posted by Noman Hanif at 3:48 AM
0 comments
Monday, May 22, 2006
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Message
Islam and Universal Man
Would Russia have turned to Islam after the fall of Communism had the Caliphate remained? Why does the Islamic world persistently refuse to embrace modernity? Can Islam offer an alternative to secular liberalism as a global message?
These questions identify not only the past but the present and the future course of history. They project the power and struggle between global messages defining human thought, state, society and systems. No nation or civilisation has ever globalised without the appeal of a message and the medium of state to execute and convey it. Conversely, the loss of a global message has had profound implications for the power and attraction of nations, states and societies.
Russia’s global appeal resulted from its message of Communism through the vehicle of the Soviet Union. Peoples throughout the world were drawn by its message and in turn global influence proliferated, threatening the upheaval of established societies.
Russia lost her global power once her people rejected Communism. Her military might, technological parity with the West and global attraction disintegrated the moment her message of Communism ceased. The vacuum of a message reduced Russia to an empty shell, an internal system in contradiction and paralysis, reverting to a Russian nationalism which has no message or magnetism for the world. Moreover, it isolates and divides her, devoid of any significance beyond its borders. The deep intellectual nature of the message however has left its mark. After seventy years of refuting the Western message of Capitalism, Russia has been resistant to embracing Secular Liberalism lock stock and barrel.
Islam’s message was thrust onto the global theatre through the entity of the Caliphate over a period of fourteen hundred years. It achieved immense success by attracting diverse nations and tribes, stretching from Indonesia to Spain at the height of its power.
By abandoning the Caliphate in 1924, Turkey lost its global message and international position along with its influence over the Islamic world. Turkey never recovered from shedding the influence and power of the Caliphate and Islam. Even in Western quarters, Attaturk’s action was considered insane. It was according to the UK Daily Telegraph in 1924;
"..One of the most astonishing acts of suicidal recklessness in the history of modern or ancient times".
In turn, Turkey has been reduced from the sick man of Europe to the beggar of the East. Despite eighty years of forced, authoritarian and illiberal secularisation, the struggle with Islam continues. Turkey is in the words of Samuel Huntington a ‘torn state’. It remains rejected by the West, ostracized by the Islamic world and in perpetual internal contradiction. The technological and economic gap with the West continues to increase. Secularists dressed in Islamic clothing and enfranchised by the intensely secular Turkish military establishment breed only more confusion, contradiction and paralysis.
The New World Order under the patronage of the United States and Europe now spearheads the globalisation of the secular liberal message. With no alternative message to Communism, members of the former Soviet bloc have naturally been the first willing recipients of the global secularisation process. The secular liberal message provides the framework for global governance, consolidating and driving its doctrinal, legal, financial and military hold via the multitude of Western dominated international institutions. This manifestation of global secular power has lead many thinkers in the West to proclaim a secular universalism and Francis Fukyama to even suggest the “End of History” with a utopian secular thought set to completely conquer the material world.
It is however, the contention of this essay that thinkers developed in the Western Liberal tradition, have made the momentous mistake of negating Islam as having any message beyond the Islamic world and thus providing any credible challenge. According to Francis Fukyama in his essay, The End of History;
“In the contemporary world only Islam has offered a theocratic state as a political alternative to both liberalism and Communism. But the doctrine has little appeal to non-Muslims and it is hard to believe that it will take on a universal significance.”[1]
Such statements are however in contradiction to the fact that a cursory reading of world history is testament to Islam’s intellectual attraction beyond the ‘Arab man’. Islam’s successful assimilation of Spain and other parts of Europe as well as Africa, Central, South and East Asia are undisputable examples from history.
History is further witness to the fact that even within Europe; the Islamic message was not eliminated by Western intellectual prowess. It was forcefully removed through a mixture of Muslim genocide in Spain via the Christian led Spanish inquisition and the exploitation of a weak political and military Ottoman position in the Balkans and other parts of Europe.
Samuel Huntington’s assertion is thus correct in stating that the West has universalised in relation to Islam not because of its superiority of message, but due to its preponderant skill in military organisation. If the Ottoman military advance had not been stopped at the gates of Vienna, the history of Europe itself would have been a powerful testimony in challenging Fukyama’s statement.
This essay will argue that Western thinkers have prematurely announced victory in the war over ‘The Message’. In confining themselves to the comfort and predictability of the western tradition, a serious misunderstanding has occurred in evaluating the fundamental concepts which provide the foundation for the resurrection of Islam as a global message. Secular constructs which have no relationship to the Islamic model of state, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran have been incorrectly projected as the failures of the Islamic message to provide political alternatives to the Westphalian secular liberal state paradigm.
Instead, study of the Islamic message, as an alternative to the secular liberal idea of the state, individual and society has incorrectly occurred under the framework of secular liberalism and western universalism. Furthermore, Islam’s challenge to secular liberalism predates 9/11 and hence has no relationship with the war on terrorism. Yet western thinkers are all too keen to dismiss Islam superficially on a war which is borne out of particular circumstance i.e. the frustrated but mutated response to a perceived Western military, economic, political and cultural imperialism in the Islamic world.
Analysis of the Islamic message as a stand alone concept from its own foundations and sources has accordingly been absent and to a degree sidestepped. As Ken Booth and Tim Dunne point out in the book, Worlds in Collision;
“..In the search for a fuller answer, unfortunately, the chief protagonists shy away. It should be a time for introspection, for the deepening of self knowledge; instead, self justification has been the norm”[i].[2]
This essay is an attempt to correct this self validation in highlighting the nature of Islam’s alternate model and accordingly its inevitable adoption and resurrection in the Islamic world. It will become clear that Islam and secular Liberalism are destined to clash and compete on a global scale. In contemporary history however, secular liberalism has a distinct advantage. While the Secular Liberal message is conveyed through states, the Islamic message is stateless and relies on the peoples and the Islamic movement. The Islamic movement specifically has not left Islam as simply an idea to revive on its own like a feather in the wind. Whilst Lenin added the State to Marxism in order to facilitate Utopia, the state in the form of a Caliphate is an explicit method required by Islam for its complete implementation and globalisation.
The Islamic movement has been instrumental in rejecting Western attempts to dilute the Islamic message through its cross breeding with secular liberalism, considering it an unnatural intercourse between two distinct species which can only lead to the inevitable death of such a hybrid. Even amongst Western thinkers, Turkey is highlighted as a contemporary example of this unnatural fusion. Samuel Huntington in his seminal work, The Clash of Civilisations, points out Turkey’s necessity in turning away from such attempts of synthesis and accordingly overturning its aberrant, confused and torn status if it is to resume its global position and leadership of Islam;
“At some point, Turkey could be ready to give up its frustrating and humiliating role as a beggar pleading for membership in the West and to resume it’s much more impressive and elevated role as the principal Islamic interlocutor and antagonist of the West… But to do so it would have to reject Attaturk’s legacy more thoroughly than Russia has rejected Lenin’s.”[3]
To this end the Islamic movement and thinkers, Sunni and Shia, have taken on the challenge of defeating and replacing secular liberalism both intellectually and politically. This includes providing a detailed alternative to the current economic and political structure of global order.
