Saturday, February 07, 2009

Views on the news - 5/2/09

Iceland unveils world’s first homosexual leader

This week Iceland announced a new government that will be headed by the modern world's first openly Lesbian leader—Johanna Sigurdardottir. Sigurdardottir, 66, is a former air stewardess who was divorced from the father of her two sons, a banker, and now lives with her British-educated girlfriend Jonina Leosdottir, a 54-year-old author, playwright and journalist. The couple signed a civil partnership agreement in 2002. "I don't think her sexual orientation matters. Our voters are pretty liberal, they don't care about any of that," Skuli Helgeson, Social Democratic Alliance's general secretary, told the BBC. In most of Western Europe politicians are openly declaring their homosexuality. Only last week, Roger Karoutchi became the first French government minister to disclose his homosexuality. Other notable European politicians who have declared their homosexuality include the Mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoë, and the governing Mayor of Berlin Klaus Wowereit.

America on the brink of a major economic catastrophe

Recently, the famous US future trend forecaster Gerald Calente was interviewed by economics writer Lew Rockwell about the American economy. This is what Calente said, “We are going from the "Panic of '08" into the "Collapse of '09", and it is unstoppable. It will be the greatest depression ever. In the middle of February or March, there will be disastrous collapses of other retail giants. There will be a collapse in commercial real estate which will dwarf the subprime problem.

There will be a revolt in this county, and the government is planning on ways of suppressing it. For example, Arizona is training police for economic calamity and riots. The military is building detention centres, and training military for riot control. There's no stopping this.
The Obama administration will take draconian measures, such as calling a bank holiday, confiscating gold, or something else dramatic which will really hurt the little people and enrich the too-big-to-fails.

Those in the know aren't trying to save the economy. The ship is sinking, and the wealthy are just scrambling to secure their own life boats.”

Gaza: Value of a British life versus a Muslim life

On 1/2/2009 the BBC reported that the family of a British cameraman shot dead in Gaza in 2003 have accepted a reported £1.5m payout from Israel. James Miller, 34, from Devon, was filming a documentary when he was shot dead in the town of Rafah. His family, who have said he was shot by a soldier, said it was "probably the closest (we) will get to an admission of guilt on the part of the Israelis". An Israeli inquiry cleared a soldier of firearms misuse but a UK inquest later ruled Mr Miller was unlawfully killed. How many Palestinians have been unlawfully killed in Gaza by Israel and through the economic blockade by the western powers in collaboration with the neighbouring rulers? And yet there is no compensation or pressure from western governments on Israel to conduct an inquest. Truly, the West has turned upside down its own concept of human rights— where the blood of western citizens is worth much more than the blood of Muslims. The Messenger or Allah (saw) said, “The blood of a Muslim is worth more than the Ka’ba and all its surroundings.”

Saudi fighter jets happy perform air tricks

No sooner had Israel bombed Gaza to smithereens, Saudi hawks performed complex air tricks at Al Ain air show in the UAE. Rather than deploy the fighter jets in Palestine the Saudi leadership were happy to donate 61 truckloads of food, 30 ambulances and a variety of other meagre supplies to alleviate the pain and suffering of the Palestinians. What is the point of spending billion dollars on military hardware that will never be used to defend the blood and honour of Muslims?

US rewards Musharraf for spilling Muslim blood and safeguarding American interests

On his visit to Washington, Musharraf was offered a job at the famous Middle East Institute. The institute's former head, former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain said Musharraf should be the institute's next scholar-in-residence on Pakistan. Musharraf on his visit was unrepentant and defended his policies of sending Pakistani troops into FATA and allowing US to bomb the tribal areas with impunity. If he accepts, he will surpass America most loyal agent Gamal Abdul Nasser in designing pro-American policies for the Middle East. His track record in securing American interests in Pakistan is just a taste of things to come.



Anonymous said...


in HT constitution it mentions that in the educaton policy, private schools will be allowed, so it this the same as the capitalist education system, where there are state and private schools- differentiating on wealth and status?

clarification on this is appreicatd, as soon as possible.


Islamic Revival said...


