An Imam is an Imam — and a non-imam is a non-imam

by Abu Dharr Not to be lost on the handlers and coaches of such troublemakers, the US regime and its flunkies have metamorphosed the MEK into its al-Qa’ida clone with “Sunni-Shi‘i” divergences. We are beginning to see evidence of this in the Tunisian Ansar al-Shari‘ah battlering with the ruling al-Nahdah party. The Muslims miss the decisive character of Imam Khomeini in North Africa. One of Imam Khomeini’s first decisions was to close down the Israeli embassy in Tehran and expel the Zionist enemies from Iran. Compare that with the inability of the “Islamic” leadership in Egypt to break off diplomatic ties with the Israeli Zionist regime, which nowadays is maneuvering to physically occupy al-Masjid al-Aqsa and thwart access to the first qiblah and third haram to all Muslims. It gets worse: the Egyptian Islamic decision makers cannot open the borders between Egypt and Ghazzah. Egypt needs an Imam Khomeini. When Imam Khomeini began building an Islamic state in Iran he demanded justice be done to the fleeing Shah of Iran. The Shah had to beg for residency in different countries until he was finally appended to his American cooperator Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat in Egypt. The Islamic leadership in Iran with Imam Khomeini pursued the Shah until he finally went to his Maker where he will encounter ultimate justice. Correlate that with the official Egyptian inability to pass final judicial judgment on Hosni Mubarak the Pharaoh. Or correlate that with the disability of the Tunisian (Islamic) leadership to pursue and prosecute Zine al-Abidine bin ‘Ali who took refuge in the evil kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why doesn’t the Tunisian government ask for the extradition of Bin ‘Ali to Tunisia to stand in a court of law where he will be answerable for his official presidential conduct and state policies, one of which forced Rachid al-Ghannoushi into exile at the behest of the security apparatus? It turns out that not all exiles are the same. Imam Khomeini was forced into exile by the Shah, but when he came back he sought the Shah and expended all that was necessary to bring him to a court of law. Rachid al-Ghannoushi was forced into exile, but when he came back to his home country he would not or could not pursue Bin ‘Ali, who had forced al-Ghannoushi into fugitive status. Then we have the eight-year war of aggression that was imposed upon the Imam and the Muslims in Islamic Iran. The leadership there did not buckle under those hard times. Imagine if such a war were imposed on any of the leaderships in the countries mentioned above; would they have the stamina to fight to the bitter end? Would they have the popular support to withstand all the trials and tribulations that come from a long and grinding war? The way things look, we seriously doubt it. The Egyptian (Islamic) leadership is not doing what is right and what is obligatory — cutting off diplomatic relations with Zionist Israel — precisely for the reason of avoiding such a war. Here we have it: the Islamic leadership of Imam Khomeini doing what is right and obligatory — come what may; and the “Islamic” leadership of the Ikhwan avoiding doing what is right and obligatory for fear of the consequences. The concept of tawakkul seems to be alien to our brothers in Cairo and Tunisia. Imam Khomeini called a spade a spade, as it were. He did not mince words when he wedged the descriptive marker Shaytani buzurg (the Colossal Satan) on the Washington regime. Compare Imam Khomeini with Mohammad Mursi in their interviews with the Euro-American press. Correspondents from the Euro-American media were scrambling to secure an interview with the Imam. But in Egypt and Tunisia interviews are by the dozen. Imam Khomeini had foreign correspondents stirred up and strained. But in interviews with al-akh Mohammad Mursi he talks to them about his years in the USA and his remarks about the film Planet of the Apes; and we have Shaykh Rachid al-Ghannoushi saying quite frankly that he is not a Khomeini. Thank you — you said it all. And, by the way, how many times have you come to Washington, DC since ascending the seat of power in Tunisia? We have lost count. What a difference between an imam whose base of popularity is the hearts and aspirations of the Muslims — Imam Khomeini — and those who are going along with an American Israeli plan executed through the agencies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al. to try to smother the Islamic awakening that took place between an Imam and an Ummah. And We raised among them leaders who, so long as they bore themselves with perseverance and had faith in Our authority and power messages, guided [their people] in accordance with Our behest… (32:24). Pull quote: One of Imam Khomeini’s first decisions was to close down the Israeli embassy in Tehran and expel the Zionist enemies from Iran. Compare that with the inability of the “Islamic” leadership in Egypt to break off diplomatic ties with the Israeli Zionist regime…

Acquiring political power: on whose terms and conditions?

by Dr Perwez Shafi In Part 1 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi examines the peculiar evolution of Sunni political thought and its crippling impact on the contemporary Islamic movement. There are various aspects of Muslim awakening and changes that cannot be explained easily, logically and rationally. Observing the awakenings and changes, some uncomfortable questions arise: 1. How come certain personalities (civil or military) or families are able to rule in Muslim countries for so long? Why do those in power and those who oppose them rely only on violence and force? 2. Is there anything peculiar in their historical evolution that makes them prone to feudal and authoritarian rule? 3. Why is the US and the West supporting those who propose and push for awakening and Islamic changes in the Muslim world? 4. Why, in countries where changes have occurred, is there a business-as-usual relationship with the West and its corporations? 5. Why do Muslims keep falling into the trap of the US and the West, which simultaneously declare them as friends in one breath and terrorists in the next depending on their interests? 6. Why is the Western response to these awakenings and changes different in the Sunni world compared to others? And in turn, why is the Muslims’ response in general similar to that of the West? 7. Why have the revolutionaries not challenged Western domination of their societies, Western values and the global capitalist economic model? 8. Do Muslims have the intellectual clarity about their objectives and means to achieve them? In other words, is their intellectual worldview capable of initiating and generating awakening, mobilizing and organizing, and being led by muttaqi leadership, so as to achieve the objectives and goals by means which are also consistent with the Islamic view? 9. And finally on whose terms and conditions is political power acquired? Answers to these questions are contained in the worldview especially in political thought spread over the entire history of Islam. If Muslims have intellectual clarity about their worldview — their objectives and the means to achieve them — which is consistent and free of contradictions then one can answer all of the above questions. However, that is not the case. Lack of clarity shows ideological confusion that prevents Muslims from identifying their real enemy, forcing them to compromise at every turn on objectives and means, and still resigned to the fact that no meaningful change can occur without the consent of the West. Unfortunately this state of affairs regarding lack of clarity in worldview can be observed in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, the Gulf sheikdoms and now in Syria. If one takes a holistic and systemic approach to Muslim political thought and particularly Sunni political thought we discover where the problem lies. This writer and the Crescent International magazine have consistently stayed above sectarian considerations but if the problem lies in the ideology of a particular sect then simply ignoring or condemning it is not enough. Any attempt at Muslim unity will not be successful unless the problem is identified at the root of the particular sectarian ideology. This requires moral courage, intellectual honesty and awakening to deal with Sunni political thought — as the majority in the Muslim world adheres to it — that is a source of political confusion and contradiction in ideas and practices, hence a taboo subject even among revolutionaries. Phase I Change in the direction of Islam, decline and decay The above conclusion was drawn from the historical evolution of Sunni political thought, which can be divided into two phases. In the first phase up to the advent and domination of Western colonialism in the Muslim world by about the 17th century, Sunni political thought and worldview were stuck in tribalism, jealousy and competition to acquire political power; and authoritarianism. The pristine principles of Islam, which would have eliminated these vices, were never allowed to be practiced from the beginning. The change in the direction of Islam took place soon after the death of our beloved Prophet (pbuh). A number of mushrik leaders were killed in various battles waged against the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions. However, Abu Sufiyan survived till the liberation of Makkah and to save his skin he and his family reluctantly became Muslims. The Prophet’s (pbuh) attitude toward his enemies after they became Muslims was always cordial and kind. But in Abu Sufiyan’s case, the Prophet (pbuh) would turn his face away whenever he appeared and did not maintain close relations with him due to his severe opposition to Islam. Soon after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh) to heavenly company, Abu Sufiyan’s family and children acquired important positions in the Islamic State through nepotism and started consolidating their new found power. Thus, what Abu Sufiyan failed to achieve in direct confrontation with the Prophet (pbuh) he was able to achieve from within the Islamic fold. Abu Sufiyan’s children and grandchildren twisted key Islamic teachings in politics and governance of the Islamic State which enabled them to concentrate more power and somehow to acquire legitimacy. Through deceit, intrigue and open warfare, Mu‘awiyah became the absolute ruler of the Islamic State. He acquired the title of “Scribe of the Revelation” when in fact he never benefitted from the Prophet’s (pbuh) company for a single day. Within a year of the liberation of Makkah, the final wahy completed the message of Islam, followed by the death of the Prophet (pbuh). By distorting the teachings of Islam, Abu Sufyan sought to achieve two objectives — legitimacy for himself by generating fake hadiths and suppressing original ones, bestowing on himself and his cronies Islamic titles such as radiya allahu ‘anhu, changing the meaning of key Quranic ayat to suit his purpose, and deprived most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) dearest friends and families of their rightful and legitimate position. Those that opposed him were persecuted. Thus illegitimacy, instinctive reliance on force to counter any argument against their illegitimacy and persecution became the norm and part and parcel of Sunni political thought since that time. Most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) beloved Sahabah were not only deprived of their right to propagate true Islamic teachings by exposing the distortions and deviations but when they insisted, they were banished to far away lands, imprisoned, or poisoned leaving the field wide open to the power hungry clan of Abu Sufiyan to propagate their own imperial vision. Instead of the Islamic State, hereditary rule became the defining feature of political structure and ideology. When political and governance issues became strictly off limits to the public, they were confined to performing religious rituals. The great emphasis on rituals, devoid of any exhilarating and liberating feeling and spirit, became the norm which has continued to this today. The Islamic rules of acquiring political power and maintaining it were never allowed to gain a foothold. Vices of tribalism, mutual jealousy, the quest to grab power, persecution and authoritarianism became entrenched in Sunni political ideas, structure and practice. As a result, the Sunni political system based on Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas dynasties was never able to gain legitimacy. However, in the process they permanently eclipsed the true and egalitarian teachings of Islam in critical areas. In Islam the definition of politics was to acquire power in a legitimate manner as prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah (that is, masses select one for responsibility based on taqwa rather than anyone proposing or imposing himself and acquiring power by brute force or guile). The exercise of power was related to the maintenance of social justice, through a framework of collective decision-making to serve humanity. Thus, acquiring