Saturday, March 31, 2007

America holds the Arab Summit in Riyadh!

The following is a translation from Arabic of a leaflet issues by the da'wah carriers.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

America holds the Arab Summit in Riyadh!
It aims to deal a fatal blow to the issues of the Muslims especially the Palestinian issue.


The Arab rulers have called for their 19th Summit meeting in Riyadh on the 28th & 29th of March 2007 C.E. The United States though not present in the meeting directly, the imprint of its Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was most conspicuous throughout the proceeding. While she herself remained in Aswan (Egypt), but called a meeting of a committee of these rulers and their political and intelligence officials and met with them just before the Arab summit on 24th March in order to brief them on the agenda and proceeding of the summit as well as remind them of George Bush’s desire that the Arab rulers warm up to the Jews’ state as a conciliatory gesture to placate it in the aftermath of its defeat in the previous July defeat!

Rice did not depart from the region, instead shuttled between Egypt, Jordan and Palestine until the night prior to the summit date only to ensure that the summit proceeds exactly as instructed by her! Before ending her tour on the 27th of March, she made it a point to advise the Arab rulers to reach out to the Jews more than they have done hitherto in order to convince them that their ‘homeland’ will be even safer and secure. In fact before beginning her tour she had clarified in Washington that she hopes, rather that she would ensure that the Arab rulers accept and announce the so-called ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ which they had accepted in the 2002 at the Beirut summit and to execute it in exactly the way shown to them. True to it, the final communiqué issued today, in no certain terms, stressed on reviving the ‘Arab Peace Initiative’, which essentially is an American conspiracy crafted by Thomas Friedman which the then Prince Abdullah had adopted and presented to the Beirut summit which accepted it and named it as ‘ The Arab Peace Initiative’.

It was the United States under the Neo Conservative administration that secured in very clear, not uncertain terms and publicly, not privately, that the rulers accept the Palestinian issue as limited to the territories occupied in 1967 and not before that! The dispute will be within this framework and not beyond and any give and take during the negotiations for formation of any Palestinian state will be confined to it. As far as the issue of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 C.E is concerned, those territories will be purely Jewish and there will be no claim whatsoever on them in accordance the legal documents signed by the Arab rulers!
The United States wanted this legal instrument by the Arab rulers to be ratified later by the Palestinians. But at that point in time the Palestinian Authority was controlled only by the Secularists, whereas the US wanted this document to be approved by a government that represented both the Secularists ass well as the Islamists. This would amount to all the Palestinians themselves relinquishing the 1948-occupied territories and not just the Arab rulers alone! This initiative remained in cold storage for about five years awaiting the Makkah accord that calls for abiding and respecting the international and regional agreements, all of which imply recognition to the state of the Jews. It was in this backdrop that a government of national unity was constituted, which indicated the readiness of this government in accepting the Arab Initiative which is any way not very dissimilar to the Makkah accord except certain minor and inconsequential details. This is when the United States decided to revive the initiative and present it to the Arab rulers at the Riyadh summit for giving it a final shape now that the Palestinians are represented, as they say, by a national unity government of secularists and Islamists. Such concessions and submissions one after another, by the Arab rulers have enabled the Neo Conservatives to present a complete and comprehensive gift to the state of the Jews.
Oh Muslims! In the name of the Arab Peace Initiative, the United States at the Beirut summit succeeded in erasing the 1948 occupied Palestine from the dictionaries of the Arab rulers. And today at the Riyadh summit conference, it again succeeded in securing the acceptance of the Palestinian Authority with its secular and Islamist wings and thereby secured the Palestinians acceptance for the peace initiative.

The Arab rulers by their acceptance of this peace initiative are justifying and glorifying what is simply humiliation and blatant surrender to the Jews. They contend that by virtue of this accord, they will secure the Palestinian land occupied in 1967 and form a state there. In effect this amounts to their acknowledgement that they are incapable of fighting the Jews and defeating them and thus liberating the Palestine!

In reality the Arab rulers are lying, if only they could move their troops to fight the Jews and called upon every able-bodied person to join the forces, in a real and not stage-managed war with them and thereby eliminate the Jews’ state.

Even a single hand span of the Muslim territory being occupied calls for moving the troops to fight and requires the Muslims to maintain a state of war with the occupier for any length of time until that hand span of land is recovered from the occupier!

It must be remembered that surrendering the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 C.E in exchange for formation of a state on the lands occupied in 1967 C.E, even if this materializes, is high treason and breach of faith to Allah (swt), His Prophet (saw) and to the Mumineen (believers), and the perpetrators of this are certain to be condemned to humiliation in this world and severe punishment in the hereafter, in only they know! Even if one prefers to disregard all these, this Arab Initiative and a thousand similar ones will not ever result in liberating the lands lost in 1967 C.E. The Jews, ever since they were placed in Palestine by the British and their allies and their state was formed, it has been their inherent trait that whenever anything was conceded to them by their enemies, they have extorted more demands! This is simply because they realize that if an enemy can make a concession once, he can be pressurized to concede repeatedly, and whoever concedes one part can be made to concede several parts. Therefore, whenever an enemy makes a concession to them, they record it as a point scored in their favour and proceed to score further points, and this goes on unendingly. The Jews will continue to play the same game and keep on nibbling the 1967 occupied Palestine unless they are defeated in a war and their state is finally eliminated. With this mind the Jews will continue to disfigure this Peace Initiative although it already is ugly; either by shifting borders, establishing housing camps for the Jews or by restricting the refugees issue to the West bank and Gaza until a point when are compelled to settle for a part and not demand the whole of it or even by defacing the heritage of al-Quds that has been gifted away to them, be it the districts of al-Eizariyyah or Abi dees. The Jews are sure and confident of achieving this because those who have gifted away the 1948 occupied Palestine will eventually surrender in bits and parts those lands occupied in 1967 without any shame of Allah (swt) or His Prophet (saw) or of the Mumineen! As is said, one who yearns for humiliation, is eventually disgraced, and it also holds true for them that it is a dead body that feels no pain of injury!

This initiative at Riyadh has been a gift for the Jews over and above what was gifted to them at the Beirut summit of 2002, because now the legal document of sale of 1948 occupied Palestine has been signed by the Arab rulers in exchange for a small state on a part of the land occupied in 1967. What works as a sweetener for the Jews is that this time the document of sale has been signed by a national unity government that includes not just the secular forces but also the Islamists! In fact when Saud al-Faisal was asked as to what is the new feature of this summit, he stressed in his reply that the national unity government of Palestine had agreed with the Arabs on the Arab strategy for finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Oh Muslims! The rulers at the Arab summit will not be content with hurting and damaging the issue of Palestine, but will continue to bleed the cause of Palestine as has been evident from their resolutions:

They have supported and patronized the transitional government in Somalia which was created by the US and which under the American orders prepared the ground for the occupation by the Ethiopian forces. The Arab rulers did not utter a word when France ignited the Darfur conflict with the help of its agents in Chad, paving the way for the American and British forces. The Arab rulers did not spell out the real reasons behind this crisis and preferred to look the other way during the height of crisis. When the US occupied Iraq, these rulers clapped! And as the barbarity of the occupation intensified, one could see even more manifestations of affection and friendship between the Arab rulers and America! Similarly the Arab rulers were only too happy to leave the issue of Lebanon to be settled by the disputing France and the US without so much as a whisper!

Apart from this these rulers have indulged in manipulating facts and do not call a spade as a spade- they display these resolutions as ‘clear victory’ in Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon, may Allah fight them, for this is how they deceive!

Oh Muslims! The rulers of this Ummah are the curse upon it. They have time and again cheated the Ummah and were it not for this ayah of the book of Allah we would not have issued any statement on the occasion of their conference:

وَإِذْ قَالَتْ أُمَّةٌ مِنْهُمْ لِمَ تَعِظُونَ قَوْمًا اللَّهُ مُهْلِكُهُمْ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُهُمْ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا قَالُوا مَعْذِرَةً إِلَى رَبِّكُمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ

“And when a community among them said: "Why do you preach to a people whom Allâh is about to destroy or to punish with a severe torment?" (The preachers) said: "In order to be free from guilt before your Lord (Allâh), and perhaps they may fear Allâh."[TMQ Al-‘Araaf: 164]

We seek pardon of Allah (swt), May the sleeping among us wake up with this or the treacherous be shocked:

يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا لاَ تَخُونُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ وَتَخُونُوا أَمَانَاتِكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ

“O you who believe! Betray not Allâh and His Messenger, nor betray knowingly your Amânât (things entrusted to you, and all the duties which Allâh has ordained for you)” [TMQ Al-Anfal: 27]

10th Rabi ul Awwal, 1428 A.H
29th March, 2007 C.E.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

How to establish public opinion?

The following is a translation of an old but very useful Arabic leaflet.

It is noted that governments in general fear public opinion and give it a great deal of attention; they value public opinion highly and realise its effect, this is why they tend to monitor it closely.
In times of war and disturbances, the control of public opinion becomes all the more significant, and governments move swiftly to quell any public opinion against them. In times of peace their control of public opinion becomes more relaxed; however if they felt that some concepts which may damage their credibility were being spread they at once move to quell them and prevent them from provoking a public opinion against them, also if they sensed that some concepts or news items may trigger a public opinion against them, they would soon take the initiative to combat such items and prevent it.

In the Second World War, we witnessed the warring governments controlling public opinions closely, preventing the spread of opinions and concepts which would threaten them and become a potential unfavourable public opinion; and in the wake of the Second World War, when an agreement between the U.S. and Russia was struck about spreading the concepts of freedom, independence and progress in the colonised countries; Russia had meant eradicating colonialism and the U.S. meant changing the style of colonialism. In order to resist this, the other colonial powers took steps towards fighting those concepts by either resisting and suppressing them or by attempting to implant them and give them an erroneous significance and a reality contradictory to their essence.

When Hizb ut-Tahrir came on the scene, carrying the concept of the Islamic state, all the governments consented that it should be resisted and that its opinions should be stopped in their tracks lest they turned into a public opinion against them. And when the Messenger of Allah (SAW) was sent, Quraysh did not budge at first, however when she sensed that his Message threatened to turn into a public opinion, she soon moved to resist it and prevent it from turning into a public opinion. Therefore, almost as a rule, every government tends to fight any concept or opinion or news item that could potentially turn into a public opinion against it.
So what is the method which these governments adopt in fighting the public opinion?
In answer to this, it is noted that governments tend to concentrate their efforts in combatting the concepts and opinions which could potentially become public opinions, this is done by banning these concepts and opinions from being broadcast in public places, whether by way of direct talk such as oratory or ordinary talk, or by way of indirect contact such as writing in newspapers, magazines and books. The government’s work is concentrated chiefly in preventing public debates; as for the private talks, the governments do not make an issue of it. It is true that in some cases they tend to clamp down on private meetings, but this in fact happens rarely and it is usually taken up by regimes which do not realise the meaning of rule, and such cases are actually isolated and do not form part of the government’s strategy; therefore they are not considered part of the government’s work designed to combat the concepts which could turn into a public opinion.

As far as a political party is concerned, governments tend to prevent the party from holding any public activity; they ban the leaflets, magazines, newspapers, books, speeches and public talks whether in the streets, mosques, or cafes etc... As for the study circles and talks in private places, governments have never made it their business to ban them, however it is known that there were some isolated cases which took place in certain countries and these were very rare and not in fact based on governments’ initiatives and directives, thus they do not form part of the governments’ drive in combatting the concepts which could become public opinions. In reality, no attempts have been made to ban the activities taking place in private places such as study circles and talks; if the governments had wanted to ban the circles in the way they banned the speeches and public talks they would have been able to do so, in the same way they managed to ban leaflets. If they did not do so, this is because they did not make it the focus of their attention and because their method of preventing the concepts from turning into public opinion is by banning the spread of the concepts, opinions and news in the public places.
This is also noted in the tradition of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), Quraysh was very anxious to prevent the Messenger of Allah (SAW) from talking in public places; the disbelievers used to first send someone to counter the talk of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), they then resorted to harming and persecuting him in order to prevent him from talking to people in public places; they also used to prevent Abu Bakr from praying in his mosque which he built by his house.
This indicates that the method which the rulers used to prevent the concepts is to ban the public talks; this also indicates that the effective way of bringing about a public opinion is by talking to people in the public places.

Therefore, the method of generating public opinion would be by talking to people in public places. However, the talk in public places could be conducted privately with one or several persons, such as talking to persons in a cafe while sitting at an isolated table in a way that would not enable other persons to come and listen to the talk, or such as talking privately to a patient in a hospital; this type of talk would not help generate a public opinion, the talk must be open so that it is heard by whomever wants to listen. Also, one could talk in the streets or the mosque or the cafe in way that enables anyone to listen, however, the speaker may give some general and vague concepts and he may attempt concealing what he really wanted to say, this would also not generate public opinion for the listener and whoever wanted to listen may not be able to realise what the talk is about and therefore he would not be able to pass it on to others; the talk must therefore be frank and clear.

Furthermore, the speaker could be delivering a clear and frank talk, and when he sees a government agent he keeps silent, or when he reaches a point which he knows that the listener does not agree with, he abstains or avoids the subject; this also does not establish public opinion, the talk should not contain any reservations so that the concept is conveyed clearly and completely as it stands, in order to enable it to be spread in full and in detail.
Therefore, to bring about a public opinion, the talk must be held in public, openly, clearly, frankly and without any reservations, and this could be carried out in two ways:

1 - The indirect contact by way of newspapers, leaflets and books.
2 - The direct contact such as through speeches and conversations.
The indirect talk would generate a public opinion but it does not initiate a public awareness nor does it help the building of a popular base.

The public opinion which we aim to generate is the one that emanates from a general awareness, and the one which we aim to build, upon a popular base. And this cannot be brought about unless the contact is direct and personal.

Therefore, the public opinion which we aim at generating is the one carried out by way of talking personally to people in the public places openly, frankly and without any reservations. And this is what is known as the popular contact. Therefore, the method of generating the desired public opinion is to conduct the popular contact.

However, it should be known that the meaning of popular contact in this context has no link with the slogans which are being trumpeted nowadays such as the popular leadership and popular reaction etc, it is rather a specific term which has been put to indicate a certain reality.
And what is nowadays being repeated is merely a group of terms which have been taken from what the Westerners have written in the books of psychology and sociology about the groups, their establishment and their formation. These terms convey the wrong meaning for two reasons: One is because when the psychologists and sociologists wrote about these issues they did so on the basis that those events were partial, then they erred when they made general analogies with all the events; therefore, what they wrote formed part of the general analogy and that was wrong. Besides, some of what was written was based on logical deductions and not a sense of reality; the logical deduction is prone to error, for it is a host of theories which have been logically deduced and then taken as principles, to base actions upon these would be wrong without any doubt, therefore it would be wrong to consider them.

The second is because those who repeat such slogans try to implement them on events which are different to the one they had been theoretically designed for. Therefore they go wrong when they attempt to implement them, thinking that the theories are correct, they therefore contradict themselves, they sometimes say : “The shallow minded masses”, other times they would say: “The masses have become aware”. Awareness contradicts shallow mindedness, therefore, what is being said about the masses by those affected by the western culture should be disregarded, a look at reality would be the appropriate approach.

In fact the masses mean the group that is gathered permanently. The various groups are usually found in public places, it would be very rare to come across various groups in private places, although a group would be gathered in a private place, however such group cannot be called masses. And what is meant here is to talk or communicate with the groups that are gathered permanently. Therefore the right term to describe the popular contact would be talking to the people in the public places.

Attention should here be drawn to a couple of matters:
1 - The popular contact does not mean talking to the group or the groups, but talking to people in the places where the groups i.e. the masses are to be found, regardless of whether the talk is to one person, or to a group or groups, this means talking in the public places; therefore, talking to a group in a private place, as for instance talking to a group in a house would not be regarded as popular contact, on the other hand talking to one single person in a well frequented shop or in the streets would be considered popular contact and this could generate public opinion, thus that which is of consequence would be the place where the talk is held and the situation of the talk, not the group or the individual.

Therefore, when the governments decide to prevent a public opinion they tend to ban the talks in the public places even to one person, whereas they do not attempt to ban the talks held in private places even if it were to a group; the house raids which take place during a state of emergency to ban a meeting are a rare occurrence and isolated cases which do not form part of a method or a strategy, this type of ban is in fact to prevent a conspiracy and not to prevent a public opinion.

2- The popular contact is not talking to society, thus it would be inappropriate in this context to monitor the type of existing relationships between people, it is rather talking to people with the aim of conveying to them concepts or opinions or news which the people would in turn talk about and transmit and spread, thus the aim would be to get them to talk about those concepts and opinions. Therefore, no difference should be made between a town and a village, nor between a rich area and a poor area, nor between a Muslim and a non-Muslim area, nor between a capitalist society and an Islamic one; the same path should be tread in any place and with every group, as long as the talk is taking place in a public place regardless of any other consideration.
This is the nature of the popular contact: To talk personally, openly, frankly, clearly and without any reservations to people in public places.

This contact would be in various situations, some of which are:
-To talk openly in the streets.
-To talk openly in the cafes.
-To talk openly in the mosques.
-To talk openly in the hotels and the offices.
-To talk openly in the governmental departments.
-To talk openly in the well frequented public baths and not the deserted beaches or river banks.
-To talk openly in the car, train, plane etc..
-To talk openly in the hospital and the doctor’s surgery.
-To talk openly in public parks.
-To talk openly at radio and television stations and using loud speakers.

All these are situations where the popular contact could take place and where one can choose the situation he wants or the one that could be made available to him. As for the types of popular contact they are confined to what could be actually spoken, for instance the oratory is one type, the other type would be ordinary talk which includes debates, discussions and lectures; all these types are widely available to everyone, if one could not make a speech he could hold an ordinary talk and if one cannot give a lecture he could take part in a debate or a discussion.

As for the styles of popular contact, these are not restricted, but they are determined by the nature of the contact; a person for instance could use the style of opposition to an action or an opinion, or he could ask about an action or an opinion or something, he could also draw attention to something or to an action or to an opinion; and there are numerous other styles where the originality could reap tangible results and shorten the time of generating a public opinion.
This is the method of generating the desired public opinion, which is to carry out the popular contact in any of its various situations and in any of its types and in styles where originality is apparent.

6th Rabi'i Al-Thani 1383
25th August 1963.

New Urdu leaflets

I have uploaded the Urdu translations from Arabic of some new leaflets, below are their titles and the link to the inpage files:

The Baghdad Conference is intended to save the US and not meant to salvage Iraq! Participation of the neighbouring countries, especially Syria and Iran infuriates the Muslim sentiments

http://www.esnips.com/doc/0d4c9746-6988-4292-9f18-2304d7efb619/The-Baghdad-Conference-is-intended-to-save-the-US-and-not-meant-to-salvage-Iraq!

The Accord… it’s a disaster, Declaration of Hamas and Fatah to abide by the decisions of the Arab summits, to honour the international resolutions and regional pacts amounts to recognising the Jewish State!

http://www.esnips.com/doc/eb0e9e5a-7cc6-4f9c-880a-5492cb34e5e0/Leaflet:-The-Accord…it’s-a-disaster---Declaration-of-Hamas--Fatah

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Gujarat State Govt admits fake encounter in which Muslims were killed

The following news confirms the analysis by many that alot of the encounters against Muslims are staged.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=228206

Will State Govt’s admission about fake encounter bring murder charges on cops?

By Vikram Rautela

Ahmedabad, March 23: With the State government on Friday admitting before the Supreme Court that the encounter in which Sohrabuddin Sheikh had been killed in November 2005 was faked, police officers involved in the case may face murder charges, say legal experts. The experts’ comment assumes significance more because the scope may also cover senior police officers like D G Vanzara and Rajkumar Pandian.

During the hearing of a petition filed by Sheikh’s brother Rubabuddin, Gujarat government counsel K T S Tulsi submitted before the Supreme Court that the encounter in which Sheikh had been killed was fake. And after Sheikh’s killing, his wife Kausar Bibi also went missing and her whereabouts are yet to be known. The Gujarat ATS, which had run the operation with STF of Rajasthan Police, had claimed that Sheikh was an LeT operative and he was killed in encounter while trying to flee on a motorcycle near Vishala crossing in Ahmedabad. The police had also claimed that they had foiled a plan to kill Chief Minister Narendra Modi. At that time, Vanzara was heading the Gujarat ATS, while Pandian was SP (Operations), ATS.

In the wake of the government admission before the SC that it was a fake encocunter, legal experts say the admission must be based on certain evidence and that is why the law should take its course. They opine that those, including Vanzara and Pandian, could be be arrested under Section 302 of IPC on charges of murdering a man.

Says senior advocate S V Raju: “Law does not allow any one take a person’s life and if the State government has categorically admitted before the Apex Court that Shorabuddin was killed in a fake encounter, then it discloses a clear case of murder as the government statement must have been based on sufficient evidence and inquiry reports in the case. So the police personnel, including the IPS officers, involved in the case are liable to be arrested on charges of murder.’’
Another senior lawyer, J M Panchal, also says that the accused can face murder charges. “If it is a fake encounter, as has been reportedly admitted before the SC, then the act will be considered as a pre-planned delibrate murder and Section 302 of the IPC will be applicable in case of the accused.’’ Besides murder charges, the accused may face other charges, too. “Charges of abduction, wrongful confinement, causing grievous hurt and torture can be applied,’’ says Raju, adding that there are several instances, where police personnel have been arrested on charges of a murder.

According to legal experts, the accused can be arrested under sections 302, 365, 368, 330,331,201,120 (B) of IPC. They also also claim that if custodial torture is proved, the accused can also be hauled up for contempt of court, on the basis of a SC judgment in the case of D K Basu (Para 35).

In his petition to the SC, Rubabuddin had said that his brother and sister-in-law were picked up by the Gujrat ATS and Rajasthan STF, while they were travelling from Hyderabad to Sangli. Rubabuddin had further alleged that while Sohrabuddin was killed in a fake encounter, Kausarbi has been missing since then.

Responding to Rubabuddin’s petition, the SC had directed the Centre to submit a report in the case. Rubabudin’s petition was also forwarded to the Gujarat government, which later asked CID (Crime) to look into the matter. A team of CID, headed by IGP Geetha Johri, went to Hyderabad, Sangli, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh to investigate the case. The reports suggested evidence of a fake encounter. Johri, according to sources, has already submitted three interim reports to the SC, indicating that serious offences should be registered against Vanzara, Pandian and police personnel from Rajasthan and Andra Pradesh, involved in the case.
Investigations also revealed that besides Soharbuddin and his wife, one Tulsiram Gangaram Prajapati, was the third person the ATS has picked up a couple of days before Sheikh’s encounter. Prajapati was killed in another police encounter in Banaskatha.

Principal Secretary (Home), Balwant Singh, when contacted, said: “Detailed investigation in the case has begun and actions will be taken against people found guilty.”

Source

Letters from Uzbekistan - Part 2

The following is from a series of letters from the Da'wah carriers in Uzbekistan which have been translated.

All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the universe and mankind. His help, victory and most importantly His pleasure be to the Messenger of Allah, his companions, their followers and all the believers from Adam until the last believer on the Day of Judgment. May He the Merciful forgive and grant felicity of the worldly life and hereafter to all the believers.

Assalamu alaykum, our Muslim brothers, sisters, parents and friends. We deliver greetings from all your brothers in Jaslyk! Brothers, verily the prayers of the believers for each other are answered. The Messenger of Allah says in his hadeeth, “A believer to another believer is like a building whose different parts enforce each other.”

That is why we decided to inform you of the current situation in here, so that believers shall realise the great crimes that take place here, UYA-64/71 Jaslyk colony, which is done by kufr - i.e. by the Kaafir Karimov and his tyrant executioners, particularly the chief of colony Qulimbetov - the cruellest tortures and torments. We hope this will help the believers to see the injustice, that they will have a just hatred and immunity against the plots they lay and be steadfast in the Deen and the da’wah. So that on the Day of Judgment we will not be those who escape each other, on the contrary, we will enjoy happy lives in the Paradise promised by Allah.
Brothers, nowadays the barbarous tortures in this torment facility of the Kaafir, Karimov, are at their highest point, the chief of the colony Qulimbetov has brought from his previous place of work Qorovul-Bozor prison of Bukhara several criminals, who have already served long-term
(15-20 years) prison terms. He cruelly oppresses and harshly persecutes our brothers by their and other operative officers’ means. All firm-footed brothers, who reject asking for the president’s pardon, fulfill their prayers, refuse to sing - as contrary to our faith - the anthem as well as other brothers are battered and beaten for no reason. It has been over one month since our brothers from Tashkent, Zufarov Nu’man, Muzaffar, Husniddeen and Jamoliddeen were held and tortured in damp basement cells. Cell No. 15 was transformed into a torture room, where the giant hypocrite Yoldosh Beruniy from Khorezm, together with other prisoners named Anvar and Edik from one side, on the other side the new-comers from Qorovul-bozor named Ravil, Farkhod and Isroil ‘the Toothy’ continuously torment our brothers with the purpose of making them ask for president’s pardon, sing an anthem, not perform a prayer and so on. Qulimbetov has given them all necessary authority. Today is August 5th, within the last 20-25 days, our brother Bahrom from Ferghana was beaten unconscious by Edik and left in such a state for over one hour.

Our brothers from Tashkent, Saidazim, Jamoliddeen and Fitrat, and Rasul from Margilan, were cruelly beaten in cell No. 15; Jamoliddeen’s shoulder bone was fractured. Additionally, the local officers also take their share in torturing our brothers. Today, August 6th, tyrant Anvar, Yoldosh and Edik were allowed by disorder prevention department (DPD) officers to lock our brothers Zufarov Nu’man, Husniddeen and Muzaffar in separate basement cells and severely batter them. The battery of other brothers caught praying also continues. Our fellow Oybek was locked into special cell (called BUR) for one month. The DPD personnel has in advance warned firm-footed brothers Yusupov Maqsudali, Madyarov Akmal, Tojiboev Ergashali and Mirzakarimov Ravshan from Ferghana, Salohiddeenov Samariddeen from Tashkent, Guzarov Shavkat from Qashqadaryo and others about the punishment awaiting them. Who of us may go to that torture room tomorrow? May Allah protect us from this. It is believed that this method of torturing is know-how invented by Qulimbetov and the deputy minister of Justice Shodiev. Allah knows best. Our fellow Bahrom from Ferghana has written a letter to Qulimbetov, where he warns the latter, «Stop these tortures, otherwise several of your executioners shall die or some of us shall become martyrs». Despite this, the persecution gets harsher. Of course, these are the tests from our Lord. We shall be patient. However, Allah says in His book, “Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls)” We, your oppressed brothers in Jaslyk, are saying goodbye to you until our Lord gathers us all with His help, victory, felicity and, most importantly, in His paradise (hopefully) Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi va barakatuhu.

PS. Today, August 7th, some additional information has surfaced. Yesterday late at night our brothers locked in the basement had hot water poured over them and early in the morning they were taken to nursery. Among them was Zufarov Nu’man.

August 7th, 2002

Thursday, March 22, 2007

The Baghdad Conference is intended to save the US and not meant to salvage Iraq!

The following is a translation of the Arabic leaflet:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Baghdad Conference is intended to save the US and not meant to salvage Iraq! Participation of the neighbouring countries, especially Syria and Iran infuriates the Muslim sentiments

Through its protégé Nuri al Maliki, the US has called for a conference tomorrow the 10th of March 2007 in Baghdad to be attended by the neighbouring countries and by the members of the UN Security Council, in order to give a semblance of credibility at the regional and international level. This is not a direct negotiation between the United States, that has asked for this conference and Iran and Syria who have responded positively, The proclaimed aim of the conference is the so-called “Achieving peace for the people of Iraq”. But the true and hidden intention, which is now so obvious, is to salvage the US from its doom and to ensure that the US continues to pursue its old agenda of a New Middle East in its every detail.

In order that the Ummah appreciates the matter correctly, we intend to go back a little in time:

The fact of the matter is that the when the United States occupied Iraq and sent in the former Iraqi opposition from outside before its armoured tanks and even later, it was meant to consolidate America’s position there and hoped that this opposition will prepare a launching point for the US policy from Iraq to the entire region, and thereby America will have an unchallenged monopoly over the region’s resources, especially the petroleum resources and the region’s strategic location. Further Iraq will then act as a barrier against the unity of the Ummah and an obstacle in the path of the state of Khilafah al Rashidah.

But as it happened, the great resistance in Iraq took a heavy toll on the US ability to think and comprehend, which was further impaired as the number of US soldiers killed kept rising by day. America responded by committing horrendous crimes against civilians and prison inmates, even against stones and trees, to the extent that it forced even those who had hitherto blindly followed America to thick and consider departing their ways with it. It then resorted to ignite the conflict between the Shias and Sunnis by exploding a bomb in one place and following with another bomb in the other’s place, or in a shopping mall here and another shopping mall there….

All this could not save America from its eventual peril, it only deepened and widened it! America had no escape left and no place to escape to, except to ask its protégés to act as a barrier and save the US. The protégés mission was to find an escape route for their master, so that the US could continue to hold on to its occupation, persist in launching its New Middle East plan to solve this hot region’s problems in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran. All this they aimed to achieve by gathering their pawns and agents around a round table in a conference like the infamous Madrid Conference.
Gathering these protégé rulers in a conference required a particular situation… which was provided by the hostilities in Lebanon in July, but the victory of the Islamic resistance frustrated the American plan- it could not gather these rulers anymore, neither on a round table nor a square one!

Meanwhile America’s difficulties were increasing in Iraq, and so was the death toll of its soldiers there. The ground under its feet was getting too hot to be tenable, this is when the announcement of the Baker-Hamilton report was made, and as we have said earlier, it is not by chance that the Baker-Hamilton committee having already spelled out the problems many months ago, its report is being made public at a time when the military debacle is clearly visible; both in its assault in Iraq as well as the July hostilities in Lebanon. This document came about to change the course of American policy for shaping the region, but this time under a new garb of ‘diplomatic campaign’ instead of military campaign, as the report termed it.

The report of this committee dwelt at length on the role of neighbouring countries, particularly Syria and Iran, and commented: “The United States must shape working relations with Syria and Iran in an attempt to secure their commitment for the policies concerning Iraq and other regional issues. Similarly, the US must consider incentives as well as sanctions in order to ensure the desired results, it must also explore ways to repeat the same cooperation it received from Iran in Afghanistan for the situation in Iraq.”

It was clear for the members of the committee from both the parties, Democratic as well as the Republican that Bush will not be able carry the report, but it had to draft its recommendations, especially those concerning Iran and Syria, as it will not be palatable for the people in these countries to accept their participation in a conference aimed at salvaging and rescuing America from its doom in Iraq and that too when the US is overtly hostile with Iran and Syria. Therefore what we witnessed and heard is that America ‘agreed’ to participate in the conference with these two countries on their ‘request’ and not vice-versa; and that Syria and Iran accepted the invitation of Nuri al-Maliki and not the US to attend the conference, as if Nuri al-Maliki has the authority to invite them to the conference without the consent of America!

This conference is a step of the Baker-Hamilton document, which in reality is an instantly-killing poison though laced with fake cream, which the rulers are using to make this conspiracy accepted by the people.

Oh Muslims!
Be aware that this conference is designed to rescue America from its inevitable doom in Iraq, to consolidate its occupation and to provide a secure and conducive atmosphere to realise its oft-repeated dream of the New Middle East through political means after having exhausted and failed in realising the dream through military means. Remember that America is doomed and it is the duty of this Ummah to intensify this peril for its enemy and not to rescue it by using all the means at our disposal in serving American interests. In fact any kind of assistance being provided to America in this regard amounts to treachery against Islam and Muslims. The enemy has committed grave crimes in annihilating lives, abusing the honour and violating the sanctities of our mosques and holy places……

Oh Muslims!
It is the absence of the Muslims’ Khilafah that unites them on truth that is the real cause of downfall of the Ummah and others uniting and pouncing upon it. If only there were a Khaleefah who would gather the soldiers of this Ummah and call upon the people to liberate every part of the Islamic land that is under occupation through battles and not through gathering its rulers as is being done today to consolidate the American occupation of Iraq and ensuring the enemy’s security.

Hizb ut-Tahrir warns the rulers in the Muslim lands, especially in Syria and Iran not to tread the path of this conference to rescue the enemy from its doom in Iraq and thereby consolidate its hold there and launch its agenda of the New Middle East which aims to further tear apart the region.

Those who side with the enemies of Allah (swt) and believe that these enemies will protect them and their hold on power, let them realise, that if they still have their perception right, that after they have played their role in the service of the Kafir colonialists, they will be eliminated by them just as those before them. Their fate will be no better than humiliation in this world itself and of course the punishment of the hereafter will be even more severe:

ولعذاب الآخرة أكبر لو كانوا يعلمون

“But greater is the Punishment of the Hereafter, if they only knew!” [TMQ 39:26]

Hizb ut-Tahrir

19th of Safar 1428 A.H
9th March, 2007 C.E

Arabic source

Monday, March 19, 2007

New Caliphate New Era

By Akmal Asghar

The Muslim world is suffering at the hands of a failing political architecture that continues to hold back the region. Few now doubt this, but while for the west talk of change has centred on promoting a model rooted in liberalism, political movements indigenous to the region increasingly assert a political model rooted in Islam - the Caliphate. Akmal Asghar introduces a discussion on the Caliphate and concepts that form a distinct political system.

"What we are fighting against is the prospect of a new evil empire". Joseph Lieberman's words hark back to Ronald Reagan's epic depiction of the Soviets, but the Senator's warning was of an emerging threat - an 'empire' he describes as: "a radical Islamic Caliphate which would suppress the freedom of its people and threaten the security of every other nation's citizens".1 The Caliphate is increasingly included in the lexicon of debating the future of the Islamic World. Its advocates take centre stage in Central Asia and increasingly assert themselves throughout the Muslim world, as Senator Lieberman warned in Iraq. Their activities may yet yield results: the CIA's National Intelligence Committee, for example, forecast that a Caliphate may be with us by the year 2020. Such a prospect requires serious and objective discussion rather than the dire and ill-informed judgements of some who dismiss its form of politics and condemn it outright as a new global enemy.

It would be unfair to present Senator Lieberman's protest as the benchmark for how the west regards the Caliphate. Few know what it is or regard it viable enough to consider seriously. For some it represents the resurrection of an Ottoman government; the last to lay claim to being a Caliphate and a state whose decay earned it the unenviable label: 'the Sick Man of Europe'. Therefore, the Caliphate lies beyond the consideration of most in the west; a political system belonging to a bygone age whose fate was sealed by the birth of Mustafa Kemal's Turkish Republic. It is not unusual - in fact quite common amongst some western schools of Middle-East commentary - to hear calls for its resurrection in the Muslim world interpreted as an attempt to relive a romantic imagination of some former glory, which is neither a serious nor workable political system in a world of space travel and virtual communication.

A discussion on the Caliphate must lie, however, in a broader context: there is a need for alternatives to the failing political leaderships in the Muslim world. Autocratic, authoritarian regimes litter the Muslim world and represent the single biggest obstacle to progress. Consent is notoriously absent from the processes that legitimated presidents, kings and premiers. Staged elections have never changed this fact, conducted as they are in a climate of fear and intimidation preventing public expression of any organised opposition. Ruling elites owe their status to acts of foreign installation and often represent striking departures from the demographics of the lands they govern. If it is an evil empire that we must fear, then surely this is it: entrenched primitive and thoroughly repressive political structures aggregated to represent one of the most poorly governed regions in the world. The UN's 2004 Arab Human Development Report (AHDR) makes similar observations. It refers to the failing political architecture in the Arab world, the crisis in governance, authoritarian and totalitarian government, the lack of transparency and accountability, repression, corruption, and a broad crisis of legitimacy that faces Arab governments. It concludes that in the three years of an annual AHDR, little has changed. But repressive governments have long characterised the region and significantly pre-date the report's findings.

It is in mapping a way out of this malaise that alternatives need consideration. For the authors of the AHDR, the template for change is the western model: democracy, liberty, and the institutions and assumptions that underpin the western liberal political philosophy are its benchmarks for reforming Arab governments. The report boldly equates the crisis in the Middle East to a democracy deficit and commentators widely acknowledge that the report has moved to suggest the 'universal' desirability of democracy, most resolutely in its 2004 report. Rumblings from Washington over the report's publication - because of its recommendation of indigenous, home-grown democracy over promotion by foreign donors, a subtle snipe at the US invasion of Iraq - may have threatened US funding for the UN's Human Development Programme, but that should not delude one into thinking it recommended something other than democracy; the argument raged over how not what. And in the now tiresome routine of Islamicising foreign notions to give them legitimacy amongst Muslim populations, the report provides a cultural context to its recommendations by drawing on notable names from Islamic history to argue that key aspects of the west's liberal political philosophy have an Islamic precedent. Such claims to universality are open to a number of significant criticisms - some of which have been presented in previous editions of New Civilisation. But the wider debate demonstrates that while there is growing appreciation of the plight of Muslims living under repressive regimes, a change in the political landscape of the Muslim is talked of occurring in one of two ways: the emergence of a Caliphate following the success of indigenous political movements, considered an unwelcome prospect by many western governments, or some form of liberal democracy, possibly with a cultural adjustment.

The current consideration of the Caliphate as an alternative political model to western liberalism, however, suffers in too many ways, and is compounded by errors in western discourse on Islam in general and Islamic political thinking in particular. 'Orientalist' writers who draw on sociologist Max Weber's reading of Islam, for example, regard it as a pre-modern political system that collapsed because of the challenges of modernity. Such essayists consider it a closed system, total in nature; unable to address Europe's innovations in industry and political thought, and that it is the principle impediment to progress unless Islam is able to reform; a primitive political system whose literature on government is concerned only with the piety of ruler and subject.2 Apart from their particular critique of Islam, these - among many other - western writings are premised on the belief that the liberal political model is built on a series of values deemed universal, and currently provides the most economically efficient and ethically desirable form of governance.3 This assumption, however, creates the problematic framework in which the Caliphate is studied because the approach typically follows the route of comparison, one that takes as its norm the western state and its form of politics, and measures against provisions in the liberal political model.

Where such comparisons fall short is the failure to acknowledge that the Islamic political system has its own independent configuration and a distinct constellation of political principles and ideas. While overlooking this distinct and different configuration of politics, comparisons that impose one system as the norm act only to highlight differences between the two systems without, importantly, questioning the original configurations of both. In this case, it merely highlights the lack of liberal ideas in Islamic politics - which says no more than that they are different - but does not question whether liberalism should be taken as the norm; the approach is relative and offers no universal merit to the discourse. Measuring through a filtered prism obscures an objective picture of the Islamic political system and misconstrues a thoroughly distinct assemblage of political ideas. The Islamic political system must be understood according to its original texts and meanings, not in relation to the western state.4

Leaving aside ruling elites, who seek only to entrench their positions, the oft discussed lack of appetite for democracy in the Muslim world is no surprise. Increasing demands amongst Muslims populations for the rule of law, transparent, accountable and representative government, and an independent and efficient judiciary do not de facto translate into a call for democracy. These provisions are not the monopoly of liberal political philosophy; the Islamic political system addresses each of these but through a model that understands society, the individual, the goal of government and the role of the state differently. The Islamic political system - rather than inherently deficient - is characterised by its own relationship between ruler and subject, authority and sovereignty, law, property and power.

Let us now take a brief look at the Caliphate system.

The Caliphate

The subject of the Caliphate - the Anglicised version of the Arabic word 'Khilafah' - has been addressed in numerous, detailed works throughout Islamic history and by some of the most eminent jurists. Amongst such writings are those that detail only aspects, such as Mohammed al-Shaybani's works on international relations (Kitab as-Siyar), Qadi Abu Yusuf's works on taxation (Kitab al-Kharaj), and Imaam Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim bin Salaam's works on state funds (al-Amwaal), through to more comprehensive works that address the system as a whole, such as Imam Mawardi's treatise on Islamic rule (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah) and works by Imam Aamidi (al-Imamah). The twentieth century's most elaborate works on the Caliphate are arguably those by Taqi ud-Din an-Nabhani (d. 1977), in his Nidham al-Hukm fil Islam (the Ruling System in Islam)5 and Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah volume 2 (the Islamic Personality),6 who also went on to publish a draft constitution for an Islamic state, with detailed explanations of each article, in his book Nidham al-Islam (the System of Islam)7 in the 1950s. His writings provide extensive insight into the conceptual configuration of Islamic political ideas and details of the Caliphate's organs together with their practical workings, but which also detail comparisons with other forms of ruling including western liberal models.

The Islamic political system can at best be summarised in often only rather crude form in short essays, but that does not detract from the need for a brief overview of its key features and areas of important distinction from the western political model. The overview of the Islamic political system presented here summarises key aspects of an-Nabhani's work.

An Overview

The highest executive post in the Caliphate is that of the Caliph (Khalifa), who appoints ministers (muwain or wazir) with general powers to assist in ruling, governors for various regions and administrative assistants. The Caliphate system is characterised by an independent judiciary, representative consultation, the rule of law and citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed.

Authority, sovereignty & representative government

The subject of representation has historically featured considerably in the evolution of western political discourse. In justifying government and the right for some to rule over others, the social contract theorists argued individuals could not assume a position over others in a ruling capacity without prior voluntary consent from those they govern, although exactly how consent is determined practically is an area of extensive disagreement. The proponents and originators of this approach in western political theory, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, derived their theories principally from perspectives on the State of Nature, a theoretical state used to understand man before the advent of government and law. These theorists disagreed over the reality of life in the State of Nature and subsequently over the principle aims of government, whether it should be the protection of property (Locke), the resolution of civil disputes (Hobbes) or the provision of liberty (Rousseau) or a combination. All agree, however, that government cannot claim legitimacy unless it can demonstrate that it has the voluntary consent of the people. The works of these theorists provide the most prevalent justification for the state and the right for some to rule over others in western political discourse.

The Islamic approach to governance does not rest on a theoretical analysis of man in a state without government and his subsequent relationships with power following the onset of a body politic. The Caliphate, and the legitimacy of the Caliph at its head is based on representation; the principle, "the authority lies with the Ummah", is a cornerstone of the Islamic ruling system. The Shariah places the original authority of managing the affairs of the people in the hands of the people themselves, but requires them to appoint a head of state to do so on their behalf and so the head of state is legitimate only through popular consent. The process of direct elections or an election by a representative assembly consisting of individuals elected to their respective positions can be utilised to evaluate popular consent. Men and women over the age of fifteen are granted the right to vote and the process can be supported with the use of any complimentary technologies, whether internet, mobile or postal voting, provided their merit in improving efficiency is proven. Once elected, the head of state is bound to an agreement with the people through the bayah contract. It stipulates a number of conditions for his leadership of the state, including the condition that he manages the affairs of the people on their behalf, to do so exclusively according to the Islamic sources of legislation, and the non-violation of the criterion of leadership. Authority is at no point transferred to the head of state through the bayah contract and remains permanently with the people. Thus, if the head of state violates any of the terms of the bayah contract, the people can demand, through the independent judiciary, he vacate his post, a point expanded on later.

However, the discussion on representation in western political theory rests on a secular framework and its logic consequently extends to the function of lawmaking. That is to say, it regards the function of lawmaking the right of the people, whether exercised through representative or direct democracy, or on an approach structured around one of these. In Islamic political thought, however, there is a distinction between authority and sovereignty, between sources of law and the reality of the state as a representative body. Authority permanently rests with the people who exercise it through electing a head of state, but law originates exclusively from the sources of Shariah. Therefore, while the Caliphate is a representative body, it is not rule by the demos.

Accountability and the rule of law

Following closely from the discussion of authority in Islamic political discourse, is the ability to ensure the head of state will not violate the terms of the bayah to which he is contracted by the people; in short, architecture for effective accountability (muhasabah). The Islamic political system enshrines mechanisms for binding the Caliph to his agreement and protecting citizens from state violations and oppression (dhulm), and provides direct and transparent channels for accounting the executive, any state official, policy, conduct, administration and all other facets of governance.

The issue of accountability features very prominently in the Shariah; ruling is regarded as a form of guardianship (riayah) and a trust (amanah), and the causing of oppression (dhulm) by the head of state a grave crime - the corpus of Islamic texts refers to each of these in an unequivocally serious manner. Accountability lays firstly in the general right - and sometimes obligation when the excess is flagrant - of every citizen to take the state to task, secondly in institutions that guarantee the process of accountability continuously takes place, and thirdly in a general requirement for political parties.

The principle institution dedicated to the task of accounting the state is a special component of the state's independent judiciary: the 'Court of Unjust Acts' (Makhamat al-Mudhalim). It is presided over by only the most eminent and qualified judges in the state and granted extensive powers by the Shariah. It has the power to remove any official of state regardless of their role or rank, including, most importantly, the head of state if he persists in pursuing a path that lies outside of the terms of the bayah. Citizens who have a complaint against the state register it with the Court, which has wide-ranging powers of investigation that extend to all organs of the state's machinery. Importantly however, the Court does not rely on a plaintiff to register a complaint before problems are investigated because it is tasked with the permanent and continuous responsibility of scrutinising state conduct. In addition to the Court of the Unjust Acts, the 'People's Assembly' (Majlis al-Ummah) is another important institution that forms part of the Caliphate's accountability architecture. It is a representative assembly whose members are elected directly by citizens and can be from any ethnicity, creed or gender. The assembly provides extensive consultation (shura) on issues of state and public policy but, importantly, it has the power to scrutinise practically all matters related to the state; it can oblige the Caliph in key areas such as in the removal of state officials, regional budgetary control and matters of public interest through consultation; and can scrutinise every cannon issued by the Caliph and, in some cases, reject them once again binding the Caliph.

The Caliphate, however, does not rely on institutions alone to provide inherent checks and balances but depends upon the politicisation of its citizenry as its fundamental layer. Holding the rulers to account is a duty - an obligation - upon every Muslim, and citizens are encouraged to do so in a direct and open manner. Examples from the Caliphs that immediately followed the Prophet Muhammad - whose consensus (ijma) is a source of Islamic law - demonstrate that they proactively encouraged forthright accountability. This obligation is not restricted to the individual, but stipulates a requirement for the permanent existence of political parties tasked with 'enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong', a political activity designed to challenge error and incompetence. These civil bodies undertake activities without interference from the state and, as the Islamic political system has no concept of a 'ruling party', neither do they have any association with the state; their purpose is principally to highlight inadequacies in state conduct and in the condition of society. While various schools within western political theory have long struggled with the question of justifying 'political obligation' - whether the utilitarians or social contract theorists or others - Islamic obligations such as 'enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong' take on a unique dimension for the Muslim citizen: they are considered good in their own right and an act of worship, not measured by their expediency or purely by the effect they yield.

From institution, through political party to individual, the mechanisms for accountability in the Caliphate provide the backbone to what is a considerably rule-based society. The Caliph is not beyond the law nor protected by special exemption that provides him immunity from prosecution; if he commits a crime he will be punished, if he transgresses the terms of the bayah he will be eligible for removal. Unlike monarchies and authoritarian governments who place monarch or premier beyond the constitution with the sole right to interpret or alter it, no individual in the Islamic state's apparatus, from clerk to Caliph, is above the law and an independent judiciary monitors the Caliph's legal adoptions with the power to demand revocation.

From 'total' to 'totalitarian'?

For some commentators, the comprehensiveness of Islam in articulating both a spiritual and a political system renders a government founded upon its law, totalitarian. The 'total' nature of Islam is thought to suffocate progress through seeking to 'control' every element of a citizen's life and denying an autonomous space for science and cultural pursuits. This logic bears little relevance outside Europe's experience with the excesses of the Church, for the history of the Islamic state demonstrates that being founded on the Shariah did not impede scientific or technological progress, or excellence in legal, intellectual and cultural pursuits, but rather acted to propel them.

Whilst Islam is a comprehensive system, the Shariah confines the Islamic state's remit to managing only temporal matters. The state can only adopt law in matters that relate to its responsibility: managing the affairs of society and achieving the goals of the Islamic state. The head of state therefore is not allowed to enter the privacy of the home, adopt law that stipulates matters of personal life or interfere in the private affairs of the citizen, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. If it does, it is considered to have transgressed its jurisdiction, for which the judiciary may take action if it finds the state to have committed an act of oppression (dhulm). This principle arises from numerous Islamic texts that deal with the subject of remit and responsibility that do not permit the assumption of a responsibility one is not originally charged with, whether spouse, parent, child, relative, head of state and so on.9

The Caliphate bears no resemblance to a totalitarian state therefore, but to understand the error in believing Islam's comprehensive nature impedes progress, there is a broader point to appreciate. Islam does not, nor came to, define reality or to dictate sensory perception. That is to say, whether the earth orbits the sun or vice versa, whether water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, whether HIV leads to AIDS and other such judgements on reality are for the human mind, and for scientific and intellectual inquiry to decipher human sensory perception. The role of the Shariah is to provide solutions, guidance and a legal framework in which to conduct human activity whether personal, social, economic or political, and is in this sense comprehensive. Thus, the universe, life within in it and the material world is analysed purely through human observation and rational tools, whilst mapping appropriate human activity is determined through principles and rules extracted from the Shariah. The Shariah therefore does not interfere with nor inhibit progress through insisting people believe, say, the world is flat or that the earth is the centre of the universe but articulates a system through which individual and society can best structure their environment and tackle common human problems, dilemmas and challenges.

If not rule by the 'demos', then rule of 'theos'?

Does the place of the Shariah - a divine law - in the Islamic political system render the Caliphate a theocracy? The role of a divine text in ruling marks, for the western mindset, a return to medieval Europe when the excesses and abuses by kings and princes were justified by references to sacred Christian texts. As interpretation was the preserve of the literate Christian clergy and those in power frequently justified their status as acts of divine will, there were no means of challenging official interpretations of sacred law or accounting abuses of power for they would represent a challenge to God's will, no less an act of blasphemy. It is for this reason that some consider the Islamic ruling system to be concerned principally with the piety of the ruler: if there are no workable mechanisms of checking power in a 'religious' state then citizens of a Caliphate, similarly, can rely only on the piety of the Caliph to ensure he does not abuse his position.

Applying this western matrix on the Islamic political system however fails to acknowledge a number of key points: the Caliphate is neither a theocracy nor its practice similar to medieval Europe. There are some very important differences. Firstly, the head of state in a Caliphate system is not divinely appointed nor can lay claim to divine merit: the people appoint the head of state. The post of Caliph is open to anyone who meets the criteria for a ruler without reference to divine privilege. Secondly, a corollary of the first point, while the head in a theocracy is beyond reproach because of claims to divine right, the Caliph is monitored by numerous institutions, the independent judiciary of which has not just the right but the duty to remove him if he violates the terms of the bayah contract, force him to repeal the adoption of a particular law, demand compensation, declare policy invalid amongst other powers. He is thus not beyond the law, but subject to it as any other citizen. The Islamic political system does not rely on the piety of its head alone as the principal mechanism of accountability as it is a system designed for human beings understanding the potential for human error and malevolence.

Thirdly, the Caliphate is not rule by clergy, or by a religious elite that claims to have a monopoly on interpreting Islamic law. The head of state may be a jurist or a legal advocate by training, but that is not a condition for assuming the role. And the origin of law being from a series of divine sources, principally the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (sunnah), does not mean there is a limited, or no, role for questioning, debate, disagreement and challenge. The Qur'an is not the constitution of the state as such - it is a source of the constitution. Law has to be derived for new problems; to tackle new issues which have not previously been judged requires the extraction of law from Islamic sources through the mechanism of ijtihad, a process open to all those qualified and is not the preserve of a privileged elite. Ijtihad undertaken by different jurists may result in differences of opinion, disagreement and debate, and in Islam, there is no concept of a Pope to make a declaration of divine preference. The Caliph, as head of state with the responsibility for adopting law, will adopt one opinion to bind society to a set of common standards within a declared legal framework, but that does not prevent further debate and amendment.

In all, the Caliphate is a system run by fallible human beings who implement law derived from the divine sources of the Shariah over society, removable from office if they violate the terms of their agreement - not rule by 'theos'.

Surely dictatorship?

Amongst the fanfare that surrounds democratisation in this post 9/11 climate, it is often easy to forget that a number of western political philosophers had their own reservations about its workability. Rousseau thought democracy would only work if one could guarantee that the public would always vote in the interest of the collective - the 'general will'- not selfish, individual interests and went on to articulate a rather stringent, almost unworkable, set of social conditions he believed would achieve that. Despite his elaborate works on a theory of direct democracy, he nonetheless says: "If we take the term in the strict sense, there never has been a real democracy, and there never will be. It is against the natural order for many to govern and the few to be governed."10 John Stuart Mill believed a democracy should afford the intelligent and educated greater voting power to protect society from the tyranny of the ignorant majority for that would be the result of simple majority rule, and his proposed representative - over Rousseau's direct democracy - is for its critics no less a move away from the essence of democracy itself. But while Rousseau, Mill and others tried to fill the gaps, one of the biggest critics of democracy per se was Plato. His guardianship by philosopher-rulers - or 'benevolent dictatorship' more crudely put - was he believed better at delivering good governance and justice than a democracy because in classical Greek, the word 'demos' is the 'mob' as much as it is the 'people', and so democracy is no less the rule of the mob than it is the rule of the people. Of relevance to our discussion, such theories represent nodes on the spectrum of western political theory, with democracy at one end and - because of his wholesale rejection of democracy and thus thought to represent the alternative - Plato's dictatorship at the other: if not democracy, rule by the people, then the alternatives are considered either rule by theos, the few, or one.

The Islamic political system's rejection of democracy does not render it a form of dictatorial government, as one may conclude if confining its study strictly to the above spectrum. The Caliphate is not a dictatorship for authority lies with the people not the head of state; nor is it premised on the belief that the office of the Caliph is a privileged position beyond the law, the occupant of which can be trusted to manage the affairs of the society without being accounted for how he does so. The Caliph, like every other citizen, is a subject of the law, not beyond it, and an independent judiciary can act to curtail his activities and even remove him. Sovereignty belongs to divine law, but humans understand it and apply it; this human exercise, though entrusted to the Caliph to make final legal adoption, is subject to considerable human accountability and herein lies the distinction between the Caliphate and the totalitarian dictators that were the scourge of the last century.

Conclusion

The Caliphate system does not resemble any of the world's current political structures. It is nether similar to western liberal models - which few may contest - and represents a sharp contradiction to the dictatorships, monarchies and totalitarian governments that litter the Muslim world. The Islamic political system does not grant authority to a divinely appointed individual or to a clergy, nor does it lie in the hands of one individual and thus the Caliphate is neither a theocracy nor a dictatorship; it is a representative system of governance albeit quite different in the sources of law to the western state, and so neither is it a democracy: it is a distinct model of governance.

We are, possibly, in need of a new set of terms to describe the Islamic system in rhetoric familiar to a western audience for it is characterised by a distinct set of political ideas and political relationships unfamiliar to western political theory. That alone is a big undertaking, but will only be of use if it is first recognised that the Islamic system has of its own a political tradition, extensive corpus of political literature and, indeed, a considerable precedent through the Caliphate's thirteen hundred year history. Talk of future political models for the Muslim world must acknowledge not only this, but the Caliphate is with indigenous precedent, founded on a value system consistent with, not alien to, those of Muslim populations. The prospect of the Caliphate emerging in the near future would mark an end to the repressive political architectures that plague the Muslim and represent a departure from the ailing dynasties, dictators and monarchs who now come under pressure from both their own populations and the west. Such an event could either be hailed as a significant move forward or condemned as step into the past; but it would be unfortunate if, even after increasing awareness, such opinions lie on a western-Muslim fault line.

Reference

1. Lieberman, J (2004). Iraq’s Future and the War on Terrorism. To the Symposium Sponsored by Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Committee on the Present Danger. Mayflower Hotel, Washington, DC. 16 June 2004. [http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=222668] Accessed 21 June 2005.

2. Roy, Olivier (1994). The Failure of Political Islam. Harvard University Press. pp7

3. Ibid, pp8.

4. The comparative approach is also critiqued by Olivier Roy. Roy, Olivier (1994). The Failure of Political Islam. Harvard University Press. pp8

5. Nabhani, T (2002). The Ruling System in Islam. 5th ed. London: Al-Khilafah Publications.

6. Nabhani, T (1995). al-Shaksiyyah al-Islamiyyah. Beirut: Dar al-Ummah. 4th ed. Volume 2

7. Nabhani, T (2002). The System of Islam. London: Al-Khilafah Publications.

8. ‘Ummah’ is the Arabic term which refers to the Muslim collective but in this context refers only to the portion residing in the Caliphate.

9. An example of this is the Prophetic tradition (hadith): “All of you are guardians and are responsible for your wards. The ruler is a guardian and responsible for his subjects; the man is a guardian and responsible for his family; the woman is a guardian and is responsible for her husbands house and his offspring; and so all of you are guardians and are responsible for your wards.” Sahih Muslim


Source

The World of Injustice

Globally, Muslims were outraged when the International Court of Justice cleared Serbia of genocide charges for their role in the Bosnian massacres.

In Canada, families victim to violent murderers are angry over light murder sentences.
As the human mind is weak, biased, and limited, the only way to dispense justice is for man to submit to Allah (swt) and refer to His Guidance when seeking to resolve societal disputes.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case brought by Bosnia-Herzegovina against Serbia, delivered on February 26, 2007, is a compromise judgment, giving something to the Bosnian victims but largely denying the Bosnian genocide and exonerating the Serbian state of its role. The verdict sparked outrage amongst the victims and Muslims around the world.

Massacre of Muslims

The Bosnian genocide began in the spring of 1992 when Bosnian-Serbian nationalists, led by Radovan Karadzic (today a fugitive from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)), took over units and weapons from the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav national army. This army was backed by Milosevic (who was then president of Serbia), and supported by a murderous Milosevic-funded militia from Serbia proper. They launched their violent campaign against the non-Serb (primarily Muslim and Croat) populations. Serbian forces burned villages, killed community leaders, incarcerated and murdered men in concentration camps, and raped women and girls - thus terrorizing 90% of the non-Serb population into leaving the areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina which they controlled or conquered.

The International court exonerated the Serbian state of any responsibility in the genocide even though all the facts indicate that it was fully aware of the crimes being committed and was fully engaged in supporting them. The International court chose to ignore the facts for the sake of political calculations, and thus failed to deliver justice to the thousands of innocent Muslims and Croats made victim by an international conspiracy of silence and indifference led by the United Nations. Surely, the Muslim women victims of systematic rape do not feel that they have been given justice. As Allah (swt) has revealed:

“Those who persecute (or draw into temptation) the Believers, men and women, and do not turn in repentance, will have the Penalty of Hell: They will have the Penalty of the Burning Fire.” [TMQ 85:10]

Murders in Canada: “Slaps on the wrist”

The injury of injustice is not only felt by Muslims, but also non-Muslims. On March 10th 2007, the residents of Edmonton held a rally to express their outrage over the lack of punishment handed out to criminals who have been found guilty of murder. According to the CanWest News service, “The protesters said Saturday they want violent criminals to get far more lengthy prison sentences, even if they are young offenders when they commit the crimes. It shouldn’t be left up to judges to sentence young offenders convicted of violent crimes as adults, it should be mandatory, the family members argue.”

“Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind” [TMQ 5:32]

The protesters included, Grant McGillis, whose 20-year-old son Dylan was stabbed to death and Peacha Atkinson, whose 13-year-old daughter Nina Courtepatte was raped and beaten to death. According to Grant McGillis:

“Kids, when they’re growing up, they’re learning that it’s OK to do these things and get away with it. They’re getting slaps on the wrist and that is it.”

Justice of Allah (swt) versus the Injustice of Mankind Allah (swt) has ordered human beings to be just:

“O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is aware of what you do.” [TMQ 5:8] and “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is wellacquainted with all that you do.” [TMQ 4:135]

As demonstrated by these verses of the Glorious Quran, Allah (swt) expects the believers to be just – that is an essential component of being Muslims and carrying Islam to the rest of humanity. When the rational mind examines the concept of justice in man-made systems, such as in liberal democracies, the inevitable conclusion is that complete justice is unattainable. This is due to the fact that man made systems understand justice in human terms and from a human perspective, thus ultimately exposing this understanding to the biases, contradictions and limitations –inherently exhibited by the human mind. As a result, such legal systems are susceptible to the very same limitations. The human mind is incapable of understanding things in a comprehensive way. Take for example the McGillis family: they hold the Canadian courts responsible for being too light on murderers. Mr. McGillis believes that the judgment that these courts give out to murderers actually encourages the crime because the punishment delivered by the Canadian courts, in his opinion, are minimal. From the perspective of the judges, there is no way that they can anticipate how society will receive their judgment – whether the potential criminals will be encouraged to commit the crime or be deterred from engaging in it. This is due to the fact that all judges are limited in what they can sense; they cannot understand the long-term implications of their judgments as they do not completely comprehend the complexities of society or the nature of Man.

Mankind is also susceptible to bias. Regardless of where the judge or jury is presiding, their judgment will be skewed by their experiences in life. Take the Rodney King incident for instance. In 1992, four white Los Angeles police officers brutally beat this African-American man. The beating was caught on video tape which was distributed to the media. However, in 1992 the grand jury cleared the police officers of any wrong doing. This resulted in the infamous LA Riots, where approximately $1 billion worth of property was damaged. The rioters were incensed at the judgment delivered by the jury (which consisted of ten whites, one Hispanic, and one Filipino-American). They felt that the jurors were biased and that justice was not delivered, and therefore they reacted in a destructive manner In contrast to the weak, limited, and biased mind of man, Allah (swt) is free of need and is unbiased in His Judgment. Allah (swt) is the Creator of mankind and is the Knower of all things and therefore the court system and legal code – the Shariah – correctly addresses all the weaknesses of man as well as the complexities of society. When Allah (swt) revealed the Islamic ruling system and Islamic legal code, He (swt) was certainly not handicapped by human biases, limitations or contradictions, as He is the Wisest, Infinite in His Justice and Knower of all things.

Practical Application of Allah (swt)’s Justice Man must first submit to Allah (swt), only then can he embark on delivering justice. Man is endowed with reason. We come to the rational conclusion that the limited universe needs a creator, who is Allah (swt). Knowing that Allah (swt) exists, we need His Guidance to establish a relationship with Him – and to correctly organize and regulate our societies. Therefore, we need a message from Allah (swt). The last and final message was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (saw) in the Quran. We have absolute conviction that the Quran is from Allah (swt) as the style of the Quran is inimitable – no human can use the Quranic style to express an idea. With this foundation internalized, man can then embark on delivering justice to humanity. This is due to the fact that he understands what justice is and that the real Judgment is reserved for Allah (swt). Furthermore, a judge that fears Allah (swt) knows that there is a severe punishment waiting for them if they do not judge with justice. This paradigm is exemplified in the famous legal trial that took place between Caliph Ali (ra) and a Jewish citizen of the Caliphate. The Jew picked up a shield that had fallen from Ali (ra), and claimed it as his own. Ali (ra) took the matter to court and brought his son as a witness. The judge ruled against Ali (ra) even though he was the Head of State (Caliph), based on the hukm shari that a son cannot be a witness for a father in court. When the Jew witnessed such fairness, he voluntarily confessed that the shield is Ali’s and embraced Islam. From this incident we see how the Islamic court works in practice. The judge was solely motivated by his fear of Allah (swt) to ensure that he followed hukm shari. He was not swayed by the fact that Ali (ra) was the Head of State, while the defendant was non-Muslim. Nor was he swayed by the fact that Ali (ra) was the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). Furthermore, he did not put aside the hukm shari because he knew that Ali (ra) was honest. He had to put aside his biases and stick to the hukm shari, because he would have to answer to Allah (swt) if he ruled in the incorrect manner.

Conclusion

The key idea is that justice begins with being just with Allah (swt). That is, one needs to establish a relationship with their Creator before they can proceed to tackle the immense responsibility of delivering justice to mankind.

Any legislative body or court system – be it the United Nations, United States, Pakistan, Turkey, or Canada –cannot deliver justice. Each of the legal systems in these countries is based on the fact that each deny the right of Allah (swt) to rule. As a result, until we build a system that is based on the concept that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Final and Last Messenger, we will never be able to dispense complete justice. As Allah (swt) revealed:

“Behold, Luqman said to his son by way of instruction:

O my son! join not in worship (others) with Allah; for false worship is indeed the highest injustice” [TMQ 31:13].

May Allah (swt) establish His rule on earth and may Allah (swt) bring peace and justice to the earth. Ameen.

The Politically Aware Muslim
Canada

26th of Safar, 1428 March 16th, 2007 Volume 2, Issue 37

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Imprisonment of Da'wah carrier in Denmark

The following is a translation from Arabic.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Allah willing, the Khilafah will indeed be a reality and the Occupation will meet its inevitable end: Defeat and Collapse

The Supreme Court of Denmark delivered on Wednesday the 28th February, 2007 C.E imprisonment sentence of two months against the representative of the Media Office of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark. The trial proceeded as follows:

The Accusation: Calling for resistance to the occupation in Iraq, toppling the Muslim rulers and eliminating the Jewish entity that has usurped the Palestine.

The accused: “It is the government of Denmark that participates in the occupation of Iraq”.

Equipments used for the Crime!: Leaflets containing ayaat (verses) from the Book of Allah and calling upon Muslims to move their soldiers to save their brethren from the criminal assault of occupation in Iraq and Palestine.

As usual the Denmark government deliberately distorted the matter and resorted to deception and concoction of facts in this trial, and claimed that the leaflets contained threats to the Danish government and the Jewish citizens of Denmark! But certainly the statements of charges prepared by the prosecution revealed the true intentions behind this trial:

First: Concerning the occupation of Iraq, the prosecution cited as evidence a leaflet issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir on 08/11/2004C.E. about the bloodshed by the Americans in the Iraqi town of Fallujah, wherein Hizb ut-Tahrir called upon the Muslims: “Oh Muslims! Oh the people in authority! Time has come for you to restore to Islam and Muslims their glory, and do not allow America, the Britain, their allies and their agents to get a foothold in the Muslim lands”.

Secondly: Regarding the entity of the Jews that has usurped the Palestinian lands, the prosecution cited as evidence, the leaflet issued by Hizb ut-Tahrir on 21/05/2001, when the Jews had carried out slaughtering in Palestine, and wherein Hizb ut-Tahrir addressed the Muslims: “The resources of this Ummah are immense, its soldiers are strong, and has a tremendous pool of dedicated commanders who have the strength to rescue the Ummah from the clutches of the Kuffar countries and the Jew enemies. It is therefore incumbent upon these commanders to overthrow the treacherous and dishonest, tear down the artificially forced borders that the Kuffar are so keen and vigilant to protect.

In its attempt to muffle the voices of Muslims and to veil the crimes of the occupation, the Danish government again exposed its foul and ugly colonialist face. On one hand it is trying to conceal the crime of its occupation in Iraq, especially after the incidents of the murder and torture of prisoners by the Danish soldiers in Iraq and the involvement and complicity of the Danish soldiers in killing of innocent persons and handing over of prisoners to the US forces. This confirmed that the Danish soldiers are prone to torturing. By way of this trial, the Danish government is attempting to project itself as a victim in public opinion, when it cites the so-called threats; while its forces are assisting the British and American forces in their destruction of the Iraqi towns and in spilling the blood of women and children, and its forces are engaged in arresting the innocent civilians and handing them over to the British and American forces to violate their honour and carry out a variety of torture experiments on them, which any wild animal of a forest would be ashamed of! On the other hand the Danish government is using this trial to cover up the atrocities being committed by the Jewish entity in Palestine and Lebanon; this they aim to achieve by projecting the Jews as being victimised, which is why they are so keen to highlight the so-called ‘threats’. All this is open for the whole world to witness the slaughter being carried out by the Jews’ entity with the political and military support of the western countries including the government of Denmark.

This trial which is clearly hostile to the Quran, supports a policy of aggression which the Danish government pursues against Islam and the Muslims in the Muslim lands is designed to please their American masters! Locally also it is engaged in intimidating and arresting the innocent arbitrarily and conducting trials against innocent Muslim youth. It openly instigates inflammatory violation of the honour of the Quran and permits and justifies insulting and offending the Prophet (saw) with the aim of blemishing the image of Islam and destroying the credibility of Muslims.

Yes! Indeed the Hizb ut-Tahrir works to deny the Americans, the British and their colonialist agents a foothold in the Muslim lands and engages in struggles with all the resolve at its disposal to motivate the sincere among the people of power in the Islamic lands to rescue the Ummah from the clutches of the Western countries. Hizb ut-Tahrir confronts the corrupt rulers in the Muslim world who are agents of the colonialist West in order to eliminate them and form the Khilafah Rashidah. With this, a state will come into being that will implement Islam in totality, gather and unite all Muslims, protect their blood and resources, defend their honour and sanctities. The Muslims will then have a protector to assist them in the West, who will sort their matters and liberate them from the present oppression.

Indeed the Shabab of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark are constantly engaged in the Islamic Da’wah and standing by the truth without fear of any reproaches. To these Shabab, such trials only add to their strength and pride in their deen, standing by steadfastly to the Quran, and abiding by the guidance of their holy Prophet (saw) who said:

«أَلاَ لاَ يَمْنَعَنَّ أَحَدَكُمْ رَهْبَةُ النَّاسِِ أَنْ يَقُولَ بِحَقٍّ إِذَا رَآهُ أَوْ شَهِدَهُ، فَإِنَّهُ لاَ يُقَرِّبُ مِنْ أَجَلٍ وَلاَ يُبَاعِدُ مِنْ رِزْقٍ أَنْ يَقُولَ بِحَقٍّ أَوْ يُذَكِّرَ بِعَظِيمٍ»، (رواه أحمد).

“Beware! None among you should be prevented by the fear of people in uttering the truth when he knows or witnesses the truth, for uttering the truth will neither bring his death a step nearer or his provision (rizq) nor any farther because of his speaking the truth or remembrance of the almighty.” [Reported by Ahmad]

The Quran will continue to besiege and blockade the forces of occupation wherever they are, and crush Americans and their allies who terrorise and colonalise the Muslims, no matter how hard America tries to desecrate the prisoners and no matter how hard the Danish government defiles the ayaat of the Quran and its commands, because as Allah (swt) has said:

لِيَقْضِيَ اللهُ أَمْراً كَانَ مَفْعُولاً

“That Allâh might accomplish a matter already ordained” [TMQ al-Maidah 08:42]

11th Safar, 1428 A.H
28th February, 2007 C.E

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Denmark


Danish version

Security Certificates and Muslims

On Friday, February 23rd, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada “struck down the security certificate system”. The security certificates target “foreign-born terrorist suspects”. Out of the 6 people charged under the security certificates, five are Muslim. The five brothers (sometimes known as the “Secret Trial Five”) that have been imprisoned under this law include, Hassan Almrei, Adil Charkaoui, Mohammed Harkat, Mahmoud Jaballah, and Mohammad Mahjoub. The Courts has given the government one year to revise the law to make it compliant with the Constitution.

Secret evidence and the Security Certificates

According to the CBC, the Security Certificate system was set-up in 1978. Out of the 28 people that have been charged under Security Certificate legislation since 1991, 20 people have come from Muslim countries.
The main criticisms of the process include:
· Individuals can be held indefinitely without charge
· Evidence against them does not have to be made public
· Individuals cannot challenge charges or confront the evidence that was used to convict them
· Evidence can be provided by other countries (e.g. Syria,
US, etc) under a seal of security
· Deportation of the individual may lead to torture and imprisonment, especially where their country of origin provided the “evidence” Targeting Muslims: The Broader Context Muslims in Canada are not alone in being subjected to such treatment. Aside from the infamous “democratic gulags”, such as America’s Guantanamo Bay Prison and UK’s Belmarsh Prison, Western governments and Western personalities employ themselves to demonize Muslims. The goal is to ensure that the image of Muslims is negative and that the populations have an unfavorable view of Muslims. In France, the politicians are able to attract votes from the mainstream (i.e. European) population by attacking Muslims that live there. (The Muslim population is 5 million in size and 56% of immigrants are of Arab or African origin.) Such a phenomenon is not surprising given how well the hijab ban was received in France. In 2006, Nicolas Sarkozy, president of the French political party Union for a Popular Movement, stated:
“France, either you love it, or you leave it… When you live in France, you respect her republican rules, you don’t practice polygamy, circumcise your daughters or slaughter sheep in your bathroom”.

Sarkozy wanted to reassure white, non-Muslim immigrants that he was only referring to Muslims. Furthermore, by peppering his speech with racist remarks, he reinforced the negative stereotypes the general population holds against Muslims. Alhumdullilah, in Canada the situation has not reached this level, but it is important for Muslims to realize that the campaign against Muslims is a global one, and not just a phenomenon isolated to a few countries. Since 9/11, Muslims in Germany have been facing years of suspicion and harassment by the German authorities with Islamic groups being banned and Muslims being arrested and deported. Not content with this however, one German state has gone a step further and decided to clampdown on Muslim thoughts and beliefs! Muslims applying for German citizenship in the state of Baden-Württemberg will face a lengthy interrogation, involving the need to answer a catalogue of 30 questions on their political, cultural and social views. Subjects include their opinions on religious freedom, equality of the sexes, homosexuality, freedom of expression, the concept of honor, and forced marriage. In clear echoes of the Orwellian ‘Thought Police’ mentioned in the book 1984, the Interior Ministry press spokesman Günter Loos said: “…There have been neutral surveys and studies that have shown there are discrepancies between Muslim beliefs and our constitution—just think of things like forced marriages, honor killings and the like. If there is a suspicion that the person who wants to become German does not share our fundamental principles and values, then the new interrogation is meant to find that out.” Muslims who pass the test and are granted citizenship could later lose that citizenship if the ‘Thought Police’ (Interior ministry) decide they acted inconsistently with their test answers. Presumably, if a Muslim applicant were to answer that he would take multiple girlfriends in addition to his wife, encourage his son to experiment with drugs and alcohol and permit his daughter to become a prostitute he would be considered a model German and fast tracked to citizenship! Doubts have been raised about whether even sections of the German population would pass some of the questions Muslims are being asked in the test. Volker Beck, a leading Green party politician proposed a survey to find out who supported equal treatment for homosexuals. “The interior minister of (Baden-Württemberg) himself would probably fail the test then,” Beck said. This ‘policing’ of Muslims’ thoughts are not unique to Germany. In Ireland, male Muslim applicants for post-nuptial citizenship have to sign a sworn affidavit that they will not take a second wife in the future. But as pointed out by Irish Council of Civil Liberties director Aisling Reidy, applicants are not required to swear affidavits that they would not steal, rape or kill anyone - acts which are also prohibited by the laws of Ireland. Clearly the Baden-Württemberg Interior Ministry does not see a problem in non-Muslim immigrants gaining citizenship and then committing rape or murder, but does see a problem in Muslim immigrants holding contrary views even while committing no crime. Simply holding different views to the mainstream society does not automatically prevent someone from being a functioning citizen. The proof of this is Europe’s 26 million Muslims’ contribution to education, business and employment in the countries they have lived in for many years.

Germany’s policy towards Muslims has worrying echoes of its former Nazi past and its policy towards the Jews. In September 1935, the German government passed the Reich Citizenship Law which effectively limited citizenship of Germany to only those of “German and related blood who through their behavior make it evident that they are willing and able faithfully to serve the German people and nation.” Jews and other non-Germans were reclassified as aliens and denied German citizenship. This is no different to the Interior Ministry spokesmen’s statement that “If there is a suspicion that the person who wants to become German does not share our fundamental principles and values, then the new interrogation is meant to find that out.” This ‘policing of thoughts’ is further evidence of the West’s failure to intellectually convince Muslims of its secular way of life. The ideological defense of Capitalism has failed and is beginning to unravel before our eyes as the West is increasingly being associated with torture, abuse and complete disregard for any noble values. On a domestic level, Western governments have now resorted to forcing Muslims to ‘convert’ to secularism or face the prospect of denial of citizenship, deportation or even imprisonment.

Natural Resources and the Muslim Ummah

The rivalry between the Capitalist nations had been masked by the Cold War – between Communist Russia and the Capitalist West. However, with the Cold War gone, the rivalry between these nations is starting to become clear. For example, the weaker Western nations tried their utmost to forestall the American ambitions in Iraq – not because they have any love for the people of Iraq – but simply to safeguard their own colonial interests. As it was reported in the British publication, The Independent, British officials accused the CIA of undermining British efforts in Afghanistan. The Independent reported that: “British sources have blamed pressure from the CIA for President Hamid Karzai’s decision to dismiss Mohammed Daud as governor of Helmand, the southern province where Britain deployed some 4,000 troops this year.” The article also stated: “The Americans knew Daud was a main British ally…yet they deliberately undermined him and told Karzai to sack him.” http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2062489.ece

Therefore, the West is becoming more open with its colonial ambitions: so much so that they are fighting each other openly for the spoils of war. As it is known, the Muslim lands are rich in resources with 70% of world’s crude oil reserves and 50% of world’s natural gas reserves. However, for each Western nation to do this successfully, they must convince their populations that the Muslims are sub-human. Therefore, they need to present the Muslims in a negative light – as savages that needs to be civilized by the West. This will desensitize the mainstream population from the bloody images of war and torture that occurs at the hands of Western nations as they pillage the resources from the Muslim world.

Non-Muslims in the Khilafah

Contrast this to the policy of the Khilafah towards its non-Muslim citizens and those applying for citizenship. The Khilafah will not be permitted to test and threaten non-Muslims into holding the same views and beliefs as Muslims. It is not a requirement for non-Muslims to believe in the Islamic State’s constitution, principles and values. Rather the only requirement upon them becoming citizens of the Khilafah is that they agree to obey the law of the land. They are given autonomy to practice their religions in their homes and places of worship without interference from the state. Sir Thomas Arnold in his book ‘The Call to Islam’ states:
“We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years.”

The Challenge of Dawah

Although many Muslim groups are celebrating the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the security certificates, the reality is that Western nations are intensifying their grip over the Muslim world. As a result, there will be an incentive for the capitalist elite to demonize Muslims to make such ambitions a reality. Therefore, we must work with people of goodwill within the mainstream Canadian society to communicate to them what Islam really is about and to uncover the real intentions that the capitalist elite has for the Muslim world. More importantly we need to engage in debate to determine how we will work together as a human family. The current model of strong nations invading Afghanistan, Iraq, or Panama to plunder its resources is unacceptable. The current model where G8 nations install pliant dictators so that the dictator can beat up the people under his control and thereby, cede economic control to the West is also unacceptable. Islam is the solution – we have no doubt in that. The challenge lies in presenting this idea in a manner that is respectful but does not put us in a position of compromise.

“O you who believe, answer the call of Allah and His messenger when He calls you to that which gives you life.” [8:24]

The Politically Aware Muslim
Canada

11th of Safar, 1428 March 2nd, 2007 Volume 2, Issue 36