TFTD: US presidential nominations The world is watching with close interest the developments of the US nomination process. It is widely agreed that whoever ends up in the White House, American politics will be different.
Q: Does it really matter to us WHO is elected? Or are they all equally bad (or good) in terms of inadvertently promoting our goals?@ (Rummani)
TFTD: In an (almost) unprecedented symbolic gesture, the Prime Minister of Australia yesterday presented an apology to the aboriginal people for the laws and policies of successive governments that had caused degradation and suffering decades ago.
Q: In the interests of social cohesion and 'setting the record straight', would a future khalifah offer such a public apology for past injustices and for the darker pages of our history?
TFTD: In order to function and survive, a newborn state must either accept the existing world order (presuming they would recognise the new stat's existence) and work WITH the international community, or opt for isolation, working instead OUTSIDE the community of nations.
A radically ideological state may not only opt for the latter, but may also attempt to undermine international institutions by seeking to establish its own alternative world order (complete with its own instituitions) in line with its own world-view and values.
Q: If the proposed Islamic State were to do this, what common global values could it use as a foundation for such institutions? What other incentives might it offer potential defector states?
TFTD: Entitled by law Are residents in the Islamic State ENTITLED by law to have provisions made to accommodate their religious convictions, even if these were to differ from the khalifah's adoption?
For example, would Shabina Begum have had the right to demand her school accommodate her jilbab, if the khalifah had adopted that the jilbab was not obligatory?
Would this apply to other faiths too?
TFTD: Can the acquisition of covert surveillance recordings by the state be justified by public security concerns?
TFTD: It is sometimes said that the state (in the form of the executive authority of the khalifah) is the physical manifestation of the Tareeqa, or the method that implements, sustains and propagates the Islamic way of life.
Q: Considering that the khalifah is, in theory at least, acting ON BEHALF of the people, and it is these people who maintain his authority, hold him to account and ensure the rules of Islam aren't violated, is it right to describe society as being the real Tareeqa?
TFTD: Events in Kenya and Iraq both serve to demonstrate how a popular election process is prone to exploitation by religious, ethnic and tribal leaders. Policies and political ideologies are hardly mentioned. Politics in such climates is bitter and factional.
There is no reason to believe the caliphate elections (or indeed the elections for the council of representatives) will be any better.
Q: Slogans aside, how do you envisage this (real and significant) problem to be tackled?
TFTD: Devastated by democracy There is no longer much doubt that Kenya is destined to join the club of nations devastated by democracy, torn apart along ethnic, tribal, sectarian or political lines.
Once proud nations such as Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Palestine and Morocco, are now struggling to simply remain intact, after the collapse of their brief affairs with democracy.
Rather than help bind the differing factions, the ballot box has served to re-ignite and formalise past differences, plunging the countries into civil unrest, violence and disintegration.
Q: What super-glue is available out there to help mend such nations? (Rummani)
TFTD: In a democracy, the term "opposition" (or "loyal opposition") is used to refer to the main political grouping that opposes the policies and actions of the executive government, often presenting themselves as a "government in waiting".
Depending on the nature of the electoral system, these oppositions can also be nominal/tokenistic, consist of a coalition, or may not even exist as such (in the case of proportionally representative systems). Oppositions can play a crucial role in holding the executive to account and leading public debate.
Q: Would you envisage a future Islamic caliphate having such a thing as an opposition? How would you anticipate it functioning?
TFTD: President Bush recently completed a whistle-stop tour of the middle east where he was welcomed and publicly entertained with unprecedented warmth and hospitality.
In contrast to many of Bush's visits abroad, hardly a word was said in protest nor did we witness a single banner reflecting public sentiment. Even in "non-ideological" states such as Brazil, Guatemala and India, the public expressed more indignation when Bush came to town.
Q: Does this suggest that the Arab rulers are so confident of the apathy and impotence of both their populations and their militaries that they can treat them with such open disdaint and contempt, secure in the knowledge that the masses are only ever mobilised by hunger?
Or is this the silence that precedes a storm, and are the Arab streets in fact simmering on the brink of an eruption to replace these agent rulers with a khalifah?
TFTD: Dismantling state institutions in order to reconstruct them according to ideological recipes is easier said than done, as the Americans have learnt at great expense.
While there have been few modern-day examples of successful state engineering in such a manner, the idea still has currency in ideological circles, and is supported by robust rationale.
In the simplest of terms, the building blocks of any new state must be based on ideological principles consistent with that of the state, and no amount of reform could possibly achieve this.
