The BANDUNG2 Blog

COMMENT: Of Safety Nets and Networks

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:54:43 +0100

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

In a recent episode of the C.O.W.S. (Context of White Supremacy) blogradio show which aired on 13/11/2009, seminal counter-Racist analyst Neely Fuller Jr. stated the following:

Even if you [i.e. a white person] dropped out of school, you don't drop very far because you've got a safety net. Most white people have a safety net. They got a network. Black people don't have it.

On this basis, a network can be defined as:

a NET [=collective of people] that WORKS [=functions] to ensure the SAFETY [=maintenance] of those within it. The only currently FUNCTIONAL network in the known universe is the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy).

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: Obama The Muslim (Sic)

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:59:29 +0100

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

I don't usually bother commenting on the likes of this type of material, but check out the following video on YouTube which purports to show that Barack Hussein Obama (sic) is a "closet Muslim":

The charge is ridiculous. From a counter-Racist perspective, however, it shows evidence of an attempt to DECEIVE, one of the principle tools of the Racist (White Supremacist).

Barack Obama is a non-white victim of Racism (White Supremacy) who happens to have been placed in an apparent (i.e. not real) position of power by/for Racists (White Supremacists) in order to further con-fuse the already con-fused non-white victims of the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy). As Muslim counter-Racist analyst, Isa Ibrahiim, pointed out to me on a previous occasion, "Obama is like the person at the counter in a post office. He works for the company; he does not own it, and he does not make its rules." Rapper KRS-1 made a similar point at the start of The Obama Deception using the analogy of a person at the counter in a fast-food restaurant contrasted with the owner of the corporation. (A critique of Alex Jones' The Obama Deception is available here.)

From an Islamic counter-Racist perspective, it is clear that Obama's overtures to the so-called "Muslim world" [=a non-functional region of the world inhabited predominantly by non-white victims of Racism (White Supremacy) who self-classify as "Muslim"] are nothing other than attempts at deception for the purposes of diffusing opposition to Racism (White Supremacy). In short, such overtures are nothing other than scripted attempts to maintain, expand and refine the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy).

Obama is an actor; he is not a scriptwriter.

Peace

Comments

URL: Daisy Cutters and Poppy Wearers

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:30:44 +0100

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following article by Ridhwan Saleem on the website Dissident Voice (Dated 11 November 2009):

Daisy Cutters and Poppy Wearers: Obama’s War Against Afghanistan and the History of Opium

According to the entry in Wikipedia,

In many Commonwealth countries, artificial, paper or plastic versions of this poppy are worn to commemorate the sacrifice of veterans and civilians in World War I and other wars, during the weeks preceding Remembrance Day on November 11. In the United States, it is common practice to wear "Buddy Poppies" (artificial, paper or plastic versions sold by the Veterans of Foreign War) during the weeks preceding Memorial Day, the last Monday in May to commemorate the sacrifice of veterans in the various wars; whereas Veterans Day on November 11 is used to honor "living" veterans. It has been adopted as a symbol by The Royal British Legion in their Poppy Appeal.

In Canada, poppies are distributed by the Royal Canadian Legion and the Anavets organization each fall prior to Remembrance Day. The design of the Canadian poppy consists of petals made of red plastic with a felt lining and black centre held on by a pin. In 1980, the Royal Canadian Legion formed a committee to decide the future of the poppy and it was decided that the centre should be changed to green to represent the green fields of France. This proved unpopular with the Legion membership and the design was changed back in 1986. Unfortunately a large quantity of green felt had already been purchased and it was decided to keep producing the green centres until the supply of felt was exhausted. It took until 2002 for the green felt to run out and the traditional black centres reappeared. Those who were unaware or had forgotten that black centres had been used in the design of the poppy from its introduction in 1921 until 1980 found the change somewhat controversial.

In New Zealand and Australia, plastic poppies are widely distributed by the Returned Services Association leading up to ANZAC day (April 25).

Britain and "Her Commonwealth" [=non-white victims], the US, France, Canada, New Zealand and Australia - a veritable roll-call of some of the leading "national" players within the ONLY functional NATION - Racism (White Supremacy).

The poppy flower was adopted by the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy) as a symbol of WAR remembrance - that is, for the purpose of remembering white people - and, allegedly, co-opted non-white people - who fought and died in Racist (White Supremacist) wars, such as (White) World War I and (White) World War II. However, as the aforementioned Wikipedia entry goes on to state,

poppies have long been used as a symbol of both sleep and death: sleep because of the opium extracted from them, and death because of their (commonly) blood-red color.

So, the poppy is both a symbol of white death remembrance as well as being the source of a drug/narcotic. From an Islamic counter-Racist perspective - and there is no precedent for a cult of death remembrance in Islam, shi'ite commemoration of the martyrdom of Hussain, grandson of Muhammad (peace be upon him), notwithstanding - white death remembrance by non-white victims of the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy) is a drug/narcotic habit they urgently need to quit.

Remember: THEY LIVE, WE SLEEP (and die).

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: Islam and The Problem of Black Suffering

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:30:56 +0100

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

I have just finished reading Sherman (Abdul-Hakim) Jackson's Islam and The Problem of Black Suffering (Oxford: OUP, 2009). Like his earlier work, Islam and the Blackamerican: Looking Toward the Third Resurrection (Oxford: OUP, 2005), it made for an engaging and informative read.

Islam and The Problem of Black Suffering is Jackson's attempt at mounting an Islamic theological response - more precisely, a Sunni Muslim response - to William R. Jones' Is God a White Racist? (New York: Basic Books, 1973). (I should point out that, although it is within my possession, I have not read the latter work.)

Having read the book and considered its arguments in detail, I think that Jackson has succeeded in his project, viz. refuting Jones' claims of

(1) "divine racism" under assumptions of God's omnipotence ("All Power") and omnibenevolence ("All Justice/Mercy/Good"),

(2) socio-political quietism as entailed by a commitment to a theological worldview which upholds God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and

(3) the desirability of a post-theological secular/humanistic foundation for "anti-racist" activism.

In short, Al-Islam [=The Self-Surrender to God/Allah] is fully consistent with a theology asserting God/Allah as both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent and with a commitment to counter-Racist - and, more generally, counter-Supremacist - activism.

Nonetheless, from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective, I find Jackson's book to be somewhat disappointing because of its exclusively theological focus. According to Jackson, theology is

ultimately a negotiated product, the medium through which religious communities conceptualise and talk about God in the public space, where the only valid form of knowledge is objective knowledge to which everyone has ostensibly equal access. This discourse serves the community by enabling it to settle on conceptual frameworks and concrete understandings that are broad and resonant enough to draw its disparate members into a common and commonly owned religious identity. (pp.161-162)

I don't deny the importance of engaging with theology and accept that the book's explicitly stated remit was exclusively theological. Yet, IMHO, Islam and The Problem of Black Suffering, with its theological focus, offers little in the way of what is needed PRACTICALLY in order to RWSWJ (Replace White Supremacy With Justice).

Classical Islam distinguished foundational theology (usool-ad-deen) from foundational jurisprudence (usool-al-fiqh). While Jackson has, arguably, engaged with the former - at least in a negative/reactive fashion - and outlined the foundational basis of what might be described as a kalaam at-tahreer or "Liberation Theology", there remains an urgent need to develop what might be described as a fiqh at-tahreer, i.e. a "Liberation Jurisprudence." This is going to require ijtihaad, i.e. the exertion of intellectual effort in determining new solutions to new problems.

To the extent that Jackson's engagement with Jones' Is God a White Racist? has foregrounded kalaam at-tahreer or "Liberation Theology", I wonder whether engagement with Neely Fuller's seminal work, The United Independent Compensatory Code/System/Concept: a textbook/workbook for thought, speech and/or action for victims of racism (white supremacy), might stimulate development of a much needed fiqh at-tahreer or "Liberation Jurisprudence."

Peace

Comments

TV: Channel 4 - Race: Science's Last Taboo

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:46:03 +0100

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Channel 4 Television in the UK is broadcasting a season of documentaries "exploring the concept of race and the impact this has on our society".

As a counter-Racist, I am interested to know WHAT the makers of these programmes UNDERSTAND by the term "race" and HOW they will USE - and possibly MIS-USE (in order to CON-FUSE/deceive) - this concept in the series of documentaries. (I am, of course, also interested to know WHO it is that is being referred to by the first-person plural pronoun in the expression "our society.")

Just for the record, I have just finished watching "Bleach, Nip, Tuck: The White Beauty Myth episode 2", which was most revealing about the internalisation of Racist (White Supremacist) standards of beauty by non-white vicitims of Racism (White Supremacy).

The season listing is as follows:

1. Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo
2. Bleach, Nip, Tuck: The White Beauty Myth episode 1
3. The Event: How Racist Are You?
4. The Human Zoo: Science's Dirty Secret
5. Is It Better to Be Mixed-Race?
6. Bleach, Nip, Tuck: The White Beauty Myth episode 2

You can watch all six episodes online here.

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: The Powder Keg and The Wick

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:18:07 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

"The powder keg is always larger than the wick. The smallest thing in the powder keg is the wick. You can touch the powder all day long and nothing happens. It's the wick that you touch that sets the powder off." (p.190)

From "Confrontation with an 'Expert'." In Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. Edited with Prefaftory Notes by George Breitman. New York, Grove Press: 1965.

