Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Understanding the nature of the American people

The following is an extract of the soon to be published translation of the Arabic book 'Political Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir' originally published in 2005. As Barack Obama has now become the President of the USA all eyes are upon America, this extract is useful as it discusses the history and nature of the American people.

As regarding the American people: They are a rich people who live in a land of big wealth. Then it entered into a bitter struggle with the European states which they occupied particularly England, and won its independence with force through vision and awareness. This developed within the Americans some dispositions, most of which is pragmatism, i.e. the concept of expediency. Due to its opposition to the European colonialism, tendency and respect to high values originated within it. However, the American people embraced the capitalist ideology like the rest of the Christian world, so it started to be attracted by two factors, which are: the factor of contentment and honesty and the factor of benefit and colonialism. Britain used to use the first factor, where it has used it on its side as a force in war and economy when that factor dominated it. When World War II broke out, and the American people tasted colonialism in terms of the oil of the gulf, the second factor, which is benefit and colonialism, dominated it. Thus, it went out of its isolation for colonizing the peoples and subjugating the world to its domination and influence. It will never return back again to its isolation except with force, because the capitalist ideology had dominated it and started to govern its life. Besides, benefit alone started to control its conduct, in addition to arrogance and vanity that filled its life.

America was occupied by the European states, particularly England. She was also divided into many states. So, she started first to reduce the burden of English colonialism, and then entered into many liberation wars with it that led to expelling the English from their land. Then these American states agreed to establish a federation from them, and formed one single state. After that this federal state started to annex the other states voluntarily or by force and made them states in this federal state, till she was finally formed in her current form, by including 51 states. Thus, a powerful state emerged that proceeded in the international field as a strong state. She managed to protect the two American continents from the control of the European states, and became another world, known as the new world, established from an active people and a wealthy country. USA set a ruling system, which though is of the democratic systems, but was laid down based on deep thought and practical understanding of the meaning of government, which is governance of humans and conducted by humans. So, she did not view the ideal ruling in a logic perception; she rather viewed it in its practical and real form. This is quite clear in the way of appointing the president, his wide functions, his role in the state, the functions of the other institutes of the state and the strong unity, which is represented in the state and forms its foundation though it is federal. This is also reflected in the wide authority given to the people for electing the president and the institutes of the state. All of this had great effect in the strength of the state and in the huge speed of the development of this strength. USA came out of her isolation at the World War II, and associated in managing the world. She even tied to run the world unilaterally; but she associated her enemy, the Soviet Russia with her in running the world since 1961 till 1979. Besides she frustrated the ambitions of other great states. When she realised that she fulfilled her objectives from the d├ętente policy and from associating the SU with her. And that this Russian association had brought her negative results, where Europe started to escape her control and tried to establish direct relations with the SU. Besides, the SU started to undertake brave attempts, though unsuccessful, to indulge in the international politics so as to impose itself as an international power independent from the policies of America. When USA noticed all of that, she decided to return to the policy of escalation with Russia and involvement in a new arms race, which tells of a new cold war. Thus, USA indulged in cultural, intellectual and economic war with Russia and the Eastern camp. She restricted Russia with treaties that led finally to the collapse of the SU, leaving America as the world leading state that has the greatest influence on international politics.

There are two main parties in America, which are the Democratic Party and Republican party. It is hard to notice a big difference between the written constitution of the two parties, and nor in the followed policies. The two parties almost follow a single way, without much change between the two parties in the rotation of the authority, whether in the domestic or foreign policy. Any changes in such policies are only dictated by the circumstances rather than by the difference of their programs.

The Democratic Party is the deep rooted one, besides it is the party of the people, where it wins massive majority of it. Therefore, the majority of the Congress is generally on its side. As regarding the Republican Party, its emergence is more recent than the Democratic Party. It is the party of the rich and those who possess huge wealth. Most of its members belong from the owners of huge wealth and the owners of the monopolies; besides it includes a great number of the educated. It does not give much attention to win the general masses or the ordinary people to its side. It is only the system of presidential elections that helps it; otherwise it would never be able to win the presidency, because it is the party of the minority rather than the majority.

USA, like other capitalist states, is dominated by the owners of the monopolies and the businessmen, and these are the ones that have influence on its policies. However, because every individual enjoys truly the right of citizenship, and can influence the governance, whether through elections or accounting, its governance appears to be that of the entire people more than it appears in other capitalist states. Due to her massive and incessant wealth, together with the abundance of educated, intelligentsia and thinkers; besides the environment of (freedom) and atmosphere of activity dominate over her; its strength is real rather than superficial. Though her people are not a deep rooted people, and it consists of individuals and groups that emigrated from different countries; however citizenship truly binds them with a strong bondage. Even a foreigner who lives there for a few years and receives the nationality and thus owns the right of citizenship, he becomes more concerned about the state, the people and its interests than his original homeland. This comes as a result of the strength the country enjoys, in terms of its individuals and the relations between the people.

As regarding her foreign policy, it is the policy of her rich and owners of the monopolies, i.e. it is a pure colonial policy, where there is no role in it for the high human values. Despite the naivety that sometimes looks like stupidity, which appears in her politicians, they are deep thinkers much more than many politicians in the world. They enjoy huge capability for making changes, diversifying the styles and solving the problems. It might be that the colonial zeal, besides the high culture had effect on their political activity. They view the remaining parts of the world as their own ranch; besides the states that were great in the past are not entitled to enjoy the influence they had. So, it is time for these great states to retire, relax and be content with submission to the authority of the strong, as the other states of the world do.

America owns today a huge nuclear arsenal that exceeds by many times the nuclear weapons owned by other nuclear countries altogether. The military expenditure of America compared with the other states reveals the extent of the American superiority over such states. As an example, the military expenditure of the great western states in 2002 was as follows:

Britain 35 billion dollars
France 32 billion dollars
Germany 23 billion dollars
--------------------------------
Total 90 billion dollars

As regarding America, she has alone spent 350 billion dollars; this is in addition to the quality difference in terms of armament and that Americans come before Europe tens of years in terms of technological advancement. USA controls the UN and its organisations; besides she dominates over the greatest financial reserves in the WB and IMF, which means her domination over the wide political influence exercised by the IMF and WB over the states of the world. She also sought to strengthen her trade through the globalisation policies, which employed the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and worked for using it as one of her tools for interfering in the local markets under the pretext of unified tariffs. Thus, she worked for freeing the trade. Since she owns a huge economic power and has the greatest number of multinational companies, she benefited of the legal cover provided to her by the WTO for opening the markets that were closed before her or those that were difficult to assimilate in the open global economy, which America runs.

These huge military, political and economic capabilities of America made her interfere in the affairs of all the current world states, and made them as if they were a part of her domestic policy. She tries to exercise the policies of hegemony over all the states without exception, making no difference between the developed and non developed states. Though she sometimes fails in this hegemony policy, she does not cease from attempting that.

America has a role in all the problems of the world. She is that state that stirs tension in the burning regions. So she introduced new classifications for the states, like the term of ‘axis of evil’ and the ‘states that support terrorism’ and the like. Even the allying states or the compliant states did not escape her harm. She rather obliged the world that it either stands on her side or on the side of terrorism. So there is no place for a state to stand neither on her side and nor on the side of terrorism.

She creates the crisis, provokes the problems and creates tensions, and then she manages these crises and seeks solutions for them. She does all of that as a part of her strategy for dominating the world.

Thus, America made the worst use of her military and economic forces in her political actions, such that her influence was not limited to the economic and trading aspects, as the traditional colonialist states normally used to do. She rather extended her influence to all the aspects of civic life, so she extended her influence to education, media, society, thought, culture and security.

Her role in changing the education curriculum so as to comply with her ideological views became quite obvious. Therefore, we found Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt and others had indulged in reviewing their curriculum under the pretext of development and compliance with the age. Saudi Arabia had changed one of the most important religious subjects in its school books, which is the subject of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’ (allegiance (to whom) and dissociation (of whom). Likewise, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and others changed subjects related to jihad against the aggressor kuffar, of Jews and Christians and others; besides other Islamic concepts, which America hates.

Regarding the media, America assigned hundreds of millions of dollars for the sake of influencing the media in the Arab and Muslim masses. So, it set up Radio Sawa and the Al-Hurra (Freedom) TV channel to spread her poison in every home in the Arab countries.

In the social field, America focused on the woman so as to distance her from the Islamic values. She assigned the funds and imposed pressure on the governments to hold conferences over the subject of women. She also imposed pressure for inserting women in the governments and parliaments; besides she propagated again the concept of the freedom of women within new forms and new presentations.

In the field of thought and culture, America employed centres for thought, democracy and pluralism; besides she set up organisations for human rights. These centres and organisations would promote the thoughts of freedom within the western concepts and following the American way. These organisations and centres were supported by Hollywood cinema films and advanced technological production, which dominated the propagation of most of the Arab and non Arab channels.

