Is music prohibited in Islam?

The sections of this article are:

1- Is music prohibited in Islam?
2- The definition of the Psalm or Psalms.
3- Does this mean that we (Muslims) must play music while we pray?
4- Did Allah Almighty or Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prohibit music?
5- Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him allowed music.
6- Conclusion.
7- My notes on music and music videos that use foul language and sinful acts.

Some Muslims believe that Music is prohibited/sinful in Islam. According to Islam: Music that leads to sinful acts such as drugs, sex, violence, etc... is absolutely sinful in Islam. But otherwise, how would it be sinful when Allah Almighty Himself allowed it to Prophet David peace be upon him?

Narrated Abu Musa: "That the Prophet said to him 'O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the musical wind-instruments of the family of David.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues of the Qur'an, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 568)"

Let us look at Noble Verse 4:163 "We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms."

Let us look at Noble Verse 17:55 "And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms."

In the above Saying (Hadith) and Noble Verses, we clearly see that Allah Almighty did send the Book of Psalm to Prophet David peace be upon him. We also see that Allah Almighty called that Book a gift. If Allah Almighty allowed David peace be upon him and his followers to sing and play music, then how could we then claim that music is sinful and prohibited?

The definition of the Psalm or Psalms:

First let us define what the word "Psalm" or "Psalms" mean:

A collection of sacred poems forming a book of canonical Jewish and Christian Scripture.

Often capitalized [Middle English, from Old English psalm, from Late Latin psalmus, from Greek psalmos, literally, twanging of a harp, from psallein to pluck, play a stringed instrument]
First appeared before 12th Century

A sacred song or poem used in worship; especially : one of the biblical hymns collected in the Book of Psalms

From the America Online Dictionary.

Does this mean that we (Muslims) must play music while we pray?

I was asked this question before. My answer is: No, that is not what I am suggesting! In Islam, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was inspired the instructions that taught us how to pray. Muslims do not sing nor play music while they pray, and it is prohibited to play music or sing while praying to Allah Almighty in Islam. But the point I am trying to make is, if Allah Almighty allowed music and songs to be played to people before us, then what gives us the right to prohibit music now?

Did Allah Almighty or Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prohibit music?

There is not a single Noble Verse in the Noble Quran that prohibits music. In fact, music and songs are allowed in the Noble Quran as we saw above. Some Muslims however claim that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did prohibit music. Well, the section below actually proves the otherwise from the Sayings of Prophet Muhammad himself.

Muslims must also remember that when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him reached the Holy City of Madina from the Holy City of Mecca with his best friend Abu Bakr; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him, the Muslims played music and sang the famous Islamic song "Talaa El-Badru Alayna" which means "The full moon had come upon us."

The music that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prohibited was the one that the infidels used to play which involved sexual activities by the women. It was part of the pagan Arabs' custom, and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him wanted to prevent Muslims to be anywhere near that type of music, because it was a sinful music; a music that led to sinful activities.

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him allowed music:

From Bukhari Volume 2, Book 15, Number 70:

Narrated Aisha:
Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) came to my house while two girls were singing beside me the songs of Buath (a story about the war between the two tribes of the Ansar, the Khazraj and the Aus, before Islam). The Prophet (p.b.u.h) lay down and turned his face to the other side. Then Abu Bakr came and spoke to me harshly saying, "Musical instruments of Satan near the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ? " Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) turned his face towards him and said, "Leave them." When Abu Bakr became inattentive, I signaled to those girls to go out and they left. It was the day of 'Id, and the Black people were playing with shields and spears; so either I requested the Prophet (p.b.u.h) or he asked me whether I would like to see the display. I replied in the affirmative. Then the Prophet (p.b.u.h) made me stand behind him and my cheek was touching his cheek and he was saying, "Carry on! O Bani Arfida," till I got tired. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) asked me, "Are you satisfied (Is that sufficient for you)?" I replied in the affirmative and he told me to leave.

This same Hadith is reported to us again in Sahih Muslim:

Book 004, Number 1942:

'A'isha reported: The Messenger of Allah (way peace be upon him) came (in my apartment) while there were two girls with me singing the song of the Battle of Bu'ath. He lay down on the bed and turned away his face. Then came Abu Bakr and he scolded me and said: Oh! this musical instrument of the devil in the house of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) turned towards him and said: Leave them alone. And when he (the Holy Prophet) became inattentive, I hinted them and they went out, and it was the day of 'Id and negroes were playing with shields and spears. (I do not remember) whether I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) or whether he said to me if I desired to see (that sport). I said: Yes. I stood behind him with his face parallel to my face, and he said: O Banu Arfada, be busy (in your sports) till I was satiated. He said (to me): Is that enough? I said: Yes. Upon this he asked me to go.

Once again in Bukhari, this event is recorded:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 268:

Narrated Aisha:
That once Abu Bakr came to her on the day of 'Id-ul-Fitr or 'Id ul Adha while the Prophet was with her and there were two girl singers with her, singing songs of the Ansar about the day of Buath. Abu Bakr said twice. "Musical instrument of Satan!" But the Prophet said, "Leave them Abu Bakr, for every nation has an 'Id (i.e. festival) and this day is our 'Id."

