Grassroot (Islamic) Revolution, possible?

[Paragon]

I was meaning to ask this question long ago. However, my friends (Hizb Taxriir) at Guildhall university kept emphasising to me that there is possibility of harnessing a grassroot support for the return of an Islamic state over ALL Islamic lands. They say n insist that the Muslim mass is so tired of it (whatever that has links with the west) that it may trigger some sort of a revolution. my question is though, is that ever possible?

 

---Below is an article from one of my friends. Please read and tell us whether you think there is a chance of reviving an Islamic state.

 

---

 

80 years after Islamic ame le, the western way of life is bankrupt

 

Today marks the 80th anniversary of the abolishment of the Islamic Khilafah state. The state was formally abolished on this day by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the British agent who usurped power and established a secular Turkish state in the Muslim lands. The western powers had been plotting and planning a political and cultural assault on the Muslim world for several centuries prior to the events in 1924, but Ataturk’s treachery marked the jewel in their crown of successes.

 

On the 3rd March 1924, the entire Muslim Ummah was completely without an Islamic ruling system, a system that had persisted for over 1000 years since the Prophet (SAW) had established it in Medina. Naturally without the Islamic ruling system, the rule of non-Islam was enforced over the Muslims and they were forced to swallow the non-Islamic culture and practices. Overnight the assault on the Islamic heritage had begun, the Muslim women were forbidden from wearing the Hijab and religious ceremonies and occasions were outlawed. Additionally the Islamic centres and buildings were forcefully put under the administration of the secular rulers, and they were instructed to stop their Islamic work.

 

All of this happened under the direction of the British, who revelled in the fact they had removed Islam from the lives of the Muslims. This was most notably pointed out by Lord Curzon, who declared in the House of Commons: “the point at issue is that Turkey has been destroyed and shall never rise again, because we have destroyed her spiritual power: the Khilafah and Islam.”

 

Such a statement indicates a state of mind amongst the western world that they had triumphed over Islam. But whilst this was a political defeat for the Muslims, had the western world won the intellectual battle?

 

The next few decades saw the continuing promotion of the non-Islamic concepts and culture throughout the Muslim world. Women were encouraged to abandon the Islamic attire, men and women were encouraged to mix openly, alcohol was served in bars and clubs in the major cities, whilst the study of the western political doctrine was encouraged amongst the intellectuals. Ideas such as nationalism, patriotism and the nation state were heavily promoted in all corners of the Muslim world

 

However, when the state of Israel was declared in the Islamic land of Palestine, the true test of the effects of the western culture was put in the spotlight. Rather than leaving the issue to the Palestinians, as nationalism would call for, Muslims all over the world were outraged and united behind the call for the liberation of Islamic land of Palestine. This state of affairs continued for decades and remains the case till this day.

 

Though the western political culture was heavily promoted in the Islamic world, the western world remained wary of letting the Muslims build secular democratic systems for themselves. For decades they backed tyrants to rule over the Muslims with an iron fist, ensuring that any Islamic revival was crushed, and that the Islamic culture was continuously eroded. However, in the late 80’s and 90’s, several attempts were made to ‘legitimise’ the secular rule of law. The Muslims were given the opportunity to voluntarily authorise the rule of secularism by the holding of elections.

 

When Algeria went to the polls in the early 90s, far from rubber-stamping secularism, the overwhelming support went to a party who represented Islamic rule, as opposed to a secular rule. The level of support expressed by the Muslims in Algeria for this Islamic party put western elections to shame. Yet this ‘democratic’ mandate was crushed by the Algerian army, in accordance with the wishes of the western powers.

 

In Turkey, the place where the British removed the Islamic rule, elections were also held. Again, the Muslims overwhelmingly voted for a party deemed to represent the Islamic voice, albeit characterised by western thought. And again, the army forcefully opposed the will of the people, and took power for themselves to enforce the secular rule. Even after banning several groups deemed to be ‘pro-Islamic’, the support of the people was always behind the most ‘Islamic’ of the existing parties.

 

These political experiments clearly showed that the Muslim world was far from being converted to the western political culture. Rather, they were adhering to Islam even after decades of being submerged in western propaganda and western culture.

 

The first Gulf war demonstrated that the Muslim world remained loyal to their brethren, and were even prepared to put years of differences behind them, rather than capitulate to the demands of the western world. Rallies and protests were seen all over the Muslim world when Iraq was first invaded, and many were held in Iran, though Iraq and Iran had been forced to fight a bitter war for nearly a decade.

 

It was clear that the western culture had failed to inspire the Muslim Ummah. After 9/11, the western world was not afraid of acting in accordance with this failure. Having lost the intellectual struggle, they resorted to the ways of old, by employing brute force and oppression. Hence Afghanistan was violently assaulted, and Iraq was viciously brought to its knees. All of this was driven by a frenzy that Islam and Muslims posed a security threat to the entire world. Not only were the tyrant regimes in Muslim countries given a green card to step up their oppression, but also the western world demonstrated their intellectually bankrupt state of mind, by passing oppressive legislation targeting their own Muslim citizens. Thousands of Muslims in the West were threatened, harassed and even imprisoned without proof of any wrongdoing. The secular traditions of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, or the much-vaunted value of ‘human rights’ were thrown to the rubbish heap, in a desperate attempt to beat the Muslim populations into submitting to the secular way of life.

 

Legislation was passed to curb Muslims from marrying early in Sweden, whilst in Britain ‘citizenship’ classes were introduced where Muslims would forcefully have to swear an allegiance to the secular traditions. And in France and Germany legislation was passed to force Muslim women to remove the Islamic headscarf, undermining the very concept of ‘freedom of religion’ that was previously central to the western culture.

 

Today in the Muslim countries there is a renewed effort to sow the seeds of decadence and corruption. A new Arabic news service has been established by the Americans, specifically to promote pro-western propaganda in the Muslim world. Whilst western movies, pornography and music are routinely being pumped into the occupied lands of Afghanistan and Iraq. Islamic charities have been closed down all over the world, and Islamic institutions have been severely restricted in what they can teach of Islam. Even an Arabic version of the ‘Big Brother’ reality show has been created, and pumped out via satellite to the entire Arab world. Yet, these measures are proving as ineffective as every other effort attempted by the western world. Muslims are protesting and forming groups to close down the purveyors of western culture in Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost all the Muslim world has greeted the American Arabic news channel with contempt and ridicule, and an unprecedented level of protests and complaints has seen the curtain fall very prematurely on the Arabic ‘Big Brother’ experience.

 

The Muslim world today views the western culture itself with the same disdain and contempt that they view the western political manoeuvres in the Muslim lands. And we have the western world to thank for this, for showing openly and clearly the bankrupt nature of the western way of life. Muslims realise now that not only is the western way of life full of social, political and economic problems, as vividly seen in all western societies, but that the western way of life is innately against the Islamic way of life.

 

This has led to a massive Islamic resurgence in all parts of the Muslim world, as Muslims realise that their status will never be elevated until they undo the actions of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924. Without the Islamic system, the Muslims will remain politically weak, divided and easy prey for the western world. Though the western world will never succeed in making converts of Muslims to their secular way of life, they will be able to wreak tyranny on the Muslim Ummah with impunity. This reality is dawning on all Muslims, and for most the only solution in sight is a return to the Islamic ruling system.

 

All of this state of affairs is far removed from the joyous claims of Lord Curzon when he claimed victory over Islam in 1924. Rather than having a free hand at winning over the Muslims, the western way of life has shown itself to be weak, uninspiring, unable to solve the human problems and has failed at every attempt to convince the Muslim Ummah. Today, the very values that were enshrined in the western way of life have been compromised in order to suppress the resurgence of Islam, leaving the western way of life in tatters.

 

 

After 80 years after the abolishment of the Islamic Khilafah, the return of the Islamic rule can be sensed throughout the Islamic world. The hadith of the Prophet (SAW) in which he foretold the removal and reinstatement of the Islamic Khilafah, is foremost in the minds of all the believers,

 

“Prophethood will last with you for as long as Allah wants it to last. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a hereditary rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be an oppressive rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood.” Then he (SAW) fell silent.” [Ahmad]

 

Tanveer Ashraf

 

For further Comments visit: www.1924.org/comment/

[Zaylici]

Ashraaf, discusses about some genuine issues, such as the issues of occupation and cultural imperialism, however, he fails to appreicate the hisrotical background behind the Islamic state or khalifa, precisely, for this reason his arguments turns out to be rehash from early clerical arguments against the west, although, what I call clerical argument( accusing the west for all our failures) has some elements of truth, neverthles it fails again to comprehend the relevent phinominon in more historically comprehensive way, and here are my reasons:

Guniune Islamic state that is open to every Muslim existed only less than 30 years( this period was period of civil and politcal unrest, recurring civil wars and tormiol) all the rulers of this state were assasinated except on of them, Abubakar, consequently, this period which was right after the death of the prophet witnessed some degree of genuine Islamic rule( although, the later part of this 30 years even ended in bloody war, between those who have been elected, Ali Ibn Abi Dalib and those who opposed the nomination, Mucawiyyiah and his supporters, still it was a period which heriditory kingdom was unknown), where Muslim citizans could elect their officials and participate the political life of the state, however, this period is merginal in the Islamic history for the following reason: soon ethnic groups started to dominate the Islamic state, starting pre-Islamic aristocracy that resurfaced again under the name of Ummayads, it it worthwhule to remember, that Mucawiyyah Ibn Abu Sufyan Al-Umawi was descedent of Aristocratic family, his farther ( Abu Sufyaan) was respected elder, who never become Muslim untill Meca was beseiched by the Muslim army, Mucawiyyiha, who later become the governer of Syria( he was nominated to this post by Usman Ibn Affan, the second Khalifa, whom they belonged to the same clan: Banu Ummayah, part of the reason why Osman was murdered was his allocation of significant govrnemnt seats to his clansmen, the accusation was not entirely baseless, historically speaking, moreover, Mucawiyya's bloody war with Ali Ibn Abu Dalib, the fourth Khalifa was linked to the arguments surounding who will rule the Islamic Ummaha, Mucawiyyah as History shows was imperialist and royalist, for he built the first islamic kingdom, he did what the prophet rejected to do, that is establishment of heriditory kingdom where the child inherits the throne from his farther, the matter continues to this day and I beleive it is our problem, it is not a problem invented by the west, it is homegrown problem) established the first tribe or ethnic dominated Islamic state. He(Mucawiyyah) named his son( Yazid, the young man committed serious crimes such as cutting off the head of the grandsons of the prophet, Hassan and Hussein and palcing them on his office for display, how cruel), who was 18 years as the Amir of the Islamic empire after his death, since then the Islamic state became an state dominated by aristocras of various groups whether it was Abbasayds, fatimads, or later Turkish dynasties, it is too simplistic to equate this with Islamic state, for they were noting other than modern day ethnic groups who are each trying to expand their area fo dominion.

Consequently, Ashraaf, as Many modern and ancient young Muslims becomes prey to the ideology of the ruling classes who use Islam as tool to sustain their hold on power,

I -and no doubt-many others who are sensitive to the emperical realities of history do not yearn for Islamic Khalifa, because Khalifa or theocratic state that covers the whole Islamic world is hisorical impossibility, it never existed and its chances of existing is vary slim, however, federations and cooperations are possible among the Islamic nations, but we shoud be very carefull in idealising the Islamic past speicifically as it regards to the state, moreover, the west, is not our primary enemy, our enemy is domininat ruling classes and their cleint Islamic scholars who were and continue to be the agents of oppression and blanket exploitation

[Warmoog]

I think a grassroots Islamic revolution is possible. Whether it entails the establishment if a second Islamic Khalifat, I don’t really know. In any event, I don’t think Muslims are completely ready for one at the moment. Before a transformation of such a large scale can take shape in the Ummah, I think it has to occur on an individual level… then grow to the communal level, etc. There’s a lot of truth to what brother Zaylici said about many Muslims being of the mentality that external forces (mainly the West) are the roots of all their problems. Consequently, too many believe their suffering (whether it be at the hands of Westerners or those put in place to carry out their will in the Muslim world) is part of Allah’s ‘test’. And in a sense, it is. But in addition to that is a passive mentality, which has taught people to tolerate and endure the many problems in their midst… as opposed to fix them. It’s said that Allah helps those who help themselves. And only after people initiate change (regardless of how small) and show a willingness to improve their plights should they expect Allah to help them. But to answer the question, I think an Islamic revolution is very possible.

 

Salaamz.

[Vanquish_V12]

well ur title in itself contains the problem , the first islamic state was not established on a revolution neither will any future once, cuz revolutions just dont work. revolutions are all about quick fixes, involve no real platform, and benefit few. its like yasmine said, we need to transform our hearts, we need to become less complaicent and more proactive, we need to let our actions speak for us, rather than being hypocrites. the rest becomes like drinkin water.

 

peez

[Conscious Manipulation]

asalaamu alaykum

 

I -and no doubt-many others who are sensitive to the emperical realities of history do not yearn for Islamic Khalifa, because Khalifa or theocratic state that covers the whole Islamic world is hisorical impossibility, it never existed and its chances of existing is vary slim, however, federations and cooperations are possible among the Islamic nations, but we shoud be very carefull in idealising the Islamic past speicifically as it regards to the state, moreover, the west, is not our primary enemy, our enemy is domininat ruling classes and their cleint Islamic scholars who were and continue to be the agents of oppression and blanket exploitation

First and foremost you are wrong in your assertion that Islamic state that covers the whole Muslim world is impossible bc it has existed for 1400 yrs! Granted it was not perfect... you forget that Islam is perfect while Muslims are not. The bay'ah aspect of the khilafah was mis-applied after the rule of Ma'awyiah when he basically coerced Muslims to give his son the bay'ah. However this was not always the case as we know during the time of Umr Abdul Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him), being the pious man he was he actually went and sought the bay'ah from the Muslims after he was elected by the "entourage" bc he realized these ppl did not represent the ummah. Regardless, even if the aspect of getting the bay'ah was mis-applied, the khulafah STILL applied Islam. Sovereignty was always with Islam, unlike today. The set up of the system remained the same until the very last khilafah in 1924.

 

You make grave accusations against the sahaba, the noblest of Muslims when u accuse Uthaman (ra) of giving positions to ppl of his clan simply bc they were from his clan. Do u know the rank of Uthaman (ra)?! Moreover do u know he was elected by the most righteous and noblest of the sahaba including Ali (ra) to take the position of khilafah? Your version of history is not an accurate portrayal of him.

 

As for nation states, this is not from Islam. When Rasoolulah (saw) established the first Islamic state in madina and he drew up a constitution in which he said something along the lines of "All Muslims are equal, their property, life and wealth is all scared... All Muslims are the same but different from the kufar" thus establishing that the only boundary between ppl is that between Muslims and non-Muslims. The idea of having separate heads of state is completely foreign to Islam, infact it's so haram that the prophet (saw) said in authentic hadith if there's a leader elected and another person claims the leadership the latter should be killed.

 

To answer your question Jamaal ,

 

I think an Islamic revolution is possible and is bound to happen. InshaAllah as more and more Muslims gain knowledge about the deen and learn to differentiate between kufr and Islam the desire of the Muslims to implement Islam and rid themselves of kufr will increase and materialize into the re-establishment of the khilafah. How long will this take? Well, let's just say 20yrs ago ur average Muslim was not even aware of the Islamic ruling system let alone be discussing it. Today not only are we discuss but there are Muslims who are actively working for this. InshaAllah it'll be a lot sooner than we imagine!

[Sophist]

I am not confortable with these western concepts such as revolution and what have you. But I know one thing; The Khilafatu Nubuwa will come back when we the Muslims go back to our Maxajatul beydaa leylihaa kanahaari haa, laa yaziiqu canhaa ilaa haalik.

 

Nabad

[Paragon]

Nomads, your responses were surely inspiring. When I posted this topic, my intention was to hear - or rather - read the opinions of others on the notion of possible grassroot revolution with an Islamic characterestics.

 

What we - ofcourse as muslims - can do is to seperate structures from conception. This is to say that: revolution is a structure and a methodology by which a belief can use as a vehecle to reach or achieve a certain result.

 

What differentiates one revolution - of a marxian inclination - from another revolution borne out of the need of an Islamic umma is ideology or belief. Revolution is a tool. So Muslims or Marxists can use it to their advantage.

 

Originally posted by Vanquish:

 

well ur title in itself contains the problem

I thought so too.

[postman]

Jamaal,

 

I strongly believe it is possible; Islam is nothing but a revolution. Although I don’t consider Islam to be an ideology – for many reasons I wont go into- but it nevertheless is very ideal. In this world nothing is ever complete or perfect, there are always poor people to help, injustice to be opposed, now more than ever. So you see grassroots revolution is possible, it has always been and always will be.

[Paragon]

"So you see grassroots revolution is possible.."

 

I agree. The ingrdients for a revolution in the Islamic World has been put in place by the War on Terror. A society is always united by the existence of a 'common enemy' that attacks the 'common good', which may lead to a 'common cause'. Common -ity.

[Raxmah]

Salaams

 

Muslims are disintegrated and in utter confusion; rather everything is rotten to the core. If Allah's supreme rule and sovereignty is accepted, inshallah a time may come when secular loyalties will supplant religious passion as the main driving force of mass movements for Muslims. Of course Muslims have to unite, and get passed the idea because of the west we are bound to never succeed in accomplishing Islamic revolution hopefully same as the caliphates time.

[LixAfar iyo Nus]

An Islamic approach to Social change is very unique and a comprehensive procedure. However, one must not only study history for the sake of amusement but must understand the lessons from it. Revolution in essence meaning a sudden or drastic change in a situation or matter. Although, Humans are generally inpatient, to bring about Islamic state will require a steady and grass root change. Let me give you an example from history, since you all seem to be students of history.

 

Islam was declared by Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w) and his few followers at the time of Mekkah. This period marked the start of human salvation. For 13 years in Mekkah majority of the revelation was about ‘TAWHIID’ the Oneness of God. It was imperative for one who has become Muslim that he understood that concept. Therefore, for 13 years in Mekkah that concept was the centre stage of things and not a single law –relating to state building- was revealed. Even salah, fasting Zakah and Hajj were the not the focus points than. Salah was made once during the morning and once during the nigh and it was only two rak’as each time. Also, Alcohol, backbiting, slander, envy, unity, stealing, brotherhood, Hijab…etc, etc, were not even a priority in the Mekkan period. The reason is because peoples HEARTS needed to be convinced first, an everlasting change was been nurtured in to the breasts of the new believers.

 

To give an example, Alcohol was part of the daily lives of the Mekkan people. Consequently, for its prohibition needed a wise and careful approach. Reason being that alcohol is an addiction and to make it haram suddenly would have been hard for many of the new Muslims. Therefore, who is wiser than Allah? Three psychological steps were taken in order to make sure the consumption of alcohol stopped among Muslims. Wine is declared as bad [2-219] and the first step says that one should not go for prayers in a state of drunkenness in (Surah Nisaa, 4:43,). Then the last step it was banned in Sura (Almaida, 5: 90-91). Step by step were the choice of the Al-Wise and the Creator of the Worlds.

 

Is it not ironic, we all want Islamic Khilafah but don’t want to go through the process of change that will enable us to reach there? To go back to my point, than only in Madina came all of the laws. In the second year of Hijrah, Fasting became incumbent on us and Jihad was made permissible. It was only until the 4th year of Hijrah that the order of Women to cover themselves was revealed. What is my point? My point is that Islam is not a revolutionary religion.

 

Revolution requires sudden change, change that is more cosmetic in its appearance and the interior of it is weak and susceptible to hypocrisy. For example you must have experienced individuals who were once extreme in their approach of Islam and than after a while went back to their unislamic ways. Why? It is simple. They have not changed with in, but rather the Niqab and the big beard and Jalabiyah was worn out of drastic change and after a while the sister took off the Niqab completely and the brother went back to his Haram activities. You know why these things happen? Because they have made sudden change, without not realizing that change requires a step by step procedure and starts with the inside (the heart) first.

 

True change is the transformation of that which is in one self. Islam advocates and proved step by step change not a revolutionary type of change. Besides revolution has the connotation of doing things extreme, deliberate change and that is not what our Messenger (s.a.w) has taught us to approach things. We are advised by him (s.a.w) to take the middle approach of things, meaning not to go extreme left nor extreme right and this goes against the principal of revolution. Any change will need to occur on an individual level, than the family, than the community, than the state and eventually Islamic states will make up the Khilafah. This is the matter of the process of change according to the Islamic thinkers. This format, however, has not come from the air but has been driven from the Qur’an and Sunnah and will need steadiness and time to mature. Many examples can be provided about how change is steady, step by step approach and more lasting than a sudden change. I hope the examples that I gave was sufficient enough to make my point. Only Allah knows best.

[Paragon]

Raxmah iyo Lix Afar and all other nomads....

 

God Bless you two. Thank you for the insightful responses.

[Mutakalim]

At my old age I do not fancy the establishment of the so-called Islamic Khalifa; thusly I am of the same opinion as Zaylici. However, it seems that Sophist and Concious Manipulation are dogmatists.

[NGONGE]

I -and no doubt-many others who are sensitive to the emperical realities of history do not yearn for Islamic Khalifa, because Khalifa or theocratic state that covers the whole Islamic world is hisorical impossibility, it never existed and its chances of existing is vary slim, however, federations and cooperations are possible among the Islamic nations, but we shoud be very carefull in idealising the Islamic past speicifically as it regards to the state, moreover, the west, is not our primary enemy, our enemy is domininat ruling classes and their cleint Islamic scholars who were and continue to be the agents of oppression and blanket exploitation

Zaylici , after reading your highly insightful and slightly suspect lesson in history above, I’m not sure what your objection to an Islamic khilafa is!

Are you in favour of keeping the status queue but with a bit more Islamic flavour?

 

Are we talking about a democracy here? Secularism? Islam with a cultural tang?

 

I don’t want to get drawn into a political discussion into the different forms of governance here, but you dismissed the concept of Khilafa yet didn’t give good enough reasons for dismissing it or even alternatives to it! Although I usually don’t agree with Hezb-Al-Tahrir, the article was talking about an Islamic Khilafa along the lines of the Ottoman Empire, he was not talking about some Utopian Concept in which everything was nice and fair and everybody loved the great Khalifa! I think he was talking about a central Islamic ruling system here. Who is in charge does not really matter as long as the central focus (or even the perceived one) is Islamic.

By the way, I’m not having a go at you, nor am I totally in disagreement with you (you never know I might even agree with you!). it’s just that your post above came across as being very negative, brother.

 

J, I’m not sure if we’ll ever have a grass roots Islamic revolution, purely because of the size of the Muslim world and because of the differences amongst Muslims. It’s possible to have a grass roots Pakistani Islamic revolution, or an Egyptian one but because of the mentality of nationhood that we seem to have, I can’t see it causing a domino effect and transferring itself to other Muslim nations. If it ever does happen (and I hope it does), it will probably start from the top down. The federations that the brother above speaks off might be the start of it.

[Kruella]

Can we agree to take the Revolver out of the Evolution that is the quick, bang bang, the fast and furious change in revolution? Change itself, like most of you already said, starts in a micro-level (heart) and propels to a macro-level (the community, nation).

It takes time it takes willpower and most definitely takes a cohesive force to make it happen in a grander scale. Grassroot Islamic revolution is possible, only because in Islam, we’re taught to revolt against base and unjust behavior within yourself or from outside forces. Revolution is against the negative pull of your heart, your base desires, and your unjust ruler and in this case the McWorld. This is the new face of Muslim reawakening, realizing that the western world mirrors Macdonald, it’s cheap, fast and unhealthy. The struggle or revolution has started long ago, but the establishment of the Khilafa is a long way ahead.

 

Salamz