Fish 5133 is a fish out of water. You made a comment which escaped my radar by stating that Muslims were the Crusaders and using fear to spread ideology. Which planet are you living on? You might as well as join
Geert Wilders Dutch rightwing Islamophobic party below. At least we will know whose side you are on.
Dutch fear attacks over Islam film
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/news-watch/ ... -film.html
The Netherlands is bracing itself for an international backlash as Geert Wilders, a maverick right-wing MP, prepares to release an anti-Islamic film that is already causing anger.
Critics fear the much-hyped film Fitna, which criticises the Koran, could lead to bloodshed in Muslim countries, damage Dutch business interests and endanger the lives of Dutch troops in Afghanistan.
Wilders - who has received death threats from Islamic extremists - has promised to release the film before the end of March despite pleas from the Dutch government and mounting unrest in the Muslim world.
The actual content of the 15-minute film has been kept tightly under wraps, even from the Dutch prime minister and security officials.
But Wilders revealed in January that it featured a split screen with verses from the Koran alongside examples of Sharia law, including scenes of beheadings and stonings. He has added that he wants the film to show that "Islam and the Koran are part of a fascist ideology that wants to kill everything we stand for in western democracy".
Dutch broadcasters have refused to show the video but Wilders has indicated that he plans to air it on the internet.
The Dutch government is wary of infringing his freedom of speech and has not sought to ban the film but has branded it "irresponsible" and begun a preemptive diplomatic campaign.
Already, 15,000 people have protested in Afghanistan against the film, burning Dutch flags.
Nato commanders say that the Taliban could use it to whip up more anger and the Dutch ambassador in Malaysia said protests could lead to "dozens of deaths". Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation, said the film would threaten peace.
In a speech to the European parliament in Strasbourg this year, the Grand Mufti of Syria warned of global consequences. "If there is unrest, bloodshed and violence after the broadcast of the Koran film, Wilders will be responsible," he said.
The film has been compared to the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. More than 100 people died in ensuing riots after they were published in 2006.
Can FISH 5133 explain what on earth the modern day Crusaders are doing in Iraq? Speak truth otherwise do not contribute here and waste time. And since it is Easter why don't you repent for your sins and trangression against the truth?
The Iraq Invasion, the War on Islam, Consequences and the Way Forward
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/i ... rward.html
The media and policy discourse on the Iraq war over the last 5 years has focused on and evolved around issues such as civil war, the Sunni-Shia divide, the involvement of external actors such as Iran and Syria. However, an important issue which needs to be emphasised is how the Iraqi war and the subsequent occupation is linked to the Western objective of weakening and containing the growth of Islamic revivalism in the Muslim world.
Post Cold War, Francis Fukuyama's in his seminal work ‘the end of history', argued that liberal democracy had triumphed and its promotion had to be the key basis of US foreign policy around the world. This declaration was naïve to say the least; at best it was a knee jerk reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as ideological revival had taken root in the Muslim world since the 1960s and had been developing strength in the region. It is subsequently this region where the US would face its main challenge, in tackling Islamic revivalism in the world.
The Clinton administration relied on the promotion of globalisation, with the belief that economic growth would lead to democratic and secular development in the region. This characterised the behaviour of international financial institutions and aid agencies in the region, which were linking aid and funding to economic liberalisation and the development of free markets. However, this US policy failed to take the ideological revival off its course, with Islamic movements and their ideological call growing in strength in the context of capitalistic economic and models of development in the region. The post 9/11 period, would see a radical shift in US foreign policy towards the region, directed by the neoconservatives, which had wanted a more clearer and sharper policy for the Muslim world since the early 1990s and had lobbied the Clinton administration to take on board their views, however this failed and the 9/11 events, the subsequent emotions and outcry, allowed the neoconservatives to manipulate public sentiments to begin its war on terror, which has become synonymous with a war on Islam. The neoconservatives have linked US national security to the Middle East, and have realised the ideological threat and challenge which Political Islam poses to US national interests, in particular the ever important oil and gas supplies from the region, which has become more important given the growth of China and its growing need for hydrocarbon energy. As a result, the need to weaken the strength of political Islam has shaped US foreign policy towards the region post 9/11. This policy has involved the following;
1) The weakening and breaking up of Muslim states i.e. the fragmentation of Iraq and similar situation developing in Pakistan 2) The creation of ethnic and religious divisions i.e. Sunni-Shia divide, through the Iraq chaos and the escalation of the Iranian threat and through statements made by Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah and Hosni Mubarak who have spoken of a Shia Crescent in the region 3) Giving the green light to Israeli aggression in Lebanon, with the US aware that the ramifications of the conflict would be wider and impacting the whole region i.e. refugees, ethnic and religious divisions. 4) Turning a blind eye to increased authoritarianism in the region, for example the Islamic movement has been hounded in countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Central Asia
Therefore, the US has post 9/11 used the war in Afghanistan and particularly the invasion of Iraq to try to weaken the growth of Islam in the region. However the US and the West have also had an eye on Muslim populations in the West, in particular due to the failure to secularise them and giving them a nationalist identity, which replaces their Islamic transnational identity as one Ummah. As a result the West has fashioned and crafted policies to create secular identities among the Muslims, there has been an increased emphasis on patriotism in the US, with flags outside peoples homes a common seen and people being seen as been unpatriotic and to an extent committing treason, if a flag is not apparent forcing Muslims into developing a secular national identity, loyal to the US and her troops in Iraq.
Similarly this has been a common trend throughout Europe, with governments introducing policies, such as citizenship classes, ceremonies, tests, and oath of allegiances, with them clearly being directed towards the Muslim communities in Europe. Behind, all of this has been the objective to cut off the Muslim community from the Muslim world and to give it a French, British, and Germany identity, meaning that the Muslims would support European governments in the war on terror rather than supporting the movement for Khilafah in the region. Therefore, it is clear that Western policy has been double edged, one focusing on the Muslim world and the other to Muslims in the West, but with both edges directed towards taking the wind out of the sail of Islamic revivalism.
US Presidential Elections: Withdrawal from Iraq and the Muslim world?
An important question to answer is the impact of the impending US presidential elections on the occupation of Iraq and military presence in the Muslim world. The Republican candidate John McCain is a supporter of the war on terror, supported the Iraq invasion and supported the Bush administrations surge policy in Iraq. Therefore, McCain coming to power is not likely to substantially change US foreign policy to Iraq and the Muslim world and its objectives driving the policy. In relation to the democrats, Hilary Clinton supported the war in Iraq and now has been arguing for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and this is similar to Barak Obama. However, it is fair to say that the democrats are playing on the anti-war opinion in the US and manipulating this for political electoral points. The democrats and the republicans differ on styles in terms of executing US foreign policy but at heart they are both driven by US interests and her main interest post 9/11 is to tackle the growing demand for Khilafah in the region and this is going to continue to shape and drive US foreign policy post US presidential election in November 2008. This means that the instability and insecurity, which has characterised the Middle East post 9/11 is to continue, plunging the region into a further abyss, whether the democrats of republicans take control of Washington in November 2008.
The Way Forward for the Iraq and the Muslim World
The only way for the region, is Islam implemented by the Khilafah (Islamic State), this is the only ideology which is able to bring unity, stability and security to the region. Islam is linked to the region, through religion, culture and history, giving it a natural environment through which it can emerge in state and society. This is in direct contrast to external models of government and economics which are European centric, leading to inevitable conflict with the regions culture and history. The situation which we are seeing today in Iraq, the chaos and the Sunni-Shia divide is unprecedented, with that territory having never witnessed the bloodshed which it sees today. The ethnic and religious groupings lived in a cohesive society for centuries, under the mosaic of an Islamic political system, which was disturbed by colonialism post Ottomans and the subsequent colonial involvement, epitomised by the Iraq War.
The region is at an important juncture 5 years on from the Iraq war, US policy is causing instability and insecurity and there is a need for a paradigm change in the region, with political Islam taking root and acting as the means of dealing with the problems of the region, caused by authoritarianism and US policy. This needed change is now sensed by the majority of the people who wish to live under the systems of the Shariah and the unity of the Khilafah system.
What is the true cost of the Iraq war?
It is in the psyche of capitalists to evaluate (or more aptly relegate) the evaluation of the costs of the Iraq war to a cold and calculated cost-benefit ratio. Clinically valuing the costs of the Iraq war into dollars and pounds is hugely insulting to all those who have lost lives or limbs, their families and near relatives (on all sides of the conflict). It also conveniently distracts from the humanitarian disaster, which is beyond quantification. However, it is useful from the viewpoint of the capitalist to focus minds on the benefits in order to determine whether to continue to engage in a costly endeavour.
Without free access to the world's third largest oil reserves, the Iraq war always had a poor cost-benefit ratio. The costs of militarily invading Iraq and removing Saddam (in terms of men and equipment) would be paid for primarily by the US while the benefits would almost exclusively accrue to the Iraqi people in terms of political and economic freedom. A loss making venture - Period. This in itself should be enough to convince anyone, but the most zealous supporter s of the war, of the real motivation for the US, the world's biggest free market capitalist economy and the largest consumer of oil, to invade Iraq.
Five years on and with the US economy effectively in recession, with increasing joblessness and homelessness, it is worth noting that the Iraq campaign is estimated to be costing American tax payers $10 billion every 34 days according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. This is just one of many estimates which vary from $100 billion to $3 trillion depending on who's counting - either supporters or opponents of the war. Supporters, mostly right wing neocons, downplay the costs arguing that even before the invasion costs were being incurred maintaining the no-fly zone and a US presence in the Gulf. Opponents contend that the true costs are being concealed from the American public - just as the US ban on televising returning bodybags - to maintain public support for the war.
The truth about the true costs, as with much else related to this conflict, is elusive including the false premise - Saddam's weapons on mass destruction -upon which the war was sanctioned. This is in spite of the 24/7 news coverage; embedded reporters; and burgeoning Arabic media. It appears that even the so-called principled proponents of free speech have accepted that truth is truly the first casualty of war. However, what of the non-quantified costs: the cost of the loss of American political reputation in Europe; the cost of undermining the fractured credibility of the United Nations; the cost of losing the supposed ‘moral high ground' in the fight against terrorism; and the cost to America's standing in the Muslim and Islamic world. Shamefully though, most of these cost estimates do not even consider the loss on the Iraqi side. Just as the US did not consider counting the number of Iraqis killed in the conflict. In comparison to the 4000 odd US military staff killed, what of the cost of over 600,000 Iraqi deaths as estimated by the Lancet medical journal back in October 2006. That's about 2.5% of Iraq's population, which, as a proportion of the US population, is equivalent to losing a staggering 7 million Americans - slightly less than the entire population of New York.
In addition what of the cost of the 4 million displaced Iraqis who have had their lives and families torn apart by the war - 2 million of which are living as refugees in desperate conditions in neighbouring countries. What about the costs of a serious lack of security which disrupts every aspect of life; the cost of power outages, breakdown in sewage and failure of clean water supplies; the cost of the loss of doctors, teachers and civil servants. The list can go on. Even if stability is established, it will take generations to recover from such deep devastation. As with much else related to the Iraq war the true costs of the conflict will probably be unknown until many decades after the war, as in the case of Vietnam. The estimated costs bare little resemblance to the true cost of the conflict and betray the fact that the real motivation for the war was to gain unlimited access to Iraq's oil reserves without which growing expenditure on the war is unjustifiable. The sad reality is that America's rising demand for oil to power its economic and political strength, as oil supplies tighten, will only motivate it to control and dominate other resource rich nations. This does not bode well for the Middle East or competing and emerging economic powers like China and India.
Only the Caliphate state can end the cycle of destruction and devastation for the people of the Muslim world, the Middle East and the wider region. The Caliphate will bring regional stability and growth as it will implement a system of government and a rule of law that accords with the peoples' religion, customs and tradition. Its economic and foreign policy will not be motivated by greed or exploitation but by ending poverty and inviting other nations to witness the justice and excellence of Islam.
The Iraq invasion, secularism and Islam
In the week when the western media turns its attention to the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, numerous commentators have begun to pepper the columns with their opinionated pieces analysing the purpose behind the invasion, why it went wrong and why the west cannot now leave the current chaos that all agree is the appropriate description for the legacy of the Bush-Blair adventure, inspired in the name of the war on terror.
The grim reality of the human catastrophe of the invasion and occupation, the ever worsening situation in the region as a whole, the inability of the occupation forces to quell the violence the invasion has erupted and its elevating cost amidst the downturn in the western economies, has left the arrogant and euphoric tone that US and British government officials animated in the past seem like a very along time ago.
Justifying Colonialism
Revisiting a speech at the Heritage Foundation during his tour of the US in 2005, the former British Home secretary Charles Clarke spoke of the challenge posed by al Qaeda and its supporters to the secular democratic tradition of the West in the following manner. He stated "Our society is itself is an affront, and a reproach, to the ideologues who believe that only their way of living life is the right one". The irony of this statement made at a time when British troops occupied two Islamic countries having participated in the slaughter of thousands of innocent Muslims in the name of democracy and the war on terror did not seem inappropriate as western public opinion was still largely, albeit reluctantly, supportive of the invasion as a lesser of two evils.
Charles Clarke's speech came in the wake of similar rhetoric from George Bush speaking at the Washington-based think tank The National Endowment for Democracy. In this speech, Bush defended the invasion and occupation of Iraq amidst growing public unease by claiming that Islamic radicals were seeking to establish a radical Islamic empire with Iraq serving as the main front. He stated "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia." This mantra became the mainstay of the Bush and Blair governments and their officials to justify the continuing occupation for the long term.
While the overwhelming desire of the Muslims globally is for political change in the Muslim world, the fear gripping western governments is not due to the likes of militant organisations such as al Qaeda but rather the Muslim masses who have turned away from the West and its secular values and are instead turning to political Islam to seek a solution to the present malaise. Indeed, the main problem for the Bush-Blair logic that links the establishment of a new Caliphate in the Muslim world to the modus operandi of al Qaeda, used to justify the continued immoral occupation and disintegration of once sovereign states, is the uncomfortable fact that the movement for the re-establishment of Islamic governance in the Muslim world has come overwhelmingly from peaceful political movements and not from militant groups. Indeed, the rise of militancy is a relatively new phenomenon, which has grown out of the occupation of Muslim holy lands following the first Iraq war, the immoral sanctions regime, which killed up to a million Iraqis that ensued and the continued support of the Zionist aggression against the Muslims of Palestine and Lebanon. The recent occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has only accentuated the deeply rooted resentment towards western foreign policy, which as most commentators acknowledge, is the driving motivation behind the adoption of a militant methodology and the swelling ranks of such Jihadi organisations. This coupled with the collusion between western colonialist governments such as the US and Britain and the dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world has fostered a strong public opinion for the return of a sincere Islamic leadership.
Blurring the margins between political activism and terrorism
Organisations such as Hizb ut Tahrir, and prior, the Khilafah movement in India, were working for the re-establishment of the Caliphate as a model of Islamic governance in the Muslim world several decades prior to the creation by the CIA of the prelude to what became al Qaeda during the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviets. Other organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood have also worked consistently for the return of Islamic governance and the implementation of Shariah Law. The rhetoric of the Bush-Blair era to the ideological challenge posed by Muslim groups was to label such movements as extremist. Whereas extremism in the past was used almost exclusively to label those who advocated a violent or intimidating methodology to promote their view e.g. animal rights extremists, Tony Blair redefined the political lexiconical landscape in his August 5th 2006 press conference in the aftermath of the London bombings by including all Muslims who wish to implement Shariah laws in their countries and the unification of the Muslim world under a Caliphate under the banner of extremism. By doing so, Tony Blair took an unprecedented step of vilifying some of the fundamental principles of Islamic belief setting the West on collision course with 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. The introduction of controversial new anti-terror legislation to include the incitement and glorification of terrorism and the proscription of the British branch of Hizb ut Tahrir, an avowedly non-violent political organisation, left Muslims convinced that the Bush-Blair war on terror was in reality a war on Islam. This message was reinforced by Charles Clarke in his US speech when he stated "...there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia Law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality of the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilisation and are simply not up for negotiation." George Bush added yet another derogatory term to the growing collection of adjectives used to describe political Islamic movements seeking the establishment of a new Caliphate, " the Islamofacist!"