power by illegitimate or immoral means and spending immense financial resources are strictly forbidden. In short, Islam was reduced to rituals and practiced in an individual capacity. These unhealthy and illegitimate developments changed the direction of Islam permanently while its just, universal and egalitarian spirit was extinguished. Illegitimacy separated the interests, norm, values and belief system of the masses from power-hungry elites. For instance, military training has not been part of any Sunni society precisely because the elites’ illegitimacy leads them to distrust the masses. Thus illegitimacy, persecution and authoritarianism became the hallmark of Sunni political thought and structures. As a result, promotion of a new imperialistic version of religion in the name of Islam became the norm, which was maintained by coercion and persecution. In this version, Islam was deliberately reduced to a religion where rituals, devoid of spirit, gained paramount importance while their connection to the overall Islamic system was cut off. Values like the rule of law and social justice were abandoned from the early days. This version of Islam, mired in oppression, which Muslims follow without thinking or reflection even today is the basic reason why Muslims are unable to distinguish between friend and foe or between rightful, pious and legitimate leaders of a Muslim society and power-hungry opportunists; or how to legitimately acquire and exercise political power for the benefit of the masses. The door to intellectual pursuit, the right of pious and legitimate imams to lead the nascent Islamic society, and the door to ijtihad gradually became closed as imams, ‘ulama, scholars and the Muslim masses that supported them were persecuted. For this reason creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture, improvement in warfare techniques and equipment, explosion in scientific study and research methodologies, study of Greek and Roman ideas of rationalism, etc. To be sure, these intellectual developments were because of Islam, not due to Sunni political structures and systems or guidance, or funding and encouragement from Sunni governments represented by hereditary authoritarianism. It is not necessary to resolve all theological issues of early Muslim history to present as evidence in support of what has been said above. Rather decline and decay of Muslim civilization as recorded by Muslim and non-Muslim historians and scholars itself is a debilitating empirical evidence of illegitimacy and authoritarianism. Whether one agrees and accepts historical facts or rejects them, their effect has been devastating for the Muslim world. No one can deny the divisions, infighting, decline, decay and disintegration resulting in domination by others that had been going on for centuries up until the advent of Western colonialism. It was the great Islamic and political scholar Dr. Kalim Siddiqui who guided this writer during his dissertation to look first for decline and decay of Muslim civilization as evidence of distorted and dysfunctional Sunni political thought. Most of the muttaqi imams and ‘ulama with deep knowledge of Islam and capable of leading the society were brutally suppressed; others were bought or coerced to join authoritarian courts and governments and granted vast perks and benefits. The few that chose to challenge illegitimate rulers were poisoned or murdered as a warning to others. Some went into the countryside or faraway places to quietly spread and preach Islamic knowledge, emphasizing Sufism albeit without addressing burning political issues. Islam spread to Central Asia and the Indo-Pakisan subcontinent through these ‘ulama or Sufis and not by secular kings or warriors. Strong evidence of this is found in the desolate and barren mausoleums of famous and powerful kings and warriors of Muslim history where only stray dogs roam while ordinary people, millions of them, throng the mausoleums of the ‘ulama and Sufi saints. But in general they abandoned politics and implicitly accepted bifurcation: let the kings and warriors rule while they concentrated on preaching Islam and providing healing to the suffering masses through spirituality. While these depoliticized ‘ulama and Sufis provided great service to humanity in their individual capacity, they were no match against the organized power, logistics and resources of the state. Muttaqi leaders were there but they were not able to function as leaders of state. With time, persecution and bifurcation, the quality and number of muttaqi leaders also declined. And hence, this depleted Islamic society could not provide an effective Islamic or practical response to the onslaught of Europeans with superior scientific knowledge, better organizational and mobilizing capacity, and a spirit filled with adventurism, curiosity, greed and seeking domination of others. Pull quote: …creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture… [and] explosion in scientific study and research methodologies... Part 2 In Part 2 of his analysis on the paralysis afflicting Muslim political thought, Dr Perwez Shafi examines the stifling influence of colonialism and neo-colonialism. In Part 2 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi looks at how colonialism and neo-colonialism have kept Islamic political thought from evolving out of the dictatorship, autocratic paradigm. Phase II – European disintegration of the Muslim Ummah Phase two of Muslim history began when European colonialists were knocking at the door of the Muslim world around the 17th century to exploit its riches, and its defective political structures complicated by a weak and crumbling ideology. The Muslims’ diplomatic skills were unable to sense all dimensions or any long-term implications; their militaries were disorganized, divided and loyalties were for the highest bidder. Scientific and economic or industrial infrastructures were non-existent. While the Muslims were declining, the Europeans were the ascendant. It was not as if the European colonialists conquered the Muslim world after a good fight; rather, due to their decline and decay Muslims were barely conscious when the Europeans appeared like a mugger and robbed them. There was a qualitative difference between phase I and II. In phase I, as long as the masses did not challenge the rulers directly on political and governance issues they were largely left alone and creativity was allowed to flourish in other areas. The Europeans were driven by the same fear of illegal occupation and exploitation and they knew full well that once this sleeping giant (the masses) woke up their days of exploitation would be over hence they went one step further than mulukiyah. While the kings left the Muslim society as a single cohesive and socially strong body, the Europeans went about methodically dividind and disintegrating the Muslim Ummah to permanently cripple it. This was done first by dividing the Ummah along racial, ethnic, linguistic, economic and religious fault lines. These were further widened and exacerbated. Where they did not find any fault lines they created them. In the Arabian Peninsula, to weaken the Ottoman Khilafah from within, the British Empire promoted one Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab as a social and religious “reformer” of Islam in the late-18th century. In Confessions of a British Spy, the British agent Hempher has described in detail how Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was guided, exploited, funded and propped up by the British imperialists. The result is obvious and devastating. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s so-called reforms were turned into the sect of Wahhabism whose main target was to eradicate all historical and physical traces left by the Prophet (pbuh) and to reinforce the imperial version of their predecessor mulukiyah in the name of Islam. They hoped that the gullible and illiterate Muslim masses would not notice the great and systematic destruction of their Islamic and spiritual heritage in the midst of glittering five-star western hotels surrounding the Ka‘bah in Mak-kah and al-Majid al-Nabawi in Madinah. Similarly, in 19th century Persia, the British imperialists propped up Baha-ullah, who invented the Bahai faith to break Muslim unity. Nowadays both Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism and the Bahai faith are strongly supported by Western colonialists. In the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent the British imperialists had a field day during their 200-year occupation making every section of society dysfunctional by imposing a different identity and outlook, infusing it with either an inferiority or superiority complex. After the War of Independence in 1857, the British realized the danger of Hindu-Muslim unity that might liberate the country from the yoke of British colonialism so they embarked on inculcating nationalism among Hindus as well as Muslim communities. Later they created political parties — the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League — which divided the interests of both communities and led to the division of the sub-continent a hundred years later into two separate countries — India and Pakistan. But the British were not content with division only at the national level. Muslims had to be further divided from within. After the 1857 War of Independence, the Hanafi school of thought was further sub-divided. From the Orientalist reading of the Qur’an, they came up with inquisitive questions to “clarify” certain aspects of the Prophet’s (pbuh) personality and mission. The British encouraged heated debates among the ‘ulama’ whose respective positions crystallized into two major sub-schools of thought who later founded their headquarters in Deoband and Bareli, directly and indirectly, with British help. These groups are now known as Deobandis and Barelvis respectively. Deobandis were further divided into a number of other groups. On one extreme there is the passive Tablighi Jamaat that shuns jihad and politics, which in and of itself is a political decision, while on the other extreme are tribal people like the Taliban who are inspired by Saudi Wahhabism and routinely carry out suicide bombings to eradicate “shirk” taking place at various mausoleums. In addition, the British also promoted Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani who elevated himself to make a claim to prophethood in the late 19th century (nastaghfir-allah). After Wahhabism took hold in the Arabian Peninsula at the religious level, the British colonialists recruited Saudi tribes who used to roam the vast expanse of the desert in Najd robbing and looting Hajj caravans. In the early 20th century, the Saudi robbers and Sharif Husain of al-Hijaz agreed through various letters with the British to undermine the Ottoman Khilafah by launching a revolt. In turn, the British promised them power in the Arabian Peninsula. Both were paid huge sums of money. These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. The tragedy during the colonial phase was not so much the division and disintegration of the Muslim Ummah from within, rather its acceptance and internalization by the Muslims themselves. Whatever muttaqi leadership existed was further marginalized by the colonialists either through persecution, political intrigue or by turning it into an institution of peeri-mureedi (relationship of absolute domination of saint over his disciple). In addition, the colonialists encouraged the turning of mausoleums of ‘ulama’ and saints into shrines where ignorant and illiterate people would pray and worship, often bordering on shirk. On the other hand, the colonialists used the Deobandis and Wahhabis as a tool to keep attacking Barelvis resulting in constant low level warfare. The masjids and religious institutions were economically relatively independent with large agricultural lands and significant income derived from such holdings. The concept of running masjids on charity and dole was non-existent in phase I but in phase II the colonialists gradually stripped the masjids of these resources and forced them to live off charity. Thus, as Western-educated classes emerged, the masjids lost their vitality and instead of producing ‘ulama’ and learned scholars capable of leading society they started producing simpleminded mu’adhdhins, qaaris and maulvis, who with little or no self-esteem were relegated to perform simple rituals at birth or death. While the obscurantist religious establishment had little dynamism or knowledge of world sciences or capability of leading society, they performed an important and valuable function of keeping Islam alive at the most basic level and provided solace to the masses in that dark and hopeless era of colonialism. Neo-colonial phase The neo-colonial phase is not much different from the colonial phase except it is more intensified form of westernization, filled with deception while creating the illusion of independence. In the neo-colonial phase, starting after World War II, more than 50 or so countries were carved out of the single Muslim Ummah as a result of managed “national struggle” for independence marked by installation of local rulers; but intellectual, political and economic independence remained elusive. These so-called “Third World countries” were integrated into the global capitalist system whereby these countries at the economic level provide ready markets for Western goods and services, and as a source of raw material. But this required the local political and economic elites to be subservient to the West, the result of which was the suppression of their own populations. Since the victors of the Second World War wrote history as well as arrogated to themselves the right to set up global institutions like the UN, the World Bank, IMF, etc. in their own image to rule the world, Muslim countries were also made part of these illegitimate and illegal institutions by using local elites. Through these institutions the West gets any decision approved for its benefit and interest while giving the illusion of legitimacy. The rest of the suffering humanity merely uses these institutions as a forum to air their frustrations and to seek more Western aid for survival. During the colonial period, the West’s mission was to “civilize” humanity; in the neo-colonial phase the mission has morphed into spreading “democracy” and democratic values, norms and a belief system as the only sanctified ideology. In Western conception, the Greek word demo means human. Now the context has changed drastically. It now means that after the Renaissance (14th–17th centuries) and Industrial Revolution (1730–1850s), man has become the master of his own destiny through science and technology and has progressed and elevated to such heights that he no longer wishes to live or be constrained by Allah’s (swt) teachings, guidance and plan. In other words, God occupying the highest position in cosmological hierarchy has been replaced by man himself. In this context, Western democracy, not bound by divine order, is shirk of the highest order. In fact, democracy per se even from the Greek times — direct rule by the people — has never been practiced anytime in history. This is admitted even by Western political scientists and philosophers. In fact they shun it by calling it “mob rule” and don’t trust the raw human instinct. What is actually practiced is more precisely plutocracy — rule by the rich and wealthy class. Plutocracy controls the establishment providing a strong center and direction to the political system while capitalism serves as its economic engine. All other institutions work for or in tandem with the state. There is consensus among Western elites within society of the efficacy of this political philosophy and its associated structures. Plutocracy, democracy or any other philosophy has nothing to do with human values. In this dehumanizing system the rich can become richer only by exploiting the poor and their labor. The highest value of capitalism is “profit maximization,” a euphemism for greed and exploitation leading to inequality, class