Skip to main content

Pakistan’s regime commits to sacrifice soldiers for America’s divide and rule policy

بِِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيم

On 5 September 2006, during a brief visit to Lebanon, Pakistani Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, tentatively and cautiously announced that Pakistan was considering sending troops to Lebanon. This announcement was then widely circulated in the Pakistani media in order to test public reaction. Then, as a next step, upon returning to Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz, announced to the press that the decision to send troops had been made and all that remained was deciding the numbers. On 9 September 2006, in Islamabad, Aziz declared, “We have also asked our envoys in Beirut and New York to finalize number of the troops. The number will be in hundreds.” The Pakistani troops are to be sent by the government in accordance with United Nations Resolution 1701 of 12 August 2006, which calls for the deployment of an international force in the region, ahead of permanent acceptance of the Jewish occupation of Palestine.

The government adopted a cautious approach to sending troops to Lebanon, because previously the Muslims of Pakistan had prevented it from sending troops to Iraq to secure America there. Moreover, the regime is fearful of a strong reaction because the US-approved UN Resolution 1701 is not to secure the blood of the Muslims from the Jews by any means. Indeed, America has vetoed countless previous UN Resolutions that call the Jews to withhold their hands from slaughtering Muslims. In the build-up to the present resolution, America made very clear that the blood of Muslims has no value for it. On 22 July 2006, US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, coldly described the recent brutal Jewish aggression against Lebanon as a part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East." As for the UN Resolution 1701 itself, it reserves the right for the Jewish occupiers to use aggression at will, a right that they have subsequently used. In fact, rather than securing the Muslim blood, the UN Resolution 1701 actually strengthens the hands of the aggressor against the Muslims:

Firstly: UN Resolution 1701 guarantees the Jewish occupation, a brutal occupation that began with the support of America in 1948 when the Jews occupied the lands of the Isra’a and Mi’raj of RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم. It was this colonialist-sponsored, sectarian division of the Islamic Lands that spawned decades of conflict between the Jew and the Muslim. Previously, under the Khilafah state Jews and Muslims lived together for centuries in harmony in a single state, because Allah سبحانه وتعالى has addressed all humankind with Islam, irrespective of their race or religion. In contrast, the Jewish occupation, racist like the Hindu mushrikeen’s caste system, even discriminates against the African and Arab Jews. As for the Jewish hatred of the Muslims, the Jews did not even spare the women and children, rocks and trees in their most recent attacks.

Secondly: UN Resolution 1701 endorses the division and weakening of the Ummah before her enemies, after the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement of 16 May 1916 divided the lands of the Khilafah into separate, nation states. It was this colonialist sponsored nationalist division of the Islamic Lands that prevented the Muslims from mounting a unified response to occupying forces, as happened in the history when the Muslims faced the Crusaders and the Tartars. And today, the cowardly Jews aggress openly against the Muslims even though Syria, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan alone have over two and a half million personnel in their combined armed forces- an immense Muslim military that dwarfs in number and bravery the Jewish army, which was shaken by the poorly equipped but sincere Muslim youth of Hizbollah.

So, through UN Resolution 1701, America hopes to secure its interests without bearing losses, as happened when it trapped itself, blinded by arrogance, in Afghanistan and Iraq. With regards to financial losses, America wishes to be relieved of the burden of supporting the resource-starved Jewish State, as it is the highest recipient of US military aid in the world. So, by recognising the Jewish occupation, the Muslim rulers will then openly invite the Jewish occupiers to share in the immense resources of the Ummah. As for military losses, America is not even able to persuade its own cowardly soldiers to fight for America, let alone persuade its people to bear the loss of its sons on the battlefield. So, by sending Muslim troops to ash-Sham under the command of the kuffar, the Muslim rulers will now sacrifice Muslim soldiers by placing them as a human shield between the Jewish occupiers and the Muslim resistance. And it is not ruled out that this will not be used as a precedent to send Muslims troops elsewhere to secure American interests.

Allah سبحانه وتعالى warned the believers,

أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلاَلاً بَعِيدًا

“Have you seen those who pretend to believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you, how they go in their judgements to the Taghhoot even though they have been ordered to disbelieve in it. Indeed Shaytan has led them far, far astray.” [Surah An-Nisa’a 4:60]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran