Kamran Bokhari : Stratfor's "resident jihadist" organises radical Islamist Caliphate conference

Rutherford, Kenneth R., Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, SMSU, Springfield, MO 65804, Tel. # (417) 836-6428.

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01678.html

Kamran A. Bokhari
Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:25:23 -0800

MSA-EC - http://sunnah.org

AAWRWB

Brother Hani Al-Khatib wrote:

<<1) Material pertaining to the *religious sciences*, such as his so-called
>Tafsir, his fatwas about Hijab (Burda), birth-control, etc. All such
>material is to be thrown out the window. Mawdudi was never a scholar, so he
>can never teach others Islam. Many Barelwi, Deobandi, and non-Hanafi
>scholars have rejected Mawdudi and refuted his errors.>>

On the contrary Sayyid Maududi did in fact have ijazas in the Hanafi fiqh from
Deobandi madaris in Pre-partition India. the thing is he never flaubnted his
Islamic credentilas as he began his career as ajournalist and in other
literary works It is another thing he was never a career/rpofessional a'lim.
As for other Barelvi, Deobandi, and non-Hanafi u'lema not considering him an
a'lim only those who have aprtisan and sectarian bias and are downright
Taleban style mullahs have such a grudge and jealousy for him. I myself am
from am orthodox barelvi background. in fcat I am from a family of pirs,
auliya, sufis, etc. and I have seen the literature churned out by the barelvis
against him. It is sheer nonsense and fabrications and most of ther diatribe
is nothing more than maliciously taking his statements out of context. In fact
Sayyid Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (ra), Amin Ahsan Islahi (ra), Sadr Al-Deen
Al-Rifai', Yusuf Islahi, etc. are top of the line u'lema who recognized
Maududi as an a'lim. It was in fact Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (ra) who translated
his works into Arabic and introduced him to Sayyid Qutb. The problem is that
he is more well knwon for being a mufakir and his Tafheem-ul-Qur'an is not an
exegesis per se but in fact a summarization of the works of previous
mufassireen that he wrote for the benefit of the common man who only
understood Urdu.

I say the above as a former member of IJT (student wing of JI) during the late
80s.

Yours-in-Islam,

Kamran A. Bokhari
Teaching/Research Assistant
Masters of Int'l Affairs & Admn. Program
Department of Political Science
College of Public Affairs & Humanities
Southwest Missouri State University
PACB 321, 900, S. Holland,
Springfield, MO-65804
Tel: (417) 836-5924
Fax: (417) 836-6655

MSA-EC - http://sunnah.org

>From: "Kamran A. Bokhari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: MSA-EC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: MSA-EC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed!
>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:30:48 -0600

Walaikumsalaam

I dont know if you are from the subcontinent, esp India. Talking about
Maudodi spurns resentment against that man who had no deep knowledge and
unfortunately slipped from the correct path. I am not cricising for that
purpose.

I happen to sramble thru one book titled as "Dastoor E Jamaat Islami" while
at my friend Dr.Tanveer Altaf's house in Hyderabad, who is associated with
JI. On the back of the front page there were few lines as to the
Dastoor/terms of Maududi's new front Jamaat.

"Apart from Allah and Rasool, no one is above criticism". With this one line
alone, this man kicked himself out of the pale of Islam, becos after that he
went on a spree of slandering, doubting and making criticism of every one,
incle Suhabas.

I know one lawyer who has seen and I presume even met Maududi, the moment I
uttered Maududi's name, his face changed and he who otherwise if very
humble, religious and kind person, started to hurl abuse at Maududi, also
told me that Maududi was an insane person.

Maududi, was in Hyderabad, India for some while, his parents were pious and
Sunni Muslims, he requested the then Nawab for assistance and a place to
carry on his work, so he was given a place in a mosque where he spent time
in reading and writing. (this news I heard from few mouths and long ago).

He did read a lot, but unfortunately, this man started to analyse then
arrive on his own conclusion, this happens when anyone thinks he dont need
anyone to teach him or to clear doubts or to elaborate on certain issues.
Ilm is a must so is an Aalim to impart the Ilm, this is where Maudodi failed
so miserably that he started to cast doubts about any one starting RAsool
Allah (SAWS), Suhabas and others thru his pen. And the JI still follows the
number one rule penned by Maududi, no one is above citicism.

If you are getting offended that I am criticisig an Aalim, then rest assured
I am just doing what he mentioned...'no one is above....'.

As far as Maududi's books are concerned, I happened to note that those who
read his books, their thoughts and etiquette changed, they become more and
more vocal, rude, temperamental, and started to practice in a different
ways.

The best way to do is to leave alone the books of this man, this man has
caused much fitna with his Aqaids, teachings, writings and misguidance, and
above all he died in a toilet.

What his followers did was to mass produce his books, and I doubt some of
them were not written by Maudodi at all, and then spread them accross the
globe so as to create an image, place and respect in the heart of ignorant
muslims.

May Allah save the beseiged Ummah from such fitnas. Amen.

Sayyadi Anta Habibi Wa Tabeeb E Qalabi
Amada Su E To Qudsi Pae Darmaan Talabi

Ahmed Irfani Sabri

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01727.html

Kamran A. Bokhari
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:50:05 -0800
MSA-EC - http://sunnah.org

AAWRWB

I am not sure I understood your question but I think it is fair and
scholarly analysis of Maududi and JI.

Yours-in-Islam

Kamran A. Bokhari
Teaching/Research Assistant
Masters of Int'l Affairs & Admn. Program
Department of Political Science
College of Humanities & Public Affairs
Southwest Missouri State University
PACB 321, 900, S. Holland
Springfield, MO-65804,
Tel: (417) 836-5924
Fax: (417) 836-6655

-----Original Message-----
From: Zahra Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:43 AM
To: MSA-EC
Subject: RE: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed!

MSA-EC - http://sunnah.org

bismihi Ta'ala
assalam o alaikum ...

akhi, what do you think of the title from Syed Vali Reza Nasr, on Mawdudi? I
believe it is titled 'Mawdudi and the making of Islamic Revivalism'.

will look forward to your comments,

abu Kumayl

>From: "Kamran A. Bokhari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: MSA-EC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: MSA-EC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed!
>Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 11:30:48 -0600
 
 Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! mir ali 
Re: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! Muaz Niazi 
RE: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! Kamran A. Bokhari 
Re: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! Abu Usamah 
Re: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! Abu Usamah 
RE: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! Zahra Ali 
RE: Information on Maulana Abul Ala Maududi needed! Kamran A. Bokhari 
RE: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! ahmed irfani 
RE: Information on Mawlana Abul Ala Maududi needed! ahmed irfani 

Date:
Sat, Jul 18 1998 12:00 am 
Email: 
mate...@sybase.com (Mateen Siddiqui)
Groups: 
soc.religion.islam

Not yet ratedRating:
show options 

Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim 
As salatu was salamu alayka Ya RasulAllah! 

As salamu alaykum, Muslimeen and Mohmineen: 

Recently there has been a hate campaign launched on the Internet which 
has served shaytan by sewing seeds of doubt in the hearts of Muslims 
and causing them to question the core of some very valuable work in the 
Muslim community. I am writing today as this campaign is focused on 
discrediting me and has labelled me, without any shred of evidence, as a 
Zionist. This action has become so intense that my silence, which I 
hoped would extinguish the flames, has now become haram. 

My name is Cynthia Ruben. I am an American convert to Islam who took 
shahadah nearly 25 years ago. Since that day my struggle has not ended, 
but certainly it took a very different course. Today I find myself 
defending not only my name, but declaring my faith in Allah, my love for 
His Messenger, and the very work with which I am so honored. How 
interesting that non-Muslims don't seek this declaration as they respect 
my Islam, but some Muslim "brothers and sisters" are actually the ones 
in doubt. 

Some weeks ago, a coward by the name of Amer al-Shawa launched a 
vicious campaign on the Internet inventing the name "Cynthia Robenstein" 
who he indicated is a Zionist plant in the Muslim community, posing as 
a Muslim. I am not Jewish, nor are my parents, nor have I ever been 
married to a Jew, nor have I ever been aligned with the cursed tool of 
shaytan, Zionism. However, when I studied Islam I felt honored to learn 
that our beloved RasulAllah (s) took a wife from many tribes, one of 
them having been a daughter of Jewish princes, to wit, Umm Salma (r). 

When the daughters of Sayyidina Abu Bakr Siddiq and Sayyidina 'Umar (r) 
tried to taunt her about her Jewish ancestry, RasulAllah instructed Um 
Salma to reply that she was from the blood line of nobility, namely, a 
descendant from Sayyidina Ibrahim, Sayyidina Musa, and Sayyidina Daud 
(as). Such is the illustrious example of Allah (swt) and His Rasul (s), 
that Islam can come to any tribe, any race, any era, any culture. I have 
referred to the Mothers of the Faithful, and only the UNFAITHFUL will 
try to slander another with some waswasa of them being Jewish or 
Zionist. Astaghfirullah Azeem, you have committed a great haram! 

We reverts to Islam need support. We can't turn to our parents or our 
siblings to fulfill our needs of faith, we do not enjoy the family 
structure and familial support like you with Muslim families. We must 
make our own way in our path to Allah, often with great sacrifice which 
many "born Muslims" may never know. I returned from out of town and 
found all these vicious emails forwarded to me on the Internet. For 
what? What is my crime? What justice has this sickening campaign served? 
 
Amer al-Shawa, you are a punk of the worst form, the greatest coward, 
who tries to advance his position by discrediting a woman! This in 
itself is testimony to what your position is! Do you think I am weak? Do 
you think I have no advantage over you? That my Allah has no regard for 
me? I converted to Islam from Catholicism by using my intellect and I 
reasoned my way to acceptance of the Truth. It may be that you are 
Muslim only because your parents were, but I am among those who overcame 
every challenge just to be Muslim! When I embraced Islam, my family 
turned against me, threatened me and even boycotted me. One by one, 
every "friend" suddenly condemned me and left me with seemingly no 
support. People laughed in my face. I was forced out of my home, my job, 
and an opulent lifestyle to which I was accustomed. Yet in all this I 
acquired a level of happiness and security which only Allah swt can 
give. Moreover, I was rewarded with my entire family embracing Islam, 
including both parents, paternal grandmother, siblings, my children, 
cousins, one niece and her three children. 

Do not dilude yourself, trying to chase me from Islam. And don't fool 
yourself into thinking I am losing sleep over your strategy. Even you 
are not a worthy opponent, rather, you are like a mosquito buzzing 
around in the wind, creating a minor disturbance which is soon forgotten 
by us. But Allah will never forget what you have done! La! 

For those of you who would like to know about "Cynthia Ruben," without 
any desire to promote myself, here is finally some Truth. My Muslim name 
is Talibah Jilani. Alhamdulillah last year I was honored with my first 
Hajj. Even before that, I was awarded a distinguised medal, the 
"Hilal-i-Islam," for meritorious service performed on behalf of Afghani 
and Kashmiri refugees. So I am Hajjah and Mujahidah, two of the most 
coveted titles anyone could ever live to acquire, for which I thank 
Allah, for these experiences have moved my life in profound ways. 

More Truth: In 1996 I served as Director of the Islamic Chamber of 
Commerce and Industry (http://www.islamic-commerce.org), where I 
produced their first directory, enhanced membership, and developed 
products and services. Clearly they would never have hired me if they 
thought I was a Zionist Jew! In 1997 I helped to launch "Muslims Against 
Family Violence" in the SF Bay Area. Currently I am an editor of 
critically-acclaimed "The Muslim Magazine" http://www.muslimmag.org/and 
also Executive Director of Kamilat, an organization which addresses 
quality-of-life issues faced by Muslim women and their families 
(http://www.kamilat.org). Alhamdulillah, good people are associated with 
Kamilat. Our board of advisors reads like the "Who's Who" of activist 
Muslims around the world http://www.kamilat.org/advisors1.htm all of 
whom have lauded Kamilat'smission and have stated they are honored to 
play a role in this work. They do not doubt my sincerity. 

Among Kamilat's many projects, each with a focus on strengthening the 
Muslim community, we are launching an advocacy wing which assists Muslim 
women in cases of employment and consumer discrimination. From this 
tainted, cowardly form of slander from one who hides behind the 
Internet, we have discussed adding a legal branch to Kamilat devoted to 
court action (lawsuits) against libel and slander! You may be our first 
case, you slanderous fool! And as I am American, do you think I can't 
"work the system"? You have damaged my credibility which could possibly 
result in the inability to continue doing my work effectively. What do 
you think a Court of Law will have to say about this, let alone Allah, 
His Messenger, and the Believers? 
 
A lawsuit is clearly one answer to put down those like yourself, who are 
racist and bigoted, those who discredit Islam. You are like Musaylima 
the Liar. Go and lower your head and don't raise it until Allah forgives 
you! Aren't you ashamed to call yourself Muslim? Aren't you afraid that 
your family will discover the abusive posts you have made against a 
believing woman? Have you no shame that they might find you have reviled 
a believer--that you have unjustly accused me of all kinds of sins and 
unthinkable betrayal? That you have tried to make my blood halal? No, 
there is no shame for one like you. 
 
It is pitiful that anyone such as yourself can use the Internet with 
impunity. And this applies to your friend Kamran Bokhari who claims to 
call for "khilafa." "Khilafat" refers to Sayiddina Abu Bakr as-Siddiq 
(ra), Sayiddina 'Umar (ra), Sayiddina 'Uthman dhu'Nurayn (ra) and 
Sayiddina 'Ali al-Murtada (kw). These noblest of nobility embodied the 
truest spirit of Islam. They and their followers accomodated everyone 
who embraced Islam and they never ceased to encourage the believers to 
work together towards the common good of all people. You, on the other 
hand, strive to make enmity and to bring destruction to the Ummah 
through division, diversion, and fitna. 

For now, I am content knowing that you, along with your friend Kamran 
Bokhari, will have to face me on Judgment Day, when I will take my 
revenge from you and all the cowards who support you. For those (few) 
who have stood againgst this vicious, cowardly, baseless attack, your 
reward is with Allah and I thank you. For those who fanned the flames, 
you have been warned. For those who stood idly by and did nothing, you 
are with those who spread the rumors, for you did not stop it. 

I thank Allah swt for paying me the highest compliment, that my work is 
such a serious threat to shaytan and his lowly servants. Allahu Haqq! 
And I remain in sincerity, 

Hajjah Talibah Jilani 
Servant of Allah

as-salamu 'alaykum. 

mate...@sybase.com (Mateen Siddiqui) wrote:

[apparently forwarding a message to s.r.i.]

>My name is Cynthia Ruben. I am an American convert to Islam who took
>shahadah nearly 25 years ago. [...]
>Hajjah Talibah Jilani

My wife and I have had the privilege of knowing Sr. Talibah for some
years. She is genuine.

AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 423
Sonoma, CA 95476
USA

---------------------------------

Note: All feedback will passed to author.
Also webbed at http://www.ummah.net/history/islamic_movement

"An analytical paper summarising the rise and global ramifications of
Islamic Groups striving to establish an Islamic state, since the demise
of the Khilafah, with references to their classification according to
the methodology that they adopt."

Assalamoalaikum

NOTE: The following is a term paper that I submitted as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for a political science course entitled "Contemporary Global
Events", I took during the summer. If there any mistakes in it, then they are
of my own doing and I seek the forgiveness from Allah (swt) and if there is
any good in it then it is purely the blessing of Allah (swt).

The Global Islamic Movement

by

Kamran A. Bokhari

The translation of the meaning (TMQ) of the 104th verse of the third chapter
(Al-Imran) of the Qur'an reads as, "Let there rise among you group(s) Calling
society to Islam, commanding society to do what Allah orders and to refrain
from what He forbids and these (group(s)) are the ones who are successful."
This verse is the raison d'etre for the existence of the various Islamic
groups that are seeking to establish the Islamic polity in the Muslim world.
The classical scholars of Islam were all in consensus regarding the political
nature of the group mentioned in this verse. Furthermore, they held the
opinion, that there could be more than one such group, but the existence of at
least one is obligatory upon the Muslim ummah (nation). (Muhammad, Omar Bakri,
1993, 90).

The very first Islamic state was established by Rasul (saws) in 623 CE in
Medina, which was succeeded by the institution of Al-Khilafah, after the death
of Rasul (saws) in 632 CE, existed for roughly 1,291 years (633-1924 CE).
During this period, Al-Khilafah was presided over by various regimes, i.e.,
Umayyads, Abbasids, Ayyubis, Fatimids, Mamlukes and more recently the
Ottomans. Apart from the mainstream Khulafah there also existed, various local
Islamic authorities (Al-Amara Shari'ah Khasa) as well, i.e., Safavids in
Persia, Moghuls in India, etc. Nevertheless, all throughout this period the
Muslims were never faced with a power vacuum and never had faced a scenario
where they had to establish an "Islamic State". The continuity of the
political order established by the Prophet in one form or another, was the
reason why classical Islamic scholarship never envisioned a world without an
Islamic authority and thus never formulated any course of action to address
such a scenario (Nadwi, Abul Hasan Ali, 179).

On March 3rd, 1924, however, the unthinkable happened, Turkish nationalists
under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal abolished the institution of caliphate.
Although the Islamic State had by de jure, ceased to exist prior to the
beginning of the First World War, but the formal abolition of this institution
marked the end of an era. Many movements had already been launched for the
revival of Islam as a political entity as far back as the eighteenth century
after having realized the signs of decline (Nabhani, Taqi Al-Din, 1953, 1). It
was not until the 1930s, that the concept of an organized group (s) gained
popularity amongst the Islamic mileau. The Islamic revival envisioned by these
groups required a methodology. A methodology that was not available from the
two main sources of legislation, i.e., Quran & Sunnah. Neither was there a
precedent to follow from the consensus of the Sahabah (ra), which is
considered to be the third most important source of legislation. The scholars
of this new stateless era were left with only one option, which was the
performing of ijtihad to deduce a methodology for the re-establishment of the
Islamic state. This procedure of ijtihad is based on Al-Qiyas (analogical
deductions) which is considered to be the fourth and final source of
legislation in Islamic jurisprudence.

Different groups under the leadership of different scholars, have different
views on the Sunnah and the Seerah of Rasul (saws) and understood it
differently (fiqh Al-Waqa'), thus they have come to different conclusions as
regards the methodology. Currently there are three categories of Islamic
groups with respect to the methodology to establish the Islamic State. The
goal of all Islamic groups operating in the Muslim world is more or less the
same, i.e., the establishment of (what is often vaguely referred to as) an
Islamic state in their respective domains of operation. The understanding of
the term ‘Islamic state' and the details related to the structure of such an
entity varies from one group to the other but there is a consensus among all
the groups regarding the need to establish the supremacy of the Islamic law
(Shari'ah), by replacing the existing pro-western secular/nationalistic
regimes with an Islamic polity. The point of departure, however, remains the
question of the methodology being adopted by the various Islamic groups, which
ranges from participation in the pseudo-democratic process, to the utilization
of militant activities, to the revolutionary methodology involving a coup
de'teat.

The resurgence of Islam has passed the crucial phase of the where the question
is no longer ‘why' but instead ‘how' to establish the Islamic government. This
is a very critical shift that is gaining prominence among the contemporary
Muslim intelligentsia. It must be kept in mind that this shift was
facilitated, by the fact that the predecessors of this intelligentsia had
incorporated Islamic themes in the nationalist movements, that sought
redemption from the decaying European colonial powers (Abul-Fadl, Mona, 1990,
37). The inclusion of Islam into the nationalist ideologies, that were pre-
eminent in the post-colonial era, paved the way for the crystallization of the
concepts of Al-Wataniyyah (patriotism) and Al-Qaumiyyah (nationalism) with an
Islamic flavoring. These concepts were articulated by Hasan Al-Banna, the
founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (Mitchell, Richard P, 1969, 268).
The call for secularism and westernization is something of a long gone era it
is considered the handiwork and obsession of yesterday's generations. This is
precisely why the current regimes in the Muslim world are viewed as the old
guard, that have managed to survive so far through the suppression of the
masses. The nation-states that these regimes represent, are considered
guardians of an order that was established, as a result of the hybridization
of the two alien concepts, i.e, nationalism and secularism. Today we are
living in an age where Islam is rapidly becoming an issue which will certainly
have profound politico socio-economic consequences not only in the Muslim
quadrant of the world but also will also have implications for the entire geo-
political spectrum of the world. The structure of the envisioned state is also
an aspect in which we can find immense variations among the groups that span
the political landscape of the Muslim world. The following is a list of some
of the more prominent Islamic groups categorized according to the above stated
methodologies and the nation-state from which they operate.

A. Islamic state via "democratic process":

1. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt and it's various branches throughout
the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf States,
2. The Fazilat (Virtue) Party (formerly known as Refah or Welfare Party) in
Turkey,
3. Hizb al-Nahda led by Rachid al-Ghannoushi in Tunisia,
4. The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria,
5. The Jamaat-i-Islami of the sub-continent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
etc.) founded by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in the 1930s,
6. Al-Islah Party in Yemen,
7. Al-Adl wal Ihsan in Morocco (Esposito, John L, 1996).

B. Islamic state via "militant activities":

1. The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) of Algeria;
2. The Gamma' al-Islamiyya in Egypt;
3. HAMAS, a militant offshoot of the Brotherhood in the "occupied
territories".
4. Hizbullah led by Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah in Lebanon;
5. The different factions of the Islamic Jihad in Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon
6. The various Islamic groups in Kashmir seeking secession from India. (Abu-
Amr, Ziad, 1994)

C. Islamic state via revolution/coup de'teat:

1. National Islamic Front (NIF) headed by Hasan al-Turabi which is currently
in power in Sudan;
2. Hizb-ut-Tahrir (The Liberation Party) founded by Sheikh Taqi Al-Din Al-
Nabhani;
3. The Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) of Saudi Arabia
headed by Muhammad al-Mass'ari currently residing in the United Kingdom
4. Tehrik-i-Khilafat-i-Pakistan/Tanzeem-i-Islami led by Dr. Israr Ahmed;
5. Al-Muhajiroun led by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad.

There are also other groups such as those of the central Asian states (former
Soviet Union), China, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Eriteria, etc.
that employ some/all of the above mentioned methods.

The first category refers to those groups that are willing to work within the
constitutional framework of the particular nation-state, from which the
operate in, to re-establish the Islamic state. This methodology has proven
highly unsuccessful in recent years. The FIS was outlawed in Algeria in 1991,
after it was poised to attain a landslide victory in the national elections.
The now defunct Refah Party in Turkey was able to form the government via a
parliamentary coalition but the military ousted them out as a result of a vote
of no confidence. In other places like Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, the MB and its
offshoots, have been utterly unsuccessful in replacing the secular regimes.
The JI both in Bangladesh and Pakistan lack grass-root support among the
masses which are still loyal to a popular, marabout-type of Islam.(Roy,
Olivier, 1994). Hizb al-Nahda in Tunisia and Al-Adl Wal Ihsan in Morocco are
sagas of governmental repression forcing the leadership into exile and
detention. There is a general sense of frustration with this methodology which
is best gauged in the works of the late founder of the Muslim Parliament in
the United Kingdom, Dr Kalim Siddiqui who wrote, "Democracy is an instrument
of the status quo, democracy does not tolerate change beyond a narrow band of
variation within an existing system. The same democratic process has been used
by our political masters in the Muslim countries to protect the feudal system
there". (Bangash, Zafar, 1996, 118))

In the second category are those organizations that have resorted to the path
of militancy, in the anticipation that it will lead them, to the overthrow of
the regimes they oppose, and subsequent replacement with an Islamic polity.
Each of the groups that in this category operate in a very clandestine fashion
and by adopting the policy of urban warfare. The regimes they oppose have also
put in their share of violence by using the infamous technique of extra-
judicial killings, through which the security and intelligence apparatus hunts
down members of such groups either successfully by imprisoning or torturing
them or unsuccessfully leading them to go underground. The leadership and the
rank-in-file of these militant outfits are of the opinion that the regimes
they oppose so vehemently, are actually no longer Muslim/Islamic. Instead they
are viewed as instruments/tools of the Kafir (infidel) west in the pursuit of
an imperialistic agenda. So by defacto, not only is Jihad the only means by
which they can confront and remove the present corrupt leadership, but it is
has also become an Islamic obligation.

The groups in third and last category are those that more or less subscribe to
a methodology which is revolutionary in nature. These groups are engaged in an
intellectual/political/ideological struggle which is considered to culminate
in the shape of a revolution. They claim to launch their attack against the
regimes via a two-fold strategy. On one hand they strive to establish the
presence of popular support for their agenda among the horizontal masses and
on the other they seek to tap the vertical power structures of the state in
search of sympathetic as well as influential individuals (ahl al-hal wal
aqad). In this procedure the military bureaucracy is often given preference
over the civilian. This strategy is seen as analogous (al-Qiyas) to Rasul
(saws) initiative of seeking the support (nusrah) from the various tribes of
the bedouin society in his time. An analogy is drawn here between yesterday's
clusters of power, i.e., tribal chieftains and elders and today's strongmen in
key governmental portfolios. The Islamic state can be established when those
giving the nusrah to the vanguard party will remove the current regime, thus
paving the way for the vanguard to replace the status quo with an Islamic
state. The nation-states of Sudan and Iran are being cited as prototypes of
such a political entity which is viewed as a threat to the existing world
order. In fact, the discussion has come to a point, where scholars and the
media alike, are acknowledging that "Islam" is perhaps the only ideology,
capable of rivaling capitalism/democracy for global dominance. Since the 1991
implosion of the Soviet Union, which was understood as the practical
manifestation of the failure of communism, the west has been engaged in
creating a world-wide public opinion, that the future threat to the
"civilized world" comes from fundamentalist Muslims. Political pundits like
Samuel Huntington, have alluded to such a scenario where there is a
possibility of a "clash of civilizations". International law as we know it
today, will definitely be subject to drastic changes, as a result of
alterations of such magnitude in the geo-political situation of the globe.

Any ideological state has a world view of it's own, which in turn renders it
incompatible with the already existing international status quo. This world
view subsequently leads this state to the pursuit of an influence on world
politics. And furthermore, to steer the global geo-political situation in it's
favor.

Both Islam & democratic capitalism are in opposition to each other, therefore
the possibility that both can co-exist peacefully at the same time on this
planet is highly unlikely. As of now this may not be the case, for Islam does
not have a state that represents it, whereas the US has existed as a nation
for over two centuries. But we are definitely living in fluctuating political
circumstances, where Islamic revivalism is growing stronger & stronger as the
days unfold. The situation in the Middle East, North Africa as well as South &
Central Asia and Micronesia, are indications that the Muslim people of this
region, after having been suppressed by their regimes, are reverting towards
Islam as a political system as opposed to a mere religion, in order to seek
redemption from the miserable socio-politico economic conditions that they are
presently dwelling under. This can also be considered the practical
manifestation of the failure of the western notions of nationalism,
secularism, etc.

Although there is no monolithic "Islamintern" per se, that is working unitedly
for the re-establishment of a world-wide Islamic state, yet the very precepts
of Islam point in this direction. There will definitely be global
ramifications, which will stem from the politically volatile situation at
hand. From the perspective of the Shari'ah, the world as divided into two
realms, namely Dar-ul-Islam (domain of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (domain of war,
lands where Islam is not applied) (Gilles Kepel, 1984). This concept in itself
negates the status quo where there exists a United Nations Organization in
whose charter is enshrined the sovereignty of the some 188 nation-states. It
is a well known fact that in Islam, sovereignty lies with the creator of man,
life and universe i.e. Allah and not to any state or people(s) which is the
core belief that is adhered to in the west and is being adopted by the rest of
the people of the world primarily due to the efforts of the US and her western
allies in spreading this ideology. The political system of Islam is one where
there is one single entity called the Khilafah. This in turn means that
"Islamic States" is a contradiction in terms to begin with, as Islam does not
recognize the existence of states among Muslims under separate leadership.
Moreover, contemporary Islamic political literature is filled with criticism
of international organizations like the United Nations, International Monetary
Fund, World Bank, NATO, etc. as being mere tools in the hands of the west to
perpetuate their imperialistic and colonialistic grip on the world. Some
critics have even gone to the extent of phrasing terms like institutionalized
neo-colonialism.

Nationalism is another western notion that is rapidly coming under attack from
Islamists. They argue that bonds between people which are based on ethnicity,
language, land, etc are invalid. The only valid bond between human beings is
the ideological bond or the bond of the belief or creed. Automatically this
becomes a direct challenge to the very legitimacy of the 50 odd Muslim nation-
states that exist as independent and sovereign states. The call for the
removal of the borders between the Muslim ummah (nation) that were erected by
the British and the French is also another prime example of how much respect
does the Islamic ideology carry for the UN charter which clearly prohibits any
nation from forcibly annexing the territory of another state. A very recent
example of the magnitude of this feeling of general animosity towards the west
is the support that the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein received from the Muslim
masses (especially the various Islamic groups.) when the west threatened him
with war, after his invasion of Kuwait. Now this is ample proof for the
validity of this phenomenon, because even though the Islamists themselves have
been the target of his persecution and suppression and are well aware of
Saddam's own Islamic credentials. Yet the hope of seeking retribution from the
west (which the Muslims hold responsible for the suppression of Islam as a
political apparatus) was the aim, even if it meant cooperating with and
supporting a man who is also hated as much and is considered to be a foreign
implant in the Muslim world.

This is the sociology and psychology of the some 1.5 billion Muslims from the
shores of the Atlantic to the islands of the Phillippines. And with the
growing momentum with which Islam is resurging, coupled with the exponential
increase in the discontent of the Muslim masses with the regimes that are
presently in power in the Muslim world, it may only be a matter of time
before we see the emergence of the next so-called evil empire which is
expected to fill the vacuum created by the abrupt disappearance of the Soviet
Union. Dr Samuel Huntington is of the view that the 21st century will usher in
an era where the basic unit in international relations will no longer be the
nation-state, instead entire cultures or civilizations will compete for global
hegemony. The Islamists refer to the Quranic verse that "You are the best
nation that had ever risen up from among mankind, ordering what is correct,
forbidding what is wrong and believing in Allah" (Al-Imran: 110). This can be
considered as the global agenda of Islamists who call for the spread of
justice, as defined by Allah (swt) and not through the implementation of
international law as it is perceived today.

What will be the exact political situation as a result of the growing flux on
the international arena is of course always hard to predict and is only known
to Allah (swt).But the fact remains that the world will witness a tremendous
shift in the balance of power in the Muslim quadrant. It will obviously be a
gradual process but state sovereignties will be disregarded, as there will be
a rush to forge the political unity of the ummah that has been severed for so
long. The Muslim ummah will seek to unite herself and once this domino effect
is initiated, it will result in the merger of the lands of the Muslim world.
Definitely this is a cause for an alarm here in the west, as it will pose a
severe threat to the western way of life and the very values and principles
for whose preservation the west is ready to risk war. The national interests
of nation-states of today may just become an international interest because
what is at stake will be ‘pax-democratica'.

Bibliography

Abu-Amr, Ziad. Islamic Fundamentalism in the West Bank and Gaza. Indiana:
Indiana University Press, 1994.
Abul-Fadl, Mona. Islam and the Middle East: The Aesthetics of a Political
Enquiry. Virginia: IIIT, 1990
Esposito, John L. & Voll, John O. Islam and Democracy. New York: Oxford UP,
1996.
Kepel, Gilles. Muslim Extremism In Egypt. California: UC Press, 1984.
Muhammad, Omar Bakri. Essentials of Fiqh. England: Islamic Book Company, 1993
Nabhani, Taqi-ud-Din. Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir New York: IDC Publications,
1992---. The System of Islam. New York: IDC Publications, 1991.
Nadwi, Abul Hasan Ali. What The World Has Lost Due To The Decline Of Islam.
Lebanon: IIFSO, 1977
Siddiqui, Kalim. In Pursuit Of The Power Of Islam. Ed. Zafar Bangash. Canada:
The Open Press, 1996.

MIM: Bokhari falsely claimed to the BBC he left Al Muhajrioun because he didnt want to be part of a group that was violent. Yet the first rally organised by the group in 1996 was a Who's Who' of global Jihad.

http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/bmms/1996/08August96.html#Rally%20for%20Revival

Features

Rally for Revival

A great many papers have carried news and comment on the Rally for Revival planned for 8 September [subsequently cancelled], organised by Al-Muhajiroun, the group led by Omar Bakri Mohammed, formerly of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (see British Muslims Monthly Survey for February 1996). The East London Advertiser (22.08.96) had an article expressing concern that the event was due to take place at the London Arena. According to this local paper, the manager of the venue, Alec McCrinley, said: "If there is any transgression of the law this event will not take place" and Scotland Yard had issued a statement saying: "We are aware of the event. We are not prepared to discuss policing arrangements" (East London Advertiser, 22.08.96). Some MPs have made representations to the Home Office, asking Michael Howard to investigate. Conservative MP David Wilshire said: "If Mr Mohammed [Omar Bakri] does have the right to be here, I will ask whether what he is doing is a criminal offence, in which case, he should be charged. If it involves incitement to violence, the police should act." Another Conservative MP, Terry Dicks' view was that: "The government ought to stop it taking place. The local authority ought to say enough is enough" (Liverpool Daily Post, 23.08.96). The Jewish Chronicle (23.08.96) claimed that to promote the event, Hizb ut-Tahrir had distributed advertising material in London with the slogan "Peace with Israel is Haram". On the same day, the Evening Standard had an editorial headed "Test of tolerance", which outlined a variety of Omar Bakri Mohammed's more forceful statements, and concluded: "We should treat extravagant rhetoric about a ‘holy war' as simply that - rhetoric. But where there is clear evidence of active support for terrorism, or incitement to hatred, our tolerance comes to an abrupt halt".

By 27 August (USA Today, Aberdeen Press & Journal, Guardian, Shropshire Star), news started to appear about Egyptian governmental concern regarding the rally. The Egyptian foreign minister, Amre Moussa (Guardian, Shropshire Star, 27.08.96) said: "There is a question mark over this issue. We, and many other countries, don't understand this (Britain's) position. Egypt will contact the British government to find out the truth of the matter and to discuss the possible consequences of such an unfortunate step". By 29 August, President Mubarak had expressed his disapproval: "I am surprised that this conference, which includes many of the elements which support terrorism, will convene. This does not serve the fight against international terrorism" (Bolton Evening News). The Guardian (30.08.96) noted that, in addition to Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Israel and British Jewish organisations had all made formal representations to the British government against the rally. This paper quoted Malcolm Rifkind, the Foreign Secretary, speaking from Pakistan: "People who wish to hold conferences of course don't need to seek permission from the government in Britain".

The Daily Mail (29.08.96) was indignant that Omar Bakri Mohammed is in receipt of welfare benefits, and headed its article: "Militant ‘sheikh' gets £300 handout - Refugee on the dole, plotting revolution". Conservative MP William Powell, chair of the Gulf Region Parliamentary Group, said: "There should be an investigation as to whether benefits are being properly paid." Omar Bakri Mohammed replied to the Daily Mail's criticisms: "There's no contradiction at all. If I am living under a system Islam allows me to take the benefit that system offers. I am fully eligible - I am disabled, with no ankle joint on my left leg. And the negative publicity I get makes it very difficult for me to get a job. Most of the Islamic leadership is on benefit."

The Board of Deputies of British Jews asked the Home Secretary to deny entry to Britain for the rally to many of those invited, particularly speakers from Palestine and Lebanon and all members and suspected members of Hamas and Hizbullah.

The Board of Deputies called for their exclusion on the grounds that their presence would be "contrary to the public good" (Jewish Chronicle, 09.08.96, Time Out, 14.08.96). Well-known speakers who were invited included: Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi national who has funded one of the groups in the Afghanistan conflict; Sheikh Muhammad Fadhlallah, of the Lebanese Hizbullah; and the Saudi dissident, Dr Al-Mas'ari. Some speakers, who would have been unable to attend in person due to reasons beyond their control, would have sent films of their speeches. These included: Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, jailed for conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Centre in New York; Sheikh Obeid, who was abducted in 1989 from Lebanon and has been held since without trial in Israel; and imprisoned members of the FIS in Algeria (Q-News, 02.08.96, Sunday Times, 18.08.96). The Evening Standard (22.08.96) carries a full-page feature interview with Omar Bakri Mohammed at his London School of Shariah, where he teaches Islamic jurisprudence. Commenting on the speeches from prison, particularly that of Sheikh Obeid, he pointed out that: "When someone goes to prison he doesn't lose his right to speak out."

Muslim News (30.08.96) saw the Jewish Board of Deputies' representations to the government demanding that it stop the rally as being part of a wider context of anti-Muslim actions. This article quotes Iqbal Sacranie, spokesman for the UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs: "The Board of Deputies of British Jews should seriously consider what action they take on this matter because of the detrimental effect on community relations which could result. Taking a hostile view towards scholars who wish to come to this country to present their points of view at a conference will not serve good community relations..." The Jewish Chronicle (30.08.96) reported on the concern of some Middle Eastern governments that the rally would be allowed to take place, and the Home Office's refusal to ban it. An editorial in that paper called for vigilant policing of the rally. On this subject, the Daily Telegraph (31.08.96) says that: "Police could arrest anyone who calls for attacks on Jews, or shows a video that does so". The same paper also claims that: "The Board of Deputies of British Jews...has won a promise that no-one known to have links with terrorist organisations will be allowed into the country to attend".

Q-News (30.08.96) asserts that, in fact, eight delegates to the conference, amongst them two EU citizens, were banned from entry to Britain on the grounds that their presence was not conducive to the public good [The EU citizens were presumably banned at point of entry, since they would not need visas. This implies that the authorities would have had foreknowledge of their arrival. Ed.]. Makbool Javaid, for the Society of Muslim Lawyers, regarded this as an abuse of its powers by the Home Office: "There is nothing illegal about the conference. If there was anything untoward the government would have banned it by now. Thousands of British Muslims are going to participate. They, like their French counterparts, are also members of the European Community. If the Home Office wants to be consistent then it should also stop every other participant on the same grounds". A similar view was expressed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.

Muslim News (30.08.96) and the Church of England Newspaper (30.08.96) both see the reporting of the rally as likely to contribute to a deterioration in inter-faith relations. The Sunday Times (01.09.96), the Times (02.09.96), and the Independent (02.09.96), all review a small number of Middle Eastern papers which condemn the rally, principally Egypt's Akhbar Al-Yom. [BMMS August 1996 Vol. IV, No. 8, p. 1/2]

back to contents

Hizb ut-Tahrir campus threat

The new leader of the National Union of Students (NUS), Douglas Trainer, has reaffirmed his intention to have Hizb ut-Tahrir and what he calls "other such organisations" banned from university campuses in Britain (see BMMS for October and December 1995; January, February, March and May 1996). He also praised the Campus Watch project, which is a telephone advice service run by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) and the anti-racist organisation, Searchlight. Claiming that Campus Watch had taken hundreds of phone calls from students who had been verbally abused by far-right groups and Islamist groups, Douglas Trainer said: "It is a massively important project. NUS has a great relationship with the UJS and I am confident that together we can continue with Campus Watch and bring forward new ideas" (Jewish Chronicle, 23.08.96). Omar Bakri Mohammed, former leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir and now leader of Al-Muhajiroun, in an interview with the Guardian (23.08.96), said that his group intends to organise on university campuses under different names and through existing student societies. He said: "They will not be able to ban peace and human societies. If they do, it will only backfire...We will use other people". Lucy Manning, the Guardian journalist, claimed that Al-Muhajiroun planned to target Oxford, Cambridge and Durham universities, and that it had already established a presence at the School of African and Oriental Studies, University College London, and the London School of Economics.

Jennie Bristow, a student at Sussex University, wrote an article for the Times Higher Education Supplement (02.08.96) pointing out the dangers of NUS' attitude for civil and human rights in Britain. She details the history of the NUS ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir and shows how the NUS' actions have contributed to the rise of Islamophobia in Britain. She writes: "Creating a distinction between ‘acceptable' and ‘unacceptable' forms of Islam has done nothing to lessen anti-Muslim prejudice, and everything to intensify it. Now religious freedom in colleges has become conditional on what a particular religion preaches, and it is acceptable for NUS to impose rules on Muslim groups, dictating what they should say and how they should organise". A letter to the New Christian Herald (10.08.96) from Sohail Nakhooda, director of Islamica, the Journal of the Islamic Society of the London School of Economics, makes similar points. His letter is in answer to an article by Dr Sookhdeo, of the London based International Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, who suggested in an earlier article in the New Christian Herald (13.07.96), that the marginalisation of Muslims could lead to violence. Mr Nakhooda refutes this, saying: "The problems of marginalisation that Muslims face in inner cities are no different from the ones which other religious/ethnic/economic groups also suffer".

According to a report by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), extremist Islamic groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir pose the most serious threat to lesbian and gay staff and students in universities and colleges in Britain. The report, entitled Fighting Extremist Homophobia, by Peter Purton, describes Hizb-ut-Tahrir as "in equal measure anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, anti-Hindu, anti-feminist and homophobic". The report urges NATFHE branches to support the ban on groups involved in homophobic and other oppressive activities (The Times Higher Educational Supplement, 16.08.96).

Hizb ut-Tahrir posters, denouncing the Middle East peace process, have been stuck on lamp posts across the Old Trafford area of Manchester (Manchester Evening News, 22.08.96). [BMMS August 1996 Vol. IV, No. 8, p. 2/3]

back to contents

My weekend with the enemy
By Aaron Klein

(May 30) -- When Aaron Klein traveled to London to observe an Islamic extremist
movement whose mission is the destruction of Israel, he never thought that he'd
find himself engaged in a public debate with its fanatical leader --

'The sheikh has agreed to be interviewed by you," I read.

I had waited eagerly for that e-mail.

Forty-eight hours later, I boarded a plane to London. In the air, I reviewed
the interview request I had sent to Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, founder and
head of Al-Muhajiroun, a worldwide Is lamic fundamentalist organization that
supports the goals of suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden and the jihad he has
waged on Israel and the West.

In my written request I had explained how I thought it would be fascinating for
a Jewish journalist - particularly one from a Zionist organization such as
Yeshiva University - to interview Sheikh Omar and spend time with members of a
group whose declared mission is to drive the Jewish state into the sea.

The next day I nervously arrived at Ross Wyde Hall in Eastern London for the
Al-Muhajiroun conference on "Terrorism and Osama bin Laden."

At first it seemed curious that Al-Muhajiroun had decided to base their group
in London. But after conducting a good deal of research I learned that many
fundamentalist leaders situate themselves in the US and Britain since the
freedoms available in the West make it easier for them to lead their
international organizations from afar.

Middle Eastern states tend to see fundamentalist Moslems as their most
dangerous enemies and therefore track their every move. But within the bustling
expanse of London Al-Muhajiroun is able to function with little interference
from the authorities.

After I had been searched for recording devices a dark-skinned man ushered me
into a large expanse, where about eight hundred Moslems were waiting for the
keynote speaker to arrive. As the only non-Moslem permitted in the room (two
CNN reporters had been turned away), I decided to sit in the back and remain as
unobtrusive as possible.

The many signs that decorated the walls immediately struck me.

"Jewish Occupiers: Kill Them Where You See Them," read the type on a bold-faced
poster. Another featured the Magen David with a bloody skull through the
middle.

Other posters read, "Clinton: The Most Wanted Terrorist," "Islam Will Dominate
The World," and "Jihad: The Only Moslem Way."

AFTER A brief introduction the sheikh took the stage and began his speech,
clearly mesmerizing his audience.

"With thanks to Allah we have come together," he started, "with thanks to Allah
we bring peace to all, and we help the world realize that Islam is the only way
of life."

Brief applause.

The sheikh started off by differentiating between the Islamic definition of
terrorism and that of the United States.

"Terrorism according to the West is defined as 'the systemic use of violence to
achieve political or religious ends.' The American definition of terrorism is
so broad they are able to brand everyone they don't like a terrorist.

"Al-Muhajiroun define terrorism as 'to attack without the divine right.' That
is terrorism, and it is not what we support.

"We support the jihad, which is waged with the divine right," the sheikh
declared with great energy and animation.

"You all have an obligation to support the jihad," he continued. "Or you will
be punished on the Day of Judgement! You will get a reward for fighting. You
must send your children to jihad.

"We consider Israel the aggressors. Even if they don't fight they occupy the
land, and we must initiate jihad against them. We reject peace with Israel.

"We must support Hamas and Hizbullah even though they have other ideologies. We
should maintain cooperation among nations so that we can all liberate ourselves
together."

DURING the speech a man sitting next to me asked why I had not put money in a
charity box that was being passed around.

"Are you from the CIA?" he asked. I could tell that he was serious.

"No." I replied.

"The Mossad?"

"No."

"Then why didn't you give a donation?"

"I'm a little offended by some of the signs in the room." He looked confused.

"I'm Jewish," I said, biting back my words the moment I mustered them.

The man appeared shocked, but didn't say another word to me for the remainder
of the speech.

Meanwhile, Sheikh Omar was insisting that those in the room join their brethren
in the great fight.

"You all have a duty to defend Islam. Whoever dies fighting the jihad, he is a
martyr and he will inherit heaven!" He then concluded his speech by thanking
Allah for his kindness.

"I will now open the floor to questions. There will be a man walking around
with a microphone. Raise your hand if you would like to speak." About 50 hands
shot into the air.

After answering the first question the sheikh pointed to the back and I
realized that the person sitting next to me had raised his hand. My neighbor
grabbed the microphone.

"Yes. The young man beside me seems to have a problem with the signs." My heart
began to race.

"You see, he's Jewish," the man said. Eight hundred faces turned back and
stared at me. The room suddenly filled with chatter.

"Settle down, my brothers," said the sheikh, who seemed aware of my presence.
Let's not have any terrorism in this room.

"We direct those signs at Jewish occupiers, not all Jews," the sheikh dutifully
explained. "We stand against anyone who occupies the land.

"Israel can build bombs, shoot our houses, rape our wives, kill our children.
Am I going to discuss peace with them? No, I will retaliate because it is the
word of God.

"He said to fight occupiers and kill them wherever you meet them. Engage in war
with aggressors against our land."

"But the land does not belong to you." I said, almost instinctively.

MY NEIGHBOR handed me the microphone, and, before I knew it, the sheikh had
engaged me in a debate over the history of Palestine.

"I do believe we existed before you, from the time of the first khilafah,"
[Islamic state] he said.

"But if you read the Bible, which you believe in, it should prove that Jews
acquired the land at the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, long before the
first khilafah was established under Mohammed," I responded.

"Jews and Moslems were living together during the time of the Bible," retorted
the sheikh. "In fact they were protected by our laws. Then, in 1948, Jews came
with their Balfour promise and took the Arab homeland."

"What about the biblical account of how the Hebrew slaves of Egypt were
transformed into a nation by their flight to freedom and their adoption of the
Laws of Moses?" I asked. "And how they returned under Joshua to build their
national home in the land of their fathers? The Jewish claim to the land of
Israel doesn't begin in 1948."

"It is true that Jews are people of the area. And they have the right to live
there, but only under an Islamic government."

After about three minutes of circular conversation, Sheikh Omar suggested that
we continue later. He answered other questions from the audience.

After the conference I was approached by several curious yet peaceful Moslems
who bombarded me with questions about my religion and about my feelings toward
the speech.

"Are you interested in converting to Islam?"

"How can you support a government that allows Israel to kill its Arab
citizens?"

"What will you do when Israel is defeated by the Arabs?"

I spent the next 15 minutes trying my best to respond to the questions being
asked to me.

THE NEXT day I met in private with Sheikh Omar and four senior members of
Al-Muhajiroun at their headquarters in Walthamstow, London. Their office was
located in a newly-constructed business complex that seemed to have all the
technological capabilities of a modern production company.

"Would you like anything to drink?" asked one of the members.

"I'm fine," I replied. "I would like to tape the interview, if that's okay."

The sheikh agreed. He started to explain that Al-Muhajiroun actively recruits
Moslems to join the jihad, with the ultimate goal of establishing the khilafah
and conquering the world.

"Yesterday we discussed the poster about killing Jewish occupiers." I said.
"Another one of the signs I saw, read, 'Clinton: The Most Wanted Terrorist.' Do
you feel President Clinton is a terrorist?"

"Definitely. His hands are full of blood," replied the sheikh. "Many have
suffered from US foreign policy - which strives to take over the world and
divide its ruins. The American government believes in complete destruction.

"As far as that is concerned Clinton is a target of the jihad, and American
forces are a target of the jihad wherever they are.

"American people must reconsider their foreign policy or their children will be
sent back to them in coffins. They need to think about the consequences of
maintaining forces in Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the Middle East as a
whole. Clinton is responsible and he will pay."

The sheikh went on to explain that there are, in effect, multiple political
nuances of the term "terrorism" arbitrarily applied to the Moslem world, and
that the practical application of anti-terrorist legislation carries with it a
prejudicial predisposition toward Moslems.

He then argued that America was founded on the basis of terrorism. He conjured
up images of foreigners arriving on a continent to steal the land from its
natives - killing them, raping them, and eventually placing these "savages"
into isolated reservations that remain in poverty until today. He drew a dusky
picture of an America that purchased slaves from Africa and tormented the
"Black low lives" with the humility of their bondage.

He described a country that planted an atomic bomb in Hiroshima and engaged in
a war with Vietnam, where US soldiers "raped and murdered civilians."

He outlined the arrogance and bigotry that he felt permeated America's foreign
policy, referring specifically to the "Oil for Food Program" with Arab
countries as a current form of "American terrorism."

Of course he neglected to mention that in an attempt to establish the Islamic
state, Osama bin Laden has in the past six years allegedly bombed two embassies
in East Africa, called for the murder of Western civilians, attacked dozens of
innocent tourists in Israel and Jordan, killed US troops in Somalia - and
masterminded the World Trade Center bombing in New York City.

I DECIDED to focus next on the Middle East.

"You stated yesterday that jihad is the 'only Islamic way to liberate Moslem
land under occupation.' What then do you think about someone like Yasser
Arafat, who claims he is now negotiating diplomatically instead of fighting the
jihad?"

"Yasser Arafat is a terrorist. We believe so," the sheikh answered,
surprisingly. "Yesterday the world called him a terrorist, today he is a
president? I don't believe he represents Moslems, or the Arabs. He is someone
who has taken the opportunity of elongating the struggle of Moslems and Jews in
Palestine."

"What about the existence of Israel?"

"It is a crime. Israel must be removed." The simplicity of his words sent
chills down my spine.

I asked him to describe an ideal picture of the khilafah. He surprised me again
by explaining that bin Laden does not wish to establish the Islamic state
specifically in the land of Palestine, but "wherever Moslems are.

"Al-Muhajiroun have branches around the world and our duty is to work to
establish an Islamic state anywhere in the world, even in Britain."

He clarified that Jews who wish to live in the khilafah need not convert to
Islam. But all citizens must accept Islam's political policies. Life would be
dictated by the laws of the Koran, which allows room for the existence of other
religions.

"In fact," added the Sheikh, "life is protected under us.

"There will be no minorities and majorities as in America. Anti-Semitism in the
US is disgraceful. Synagogues and churches will flourish in the khilafah as
long as they adopt Islamic law. We restored life for Jews after the Crusades,
and we plan to do so again."

"Do you have a message for me to bring back to the American Jewish community?"
I asked.

"Yes. I believe Jews must understand that we are not at war with them because
they are Jews. We are in direct conflict with occupiers whether they are
Jewish, Hindu, Christian or Catholic.

