Thursday, May 31, 2007

Musharraf – Making of a Western Agent

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of treachery. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men. [Muslim]

What could lead a ruler to betray his nation? Cause huge damage to the security of his country, sell out Kashmir, kill its citizens with its own army, humiliate the architects of its nuclear programme and disappear its sons?

What kind of ruler could seek to look after the needs of other nations whilst his own suffers? What kind or ruler could have great sympathy for Western nations and show little for his own? This type of ruler is an agent, in Pakistan this man is called General Pervez Musharraf. Muslims are increasingly sensing the reasons that allow agents like Musharraf to rise to power.

Corrupting the Elites

The kafir colonialists understood that in order to manipulate Muslim countries, take their resources and spread corruption in the land, that they needed to have a pool of people that they could rely on. This pool of people is often unaware that it is to be used to extend the influence of countries like Britain, France or the US.

Institutions in such countries are often structured in such a way that anyone that does not hold western values or tastes cannot progress. Today this is true of the military in Pakistan where the CIA are searching for a suitable replacement for Musharraf to head the military, practising Muslims or even those with sentiments for Islam will be left out. In Pakistan to enter politics the criteria is that you have to be corrupt or at least corruptible. This means that it is easy for the colonial powers to manipulate policies in their favour towards as the politicians can be bought in one way or another.

In Pakistan, the US for example takes a keen interest in the educational curriculum. The children of most influential individuals in Pakistan are schooled in places like Aitchison College, or Beacon House known for their pro-western bias and the teaching of western values like free mixing between the sexes. It is here where western tastes of the future elites are developed. This makes it easier for the kafir nations to exert their influence in these countries, in business, politics or other matters.

Musharraf was brought up to have western tastes. He was educated at Forman Christian College in Lahore, run by American missionaries. In his autobiography he talks about his parents having a love for ballroom dancing, having girlfriends and being in love. Although he may not realise or admit it Musharraf was groomed to have love for the West and have the tastes of the west.

Inferiority Complex about Islam

Some agents reject Islam outright and others may believe in it in a spiritual sense but not as a system for life. It is apparent that Musharraf does not believe that Islam has a solution for life’s affairs. From his eight years in power it can be seen that he wishes to implement a cocktail of Western ideas, Pakistani traditions and his own notion of ‘Enlightened Moderation’.

Such individuals although they say that they believe in Islam cannot accept that Islam is a complete way of life that is revealed by Allah (swt) for mankind. They see the superiority of western technology, organised societies compared with dire conditions in the Muslim world. They equate progress to the West and they equate the decline witnessed in the Muslim world to Islam. They fail to see that it is because Muslims turned away from implementing Islam in their societies that they have declined. They fail to see the ugly nature of capitalism and the misery it inflicts on the majority of people in the world. For this reason their tastes and their thinking becomes aligned with the West. Such individuals may well believe in putting Pakistan or such countries first. They may have some genuine sentiment for their people but this is founded on a weak basis that gives way to their programmed western mindset. It is for this reason they become useful pawns in the hands of kafir colonialist.

The Khilafah will Drain the Swamp

Today Muslims are thankful to Allah (swt) about the increased awareness of Islam as a system of life. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the kafir colonialists to continue to steal and loot resources of the Muslim Ummah. Awareness amongst the Muslims of the true nature of the West has increased and Western agents in the Muslim world are finding it increasingly difficult to hold on to power. Ultimately, they will be thrown out.

It is only when the Khilafah established that the Ummah will truly take its destiny into her own hands. It will no longer be sold to the kafir nations by its agent rulers in return for misery and decline for the people. The Muslim world will no longer be a swamp plagued with Western agents, the swamp will be drained. No longer will the elites in Muslims lands be groomed to look up to the West and develop its sick tastes. The education system will be built upon Islam producing Muslims that fear Allah (swt) and are loyal to Islam. The Islamic way of life will outshine capitalism in all aspects of life. Muslims, as is increasingly the case today will see the ugliness of the Western way of life, they will no longer even contemplate becoming followers of the West. Rather than becoming pawns to enslave the Ummah they will become politicians that will truly look after the affairs of the Muslim Ummah and work to build a state that will become the guiding light for humanity.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Q&A: Taking financial right forcibly?

The following is a translation from Arabic.

Question: Can wife take money forcibly from a miserly husband without permission of state or husband? Can this be a proof for individual taking rights forcibly from kaafir state?

Answer:

It obligatory on the man to provide nafaqah for his wife. If he is a miser and does not spend on his wife then it is allowed for his wife to take from her husbands wealth without permission that amount which is enough by custom (bil-ma’roof) for her and her children. The evidence for that is what Bukhari narrated on the authority of ‘Aisha that Hind the wife of Abu Sufyan said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, indeed Abu Sufyan is a miserly man. He does not provide me with the maintenance that my children and I need except what I take from him without his knowledge.’ He (saw) said: ‘Take that which suffices you and your children in a fitting manner (bil ma’roof).’

As for when you have a financial right from the state, such as if the state usurped your wealth or confiscated your land, then you have the right to defend your land and wealth and if you are killed then you will be shaheed. However, if the state took your land and you did not defend but you wished to steal money from the state which is the price of your land which was confiscated in analogy with the wife who takes the wealth of her husband without his permission, then this analogy is not correct. It is not allowed according to this to steal from the state the value of your wealth. Rather you need to demand your wealth through open means. This is because stealing is not allowed except in a situation where another steals from you and you find the stolen goods with him. Then it is allowed to take back the (the same stolen property) even by theft due to the text mentioned regarding it.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Urdu: Open letter to lawyers in PK



To download the Urdu inpage file of the open letter to lawyers in Pakistan from the workers for Khilafah there go to:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/c59e8d47-6d99-4892-8587-37479688739c/Open-letter-to-lawyers-in-Pakistan

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Analysis: Darfur crisis

The following is a translation from a recent Arabic political analysis Q&A.

Question: The Darfur issue continues to remain hot and intensify, especially of late. Is Darfur becoming a region similar to the separated southern Sudan? Or is it different, will it simply be given more administrative powers and remain part of Sudan? What has happened to the issue of International forces with the African forces, which was raised in various statements and conferences, the last of which was the Darfur conference held in Libya on 28th April, 2007 C.E.

Answer:

(We have dwelt at length on the subject of Darfur in reply to a question on 28th July, 2004 C.E.)
The Darfur issue is different in certain aspects from the issue of southern Sudan. The situation of southern Sudan is that it is discussed as a separate territory independent from Sudan to serve as base for the United States for political and military purposes in Africa. In other words, America is not content with having its agents as rulers in certain African countries like the Sudan for instance. It wants to have its bases to serve as launching points, which is why it did every thing it could to prepare the script for the Nevasha Accord and it ensured that the Europeans are kept out of the whole process. The Nevasha Accord calls for separating southern Sudan and holding a reference six years after signing of the accord in January 2005 C.E. Furthermore, according to the Nevasha accord, the southern Sudan is like an independent country with immediate effect with its own armed forces and separate funds. Further, Abie, a province in the central Sudan is being considered a disputed territory between the north and the south, just because there is a revolutionary movement underway there.

The problem in Darfur is of Europe’s (Britain and France) making, because they left with southern Sudan’s problem without achieving any results, hence they seek to incite the issue to enforce their presence, if not wholly then at least as back-seat riders with the US in order to achieve their long cherished goals in Darfur.
The problem in Darfur started as any other tribal conflict over pastures, agriculture and water. This would sometimes intensify and heat up over such issues between tribes of African origin and those of Arab origin. At that stage it was possible for the Sudanese government to resolve the issue had it taken serious steps in that direction. But the US was then engaged in the dispute of southern Sudan and wanted the Sudanese government as well as the southern rebels to work towards solving the issue of the south before focusing on Darfur for an autonomous self-government for resolving the inter-clan disputes. Hence the Darfur issue practically remained out of focus during that period and was put off until a solution to the south’s problem was worked out.

Europe was aware of American preoccupation with the southern Sudan and that it aimed to delay a solution for Darfur. Therefore Europe saw an opportunity to influence the Darfur solution while the US and the Sudanese government, an ally of the US were engaged in the south.

France began to supply arms and ammunition to the rebels through Chad on the pretext of protecting their farms, lands and homes and this resulted in spreading of arms on a massive scale. Thus the situation heated up and exploded which resulted in murders, arson, destruction and violation of individual honour.........France continued to supply arms to the rebels through Chad and provided safe haven for those who rebelled against the Sudanese government. On the other hand Britain indulged in trumpeting the cause of the rebels using its media muscle in order to keep the atmosphere hot and the issue alive. The Sudanese government on its part assisted the Janjoud militia.

Thus the Darfur problem came into existence and ultimately reached the doorsteps of the United Nations where Britain supported France’s stand for military intervention. On the other hand, the US pressured Sudan to solve the conflict within a specific time frame. Now the conflict was raging and France prepared its forces to intervene and actually sent them close to the Darfur border in Chad as a sign of flexing its muscle. Blair on his part proposed sending 5000 of British forces on 22nd July, 2004 C.E. On the same day the US submitted to the UNSC a proposal ‘warning Sudan to set the matter right with in a month or face consequences’.
This continued until January 2005 C.E when the Nevasha Accord was signed which pushed the south Sudan issue to the back-burner and attention was focused on Darfur. Later the Abuja Accord was reached on 5th July, 2005 C.E.

Both these accords placed south Sudan on course for independence while wide ranging autonomy was proposed for Darfur. These accords fell short of declaring full independence for Darfur in the near future, but nevertheless prepared ground for its eventual independence at amore opportune time just as always has happened with states that have wide ranging autonomy.
America insisted that military forces intervening in Darfur for restoring peace be from the Organisation of African Unity. This was to keep the two permanent members of the Security Council away. Now this reached appoint of give-and-take, where the US wanted African forces while Europe worked to have an international force. The US wanted international resolutions giving a deadline to Sudan to comply or face consequences, while Europe worked for resolution to have international force immediately without any deadline being given. This became a conflict where the strong prevailed. There appears to be compromise solution where the actual forces will be African but supported by a some what smaller UN force.

America initiated this process but all along worked to delay a solution for as long as possible. It sent its Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte who toured Darfur on 14th April, 2007 and returned to Khartoum where he announced that ‘human situation has improved in the region’ but added that it was not enough and asked Khartoum to accept the international forces along with the UN force.