And then in Bukhari, another Hadith relates a connection between musical instruments and the family of David (saw). Further evidence that, indeed, the Psalms were musical in nature:

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 568:

Narrated Abu Musa:
That the Prophet said to him' "O Abu Musa! You have been given one of the musical wind-instruments of the family of David .'

And on one final note, I thought the following Hadith can also be used in the matter. The Hadith relates of how the adhan came to be, and how the Prophet's companions suggested the use of musical instruments such as the horn or bell like the People of the Book. Now although the Prophet ultimately approved the use of the human voice, there is no mention that the Prophet chastised his companions for suggesting musical instruments for the adhan. And if the Prophet was so very much against musical instruments, then why would his companions dare to suggest the use of such sinful things in the call to prayer????

From Muslim Book 004, Number 0735:

Ibn Umar reported: When the Muslims came to Medina, they gathered and sought to know the time of prayer but no one summoned them. One day they discussed the matter, and some of them said: Use something like the bell of the Christians and some of them said: Use horn like that of the Jews. Umar said: Why may not a be appointed who should call (people) to prayer? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: O Bilal, get up and summon (the people) to prayer.

DOES ISLAM PROHIBIT MUSIC?

For years I was confused on this point.

You see many Muslims who have not bothered to ACTUALLY READ THE QURAN and HADITHS classify most music as "haram"!

Look at the "Action Items" published on one Salafy site:

"Get rid of those Michael Jackson CD's (please see my [Osama Abdallah] notes regarding the likes of the Michael Jackson CDs after the conclusion section below)

"If you had a large music collection as a kafir, have a collection just as large, but instead fill your library with Islamic audio tapes and lectures.

"Think about how many hundreds or maybe even thousands of dollars you've spent on music cd's and tapes that you could now spend on a home Islamic library.

"Replace any kafir aerobic exercise video tapes with recorded drum sounds, such as African drums, etc. . . . http://muttaqun.com/music.html

What is the basis for the "music prohibition"?

UNSUPPORTED BY THE QURAN

The "music banners" have cited the following ayahs in support of a "music prohibition": 31:6, 17:64, 53:57-62.

NONE OF THESE AYAHS SAYS A WORD ABOUT MUSIC!

031.006
YUSUFALI: But there are, among men, those who purchase idle tales, without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.

PICKTHAL: And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from Allah's way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery. For such there is a shameful doom.

SHAKIR: And of men is he who takes instead frivolous discourse to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery; these shall have an abasing chastisement.

017.064
YUSUFALI: "Lead to destruction those whom thou canst among them, with thy (seductive) voice; make assaults on them with thy cavalry and thy infantry; mutually share with them wealth and children; and make promises to them." But Satan promises them nothing but deceit.

PICKTHAL: And excite any of them whom thou canst with thy voice, and urge thy horse and foot against them, and be a partner in their wealth and children, and promise them. Satan promiseth them only to deceive.

SHAKIR: And beguile whomsoever of them you can with your voice, and collect against them your forces riding and on foot, and share with them in wealth and children, and hold out promises to them; and the Shaitan makes not promises to them but to deceive:


053.057
YUSUFALI: The (Judgment) ever approaching draws nigh:
PICKTHAL: The threatened Hour is nigh.
SHAKIR: The near event draws nigh.

053.058
YUSUFALI: No (soul) but Allah can lay it bare.
PICKTHAL: None beside Allah can disclose it.
SHAKIR: There shall be none besides Allah to remove it.

053.059
YUSUFALI: Do ye then wonder at this recital?
PICKTHAL: M arvel ye then at this statement,
SHAKIR: Do you then wonder at this announcement?

053.060
YUSUFALI: And will ye laugh and not weep,-
PICKTHAL: And laugh and not weep,
SHAKIR: And will you laugh and not weep?

053.061
YUSUFALI: Wasting your time in vanities?
PICKTHAL: While ye amuse yourselves?
SHAKIR: While you are indulging in varieties.

053.62
YUSUFALI: But fall ye down in prostration to Allah, and adore (Him)!
PICKTHAL: Rather prostrate yourselves before Allah and serve Him.
SHAKIR: So make obeisance to Allah and serve (Him).

Actually, the Quran APPROVES music! THATS RIGHT:

039.075
And thou wilt see the angels surrounding the Throne (Divine) on all sides, singing Glory and Praise to their Lord. The Decision between them (at Judgment) will be in (perfect) justice, and the cry (on all sides) will be, "Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!"
If music is so wrong, why do Allah's angels "sing" to the Almighty!

THE AHADITH ARE IN CONFLICT

Even the hadith collections are in conflict on this point:

Compare:

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 69, Number 494v:

Narrated Abu 'Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash'ari:
that he heard the Prophet saying, "From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection."

With:

Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 72:

Narrated Aisha:
Abu Bakr came to my house while two small Ansari girls were singing beside me the stories of the Ansar concerning the Day of Buath. And they were not singers. Abu Bakr said protestingly, "Musical instruments of Satan in the house of Allah's Apostle !" It happened on the 'Id day and Allah's Apostle said, "O Abu Bakr! There is an 'Id for every nation and this is our 'Id."

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 268:

Narrated Aisha:
That once Abu Bakr came to her on the day of 'Id-ul-Fitr or 'Id ul Adha while the Prophet was with her and there were two girl singers with her, singing songs of the Ansar about the day of Buath. Abu Bakr said twice. "Musical instrument of Satan!" But the Prophet said, "Leave them Abu Bakr, for every nation has an 'Id (i.e. festival) and this day is our 'Id."

Muslim, Book 004, Number 1938:
'A'isha reported: Abu Bakr came to see me and I had two girls with me from among the girls of the Ansar and they were singing what the Ansar recited to one another at the Battle of Bu'ath. They were not, however, singing girls. Upon this Abu Bakr said: What I (the playing of) this wind instrument of Satan in the house of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and this too on 'Id day? Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Abu Bakr, every people have a festival and it is our festival (so let them play on).

Muslim, Book 004, Number 1940:

'A'isha reported that Abu Bakr came to her and there were with her two girls on Adha days who were singing and beating the tambourine and the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had wrapped himself with his mantle. Abu Bakr scolded them. The Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) uncovered (his face) and said: Abu Bakr, leave them alone for these are the days of 'Id. And 'A'isha said: I recapitulate to my mind the fact that once the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) screened me with his mantle and I saw the sports of the Abyssinians, and I was only a girl, and so you can well imagine how a girl of tender age is fond of watching the sport.

Now if music and musical instruments are so bad, why did the Prophet (pbuh) tell Abu Bakr "Let the show go on!"?

The "music prohibition" is yet another instance in which the Salafy have committed bidah by innovating prohibitions NOT FOUND IN THE QURAN!

Say, "Who prohibited the nice things God has created for His creatures, and the good provisions?" Say,"Such provisions are to be enjoyed in THIS life by those who BELIEVE. Moreover, the good provisions will be exclusively theirs on the Day of resurrection." We thus explain the revelations for people who know." QURAN, 7:32

Say "Do you see that which God has provided for you, you make some of it Unlawful (Haram) and some of it Lawful (Halal)?" Say "Did God allow you to do this? Or do you tell lies about God?"
QURAN, 10:59

The "music prohibition" is a fiction, that finds scant support even in the various ahadith collections.

If the Salafys want to abstain from music, they are free to do so. But don't tell the rest of Islam that the "music prohibition" is THE WORD OF ALLAH! It Isn't!

Conclusion:

Music is not prohibited in Islam. Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran allowed music and inspired it upon David peace be upon him. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him didn't prohibit music unless it was used for sinful activities. Otherwise, music is allowed. It's been proven by science that music relaxes the mind and helps the person to gain energy and refresh himself. Most production plants in the industrial countries allow their workers to play music while working to helping them gain more energy.

Allah Almighty created music so we can use it in a positive and Islamic way to help us ease some of the burden of life from us. Even animals enjoy good music. In the Middle East, some people have their horses dance beautiful dances on music in many of the rural areas while they're celebrating.

My notes on music and music videos that use foul language and sinful acts:

As I said above, music that leads to sinful acts such as drugs, sex, violence, etc... is absolutely sinful in Islam. But sometimes the song is still very nice in rhythm and yet still contains some bad things in it. Personally, I believe that if the words in the song are ignored and the person only enjoys the music and rhythm of the song and it doesn't cause him to do any of the evil things that I mentioned, then in my opinion (only) that song and music is lawful.

Personally I have about 100 American music CDs at home. Many of the songs that I love contain bad language in them. I personally don't pay attention to that language; especially that it's usually buried under the loud guitar sound. That music never causes me to do evil things. I only listen to them because I love the rhythm and the music.

Now as to music videos where Michael Jackson for instance holds his groin while singing, I believe that these types of videos should not be watched especially when children are around. But personally I watched them and still would. But I wouldn't put any video with this type of bad graphics while kids are around.

Please be advised that this is only my personal preference and opinion. I could be terribly sinning here. My advice to you, especially for those who live in the West and 90% of the younger people's music does contain bad things in it anyway, is to try your best to ignore these bad things, and just enjoy the song and the music of it without enjoying the evils contained in it. I hope this makes sense.

And may Allah Almighty forgive me if I am violating what is righteous.

Are majority Muslim countries truly independent?

Zafar Bangash, Reflections




Given that there are 56 “Muslim” nation-states, all members of the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Conference, the question may raise some eyebrows. Each country also has defined borders, a government headed by a king, amir, president, prime minister or even a general. Further, there is a cabinet, a standing army, national airline (or two), a national flag, and even an anthem for each country. Do these not represent independence?


We must define the term “independence” accurately to fully grasp the Muslim world’s current situation. Possessing territory, having a government, army, etc, do not necessarily mean independence. The term independence must be viewed more broadly. Neo-Marxist writers — Hans Singer, Raúl Prebisch, Paul A. Baran, Paul Sweezy, Andre Gunder Frank, Theotonio Dos Santos et al — have written extensively about dependency theory demonstrating how difficult it is for a society to break out of this cycle. We need not go into the details of dependency theory but suffice it to say that the natural resources and cheap labour of dependent societies are exploited to enrich wealthy societies (in reality, these enrich the top 1% of society as the Occupy Wall Street Movement has so clearly shown!). The elite in rich societies actively perpetuate a cycle of dependency through economic, political, social, cultural, banking, and financial policies. Societies that attempt to break out of the dependency cycle are coerced back into the fold through sanctions and/or the use of military force. The price exacted for trying to break loose is exceedingly high.


Even societies that go through a revolution — Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc — show how difficult it is to throw off the yoke of dependency. Most countries in Africa gained “independence” from colonialism in the 1960s but they are still dependent on the colonial masters for survival. Africa is gripped by mass starvation even though it is a resource-rich continent, due largely to the manufactured nation-state conflicts managed by Western powers (read that: starvation policies) coupled with their structural adjustment programs (read that, slavery to debt), which regard material resources in the ground to be more valuable than human resources on the ground. African countries have been trapped into a spider web-type relationship from which they cannot escape. Institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are used to reinforce dependency on the colonial powers. Colonel Muammar Qaddafi of Libya paid the price with his life for attempting to break the Western stranglehold on Africa by proposing to establish an African Monetary Fund as well as an African Central Bank. More resources and capital have been sucked out of Africa into the West after “independence” than during direct colonialism.


Let us, however, return to our discussion of majority Muslim countries. Are they free to formulate their own economic, political, military, cultural or social policies? Even societies that are not financially dependent on the West suffer from the dependency syndrome. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates offer good examples. These are artificial constructs that were created by Britain to serve its interests. While financially secure, they are still subservient to the West when formulating political, social, cultural, military or educational policies. Even in the economic field, these countries cannot formulate policies to benefit their own people. Saudi Arabia pumps excessive amounts of oil far beyond its needs because it must serve US and Western interests. This keeps the price of oil low depriving producers of much-needed income while transferring wealth to the West. For every dollar drop in the price of oil, producers lose $1 billion per day. On the political front, few majority Muslim countries can stand up to Zionist Israel. Instead they are aligned with US/Zionist aggressors against the Palestinian people.


Flags and national anthems aside, what is the solution to the problem facing Muslim societies? Any attempt to answer this question merely through economic analysis will not yield the correct answer. Muslim societies are unable to formulate their own policies to serve the interests of their people precisely because they are not independent. For true independence, they must first undergo an Islamic revolution to overthrow the colonial imposed order. Iran has shown how this is done. For more than 30 years, Western “experts” and “pundits” have been predicting the collapse of the Islamic system. What they fail to understand is that an Islamic revolution changes the very nature of society and renders it impervious to sanctions and boycotts. As the Noble Qur’an states so eloquently: “Allah does not alter the condition of a people until they change their attitude” (13:11).


It is through this consummate change — a clean break from the exploitative milieu created by fear of temporal power to an Islamic system that fosters confidence by reliance only on the Sustainer of the worlds — that Muslims will gain true independence. Until then, Muslims will only delude themselves into believing they are independent.


Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought

External powers destabilizing al-Asad regime in Syria

By Tahir Mustafa

Haytham Manna‘, not a lightweight in Syrian opposition circles, has taken a principled position, despite losing relatives in the current situation, to be skeptical of any opposition member that gets its marching orders and weapons from Washington, Paris, Istanbul, or Riyadh (through its Arab League surrogates).

It is now well established that foreign powers are deeply involved in destabilizing the regime of Bashar al-Asad in Syria. Such interference is not confined merely to anti-regime propaganda, although it plays a significant role by presenting misleading reports about civilian casualties to stoke anti-regime sentiment. The tribal-owned network, al-Jazeera, is in the forefront of such propaganda reinforcing the belief that it is working according to a US-Zionist-Saudi script that was agreed upon in Paris as early as February 2011. Recent reports that US forces have been sighted near the Jordanian-Syrian border give credence to the regime’s assertions that it is facing armed attacks from gangs as well as foreign mercenaries. Creation of the Syrian Free Army (SFA) is part of the same plot to provide cover to US-Israeli attacks inside Syria while claiming that defected soldiers are carrying out such attacks. Their number remains relatively small.


Where the foreign powers, including Turkey, miscalculated was in assuming that the Asad regime, like those in Tunisia and Egypt, would collapse quickly. They also made the mistake of assuming that once uprisings are staged in one part of the country — north near the Jordanian border because of easier smuggling of weapons — they would quickly spread to other areas including the capital Damascus. This has not happened. Not only has the regime been able to withstand the pressure, no uprisings have occurred in the two most important cities: Damascus and Aleppo. In fact, massive rallies have been staged in support of the regime that both al-Jazeera and the Washington Post presented as being anti-regime. Such reporting can hardly enhance their credibility.


Haytham Manna‘, chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, admitted in an interview with Mandiaal Nieuws (December 9) that people in Damascus and Aleppo are waiting on the sidelines because they are not clear about who or what would follow if Bashar al-Asad were ousted from power. Manna‘’s concern springs from the deep divisions that exist within the ranks of the opposition. The Syrian National Council (SNC) claims to represent all opposition groups and to speak on behalf of all the Syrian people but it has little support inside Syria. Led by Burhan Ghalioun, a Paris-based university professor, its members are mainly Syrian intellectuals in exile. The SNC was cobbled together in Istanbul at the beginning of October. The group held its first congress in Gammarth, north of Tunis, on December 16–18 to agree on a clearer strategy but little came out of the meeting despite its symbolic importance; it coincided with the first anniversary of the Tunisian uprising.


“We need to unite the opposition and make it stronger,” Ghalioun told the AFP news agency. This was a clear admission that the opposition is disunited. It did not help the SNC when a day earlier (December 15) another group of Syrians meeting in Istanbul, announced the formation of the National Alliance. Turkey is beginning to assume the role of headquarters of all Syrian opposition groups. “We need to emerge from this congress with a higher level of organization, clearer targets and more momentum,” Ghalioun said. These appear to have eluded the congress because despite claiming to have agreed to co-ordinate with the Free Syrian Army, the rebels — comprising a tiny minority — are pursuing their own agenda. It is this free for all that has frustrated the emergence of a coherent opposition strategy or how to pursue it. As Manna‘ pointed out, who will replace Asad? The opposition has no clue and this is what makes most Syrians reluctant to join them.


While Syrian opposition groups go through the motions of holding “grand” congresses, “extraordinary” meetings and other high sounding get-togethers, their net result is marginal. This explains why they are so dependent on outside help. The SNC in particular has called for UN intervention although it has stopped short of asking for armed intervention as in Libya, aware of the consequences that would follow. Besides, foreign, mainly Western powers know that Syria is no pushover, unlike Qaddafi’s Libya. The Syrian army and establishment have remained largely intact. There have been no defections of prominent members of the Syrian ruling elite. Defections from the army are small despite the Western media giving them great prominence and presenting them as large.


Perhaps realizing that Asad’s departure was not imminent, the Arab League tried to change its stance. After issuing threats to the Syrian regime to comply with its demands, it has now adopted a more conciliatory approach. The Arab League has never achieved anything in its entire tortuous existence. It is a conglomerate of potentates and tyrants that do not allow any freedom to their own people so how can they expect Asad to comply with their demands. On December 19, Syria signed an agreement with the Arab League to allow foreign observers into the country. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallam said the League had accepted a number of demands put forward by Damascus that included prohibition on visits to military bases or installations. In return, Syria agreed to an immediate end to firing on protesters and allowing League observers to oversee implementation of the agreement.



While opposition groups within Syria are willing to accept the agreement that would end the violence and usher in political reforms even if Asad remained in power, those residing outside are adamant that Asad must go. It is such divisions that have led many Syrians to conclude that opposition groups are incapable of offering them a better alternative to the present set-up. They are also unhappy with foreign-based groups whom they accuse of working at the behest of their foreign sponsors that have no interest in seeing a stable and peaceful Syria. In fact, they feel external powers have their own agenda to engulf Syria in turmoil.


Given that a meeting of Syrian opposition figures had taken place in Paris last February at which plans were agreed to launch an uprising against the Asad regime, gives credence to people’s skepticism. Those present at the Paris meeting included Syria’s former vice president, Abdul Halim Khaddam; Saudi security advisor, Bandar bin Sultan; US Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman; US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro; and chairman of the Arab Human Rights Commission, Haytham Manna‘. The line-up of participants is revealing. It was not a meeting of Syrian opposition groups per se but such troublemakers as the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even representatives of the Hariri clan from Lebanon were present.


At the Paris meeting the Saudis and the Americans pushed for smuggling weapons into Syria from Jordan to launch the uprising. Manna‘ was opposed to the idea and so concerned about its consequences that he immediately sent word to the tribal elders in Deraa, his home town, asking them not to allow any weapons to be smuggled in or used in the uprising. Manna‘ rightly feared that it would result in another Hama-type massacre as happened in 1982 and end in similar failure. Manna‘ is no softy. He belongs to a family with a long history of opposition to the regime. His father has spent many years in jail; his brother was killed in the uprising last August but he can see clearly what others are refusing to see. He does not want Syria to emerge with an even worse situation than it currently has.


While the Deraa elders accepted Manna‘’s advice, this did not prevent others from resorting to armed attacks. There have been numerous instances of masked gunmen appearing suddenly and firing indiscriminately at protesters before disappearing. They have also attacked police and other security personnel. While the BBC World Service never tires of reminding its readers about UN estimates of 5,000 people killed in nine months, it fails to mention that these include at least 1,100 security personnel. This is a very large number of police and soldiers to die at the hands of “peaceful” protesters. Further, the figure of 5,000 dead is quite arbitrary. This is based on claims made by opposition spokesmen without providing proof. True, one cannot belittle the number of civilian deaths, it must also be borne in mind that there are external players that want to destabilize Syria as part of the larger plan to undermine the resistance front against Zionist Israel. Manna‘ describes this as “negative intervention,” saying it “destroys but does not create.”


The concern that Syrian opposition figures abroad are working to the US-Israeli game plan is not unfounded. After all, for the US, survival and protection of Zionist Israel takes precedence over all other considerations. If the Asad regime were destroyed, it would deal a severe blow to the resistance front and both the Palestinians and Hizbullah would be exposed to grave danger. Some Syrians argue that their interests cannot be sacrificed for the sake of the Palestinians or Hizbullah. They must explain why they deserve any support or sympathy if they are willing to act as stooges of the US-Zionist duopoly financed by the Saudis?


Manna‘ has been quite clear about why he opposes the Syrian National Council. “I don’t know where it will take us…” He also fears foreign military intervention in Syria and wants change to come about from within. “We want the revolution to be an authentic realization of the people,” and he does not want to see the blood of the people “to be traded or sold — not in Washington, and not in any Arab capital whatsoever.”

The failures of democracy in the West offer hope for Islamic movements everywhere

Iqbal Siddiqui, Perspectives


Every four years the world watches the political soap opera of the US presidential elections with a combination of amusement, bemusement and incredulity as the world’s most powerful nation, and the supposed flag-bearer of democracy, lays open its true nature. Although the polls are not due for over a year, the formal process began months ago, with Barrack Obama having announced the start of his re-election campaign in April. The contest among potential Republican candidates is in its early stages, but already the world is laughing at the ignorance and ineptitude of some of the candidates, particularly Rick Perry and Herman Cain, who have been guilty of many more appalling gaffes than have been seen around the world. At the same time, there is a pervading sense of fear that such a candidate could actually make it to the White House, considering that George W. Bush was actually elected twice and Obama is unlikely to be allowed to be re-elected. For many, the state of American politics has long been convincing evidence for the case against democracy. The problem is that this evidence is hardly new and yet little seems to have changed, in either the US or the rest of the world.


However, a number of recent factors appear to offer more concrete prospects of Muslims finally growing out of the easy myths of democracy. One is the economic crisis of Western capitalism and the various responses to it. In the US and other western countries — long the beneficiaries of the injustices of world capitalism, even though many people in all countries were individually victims of it — the growth of the anti-capitalist sentiment partially represented by the Occupy Wall Street and other similar movements is a sign that the impact of the economic crisis on the lives of ordinary people is having a political impact. The fact that at least some of the protestors are expressing anger not only at the exploitative and profiteering policies of the capitalist elites, but also at the political classes that kow-tow to them, may well have consequences for the nature of politics in many of these countries. Some of these consequences can be foreseen, such as the efforts of the political leaders to provide populist distractions such as spectre of a threat from Iran. Others will no doubt take us all by surprise. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that some of the gloss of democratic politics will be tarnished in the process, although predicting the end of democracy would be grossly premature.


In some European countries, meanwhile, the consequences of the economic crisis on the standing of democracy and democratic politics is taking a far more direct form. In Italy, the democratically-elected government has been replaced by a government consisting entirely of technocrats — professional “experts” with no political background or electoral backing. The problem is that the expertise of these technocrats is all rooted in the same capitalist assumptions and policies that have created the present crises. The IMF and other similar international institutions have a long record of imposing strict economic policies on developing countries in spite of the interests and desires of their people. One of the justifications for this was that it was such capitalist policies that made possible the benefits of democracy and the economic strength of western countries. Few expected ever to see developed European countries seeing their democratically-elected governments replaced by unelected technocrats determined to impose hardline policies dictated by capitalist elites. In Greece, the government was pressured to accept similar prescriptions by the leaders of Europe, with considerable evidence suggesting that the Greek military was preparing to take power under a coup if civilian politicians failed to accept the necessity of such measures, a prospect that was taken very seriously indeed considering that it is less that 40 years since the overthrow of the US-backed, right-wing military dictatorship and the establishment of democratic government. There are genuine fears that similarly drastic measures may have to be taken in countries such as Spain, Portugal and even France if economic conditions in those countries fail to improve.


Such developments in western countries are bound to have an impact on people’s perceptions of the myths on which democratic polities depend, not least the idea that regular elections ensure that governments are primarily answerable to the ordinary people rather than any other interest groups.


And this is bound also to have a knock-on impact on developments in other parts of the world, for example the Arab world, currently is the midst of the so-called “Arab Spring”. This political upheaval represented in this easy catch-all phrase is taking very different forms in different countries, from the supposed democratization in Tunisia, resulting in the victory of the En-nahda Islamic movement in elections in October, to the civil war encouraged by the West in Libya, to the attempts of the political elite in Egypt to manage the process of change to ensure that their interests are not affected. All, however, have two things in common: firstly, that the powers of the West are desperately trying to manipulate events to their own purposes; and secondly, all are being presented as popular movements in support of pro-Western democratic movements, which aim to establish governments whose only ambition is to be part of the Western sphere of influence.


Current developments in Egypt suggest that ordinary people in these countries are less than happy with this prospect. As Egyptians struggle to achieve real freedom, rather than the model offered by the West, the fact that democracy is facing new challenges even in the countries that have hitherto been its supposed shining models, can only make it easier for a counter-democratic discourse to emerge, offering a genuine Islamic alternative as a model for the entire Muslim world. Of course, the problems within the West are not sufficient; numerous other factors will also be essential, not least the vision and leadership offered by Islamic leaders in Egypt and elsewhere. Nonetheless, the fact that the model of democracy is suddenly looking a lot less stable and appealing than it previously appeared can only be a step in the right direction. As so often before, political realities on the ground may be providing concrete and convincing evidence of truths that the words of intellectuals and leaders have long failed to convey.

Islamic concept of legitimacy

As mass popular movements sweep the Muslim East (aka Middle East) predatory Western powers and their local satraps are involved in desperate attempts to hijack them. They are offering the same failed systems in a new garb. Since the overwhelming majority in the region is Muslim, it is natural that they would want a social order connected to Islamic principles that represent and ennoble their unique identity. The people’s uprisings have made clear what they do not want: the old decrepit order. What they want instead and what shape the new order would take is as yet unclear.


Both in Tunisia where elections were held on October 23 and in Egypt where mass protests erupted again as Crescent went to press (before the November 28 election date), attempts are underway to keep the political process on a secularist track and Islam at bay to prevent its shaping the order in society. It is argued that Islam has no solutions to contemporary problems. We need to confront this argument and expose the forces behind such thinking but first let us understand the concept of legitimacy in Islam and how it is derived.


It is not the majority that confers legitimacy; Islamic legitimacy comes from divine commands. If the overwhelming majority in society, for instance, decides to kill the minority or to institute cannibalism would that make such acts acceptable? Based on Western notions of democracy, this would be perfectly legitimate but not in Islam. Let us go further. From the Islamic point of view, every Prophet of Allah (a) had legitimacy because he received the message from on high even if the people to whom it was delivered did not accept it. Islamic legitimacy is not contingent upon people’s acceptance or rejection but on following the commands of Allah (swt).


We must also have a clearer understanding of Islam. The Qur’an refers to it as deen, meaning a way of life. Thus, Islam encompasses more than the set of rituals that people perform as part of their religious obligation. Unlike other religions, Islam offers a complete set of principles that guides every adherent through life. It has rules for every aspect: social, political and economic. This is not mere theory; Islamic principles have been put into practice and have produced results that are far superior to any other system.


The West’s greatest claim to superiority has rested on its ability to produce vast amounts of goods to satisfy people’s needs. The financial tsunami sweeping North America and Europe and the realization among people that their ruling elites have lied to them and robbed them of their livelihood has finally exposed this myth. If Western-style democracy and capitalism have failed their own people, why should others buy into them? But that is precisely what is being offered to Muslims in the Muslim East. Not only the ruling elites, that are beneficiaries of the old corrupt order, but also some leaders of Islamic movements have fallen for this fraud. It is tragic and depressing to hear otherwise intelligent and sincere leaders of Islamic movements talk about the virtues of secularism.


When Muslims embark on creating political systems in their societies, they must be clear about what they want. For a system to be legitimate and enjoy the support of the masses, it must be based on Islamic principles of which the most fundamental is justice. Without justice, there can be no peace or security in society.


We must also understand one other point: not everyone is created equal. Some are strong, others are weak; some are tall, others are short. The same applies to wealth and health. Yet such power differentiations must not be used to exploit or oppress the weak and poor. Unlike the Western system where the rich and, therefore, the powerful use their privileges to amass great wealth and power and deprive others of their basic rights, Islam regulates the use of power.


Unfortunately, in most Muslim societies too, the rich and powerful exploit the weak and poor. Western powers prop up the corrupt elites so that they institute policies beneficial to the West even if they are detrimental to the interests of their own people. Thus, Saudi Arabia must pump excessive amounts of oil, far beyond its own needs, to satiate America’s thirst. For toeing Washington’s line, the illegitimate House of Saud is kept in power. The same holds true for the city-states on the western shores of the Persian Gulf and regimes elsewhere in the Muslim East. The way out of this mess is not to apply the failed Western model but to create a system based on the values of Islam. It is only then that Muslim societies can be truly liberated.


Without Islam, no regime in the Muslim world can claim legitimacy regardless of the number of elections it holds. If the people desire a life of dignity and honour, they must continue to agitate and resist until they have established an Islamic system of governance.

US and Israel on the Iran war redux

By Zainab Cheema
Martyred Major General Hassan Moqaddam, who was responsible for industrial research to ensure the Revolutionary Guards’ self-sufficiency in armaments, specialized in artillery during the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980s before founding the country’s ballistic missile program.


In the face of its collapsing economy and spiraling domestic unrest, the US is blithely proceeding with its blueprint of remaking world cartography. After dispatching Muammar Qaddafi in a hail of gunmetal, US imperialists are confronting the Syrian stumbling block, item No. 2 on its regime change wish-list. With Bashar al-Asad clinging to power after 10 months of counter-revolutionary mayhem, US and Israeli eyes wend once more to the geopolitical foe holding the program of reprogramming the Muslim East at bay — Iran.
The media is humming with the US and Israel’s latest drumbeat for war against Iran. The reverberations measure the pitch of exasperation at Iran’s resistance to Pentagon Inc.’s desire to have open access to Syria. Recently, the US House Foreign Relations Committee passed the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011, which forbids any member of the US government to have any contact “in an official or unofficial capacity” with a member of the Iranian government. While the esteemed Representatives might be impervious to irony, the shade of the Iran Contra Affair of the 1980s lent a certain humorous cast to this little bit of stage comedy. Enjoying 349 co-sponsors from both parties, the bill signaled the die-hard determination of the US Congressmen to love Israel and hate Iran, in full view of the AIPAC lobbyists.


US political observers noted the folly of passing legislation that cuts off contact with the “enemy,” as Iran is fondly dubbed in US political circles. Diplomats Thomas Pickering and William Luers spelled out their sentiments: “Besides raising serious constitutional issues… this preposterous law would make it illegal for the US to know its enemy.” CIA analyst and Georgetown University professor Paul Pillar pointed out the self-importance behind the gesture, even as he brandished imperialist-chic Raybans dividing the world into a bifocal “us” and “them”: “This legislation is another illustration of the tendency to think of diplomacy as some kind of reward for the other guy, rather than what it really is: a tool for our side.”


Then there is Israel’s threat to nuke Iran’s nuclear facilities, launched in concert with a double Molotov cocktail — a Stuxnet like computer virus attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Mossad bomb blast at an Iranian military base which killed 16 Revolutionary Guards and Hassan Moqaddam, the architect of Iran’s missile defense systems. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak preened visibly after the Moqaddam killing, declaring: “it would be desirable if [such blasts] multiply,” while Iranian students sent a counter-message by forming a human chain around Iran’s nuclear facilities.


US and Israeli saber-rattling comes on the heels of a rather contrived IAEA report, which gravely noted that Iran’s beleaguered nuclear energy program is indeed geared toward building a nuclear weapon. The rhetoric of the IAEA’s missive matched so exquisitely with press releases whipped up by Netan-yahu’s office that one wonders whether the Israeli Prime Minister didn’t write it for the UN agency. The implications of Netanyahu’s influence over the UN and the other bodies of international legitimacy — rather hollowed, as events in the world streets underwrite their irrelevance — are amusing, especially considering the recent conversation about Netanyahu exchanged by his nearest and dearest allies.


At the G-8 economic forum in Cannes on November 2 attended by Sarkozy and Obama, the French President turned to Barack and whispered to him: “I cannot stand him (Netanyahu). He is a liar!” Obama quickly returned: “You are fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day!” This exchange occurred shortly after it was leaked that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, told her cabinet: “every word that leaves Netanyahu’s mouth is a lie.” So, by consensus of the triumvirate of Israel’s die-hard friends — Binyamin Netanyahu is a liar.


The exposure over this interesting exchange was more or less brushed aside by the US corporate-owned media. Israel, the convergence of the geostrategic and racial interests in subjugating the Muslim East, remains sacrosanct. Yet, the stress fractures are clear to see. That is, the global political class managing hegemony is not immune to the push-pull forces of resistance and the gravitational drag of its crumbling systems of rule.


According to the story, Netanyahu was exposed after an open microphone gave reporters an ear to the exchange. But it is entirely possible that Netan-yahu was given a pointed reprimand by the allies exasperated by his eagerness to humiliate them rather than put a sophisticated face on his belligerence. His penchant for openly flouting US politicians (Obama in particular), and arrive barreling in on state visits designed to showcase his political invulnerability in the United States led even Tom Friedman of the New York Times to rhetorically slap him on the wrist.


One feels for the once-complacent Friedman — while alarmed by Israel’s fall from grace in world opinion, he has been even more alarmed by the tarnish cast on the US’s reputation by its Faustian contract to underwrite Netanyahu’s actions. Ergo, the chess-game played by Pentagon Inc. is no longer a perpetual checkmate — the board is opening up for new moves, new arrangements of outcomes.


Understandably, this is a rather terrifying prospect for Pentagon Inc. It is rather exhausting to fight a global war against everything ad infinitum — precisely what the US signed on to do with its borderless, endless War on Terror. Even as AFRICOM expands its trophies from Libya, Sudan, and Somalia, Iran’s network of influence across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq threatens the motherlode of Pentagon military bases — Israel itself. Popular resistance in Iraq to continued US presence erodes US expectations that they will be able to “renew” their mandate of occupation at will. Drone aircraft in Iraq are relocated to Turkey. Syria counters (even if just barely) both Pentagon-funded covert militias and State Department campaigns to smear it as violating the human rights of its civilians. Hizbullah remains the flagrant thorn defying efforts to pluck the tantalizing Lebanon.


Not to mention Israel’s strategic defeat in its prisoner swap with Gaza — nearly 1,000 Palestinian prisoners were exchanged for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, which cast an ironic light over Netanyahu’s vehement declarations to never deal with Hamas, while boosting Hamas’ popularity through the region. Zionist networks balked at the humiliation, in response ramping up threats of Israel’s impending attack on Iran. An exemplary newspaper headline for the conservative newspaper Washington Times blared: “Israeli prisoner swap may be prelude to attack on Iran.” That is, even as Israel “keeps a low profile” (hiding in the napalm-scented apron of Pentagon Inc), it subcontracts the Tarzan chest-beating to the US media and UN agencies.


The US is rather in a bind. Seemingly, all roads for this gaudy military parade lead to Iran. For now, Pentagon Inc. is proceeding by covert operations, public relations brawls, and psychological warfare. It is comforting to distract oneself from economic breakdowns, public rage, and Occupy Wall Streets — and generals do love a good war. Iran may be a strategic threat, but some of the responses are downright simplistic (Paul Pillar bewailing the ridiculousness of the US legislation to bar anyone ever speaking to a member of the Iranian government comes to mind). Simplistic thinking is a sign of old age, when one loses the power to form complex thoughts, adapt to change, and make rational decisions. It is as subtle as elevator music — with the march onto the promised glories of Carthage, every boot step creaks out the tune of senescence.