Monday, June 25, 2012

Egypt's farcical presidential election makes a mockery of the sacrifices of the revolution and strengthens America's control over Egypt!


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Almost eighteen months after the downfall of Mubarak, America through her loyal agents in the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has effectively scuttled the Egyptian revolution and disarmed the Muslim brotherhood. By doing so, the US has successfully managed to keep the regime intact minus a few missing faces. This is similar to the much coveted Yemeni model, where the West was able to keep Salah's regime in power without him. In the present Egyptian regime, the only outward casualty of any prominence is Mubarak. Set against this background the claims of a Morsi victory in the presidential elections by supporters of the Muslim brotherhood not only sound increasingly hollow but are extremely naïve indeed.

Over the past year or so, SCAF a vestige of the Nasserite period has adroitly hoodwinked the Egyptian people and tamed the divided opposition to retain absolute control over Egyptian affairs and continue with America's hegemony in the region. The nomination of Shafiq's candidature to the presidency, acquittal of Mubarak's sons, and the declaration by the Supreme Court to dissolve parliament are just some of the glaring measures enacted by the army generals to ensure that SCAF retains its grip on power. But perhaps the most daring of all political maneuvers instigated by SCAF was its decree to limit the powers of the President.

Such an act bestows full control to the army general over all civilian and legislative matters. In summary it is a carte blanche to write the country's constitutions in the army's image. SCAF is free to appoint assembly members to write the constitution, interfere in the drafting of the articles and veto any proposed canons that are deemed against the interests of the army generals.

SCAF could not have mustered the courage to take such a bold military coup against the Egyptian people if it was not for the antics of the Islamic opposition. The Islamic opposition never spoke with one voice and repeatedly contradicted itself by trying to please the West, the army, the Egyptian Muslims and the rest. The Islamic parties were unable to express unambiguous opinions on Egypt's relations with America and Israel, the role of Shariah in society, the system of ruling and the treatment of non-Muslims. In their quest to appease the West they forgot to fear Allah (SWT) and sought to assuage the apprehensions of His (SWT) creation. Allah says:

"Oh you who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared and die not except as Muslims." [Al-Imran: 102]

"Oh you who believe! Keep your duty to Allah and fear Him, and always speak the truth. He will direct you to do righteous deeds and will forgive you your sins. And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, has indeed achieved a great achievement." [Al-Ahzaab: 70-71]

In their desire to appear more liberal to the West, the Islamic opposition lost the confidence of ordinary Egyptians, many of whom increasingly saw hypocrisy in their actions and began to turn away from them. Ordinary Muslims were not the only ones who were disappointed. The rank and file of these movements, especially the young, challenged the stance adopted by their leaders. They found it very difficult to digest Islam's domination by Taghoot. Allah says:

"Have you seen those who claim to believe in the revelation revealed to you and the revelation revealed earlier? They seek the ruling of taghoot (non-Islam) although they have been ordered to disbelieve in it." [TMQ An-Nisa: 60].

However, what made matters worse for the Islamic opposition was their blind adherence to the democratic election process while remaining silent on the actions of SCAF. Islamic parties in Egypt must understand that it is impossible to bring Islam through either participation or negotiations with the systems of Kufr. Our modern history is replete with examples where Islamic parties have failed miserably to bring about Islam through engagement with Kufr. The dismissal of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria in 1991 and the exploitation of the Mutahiddah Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) by Musharraf in 2002 are two such striking examples.

The only way for Muslims of Egypt to escape from the tyranny of the West and the rule of their agents is through the re-establishment of the Islamic state. Islamic parties must join forces with Muslims of Egypt and collaborate with sincere officers in the Egyptian army to re-establish Khliafah Rashida by giving baya to the Khaleefah who will rule according to the Quran and Sunnah.

"Verily, Allah will help those who help His (cause)." [Al-Hajj: 40] 

Abu Hashim
 
30 Rajab 1433
20/06/2012

Source

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

How do we respond to a person who would have Husn az zann about MURSI.

Women's right and working with Cgristians is part of Shariah anyways. So is freedom of expression for that matter.
So the problem is not Mursi and what he said, as what he said did not go against ruling according to Shariah! The problem is the way the media make things seem (like in this article by Al-Arabiya) that women's rights, freedom of speech and working alongside others than Muslim is automatically made to appear to be against Islam and by this the media makes Islam look intolerant!
Look how the Muslim empires, or even the time of the 4 khulafa or even the Prophet himself dealt with things such as WOMEN RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND WORKING ALONGSIDE NON-MUSLIMS!!!
As for his choice of words (democratic and the like). Let us just wait and see what will happen. After all, he is a a very tough position and we should NOT judge our brother too soon.
We should also remember the treaty the prophet went through with Quraish and all the things that "seemed" against Islam and Muslims. Who knows what Mursi's plans are in the end. But let us give him the benefit of the doubt inshallah.
He will definately be better that the idiot before him (Husni Mubarak) inshallah, and as for the choice between him and Shafeeq, there is no question that the better for justice has won.
Islam is first and foremost about justice and rights in terms of governing the people, let us not forget that. So instead of everyone just backbiting our fellow Muslims (as usual) let us wait and see what his actions do. After all, he has to implement the changes slow and strategically. He has to be realistic. Islam is a realistic Deen and things take time and Islam does teach to take things in stages to accomodate the people (hence the Quran came down in a period of 23 years, and alcohol was also prohibited gradually...etc)

May Allah give Mursi strength and may he turn Egypt at least more towards shariah than it previously was. After all, the US and Israel know they will have it a bit tough with him now. Especially Israel.

We all also know that he does NOT have full power over egypt as well. He needs to play his cards right. Give him some time brothers. Why so quick in judging just when you hear things that you do not agree with?

No disrespect to anyone, just speaking my mind and my thoughts.

Salamu Alaikum :)

Islamic Revival said...

Wa alaikum as salam

The rules of Huzn az-Zann and back-biting do not apply to the one who does not rule by whatever Allah has revealed. The one who does this is a fasiq (open sinner) at a minimum.

Allah (swt) says:

“And whoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers” [Al-Ma'idah, 5:47]

Surah al Maida verse 44:

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
“And whosoever does not rule by what Allah has revealed then such are the kafireen (disbelievers) ”

The renowned scholar Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The correct view is that ruling according to something other than that which Allah has revealed includes both major and minor Kufr, depending on the position of the judge. If he believes that it is obligatory to rule according to what Allah has revealed in this case, but he turns away from that out of disobedience, whilst acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment, then this is lesser Kufr. But if he believes that it is not obligatory and that the choice is his even though he is certain that this is the ruling of Allah, then this is major Kufr." [Madaarij as-Saaliheen, 1/336-337]

Mursi has not established an Islamic government that implements the Shariah of Allah. So he is ruling by other than whatever Allah has revealed and therefore matches the description mentioned in this verse of the Quran of an open sinner at the minimum.

The scholars permitted backbiting for six reasons: to complain, in seeking help to change a munkar, seeking a legal verdict, warning Muslims of evil, which is considered naseehah, mentioning the sin of the one who openly commits sins and to introduce someone. An-Nawawi said in his al-Azkaar ‘in the majority of these cases there is agreement that backbiting is allowed.’ He said: ‘their evidence is clear from the sahīh and mashur hadīths.’ He reported this in his Riyadh as-Saliheen where he mentioned some of the evidences. As-Sanaa’i also mentioned the evidences in Subul as-Salaam. Al-Qarafi sad in az-Zakhīrah: ‘Some scholars exempted 5 things from the prohibition of backbiting and they are as follows: advice (an-Naseeha), disparagement and attestation (jarh wat ta’deel) of witnesses and hadīth narrators, those openly committing sins, people who commit innovation (bid’ah) and write misguiding books and when the one who says backbiting and the one who hears it, both knew of the subject of backbiting’

There are many other verses in the Quran ordering us not to deviate from ruling and judging by the laws of Allah.

فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ

"So judge between them by what Allah has sent down and do not follow their whims and desires deviating from the Truth that has come to you." [Al-Ma'idah, 5:48]

What you mentioned about alcohol being prohibited gradually is a common misconception and is incorrect as it contradicts the Islamic evidences, the following article clarifies this: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/refutation-of-gradualism-tadarruj.html

Instead of inventing the methodology for changing the situation of the ummah from our own minds we need follow the shariah methodology based on the Islamic evidences, even though it is difficult the Prophet (saw) did not establish the Islamic state without difficulty and never compromised with the Quraish despite all their attempts.

Anonymous said...

Asalamalikum.

I truly understand you are not passing takfeer on a muslim brother by considering the kufr being at minimum, The confusion being and been asked often is we cannot judge the matters based on media reports like what Al arabiya reported that “What Mursi said today was a pledge that he will not implement Sharia and that the state will be democratic and constitutional,” Ismail added.

Now on other hand you have a media report that Muslim brotherhoods Dr.Mursi saying took pledge as Abu Bakr did and another report says Egyptian Cleric Safwat Higazi: Muslim Brotherhood Presidential Candidate Will Liberate Jerusalem.

So everything is spoken by media so the common Ummah is so tired of media to take things and how do we explain the ummah who is thirsty for shariah for years now that what MB is calling for is not Dar Al Islam but a repetitive of what we had confined to our borders.

More importantly when you talk about the treaty with Israel the treaty with Quraish is brought into consideration

2. In an attempt to explain Ummah by sincere efforts that Prophet saw didnt compromise citing the example from seerah where is stood firm by saying if you put sun in my right hand and moon in my left hand i wont stop.

The Ummah asks does this hadith is only for mursi or all.

In midst of all how should Ummah believe in political reality which is being presented to them and reconcile between which analysis being true .

As you dont have any first hand information why to misguide Ummah with mere speculation about political reality based on media news and Why other scholars of Islam not speaking against it,You guys need to think outside the box apart from being rheoric and just slogans could also be the possible reaction by Ummah no matter how many sacrifices you give for Deen of Allah and rely always on his help to safeguard his Deen.

Hoping your Opinion about this concern.

Your Brother.

Islamic Revival said...

Assalam wa alaikum,

1. What you said about us not having first hand information is not correct:
- We have the first hand information from Dr. Mursi's own statements and speeches available in Arabic on the websites of Ikhwan as well as some video recordings of his own interviews.
- The da'wah carriers for Khilafah in Egypt have been interacting with the members of ikhwan for decades and know them well, some of them were imprisoned together. They are holding a Khilafah conference in Cairo soon, see: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/khilafah-conference-to-be-held-in-cairo.html

2. Don't be duped by Dr. Mursi's statements about implementing the shariah. We saw the same from Dr. Hasan al-Turabi in the past from Ikhwan who became the president of Sudan, did he implement the Shariah and establish an Islamic state? We have seen such rhetoric from many 'Islamic' parties and leaders in the past who raise the sentiments of people but do not deliver.

3. Let's actually look at Dr. Mursi's own statements and you will see in the coming days his disappointing actions and do not be surprised by these.

Ikhwan says on its own English website: http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30137

About his recent speech: "The speech addressed the peace plan with Israel, spoke well of the military establishment, with respect and moderation about the Police Foundation, and was friendly with regard to all sectors and classes and governorates across Egypt".

Peace with Israel is completely different to the Prophet's treaty with the Quraysh. Makkah at that time was not an occupier of Islamic land thus the evidence proves that having such a treaty is allowed, e.g. a non-permanent treaty with North Korea for the Khilafah in the future would be fine. It is unanimously agreed that having a treaty with an occupier of Islamic land like Israel is definitively haram, for more details on Islamic rules of treaties see: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/treaties-in-islam.html

This is only one example there are many clear cut issues such as:
- The democratic form of government that opposes Islam from its basis
- Continuing the Riba based banking system and economy
- Continuing the western social system and not enforcing the Islamic laws of dress code and segregation between the sexes, see: http://www.fjponline.com/article.php?id=782

There are many other examples.

So as you see it is not just speculation and analysis it is based on the stark reality in front of everyone's eyes to see.

Islamic Revival said...

If you understand Arabic you can see his TV appearances for yourself for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZ6VphJrXE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AAO2leT9g0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGzCKclRuVk

Islamic Revival said...

Watch TV interview with an adviser to Muslim Brotherhoods Freedom and Justice Party says, "We do not believe in the rule of religion (i.e Islam) over the civility of the state" and he continues to say "we do not believe in the translation of the religions texts over the civil laws and the secular laws of the state".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9731829.stm

Anonymous said...

Please elaborate the difference between Sharah Law and Shariah Intent as the MB' advisor quoted in the interview.What did he actually mean oover there and what Islam says about Sharia Intent as to where and when it should be used and how.

JZk!

Anonymous said...

The people are now talking that we should not fight and revolt against a ruler as long as he establishes prayer and claimming that if the carriers of dawah were doing thir job why couldn't they convince people especially when people are calling for Islam . Either the muslims who were calling for Islam weren't sincere in their understanding about Islam or the Dawah carriers who are calling for Khilafah couldn't convince th people with their self understood ideology and hiding in caves and working is not fruitful for doing it we have to be open it in society although citing the example from seerah of working in secret can be used to defend your stance but practically its called again compromising.

Please enlight on this response

Islamic Revival said...

1. The texts to do with not revolting against the ruler as long as he establishes the salah is to do with the Khalifah who implements the Shariah they do not apply to the present day rulers of the Muslim world who are not Khulafah and are ruling by kufr systems. For a more detailed explanation of the texts please read: http://islamicsystem.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/when-is-rebellion-against-khalifah.html

2. The da'wah carriers are not hiding in caves and are working openly according to the Prophetic methodology to convince the people throughout the Muslim world including in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. To see videos of this open work throughout the world see the following youtube channels:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AhlNussrah

http://www.youtube.com/user/AhlNussrah