Friday, January 30, 2009

Is not time that realise that your rulers are the protectors of your enemy

The following is a translation from Arabic.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

O Muslims! Is not the time for you to realise that the Khilafah is your only refuge which can salvage you. Is it not time that you realise that your rulers are the protectors of your enemy and not your protectors?

The Jewish entity began its barbaric attacks on Gaza on 27 December 2008, wherein it indulged in destruction and killing. It incinerated men, their pastures and their properties. Then on 17 January 2009, it announced a unilateral cease fire, only to create public opinion that it is the controlling power. It starts its brutal attacks whenever it wishes and stops them whenever and however it is convenient for it!

Indeed the Jewish entity has done all of this whilst the rulers of the Muslim countries are busy counting the dead bodies and injured of the Muslims and some are not even doing this and they are not even bothered about it! Such rulers have used various deceptive and twisted means to transform the Palestinian issue from its real essence of being an Islamic issue into an Arab issue, then into a Palestinian issue and now it is reduced to a mere ‘Gazan' issue! In this, they have been ably assisted by certain Palestinian organizations, who have used the Arab and Islamic summit resolutions calling for a withdrawal from Palestine and transformed this whole issue to a mere Palestinian issue.

Moreover they made it appear as if it was a cause of celebration for Palestine, so the rulers could conceal their shame behind this ‘celebration'. As a result, none of the borders were opened to help the people of Gaza, neither of the neighbouring countries in the Golan Heights or Southern Lebanon or by Cairo, Riyadh, Amman etc. Nor were the so-called missiles claimed to be capable of reaching the Jewish entity from Pakistan or Iran fired. All this was done so that the ‘celebrations' were not spoiled even while the Jewish entity perpetrated its massacre!

O Muslims!
Is it not shameful that these rulers indulge in negotiations and compromises with the Jewish entity and stoop before it in surrender? Is there any difference between stooping before the enemy and surrendering to it? Instead, it was their duty to eliminate the Jewish entity that has usurped Palestine!

Is it not shameful that while Gaza is being massacred, the rulers have not mobilised their armies to help the people of Gaza, instead they are cashing in on their blood in their conferences and summits, which only end up in delivering to the Jewish entity that which it cannot achieve on the battle front?

Is not a humiliation that this massacre simply ends in negotiations and conferences which ensure security for the Jews and stability for their state? And by massacres, we do not mean the ones in the battles where the Jewish entity was handed ‘victory' by the cowardice of the rulers, rather, I mean those battles which the Jewish entity did not and could not win.

The end of 1973 war during which the Egyptian army regained the Suez Canal and the Barlev Line and where the Jewish army had a taste of its deeds, yet this war was concluded by the Camp David agreement which detached Egypt from fighting with Israel and Egypt had to obtain permission of the Jewish entity to increase even one policeman patrolling its borders!

Thus, under the Camp David agreement, the borders of the Jewish entity were completely secured on the Egyptian front! This was followed by the Wadi Araba Agreement of 1994 which further consolidated and fortified the effects of the earlier Camp David Agreement and secured the Jewish state's borders on the Jordanian front.

The impact at the end of the 1973 war on Syria was such that Syria which hitherto had controlled the low-lying areas in and around Tibriyyah, because it could fire from the strategic heights of the Golan, had to surrender the Golan Heights to the Jewish entity under the agreement and the Jewish entity still occupies the Golan which provides security to the Jews!

Then came the conclusion of the 2006 war of Lebanon, during which rockets were fired by the resistance forces on the Jewish state's targets which terrified their hearts. This resulted in the UNSC Resolution 1701 which ensured security for the Jewish entity from southern Lebanon and rendered the South Lebanon front cold and passive in the face of the Gaza massacre! Before this the South Lebanon front would become agitated and angered at every single act of killing however, insignificant it was!

And now comes the most humiliating act of all. Resolution 1860 which is the result of the US- Jewish entity understanding which provides overall security to the Jewish entity from the seas and ground! This was further exacerbated by the effects of the Arab, Europe and Turkey crafted Sharm el Sheikh Accord which fortified the Jewish state's security and placed an armed blockade on Gaza, whose people were already reeling under the excruciating effects of the earlier siege. All this occurred right under the noses of these rulers, because of their own efforts through the summits and conferences, to complete the siege and put the people of Gaza under even more hardship and harm.

O Muslims!
Despite the fact that the United States is leading these so-called peace plans that only support the Jewish entity, and even the Sharm el-Sheikh conference that was held on 18 January, 2009 was a result of the US- Jewish entity understanding reached on 16 January 2009. The Muslim countries rulers, the stooges of America, could not achieve anything at all, neither through war nor through peace.

These rulers could hear the shrieks of the children, the painful wailing of the mother who lost her child, the grieving of the old and infirm and the call for help by those distressed and suffering and thousands of innocents, yet these rulers were not only deaf and blind to these, they remained silent. As if they understand nothing!

Even after all of this, O Muslims, do you not understand that these rulers are not your protectors, but in fact protecting your enemy? Then do you not realize that anyone who promotes the idea that this entire problem of Palestine is merely a ‘Gazan' issue is in fact indulging in pointless semantics and in effect spoiling the Palestinian cause?

Do you think that it is possible to eliminate the Jewish entity and restore the entire land of Palestine to the fold of the Islamic lands? Do you think it is possible without a state that mobilizes its troops to fight the Jewish entity, defeat and eliminate its existence?

Are these present predicaments that have already overwhelmed you not enough, O Muslims? The sufferings and humiliations that you suffer at the hands of these rulers on your neck should be reason enough for you to stand up with serious determination and dedication, so as to engage in the work to restore the Khilafah which will bring back your honour and pride and also ensure that help comes from Allah سبحانه وتعالى which will bring you the victory which you so much desire?

And as for you, the soldiers of the Muslim armies, will you not as a kaffara (recompense) for your sins refuse to obey the orders of your treacherous rulers who are supporting the kuffar. Will you not rise up from your slumber to come to the rescue of the people of Gaza? Will you not stand up to these rulers and rise up to unseat them and help those who are working to establish the Khilafah? This will bring you pride and honour by realising the glad tidings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم at your hands. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has given us the glad tidings of the return of the Khilafah, he said,

((... ثم تكون خلافةً على منهاج النبوة))
"And then the Khilafah will return on the method of the Prophethood..."

O Muslims!
Our patience has run its course and the punishments of this world in terms of suffering and humiliation has reached its peak, to the extent that even those who are themselves condemned by Allah سبحانه وتعالى now dare to assault you.

أَوَلاَ يَرَوْنَ أَنَّهُمْ يُفْتَنُونَ فِي كُلِّ عَامٍ مَّرَّةً أَوْ مَرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ لاَ يَتُوبُونَ وَلاَ هُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ
"See they not that they are put in trial once or twice every year (with different kinds of calamities, disease, famine)? Yet, they turn not in repentance, nor do they learn a lesson (from it)." [al Tawbah: 9:126]

O Muslims!
This is a grave matter, but it should not frustrate you: you have two choices: Either remain quiet and passive and do nothing to unseat these rulers, whereby this humiliation and suffering will persist upon your necks at the hands of these very rulers who turn your victory into your surrender through their conferences and treaties, which only compounds your miseries in this world. And the punishment of the Day of judgement is even more severe, as Allah سبحانه وتعالى said:

كَذَلِكَ الْعَذَابُ وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَكْبَرُ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ
"but truly, the punishment of the Hereafter is greater if they but knew." [al-Qalam, 68:33]

Or the other option is that you stand up and mobilise yourself to remove these rulers and establish the rightly guided Khaleefah, behind which you fight and seek protection and, thereby eliminate the Jewish entity to restore the whole of Palestine to the fold of the Islamic land. This alone will restore your honour in this world and the hereafter.

Hizb ut-Tahrir urges you and calls you Oh Muslims! The power and strength is with you if it is correctly directed. Your soldiers are your own sons, and they will be inspired by your motivation, why don't you rise up and motivate them?

O Soldiers!
Hizb ut-Tahrir urges you, you are a living Ummah, the best Ummah who were raised for the benefit of the mankind right from the time when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم guided it and then the Khulafa al Rashideen led it after him. Remember your heroes, the mujahideen who were your forefathers who led the armies and spread Islam. They opened lands and cast fear and awe into the hearts of both the enemies and those who backed them.

O Muslims! O the Muslim Soldiers!
Stand up from your lethargy and come to aid of the people of Gaza and engage seriously in the honoured struggle to establish the Khilafah which will win you the honour of this world and in the hereafter. So do you respond? Do you respond positively?

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اسْتَجِيبُواْ لِلّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُم لِمَا يُحْيِيكُمْ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ يَحُولُ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ 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 (i.e. He prevents an evil person to decide anything). And verily, to Him you shall (all) be gathered." [al-Anfal, 8:24]

Hizb ut-Tahrir
23rd Muharram, 1430 A.H
19th January, 2009 C.E

Thursday, January 29, 2009

America re-commits to its crusade with a fresh President

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

On 21 January 2009, Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardari, began an attempt by his government to portray the inauguration of the new US President, Barak Hussain Obama, as a new hope for Pakistan. Zardari said, “Renewal by the US president of commitment to high ideals and values would raise hope for a better future for the peoples of the world.” This statement was followed by days of media campaigning by the government, in an attempt to justify its allegiance to America. As usual the government was joined in its chorus by those politicians who claim to speak for Muslims and Islam, but speak without care for the consequences upon the Muslims and Islam. Indeed, the government’s claim that a new US President justifies its alliance with America is as false as the government’s previous claim that changing Pakistan’s President justifies Pakistan’s corrupt and failing system.

There is no change in America’s policy towards Muslims for Obama and Bush are just two faces of the same coin. On 20 January 2009, Obama’s Central Command chief, General David Petraeus, who also served under Bush, met with Pakistan’s military and civilian rulers to demand that Pakistan does not divert troops from securing American troops in Afghanistan on the Western border, to its Eastern border in order to face the threats from the Indian army. Then on 21 January 2009, Obama issued a foreign policy agenda in which he insisted on more troops in Afghanistan and described the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan as “the greatest threat to our security.” Obama further committed to “hold them (Pakistanis) accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan,” continuing Bush’s war in which already over a thousand Muslim soldiers have died fighting their own Muslim brothers in the tribal areas. Then on 22 January 2009, Obama appointed a special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan exclusively, whilst describing the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan as “the central front in our enduring struggle.” And finally on 23 January 2009, to underline the point in blood, Obama’s administration launched yet another drone attack upon Pakistan’s territory, killing and injuring Muslims.

And all this is besides what President Obama mentioned in his very first speech as President, broadcast to the world, as a direct challenge to the Muslim people with regards to their deen, when he announced that America will advance its ideology over all others throughout the world. On 20 January 2009, Obama said, “We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror … we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.” Indeed, Obama fully subscribes to the “liberal interventionist” school of political thought which justifies American interference, including military intervention, in order to promote the corrupt Western freedoms.

Moreover, Obama will never abort America’s crusade because his country is in a deep quagmire in Afghanistan. America cannot establish stability there, despite the presence of over 30,000 NATO-allied troops. Adding to America’s problems is the fact that its allies have either refused to send any additional troops or announced insignificant and insufficient numbers. Moreover, other allies actually announced their intentions to withdraw existing troops. For example, America’s neighbor, Canada, has declared its intentions to withdraw its troops. As for the commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, General Peter Wool, he ruled out a decisive victory and reflected joy at America’s misfortunes when he described the proposal for additional forces as “misleading.” Similarly the German government announced a reduction in its forces and on 21 January 2009, the German ruling party announced a proposal to end the war in Afghanistan altogether. And so, abandoned by the other Western nations, Obama will seek to ride on Pakistan’s Army to secure the foundering crusade in Afghanistan and rescue his nation’s failing international reputation.

Moreover, no President of America will ever abort America’s relentless drive to subjugate other nations, because each President presides over a capitalist nation that has a colonialist foreign policy. It is through this colonialist policy that America emerged from isolation during the Second World War with a ravenous hunger, to usurp most of the world’s resources in order to enrich its capitalist elite, through their multinational companies. Such a policy demanded continuity regardless of whether the government was Republican, Democrat or even a government of both parties, as it is now under Obama. And we ask if capitalist, colonialist America has been greedy at a time when America’s economy was strong, then what level of greed can be expected when America’s economy is on the brink of complete collapse, if it has not completely collapsed already?

O Muslims of Pakistan!

RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم warned the Muslims,
لَا يُلْدَغُ الْمُؤْمِنُ مِنْ جُحْرٍ وَاحِدٍ مَرَّتَيْنِ
“A believer is never stung from the same whole twice.” (Bukhari)

For over six decades, the American colonialist kuffar have stung you again and again. The disbelievers do not want any good for this Ummah, we must never trust them, let alone co-operate with them. They fight in the path of shaytan, conspire against the Islamic Ummah, ignite conflict in our lands and then descend upon them after the blood has been shed, in order to secure their interests. Even those with the slave mentality, military or civilian alike, who cooperate with America, obtain nothing, for America abandons them once their role finished. Indeed, having trust in America is like having trust in shaytan. And dependence on her is reliance upon a malicious enemy that continuously shows hostility to the Islamic Ummah. Allah سبحانه وتعالى, the Lord of all Creation, said,

كَيْفَ وَإِنْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لاَ يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً يُرْضُونَكُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَتَأْبَى قُلُوبُهُمْ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ
“How when, if they have the upper hand over you, they disregard pact and honour in respect to you? They satisfy you with their mouths, whilst their hearts refuse. And most of them are wrong-doers.” [Surah At-Tawba 9:8]

And Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
إِنْ يَثْقَفُوكُمْ يَكُونُوا لَكُمْ أَعْدَاءً وَيَبْسُطُوا إِلَيْكُمْ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالسُّوءِ وَوَدُّوا لَوْ تَكْفُرُونَ
"Should they gain the upper hand over you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you with evil, and they desire that you should disbelieve" [Surah Mumtahina 60: 2]

Yet, in spite of what Allah سبحانه وتعالى has said about the kuffar’s enmity and all that America has revealed of her enmity, the agent Muslim rulers continue to call you to join them in submission to their kuffar masters, making excuses after excuses, claiming that either opposing America is death itself, or their war is our war, or Democrats are better than Republicans, or Black Presidents are better than White and so on. However, O Muslims, the solution is not beyond our reach; rather it is at hand. It only requires that Pakistan breaks out from the influence of America, and establishes a sincere authority, rather the true Islamic system within it, the Khilafah. Only the Khilafah implements Islam and unifies the Muslim countries as one powerful state to uproot the American influence finally and decisively. So, abandon the agents of America as they have abandoned you and embrace the true politicians of the Ummah, the shabaab of Hizb ut-Tahrir, in their drive to establish the Khilafah.

O Muslims of the armed forces!
The situation is on your side, for America is foundering and collapsing. Its downfall cannot be solved by cosmetic changes for it was caused by its very way of life, the cause of its existence, Capitalism. It was Capitalism that caused it to descend as a brutal monster all over the globe, earning the suspicion and mistrust of its allies, and the undying hatred of its enemies and victims. And it was Capitalism that fuelled a greed that was so ravenous that America’s elite began to feed on its own people, causing the collapse of its own economy.

You are not weak and will be strengthened by Islam, if you grasp this opportunity. You are the seventh largest army in the world, in a Muslim country armed with nuclear weapons, with 300,000 paramilitary forces, over 500,000 armed forces reserves and nearly 30 million who can be trained by you for fighting within months. So, rather than allowing the ailing America to rest its crusade on your broadest of shoulders, earning you humiliation in this life and the wrath of Allah سبحانه وتعالى in the next, is it not better for you in this life and the next that you are the means for Pakistan to become the starting point for the Khilafah and the re-unification of the entire Muslim World as the largest and most formidable state? Will this not be a kaffarah (expiation) for your sins and a means for lighting your faces on the Day of Accounting?
You must refuse any cooperation with the colonialist political and military officials, close their intelligence offices, throw them and their agents out of the country, for you alone have this capability. And you are the ones who can raise your people through the Islamic Khilafah state. Remember your noble predecessor, Sa’ad bin Muadh رضي الله عنه of the fighting men of Ansar, who gave the Nussrah (Material Support) to establish the first Islamic State in Madinah. When Sa’ad رضي الله عنه died, his mother wept and the RasulAllah سلم و عليه الله صلى told her,

«ليرقأ (لينقطع) دمعك، ويذهب حزنك، فإن ابنك أول من ضحك الله له واهتز له العرش»
“Your tears would recede and your sorrow be lessened if you know that your son is the first person for whom Allah (swt) smiled and the heavens trembled.” [At-Tabarani].

Such a magnificent opportunity awaits you today. It is high time that you pledged to Hizb ut-Tahrir the Nussrah, so as to establish a Khilafah, rightly guided by Islam. Only then can we establish Khilafah, implement Islam, unify all the Muslim countries as a single state in the face of our enemies, America, Britain and their allies. And only then can we lead the world and carry Islam to it as a Message of guidance and light. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,

وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمْرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ
“And Allah has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not.” [Surah Yusuf 12: 21]

Hizb ut-Tahrir
Wilayah Pakistan

25 January 2009 CE
29 Muharram 1430 AH

Urdu version

Global Economic Crisis, An Islamic Perspective

By Mustaq Koya, Idialogue Magazine (Australia) January 2009 Edition

The devastating ripple effect of the American Subprime Mortgage crisis is seen across the world. Meltdowns of the global financial sector, bailout packages for large corporations, corporate collapses, desperate economic stimulus packages, warnings of looming recessions in major developed economies followed by job cuts, and much worse, horrors of a depression have all been envisioned. More than a mere global Financial crisis, we are witnessing the epic saga of a global Economic crisis.

Cause and Effects

What kick started the whole conundrum was the mortgage defaults in the US Subprime Mortgage sector. In the years leading up to 2007, when the crisis began to unfold, major home mortgage sponsors in the US, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had a total combined outstanding loans of up to USD$5.1 trillion. The loans were given to almost anyone that rocked up to the lenders and wanted to buy a house, despite their ability to service the debt. The loans were supposedly backed by the houses they were funding and the risk of not meeting repayments (credit default risks) was underwritten by insurance companies like AIG. Add to this the complexities of hedging activities to manage risks in a global market with banks and financial institutions from all countries involved, and you have a world wide web of back to back to back series of sophisticated arrangements.

As the US housing bubble burst, borrowers began to default on their mortgages.

At first fears of a financial crisis were played down. US Federal Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke speaking to the board of the Federal Reserve of Chicago said:

"Given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited." (17 May 2007)

However, as big banks like Meryll Lynch started questioning hedged funds of large brokers like Bear Stearns, who had made a couple of bail outs in June 2007, within a span of 2 months the picture was bleak.

Ben Bernanke had to admit that losses in the "fast-unravelling subprime lending market could top $100 billion" (19 July 2007)

At this point the ordinary mind would have to but wonder:

1) Given such a technologically and financially advanced country the USA boasts to be, why wasn’t the crisis detected earlier? Or was it? For after all on September 10, 2003, U.S. Congressman Ron Paul gave a speech to Congress in which he predicted that the high-leveraging and tolerance of poor credit by the GSE would lead to a bailout, and he introduced a bill to abolish these policies, which was rejected[1].

2) Is it a house of cards upon which such an advanced capitalist economy is built where things move from comfort to bleak in such a short span of time?

As compelling a question 1) is, it is beyond the scope of this article.

By September 2008 Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in need of $50Billion and this saw the US government intervening with corporate rescue packages - a laughable situation for capitalism which, on their boastful principle of self corrective market mechanisms of supply and demand, promotes “no government intervention” policies. It is the breakaway of USA from this notion that led French President Nicolas Sarkozy to declare "Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished".

There have been various reasons attributed to the current financial crisis and recklessness on the part of both borrowers and lenders has surfaced in the ensuing blame game.

However what's apparent from all this is the combination of both factors and the hands off approach of the Governments of these countries. Government policies under capitalism are shaped around the notion that resources are scarce and the demand for them is unlimited thus economic policy should correct that imbalance through any measure, fiscal or monetary, by shifting the resources into the hands of the producers of goods and services. These producers are the few in society who are wealthy (“fat casts”) and able to acquire the necessary capital to produce and supply goods and services for society and therefore are considered as the major contributors to GDP and economic growth. Given the scarce resource theory, the approach for economic growth under capitalism is to focus on consumption instead of production. It is perceived that the demand generated from consumption encourages production activity somewhere in the world, where multinational corporations operate. A neat fit under the globalisation ethos.

The Macroeconomics of it

From the macroeconomic angle, growth is generally measured with reference to yearly movement in GDP and the most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports), or,

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

The C & G in developed capitalist economies is promulgated through debt and aid/ economic stimulus packages.

Such societies revolve around the notion of liquidity (money supply) in any form as being the primary impetus to consumption. Hence the 4 Ms of money supply under capitalism is focused not on the circulation of notes and coins in the economy[2]. Rather the most prominent form of money used in capitalism is credit money. The November 2008 statistics on money circulation in USA shows that credit money is over USD 6 trillion whereas notes and coins only amount to a little over USD 800 billion (six times more debt is possible than what’s available in currency). Thus a capitalist economy thrives on debt as the basis for trade and all economic activity. Add to this EFTPOS and Internet Banking direct debit type transactions and the need for notes and coins in the form of currency is even further reduced. Thus in an economy where the supply of money is primarily in the form of debt, from which usurious profits are derived, nothing but a house of cards scenario is inevitable. No sooner one defaults, and the opportunity for usurious profits are affected, the supply of credit of tightens and the ripple effect is like a whole house of cards crashing down.

In a consumption based economy, liquidity (money supply) becomes fundamental and the control mechanism for that is usury. Thus the “benchmark” interest rates are set by the Reserve Banks of each capitalist Government. When economic activity through consumption is desired, interest rates are wound down to encourage borrowing and flow of credit money and when inflation occurs, interest rates are wound up to restrict the supply of credit money. Thus if the economy is perceived to be in growth mode, then debt in the society is encouraged until people find themselves up to their eye-balls in debt.

This was quite clearly highlighted in a October 2008 Sixty Minute documentary called ‘Generation Debt’ in which Peter Overton revealed that Australians aged between 18 and 28 years have racked up a total debt of $60 Billion. When asked, one particular 21 year old Amanda noted that she only had 5 cents in her wallet, yet that day she had spent $1,500 – all on the credit card of course. This shows the attitude of the average person toward consumption and the use of credit money to finance that consumption.

By September 2008, the consumption-reliant US economy had spiralled out of control. The high prices of assets, including the value of homes, were an artificial escalation that best resembles a Virtual Economy[3] and finally fell below the amount of debt owed on those assets. The results? - mortgage defaults, foreclosures, further reduction in house prices, tightening of credits by banks, reduction in money supply, reduction in consumption, fall in economic growth, recession.

The Microeconomics of it

From the microeconomics perspective, the theory that resources are scarce leads the focus of investors to a constant monopoly situation as the best environment to operate in. Companies move away from optimum production domestically and the exploitation of resources in foreign lands, particular where currency, capital and labour costs provide cost effective business cases, becomes the objective. Their focus for generating growth becomes the stock market and executives of these companies spend much time and effort in strategising schemes that would aid Shareholder Value Added (SVA) and Price/ Earnings Ratio reporting in the market that would result in increased share prices. Their benefit from this increased share prices is not from any equity injection because the companies themselves do not sell the shares. What is traded on the share market are the “issued shares” of the company which are already in the hands of shareholders in the market. The trading in shares happens therefore between those shareholders. However the increased share prices reflect a good ‘carrying value’ of the equity of these companies making for a healthy balance sheet, though it may not be a real or long lasting carrying value. This increased equity is what is sought by the executives of the companies because it provides them with a borrowing capacity which banks and financial institutions rely upon to justify their lending. Thus credit money impetus from the microeconomics angle is also prevalent in a capitalist society. However once market conditions change (e.g due to lack of confidence) and share prices start to plummet so too will the value of the equity in the companies, leading to huge write-offs in the balance sheets of these businesses which affects the “retained earnings” of these companies and therefore their ability to pay dividends on the shares. This cycle further causes the dumping of shares until eventually shareholders are left standing unsecured by any assets of the company holding worthless shares. When banks and financiers move in to stake their claims, we witness corporate collapses like those of HIH, OneTel, Enron; the house of cards scenario playing out again.

Therefore from both the macroeconomics and microeconomics perspective, credit money (debt) is a primary source of liquidity (money supply) giving rise to the usurious industry which thrives upon interest based lending activities, at the peak of which default risk is ignored. In such a case when the base slides it is inevitable the entire system will come crashing down.

These are some key theoretical ‘issues’ with capitalist economic philosophy and its usurious industries.

A Value System in Need?

Yet the greatest kick in the gut for capitalism is its very ideological basis. Capitalism, with secularism as its pillar of thoughts, offers, or supposedly does, 4 types of freedom which form the bases of its value system. These, in light of economics and trade, are as follows:

Freedom of belief – under which the contemplation of one’s existence is limited to his immediate surroundings and the existence of a Creator to whom belongs all that is in the earth and the heavens is not even a point of contemplation. Thus one is master of his own self, having no accountability to anyone. Transactions considered abominable under divinely inspired systems, usury being the most prominent one, are accepted as yet another tool for one’s own economic benefit.

