ISIS – Caliphate or Pretenders?

ISIS has been operating in both Syria and Iraq for a few years; however they have shot to prominence in June 2014 due to its claim of having established a Caliphate on territory constituted from both countries. Whilst the Caliphate is a revered institution in both in Islamic scholarship as well as the sentiment of the Muslim masses as cited by numerous polls, the claims of ISIS have only found small pockets of support around the world.

A key discussion point has been the viability of the State declared by ISIS, particularly focussing on the aspect of security. ISIS asserts that the hard power of its authority as a Caliphate is derived from the bayah (pledge of allegiance) sworn to it by the influential Sunni tribes in Iraq, giving it effective control of the territories of these tribes and beyond. The Sunni tribes are known to be significant players in the region, being pivotal in the Anbar insurgency during the American occupation of Iraq and infamous for switching sides from Al Qaeda to help the American effort to drive them out of their lands.

Concerns of vulnerability to attack by foreign powers are addressed by drawing parallels with the historic Islamic State established in Medina in the 7^th Century, when the Muslims received the support of only two key tribes of the town. The great powers of the time were the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Sassanid (Persian) Empire, which it is claimed that if they were to have attacked the nascent Islamic State in Medina it would have been destroyed. Are these claims based on solid reasoning?

There seems to be an implicit assumption that the Roman and Persian empires themselves were in a reality where they were focused on the area in which Medina existed, therefore able to influence the security of the region.

This is simply not the case, as they were both busy fighting each other and left much of the Arabian Peninsula to their tribal allies to deal with. Even this was so that the tribes maintained a buffer zone against their own empires. We know this from documented history as well as from the Quran itself, where in Surah Ar-Rum the ongoing battles between the Romans and Persians, including the then impending Roman victory, is discussed.

Therefore the battles that the Islamic State in Medina took part in during the early years were between powers of a similar order of magnitude, rather than a couple of tribes against hundreds of thousands of men.

The region of Iraq today, as well as for much of the previous 25 years, has directly been the focus of Western aggression through a hugely destructive war, an almost decade long implementation of sanctions, followed by another hugely destructive war, followed by an almost decade long occupation. After the occupation itself has ended, America has left in place its political system as well as a core security team in key areas such as Irbil and Baghdad, retaining influence in the area.

The Sunni tribes, whilst having the ability to decide security on a local level, are not able to do so in the context of modern states. In other words, whilst they may be instrumental in deciding which group or tribe can exist in the area, they do not possess the might to repel an attack by a foreign force such as America by any stretch of the imagination to the extent that they can guarantee security for an independent political vision.

This then leads one to question America's silence over ISIS's advance in both Syria and the Sunni region of Iraq yet its immediate and strong reaction to potential advances on the Kurdish areas as well as Baghdad.

Moreover, there is a well publicized school of thought within American thinking which discusses the fragmentation of the Middle East and the breaking of Sykes-Picot borders by America itself. In addition, the fact that ISIS can suddenly capture a huge amount of wealth and American weaponry as well as the entire city of Mosul, where no shot was fired, without the US batting so much as an eyelid leads to further questions. Add in to this the horrific nature of many of ISIS's "PR" releases which are highly sectarian in nature.

When viewed in this wider context ISIS not only are revealed to by far short of attaining the capability of a secure state, their actions and deeds are highly suspicious and curiously in line with overarching American objectives for the region. The bonus of exploiting the deeply respected and cherished institution of the Caliphate can only be a propaganda coup for those that wish to see it buried in the books of history forever, given that the apparent merciless nature of the treatment of non-Muslims and Muslims disagreeing with ISIS would revolt the majority of the world, Muslim or non-Muslim.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 22nd August 2014 on Asia Times Online as ISIS: Caliphate or pretenders?

The toppling of Morsi is a blow for Secularism

“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black" – Henry Ford

The ouster of Mohamed Morsi as President of Egypt in a coup d’état by the military will reverberate not only across the political landscape of the ancient land but that of the entire Muslim world. Morsi, whilst viewed globally as a barely acceptable face of political Islam, represented but a segment of a wider movement in the Muslim world calling for the implementation of Shariah law by the State.