This essay will draw upon two of the most influential thinkers from the Sunni and Shia schools responsible for constructing Islam as a credible force in challenging Western modernity. Amongst the Sunni thinkers, Taqiudine an Nabahani, a former judge from Palestine and founder of the pan-Islamic Liberation Party was the first to transform classical Islam into a powerful modern paradigm with the aim of reviving Islam, challenging modern ideologies and resurrecting the Caliphate. Nabahani wrote extensively on the doctrinal and systemic differences between Islam, Communism and Secularism. The Islamic Liberation Party is the only group to have published a complete and radical programme for ideological change in the Islamic world including a detailed Islamic constitution.[4]
From the Shia thinkers, Baqr as Sadr, founder of the Party of Da’wa in Iraq is considered the philosophical heavy weight in terms of his works on the critique of Communist and secular philosophy. His two major works include Our Philosophy and Our Economy constituting four volumes.
The Message
The Islamic message is founded upon the idea of the spiritual fusion with the material world. There is an appeal to the human mind in terms of affirming God’s existence and the Koran as a divine miracle, both considered as absolute truths. Islam calls for certainty in this matter rejecting the concept of doubt, separation, supposition or mere faith as a foundation of its doctrine.[5]
The necessity to worship a Divine Being is built upon an understanding of what is human nature. This is understood as the trait of human weakness manifested by man correctly or incorrectly via the instinct of religiosity. Accordingly, throughout human history, man has sanctified sculpture, the stars, beasts, man, ideas and even the state.
The Koran is considered as the utopia of thought and the miracle of language which is open to challenge from any man. The intellectual challenge is not based in the heavenly rules but in the attribute of divinity in their source. Consequently, it is considered as futile to concentrate on criticising the details of the message if the Divine entity and its attribute of perfection manifest in the Koran are not rationally challenged as absolute truths.
Islam’s conception of what is man’s happiness is thus argued as the fulfilment of human nature through the sanctification of God and the adherence to a divine system via the Koran.
Islam is differentiated from the concept of religion which is considered limited to the relationship of man with God and man with himself. Religion is established to have no connection with defining the relationship between man and man in the form of rules governing state and society. Islam is consequently defined as a way of life or in modern terminology, an ideology.[6]
The call to a divine and comprehensive message for man in the form of Sharia is premised upon the understanding of man as a universal being. Human nature and form is deemed a universal concept unchanged throughout time and corrupted only through what is considered as forced and incorrect social engineering via non-divine messages such as Communism and secular liberalism.
Universal man is defined in structure to constitute the mind, basic biological needs (food, water, clothing etc) and innate energies or instincts such as self preservation, species and sanctification. This is in comparison to the animal which is considered devoid of the mind and the instinct of religiosity. Without the mind, the animal can never progress as the ability to produce thought is absent. Survival, procreation and organic needs are regarded as the only forces driving its behaviour.[7]
Islam’s detailed system and thought is presented as a human arrangement, aimed at organising but not eliminating or allowing free reign to these basic biological requirements and innate or instinctual energies. In doing so, Islam is considered natural in appeal to the described human nature in calling for the elimination of what is rejected as non-divine and hence imperfect, inconsistent and contradictory global messages of man. Islam’s message is thus considered to have universal application and attraction as it calls to mankind in its quality as a human being. Its call to a complete submission to the will of God in the form of a divine system is considered as consistent with human nature.
Moreover, Islam is conceptualised as a political as well as a spiritual message. Politics is manifest through detailed rules pertaining to governing human affairs whether they are judicial, economic, social or related to state. This separates Islam from other monotheistic faiths in comprehensively detailing a doctrine of life and its explicit governance through the practice of politics. Thus ethics, politics, governance, war and spirituality are not separated but manifest as an inevitable consequence of applying the message.[8]
The Clash of Messages
Islam recognises no inherent attribute in man towards liberty and freedom. The sanctification of secular liberalism in itself is considered the erroneous manifestation of man’s religious nature. In essence, Islam declares war on the libertarian design to free man from worshipping the perfection of God to enslaving itself to the imperfection of man. Man’s happiness under the Western idea is thus assailed as being impossible through the pursuit of liberty and the Capitalist system.[9]
Islam opposes the Western world’s call for a reformation. It has considered the West’s episode with its medieval past to have paralysed its ability to evaluate the concept of religious truth beyond the parameters of its experience with Christianity. Consequently, the West has been charged with making the mistake of evaluating Islam under the same paradigm.
Islam rejects the detachment between God and state re-defined by the West as modernity. Modernity is considered to be based on an intellectual paralysis which prevented it from concluding an absolute truth between the asserted contradictory poles of sovereignty between man and God. Islam considers the resulting compromise in the basic secular root of modernity as devoid of an intellectual process and hence its fundamental error.[10]
The West’s inability to differentiate between Christianity as a religion and Islam as an ideology is put forward as the dogmatic position of the West’s reformation paradigm. This position is criticised even amongst Western historians. Bernard Lewis states in this regard;
“In modern times, there have been many changes, mainly under Western influences, and institutions and professions have developed which bear a suspicious resemblance to the Churches and clerics of Christendom. But these represent a departure from Islam, not a return to it…The very notion of something that is separate or even separable from religious authority, expressed in Christian languages by terms such as lay, temporal or secular, is totally alien to Islamic thought and practice. It was not until relatively modern times that equivalents for these terms existed in Arabic. They were borrowed from the usage of Arabic speaking Christians or newly invented”. [11]
The failure to distinguish between the theocratic nature of Papal Christian rule and that of the Islamic ruling structure is highlighted as one such example. The Iranian state is presented by the West as the embodiment of theocratic rule in Islam and consequently its failure to provide an alternative to the western secular political construct. There is however, no accepted concept of a theocracy or clergy in Islam and hence no notion of clerical rule on behalf of God. As Bernard Lewis points out;
“Classical Islam did not recognize a separate institution, with a hierarchy and laws of its own, to regulate religious matters. The emergence of a priestly hierarchy and its assumption of ultimate authority in the state is a modern innovation and is a unique contribution of the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to Islamic thought and practice.”[12]
Furthermore, the Shia doctrine is understood to negate Islamic rule in the absence of the twelfth Imam. The formulation by Khomeini of Wilayat-ul-Faqih (intermediate rule of the jurist) is not considered to have overturned the Shia doctrine and turned Iran into an Islamic state in the absence of the Imam. Rather Iran is considered to have adopted the republican state model with an Islamic flavour. Such a model is rejected as having no precedent in Islam.[13]
Many western academics have consequently been considered to have fallen into this trap. Fred Halliday in his book, Islam and the Myth of Confrontation accordingly premises his argument of Western universalism primarily on the assertion of measuring Islam in accordance with Iran and concluding the failure of Islam as a result.
