Russia’s Resurgence: Lessons for the Ummah

The election of Victor Yanukovych in Ukraine’s general election in February 2010 officially brings to an end the colour revolutions that came to symbolise the post-Soviet states. Whilst the opposition will in all likelihood contest the election result, the reign of the Orange revolution has now been reversed. Throughout the 2000’s the US through verbal support, through the funnelling of money to various student and revolutionary groups created the climate for regime change in order to bring pro-Western leaders to power and officially remove Russian influence in such states.

Regime change historically is through the use of a nation’s military in the form of a coup. Any attempt at overthrowing an existing government requires the support of the army as they physically have the power in most nations. The colour revolutions which began with the rose revolution in Georgia, then the Orange revolution in Ukraine where Victor Yanukovych’s victory was annulled due the role of various students groups in undermining his election victory. The Tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan undermined the parliamentary election in 2005 and overthrew Askar Akayev. Each of these revolutions was led by nonviolent resistance and protests against governments seen as corrupt and authoritarian. Such revolutions are notable for the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative nonviolent resistance.

21st Century Cold war

Many US policy makers saw the dismemberment of Russia as unfinished business. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the West led by the US began working to push its boundaries in Europe rapidly eastward, destroying Russia’s ability to influence the region. The pro-Western lines have continued moving to the east for the past two decades, via NATO and EU expansion, until they pushed hard up against Russia’s borders. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the US worked to dismantle the architecture established by the USSR, it worked to contain Russia by bringing all the former Soviet republics under its sphere of influence and for the next decade through the IMF and the World Bank it economically linked them to the West.

All this changed when Vladamir Putin succeeded Boris Yeltson in 1999. He was a nationalist who endeavoured to change the fortunes of Russia. Putin began the process of re-nationalising key sectors, assets, utilities and industries through policies intended to change the course of the nation. He dealt with the oligarchs who were looting the nation, by restricting the amount of money they took out of the nation; some were forced to contribute to the re-building of the nation such a Roman Abromovich, whilst other oligarchs were dealt with ruthlessly. He stabilised the domestic situation through economic policies which were only possible under a dictatorship - any parliament or senate would have stalled on such huge decisions and would have allowed their own interests to get in the way. Russia’s resurgence has brought it into direct political conflict with the US. In less then 10 years Russia has been transformed from a fallen animal stabbed in the back by its own people, to a lion roaring its way back to its old status.

Russian foreign relations are currently being driven on reversing the post cold war trend and securing Russia’s periphery by bringing all the former Soviet republics under its influence.
Russia has taken full advantage of America’s preoccupation with the Islamic world to reverse all the American sponsored colour revolutions. The project to bring all of the former Soviet republics under Russian influence has been a meticulous task led by Vladimir Putin. Any effort to change Russian expansion must be monumental if it is to succeed.

Through vision, ambition and strategic choices Russia has been able to change the status quo, this cannot be understated with regards to Ukraine. Ukraine is the Russian Empire’s breadbasket. It is also the location of nearly all of Russia’s infrastructure links not only to Europe, but also to the Caucasus, making it critical for both trade and internal coherence; it is central to the existence of a state as multiethnic as Russia.

The challenge Russia faced and to a large extent has reversed is reducing foreign influence in the former Soviet territories. Russia used its gas to choke western influence in its former territories which has made many pro-Western republics rethink their strategy to move out of Russia’s orbit.

Democracy promotion in practice relied heavily on the development of NGOs as autonomous groups reflecting the interests of civil society. NGO’s were clearly Western backed and subsequently the Putin regime intensified its efforts to enact legislation regulating NGOs. The NGO law was signed by Putin in April 2006, which ensured the colour revolutions would not spread to Russian territory or any other former Soviet territory. The Kremlin as a counter-response to the colour revolutions reacted by establishing pro-Kremlin youth organizations aimed at garnering the political support of Russian youth in the former Soviet republics.

Whilst the struggle will continue between Russia’s resurgence on one hand and US attempts to push Russia all the way back to Russia proper there are number of lessons the Ummah can learn from Russia’s resurgence:

- Russia to a large extent has used bribes and force to being all the former Soviet republics under its influence. In no way has Russia convinced the former Soviet Republics of a new way of life or attempted to absorb them into one nation or one people. This has the effect of creating a fragmented union, which can be easily penetrated form the outside. This was exactly how the US created friction in the former Soviet Union as the Eastern camp was semi-autonomous remaining nominally loyal to Moscow. The Muslim Ummah possesses the Islamic ideology and this is the gel that unifies different peoples, tribes and cultures. The Khilafah is a unitary state which turns different geographical lands into one state, with the same rights, one ruler and with all becoming the same citizens with the same rights.

- Russia has made it clear to the US that Eastern Europe and Central Asia are Russian territory and the US should respect that. Ever since, Putin has been working meticulously to bring the regions under the Kremlins authority. The ambition to be a world power and challenge the current superpower – the US is driving Russia’s rapid resurgence, development of its military industry and its aggressive attitude. However Russia’s global ambitions are largely nationalist and this means any attempt to go beyond the former Soviet territories will face serious hurdles as ethnic Russians do not exist in great numbers beyond Eastern Europe and central Asia. The issue for Russia is if you have global ambitions what will you take to the world? Russia has abandoned Communism and today has nothing to challenge Capitalism with, which is America’s chief export. The Ummah on the other hand lacks no ambition, even without the Khilafah Muslims globally through the internet spread the Islamic message. Many territories, where Islam, in the past never reached, today have sizable Muslim communities such as Latin America and Western Europe. Islamic history has shown that the global ambition of taking Islam to the rest of the world led the Sahabah to take Islam to North Africa; the Berbers from Egypt embraced Islam and within a matter of years travelled across the straights of Gibraltar to give Islam to Spain. Islam has a track record of uniting different people and eradicating sectarian differences and casts.

- The collapse of Communism and the subsequent chaos has created a Russia that has multiple problems. Russia all though quantitatively is on par with the US from a quality perspective it has an industry that is 20 years behind the US, its transport system needs massive investment and poverty still plagues many Russians. Russia’s current method of bringing law and order has been through an authoritarian central government and through spying on its own populace and assassinating unsavoury individuals. The problem with this approach is different problems are being dealt with through different approaches which will eventually create a contradiction in Russia. Putin has subdued those who have doubts about his vision, among his population, through his nationalist call, but nationalism will only solve a limited set of problems. Without an ideology Russia will find its biggest challenge is not the US, but actually comes from within. The Ummah posses the Islamic ideology which gives detailed rules on the economy, social system and ruling. In this way there would be no contradiction in legislation and solutions across the Islamic state, it will create harmony, direction and ensure the state moves in a unified direction. Islam in fact historically has been the central motivation that drove many innovative solutions to problems. In the realm of foreign policy Mu’awiyah drove forward the plan to create military bases across the Islamic lands which would act as supply lines to the Khilafah’s ships which he foresaw as essential to defeating the Byzantine Empire at sea.

- Russia’s major challenges are rapidly developing its military industry for which it has no shortage of mineral resources. Its challenge is largely technical, in terms of developing advanced technology, which will be more efficient in creating an image of strength. Russia also has a population in decline as many have avoided having children due to the unstable situation in the region since the collapse Communism. The Ummah has no such problems, the Muslim lands are full of all the key mineral resources such as oil and gas and the Ummah’s population in increasing, with nearly half the Ummah under the age of 30, this means the Ummah will have no shortage in its workforce which is essential for economic development and becoming a world power.

The Muslim Ummah has all the necessary prerequisites to change her situation and become a worlds power, nations such as Japan, Germany and Russia in the past have been in a much worse position than the Ummah and have been able to change their situation and challenge the worlds superpower. US intelligence has estimated the return of the Khilafah by 2020, all that is needed is for the Ummah is to show army general sitting in the Muslim world that is about time he fulfilled the destiny of the Ummah.

Audo: Global Economic Crisis

Interview by BCB Radio (UK) community insight programme on the Global Economic crisis.

Download here

US Surrogates Meet in London to end Legacy of Failure

As America’s allies and surrogates gathered in London to discuss how they plan to salvage their failed war. The Afghan war is being described as the humbling of the US as they have been unable to defeat a force, a fraction the size of the coalition troops with weapons that are older than many of the foreign troops participating in the war.

This therefore would be an apt moment to review the events that have led to this situation in Afghanistan and the possible direction events will most likely take. It should be remembered form the outset that this conference did not taking place for the West in a position of strength. In fact we must ask how the most technologically advanced military in history has been humbled by tribal warriors using weapons developed in the 1960’s.

War on terror

The events of 9/11 shifted the US military machine into 5th gear. The US mobilised for WW2 with a massive expansion of its military industrial complex after Pearl Harbour was destroyed by Japanese forces. However in invading Afghanistan the US military deployed a limited number of troops on the ground. The plan was that Special Forces, and intelligence officers with a military background, would serve as liaisons with Afghan militias opposed to the Taliban, who would advance after the cohesiveness of the Taliban forces was disrupted by American air power.

The air campaign lasted for around a month and is considered to have had little effect. The US enlisted the assistance of countries around Afghanistan such as Pakistan and Iran to provide supply routes for the attack. The Northern Alliance, fighting against a Taliban captured Mazari Sharif and then rapidly gained control of most of northern Afghanistan and took control of Kabul in November 2009, after the Taliban retreated from the city. The last Taliban-held city in the north, Kunduz, was captured on November 26th 2001 and the Taliban retreated to Kandahar – to the South of thre country. When Kandahar was invaded, the Taliban had fled to Pakistan.

By December 2001 on behalf of the US the United Nations hosted the Bonn Conference in Germany. The aim was the creation of a political process which would bring all the different tribes, warlords and factions into the US constructed political setup. Participants included representatives of four Afghan opposition groups – Pushtun, Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek – all anti-Taliban groups. Observers included representatives of neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran. The result was the Bonn Agreement created the Afghan Interim Authority that would oversee the transition of Afghanistan towards a new constitution and the choosing of a new Afghan government.

Historically all those who invaded Afghanistan, be they the British or the Soviets, captured Afghanistan very quickly due to their overwhelming numbers. The US deployed a mere 20,000 troops and never defeated the Taliban, but ensured they fled the country. However history has shown that consolidating Afghanistan is the real challenge. The USSR at its peak had 320 000 troops in Afghanistan during its attempt to occupy Afghanistan in the 1980's In the end the USSR left the region humiliated and defeated. Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, commander of Soviet armed forces, to the USSR's politburo in the Kremlin on November 13th 1986 summed up the invasion: "There is barely an important piece of land in Afghanistan that has not been occupied by one of our soldiers at some time or another," the commander said. "Nevertheless, much of the territory stays in the hands of the terrorists. We control the provincial centres, but we cannot maintain political control over the territory that we seize." He added: "Our soldiers are not to blame. They've fought incredibly bravely in adverse conditions. But to occupy towns and villages temporarily has little value in such a vast land, where the insurgents can just disappear into the hills."

There is also sufficient evidence that indicate the US had plans to invade Afghanistan well before 9/11. In a BBC article Niaz Naik, the former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, claimed that he had been told by senior American officials in July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would begin by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior US, Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan – where American advisers were already in place – and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.

Iraq War

By the time the US began its invasion of Iraq in March 2003 Hamid Karzai the American stooge had been appointed the head of the interim authority and in 2004 he became the official president of Afghanistan after an election fraught with widespread fraud. Hamid Karzai gave various posts to his supporters whilst removing the influence of the Northern Alliance. For the US all the various factions, who previously had used violence to achieve their interests were now to fight for their interests through the US inspired political process, a process which protects ethnic differences and interests – a recipe for disaster.

The US became marred in Iraq as an insurgency consumed US forces. During this period considerable US resources focused on the Iraq conflict as it became central to US policy. During this period the world’s attention was on the spiralling disaster in Iraq as the US was unable to contain an insurgency by numerous Shi’ah groups in the South of Iraq and with various Sunni groups in central Iraq.

Taliban return

From 2003 – 2006, the Taliban regrouped and began launching attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan. This was during the same time as the US was bleeding to death in Iraq. The Taliban began an insurgency in Afghanistan that even today the US has been unable to contain. The Taliban had reorganised and reconstituted their forces and just like they did against Soviet forces, utilised guerrilla tactics as well as the Afghan mountains as a sanctuary to launch attacks.

By 2007 the US had managed to co-opt various factions in Iraq into its political process and had reduced violence to an acceptable level. This was fundamentally achieved through Tehran who extended its support to the leader of SCIRI, ayatollah Hakim and the Badr Brigade who still remain the lynchpin of US plans for Iraq. This is turn brought Afghanistan to the forefront after a number of reassessments and renewed commitments. The US increased its troop levels through a number of surges. All of this failed to stem the Taliban onslaught as an Afghan government filled with various rivalries became polarised and with systemic governmental corruption it only weakened it further.

Various think tanks and academics carried out research in 2007 that showed the Taliban controlled over 50% of Afghanistan. A report by the Senlis Council think-tank stated that more than half of Afghanistan was back under Taliban control. The BBC carried out extensive research and highlighted in a special report the areas and degree of control the Taliban had of Afghanistan, it was this reality that earned Hamid Karzai the title of "Mayor of Kabul” due to having little ability to govern outside Kabul.

Pakistan

Like Iraq the US turned to its regional surrogates to navigate out of its Afghan dilemma. The US by July 2008 has begun using drones to target the areas on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and into Pakistani territory. Whilst on the surface the Pakistani government reacted angrily to such attacks this charade was exposed when Senator Dianne Feinstein chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land. At the hearing in February 2009, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against targets along Pakistan’s northwestern border. She commented “As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.”

As Obama took office in 2009 the US military and foreign policy establishment had abandoned the neo-conservative objective of crushing the Taliban and remaking Afghanistan into a functioning democracy. America's Afghanistan policy fell into the hands of the realists, whose priority was maintaining a tractable and viable client in Kabul, keeping Afghanistan securely inside the US sphere of interest, holding on to a key asset in Central Asia's "great game" of energy resources and pipeline infrastructure.Obama's main foreign policy position was that Bush's adventure into Iraq has obscured the real threat from Afghanistan and Pakistan, which should be the priority. Obama publicly and repeatedly promised to escalate US military intervention in Afghanistan, increasing the number of US troops and expanding their operations and engaging in methodical, cross-border attacks. Obama declared that his regime would extend the ‘war against terror' by systematic, large-scale ground and air attacks on Pakistan, thus escalating the war to include villages. Obama shifted US policy from a purely defensive posture to a mixed posture of selective offensive and defensive, and placed more forces into Afghanistan. Obama’s basic strategy remained the same as Bush’s: hold onto to Afghanistan until the political situation evolves to the point that a political settlement is possible

The US faced Mullah Omar's Taliban in the south of Afghanistan, where the bulk of combat continues to take place. Sirajuddin Haqqani’s network is fighting NATO in the southeast, whilst Iran has brought stability in the North-West through building roads, power transmission lines, and border stations, among other infrastructure projects. Colonel Christopher Langton, who heads the defence analysis department at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said Iran is an important country in the future reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, “They are being closely linked by efforts against the Taliban in the past, but also because of the influence that Iran can bring there with the Hazara population [who, like Iranians, are Shi'a Muslims]. And in the development sector, there are already projects which Iran is involved in -- for instance, the road from Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf up through Afghanistan to Central Asia is a very, very important project for the future of Afghanistan…There is a whole list of political, economic, and security issues which connect Afghanistan and Iran.”

Geopolitics

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of US cold war policy had stated as far back as 1997 in his book ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives,’ that for the United States, control of Eurasia - the region encompassing Afghanistan and Pakistan and their neighbours in the states of the former Soviet union - was a prime goal of post cold war US military and foreign policy. He said in his book ‘whoever either controls or dominates access to the region is the one most likely to win geopolitical and economic prize.’

Condoleezza Rice confirmed this view in January 2006 "One of the things that we did in the State Department was to move the Central Asian republics out of the European bureau, which really was an artefact of their having been states of the Soviet Union, and to move them into the bureau that is South Asia, which has Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. It represents what we're trying to do, which is to think of this region as one that will need to be integrated, and that will be a very important goal for us."

US presence in Afghanistan has always been due its aims of protecting its interests against a resurgent Russia and China. However after nearly a decade of the war on terror the US finds Ukraine — once a shining beacon of pro-Western color revolutions — back in Moscow’s fold, with the Caucasus on its way and the Baltic States the next Russian targets. The US needs to redeploy its troop’s in order to counter Russian resurgence. STRATFOR, a widely known mouthpiece for the CIA confirmed America’s wider aims in the region: “The US has had the ultimate aim of preventing the emergence of any major power in Eurasia. The paradox however is as follows – the goals of these interventions was never to achieve something – whatever the political rhetoric might have said – but to prevent something. The United States wanted to prevent stability in areas where another power might emerge. Its goal was not to stabilise but to destabilise, and this explains how the United States responded to the Islamic earthquake. It wanted to prevent a large, powerful Islamic state from emerging. Rhetoric aside the United States has no overriding interest in peace in Eurasia. The United States also has no interest in winning the war outright……the purpose of these conflicts is simply to block a power or destabilise the region, not to impose order.”

Reconciliation

Like Iraq, the US is attempting a similar strategy in Afghanistan of utilising regional surrogates, corrupt warlords, and through political compromises to maintain an acceptable level of violence, whilst constructing the necessary political architecture that will protect its interests. All political settlements are useless in Afghanistan unless the Taliban are participants, as they control most of Afghanistan’s territory. The governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have confirmed meetings with the Taliban for such purposes as numerous Western politicians have called for dialogue with the Taliban. The Taliban, despite their vowed statements that they would never enter into negotiations while Afghanistan was under occupation, have not denied such meetings with the Karzai government. Abdussalam Za'eef, the former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan in September 2008 clarified to Reuters that certain Taliban elements travelled to Saudi Arabia in September 2008 and met the Saudi King and Afghan officials.

The US needs to bring the Taliban into a political settlement – which Pakistan will be central to; but it will also use its military option to force the Taliban into this political settlement through targeted strikes against key Taliban personnel. The aim is to weaken the Taliban, so political reconciliation becomes the only practical option. The Pakistan government is central to this as the Taliban insurgency cannot be halted until Pakistan and the United States reach a consensus over reconcilable and irreconcilable Taliban. The United States lacks the intelligence to draw the distinction between reconcilable and irreconcilable elements. Pakistan is the one entity that does have the intelligence and connections to do so, however the US does not trust many elements within Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Interstate Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) and the army. This is why such elements are consistently termed ‘rogue’ elements.

The Taliban have the upper hand in Afghanistan through successfully intercepting US supply lines and through an insurgency the US is unable to contain. Talks with the Taliban are still in their early stages and have been painstakingly slow, due to America’s occupation with the global economic crisis. By all indications the US is now attempting to bribe the Taliban into a political deal, which in any language is an admission of failure.

