Abdelhakim Belhaj (Belhadj) - Victim of US Rendition and Hero of Libyan Revolution

"It is worth reflecting on how this “terrorist” who was illegally detained, interrogated and then rendered to the Libyans (and no doubt subsequently tortured by them after the Americans) is now considered by some as the hero of the revolution in the context that this uprising has been military backed and now feted by both politicians and media which further highlights that the politics of ‘terrorism’, laws relating to ‘terrorism’ and media coverage on ‘terrorism’ is all based exclusively on the political agenda and one in which Western interests drive the language used. A good example is the hypocrisy of American Senators who visited Libya in 2009 where they discussed weapons deals for the Gaddafi regime, such as Joe Lieberman who is recorded as calling “Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends”, a statement of huge irony in hindsight.

The reality is that Belhaj is one of the most authentic faces of the Libyan revolution. His opposition to the Gaddafi regime began more than 20 years ago, and unlike several of the NTC members who up until and beyond the start of the uprisings were either members of the regime themselves or living far away in the West, he has been at the forefront of the struggle both literally and figuratively."

The full article can be found at New Civilisation

It is also published at Foreign Policy Journal and Eurasia Review

Understanding Clinton’s Statement on Libya – “We own you”

"Given the extent of the American war machine to the point they are killing civilians by remote control, and the proliferation of Western arm deals with all manner of despots from Saudi to Israel, “violent extremism” is something that the US and its allies engenders rather than acts against. What is meant in this context, and within the framework of establishing a “tolerant, unified democratic state” is one that will submit itself to Western financial and political interests, which today also entails ensuring that Israel remains safe, and any Islamic based polity is off the table."


Read the whole article on New Civilisation.
Also published on Foreign Policy Journal and CounterCurrents

The Conquest of Tripoli

"However the Libyan situation poses very different questions as whatever regime Gaddafi was leading has clearly been removed by the revolutionaries, and hence the question of what will replace it is currently vexing minds in Libya and beyond. The National Transition Council – formed in Benghazi at the start of the uprising – has former regime members and exiles as its most visible members. People like Guma al-Gamaty, living as an exile from Libya for the last 30 years , are the voices for the NTC in London. Mahmoud Jibril is the chair of the NTC's executive board, a man with a PhD from the United States who up until early this year was a part of the Gaddafi regime as head of the National Economic and Development Board promoting liberalisation and privatisation policies. The chairman of the council Mustafa Abdul Jalil was formally the Justice Minister of the Libyan regime until the start of the revolution, although he had a reputation for fairness and independence which he retains until now."


Read the full article at NewCivilisation,
Also published on There Is Power in the Blog, CounterCurrents.Org and Foreign Policy Journal

Understanding calls to a Caliphate

"With Western “liberal democracy” perceived as failing to provide true representation for the people, given the lack of political choices, and of real accountability for politicians who are more enthralled to commercial interests than the interests of the electorate. The recent riots in England have highlighted failure at the heart of the purpose of government to provide security for its people. Arguably social justice is hard to find in an economically declining America and Europe, with vast material inequality between the elites and the masses, so the image of an advanced, modern civilization that must be emulated to achieve success has been further tarnished, perhaps fatally. Those looking for change elsewhere are unlikely to feel compelled to follow Western models of politics after suffering under Western models of neo-liberal economics, as was the case in Tunisia and Egypt. Given these circumstances, seeking alternative ways of organizing society could be seen as imperative."


Read the full article in Foreign Policy Journal

Questioning Western Hegemony

the United States views any change to the global status quo that they constructed post World War Two as a threat to their strategic interests.

Riots in the in the ‘mother of democracy’ have again forced the West to question some of their previously held convictions, such as the old enlightenment narrative that the world has been moving in a Darwinist evolutionary fashion to one form or other of secular liberalism, and that this is a good thing. In actual fact as is plainly apparent, religion has not gone away, and specifically Islam is not a spent force whether in binding communities together or in state politics, but rather – it is often discussed either as the greatest threat to world stability or the greatest hope for it, depending on your standpoint. Whatever the case, as Professor Talal Asad has mentioned “if anything is agreed upon, it is that a straightforward narrative of progress from the religious to the secular is no longer acceptable”. Rather, this narrative looks like it is being reversed, as the increase in identity politics generally, and Islamic politics specifically is a current that is explicitly recognizable globally.

To read the full article click here

Realising a Caliphate - a response to the Economist article Dreaming of a Caliphate

A recent piece in the Economist entitled “Dreaming of a Caliphate” investigates how some thinkers are struggling with the concept of Islamic rule in the “modern” age where it appears the only acceptable polity is that of liberal Democracy. The constant refrain of accusing ‘Islamists’ of wanting to impose an “Islamic dictatorship” or “theocracy” against the will of the people and the West, which then evokes a defensive response from spokesmen of aforementioned groups who claim that they only want the opportunity to participate in any democratic system formulated by the elite (normally the military and former establishment), has effectively sidelined any serious discussion about Islamic government as an alternative to the status quo in the political domain. This is problematic, given that there is public sentiment in support of the idea, and the debates have clearly been carrying on between people away from the glare of the media only to explode onto the scene of public consciousness as occurred at the Tahrir square demonstrations in Cairo at the end of July which witnessed the consistent explicit pronouncement of Islamic political slogans repeated in unison by hundreds of thousands if not millions of demonstrators.

The hegemony of a liberal democratic discourse is reflected in a lot of thinking in the Middle East by Islamic scholars and intellectuals, termed “New Islamists” by Raymond Baker, with their belief that “democracy in modern times affords the best means to justice”. Not only in the Middle East, Muslim intellectuals in the Western tradition have also formulated their own ideas about how polity in the Islamic world should be organised. There are those who talk about a separation between religion and the state, though not politics, with Islamic values informing the views of the Muslim part of the population, such as Muqtedar Khan who firmly states that “Muslims must widely and unambiguously accept that Islam and democracy are compatible”; those who do so are approvingly referred to as “Muslim democrats” whereas others are scolded as “Muslim isolationists”. The economist article mentioned at the start of the article also seems replete with thinkers searching for ways to make Islam “compatible” or “acceptable” to Western philosophy such as how the compatibility of Islamic polity with a John Rawls-like democracy. Others such as Khaled Abou el Fadl make the case for liberal democracy as the most effective form of government to protect and promote Islamic values. But as mentioned by Saba Mahmood in her response to Abou el Fadl, rather than ask how Muslims could become better liberals, can we not ask whether the World could be lived differently, with alternative visions being explored rather than succumbing to the hegemony of Western political ideals?

To read the full article click here