When the Sudanese Foreign Minister announced on 16th April, 2007 C.E that his country accepts the second stage of the UN plan for supporting the African forces, Negroponte responded by saying that it was not enough. But what actually delayed the matter was Blair’s announcement on 18th April, 2007 C.E that a resolution will be placed before the Security Council for imposing sanctions on Sudan. Blair added that the happenings in Darfur are a frightening scandal for the international community. Indeed Europe had lost its nerves because it could not get the resolution for the international peace keeping force that it wanted. The US realised that it was time to go for a compromise solution; hence Bush announced the same day that he had decided to give the UN Secretary General more time to work with President al- Basheer to send an international force and added that the Sudanese President al-Basheer seizes his last opportunity to work positively with the Secretary General and meet the just demands of the international community. It was now clear that America was settling for a compromise solution of having a small international force to support the African forces.
This was meant to put pressure on Basheer, who was opposed to the international force because of US pressure on him to reject such a force. Now the same US were demanding from him to accept it. This is why he practically exploded on 19th April shouting that America was behind all the woes in Sudan!

However, no agent can sustain such a statement for long, therefore on 22nd April, 2007; the Sudanese government announced that it welcomes the UN Secretary General.
It can now be said that an international force along with the African forces has become a reality and the strengths of the respective powers will determine the size, numbers and power of such a force.

If one monitors the recent Darfur conference in Libya he will find the various parties to this conflict attending the conference on 28th April, 2007 C.E: the representative of America, the representative of Britain, the representative of France, the representative of United Nations, the representative of African Unity along with foreign ministers of Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Eritrea and Libya.

It is the same parties who are responsible for the conflict in the first place who are working out a solution!

13th Rabee’ ul akhir, 1428 A.H
30th April, 2007.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Comments on the 2nd German Islamic Conference

The following is a translation from Arabic.

The German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shoelbe on the second Wednesday of May 2007 C.E called for an Islamic Conference for the second time where 15 delegates represented the Muslims and another 15 represented Germany with the purpose of discussing ways to integrate Muslims in Germany. The apparent aim was to assist Muslims residing in Germany to integrate and carve a German Islam. This is how the interior minister declared in the conference when he said: “….and to improve the mutual coexistence between Muslims and majority of the society”.

Before we begin to delve into the agenda of the conference and its aims, we would like to disseminate the interior minister’s inaugural speech addressed to the Muslims in the Islamic World. This was not objected to by the so-called Muslims’ representatives in the least; on the other hand, in the context in which he expressed his well-veiled views, these representatives were filled with a sense of satisfaction, relief and admiration. The interior minister said: “The Muslims in Germany are not responsible for the Jews and Christians who do not enjoy the same rights in the Muslims countries”.

On the surface this statement amounts to absolving the Muslims living in Germany; because as the minister said, these Muslims have no hand in non-Muslims’ plight and suffering at the hands of the Muslims in those countries!

Actually this was an impertinent question; because this rather petty question does not make sense, that Muslims living in Germany or other Western countries are responsible for the so-called oppression that the non-Muslims suffer in the Muslim lands. Nevertheless, the judgement of the interior minister absolving the Muslims of Germany was totally uncalled for in the first place.

Since we regard the German interior minister as a sane and wise person, we do not expect him to utter heresy. At the same time we find his elegantly styled address hides his evil intention, which he intentionally slapped on the faces of the representatives.

Despite the fact that we do not intend to defend any un-Islamic practice in the Muslim countries, anyone who knows us understands that while working to establish a Khilafah State, Hizb ut-Tahrir is engaged in a struggle to bring about a change in those countries. However the claims of the interior minister are misplaced and erroneous. Anyone who visits the Muslim countries knows that the non-Muslims there are far better placed than the majority of the Muslims and do not suffer as much as the majority of the Muslims do. And more often the non-Muslims enjoy a higher level of life style and enjoy special privileges denied to the majority of the Muslims.

The Chinese in Malaysia, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Coptics of Egypt or the Jews of Morocco are living examples of the better living conditions of non-Muslims in the Muslim World. As for some of them suffering poverty, it is a result of the general economic poverty prevailing in those countries as a whole and in all likelihood, the plight of the Muslims there may even be worse!

Returning to Germany, the land of order, freedom and democracy, which the interior minister praises enormously, let us look whether the Muslims living in Germany really enjoy the same rights as enjoyed by the majority non-Muslims there and let us apply the same reasoning that the minister used, to understand the situation.

Therefore as an instance, do the Muslims really enjoy the same rights while the Muslim women are denied a simple right to wear Islamic dress?

In the province of Bavaria, a constitutional court has ruled clearing allowing the catholic clergy to adorn their ‘religious’ head gear, and in a sharp contrast, has clearly rejected the Muslim women’s headscarf! Do the Muslims enjoy the same rights when a Muslim lady wearing Khimar is told that she is not eligible for any employment in her headscarf. When a Muslim lady refuses a job because it requires her to discard the Khimar, does she enjoy rights similar to the non-Muslims? Her dues are deducted like of those who do not report for work.
Do the Muslims enjoy the same rights when they are told on their face that Muslims who offer prayers are not required in the company? The Muslims are ridiculed or are sacked from work for refusing to attend company functions where liquor is served.

The list can be lengthy, but it is clear that the so-called ‘all citizens are equal’ is farcical and pure nonsense, its purpose to throw dust in the eyes of the Muslims and propagate lies and illusion that the Muslims enjoy same rights.

At this point we would like to quote the authorised statement of Maria Bomer of the Christian Democratic Union (the CDU). She stated in response to the fair demands by Muslims to segregate boys and girls in sports classes. She stated that this “equality is not negotiable”. May we ask her how are segregated sports classes related to equality? When the same sporting arenas and sporting equipment are used under the school supervision by the girls and boys, how do separate classes infringe upon equality? It is for her to explain this intellectual contradiction. But off course she need not if her intention was to hurt the Muslim sentiments.

As for the interior minister’s call to create a ‘German Islam’, it is out rightly rejected by the Muslims, just as similar calls for a ‘European Islam’ or any other brand if Islam.

Islam is one, it is the deen of Allâh (swt) which He revealed to His Prophet (saw) to organise man’s relation with his creator; with himself and with other human beings. This is the one testimony which binds the Muslims the world over. It is this testimony that gives Muslims their identity and makes them an inseparable part of the Islamic Ummah. The Muslims in Germany are being asked to renounce their link to the Ummah and embrace another set of laws which are unacceptable. However, having said that it is not being implied that the Muslims in Western countries like Germany can not live in peace with non-Muslim majority, this is not only possible but it is also a requirement under Islam. Therefore a Muslim by merely obtaining a visa to enter Germany or by accepting the nationality is obliged by the Shari’ah to comply with the general law of the country and not to violate peoples’ property, honour and blood in any way. This is the basis on which the German nation can require the Muslims to comply with, but if it chooses to demand that Muslims must shed their identity and renounce their beliefs, it certainly can only be rejected.

It is an obligation for the Muslims in Germany to profess their Islam with a sense of pride. It is for them to become the sinless brigade which Allâh (swt) revealed to His Prophet (saw) which will release the people from the shackles of ignorance to the enlightened truth.

The Muslims must analyse such false statements that are issued by the politicians of Germany and see the falsehood of Western values through these and also see through their policy to match apple with two apples which characterises their representatives in the conference.

يَا أَيُّـهَـا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اسْـتَجِـيبُوا لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُـولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ لِمَا يُحْيِـيكُمْ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَحُـولُ بَـيْـنَ الْمَـرْءِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَأَنَّهُ إِلَيْهِ تُحْشَرُونَ.

"O you who believe! Answer Allâh (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he [sal-Allâhu 'alayhi wa sallam] calls you to that which will give you life, and know that Allâh comes in between a person and his heart. And verily, to Him you shall (all) be gathered." [TMQ Al-Anfâl, 8: 024]

Engineer Shakir Asim
Member representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir
In areas referred to as Germany
19th Rabee’ al thani, 1428 A.H
6th May, 2007 C.E

Analysis: Influence of Democrat's in US foreign policy?

The following is a translation from a recent Arabic political analysis Q&A.

Question: It has been observed in the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s victory in the mid-term elections to the US Congress (Senate and the House of Representative), there is an apparent shift in the style of them addressing the Middle East Conflict concerning Palestine, as well as towards Iraq. This was marked during the visit of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives visit to the region. It is also evident from the stand taken by the Democrats on the funding of the Iraq war. Does all this mean that a definite shift has taken place in the US policy for the region?

Answer:

Countries like the US have an institutionalised policy-making apparatus in place and they do not indulge in ad-hoc, off-hand and short-term policy making. Their policies, especially the broader policies and fundamental frame works are adopted after exhaustive studies and due contemplation, therefore, though the men in political parties may change, the basic policy remains the same, even if they may differ in the ways to implement them.

This is why Pelosi clarified in her statement at the end of her visit to Damascus on 4th April, 2007 saying: “President Bush and the delegation are not divided on the issue of the matters we discussed (in Syria).” Just before this in her statements in Beirut on 1st April, she had linked her visit to the US national security, she had said: “We shall explore ways to make the world a safer place and we will fight terrorism.”

During her visit to the region covering the entity of the Jews’, the West bank, Lebanon and Syria, her statement did not indicate any shift in the US view of the region, following is an account of her tour:

On 1st April, 2001 during her visit to the occupied Palestine in the West bank, she called upon the Arab countries to recognise the Jews’ state, renounce violence and terrorism, release of the Jew prisoners and to negotiate with the Jews’ state for a small state on part of the lands occupied in 1967 C.E etc. She praised the proposal put forward by Olmert in a press conference on 1st April, the same day Pelosi traveled to the region, wherein he expressed his willingness to participate in an Arab-Israeli summit on the Arab Peace Initiative. This was also echoed by the US State Department on 3rd April, 2007 which called the Olmert initiative as “Positive Response”. Certainly Pelosi was aware that the Bush administration has been backing the Arab Peace Initiative. She was also aware that it was the Bush administration that set up their brothers Fatah and Hamas in power to agree to the Arab Peace Initiative just as the Arab rulers had done in order that the solutions to the Palestinian and the Syrian problems are found simultaneously. Since earlier it was only one of the power centres in Palestine (Fatah) that had agreed to the initiative while Hamas had remained opposed to it, but now that both have agreed, progress on the Palestinian issue can be made simultaneously with the Syrian issue. This has been America’s old method in finding a solution and it was why the Arab League constituted a committee to sell the initiative to the Jews state as well as the rest of the world.

The talks are indeed under way between the Jews’ state and Syria; Ibraheem Suleiman, a journalist of Syrian origin, while addressing the Israeli Knesset said that Assad is for peace and is looking for real peace with Israel and that it was Assad who refused to open another front against Israel during the war with Lebanon. As per the recently released report of the Crises Group (with head quarters in Brussels), wherein it mentions that it has proposed a solution between Syria and Israel and it reassures that the officials of the two countries have indicated that willingness to accept the same. Since the Arab Peace Initiative is already accepted by the Arab rulers as well as the Palestinian Authority and the govt., the US is keen to see quick negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian govt. and both of them negotiating with the Jews’ state. All this is aimed at achieving simultaneous solutions for both the Palestinian as well as the Syrian dispute. Pelosi was also concerned with this issue as she carried a letter from Olmert to al-Assad on the subject of negotiations. She announced that Syria’s response to Olmert’s letter was positive. This clearly means that Pelosi was treading the American path in Palestine and Syria.

Pelosi was certainly of the fact that Lebanon is a dispute with an international dimension to it between the US and the Europe (France and England), where the US has a strong influence provided to it by Syria for the past 15 years since it signed the Taif agreement, and Europe which has found the Hariri assassination as a real chance to force Syria out and restore European influence in Lebanon. It was for this reason that Pelosi referred to the talks with Syria as ‘very good’ and stated in Lebanon before undertaking the Syrian journey that: “We are aware that solution to some of the problems in Lebanon lies in Syria.”

When she visited Syria on 3rd April, Pelosi clarified that her visit was part of the Baker-Hamilton Plan. This was an experts committee from the Democrats as well as the Republicans and the plan calls for contacts with Syria and Iran regarding the regional issues, especially to urge them to play a more active role in rescuing America from its current doom in Iraq. She used to occasion to discuss the Israeli-Syrian issue and while commenting to the Olmert letter, she said that the Syrian response was positive.

Before the visit of Pelosi, a delegation of the Republican senators led by Sen. Frank Wolf had visited Damascus on 1st April, 2007 and had held talks with Assad and Walid al- Mu’allim two days before the arrival of Pelosi heading a delegation of six representatives including one Republican David Hughson. The official spokesman said that the talks covered Iraq and the regional situation in general. The delegation of the US Congress urged the Syrian officials to take certain confidence building measures with Israel including returning the remains of the Israeli spy Ellie Cohen in order to please their friend President Bush and to enable him to be receptive about Syria, as the delegation put it.

As for the issue of Iraq, although did she did not visit Iraq, but intended to travel later, the purpose of her visit to region was in essence part of the Baker-Hamilton Plan to protect American interests in Iraq and the Gulf. There is agreement between the Bush administration and the Democrats on the issue and this is in essence what the Baker-Hamilton Plan envisages, though they may differ on the details of its implementation. And the difference of opinion between the Republicans and the Democrats on the subject of linking of funds allocated for the US military in Iraq to the its pull-out schedule, is to be seen as adopting the best possible means to achieve or secure the US’s interests in the region, ensuring America’s continued influence in Iraq and the Gulf, securing America’s continued exploitation of the vast oil resources. The Republicans envisage gradual implementation of the Baker-Hamilton Plan; therefore do not agree to the withdrawal plan at this time, while the Democrats want an immediate pull-out implementation of the same plan and insist on scheduling the withdrawal now! Having said that, both, the Democrats and the Republicans want continued presence of their strike forces to ensure securing of American interest and its continued hegemony and supremacy as envisaged in the Baker-Hamilton Plan on which we have already issued a detailed statement.

All this indicate clearly that there is no shift in their basic view for the Palestine and the surrounding region (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq), they both share the same stance. They differ on the ways and means to be adopted for securing their interest in the region, their control of the oil resources and to ensure their continued military presence in the region.
It is possible for us to say that Nancy Pelosi’s visit is an early election campaign visit by the speaker of the house majority. The Democrats realise that the Americans want an exit from the Iraq quagmire, and that the US wants Iran and Syria to rescue it from Iraq, Bush wants the same as well as the Democrats and Syria and Iran have not refused it. Bush and the Democrats concur on the basics but differ on the means. Bush has held on to a policy of stick since assuming the presidency and he can only renounce it step-by-step. The Democrats are aware that the Baker-Hamilton Committee is a high-level one and it will not be possible for Bush to wish it away but is compelled to implement the plan gradually and change his stick-wielding position to a carrot-dangling position step by step. When the Democrats realised this, they hurriedly arranged Pelosi’s visit before Bush and the Republicans could prepare an atmosphere to shift from their policy of wielding the stick to that of dangling a carrot. This is why Pelosi’s visit was hastily arranged and this frustrated the Republicans who saw her visit as a set back to them, therefore the Republicans hastily arranged a tour of their delegation in order to pre-empt Pelosi’s visit and to deny her the credit of being the first to comply with the plan of the Baker-Hamilton Committee.

In short: The Democrats correctly gauged the sentiments of the people towards a settled withdrawal from the Iraqi imbroglio as required under the Baker-Hamilton Plan. The Democrats are aware that Bush and the Republicans are treading its path but in a gradual manner. Therefore the Democrats want to seize the opportunity from the Republicans.
The incentive for the Democrats is to garner crucial public opinion ahead of the presidential polls later next year. It may be said that they have launched an early election campaign. Instead of beginning the campaign in mid-2008 which is the norm, they have done so now because they foresee that the Republicans can thus be cornered.

This does not mean that the Democratic and the Republican parties differ on extending their supremacy over Iran and Syria; it is just that they prefer separate views to achieve this. Even on the crucial Baker-Hamilton Plan they only differ on the manner of its implementation and its timing. As Pelosi herself announced, her visit was in accordance with Baker-Hamilton Plan. The Bush administration on the other hand has initiated gradual execution of the plan and its results reflected in the Baghdad Conference of 10th March, 2007 C.E and the Sharm el-Sheikh scheduled for 3rd & 4th May, 2007 C.E. It is clear from these that the main participants i.e. the US, Iran & Syria and the outcome of the meetings between the representatives of these countries, especially at Sharm el-Sheikh where the US Secretary of State is meeting the foreign ministers of Iran and Syria, are all aimed at getting these two countries to come to the rescue of the US from Iraq.

[Before these replies were dispatched, the US Department of State announced that the meeting of the ‘quartet countries’ with the ‘Arab Committee’ will be held on Thursday-Friday night, 3rd & 4th May, 2007 to ‘sell’ the Peace Initiative and that Syria will be a part of this ‘Arab Committee’. It also announced that Condoleezza Rice will meet Walid al- Mu’allim, the Syrian Foreign Minister. Similarly Tehran also announced that its foreign minister is willing to meet Rice at the Sharm el Shaikh conference but only to discuss and not to negotiate.]

13th Rabee’ ul akhir, 1428 A.H
30th April 2007

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Analysis: Iran's Uranium Enrichment Programme

The following is a translation from a recent Arabic political analysis Q&A:

Question:

The Nuclear crisis of Iran has now become an oft-repeating issue, negotiations, failure of negotiations and now referred to the UN Security Council, which passes a resolution and allows Iran a deadline of a month or two to comply with it. Then there is a report by its Secretary General to the effect that Iran has not complied. This is followed by yet another resolution and another deadline for Iran to comply, and this goes on…..

How has this crisis developed and what is its current status? What are the chances of either the US or Israeli carrying out an attack? Further is there a link between this crisis and the North Korean Nuclear crisis?

Answer:

It is known that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was carved out in 1968 C.E and Iran had become its signatory in 1970 C.E, and Iran under the Shah had begun its nuclear activity in collaboration with some European firms (French and German).

Khomeini had pulled a stop on Iran’s nuclear activity in 1979 C.E. Rafsanjani later resumed the nuclear programme in 1995 C.E and it continued during the reformist period (1997-2005 C.E) under Khatemi. During this period (summer 2003 C.E), after the occupation of Iraq, the exiled Iranian opposition announced that Iran was pursuing a secret and unsafe nuclear programme under cover and hiding it from the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Based on this, the chief of IAEA, Mohammed el Baradai prepared a report and presented it to the IAEA.

This is when the Iranian Nuclear Crisis gained momentum and began a round of give-and-take in the dialogue with the European ‘Troika’ of Germany, France and Britain. It was followed by a protocol signed on 25th October, 2003 C.E during the rule of Khatemi and was named as the ‘additional protocol’ which allowed the IAEA to carry out surprise inspections. This was aimed to prevent accusations against Iran that it covers up the sensitive matters from the inspectors during routine and scheduled inspections.

Despite this and in spite of Iran ceasing the enrichment process for the sake of negotiations, the noose continued to be tightened against Iran without guaranteeing its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran therefore resumed its uranium enrichment programme.
The matter continued like a growing ice-berg which would sometimes warm up a little and the ice would melt somewhat, only to magnify again until the UN Security Council passed its resolution 1737 on 23rd December, 2006 C.E which called for ceasing of the uranium enrichment. But Iran refused to renounce its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as guaranteed in the international treaty. The UNSC met again on 23rd April, 2007 C.E, this time to pass its resolution 1747 and gave a deadline of two months to Iran to stop the enrichment process which amounts to requiring Iran to renounce its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Though it common knowledge that those countries that object to Iran using uranium for peaceful purposes are themselves engaged in enriching uranium for military use and for making nuclear weapons which the US actually used during the Second World War!
What is apparent is that while Europe is engaged in negotiations with Iran on its nuclear conflict, the US is remote-monitoring the situation and even sabotaging the negotiations:

For instance, while the European ‘Troika’ was engaged in negotiations with Iran to find a solution to the problem, the US was busy trying to delay a solution, but outwardly always maintained that it supported the European Solution to the issue. Whenever the negotiations reached a point of near-solution, the US officials would issue a statement with an implied warning that the US had all options open to it to further mess up the crisis!

Again for instance on 27th April, 2007 C.E i.e. two days after his meeting with Larijani on 25th April, 2007, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief envoy, called upon Washington to open all channels of communication with Tehran including the nuclear issue and added that the Iranians, including their higher authorities are open to such a dialogue. Solana had in his talks with Larijani proposed that both parties abandon their positions in favour of a mid-way solution in good faith. But Washington backed off insisting that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment as a pre-condition for any direct dialogue with it, although it was well aware that Iran’s nuclear enrichment was well within 5%, the limit for enrichment for peaceful purposes, whereas for nuclear process to be of use for military purposes, a very highly enriched uranium (97%) is required. This speaks volumes for America’s so-called fears that Iran’s nuclear programme is headed towards military applications! All this indicates that America is bent upon seeing this conflict alive and without solution so that it can exploit the situation to secure its own interests as follows:

To exploit the nuclear conflict issue in order to instill a sense of fear in the Gulf countries. This will enable America to retain its bases and its destroyer ships active in the region with the aim of protecting the Gulf States from the alleged threat of Iran. While the true aim is to keep firm control of the region with its vast oil resources and thus keep its own industrial activity running intact. The proven petroleum resources of this region are in the range of 357,000 million barrels of crude oil! While the potential reserves are far higher in magnitude. The expert sources add that the Saudi oil resources alone are about 160,000 million barrels which are sufficient for the next 50 years at least at the current high rate of production which stands at over 13 million barrels per day! It is known that the three biggest oil producers are in this region i.e. Saudi, Iran and Iraq, and when we add Kuwait and other emirates of the gulf, there is no doubt that this forms the arteries of the industrial and financial world as a whole. Therefore it is not surprising that the big western countries are competing with one another and their oil companies are crowding this region for the sake of its enormous energy resources. This is the reason they are sending their soldiers and experts and planting their military bases as well as their agents in the region.

To construct a nuclear protection shield in Eastern Europe (Poland & Czech republic) right in the belly of Russia that has the ballistic missiles capable of striking America. The US had already announced that it wants to spread a protective shield aimed at what it called “to alert it to the potential danger of missiles from Iran and North Korea”. Russia responded to it saying that it was impossible that missiles from Iran or North Korea could travel across Europe and into America!

Russia is well aware that the missile shield is aimed at her and the Iran pretext is rather feeble. Sergie Lavorov, the Russian Foreign Minister, therefore stated on 4th April, 2007 that his country was monitoring the missile shield project being undertaken in Europe and studying the dangers it poses to Russia as well as Europe as a whole in order to impress upon Europeans the danger it spells for Europe. Lavorov repeated his warning a week later on 24th April, 2007 C.E.
On 21stApril, 2007, a Polish newspaper quoted a government source as saying that Bush would visit Warsaw June next to hold talks on building the missile shield in Poland. He is likely to visit the Czech Republic for the same purpose.

Reacting to the indecisiveness of Europe on taking a firm stance on the issue of the US’s missile shield, Putin announced on 26th April, 2007 that his country will freeze all action on the conventional weapons treaty in Europe. At the same time, Rice declared that Moscow’s fears on the proposed missile shield were ridiculous and unfounded.

This is how the US is exploiting the conflict for its own benefits. It is fully aware that there is no nuclear threat from Iran in the foreseeable future and the sanctions will further erode Iran’s capacity, if any. It is therefore more likely that America will exert all its efforts to stall a solution and whenever the dialogue approaches solution, it will create hindrances as we have stated earlier.

As for an American attack on Iran to tackle the crisis, there are various factors why such a scenario is rather unlikely; first of all, the internal situation in the US after the Democrats victory and rising death toll of Americans in Iraq with more dead bodies being brought home, the regional situation (the imbroglio in Afghanistan and Iraq) and globally there is opposition to such an attack. Furthermore, Iran has the capability to strike at American interests in the region. The statements by the US officials reinforce this argument:

On 29th of January, 2007 C.E, Bush said: “How can one say that American Forces and our interests cannot be secured except by carrying out an attack on Iran.”

The US Defence Secretary on 3rd February, 2007 C.E said: “We do not plan a war against Iran.”
On 5th April, 2007, the new commander of the US Central Military Command, Admiral William Falon who succeeded John Abizaid, rejecting ‘imminently striking Iran’, said: “We have enough problems in Iraq.” This was after he met the Egyptian President at Sharm el Sheikh.

On 17th April, 2007, the head of the US Naval Operation Michael Moulin said that America has no plans to attack Iran and asserted that the American reinforcements in the Gulf are aimed to protect peace in the region.

A US attack on Iran is therefore unlikely in the foreseeable future as the regional and international facts indicate; we say foreseeable future because the global developments vis-à-vis relations and interests are known to shift depending on the current realities.

But nevertheless, there are three pertinent factors that must be considered:
First of all: The Jews’ state is concerned and interested in carrying out a strike because it realises that a nuclear capability with any Islamic country is a threat to the Jews. But considering Iran’s own military strengths, such an attack by the Jews can not guarantee results. Moreover Iran itself can inflict severe harm upon Jewish state in case of an attack. This is why the Jews want the US to attack Iran and to this end they are appealing to the sentiments of the Neo-Conservatives who have a religious inclination towards the Jews. During the visit of the US defence secretary to the occupied Palestine on 18th April, 2007, tried to impress upon America the necessity of undertaking military action against Iran, but they could not achieve their desired results from the defence secretary.

The Jews media dwelt at some length on this issue after the Gates visit on 19th April, 2007 C.E. the sources mentioned that during the wide-ranging discussions in which the Israeli security agencies’ heads met Secretary Gates and his aides, the Israeli officials explained the comprehensive Middle East situation to the Gates delegation, while the head of the Israeli intelligence agency briefed Gates on the happenings in Iran and shared with him some highly confidential information on Iran. The Israeli intelligence heads also asked Gates to tell them about US information on Iran, but Gates told them in no uncertain terms that the US still holds on to the diplomatic option to solve the Iranian nuclear issue and categorically ruled out a military attack on Iran. The newspaper added that the Israeli officials bluntly asked Gates for more information on the American intentions so as to allow Israel to finalise its own strategies on the subject, but Gates unequivocally refused to entertain their demands and said categorically that the American administration is still considering only the diplomatic option to bring pressure upon Iran to renounce its nuclear programme.

Secondly, Britain is concerned about the over heating of atmosphere, the Americans’ woes in Iraq and the looming confrontation with Iran. This is evident in many of its actions, for instance, its recent announcement that Britain will reduce numbers of its troops in Iraq, although at the same time the US announced that it needs for forces in Iraq to have a grip on the security situation in Iraq.

But the clearest indication of aggravation of situation pushing America to an armed clash with Iran is British Naval personnel’s crossing over into Iranian territorial waters, which was timed with the UNSC considering sanctions on Iran on 23rd April, 2007; the night when resolution 1747 of the Security Council was passed which further tightened the sanctions. This was a time of high-alert for the Iranian armed forces and was manifest in heightened level of war exercises. It must be appreciated that this portion of the sea, the shatt-al –Arab is not a huge area where the British Naval Personnel could have got lost, especially because they are already familiar with the surroundings having been there for the last four years. The British certainly would have known that Iran would not remain silent on its own waters being breached on intention by the British soldiers. This is how the fifteen were detained.

Hence the conflict heightened and Blair promised on 3rd April, 2007 that if the Britons were not released during the next 48 hours, he will take severe and harsh action, he said: “the next two days will be decide one of the two courses of action: First, to solve the issue through negotiations; Secondly, if negotiations do not result in their release, we will take stern action.” This evidently was aimed to provoke Iran, also that in case of an armed clash on this issue, the US will most certainly be a party to it result in a fierce war. Blair knew well that his statement will provoke Ahmedinijad who is from a revolutionary background.

But what happened turned out to be different; Ahmedinijad pardoned and released the soldiers with out an official regret. On 4th April, 2007, i.e. before the expiry of the two day deadline, he announced their release at a press conference. Thus this conflict ended in a way Blair had not anticipated, as he said in his statement on 5th April, 2007, when the plane carrying the released soldiers arrived at London’s Heathrow airport: “Their release has been achieved sooner than expected and without any deal.” Thus the second partner failed to incite war just as the first partner was disappointed. It cannot be ruled out that the US played a role in the prisoners’ release.

Thirdly: The Republican Party lost its popularity owing to the failure of its administration’s policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and this may make their chances in the presidential elections weak if not totally lost.

These are the three factors that deserve to be considered, however, as we have previously mentioned, a military option does not seem likely in the foreseeable future.

As to a possible link between the North Korean nuclear stand-off and the Iranian conflict, there is none; North Korea is already a nuclear state producing nuclear weapons, while Iran is still at a preliminary stage where it is enriching uranium within the limits suitable for peaceful usage.
But there is a connection of a different kind; and that is a solution to both the conflicts is being deliberately hindered. The United States seeks to sustain the conflict in the neighbourhood of China and therefore has roped in North Korea’s neighbours in a six-sided conference to prolong and complicate the issue. This is why it refuses to enter into a bilateral dialogue with North Korea. Also because China is the country considered closest to North Korea, America wants to keep the issue alive right in the immediate vicinity of China.

To sustain the conflict means to hinder a solution and keep North Korea as nuclear state and not as a non nuclear state. That is why you find that whenever China is close to a solution, America blocks it with excuse or another, therefore when they were about to sign a agreement whereby North Korea would dismantle one of its plants in exchange of specified American aid, the US moved to freeze North Korean funds in a Macau bank and prevented its transfer to North Korea. Meanwhile the deadline expired on 13th April, 2007 for dismantling of the plant without North Korea receiving the aid. Thereby the quagmire continued with no sign of a thaw and North Korea insisted that it will not begin dismantling of the plant until the funds were transferred to it.

Although the funds in question are only 25 million dollars, which is a paltry sum considering that it is the price of dismantling of a North Korean nuclear plant (the Pyongyang plant), however the imbroglio continues until date and this prompted the Russian deputy foreign minister to comment on 16th April, 2007: “The US is hindering a solution to the North Korean nuclear issue by preventing transfer of Pyongyang’s funds from Macau.”

Finally on 26th April, 2007, a South Korea negotiator working on the North Korean conflict stated that he expects the issue of transfer of the frozen funds from Delta Ajya bank in Macau to be settled in a week’s time!

It can therefore be said that there is a similarity between the North Korean nuclear issue and the Iranian issue in that the US is hindering progress towards a solution in both the cases in order to keep the conflict alive as long as it can.

13th Rabee’ ul akhir, 1428 A.H
30th April 2007

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Analysis: Independence for Kosovo?

The following is a translation from a recent Arabic political analysis Q&A:

Question:

It is evident from America’s actions in Kosovo that it seeks to separate it from Serbia. Why does America have to undertake this task which apparently is in the interest of the Muslims of Kosovo? This actually amounts to removing the nightmare of oppression, murders and throat-choking subjugation which the Serbs had imposed upon the Muslims.

Answer:

Serbia occupies a strategically vital location in the Balkan region, and has deep traditional, cultural and religious relations with the Christian Orthodox Russia. Now, especially after the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, in which Serbia had enjoyed a position of privilege and its capital Belgrade was the capital of Yugoslavia, Serbia has moved closer to Russia and acts as it’s front-line in the Balkans. It is under the Russian influence that Serbia is moving away from the European Union and opposes US policies in Balkan, which are aimed to gain influence in the Balkans (Eastern Europe) in order to be able to hit Russia in its belly.

Therefore America first of all planned to separate Montenegro which had remained united with Serbia, and to achieve this, it provided assistance to the liberation movements of Montenegro.
Now the US is engaged in separating Kosovo from Serbia, not in the interest of Muslims, but in order to weaken Serbia and thereby severing the last link that Russia has in the Balkans. In doing so, America hopes to implement its agenda in the regions without any resistance from a Russian-backed Serbia.

The following points will clarify it further:
The United States has formed and armed the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLI.
Due of America’s effective leadership of the NATO, which it enjoys through the founding rules of NATO, the US enabled the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to carry out attacks on Serbia and force it out of Kosovo eight years back. It later had the UN Security Council resolution 1244 in 1999 C.E which placed Kosovo under UN administration.

Since the UNSC resolution 1244 is rather ambiguous on the issue of separation of Kosovo, the Security Council on April 2nd 2007 has begun discussions on the proposals made by the international observer, Marti Ahitesari regarding the final negotiations which comprises serious plans aimed at separating Kosovo from Serbia.

The United States has announced its support for the proposals presented by Ahitesari and has also voiced its support for the separation of Kosovo. This was announced by Nicholas Burns, the Deputy Secretary of State on April 13th, 2007.

When the Serbian media carried this report and reported that Burns had announced that the US would recognise the independence of Kosovo even in case the UNSC does not pass a resolution to this effect, Burns denied in his statement on April 18th, 2007, that had not said so and clarified that he had said: “The proposals made by the international observer for the region Marti Ahitesari alone are the best options for the peace in Kosovo and the region, therefore America will make efforts to seek independence for Kosovo through a resolution of the UNSC and Kosovo will gain recognition from the US and other countries.”

This basically amounts to the same thing though the words are put differently in his clarification.
This is the US stand on the issue.

As for the European Union stance on the issue, though it is aware that the US seeks to weaken Serbia, erode the Russian influence in the Balkans and to remove any obstacle in its path in the region, the EU hopes that as a result of any weakening or breaking of Russian-Serbian links, it will be able to get Serbia in the EU and exploit its animosity with America. This it hopes will help counter the growing influence of other East European countries like Poland and the Czech Republic which have entered the EU and are considered as American pawns in the EU. It is with this aim that the EU has voiced its support for the Ahitesari proposal. Former foreign minister of Germany, Joska Fischer has written an article titled: “Time has come for a durable solution for Kosovo”, where he says: “Indeed the bold proposals of Ahitesari that call for the independence of Kosovo and strong international supervision are the only effective options for the international community and the EU in particular.”

Russia and Serbia have on the other hand vehemently resisted the proposals and rejected them.
The head of the Serbian government, while addressing the Security Council during the debate on the Ahitesari proposal on April 3rd, 2007 said: “Serbia does not agree to any proposal except that Kosovo remains an integral part of Serbia and enjoys wide autonomous powers within the Serbian Republic.” Before this, he had said on April 1st, 2007 at the Belgrade airport on his way to New York to attend the Security Council debate: “The Russian support for Serbia will play a key role in defeating and frustrating the Ahitesari plan which by not respecting national borders and sovereignty, has violated the international consensus.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry had stated on March 19th, 2007: “The independence of Kosovo will have serious repercussions on stability in Europe.” The ministry then threatened that Russia would exercise its right to veto any proposal that is not acceptable to the Serbs. News media in Belgrade suggested on 5th and 7th April, 2007 that Russia intends to send a fact finding committee to go into the details of the situation in Kosovo and Belgrade and demanded that the debate over the Ahitesari proposal be delayed until after the return of the committee. The UNSC accepted the Russian suggestion to form a committee to be headed by a non-European non-permanent member of the Security Council and the committee arrived in Belgrade on the evening of April 25th, 2007 and set about its task. The Belgrade TV, before the arrival of the team carried a statement by the deputy foreign minister of Russia, Vladimir Titov: “His country will not allow the proposal of the international observer Marti Ahitesari to pass through in the UNSC because it is futile.”

On April 28th, 2007, the Russian Foreign Minister repeated that his country does not accept any proposal that is not acceptable to the Serbs.

From the above, it is evident that the situation in Kosovo is an international confrontation between America and Russia and to some extent Europe. The interest of the Muslims are not a part of this. The Ahitesari proposal that calls for separation of Kosovo however does not grant sovereignty but places it under international supervision and supported by NATO, which amounts to placing it under the American influence and a small role for the EU, that is if the current proposals are not modified or not vetoed by Russia.

To complete the picture, Kosovo has a population of 2 million people who have lived under the Ottoman Khilafah from 1389 C.E to 1913 C.E, 90% of these are Muslims and 10% are Serbs. According to the Ahitesari plan these Muslims, who are Albanian Muslims will not be allowed to unite with Albania, similarly the Serbs will not be allowed to unite with Serbia, so that the problem persists and the US and the NATO remain in control.

In short: The Kafir colonialists do not work for the betterment or welfare of Muslims; they merely exploit them in their own confrontation for their own interests. It is only a Khilafah State will truly protect the Muslims, restore their honour & pride and put a stop to the designs of the Kufr, that will be the day when the Muslims will be delighted by the support of Allah (swt).

13th Rabee’ ul akhir, 1428 A.H
30th April 2007

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Analysis: Protests in Pakistan

The following is a translation from a recent Arabic political analysis Q&A:

Question: Since March 9th, 2007 when Musharraf suspended Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, protests have flared up whenever the case for hearing has held its session. The court in its hearing on April 19th, 2007, accepted to look into the objections raised by the defence counsel (Former Interior Minister, I’tizaz Ihsan) that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter relating to the Chief Justice. The court announced that it will consider the objections in its hearing on 28th of April. Despite this the public protests have continued unabated. What has forced Musharraf to take this unpleasant step and only exacerbate people’s hatred for his rule which has already been there because of his support and assistance provided to America for launching its attacks on Afghanistan? He has further left the Kashmiri Mujahideen in lurch. Is he not afraid that people’s resentment will unseat him?

Answer:

When a ruler severs his link with his Creator and the Ummah, and maintains relations only with the Kafir colonialists who are now led by the United States, he is no longer bothered by the resentment of people and his fear of their anger unseating him from power is overcome by his friendship with the big nations like the US whose interests he has been serving. He develops and illusion that such countries will protect his power. The ruler fails to realise that this is merely an illusion and those big countries will ditch him as soon as he overstays his usefulness, like they have done to his predecessors. He will be a loser in this world and the hereafter which certainly is a clear loss.

Musharraf’s arrogance is due to the support of America which enabled him to come to power in a most perilous manner, he amended the constitution, postponed elections, played with the judiciary etc., and yet he is apparently safe:

In the October 1999 coup, he toppled Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef and immediately thereafter he suspended the constitution and placed himself as the President.

Began to consolidate his power and focused on three issues:

First of all he established links with the Pakistan Muslim League of Nawaz Shareef and the Pakistan Peoples Party of Benazir Bhutto and formed a political party allied to him in order to serve the American interests.

He then went on to consolidate power of the President and weakened the authority of the Prime Minister.

Finally, he institutionalised the role of the armed forces in Pakistan’s politics.

He frustrated the efforts of the opposition, who are the agents of the British when they petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the Military coup.

But the Supreme Court, reluctantly and under pressure from Musharraf and the US ruled in his favor. In its judgement, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the military coup was a necessary and in national interest! It recognised the pre-coup situation as one which could not have been solved by constitutional means. The court also said that it was necessary to hold general elections within 2 years, but allowed delaying them until October 2002 C.E.

When the court legitimised the coup, Musharraf took concrete steps to consolidate his hold on power as President and Chief of the army. His term as chief of the army was to end in 2001, and could then only be extended by order of the President (Rafiq Tarar). But since he feared that the President may not agree to it, Musharraf overthrew Rafiq Tarar as president in June 2001 C.E and thus occupied the two posts of army chief as well as that of the President simultaneously.

With the help of his secret service and by threatening the opposition, he formed a political party, the Pakistan Muslim League with the leaders of the PML (Nawaz Shareef) and followed the same process to wean away leaders from the PPP of Benazir Bhutto and some independent politicians. During this period, Musharraf prevented both Nawaz Shareef and Benazir Bhutto from returning to Pakistan and participating in politics.

In the October 2002 elections, his party won the majority and gained power in the provinces of Sind, Punjab and Balochistan either on its own or in coalition with other parties. But in the North West Frontier province (Sarhad Province), it was the Muttahida Majlis that gained power. To counter its effect, Musharraf used his position as head of the state and appointed army generals as the provincial governors of NWFP, because the US saw the Muttahida Majlis as too closely allied with the Pashtoon movement which is opposed to the secular policies of Musharraf which he implements in the name of modernity and development.

Because Musharraf does not command a two-thirds majority necessary to amend the constitution in order to increase his powers, he sought to strike a deal with the Muttahida Majlis in December 2003 under which he will forsake his position as chief of army in return for the Majlis’s vote to increase the powers of the president. Thus Musharraf overcome the crisis and garner two-thirds of majority to bring about amendment to the constitution; concentrating all the powers in the presidency and eroding the authority of the prime ministers.

Musharraf was able to carry out these actions without either bothering the people or the constitution, nor was he concerned with accepted convention on the issue, because he is one who is neither afraid of Allah (swt) nor His servants. Further, he supported the American attacks on Afghanistan and confronted the Mujahideen in Kashmir and tightened his noose on them. And because he was not harmed all the while and was propped up by America, he became arrogant. This is why he boldly sacked the Chief Justice and referred his case to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) charging the sacked chief justice with exploitation of authority, exceeding his jurisdiction and of behaviour inconsistent with his position. In doing so, Musharraf was not at all concerned with the resulting consequences of such an action because of his arrogance.

As to why Musharraf ventured onto such a course of action, consider the following:
As per the constitution of Pakistan, the election of the president follows the general elections, and the members of the National Assembly along with the members of the four provincial assemblies form the Electoral College that elects the president of Pakistan. Now because the election of the members of the assemblies is scheduled to be held before the presidential election, and the Electoral College consists of members elected under the previous elections wherein Musharraf enjoyed a two-thirds majority, which means that if election of the president is held currently, the president will enjoy another term in office. Since the people resent his ugly policies Musharraf can not be assured of a the-thirds majority in the Electoral College of the president in the next elections, especially because of launching of attacks in the frontier province of the Muttahida Majlis. This clearly means that in the next elections, Musharraf can not be sure of returning to power, he therefore feels that this is the opportune time to hold the presidential elections ahead of the general elections under the emergency powers which he has assumed as head of the state.

For Musharraf to carry out this, he needs a chief justice, who will concur with and legitimise such a change, and also support him in the face of a challenge by the opposition. Now since the sacked chief justice Mr. Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry is not likely to allow Musharraf a free run and is seen as close to the opposition, Musharraf has thought it fit to sack and bring charges against him and consequently appoint a loyalist as successor to the sacked chief justice. Having done this, Musharraf would bring a presidential order to hold the presidential elections prior to holding the general elections in order to get elected by the current Electoral College which was elected under the previous elections and where he enjoys a majority as a result of the deal with the Muttahida Majlis.

But it appears that the US and Musharraf have both misjudged the opposition’s reaction to the sacking of the chief justice and also did not anticipate mass movement in its aftermath. Now if the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) fails to substantiate charges against him and if the protests continue on a large-scale and if Musharraf fails to calm them down. It may be possible that Musharraf may be forced to reinstate the sacked chief justice.

In such an event, the elections may have to be held as scheduled, then, as certain sections of the media have indicated, Musharraf may strike a deal with PPP of Benazir Bhutto, instead of Muttahida Majlis to prop his presidency. In such a situation, it is likely that Musharraf may allow Benazir Bhutto to return to Pakistan in order to consolidate the situation and restore civilian rule. That is Musharraf holds on as the president and appoints one of his supporter as chief of the army and Benazir Bhutto as the Prime Minister.

13th Rabee’ ul akhir, 1428 A.H
30th April 2007

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Profile of Sheikh Ata Abu Rashta

Ata Abu Rashta; full name Sheikh Abu Yasin Ata ibn Khalil Abu Rashta (born in 1943 in Ra'na, Hebron, Palestine); is an Islamic jurist, scholar and writer. He is the current global leader of the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Early life and education

He was born into an observant Islamic family in 1943 in the small village of Ra'na in the Hebron area of the Palestinian territories. He observed first-hand the Israeli destruction of Ra'na in 1948 and thereafter moved with his family to a refugee camp near Hebron.

His primary and middle education was completed at the refugee camp. He subsequently obtained his first certificate of secondary education in 1960 from the Al Hussein Bin Ali school in Hebron and later completed his general secondary certificate at the Ibrahimiya school in Jerusalem in 1961. Abu Rashta then joined the Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University in Egypt and graduated in civil engineering in 1966. After graduating, Abu Rashta worked in a number of Arab countries as a civil engineer and wrote a book concerning the calculation of quantities in relation to the construction of buildings and roads. [1]

Politics

Ata Abu Rashta joined Hizb ut-Tahrir in the mid-1950s and subsequently carried out party activities throughout the Arab world. He worked closely with Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir and Abdul Qadeem Zallum who became the leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir following Nabhani's death in 1977. In the 1980s he was a leading member of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Jordan and was appointed as the organisation's first official spokesperson.

Abu Rashta came to prominence in Jordan during the Persian Gulf War when he convened press conferences, lectures and debates at public venues throughout the country. He debated the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait at the Jerusalem Mosque in Amman at which he delivered a lecture entitled The Neo-Crusader Assault on the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf. He was regularly detained by the Jordanian authorities [2].

In 1994, in an interview, Ata Abu Rashta said, "The establishment of the Caliphate is now a general demand among Muslims, who yearn for this: the call for Islamic government (the Caliphate) is widespread in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, Algeria and so on. Before Hizb al-Tahrir launched its careeer the subject of the Caliphate was unheard of. However, the party has succeeded in establishing its intellectual leadership, and now everyone has confidence in its ideas, and talks about it: this is clear from the media worldwide" [3].

Abu Rashta was designated a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International after his detention by the Jordanian authorities in the 1990s [4]. Abu Rashta completed a three year prison sentence for an interview published in 1995 in the journal al-Hiwar. He was later imprisoned for a further six months for membership of an 'unlicensed organisation'.

Abu Rashta became the global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir on 13th April 2003 following the death of Abdul Qadeem Zallum.

Since assuming the leadership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Abu Rashta has launched his own website and has spoken at conferences in Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen and Britain.

Works

Tayseer fi usool at-tafseer surah al-baqarah (2007)
Economic crises - the reality and the perspective of Islam
Tayseer al Wusool min al-Usool

External Links

Official website of Sheikh Ata ibn Khalil Abu Rashta
Audio of speeches by Sheikh Ata ibn Khalil Abu Rashta
Amnesty International annual report Jordan 1998

References

1. Biography of Ata Abu Rashta
2. Suha Taji-Farouki, A Fundamental Quest – Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Search for the Islamic Caliphate, p. 156, Grey Seal, London 1996
3. Suha Taji-Farouki, A Fundamental Quest – Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Search for the Islamic Caliphate, p. 107, Grey Seal, London 1996
4. Amnesty International annual report Jordan 1998

Source

Monday, May 07, 2007

International Khilafah Conference 2007

An International Khilafah Conference will be held in Jakarta, Indonesia on 12th August 2007, corresponding to 28th Rajab 1428 which is the Hijri date of the destruction of the Khilafah.
Over one hundred thousand people are expected to attend, it is being held in HGelora Bung Karno Stadium, which has the joint 10th largest capacity of all stadiums in the world, equal with the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

Speakers from: Australia, England, Palestine, Sudan & Japan. There will also be local speakers including leaders and prominent personalities from various Islamic groups.

International Speakers

1. Dr. Imran Waheed (Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain)
2. Sheikh Ismail Al Wahwah (Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia)
3. Sheikh Issam Ameera (Hizb ut-Tahrir Palestine)
4. Syeikh Uthman Abu Khalil (Hizb ut-Tahrir Sudan)
5. Prof. Dr. Hassan Ko Nakata (Japan)

Local speakers

* Hafidz Abdurrahman, MA (Hizb ut-Tahrir Indonesia)
* KH. Abdullah Gymnastiar (Popular scholar who regularly appears on Indonesian TV)
* Prof. Dr. H. M. Amin Rais ( Former leader of Muhammadiyah)
* KH. Ma’ruf Amin (Majelis Ulama Indonesia)
* DR. H. Adyaksa Dault, SH, M.Si.
* KH. Drs. Hasyim Muzadi (General chairman of the Central Board of Nahdlatul Ulama)
* Prof. Dr. Din Syamsuddin (Current leader of Muhammadiyah)
* KH. Habib Riziq Shihab (General Chairman of the Islam Defending Front, FPI)
* KH. Zainuddin MZ (Reform Star Party, PBR)

Date: 12 August 2007/28 Rajab 1428
Venue: HGelora Bung Karno Stadium, Jakarta, Indonesia

Photo of venue:


Source

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Sudan: An Open letter to the National Unity Organisation and all Muslims

The following is a translation from Arabic.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

An Open letter to the National Unity Organisation and all Muslims

The situation of divisions, schisms and dividing lines, that manifests in people being divided along tribal and nationalistic lines and the centre-right politics divided into government and opposition camps clinging on to their self interest and power is not something new to our land. But the interference of the international factor, i.e. the struggle between Europe and America over the African continent has resulted in intensified confrontation especially in our land and further deteriorated the situation, and has placed our land in a precarious situation vis-à-vis the warring international parties. This has resulted in separation of the southern portion as a result of the Nevasha accord and the Muslims are spilling the blood of their own brothers in Darfur and other places. As a result the country stands ready to disintegrate along sectarian and tribal lines, while the Kafir colonialists of Europe and America are systematically exploiting and using as fuel for the war, every Muslim who thinks along the non-Islamic lines be he in government or opposition; armed soldier or a simple civilian.

What has made us the wholesome morsel for those Kafir colonialists who scheme against us is our own inability to bond correctly with one another. Our mutual bond is both false and degraded-the bond of patriotism, tribalism and bond of our self-interest.

The patriotic bond develops among people when their thought is debased and lowly, because it is an impulsive bond, since the people living in the same world are overwhelmed by an urge to survive and stirs them to protect the land they inhabit. This results in the patriotic bond, which is a weak and lowly bond that manifests itself only when there is an external threat and does not influence in the absence of such a threat when there is peace and security in the land. Patriotism with such traits is demonstrative of schisms, divisions and weakness and not that of unity or collectivism. It is by the use of this patriotism that the Kafir colonialist has succeeded in tearing apart the Muslims nation into several weak statelets. It is the same patriotism which they have employed to sow the seeds of hatred and distrust that resulted in their disunity and fragmentation and were thus weakened and humiliated. Instead of being united as a single nation (Ummah), they are fragmented: one is an Egyptian, another, a Sudanese and a third being a Palestinian. So what can now unite them in the name of nationalism? Further, patriotism is not a political ideology as such that can provide solutions for the problems faced by people. It is therefore erroneous to think of uniting people based on patriotism, or even forming associations or parties based on it. The bond between people based on sects is merely a product of the patriotic bond, the Kafir colonialists have been successful in making us believe that the north of Sudan is not similar to its south, thereby resulting in the secession of south from the north. It is this sectarianism that induces us to conjure the east as different and the west as peculiar thereby helping to serve the conspiracy to fragment the country.

The bond of nationalism originates among people when their thought is narrow, it emanates from the love of the leadership, which is one of the many manifestations of the survival instinct. This bond fosters disputes and confrontation among people who are overwhelmed by a low mentality and thus they help one against another. It is therefore not a humane bond and this can be easily seen in Darfur where Muslims are violating the sanctity of one another along the tribal lines.

The third malaise mentioned is the bond based on self interest which is a temporary bond and not a perpetual one, since it depends on the interest. It is therefore not a suitable bond to unite people because it changes when there is an even bigger self-interest and when the interest factor no longer exists, this bond also ceases to exist! This bond divides people into their special interest groups. Since this bond lasts only as long as the common interest, it becomes a dangerous bond to unite people. As we can see, the government shares a common interest with the Kuffar and hence it has signed the Nevasha, Asmara and the Abuja accords agreeing to splinter the southern part and readying itself for secession of other provinces. The government was all along under the illusion that by doing so the pressure from the Kuffar will subside, which as it turns out, is intensifying day-in and day-out. On the other hand the militaristic movements shared a similar bond of interest with the outsiders for logistical and material support in order to acquire power and thereby control over the resources etc. And what did they do? They forced their people in the lost war as fuel, the real winner of which is one of the alien parties to this global confrontation. The opposition is no different; it schemed up a political agenda to grab the seat of power by unseating the government even if it had to ally with the devil himself!

Oh brothers in the National Unity Organisation!
Oh Muslims!

A genuine unity is achieved only by creating a correct bond, the bond of the great Islamic ideology. It is the only bond based upon a rational creed. It is from this ideology that a system emanates that organises every aspect of people’s lives. In order to solve his problems, the Islamic system looks upon a person simply as a human being and not as any thing else. When the light of Islam shone in the Arabian Peninsula, there were no more hatred and tribal confrontation among people anymore. The people’s heart radiated warmth of the light and belief of Islam and they were consolidated as one distinct nation, whose hearts aligned with one another, they preferred others over themselves and worked for the well-being of others, just as Allah (swt) says:

]وَاعْتَصِمُواْ بِحَبْلِ اللّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلاَ تَفَرَّقُواْ وَاذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَتَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ كُنتُمْ أَعْدَاء فَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُم بِنِعْمَتِهِ إِخْوَانًا وَكُنتُمْ عَلَىَ شَفَا حُفْرَةٍ مِّنَ النَّارِ فَأَنقَذَكُم مِّنْهَا كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ[:

“And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allâh (i.e. this Qur'ân), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allâh's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islâmic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allâh makes His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided.” [TMQ 3:103]

And said:
]وَأَلَّفَ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِهِمْ لَوْ أَنفَقْتَ مَا فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً مَّا أَلَّفَتْ بَيْنَ قُلُوبِهِمْ وَلَـكِنَّ اللّهَ أَلَّفَ بَيْنَهُمْ إِنَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ[

“And He has united their (i.e. believers') hearts. If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allâh has united them. Certainly He is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” [TMQ 8:63]

The fact is that the Muslims won over Iraq which was then inhabited by Arab and Persian Christians, Magians and Zoroastrians. They won over Persia which was inhabited by Persians and a few Jews and Romans. They won over al-Sham which was a province of the Christian Roman Empire and was inhabited by Syrians, Armenians, Jews. The Muslims won over Egypt which was inhabited by Egyptians and some Jews and Romans; similarly the Muslims won over North Africa where the Berbers lived. They similarly won over Sind, Khorasan, Samarqand and Andalusia (Spain) which were all distinct nationalities with their own languages, customs, culture, traditions and laws. In spite of their distinct identities, Islam was able to mould them into its own and form a great nation (Ummah) with a common religion, language, culture and laws. Therefore will the same Islam not bind and unite us all together if we are true Muslims?

Oh brothers in the National Unity Organisation!
Today you are uniting and gathering all the parties and political forces in the country, you are aware of the enormity of the task of uniting the people under a common banner. It becomes your foremost duty to consider this critical issue in a correct perspective, which is the Islamic perspective. You have seen that it is only Islam which has held together all the people throughout the human history. It was only Islam which has united people and their strengths for a span of thirteen centuries when they lived under a unified Khilafah State, while the socialist/communist ideology failed to achieve this and dispersed people along religions and nationalities and the capitalist ideology is no different with minorities and sects refusing to recognise one another because they carry thoughts that are alien to them. Should we not therefore realise the greatness of our own ideology?

Great honour in this world and the hereafter beckons you, therefore stand up to it and say the truth:

]يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلاً سَدِيدًا + يُصْلِحْ لَكُمْ أَعْمَالَكُمْ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ وَمَن يُطِعْ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ فَقَدْ فَازَ فَوْزًا عَظِيمًا + إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا الأمَانَةَ عَلَى السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأرْضِ وَالْجِبَالِ فَأَبَيْنَ أَن يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا الإنسَانُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولا[.

“O you who believe! Keep your duty to Allâh and fear Him, and speak (always) the truth. He will direct you to do righteous good deeds and will forgive you your sins. And whosoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger [sal-Allâhu 'alayhi wa sallam], he has indeed achieved a great achievement (i.e. he will be saved from the Hell-fire and will be admitted to Paradise). Truly, We did offer Al-Amânah (the trust or moral responsibility or honesty and all the duties which Allâh has ordained) to the heavens and the earth, and the mountains, but they declined to bear it and were afraid of it (i.e. afraid of Allâh's torment). But man bore it. Verily, he was unjust (to himself) and ignorant (of its results).” [TMQ 33:69-72].

Wilayah Sudan
12th Rabi us-thani, 1428 A.H
29th April, 2007 C.E

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Opinion poll result - majority of Muslims want Khilafah

Polling data just released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007-1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians-reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed-almost 2/3, hardly a "fringe minority"-desired this outcome (i.e., "To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate"), including 49% of "moderate" Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition "To require a strict application of Shari'a law in every Islamic country."

Large majorities across all four countries believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” On average 79 percent say they perceive this as a US goal, ranging from 73 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan to 92 percent in Egypt. Equally large numbers perceive that the United States is trying to maintain “control over the oil resources of the Middle East” (average 79%). Strong majorities (average 64%) even believe it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the region.”

“While US leaders may frame the conflict as a war on terrorism, people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the US as being at war with Islam,” said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

Consistent with this concern, large majorities in all countries (average 74%) support the goal of getting the United States to “remove its bases and military forces from all Islamic countries,” ranging from 64 percent in Indonesia to 92 percent in Egypt.

Substantial numbers also favor attacks on US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the Persian Gulf. Across the four countries polled approximately half support such attacks in each location, while three in ten are opposed. But there is substantial variation between countries: Support is strongest in Egypt, where at least eight in ten approve of attacking US troops in the region. A majority of Moroccans also support targeting US forces, whether stationed in the Persian Gulf (52%) or fighting in Iraq (68%). Pakistanis are divided about attacks on the American military—many do not answer or express mixed feelings—while Indonesians oppose them.

However, respondents roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries—usually overwhelming majorities—take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all. More than three out of four Indonesians (84%), Pakistanis (81%), and Egyptians (77%) take this position, as well as 57 percent of Moroccans (an additional 19 percent of Moroccans say such attacks can only be “weakly justified”).

There is strong disapproval of attacks by “groups that use violence against civilians, such as al Qaeda.” Large majorities in Egypt (88%), Indonesia (65%) and Morocco (66%) agree that such groups “are violating the principles of Islam.” Pakistanis are divided, however, with many not answering.

But there is also uncertainty about whether al Qaeda actually conducts such attacks. On average less than one in four believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical—only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it. There is no consensus about who is responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington; the most common answer is “don’t know.”

Source article

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

The Fir'aun Personality

"Today, we live in a world ruled and inhabited by many Fir'auns, and we are the only inheritors of Islam. They are trying very hard to keep people from thinking rationally, and to keep us from taking over public opinion. Thus, we must learn from the examples given to us in the Qur'an, and know that there is no one to take this message to the world but us. We should expect these allies of Fir'aun to follow the footsteps of their master and work to prevent us, and we should also know that our victory is a promise, same as it was promised to Musa (Alayhi Salam) and to the last Messenger of Allah (SallAllahu Alayhi Wasallam)."

The actions of Fir'aun are not restricted to one time, place or era, or to one person or tribe. Rather it is a pattern of thinking that exists in many Kuffar and followers of Shaytan. Even some Muslims unknowingly use it.

The Fir'aun personality is distinct and clearly visible to those who study it. Some people have a small number of its characteristics, some people have many, and some people might even have them all.

When we look into the Qur'an, we find Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) giving us story after story of Fir'aun and Musa (as), and we often mistake these Ayat as simple stories for us to read and enjoy, or for us to admire the actions of Prophets and Messengers. But this is not correct. These verses are also guidance for the da'wa carriers in their discussions, and an exposing of the tricks of the enemies of Allah (Subhana Wata’ala).

These characteristics would take hours to explain, so to keep things brief, we will go into a small number of these characteristics, and explain them in detail inshaAllah.


Corrupting Criteria:

Fir'aun had some very dirty tactics to get what he wanted, or keep people from turning against him. One of these tricks was to corrupt the natural criteria for rational thought.

A person's rational criteria (method of judgment) is the very basis upon which he knows truth from falsehood. And the rational criteria for truth is that the subject at hand must fully conform to reality (i.e. must be proven through the sensed reality via our five senses).

Now, when we look at verses from the Qur'an, we can see the followers of Fir'aun attempt to change the criteria of rational thinking to that of irrational thinking:

فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ مُوسَى بِآيَاتِنَا بَيِّنَاتٍ قَالُوا مَا هَذَا إِلاّ سِحْرٌ مُفْتَرًى وَمَا سَمِعْنَا بِهَذَا فِي آبَائِنَا الْأَوَّلِينَ
"So when Musa (as) came to them with our clear signs, they said 'this is nothing but fake magic, and we did not hear of this from our forefathers' " [Al-Qasas:36].

What do their forefathers sayings have to do with Musa (as) being a Prophet? What kind of rational thought is this? According to this logic, this would mean: whatever does not come via their forefathers is not truth. This is despite that reality and truth are not proven through forefathers, or parents, or a Shaykh, or some organization, rather it is proven by the sensed reality and rational proof.


Keeping People From Thinking:

Another dirty tactic, employed by the followers of Fir'aun, is keeping people's minds from thinking, using the excuse that there is someone else to think on their behalf. Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) tells us:

قَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ مَا أُرِيكُمْ إِلَّا مَا أَرَى وَمَا أَهْدِيكُمْ إِلَّا سَبِيلَ الرشاد
"Fir'aun said: I do not show you except what I see, and I do not guide you except to the path of correct judgment" [Ghaafir: 29]

and Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) tells us that Fur'aun also said:

مَا عَلِمْتُ لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَهٍ غَيْرِي"
I do not know of another Lord for you other than myself" [Al-Qasas 38]

So Fir'aun has no refutation to the words of a Believer, and therefore he is forced to say to the people: "Do not think or look into this matter, for I will think on your behalf, and I have thought, and now see that Musa (as) is corrupting the earth, and that my path is the path of correct judgment". And like this, Fir'aun tries to keep people from thinking.

Even though this tactic is very old, but it is still actively used today: Some parents will tell their children not to do certain Islamic actions because they "have tried it before", and offer no proof that the work is wrong. In other cases there are some groups, where their followers are taught to not think and that looking into Islamic evidences is much too hard and complex for their little brains, rather they should just follow their Shaykh. On other levels, Muslims are told that such-and-such groups are "bad" and have "corrupt 'Aqeedas" and should be avoided, without offering any proof for such accusations. Governments teach their people that certain groups are "terrorist" groups or "illegal" and so they should not even enquire about them at all. And so on, the Kuffar and even Muslims use these tactics, knowingly or unknowingly, and cause great harm to the carriers of truth. Therefore, no Muslim should ever allow himself to use such false and dirty tactics at all.


Violence and Fear:

And a third tactic employed by the likes of Fir'aun is fear and violence to prevent the da'wa carriers from continuing their path, and even uses them as examples for anyone else who is considering following them. Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) says:

فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ بِالْحَقِّ مِنْ عِنْدِنَا قَالُوا اقْتُلُوا أَبْنَاءَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَعَهُ وَاسْتَحْيُوا نِسَاءَهُمْ وَمَا كَيْدُ الْكَافِرِينَ إِلَّا فِي ضَلَالٍ وَقَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ ذَرُونِي أَقْتُلْ مُوسَى وَلْيَدْعُ رَبَّهُ إِنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يُبَدِّلَ دِينَكُمْ أَوْ أَنْ يُظْهِرَ فِي الْأَرْضِ الْفَسَادَ
"And when he (Musa) came to them (after being sent by) Us, they said 'Kill the children of those who follow him, and rape their women'. But the planning of the Kafireen is nothing but in vain. Fir'aun then said 'Leave me to kill Musa (as), and let him pray to his Lord (to try to stop me). I am afraid that he will change your religion, or will spread corruption on the earth" [Ghaafir: 25-26]

Here we find that before Fir'aun goes through with trying to kill Musa (as), he first begins will a media smear campaign, in order to gain the public opinion behind him, using the excuse of wanting to protect the people and the system of life from Musa's (as) corrupt ideas. War on Terror anyone?

And before we continue, let us stop for a moment and contemplate a small point: Why would Fir'aun, the man who believes he is a God, and who has hundreds of thousands of worshipping slaves, even give excuses for his actions? Why would he even need to give a reason for killing Musa (as), if he is an omnipotent God? Essentially, the reality here is that he is asking permission from the public opinion to kill Musa (as)!

The reason he is asking is because he realizes the importance of public opinion. He knows that public opinion is what is controlling the people. And he knows that he needs to continue controlling it if he is to keep his throne.

We will go into more detail about the struggle for public opinion between Musa (as) and Fir'aun in the Ayat of the Qur'an a little later in the article.


The Verbal Battle Between Musa (as) and Fir'aun:

Now we can go to Surat Ash-Shu'araa' and see how these tactics were used in a discussion between Musa and Fir'aun that Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) narrated to us through the Qur'an.

The debate starts with Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) telling Musa and Haroon (as) to go to Fir'aun and say to them

فَأْتِيَا فِرْعَوْنَ فَقُولَا إِنَّا رَسُولُ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
"I am the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds, and you must send Bani Israa'eel with me".

Fir'aun uses the first tactic, and ignores the rational aspect of this message, attempting to attack the credibility of Musa and make people emotional, where:

قَالَ أَلَمْ نُرَبِّكَ فِينَا وَلِيدًا وَلَبِثْتَ فِينَا مِنْ عُمُرِكَ سِنِينَ وَفَعَلْتَ فَعْلَتَكَ الَّتِي فَعَلْتَ وَأَنْتَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ
"he (Fir'aun) said: Did we not raise you amongst us, and you lived with us for many years? And did you not commit that crime you committed, and you were amongst the ingrates?"

Here Fir'aun attempts to agitate Musa's emotions, by reminding him of what favors Fir'aun has on him, and drag him into an argument of self-defense revolving around his personality "flaws". If anyone was speaking to make himself famous, or wanted recognition, this trap would be all too easy to fall into, since he would do anything to keep his reputation safe. This is how the Fir'aun personality tries to turn the discussion away from the rational argument and keep it meaningless and circular.

What does any of what Fir'aun gave to Musa have to do with Musa being a Messenger of Allah? Does it matter if he raised Musa, or that Musa killed someone? None of this has anything to do with the rational proof that Musa was sent by the Creator of the Universe. This is a common tactic practiced by many Kuffar and Muslims today to attack the person of the da'wa carrier, and turn people's attention away from the message he is conveying, where questions such as "then why are you in this country enjoying their wealth?" or "where is your beard" or "have you even convinced your family of this?" arise. None of this is related to the truthfulness of the message carried by the da'wa carrier. Even if the most corrupt human on earth came to you and said "Fasting Ramadan is obligatory", then he is right, regardless of his personality.

Musa (as) avoided this trick of Fir'aun, and went straight back to the rational discussion, where:

قَالَ فَعَلْتُهَا إِذًا وَأَنَا مِنَ الضَّالِّينَ فَفَرَرْتُ مِنْكُمْ لَمَّا خِفْتُكُمْ فَوَهَبَ لِي رَبِّي حُكْمًا وَجَعَلَنِي مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِينَ وَتِلْكَ نِعْمَةٌ تَمُنُّهَا عَلَيَّ أَنْ عَبَّدْتَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ
"he (Musa) said: I did what I did and I was misguided. So I fled from you out of fear, and now my Lord has given me wisdom and made me a Messenger. And is this your favor on me that you have taken Bani Israa'eel as your slaves?"

So he does not get caught in the trap of defending his personality or becoming apologetic, rather he made his position clear, and immediately returned to the point: "Now I am a Messenger of Allah, and what you gave me is no excuse for you to reject this message and enslave Bani Isra'eel".

Thus, Fir'aun's first card falls from his hand. Now he is forced to enter into a rational discussion with Musa (as), where:

قَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ وَمَا رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
"Fir'aun asks: so what is this Lord of the worlds?"

and Musa replies with crystal clarity:

قَالَ رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُوقِنِينَ
"The Lord of the skies and the earth, and all that is between them, if you seek to be convinced with certainty"

Fir'aun interrupts Musa and attempts to use his second tactic, saying to the people around him:

قَالَ لِمَنْ حَوْلَهُ أَلَا تَسْتَمِعُونَ
"Do you hear this??(mockingly)"

Fir'aun is now trying to make people think: "this man is saying something so ridiculous that you don't even need to think about it. It is far too absurd to even consider it". Even though everything Musa said was completely correct and rational, Fir'aun is desperately trying to keep the public opinion on his side. He tries to make people's emotions move before their minds do. This is what many people today try to do. They will laugh at the da'wa carriers openly to make it seem as if they are too illogical to even consider. They will call them idealists, impractical and foolish. But again, none of these accusations have anything to do with arguments for or against the goals of the da'wa carriers. We must make sure that we do not become amongst those who unwittingly follow the example of Fir'aun.

So, Musa continues explaining his message, after being interrupted, to the people in the court, where:

قَالَ رَبُّكُمْ وَرَبُّ آبَائِكُمُ الْأَوَّلِينَ
"(Musa) said: Your Lord and the Lord of your forefathers".

Fir'aun interrupts him again:

قَالَ إِنَّ رَسُولَكُمُ الَّذِي أُرْسِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ لَمَجْنُونٌ
"(Fir'aun) said: Your Messenger that has been sent to you is insane!"

But Musa (as) continues his explanation of the proof:

قَالَ رَبُّ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
"he said: the Lord of the East and the West and all that is between them,
if you really do think rationally"

At this point, Fir'aun is defeated and cannot keep mocking him, since not only is Musa giving more and more rational proof to the people who are listening, but he is also pointing out things that Fir'aun clearly has no authority over (clearly Fir'aun does not control the clouds, the birds, the sun or the moon, etc), so Fir'aun finally resorts to his third tactic, and:

قَالَ لَئِنِ اتَّخَذْتَ إِلَهًا غَيْرِي لَأَجْعَلَنَّكَ مِنَ الْمَسْجُونِينَ
"he said: If you take anything else as a God other than me, I will imprison you!".

From here, Musa (as) shows his miracles, since discussion has failed at achieving the goal, which increases Fir'aun in fear and aggression towards Musa. After the experts in the field of magic tricks come and see that Musa is not performing magic, rather he has miracles, they immediately believe in Allah and Musa, and Fir'aun is forced to use violence, where he says:

قَالَ آمَنْتُمْ لَهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّهُ لَكَبِيرُكُمُ الَّذِي عَلَّمَكُمُ السِّحْرَ فَلَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ
"he (Fir'aun) said: Did you believe in him before I gave you permission? He is your teacher who has taught you magic. And I will show you! I will cut your hands and feet on opposite sides and crucify you all!"

And so Fir'aun sets an example for all tyrants and enemies of Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) to use violence against the da'wa carriers when all other attempts to stop them fail. Today we can see those who follow Fir'aun's personality visible all over the world.

An interesting side note to think about: Why would someone need "permission" to believe in Allah (Subhana Wata’ala)? This point is relevant to our lives today, where governments and mosques tell us that we need permission to call to Islam and perform our da'wa, as if the orders of Allah require their personal authorization and approval. Did Musa (as), and those magicians who believed in him, ask for permission to believe in Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) and follow His message? No. Rather they ignored all barriers and all fear tactics and said:

قَالُوا لَا ضَيْرَ إِنَّا إِلَى رَبِّنَا مُنْقَلبون
"(your threat is) no problem. To our Lord is our return".

The final point, which is very important, is that we must notice the nature of the debate between Fir'aun and Musa in these Ayat. Upon close inspection, we see that the real debate is not with the aim of convincing each other at all. Rather the aim is clearly targeted at gaining the audience's support. Looking at the words used in the Ayat, we see that Musa is addressing a group, not an individual. The rational proofs given by Musa (as) were directed at the audience. The mocking replies given by Fir'aun were also directed at the audience, and not at Musa. It was a highly visible struggle for public opinion. Musa was trying to make people think rationally, and Fir'aun was desperately trying to keep him from succeeding. In the end, Fir'aun failed and was forced to resort to violence to keep anyone from thinking of changing the status quo, as this would mean the end of his rule.

So from all this, we, as da'wa carriers, can see that we have been given a very great blessing from Allah (Subhana Wata’ala). We have been given a guidebook defining what to expect from our enemies. We know what they will say before they say it, and we know what we must face when they reject our message.

Today, we live in a world ruled and inhabited by many Fir'auns, and we are the only inheritors of Islam. They are trying very hard to keep people from thinking rationally, and to keep us from taking over public opinion. Thus, we must learn from the examples given to us in the Qur'an, and know that there is no one to take this message to the world but us. We should expect these allies of Fir'aun to follow the footsteps of their master and work to prevent us, and we should also know that our victory is a promise, same as it was promised to Musa (as) and to the last Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).

May Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) give us the strength and courage to follow the example of our beloved Prophet Musa (as), to carry the message handed down to us by the best of mankind, the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). We ask Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) to grant us the company of those who we love the most and give us what is more precious than that: the everlasting pleasure of Allah (Subhana Wata’ala) upon us.

Source