Peace

Comments

REFLECTION: Malcolm X, Race Traitors and John Brown

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:30:53 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

In a previous article, I discussed the Qur'anic/Islamic obligation of people classified as "white" and who self-classify as "Muslim" to reject the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy) and become "race traitors".

In a later piece, I stated that a race traitor who claims to be a muslim must shun/reject/avoid thought, speech and/or action that promotes the maintenance, expansion and/or refinement of the system of Racism (White Supremacy). This is a "negative" statement in that it states what a (Muslim) race traitor must NOT do, rather than what they must DO. The same article also referred to the higher standing with God/Allah of those (Muslim) race traitors struggling in His way which, in the contemporary context, would include those struggling to replace Racism (White Supremacy) with Justice.

However, the article also maintained that it was not necessary for a (Muslim) race traitor to become a John (or Jane) Brown and get personally involved in an armed struggle against the dominant, contemporary manifestation of TAAGHOOT [=Tyranny]; if such race traitors could not "get on board", it sufficed for them to simply "get out of the way." The take home message for non-white victims of Racism (White Supremacy) is: "Don't hold your breath." In short, be realistic in your expectations as to what those who CLAIM to be "good white people" will do in order to RWSWJ (Replace White Supremacy With Justice).

Nonetheless, IMHO, the figure of John Brown should be a motivating example for race traitors, Muslim and otherwise, and so, in this post, I reproduce two brief pieces by the late Malcolm X (Al-Hajj Malik Al-Shabazz). The first, "The John Brown School", is a comment on nonviolent white "liberals" and is followed by seminal counter-Racist analyst, Neely Fuller Jr's definition of the term "liberal"; the second piece, "What Kind of Allies?" is a comment on the necessary conditions for a white/non-white alliance.

The John Brown School

There are many white people in this country, especially the younger generation, who realise that the injustice that has been done and is being done to black people cannot go on without the chickens coming home to roost eventually. And those white people, even if they're not morally motivated, their intelligence forces them to see that something must be done. And many of them would be willing to involve themselves in the type of operation that your were just talking about.

For one, when a white man comes to me and tells me how liberal he is, the first thing I want to know, is he a nonviolent liberal, or the other kind. I don't go for any nonviolent white liberals. If you are for me and my problems - when I say me, I mean us, our people - then you have to be willing to do as old John Brown did. And if you're not of the John Brown school of liberals, we'll get you later - later.

Answer to question, Militant Labour Forum, 7 January 1965. Reproduced from Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. Edited with Prefatory Notes by G. Breitman. New York: Grove Press, 1965, pp.224-225.

Seminal counter-Racist analyst, Neely Fuller Jr., defines a "liberal" as follows:

(1) A white person who speaks and/or acts to maintain White Supremacy (Racism) by using a greatly refined form of deceit. The deceit that is used by such persons is so refined that it is usually very acceptable, comfortable, and satisfying to the Victims [non-white people].

(2) Any white person who seeks to maintain White Supremacy through the use of deceit, greatly refined.

Fuller provides a detailed explanation of this definition which is important and so I reproduce it here verbatim:

Explanation:

In a socio-material system dominated by White Supremacy (Racism), a "liberal" is a "refined" White Supremacists (Racist). The "liberal" Racist, both male and female, is ofttimes characterized by the following:

(1) Handling, lending, and/or granting money for curing "specified" physical and/or "social" ills among non-white people, while making certain that none is used effectively against White Supremacy (Racism).

(2) Moving among non-white people as teachers of subjects that are "interesting", but not effective in helping non-white people to eliminate Racism and/or in producing justice and correctness.

(3) Providing and encouraging various forms of entertainment that have the effect of diverting the attention of non-white people away from serious matters such as economics, education, politics, etc.

(4) Working "closely with" non-white people in a manner that he and/or she can watch and study them, and control their thinking more directly and efficiently.

(5) Making suggestions to non-white people that are "attractive", but are functionally designed to indirectly make non-white people to render better service to White Supremacy.

(6) Using religion as a means of division and deception and to gain greater influence over their Victims [non-white people].

(7) Using sex, an/or anti-sex, in any form that increases the influence of the White Supremacists over the sexual conduct of their Victims.

"Liberal" Racists (both male and female) promote Racism by engaging in sexual activity with non-white people and/or against non-white people.

The "liberal" Racist woman is skilled in promoting damaging influence among non-white people through the lustful presentation and use of her body.

(8) Using non-white people to fight any people, white or non-white, in such manner that White Supremacy is made stronger.

(9) Presenting themselves to non-white people as being people who are "not really white" in a racial sense, but who are "Christian", "Jew", "Moslem" "Marxist" "Aristocrat" "Liberal" etc.

They do this to confuse non-white people. They do this to eliminate the question of whether a so-called "liberal" is, or is not, a White Supremacist (Racist). They do this as a means of evading discussion of Racism as pertains to themselves. The so-called "liberal" Racist uses some non-white people, to do harm to some white people, if he or she judges it to be necessary to help maintain, expand, and/or, especially refine the practice of White Supremacy.

The so-called "liberal" Racist is an "up-to-date" Racist.

"Liberal" Racists avoid "petty" and/or "nit-picking" forms of Racism.

"Liberal" Racists will kill-and/or intimidate those white people who practice more direct and obvious forms of Racism, with the intention of getting all white people to practice Racism in a form that is more refined.

The "liberal" White Supremacist considers him or her self to be "smarter" than "other" White Supremacists.

The "liberal" White Supremacists makes plans for a world in which the Victims of White Supremacy (all non-white people) will come to "enjoy" White Supremacy so much that they will never wish to exist in any way other than as subjects to the White Supremacists (Racists).

What Kind of Allies?

We need allies who are going to help us achieve a victory, not allies who are going to tell us to be nonviolent. If a white man wants to be an ally, ask him what does he think of John Brown. You know what John Brown did? He went to war. He was a white man who went to war against white people to help free slaves. He wasn't nonviolent. White people call John Brown a nut. Go read the history, go read what all of them say about John Brown. They're trying to make it look like he was a nut, a fanatic. They made a movie on it - I saw a movie on the scren one night. Why, I would be afriad to get near John Brown if I go by what other white folks say about him.

But they depict him in this image because he was willing to shed blood to free the slaves. And any white man who is ready and willing to shed blood for your freedom - in the sight of other whites, he's nuts. As long as he wants to come up with some nonviolent action, they go for that. If he's liberal, nonviolent liberal, love-everybody liberal. But when it comes time for making the same contribution for your and my freedom that was necessary to make for their own freedom they back out of the situation. So when you want to know good white folks in history where Black people are concerned, go read the history of John Brown. That was what I called a liberal, a white liberal. But those other kind, they are questionable.

So if we need white allies in this country, we don't need those kind who compromise. We don't need those kind who encourage us to be polite, responsible, you know. We don't need those kind who give us that kind of advice. We don't need those kind who tell us how to be patient. No, if we want some white allies, we need the kind that John Brown was, or we don't need you.

And the only way to get those kind is to turn in a new direction.

From "The Second Rally of the OAAU," 5 July 1964. Reproduced from Malcolm X on Afro-American History. New York: Pathfinder, 1967, p.78.

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: "Transformers - Negroes in Disguise"

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:49:13 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

I just watched Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen (2009). I'm a big science fiction film fan and thought it might make for reasonably interesting viewing, even though I didn't think too much of the first Transformers movie. (I viewed both movies on my wife's recommendation; she watched the cartoon as a child.)

The film was awful on numerous fronts.

Apart from a tedious plot, overly complex visual special effects and non-existent dialogue, more insidiously it was hypersexual, unnecessarily crude and negatively stereotypical in its covert and overt portrayal of non-white people - "African-Americans" as robots [=blacks as machines] and Arab soldiers of small/midget stature [=minors/children], respectively. (Regarding the latter, check out Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People by Jack Shaheen.)

While I could perform a counter-Racist analysis of this film, whose executive producers were two white people - Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay - I will keep this post short and simply point interested readers to the following articles which have commented on the Racist [=White Supremacist] depictions of non-white people in the film:

Transformers: Racism That Meets The Eye

Is “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” Racist?

Expect nothing less from the Racist (White Supremacist) and Zionist-controlled AmeriKKKan film industry and its functioning in the areas of Entertainment (toys, merchandising), Economics (toys, merchandising), Sex and War among others.

Peace

Comments

VIDEO: Uncle Sam [WS/R] Goddamn

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:12:40 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following video by white albino Muslim rapper, Brother Ali:

Click Read more! for the lyrics.

Peace

Ah,
The name of this song is uncle sam goddamn
It's a show tune but the show aint been written for it yet.
Were gonna see if tony Jerome and the band can maybe work this shit out for me
And straighten me out right quick
I like it so far man

Yeah

Come on, lets go

Welcome to the united snakes
Land of the thief, home of the slave
Grand imperial guard where the dollar is sacred

Come on lets do this shit for real now

Smoke and mirrors, stripes and stars
Stoner for the cross in the name of god
Bloodshed, genocide, rape and fraud
Written to the pages of the law, good lord

The (inaudible) and latch key child
Ran away one day and started acting vile
King of where the wild things are, daddy's proud
Cause the roman empire done passed it down

Imported and tortured the work force
They never healed the wounds or shook the curse off
Now the grown up goliath nation
Holdin open auditions for the part of david, can you feel?