In the field of security, America worked to link the intelligence services in the Arab states and the states of the Islamic world with her intelligence services, particularly with the CIA and FBI. So, we came to see the American intelligence people move with complete freedom in the cities of the Islamic countries, and under legal protection, as it is the case in Sudan, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Libya, Pakistan and other states. This intelligence linkage covered handing over of the accused to America; besides it allowed the special American forces to undertake specific military actions against those described by America as terrorists.

Thus, the American hands reached the joint points of the daily life in the societies of the Islamic countries and the non Islamic societies. She spreads corruption in them as she likes, as she does in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia, even in Latin America, where she deposed the elected president of Haiti, Bertram Aristide and expelled him outside his country, and she tries now to depose Chavez, the president of Venezuela, from authority. Thus, America is about to control the affairs of the weak states due to the submission and surrender of their rulers to her.

However, this American hegemony will not remain long; it is rather going to disappear despite the American presence in every corner in the world and despite the cooperation of the rulers and governments with this presence. The increasing hatred of the peoples, particularly the Islamic ones, to America, besides the increasing abhorrence of most of them to the Americans due of their arrogance, hollow pride and bias towards the Jews, also because of their colonialism and enslavement of others. We say: this increasing hatred and abhorrence will generate opposition and struggle against the American presence everywhere, whether inside or outside its continent. Moreover, the annoyance of the other great states and the attack against their interests due to the arrogance of America, beside her unilateral control over the benefits and her continuous attempts for hegemony, besides her attempt to have monopoly over the management of the international affairs.

The presence of a state built upon the capitalist ideology, which is based on colonialism and exploiting the wealth of others; besides this state leads the world without competition over this leadership; all of this makes the world live in continuous suffering, where its problems continue and its crises follow each other. The tangible American corrupting and perverting of the world, besides her forging of continuous crises in it confirm that.

The hardship and misery of the world resulting from the capitalist states, particularly the USA, will never disappear except by establishing the Khilafah state, which will implement the right and great ideology, Islam, which was revealed by Allah (swt) upon His Messenger (saw) as mercy for mankind. At that moment, the justice of Islam will disclose the ugliness of the capitalism, in terms of its materialistic thought and colonial method. The righteous power of Islam will also demolish the suppression and arrogance of America, and forces her to return to her isolation and her new world, in case that new world remained to her. Then, goodness will spread worldwide, and the world will have a deep sigh after the hardship and misery it lived for long.

Arabic Source

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

salams

got questions on jihad relating to HT perception of it;

1) when muslim land is occupied should everyone resist or only those of capability? if those with capability how does one define capability?

2) the ayats in quran about fighting are clear that muslims need to fight, so why does HT understnad these ayats to refer to armies moving and not individuals going from around the world to fight in kashmir, palestine etc.

jk

Islamic Revival said...

AA

Regarding the issue of Jihad being Fard Ain.

From the HT adopted Book Shakhsiyah Islamiyah Volume 2 page 156 fourth edition printed 1995 ce and 1416: “Jihad is fard Kifayah to inititiate (the fighting) and Fard Ayni when the enemy attacks, upon the ones who are being attacked (ala man haajimuhum) and fard kifayah upon the rest (of the Ummah). This fard is not silenced until the enemy has been repelled and the Islamic land has been purified from its rijs impurity”.

The following is HT's position as we understand it from its official literature:

If an Islamic country was exposed to attack from the enemy, then the fight against the enemy becomes fard ‘ain (personal obligation) upon the people of that land (country). If the repelling of the enemy could not happen with the inhabitants of this land, than it becomes fard ‘ain upon the Muslims who are the nearest (geographically) to this land, then those who follow them (geographically) and so on until the repelling of the enemy is achieved, even if this obligation included all of the Muslims.

If the enemy occupied the country and dominated over the Muslims within it and imposed its authority upon them and they became unable to fight against it, to remove the authority from them, then they are treated as if the are captives (prisoners of war). The fard ‘ain, in this case, would be upon the Muslims who came next to them (geographically) and so on, until the occupation is removed and the country returns to Bilad al Islam (the land of Islam).

To say that Jihad becomes fard ‘ain on Muslims means that it is upon those who are capable amongst them, i.e. the armies and those who are like them (i.e. have military power). This is because the ‘capability’ (Istita’ah) is (indirectly) understood in every hukm shar’i. Therefore it is incorrect to change the definition and thus say that Jihad is fard ‘ain upon the armies instead of upon the Muslims, this is because the mentioning of ‘Muslims’ is more general, and it is clear in it that it is a duty (fard) upon those who are qualified and have the capability and ability to fighting in the manner which the shara’ has explained.

This can be seen in history when Palestine was occupied by the Crusaders for 100 years, the scholars said Jihad against them was Fard Ain, however did they all practically oblige everyone to move there and go to fight? In fact if this was the case all the scholars themselves would have moved there and fought against the crusaders which clearly didn't happen. Therefore it is clear that they understood the hukm in the same way and this is the classical position.

The unity of the Muslim countries is a fard, and the fight against the enemy who attacks is also a fard. The fact that the Muslims countries are not united and their armies are divided does not mean that it is a duty to first unify their armies then thereafter fight against their enemy, based upon the consideration that one army is not sufficient to remove the occupation. Rather Muslims are obliged to work to achieve all the duties, so they establish a state that unites their countries and unites their armies, and also they fight their enemy if they are attacked and do not hesitate from doing so under the pretext of waiting until they unify their armies.

Any ruler from amongst the Muslim countries, who declare the fight against the kafir enemy and orders his army to move for battle, then the duty upon the army, is to move to fight the kafir enemy as long as the fight is against the kuffar. The Ummah is obliged to support that unless the ruler moves the army to fight against the Muslims or drives the army to fall (a planned defeat) in a planned trap to enable the enemy to kill a large number of Muslims. In these two cases, that is to fight against the Muslims and the conspiracy with the enemy to kill the Muslims, it is not allowed to fight (together) with the rulers, and in this case the Ummah and the army have to prevent the rulers and make the fight against the kuffar and not against the Muslims.

The discussion with the Ummah should be to explain the hukm shari’ in fighting the enemy if they occupied any of the Muslim countries or in case they declared war against them, and to show that the rulers have cancelled Jihad. Also that it is a duty upon the armies to move so as to fight against the enemy and so on so as to move the rulers who suspend the Jihad, and to move also to establish the Khilafah State and appoint a Khaleefah who rules with that which Allah (swt) has revealed and makes Jihad fe Sabeelillah. Calling the Ummah and her armies to execute this fard is one of the actions of the Hizb, which they perform, which should be according to the method explained in the stages of the progression of the Hizb.

One of the most comprehensive books written on the subject of Jihad is by a member of HT, it was thesis from the University of Damascus, Syria entitled ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya’, published in Beirut, Lebanon by Dar al-Bayariq in 3 Volumes by Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Khair Haykal. The scanned Arabic book can be downloaded from:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/09a0e953-a43a-44c4-884b-d9db36e3be6f/Al-Jihad-wa%E2%80%99l-Qital-fi-as-Siyasa-ash-Shar%E2%80%99iyya%E2%80%99

It also contains the discussion in depth regarding the methodology to re-establish the Khilafah and the evaluation of various proposed methodologies.

The concept of capability is based upon the Islamic evidences, This is established by the Kitab and Sunnah. Allah (swt) states in the Quran:

“Allah does not place burdens upon people that they can not bear.” [TMQ]

The Messenger (saw) said in a Hadeeth that has been narrated from Imam Muslim in his Saheeh, “What I have ordered you to undertake do of it what you are able and what I have prohibited to you then avoid it”.

In History the parallels that can be drawn are from the occupation of al Andalus (Spain). The Ulema gave the Fatwa that the people who reside there were unable to fight effectively and that it was therefore necessary for them to make Hijra and Fard on the rest of the people to prepare a capable force for the fighting and removal (izalat) of their enemy.

Anonymous said...

having just read the above 2 posts- i wld like to know what if muslim land is occupied and the muslims dont have the capability to resist shld they organise themselves to resist or have sabr until help comes?

i understand capability is linked to the hukm of jihad but what constitutes capability - a person may go he knows hw to use an AK47 then he has the capability to go to kashmir or palestine to fight-

jk

Anonymous said...

What page or in what chapter does this section begin from in the book?

Islamic Revival said...

It is in the chapter entitled 'Major World issues'

Islamic Revival said...

Capability is related to the actual hukm at hand. So if a Muslim land is attacked by an enemy such as when Israel invaded southern lebanon or when America initially attacked Iraq then the hukm is to defend the land and to stop the enemy from entering further. Therefore the scholars say that defending is fard ayn for every muslim male above the age of puberty as long as they are physically able to do so. Remember this is to do with stopping the enemy from entering the land.

The hukm is different once the land is occupied such as when the crusaders occupied Palestine for 100 years and the current Israeli occupation. The hukm now is to remove the occupier, therefore the capability related to this hukm i.e. those who have the capability not just to fight but to actually remove the occupier. Therefore it actually applies to people of capability such as the commanders of armies, the rulers, etc.

Having said that if a Muslim even without the capability to remove the occupiers fights and dies, we do not condemn him as he is rewarded for that and he dies a shaheed.