warfare and concentration of almost all the wealth in the hands of the less-than-1% plutocrats. That is why protest movements by 99% of the masses in the US is being waged, calling for human and egalitarian values. Political parties and elections are cosmetic and inconsequential in nature and their purpose is only to lure and keep people into the political system by them believing that “change is possible” when each party actually represents different shades of the same philosophy. Thus, deception and illusion are at the root of democracy whereby plutocracy can rule in the name of the masses; but in this departure from God, the interests, desires, and benefits accrued to each class are different and separated by a wide gulf. Since the West has 150 years of experience with population conditioning according to its requirements, even a highly exploitative system manages to survive despite its obvious imperfections. The ultimate goal or value of democracy is to make all human beings slaves of the rich and powerful. In contrast to mature plutocracies, the ex-colonial recently-independent states (whether ruled by military or civilians) have no strong center or establishment with a firm and deep-rooted philosophy. They are characterized as “weak states” as each institution — the military, bureaucracy, judiciary, executive and parliament — acts as different power centers with which the US and other imperialist powers maintain independent yet direct relationships. If any institution does not toe the US line it is checked by other institutions. The elite in Muslim states are trained in the West; they have inculcated Western values, norms, belief system and lifestyles. Their personal and collective interests are the same. If they refer to Islam at all, it is invoked only to fool the masses. The West allows no choice or alternative to native elites in choosing their political ideology. Their job is to keep their countries dependent on the West — materially and psychologically — while the local economies must be kept open for exploitation and integrated within Western markets. If the disease of westernization had infected only the secular elites, it would be understandable. Tragically, the entire religious establishment is also afflicted by it despite their knowledge of Islam. In the neo-colonial phase, the religious establishment has undergone greater transformation and actually started participating in the so-called democratic process without realizing that it is a deception. It contradicts the goals and means of Islam yet they adopt and participate in it in hopes of achieving Islamic goals of social justice, equity and the liberation of humanity from slavery. For religious, political and non-political parties, the short cut to power appears deceptively attractive and within reach. Under Western influence, they have come to believe the goal is to win an election (that is generally rigged by the military anyway). They assume that upon coming to power, Shari‘ah would be “imposed” resulting in the creation of an Islamic state. Their version of the Islamic state can still co-exist with the West, remain economically integrated with the global capitalist system, and maintain a politically subservient relationship. This is an elitist top-down approach and is seriously flawed because it is not able to differentiate between means and objectives or between the Islamic and Western democratic systems. It seems not to bother them that this simplistic, naïve and deceptive model is against the Shari‘ah and the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). The noble Messenger (pbuh) did not win or opt for election or grab power by other means before implementing Islamic principles in society. The Sirah teaches us that by propagating and practicing Islam in all its dimensions (not focusing on one or the other aspect) he transformed the social structure of the tribal jahili society into an Islamic society. Once this social transformation had taken place, the road to the Islamic state opened by itself. Thus the goal of the Islamic movement is not to construct an Islamic state but to transform the social base of the ignorant society into an Islamic society; the Islamic state will then be the logical end result of such transformation. This is the bottom-up approach and from the Sirah it can be characterized as Islamic Revolution. In the neo-colonial phase, one of the most important catalysts for change are the ‘ulama’ and the institutions they have established. Ironically, they are also a major obstacle to change and the emergence of muttaqi leadership. One of the major reasons is that most of the Sunni ‘ulama’ and their establishments are heavily financed by the Saudi regime. Such funding ensures that the ‘ulama’ and their establishments keep following the obscurantist and deviant Sunni political thought where Mu‘awiyah and Yazid are praised and where nowadays attempts are underway to rehabilitate even Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who gained notoriety for disfiguring the body of Hamzah (d) by chewing on his liver after the latter was martyred in the Battle of Uhud. The Prophet (pbuh) was greatly anguished by such disrespect for the dead, made all the more shocking because Hamzah was his uncle and close friend, the two being close in age. Friendship with and dependence on the West/Zionists is considered essential, and support for the Saudi monarchy flourishes in line with continuation of the mulukiyah/monarchical dynasties. If Saudi petrodollars keep the ‘ulama’ and “official” Sunni worldview on the path of praising the worst enemies of the Prophet (pbuh) and ignore or abandon those loved by the Prophet (pbuh), then the prospects for change are dim. Thus, muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue. For confusing goals and means, the religious elites and their political parties are continuously failing. Yet they do not want to allow change in their methodology or learn any lessons from the Sirah. But when one realizes that this democratic worldview of the religious establishment was superimposed on the decadent Sunni political thought of the mulukiyah, worldly challenges cannot be surmounted by using a crude mixture of both mindsets. Given this theoretical background to clarify Islamic goals and the means to achieve them through historical evolution, it enables us to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this article about recent developments in the Muslim world. Specifically, Egypt represents the best case in which a political party backed by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has made impressive gains in elections in the Muslim world; Turkey is another but dissimilar example. To be sure the Muslims’ yearning for independence from foreign domination and the awakening is genuine. But the US has been busy taming the MB and turning the transition away from its revolutionary spirit to bureaucratic changes in such a way that its leaders are given some government posts yet the real power is retained by the military and the old establishment, which ultimately means the US. The sequence of events themselves reveals the story of compromises and adjusting to “reality” by the MB, followed by the principle stated in parenthesis as discussed above (see paragraphs below). One year after the awakening of the Muslims started, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns earlier this year met with the MB’s high-ranking Deputy General Guide Khairat al-Shater, (the powerful presidential candidate before being disqualified by the Elections Commission on flimsy grounds). Burns promised financial aid of more than $20 billion from the IMF and the Gulf sheikhdoms if the peace treaty with Israel continued to be honored. The MB quickly agreed to maintain the status quo. The MB’s statements to the contrary were merely for public consumption (strategic compromise for tactical support, unable to distinguish between friend and foe). Two days before the presidential election, the judiciary and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), effectively