Nothing can save you, you question the rain
You get rushed in and chained up
fists raised but I must be insane
Cause I cant figure a single goddamn way to change it

Welcome to the united snakes
Land of the thief, home of the slave
Grant imperial guard where the dollar is sacred
And power is god

We all must bow to the fact were lazy
The fuck you obey me and why do you hate me
Only two generations away from the
Worlds most despicable slavery trade

Pioneered so many ways to degrade a human being
That it cant be chains to this day
Legacy so ingrained in the way that we think
We don't need to wear chains to be slaves

Lord that's a sinful display
The overseers even got raped along the way
Cause the children cant escape from the pain
And theyre born with the pores and this hatred in their veins

Try and separate a man from his soul
Youll only strengthen him and lose your own
Well shoot that fucker if he walk near the throne
Remind him that this is my home (now im gone)

Welcome to the united snakes
Land of the thief, home of the slave
Grant imperial guard where the dollar is sacred
And power is god

Welcome to the united snakes
Land of the thief, home of the slave
Grant imperial guard where the dollar is sacred

Hold up, gimme one right here

You don't give money to the bums
On the corner with a sign, bleeding from their gums
Talking about you don't support a crackhead
What you think happens to the money from yo' taxes

Shit the governments an addict
With a billion dollar a week kill brown people habit
And even if you aint on the front line
When the master yell crunch time you right back at it

You aint look at how you hustling backwards
And the end of the year add up what they subtracted
3 outta twelve months your salary
Paid for that madness, man that's sadness

Whats left get a big ass plasma
To see where they made dan rather point the damn camera
Only approved questions get answered
Now stand your ass up for that national anthem

Welcome to the united snakes
Land of the thief, home of the slave
Grant imperial guard where the dollar is sacred
And power is god

Custom made, the consumer news
Keep saying we're free
But were all just blue

Comments

COMMENT: Critique of The Islamic State - 2

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:01:21 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

I have finished reading Who Needs an Islamic State? (Second Edition) by Abdelwahab El-Affendi (London, Malaysia Thinktank: 2008). In what follows, I will reproduce verbatim a number of extracts from what is, IMHO, a brief yet important work on Islamic political theory.

(NB: This is a long post, but one that, IMHO, affords great insights to the careful and patient reader.)
Breaking The Grip of Shame

One cannot be a beggar at the door of the West and a judge on its actions simultaneously. (p.124)

Toward a Post-Nationalist Muslim Socio-Political Agenda

For a community that views itself as 'a witness over mankind', the issues must be radically redefined. Self-interest must be transcended in favour of global responsibility. The key is to reduce dependence on the outside world, not simply by attaining that elusive self-sufficiency, but by achieving self-reliance through renouncing claims over what others possess and use as weapons against Muslims. There is much that humanity can do without in the consumer madness that has engulfed us in modern times. Muslims are prisoners of the West precisely because, like their opponents, they have developed an insatiable appetite for luxuries. In our fast-depleted planet, Muslims can again offer an example by wanting less in a world where everyone is asking for more. Then they can offer an alternative to an international order based on the egotistic nation-state, which is in turn a collection of self-interested individuals and groups. (pp.124-125)

Saints and Sinners: Rules for Restraining Tyrants

A major flaw ... in the traditional Muslim perception of the Righteous Caliphate was the erroneous belief that the rules of government must be designed to fit rulers who were almost saints - saints do not need the rules anyway. The rules laid down by Muslim theoreticians were derived from the actual practice of the saintly Righteous Caliphs, who were acting in the absence of any rules. Moreover, saintly men such as Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz acted virtuously and courageously in spite of the rules and conventions which in their time supported and encouraged corruption. Rules only become necessary when we are dealing with people who need guidance and restraint, which is the reason classical political theory was misguided and largely irrelevant to societies where saints were hard to find. (pp.127-128)

Wisdom dictates that we should be pessimistic about the qualities of our rulers, something which should not be too difficult, given our experiences. The institutions of a Muslim polity, and the rules devised to govern it, should therefore be based on expecting the worst. Human experience shows that democracy, broadly defined, offers the best possible method of avoiding such disappointment
in rulers, and affords a way of remedying the causes for such disappointments once they occur. (p.139)

Beyond Autocracy

The homogeneity of the early Medina community - the mutual trust between the leading figures in the community, the ease of communication between the different leaders (all resided in Medina or were otherwise in direct contact with the Caliph) and the charisma of the early caliphs - made it unnecessary to have a formal decision-making structure which allowed all leading figures to take part in the political process. In different circumstances where the leader lacked charisma or where communication was too cumbersome, more formal arrangements were needed. In fact, the very idea of having to have a single caliph or ruler may have to be scrapped in favour of a council or another body which would compensate for the shortcomings of individuals by pooling expertise and resources. (pp.128-129)

Rethinking Islamic Political Participation

A collective duty should be redefined to mean not that marginally important obligation from which everyone is absolved if anyone takes care of it. On the contrary, it should be the obligation of every individual in the community to see that this duty is carried out by the right person, no one being absolved until this was positively assured. The term fard kifaya should be changed to fard jamai (collective duty), for that is what it is. (p.130)

The Muslim community, and not an impersonal state, has a duty to afford each individual the maximum help in achieving his or her moral potential, which can be done by example, exhortation and by shielding the individual from undue pressures and temptations. However, the community cannot shoulder the individual's ultimate responsibility for his or her own actions, nor replace the individual's duty to prove his or her own moral worth and act as an example to others. (p.135)

Rethinking The Islamic State (or rather, socio-political order?]

The basis for the re-establishment of the Muslim community (as a precondition for the setting-up of an Islamic state) must be the reaffirmation of the freedom and dignity of the individual Muslim.

A state formed by a Muslim community will by necessity be an Islamic state, one based on the sharia. It is inconceivable that in a Muslim community an argument should arise about following this or that command of God. The provisos set forth by extra-cautious theoreticians who insist that an Islamic state cannot be a democracy because that would imply that the will of the people is above all law, including sharia, is misplaced. If a community rejected sharia, it is by definition not Islamic, and the arguments of these writers are therefore irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, disputes within a Muslim community are bound to arise, as in the past, about many other things. However, democracy means that these differences should be resolved peacefully according to an agreed procedure, which is equitable and fair. (p.136)

In a pre-sharia community the conditions for guiding society back to Islam can be supplied only by democracy, where the operation of the community and the demands of Islam are freely debated and refashioned. If society decides to make the transition to sharia, then democracy is needed to keep it together and resolve its differences. An Islamic state should also be independent and self-reliant.

It does not have to be aggressive and disruptive, but it should be firm in its moral convictions, and noble in its aversion to enslavement to the consumerism which has reduced most communities on our planets to grazing herds of mindless seekers after unhealthy comforts.

This state should be outward-looking, reasserting itself in the international arena and acting as a focus for the global community of Muslims. The unity it seeks should not be enforced, but it should seek to promote a shared outlook which asserts the collective view of Muslims on how the international order should function.

An ideal Muslim state should also be plural. It is not necessary for Muslims to allow the modern concept of territorial state sovereignty to imprison groups within a unitary scheme that stifles all diversity. A true pluralism is important for accommodating non-Muslims within an Islamic polity without either diluting it or relegating them to second-class citizenship, as well as for Muslims since we are fast approaching the emergence of a world community in which Muslims as a bloc are a minority. The rights of communities and individuals within this system must be defined to assure coexistence with the maximum freedom for all.

It is a strong possibility that, as happened in the past, the exemplary behaviour of Muslims would in time convince their neighbours that theirs is the right path. In the meantime, an Islamic territory must be governed by a pluralistic polity of coexisting but independent communities, governed by treaties rather than by a constitution. The treaty should detail the rights and duties of each community for the safeguarding of common existence, in a similar way to that of the sahifat al-Madina. This could present an imaginative solution to a vexing problem.

Finally, an Islamic state must be a light for all humankind. It cannot be, like today's nation-states, engrossed in the endless search for unhealthy comforts and material goods for its citizens. Rather than being such an acquisitive black hole, the Islamic state should shine outwards and embody a philosophy of giving. There should not be 'interest-groups' vying with one another for what they can squeeze out of the system, but competition should be over how much can be given. What such a community can offer to the world is without limit. (pp.137-138)

The state for Muslims must be a principle of liberation based on pluralism, with no coercion involved other than the minimum inherent in the principle of community itself. (p.140)

To Enable Not Force

The central misunderstanding of current Muslim political thought is the confused belief that a state based on Islamic principles is one which forces people to live according to Islam. In truth, the purpose of an Islamic political community is to enable individual Muslims to live according to Islam, and to protect them from coercion which tends to subvert their commitment to Islam.

All the current references to the `imposition of sharia' or the Islamic state, whether by Islamic thinkers or opponents of Islam, actually misunderstand the issue completely. Sharia can rule truly only when the community observing it perceives this as a liberating act, as the true fulfilment of the
self and moral worth of the community and each individual within it, for sharia can never be imposed. When it is imposed, it is not sharia. When only coercion underpins sharia, it becomes hypocrisy.