Democracy as understood from its Greek term demos (rule of the people) and kratos (rule by the people) is termed an anathema to Islam. Sovereignty to the people to legislate is considered a violation of God’s dominion and slavery to human flaw, desire and inconsistency. Man’s attempt to legislate is thus argued as contrary to human nature in that it rejects the attribute of religiousness and weakness in the management of human affairs. It is divine revelation not majority rule which Islam ascribes to the legislation or opinion being correct or incorrect.[14]
Democracy is thus rejected as a defective expression of political structuring; incriminating also that the democratic experiment of human legislation actually conflicts with Liberal freedoms and is not its natural outcome. The idea that society’s interests are guaranteed through the personal interests of the individual is attacked as a contradiction between democracy and liberalism in that legislation by default restricts freedom and is in reality its antithesis. [15]
Democracy is consequently portrayed as being intrinsically inconsistent and dangerous in its theoretical premise. The consent of rule by the many over the few is deemed as leading to an oppression of minorities which it expresses to protect.[16]
Similarly, man’s innate impulse for self-interest is considered to have been exploited under a façade of democracy through the exploitation of economic freedom. It is cited as the cause of democracy’s vulnerability to control and abuse by the Capitalist class who are regarded as the real rulers through their influence of government within Western society. The adoption of democracy as a political experiment is considered to have done little to change the fundamental dynamics of the feudal period.[17]
Islam’s alternate message of political organization is premised on the contract of governance between the elected rulers and the ruled via the authority of the people and the sovereignty of Sharia. The appointment of the leadership and the agreement on the divine system is cited as the necessary safeguard against the interference of self-interest in legislation and the danger of totalitarian rule by the rulers or other interested parties.[18]
The charge of totalitarianism by the West against the Islamic state and system is rejected and furthermore turned against the West. Both Nazi Germany and Communism are highlighted as aberrations resulting from the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the Western thought and not Islam.[19]
The West’s projection of its material advancement as an outcome of its intellectual, scientific and economic freedom is vehemently rejected and refuted. Islam regards science to be a universal phenomenon with no inherent link to any value systems, especially ridiculing the notion that technological advancement is inherently linked to adopting secular liberalism. It is pointed out that in the twentieth century alone, illiberal and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia led the West in terms of technological parity.[20]
Having produced leading scientific thinkers and technological achievements, the history of Islamic civilisation is cited as having led the Western world for many centuries. The central role of the mind in the Islamic doctrine is alluded to as the underlying reason for the compatibility between Islam and science. Moreover, even the scientific method upon which the West built its industrial achievements is considered part of the heritage bequeathed by the Islamic civilisation, further undermining any necessary connection between scientific and technological advancement with the secular liberal message.
Secular Liberalism’s unquestioned confidence in the individual is not shared by Islam or its conception of guaranteeing society’s interests through the fulfilment of the personal interests of the individual alone. The overwhelming material tendency within Western thought the individual, state and society is considered the cause of mankind’s perpetual misery under its message. [21]
Under material domination, focus on the individual alone is viewed as the source of the endemic spiritual, ethical and humanitarian void confronting Western societies. Hence, the intended transfer of responsibility for governing society from the state to the individual is considered to further perpetuate the inevitable cause of societal despair and despondency.[22]
Fukyama admits to this problem in secular liberalism but due to his mistake of understanding Islam through the conventional lens of the reformation and the war on terror, he finds no argument in religion or Islam.
“One is inclined to say that the revival of religion in some way attests to a broad unhappiness with the impersonality and spiritual vacuity of liberal consumerist societies. Yet while the emptiness at the core of liberalism is most certainly a defect in the ideology- indeed, a flaw that one does not need the perspective of religion to recognise – it is not at all clear that it is remedial through politics.”[23]
The void is not understood to be limited to the spiritual aspect. Premised on the idea of economic freedom, unbridled free market forces are not seen as a cause of elevation rather the control and exploitation of basic human sustenance by powerful commercial concerns with no room for the humanitarian values required to look after the old, destitute and disabled. The establishment of the welfare state in Western societies is attributed not to the secular liberal message but a political compromise intended to eliminate the pressure in exposing the considered inhumanity of the Smithsonian free market model. The rapid post Communist transformation in Western societies as regards state privatisation and destruction of the welfare state is highlighted as the reason for ending the political compromise and the free reign of unrestrained market forces on society.[24]
The uninhibited consequence of the free market is also deemed responsible for Western colonialism. The impulse to exploit foreign lands under the justification of economic freedom, globalisation and free market principles, is thought to have become the unavoidable method for secular liberalism’s universal advance. This is deemed as the West’s global Achilles heel.[25]
Islam is conceptualised as the only doctrine capable of fusing and organising the material tendency in society with the ethical, spiritual and humanitarian. Consequently, there is considered no such emptiness leading to tension within the individual and society. Constructing a powerful message in terms of preventing the exploitation and domination of society by the material tendency. It puts forward a model of fixed demarcation of responsibility between the state, society and the individual for protecting the life, mind, property, honour and the lineage of man. [26]
Market principles are rejected as a means of guaranteeing what Islam considers as the basic human rights. The state in Islam and not the market is charged with the responsibility for guaranteeing food, shelter and clothing. The state is also deemed accountable for trusteeship and protection of key resources from private exploitation, including energy, minerals and water on behalf of the people.[27]
The understanding of happiness as seeking the pleasure of God via the application of the Sharia system is proposed as the most effective means of guaranteeing the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual levels in society. The values embedded in the details of the system are considered to provide the responsibility for society to act as the first port of call for ensuring the care of the destitute, elderly, and poor and incapacitated. The state deemed responsible as the default guarantor.[28]
Islam contends that it organises the values according to the divine Sharia and thus no value is preferred or allowed over the other. Colonialism is considered alien to it as the globalisation of the Islamic message is not driven by the materialist tendency and as such its application suffers no spiritual or ethical contradiction and vacuum.
In terms of global structure, the Westphalian state system and the social contract between nation and state are demonstrated as the inability of the secular liberal doctrine to resolve the contradictory position of a unifying global message and the divisive bond of nationalism. The institutionalisation of the state upon national and ethnic edifice is considered the capitulation to the instinct of human survival and the primary cause for the continual conflict for national domination in the global theatre. The two devastating World Wars in the twentieth century and the rise of fascism and Nazism, provided as the principal victims of the Westphalian state concept.[29]
Moreover, universal man is considered neither innately evil nor innately good. The propensity of universal man to be evil or good is dependent upon the correctness of the thought and its ability to organise the innate energies. Hence, the international order is not considered a mechanism of self preservation and survival unless the vital interests which sustain the entities within it are threatened.[30]
Islam terms a bond based upon nationalism as divisive and destructive. Consequently, political and social organisation centred on the nationalist edifice is legally prohibited. Instead, Islam constitutes the idea of ‘ummah’ defined as a nation based upon the bond of ideology alone. The Caliphate is the expression of this political organisation in the global realm. Encompassing the call of Islam to universal man and the rejection of nationalism, the Caliphate is thus developed as naturally expansionist and unitary. In this manner Islam purports to overcome the problematique of nationalism and global message by re-organising the global state order.[31]
Conclusion
Secular liberalism and its Capitalist derivative has been largely promoted as a successful global message because of the wealth, technology and power acquired by the West as well as a system which purports to guarantee the human rights and dignity of man through the liberties and freedoms.
However, the secular liberal doctrine and system have come under intense international scrutiny as regards their inability to resolve societal problems, global poverty and war. The West’s unremitting imperialist impulse and the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual crisis confronting Western liberal societies have sparked not only a response from the Islamic world but the explosion of a genuine global anti-Capitalist reaction.
In defining Islam as an alternate global message with no co-existence, the Islamic thinkers and the movement have declared war on secular liberalism and challenged Western universalism. The construction of Islam as a global message has set off a revival throughout the Islamic world and positioned Islam as constituting the fastest growing phenomena in the Western world. With the globalisation of the War on Terror, Islam has indeed become an international concern affecting every hemisphere in the world beyond the ‘Arab man’.
Russia’s ideological vacuum and system paralysis is compounded by the internal and external pressure she faces from the Islamic movement resulting from her close geographical proximity to the Islamic resurgence in Central Asia and the Caucuses. There is a strong argument to suggest that if the Islamic system had been operational in the form of the Caliphate when Communism collapsed, Russia would have indeed been and remains vulnerable to the Islamic message.
China also having slowly diluted its Communist premise in favour of a Capitalist economic model has slowly begun to feel the tremors of inconsistency. In measuring its success through the barometer of technology and economics, the distributions of wealth and societal harmony guaranteed in some form under the Communist message is beginning to crack and rise to the surface. With the US on the march with its message, increased wealth and technology will only be temporary in the event of ideological, systemic and political poverty. Again having intellectually rejected complete Capitalism, China remains insular in its culture. However, Islam is a powerful part of China’s history and geography. With a large Muslim and radical Uighar population, borders with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, the resumption of the Islamic message will have an immediate impact on China’s ideological conundrum.
Europe is finding difficulty in coping with the radicalisation of its huge Muslim populations, forcing it to reassess its official neutrality towards Islam in the secular frame and nervousness over including Turkey officially as part of the EU. The failure and refusal of the Muslim populations to integrate further exposes the limits of the Liberal message in secularising Islam. Furthermore, due to the shadow of Islam still existent in the ‘European man’ such as in Spain, the Balkans and Central Europe, the Islamic message will find its natural and strongest allies in the event of a future Caliphate resuming the conquest of the message through Europe.
In the Americas, the rapid growth of Islam is fed by a wave of anti-Americanism. The poverty of the Americas has become a source of shame and failure for the export of the American dream and consequently the disappointment of the Capitalist message. Moreover, despite the official decolonisation, the America’s and Africa remain the victims of economic and political conditions resulting from the exploitation of global Capitalism.
As for the Islamic world, the secular message has been destroyed by the messenger itself. The invasion of Iraq, indifference towards Israel, political and economic relationships with dictators, the military presence to secure oil and the perceived war on Islam under the pretext of fighting terrorism has strengthened the call of the Islamic movement. The Koran remains the driving force in the revival of the Islamic message and the shield against the secular liberal message.
All of the above now presents a ready made battlefield for Islam’s quest for universalism. The conflict now rages in the Islamic world to transform itself from a stateless phenomenon into a Caliphate in order to practically display its message in the global theatre with the aim of attracting universal man.
Noman Hanif is lecturer in Political Islam and International Terrorism at Birkbeck, University of London and Fellow in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter, UK
Islam and Universal Man
Would Russia have turned to Islam after the fall of Communism had the Caliphate remained? Why does the Islamic world persistently refuse to embrace modernity? Can Islam offer an alternative to secular liberalism as a global message?
These questions identify not only the past but the present and the future course of history. They project the power and struggle between global messages defining human thought, state, society and systems. No nation or civilisation has ever globalised without the appeal of a message and the medium of state to execute and convey it. Conversely, the loss of a global message has had profound implications for the power and attraction of nations, states and societies.
Russia’s global appeal resulted from its message of Communism through the vehicle of the Soviet Union. Peoples throughout the world were drawn by its message and in turn global influence proliferated, threatening the upheaval of established societies.
Russia lost her global power once her people rejected Communism. Her military might, technological parity with the West and global attraction disintegrated the moment her message of Communism ceased. The vacuum of a message reduced Russia to an empty shell, an internal system in contradiction and paralysis, reverting to a Russian nationalism which has no message or magnetism for the world. Moreover, it isolates and divides her, devoid of any significance beyond its borders. The deep intellectual nature of the message however has left its mark. After seventy years of refuting the Western message of Capitalism, Russia has been resistant to embracing Secular Liberalism lock stock and barrel.
Islam’s message was thrust onto the global theatre through the entity of the Caliphate over a period of fourteen hundred years. It achieved immense success by attracting diverse nations and tribes, stretching from Indonesia to Spain at the height of its power.
By abandoning the Caliphate in 1924, Turkey lost its global message and international position along with its influence over the Islamic world. Turkey never recovered from shedding the influence and power of the Caliphate and Islam. Even in Western quarters, Attaturk’s action was considered insane. It was according to the UK Daily Telegraph in 1924;
"..One of the most astonishing acts of suicidal recklessness in the history of modern or ancient times".
In turn, Turkey has been reduced from the sick man of Europe to the beggar of the East. Despite eighty years of forced, authoritarian and illiberal secularisation, the struggle with Islam continues. Turkey is in the words of Samuel Huntington a ‘torn state’. It remains rejected by the West, ostracized by the Islamic world and in perpetual internal contradiction. The technological and economic gap with the West continues to increase. Secularists dressed in Islamic clothing and enfranchised by the intensely secular Turkish military establishment breed only more confusion, contradiction and paralysis.
The New World Order under the patronage of the United States and Europe now spearheads the globalisation of the secular liberal message. With no alternative message to Communism, members of the former Soviet bloc have naturally been the first willing recipients of the global secularisation process. The secular liberal message provides the framework for global governance, consolidating and driving its doctrinal, legal, financial and military hold via the multitude of Western dominated international institutions. This manifestation of global secular power has lead many thinkers in the West to proclaim a secular universalism and Francis Fukyama to even suggest the “End of History” with a utopian secular thought set to completely conquer the material world.
It is however, the contention of this essay that thinkers developed in the Western Liberal tradition, have made the momentous mistake of negating Islam as having any message beyond the Islamic world and thus providing any credible challenge. According to Francis Fukyama in his essay, The End of History;
“In the contemporary world only Islam has offered a theocratic state as a political alternative to both liberalism and Communism. But the doctrine has little appeal to non-Muslims and it is hard to believe that it will take on a universal significance.”[1]
Such statements are however in contradiction to the fact that a cursory reading of world history is testament to Islam’s intellectual attraction beyond the ‘Arab man’. Islam’s successful assimilation of Spain and other parts of Europe as well as Africa, Central, South and East Asia are undisputable examples from history.
History is further witness to the fact that even within Europe; the Islamic message was not eliminated by Western intellectual prowess. It was forcefully removed through a mixture of Muslim genocide in Spain via the Christian led Spanish inquisition and the exploitation of a weak political and military Ottoman position in the Balkans and other parts of Europe.
Samuel Huntington’s assertion is thus correct in stating that the West has universalised in relation to Islam not because of its superiority of message, but due to its preponderant skill in military organisation. If the Ottoman military advance had not been stopped at the gates of Vienna, the history of Europe itself would have been a powerful testimony in challenging Fukyama’s statement.
This essay will argue that Western thinkers have prematurely announced victory in the war over ‘The Message’. In confining themselves to the comfort and predictability of the western tradition, a serious misunderstanding has occurred in evaluating the fundamental concepts which provide the foundation for the resurrection of Islam as a global message. Secular constructs which have no relationship to the Islamic model of state, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran have been incorrectly projected as the failures of the Islamic message to provide political alternatives to the Westphalian secular liberal state paradigm.
Instead, study of the Islamic message, as an alternative to the secular liberal idea of the state, individual and society has incorrectly occurred under the framework of secular liberalism and western universalism. Furthermore, Islam’s challenge to secular liberalism predates 9/11 and hence has no relationship with the war on terrorism. Yet western thinkers are all too keen to dismiss Islam superficially on a war which is borne out of particular circumstance i.e. the frustrated but mutated response to a perceived Western military, economic, political and cultural imperialism in the Islamic world.
Analysis of the Islamic message as a stand alone concept from its own foundations and sources has accordingly been absent and to a degree sidestepped. As Ken Booth and Tim Dunne point out in the book, Worlds in Collision;
“..In the search for a fuller answer, unfortunately, the chief protagonists shy away. It should be a time for introspection, for the deepening of self knowledge; instead, self justification has been the norm”[i].[2]
This essay is an attempt to correct this self validation in highlighting the nature of Islam’s alternate model and accordingly its inevitable adoption and resurrection in the Islamic world. It will become clear that Islam and secular Liberalism are destined to clash and compete on a global scale. In contemporary history however, secular liberalism has a distinct advantage. While the Secular Liberal message is conveyed through states, the Islamic message is stateless and relies on the peoples and the Islamic movement. The Islamic movement specifically has not left Islam as simply an idea to revive on its own like a feather in the wind. Whilst Lenin added the State to Marxism in order to facilitate Utopia, the state in the form of a Caliphate is an explicit method required by Islam for its complete implementation and globalisation.
The Islamic movement has been instrumental in rejecting Western attempts to dilute the Islamic message through its cross breeding with secular liberalism, considering it an unnatural intercourse between two distinct species which can only lead to the inevitable death of such a hybrid. Even amongst Western thinkers, Turkey is highlighted as a contemporary example of this unnatural fusion. Samuel Huntington in his seminal work, The Clash of Civilisations, points out Turkey’s necessity in turning away from such attempts of synthesis and accordingly overturning its aberrant, confused and torn status if it is to resume its global position and leadership of Islam;
“At some point, Turkey could be ready to give up its frustrating and humiliating role as a beggar pleading for membership in the West and to resume it’s much more impressive and elevated role as the principal Islamic interlocutor and antagonist of the West… But to do so it would have to reject Attaturk’s legacy more thoroughly than Russia has rejected Lenin’s.”[3]
To this end the Islamic movement and thinkers, Sunni and Shia, have taken on the challenge of defeating and replacing secular liberalism both intellectually and politically. This includes providing a detailed alternative to the current economic and political structure of global order.
This essay will draw upon two of the most influential thinkers from the Sunni and Shia schools responsible for constructing Islam as a credible force in challenging Western modernity. Amongst the Sunni thinkers, Taqiudine an Nabahani, a former judge from Palestine and founder of the pan-Islamic Liberation Party was the first to transform classical Islam into a powerful modern paradigm with the aim of reviving Islam, challenging modern ideologies and resurrecting the Caliphate. Nabahani wrote extensively on the doctrinal and systemic differences between Islam, Communism and Secularism. The Islamic Liberation Party is the only group to have published a complete and radical programme for ideological change in the Islamic world including a detailed Islamic constitution.[4]
From the Shia thinkers, Baqr as Sadr, founder of the Party of Da’wa in Iraq is considered the philosophical heavy weight in terms of his works on the critique of Communist and secular philosophy. His two major works include Our Philosophy and Our Economy constituting four volumes.
The Message
The Islamic message is founded upon the idea of the spiritual fusion with the material world. There is an appeal to the human mind in terms of affirming God’s existence and the Koran as a divine miracle, both considered as absolute truths. Islam calls for certainty in this matter rejecting the concept of doubt, separation, supposition or mere faith as a foundation of its doctrine.[5]
The necessity to worship a Divine Being is built upon an understanding of what is human nature. This is understood as the trait of human weakness manifested by man correctly or incorrectly via the instinct of religiosity. Accordingly, throughout human history, man has sanctified sculpture, the stars, beasts, man, ideas and even the state.
The Koran is considered as the utopia of thought and the miracle of language which is open to challenge from any man. The intellectual challenge is not based in the heavenly rules but in the attribute of divinity in their source. Consequently, it is considered as futile to concentrate on criticising the details of the message if the Divine entity and its attribute of perfection manifest in the Koran are not rationally challenged as absolute truths.
Islam’s conception of what is man’s happiness is thus argued as the fulfilment of human nature through the sanctification of God and the adherence to a divine system via the Koran.
Islam is differentiated from the concept of religion which is considered limited to the relationship of man with God and man with himself. Religion is established to have no connection with defining the relationship between man and man in the form of rules governing state and society. Islam is consequently defined as a way of life or in modern terminology, an ideology.[6]
The call to a divine and comprehensive message for man in the form of Sharia is premised upon the understanding of man as a universal being. Human nature and form is deemed a universal concept unchanged throughout time and corrupted only through what is considered as forced and incorrect social engineering via non-divine messages such as Communism and secular liberalism.
Universal man is defined in structure to constitute the mind, basic biological needs (food, water, clothing etc) and innate energies or instincts such as self preservation, species and sanctification. This is in comparison to the animal which is considered devoid of the mind and the instinct of religiosity. Without the mind, the animal can never progress as the ability to produce thought is absent. Survival, procreation and organic needs are regarded as the only forces driving its behaviour.[7]
Islam’s detailed system and thought is presented as a human arrangement, aimed at organising but not eliminating or allowing free reign to these basic biological requirements and innate or instinctual energies. In doing so, Islam is considered natural in appeal to the described human nature in calling for the elimination of what is rejected as non-divine and hence imperfect, inconsistent and contradictory global messages of man. Islam’s message is thus considered to have universal application and attraction as it calls to mankind in its quality as a human being. Its call to a complete submission to the will of God in the form of a divine system is considered as consistent with human nature.
Moreover, Islam is conceptualised as a political as well as a spiritual message. Politics is manifest through detailed rules pertaining to governing human affairs whether they are judicial, economic, social or related to state. This separates Islam from other monotheistic faiths in comprehensively detailing a doctrine of life and its explicit governance through the practice of politics. Thus ethics, politics, governance, war and spirituality are not separated but manifest as an inevitable consequence of applying the message.[8]
The Clash of Messages
Islam recognises no inherent attribute in man towards liberty and freedom. The sanctification of secular liberalism in itself is considered the erroneous manifestation of man’s religious nature. In essence, Islam declares war on the libertarian design to free man from worshipping the perfection of God to enslaving itself to the imperfection of man. Man’s happiness under the Western idea is thus assailed as being impossible through the pursuit of liberty and the Capitalist system.[9]
Islam opposes the Western world’s call for a reformation. It has considered the West’s episode with its medieval past to have paralysed its ability to evaluate the concept of religious truth beyond the parameters of its experience with Christianity. Consequently, the West has been charged with making the mistake of evaluating Islam under the same paradigm.
Islam rejects the detachment between God and state re-defined by the West as modernity. Modernity is considered to be based on an intellectual paralysis which prevented it from concluding an absolute truth between the asserted contradictory poles of sovereignty between man and God. Islam considers the resulting compromise in the basic secular root of modernity as devoid of an intellectual process and hence its fundamental error.[10]
The West’s inability to differentiate between Christianity as a religion and Islam as an ideology is put forward as the dogmatic position of the West’s reformation paradigm. This position is criticised even amongst Western historians. Bernard Lewis states in this regard;
“In modern times, there have been many changes, mainly under Western influences, and institutions and professions have developed which bear a suspicious resemblance to the Churches and clerics of Christendom. But these represent a departure from Islam, not a return to it…The very notion of something that is separate or even separable from religious authority, expressed in Christian languages by terms such as lay, temporal or secular, is totally alien to Islamic thought and practice. It was not until relatively modern times that equivalents for these terms existed in Arabic. They were borrowed from the usage of Arabic speaking Christians or newly invented”. [11]
The failure to distinguish between the theocratic nature of Papal Christian rule and that of the Islamic ruling structure is highlighted as one such example. The Iranian state is presented by the West as the embodiment of theocratic rule in Islam and consequently its failure to provide an alternative to the western secular political construct. There is however, no accepted concept of a theocracy or clergy in Islam and hence no notion of clerical rule on behalf of God. As Bernard Lewis points out;
“Classical Islam did not recognize a separate institution, with a hierarchy and laws of its own, to regulate religious matters. The emergence of a priestly hierarchy and its assumption of ultimate authority in the state is a modern innovation and is a unique contribution of the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to Islamic thought and practice.”[12]
Furthermore, the Shia doctrine is understood to negate Islamic rule in the absence of the twelfth Imam. The formulation by Khomeini of Wilayat-ul-Faqih (intermediate rule of the jurist) is not considered to have overturned the Shia doctrine and turned Iran into an Islamic state in the absence of the Imam. Rather Iran is considered to have adopted the republican state model with an Islamic flavour. Such a model is rejected as having no precedent in Islam.[13]
Many western academics have consequently been considered to have fallen into this trap. Fred Halliday in his book, Islam and the Myth of Confrontation accordingly premises his argument of Western universalism primarily on the assertion of measuring Islam in accordance with Iran and concluding the failure of Islam as a result.
Democracy as understood from its Greek term demos (rule of the people) and kratos (rule by the people) is termed an anathema to Islam. Sovereignty to the people to legislate is considered a violation of God’s dominion and slavery to human flaw, desire and inconsistency. Man’s attempt to legislate is thus argued as contrary to human nature in that it rejects the attribute of religiousness and weakness in the management of human affairs. It is divine revelation not majority rule which Islam ascribes to the legislation or opinion being correct or incorrect.[14]
Democracy is thus rejected as a defective expression of political structuring; incriminating also that the democratic experiment of human legislation actually conflicts with Liberal freedoms and is not its natural outcome. The idea that society’s interests are guaranteed through the personal interests of the individual is attacked as a contradiction between democracy and liberalism in that legislation by default restricts freedom and is in reality its antithesis. [15]
Democracy is consequently portrayed as being intrinsically inconsistent and dangerous in its theoretical premise. The consent of rule by the many over the few is deemed as leading to an oppression of minorities which it expresses to protect.[16]
Similarly, man’s innate impulse for self-interest is considered to have been exploited under a façade of democracy through the exploitation of economic freedom. It is cited as the cause of democracy’s vulnerability to control and abuse by the Capitalist class who are regarded as the real rulers through their influence of government within Western society. The adoption of democracy as a political experiment is considered to have done little to change the fundamental dynamics of the feudal period.[17]
Islam’s alternate message of political organization is premised on the contract of governance between the elected rulers and the ruled via the authority of the people and the sovereignty of Sharia. The appointment of the leadership and the agreement on the divine system is cited as the necessary safeguard against the interference of self-interest in legislation and the danger of totalitarian rule by the rulers or other interested parties.[18]
The charge of totalitarianism by the West against the Islamic state and system is rejected and furthermore turned against the West. Both Nazi Germany and Communism are highlighted as aberrations resulting from the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the Western thought and not Islam.[19]
The West’s projection of its material advancement as an outcome of its intellectual, scientific and economic freedom is vehemently rejected and refuted. Islam regards science to be a universal phenomenon with no inherent link to any value systems, especially ridiculing the notion that technological advancement is inherently linked to adopting secular liberalism. It is pointed out that in the twentieth century alone, illiberal and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia led the West in terms of technological parity.[20]
Having produced leading scientific thinkers and technological achievements, the history of Islamic civilisation is cited as having led the Western world for many centuries. The central role of the mind in the Islamic doctrine is alluded to as the underlying reason for the compatibility between Islam and science. Moreover, even the scientific method upon which the West built its industrial achievements is considered part of the heritage bequeathed by the Islamic civilisation, further undermining any necessary connection between scientific and technological advancement with the secular liberal message.
Secular Liberalism’s unquestioned confidence in the individual is not shared by Islam or its conception of guaranteeing society’s interests through the fulfilment of the personal interests of the individual alone. The overwhelming material tendency within Western thought the individual, state and society is considered the cause of mankind’s perpetual misery under its message. [21]
Under material domination, focus on the individual alone is viewed as the source of the endemic spiritual, ethical and humanitarian void confronting Western societies. Hence, the intended transfer of responsibility for governing society from the state to the individual is considered to further perpetuate the inevitable cause of societal despair and despondency.[22]
Fukyama admits to this problem in secular liberalism but due to his mistake of understanding Islam through the conventional lens of the reformation and the war on terror, he finds no argument in religion or Islam.
“One is inclined to say that the revival of religion in some way attests to a broad unhappiness with the impersonality and spiritual vacuity of liberal consumerist societies. Yet while the emptiness at the core of liberalism is most certainly a defect in the ideology- indeed, a flaw that one does not need the perspective of religion to recognise – it is not at all clear that it is remedial through politics.”[23]
The void is not understood to be limited to the spiritual aspect. Premised on the idea of economic freedom, unbridled free market forces are not seen as a cause of elevation rather the control and exploitation of basic human sustenance by powerful commercial concerns with no room for the humanitarian values required to look after the old, destitute and disabled. The establishment of the welfare state in Western societies is attributed not to the secular liberal message but a political compromise intended to eliminate the pressure in exposing the considered inhumanity of the Smithsonian free market model. The rapid post Communist transformation in Western societies as regards state privatisation and destruction of the welfare state is highlighted as the reason for ending the political compromise and the free reign of unrestrained market forces on society.[24]
The uninhibited consequence of the free market is also deemed responsible for Western colonialism. The impulse to exploit foreign lands under the justification of economic freedom, globalisation and free market principles, is thought to have become the unavoidable method for secular liberalism’s universal advance. This is deemed as the West’s global Achilles heel.[25]
Islam is conceptualised as the only doctrine capable of fusing and organising the material tendency in society with the ethical, spiritual and humanitarian. Consequently, there is considered no such emptiness leading to tension within the individual and society. Constructing a powerful message in terms of preventing the exploitation and domination of society by the material tendency. It puts forward a model of fixed demarcation of responsibility between the state, society and the individual for protecting the life, mind, property, honour and the lineage of man. [26]
Market principles are rejected as a means of guaranteeing what Islam considers as the basic human rights. The state in Islam and not the market is charged with the responsibility for guaranteeing food, shelter and clothing. The state is also deemed accountable for trusteeship and protection of key resources from private exploitation, including energy, minerals and water on behalf of the people.[27]
The understanding of happiness as seeking the pleasure of God via the application of the Sharia system is proposed as the most effective means of guaranteeing the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual levels in society. The values embedded in the details of the system are considered to provide the responsibility for society to act as the first port of call for ensuring the care of the destitute, elderly, and poor and incapacitated. The state deemed responsible as the default guarantor.[28]
Islam contends that it organises the values according to the divine Sharia and thus no value is preferred or allowed over the other. Colonialism is considered alien to it as the globalisation of the Islamic message is not driven by the materialist tendency and as such its application suffers no spiritual or ethical contradiction and vacuum.
In terms of global structure, the Westphalian state system and the social contract between nation and state are demonstrated as the inability of the secular liberal doctrine to resolve the contradictory position of a unifying global message and the divisive bond of nationalism. The institutionalisation of the state upon national and ethnic edifice is considered the capitulation to the instinct of human survival and the primary cause for the continual conflict for national domination in the global theatre. The two devastating World Wars in the twentieth century and the rise of fascism and Nazism, provided as the principal victims of the Westphalian state concept.[29]
Moreover, universal man is considered neither innately evil nor innately good. The propensity of universal man to be evil or good is dependent upon the correctness of the thought and its ability to organise the innate energies. Hence, the international order is not considered a mechanism of self preservation and survival unless the vital interests which sustain the entities within it are threatened.[30]
Islam terms a bond based upon nationalism as divisive and destructive. Consequently, political and social organisation centred on the nationalist edifice is legally prohibited. Instead, Islam constitutes the idea of ‘ummah’ defined as a nation based upon the bond of ideology alone. The Caliphate is the expression of this political organisation in the global realm. Encompassing the call of Islam to universal man and the rejection of nationalism, the Caliphate is thus developed as naturally expansionist and unitary. In this manner Islam purports to overcome the problematique of nationalism and global message by re-organising the global state order.[31]
Conclusion
Secular liberalism and its Capitalist derivative has been largely promoted as a successful global message because of the wealth, technology and power acquired by the West as well as a system which purports to guarantee the human rights and dignity of man through the liberties and freedoms.
However, the secular liberal doctrine and system have come under intense international scrutiny as regards their inability to resolve societal problems, global poverty and war. The West’s unremitting imperialist impulse and the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual crisis confronting Western liberal societies have sparked not only a response from the Islamic world but the explosion of a genuine global anti-Capitalist reaction.
In defining Islam as an alternate global message with no co-existence, the Islamic thinkers and the movement have declared war on secular liberalism and challenged Western universalism. The construction of Islam as a global message has set off a revival throughout the Islamic world and positioned Islam as constituting the fastest growing phenomena in the Western world. With the globalisation of the War on Terror, Islam has indeed become an international concern affecting every hemisphere in the world beyond the ‘Arab man’.
Russia’s ideological vacuum and system paralysis is compounded by the internal and external pressure she faces from the Islamic movement resulting from her close geographical proximity to the Islamic resurgence in Central Asia and the Caucuses. There is a strong argument to suggest that if the Islamic system had been operational in the form of the Caliphate when Communism collapsed, Russia would have indeed been and remains vulnerable to the Islamic message.
China also having slowly diluted its Communist premise in favour of a Capitalist economic model has slowly begun to feel the tremors of inconsistency. In measuring its success through the barometer of technology and economics, the distributions of wealth and societal harmony guaranteed in some form under the Communist message is beginning to crack and rise to the surface. With the US on the march with its message, increased wealth and technology will only be temporary in the event of ideological, systemic and political poverty. Again having intellectually rejected complete Capitalism, China remains insular in its culture. However, Islam is a powerful part of China’s history and geography. With a large Muslim and radical Uighar population, borders with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, the resumption of the Islamic message will have an immediate impact on China’s ideological conundrum.