ruling Egypt since president Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power in February 11, 2011, struck and cancelled the parliamentary elections already won by the MB who protested but to no avail so far (keeping in check one institution by using another). Shortly after becoming president and before Hillary Clinton arrived in Cairo, Muhammad Mursi visited Saudi Arabia on July 11 to answer demands by a Saudi academic close to the monarchy who wrote an article in the London-based al-Hayat newspaper titled “What the Gulfies want from Brotherhood’s Mursi?” He asked Mursi to provide public assurances on four major concerns of the Gulf sheikhdoms: 1. MB members and networks present in the sheikhdoms will not be used to interfere in their internal affairs; 2. support them against Iran; 3. to have strong relations with Saudi Arabia and its neighbors than with democratic Turkey; and 4.keep aloof from internal factional politics of Palestinians even though Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB. Within a week Mursi complied with all the demands through his statements. While in Saudi Arabia he affirmed Egypt’s policy of belonging to the “moderate Sunni” camp as he assured the Saudi monarch of Egypt’s strategic alliance with his country, as well as lending support to the regional balance of power in direct reference to the challenge posed by Iran to the Gulf monarchies. Like former Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf’s policy of “Pakistan first” Mursi assured his Saudi hosts that Egypt will continue to maintain an Arab first foreign policy approach rather than taking Turkish democratic germs too far. As demanded, Mursi also promised to maintain the same distance with Palestinian factions but more importantly he promised to side with Saudi and Israeli intelligence and security apparatuses against the Palestinian resistance (local elite not independent in their domestic as well as foreign policies but ultimately subservient to the US and its local Saudi agents; their narrow interest to gain political power at any cost forces them to act against their own brethren and side with the imperialist West and oppressive forces). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt to meet President Mursi. After the meeting, Clinton declared that the US “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.” The following day Clinton met with head of SCAF, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi and prodded him to go along with the civilian set up and declared that the US would like to see the Egyptian military return to a “purely national security role.” In return, the military was also promised billions more in aid (US dealing independently with weak multiple power centers). The same corrupted Sunni political thought superimposed by the Western democratic model is unable to differentiate between friend and foe in Syria. All Muslim countries have ruthless dictators and Syria is no exception. But at least Syria has taken a consistently strong anti-Israel stand for the last four decades and supported various Palestinian resistance factions. That reason alone is sufficient not to destabilize the Asad regime which the US, Israel, Saudis and other sheikhdoms are trying hard to do. This raises another question. Why in Syria, as in Libya, the opposition instead of launching a public protest campaign as in Yemen and Bahrain, has suddenly resorted to armed struggle from the beginning? The reliance on violence and force is built-in to the Sunni political though stoked by Western, Saudi and Zionist arms and mercenaries. In Sunni political paradigm there has never been peaceful transfer of power since Mu‘awiyah came to power. One must either use overwhelming force to subdue rivals or prepare to be subdued and slaughtered; there is nothing in between and certainly there are no rules and regulations nor precedent. If the opposition wants to air their grievances they could certainly launch public protests like in Bahrain or Yemen rather than instinctively rely on overwhelming force. This all or nothing proposition is to keep rivals at bay. That is why ruthless dictators and their dynastic rule last for decades. This political mindset still prevails today (instinctive reliance on using overwhelming force against rivals is the secret of dictator’s longevity). In electoral politics, no country appears to have had as much success as Turkey, yet it has accepted US hegemony, its global and regional agenda, and maintained friendship with Israel, never challenging Washington’s strategic interests. The US has, therefore, felt comfortable in holding up Turkey as a democratic role model for other Muslim countries to emulate, if they ever get rid of their US-backed dictators. After a decade of experience with the Turkish religious political party approach, the US feels confident in managing the transition to democratic order in Egypt as well. At the other end, the US is ready to use oppression and persecution in Bahrain rather than respect human rights because toppling of the feudal monarchy would directly threaten its strategic interests (which country is allowed to have change and which is to be blocked depends on US strategic interests). The US/Zionists have no qualms in supporting those opposition forces from any group or ideology including al-Qaeda or known terrorists who want to overthrow any government not friendly to the West (the criteria is whether terrorist use serves US interests). Conclusion It is evident through historical evolution that the sectarian Sunni political thought as seen through the actions of the so-called “moderate Sunni” states is corrupt, decadent and needs re-evaluation and reform. The humiliation of decline and decay of Muslim states is obvious; one must, therefore, challenge the assumptions of its paradigm. It is not enough simply to acquire cosmetic political power, the real question is on whose terms and conditions: whether on Sunni-Western-Zionist terms and conditions with a democratic façade while remaining subservient to US/Zionist interests or on one’s own terms and conditions relying on the revolutionary spirit of the masses that must first be transformed into a dynamic Islamic society. Only a genuine Islamic movement, not a religious political party, can accomplish this task and only then it can go in an independent and Islamic direction. But the precondition is to challenge basic assumptions of our decadent worldview that has remained stagnant since mulukiyah’s times superimposed with Western democratic values and norms. As the Qur’an declares, “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they are willing to change their attitude…” (13:11). Hence, the condition of a society does not change until it changes what is inside its heart. In other words, change in the worldview and mindset will lead to change in worldly conditions. We must cleanse the original historical contradictions introduced in Sunni Political thought to evolve to a higher paradigm of Muslim political thought. These reforms will take us to a true convergence point in time and history, to the time when the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode, when sectarianism and mutual hostilities did not exist. The next logical step would be an open declaration of abandonment and rejection of the so-called “democracy” and short-cut democratic model to political power. Without both these changes, internalized and acted upon, violence will continue and any other kind of revolution may be possible but not an Islamic Revolution. Note in the above Qur’anic ayah that it takes a longtime to change and internalize and reform the existing defective and contradictory worldview within our hearts but once it is done through debate and an open mind, a very short time is needed to change the outer worldly conditions. This sense of timing is demonstrated from the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). Pull quotes: These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. …muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue.

The Line of Demarcation between Monotheism and Polytheism

Written by Shaheed Murtadha Mutahhari

What constitutes the line of demarcation between monotheism and polytheism (including both theoretical and practical forms of them)? Which idea is monotheistic and which is polytheistic? What kind of action constitutes practical monotheism and what kind of it constitutes practical polytheism? Is it polytheistic to believe in the existence of anything other than Allah? Does the unity of His essence require us not to believe that there exists anything in any form besides Him not even as His creation? (a sort of ontological monism)

It is obvious that the created things are the work of Allah. They cannot be considered to be His rivals. Allah's creations are the manifestation of His exuberant power. A belief in the existence of a created thing as a thing created by Allah is, not contrary to monotheism. It is rather complementary to it. Hence the line of demarcation between monotheism and polytheism cannot be the existence or the non-existence of anything other than Allah.

Does a belief in the causation of the created things amount to polytheism or the plurality of creatorship? Does a belief in the unity of the Divine work necessarily imply that we should reject the system of causation and ascribe every effect direct to Allah? For example, should we believe that fire has no role in burning, water has no role in quenching thirst, rain has no role in making plants grow and medicines have no role in curing, and that it is Allah direct who burns, quenches thirst, makes the plants grow and cures the diseased. Is it true that the presence or absence of other factors makes no difference? At the most it can be said that Allah usually performs His acts in the presence of certain factors.

If a person has the habit of putting a cap on his head when he wants to write a letter, it cannot be said that the presence or absence of a cap has any effect on his letter writing. The only thing is that he does not like to write a letter without a cap. According to this view, the same is the nature of the presence and the absence of the things called causes and factors.

Should we believe otherwise, we will be ascribing partners to Allah in His work. That is the view of the Asha'irah and the Predestinarians. This view again is not correct. Just as a belief in the existence of a created thing is not tantamount to the belief in the plurality of the Divine essence, but is complementary to the belief in the oneness of Allah, similarly a belief in the causation system is not tantamount to the belief in the plurality of creatorship. As the created things are not self-existing, similarly they are not independent with regard to their effectiveness.

As all existing things depend on Allah for their existence and effectiveness, there is no question of the plurality of creatorship. The belief in the causation system is actually complementary to the belief in the creatorship of Allah. It certainly would have amounted to polytheism if we believed that the created things were independent from the viewpoint of their effectiveness, or believed that the relation between Allah and the world was that of a manufacturer and the things manufactured. A vehicle initially needs a manufacturer to manufacture it, but when it is completed, it operates according to its own mechanism. Even if the maker dies, the vehicle will continue to work. Should we think that the relation of the natural factors, such as water, rain, energy, heat, earth, plants and man to Allah is of a similar nature, as sometimes the Mu'tazilah tend to think, the idea would certainly lead to polytheism.

The created things depend on their Creator for their effectiveness as much as they depend on Him for their origin, existence and survival. The world is His creation and a blessing from Him. It depends on Him totally. Hence the effectiveness of the created things is actually the effectiveness of Allah and their creativeness is His creativeness and an extension of His work.

Even it may be said that to describe the belief that the created things have a role in the affairs of the world as a polytheistic idea, is in itself a polytheistic idea, for it implies an unconscious belief in the independence of the existing things, as is betrayed by the presumption that a belief in their effectiveness will amount to the belief in two centres. Anyhow, a belief or an unbelief in the causation of the things besides Allah is not the line of demarcation between monotheism and polytheism.

Is a belief in the supernatural power of an existing thing whether an angel or a man such as an Imam or a Prophet polytheistic, while a belief in the power and effectiveness of a Prophet or an Imam etc. within the normal limits is not so? Similarly is it also a polytheistic idea to have a belief in the power and effectiveness of a man who has died, for a dead man is apparently nothing more than inorganic matter?

Obviously from the viewpoint of natural laws inorganic matter has neither consciousness, nor power nor will. As such to believe that a dead man has perception or to greet a dead man, to show respect to him, and to call and implore him for anything, all should be polytheistic acts, for they mean ascribing supernatural power to a being other Allah.

Similarly it also should be polytheistic to believe that the earth of a particular place is effective in curing diseases or that prayer is granted at a particular place, for such a belief is tantamount to believing in the existence of a supernatural power in a lifeless thing. As all that is natural, is identifiable, experimentable and perceptible, to believe in the effectiveness of the things cannot be polytheistic as supposed by the Asha'irah, but it is certainly polytheistic to believe in the supernatural power of the created things.

Existence has two sectors: physical and metaphysical. The metaphysical sector is the exclusive domain of Allah, while the physical sector is the exclusive domain of the created things or is a domain common to Allah and the created things both. A number of functions having a metaphysical aspect, such as giving life, causing death, providing means of living etc., along with some normal and ordinary functions, fall within the exclusive domain of Allah. That is the position as far as theoretical monotheism is concerned.

As for practical monotheism, any spiritual, that is non-physical, heed paid to a being other than Allah with a view to establish a spiritual relation with him, to draw his attention or to seek response from him, constitutes polytheism, and amounts to worshipping him. As the worship of a being other than Allah is neither allowed by reason nor by Islamic law, it puts such a worshipper outside the pale of Islam.

Further, the nature of any rite, involving such a heed is not different from that of the rites performed by the idolaters in respect of their idols. The performance of such rites means to ascribe metaphysical power to the personage involved in them (for example an Imam or the Holy Prophet). The above is the view that is held by the Wahhabis and the semi-Wahhabis of our age.

In our times this view has gained considerable currency and in certain circles it is considered to be a sign of clear thinking.

But from the monotheistic point of view, it is as polytheistic as the theory of the Asha'irah. In fact it is the worst theory from the viewpoint of the unity of creatorship and the unity of Divine work.

While refuting the theory of the Asha'irah, we said earlier that they denied the causation system on the plea that a belief in the effectiveness and causation of the created things would amount to a belief in the existence of several sources and origins besides Allah. We pointed out that the things could originate sources only if they were self-existing and were independent of Allah.