"And what Clinton and Barak are doing is putting themselves in a position of
God, so they are now at direct war with the people who believe in God."

The sheikh then left the room and allowed me to converse with the other leaders
of Al-Muhajiroun. Each of them explained to me their reasons for joining the
group.

One was a convert, the other three were Moslem-born and felt it their duty to
join the jihad. These men did not seem brainwashed; they were individuals
capable of defending their views on an intellectual level, and, more
importantly, on a human level. Each member was deeply devoted to the cause,
ready to risk their lives for jihad.

One of them, Ohmad Saleem, a lawyer, impressed me greatly with his knowledge of
Judaism and his legal justification of the group's activities.

At times, I felt as though I were talking to a group of friends and had
constantly to remind myself who these men were and what they represented.

Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed seemed different from the other members, though.

He is a controversial man, a fanatic seeking to test the London rivers to
determine how far he can swim before he reaches dangerous water.

His rhetoric often extends beyond the limit of the law. In 1993 he led a rally
in which he encouraged 5,000 Moslems to chant, "Death to Jews!"

He has been arrested before and will probably be arrested again, but he easily
beats the charges.

DURING my time with Al-Muhajiroun we compared Islam to Judaism - the three
daily prayers, the rituals of purification, the idea of an ultimate redemption.
They introduced me to the philosophies of Sayyid Qut'b and Mohammed Al-Ashmawy;
I told them about Rashi and the Rambam.

They recommended the readings of Kamran Bokhari; I acquainted them with the
teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Rabbi Soloveitchik.

They pointed out the tensions that exist between the various factions of Islam;
I sarcastically told them to attend a class at Yeshiva University. It was a
fulfilling conversation on many levels.

Next day my plane took off to America - a country I have come to view through
slightly widened eyes. I have earned from listening to Al-Muhajiroun that
everything is a matter of perspective.

It may sound simple, but that is the basis for all human action. Every one of
our experiences - from the books we read to the people with whom we associate -
is molded onto the angled lens which ultimately forms our mind's eye.

Our perspective can lead us to believe that every Moslem is a terrorist, and
that we are always in the moral right. Conversely, the Moslems' perspective
fosters the idea that Palestine is historically theirs, and that American
officials seek to destroy Islam.

In this light, it is easy to see why Sheikh Omar and Osama bin Laden have waged
a war against the Jewish nation. Both believe that Islam is the only truth, and
they plan to kill every Jew who supports the State of Israel - which they view
as an impediment to that truth. They leave no room for negotiation or the
possibility of ideological modification.

Until that changes, there simply cannot be peace between our nations.

-------------------------------------------

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,,587375,00.html

We will replace the Bible with the Koran in Britain

Fiercely uncompromising in their interpretation of Islam, the members of al-Muhajiroun are dedicated to their faith. But there can be a price to pay. Last week the group announced the death of at least three of its British members in Afghanistan. It said they had joined the Taliban to defend Islam, but were killed by an American bomb.

Qassim and Salim walked into the mosque and began to wash before prayer, removing their socks and shoes at a sink. Salim looked approvingly at the bearded Bakri, dressed in white robes and seated by the microphone.

'I have pledged myself to what he says. It's a promise and one that I intend to keep. I'd do anything he'd ask me to,' he said. The duo listened as Bakri began to condemn, with characteristic flair, Britain's war against terrorism.

'The British Government has to be stopped,' said Bakri. 'Blair knows that he is wrong. And he will pay for it. We will remodel this country in an Islamic image.' Waiting until his followers stopped giggling at the vision of an Islamic state of Great Britain, Bakri continued: 'We will replace the Bible with the Koran.'

Salim leaned inwards, whispering of his intention to fly to Lahore within weeks. 'I have managed to save some money from my job in a shop and I'll use that to get over there.' He looked round at Qassim in encouragement. 'You're going to do it as well, aren't you?' he asked. 'I think we should both go and fight. It's our duty to do it.' He glanced up at Bakri, who was now vociferously condemning Britain to an internal intifada . 'Christians have to learn that they cannot do this to Islam. We will not allow our brothers to be colonialised. If they try it, Britain will turn into Bosnia.'

Al-Muhajiroun was founded in Jeddah in 1983 by the charismatic, Syrian-born Bakri. It promises to re-establish 'true' Islam throughout the world to the extent of wiping out other religious faiths. It is extremely anti-Semitic. Bakri, who was expelled from Saudi Arabia and has lived in London since 1986, calls for young Muslims to take up arms against the opponents of Islam.

The organisation has offices across the developed world - in Kuwait, France, South Africa, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Syria and Algeria - and regularly asks its members for donations to fund its work. It funnels its British supporters to conflicts around the world by providing them with guides and contacts, but volunteers almost always have to pay their own way. Many commentators have previously written off Bakri and his tiny band of followers as an unpleasant joke. Bakri was even the subject of a documentary by the humorist Jon Ronson. But after the deaths last week, few people now see al-Muhajiroun as funny. Suddenly it is a threat.

To Al-Muhajiroun, Afzal Munir, Aftab Manzoor and Yasir Khan are martyrs who died defending their Islamic brothers against an attack by the infidel. They are to be glorified.

To many Britons, including government politicians, they are traitors, willing to take up arms to fight the armed forces of the country they grew up in. They are to be feared.

But to their parents, they were idealistic but perhaps mistaken young men, who gave up a life of suburban normality to die in a foreign field. They are to be mourned.

For Chudry Manzoor, who last week buried his son in the village of Sakria just outside Islamabad, it is a tragedy. He had repeatedly warned him about the risks, forbidding him to fight several times over the past three years. 'I never wanted him to fight a holy war against anybody,' he said at the burial.

For many, the most shocking thing about the three young men is the suburban normality of their lives. Chudry Manzoor is a Luton grocer who has lived in Britain for 20 years and brought Aftab up to be a respectful family man. Aftab, 25, had a variety of part-time jobs, including one as a driver. The family home - like those of the other two dead men - is on a quiet residential backstreet, leafy and modestly prosperous.

Aftab divided his time between Pakistan, where he had a wife and young daughter, and Luton, where he had gone to Denbigh High School and took his GCSEs. He worked hard and sent much of his earnings to Pakistan for his young family. He had left Luton for Pakistan for the last time before the 11 September attacks. But three weeks ago he telephoned his father and spoke of his plans to join the Taliban.

Afzal Munir, 25, was also from Luton. He still lived with his father - a builder - and his mother, three sisters and 11-year-old twin brothers. The crowded family home was less than a mile from Aftab's house. He was known as a quiet, friendly young man. He too had gone to a local school, Challney Secondary, before going on to do A levels at Barnfield College and a computer course at Luton University. He was a regular mosque goer and attended Friday al-Muhajiroun meetings. But even three weeks ago - when he was still in Luton - many of his friends had known little of his intentions to head for Afghanistan.

Some did, however. Mohamed Abdullah, 22, said the bombing of Afghanistan had affected him deeply. 'He may have lived in Luton but he felt the pain of his Muslim brothers and he wanted to do something about it,' he said. When Munir left for Pakistan he did not even tell his wife where he was going.

The third man in the trio, Yasir Khan, was from the Sussex commuter town of Crawley. He may have lived across the other side of London from the Luton pair, but Khan inhabited the same, seemingly quiet, suburban world. He lived with his mother in a maisonette. He was also a regular worshipper at the local mosque and had recently helped out with some renovation work. He was a keen cricketer with the Eagles Cricket Club, whose players come from Asian backgrounds. Three years ago a picture was taken at a club presentation night. The only hint of Khan's religious conviction was a t-shirt bearing the slogan: 'The Final Revelation, The Final Message, The Final System, The Final Conquest: Islam.'

Like scores of Crawley residents, Khan worked at Gatwick Airport. He had spent the last five months as a driver and loader for LSG Sky Chefs but, ironically, lost his job due to the downturn following the New York attacks. He had been asked to change his work schedule and refused. He is believed to have left for Pakistan shortly afterwards. His family insist that he was only on a mission to carry out aid work.

No one should have been surprised that Luton and Crawley produced Taliban fighters. Last year a Crawley family went to Pakistan to search for 18-year-old Omar Kyam. Al-Muhajiroun had sent him to fight in Kashmir. A Briton jailed in Yemen on bombing charges hailed from Luton. A suicide bomber in Kashmir was from Birmingham.

Al-Muhajiroun are effective because they exploit a sense of Asian victimisation, a feeling that - despite their qualifications, jobs and families - Asians will never be seen as properly British. It is a situation the older generation have tolerated. But young Asians like Manzoor, Munir and Khan, are less willing to accept the status quo.

'There is a sense that Asians have to be twice as good to be accepted as an equal, whether in accounting or football,' said Professor Tariq Modood of the University of Bristol's Ethnicity Research Centre.

That gives al-Muhajiroun an opening. Islam is the answer, they say. The West will not accept you, therefore reject the West. The Muslim world is where you belong. Come home to Islam. Come home to Afghanistan.

Near the banks of the River Ravi workers, hawkers and beggars push and shove down Lahore's traffic-clogged streets. In the din it is difficult to pick out the call to prayer. But in the plush suburb of Garden City the wail of 'Allah-u-Akhbar' can be heard loud and clear. And the men in the al-Muhajiroun office are listening.

One of their leaders is Hassan Butt, a 21-year-old Luton-born former student. He helped the three on their move to Afghanistan. Butt has been in Pakistan for the past eight months. He has been involved in al-Muhajiroun for far longer.

Butt, who grew up in Manchester and has A levels in media studies, computing and English, has been busy recently. There has been a steady flow of donations, including a cheque for £6,500 from a British-based doctor, and new people to be processed and sent to war.

Some are from Britain. Abdul Momin, a 25-year-old from east London - where al-Muhajiroun is known to have recruited among university students - arrived a month ago. Now the former civil engineer is preparing himself for jihad. 'I did not like London because it is spiritually rotten,' he said. 'I want to live a proper Muslim life.'

Despite the claims of al-Muhajiroun to have recruited up to 600 Britons to fight for the Taliban, the true numbers are much smaller, perhaps no more than a few dozen. Spokesmen for several Islamic groups with offices near to al-Muhajiroun headquarters all said there has been no flood of British volunteers.

But the fact remains that a few are making it through. The Britons killed in Kabul two weeks ago were with a group of Islamic fighters diverted from the guerrilla war in Kashmir. It had been simple to join them and head into Afghanistan through the gateway of Peshawar. From there it's a short ride in a pickup and a few hours' mountain hiking.

The handful of British volunteers for the Taliban are unlikely to have any material impact on the war in Afghanistan. They are poorly trained, poorly equipped and few in number. A British deserter last week described the problems he had faced when he was taken to the front line with other overseas novices and told to shoot at Northern Alliance soldiers. The result had been a bloody shoot-out, with the Taliban losing.

But the real danger from the British volunteers lies in the impact they can have on race relations. That is why the Government has threatened prosecution against any found to have fought and rumours have circulated about reviving long-dormant treason laws.

The nightmare scenario would involve British soldiers clashing with British Muslim volunteers, which experts warn could spark a disastrous breakdown in race relations. 'The ripple effect upon social attitudes, community segregation and race gang fights would be enormous, especially as many white people can't tell who is a Muslim and who just has Asian or Middle Eastern appearance,' said Modood.

But the divisive impact has already begun. In Luton the vast majority of Muslim leaders were outright in their condemnation of al-Muhajiroun. The group's leader in the town, a man known only by the name Shahed, has been forced into hiding.

'We cannot allow this generation to fall off our radar and leave them in the hands of extremist lunatic groups like al-Muhajiroun. That would be to condemn them to certain death,' said Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain.

Yet many young Muslims may not be listening to their elders any more. At the Finsbury mosque Mohamed Salim now hears only the words of al-Muhajiroun. 'It seems to have given me a place in life. I was never very religious before, until I met someone from al-Muhajiroun. Now I think of the good of Muslims everywhere in the world.'

Muslims in Britain
04.11.2001: Focus: 'We will replace the Bible with the Koran in Britain'
04.11.2001: Faisal Bodi: Why Brits fight for the Taliban
21.10.2001: Ziauddin Sardar: Islam has become its own enemy
21.10.2001: The view from the mosque: they're demonising Islam
21.10.2001: The view from the mosque: more riots to come
21.10.2001: The view from the mosque: the Taliban are not all that bad
07.10.2001: Britain's defiant minority
30.09.2001: Muslims refuse to be victims of racism

Forwarded message ----------
From: Mahir Zeynal <mahirzey...@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [yata_talk] AMSS Int'l Conference on Citizenship, Security and Democracy in Istanbul on Sept 1-3, 2006
To: yata_t...@yahoogroups.com

Call for Papers

Citizenship, Security and Democracy

Istanbul, Turkey: Friday 1st September - Sunday 3rd September 2006

The Association of Muslim Social Scientists (UK) and the Foundation for
Political, Economic and Social Research (Turkey) in conjunction with The
Association of Muslim Social Scientists (USA) , and the Association of
Muslim Social Scientists (France)

Patron: The International Institute of Islamic Thought

The time for an international gathering of Muslim social scientists is at
present a necessity. Global political upheavals have created an insatiable
demand for studies, information and analysis of Islam and Muslims. The
Muslim social scientist is not only being asked to be academic, objective
and dispassionate about critical issues related to the Muslim experience,
faith, culture and philosophy, but is also being called upon to "represent"
a community misrepresented in monolithic terms. The inherent diversity of
the Muslim experience across regional, national, ethnic, theological and
social divides defies the homogenising logic of mass media, popular
culture, and governmental politics.

The events of 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK have created within circles
of Muslim social scientists, especially in North America and Europe, an
opportunity for research to explore the Muslim experience in
multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary ways. We need now to create
overlapping, synergistic discourse that will both examine the Muslim
experience, and provide the necessary research, analysis and understanding
to those who wish to enact social change. Social scientists must be acutely
aware of the role they play in the future development of Muslim communities
in the West and beyond. In this conference, we will begin to build a network
of and importance of such research.

The notion of citizenship and security as they relate to democracy and
freedom lie at the heart of discourses centred around the presence of
significant Muslim communities in the West. In addressing these themes, we
will consider these terms in their broadest way. The issue of 'citizenship'
can represent a confluence of identities-legal, political, social, religious
and spiritual. 'Security', in comparison, has legislative, policy,
political, economic, theological and social implications, but can also be
used to examine human rights, trust relations, community cohesion, social
exclusion, and marginalization. The new critical tendencies on the capacity
of 'democracy' to safeguard the human rights of minorities and collective
identities give us a framework for understanding and gauging the status of a
pluralistic cultural identity. Further, if anything, the presence of
significant Muslim minorities and the emergence of new Islamic discourses
regarding modernity have begun to challenge the restrictive and exclusive
notions of culture. We need to question 'for whom' these rights are.

Muslim social scientists need, therefore, to develop evidence-based and
policy-oriented research that delineates and represents issues of concern to
Muslims in current social and foreign policies. This conference then,
welcomes papers that are forward-looking and provide the basis for
conceptual, critical and strategic thinking for the future.

Turkey is an ideal location to host this conference. Sitting along the
presumed 'fault-line' between 'East and West', 'Christendom and Islam' and
given its unique status as the only Muslim-majority country being able to
make a case for inclusion in Europe, Turkey's internal and external
struggles will provide a challenging and creative locus and a significant
historical backdrop for a conference of Muslim social scientists.

Papers are invited along the following themes:

1) Citizenship: New Paradigms and Challenges

. Challenges of plural citizenship.

. Status of minorities in multicultural societies in a transnational world.

. Transnational Muslim organisations

. Political participation of Muslims in Europe and USA

. Muslim women citizenship, empowerment, and discrimination.

. From tolerance to recognition: The processes of integration within the
integrity of collective identities.

. Faith and secularism.

. Muslim youth: Experiences, realities and challenges.

. Islamic ethics across multiple cultures in a global environment.

. European models of unity: cultural and political challenges.

. Turkey's cultural identity and EU membership.

2) Security, Violence and Peace

. Security, Integration and Muslim minorities.

. Alternatives to violence: Dissent in civil society.

. Communities' conflict and coexistence.

. Security and Islamophobia.

. Terrorism and extremism in Muslim societies.

. Violence : transnational and national.

. State violence and urban violence

. Islamophobia in the Muslim World?

. Intercultural and interfaith dialogue and the future of peace.

. The Muslim world and the West: New paradigms of communication based on
mutual respect and human peace.

3) Democracy, democratisation: Prospects for Civil Society

. Unity without unification in future cross-cultural society.

. Models for peace in fundamental texts of faiths and cultures.

. Muslim scholars in the West: prospects for renewal and mediation.

. Imagining a Europe with Turkey.

. Revival and reform in a fragmented Muslim world

. Europe and the Middle East: Historical and strategic issues.

. The Nation-state and its Future.

. The experience (s) of democracy in Muslim countries.

. Democracy and democratisation : Imposition or persuasion?

***************************************************************************­*
****

Abstracts

February 1st 2006

Papers

June 15th 2006

Submission of abstracts (150 words) to be sent to:

From Turkey: seta...@gmail.com

From the Arab World: confa...@yahoo.com

From North and South America: conferen...@amss.net

From Europe and the Rest of the World: c...@amssuk.comPlease supply a short
biographical profile (150 words) with your abstract

English

Turkish

-------

Kamran A. Bokhari
AMSS (USA) Liaison

Yahoo! Groups Links