Q: Would you envisage an instant dismantling of existing state instituions (such as the armed forces, intelligence apparatus, the media, workers unions, judiciary, societies, associations, lobby groups and political parties) and insist they be resurrected under the auspices of the embryonic caliphate?
TFTD: Successive waves of negotiators have until now failed to reach a settlement between the parties involved in the Kenyan election dispute. The opposition accuse the incumbent president of falsifying the election results, and have mobilised their supporters causing widespread unrest and violence.
Whatever settlement is eventually reached, it is certainly going to fall short of the constitutional demands of each of the two parties, but may nevertheless diffuse the situation on the streets.
Given the sanctity of human blood, and bearing in mind the events surrounding the civil wars that scarred the early years of the khilafah, would you say it was more important in politics to adhere to the letter of the law, or to achieve a compromise that minimised unrest?
TFTD: The Home Secretary's decision to have the terminally ill cancer patient Ama Sumani removed from the hospital where she was receiving treatment and escorted to her home country of Ghana, has sparked (at least) two debates:
1. Should the state have treated her case with particular compassion, given her life expectancy and her financial means, or were they right in adhering to the letter of the law?
2. Should the state offer free health care to all, regardless of nationality? Nb Ms Sumani was denied a bone marrow translant because she was a "foreign national".
Q: How would you expect an Islamic state to have treated Ms Sumani?
TFTD: In some states, the executive is charged with the responsibility of upholding, safeguarding and preserving the constitution, as the constitution is the thing to which all citizens subscribe, and is the focus of their belief and loyalty, rather than the person of the ruler. There are few such states, but they tend to prosper and progress.
In other states, the constituions are manipulated to safeguard and preserve the executive, usually in the form of the rulers themselves, as they see themselves as the deserving focus of the citizens' loyalty and devotion. Such states tend to be unstable and short-lived, and suffer from sectarianism and factional struggles.
Q: What can be done to ensure a future caliphate resembles the former model?
TFTD: The month of Muharram heralds an anticipation of change, with election fever gripping the US and Londonstan.
Classical Islamic scholars have forbidden the seeking of posts of ruling and authority, often quoting the hadith "Do not request such posts, as we do not appoint those who request it".
Q: Does that rule out the possibility of organising expensive, high-profile election campaigs like that of Senator Clinton? If not, should candidates benefit from state (or party) funding, or should they fund themselves privately?
TFTD: There is a general consensus amongst Arab nationalists and Islamists that Israel is an illegitimate entity and hence unworthy of recognition.
This is sometimes seen as a form of delusionary denial unique to the Arab mindset; a refusal to face the reality of their political impotence.
Q: What is it about Israel that makes it any LESS worthy of recognition than any other state in the region, such as, say, Lebanon? (Rummani)
TFTD: The secret of good governance isn't WHO's law is implemented, rather it's HOW and WHEN to transform ideas into policy, and HOW, WHEN, with WHO's support and with WHAT resources, to implement these policies on the ground.
Getting these 4 W's right or wrong marks the difference between a successful statesman and a failed politician.
However, balancing the 4 W's is just another description of gradualism, something that is often described as contrary to Islam.
Q: (How) can the two views be reconciled?
TFTD: There are those who claim that 'political Islam' means campaigning to promote issues of interest to Muslims and to secure Muslim rights. To others, 'political Islam' simply means behaving Islamically while engaging in normal politics. Others believe political Islam requires holding conferences, marches and petitions about global issues. There is also a growing minority who believe political Islam involves such actions as blowing up commuter trains.
Q: Given the diversity of opinion, each claiming to have been derived from the Islamic texts, is it any wonder there is growing scepticism about whether there is such a thing as political Islam?
TFTD: It is widely perceived that the War on Terror is in fact a war on Islam and the Muslims.
Q: (How) Is it possible to stand up for Islam and the Muslims without defending terrorism and the terrorists?
TFTD: The coinciding of yesterday's revelations about the torture of top Al-Qaeda suspects, with the unravelling CIA "videogate" inquiry, has re-ignited the debate about whether or not torture can ever be justified.
The fashionable view is that torture is never justified, being an affront to human dignity and a violation of basic human rights. There is also a view that maintains that safeguarding human life is paramount, and causing discomfort, pain or anxiety can sometimes be justified in the interest of saving lives.
There is also a view claiming the debate is irrelevant, as all such matters are subject to a pre-determined divine ruling that can be arrived at via a process of Ijtihaad.
Q: If this is the case, what is the divine ruling on torture?
TFTD: One proven way to avoid political unrest is to obtain the support of the main political stakeholders for the constitution by giving a sense of ownership of the political process.