Europe is finding difficulty in coping with the radicalisation of its huge Muslim populations, forcing it to reassess its official neutrality towards Islam in the secular frame and nervousness over including Turkey officially as part of the EU. The failure and refusal of the Muslim populations to integrate further exposes the limits of the Liberal message in secularising Islam. Furthermore, due to the shadow of Islam still existent in the ‘European man’ such as in Spain, the Balkans and Central Europe, the Islamic message will find its natural and strongest allies in the event of a future Caliphate resuming the conquest of the message through Europe.
In the Americas, the rapid growth of Islam is fed by a wave of anti-Americanism. The poverty of the Americas has become a source of shame and failure for the export of the American dream and consequently the disappointment of the Capitalist message. Moreover, despite the official decolonisation, the America’s and Africa remain the victims of economic and political conditions resulting from the exploitation of global Capitalism.
As for the Islamic world, the secular message has been destroyed by the messenger itself. The invasion of Iraq, indifference towards Israel, political and economic relationships with dictators, the military presence to secure oil and the perceived war on Islam under the pretext of fighting terrorism has strengthened the call of the Islamic movement. The Koran remains the driving force in the revival of the Islamic message and the shield against the secular liberal message.
All of the above now presents a ready made battlefield for Islam’s quest for universalism. The conflict now rages in the Islamic world to transform itself from a stateless phenomenon into a Caliphate in order to practically display its message in the global theatre with the aim of attracting universal man.
Noman Hanif is lecturer in Political Islam and International Terrorism at Birkbeck, University of London and Fellow in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter, UK
Notes
[1] Francis Fukyama, The End of History, The National Interest, 1989.
[2] Booth K, Dunne T, Introduction, Worlds in Collision, Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan 2002 pp1-26
[3]Huntington S, The Clash of Civilisations, Simon&Schuster, 1996, pp178-179
[4] Suha Taji Farouki’s book ‘Hizbal Tahrir and the Quest for the Caliphate’ is the only serious academic work to date on HT. A copy of HT’s draft constitution is printed in the book.
[5] Nabahani, The Way to Belief, The System of Islam, chapter 1, date and author unknown. HT works can be located on the website (www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org). The chapter discusses the intellectual foundations of the Islamic doctrine.
[6] Ibid, chapter 3
[7] Ibid, chapter 1
[8] ibid, chapter 3
[9] Baqir As Sadr, Our Philosophy, Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1987, pp21-31. The introduction of the book is heavily influenced by Nabahani in its explanation of the ideological divide.
[10] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3
[11] Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Weidenfeld &Nicolson, 2003, p8
[12] ibid p15
[13] This argument is put forward by Hizb-ut-Tahrir in a leaflet (reprinted in its English publication, Al Fajr, 1989) denouncing Khomeini after his refusal to implement the Islamic constitution put forward by HT.
[14] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3.
[15] Baqir As Sadr, Our Philosophy, Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1987, pp21-31
[16] Ibid
[17] ibid
[18] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam chapter 3. A detailed breakdown is provided in Nabahani’s book The Ruling System in Islam (www.hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)
[19] Nabahani, Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir
[20] Nabahani, Culture and Civilisation, The System of Islam, chapter 5.
[21] Baqir As Sadr, The Tragedies of the Capitalist System, Our Philosophy, pp11-14
[22] Ibid
[23] Francis Fukyama, The End of History, The National Interest, 1989.
[24] Baqir as Sadr, The Tragedies of the Capitalist System, Our Philosophy, pp11-14. The detailed critique of Capitalist economics can be found in Sadr’s book Our Economy.
[25] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3. A political conception of Capitalism’s relationship to colonialism is provided in the book ‘The Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir’.
[26] Ibid
[27] Nabahani, Introduction to Economy, The Difference between Capitalist, Communist and Islamic Economics, (www.Hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)
[28] Nabahani, Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, ( www.Hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)
[29] Nabahani, Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/) The basic conception of nationalism as a divisive force is argued in The System of Islam
[30] Ibid
[31] Ibid
© Numanhanif.com 2006
[2] Booth K, Dunne T, Introduction, Worlds in Collision, Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan 2002 pp1-26
[3]Huntington S, The Clash of Civilisations, Simon&Schuster, 1996, pp178-179
[4] Suha Taji Farouki’s book ‘Hizbal Tahrir and the Quest for the Caliphate’ is the only serious academic work to date on HT. A copy of HT’s draft constitution is printed in the book.
[5] Nabahani, The Way to Belief, The System of Islam, chapter 1, date and author unknown. HT works can be located on the website (www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org). The chapter discusses the intellectual foundations of the Islamic doctrine.
[6] Ibid, chapter 3
[7] Ibid, chapter 1
[8] ibid, chapter 3
[9] Baqir As Sadr, Our Philosophy, Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1987, pp21-31. The introduction of the book is heavily influenced by Nabahani in its explanation of the ideological divide.
[10] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3
[11] Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Weidenfeld &Nicolson, 2003, p8
[12] ibid p15
[13] This argument is put forward by Hizb-ut-Tahrir in a leaflet (reprinted in its English publication, Al Fajr, 1989) denouncing Khomeini after his refusal to implement the Islamic constitution put forward by HT.
[14] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3.
[15] Baqir As Sadr, Our Philosophy, Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1987, pp21-31
[16] Ibid
[17] ibid
[18] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam chapter 3. A detailed breakdown is provided in Nabahani’s book The Ruling System in Islam (www.hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)
[19] Nabahani, Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir
[20] Nabahani, Culture and Civilisation, The System of Islam, chapter 5.
[21] Baqir As Sadr, The Tragedies of the Capitalist System, Our Philosophy, pp11-14
[22] Ibid
[23] Francis Fukyama, The End of History, The National Interest, 1989.
[24] Baqir as Sadr, The Tragedies of the Capitalist System, Our Philosophy, pp11-14. The detailed critique of Capitalist economics can be found in Sadr’s book Our Economy.
[25] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3. A political conception of Capitalism’s relationship to colonialism is provided in the book ‘The Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir’.
[26] Ibid
[27] Nabahani, Introduction to Economy, The Difference between Capitalist, Communist and Islamic Economics, (www.Hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)
[28] Nabahani, Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, ( www.Hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)
[29] Nabahani, Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/) The basic conception of nationalism as a divisive force is argued in The System of Islam
[30] Ibid
[31] Ibid
© Numanhanif.com 2006
posted by Noman Hanif at 4:26 AM
0 comments
About Me
- Name: Noman Hanif
- Location: United Kingdom
Lecturer in International Relations snd Political Islam at Birkbeck, University of London.Former fellow in Middle East politics at the University of Exeter. Currently researching the Global Politics of Hizb ut Tahrir.
Links
Previous Posts
- THE FUTURE OF HIZB-UT-TAHRIR IN BRITAINNoman Hanif...
- Islamic Affairs
- Islamic Affairs
- The MessageIslam and Universal ManWould Russia hav...
- The Caliphate: Islam's Challenge to Global Order?b...
Archives