A Muslim polity must also defend the right of Muslims to live freely according to the dictates of their consciences, by force if necessary, for a Muslim state must use all its resources to fight injustice and tyranny inside and around it. We cannot expect the commitment to peace to be a licence for the toleration of all evils in the name of avoiding conflict. (pp.140-141)

The state must be based on a voluntary adherence to Shari'a. Because if the majority of people were compelled to follow Shari'a against their will, and for any purpose other than their sincere desire to please God Almighty, this would not be an Islamic political community, but a political community divided into oppressors on one side, and hypocrites on the other. (p.147)

On The Priority of Justice

It is essential to strive for justice as the only firm basis for permanent peace and harmony.

To attain these goals, the Muslim state must rely primarily on the responsibility and active role of the individual within the community. It reasserts the value of the individual without preaching individualism.

The individual does not need the state to be a Muslim. He creates the state as a Muslim, and he creates it voluntarily to further enhance his Islamic life.

For Muslims, to have no state at all is better than to have an illegal one. (p.141)

Community Not State, Treaty Not Constitution

The political ideals of the Muslims must be guided by the concept of the Muslim polity as a decentralized pluralistic association based primarily on choice rather than on coercion. The ideas I have outlined here suggest that the central ethical demands of Islam are less compatible with the modern concept of a coercive centralized state than with a free association of mutually co-operating communities. For such an organization the basis should be more like a treaty than a constitution. (pp.142-143)

The Document of Medina (Sahifat al-Madina), hailed by modern Islamic scholars as the Medina Constitution, was in fact a treaty. (p.143)

The solution suggested by this model to the current dead-end path of the nation-state points to a new kind of polity, in which communities are joined together not as subjects to a sovereign all-powerful state, but as members of communities united voluntarily, each pursuing its own way of life in complete freedom. Of course, coercion is not ruled out entirely to safeguard and maintain the polity once it is established, but - and this is important - it is not the basis of the polity. A person should be able to join the community and polity of her or his choice, and also to leave freely and join another. This element of choice is absent from the current international order, where most states insist that citizens conform to norms dictated from above, while freedom of movement to join another polity of one's choice is severely limited.

This lack of freedom is closely related to the territorial nature of the modern state. The model we are proposing here could suggest a way in which a polity is not strictly territorial. Political associations should make it possible for members to move in space without losing their rights of membership. This entails a concept of an international order based more on coexisting communities than on territorially-based mutually-exclusive nation-states. (pp.143-144)

Various Muslim and non-Muslim communities would coexist over an extensive area, and base this coexistence on mutually agreed treaties governing rights and duties towards the maintenance of the common polity. These rights and duties would not be affected by one's physical location, but by one's freely chosen commitment to the polity.

Such a polity will not be an intrusive, coercive organization seeking to impose specific norms and lifestyles. It will, rather, be a co-operative association designed to help people live freely according to the dictates of their consciences. The key word here is 'treaty' as opposed to 'constitution', which is the regulating principle.

The polity would, of course, conform to sharia which is not 'imposed' but is the true expression of the free will of the community. With membership completely free, the Muslim community at the heart of this state is one that has chosen to live according to Islam and to obey sharia. This observance is essentially a matter of conscience, for sharia is truly observed only when people do so voluntarily and sincerely. (pp.143-144)

In Defence of Syed Qutb, Pacifist

[According to some Islamists], the state was supposed to grow organically out of the community once it reached a critical mass. Where these theorists faced a problem was in their entertaining of recurrent delusions that such a community had already come into existence, and all that was needed to be done was to take charge of it, persuade it to surrender its will completely to their guardianship which could henceforth assume the task of keeping it virtuous.

In this regard, it was the much maligned Maududi-Qutb hardline position which appears at once more consistent and inherently pacifist. For if one believed, as they did, that no genuine Muslim society existed, then what was needed was to create one, and that can only be done peacefully, by preaching the message until one can gather a large enough following to make a viable community. (p.158)

Why Self-Governing Communities Must be Small and Decentralised

The fast expansion of the Medina city-state into an empire created many new difficulties, as the administration of the expanded state became too complicated for the city-state model of management as it evolved up to that time. (p.163)

The Medina model experienced powerful destabilising forces due mainly to inner tensions between the vision and reality. The Medina model emerged from the struggles which followed the death of the Prophet, and was shaped by the hard-line centralising stance adopted by Abu-Bakr, who was of the opinion that the unity of the community depended on its submission to one central authority. But his success in suppressing the rebellions against this authority launched the dynamics that led to break-neck expansion in Muslim-controlled territories and the dispersal of the citizenship body made up mainly of Arab Muslims throughout the new territories. (p.166)

The resulting tensions put unbearable pressure on the original model, which depended on the active consent of a cohesive citizenship body, with opportunities to communicate effectively, usually face to face and on a daily basis. (p.166)

Piety and Chaos

Of equal significance has been the tendency of the 'ethical party' (or the 'religious party' as it is often called) to undermine itself by endemic indiscipline. Those claiming to stand up for the 'pure' model deferred only to their own conscience and accepted no earthly authority. This made for poor discipline and endless fragmentation. (p.171)

On The Necessity of Power

Reformers and other aspiring politicians have to be mindful of these laws of social action, and need to seek sources of power where they naturally lie. It is no use championing a noble cause if one cannot deliver the striking capability needed to carry it to victory. A reformer has thus to enlist the support of a powerful solidarity group for this purpose. Even God is mindful of this, for he selects prophets only from the leading clans within strong tribes. (p.183)

Concluding Thoughts

The instability of the ethical model of the Medina state was caused in part by the unrealistic demands it puts on leaders and followers. But it also needs to be seen in the wider context of the challenges facing pre-modern republican models of government, in particular in city-states undergoing a radical transformation during a period of fast expansion. (p.184)

The city-state model was doubly vulnerable in the anarchic pre-modern world system, where city-states were vulnerable either to being swallowed up by empires or neighbouring states, or they could themselves expand into empires. (p.184)

It is only with the development of techniques of representation, the emergence of an international system which guaranteed the survival of weak states, and improved communications, that it became possible to stabilize republican/democratic systems. (p.184)

While Muslim thinkers, like their Roman counterparts, had effectively acquiesced into imperial rule, they continued to deny its legitimacy. The resulting divergence between ideals and reality spelt a dangerous moral vacuum which continued to infect Muslim politics down the years, and accounts for much of its pathology. (p.185)

The caliphate model was embedded in its environment and dependent on many variables which were not often clearly identifiable. (p.186)

The ideal of the caliphate is no mirage; it is an ideal that is real enough. But its reality cannot be detached from the conditions which made it possible. It belongs to the category of the republican city-state and its ethos of the involved citizen, making it unworkable in multi-ethnic empires. (p.186)

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: More on The Trickery of Tripoli

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:33:39 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

In my previous post, COMMENT: The Trickey of Tripoli, I mounted an Islamic counter-Racist critique of the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid's attempt to pre-emptively de-legitimise the possibility of 'Holy War' (actually, jihad or liberation struggle) in the Philippines by issuing a statement that conflict with the Americans was forbidden. Abdul Hamid did this at the request of Oscar Straus, then US ambassador to Turkey, in a show of good will towards and friendly relations with the American government once he was given assurances by the US that the religious rights of the 'Mohammedans' (sic) would be protected under American rule.

"I say and I say it again, you've been had. You've been took. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok." (Malcolm X)

Perhaps the piano-playing, opera-loving sufi Sultan was unaware that US imperialism, colonialism and Racism (White Supremacy) were imcompatible with Islam (sic).

But what is Hamza Yusuf's excuse? "Is it coz I's WHITE?"

Any non-white victim of Racism (White Supremacy) who thinks that Yusuf's endorsement of Abdul Hamid's position is in recognition of the latter's commitment to universalism is, IMHO, out of his or her mind. This is because the historical record readily establishes that the US ambassador's appeal to Article 21 of a treaty between Tripoli and the United States was nothing more than a deceit, a con, a trick since US President William McKinley's invading AmeriKKKan forces were committed to the "civilising mission" of Racism (White Supremacy). In this regard, I should like to point interested readers to the following four-part work by Nathan Gilbert Quimpo:

Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism - Part 1
Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism - Part 2
Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism - Part 3
Colonial Name, Colonial Mentality and Ethnocentrism - Part 4

Part 3 makes particularly important reading for the Muslim counter-Racist and should put to rest any delusions concerning the enlightened [=en-whiten-ed] nature of US imperialism vis-a-vis Spanish colonialism.

In this light, and as a Muslim counter-Racist, one has to regard Shaykh Hamza Yusuf with suspicion. (For an Islamic defence of this position, the interested reader is referred to my earlier blog articles, "PROJECT: Identifying The Muslim Race Traitors (if any)", "Why Every White Muslim Must Be a Race Traitor" and "Yvonne Ridley: A Jane Brown?".)

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: The Trickery of Tripoli

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:17:46 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Recently, I watched Islam & Democracy: A Clash of Civilisations? featuring Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Noah Feldman. During his opening speech, Yusuf referred to an exchange which took place in 1899 between US ambassador to Turkey, Oscar Straus, and the last Ottoman Caliph, Sultan Abdul Hamid. I decided to follow up this incident because Yusuf's citing it as an example of enlightened Muslim statesmanship struck me as problematic, although unsurprising (since Yusuf is a white person), from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective. I will explain why shortly. However, it is first necessary to understand the nature of the exchange and in this connection, the following extract, taken from an article entitled "What Would the Caliph Do?" by Mustafa Aykol which appeared on his website, The White Path, on December 18, 2005, provides a useful summary:

Actual Ottoman-American cooperation in foreign policy took place in the face of the Muslim insurgency in the U.S.-occupied Philippines. The American ambassador to Turkey Oscar S. Straus (a Jewish diplomat, incidentally, who was welcomed by the Abdulhamid regime at a time when his colleague, A. M. Keiley, was declared persona non grata by the Austro-Hungarian authorities simply for being of Jewish parenthood) received a letter from Secretary of State John Hay in the spring of 1899. Secretary Hay wondered whether the Sultan under the circumstances might be prevailed upon to instruct the Mohammedans of the Philippines, who had always resisted Spain, to come willingly under our control. Straus then paid a visit to the sultan and showed him Article 21 of a treaty between Tripoli and the United States which read:

"As the government of the United States of America ... has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmans; and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the partners that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two countries."

Pleased with the article, Abdulhamid stated, in regard to the Philippines, that the Mohammedans in question recognized him as Caliph of the Moslems and he felt sure they would follow his advice. Two Sulu chiefs who were in Mecca at the time were informed that the caliph and the American ambassador had reached a definite understanding that the Muslims would not be disturbed in the practice of their religion if they would promptly place themselves under the control of the American army. Subsequently, Ambassador Straus wrote, the Sulu Mohammedans ... refused to join the insurrectionists and had placed themselves under the control of our army, thereby recognizing American sovereignty.

This account is supported by an article written by Lt. Col. John P. Finley (who had been the American governor of Zamboanga Province in the Philippines for ten years) and published in the April 1915 issue of the Journal of Race Development. Finley wrote:

"At the beginning of the war with Spain the United States Government was not aware of the existence of any Mohammedans in the Philippines. When this fact was discovered and communicated to our ambassador in Turkey, Oscar S. Straus, of New York, he at once saw the possibilities which lay before us of a holy war ... [H]e sought and gained an audience with the Sultan, Abdul Hamid, and requested him as Caliph of the Moslem religion to act in behalf of the followers of Islam in the Philippines ... The Sultan as Caliph caused a message to be sent to the Mohammedans of the Philippine Islands forbidding them to enter into any hostilities against the Americans, inasmuch as no interference with their religion would be allowed under American rule."

Later, President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Ambassador Straus for his excellent work, declaring that it had saved the United States at least twenty-thousand troops in the field. All thanks to the caliph, Abdulhamid II [emphases added].

Both Mustafa Aykol and Hamza Yusuf praise Sultan Abdul Hamid for his actions. However, from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective, one wonders what the Philipinos who were being colonised thought about his decision to legalise a US colonialist invasion. Did Sultan Abdul Hamid even bother to ask them? Or was he too pre-occupied courting US interests and too 'bamboozled' (to borrow a term of the late Macolm X) by Article 21 of the treaty between Tripoli and the United States to do so? Either way Sultan Abdul Hamid legimitised US colonialism and de-legitimised (Islamic) 'insurrection' [=jihad]. Apologists/'moderates' (sic) might argue that this was a case of the maslaha (benefit) of saving lives - whose? American and/or Philipino? - outweighing the mafsada (harm) associated with armed resistance to - 'insurrection' against - an invading colonialist power. However, I'm not persuaded by that line of argument because that kind of (il)logic might be used to block liberation struggle (jihad) per se which is Islamically unacceptable.

Peace

Comments

LINKS: Save The True [Dark-Skinned] Arabs

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:28:50 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following links:

[1] Save The True Arabs: "My complexion is dark, the complexion of the Arabs!"

The subpage Arabic Terms Used for Complexions is of particular constructive value.

[2] Save The True Arabs (blog by Tariq Berry)

Currently, this blog contains the following four fascinating entries:

1. This Is How the Muslims Helped the Zionists Occupy Palestine
2. A True Description of the Prophet Mohamed's Family (SAWS)
3. A Cure for Racial Prejudice Against Dark Skin - Was Adam Black-Skinned
4. A Cure for Racial Prejudice Against Dark Skin - Was Adam Black-Skinned - Part 2

[3] Racism in Islaam

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: Critique of The Islamic State - 1

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:50:40 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

As stated a couple of posts ago, I am currently reading Who Needs an Islamic State? (Second Edition) by Abdelwahab El-Affendi (London, Malaysia Thinktank: 2008).

Here I reproduce a few of El-Effendi's criticisms of the classical notion of the 'Islamic State' (or rather, Islamic political order):

Muslim thinkers did not see the root of this collapse [of the idealist Islamic political project] in the self-contradictions of the original vision which attempted to assign the role of the Prophet to ordinary men. They instead tried to find comfort in the belief that following the death of the Prophet, the world had entered into a spiral of inevitable decline which would only be arrested on the eve of the Day of Judgement. This relieved the Muslims from the duty of trying to look for a way out of this impasse and shifted the burden on to the inevitable laws of history [emphasis added]. (p.66)

Had the theory concentrated on the practical functions of the government in a given state, then it would have been much easier to formulate a constitution to which the rule would be required to adhere. However, by setting unattainable standards, it was easy to pass from the conclusion that perfection was impossible to the claim that all imperfect situations were equal. The present 'imperfect' situation was therefore the best possible situation [emphasis added]. (p.77)

Classical [Islamic political] theory did not offer any recommendation on how to deal with [usurping] tyrants and dislodge them, which was the kind of guidance the pious needed, not advice about the limit to which they should tolerate tyranny. The classical theory was thus at once superfluous and inadequate [emphasis added]. (p.78)

In the end, a major defect in classical Islamic theory was that it was at once too idealistic and too pessimistic. In its essence is was revolutionary, setting the highest standards and urging Muslims to transcend imperfect reality towards them. Yet, it also contained the belief that these standards were unattainable and it was futile to pursue them. To escape from this impasse, the theory needs to be revised by detailing the ideals inherent in Islamic history and norms in a more realistic fashion, and then assisting that they be adhered to. A moral exhortation demanding the impossible is an exhortation to immorality. We must explain the requirements o Islamic morality in politics in practical terms, and then accept no excuse when practice does not measure up to these demands [emphasis added]. (p.80)

Peace

Comments

VIDEO: Monkeys, Apes and Oppressors by Al X

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:52:15 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following audio-video by Al X of Revolution Muslim:

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: God or The State?

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:18:42 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Currently, I am reading Who Needs an Islamic State? (Second Edition) by Abdelwahab El-Affendi (London, Malaysia Thinktank: 2008). Thus far, it makes for fascinating reading and, insha'Allah/God-Willing, I will share my reflections on its contents in due course. (As discerning readers of this blog may be aware, I, too, am highly critical of the notion of the "Islamic State" - in fact, of the institution known as "The State" per se. In this regard, interested readers are referred to an earlier blog article, COMMENT: Islam, Anarchism and 'Negative' Government.)

Here I want to reproduce one short extract which I think Muslim counter-Racists interested in the area of activity known as 'Politics' should reflect upon:

Muslims woke up from centuries of stagnation to find themselves resident within so-called national states, and were condemned forever to serve these strange creatures and worship them in place of God. 'My country right or wrong' and 'my nation above all others': that was the creed of the day. One no longer had to praise the Lord, or fight in His cause. It was no longer who was the greater, but one's country, and it was for one's country that one had to kill (and be killed). It is no wonder that Muslims were plagued by chronic disorientation. (p.42)

Peace

Comments

FILM: Prawns = Negroes - District 9 Decoded

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:24:04 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Just watched District 9.

Essential viewing for the discerning counter-Racist based on the following short film entitled Alive in Joburg by white South African born director, Neill Blomkamp:

Check it out.

Peace

Comments

URL : Let Us Be Moors - Islam, Race and "Connected Histories"

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:41:20 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following article by Hishim Aidi, a research fellow at Columbia University's Middle East Institute, who works on the university's Muslim Communities in New York Project, sponsored by the Ford Foundation (!)

Let Us Be Moors - Islam, Race and "Connected Histories"

Peace

Comments

VIDEO: Mirrors of Privilege

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:48:19 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out Mirrors of Privilege: Making White Visible on YouTube.

Here is Part 1 (of 5):

Peace

Comments

Books That Don't Exist, But Should (3)

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:00:33 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

The title on the left is a classic. (Click on the image above in order to download a copy for study purposes.)

The title on the right awaits being penned. (To any budding author out there: The book is about a particular type of 'lizard' (sic) - the chamaleon - and how it is able to adapt/refine itself in order to mask/disguise itself in a changing environment.)

"Once we were white. Now we are western. Yet throughout we remain ourselves."

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: The Barmy British Empire

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:28:09 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

My two daughters are into the 'Horrible' series of books - my eldest likes 'Horrible Histories' and my youngest, 'Horrible Science'. The following image is a scan of the last two pages of Horrible Histories: The Barmy British Empire (2002) by Terry Deary. I found it 'interesting' that a children's history book written by a white male mentions the fact that the British only 'abolished' slavery when it was no longer a profitable institution for them.

I should point, however, that the book seriously misleads, intentionally or otherwise, when it (mis)informs its readership - which, presumably, includes non-white children such as my daughter - that the British Empire is no more. This is because the SYSTEM within which the British Empire historically FUNCTIONED - Racism (White Supremacy) - continues to exist. From an "anti-Imperialist" (SUB-SYSTEM) perspective, the British Empire is no longer the dominant imperial power in the world (today, this role has been assumed by the US); however, from a counter-Racist (SYSTEM) perspective, the British Empire lives on because the GOALS/OBJECTIVES it pursued continued to be pursued by its successor WITHIN the SYSTEM of Racism (White Supremacy). Contrary to white Marxist, Immanuel Wallerstein, the "world system" is not capitalist-imperialist in nature/essence; it is Racist/White Supremacist.

The British Empire was but one localised historical manifestation - albeit dominant as actor on the global scale - of the globally operating system of Racism (White Supremacy) whose agenda was the MAINTENANCE of Racism (White Supremacy). This agenda continues to be pursued "by other means", viz. the imperial dominance of the US, the Anglo-American alliance etc. It is a case of The Chameleon Effect, of Passing The Baton, of Old Wine in New Bottles. In short, Refinement/Adaptation of the System of WS/R in order to Maintain and/or Expand it.

When we (are told to) look for an 'Empire' instead of looking for a 'System', we end up being unable to see the wood for the trees.

It's Con-fusion. Tricknology. Deceit.

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: Islam, Anarchism and 'Negative' Government

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:16:38 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Recently, I read Anarchism for Beginners by Marcos Mayer (New Hampshire, For Beginners: 2003). (Just for the record, I think these 'cartoon' guides often serve as good introductory texts on a range of subjects.) While reading this book, I was struck by certain apparent similarities between strains of anarchist thought and the Islamic principles, practices and behaviours presented in The Qur'an [=The Final Proclamation of God/Allah to humanity]; in particular, Joseph Proudhon's anti-statist and pro-federalist idea of multiple contracts at all levels - individual, regional, national and international - freely established in a 'grass-roots' (or bottom-up) fashion. (Anarchists, as the word implies, are an-archists, that is, opposed to top-down and centralised social organisations such as 'The State' which impose law/rule from above on those below. Contrary to contemporary (mis-)understanding, anarchism does not necessarily mean chaos and/or lawlessness. In fact, I would argue that much mis/disinformation has been spread about anarchism as a political ideology and/or movement in order to discredit it and prevent reasoned consideration of ideas associated with it.)

In what follows, I will explore briefly some connections between Islam, anarchism and 'negative' conceptions of government. The aim is to further Islamic counter-Racism by contributing to the critique of the notion of 'The State'.

Of Contracts, Individual and Social

The idea of concrete individual contracts - as opposed to abstract social contracts (ala Rousseau and others) - resonates strongly with my understanding of Islam as THE deen, that is, power-relation and life-transaction, established between a human being as servant/'abd and God/Allah as Master/Rabb. According to The Qur'an (2:256), this power-relation is both (1) fundamentally individualistic and (2) absolutely non-coercive (i.e. voluntary) in nature, which means that any 'social contract' must be grounded in, and thereby, derivative of, the Islamic 'personal contract'.

This grounding of the social contract in the personal contract finds support in the writings of Japanese Orientalist, Toshihiko Izutsu, who in God and Man in The Qur'an: Semantics of the Qur'anic Weltanschauung (Kuala Lumpur, Islamic Book Trust: 2002) distinguishes between deen as personal (or individual) and millah as social (or collective). As deen becomes reified,

the concept changes into millah, which is religion as an objective 'thing' in the full sense of the word, a formal system of creed and rituals which constitutes the principle of unity for a particular religious community and works as the basis of its social life. Unlike the word deen which still retains the original connotation of personal - existential, we might say - faith and belief however far we may go in the direction of reification, millah connotes something rigid, objective and formal and it reminds us always of the existence of a society based on one common religion. (p.250)

('Religion' should be understood here in terms of the linguistics of its Latin root, religio, as referring to the "bond" between a Master (God/Allah) and a servant (human being); no commitment to secularism or a division between the 'spiritual' and the 'political' is recognised, at least insofar as use of this term is made in relation to Al-Islam [=The Self-Surrender to God/Allah].)

Izutsu goes on to state that "Millah is essentially a matter of ummah [that is, rooted-collective or community], while deen in its original, non-reified, phase, is a matter of each individual believer." (p.251)

However, perhaps the clearest expression of how millah and the 'social contract' are grounded in deen and the 'individual contract' is given by Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas in Islam and Secularism (1978):

The man of Islam, the true Muslim ... is not bound by the social contract, nor does he espouse the doctrine of the Social Contract. Indeed, though he lives and works within te bounds of social polity and authority and contributes his share towards the social good, and though he behaves as if a social contract were in force, his is, nevertheless, an individual contract reflecting the Covenant hissoul has sealed with God; for the Covenant is in reality made for each and every individual soul. (p.141)

Thus, millah is fundamentally/primordially grounded in, derivate of, and emergent from, deen. Alternatively, Al-Islam as a rooted-collective or SYSTEM is grounded in, derivative of, and emergent from Al-Islam as individual power-relation and life transaction. (In this regard, Amr G. E. Sabet's Islam and The Political: Theory, Governance and International Relations (London, Pluto Pres; 2008), with its conception of Islamic political space as a self-organising/self-(re)producing system makes for important reading.)

Government as 'Negative'

What are the possible implications of this non-statist, bottom-up and EMERGENT conception of 'social contract' for government?

Although there has been, and continues to be, much talk about 'Islamic States' and 'Islamic Revolutions' among those who self-identify as Islamists (of one stripe or another) and/or members of the (global) 'Islamic Movement', there appears to be little, if any, support for such an idea in The Qur'an and/or the classical Islamic tradition.

Certainly, the Islamic modernist (sic) notion of tawheed al-haakimiyyah, crudely rendered as God/Allah's exclusive right to rule, is highly problematic when this notion is subjected to linguistic and Qur'anic analysis.

According to the Arab grammarian/lexicologist, Ibn Manzoor, the word government (hukoomah) in Arabic conveys a negative role, not a positive one.

The Arab says hakam-tu, I prevented someone and hakam-tu, I averted someone with the meaning of I prevented somone and I averted someone. In this category, one says about the hakim among people that he is hakim because he prevents the oppresor from oppression. Al-Mundhiri reported from Abu Talib that he said about their statement hakama Allah among us, that al-Asma'i said the root of hukumah [government] is averting the oppressor from oppression [emphasis added]. (Cited in Islam and The Living Law: The Ibn Al-Arabi Approach by Eric Winkel (Oxford: OUP, 1997), p.3.)

On this basis, Winkel argues that "government is quite an incidental affair, necessary only to stop the oppressor, and that the real political activity of the community is to be found elsewhere - and I suggest that place is the communal arena of the fiqh [=understanding of the shari'ah/way] [emphasis added]." (pp.3-4) He maintains that "the concept of state which has fully emerged in the last hundred years or so, and which saturates our field of vision, is alien to many traditional societies and to central activities of Islamic civilization." (p.3) Winkel goes on to point out that

There is no state in Islam - state being understood in the Western sense of a sovereign, corporate institution with a reality across time and space, independent of its human constitutents or components. (p.8)

This non-statist understanding of 'classical' Islam is supported by contemporary experts in Islamic jurisprudence including Wael Hallaq and Khaled Abou El Fadl.

If we ask, 'What governmental system did the prophet leave his community?' the answer is 'the fiqh of the shariah.' If the shariah is the politics of the Islamic community, then its entire legal discussion - the fiqh - is the expression of politics in Islam ... Although the fiqh can become atrophied and reified, static and full of the weight of authority, it is traditionally the living expression of the Muslim community's commitment to realize the guidance of the shariah [emphasis added]. (p.9)

In this process, obedience to the revelation is manifested within community relationships. [Compare this to Proudhon's conception of anarchist federalism in which a system of contracts is freely established at all levels of society in a bottom-up fashion.] This is why a break between spirituality, as expressed in obedience to the revelation, and politics, as depicted in interactions in communities, is inconceivable in traditional Islam. (p.10)

It would appear that Muslim groups who have explored the link between anarchism and Islam as a life-transaction, such as The Murabitun World Movement founded by Shaykh 'Abdal-Qadir Al-Murabit As-Sufi Ad-Darqawi, and who assert that Islam is "government without state and trade without usury" are quite correct.

Al-Islam is radically non-statist. It is pluralistic, localised and founded upon the free contractual association of individuals in a bottom-up fashion.

The Problematic Stance of (Neo-)Khawaarij(ism)

The Neo-Khawaarij are contemporary Muslim "jihadists", "Islamists", "puritans", "fanatics" etc who, following the alleged position of their historical predecessors, insist that "Al hukmo li'llah", that is, "The rule is for (none but) God/Allah", or "la hukmo illa l'illah", that is, "No rule except for the rule of God/Allah". The (Neo-)Khawaarij derive their slogan/rally cry from part of sign/message (ayat) (12:40) of The Qur'an which states:

Inn'il-hukmo illa l'illah

This phrase is often translated as "Truly, The Rule is (for none) except God/Allah" and understood to mean that no-one has the right to rule in any capacity whatsoever, restricted/limited or absolute/unlimited, except God/Allah. However, in a previous post, I argued that this interpretation is problematic and that the phrase should be understood as follows:

"The Final/Ultimate/Absolute/Unconditional Rule (belongs to none) other than God/Allah."

In short, restricted/limited/relative/conditional rule can - in fact, will - belong to other than God/Allah. The challenge is relativising the latter to The Rule (Al Hukm) of God/Allah.

While I continue to hold that the use of the definite article "al" in "Al-Hukmo" (The Rule) functions to indicate both source/origin as well as finality/ultimacy/unconditionality/absoluteness, in light of the 'negative' function of haakimiyyah in Arabic vis-a-vis preventing the oppressor from commiting acts of oppression, I think (12:40) is more accurately rendered as follows:

The Final/Ultimate/Absolute/Unconditional Ruling which averts/prevents oppression is with none other than God/Allah.

Peace

Comments

VIDEO: The Modern Racist Paradigm

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:56:41 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following:

I have to say jazak'Allah khairun (May God/Allah reward you with good) to Br Fahad Khan of Takhlees based in Pakistan for forwarding the link to this video.

Peace

Comments

COMMENT: The Sins of The Fathers

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:55:56 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Recently, I have been reading, off an on, Soul on Ice (1969) by Eldridge Cleaver, a prominent leader of the Black Panther Party. (I managed to pick up a copy cheap in a second-hand bookstore.) It makes for interesting reading, although I dispute the statement on the back cover to the effect that Cleaver was "one of the most original and forceful leaders of the black liberation movment in America since Malcolm X." (See My Friend, The Devil by Marvin X on Cleaver's hopelessly confused 'progression' (sic) from 'Black Muslim' to Communist to Christian to Mormon to Moonie to Religious Scientist.)

This is the closing line of one of the pieces in Cleaver's book, which is entitled "The White Race and Its Heroes" (pp.69-84):

The sins of the fathers are visited upon the heads of the children - but only if the children continue in the evil deeds of the fathers. (p.84)

Now check out the following extract from Chapter 5 of John Baker's Arguing for Equality (1987) (London: Verso). (Baker is a white lecturer in moral and political philosophy in the Department of Ethics and Politics at University College, Dublin.)

[OBJECTION:] But reverse discrimination makes white males pay for their fathers' sins, and compensates black people and women for their parents' suffering. It isn't the right adjustment.

To be sure, the past victims of racism and sexism should themselves be compensated, and the past oppressors should pay. That would be a fair piece of egalitarian justice, all right. But the argument for reverse discrimination is not that the debts of parents should be visited on their children. It is, first of all, that these children are themselves gainers and losers from racism and sexism, and so today's white males do owe compensation to their black and female contemporaries [emphasis added]. (p.52)

The (White Supremacist/Racist) sons (and daughters) of the (White Supremacist/Racist) fathers persist in the evil deeds of their fathers by not effecting reparations [=compensation] to the descendants of their fathers' victims[=non-whites].

These (White Supremacist/Racist) sons (and daughters) dwell in houses stolen by their fathers. This stolen property - that is, plutocratic system or power-structure - is passed from generation to generation as an inheritance.

The sons and daughters of the (non-white) victims of the (White Supremacist/Racist) fathers are home-less, homeless.

As an Islamic counter-Racist, I must ask what The Qur'an [=The Final Proclamation of God to Humanity] has to say about this state of affairs.

(60:8) As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith nor drive you forth from your homes, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.

(60:9) God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith and drive you forth from your homes, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship; it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers!

Mr and Mrs White Supremacy (Racism): Vacate the houses (lands, lives, hearts, minds) you have occupied for so long and then effect repairs to those houses in order to prove your commitment to Justice [=balance between people].

The past lives on in the present. It is not gone. It is not forgotten. There is no forgiveness without repentance. There is no repentance without reparation.

Reparations now. No compromise, no sell out.

Peace

Comments

URL: Water as a Heuristic Device for Understanding The Qur'an

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:09:02 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

As readers of this blog are - or at least should be - aware, I advocate an Islamic counter-Racist [=counter-White Supremacist] perspective grounded in The Qur'an [=The Final Proclamation of God/Allah to Humanity].

Periodically, I try to share materials - books, articles, audios, videos, links etc - that promote a Qur'anic understanding of Al-Islam [=The Self-Surrender to God/Allah] with a view to deepening Muslim - and non-Muslim - understanding about the nature/essence of Islamic counter-Racism.

In this connection, I would like to share a very recent discovery - ijtihad (ijtihad is ijti-HARD): letters from an unknown hell - a (very poorly laid-out) blog owned by 'Maulana' Munir Hassan who "was born in apartheid South Africa", "grew up as an abused orphan" and "is of shudra Gujarati origin." (NB: Shudras are the lowest Varna [=COLOUR] in the traditional four-section division of the Hindu caste system. Their assigned and expected role in post-Vedic North India was that of farmers, craftsmen and labourers. The four Varnas are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra.)

I have only just begun to explore this blog. His Tafseer (commentary) on Surah Al-Faatiha (The Opening) is fascinating and radically socio-political. I am also intrigued by his step toward "a NON-theological defintion of Islam":

Islam is every effort to solve humanity’s problems

I reproduce here a fascinating, if brief, presentation by 'Maulana' Hassan on

Water (Maa’) as a heuristic device for understanding The Qur'an

which I have edited slightly for presentational purposes.

A deep understanding of water, rain and the water-cycle is necessary to understand The Qur'an. This understanding unlocks a coded Qur'an.

It is important to note that The Qur'an describes itself as water. It uses the verbs in’za’la, naz’za’la to describe the falling of rain and the descent of The Qur'an onto the Nabi [=recipient of Divine revelation] (peace be upon him), into the Nabi, and out of the Nabi to humanity.

It is therefore imperative to understand the nature of water, rain etc and their meanings to the first community and other communities to whom The Qur'an was taken and other communities who show an interest in The Qur'an.

The Badwu (bedouin) who searches (at times desperately) for pasturage:

What does rain mean to him?
What is his state when he looks into the skies?
What does he say to his pregnant wife? To his goats? To his camel? To his crying children?
What are the nutritional and medicinal uses of water?
How is the water-supply contaminated?
Where is the water-supply contaminated?
WHO poisons water and WHY?
What geo-political, imperial agendas do such actions serve?

Water has always been a contested necessity (presently in South Africa: pre-paid meters, water cut-offs, privatization, unaffordability, protests-unrest related to water etc).

Who controls water? Who controls literacy?

What are the artifacts of water? The pail, the rope, the instruments to dig for water? What are the artifacts of literacy? The qalam (the twig-pen), the bone/wood to write upon?

Just as with water the right to drink is contested, various parties resort to force in order to gain, or prevent, access to literacy, to fora/forums which afford reach to audiences. Like water, the content delivered is contested.

Water, through rivers, seas, lakes and oceans, together with winds give humans mobility, enabling them to reach far and unknown lands; likewise, The Qur'an, with its inner imperative of wanting to be heard, propels the reader to engagement with diverse and sundry others.

Water brings forth forms of life (plants, herbs, fruit, vegetables etc) hidden beneath the earth; likewise, The Qur'an activates latent, inner capacities, hopes, ambitions.

A deep understanding of water, rain and the water-cycle is necessary to understand The Qur'an. This understanding unlocks a coded Qur'an.

Peace

Comments

"Great Britain" by Scor-Zay-Zee

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:57:57 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

As readers of this blog are probably aware, I don't often post music on this blog. However, in this case I will make (another) exception.

Check out "Great Britain" (2004) by white, Muslim Nottingham-based rapper, Scor-Zay-Zee. You can download the track from here.

Yo, the BNP still exists in Great Britain
Police brutality exists in Great Britain
Slavery made the riches of Great Britain
The Queen wears stolen diamonds, Great Britain
Her husband's a Freemason, Great Britain
They killed Lady Di, Great Britain
Do I have to go into why, Great Britain?

Your politicians are corrupt, Great Britain
Your prison's full of crooks, Great Britain
Your education system is corrupt, Great Britain
Your laws are played out and fucked up, Great Britain
The IRA used to bomb your streets, Great Britain
Then you're shaking hands in a deal, Great Britain
Thought you never negotiate with terrorists, Great Britain
Are Muslims your only nemesis, Great Britain?
The FBI's paedophile list, Great Britain
But keep it on a hush-hush-hush, Great Britain

Chorus:

Yo - if I had an army, I would fight ya
If I had the police, I'd arrest ya
If I had my own court, my own judge and jury
I'd sit back and let history tell the story

If I had an army, I would fight ya
If I had the police, I'd arrest ya
If I had my own court, my own judge and jury
I'd sit back and let history tell the story

You sold weapons to Iraq, Great Britain
You sold your soul to America - the Devil, Great Britain
You haven't got no religion, Great Britain
Do you really believe in Jesus, Great Britain?
Thou shall not kill, Great Britain
Thou shall not steal, Great Britain
The homeless roam your streets, Great Britain
It's all about your stocks and shares, Great Britain
A mortgage wrapped round your neck for years, Great Britain
The bank manager borrows you money, Great Britain
Now you're in a whole heap of debt, Great Britain
Poverty is on your doorstep, Great Britain
Sit back and watch TV, Great Britain
Watch the adverts and buy , Great Britain
Everything on finance for you, Great Britain
A slave to the system every day, Great Britain
While the rich take over your brain, Great Britain

Chorus

Don't believe what you read in the news, Great Britain

You gave Palestine to the Jews, Great Britain
Stick your nose in people's affairs, Great Britain
Councillors on sixty grand a year, Great Britain
More than the soldiers in Iraq, Great Britain
Then you have to pay your council tax, Great Britain
The queen lives in a house like Saddam Hussein
They're both rich
So I guess they're both one and the same (Ho!)

Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves
Pirates on the ships still they’re searching for the slaves
Control the world in this New World Order
Coulda spent the war money on homes, food and water

I was born and raised in Great Britain
Brainwashed and put in a daze by Great Britain
I learnt how to rap myself in Great Britain
Yo, there's nuttin' better than livin’ in Great Britain

Chorus

This is EDUTAINMENT (education + entertainment).

Peace

Comments

VIDEO: "Crabs in a Barrel" by Minister Louis Farrakhan

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:53:54 +0200

Peace Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following talk by Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam:

I think the book referred to in the talk is Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal by Andrew Hacker.

Peace

Comments

REFLECTION: Tradition, Law and Racism (White Supremacy)

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:32:52 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Recently, I have been reading material dealing with the relation between reason (Arabic 'aql) and revelation (Arabic naql) within 'traditional' (or 'classical') Islamic thought - more specifically, within Islamic theology. The works, and the order in which I read them, are as follows:

[1] Khalil, A. (2005) "Is an Intra-Islamic Theological Ecumenism Possible? A Response to Sherman Jackson." The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 22(4), pp.84-95.

[2] Izutsu, T. (1988) The Concept of Belief in Islamic Theology, Chapters 1-4. New Hampshire: Ayer.

[3] Wensinck, A.J. (1965) The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development, Chapters 1-2. London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.

Although [3] was, unsurprisingly, a problematic read on account of its Western Orientalist/Racist (White Supremacist) bias, it was a constructive exercise in that it motivated me to (re-)read an essay by James McGill Professor of Islamic law at McGill University, Wael Hallaq. The essay is entitled "The Authenticity of Prophetic Hadith [Traditions]: a Pseudo-problem" and appeared in Studia Islamica in 1999.

In what follows, I intend to engage with some of Hallaq's observations about Orientalist and anti-Orientalist takes on the issue of hadith authenticity from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective. I will offer some suggestions as to WHY the issue was handled in the way that it was, underscoring the differential power-relation in Orientalist/anti-Orientalist discourse under contemporary global conditions of Racism (White Supremacy).
Hallaq maintains that

Despite significant differences in the methodologies and assumptions of [hadith]scholars, even within one and the same camp, and despite the fact that not all of them dealt with the problem of authenticity for its own sake, they all share one fundamental assumption, namely, that the early and medieval Muslim scholars espoused the view that the Prophetic hadith literature is substantially genuine, and that despite the relatively large scale forgery that took place in the early period, the literature, at least as it came to be constituted in the six so-called canonical collections, has been successfully salvaged and finally proven to be authentic. It is only against this backdrop of traditional religious assumptions that the modern controversy can make any sense. For if the mainstream traditional scholarship was perceived not to have made claims for the authenticity of hadith there would be little, if anything, to argue against. In fact, if these were not the perceived traditional claims, there would have been no controversy to begin with, since the issue would
in no way pose a problem. (pp.76-77)

He then goes on to state that:

One would expect that before any ink had been spilt in commenting on the problem of authenticity, it would have been a fundamental requirement first to define the traditional Muslim position with regard to this specific question.

We should have asked ... how the traditional Muslim criteria for judging the authenticity of the hadith tally with, or more importantly, epistemologically differ from our modern critical and scholarly criteria.

The scholarly output concerned with authenticity ... is largely, if not totally, pointless. (p.77)

Why wasn't the traditional Muslim position on the hadith defined before the factory of Western Orientalism - and, latterly, reactive anti-Orientalism - began manufacturing its (their) wares? Although Hallaq does not address this issue in this essay, I think hints at an answer are contained within another of his essays - "Can the Shari'ah be Restored?" (2004) - and within the works of UCLA Professor of Law, Khaled Abou El Fadl - in particular, the latter's Speaking in God's Name (2001) and The Great Theft (2005).

The answer lies in the relation between Orientalism, Western Colonialism [=Racism (White Supremacy)] and the destruction/dismantling of the Islamic legal system, its institutions and infrastructure. Rather than attacking the FRUITS/PRODUCTS of the (classical) Islamic tradition, Colonialism cut down the TREE/PROCESS responsible for legally evaluating them. By uprooting the juristic tradition, Racism (White Supremacy) severed the historical, critical and rational links between so-called Muslims in the 'modern' period and the intellectual legacy associated with the period of 'classical' Islam.

By FOCUSING on traditional products and OBSCURING legal,evaluational process, it became possible to mount - "for the first time" (sic) - a critique of 'Tradition' assumed to be authentic by those who upheld it. This resulted in the emergence of Muslim 'modernists' who incorrectly assumed that 'classical' Islamic scholarship viewed the hadith as unproblematic, and who thereby became apologetically indebted to Western Orientalist scholarship for pointing out problems of 'authenticity'. This was followed by a 'second wave' of anti-Orientalism, reacting to such apologetics, yet maintaining the focus on PRODUCTS as opposed to PROCESS - and PROCESS in the LEGAL-POLITICAL sense, viz. Islamic jurisprudence and the decentralised, pluralistic implementation of Shari'ah as authoritative social evaluator and regulator (as opposed to a nationalist central-state authoritarianism).

Racism (White Supremacy) dismantled/destroyed the decentralised, pluralistic Islamic legal system and either installed or allowed to emerge centralised systems of law cloned from Racist (White Supremacist) legal codes and frameworks.

WS/R controlled the terms of discourse. Contrary to Hallaq's assertion reproduced above, there WAS a point to "the scholarly output concerned with authenticity" - at least from a WS/R perspective. By shifting the focus from LAW to RELIGION, the so-called Muslims were kept busy with the task of attempting to protect fruit, much of which was already rotten - and, crucially, understood to be so by Muslim predecessors - while the tree had been cut down.

A case of fiddling while Rome - or rather, Baghdad/Granada/Damascus - burns.

Peace

Comments

LINKs: Towards a Global Currency? Or Are We Already There?

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:57:48 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

Check out the following article:

Towards a Global Currency: IMF as 'global central bank' by Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, April 6, 2009.

Now rewind the clock ten years to 1998:

"One world, one money" Economist 09/26/98, Vol. 349 Issue 8087, p80.

And then ten more years to 1988:

"Get Ready for a World Currency" Economist 01/9/88, Vol. 306, pp 9-10.

The idea of a 'global currency' as a NEW development is a deceit/con/trick, designed to promote con-fusion, and not just because the idea has been around a while (at least 20 years although it is much older than that).

This is because, from a counter-Racist perspective, the real global currency is not paper (or gold or grain or shells), but people - people/currency of worth [=white people] and worthless people/currency [=non-white people]. There is a defining 'currency' [=criterion/yardstick/metric] and there are defined 'currencies'. White (Supremacist) 'money' has (is) worth(ful); non-white 'money' is worth-less.

From an Islamic counter-Racist perspective, RIBA-nomics [=The Laws of Unjust Increase/Exploitation/Leverage] has been global since Racism (White Supremacy) was established as a globally operating system dominating in all major areas of activity including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labour, Language, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex and War.

Peace

Comments

Michael Jackson - King of Pop and Victim of Racism (White Supremacy)

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:42:11 +0200

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

I am sure that a number of those who follow this blog have been wondering whether I will be commenting on the death of the "King of Pop", Michael Jackson, from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective.

While this is, of course, possible - and probably desirable, if not necessary - I would prefer at this time to point readers to some of the more interesting and, IMHO, important materials already out there on the web that shed somewhat different light on the phenomenon that was the "King of Pop".

In particular, I should like to draw the attention of readers to the following:

[1] MICHAEL JACKSON: Born Black, Died White

Insightful, plain-talking counter-Racist analysis of the MJ phenomenon by members of the Mexica Movement.

[2] How Michael Got Gangsta With Sony Music Over Black Music & Racism

MJ vs. Sony. Reflect on possible (Racist/White Supremacist) connections between MJ's hit song "Black or White" and the controversial Sony Playstation advertisement, "White is Coming"/"Black is Coming".

[3] Farrakhan on Arsenio Hall - Pt. 4

In this part of the interview, NOI (Nation of Islam) leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan refers to Jackson's increasing political maturity and the fact that the system of Racism (White Supremacy) viewed him (MJ) as ultimately nothing more than a "nigger".

[4] Michael "I naturally turned white over the years" Jackson.

Although the attribute "freak" is offensive from an Islamic counter-Racist perspective, I find the idea of MJ as a person who turned from a black man into a white woman significant from a power-relations perspective. Black Male -> White Woman = Racist (White Supremacist) emasculation/feminisation of the black [=non-white] male (victim).

Peace

Comments