Asha'irah appear to have unconsciously believed in some sort of the independence of the created things. This belief is evidently polytheistic as it amounts to the denial of the unity of the Divine essence. Anyhow, they did not realize the consequences of their theory. They wanted to affirm the unity of creatorship, but unwittingly ended in supporting the plurality of the essence.

The same criticism is applicable to our own semi-Wahhabis. They also unwittingly accord a kind of self-independence to the created things, for they think that to believe in any supernatural factors is tantamount to believing in a power rival to Allah. These people overlook the fact that the supernatural deeds of a being whose entire existence depends on Allah and who has no independent status of his own, are in fact attributable to Allah before being attributed to him.

He is nothing more than a medium through which Divine favour is conveyed. Is it polytheistic to believe that the angel Jibril is the medium of revelation and knowledge, Mikail is the medium of the means of living, Israfil is the medium of Resurrection and 'Izrail is the medium of carrying away the souls?

From monotheistic point of view, this theory leads to the worst kind of polytheism, for a belief in it amounts to a sort of the division of work between the Creator and the created. According to this theory the supernatural deeds fall within the exclusive domain of Allah and the natural deeds fall either within the exclusive domain of the created or are common to the domains of the Creator and the created. To believe in an exclusive domain of the created means a belief in the polytheistic idea of the plurality of work. Similarly to believe in a common domain is another kind of polytheism.

Contrary to the current conception, Wahhabism is not only a doctrine opposed to Imamate, but it is also opposed to monotheism and humanity. It is anti-monotheistic because it believes in the division of work. As explained above Wahhabism is a sort of disguised polytheism. It is anti-human in the sense that it does not give any credit to human talent and ability which have made man superior even to the angels.

As expressly mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, man is the vicegerent of Allah and the angels were ordered to prostrate themselves before him. Nevertheless, Wahhabism still want to degrade man to the level of a wild animal.

Further, to make such a distinction between the living and the dead as to say that the dead are not alive even in another world and that the entire personality of man consists in his body, which turns into inorganic matter after his death, is a materialistic and ungodly idea. We will deal with this question later when we discuss about the Day of Judgement.

To make a distinction between the unknown mysterious effects and the known effects of the things and to regard the first as metaphysical in opposition to the second, is another kind of polytheism.

Now we can comprehend what the Holy Prophet meant when he said that infiltration of polytheism into belief is so quiet and imperceptible as the crawl of an ant on a smooth stone in the darkness of night.

The fact is that the dividing line between monotheism and polytheism is the relationship between Allah on the one hand and man and the world on the other. This relationship is that of "from Him" and "to Him". In the theoretical monotheism the line of demarcation is "from Him". "We all are from Allah".

So long as we recognize every truth and every existing thing to be having the quality of being from Him in its essence, its attributes and its work, we identify it correctly from the monotheistic point of view. It is immaterial whether it has one single effect or several effects or no effect at all, and whether it has or has not any supernatural effects. Allah is not the Lord of the metaphysical world alone. He is the Lord of the whole world. He is as close to the physical world as to the metaphysical. He is with everything and sustains everything.

If a thing has any metaphysical aspect, that does mean that it has an aspect of Godship. As we said earlier, in accordance with Islamic conception of it, the world has the nature of being "from Him". The Holy Qur'an in a number of verses ascribes to the Prophets such miraculous acts as bringing the dead to life and restoring the sight of the born blind. Anyhow, it always adds the phrase: "With His will". This phrase indicates the nature of these acts and shows that they were from Him. Nobody should have the notion that the Prophets were self-dependent. A belief in any existence that is not "from Him" is polytheistic. Similarly a belief in the effectiveness of an existing thing, if that effectiveness is not "from Him" is again an act of polytheism. It is immaterial whether its effect is supernatural like creating the earth and the heavens or is so trivial as overturning a leaf.

In the case of practical monotheism the line of demarcation between monotheism and polytheism is 'to Him'. 'We shall return to Him', as the Holy Quran says. A heed, whether spiritual or otherwise, made to an existing thing with a view to proceed towards Allah and not as a goal in itself, is a heed to Allah. The existing things are to be regarded only as signs and milestones on the way towards Him, Who alone is the goal and destination.

The Prophets and the Imams have been described as 'the main routes and the straight path, the sign-posts for the people, the light houses in the land, the guides to the way of Allah, the preachers of His message and the proclaimers of what He likes'. (Ziyarat Jamiah)

Hence the question is not that to seek the intercession of the Imams, to invoke them or to expect them to perform supernatural deeds is polytheistic. The real question is something else. First we should be certain whether or not the Prophets and the Imams have actually gained such a proximity to Allah that they have been blessed with supernatural powers and qualities. The Holy Qur'an indicates that Allah has favoured some people with such a position.

Another question is whether the people who seek the intercession of the Imams and the saints, visit their tombs and make supplication to them, have or have not from monotheistic point of view a correct understanding of what they do. Do they have the idea of 'to Him', in their mind, when they go to the shrines? Or are they oblivious of Him and think that the Imam or the saint whose shrine they visit is himself the goal. There is no doubt that most of the people instinctively have Allah in their mind.

Some people, may be totally devoid of the monotheistic view. They should be reminded of it. Anyhow, there is no reason why visiting the shrines should be declared polytheistic.

The third point is that it is a form of polytheism to glorify and praise any being other than Allah in a manner that is worthy of the absolutely perfect and self-existing being. Allah alone is far above every defect and deficiency. It is He alone to Him all praise is due. He alone is All-powerful. To ascribe such attributes by means of words or action to anyone other than Allah is polytheistic. We have already discussed earlier what actions constitute worship and adoration.

---
Source: AlHassanain Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought