of the Khilafa Rashida.

Refining such safeguards has been the preoccupation of the ruling classes of successive dynasties and regimes ever since. Similarly, overcoming these safeguards by gaining access to public sentiment and to the military have been the preoccupation of all opposition movements since.

That's a hell of a lot of political heritage and culture to reverse by means of (yet another) military coup!

Gone to pot

TFTD: The legitimacy and authority of the fourth of the Khulafaa Rashidoon was challenged by the provincial governor of Syria, who later confronted the former in the battlefield at the infamous Battle of Siffeen. This lead to tens of thousands of Muslim deaths and subsequent events sparked a mass mutiny amongst the ranks of the Caliph's army.

The Caliph had no control over Syria, Egypt nor Yemen, and he was eventually assassinated in the name of Islam by (ironically) a rebellious faction of his own camp. We still bear the scars of that rebellion today.

Q: What constitutional safeguards do we have today to prevent this happening again?

Three-fold refusal

TFTD: Embattled and besieged by insurgents, the third of the Khulafaa Rashidoon refused to yield to (the increasingly militant) calls for his resignation, refused to use the force at his disposal to impose order, and refused to use it for his own protection, allowing himself instead to be killed in his home after a period of effective house arrest.

Q: Was this three-fold refusal acceptable state policy then, and would it be acceptable state policy for the khilafah of tomorrow?

O newspaper editors!

TFTD: Yesterday, the nation was asking why the Home Office could permit so many illegal immigrants to take up employment in the security industry without proper vetting.

Today the question being asked is why did Jacqui Smith not disclose information about this blunder earlier, with the implication that the government was placing headlines and poll ratings ahead of public safety.

Its reassuring to know that the future khalifah, being appointed with a life-long term, will not loose much sleep over either such issue, allowing him to focus his undivided attention on the business of managing our affairs by the rulings of Islam.

Best of generations

TFTD: Two of the four Khulafaa Rashidoon (rightly-guided caliphs) were assassinated by their political rivals, in the belief that this was justified according to the Sharia. This was at the time of the "best of generations", when the people's understanding of Islam was at its peak.

Q: After fourteen centuries of intellectual decline, colonialism and cultural/political invasion, why should we think we have a political proposal any more robust and effective than that of the Sahaba?

It just HAS to work

TFTD: Amongst those who agree there is a ruling pertaining to every human action, there is a considerable diversity and divergence of Ijtihaads, often to the extent of direct contradiction of one another.

Despite the diversity, there is still the expectation (even if unproved) that these rulings, if adhered to and implemented in their entirety, will lead to the resolution of conflicts and problems in society.

Experience shows, however, that some Islamic solutions are more successful at this than others.

Q: Can we use this "applicability" or "success rate" factor as corroborative evidence to strengthen the validity of an Ijtihaad during the Tarjeeh between competing Ijtihaads?

All sorted, thanks

TFTD: It can be argued that there is an Islamic hukm (ruling) relating to every possible human relationship and every conceivable eventuality.

But caliming there is a ruling for every action isn't the same as claiming that abiding by (and implementing) these rulings will comprehensively address these problems in a manner that satisfies man that the problems of society have been resolved.

Q: Is there a case for the latter claim? Isn't this a logical conclusion dependent on the validity of its predicates/presumptions? How could it be argued without forcing Allah to conform to a human model of behaviour?

In uniform

TFTD: The people of Pakistan all (or at least most of them) yearn for their republic to be replaced by a global khilafah where the khalifah will be the commander of the armed forces as well as the ruler.

Q: Why then are they making such an issue of the current president's role as head of the military? Is it just a ploy to hasten the demise of the republican system?

What?! Arrest my barber?!

The fourth caliph derived much of his political strength and support from a segment of the so-called Ahl-ul-Hal-wal-Aqd that had on their hands the blood of the third caliph. His reliance on their loyalty appears to have prevented him from bringing them to account, which in turn sparked the first civil war in Islamic history.

Fourteen centuries later, it is again being proposed that armies with blood on their hands be used as key instruments in the delivery of power to the Islamists.

Q: Should we be worrying?