Thursday, May 30, 2013

The Inevitability of the Clash of Civilisations by Hizb ut-Tahrir (Part 1)

The following is the translation of an excerpt from the excellent book, The Inevitability of the Clash of Civilisations issued by global leadership of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Safar 1423 Hijri (May 2002 CE).

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


A civilisation (hadhara) is a collection of concepts about life; it can be divine—from god—or it can be from man. The divine civilisation emanates from a doctrine ('aqeedah); for example, the Islamic civilisation emanates from the Islamic aqeedah. The man-made civilisation may emanate from a doctrine or it may not. The western capitalist civilisation is a collection of concepts about life emanating from the doctrine of separating religion from life. Conversely, the Shinto, Greek, Babylonian and Assyrian civilisations do not emanate from a doctrine. This type of civilisation is simply a collection of concepts that a people or a group of peoples have agreed upon, it is called a man-made, or national, civilisation.

It is possible for a people or peoples to have a religion (deen) and a doctrine, but for the religion to have no concepts regarding life; this is the case with the religions like Christianity and Buddhism. Because their doctrine doesn’t produce these concepts, people instead agree on a set of concepts about life that are specific to them and these concepts form their civilisation. This civilisation does not have any relationship with their religion because it does not emanate from it. So their civilisation is not a divine one, despite the fact that they have a religion. Hence, it is possible for various peoples to associate in one civilisation, despite the difference of their religions like the Japanese, Hindus and Sikhs and French; their religions are different but their civilisation is one, namely capitalism.

Material objects that are used in life's affairs are not part of civilisation, even though they sometimes result from it. There is nothing wrong with giving the technical term, ‘madaniyya’ to these tangible material objects, so as to distinguish them from the collection of concepts for which we used the term, ‘hadhara’ (civilisation). If these material objects resulted from—and are specific to—a particular civilisation, like statues for example, then they are part of the specific madaniyya. However, if they resulted from science and industry; like television, rockets, planes and penicillin for example, then they are from the universal madaniyya. So madaniyya can be specific, and it can be universal. The nature of the madaniyya is different to the nature of civilisation, in that civilisation cannot be anything but specific. The meaning of specificity is related to our [the Muslims’] adoption. So it is not permitted for us to adopt that which is specific, whereas it is permitted for us to adopt anything that is universal.

The distinction between civilisation (hadhara) and madaniyya must be observed at all times, similarly it is imperative to distinguish between the madaniyya that is derived from civilisation and the madaniyya that is derived from science and industry. This is in order to observe the distinction between the types of objects when adopting madaniyya. There is nothing wrong with adopting the western madaniyya that is derived from science and industry. As for the western madaniyya that is derived from the western civilisation; it is not permitted to adopt it in absolutely any case. This is because its doctrine (‘aqeedah) contradicts the Islamic civilisation, and this doctrine is the basis upon which it is built. Our doctrine is different from their doctrine (which is built upon a compromise solution and the separation of religion from life) in its outlook on life (i.e. criterion for actions), which is the halal and haram for us, and benefit for them. Our doctrine is also different in what it means by happiness (i.e. permanent tranquillity), which is attaining the pleasure of Allah for us, and attaining the bodily pleasures for them.

In order that we become fully aware of what we adopt from others and what we leave, it is necessary to distinguish between civilisation and the madaniyya, and between the madaniyya that results from civilisational concepts and the madaniyya that results from pure sciences and industry.

If it is said; “Why did you adopt the term, ‘hadhara’ for concepts and the term, ‘madaniyya’ for the material objects instead of the reverse?” The response to this is; the linguistic meaning of, ‘hadhara’ is to reside in a civilised region (like a town), while ‘al-hadhir’ is the one who is from the town or village. Al-Qatami said; “Whoever is pleased with residing in towns. Which Bedouin men will see us?”
To, ‘madana’ in a place means to reside therein, and ‘madina’ means to arrive to the town (madinah), so the two meanings are close to each other. Similarly it is said [concerning hadhara] in response to our self-directed question; hadhara is used linguistically for meanings related to thoughts, so it is more appropriate to use it for describing concepts. It was said in Al-Qamus; “Hadhura is like nadusa, which is the man of eloquence, (bayan) and understanding (fiqh).” In Al-Lisan, it is said; “a man [is] ‘hadhr’, to mean he is eloquent, and a man ‘hadhir’ if he brought something good.” It also came in Al-Lisan; “and in the hadith; ‘Say that which yahdhurukum’, i.e. that which is present and existing in you, and do not burden yourselves with something else.” So hadhara is closer in meaning, more consistent and more appropriate to use as the term for the collection of concepts than madaniyya is. Similarly madaniyya is closer in its meaning and more suitable to be used as the term for the material objects. It can been said that there isn’t any disputation with regards to technical terminology (istilah), since what is important is distinguishing between the concepts and the material objects derived from them, and between these objects and those derived from pure sciences, inventions and industry. The objects that are derived from concepts are rejected and it is not permitted to take them, while it is permitted to take the ones that are not derived from the concepts.

We have said that the civilisation (hadhara) is a collection of concepts about life, and that either it is a divine civilisation or a man-made civilisation. An example of the divine civilisation is the Islamic civilisation, and an example of the man-made civilisation is the Indian civilisation and the western civilisation. The existence of these civilisations is a definite matter and an incontestable established fact. Similarly, the difference between them is an established fact; such that nobody but the liar can deny it. The source of the divine civilisation, according to its people, is revelation; whilst the source of the man-made civilisation is the people who agreed upon it. This alone is enough to show the distinction and difference. Even if there appears to be a similarity in some of their concepts, it is not actually an agreement, similarity or common matter. This is because civilisation, when it is adopted, must be adopted together with the basis from which it emanated, or the basis upon which it is built. So if the bases of the two civilisations are different, the agreement between some of their concepts, or the existence of a similarity between some of their concepts about life, is not worth paying any attention to. This is because the concept is a branch from its basis, and it cannot be adopted except with its basis. Both the Islamic civilisation and the western civilisation allow the eating of fish, the wearing of wool, private property, women to act as represenatives, accounting the ruler and taking medicine. However, these ideas and their like are not considered to be from the Islamic civilisation unless they are adopted on the basis of the revelation from Allah to Muhammad (saw) (i.e. upon their being Shar'a), whereas in the capitalist civilisation they are adopted on the basis of their benefit (maslaha) or rational preference. If the Muslim adopts them based upon benefit or rational preference, it is not considered to be adopting from Islam.

The difference between civilisations is a fact that can’t be denied. What concerns us is the difference between the Islamic civilisation and the other civilisations, in particular the western civilisation. We also want to see what results from or is built upon this difference, such as; dialogue [with a view to reconciliation], the clash (as-sira'a), the possibility of founding one universal civilisation, the forms and types of clash, and whether the clash will end, be concealed, or result in victory for one civilisation over the others? What is the meaning of dialogue between religions in the eyes of those who call for it, and what is the correct view on it? And what is the difference between religions and civilisations? And there are many issues besides these.

Religions are of two types. Firstly there is the religion from which a civilisation emerges—meaning it has a collection of concepts about life—such as the Islamic deen. Secondly, there is also the religion from which no civilisation emerges—and there isn’t a collection of concepts [about life] contained in it—this is like the Christian religion. Although it has ideals like, ‘Do not steal’, and, ‘do not commit zina’, it has no collection of concepts covering all aspects of life. Hence, the Christian religion is an appropriate example of a religion from which no civilisation emanates.

The capitalist civilisation does not emanate from the Christian religion; even if it came about in countries where the majority of the people are Christians. So the dialogue, clash, or partnership between Islam and Christianity differs from the dialogue or clash between it and the capitalist civilisation.


When we speak about dialogue or clash we are speaking about the Muslims, their deen and their civilisation being on one side, and the Christians with their religion and the capitalists with their civilisation, being on the other side. It is a malicious attempt by the leaders and intellectuals of the capitalist civilisation to differentiate between Islam and its followers i.e. between Islam and Muslims. So they claim that Islam is great but that Muslims are backward and some of them are terrorists. They are lying when they propagate this view, since if they really thought that Islam was great then they would have embraced it. However, they attempt to delude the naïve from amongst the Muslims, attempting to reduce the rancour that is generated against them when they strike the Muslims, or when they try to spread the concepts from their civilisation among the Muslims. They know that the Islamic aqeedah still remains in the souls of the Muslims and that it is strong in the majority of them. So if they openly declare their enmity to Islam, they will stir up the Muslims and provoke them. So they use these words as a weapon to anaesthetise Muslims and to deceive them. Some Muslims would swallow this bait and accept this dialogue in the way it is presented by the Christians and capitalists, or promoted by their intellectual agents. They concentrate on three matters in defining dialogue. The first is equality between religions and civilisations in the dialogue without superiority or preference of a religion or civilisation over another. The second is that the limit of the dialogue is restricted to only knowing the other’s opinions without addressing these opinions in respect of refutation or invalidation. The third is creating an alternative civilisation through arriving at the common denominators between the two religions and two civilisations.

