Muslim scholars, Islamic movement activists and even ordinary Muslims agree that the only natural habitat for Muslims is the Islamic State.Warning about the pitfalls of operating in a secular imposed order, Zafar Bangash, Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, argues that the Islamic movement must be clear about its goals as well as methods in bringing about change in Muslim societies.
Such was the artificiality of the hype surrounding the election of Barack Obama at the beginning of November last year — only two months ago — that the elation has largely dissipated even before he has taken office. For many Americans, the realization that nothing much is likely to change has emerged from his appointment of establishment political figures to all major offices in his administration.
In June 2005, the Islamic Human Rights Commission and NEDA convened a conference of academics, theologians and practitioners entitled ‘Towards a New Liberation Theology: Reflections on Palestine’ the papers submitted for which form the content of this book. The conference was intended to be the first in a series of events and books exploring the relationship between the practical experiences of those living through events in various world flashpoints, their faith affiliations and aspirations and the possibilities of effecting justice through their goals rather than the imposition of ‘peace’ at any price and without any relevance to those it would most affect. Put more simply, this is an exercise in realizing the potential that religion has in resolving conflicts that have been irresolvable through secular initiatives.
1There has always been debate within the Islamic movement about the propriety and importance of engaging the West or subsystems of it (such as Christian churches) in discussion about issues that divide Muslims from Jews and Christians. Such low-decibel but high-profile discussion has produced numerous platforms for “inter-faith” dialogue or trialogue, countless ecumenical meetings, and now a proverbial “dialogue of civilizations”, conducted on the part of the Muslims by a bewildering range of official and non-officials institutions and “leaders”.
The recent history of Pakistan seems to be one of crisis after crisis, punctuated only by periods of waiting to see what the next crisis will be. Developments in the last month, however, have been ominous and dangerous even by Pakistani standards, raising genuine fears that the crisis now developing may reduce the country to levels of disorder and chaos unprecedented even in Pakistan’s turbulent history.
While the public mind waits to see what drama we will have next in the American-led (but Israeli inspired) war on Islamic self-determination, otherwise known as “the war on terror”, zionists or people working for them succeed in assassinating ImadMughniyyeh, a commander of Hizbullah, in – of all places – the diplomatic quarter of Damascus, the capital of Syria.
1This month, Muslims all over the world will mark the birth anniversary of the Prophet (saw) with elaborate functions involving na’at recitals and nasheeds. Zafar Bangash, director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) asks why Muslims ignore so much of the Seerah.
Muslims today find themselves facing a curious paradox. While some Muslims are involved in intense struggles to throw off the yoke of foreign domination and oppression - in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance -others in these very societies and elsewhere are busy facilitating the re-colonization of the Muslim world.
There are more than 56 Muslim nation-States in the world today, yet few would register on an informed Muslim’s radar screen as being particularly significant. What determines a country’s importance relative to others? Before answering this question, let us first list those that would probably make the top grade without assigning any specific order to them: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia and Lebanon.
Some weeks after the tragedy of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad, there remains widespread anger with the government of Pervez Musharraf, and disappointment with the failure of Islamic groups to offer effective opposition to it. ZAFAR BANGASH, Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) considers some of the lessons of the episode for the country’s Islamic movement.
1In June 2007, the Islamic Centre of England hosted a conference on “Proximity amongst Islamic schools of thought: a necessity for Muslims in the contemporary era” (see Crescent International, July 2007). This is the paper presented IQBAL SIDDIQUI, a researcher at the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) and editor of Crescent International.
1This month marks a painful anniversary in modern Muslim history: the defeat of the Arab states by Israel in 1967, and the loss of al-Quds and the Masjid al-Aqsa, Islam’s third holiest site. In the subsequent four decades, not one Muslim army has successfully defended its country’s borders or the honour of its people. Instead, all they have achieved, with ruthless efficiency, is to attack the parapets of power in their own countries, banish civilian rulers, and seize control for themselves.
The threat to Muslims from an imperialistic American-Israeli power will not go away even if “Islamic terrorism” ends. The war-elites in Washington and Tel Aviv spent most of the last century sapping the resources of the world in what was supposedly a life-and-death struggle with communism. When communism collapsed, the politicians went looking for a new enemy to justify continuing their aggressive policies. Unable to find any convincing enemies to promote, they set about creating one from the movements of resistance created by their own policies; and so we now have “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamo-fascism”.
The fact that virtually every regime in the Muslim world, except the Islamic state of Iran, is a dictatorship of some kind or other is widely recognized. In the last month, we have seen high-profile protests against the authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Pakistan. Similar protests, usually on a smaller scale, are commonplace in both countries and in many other Muslim countries.
That the Muslim world is engulfed in numerous crises is not in doubt; what is debated is who is responsible for this state of affairs and how to rectify it. There are some—Muslims and non-Muslims—who put all the blame on the Muslims; others say it is the direct result of colonialism and continued foreign interference in the internal affairs of Muslims
Iqbal Siddiqui on the desperate need of an Islamic movement in Pakistan..
Something easy to get is easy to lose, as the Japanese say. Their neighbors the Chinese would say: the lone sheep is in danger of the wolf. The ancient wisdom of these people is not lost on Muslims of Imam Husain’s heritage. Our only Islamic Revolution and Islamic state (as imperfect as they appear from time to time) were not easy to come by; and therefore should not be easily relinquished.
There is probably no government in the world that has done greater harm and damage to the Muslims of the world than the one that presents itself as the Guardians of Makkah and Madinah. Yet much that is commonplace about this regime among those familiar with the Saudi government is little known elsewhere because people hesitate to say it in public.
Political commentators observing developments in the Muslim world have a tendency to project their own fears and prejudices onto the Ummah. This is particularly true of Westerners who like to speak about the “moderate” majority of Muslims -- ie. those who are not anti-American, and welcome the US’s civilizing and democratizing mission against “Islamic extremism”.
On the face of it, George W. Bush’s determination to increase the US military presence in Iraq, and his escalating political warfare against the Islamic State of Iran, despite the mounting chaos in Iraq, appear illogical to the point of madness.