Freedom personal – giving the value of ‘ends justify the means’ leads one to profiteering, slave labouring and exploitation at any cost; corporations are given their own 'separate legal entity' status and are thereby able to create Virtual Economies, lobby governments and shield individuals against any legal action. Bribery and corruption is rife (e.g The Australian Wheat Board Scandal)

Freedom of speech – which no values no bounds and blurs the line between lies and truth; thus deceptive advertising, misinformation of products and/ or a company’s financial performance, deceptive contracts with lock in clauses in fine print, all form part of the immoral norms of conducting business. The 'blame game' becomes rife when things go pear shaped - e.g The Australian Wheat Board Scandal, HIH, OneTel.

Freedom of ownership – promoting the notion that the monopoly situation is ideal, maintaining the scarcity myth and expending all at any cost to achieve what is considered rare is optimum success, even if it means being up to your eye balls in debt; government policy pushes consumption; hoarding is rampant.

These, perceived freedoms instil in the capitalist society values of hedonism which governs actions en masse. These values form the foundation of all of the capitalist societies’ systems, be they the Economic System, Judicial, Social, Educational or the Ruling system. With such values the desire is to be at the top and thrive off others' dependency on you to satisfy their basic needs. With these values your ethos becomes 'feed the man fish' instead of teaching him 'how to fish'.

Thus the matter is not, and should not be, about addressing a corrupt Economic System per se.

The Islamic Alternative

What is needed is a comprehensive new ideology with its own value system; one that views human beings as human beings and not as a means to profit; one that recognises human beings' needs and addresses those needs and not as an avenue for economic growth; one that distributes wealth and resources on a fair and just basis, not based on market forces; one that views human beings as living, breathing, beings and not as a hammer or sickle or other factor of production. And what other ideology is there to provide these values than one that is divine in origin; the Islamic Aqeedah with a unique value system. This unique value system is highlighted in many of the divine text and lives of the Muslims. We recall that during a great time of hunger, when a sahaba was in possession of some meat he sent that dish to his neighbour whom he considered to be more needy, and in turn that sahaba passed that dish to the next, and this generosity, selflessness, care and respect for human life continued on until the dish returned to the original sahaba. This is the essence of the sacrosanct values that the Islamic Ideology provides; uniquely incomprehensible to the profit minded capitalist.

With such a value system the Economic System of Islam would show the world, as it has in the past:

- That the notion that resources are scarce is a misnomer that leads to hoarding, an act strictly forbidden under Islam
- That the Islamic State is duty-bound to provide food, shelter and clothing – therefore basic needs are fulfilled and there won’t be a competition in society to pursue profiteering and exploit humans on their basic needs
- The unique notion that ownership of key economic resources are collectively owned by the public, with the Islamic State as the custodian and companies that mine or exploit these resources are restricted through strictly governed Public Private Partnerships to produce the necessary energy, water and mineral needs for the public
- Debt is frowned upon and will not be a business avenue; banks will play the key role of safe guarding the Ummah’s deposits and the Gold and Silver which would be the basis of the Muslims’ currency, and not as a usury based financial institution
- With a 1.5 billion population the issue will not be to imperialise on profits through foreign investment schemes and cross border usury based funding, rather the Islamic countries, forming the great belt of wilayat will actively aid the productivity of the Islamic State.

These are some key points from the macro-economics angle.

From the micro-economics angle

- The “No Hoarding” rule means no monopoly and encouragement of perfectly competitive markets, giving anyone the opportunity to conduct trade; the absence of Intellectual Property restrictions further opens up the market for trade
- In such a market scenario demand is constantly elastic removing inflationary pressures and therefore liquidity is not a problem
- Usury is haram and therefore outlawed; thus 1) there is no impetus to generate an industry from providing credit 2) even if credit terms were used for trade, they would be specifically to aid genuine consumption and not to exploit someone’s needy situation nor to breed hedonism; leading to genuine production and growth and not a fictitious overstatement of the size of a company or the economy at large
- liquidity pressures are further alleviated from the unique view that to forgive debt is a great reward from Allah(swt)

Once again at the heart of these economic policies is the Ideology, the Islamic Aqeedah. The comprehensive view of human existence connecting this life and the next means that accountability is an inherent factor, without any basis for a false notion of freedom.

The Islamic Aqeedah does put people before profits. Companies are not afforded the recognition of a separate legal entity and therefore their owners are individually liable for all debts of a company. As such the survival of the company at the expense of people’s livelihoods is not the objective under Islam’s economic system. Whereas under capitalism, companies are quick to slash jobs to maintain profits at desired levels and keep their shares at a desired price on the market, the Islamic Aqeedah uniquely respecting the notion of brotherhood leads owners of businesses to compromise profit margins in order to sustain employment and safeguard the needs of their employees – who happen to be their Muslim brothers – so that their livelihood and that of their families are not compromised.

With its unique value system, this Islam waits to be shone to the rest of the world once again as a way of life that will resolve more than just the Global Financial Crisis.

[1] "Fannie and Freddie by Rep. Ron Paul" www. Retrieved on 2003-09-10.
[2] M1 is currency, M2, M3, M4 primarily refers to credit money
[3] Refer Dr Al Malkawi’s essay for detailed explanation on Virtual Economies –

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Understanding the nature of the American people

The following is an extract of the soon to be published translation of the Arabic book 'Political Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir' originally published in 2005. As Barack Obama has now become the President of the USA all eyes are upon America, this extract is useful as it discusses the history and nature of the American people.

As regarding the American people: They are a rich people who live in a land of big wealth. Then it entered into a bitter struggle with the European states which they occupied particularly England, and won its independence with force through vision and awareness. This developed within the Americans some dispositions, most of which is pragmatism, i.e. the concept of expediency. Due to its opposition to the European colonialism, tendency and respect to high values originated within it. However, the American people embraced the capitalist ideology like the rest of the Christian world, so it started to be attracted by two factors, which are: the factor of contentment and honesty and the factor of benefit and colonialism. Britain used to use the first factor, where it has used it on its side as a force in war and economy when that factor dominated it. When World War II broke out, and the American people tasted colonialism in terms of the oil of the gulf, the second factor, which is benefit and colonialism, dominated it. Thus, it went out of its isolation for colonizing the peoples and subjugating the world to its domination and influence. It will never return back again to its isolation except with force, because the capitalist ideology had dominated it and started to govern its life. Besides, benefit alone started to control its conduct, in addition to arrogance and vanity that filled its life.

America was occupied by the European states, particularly England. She was also divided into many states. So, she started first to reduce the burden of English colonialism, and then entered into many liberation wars with it that led to expelling the English from their land. Then these American states agreed to establish a federation from them, and formed one single state. After that this federal state started to annex the other states voluntarily or by force and made them states in this federal state, till she was finally formed in her current form, by including 51 states. Thus, a powerful state emerged that proceeded in the international field as a strong state. She managed to protect the two American continents from the control of the European states, and became another world, known as the new world, established from an active people and a wealthy country. USA set a ruling system, which though is of the democratic systems, but was laid down based on deep thought and practical understanding of the meaning of government, which is governance of humans and conducted by humans. So, she did not view the ideal ruling in a logic perception; she rather viewed it in its practical and real form. This is quite clear in the way of appointing the president, his wide functions, his role in the state, the functions of the other institutes of the state and the strong unity, which is represented in the state and forms its foundation though it is federal. This is also reflected in the wide authority given to the people for electing the president and the institutes of the state. All of this had great effect in the strength of the state and in the huge speed of the development of this strength. USA came out of her isolation at the World War II, and associated in managing the world. She even tied to run the world unilaterally; but she associated her enemy, the Soviet Russia with her in running the world since 1961 till 1979. Besides she frustrated the ambitions of other great states. When she realised that she fulfilled her objectives from the détente policy and from associating the SU with her. And that this Russian association had brought her negative results, where Europe started to escape her control and tried to establish direct relations with the SU. Besides, the SU started to undertake brave attempts, though unsuccessful, to indulge in the international politics so as to impose itself as an international power independent from the policies of America. When USA noticed all of that, she decided to return to the policy of escalation with Russia and involvement in a new arms race, which tells of a new cold war. Thus, USA indulged in cultural, intellectual and economic war with Russia and the Eastern camp. She restricted Russia with treaties that led finally to the collapse of the SU, leaving America as the world leading state that has the greatest influence on international politics.

There are two main parties in America, which are the Democratic Party and Republican party. It is hard to notice a big difference between the written constitution of the two parties, and nor in the followed policies. The two parties almost follow a single way, without much change between the two parties in the rotation of the authority, whether in the domestic or foreign policy. Any changes in such policies are only dictated by the circumstances rather than by the difference of their programs.

The Democratic Party is the deep rooted one, besides it is the party of the people, where it wins massive majority of it. Therefore, the majority of the Congress is generally on its side. As regarding the Republican Party, its emergence is more recent than the Democratic Party. It is the party of the rich and those who possess huge wealth. Most of its members belong from the owners of huge wealth and the owners of the monopolies; besides it includes a great number of the educated. It does not give much attention to win the general masses or the ordinary people to its side. It is only the system of presidential elections that helps it; otherwise it would never be able to win the presidency, because it is the party of the minority rather than the majority.

USA, like other capitalist states, is dominated by the owners of the monopolies and the businessmen, and these are the ones that have influence on its policies. However, because every individual enjoys truly the right of citizenship, and can influence the governance, whether through elections or accounting, its governance appears to be that of the entire people more than it appears in other capitalist states. Due to her massive and incessant wealth, together with the abundance of educated, intelligentsia and thinkers; besides the environment of (freedom) and atmosphere of activity dominate over her; its strength is real rather than superficial. Though her people are not a deep rooted people, and it consists of individuals and groups that emigrated from different countries; however citizenship truly binds them with a strong bondage. Even a foreigner who lives there for a few years and receives the nationality and thus owns the right of citizenship, he becomes more concerned about the state, the people and its interests than his original homeland. This comes as a result of the strength the country enjoys, in terms of its individuals and the relations between the people.

As regarding her foreign policy, it is the policy of her rich and owners of the monopolies, i.e. it is a pure colonial policy, where there is no role in it for the high human values. Despite the naivety that sometimes looks like stupidity, which appears in her politicians, they are deep thinkers much more than many politicians in the world. They enjoy huge capability for making changes, diversifying the styles and solving the problems. It might be that the colonial zeal, besides the high culture had effect on their political activity. They view the remaining parts of the world as their own ranch; besides the states that were great in the past are not entitled to enjoy the influence they had. So, it is time for these great states to retire, relax and be content with submission to the authority of the strong, as the other states of the world do.

America owns today a huge nuclear arsenal that exceeds by many times the nuclear weapons owned by other nuclear countries altogether. The military expenditure of America compared with the other states reveals the extent of the American superiority over such states. As an example, the military expenditure of the great western states in 2002 was as follows:

Britain 35 billion dollars
France 32 billion dollars
Germany 23 billion dollars
Total 90 billion dollars

As regarding America, she has alone spent 350 billion dollars; this is in addition to the quality difference in terms of armament and that Americans come before Europe tens of years in terms of technological advancement. USA controls the UN and its organisations; besides she dominates over the greatest financial reserves in the WB and IMF, which means her domination over the wide political influence exercised by the IMF and WB over the states of the world. She also sought to strengthen her trade through the globalisation policies, which employed the WTO (World Trade Organisation) and worked for using it as one of her tools for interfering in the local markets under the pretext of unified tariffs. Thus, she worked for freeing the trade. Since she owns a huge economic power and has the greatest number of multinational companies, she benefited of the legal cover provided to her by the WTO for opening the markets that were closed before her or those that were difficult to assimilate in the open global economy, which America runs.

These huge military, political and economic capabilities of America made her interfere in the affairs of all the current world states, and made them as if they were a part of her domestic policy. She tries to exercise the policies of hegemony over all the states without exception, making no difference between the developed and non developed states. Though she sometimes fails in this hegemony policy, she does not cease from attempting that.

America has a role in all the problems of the world. She is that state that stirs tension in the burning regions. So she introduced new classifications for the states, like the term of ‘axis of evil’ and the ‘states that support terrorism’ and the like. Even the allying states or the compliant states did not escape her harm. She rather obliged the world that it either stands on her side or on the side of terrorism. So there is no place for a state to stand neither on her side and nor on the side of terrorism.

She creates the crisis, provokes the problems and creates tensions, and then she manages these crises and seeks solutions for them. She does all of that as a part of her strategy for dominating the world.

Thus, America made the worst use of her military and economic forces in her political actions, such that her influence was not limited to the economic and trading aspects, as the traditional colonialist states normally used to do. She rather extended her influence to all the aspects of civic life, so she extended her influence to education, media, society, thought, culture and security.

Her role in changing the education curriculum so as to comply with her ideological views became quite obvious. Therefore, we found Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt and others had indulged in reviewing their curriculum under the pretext of development and compliance with the age. Saudi Arabia had changed one of the most important religious subjects in its school books, which is the subject of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’ (allegiance (to whom) and dissociation (of whom). Likewise, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and others changed subjects related to jihad against the aggressor kuffar, of Jews and Christians and others; besides other Islamic concepts, which America hates.

Regarding the media, America assigned hundreds of millions of dollars for the sake of influencing the media in the Arab and Muslim masses. So, it set up Radio Sawa and the Al-Hurra (Freedom) TV channel to spread her poison in every home in the Arab countries.

In the social field, America focused on the woman so as to distance her from the Islamic values. She assigned the funds and imposed pressure on the governments to hold conferences over the subject of women. She also imposed pressure for inserting women in the governments and parliaments; besides she propagated again the concept of the freedom of women within new forms and new presentations.

In the field of thought and culture, America employed centres for thought, democracy and pluralism; besides she set up organisations for human rights. These centres and organisations would promote the thoughts of freedom within the western concepts and following the American way. These organisations and centres were supported by Hollywood cinema films and advanced technological production, which dominated the propagation of most of the Arab and non Arab channels.

In the field of security, America worked to link the intelligence services in the Arab states and the states of the Islamic world with her intelligence services, particularly with the CIA and FBI. So, we came to see the American intelligence people move with complete freedom in the cities of the Islamic countries, and under legal protection, as it is the case in Sudan, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Libya, Pakistan and other states. This intelligence linkage covered handing over of the accused to America; besides it allowed the special American forces to undertake specific military actions against those described by America as terrorists.

Thus, the American hands reached the joint points of the daily life in the societies of the Islamic countries and the non Islamic societies. She spreads corruption in them as she likes, as she does in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia, even in Latin America, where she deposed the elected president of Haiti, Bertram Aristide and expelled him outside his country, and she tries now to depose Chavez, the president of Venezuela, from authority. Thus, America is about to control the affairs of the weak states due to the submission and surrender of their rulers to her.

However, this American hegemony will not remain long; it is rather going to disappear despite the American presence in every corner in the world and despite the cooperation of the rulers and governments with this presence. The increasing hatred of the peoples, particularly the Islamic ones, to America, besides the increasing abhorrence of most of them to the Americans due of their arrogance, hollow pride and bias towards the Jews, also because of their colonialism and enslavement of others. We say: this increasing hatred and abhorrence will generate opposition and struggle against the American presence everywhere, whether inside or outside its continent. Moreover, the annoyance of the other great states and the attack against their interests due to the arrogance of America, beside her unilateral control over the benefits and her continuous attempts for hegemony, besides her attempt to have monopoly over the management of the international affairs.

The presence of a state built upon the capitalist ideology, which is based on colonialism and exploiting the wealth of others; besides this state leads the world without competition over this leadership; all of this makes the world live in continuous suffering, where its problems continue and its crises follow each other. The tangible American corrupting and perverting of the world, besides her forging of continuous crises in it confirm that.

The hardship and misery of the world resulting from the capitalist states, particularly the USA, will never disappear except by establishing the Khilafah state, which will implement the right and great ideology, Islam, which was revealed by Allah (swt) upon His Messenger (saw) as mercy for mankind. At that moment, the justice of Islam will disclose the ugliness of the capitalism, in terms of its materialistic thought and colonial method. The righteous power of Islam will also demolish the suppression and arrogance of America, and forces her to return to her isolation and her new world, in case that new world remained to her. Then, goodness will spread worldwide, and the world will have a deep sigh after the hardship and misery it lived for long.

Arabic Source

Videos of Sheikh Dr. Mohammed Hawarey

The Sheikh recorded the following video/audio files in English starting 17 September 2008 (17 Ramadhan 1429) and ending 13 October 2008. The files are in *.wmv format, hence can be watched on any Windows-based computer immediately, and numbered from 00 to 62. They are composed of three sets: an introduction and a collection of 30 symposiums about FAITH CHANGES MAN, a collection of 20 symposiums about ISLAM DRAFT CONSTITUTION plus a commentary, and a collection of 11 symposiums about COMPARATIVE RELIGION. The length of each file is indicated in minutes and seconds. The 00 file is the only one shorter than 10 minutes, thus it was uploaded to the Sheikh's channel on YouTube to be the only file in English among 25 other videos in Arabic. May Allah SWT bless the Sheikh and award him heavily for this tremendous effort despite the severe bone marrow fibrosis and spleen swelling he is suffering; hence affecting his lecturing ability radically, as seen in the videos below.


00 Introduction 05m 43s
01 Sound Way to Sound Faith 23m 29s
02 The Way of Faith 17m 53s
03 The Way of Faith 33m 54s
04 The Way of Faith 40m 54s
05 The Way of Faith 30m 18s
06 The Commentary 16m 32s
07 Divine Fate & Decree 36m 54s
08 Divine Fate & Decree 33m 07s
09 Divine Fate & Decree 39m 10s
10 Divine Fate & Decree 19m 54s
11 The Commentary 15m 25s
12 Islam Leads Humanity 24m 37s
13 Islam Leads Humanity 26m 14s
14 Islam Leads Humanity 32m 47s
15 Islam Leads Humanity 27m 30s
16 Islam Leads Humanity 24m 23s
17 Islam Leads Humanity 26m 44s
18 Islam Leads Humanity 37m 11s
19 Islam Leads Humanity 24m 35s
20 Islam Leads Humanity 25m 50s
21 The Commentary 29m 17s
22 Deliver & Convey Islamic Call 35m 46s
23 Islamic Civilization 29m 44s
24 Islam System 33m 57s
25 Sharia Judgment & Its Kinds 29m 49s
26 Honorable Sunnah & Commitment 27m 05s
27 Adoption of Sharia Judgments 27m 37s
28 Constitution & Law 41m 24s
29 Morals in Islam 41m 20s
30 The Commentary 36m 17s



Concluded in mid October 2008
Total Size = 1.078 Gigabyte
Total Length = 36 hours, 2 minutes, 33 seconds

Profile: The Sheikh was born in 1931, descending from the Disciple of the Prophet SAW: Al-Zubeir the son of Al-Awwam, the ancestry of whom meets that of the Prophet SAW at Qusay the son of Kelab: the Master of Quraysh. The aunt of Al-Zubeir was Khadeejah the daughter of Khowayled, his two uncles were Hamza and Al-Abbas, his cousins were Ali (the Caliph) and Jaafer, his father-in-law was Abu Baker (the Caliph), and his son was Abdullah (the Caliph), may Allah SWT be pleased with them all.

While both parents of the Sheikh were Hawarey's, his father Hamed and his only uncle Fares were both martyred during the struggle against colonialism in Sham Lands in 1930's.
The Sheikh joined the Syrian University in Damascus (has been renamed later on to become Damascus University) to graduate with BA in Literature and BA in Education. Later on, he acquired MA and PhD in Comparative Religion and PhD in Tafseer (the unique study of the Holy Quran and its interpretation). While he has published his researches in the field of Comparative Religion as part of his book (Whoever Has A Mind... Must Reflect on These Islamic Researches, in Arabic), his Tafseer research has been published in his book (Call from the Compilation of Rulings, in 2 volumes of 4 parts, in Arabic).

After his graduation from the Syrian University, he spent 30 years in Kuwait, until 1990, working in various fields of professorship, technical and administrative supervision, studies and researches, translation and other intellectual and political activities. During this period, he finished the curriculum of High Diploma in Higher Islamic Studies in Cairo, Egypt. He also authored more than 120 researches in various fields of education, culture, science and communication, in addition to more than one series that were published in Kuwaiti daily and weekly periodicals. Since 1990, he has been living in Sham Lands and has authored multiple books that are advertised on his website all along with the publishers, in Arabic.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Q&A: The reality of the coup in Guinea

The following is the translation of an Arabic Q&A.

Question: On 23rd Vedember, 2008, it was announced in Konakari, the capital of Guinea that ceratin armed forces divisions rebelled within four hours after the death of Guinean President General President Lansana Conte. The following day, the rebels announced formation of a consultative council under the name National Council for Development and Democracy. It was also announced that the military officer who made the announcements, Captain Moussa Camara will head the council. At its inception, the revolution was was opposed by the prime minister who was supported by the chief of staff who called on the rebels to be loyal to the government...but the prome minister surrendered to the revolutionaries within three days!

What is the reality? Is it a local matter where the revolutionaries seized the oppurtunity of the president’s death or does it have regional and global ramifications?

Answer: If we observe the events as well as the global views expressed in the wake of the coup, it becomes evident that the global conflict is not unrelated to the events of this revolution. And to better comprehend this, let us consider the following:

1. The chief of the rebel forces, Captain Moussa Dadis Camarra announced on behalf of the rebels that they do not intend to say in power for more than two years until they hold presidential elections by the end of the year 2010. (BBC 24th December, 2008). He also mentioned that the underlying causes for the coup were that the democratic institutions in the country had failed to tackle the crisis, hence the constitution will be under suspension from now on as well as all political and trade union activity will cease. He futher added: “The country faces acute frustration and it is absolutely necessary to stop corruption and improve the economy.“ (BBC 24th December, 2008). This suggests that the coup was not a result of the situation arising from the death of the republic’s president but was pre-planned. The coup did not result out in a mmtter of 4 hours after the death of their president. Pertinently, this coup leader had earlier attempted coups and the most recent attempt being in the month of May this year itself.

2. As for the international reactions, the first reaction came from France which is considered to be influential in its former colony of Guinea. The French reation was: “France said that it will resist any coup attempt.“ (BBC: 23rd December, 2008). The French foreign ministry spkesman Eric Chevallier told a press conference: “We will not tolerate aby situation where the Constitution is not honoured.“ He added: “It appears that the legitimate authorities are in control in the country presently and the claims are not substantiated.“(BBC 23rd December, 2008). It ppears from these statements that France is concerned about the success of the rebels and rejects their actions, it eben said that it will oppose and reisist them! The french newspapers attacked and criticised the rebels, some newspapers even rediculed them like the Le Figaro which said: “The Guinean soldiers who roam the streets of Conakry have placed an obscure person who earlier headed their fire department as the head of their country“!

3. As for the United States, the White House spokesman Tony Frato said: “We are working with our partners in the regionas well as other countries and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in order to encourage institutions in Guinea to take all necessary steps for a peaceful and democratic transition in Guinea.“ He added: “it is evident that the region is disturbed and its history has mostly not known peaceful transitions and democratic authority.“ (al-Jazeerah: 23rd December, 2008). The American statement that it supports a peaceful and democratic transition of authority is a false statement and exploits democracy because it says at the same time that the region has not seen peaceful transitions of authority. This only implies that the only way left is the military coup through which the US can lodge its own people in authority...!

The American statement also suggests that the US is satisfied with the events and even sipports them in a way. However the US cannot back the rebels openly beacuse it claims to be a champion of the democratic process and peaceful transitions. But it is also known that America disregrads these values where its own interests are at stake.

America’s satisfaction at the events and its implied support is also evident from the statement of the State Department’s spokesman Robert Wood who told the US radio that the US wants Guinea to return to civil democratic rule immedeately. He said that America is deeply concerned about the absence of any cilvilians in the current stage of transition of power in Guinea and that America has not taken any decision with regard to the coup in Guinea and in the process of consultations with its allies to take a coordinated stand on the issue (25th December, 2008). The staments of the US official spokesman suggest that the US is itself not against the coup, rather it supports it in a way,because the stament spoke of the US concern about the absence of civilians in the transition and not about America’s concern at the coup itself. Also his statement that the US has not taken an official decision yet, implies that it supports the coup but is waiting for an opportune time to announce the same. If the coup had been against its interests, it would have mobilised the world and would not have been sitting quietly as it always does in the face of such coups that are against its interests. Add to this the fact that America itself had earlier calledfor elections in the month of May next. (al-Jazeerah: 26th December, 2008). This implies America support to the coup.

4. As for Britain, it‘s radio while reporting the events, commented on 24th December, 2008: “The split (in the Guinean armed forces) perhaps points to the ethinic diviion in the forces and in the country.“ The radio added: “This will affect the neighbouring countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Ivory Coast.“ It also added: “Observers have stressed that these events will adveresly affect the neighbouring countries like Soerra Leone, Liberia and the Ivory Coast who have of late enjoyed relative stability after years of conflict. The comments also made a reference to the coup leader and quoted his comrades saying that he was not a bright student. This suggests that the British are not happy with the coup and realise that it is not in their interest and will adversely affect the region. They also relaise that it is not in the European Union’s interests or elsi thay would state that it has ethnic coonotations and tht it will adveresely affect the neighbouring countries.

5. Late night on 24th December, 2008 the hed of the rebels Mousssa Camarra announced himself to be the head of the state and said: “I am satisfied, and I want to stress that I am the head of the republic and chief of the National Council for Development and Democracy. The prime minister Ahmed Teejan Sawari refuted him in a statement to the French international radio saying that his government continues to be in office and will remain in authority during the transition phase. (al-Jazeerah: 25th December, 2008). Sources also said that the chief of staff of the armed forces Diara Camarra tried to discuss with the rebels to convince them to respect the donstitutional process which calls ofr the president of the national parliament to become the interim president of the country. This means that there are two conflicting parties; one is headed by the coup leader Moussa Dadis Camarra and the other by the chief of staff who is backed by prime minister and the parliament. The coup leader hurriedly anounced himself to be the president of the republic to preempt others from jumping to power, like the chief of the armed foces staff for instance and to prevent the speaker of the parliament from becoming the interim president. It may be mentioned that the late president Lansana Conte had himself come to power through a military coip in the year 1984 within a week of the death of the then president Ahmed Sekou Toure.

6. From these, it is evident that:
The events come within the purview of a global conflict between America on one hand and Europe, especially France and Britain on the other and that the US is backing and supporting the rebels, while France and Britain are against the coup because it adversely affects their interests in West Africa snce the US has been successful on Conakry Guinea.

7. This was with regard to the events as seen from a global perspective.
As for the surrender of the prime minister to the rebels after having announced his opposition to them, the reality of the matter is as follows:

A. Indeed, Ahmed Teejan Sawari and his 30 ministers surrendered to the rebels and announced their loyalty to the coup leader saying: “We thank you and place ourselves at your disposal.“ (al-Jazeerah: 26th December, 2008). He also praised the coup leader as a wise person. (CNN 26th December, 2008). The Prime Minister Ahmed Sawari had initially oppised the rebels and the armed forces chief of staff Diara Camarra had announced his support to the prime minister and declared him as the representatative of the republic as well as demanded that rebels surrender themselves. Now with the prime minister himself surrendering to the coup leaders implies that the rebels have seized control over the affairs.

B. On the other hand, it also implies that France and Britain have realised that the coup has been successful or appears to be so and that their opposition would be in vain. They appear to have accepted America’supperhand in return for a pardon for the prime minister and the chief of staff surrendering to the rebels.this is as if Britain and France have secured their interest in Guinea and the American interests have vome to occupy a place of prominence. This itself amounts to surrender.

8. It is known that George Bush had in his last tour of the region where he visited 5 countries in February this year including West Africa.This signifies that America gives priority to West Africa in its attempt to consolidate its influence in the entire African continent. We may recall the statement of Geroge Bush who had said: “Africa is extremely important in the US strategy and the situation in Africa has a direct influence in the security of America itself.“(Chinese People’s Newspaper: 25th February, 2008). His statement clearly describes the Africn issue as vital to American interests when he said that they have a direct bearing on the security of the US! This was as if he regarded the entire south eastern Atlantic belt, i.e. the West African region and the regions to its east as an internal matter of the United States under the Monroe Doctrine which considered the entire south eastern Atlantic belt, i.e. the West African region and the regions to its east as a vital issue for America. And that any hostility towards it implies a direct threat to the US. Bush’s stand is similar to the views of James Monroe vis a vis his rival European colonialists.

Africa has emormous natural resources including hige oil reserves which are very tempting for this Big Brother of the western colonialists! It has been reported in the Al Ahram international report published on 16th June, 2007 that the US National Council estimates that the Guinean soast will provide the United States about 24 to 25% of its oil imports by the year 2020. The African International Policy Center estimates that by the same year the Guinean oil exports will reach a trillion dollars if the oil prices remain around 50 dollars to a barrel. Guinea is the largest exporter of the raw Aluminium ore called Bauxite and its geographical location is strategically vital along the Atlantic coast from where exports to the US can ne shipped rapidly and more securely than the Middle East which is under threat of falling away from America at the hands of its Muslim people. The cost of shipping from the western Atlantic coast are also going to be cheaper for America due to its proximity and it is expected to transport hige quantities of petrol from the African continent in future if the US maintains its influence in the region.

29th Dhul Hijjah, 1429 A.H
26th December, 2008.

Arabic Source

Part 3, The Islamic Rules of Trade - Brokerage (Samsara)

Due to the current global financial crisis there is increasing interest in the Islamic Economic System, the most comprehensive book on this topic is 'The Economic System of Islam' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. However as people have many questions relating to the Islamic rules of trade we will be posting related extracts from the draft translation of the Fiqh masterpiece 'The Islamic Personality, Volume 2' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.

Brokerage (Samsara)

It is narrated from Hakeem bin Hazam from his father who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

دعوا الناس يرزق الله بعضهم من بعض، فإذا استنصح الرجل أخاه فلينصح له
“Leave the people so that Allah gives sustenance to some of them through others. If the man seeks advice from his brother, let him advise him.”

In scrutinising trade and the situations of sale and purchase, we find therein that Allah provides sustenance for people through each other whether it is large trade or small trade. We often find the large traders undertaking the sale of small goods to traders on condition that they take a specific percentage of the profit upon what they sold to them for example one percent. This occurs in all goods. It occurs in what is measured and weighed and what is analogised and other than that. It occurs between large companies in manufacturing cloth-material, sweets, paper or machines and between wholesalers and they are called agents or selling agents. These people promise to sell what these companies produce and they take from them a specific profit which is a specific percentage of what they sell. There occurs between the large traders or manufacturers, and between the small traders, sales through the medium of persons working for the trader or manufacturer, and they are assigned exclusively to a specific trader of manufacturer. These people offer goods to people and sell them to them. Their sale is executed, and for them is a specific wage for the work of offering the goods from the large trader or manufacturer for whom they work whether they sold or did not sell and for them is a specific wage for each agreement of sale which they sold which is a specific percentage of the price for which they sold them. In this way the medium occurs between the seller and buyer in the factories, companies, and the traders and customers in everything. It occurs in vegetables in fruits just as it occurs in cloth-material, sweets and other things. In the vegetable market, the trader sells vegetables for the account of the peasants (liqa) of the specific hire لقاء عمولة (‘umula) which he takes from the peasant.

All these actions, whether they are large actions between companies and manufacturers, or between large and small traders, or between traders and customers, all of them are brokerage and those undertaking them are brokers. This is because brokerage is to undertake the affair and its preserver, then it is used for the one charged with the power of selling and buying. The fuqaha knew brokerage as the name for the one who works for someone else for a wage in selling and buying. And it is verified upon the auctioneer because he works for someone else for a wage in selling and buying. The brokerage and auctioneering is allowed in Shar’a, and it is considered of the practices of trader and it is a type of work by which wealth is owned in the Shar’a. Ahmad narrated from Qays bin Abi Ghurza Al-Kanani who said: We used to buy the camel loads in Madinah and we used to be called brokers. He said: So the Messenger of Allah (saw) came to us and called us by a name which was better that what we used to call ourselves so he said:

يا معشر التجار، إن البيع يحضره اللغو والحلف، فشوبوه بالصدقة
“O group of traders, verily there is present in this trade useless talk so mix it with charity (sadaqa).”

Its meaning is that he could exaggerate in describing his good until he talks which is useless talk i.e. more than what is obliged upon him of speech but it does not, however, which may reach the status of falsehood. He could also guess in swearing to market his good so he is recommended to give charity to efface that. The Messenger (saw)’s consent to the brokers upon their work, and his saying to them: “O group of traders” clarifies the permissibility of brokerage and that it is from trade. And it is the evidence that brokerage is allowed by Shar’a, and it is from the transactions permitted in the Shar’a.

However it is necessary that the action upon which he is hired to sell and buy be known either in the goods or by the time period, and that the profit or hire or wage be known. If a trader hires someone to sell for him or buy for him a specific house or specific utensils, the selling and buying is valid. Similarly if he hires him to sell or buy for him for a daily or monthly wage, it is valid. Similarly if he hires him to sell for him or buy for him for a daily or monthly wage to a specific level, and at the same time he hires him to sell for him or buy for him goods for a specific hire for each agreement. This is valid because the work upon which he was hired to sell or buy is known and the wage is known.

Accordingly brokerage, with its well-known meaning among traders and people from the time of the Messenger (saw) until today, is allowed. As for the brokerage for which the sahih hadith came prohibiting, it is specific to the deceitful brokerage which deceives people due to their ignorance of the price due to their lack of knowledge of the market or their lack of information regarding the good or what is similar to that. The Messenger (saw) consented to the the brokerage in a general form in considering it one of the trade practices. He prohibited the types of brokerage he clarified in their essence due to the reason (‘illah) therein which is deceit. Just like he permitted trade in a general form and prohibited specific types of trade for the reason therein. If the following of the ahadith coming therein and the scrutiny of their legislative meaning is performed, then this is clarified explicitly. In the ahadith which came with a prohibition of practices related to sale and purchase, brokerage is neither mentioned nor prohibited but some Sahabah and some narrators explained them as brokerage and translated the prohibition as being that he prohibited (someone) being a broker. If they are considered in their reality, it is clarified that they are types of brokerage. Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Tawus from his father from ibn Abbas (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

لا تَلقوا الرُكبان ولا يَبِع حاضر لِبادٍ
“Do not meet riders, nor the sale of inhabitant for the Bedouin.”

He said: I said to ibn Abbas: What is his saying:

لا يَبِع حاضر لبادٍ
“Nor the sale of the inhabitant for the Bedouin.”

He said: Do not be a broker for him. And in the narration from Tawus that he said: I asked ibn Abbas (ra) what is the meaning of his statement: “The inhabitant should not be a trader for the Bedouin.” He said: He should not be a broker for him. And Al-Bukhari said: ‘The inhabitant should not sell for the Bedouin by brokerage” and he used the ‘no’ (la) of prohibition. Then he mentioned two hadiths in the chapter, the first of the two from Said bin Al-Musayyab that he heard Abu Hurairah (ra) saying: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

لا يَبتعِ المرء على بيع أخيه، ولا تناجشوا، ولا يَبِع حاضر لبادٍ
“The man should not buy upon the sale of his brother. Do not (najashu), nor the sale of the inhabitant for the Bedouin.”

And the second hadith from Anas bin Malik (ra) who said:

نُهينا أن نبيع حاضر لبادٍ
“He prohibited us from the sale of the inhabitant for the Bedouin.”

And Al-Bukhari said: in the ‘The Chapter of (najash): And the one who says that this sale is not permitted.’ And ibn Abi Awfa said: ‘The (najash) is the consumer of treacherous interest (riba) and it is the void deceit which is not permitted, and the Prophet (saw) said:

الخديعة في النار,ومن عمل عملاً ليس عليه أمرنا فهو رَدّ
“Deceit is in the Hellfire. And whoever performs any action not in accordance with our command, it is rejected.”’

And there came several ahadith mentioning several types of practices that the Messenger (saw) prohibited. It has been narrated from Abu Hurairah (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

لا تَلقوا الرُكبان ولا يَبِع بعضكم على بيع بعض ولا تناجشوا ولا يَبِع حاضر لبادٍ
“Do not meet riders nor should some of you buy upon the sale of others. Do not (tanajashu), nore should the inhabitant trader on behalf of the Bedouin” (narrated by Al-Bukhari).

And it was narrated that the Prophet (saw) said:

لا تَلقوا الجلب فمن تلقى منه شيئاً فاشتراه فصاحبه بالخيار إذا أتى السوق
“Do not convene up with the imported goods. And whoever receives anything from them, its owner has the option when he reaches the market” (narrated by Ahmad).

From these ahadith and others and their scrutiny, it becomes clear that he prohibited therein the inhabitant trading for the Bedouin and similar to them are the towns-people, and a person from buying upon the sale of his brother if he had completed the sale i.e. that the man comes to the good which has been bought by another so he increases the price for which it was bought and buys it to invalidate the first sale. And he prohibited the (najash) which is to increase upon the good while he is not a buyer for it i.e. that one who does not intend to buy increases the good to lead by it one who bargains for it, so that he will not increase on this amount except that he will bring the equivalent so he (فيَغتَر بyaghtarr) by that and increases in order to buy it. He prohibited the meeting of riders which is the inhabitant who goes out to the Bedouin who has imported goods and he informs him the price, and he says to him: ‘I will sell it for you.’ Or he deceives the Bedouin about the price of the land and he buys from them for less than the comparable price. Or he informs him of the little demand of what is with them or the little demand in the market. He (saw) prohibited meeting the imports which is like meeting the riders.
These are the actions which are prohibited, some of which are related to brokerage directly and of them are those which relate to trade. By scrutinising the ahadith which came in prohibition, it becomes clear that the prohibition therein is completely based upon an understood description i.e. a description which is understood as being that for whose sake the prohibition occurs. The understood description, where the command or prohibition overcomes it, then the command and prohibition are reasoned; so the meaning which is included by the understood description is the reason of the command or prohibition. So the obligation or forbiddance therein is linked to the reason suspended upon it. If the reason exists, the rule exists and if the reason is absent, the rule is absent; so it revolves with the reason in existence and absence. If the reason exists in other than it, the rule applies upon that other (thing) via the method of analogy. The inhabitant and the Bedouin, buying upon the sale of the brother, the (najash), meeting the riders and meeting imports, are all understood descriptions. They are, therefore, the thing for whose sake the prohibition exists i.e. its meaning is that it is that for whose sake the rule exists. The rule is suspended upon the Bedouin due to the reason of lack of knowledge of the price with the Bedouin, and suspended with buying upon the sale of his brother due to what has occurred therein with the price being determined and the reliance of one upon the other, and suspended upon the (najash) because he does not intend to buy it but only increases the price to harm the buyer, and suspended upon meeting the riders and meeting imports due to what there is therein of elevating the price upon the city-dwellers or cheapening it for the importer. If these meanings exist in these sales, the sale is forbidden therein and brokerage is forbidden therein; and if they do not exist, neither sale nor brokerage is forbidden therein. Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) understood in prohibition of the sale of the inhabitant for the Bedouin that the reason is not knowing the price, so he said:

دلّوهم على السوق ودلّوهم على الطريق، أخبروهم بالسعر
“Direct them to the market, and direct them to the path. And inform them of the price.”

Accordingly, brokerage is allowed due to the manifestation of the evidence. If brokerage occurs in the types wherein a prohibition exists or there is a reason with in the brokerage for whose sake the prohibition exists, these types become haram but brokerage in its essence does not become haram. Rather brokerage remains allowed and the acquisition of brokerage remains an allowed acquisition.

Article 16, Explanation of the Draft Constitution of the Khilafah

The following is from the draft english translation of the Arabic book مقدمة الدستورأو الأسباب الموجبة له (Introduction to the constitution and the evidences that make it obligatory) published by Hizb ut-Tahrir 1382 Hijri (1963 CE). Please refer to the original Arabic for accurate meanings. Please note some of the adopted opinions of the Hizb have changed since the time the book was published so any of the adopted literature published after this book which contradicts what is mentioned in this book abrogates those specific points.

Article 16: The ruling system is a system of unity and not a federalist system

The sound ruling system is a system of unity and nothing else; because Shari'ah has decreed such a system and forbidden any other system. It has been reported on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn Al-A'as that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Whoever pledged allegiance to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart shall obey him as long as he can, and if another comes to dispute with him, you must strike the neck of that man." It has also been reported on the authority of Abu Said Al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "If a pledge of allegiance (Baya'a) has been taken for two Khalifahs kill the latter of them." The evidential aspect of these two Ahadith is that the first Hadith reflects the obligation of obeying the one with whom the Khilafah has been contracted, and if another came to dispute this Khilafah with him, he then should be fought and killed if he did not retract. Hence, the Hadith explains that he who disputes the authority of the Khalifah in the Khilafah he should be killed; this is tantamount to the prohibition of dividing the State. The Hadith also exhorts the Muslims to prevent, even by force, any attempt at dividing the State or staging a breakaway from it.. As for the second Hadith, it indicates that in case the State had no head, i.e. no Khalifah and the Khilafah were given to two persons, then the latter should be killed; the more reason if it were given to more than two. This is tantamount to the prohibition of dividing the State. It stipulates the prohibition of turning the State into states. It should rather be one single state. Hence, the ruling system in Islam is a system of unity and not a federalist system. Any other than the system of unity is categorically and conclusively forbidden. That is why this article has been drafted.