Although private schools are allowed. However if you read the full article of the constitution which states that it becomes clear that is different to in Capitalism, its says:

Article 172
The State’s curriculum is uniquely one, and no curriculum other than that of the State is allowed to be taught. Private schools, provided they are not foreign, are allowed as long as they adopt the State’s curriculum and establish themselves on the State’s educational policy and accomplish the goal of education set by the State. Teaching in such schools should not be mixed between males and females, whether for students or teachers; and they should not be specific for certain deen, madhab, race or colour.

Please also refer to:

Anonymous said...

jk for that

private i assume will require price to be paid, now the reason why parents send their children to private schools in the west cos they believe the education is better- now if as mentioned in the constituton the circulum in both state and private, what wld be the difference that wld lead parents to send their children to private schools?

why is there a need for private schools? wld nt this promote elitism in society like the west?

Islamic Revival said...

Its not that there is a need for them, it has been mentioned because the shariah allows it - so we cannot forbid people setting up private schools if they want to.

Anonymous said...


what evidence is there to restrict the curriculum to what the state adopts? So long as there isnt unislamic thoughts being taught then why prevent this from being taught?

Also one of your news round ups mentions that ken livingstone is openly gay. Firstly he isnt the mayor of london any more and nor is he openly gay, rather he is a supporter of gay rights

Islamic Revival said...


The evidence is related to the obedience to the Khaleefah in areas where he has a right over us such as the various ahadith about obedience to the Ameer and “The Imam is a guardian and he is responsible over his subjects”. The following is an explanation from the book 'The Ruling System in Islam' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani regarding the areas in which the Khaleefah can adopt:

"The Khaleefah’s Method of Looking after the Subjects’ Affairs

The Khaleefah has the absolute authority to manage the citizens’ affairs according to his own opinion and Ijtihad. However, he is forbidden from violating any Shari’ah rule under the pretext of benefit (Maslaha). For instance he cannot prevent the subjects from importing goods under the pretext of protecting the local industry unless it actually harms the economy of the country. He cannot also set prices for the people under the pretext of preventing exploitation. He also cannot force landlords to rent their properties under the pretext of easing housing, unless there was a pressing need for that, or any other policy that violates the Shari’ah rules. He is, therefore, forbidden from prohibiting a Mubah action, or allowing a Haram one.

This is because of what the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The Imam is a guardian and he is responsible over his subjects”. It is also because of the rules that the Shar’ gave to the Khaleefah, like his managing of the funds of Baitul-Mal according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, and like forcing of the people to abide by one specific opinion in one matter, and the like. This Hadith gives him the right of exercising his total authority without any restriction whatsoever. The management of the treasury, the adoption of laws, the organising and training of the armed forces and the appointing of Wulah and other powers given to the Khaleefah, all these powers are not subject to any restriction. This proves that the Khaleefah looks after the affairs of the subjects as he deems fit without any restrictions, and obedience to him in all such matters is compulsory and disobedience to him is a sin. However, running of the subjects’ affairs has to be performed according to the Shar’ rules, namely according to the Shari’ah texts. The powers, although they are absolute, but are restricted by Shar’ only, that is to be according to the Shari’ah rules. For instance, although the Khaleefah has the powers to appoint the Wulah as he deems, he cannot appoint a disbeliever or a child or a woman as Wali for Shar’ has forbidden this. He also, for instance, has the powers to allow the opening of embassies of disbelieving countries in territories under his authority and this power is unrestricted. It would however be wrong for him to allow the opening of an embassy of a disbelieving state which intends to use the embassy as a tool to dominate the Islamic lands, for Shar’ forbids this. He also for instance has a free hand in deciding the details of the budget and the amounts needed for each section. However, he cannot endorse a project of building a dam while the revenues of the treasury are not enough for it, under the pretext that he collects taxes to build the dam. This is because if the dam is not indispensable, then it is wrong according to Shari’ah to impose taxes to build it. The Khaleefah is thus given a free hand by the Shar’ in governing the Ummah’s affairs according to what Shar’ allows him. However, this freedom of management is conducted according to the Shar’ rules. Furthermore, having unrestricted powers in running the government does not mean that the Khaleefah can enact laws that he wants to manage the affairs of the state. Rather, it means that what is left for his disposition it is “Mubah” for him to dispose of it according to his opinion, in whatever way he deems fit. So he can adopt the rule in the matter in which he is allowed to act according to his own opinion, and obedience to him in this rule becomes compulsory. This is because the Shar’ gives him the authority to act according to his own opinion, and commands us to obey him. Thus he has the right to enact such adopted opinion as a law by which people must abide. He, for instance is allowed to manage the treasury according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, and people are commanded to obey him in that. He, therefore, has the right to enact the laws of the treasury that, accordingly, must be obeyed. He also has the power to head the armed forces and to run the affairs of the army, and according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, and people must obey him in that. Thus he has the right to enact laws for the army leadership, and for administering the army accordingly, and obedience to such laws becomes binding. The Khaleefah has the right to run the affairs of the citizens according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, and to appoint those who run these affairs according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, and people have to obey him in that. So he has the right to enact laws to administer the departments and laws for the employees. Accordingly, these laws must be obeyed. Therefore, everything that is left to the Khaleefah to act upon according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, and is part of his mandatory powers, he has the right to adopt and enact laws for such matters; and compliance with such laws is compulsory. It is not correct to conclude that all styles are mubah in essence for everyone to choose. So the Khaleefah is forbidden from specifying a particular style and making it compulsory, for this would be considered as making the Mubah action compulsory, since forcing the execution of the Mubah is equivalent to making the Mubah compulsory, and making the Mubah Haram by preventing the other styles, a matter which is not allowed. It would be wrong to say this because although Mubah is a style in essence, the styles of managing the treasury are Mubah for the Khaleefah only and not to other people. Likewise, the styles of running the armed forces are Mubah for the Khaleefah only and not for the people. The same is true with running the affairs of the citizens’ affairs. These are exclusively Mubah for the Khaleefah and not for all the people. Therefore, the obligation of abiding by the Mubah does not make this Mubah as Fard. It is rather making obedience compulsory in the matters which the Shar’ has allowed the Khaleefah to enact according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, i.e. in what he chose of opinion and Ijtihad to manage the affairs. Though it is Mubah that the Khaleefah obliged its execution and prevented other than it, it is however a Mubah for the Khaleefah to manage the affairs according to it, because managing the affairs is his duty, and it is not Mubah for management by all the people. Therefore, the obligation of abiding by the Mubahaat which the Khaleefah has adopted for managing the people’s affairs in the matters which the Shar’ has given him powers to conduct according to his own opinion and Ijtihad, is not considered as if the Khaleefah had made the Mubah as Fard and the Mubah as Haram. It is rather making obedience compulsory in the matters which the Shar’ has allowed the Khaleefah to enact according to his own opinion and Ijtihad. So every Mubah the Khaleefah chose to manage the affairs becomes obligatory upon every citizen to abide by. Based on this ‘Umar b. al-Khattab laid down Diwans, and based on this the Khulafaa’ enacted certain regulations for their ‘Amil and for the subjects and they obliged them to act upon such regulations and execute them exclusively. Therefore, it is allowed for the Khaleefah to draw up the administrative laws and all the other laws of such nature. His obedience in such laws is compulsory, for it is an obedience to the Khaleefah in whatever he orders in matters which are within the mandate given to him by Shar’.

However, this only concerns the Mubah relating to looking after the affairs, namely in whatever matter the Khaleefah is allowed to conduct according to his own opinion and Ijtihad. This is in matters such as organising the administration of the state’s departments, the organising of the armed forces and other similar matters. It does not apply to all Mubah matters, but only in what has been made Mubah to the Khaleefah, in his capacity as a Khaleefah. As for the other rules like the obligation (Fard), Mandub, Makruh, Haram and Mubah which relate to all the people, the Khaleefah is restricted by the Shar’ rules regarding them, and he is absolutely forbidden from violating them. For Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Aiesha (r.a.) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Whoever inserted anything in this our matter (Deen) that is not part of it, it is rejected.” This is a general text that includes the Khaleefah and others."

Thank you for your correction, we will ammend the article.