The contradiction between democratic theory and practise
Since Home Office documents have shown that the British government was fully aware that Hizb ut Tahrir's peaceful political work seeks the re-establishment of the Caliphate in the Muslim world and whose work in Britain is restricted to the dissemination of Islamic thought, one is drawn to the conclusion that Charles Clarke's statements can only mean that the aspirations of Muslims worldwide for the return of the Caliphate in the Muslim world is an illegitimate view and one that can not be tolerated. Indeed, the attempts by the British Government to obtain UN approval for the establishment of an international list of extremists supports this conclusion. The Bush-Blair approach sought to deliberately blur the margins between peaceful political work for change and the methodology of terrorism. While the Labour government under Brown has adopted a different tone, if not action, the opposition leader David Cameron has repeatedly called for the proscription of the British branch of Hizb ut Tahrir. The contradiction between democratic rhetoric and government policy has not gone unnoticed among the Muslim masses nor has the attempt to morally justify a policy of policing thoughts through the anti-terror legislation and via propaganda by reference to the Caliphate as totalitarian and its advocates as nihilistic.
The speech by Pope Benedict XVI at Regensberg around this period was aimed to propagate this view when he effectively stated that Islam and rationality were incompatible. In a deceptive argument, the Pope misquoted an Islamic scholar to make the point that reason in Islam cannot be used to challenge revelation. The place of reason in Islamic thought has been discussed during the period of Islamic history when the influence of Greek thought had permeated the Islamic world during the Abbasid Caliphate and was challenged by Islamic traditionalists. This debate appears now to be resurfacing as Islam re-emerges to challenge secularism. The debate which took place during the height of the Islamic civilisation resulted in the victory of the Islamic traditionalists over those who carried ideas of Greek origin. This debate was useful in helping Muslims to rediscover the Islamic understanding of the role of the human intellect and its interaction with the Islamic texts. It helped to clarify the difference between the use of the intellect to understand the Islamic texts and apply the Divine guidance inherent within them to new problems facing humanity and the error of making the intellect the source of guidance and legislation. It also reconfirmed to importance of building a creedal view upon reason and investigation rather than upon blind faith alone.
Therefore, these arguments by western politicians, thinkers and religious figures were attempts to seize the intellectual and moral high ground by accusing those aspiring for a return of Islamic governance on the international arena as promoting a vision for future intolerance, discrimination and injustice. The use of force to intervene is Muslim lands and the development of further draconian anti-terror legislation is, therefore, justifiable since the ideology of the enemy is inferior, intolerant and devoid of a rational discourse.
Religious doctrine cannot allow co-existence
One of the manifestations of this intolerance argued by many secularists is the inability of religions to co-exist. Anthony Grayling articulated this argument in a discourse entitled "The Secular and the Sacred" in the following manner. Pointing to intolerance and instability in the pre-European enlightenment era as caused by the doctrinal distinctions between the major religions, Grayling states " It is a woolly and optimistic liberal hope that all religions can be viewed as worshipping the same god, only in different ways; but this is nonsense, as shown by the most cursory comparison of teachings, interpretations, moral requirements, creation myths and eschatologies, in all of which the major religions differ and frequently contradict each other. History shows how clearly the religions themselves grasped this; the motivation for Christianity's hundreds of years of crusades against Islam, pogroms against Jews and inquisitions against heretics, was the desire to expunge heterodoxy and infidelity or at least to effect forcible compliance with prevailing orthodoxy. Islam's various Jihads had the same aim, and it spread half way around the world by conquest and the sword. Where they can get away with it-as in present-day Afghanistan-devotees continue the same practices. The religious Right in America would doubtless do so too, but has to use TV, money, advertising and political lobbying instead to impress it version of the truth on American society. It is only where religion is on the back foot, reduced to a minority practise, with an insecure tenure in society, that it presents itself as essentially peaceful and charitable. This is the chief reason why allowing the major religions to jostle against one another in the public domain is extremely undesirable. The solution is to make the public domain wholly secular, leaving religion to the personal sphere, as a matter of private conviction and practice only...."