This is the meaning of dialogue as they see it. They claim that its benefit is; “Productive interaction between cultural peculiarities, to form an alternative, superior civilisation, that invites to accept the other on the same footing” [Dr Milad Hanna in a cultural debate held in Cairo on Monday 02/04/2001]. 

And; “Every time civilisations seek to find what is common between them and what is human, they advance, flourish, and peace would spread” [Dr. Jafar Abdussalam, the Secretary-General of the Conference of Islamic Universities]. One of them went to the extent of saying that; “Islam is a deen of interaction and a deen of development, and not like what is said, that it is a deen of obscurity and a deen of isolation. On the contrary, the golden age of Islam and Muslims was when the Islamic civilisation interacted with other civilisations in the world, and when Islam spread in the world, took from and had a room for all the legacies and other human civilisations and gave them from its legacy and civilisation. This was the golden age of the Islamic State” Dr. Qasim Jafar spoke, in a study circle on ‘The First War of the Century’, on Al-Jazeera channel, under the heading; ‘Are the American explosions an incentive for dialogue or the clash of civilisations?’ on 29/9/2001. He said; “It is upon us as Arabs and Muslims to abstain from this problem…it is upon us to possess sufficient confidence in ourselves, in our civilisation, and in our history and legacy, so as to burst forth in the world from the position of equality, and not the position of the follower (tabi')…” [The above-mentioned study circle of Al-Jazeera channel]. 

Another said; “The Islamic civilisation was based upon the common denominator between world civilisations, so it accepted the others and interacted with it in taking and giving” [Amr Abdulkarim, a political scientist –]. Another person attempted to use the aayaat of the Noble Qur'an as evidence for the dialogue between civilisations so he said; “And our Book, the Glorious Qur'an, emphasises the manner of dialogue with the others; dialogue with polytheists (mushrikeen), ‘If one of the polytheists seeks your protection, grant him protection until he hears the word of Allah’, dialogue with disbelievers (kafireen), ‘O you disbelievers’, dialogue with the current and official religions in the world, ‘Say; O People of the Book, come to a just word between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, that we associate nothing with Him, nor some of us take others as lords’; dialogue with them from a position of equivalence…I view that it is not possible to speak of eternal struggle because we are Muslims. I point to the Qur'anic ayah, ‘Come to a just word between us and you’. This ayah means that it is allowed for us to have dialogue with Christians; we have dialogue with Jews, and we have dialogue with others. Why [do we have this dialogue]? It is to come to a common word between us; we do not say that we [have] dialogue to [bring them to] our word [our views]” [Ata-Allah Muhajirani, Iranian President adviser for the dialogue of civilisations in the above mentioned study circle of Al-Jazeera]. 

There are those who call to dialogue between religions to create common denominators between them, and stay silent about the points of difference, in order to desensitise Muslims to the clash. They call to the saying, ‘the sons of Abraham’, to strengthen dialogue between the three religions on the basis that those who came with them descend from one father namely Ibrahim (as). 

Some Muslims use the aayaat of the Noble Qur'an that say the Prophets were Muslims as a proof for this, like His (swt) saying at the tongue of Nuh; “And I was commanded to be the first of the Muslims” [TMQ 39:12], at the tongues of Ibrahim and Ismail; “Our Lord! Make us Muslims to you and of our descendants Muslims to you” [TMQ 2:128], and about the people of Lut; “And We did not find therein but one house of Muslims” [TMQ 51:36], and at the tongue of the disciples (hawariyyin); “And bear witness that we are Muslims” [TMQ 3:52]. 

Perhaps there will come those who say that Christians and Jews are Muslims, and we hear those who say that the followers of the three religions are believers even though the Qur'anic texts, which are definitely proven and of definite meaning, are decisive in charging Jews and Christians with disbelief such as His (swt) saying; “Verily those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messenger and wish to distinguish between Allah and His Messenger and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in others’, and wish to adopt a way in between. Those are in truth disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment” [TMQ 3:150-1]. 

And; “Those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence. A Messenger from Allah reciting pure pages” [TMQ 98:1-2]. 

And; “Say; O People of the Book, why do you disbelieve in the aayaat of Allah while Allah is witness over what you are doing?” [TMQ 3:98]. 

And; “Those who disbelieve of the People of the Book and polytheists do not like that there should descend upon you any good from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His mercy whoever He wills. And Allah is the Owner of great bounty” [TMQ 3:105]. 

And; “O People of the Book, why do you disbelieve in the aayaat of Allah while you bear witness?” [TMQ 3:70]. 

And; “And because of their disbelief and uttering a grave falsehood (buhtan) against Mary” [TMQ 4:156]. 

And; “Surely they disbelieve who say, ‘Allah is the third of three’” [TMQ 5:73]. 

And; “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger forbid nor follow the deen of truth among the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah readily and subdued” [TMQ 9:29]. 

And; “He it is Who drove out those who disbelieve among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering” [TMQ 59:2]. 

So, they are disbelievers (kuffar), and they are non-Muslims. It is not permitted to term them Muslims. Islam linguistically means submission and in the technical Shari'ah terminology, it means the deen that Allah subhanahu revealed upon Muhammad (saw). If it was permitted to assign the term Islam (with its linguistic meanings) to the previous Prophets (as) and to those who believed in and followed them before the mission of Muhammad (saw) and before the distortion of their books, it was not permitted to do that after his (saw) mission. So whoever does not believe in him (saw) and his message is a kafir, and it is not allowed to call him a Muslim or a believer. He ta'ala said; “And say to those given the Book and the illiterate (Arab pagans); do you submit yourselves (in Islam)? If they become Muslims, they are guided, and if they turn away, your duty is only the conveyance. And Allah is Seer of His slaves” [TMQ 3:20]. And he (saw) said; “By the One in whose hand is Muhammad's soul, none hears of me of this Ummah, Jew or Christian, then dies without believing in what I was sent with except he is of the denizens of the Fire.” And ibn Hibban extracted from the hadith of Anas that Caesar wrote to the Messenger of Allah (saw); “I am a Muslim”, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said when he read the letter; “The enemy of Allah lied. He is not a Muslim and he is upon Christianity.”

Amr Musa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, made clear that he does not believe that one civilisation is better than another civilisation, and from the meaning of his words the Islamic civilisation is not preferable to the capitalist, Hindu or Jewish civilisations, for he says; “We do not believe that there is a better civilisation”, in the exposition of his refutation of the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi. One of them attempted to use the aayaat of surat Al-Kahf as an evidence for accepting others as they are, without restriction or condition, and without attempting to pronounce judgments against him; “Religious dialogue is the attempt of the individual encumbered with precedent values, conventions, and beliefs to discover the other (of a different religion) – as he is – and understand him and crystallize a philosophical and unconventional (new and unbiased) view towards him without resorting to pronouncing prejudiced value judgments against him…The advocates of religious dialogue raise the slogan of sincere intention. So he divests himself of all conditions and goals except the desire to understand the other and view him intellectually…The content of dialogue does not, in principle, differ with the story that the Noble Qur'an brought in Surat Al-Kahf (aayaat 32-42) about the dialogue between two men. Allah gave one of them two gardens of grapes surrounded by palm trees and with crops in the middle, rivers flowing therein; and Allah increased its owner over the other in property and children. The tale reveals that the dialogue took place between the two men without condition or restriction, and the Qur'an brought it with its complete details; despite the inclusion of the kufr of one of them in Allah, the other did not interrupt the dialogue because of it. Likewise the Qur'an did not refrain from mentioning the sayings of kufr, because in their totality they are able to build and formulate the intellectual examination of the personality disbelieving in Allah 'azza wa jalla…Religious dialogue differs from comparative religion and religious competition even if these concepts commingle in the literature. Comparative religion is a science meaning study of a religion in comparison with others upon the level of the creed ('aqeedah), legislation and ritual worships, and its views about man, the universe and life and the like, of assuming objectivity and the possibility of eliminating prejudice. Whereas religious competition is a process aiming to prove the superiority and distinction of a religion over the other; a matter which is not off course aimed by religious dialogue which a process of understanding only” [Husam Tammam, researcher and journalist, Egypt,, under the title; ‘Religious Dialogue: A Human Necessity or world Conspiracy’].

These quotations are necessary in order to know what the advocates of religious dialogue intend by this expression, which is their technical terminology. The best thing to guide us to the meaning of this technical terminology is what they themselves say or write, since the linguistic meaning does not benefit us here. From all of these quotations, it is possible to crystallize the meaning of this technical terminology in the following:

Firstly: Equality and equivalence between religions and civilisations, and non-preference between one religion and another or one civilisation and another.

Secondly: Accepting the other as it is and discovering it without pronouncing judgments against it, but rather understanding and recognizing its views without restriction or condition.

Thirdly: The objective of dialogue between civilisations is interaction in order to create an alternative superior civilisation by finding out what is common and good for mankind; a matter that leads to the advancement and flourishing of civilisations, and the spreading of peace. The objective of dialogue between religions is to prevent Islam from entering the arena of the struggle.

All these concepts completely contradict Islam. There is not a single concept from these that has evidence or probable evidence for it. They are not from Islam; rather they are all distortion and deception, and their danger against Islam is certain.

Download full book

Talk: Significance of Rajab by Br Soadad Doureihi

Talk 1 titled "The Significance of Rajab: A Journey through History" by Br Soadad Doureihi "from the Public Lecture titled "The Significance of Rajab 2013" held by Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia on the 25/05/2013 in Sydney, Australia.

Monday, May 27, 2013

The month of Rajab and the great Ghazwah of Tabuk | Sheikh Issam Ameirah

The following is a translation from Arabic.

Jum'ah Khutbah: Rajab and the Ghazwah of Tabuk: A comparison between the Messenger (saw), the Khulafaa and the rulers of our day.

First part:

O people: We have now entered the month of Rajab and in this month in the 9th year of Hijrah the Messenger of Allah (saw) went out on the military expedition (Ghazwah) of Tabuk. It was last military expedition that he undertook and it was known as the Ghazwah of Al-'Usrah (Hardship).
The reason for the Ghazwah was that a number of traders who had come from Ash-Shaam began to spread that the Romans had gathered a host and wanted launch a major military expedition. Heraclius had joined his army and he called his main military leaders in the region against the Messenger of Allah (saw) and they gathered in Al-Balqaa' (which lies in South-east Jordan) whilst he (Heraclius) was waiting in Homs. Therefore the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent his companions to Tabuk which was in the lands of Al-Balqaa' and he sent word to the surrounding tribes, to Makkah and to those who had become Muslim from Khuzaa'ah, Muzainah and Juhainah and urged them to join the Jihaad and Ghazwah.

The Messenger (saw) explained to the people that the journey would be long, that the heat would be severe and that the enemy would be large in number, so that they could be prepared. He ordered the companions who were wealthy to aid those who had no material strength and so anybody who had any wealth presented it and the Sadaqaat were large despite it being a time of hardship and meagre means. Due to all of this the army was called: 'The army of hardship' (Jaish Al-'Usrah').

The Messenger of Allah (saw) organised his military above Thaniyat Al-Wadaa' from amongst those who joined him from the Muhaajireen, the Arab tribes, Banu Kinaanah, the people of Tihaamah, Muzainah, Juhainah, Tay and Tameem. He appointed Az-Zubair over the banner of the Muhaajireen, Talhah Ibn 'Ubaidillah was appointed over the right flank of the army whilst 'Abdur Rahmaan Bin 'Auf was placed in charge of the left. And he designated that 'Ali (ra) be left to take care of his family, his wives and his Muhaajirs. And when the Messenger (saw) prepared to march towards Tabuk he stood and addressed the people. He began with Al-Hamdu Lillah and praised Allah before stating: "The most truthful of speech is the Book of Allah Ta'Aalaa, and the most firm of holds is the word of Taqwaa, the best of religions is the religion (Millah) of Ibraaheem, the best of the Sunan is the Sunnah of Muhammad, the most honourable of speech is the remembrance of Allah, the best of narratives is this Qur'aan and the best of matters are those that are firmly resolved upon and the worst of matters are its innovations, the most perfect of guidance is the guidance of the Anbiyaa (prophets), the most noble of deaths is to be killed as a martyr, the most blind of all blindness's is misguidance after being guided, the best knowledge is that which is benefited from, the best guidance is that which is put into practice, the worst of blindness is the blindness of the heart, the upper hand is better than the lower hand and that which is little but sufficient is better than that which is a lot but frivolous... And insulting a believer is rebellious disobedience and killing a believer is disbelief, eating his flesh is an act of disobedience to Allah, and the sanctity of his property is like the sanctity of his blood, he who swears by Allah falsely has denied him, the one who forgives Allah forgives him, he who pardons Allah pardons him, the one who suppresses anger is rewarded by Allah, the one who perseveres in misfortunes is compensated by Allah, the one who acts for fame and reputation is disgraced by Allah, the one who is patient Allah multiplies his reward and the one who disobeys Allah, Allah will punish him. O Allah forgive me and my Ummah, IO Allah forgive me and my Ummah, O Allah forgive me and my Ummah. I seek forgiveness for myself and all of you". (recorded by As-Suyooti from 'Uqbah Bin 'Aamir and Abu Ad-Dardaa' and in Al-Jaami' As-Sagheer it was classified as a Hadeeth Hasan.

When the Messenger (saw) reached Tabuk Yuhannah Bin Ru'bah the leader of Aylah approached him and made a treaty with him and agreed to pay him the Jizyah. The people of Jurbaa and Adhraj also came and agreed to give the Jizyah. He (saw) stayed in Tabuk for a number of days and then returned to Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah without war or fighting.

O People: There were many great benefits attained from the Ghazwah of Tabuk, the most important of which was the demise of the stature, standing and fear of the Romans within the souls of all of the Arabs and the display of the power of the Islamic State as the single great power in the region, regionally and internationally. The unifying of the Arabian Peninsula was completed under the rule of the Messenger (saw) and after Tabuk many delegations from the Arab tribes came to Al-Madinah from all over the Arabian Peninsula to declare their entrance into Islaam and the entrance of those whom they had come from. For this reason the ninth year of Hijrah was known as the year of delegations and Tabuk was the starting point for the Islamic conquest of the lands of Ash-Shaam (greater Syria) in addition to the beginning of the continuous Islamic conquests of further lands which were continued by the noble Khulafaa and great military commanders and proof enough of this is the fact that Khalid Bin Waleed is buried in Homs which had been the military headquarters of the defeated Heraclius, and today his grave is shaken by the missiles and bombs of betrayal and treachery by the one afflicted by hatred and spite.

O people: This therefore was the situation of the Muslims in the past in the month of Rajab from the past in the days of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Noble Khulafaa so how is the situation in the month of Rajab today in the days of the unjust Kings and force wielding villains? It is a question that causes the body to shudder when just thinking about its answer and the hearts jump out of terror associated to the gravity of their situation. What would we say the first people of Rajab when they went out against the Romans within the very heart of their homeland whilst today the Romans are waging war against us in the heart of our homeland? What would we say to the people of the first Rajab when they recaptured Bait Al-Maqdis from the first crusaders in Rajab whilst new crusaders have come in our day and occupied Bait Al-Maqdis and then handed it over to the Jews after the destruction of the Khilafah in the month of Rajab? What is our response to the French General Goruo who kicked the grave of Salaah ud-Deen and said: Indeed we have returned O Salaah ud-Deen!? And how do we reply to the British General Allenby who stood upon the Zaitoon Mountain and said: Now the crusader wars have ended? What would we say to the people of the first Rajab who gathered their armies in Tabuk in the Arabian Peninsula to open and conquer the lands of Ash-Shaam in spite of the severity and hardship of their undertaking? And because of their act Allah turned to all of them in forgiveness and He (swt) revealed the Quraan amongst them that will be recited until the day of Judgement. This is whilst we witness in our day the Muslim armies participating in joint military exercises,  which they have named ‘Tabuk’, to refine their military experiences and strengthen their military cooperation with Egypt Al-Kinaanah and the land that they have named Saudi. They have wealth that is so abundant that it has reached saturation point whilst the weak oppressed men, women and children in Ash-Shaam (Syria), Burma, Palestine and Kashmir amongst others in the Muslim lands are in pain and are suffering. They are crying out for help and support and they find that there is no one to help or come to their aid except for Allah (swt), and so Hasbunallah Wa Ni’mal Wakeel (Allah is sufficient for us and the best to be relied upon).

The Second part of the Khutbah:

O People: Our rulers have taken our armies away from their main role that emanates from their Aqueedah. This is because the Muslim army is the protector of Islaam, the carrier of its Da’wah and the one who brings victory to its people. They respond to the calls of help from the oppressed and they raise the banners in unison responding even if their means are meagre and their weapons are of a lesser level. So what are your thoughts today and huge budgets are in the hands of foolish rulers and they spend more than half of them on their armies! So where do they spend these huge sums of wealth and to whom? And for whose sake and support do they train these armies, ready and prepare them? And where do they stand in relation to the words of Lord of the worlds in His noble Book:

وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ
And if they seek your help in regards to the Deen then it is your duty to help them (Al-Anfaal 72).
And where do they stand in relation to the statement of the Messenger (saw): <> Abu Daawood.