The Western powers, since Obama’s inauguration have been preparing the ground for reconciliation with the Taliban. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled plans on the 22nd January 2009 to reintegrate Taliban fighters into the political mainstream in Afghanistan. On the 23rd January 2009 British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, in Washington in order to brief US lawmakers and officials on the London 28th January 2009, stressed the need to reach out to the Taliban. “We do not conflate or confuse Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” he told a US Senate panel. “The Taliban leadership do not have as their principal aim Al Qaeda’s violent global jihadist agenda.” Hamid Karzai also announced a package of incentives, offering money and jobs to encourage Taliban fighters to lay down their arms and return to civilian life. A few days before the London conference Nato's top commander in Afghanistan US General Stanley McChrystal outlined the direction he will be taking the Afghan conflict: "I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it's the right outcome." Asked if he thought senior Taliban could have a role in a future Afghan government, he said: "I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past. As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there's been enough fighting." Similarly in an interview with the New York Times, United Nations special representative Kai Eide called for some senior Taliban leaders to be removed from a UN list of terrorists, as a prelude to direct talks. "If you want relevant results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority," Mr Eide said. "I think the time has come to do it."

The week before the London conference saw an increased push for negotiations with the Taliban by virtually all interested parties, including the British, Americans, Turkey, Afghans and Pakistan in multiple conferences in Istanbul, Moscow and The Hague. It is this context the Afghanistan conference that took place in London on the 28th January 2009. It took place in the context of enlisting support form coalition patterns to commit to a new plan to bring the Taliban into a political settlement that will allow for a reduction of troops as the insurgency would have subsided – in time for the US general elections due in 2012. The civilian surge, as the conference went to some lengths to outline is the colonial West attempting to consolidate their hegemony on Afghanistan when they have failed to defeat the Taliban. However all such plans are useless unless the Taliban who control more than half of Afghanistan can be brought into America’s ‘Iraq model’ in South Asia.

Conclusions

The US has been humbled by the Taliban after nearly a decade of war, which has lasted longer than both the world wars combined. As a result of America’s apparent weakness the challenges stemming from her competitors have grown in size and scope and today are much stronger. Whilst US aims to gain a permanent presence in the region to counter China and finish its post Cold war project of bringing all the former Soviet republics under US control. Russia however, has managed to take advantage of America’s preoccupation with Afghanistan and its weakness in achieving its aims to strengthen itself in the Former Soviet republics. The US today has no problem in negotiating with its enemy the Taliban who apparently provided sanctuary to those who carried out 9/11. This is nothing other than the acceptance of defeat, the US will never be able to defeat the Ummah no matter how many from amongst the Ummah are duped through bribes and wealth. Allah (swt) confirms this in the Qur’an:

“They seek to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths; but Allah refuses but to perfect His light, though the disbelievers may resent it. It is he who sent His Messenger with guidance and the truth, in order that it may prevail over all other ways of life, even though the polytheists may detest it.” (At-Tawba – 32-33)

French Niqab Ban: Islam v Capitalism

A parliamentary committee in France has recommended a ban on the Burqa – the full-face veil. The committee's 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport i.e. a ban in public places. According to French domestic intelligence services in a report in July 2009, they concluded that only 367 women in France wore the Burqa! But that's too many for the French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He says the veils are unwelcome in France. France has been battling with the Muslim dress for the last decade.

In 2004 The Stasi commission proposed the banning of all religious symbols in public education establishments. The Commission was set up by then president Jacques Chirac to look at the application and strength of secularism in France. The banning of the Hijab in schools proved to Muslims and non-Muslims that France had a problem with Islam.

Why does France have a problem with a piece of cloth? Why is France considering legislating against what in reality is a personal decision by Muslim women to cover themselves? Across Europe anti-Muslim sentiment is running very high with nations such as Switzerland – the most insular country in the world banning the construction of Islamic symbols. There are a number of issues that need to be understood in order to comprehend the reasons why Europe is going to such extreme lengths against the Ummah.

- Capitalism has evolved into what it is today after a centuries long struggle to remove the authority of the church. Many thinkers, philosophers and writers lost their lives in the struggle to remove the arbitrary nature of the Christian Church in order to be free. The dogma of the church resulted in many of its adoptions that contradicted reality to be enforced upon the masses; any deviation from this was considered blasphemy, punishable by being burnt at the stake. This intense struggle eventually led to an intellectual revolution in Europe. European philosophers, writers and intellectuals made considerable efforts for comprehensive change in European ideas with the aim of uniting Europeans under secular liberal democratic thought i.e. Capitalism. Many movements were established and played a great part in the emergence of new opinions about life. One of the most significant events that occurred was the change of the political and legislative systems to the nation state. The spectre of a despotic monarchy gradually disappeared to be replaced by republican systems based on representative rule and national sovereignty. This had the effect of triggering the awakening of

Hence Europeans go to great lengths to explain the ‘hard fought for’ values and that any compromise with Freedom, democracy and equality is a betrayal of European history.

- The first attempt to undermine Capitalism was by the Soviet Union who emerged as a powerful nation after WW2. The Soviet Union represented an alternative way of life, with an alternative set of values and at the centre of its belief system was: communism cannot coexist with any ideology. From the moment the Cold War began, Western governments attempted to subvert Communism to create a climate of fear within their own populations, which would allow regime change and military deployments alongside the diversion of massive funds towards military industry rather than domestic industry. The possibility of a nuclear attack by the red menace was used as a basis for an aggressive attitude towards the Communist Bloc. This was exemplified by the American hysteria through McCarthyism in the early 1950’s and it’s obsession vis-a-vis Vietnam and Cuba in the early 1960’s. The West defended Capitalism though creating a number of false images of the Communist bloc. Whilst the outcome of this struggle is history, the methods used by the West are critical to understand and was encapsulated by Elaine Sciolino on the 21st January 1996, in the New York Times: ‘The Red Menace is Gone. But Here’s Islam. the Green Menace.’

- After World War II Britain needed a pool of new labour and began advertising for jobs in its colonies. As the European continent needed reconstruction a number of other European nations imported migrants from their colonies. As a result of such migration European nations today face a catch 22 situation. On the one hand, they need more immigrants from the developing world to guarantee the sustainability of their economic systems due to their ageing populations. On the other hand, every additional immigrant in Europe is turning the average European into a more nationalist and less tolerant person. As noted in a 2004 report by the RAND corporation: "the sheer number of immigrants required to offset population aging in the EU and its member states would be unacceptable in Europe's current socio-political climate."

- The 1990's witnessed a number of landmark events that contributed to the politicisation of the Ummah in Europe. Events such as the reaction to the publication of the Satanic Verses in the UK, the first Gulf war and Bosnia. Other conflicts such as those in Algeria, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir and Gujarat increased activism while stoking tension. Then came the attacks on New York and Washington where Muslims found themselves unwittingly the minority group at the very centre of European politics. The bombings in Madrid and Britain turned the Ummah in Europe into Islamic extremists. This was epitomised by hostility towards, and suspicion of, Muslims.

When Muslims with European passports were found to be fighting with the Taliban against European forces a debate began on the loyalty of Muslims in Europe to their host countries. Muslim European citizens were now seen as a people apart with a vision very different to what Europe had. 9/11 brought Muslim identity, values and loyalty into question and Muslim minorities all over Europe found themselves bearing the brunt of violence and victimisation as suspicion of them rose to disproportionate levels.

- The post 9/11 climate heralded the end of multiculturalism as a model to absorb minorities, integration into Europe’s values and beliefs became essential. The climate created by the West included open attacks on Islam, such as the women’s dress, Shari’ah, Ummah and Khilafah. Journalists, writers and government ministers justified the attacks on Islam through the use of freedom of speech. When Jyllands-Posten published pictures of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW,) Flemming Rose editor of Jyllands-Posten commented: “The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults…..” André Gerin, the Communist Party legislator and mayor of Vénissieux, a Lyon suburb who initiated the motion to outlaw the wearing of the Burqa in France made it very clear what his issue is with the Ummah, which resonates across Europe, he said “The burqa is the tip of the iceberg, Islamism really threatens us.” Islam is the problem in Europe; all the various attempts at attacking Islam and banning symbols of Islam are in reality the West’s attempts at defending Capitalism. The Hijab, Niqaab and Burqa for the West represents Islam, hence wearing them is not just a mark of separation, but for many liberals, an open challenge to Capitalism – hence the hostility towards them. The French parliamentary report that recommended the Niqab ban makes this point very clear: “The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess," the report said. The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was "contrary to the values of the republic" and proclaimed that "all of France is saying 'no' to the full veil".

- The West defeated Communism through subversion by creating a variety of lies against it with their own populations that would justify actions which would otherwise be considered unpalatable. They then exhausted the USSR through a long arms and space race which destroyed its economy. The West presented their economic system as the ideal system to allocate resources and won many communists to this concept, even though wealth inequity could be seen across the West. In this same vain the West is attempting to protect its ideology through subverting Islam. The West has successfully presented the Khilafah as inherently violent and linked the call for Khilafah with violence amongst its own population. It continues to propagate many of the Islamic rules as outdated and oppressive, such as the women’s dress. In this way the debate is restricted to Islam and for Muslims to explain Islam; this ensures no discussion takes place about Capitalism’s validity, just as the strategy was with communism.

- The French established a strong state in the centre of Europe through the French revolution. The Enlightenment began in France and as a result new ideas on the role of the king and the powers of the state emerged. Many French philosophers and intellectuals gained social, political and philosophical influence on a global scale, including Voltaire, Denis Diderot and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose essay The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right and Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu described the separation of powers and were all a catalyst for government and societal reform throughout Europe. However today many consider French culture to be dead. Whilst France at the dawn of Capitalism was leading change in Europe, today most thinkers, new ideas and philosophers come from the US, this has created a very insecure France who has become very pessimistic about the future of the nation. This was the very reason the Stasi commission was created, to look at what has gone wrong with France.

- The French like much of Europe feel their way of life, which they already believe is in decline is being challenged by Islam through the wearing of Islamic symbols and through remaining loyal to the Ummah over France. In defending their ideology France has resorted to legislating against Islam rather than have anything in the way of an intellectual debate with Islam. The same can be seen across the Western world, the hatred of Islam can be seen by the constant attacks on aspects of Islam and lack much intellectual depth. Europe is going to extreme lengths to halt the wave of Islam in Europe through banning aspects of Islam, through forcing some to sign up to a code of values as in Germany in order to gain citizenship or as in the UK the need to swear allegiance to the queen to gain British citizenship.

- The attacks on Islam should be seen in a positive light by the Ummah across the world. The West is attempting to defend its deen of capitalism when a coordinated attack has not even been launched by the Ummah. Their attempts at defending capitalism rest on attacking, lying and subverting Islam in the hope of halting the wave of Islamasation that is sweeping across the Muslim world. The politasation of the Ummah will eventually lead to the Khilafah because political ideas always end with a revolution and government – this was the experience of the West. The emergence of the Khilafah is their worst nightmare, this is why the more Islamic the Ummah responds to global issues, the more intense their defence of their ideology takes place.

- The Ummah needs to stand for Islam, for all the lies the west label upon Islam they conveniently overlook the crisis they find themselves in. In the US one person is murdered every 31 minutes, raped every 1.9 minutes, assaulted every 36.9 seconds and one home is burglarised every 18 seconds. Both the US and the UK have the world’s highest rate of teenage pregnancies. 2 out of every 5 people are considered obese in Europe. Whilst Sarkozy attempts to protect Muslim women in France 3.2 million French citizens officially suffer from depression, 25,000 women in France are victims of rape every year, 400 women die every year in France due to violence, men are paid 11% more than women for the same jobs and 5400 women commit suicide every year in France. After over 200 years of capitalism Western societies are drowning in a sea of debt and social breakdown. Capitalism needs to explain why the world should adopt it, it currently has a very weak case considering its problems in convincing the Ummah to abandon Islam, this is why its defence of Capitalism is not through elaborating on its details but by debating the apparent floors in the alternative.

- The West has been able to enlist some Muslim in their attempt to undermine Islam, who unfortunately due to a variety of reasons aid the west in their campaign to demonise Islam. In January 2009 the grand Mufti of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Tantawi, said he would seek an official ban for the face veil in schools. It should be clear that the niqaab is one opinion in Islam with regard the women’s dress in public life. Allah (swt) says in the qur’an:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاء الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

"Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the woman of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed." [Al- Ahzab: 59]Whilst there are a number of different interpretations of this ayah, when reconciled with other evidences the Burqa is one opinion, it is therefore an Islamic opinion. However this is not the argument of France or the West. Their argument is that the Niqab represents Islam and therefore is a challenge to those who believe in western values. Responding by denying the Burqa doesn’t just aid the West but is a betrayal to Allah (swt) when the West is clearly in a battle with Islam.

Various surveys, think tank reports and policy makers have all accepted that Muslims globally have rejected western values. A Gallup survey in 2006 concluded Muslim women tended to regard Western culture as morally corrupt and obsessed with sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. This represents a glaring failure on the part of the West faces no challenge to its global supremacy. This means the battle for hearts and minds and physical occupation represents a last ditch effort to salvage the emergence of an alternative system of governance. Thus defending Islam should always be undertaken from the perspective of a position of strength rather then a position of weakness.

It is in this context France is attempting to ban parts of Islam.

NEW Booklet: Strategic Estimate 2010

As the first decade of the 21st century has drawn to a close, many thinkers, academics and policy makers are developing their assessments and forecasts for 2010 and beyond. The ‘Noughties' as the 21st centuries first decade has come to be known was defined by the war on terror, the decline of the US as a world power, the global financial crisis and the resurgence of Russia.
The world's powers regularly make assessments of all the trends they face and the trends they perceive will impact them. This is in order to protect themselves from any emerging threats and prepare for any challenges. An example of such an assessment is Americas National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The NIE is the authoritative assessment and coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence Community, a group of 16 US intelligence agencies. Alongside this many think tanks also produce assessments and reviews and construct policies upon such assessments in the hope that their proposals will be adopted by governments around the world.

The Muslim Ummah today is without a state, as a result rather than producing its own assessments the Muslim world is the subject of study and on the receiving end of Western designs. This would be the inevitable situation as without a state, there would be very little incentive to follow global trends and as a result no polices to counter such threats and challenges would ever develop.

Politics in Islam is the taking care of the affairs of the Ummah and is practically carried out by the Khilafah state. Islam obliges politics upon the Ummah as many ayah of the Qur'an and many Hadith order the Ummah to account the rulers, hold them to task and for the Ummah to defend the deen. Today this is practically achieved through monitoring the plots and plans against the Ummah and Islam, exposing such plans and engaging in political, intellectual and ideological struggle with those who have designs on the Ummah.

What follows inshallah is the author's opinion and assessment on the trends for 2010 and short to medium term - i.e. the next decade. This is based upon current trends, the plans of some of the world's powers and the likely outcome of such manoeuvres. Like any assessment, they are merely estimates and forecasts; as global politics is always in a state of flux such an assessment will never remain static as nothing can happen without the permission of Allah سبحانه وتعالى

Download here

Understanding Iran

The Western media has once again gone into overdrive as mass protests have hit the streets of Tehran. On the day of Ashura mass protests took place across Iran’s main cities and images of baton wielding security officers were broadcast across Western news channels. On the day of Ashura as many as 15 people were killed in clashes during demonstrations. The demonstrations although small in number have been the continuing result of what followed the June 12th 2009 presidential elections, the defeated reformists candidates claim the entire election was against the sentiments of Iranians, the majority of whom opposed incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his policies but whose will was thwarted by a falsification of the electoral results by an unpopular and dictatorial ruler who made it appear that he had won the election massively rather than lost it. The Western media has continued to beam this narrative around the world and argue that the demonstrations represent the will of the Iranian people for Freedom and Democracy.

Western-Iranian relations

The Western coverage of the elections is rooted in the old axis of standing against the Islamic revolution and supporting the reformists who want a free and liberal Iran. The West has engaged with Iran on this basis for decades and continues to do so. The myth the Western world has duped themselves into believing is that the fall the shah was due to a mass movement of people demanding liberalisation. If such a group of reformists are supported by the West they would become the majority and rule the country. Western reporters believe that anyone who knows who Beyonce is, owns an iPod, has a blog and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Freedom and Democracy. Such individuals can be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to Western journalists, diplomats and intelligence services. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and it is from such people Westerners receive the information that a revolution is on hand.

This is why it is important to bear in mind that almost all reports coming out of Iran on the demonstrations are originating from opposition Web sites, which are inclined to make the crisis appear as intense as possible and to maximize the apparent strength of the protesters. Many of these sites are based outside of Iran and depend on the same intermittent communication with Iran as others do.

Western interference in Iran is not new, the West has constantly interfered in Iran’s domestic affairs throughout recent history. In 1953 The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) overthrew the elected government of Mohammed Mosaddeq at the request of, and with support from the British government due to the nationalisation of Iran’s Oil wealth in what the CIA called Operation Ajax. This brought to power the pro West Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who became the lynchpin for protecting Western interest in the region until he was other thrown in the infamous Islamic revolution in 1979. US financial support is in fact aimed at regime change and goes beyond the allocated $75 million. In May 2007, ABC News reported that President Bush had authorised a covert CIA program against the Iranian regime. In addition to public and covert funding of Iranian opposition groups, the United States also supports individual dissidents through various means.

Failed State

The current unrest has its origins in the elections, however what we are witnessing is a backlash as both the conservatives and reformists have been unable to solve many of Iran's problems especially its economic issues. 3 million people are unemployed in Iran and the trend is set to continue.

Currently less than 30% of the Iranian population witnessed the Islamic revolution, 70% of Iran was born after 1979. Those born after 1979 view the economic problems as a result of the failed policies of the Islamic revolution. As the conservatives dominate the key ministries some have taken the slogan of reform, established political parties on this basis and taken to the streets.

The fundamental problem with Iran is the fact that the people of Iran have been failed by successive governments. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi focused on modernising Iran in the name of advancement. This modernisation was in many areas and included social reforms. However nothing materialised. The construction of a few factories did nothing to halt poverty, poverty increased even though more and more oilfields were discovered in the Persian Gulf. The Shah wanted to break the existing economic structure which was built upon farming and made the clergy immensely wealthy. During the 1960's the Shah concentrated on his Social reforms, his reforms were built upon the emulation of the West and instituted western dress, symbolised by his wife and daughters. Such behaviour only alienated the mostly Muslim population from the ruler and this led the Shah to resort to brute force. As the 1970's were in full flow many viewed the Shah as a despot, the economy had not modernised as he promised. As the Shah became ever more authoritarian many began to demonstrate in what they saw as injustices perpetuated by the Shah. The Shah's failure to solve the problems of the country resulted in many to look for alternatives.

Ayatollah Rahulla Khomeini came to symbolize ‘change' and many groups that were not even Islamic mobilised with other groups and brought the country to a stand still. When the Shah ordered the army to open fire on the demonstrators - that was the final straw. Before anyone could shout revolution the Shah had fled the country. As soon as the Islamic revolution was in full swing cracks began to appear with the groups that brought Khomeini to power. What had began as an authentic and anti-dictatorial popular revolution based on a broad coalition of all anti-Shah forces, it soon transformed into a power grab. Except for some of Khomeini's core supporters, the members of the coalition thought Khomeini intended to be more a spiritual guide than a ruler. However his core supporters took positions in important offices whilst many of those who had sacrificed to bring Khomeini to power found they were either exiled, imprisoned or sidelined.

The 8 year war with Iraq resulted in the nation's production being geared towards the war effort. The economic concerns of the people were completely neglected. Islam was nowhere to be seen. Islam was never applied, however Khomeini did everything but refer to the Qur'an or the Sunnah. Khomeini had been in exile for over 10 years and had no ruling or leadership experience, however he held his grip on the nation through hook and crook - in reality Khomeini turned out to be no different to the Shah.

Like the Shah Khomeini did nothing to address the economic problems of the nation. The 1997 landslide victory of Mohammed Khatami, brought the reformists to power. Many students viewed reform as the way forward. Khatami openly campaigned for engagement with the West and Western values in the shape of freedom and democracy. The reformists have attempted to end the animosity with the US but decades of mistrust between Iran and the US remains. Reformists attempts at moving closer to the US was undermined when Bush made his state of union address and included Iran in his axis of evil speech. Many Iranian seeing this brought Ahmadinejad to power, a staunch conservative.

The Iran economy has long relied on its energy sectors. Iran has the world's largest gas field, the world's largest gas reserves after Russia and the world's largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. However Iran's 1940's constructed energy infrastructure is crumbling and inflation and unemployment is rampant and out of control. Ahmadinejad came to power on back of many economic promises that have not materialised. Today's Iran suffers from a major prostitution problem. According to many surveys up to 500 000 women under the age of 30 make up Iran's prostitution problem. Many have been forced into this due to poverty and the stigma of divorce, a number of such girls are also runaways who were forced into temporary marriages. Iran also has a huge drug problem. According to the Iranian government there are over 1.2 million drug addicts, with HIV on the rise. Alcohol is widely available and if one is not a cocaine addict they are most likely addicted to Alcohol.

The demonstrations that have filled the news stories of the West represent those who want change due to Ahmadinejad's economic failures. He has reneged on all his economic promises and created an economic bomb that will go off at any time. Ahmadinejad’s 12th June 2009 election victory is seen by many in Iran as a continuation of such failed policies. Ahmadinejad has done nothing for the 3 million unemployed. While the catalyst for these demonstrations was an election, the election issues were the economy and unemployment. The Western media continues to propagate the demonstrators represent Iranian public sentiment, they fail to see the economic legacy that haunts the people of Iran.

Conclusions

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad symbolises the failure of the conservatives who have unable to revive the economy. Iranian society is polarised, the educated middle classes adore the West whilst the poor although Islamic are unable to understand how the Islamic texts deal with modern problems. This confusion is leading to many to conclude Islam has been the problem. Whilst the Reformists call for the developing of relations with the West, the Conservatives on the surface have remained anti-Western which resonates with large sections of the Iran public. However behind the scenes the conservatives view the US very differently and have worked hand in hand with the US and protected their interests in the region. Tehran continues to extend support to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), a party Tehran created in 1988 to maintain Iran’s influence in Iraq’s Shi’ah South. The ISCI gathered many of the groups in the South together in order to partake in America’s political settlement for the nation. In Afghanistan, Iran runs extensive reconstruction and training programs in Kabul, Herat and Kandahar. Thus far, Iran has successfully prevented American embarrassment in both countries.

The Conservatives in Iran have like many leaders across the Islamic world used Islam for their own ends. They have failed the Ummah and have used the sincere Islamic sentiments of the Ummah to keep themselves in power whilst the Ummah languishes in poverty. Such insincere leaders will meet Allah (swt) and will receive what they deserve. The people of Iran like the wider Ummah want change, however the imitation of the West has a track record of failure. Only through unification of the Muslim lands cannot the Ummah take her destiny into her own hands.

The Collapse of Dubai’s Economic Dream: A Consequence of Abandoning the Islamic Economic System

Whist many have been looking at the prospect of global economic recovery, Dubai sent investors into a tailspin in December 2009 when the government revealed that it planned to ask creditors of Dubai World, the state-owned conglomerate, for a six-month standstill on its debt repayments, stopping short of defaulting. Dubai has $80 billion worth of debt, with the vast majority held by Dubai World, which owns Nakheel, the property developer.

Nakheel, which built the Palm Islands in the Gulf, was due to repay a $4 billion Islamic bond on December 14th 2009. Most investors had assumed that there would be no difficulty doing so as Dubai World, the Government of Dubai and Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai’s billionaire ruler, were assumed to be supporting the developer. It now appears that nobody has the money to repay or refinance the bond and so the other $56 billion of Dubai World’s liabilities are also at risk.

Dubai’s rulers were considered to have provided a master class in how to develop an economy from almost nothing. They used what oil revenues they had to create a port and free-trade zone, believing that their little state could become a business hub if they created the right conditions. For many this was a shrewd move. Emirates, the airline, bolstered the hub and became the best possible mobile advertising banner. Dubai was considered a genuine economic miracle.

However the global economic crisis brought Dubai to its knees and has exposed the fragility of its economic model. Dubai’s growth was initially through its oil wealth. This wealth was used to develop Dubai in order to attract foreign investment and soon enough, foreign companies and foreign workers arrived looking for opportunities in Dubai. Its position as a trading hub meant many companies relocated their staff to work from Dubai which is fundamentally what brought Dubai its wealth.

This however was never sustainable. The skilled workers that were developing the service sector were mostly from overseas, with only a small percentage of Dubai’s population today considered to be native Arabs. Its growth has been a direct result of it becoming a tax-free zone for foreign nationals and companies. These companies, whilst providing jobs and income to people in the country, are not transferring any technical skills to the people. Its property market boom was due in large part to speculation that the prices would continue to rise.

Dubai has merely exploited limited natural resources and has been importing talent from abroad with little skills and knowledge-transfer to drive its economy. Dubai was always nothing more than a mirage in the desert; its growth and survival was dependent upon the talent and expertise of foreign entities. It could only offer specialist services such as banking and finance as a means to guarantee its future, along with tourism. As these sectors rely heavily on the goodwill and confidence of foreigners, if in any way this sentiment was affected, Dubai’s desert empire will crumble.

This is exactly what happened with the Global credit crunch. In order for financial companies to shore up their losses they have withdrawn their money from expensive and lavish projects. Service companies which relied on loans are now seeing this dry up as one bank after another either collapsed or required government bailouts. One expert from Nomura investment Bank encapsulated the situation in Dubai: “Lenders blinded by rising oil prices and borrowers spellbound by easy returns have helped build a mountain of private sector debt in parts of the region that has generated an illusion of excess and abundance.” As Dubai was built upon foreign money, it now awakes to find this has dried up, so in essence Dubai’s source of growth has been cut, causing the breakneck building-boom to come to a crashing halt. The lending bonanza has evaporated and the government continues to ponder wider steps to repay its debt, including asking its neighbouring emirate, Abu Dhabi, for financial assistance.

Dubai accumulated huge debt to construct the islands lavish towers and lavish lifestyle to attract foreigners. The development of the islands infrastructure led to Dubai borrowing large amounts of money in the form of bonds. Dubai even attempted to sell its development as a distinctly Islamic approach through the development of Islamic finance and through the sale of Islamic Bonds (Sukuk)

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum has attempted to calm investor confidence through the tried and tested formula Western nations attempted on the eve of the global financial crisis with regard to the ‘fundamentals.’ Sheikh Mohammed said: "The economic fundamentals, such as our highly developed infrastructure, strong transport and communications hub and regional financial centre will ensure Dubai remains an attractive regional market."

Islam Economy

The suggestion that Dubai offered a new model for economic development and an Islamic approach could not be further from the truth. Building an economy upon foreign wealth, external expertise and personnel is a tried-and-tested model which has a substantial track record of failure. Latin America, South East Asia and the Baltic states have all attempted this approach with catastrophic results.

The development of the economy has extensive rules in Islam which have been elaborated by many scholars throughout Islamic history. Islam has made the Khilafah responsible for da'wah and the defence of the Ummah and this can only be achieved through a process of industrialisation. It also obliged the Khilafah to organise the fulfilment of the basic necessities of the people which are food, clothing and accommodation. This cannot be achieved by having an economy geared around services but needs one geared around manufacturing and agriculture. This allows a nation to produce all that it needs and export any surplus. Relying and depending on imports and foreign money is not an assured path for development and survival.

The Islamic economy also makes the aim of the economy the catering for it citizens, not foreigners. To attract foreign industry, labour and money, Dubai has had to compromise on many Islamic values to do with the mixing of the sexes and alcohol in the name of necessity. The imposition of some Islamic rules in reality is a charade. Islam has a framework for the economy and Islamic finance forms one aspect of its detail. The mere existence of some Islamic financial contracts does not make a nation Islamic. Britain was one of the first nations in the world to offer Islamic bonds yet nobody would argue that Britain has an Islamic economic system.

The Islamic economic system has extensive rules for ownership and disposal of citizen's wealth and assets. Beyond this Islam recognises a sphere of the economy as the economic science i.e. through study and research a solution can be derived. Hence how to develop and economy or to industrialise, where the factories and the supply lines should be, how the steel and iron mills should be constructed fall under this category, however what is produced and how it is distributed falls under the ‘system' for which Islam has extensive rules.

The Islamic economy is based upon wealth generation where participants partake in investment, employment and trade in the real economy. Islam does not have a dual economy where the real economy operates alongside a financial sector. The Islamic economy focuses all participants on the real economy, through employment, company profits, utilisation of land (agriculture) and manufacturing. This brings the huge benefit of wealth only circulating in one sector - the real economy, where all can participate.

The Islamic economy is built upon the real economy this is where the process of production of tangible goods and services, Islam has designated a role for finance in the economy - due to Islam’s focus on the real economy which is the wealth creating aspect of any economy finance in Islam is not an end in itself as there is no interest (Riba). Wealth in Islam is created through each stage of industry i.e. mining, refining, manufacturing and sales’ All of this adds value at each stage and creates wealth for the economy

Islam's monetary policy is centred around a legal tender based upon the Gold and Silver and not one based upon interest rates to regulate inflation and the economy. In Islam when it comes to exchanging a commodity with a specific monetary unit, Islam has guided Muslims to the monetary unit by which the exchange is to take place. It has restricted the Khilafah to a specific type of money, which is gold and silver. The Islamic evidences have designated gold and silver as the primary measuring unit for prices and labour. This is understood from the actions of Muhammad (saw) when he collected Zakat, levied taxes and imposed fines, all were measured according to gold and silver. This means the notes and coins circulating in the economy would all be backed by gold and silver. This will no longer make possible the free printing of currency as the Khilafah would need to increase the actual holdings of gold and silver. This has a unique effect on Inflation which free market economies have been unable to contain.

Although Islam is built upon the real economy and the financial sector is based upon providing finance for the real economy, Islam has allowed a few purely financial transactions. Islam has permitted currency exchange as this was a common practice amongst the people of Mecca and Madina and Muhammed (saw) did not object to it. Islam permitted some forward contracts - this is where payment is taken before the actual delivery of goods or before the final transfer of ownership of the goods. However the items that can be sold before ownership is undertaken must be of a defined nature where they can be counted, measured or weighed, this is due to what is established in the hadith of ibn Abbas, that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Whoever pays in advance in dates, let him pay in advance for a known price and a known weight for a known period.” And in another narration of ibn Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Whoever pays in advance in something then (it should be) in a known measure and a known weight for a known period” (narrated by Al-Bukhari). Islam has categorically prohibited purely financial transactions where one lends money in the hope of receiving more in repayment. All trade and transactions are linked to the real economy as they are built upon construction, manufacture, services, or the production of goods and so on.

In conclusion it will not be surprising if Dubai eventually defaults on its debts, this is because the cash line for Dubai has been cut, which was foreign wealth entering the nation and going into lavish projects. Dubai could have utilized the foreign expertise and developed oil refineries in the region which although blessed with huge oil reserves lacks the necessary refineries. Instead it was duped by the notion of hyper finance and geared its economy around finance, which may bring some wealth, but it does not give a nation any skills or technical knowledge. Bankers have lost all credibility in the West due to inventing dubious financial products. Dubai could have taken a lead in constructing the 21st century’s first Islamic economy and unified with the wider Muslim world that are blessed with mineral resources.