Graylings thesis is built upon observations of historical conflicts between past nations whose differing worldviews were built upon religious doctrines and upon the European experience associated with life under the theocratic dictatorships that dominated Europe during the Middle Ages. While these clashes have taken place, their frequencies were not comparable to the frequency of conflict observed between nation states and empires in the post-enlightenment era. A cursory examination of the 20th century demonstrates that under the dominance of secular systems of governance, global conflict has intensified to alarming proportions with the occurrence of two world wars and the cold war, which lead to an arms race that has populated the world with the most destructive weapons in history. As an example, the US alone has invaded over 40 countries post world war II. This is not to mention the continual colonial wars in Europe and the enslavement and destructions of numerous nations including the American Indians. The basis of these conflicts have invariably been motivated by the perceived need to secure material assets and strategic resources in a world where nation states compete in the international arena for the largest slice of the global cake in the "Game of Nations." With the rise of new global competitors in China and India, the western states are now re-engaging in a struggle for global strategic resources such as oil and gas, and many of the current areas of international instability can be linked to these energy resources e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur.
The uniqueness of the Islamic civilisation
Graylings thesis also confuses the distinction between state and society as well as important distinctions between Islam and Christianity. With reference to the former, it is important to distinguish between the interaction on the global arena between states with differing worldviews and the interaction of individuals in society. History is testimony to the fact that all ideological states and civilisations have sought to expand irrespective of whether they are religious or secular, imperial or socialist. Therefore, on an international level, Graylings thesis laying claim to religion as a source of conflict becomes redundant. Furthermore, from the perspective of Islam, the expansion of the Islamic State established by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) was entirely ideologically motivated and involved a process of dialogue with foreign states followed by military engagement (if dialogue was unsuccessful) aimed at neutralising physical obstacles (military and political entities) to the spread of the Islamic message. The nature of these conquests were such that the people in conquered lands were given equal citizen status to their Muslim counterparts and freedom of religious belief. The deception that Islam was spread by the sword is exposed by the historically acknowledged fact that the carriers of the Islamic message to Spain were not Arabs but the conquered Berbers of North Africa who, after embracing Islam, took upon themselves the mantle of conveying the Islamic message.
On this point, it is also worth mentioning here that in 1214, during the Abbasid Caliphate, the King of England John Lackland approached the governor of Morrocco Muhammed Nasir of his desire to embrace Islam along with his nation and to become part of the Islamic Caliphate. Governor Muhammed Nasir rejected King John's proposal as it became apparent to him that the basis for John Lackland's decision to embrace Islam was his astonishment at the greatness of the Islamic Caliphate rather than his conviction on the correctness and truthfulness of the Islamic creed. This demonstrates how the Prophetic methodology of spreading the message of Islam was continued after his death by the various Caliphs and constitutes the foreign policy of the Islamic Caliphate. This policy was quite unique to the Caliphate model of governance and was based upon the Quranic injunction "There is no compulsion in religion" [TMQ Al Baqara, 256 ] and upon the Prophet Muhammed's (peace be upon him) saying "Those upon the Christian and Jewish faiths are not to be seduced therefrom." Such phenomena were not observed during the expansion of the imperial nations either in the past or present. It is not conceivable that the Muslims of Afghanistan would have facilitated the US invasion of Iraq yet alone be the carriers of democracy, or that we could ever envisage the Iraqis helping the US attack any other nation or be the carriers of democracy to surrounding countries!
The Islamic society that was established during the expansion of the Caliphate provided a level of cohesion, mutual tolerance and justice that has arguably not been repeated in the world. For example, during the siege of Jerusalem during the era of the Caliph Umar ibn al Khattab in AD 642, the Christian Patriach Sophronius requested that the terms of surrender be conducted directly with the Caliph. Caliph Umar travelled to Jerusalem from Medina where he personally negotiated a peaceful surrender with the Christian leadership, which became known as the Umari treaty that remained in force until the British invasion of Palestine in 1915.
With reference to the distinction between Islam and Christianity, Grayling is guilty of generalising between the methodology of governance of the various Christian empires with the Islamic methodology implemented by the Caliphate. The Islamic society established throughout the various ruling dynasties were never characterised by the purging of minorities through inquisitions or by internal rebellion originating from non-Muslim minorities. These communities were not coerced to adopt the Islamic belief and were protected through a covenant of citizenship built upon the saying of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) "whosoever harmed a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen) it is as if he harmed me". Minority communities consisting of Christians and Jews flourished in the Islamic lands and are still well settled to this day in countries such as Egypt and Lebanon. The loyalty of these communities to the Islamic authority during the Abbasid Caliphate is exemplified by the scale of the voluntary contribution by the Maronites to the armies, which drove out the European Crusaders. Therefore, due to the comprehensiveness of the systems of Islam, a progressive global society characterised by tolerance and harmony between divergent communities existed in contrast to the society that characterised Christian Europe.
Exploring the Islamic and Western Traditions
Grayling, like many Western commentators incorrectly draws parallels between the causes of the decline that befell the Muslim world from AD 1500 and the decline, which characterised Europe during the period of theocratic rule. The role of the Church in consolidating the tyrannical rule of the emperors of Europe has no relationship to the role that Islam played in engendering the progressive and elevated society established by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) and developed under the Ummayad, Abbasid and Ottoman Caliphs. Whereas Europe's renaissance followed the redefinition of the role of the Church in governance and legislation, that is, its removal from constitutional authority, the decline of the Caliphate was predominantly due to the intellectual stagnation that took hold within the state leading to the closure of the doors of ijtihad (scholastic jurisprudence) at around AD 1000. Therefore, Europe's revival was due to the dissociation of religion from state whereas the Caliphate's decline was due to the inability to maintain the association of Islam from effectively addressing societal affairs and modern problems.
Taking the historical facts mentioned above into account, it is therefore, natural for the global Muslim Ummah to aspire to see the return of a progressive, new Caliphate in the Muslim world built upon the model established by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) but within a 21st century world. This public opinion has developed over the last 60 years alongside the rediscovery of the process of ijtihad, which is vital for Islamic societal progression. The Bush-Blair war on terror has realigned its focus upon the prevention of the re-establishment of the Caliphate through the promotion of secular democracy in the Middle East at "gun point" if necessary and the launching of a McCarthy-like witch hunt of those that work for its re-emergence.
Anti-Islamist Propaganda
In the process, Muslims living in Europe, face a new period of coercive assimilation through the implementation of policies such as anti-terror legislation, proscription of political movements, stop and search and shoot to kill, all aimed at intimidating the Muslim community into adopting the secular creed and values of European society. This is accompanied by continuous ideological attacks upon Islam and the Shariah, which has nurtured an indigenous hostility towards Muslims and their religion. The response to the speech by the Archbishop of Cantebury in which he suggested that some aspects of Shariah could be accomodated within the British legal framework is clear evidence of this new hostility. The "stick" is accompanied, however, by the "carrot" that offers an alternative vision of Islam in Europe-one that is reformed and recreated in the image of the west. Likewise, one can view the invasion and occupation of Iraq in a similar manner, that is, the stick by which the other Muslim states of the region are persuaded to fall into line. The response of Libya's dictator Ghadaffi to the western call to give up his nuclear programme and his reward by way of re-integration into the community of nations confirms this stratagem. In applying this approach, the secular civilisation can no longer lay claim to being pluralistic or tolerant as indeed the challenge of Islam posed by the Muslim masses has demonstrated that the separation of religion from the affairs of life, that is secularism, is indeed the neo-sacred that tolerates no genuine dissention.