So how are the people of Ash-Shaam supported when the Muslim armies will not move? However there is a Hikmah (wisdom) to Allah in this as the armies of the Khilafah in Ash-Shaam will soon be moving by the will of Allah to free the crippled armies of Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula amongst others from the scourge of the Ruwaibidaat (Rulers).

O People: The Messenger of Allah (saw) sat in a place in his place of prayer in Tabuk and he looked in the direction of the right and he raised his hands indicating towards the people of Yemen and then he said:  ‘Iman is over there’. And he looked to the east, pointed and said: ‘Verily harshness and hardheartedness is in al-Faddaadeen (Camel herders) from the people of Al-Wabr from the direction of the east where the horns of the Shaytaan rise’. And in another version: ‘Indeed the harshness and hardheartedness is in Al-Faddaadeen where the horns of the Shaytaan rise, Rabee’ah and Mudarr’. And in another relation that is classified as Saheeh upon the conditions of Muslim: ‘Imaan (belief) is in Yemen and Kufr (disbelief) is from the east where the horns of the Shaytaan rise, tranquillity is from the sheep herders and boastfulness and pride is from the Faddaadeen, the people of Al-Wabr and Al-Khail. And the Maseeh (Dajjaal) will come from the east and he will endeavour to attack Al-Madinah until he will get behind Uhud when the angels will force his face towards Syria (Ash-Shaam) and there he will perish, there he will perish’.  

And how truthful your word is O Messenger of Allah! Here are the rulers who have the hollow harsh hearts from amongst the Faddaadeen and they have brought together their militaries for training exercises which they have called ‘Tabuk’ and how great the distance is between this Tabuk and the Tabuk of the past! The Tabuk of the past was one of Jihaad, honour and might whilst the Tabuk of today means fleeing from the fight, disgrace, humiliation, defeat and betrayal. And the solution is none other than the establishment of the Khilafah that will restore the affairs to what they are meant to be. O Allah destroy the rulers of the Tabuk of our day and send us a ruler who will renew the Tabuk of our past and Toobaa (Glad tidings of Jannah) to the people of Ash-Shaam, the graveyard of the Shuhadaa and the place of destruction of Ad-Dajjaal.

Sheikh Issam Ameirah, 
Baitul Maqdis (Jerusalem)

The Defensive Approach - A Result of Intellectual Decline

The following is an extract from the translation of the excellent book 'A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims'. It addresses errors of the defensive approach that we continue to see today when Islam is put in the dock. 

The struggle between the Islamic Ummah as one Ummah and the Kuffar as peoples and nations continued for thirteen consecutive centuries. The conflict between Islam as a Deen, her unique way of life and Kufr also continued throughout these past thirteen centuries. At the advent of the thirteenth century (nineteenth century CE), the capitalist system, which is a system of Kufr, challenged the system of Islam in its thoughts and emotions. It was but a short round before the Muslims fell defeated. It was an intellectual blow that was followed by the destructive political subjugation. However, Islam was not truly defeated and it will never be defeated, because it and it alone is the truth. How is it that Islam remains in the arena of conflict whilst its followers were defeated and they did not realise its position in the struggle? As for this challenge to Islam’s thoughts, it took place by attacking the Islamic thoughts through bringing extensive criticism and falsification against them. The Kafir nations confronted the ummah demanding solutions for new and diverse problems: Demanding their rules (Ahkaam) and the manner in which they would be solved. The position of the Muslims as regards to these two issues was one of utter weakness. They tried to retaliate but with failed and twisted attempts. The Muslims were demoralised which led to indifference.

The capitalists attacked polygyny by claiming that it was unjust for man to be allowed to marry two, three or four women. They accused Islam of disgracing the honour of the woman. The followers of Capitalism slandered the Islamic rules on divorce, articulating lies about the so called betrayal of women and destruction of homes. “How can it be allowed for a man to divorce a woman whenever he wants when they were tied together with an eternal bond?” It attacked the Khilafah and labelled it a dictatorship. “How can the ruling be just if all of the mandatory powers are with one man who is prone to error and despotism?” They claimed that (for the Muslims) the Khaleefah had a religious sanctity that grants him immunity from any criticism or reproach. They attacked Jihad and said it was an aggression against others and that it meant the spilling of blood.  Thus Jihad was labelled brutal beyond words. They attacked the concept of al-qada wal-qadar (the divine fate and destiny) by claiming that it meant submission to the events of the time and that it was holding the people back from assuming the burdens of life. In this manner they began to study the Shar'ai rules and the Islamic thoughts, pursued them and brought extensive criticism and defamation against them; they portrayed them as corrupt thoughts that contradict the truth and treat problems incorrectly. In addition to this, they began to present their answers to the problems and asked what Islam’s opinion was regarding these problems, questioning Islam in its capacity for solutions. They inquired about Islam’s verdict on insurance. They asked about the trade relations between states and what is the Shar'ai rule regarding them: “does Islam support the freedom of exchange or does it support trade protection?” They inquired over the issue of parliamentary system and free elections: “what is the stance of Islam regarding them?” They sought answers about inclinations in legislation: “does Islam prioritise the material inclination or the spiritual inclination?” Is the spirit of the text or its letter to be considered? They inquired about general freedoms such as the freedom of the individual, freedom of opinion and religious freedom. “Has Islam come with any of these freedoms?” They philosophised about the spiritual aspect: “is it thinking and thought? Or is it morals and virtuous acts? Or is it what the ancients said, that Ruh (spirit) is opposite to body and that man is composed of body and spirit?” With this approach, they highlighted problems that have taken place and that occur to man, problems which take place only in a society such as the capitalist society and not in the Islamic society. So they asked about the solutions for these problems. These were questions of disapproval, implying that Islam was incapable in this regard, and that it did not contain any explanation for them and that Islam did not have the capacity to give solutions.

Capitalism was not content with just that, but proceeded to criticise Islamic emotions. Thus it denounced the Muslim’s adherence to the rules of Islam. It said that adherence to the rules produces partisan bigotry and disgusting fanaticism and that people should rise against such things. They attacked the Muslim’s hatred for Kufr and the Kuffar, and their love for Islam and the Muslims. They called this religious bigotry.  The capitalists said that a human being is the brother of another human being whether he likes him or hates him. “There is no difference between a Muslim and a Jew.” The Kuffar said each person is entitled to own religion and his own opinion, and they are all merely opinions with no way of justifying one over another. “So why should there be discrimination between religions and discrimination in love and hate between human beings?” In addition to this, they stirred up nationalistic agitation. They provoked in the Turks the emotions of sovereignty and incited them against the Arabs. Simultaneously they provoked in the Arabs the emotions of sovereignty and provoked them against the Turks. They maligned the Islamic enthusiasm which becomes angry for the sanctities of Allah and said that it was religious prejudice. They began to advocate the abandoning of Islam and leaving the adherence to its rules. They called this religious tolerance. They also denounced the expression of anger at the critics of the Qur’an and those who insult the Prophet (saw) or  slander the Sahabah (r.a.). They claimed all this to be scholarly research and debate. They said, as examples, that the Qur’an narrates the story of Ibraheem, but in history there is no one by the name of Ibraheem to verify this story, and that Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an is from Allah, but Muhammad brought this Qur’an from his own genius and he claimed that it was from Allah so that the people would follow it. They said much more than this and then they insisted that the Muslims should not be enranged over these lies and that they should accept this blasphemy in the name of scholarly research! In this manner they began to pursue the emotions characterized by the thoughts of Islam, in terms of the emotions of happiness, anger, displeasure, approval, love and hate. They changed the motive behind such emotions so that they lost their quality as Islamic emotions.

A glaring challenge was thrown down to Islam by the systematic assault on its thoughts, rules and emotions. It was natural, even inevitable, that the Muslims should have accepted this challenge, and plunged themselves into the intellectual battlefield with the Kuffar. Not only that, it was obligatory on them to carry the initiative against Kufr and the Kuffar because they are Da’wah carriers and people who convey a Message. However the reality was that the Muslims weakened before the challenge in a manner which incited derision and ridicule of them, and covered them with shame and humiliation. So they came up with excuses for Islam regarding its rules on polygyny. They began to defend it by saying that polygyny can take place only in a situation of justice. They avoided the fact that Islam allows divorce and said that it does not allow it except within certain conditions. They accepted the accusations against the Islamic Khilafah and were silent over it, and they tried at the end of the Ottoman era to change its system. After its destruction, they avoided mentioning it or did not find the courage to mention it in public. They retreated concerning the issue of Jihad, and considered it an accusation thrown on Islam. So they responded to this accusation by saying Jihad is defensive war and not offensive. They renounced the fact that Jihad is the fight against the Kuffar because they are disbelievers. They defended al-Qada wal-Qadar by saying that Islam has ordered us not to discuss it and thus interpreted this as a licence for inaction and submission. In this manner they consented to what the Kuffar said and allowed Islam to stand accused. They proceeded to defend Islam in a way that can only be interpreted as a shocking defeat in the confrontation against the Kuffar. A direct consequence of this humiliation was that all the rules under attack were abandoned and the rules and thoughts of Capitalism took their place. As for the new issues and the problems that only occur in the Capitalist society, they interpreted Islam and distorted it in relation to them. They said that Islam holds the opinion of al-Massalih al-Mursalah (unqualified interests), that the law of Allah agrees with mans interests. They said that wisdom (al-Hikmah) is the lost property of the believer and he should take it wherever he finds it. Based on this, an attempt was made to reconcile the solution brought by the capitalist system with Islam. They adopted it as Islam but Islam is immiscible with such ideas. They said that Sikurtah (insurance) is not forbidden by Islam. Justification was based on it being a contract. Others said there is no evidence to prohibit it so it is allowed, for in origin all things are permitted (mubah). There were those amongst them who said that insurance is a permitted guarantee allowed by Islam. They said concerning foreign trade that it should take place according to the Muslims’ interest. So the state should facilitate it according to the interest, thus acting according to al-Massaalih al-Mursalah. They allowed the system of parliament by saying that it was Shura and that Shura has been permitted by Islam. They followed what the French civil law advocates of the state of mind and inclination in legislation, so they said: What matters is the spirit of the text, and the issue relates to the intention. They claimed on behalf of Islam that it maintains the principle: What matters in contracts are the aims and meanings and not the words and speech forms. As proof they cited the saying of the Messenger (saw): “Indeed, actions shall be judged according to the intentions.” They also claimed that Islam came with general freedoms and ordered people to adhere to them, and that Islam is the religion of freedom. They proceeded as the Christians had proceeded before them by saying that the spiritual aspect is the spirit as opposed to the body, and that man is composed of matter and spirit. So the spirit should not dominate the body and the body should not dominate the spirit. In this manner they became confused and bewildered before the Kuffar’s challenge. They did not study problems in order to derive solutions or to study the rules in the Kitab and Sunnah. Rather they adopted the West’s solutions to these problems wholeheartedly. Muslims then accepted them as Islamic solutions on the basis that Islam does not forbid them. Some adopted them on the basis of the opinion of al-Masaalih al-Mursalah as held by certain Imams, and not according to what the Qur’an and Hadith had brought. The capitalist rules were therefore introduced by justfying them from Islam. It was inevitable that the laws in society and the societal transactions (Mu’amalat) of the Muslims would proceed without any regard for whether they were Islamic or not. Thus the capitalist rules became established and Islam was forgotten. (The altering of the thoughts facilitated the changing of the common emotions as long as it was easy to change the thoughts.) Thus aversion to the strict adherence to the rules of Islam became widespread because the people considered it as religious fanaticism. Then the aversion moved to encompass the discrimination between the Muslims and the Kuffar, and between Islam and other religions. The concept of ‘nationalism’ came to stir the emotions and the Islamic zeal was buried. Thus, showing anger towards any attack on the Qur’an came to be seen as a sign of backwardness and decline. This is because, in their view, this assault constituted impartial scholarly research. With this the Islamic sentiments were wiped out. Nothing remained of the Islamic emotions except the priestly emotions, the emotions of worship. This was the shocking indignity which the Muslims faced before the capitalist system’s contest with Islam. This would almost have been a defeat for Islam if the Islamic thoughts that were attacked were not in fact correct and true. That is to say if they were false as the attackers have described them, whilst the attacking Capitalist thoughts were not false and a lie, rather they were true and agreed with reality. This would have also been the case if the Islamic emotions, which were attacked, were not fit for man in the sense that they are emotions which contradict the sublime values and nature of man. If this were the case, then the defeat would not have been restricted to the Muslims only, as regards the thoughts they carry, the relationships according to which they deal with one another, and the political situation. Rather this defeat would have led to the eradication of Islam from intellectual and emotional existence in the same way as it was removed from political existence. However, the reality is contrary to that, for the defeat before the capitalist system’s crusade against Islam was a defeat of Muslims and not of Islam. That is why the factors of waging the attack again against the capitalist system and Kufr still exist the same way they existed when they defeated Kufr and Kuffar. These factors are the thoughts and emotions of Islam. This is what gives reason for hope and reminds us of the days of victory, instigates the revival, moves the human disposition (Fitrah) and makes the return to carrying the Islamic Da’wah to the world an impending reality and not just a desire and yearning.

As for the thoughts of Islam being the only true and correct thoughts, and the capitalist aggressor’s thoughts being false and untrue, this is proven from the reality of the thoughts themselves. Thus, the capitalist thoughts which consider polygyny a mistake while considering it correct to restrict the man to one wife, are solutions applied to the reality of the human being and not some logical hypotheses. So where exists a society in the world, in which there is no more than one woman for a man? There is no society in the world where there aren’t at least some men who have more than one wife. However, some of them call their partners mistresses or girlfriends and some of them call them wives. Do the rules allowing polygyny, which leave the choice for a man to practise it or leave it, thus making the second, third or fourth woman a legally recognised wife and not a mistress or girlfriend, agree with the natural disposition (Fitrah) of man and address the problem? Or do the rules which prohibit polygyny agree with the natural disposition (Fitrah) of man and solve the problem, when they remain silent at having relations with more than a woman illegally? and which remain silent when this is not adhered to, i.e. since it is not allowed? Or is making the living together of spouses one of companionship and choice: “either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness.” [TMQ 2:229]? He would keep her if living together in a state of happiness for both spouses or he would divorce her if living together is the cause of their misery; does this not accord with the happiness and tranquillity of the spouses? Or does the imposition of a forced life together, even if it causes the worst type of misery, achieve the happiness and tranquillity of the spouses?

The reality of ruling is that the Ummah has the authority to give the responsibility to whoever she wishes. In terms of practising this authority, this cannot be done except by one person; it will not be for two or more as an absolute matter of fact. However, this one person will restrict himself to a specific program which he believes to be correct and he cannot go beyond it. What controls this single ruler, in addition to the motives of his belief in the system by which he is restricted, i.e. in addition to his taqwa or what is known as his own conscience, is the nation he rules accounting him by speech if he misapplies the system or by force if he betrays the system. This is on condition that the Ummah does not disobey him in what he orders of the Fard, Mandoob and Mubaah, but does not obey him in any forbidden and sinful action. This is the reality of the Khilafah. So which one of the two ruling systems agrees with reality and is correct in its application: the system of Islam or the democratic system, which claims that it is the nation which practises the ruling? This claim is impossible to implement therefore it is a lie, for the only one who holds authority in a Democracy is the prime minister with the assistance of the ministers.

As for Jihad, it is slander against Islam to say that it is only a defensive war. Furthermore, such a statement contradicts the reality of Jihad in the time of the Messenger (saw) until the end of the Islamic state. This is because Muslims themselves used to initiate the fighting with the Kuffar and they used to adopt this as a method to spread Islam. It is a lie against the Qur’an, for Allah (swt) said in the explicit verses of the His Book: “Fight against those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who do not acknowledge the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” [TMQ 9:29]. He (swt) also said: “Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you” [TMQ 9:123]. He (swt) also said: “O Prophet [saw]! Urge the believers to fight” [TMQ 8:65]. 

It is evident that Jihad is a material war against Kuffar in order to establish the rule of Islam. Its cause is to fight the Kuffar who have refused Islam after it has been presented it to them in a manner that draws attention, i.e. Islam should be offered in a state that attracts attention, then Jihad will take place. This is what any ideology which is believed in by any nation dictates upon her. She prepares the material power and attains a strong military spirit in addition to this. Based on this material power she begins political battles and diplomatic manoeuvres, thus creating a situation through which the Da’wah is conveyed and the political status of the state is promoted. When the material friction takes place then fighting is inevitable. The Cold War represented nothing other than this situation, when each of the two camps attempted to spread their own ideology. Their well-equipped military forces were thus prepared to engage in fighting, but this ultimately did not materialise. Likewise, there existed a similar situation before the advent of World War II between the Nazis and the so-called free world. Before that it was between Islam and Capitalism and so on and so forth. The reality of life is that there are thoughts which are contrary to each other. These thoughts are embodied in states and material power is utilised to spread them and defend them using political, cultural, economic and military means. This is the reality of Jihad. It is to fight using material force for the sake of the thought after exhausting the political and cultural styles. However, the Islamic army or the spirit of Jihad is not like the German military which is a military power for the purpose of putting the (German) people above the other peoples. Rather, it is the military force that removes the material obstacles in front of the Islamic Call in order to make the people embrace Islam and join with the rest of the Muslims to form one Ummah, in which there is no superiority for one Muslim over another except in Taqwa (the fear of Allah).

Al-Qada wal-Qadar, as a meaning of these two words together, is the actions which fall within the sphere that controls man, i.e. which takes place against his will, together with the attributes of objects. As for the specific meaning of the word Qadar, it is the knowledge of Allah. Thus it has nothing to do with the voluntary actions of man for which he is accounted by Allah, just as he is accounted in the Dunya by the state, parents and guardians. Where is the fatalism in this understanding of Al-Qada wal-Qadar? Where was the fatalism when the Muslims, with this understanding, conquered the world and subdued other nations?  Moreover, adoption of this concept forces the person to investigate, study, and assess the outcome and consequences of an action before undertaking it, so that he is clear on the aspects of blame and accountability. There is also the view of the action after it has occurred whether with or without his choice, is that it has occurred and it is finished. Thus, one must accept that it has happened, but one should not necessarily accept what has happened, and thus act to change it. Thus the event that happened as a Qadar (fate) according to the knowledge of Allah, man must accept that it has happened and is finished. He should not feel agitation or worry. Neither should he accept what has happened, thus leaving it without remedy. Rather he should not accept the situation that arose due to what happened, so as to treat it after it happened. Those two views together are indispensable such that life continues with vitality and force in a real and practical manner in accordance with high values. The fact that he is accounted for the voluntary actions whereas he is not blamed for the non-voluntary actions, because it is not within his ability to repel them. This is the fact that every action that has happened would not have happened except according to the knowledge of Allah. All of that insures the presence of those two viewpoints. In other words, it makes a person proceed in his actions not based on imagination, theoretical hypotheses, or whims, nor linked to continuous sorrow and sadness over what has already occurred; rather he moves forcefully in a real and practical manner, in accordance with the high values required by life. That is why the view of Qadar on its own and Qada and Qadar together incites man and makes him active, and it stands between him and hopelessness and sorrow, just as it stands between him and laziness and lethargy. The focus is not regarding the voluntary actions before undertaking them, rather it is regarding the actions after they have been carried out and the actions which took place outside the sphere of his control. This is because such events have occurred and the matter is finished. So he must not feel sorrow or pain that torments the soul and deviates it from its sublime goal in life and from entering the mainstream of life. How far is this from what the Capitalists have in terms of agonising pain and distressful sorrow felt by the losers, which make the word ‘luck’ play such a big role in their lives? Consequently, belief in Qadar and belief in Qada and Qadar is one of the greatest blessings for the mind and one of the greatest incentives to plunge into the battlefield of life with courage and dignity. This is because in the sphere which man controls, he is responsible for all his voluntary actions. He is obliged to be aware of them and bear responsibility. If a mistake or misguided act took place then he must bear the consequences. However, he must also realise that what has happened, whether correct or incorrect, has happened with the Knowledge and Comprehension of Allah (swt). It was inevitable that it would happen. Therefore he should not be preoccupied by it, rather he should move on, i.e. persevere in life. As for the sphere which controls him and in which the actions occur without his choice, he is not responsible for them and he will not bear their consequences. Furthermore, they happened with the Knowledge and Comprehension of Allah (swt), so it was inevitable that they would happen. Therefore man is not allowed to stand preoccupied with what happened, rather he must move on. This is the greatest of characteristics a person can possess in this life.

This is the reality of some of the Islamic thoughts which were savaged by the Kafir colonialists. This is also the reality of the capitalist thoughts with which the Islamic thoughts were criticised. From this reality it becomes clear that the thoughts being attacked are true and that the thoughts that were attacking are false. The intellectual weakness of the carrier of the true thought in comprehending it does not mean it is not true, just because the one who carries it was not able to explain it or because he consented to it standing accused. Also the eloquence of the carrier of falsehood does not mean it is not fabricated, just because its carrier was able to disguise falsehood as truth. Rather the true thought is the one which agrees with the reality which it indicates, or it agrees with a natural disposition (Fitrah) with which man has been created. In other words, truth is that which agrees with the reality, whilst falsehood is that which does not agree with the reality. So what matters is the nature of the thought and its reality and not its carrier, whether he could explain it forcefully or not.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Israel Mossad chief: Bashar al Assad is Israel's best man in Syria

A short clip referring to a ex Israeli Mossad chief saying that Israel's best man in Syria is Assad - he who has continued his father's legacy of not lifting a finger at the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and general subjugation of Syria by the Israelis.

The revolution in Syria will continue on a knife edge until it achieves the victory

Moaz Al-Khateeb is still striving like a snake to gather the betrayers from the opposition to accept the selling out of the revolution and to save the Syrian regime in response to American pressures.
They wish to finish off the revolution with politics after the failure of the massacres and destruction perpetrated with western compliance.
The form of the guidelines for the coming Geneva summit is - The formation of a joint government made up of members from the regime and opposition with limited mandatory powers whilst the army and security apparatus remains untouched with no accountability or justice being brought against the criminals and the tyrant remains in his post whilst retaining the right to stand in the forthcoming elections.
Is it possible for any believer or rational sane or free person to be satisfied with the remaining of the regime after they went out on to the streets to change it and after the sacrifices we have made in its path and whilst he is still committing the same murderous crimes against us?
Whoever claims that he is from amongst the opposition or is attached to the revolution and thereafter accepts this conspiracy then he is in truth an enemy of the revolution and it is necessary to regard him to be on the same said as the regime and to deal with him upon that basis.
The revolution will not halt half way upon the path towards its goal because that would mean suicide. In addition the honourable men will not be able to accept to live alongside the murderers who violated the honours of the women and slaughtered their children, and there is no doubt that they can make deals upon their Deen.
The revolution will continue upon its path until it achieves the victory and this is the path of every true and real revolution. A revolution is not a pastime and especially when you are facing the most criminal, heinous and impure regime that history has known.
We are a believing Ummah, the descendants of the Sahaabah (rah) and the followers of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Our land is Ash-Shaam of Imaan and the homeland of Islaam (Uqra Daar il Islaam). We will never weaken and never surrender; it is either victory of Shahaadah (Martyrdom). And whoever finds weakness in his Deen then he should examine history and the western revolutions and that they did not achieve their goal except by blood and that it was not completed until after a long period of suffering.
Our revolution in Ash-Shaam, in spite of the large number of enemies and the meagre number of friends and possibilities, has already achieved a lot. It is still progressing and the awareness, will, experience and strength has increased and indeed what it has managed to achieve up until now despite the scale of attacks against it, is an indication that there is a divine caretaking for the revolution that is compensating for its material weaknesses and deficiencies.
The whole region is boiling right now, Tripoli and other towns and cities are also now involved in the revolution and are giving their blood easily in order to support Al-Qusair, and what awaits them in terms of goodness is better for them. However those who do not believe in Allah, they have a covering over their eyes and they will not see.
Verily the fire lit in Ash-Shaam will never be put out until the regime of Al-Asad has burned down along with its allies, the hypocrites in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. And until the Jewish entity has been dealt with and the lands have been cleansed from all of the western influences and this will be after it has spread to encompass Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq so as to return to the Ummah her decision making and authority that had been stripped from it and restore the rule of their Lord that had been pushed aside and the promised Khilafah State.
And on that day the believers will rejoice.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

The Tyrant of ash-Sham and the Iranian Regime and its Hizb in Lebanon Repeat Hulagu's Destruction of Baghdad in Qusair!

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Tyrant of ash-Sham and the Iranian Regime and its Hizb in Lebanon Repeat Hulagu's Destruction of Baghdad in Qusair!

Approximately seven centuries ago in the year 656 AH, Hulagu Khan destroyed Baghdad after a severe siege. People were massacred in large numbers, houses and mosques were demolished, books and libraries were burned, and crops and livestock were destroyed. The Tigris River, penetrating Baghdad, was witness to this destruction as its water was diluted with human blood and the ink from books. Today stripped from any humility before Allah, His Messenger or even the believers, tyrants indulge in Muslims' blood in Qusair.

The tyrant of ash-Sham strikes Qusair with lethal explosives and competing with him is Hizb ‘Iran' (Hezbollah) with its missiles and launchers, the latter of which is indirectly but directly lead by Iran through human interference and logistic support in the form of trucks and airplanes. The attack on the area of Qusair and its orchards has been on-going for days, even weeks now, expanding to its houses and mosques; and neither people nor trees and stones are spared from the tyrant and his henchmen's bombings. This time it is the ‘Asi River which runs through Qusair, whose water is witness to the effects of the bombing, killing and destruction.

All of this is to please America and its allies and the Jewish state and its henchmen who want to keep Bashar to protect the interest of the colonialist Kuffar and the Jews. This will go on so long as it will take them to groom a new agent to replace another agent. Meanwhile the tyrant, the Iranian regime and its party assure them: I am hastening, America, so you can be pleased with me!

These brutal attacks were given the green light by America, assuming that more killing in the land of ash-Sham will cause them to accept the American initiatives. Therefore America is producing for them another agent to replace his predecessor by holding conferences and negotiations under the title of "peaceful solutions". America rebuilds the secular system after face-changes, because it understands that the direction of the people of Ash-Sham is Islam. In doing so America has instructed its front and rear battle lines to use all means of killing and destruction including all sorts of massacres to force people into subordination to their commands and plots. And these are the monstrous attacks!

It is possible for the Muslim to comprehend the malice of the tyrant of ash-Sham against the Muslims and Islam, since he proudly declares his system is a secular regime in opposition to Allah, His Messenger and the believers. But Hizb ‘Iran' and its Hizb in Lebanon speak of Islam and Islamically.  So how can they participate with secularism rather compete with him in killing Muslims, bombing their mosques and killing their women and children? If they are believers, do they not recite the words of their Lord?
((يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِمَ تَقُولُونَ مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ))
"Oh you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do?" [TMQ 61:2] Or are they an example of those described by Allah as
((يَقُولُونَ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ مَا لَيْسَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يَكْتُمُونَ))
"saying with their mouths what was not in their hearts. And Allah is most Knowing of what they conceal" [TMQ 3:167]

We have become witness to the paradoxes that are staunchly rejected by the sane mind making the blood boil in one's veins in those with vision and insight, whereas the Jewish entity that violated Palestine and the Golan Heights bomb vital facilities in Syria. However the Syrian regime responds with bombing the elderly, women and children in Syria! Meanwhile Hizb ‘Iran' proclaims to assist the Syrian regime of ridding the Golan Heights from the filth of the Jews when it actually assists the tyrant in destroying Qusair and seizing it from the purity of Islam and its people! Iran used to threaten the Zionist entity with retaliation instead it threatens Qusair and others in ash- Sham, while calm and peaceful with the Zionist entity which violated Palestine and the Golan Heights!

Qusair is being bombed from all directions with the enemies of Allah and His Prophet gathering against it: the Sham's tyrant who is proud of the secularists and the hypocrites who speak with their tongues of which is not in their hearts. They speak of Islam, while concealing their spite towards the people of Islam. Meanwhile all of them rush to destroy Qusair including its inhabitants, plants and even rocks!

All the while, regimes' armies do not mobilize to rescue Qusair nor are they affected by Allah's saying: ((وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ)) "If Allah should aid you, then no one can overcome you" [TMQ: 3:160] Rather they observe the bombing and destruction while counting the martyrs and injured, are not concerned by the screams of the orphans and bereaved mothers. In fact they seem to be waiting with unparalleled patience for Qusair and others in Sham to be obliterated. Heartbreakingly these armies are stationed in their barracks obeying the ruler in his treachery, open transgression and injustice. These armies obey regimes that praise America, spilling the precious Muslim blood to satisfy America and its allies. Is there no honorable man amongst these armies, that Allah will show him the truth and guide his heart? To topple these treacherous regimes and proceed as the commander of his unit or battalion to rescue his people and brethren? Is there no such man?

Nevertheless, there are lions in Qusair resisting the continuous bombings in which tyrants utilize all types of weapons that reach them via America's front lines: Russia and Iran. They resist with weapons which do not amount to a tenth of what the enemy is using. But with hearts of great conviction and tongues speaking the truth, they declare: Either victory or martyrdom to repel the aggression against our religion, our honour, our houses and ourselves! Lions in the face of surrounding tyrants! Lions at a time when mice have roared the lion's roar! The lions of Qusair will be victorious Inshallah in their dunya (life) and the Hereafter! Whatever befalls the believer is good and the reward is for the God-fearing.

Indeed the curse of Qusair will reach the tyrants of ash-Sham and the Iranian regime and its Hizb in Lebanon. Indeed the sacred  blood that was spilled will haunt them in their beds in the darkest of the night and throughout the day until the command of Allah is sent down, and can no longer be withstood. Even if they destroyed Qusair, they will attain but humiliation in this dunya (life) and severe torture if they knew, ((فَأَذَاقَهُمُ اللَّهُ الْخِزْيَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَكْبَرُ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ)) "So Allah made them taste disgrace in worldly life. But the punishment of the hereafter is greater, if they only knew." [TMQ 39:26] They will be destroyed like their adherents before them! Hulagu and his adherents were expelled after they thought they had defeated the Khilafah in Baghdad and Hulagu had already deemed himself victorious until he himself was destroyed. But the Khilafah returned and climaxed from anew in Cairo and Istanbul, ﴿وَتِلْكَ الْأَيَّامُ نُدَاوِلُهَا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ وَلِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَيَتَّخِذَ مِنْكُمْ شُهَدَاءَ وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الظَّالِمِينَ﴾ "and these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people so that Allah may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs - and Allah does not like the wrongdoers" [TMQ 3:140]

Hizb ut Tahrir reiterates the words of truth (Haqq) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ka'ab bin ‘Ujra many centuries ago in a Hadith Sahih extracted by al-Hakim in al Mustadrak Ala Assaheain:

«أَعَاذَكَ اللَّهُ يَا كَعْبَ بْنَ عُجْرَةَ مِنْ إِمَارَةِ السُّفَهَاءِ» قَالَ: وَمَا إِمَارَةُ السُّفَهَاءِ؟ قَالَ:  «أُمَرَاءُ يَكُونُونَ مِنْ بَعْدِي لَا يَهْتَدُونَ بِهَدْيِي وَلَا يَسْتَنُّونَ بِسُنَّتِي، فَمَنْ صَدَّقَهُمْ بِكَذِبِهِمْ وَأَعَانَهُمْ عَلَى ظُلْمِهِمْ، فَأُولَئِكَ لَيْسُوا مِنِّي وَلَسْتُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَا يَرِدُونَ عَلَيَّ حَوْضِي، وَمَنْ لَمْ يُصَدِّقْهُمْ بِكَذِبِهِمْ وَلَمْ يُعِنْهُمْ عَلَى ظُلْمِهِمْ فَأُولَئِكَ مِنِّي وَأَنَا مِنْهُمْ وَسَيَرِدُونَ عَلَيَّ حَوْضِي»
"O Ka'ab Bin ‘Ujrah, may Allah give us refuge from the ruling of Al-Sufaha." They said: "Oh Messenger of Allah: What is the ruling of 'Al-Sufaha'?" He said: "Rulers who will be after me. They do not follow my guidance, and they do not implement my Sunnah. The one who follows their lies, and helps them in their oppression, he is not from me, and I am not from him, and he will not be permitted into my Hawd (basin). And the one who did not believe their lies, and did not help them in their oppression, he is from me, and I am from him, and he will be permitted into my Hawd (basin)." This Hadith has been extracted by many Sahabah.

Whoever supports an unjust ruler and authenticates his lies, regardless of the Islamic legal school he follows, be he Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zaydi, Ja'fari or Ibadi, the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to him: فَأُولَئِكَ لَيْسُوا مِنِّي وَلَسْتُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَا يَرِدُونَ عَلَيَّ حَوْضِي "He is not from me, and I am not from him, and he will not be permitted into my Hawd (basin)," as a clarification of the graveness of this sin. Therefore Hizb ut Tahrir believes in the ayah of Allah ((هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ)) "Allah named you ‘Muslims'" [TMQ 22:78], speaks the truth, does not fear none other than Allah with the help of the Almighty. Hizb ut Tahrir addresses those who aided and still aid the tyrant of ash-Sham to restore their goodness and repent their wrongful deeds. We ask them to show remorse before the time comes when remorse will no longer be accepted, nor will their repentance be accepted. Will they then be deterred?

((إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَذِكْرَى لِمَنْ كَانَ لَهُ قَلْبٌ أَوْ أَلْقَى السَّمْعَ وَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ))
"Indeed in that is a reminder for whoever has a heart or who listens while he is present [in mind]" [TMQ 50:37]

Hizb-ut Tahrir

10 Rajab 1434

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Q&A: The axis in Syria involved in the struggle by Sheikh Ata’ Abu Rashtah

The following is a translation of an answer posted on the official Facebook page of Sheikh Ata' Abu Rashtah:

‎العالم عطاء بن خليل أبو الرشتة ata abu-alrashtah‎

The axis in Syria involved in the struggle


To our Ameer, is this page specific to Fiqhi matters and if it is not so then I have the following question:

It is noticeable in the war that is occurring in the land of Ash-Shaam (greater Syria) that there exists a number of regional axes in addition to the axis of two main states. 1) The Saudi axis and the key to the work in it is Ash-Sheikh Al-'Ar'oor and he has for example the Liwaa Al-Islaam (brigade) in Dumaa and he was in the act of forming the joint military command with Tayfoor (of the Muslim brotherhood). 2) The Qatari axis: In addition to containing the Syrian national alliance it has  worked as an obstacle from the beginning to the national council and has supported the national  coordination (council) and has therefore adopted to support the Syrian Liberation front. It has more than one key the most significant of which is Azmi Bashaarah. 3) The Turkish axis: It is dedicated to stabilizing the fragile internal scales of balance, its eye is on the Kurdish issue firstly and then democracy in Syria secondly and it represents the axis maintaining the international borders and American policy. 4) The Jordanian axis: It appears that it is in clear opposition to the Turkish axis. This is because there has been many attempts to form what has been termed a 'National army' in Jordan however Turkey and America have caused it to fail through their communications with specific army officers including from them Mustafa Ash-Sheikh (this is in spite of the continual presence with the American intelligence agencies and defense department in meetings held in Jordon). 5) The Kuwait axis: By way of Islamic organizations and people: They have formed mainly under the title of 'Ahraar Ash-Shaam' and they worked to win over many and particularly in Ash-Shaam. And on the international level you have the American Axis and then the English and French axis. And all of this is related to the opposition. And the question is: What is the shape of the struggle that is occurring? And what is the shape of the region in terms of allegiance? And what are the main axis in the struggle? And what is the solution that each party wishes to achieve?
Jazaakallahu Khairan.


To Al-Faatih Al-Jadeed:

You have asked whether this page is for political, intellectual or Fiqhi matters..
Dear brother, this page is for the purpose of every goodness that can be gained through communication and as such no question from any topic from amongst the topics that hold goodness is prevented InshaAllah.

As for your question related to the axes that are involved in the Syrian struggle, then the issue is explained as follows:

1) The effective political influence since the era of Hafiz and Bashar is the American influence and this regime would work to accomplish the American interests in the region and act to preserve the Jewish entity and not only in regards to what was occupied in 1948 but also in regards to the Golan that was occupied in 1967.

2) When the peoples popular movement occurred in Syria and escalated and Bashar became unable to return matters to what they had been, America realized that its agents rule was collapsing and its priority became related to guaranteeing an agent replacement in its place. So it seriously worked and strove resulting in the establishment of the Syrian national council and then the alliance... However it was unable to establish roots for these councils inside Syria and began to fear that the revolutionaries would be able to bring down the Tyrant before an alternative had been nurtured and as a result a power that is not aligned to America would emerge.

3) So it began to give one grace period followed by another and another to Bashar with fruitless non-decisive projects via the Arab league and United Nations. So it formed a monitoring committee that was unable to even protect themselves, then (international/regional) meetings one following another here and there which came to know decisions and merely gave more time for her to sell who manufactured opposition group outside Syria so that the people inside would accept them as rulers.   

4) What surprised America was that Islamic emotions and feelings dominated the internal situation, whether this was represented by those who held awareness of the Islamic thoughts and its ruling or those who were not aware. America was also shaken by the calls of the people for the establishment of the Khilafah whilst the secular voices were almost completely lost despite the extensive efforts of the media to focus on them!

5) This environment has struck fear in to the heart of America and its allies and they fear that matters will slip out of their hands and as such they have began to focus on three matters or areas:

The first: Giving the green light to Bashar to kill and oppress in the greatest manner possible so as to pressure the people inside Syria to accept those America has manufactured outside Syria and thereafter to bring in these puppets to establish a secular civil rule in Syria i.e. a change of faces whilst the main foundations of the regime remain in place.

Secondly: Then if they are unable to successfully sell their manufactured opposition by using the massacres of Bashar as leverage then it is expected that they will resort to international intervention to bring its chosen government and excuses and arguments for this theatre will be raised when the time necessitates. However due to the large number of its problems and its internal and foreign crises it has placed the intervention to the back of its projected plans. And it will not resort to it unless the first plan mentioned above has failed.

Thirdly: Through this period of time the destruction of the land has reached such a level that even if Islam was able to win over the rule in Syria then it would be a land which has been destroyed and turned to ruins which America and her allies believe will make the Ummah despair and unable to move towards revival and productive activity. However America and every one of the enemies of Islam do not perceive the greatness of this Ummah because within it are the toughest of men who will build the land in spite of the wishes of the oppressors, and who will increase the laying of its seeds despite the plots of the hypocrites. And this Ummah has taken on their like before: The crusaders and the Tartars who spread corruption, death and destruction in the land and despite this the Ummah comprehensively overcame them and expelled them and their influence completely so that they became nothing but a trace as if they had never held any worth whilst the Ummah returned to life from anew, destroying its enemies and dealing with them in ways that they could not account for, becoming the best Ummah raise up from mankind:

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (Aali 'Imraan 110).

6) The above is in regards to America... As for Russia, Turkey, Iran and its allies in Lebanon then these represent the front lines of America providing Bashar with weapons and support. They warm up the stage and cool it in accordance to the American plans. It is within this context that the last meeting between the American foreign secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister took place, which was for passing time and closer to jargon than the making of decisions.

7) As for Europe, it is attempting to make trouble through its agents and in particular Qatar and Jordan knowing that America does not give them any weight so she has let Europe, their master make efforts behind her. So after America went to Russia and held meetings with her in relation to Syria thus neglecting and sidelining the European role, the British Prime Minister went to Russia tracking the American steps to see if there is anything that he can discover whilst taking care to show that Britain has a role in the issue. The position of France is not different from that except that the sounds coming from France are raised aloud whilst the sounds from Britain are lower showing subtlety and hiding its dirtiness, whilst the result is one and the same in terms of neither having an effective role in Syria.

8) What remains to be discussed is the axis of the Ummah and the movement inside Syria which is as follows:

A minority who are submissive to the western culture, imprinted with its thoughts and concepts, they say what they say and call for a secular democratic state which separates the Deen from life's affairs. Then there is another group which is larger in number than this minority and carries more weight. They are Muslims whose eyes are covered, they love Islam and want the Khilafah yearning for the flag of the Messenger (saw). However they do not announce openly that which they love and that which they want out of fear of provoking the western colonial states and they do not raise the flag of Islam out of fear of instigating nationalist counter claims.

The group that calls for Islam is divided into two groups:

The first group that utilizes material actions (i.e. armed struggle) and calls for the rule of Islam however this group does not possess the correct and complete awareness of the Islamic thoughts and its rules and how they are applied upon the current realities.

And a group that is truthful and sincere who want the Islamic rule 'The rightly guided Khilafah' in accordance to the methodology that the Messenger of Allah (saw) proceeded with and so they seek the Nusrah from its qualified (capable) people.

My dear brother, in all of our actions we stick to the method of the Messenger (saw) and we place down the straight line against the crooked. We demonstrate the Haqq and call and urge people to and upon it. This is not only in Ash-Shaam but there are actions that we perform in other regions and in particular in those lands that are neighboring Ash-Shaam. InshaAllah these are actions that have been seen and we ask Allah (swt) to aid us and grant us Tawfeeq.

In conclusion, America and her allies are preparing deals to guarantee the well-being of the tyrannical rule and to place grim faces in replacement to those which are blacker and darker whilst the secular foundations of the Republican system remains standing. They are expending their efforts to delay the coming ruling by Islam in Ash-Shaam as the ruling by Islam signifies that the disbelievers and hypocrites will perish along with their followers and cronies. Therefore it is obligatory upon the Ummah to not allow them to achieve their evil goals and for the Ummah to hold firmly upon the Haqq and to make a covenant with Allah upon that they will never accept any alternative to the Khilafah, that they will not submit to the manufactured leaders made by the enemies of Islam in the form of a transitional or temporary government. They are governments that sing in their praise and conspire against Islam and the Muslims just like the disbelieving colonialists and hypocrites. So no National Council that came first, no Syrian alliance that came after and no Hito for the future can bring any goodness to this Ummah as they are all upon the methodology of America and its allies.

Your brother Ata' bin Khalil Abu Ar-Rashtah

8th Rajab, 1434
18th May, 2013

Arabic Source