This can be achieved by giving them a slice of what they would otherwise be fighting over, i.e. power. The parties are kept continually engaged by regularly re-apportioning the slices according to the level of popular support they each demonstrate.
While far from being perfect, such a mechanism at least has demosurated success at shifting the struggle from via battlefields to the polling booths.
Q: Isn't that what democracy is really about, rather than "legislation by man"?
TFTD: Part of the obligation to maintain political unity by preventing armed conflict, is to study the REASONS for the failure of previous such attempts.
The methods mentioned recently (by ruling clans, claims of divine ordination, ruthless dictators and xenophobic fanatics) are all similar in their attempts to keep people out of effective politics, rather than encouraging them to engage in non-militant political activity.
Q: Could this be the problem?
TFTD: And if the demise of the "dictatorship in a republic's clothing" isn't bad enough, there's at least one alternative being suggested that's seems even more likely to fail (that is, fail in the task of engaging and uniting political factions in the interest of unity and stability).
And yes, we've tried this one before too.
Its the autocratic self-righteous governance of the Islamist political literalists (how about that for a mouthful of adjectives!)
Their failure to bring about political consensus is a direct result of the bi-polar "zero-tolerance""attitude of ideological partisanship and is part of the nature of the beast, and hence cannot be avoided even with the best of intentions.
Q: So where does that leave us, in our quest for political consensus/harmony?
TFTD: Maintaining the peace (by devising means to ensure political divisions and grievances didn't escalate into armed conflict) preoccupied the ruling classes of all the main civilisations such as that of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and modern Europeans.
Q: To what extent are these means "ideologically neutral", i.e. capable of being transferred between civilisations? Is it not in our interests to adapt and adopt the best of these practices into our own political culture?
TFTD: The Islamic notion of justice appears itself to be on trial recently, albeit by the media, after a few high-profile judgements (eg in Saudi Arabia and Sudan), made by Muslim judges in Muslim states according to what is seen as Sharia law, were greeted with almost universal outrage and condemnation.
Q: Given the centrality of justice to any political ideology, what PR tricks do we need to maintain a semblance of credibility?
TFTD: Just as it is prohibited for people to rebel against a legitimate ruler and to engage in any form of sabotage or guerrilla combat, shouldn't it also be prohibited for the ruler to permit (by action or inaction) such rebellions and uprisings?
Shouldn't ensuring political grievances do not escalate into "breaches of the peace" be an essential part of the Method?
Isn't documenting these arrangements the primary function of a state's constitution?
Isn't ensuring the smooth implementation of these constitutional arrangements the main business of politics?
TFTD: The Islamic texts attach great emphasis to the issue of Muslim political unity, with severe admonition for any move that might undermine unity, allegiance or obedience to the ruler.
Yet the formation of diverse political schools and factions is inevitable and part of human nature. It is a sad fact that despite the texts, from the time of the 3rd of the Khulafaa Rashidoon these political differences manifested themselves in the form of insurgency, mutiney, insurrection, assasination, civil war and disintegration.
Q: Surely the command to maintain unity and allegiance should, by extension, obligate the exploration and introduction of such procedures, mechanism and structures that would safeguard our unity and prevent such violations..?
TFTD: Last night's disrupted debate at the Oxford Union (including such controversial figures as the BNP's Nick Griffin and historian David Irving) itself sparked a wider debate about freedom of expression.
Those who boycotted or disrupted the event are of the view that giving bigots a platform lends legitimacy to their arguments and permits them to be propagated.
Supporters and organisers oppose the notion of "truth by democracy" and advocate exposing rather than silencing fascist arguments, thus favouring debate.
Q: Where should the line be drawn in terms of what can and cannot be said? Perhaps more importantly, who draws that line?
TFTD: "The public might have been less willing to give him the triumph of three consecutive general election victories if they'd known the extent to which ethical values would overshadow pragmatism," said Menzies Campbell about Tony Blair's religious convictions.
To Campbell, politics is about pragmatic pursuit of ideals, with no place for arbitrary ethical values such as those imposed by religion.
Q: To what extent would you agree, if at all?
Good question. Its not about having perfect mechanisms. Its about developing a political culture. We lack that culture, but with it those mechanisms are best.
(from Toppled Pyramid)
TFTD: The legacy of the tribal Arab mentality that shaped the identity of the early khilafah contributed to centuries of political fossilisation and later intellectual stagnation. This reflected itself in almost all aspects of public life, particularly in the Ottoman state.
It is a sad fact that toward the end of the 19th century the caliphate, to many, had become synonymous with backwardness, dogma, oppression, xenophobia, Turkish imperialism, exploitation and ignorance: a political system fit for the middle ages.
Q: Given that the caliphate lacked the political means to address the problems of its time, isn't it strange that generations after its abolition, we should be looking back to it as a solution to the political problems of today?
TFTD: In contrast to the Khulafaa Rashidoon, the Umayyads understood politics, not for what it was supposed to be, but what it had become in practice: a struggle to seize, consolidate, maintain and monopolise power.
And monopolise they certainly did, treating power as the rightful property of their aristocracy, devising numerous political mechanisms to ensure there was no repeat of the rebellion and mutiny that scarred the latter years of the Khilafa Rashida.
Refining such safeguards has been the preoccupation of the ruling classes of successive dynasties and regimes ever since. Similarly, overcoming these safeguards by gaining access to public sentiment and to the military have been the preoccupation of all opposition movements since.
That's a hell of a lot of political heritage and culture to reverse by means of (yet another) military coup!
TFTD: The legitimacy and authority of the fourth of the Khulafaa Rashidoon was challenged by the provincial governor of Syria, who later confronted the former in the battlefield at the infamous Battle of Siffeen. This lead to tens of thousands of Muslim deaths and subsequent events sparked a mass mutiny amongst the ranks of the Caliph's army.
The Caliph had no control over Syria, Egypt nor Yemen, and he was eventually assassinated in the name of Islam by (ironically) a rebellious faction of his own camp. We still bear the scars of that rebellion today.
Q: What constitutional safeguards do we have today to prevent this happening again?
TFTD: Embattled and besieged by insurgents, the third of the Khulafaa Rashidoon refused to yield to (the increasingly militant) calls for his resignation, refused to use the force at his disposal to impose order, and refused to use it for his own protection, allowing himself instead to be killed in his home after a period of effective house arrest.
Q: Was this three-fold refusal acceptable state policy then, and would it be acceptable state policy for the khilafah of tomorrow?
TFTD: Yesterday, the nation was asking why the Home Office could permit so many illegal immigrants to take up employment in the security industry without proper vetting.
Today the question being asked is why did Jacqui Smith not disclose information about this blunder earlier, with the implication that the government was placing headlines and poll ratings ahead of public safety.
Its reassuring to know that the future khalifah, being appointed with a life-long term, will not loose much sleep over either such issue, allowing him to focus his undivided attention on the business of managing our affairs by the rulings of Islam.
TFTD: Two of the four Khulafaa Rashidoon (rightly-guided caliphs) were assassinated by their political rivals, in the belief that this was justified according to the Sharia. This was at the time of the "best of generations", when the people's understanding of Islam was at its peak.
Q: After fourteen centuries of intellectual decline, colonialism and cultural/political invasion, why should we think we have a political proposal any more robust and effective than that of the Sahaba?
TFTD: Amongst those who agree there is a ruling pertaining to every human action, there is a considerable diversity and divergence of Ijtihaads, often to the extent of direct contradiction of one another.
Despite the diversity, there is still the expectation (even if unproved) that these rulings, if adhered to and implemented in their entirety, will lead to the resolution of conflicts and problems in society.
Experience shows, however, that some Islamic solutions are more successful at this than others.
Q: Can we use this "applicability" or "success rate" factor as corroborative evidence to strengthen the validity of an Ijtihaad during the Tarjeeh between competing Ijtihaads?
TFTD: It can be argued that there is an Islamic hukm (ruling) relating to every possible human relationship and every conceivable eventuality.
But caliming there is a ruling for every action isn't the same as claiming that abiding by (and implementing) these rulings will comprehensively address these problems in a manner that satisfies man that the problems of society have been resolved.
Q: Is there a case for the latter claim? Isn't this a logical conclusion dependent on the validity of its predicates/presumptions? How could it be argued without forcing Allah to conform to a human model of behaviour?
TFTD: The people of Pakistan all (or at least most of them) yearn for their republic to be replaced by a global khilafah where the khalifah will be the commander of the armed forces as well as the ruler.
Q: Why then are they making such an issue of the current president's role as head of the military? Is it just a ploy to hasten the demise of the republican system?
The fourth caliph derived much of his political strength and support from a segment of the so-called Ahl-ul-Hal-wal-Aqd that had on their hands the blood of the third caliph. His reliance on their loyalty appears to have prevented him from bringing them to account, which in turn sparked the first civil war in Islamic history.
Fourteen centuries later, it is again being proposed that armies with blood on their hands be used as key instruments in the delivery of power to the Islamists.
Q: Should we be worrying?