Numerous polls have shown overwhelming support amongst the global Muslim populace for making Shariah the official law of the land. The latest of such research is that of the Washington based Pew Research organisation entitled ‘The World’s Muslims; Religion, Politics and Society’ which was released on April 30, 2013. The poll found that in 25 of the countries surveyed the majority of Muslims supported Shariah being the law of the land. Notable findings were Iraq (91%), Malaysia (86%), Niger (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Jordan (71%) and Nigeria (71%). What is intriguing about these findings is not just the level of such support but the amount of diversity amongst the respondents gives pause for thought; whether one finds themselves in Africa, the Middle East, South or South East Asia, they would find a consistent political ambition amongst the people.

So why has Morsi been rejected in Egypt? To the uninitiated a bearded man from a party, whose name drips with Islamic symbolism born in the nationalistic aftermath that followed the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, which for many years adopted the slogan ‘Islam is the solution’ would be the realisation of anyone who desires Shariah law.

On a superficial level the Morsi government failed to address the economic malaise faced by Egypt leading to mass discontent. Yet there is also a deeper answer hiding in plain sight; the Muslim Brotherhood had not only forsaken Islamic politics decades ago but became the champion of democratisation, predicated on secular thought, across the Muslim world. Its actions subsequent to the demise of Hosni Mubarak epitomise its wandering political compass, which have compounded Egypt’s woes.

Early on in the revolution it was quick to distance itself from championing the mass movement, which many interpreted as a sign that it was projecting a moderated stance to the global media lest Western states decided to intervene against it. This was designed as much for the consumption of world as it was for the military, the real power behind the Egyptian throne.

Appropriate noises were made about wanting a civil state rather than an Islamic one which led the Brotherhood being allowed to contest the elections as the Freedom and Justice Party. Many supporters ignored this call due to a mixture of viewing it as political subterfuge and holding the idea that an Islamic state could be achieved from within a secular democratic setup by gradual implementation of Islamic principles. Once in power, rather than using this success at the ballot box as a mandate for political change, the Brotherhood ended up continuing many of the key policies and ideological direction of the Mubarak era.

Economically it was unable to address the issue of resource distribution, with the military and Mubarak era governments controlling up to 40% of the economy. As these elites moved wealth out of the country, the Egyptian Pound plummeted leading to a widening trade deficit as Egypt attempted to service its energy and food imports using a weakened currency. Out of ideas, Morsi turned to the IMF for interest based loans. All of these policies were born of the crucible of economic liberalism, with no Islamic economic policies such as the introduction of a bi-metallic backed currency, the abolition of natural resource monopolies or the shifting of the tax burden from income and consumption to capital and produce in sight.

In terms of foreign policy the army ensured that Egypt continued to support the goals of its benefactor, America, rather than reflect public sentiment in Egypt. This lead to the reaffirmation of the Camp David accords, blocking the tunnels to Gaza and mostly silence on the issue of the Syrian revolution. This ran counter to the expected dropping of national borders to unify with other Muslim countries to create a wider Islamic union and the removal of Western supported dictators in the Arab world by supplying political/military support to other revolutions in the region.

Despite unending compromise on practically every major issue to placate Western states abroad and secularists at home, the Brotherhood was still ejected from power. This will leave many supporters of not just the Brotherhood directly but the politics of gradualism and participation in a democratic process with much to think about. If democracy cannot tolerate the will of the people if it happens to be Islamic, then is it truly just a mechanism for representing popular opinion or is it a system unable to function without the values of secular liberalism being implemented? Is it really the political equivalent of Henry Ford’s choice of colour?

The ramifications of the answer to this question would be important not just to the fate of Egyptian politics but to that of the entire Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood has inspired many movements in the Muslim world which have espoused political participation in democracy rather than an attempt at radical change to establish an Islamic State. If the Brotherhood can be tossed aside, despite decades of work and masses of support on its home turf, how can such a system hold any hope for meaningful change?

Lessons learned from Egypt would suggest that any real change requires the backing of the armed forces rather than a conflict with them or a simple change of face on the political front. Further, it would seem that regardless of how much political Islam compromises it would never be perceived as sufficient by secular segments of society, so why try at all?

The coming months and years could see the biggest drop in adoption democracy amongst the proponents of Shariah law across the Muslim world. Ironically, this would have been precipitated by a coup backed by secularists and implicitly by Western powers to rid one country of any influence of political Islam.

Muhammad Asim

Twitter: @AsimWriter

Published on 8th July 2013 in The Nation (Pakistan) as Morsi’s toppling: a blow for secularism

Ending Treachery in Pakistan

At least 24 soldiers have been murdered by America. The massacre took place at a well known base in Mohmand whose location was given to NATO. Clearly, this was a deliberate action, forged by American arrogance, to serve as a warning to the Pakistan Army to comply with American demands or this is the fate that awaits them. This message was for the bulk of the Army, as whilst the blood of such jawans is shed the military and civilian leadership collude with America, continually plotting to further the foreign agenda.

In terms of actual incursions by NATO and its Afghan origin forces, this is the eighth such event since 2008. Each time we have heard lies from Gilani, Zardari, Kayani and Pasha. Parliament has passed resolutions in 2008 and 2010 which pay lip service to punishing these foreign aggressors. With this latest outrage, it can be no doubt that the leadership will go through the same old disgraceful pack lies that it always does i.e. condemn in ‘strongest terms’, close supply routes for a few days, America will offer a token apology, the supply routes will reopen and the killing will resume.

Once again, in this latest episode the Pakistani authorities are now calling for Shamsi airbase to be vacated by the Americans (yes, the one that was asked to be emptied in June 2011) and have cut the supply lines to NATO which like before are expected to reopen after a brief period. Cunningly, no mention of banning the use of Pakistani airspace by drones has been mentioned leading to the conclusion that calling for the closure of Shamsi is designed to placate an angry public. Such actions, whilst the Army top brass and civilian leaderships are selling out the people and the army body for their own gain, are not incompetence but treachery. The officers in the Pakistan army are aware of this and have been applying huge pressure on the sold out Kayani, harshly accounting him for his alliance with America both after the Abbottabad raid and now this latest NATO transgression. The bulk of the Army, like the people, do not wish to continue this master to slave relationship that the secular liberal civilian and military leadership have forced upon the country.

This is not Pakistan’s war. Pakistani opinion is against this American misadventure in the region. A Pew Global poll shows 62% opposing the war, 69% wanting the removal of American forces from Afghanistan and 69% viewing American military presence as a potential threat against Pakistan. The cost to the country has been huge. The Pakistan Economic Survey 2010-11 says that the economy has lost $68 billion and requires an early end to the war in order to recover. 35000 civilian lives have been lost since the start of the war, not including the thousands of soldiers killed and millions made refugees.

Before the America brought its war to the region, suicide bombing was unheard of in Pakistan with just one incident occurring in 1995 against the Egyptian embassy. Such attacks, which are common place now in markets and against the armed forces, were previously unthinkable. With CIA personnel like Raymond Davis being caught with images of sensitive military installations and having established close ties with outfits that Pakistan is at war with on behalf of America, it does not take much imagination to figure out as to who is orchestrating these bombings especially when hundreds of visas are being granted to the CIA.

The secular liberal elite, comprising journalists, civilian and military leadership plus the political parties are the only ones in the country who support the war. They are funded and given political patronage from foreign capitals. They have created a false image of dependency upon America in order to subdue public opinion against the war. In reality the secular liberals are the ones dependent upon American money and power for survival, hence their eagerness to promote American imperialism

It is in Pakistan’s strategic, political and economic interests to not only exit from this war but remove the American presence in the region. American meddling has removed Afghanistan as an ally on the Western border whilst empowering India, most notably showering it with nuclear legitimacy

Pakistan has the tools required to remove America from the region, it only lacks political and ideological will. The closing of bases, cutting of supply lines and ejection of CIA and mercenary forces such as Blackwater can all be achieved without firing a single shot. The American campaign in Afghanistan will wither and die the instant the vast amount supplies it receives through Pakistan are cut; it has little alternative regardless of the bravado and bluster that may come from Washington

It is said that when war is mentioned amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Regardless of the tools America has, be it drones, helicopter gunships, tanks or even soldiers all this is useless if it cannot obtain the airstrips, fuel or food to maintain these assets. With 49% of all supplies for Afghanistan coming through Pakistan, this war effort cannot be sustained if this support is withdrawn. The alternative of expanding supplies from America’s Central Asian supply route is dictated by simple economics and the desire not to be reliant on transit routes in Russia’s back yard, with whom America has a frosty relationship at the best of times

Even in more prosperous times this was too costly and this is evidenced by America being forced to deal with volatile Pakistan for supplies in the first place. This is problem is now compounded for America as it creaks under record debt levels of $15 trillion and decreasing confidence in its ability to service this debt as evidenced by fractious debate in Congress. It is in no position to pursue supply alternatives to Pakistan for a sustained war effort.

The solution is therefore simply and practical, yet we will not see this being implemented. This will be another incident in a long list of grave violations that America has undertaken such as the Raymond Davis fiasco, Abbottabad Operation and of course countless drone attacks.

The problem, though promoted by secular liberals, will not end by simply bringing someone perceived to be corruption free, conservative or right wing in to power. The current system in Pakistan will ensure that regardless of there being a military dictator or civilian democrat, the same policies will continue. The politics in Pakistan is so rotten that it is impossible to attempt to place a ‘clean’ figure at the top to fix things as the same old corrupt and sold out politicians, who hold sway and clout, will take senior positions in government.

The political will required to remove America from the region cannot come from the corrupt politicians who have competed with one another to impress America. Nor can it come from those who have no ideological direction, relying on pragmatism to attempt to chart a route out of a dangerous situation. Such political and ideological will can only come from a political group, such as Hizb ut Tahrir, that has a long track record of working globally with the Muslim Ummah for the establishment of the Khilafat (Caliphate). Such a group, not tainted by operating in the corrupt and murky political system of Pakistan, would by the backing of the sincere officers of the Pakistan armed forces be able to implement the will of the people of Pakistan and remove American hegemony from harming the Muslims as it does today unchecked

As we enter the month of Muharram, it is important to note that our Islamic Calendar begins from the day 1433 years ago when the Islamic State in Medina was established by Muhammad (saw). We remember his (saw) words on the issue of an Islamic ruler or Caliph, particularly relevant after the NATO strike, when he (saw) said,

"Behold, the Imam is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they protect themselves."

Today the Muslims in Pakistan and rest of the Ummah lack this shield. Today, the place of this Imam is occupied by secular liberals who are slaves of America and NATO, being totally besotted with foreign ideals and philosophies. The secular liberal intelligentsia and the secular liberal political/military leadership is actively engaged in selling out the country in order to serve America’s agenda of gaining geo-political hegemony over the world.

They are using their full strength in order to support America in its attempt to crush Islam as a political and ideological force by attempting to purge the armed forces of sincere personnel who have locked Islam in to their hearts. They are using their full resources to abduct and torture those sincere workers of political change who call for Khilafat, such as Dr Abdul Qayyum of Hizb ut Tahrir, in a desperate attempt to prevent the Islamic revival and an effort to continue the slavish status quo.

Only a ruler governing by Islam, given explicit direction by the Shariah to defend the lands, lives and property of the people, would move unashamedly to pursue the required policies that would guarantee independence from foreign interference and aggression. Secular liberals, who never had an argument to start with, have no leg to stand on in terms of pushing for continued support with America and its war.

The masses of Pakistan are fed up and ready for real change. The sincere officers and troops of the armed forces, abused by the sold out top brass and civilian rulers, are able to bring this about in the form of the Khilafat..