Faithful Guardian

The Radical Method of the Islamic Dawah

2011-09-25T13:10:00.000-07:00

The methodology of theIslamic dawah is described in the book Concepts of Hizb ut Tahriras radical. The book goes further to say that without using theradical method, change from the existing situation of the Muslimscan not occur. The concept of radical change therefore has greatsignificance and it is vital to understand what it means.

Commonly it is understood that aperson that takes this radical approach is someone who opposes theway things are currently done and wants to change everythingcompletely, fundamentally and from the root. There are some that seethis approach as impractical and view those that adopt the radicalmethod as unreasonable people that disagree with everything and aredetached from the way things work and get done. They view actions undertaken on the basis of the radical method are selfdefeating and will simply cause alienation from those they wish tochange.

In order for the work fortransforming the existing situation to one in which Islam isimplemented – those working to bring change need crystal clarityabout the concept of radical change so that the work they engage inis effective.

The purpose of this article is toexplore the subject of “radical change” with a view to attaining crystallisation about what it means and how the radicalapproach should be applied in everyday dawah.

The Need For Change

The existing conditions in theMuslim world, the rampant poverty, injustice, military, economic ,political and cultural occupation by the kafir west – is enough toconvince any Muslim that change needs to occur. Even though some maybe happy with their circumstances most would agree that collectivelychange needs to occur.

The question in the minds of mostMuslims is how is it that this change needs to occur? We see thatthere are a plethora of views about the nature of the problem of theMuslims and its solution. These range from defeatist apathy to thosewho think that they are making valuable contribution to change byhelping Muslims around the globe by engaging in charity work ,educational projects or the like.

Many Muslims jump to action to tryto change the situation out of sincerity – however due to their thinking not being strong inevitably these attempts fail or they achieve somelimited results. This leads to a perpetual cycle of miseryafflicting the Ummah as every glimmer of a new dawn turns out to be afalse one.

For this reason discussion aboutthe problem and the solution, is the first intellectual battlefrontfor the dawah carrier where the current declined thinking of theMuslims must be challenged, changed and elevated so that they cansee the true solution to the problem. The Ummah needs to view changein the correct way. The Ummah has a choice - it can take the reality as the source or it couldtake the Islamic ideology as a source. The Ummah has to be convincedto make Islam the source of its thought and the reality the subjectfor change.

Approach to Change

The approach to change isdetermined by the mode of thinking. The mode of thinking beingdescribed here can either take reality as its source i.e. pragmatismor make the reality subject of thinking i.e. the radical approach.

The book concepts of Hizb utTahrir states that it is not correct to sense a problem andjump to action without applying adequate thought and trying toachieve a specific objective. The example of those brothers andsisters that believe in doing charity works by perhaps organisingconvoys of aid for Gaza – jump from sensation to some superficialthinking to action to achieve an ill thought out aim. They feel forthe plight of the Muslims – but because they have no deep thoughtabout the reality of the situation and the nature of Islam theyselect a course of action that will not lead to change. Or asolution that addresses the problem properly. This approach can beseen in the actions of countless Muslims and Islamic movements. Theactions of demonstrators in the so called Arab Spring also show howMuslims have been jumping from sensation of a problem to actionwithout any deep thinking. Will removing a ruler and replacing himwith another bring change to their lives? Do they know what the aimfor the calls for change are? Where is the deep ideological thoughtthat would elevate the masses thinking? Or does it emanate from emotion and a feeling of despair and helplessness?

It is for this reason that it ismentioned about jumping from sensation to action in the book concepts of Hizb ut Tahrir

“Suchbehaviour will never change the reality, Instead it will make theperson succumb to

reality and becomereactionary proceeding in life with declined thinking and making

realitythe source of thinking rather than the subject of the thinking.”

The Radical Method - TheCorrect Approach to Change

Contrary to the approach adoptedby those that jump from sensation to action. The correct approachthat has to be adopted is mentioned in the book concepts of Hizb utTahrir.

While the one who senses thereality then thinks of the methodology of changing it and then actsaccording to this thought is the one who changes the realityaccording to his ideology, and changes it completely. This is thetype of person who complies with the radical method, which

is the only method to resumethe Islamic way of life.

This is because this methodmandates that thought should result from sensation (of the situation)and this thought be crystallised in a way that the blueprint of theFikrah and the tareeqah are well understood. The individual will thenunderstand the ideology correctly leading him to

undertake the action. Insuch a way a complete radical change occurs in the thought,

so man proceeds then toprepare the people, societies and environment with this thought,producing a radical change in public opinion after generating generalawareness of the ideology (as a Fikrah and Tareeqah)

The dictionary definition of theterm radical or mutaraf in Arabic is given as follows

1. Of or going to the root or origin; fundamental.

2. Thorough going or extreme, especially as regards change fromaccepted or traditional forms: e.g. a radical change in the policy ofa company.

3.Favouring drastic political,economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchisticideologues.

The radical method is to do withchange, it is not about being controversial, although it may beconsidered to be so by others. The purpose of the radical way is notto upset others even though it may. It is not to be a Che Guevara,Lenin or Trotsky type demagogic figure. The radical method is abouttransforming the situation of the Muslims from a declined one to anelevated one. Without the radical approach being applied the Muslimswill continue to live in this declined situation.

The radical method is to do withsensing the problems faced and applying deep thought (based upon anideological perspective) upon the reality and performing actions thatwill change the reality. It differs from the pragmatic approach where one studies the reality and finds actions to undertake from thereality in order to address his problem.

One may sense a problem with thelack education in particular place. The one who adopts andunderstands the Islamic ideology will correctly identify that this isa failing of the state – the correct course of action is toaddress the root cause that this state will not solve the problembecause it is corrupt - the only way to change this is to remove theexisting system and replace it with the Islamic one. This approach isthe effective one as it deals with the root of the issue. The statewill then discharge its duty to provide education. The same could besaid about the building of roads, hospitals and other infrastructure.

Thepragmatist on the other hand, will see that the state is notfunctional and depending on his motivation or how strongly he feelsabout this would move in order to address this. He may set up school,hospital etc. himself or try some other means to address problem orsimply give up. The difference in the course of action chosen is due to the thought. This would be an example aweak approach based on shallow thought

The Requirement of Deep Thought

Radical change can not occur inthe absence of deep thought. One can witness in the so called Arabspring - people called for change but because there was an absence of deep thought built collectively amongst the people they could notmove to change the situation radically. Rather they satisfiedthemselves in changing the faces – so Mubarak went , Ben Ali went but the ruling structures remained almost the same. No real changewas achieved and the colonialists played the situation to suit theirinterests.

It is mentioned in the bookconcepts of Hizb ut Tahrir

Such a radical methodnecessitates that the thought should arise from sensation, be linkedto the action and aim at a specific objective. Nothing could lead tothis except the deep thought

What is meant by deep thought inthis context – is the understanding of Islam as ideology completewith details of the systems. This deep thought would include adetailed understanding of the Islamic aqaid, fikra, tariqa andindeed political concepts like understanding the motivation ofnations on the international arena. If this is was comprehended wellamongst the masses then real change would be possible – if not theUmmah's calls for change would mould themselves to fit the realityand they would be exploited by the colonialists.

This means that the dawah carriersshould at every opportunity build this deep thought amongst theummah. For example it would not be sufficient to call for sloganswithout building the details of the deep thought in the minds of theUmmah. It would not be sufficient to tell the Ummah that we need toimplement the Quran for example and leave the interaction at that.Rather the details of what the Quran Kareem points to like aqaid, orsolutions for life's affairs need to elaborated and built amongst theummah.

Every opportunity should be takento build the deep thinking amongst the ummah the ideal is that acomprehensive understanding of the Islamic ideology be built – butat least the major elements of the Islamic ideology like fikra, tariqa and solutions for society would require addressing. These would vary upon thereality and the current thinking of the people that are beingaddressed. It would be insufficient to rely on slogans like we needKhilafah, the rulers are corrupt we need to implement Quran or other slogans without elaborating and detailing thought behind suchstatements.

Some may feel that the “Ummah isready” and all that is required is political direction. So suchindividuals may consider that the dawah should be conducted on thebasis of slogans. This would be a mistake. This is because the publicopinion and awareness ebbs and flows – like the tide of the sea.Thus it would be a mistake and a long term blunder that wouldthreaten the future viability of the state once is established as thedeep thought amongst the ummah may not be sufficiently strong tosustain the state.

Others may feel that we need onlyaddress people on the basis of political interests and give directionin this alone. This would be a departure from the method of change asit is not sufficient to talk only about politics whilst not culturingthe ummah. The danger of this would be the grievances could be exploited by others-NATO exploting the grievances of the Muslims in Libya can be taken as an example.

This is why the dawah carriers mustaddress as many issues and events as possible with theUmmah on the basis of the Islamic culture. They must do thisrelentlessly and continually. Examples of such topics could include amassive variety of issues from addressing the future of Libya, therole of the mind , spirituality, moon-sighting, the Islamic viewabout internet spouse finding, the governments plan for the Muslimsetc. As many realities as possible must be used to build the deepthought in the ummah.

Application of the RadicalMethod by the State

Once the state is established itwould not be enough for those in ruling to perform an assessment ofthe reality and enact some “policies”. This would not beacceptable as the state would without a doubt decline once again andhead towards extinction. Rather the radical approach would need to beadopted. Whereby the state would would assess the reality and addressit on the basis of its ideology and then engage in actions in orderto change the reality to make the reality conform with the ideology.It may be the case that the when the state is established that itfaces no major threats as the powers around it may be in disarray.The assessment may be that there is no need to build up a militaryon the basis that there is no major threat and that there is time. Thiswould be a purely pragmatic stance. This stance may be justifiedcollectively and everyone may buy into it – but this would be builtupon declined thinking. It would be a pragmatic move that would buildweakness in the states thinking process.

In this scenario if the state wereto jump from sensation to action without reference to the ideologythis would lead to decline. Rather it would need to understand thatbuilding its military capability on the basis of the Islamic thoughti.e. the numerous adillah referring to Jihad and its priority and itsobligation on state then it would take the correct course of action.

The example of Abu Bakr (RA) inhis capacity as the Khalifah is one where we can see an example of aradical approach. The non payment of zakat by some of the Arabtribes led Abu Bakr to take a radical stance. Even though some of thecompanions like Umar bin al Khataab (RA) were initially of adifferent viewpoint as they viewed that it is not allowed to fightagainst those that profess the shahaada- Abu Bakr took a radicalstance to preserve the authority of the state.

Ibn Kathir in his Tarikh stated that some Arabs of those tribes said “we obeyed rasool Allah aslong as he was amongst us. Yet what is the hakimiyah (ruling) of AbuBakr. We are bewildered.”

The approach of Abu Bakr was tosense the reality before responding with action . We can see thepresence of deep thought i.e. understanding what the implications ofnegotiating with those that refused to pay the zakat. The action thatwas undertaken was well thought out with an aim that sought topreserve the the authority of the state . The radical words of AbuBakr ( RA) after the Arab tribes came to negotiate that they wereprepared to accept salah but zakat and Abu Bakr responded

“Untilyou give me ropes that you tie up animals with as your payment of zakatI will fight you” TabariIII, 244.

We can see in this example thatAbu Bakr was determined to mould the reality to suit his thought, even atthe expense war and the spilling of blood rather than to be pragmaticand try to negotiating with those that refused to pay the zakat. Wesee the consequence that he moulded the reality according to his deepthought based upon his understanding standing of Islam and itsobjective.

Application of the RadicalMethod by an Islamic Political Party

In the scenario where theKhilafah state does not exist the work of such a group would be tore-establish it. The change could only occur if there was thepresence of a deep understanding of the Islamic ideology in relationto the reality the Ummah finds herself in.

It is mentioned in the bookconcepts of Hizb ut Tahrir

Such a radical methodnecessitates that the thought should arise from sensation, be linkedto the action and aim at a specific objective. Nothing could lead tothis except the deep thought

Generating this deep thoughtand the preparing of people by the ideology requires from those whowork for the change to undertake a detailed study of Islam andsociety. This cannot be achieved except through culturing he mindwith information. Study is the easiest and shortest way tocommunicate information to the mind in order to help generate thethought.

It is also mentioned in the samebook

Insuch a way a complete radical change occurs in the thought, so manproceeds then to prepare the people, societies and environment withthis thought, producing a radical change in public opinion aftergenerating general awareness of the ideology (as a Fikrah andTareeqah) Based upon this and through the ruling authority theideology will be implemented radically, without accepting any gradualor patchwork implementation.

Prior to establishment of theIslamic state and indeed after the work of such a movement would beto prepare the individuals with the deep thought through culturingand then they would work as bloc

to radically change public opinion after creating a general awareness about the ideology, This would bethe work of such a movement. It would not be pragmatic and jump uponevery new event that occurs without first passing it through an ideological thought process before deciding to act – if it suited aparticular objective. Neither would it address events to gainpopularity rather it would always pass the correct view on the basisof the ideology. It would not engage in actions that would distract it fromits objective, or try to address the problems within the currentscenario.

If such a party were to become beinfluenced by the non radical approach its work would be on the backfoot. Instead of leading the ummah with the thought it would becomeled by the ummah and begin responding to events rather than being thevanguard (leading band of people) movement of the ummah in her questfor revival.

Application of the RadicalMethod by Individuals

The ideal for the individual isthat he would comply with the radical method in all his affairs. Thushe would proceed in all his affairs by shaping the reality in whichhe lives in according to his thought- rather finding himself to behelpless and a victim of external factors. Many of those that we seeliving successful lives have not compromised their thinking andaccepted the reality around them. Rather they have moulded thereality around them to suit their thinking These type of individualshave few financial, family or other issues in their lives as theyhave made hard choices and changed the reality around them. Whilstthose that have used the reality as the base continue with problemsand leave it to what circumstances that they were raised in toprogress.

However in his capacity as anindividual the reality is that there will be many issues that he cannot address from the root . For example it may occur to him that hiscar has too many mechanical issues and the root cause is that it isold and requires replacing – yet he would still keep it and keeppaying for the repairs as he could not afford another one. Here hewould not be aiming to address the issue from its root – would thatbe a departure from the radical method ? Or if he were to find thatsomeone usurped his ownership of land in a particular place he couldrecourse to the authorities that exist in order to correct this. Orif there were no jummah in a certain place but there were sufficientMuslims he could organise it – this would not be a departure fromthe radical method. As long as the the actions that he engaged inwere permitted by Islam there would not be a problem.

This however would be in hiscapacity as an individual. If his political views and conceptstowards dawah became tainted with this approach i.e. to takesolutions from the reality. Without striving and being concerned withfundamental change, he would be on the path of compromise and sellingout his ideology. When for example there was a crisis like a naturalcalamity, or lack of basic amenities like a clean water supply orelectricity and he looked to solve the problem within the currentframework with no consideration of addressing the root of the problemby correcting the system then his ideological death would be assured.If he neglected reference back to the ideology in that case he wouldway departed from radical approach.

The non radical approaches of theindividual must never be allowed to enter the state or partyapparatus- this would be a calamity for the dawah as it will destroythe dawah delivery mechanism to society and or in the case of thestate the means of implementing and conveying Islam. It is mentionedin the book Takataul hizb

Furthermore, knowing the Hizbi bloc itself is essential to ensure that it maintains sharpperception, deep thinking, and absolute sincerity. The Hizbi blocmust ensure that the events taking place in society must not weakenits belief in Islam and its laws, and that all temptations,intimidation, threats, favors and trials have no effect upon itwhatsoever. It must also ensure that it upholds its inherent valuesto a high standard, and its belief must be safe, and the bloc’sinculcation with deep Islamic thoughts, its adoption of the publicinterests and its sense of responsibility, must be complete. It mustalso make sure that the ideology is preserved without any compromiseor violation, no matter how much oppression, tyranny, hardship andthreat befalls the bloc, and the bloc must ensure that it isdetermined to shoulder its responsibility, while being fully aware ofall the consequences and be ready to bear them.

The Radical Method andInteraction with the Ummah

The path of the Islamic dawah hasnever been one of ease and it will never be. It is a path ofstruggle, challenge and sacrifice for the sake of the idea. Themessage of Islam came to challenge and indeed destroy all other wayslife. If this is the case then would the adherents of other waysallow this to happen without a struggle? This can never be the case. The enemies of Islam spend huge amounts of money, time and deploystrategies to fight the dawah. Therefore the posture of those thatcarry the dawah has to be correct. If the enemies of Islam were tosucceed removing the radical approach of dawah from the minds ofthose carrying it they would have scored yet another stunning goalagainst Islam. The dawah can not be carried in a tame, lame way if itis to have any effect in the ummah and achieve the desired result.

Whilst the dawah carrier does notseek to upset or alienate people and strives to carry the dawah inthe most productive manner -he must deliver his message in anuncompromising manner. He can not accept truce or compromise withthose that carry the incorrect views that stop the ummah fromreviving. He must smash the eggs to make the omelette, it isinevitable that there will be those that oppose the call as well asthose that support it. He should never think that he is gainingfriends and aiding the dawah by toning down his message or remainingsilent. The objective is not to to make friends or build alliancesrather it is to pass the the correct ideas to ummah to revive. Evenif this means that he encounters hostility from others.

The underlying nature of theIslamic dawah is hard, tough and uncompromising. It cares not forposition and standing in society or indeed the consequences. It is ina life and death struggle with all other doctrines.

Sometimes there is a reluctance inengaging the ummah by giving solutions based upon radical thinking.The reasons behind this can be many. The harsh climate against thedawah in which there is need to build bridges rather than burn them.The fear of being rejected and alienated as a lone voice that iscalling towards a particular solution whilst the others are not. Orit could be cowardice and fear of the repercussions of following suchan approach – as in the English saying discretion is the betterpart of valour meaning that it is often better to think carefullyand not act than to do something that may cause problems.

Whatever the cause of hesitation the dawah carrier, whether in his capacity as a leaderthat can direct the efforts of the dawah or an individual - he mustunderstand that he cannot hold back. This is regardless if the peoplewould accept his message or reject it. As long as the message and theangle are well thought out and true then in the long run he will besuccessful.

Similarly, the da’wahcarrier has to challenge everything. This includes challenging the

customs,traditions, erroneous thoughts and concepts, the public opinion whenit is

wrongeven if he has to struggle against it. He has to challenge thedoctrines and

religionsdespite the fact that he might be exposed to the fanaticism of theirfollowers

andthe hostility of those who stick to their distortions.

The effect of the this interactionwith the radical thought is nicely put in this quote from the bookthe warm call of Hizb ut Tahrir

It is an ideologicalstruggle in which minds andhearts clash intellectually and emotionally, emitting sparks and thusthe light of truth shines and its glory radiates and the corruptionof the current thoughts and emotions becomes clear by demonstratingthe corruption of the viewpoint from which they emanated.

Not holding back does not meanthat the dawah carrier is not concerned about the consequence of hisactions. The dawah carrier needs to estimate what the ripples causedby his actions will result in. He must still carry the dawah in theradical way but fine tune the styles and means that he employsaccording to his analysis of the situation.

For instance, as part of theradical approach is he obliged to hold talks attacking the state ofIsrael at university? Even though it may rally the Muslims aroundthe dawah carriers and engage them in the dawah. The ripple createdby this needs to be considered before the action is engaged in. Theconsequences could be a detriment to the dawah for many years to comedepending on how these actions were perceived and manipulated byothers.

In extreme circumstances dependingon how those in authority react it could mean that the authoritieswipe out the dawah carriers entirely – by rounding up andimprisonment or worse. This shows the need for actions in the dawah to be well thought out and the consequences need to estimated and adecision needs to be taken to see if a style is effective or worthengaging. This however should not give a green light to compromisethe dawah and to change it to suit the reality.

This requires the dawah carriersto be skilled in weighing situations and performing the calculus that would allow them to undertake the best actions. This skill setneeds to be developed and the default position should not be tohesitate for fear of negative consequences. A fruit of the culturingprocess should be that the dawah carrier has the ability to think inorder to weigh up circumstances – or at least there is a supportiveatmosphere amongst those that carry the dawah to allow views aboutthe repercussions of actions to be formed. If this skill set weredeveloped and interaction were carried in a correct way then the allthe other viewpoints carried in the ummah would soon be demolishedleaving only the Islamic ideology standing – thus unifying theummah on the basis of thought.

The radical approach is not astyle – it can not be compromised if we are to say that we arecarry the dawah in the way of the Muhammad (saw). The styles andmeans of the delivery of the dawah can be dropped or adoptedaccording the the circumstances. This requires thought, soundjudgement and experience. The ability to sense analyse and deliverthe dawah correctly should be developed by every individual engagingin the dawah. If this is not done then ill thought out actions withundesired consequences will occur - or in alternative completehesitation, inactivity and lack of progress. The building of thecorrect process of thinking in the minds of the dawah carriers isessential – so that they can judge situations and develop thecorrect styles to deliver their call without postponement and delay.

The Radical methodology andDawah in the West

Those that live in the west maythink that there is no requirement for the radical approach. Underthe pretext that they live in a different reality to that of the Muslimworld. They may argue that for this reason the dawah can be conducted in a lax fashionand no real challenge is required for winning the minds of thepeople. Pragmatism may seep into the minds as the radical approach isno longer followed.

In truth, fundamentally the dawahin the West is no different to the dawah in the Muslim world. Theconceptual framework is the same. The difference being that societyas a whole is not addressed but only the Muslim segment of society.

The ummah is considered as oneummah, there should be no line drawn for considering the Muslims ofBritain to be different to any others. The thoughts to be addressedwould be the same, the work therefore would be to radically change thethought of the Muslims in the same way as in the Muslim world.

Should those that carry the dawahin the west adopt pragmatic forms of thinking, they would eventuallyrelinquish the ideology. It has been noted that one time soundindividuals that carried the Islamic dawah – due to adoptingpragmatic thinking have begun to engage in western politics.

The intellectual battle lines areclear and the radical thought must be used to challenge and indeedreplace the views adopted by those that knowingly or unknowingly aresupporting views that are built on other than the Islamic ideology.This is regardless of people being happy or upset with this approach.

Summary of Key Points

The Islamic ideology moulds the reality to fit with it, rather than being changed by the reality.

The Ummah wants change yet is confused and requires guidance – the deep thought of the Islamic ideology has not taken firm a hold.

The Ummah must not jump from sensation to action without thought. Rather she needs to think deeply. The dawah must enage the ummah on this intelectual battlefront

This deep thought is based upon the correct Islamic ideological culture that must be delivered by the carriers of the Islamic dawah.

The radical method requires that the reality be changed according to the Islamic thought, so that reality is shaped by Islam.

The pragmatic approach means that no real change can occur rather those adopting this stance will be changed by the reality they find themselves in. If such an approach is deployed there can be no real change.

The khilafah state must use the radical approach in its affairs or face decline and eventual collapse.

The Islamic political party must use the radical approach or it will become irrelevant and another group amongst failed groups.

The non radical approach of individuals must never be allowed to effect the structure of the state or the ideological political party

Whilst following the radical approach, dawah carriers need to understand the consequences of their actions and have the ability to assess situations and deploy the most effective styles and means

Holding back and hesitation in interaction with the ummah must be eliminated.

Those carrying the dawah should possess the excellent adaab and ikhlaq based on the Islam and they have to marry these with the radical approach.

If the radical approach is lost, forgotten about or relinquished – then this is a victory for the enemies of Islam – as the chances of establishing a state built upon Islam are slim if not non existent.

No regard should be given to those that are offended by the thoughts of the Islamic ideology, if they are upset by it, so be it – this is the nature of the Islamic dawah they can take it or leave it.

The the radical methodology is not a style it is part of the method to carry the dawah and as such it can not be dropped like styles or means,

Some may argue that we are being political and dealing with people in a politically shrewd manner. This is fine as long as the radical thought is not hidden from the people and call is not masked to appease those that find it offensive.

Relinquishing the radical approach is more probable in the Western world due the object of change not being the entire society. This would have disastrous consequences in making people that carry dawah pragmatists. This could in extreme circumstances making them leave the dawah and may be even the ideology.

The dawah in the West must still be carried using the radical approach there is no excuse for not doing so.

Hillary Clinton fears Islamic Political Sentiment in Pakistan

2009-10-28T12:10:00.000-07:00

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has embarked on a three day tour of Pakistan that includes a town hall meeting which is claimed to be a “no holds” barred question and answer session at a university in Lahore. The aim of the trip is reported to be amongst other issues to address popular concerns and suspicions about America. Hillary Clinton’s attempt to win over the Pakistani public sentiment- should not be seen as just another way to add American insult to Pakistani injury. It has more meaning than this.

In truth the visit is a desperate attempt at reversing the growing Islamic political sentiment of the people that leads them to understand what the US policy towards them really is – a savagely cruel projection of rapacious colonial power designed to enslave them to serve the American agenda in the region.

Islam expects Muslims to understand events and be aware of the nature other nations. Indeed Prophet Muhammad salAllahu alaihi wasallam said in a hadith, “A Mu’min (believer) cannot be bitten from the same hole twice.” (Agreed upon)

The great scholar and theologian of the 13th century, Yahya bin Sharaf an-Nawawî relates the context of the Hadîth saying:
“…and the context of this narration is well known that the Prophet had captured the poet Abu Ghurrah at the Day of (the Battle of) Badr. So the Prophet gave him amnesty and freed him based on the condition that he would not continue on his hostility and derision. He then caught up with his people and returned to belligerence towards the Muslims and derision against them. Then he was captured on the Day of (the Battle of) Uhud and was asked about the amnesty that was given to him. Upon this the Prophet said, ‘The believer is not stung from the same hole twice.’ From this it is understood that if one were to suffer injury from a particular element, then they should abstain from it lest they should suffer such again.”

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî, who is the leading authority on the interpretation of Bukhârî’s Sahîh, says the following:
“This is presented in the form of a statement. Al-Khatâbî has said: This is a statement in its wording, but a command in its meaning. It means that the believer is resolutely aware, he/she is not taken to apathy (in learning his/her lesson), nor is he/she deceived time and time again. Thus, this is an order in religious matters as well as worldly matters…”

Hillary Clinton is not the first US representative attempting to deceive the people in portraying the US as a friend of the Muslims of Pakistan. It is becoming blatantly clear that it’s the US and its agents in the Pakistani government that are behind the turmoil inflicting Pakistan. No evidence is required to prove that the explosions and insecurity that are now occurring in Pakistan are due to the US presence in the region.

It is also becoming blatantly obvious to the people of Pakistan that they are Muslims and their politics must be Islamic implemented through the Khilafah state. This is now the only viable option- all other options are proven failures. The existing political order has been failing for decades and its incompetence has reached a stage where it has become intolerable. Regardless of attempts by the likes of Hillary Clinton to try to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims of Pakistan – the malicious American agenda is now clearly understood.

Muslims of Pakistan realise that they have no other choice but to establish the Khilafah state that will eject America, its agents and their satanic colonial designs from the region. In their place the Khilafah will establish security and tranquillity for the people.

Allah (swt) says “And whoever seeks a deen other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (aali I’mraan 3:85)

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Can Nationalism Save Pakistan?

2009-07-04T15:42:00.000-07:00

Political ineptitude, greedy politicians selling the interests of people for personal gain, economic instability, daily suicide bombings and foreign inspired militancy have brought Pakistan to the brink of destruction.

Muslims in Pakistan are rightly concerned about the situation. This has led some to call for more assertive Pakistani nationalism to save the country. The question that must be asked is can nationalism save Pakistan? If not what’s the alternative? To address this we need to understand what nationalism is and the implications of following it.

What is Nationalism?

Nationalism is an extension of the family or tribal bond – where the relationship between people is based upon the fact that they are members of a particular tribe or people. This concept has been expanded to entire races and nation states. Arab nationalism which today is largely a spent force dominated the political scene in the countries like Egypt, Syria and Iraq for decades. Today nationalism and patriotism in Pakistan are being aroused because the very existence of Pakistan is under threat.

Some in Pakistan believe by re-asserting Pakistani nationalism and making it the basis of society they can keep Pakistan intact and bring progress in economy, education, societal relationships and even international relations. This belief has to be to be examined.

Can Nationalism Solve the Challenges Facing Pakistan?

What does being a Pakistani, an Arab, a Turk or an American have to say about the issues facing governments and the people? Does nationalism have an answer about how the state should raise funds and how it is allowed to spend them, does it define the rights of the ruler and the rights of ruled, does it provide a framework of how to deal with other nations. When the matter is considered carefully nationalism does not answer any of these questions. Nationalism provides no laws or rules, criteria for right or wrong or a direction for issues facing life.

Muslims are increasingly aware that nationalism has kept Pakistan and the other nations in the Muslim world firmly under the influence of the West. The lack of solutions that deal with the business of state has led politicians to imitate western solutions. The attempts to implement democracy, looking to the UN to solve disputes and enslavement to the IMF are direct results of the vacuum of solutions caused by those that based their politics on nationalism. This is why the well-established political parties in Pakistan have no answers as they take nationalism as one of their root ideas. They are easily manipulated by the outside powers as they are forced to imitate their ideas without any thought.

Nationalism cannot deal with the current crisis facing Pakistan. Empty slogans based within a nationalistic framework like “roti, kapra, makan” ring hollow to the millions displaced in tribal areas. What is required now is for Muslims of Pakistan to get to the root of the problem.

Understanding The Core Problem Facing Pakistan

The root of the problem lies in the politics of Pakistan. Which can be seen to be a complicated cocktail of agendas to serve the ruling elite, the military and foreign powers. The politics in Pakistan is not based upon the Islamic ideology that serves as a compass for politicians to direct their actions by. Indeed Pakistani politics has never been intended to serve the Muslims of Pakistan, to better their lives or to bring progress- rather it is a colonial legacy that serves the foreign powers, the ruling elites and their cronies.

The solution to the problem is to abandon the politics of nationalism, foreign agendas and self-interest, replacing them with the politics of Islam. Until the politics of Pakistan is established on a firm basis as witnessed over the last 62 years there will be little progress and situation will continue to go from bad to worse.

Islam - a Political Ideology.

Islam unlike nationalism answered the questions about dealing with life’s affairs. Not only did it address what the purpose of this life is. It told mankind how to deal with everyday of life. It defined the rights of the woman and the man; it defined the relationship between people in detailed rules of mu’amalat. It defined what the due procedure should be for those accused of crime and the type of sentence if they are found guilty. It defined that the wealth of the natural resources belongs to the Muslims and not the rulers who are there to administer it on behalf of the Muslims.

Above all it defined a political framework in which the Muslims conduct their politics- a framework that would implement the rules revealed by Allah (swt). This framework is the Khilafah ruling system.

In Pakistan the Khilafah state would work to eject the colonialists from the region let alone allow the operation of enemy spy networks and drones that spill the blood of the innocent within its borders. The rulers and the politicians in the Khilafah state will be accountable servants of the people because Islam obliged them to be. The Khilafah state would build infrastructure, schools, hospitals and power stations to allow the people to live a good standard of life.

Above all the rulers and the politicians in the Khilafah would be aware of their identity as Muslims and not behave like today’s empty minded stooges that base their politics around nationalistic slogans and the securing of colonialist and self-interests. Pakistani nationalism will result only in further conflict and misery for the people - only the Islamic Khilafah system can solve the problems for the Muslims in Pakistan. The damage that the concept of nationalism at the hands of Pakistani politicians has inflicted upon Muslims of Pakistan can be witnessed today. Nationalism is a destructive concept and is prohibited by Islam.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “He is not one of us who calls for ‘asabiyyah, (nationalism) or who fights for ‘asabiyyah or who dies for ‘asabiyyah.” Abu Dawood

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Shameless Rulers of Pakistan Beg from Other Nations for Swat

2009-05-22T15:31:00.000-07:00

As a result of the military operation in Swat, innocent civilians living in the area have been forced to flee their homes. To help the so-called “displaced” Yusuf Raza Gilani has set up a “ Prime Minister’s Fund” to collect money to deal with the crisis. He has also shamefully resorted to begging other nations to contribute to help the people forced out. Whilst addressing a conference of donors in Islamabad Mr Gilani said, “Given the magnitude of the task that lies ahead, the government of Pakistan would like to seek the support from the donor community, both for the ongoing relief efforts and for the rebuilding process,"

The Pakistani governments decision to launch military operations in Swat and the neighbouring areas has led to an unparalleled refugee crisis in Pakistan. Reports say that about 1.5 million people have been displaced since the army's latest offensive began on May 2nd.

This disaster in which children have been separated from their parents, where the weak, elderly and ill have been forced out of their villages - has been entirely instigated by those charged with the duty to look after the affairs of such people. It has been caused by the rulers that make the pretence that they are there to serve the people.

Their excuse being that military action was necessary to deal with people trying to destroy Pakistan – people that exploited the vacuum that the government left due to its indifference to the needs of the people of the area.

The displacement crisis is nothing more than a heinous political crime committed by the rulers in Pakistan. Without a doubt a full-scale military onslaught would involve a huge loss of life, property and an exodus of people from the area targeted. No respectable nation in the world would entertain these repercussions before exhausting all other means to address the problem.

The rulers in Pakistan made no allowance for the effect of a military onslaught on the people of the area and are now taking a begging bowl to other nations- many that are belligerent to Islam and Muslims. The rulers’ actions prove the contempt that they hold for the Muslims of Pakistan – treating them like cattle that are to be moved from one pasture to another.

The fate of Muslims in Pakistan does not have to be like this. The current problems facing the people are because the rulers of Pakistan continue to preserve their seats and bow to foreign powers at the expense of the well being of their own people. Even in dealing with a catastrophe of their own making the rulers have no shame in asking for money from the enemies of their people in order to dress the wounds that they have inflicted.

Pakistan is not a country in the need of handouts. It has ample resources - it has plentiful manpower, enough coal to cater for the countries electricity needs for centuries and fertile lands. What Pakistan lacks is leadership. The ruling elite are corrupt to the highest degree and do not work sincerely for the interests of the people. This is not surprising when one examines the credentials and the thoughts held by such individuals - the current ruler of Pakistan is renowned for his corruption.

The only leadership that is suitable for Pakistan is the sincere Islamic leadership of the Khilafah state. A true Islamic leadership that is not primitive and crude in its thinking rather it is sophisticated and understands matters on the basis of Islam.

Many examples of this type leadership can be seen from the history of the Muslims. It is said that during a famine in Madinah in the time of the Khilafah of Umar (ra) that Umar (ra) went pale because he refused to eat fat, butter, and milk, until all the Muslims were able to afford such food. The rulers of Pakistan continue in their lavish lifestyles whilst the Muslims of Swat fester in refugee camps as a consequence of the decisions taken so lightly in Islamabad.

The leadership of the Khilafah state will think carefully about its actions and their consequences on the people. It will not act to please foreign powers rather it will be independent and implement the Islamic Shariah that obliges the rulers to protect the blood, honour and wealth of the people that they are responsible for and prohibits the rulers from harming them. If they have an iota of Iman those responsible for the calamity in Swat should reflect on the words of Rasool Allah (saw).

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said "On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of treachery. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men" [Muslim]

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Understanding & Resolving Differences of Opinion

2009-03-20T11:13:00.000-07:00

Ikhtilaf or difference of opinion between Muslims has existed as long as Islam itself. Whilst it is healthy to have a diversity of views it can also be problematic if differences are not resolved. It is argued that difference of opinion causes sectarianism, partisanship and conflict within societies.

Indeed the enemies of Islam use such differences to “divide and conquer” the Muslim lands. The US invaders in Iraq for example have stoked up sectarian strife in Iraq between Sunnis and Shia’s- so that they could take control of the country.

On the other hand it is argued that difference of opinion that allows nations to have more than a single view held by those in authority and power – this allows accountability, different angles about problems, policies and actions – this is a strength a nation possesses, if managed correctly.

Many view that uniting the Muslims on a single view is an impossible task. They see different opinions held by various schools of thinking, ulema and their followers and groups to be too deep-rooted to be overcome. They feel that followers of different opinions will never accept each another’s differences over fiqh or other matters.

It is such understandings that often leave some confused, despondent and apathetic about bringing unity for the Muslims by re-establishing the Khilafah. In this article we seek to examine the issues surrounding difference of opinion and how they will be resolved under the leadership of the Khilafah state.

What is a legitimate Difference of Opinion?

If an individual holds an opinion that a woman can wear western clothing and dress as she pleases in public, or that democracy is a valid form of government, or that acceptance of the state of Israel is permissible- then all these opinions are rejected as valid opinions because there is no basis for them from Islam- rather they are built on other than an Islamic basis.

Muslims are increasingly aware that the opinions held about such matters have to be based upon Islam and they therefore have to have Shari evidences to be acceptable. If these opinions are not based upon Quran, Sunnah, Ijma of the Sahaba, Qiyas or principles deduced on the basis of these – then the opinions cannot be accepted by Muslims.

Indeed Allah (swt) mentioned in the Quran “But no, by your lord they can have no Iman, until they make you the judge in all disputes between them” TMQ An-Nisa: 65

“And if you differ in anything amongst your selves refer it to Allah and His Messenger” TMQ An-Nisa: 59

If an opinion is based upon Islamic text then Muslims can accept it. If the opinion is based upon an individuals mind, whim or desire then it is not allowed to accept it.

Some may question about differences in opinion in technical or political matters. For example what is the best location for a highway, school or hospital? These matters are left to those that possess specialist technical knowledge to provide informed recommendations and judgements. This is because on the basis of textual evidences the building of highways, schools and hospitals is permitted. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of those in ruling or in those in charge of a project to decide where the highway, school or hospital is to be built. The location is to be decided to serve the purpose and this is permitted in shariah.

As long as an opinion is based upon daleel (evidence) from Islam then Muslims should accept this is as an Islamic opinion, even if they do not follow it themselves. This is where the differences between the scholars of Islam occurred. Their view regarding the opinion that they deduced to the best of their ability, was that they were correct with the possibility they could be wrong as differences of opinion can only arise where the Islamic rule is not clear cut – therefore a possibility of error exists.

Indeed the Prophet (saw) said, “Whosoever does Ijtihad and errs therein shall have one reward. And whosoever performs Ijtihad and is correct shall have a double reward.” (Bukhari & Muslim)

Resolving the Differences of Opinion

It is well known that individual sahaba had differences of opinion. An example of such a difference is between Abu Bakr Sadiq (RA) and Umar (RA). When Abu Bakr (ra) was the Khalifah, he paid equal grants to all the Sahabah (raa). He (ra) did not distinguish between the early Muslims and the new Muslims. When the Islamic State started receiving larger funds through the liberation of various lands, Abu Bakr (ra) continued to distribute the wealth equally. Umar (ra) and some of the Sahabah (raa) insisted that the earliest Muslims should be given preference over the later converts. Abu Bakr (ra) told him that he was aware of the differences that Umar (ra) had mentioned; however, his opinion was that distributing the funds equally was better in the sight of Allah (swt) than the principle of preference.

When Umar (ra) became Khalifah, he replaced Abu Bakr’s (ra) adoption of equality with his principle of preference. Umar (ra) did not like to pay the same amount to those who fought against the Prophet (saaw) and those who fought with him. Accordingly, he gave a larger amount to the early Sahabah (raa) who fought in Badr and Uhud and the relatives of the Prophet (saaw).

When Abu Bakr (ra) was the Khalifah, Umar (ra) left his understanding and enacted the decree of Abu Bakr (ra), as did the judges, governors, and all Muslims. However, when Umar (ra) became the Khalifah, he obliged the enactment of his opinion and the others implemented it. On the basis of this the following shari principles have been deduced.

“The Imam’s decree settles the disagreement”

“The Imam’s decree is executed openly and privately”

All Muslims including the scholars, have to follow the opinion adopted by the Khalifah. They do not have accept it as the correct opinion and can maintain their opinion and teach it, whilst their obedience should be to the opinion that the Khalifah adopts.

Due to the level of understanding and the presence of many foreign forms of thinking leading to non Islamic opinions in Muslim societies – when the Khilafah state is established it will need to immediately present a constitution based upon daleel (evidence) on the basis of the Islamic sources. This will allow the Islamic opinions adopted by the state to be made clear to the citizens in a rapid manner. Citizens would be obliged to follow the constitution because this would be what the Khalifah adopts and the Muslims would be obliged to follow it. Even if some differed with the rules; as long as the rules were Islamic they would be obliged to follow.

In conclusion, Muslims can only accept opinions that are based upon Islamic evidences. All other opinions cannot be taken, Differences of opinion amongst Muslims have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. The correct framework to handle them is through the Khilafah state - as any other route will merely lead to confusion, conflict, anarchy and chaos. The Khalifah has the right to adopt rules and opinions on the basis of Islam; initially this will be by adopting a constitution to cover all aspects of life’s affairs - Muslims would be obliged to follow even if it differed with their understanding.

Bush Used Bombs Against the Muslim Ummah – Obama will use “Smart Power”

2009-02-05T04:30:00.000-08:00

As George W Bush leaves office - Barack Obama and his team have been busily preparing to take power in America. Not satisfied with the effectiveness of Bush’s murderous blood letting of Muslims, that included the industrialised slaughter of more than a million Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama and his team have been devising more effective ways to tackle Islam and Muslims. The approach taken by Bush in his “war against terror” is considered a failure by the new US administration.

In an address to the US Senate Hilary Clinton the new US Secretary of State said, “We must use what has been called smart power – the full range of tools at our disposal. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.”
In the New York Times it was reported that Hilary Clinton described smart power as “It means using all the levers of influence — diplomatic, economic, military, legal, political and cultural — to get what you want.”

The US will try to repair the damage done to its reputation and its foreign policy effectiveness by employing new tactics. Muslims today are aware that the US is a colonialist power and its foreign policy objectives will never change. The British and other colonialist nations before them employed the same change in tactics when military power and killing failed. British foreign Secretary David Milliband said whilst on trip to India that the West “could not kill [their] way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife” and suggested that the West needs to use more than military means.

This shift in tactics from military colonialism to political, cultural and economic colonialism is nothing new to the US and her colonialist cronies. They still aim to exploit weaker nations for the benefit of their corporations and the capitalists behind them. They have a long history of using agent rulers and corrupting the politics of the Muslim world. Culturally, the West has used the media to carry its viewpoint about life and has exported its ideas to the Muslim world. Economically, even the rich Gulf States are tied to the dollar and the international financial institutions that allow the West to exert its influence over them. The US knows that she can never subdue the Muslim World by military means alone and therefore seeks to use all the means at disposal.

The reason why the West can try to continue to exploit the Muslim Ummah is because the rulers of the Muslim countries allow them to do so. They could quite easily expose the plans of the Kuffar against the Muslims and thwart them. This is regardless of the US using military power or “Smart Power”. The rulers in the Muslim lands fail to do their duty.

It is only the leadership of the Khilafah state that will allow the liberation of the lands of the Muslims from military, political, cultural and economic chains imposed upon her by the West and its agents. Indeed Muhammad (saw) told us that the Khalifah is the shield of the Ummah- a shield that has been removed resulting in the blows being dealt to the Ummah. Whilst these rulers are in place, the West will continue to exploit the Muslims – the terms may change from “shock and awe” to “smart power”. One thing that remains constant is the treachery of the rulers of the Muslims.

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said "On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of treachery. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men" [Muslim]

Forming the Islamic Political Angle

2008-12-14T06:00:00.000-08:00

Throughout the Muslim world, there is a reawakening of political thought based upon Islam. Many Muslims having realised that Islam is not just about rituals and religious rites are increasingly following events and occurrences and trying to view issues from the Islamic perspective. The thinking of years gone by, where Muslims would view the politics and occurrences in the world – from the angle of Western capitalism are fast fading. The battle for Muslim hearts and minds that some Western politicians talk about is about reversing the increasing trend for Muslims to view issues on the basis of Islam. The desire of the west is that Muslims form their thinking on the false and rotten basis that the West would like Muslims to embrace.

In order to further refine this reawakening of Islamic political thought – Muslims today need to have a more precise understanding of politics and Islam. Muslims must understand that Islam provides a special angle for them when viewing events in the world and without it their politics will be weak and ineffective- even if they understood the realities of events and occurrences well.

Building Politicians

An effective politician has to have clear thinking about what his politics are about. This means that he has to develop an angle on the basis of which he views events and occurrences. If he does not possess this angle then he would be confused in a fog of often-conflicting situations, events and occurrences. He would be become ineffective in achieving his aims and his politics would be chaotic and contradictory.

In the Western world, kafir politicians have a very precise angle with which to view events and occurrences. They view it from the basis of capitalism and its fundamental ideas like secularism, democratic principles, the notion of freedoms and pursuing ones interests. When they engage in politics they understand that the nations foreign policy is about securing the national interest. They understand how to view other nations and what to seek in any relationship from them. Domestically they are aware of what the meaning of the state’s responsibility in looking after the affairs of the people is. They have ideas about how individuals should live their life, what the rights of people should be. They are aware of their ideology and embrace it and view the world through the framework laid down by it.

They also develop political concepts as they engage in political life gaining experience- through the political traditions in their countries. They learn self-preservation, duplicity, spin, justification and lying to cover their tracks when they are involved in potentially scandalous activities. They learn that the way to judge an issue is not about right and wrong rather it’s about how it meets with their interests; they pick up the ability to use incidents to their advantage and the disadvantage of others. They understand that there is a public face that they must portray a certain image in public regardless of what they truly feel and think. They learn that in their politics it’s the law of the jungle and a person may be a friend on one day and an enemy on the next. It is in this way that the western politician develops an angle about how to view events and occurrences- and what political actions he feels are important to him and his country.

Islam condemns most of the characteristics that are acquired by western politicians. As well as condemning the basis used by them to form an angle on the basis of which to engage in politics. Islam seeks to build politicians on the basis of the values of its unique principles and values. Instead of selfishness for example, Islam builds selflessness, instead of using dirty tactics to achieve an agenda Islam encourages truthfulness and frankness. Islam teaches that what a Muslim wants for himself he wants for his brother- the West predominantly teaches that individual interests come first before those of all others.

For the Muslims, politicians carrying the Islamic viewpoint almost disappeared during the decline of the Uthmani Khilafah. The colonialist enemies of Islam succeeded in poisoning the political thinking of the Muslims and distorting their political angle. They introduced and inflamed many alien political thoughts – like nationalism where Muslims from Arabia started viewing themselves distinctly from Muslims from Istanbul. After the Islamic state was destroyed in 1924 - politics in the Muslim Lands became dominated by socialistic or capitalistic ideas. The politicians and the political movements that worked within the state structures that replaced the rule of Islam became totally ineffective and were merely used as tools. Their political angle was devoid of Islam and as can be witnessed today is only fundamentally concerned with their remaining in power.

A list of such people involved in politics in the Muslim lands in the past century includes– Mustafa Kamal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Jamal Abdul Nasser, Anwar Sadat, King Hussein of Jordan, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussain, Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Musharaff and Benazir Bhutto. All of these individuals were very far from the politics of Islam and all served the interest of Western powers rather than their own people. Those that wanted to build their nations tried to do so on a weak political basis – the likes of Jamal Abdul Nasser had the weak basis of Arab Nationalism upon which to base his politics.

All engaged in a political system that was installed by the West and built upon Western concepts. For this reason it was not possible that anyone from within government or parties working within the system bring any good for the Muslims. The colonialists appreciate that as long as the angle held by politicians of the Muslim world is corrupted they can carry on with exploiting their lands.

It is for this reason that a band of Muslims began to culture themselves about Islam as an ideology and a way of life so that once again there would exist a political block amongst the Muslims that would allow the decline of the Ummah to be reversed.

The fruits of this study of the Islamic culture can be seen far and wide throughout the Muslim world and beyond. However as the Khilafah state has not yet been established- true political experience is lacking. For Muslims politics is about accounting the state when not in power and practically looking after the affairs of the ummah domestically and internationally when in ruling. In the absence of the state the most important and vital political work is that to establish a the Khilafah state- for Muslims to engage in any other type of political activity, through the existing government structures or to attempt to secure every immediate interest that ummah faces would be a distraction from the vital political issue- the re-establishment of the Khilafah state.

The Special Angle

When engaging in politics the Muslim must understand his viewpoint and his angle correctly. If he does not then it is possible for others to manipulate him for their agenda. If the angle and the viewpoint are not clear in the mind then this may lead the individual have weak political will that may lead him to abandon his aims.

The angle for politics that is taken on the basis of Islam is distinct and unique and therefore it may be described as the special angle. The special angle will act like a compass for the Muslim politician that will lead him to the correct political action and steer him in the correct direction.

The special angle from which Muslims should view events is not based upon their whims or desires rather it comes from their aqeeda. From the Islamic texts it is well established that Islam came to mankind as a deen and the angle of la-illa-ha-il- Allah is the prism from which all events must be seen. This means that the hukm shari rules and the understanding of the Islamic ideology are the lens through which the Muslim politician views occurrences.

The special angle of a Muslim towards events, occurrences and the issues faced in life must be built upon Islam and its rulings. It should not be built upon factors such as benefit or utility as is the case for the capitalists. This would corrupt the politics of that individual, movement or indeed the state. Understanding the why, where and the agendas of different political actors is not enough to engage politics effectively.

Forming the Islamic Political Angle

In normal circumstances for Muslims to form the special angle would be a simple matter. If Islam was implemented in state and society the concepts of the Islamic ideology would be well established in society and therefore in the individuals. The unfortunate situation that Muslim societies face today, where societies are based upon a jumble of ideas rather than having Islam as the basis of society leads to a corruption in the angle held by politicians.

Politics is often defined as looking after the affairs of the people – meaning that politicians act to address how the problems, needs and wants of the people might be met. In this age the Muslim Ummah faces many issues- in the Muslim world there is military, political and cultural occupation, hunger, starvation, inadequate opportunities for education and health care systems that do not work even for those that can afford to pay. Considering this is the condition of many Muslims around the globe – it would be only natural for individuals to try to address these issues

Many of those that start off sincerely trying to improve the situation of the people but often end up becoming corrupt and tools of the ruler in the Muslim world today. In some places in the muslim world trying to do something for the people is outlawed, often carrying punishments of imprisonment and torture as this type of activity, talk or even thought is seen to be a threat to the existing regime. In these circumstances many political movements have come and gone, or have been transformed to become something that is very far from the vision of their founders.

Before Muslims embark on an attempt to bring change or address the needs of the people, they need to form a very clear angle on the basis of which they will engage their work upon.

The Islamic Political Angle must be based Upon the Islamic Ideology.

The Islamic ideology is the basis upon which a Muslim conducts his life – and this applies to the politics he engages in. Therefore his political angle must be built upon Islam and the correct ideological understandings of what Islam is. He must view the realities and occurrences from this basis.

For example if some Muslims were to claim that power sharing in the existing regimes was the way to implement Islam, and they were to demonstrate in reality that they have indeed been successful in applying parts of Islam. He would reject their call on the basis of understanding the Islamic ideology, as there cannot be any partial implementation of Islam and co-existence of the system of Islam with the system of kufr. This would be a fundamental understanding of the Islamic ideology, which would allow the Muslim politician to form the correct angle about the issue.

Similarly if others were to claim that democracy is the way to bring good for the Muslims – he would reject their call as democracy is kufr and is contrary to the Islamic belief.

Some claim that the Khilafah is a distant reality and not likely to be established soon; in the meantime let us work for some immediate aims like helping individuals in the locality. If the angle was based upon the Islamic ideology – the individual would understand that whilst helping individuals in his community is an act of charity and is an action that Allah (swt) will reward for – but if his angle were correctly formed, it would tell him that his actions towards re-establishing Khilafah were more of a priority. He would give no consideration to the thinking Khilafah was a long way from establishment or not. In this way the correct understanding of the Islamic ideology is indispensable in forming the correct political angle.

If the fundamental understandings of the Islamic ideology are weakly held in the minds of those that seek to bring political change then, it is easy for them to be diverted and even abandon their political call. Therefore those that are interested in bringing political change must be very diligent in culturing themselves with the Islamic ideology otherwise they may stumble at the first hurdle. The political angle of a Muslim politician must always remain anchored to the Islamic ideology and he must never deviate away from this. The Muslim must first develop his sight i.e. his concepts with which to see, then he must develop his understanding of the world around him, events and incidences and then he must undertake his political actions- which today must be centred around reviving the ummah and re-establishing the Khilafah.

Only Khilafah not SOFA will end Iraq’s Misery

2008-12-13T16:06:00.000-08:00

On the 27th of November 2008, whilst the world’s media focussed it’s attention on the attacks in Mumbai - the Iraqi puppet government of Nouri Maliki signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the US. Some believe that the signing of this agreement is a victory for the Muslims of Iraq – spelling a defeat for the US and its crony Britain and an eventual end to the occupation.

According to the agreement the US will have to withdraw 150,000 troops from all cities, towns and villages by June 30, 2009 and from all of Iraq by December 31, 2011. Additionally, the Iraqi government is taking responsibility for military affairs in Baghdad’s Green Zone. So-called private security contractors (mercenaries) will lose their legal immunity. US military operations and the arrest of Iraqis will only be allowed after seeking Iraqi permission. The agreement states no US military bases are to be left behind when the last US troops leave in three years time.

Whether or not the US actually implements what it has signed up to remains to be seen. Whatever the form of government the US leaves in place - one thing is certain it will not be to serve the interests of the Muslims of Iraq. Rather the government will be riddled with individuals that are working for the US interests.

Due to the US no longer being able to sustain an indefinite occupation Iraq it will have to think again about how it will plunder the natural resources of Iraq. Addressing the issue of the Middle East at a conference Robert Gates the US secretary of Defence said, "I can assure you that a change in administration does not alter our fundamental interests, especially in the Middle East"

The occupation of Iraq has opened the eyes of Muslims both in Iraq and elsewhere. It has highlighted that the various forms of government in the Muslim world are politically corrupt and unsuitable for actually looking after the affairs of people. Kingships, Islamic republics and dictatorships are not natural forms of government for Muslims. The fact of the matter is that instead of doing what any legitimate government should do – i.e. look after the needs of their people – those in government in the Muslim world are too busy trying to enrich themselves and the colonialists that prop up their seats of power.

The Western world has shown clearly that it and its ideology has failed to look after the affairs of the people properly. They have created an evil form government that cares nothing for other people’s blood and honour as we have witnessed in Iraq. They have created societies with huge economic difficulties as can be witnessed in the US and Britain after the “credit crunch” - where millions are in debt and risk losing their homes. More and more Muslims are no longer looking to the West for guidance on how to run the affairs of society. Arab nationalism failed in Iraq and led to a weak leadership that allowed the US to occupy Iraq.

The Muslims of Iraq and the rest of the world have no choice. They must implement the Khilafah ruling system- this is their system, that presents their deen. Baghdad was once the seat of the Khilafah and after occupation and turmoil needs Islam to be implemented once again. There is no choice for Muslims as to what type of ruling system to have.

Allah (swt) said, “Indeed, ruling belongs to Allah” [TMQ 12:40]

And our beloved Muhammad (saw) said “The prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophet after me. There will soon be Khulafa’a and they will number many.” They asked ‘what then do you order us?’ He said “ Fulfil the Bay’ah to them one after the other and give them their dues for Allah will verily account them about what he entrusted them with.” [Muslim]

The SOFA agreement will not bring an end to the misery and suffering of the Muslims of Iraq- nor will the puppet regime that will be installed by the US if it leaves Iraq as agreed. It is only the Khilafah that can return society to peace and tranquillity by implementing Islam.

Afghanistan Needs a Khalif not an 'Acceptable Dictator'

2008-10-05T08:10:00.000-07:00

The British Ambassador to Afghanistan Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles has been reported as saying that it would be “a positive thing” if in five to ten years time “an acceptable dictator” could be found to run Afghanistan.

After years of rhetoric by the likes of Bush and Blair that Britain and the US want to spread democracy to benefit the Muslim world – this statement by Cowper-Coles should convince those to whom it still has not dawned that the Western Powers only seek to gain influence and resources for themselves. It is glaringly obvious that there is a game of nations being played out in Afghanistan due to its strategic location.

The tragedy is that some Muslims still believe that only the Western Powers can help them run the affairs of state. The truth of the matter is that the Western powers will hoodwink them and play upon this insecure mentality- in order to gain advantage for themselves. One only needs to look at the fate of Musharraf and the damage that he has done to the Muslims of Pakistan to see what the fruits of cooperation with kafir colonialist are.

The words of Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles show that far from giving the Muslims of Afghanistan democracy, which has failed under the stooge Hamid Karzai – the West seeks a tyrant that will oppress the Muslims of Afghanistan and secure the interests of the British and their kind.

Muslims do not have to look far to find a solution to their political problems.

“Surely, in the Messenger of Allah, is the best example for those who believe in Allah and the Last day and remember Allah often” TMQ 33.21

Our beloved prophet (saw) left the Muslims an example of how to rule. It is not by democracy or by dictatorship – rather it is by the rule of Islam and the Khilafah. A system that was implemented for 1342 years and un-rivalled in history in its success.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Russia’s Rulers Have the Will to Act- Muslim Rulers Have None.

2008-08-25T11:20:00.000-07:00

The duty of a head of state or ruler is to look after the affairs and interests of the nation. It is the purpose of ruling- to practically apply solutions to issues faced by the people both domestically and internationally.

In recent weeks the rulers of Russia sent their military to Georgia - to send out a message that they will not tolerate foreign interference in countries that are strategically important to them. It is apparent that Russian Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev view Georgia to be nation that must be firmly under Russian influence- if not control. For this reason they have acted to achieve Russia’s interests.

Being well aware of the American plan to besiege it- the Russian leadership had a will to act. They saw that their national interests were being threatened – so they saw it as their duty to take action.

One has to ask the question when was the last time that rulers in the Muslim world acted for Islam on the international arena? It is unfortunate that whilst Allah (SWT) has blessed the Muslim Ummah with hidayaa in the form of kitaab and sunnah - the rulers in the Muslim countries choose not to view events and occurrences in the world on the basis of this guidance. The rulers of Turkey and Pakistan sometimes act to protect their borders – but this is based upon nationalism. Others may raise issues internationally but these are usually mere gestures to give the impression that they are acting to do something.

The rulers in the Muslim world view Islam as not have anything to do with politics. What Muslims want today are rulers that view issues on the basis of Islam. Is the occupation of lands, oppression and killing of the Muslims not an important political issue in the sight of Islam? Is the increase in food prices that leads Muslims to desperation and poverty not an important issue on the basis of Islam? Is the corruption of the Muslim youth by satellite channels and other forms of media that promote vile Western behaviour not something that ought be stopped?

The truth of the matter is that – because the rulers in the Muslim lands do not follow the Islamic ideology- they whatever their initial intentions, become politically weak and corrupt. Rather than following Islam, their priority becomes preservation of their positions of power, authority and lavish lifestyles- for this they are prepared sacrifice the interests of their people.

To keep their seats rulers in the Muslim lands will go to great lengths to silence the Islamic political voices that oppose them and their colonial patrons- it is not uncommon for such dissent to be met with imprisonment, torture and the spilling of blood. They spare no expense in equipping their intelligence agencies to persecute the believers, so that they may continue to rule. At the same time they submit to the will of other nations. Instead of working for Islam and the Muslim Ummah they assist their enemies to occupy her lands. The US and Britain could not have occupied Iraq and Afghanistan without the assistance of these tyrants.

Muslims are increasingly aware that it is the Islamic ideology that shows them how to view their interests and that their rulers are totally impotent when it comes to addressing these.

The rulers are the reason the Ummah continues to find itself in a declined situation. To break the shackles of this misery the Muslims need to make their voices heard and call for the establishment of the Khilafah. This is so that the Muslims as an ummah can have a leadership that is prepared to pursue and protect its interests- defined on the basis of Islam. The Khalifah will not be like the current rulers- sitting in opulent palaces and mansions - only concerned with engaging in the politics of self-preservation.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Thank You For Your Services General Musharraf

2008-08-19T09:20:00.000-07:00

In an interview with Fox News, when asked about the possibility of granting General Musharraf asylum in the USA, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice made the statement.

“This is an issue that is not on the table, and I just want to keep our focus on what we must do with the democratic government of Pakistan.”

After his unstinting support for US policy in Pakistan, now that Musharraf’s usefulness to the US has ended – the US is making it clear that it owes him no favours. It seems that the future of General Musharaff is not even on the table to be discussed as far as Condoleeza Rice is concerned.

Musharraf has served the US as a loyal hound – by amongst other things, letting the Americans use Pakistani air space and bases to attack Afghanistan, permitting the establishment of FBI offices in every major city and giving the green light for the US to bomb and kill Pakistani citizens.

No one yet knows what the fate of Musharraf will be, as he is said to have sought immunity from future legal action before being ousted from office. If history is anything to go by it will not be a very pleasant for the General.

The new leaders of “democratic” Pakistan ought to learn a lesson from this. The colonialists like Britain and America will only support them as long they work to secure their colonial designs for Pakistan and the region. Once they have served their purpose they too will be disposed of and forgotten.

Pakistan has been plagued with rulers that bend to the will of other nations, instead of looking after the needs of their people. It is the current political set up that ensures that there is always an alternative ruler for the likes of the USA to use to further her aims. This will continue until the current political system is uprooted completely and replaced.

The yo-yoing between military and “democratic” rule has left Pakistani society in tatters and the people in misery. The only escape from this is to bring Islam to all of life’s affairs- by establishing the Khilafah State as the political system.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

The Leadership of The World Belongs to the Khilafah

2008-07-17T01:37:00.000-07:00

“Say, O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah.” [Al- A’raf, 7:158]

Allah (swt) sent our beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) with a message, to take man from the darkness of falsehood to the light of truth. The Prophet (saw) was sent with this message to rescue mankind from false and ill founded beliefs and to shape the behavior of man on the basis of revelation from Allah (SWT).

The message of Islam was not to be restricted to one nation or tribe, or to one geographic location rather it was a universal message. Today, the message of Islam does not present itself as a way of life. Activities like trade, settling of disputes and the relationships between the Muslim Ummah and the rest of the mankind are no longer based upon this call.

The world finds itself under the dark shadow of Western civilisation that has inflicted it with the incorrect belief of secularism and its bitter fruit colonialism. In this era the Western ideology goes unchallenged in the world. This is because the alternative- Islam was wiped from in the international stage in 1924 when the Khilafah was demolished. Leaving mankind to be led by the colonialist nations along with the now defunct Communist Russia.

Humanity has suffered in the absence of the Khilafah state. There is no state in the world that values the welfare of mankind in the way that Islam obliged the Khilafah state to. The Khilafah state will invite all people to enjoy the protection Islamic Shariah, regardless of their wealth or poverty or the colour of their skin. The leadership of the world rightfully belongs to Islam; it is unfortunate that the Western nations have been successful in deceiving the world that they are deserving of the leadership of mankind. The track record of Western leadership in the world needs to be judged.

The West and their Relationship with Other Nations

The leading nation in the world today is America. The values that drive it have been demonstrated all too vividly to the world in the last few years. The US has committed atrocities against mankind from its very creation. It is a nation that was founded upon the brutal genocide of millions of Native Americans (Red Indians). The agenda of the US has never been to aid mankind even though she likes to delude herself that this is what she seeks. The overriding principle of those in power in the US is not humanitarian; rather it is to see how they can exploit weaker nations to enrich American corporations and capitalists.

The US maintains dominance in the world as a hyper power, by spending billions on arms so that no one can challenge her interests. She has brought misery, chaos and destruction to every corner of the world. US values have been exported to Iraq by way of a military invasion, under the guise of spreading freedom and democracy. In Iraq the spawn of American beliefs and values has resulted in over a million civilians killed, the destruction of every type of infrastructure that is required to sustain life, starvation, death by cancers caused by depleted uranium and young girls being forced into prostitution. The politics of the country has been handed to American stooges, who are prepared to sell Iraqi resources to whoever pays the most commission. Allowing western corporations to exploit the resources Allah (SWT) has bestowed to the Muslims of that land.

The US is not alone in possessing blood thirsty greed. In the past the leadership of the world was in the hands of Britain. Britain is now a secondary colonialist power as it cannot compete with America but still vies to be influential. The British are no different to the Americans when they deal with other nations in the world and are more experienced.

They too seek to enrich their capitalist classes. Their early colonialists were funded by the wealthy British capitalists often monarchs, aristocrats, lords, dukes and the land owning classes. Their aim was to bring riches back to for these investors. The East India Company is an example of such an enterprise. It fought to secure the interests of the British capitalists. They gained control of Bengal after defeating Siraj Ud Daulah in 1757 at the battle of Plassey. Having gained control of Bengal Britain was responsible for allowing a famine to kill 10 million people in 1770. This was caused by policies that firstly increased taxes on land in a famine year and secondly by a policy that stopped traders “hoarding” foods which in truth meant holding reserves in case of famine. Then just as today, this was due to it putting the interests of its capitalist stakeholders first. The seeking of profits was put over and above the lives of millions. The East India Company was also responsible for exporting opium to China, where people were deliberately introduced to narcotics so that British investors could make profits at the price of their misery.

It can be seen that whilst nations like the US and Britain claim that they are spreading values that all mankind should aspire to. They in fact are only interested in taking advantage of weaker nations. They only export their way of doing things to weaker nations so that it makes it easier to achieve their aims- by having like minded individuals in the nation being exploited. When they claim that they want to educate other nations with skills, this is usually a form of cultural colonialism. Individuals are invited to the West and are taught to revere and incline towards the western way of life. They are then sent back to their lands where they serve the interests of corporations or the government of the country that educated them. As an example British Council facilitates such programs in many third world countries.

Western nations believe that the seeking of wealth is a primary motivation in life. Secularism leads them to believe that it is acceptable to attain wealth in anyway possible as long as they can get away with it. It is only the practical problems linked with taking what they want by brute force that makes them behave in other ways. The US has learnt from Iraq that it is easier and probably less costly in terms of men, materials and money to control a puppet ruler than to take a country by force for its oil. This is why it is likely that there will be a shift in US foreign policy away from such tactics.

The seeking of wealth and resources is the motivation that has driven these colonialist nations to cross the seas- not the seeking of good for mankind. Some may argue that the unprecedented level of technology that is available in this age is a benefit brought by Western nations to mankind. The truth of the matter is that wherever the West seeks to spread technology to other nations it seeks to monopolise markets for this technology. The spread of technology fulfils the materialistic designs of the Western powers. The developers of the technology need to have markets for its use- the motivation in exporting and spreading this technology is profit, to be made by Western corporations.

The Western nations do not deserve of the leadership of mankind because they hold an unfounded belief, secularism on the basis of which they have brought misery, turmoil and injustice to nations across the globe. Some may place hope in other nations France, Russia or China to rescue the world from the tyranny of this leadership by the US. The truth is that these nations too, only care about securing their national interest and they too would exploit weaker nations.

The Khilafah State and its Relationship with Other Nations

The Khilafah state is a state based upon the Islamic aqeeda. Unlike the Western nations it is driven by the principles and values that are based upon revelation from the Allah (swt). The Islamic State must abide by the values that Shariah has laid down. The statesmen in the Khilafah state will be conscious of the fact that they will be held to account for how they conduct the affairs of state on the Day of Judgment. They would follow the ahkam laid down by the shariah, rather than the pursuing the interests of the influential and wealthy in the society.

In contrast the Western nations are driven by raw ruthless greed that drives them to spill blood, corrupt, deceive and lie to achieve their aims. The aim of enriching various cliques in their nations is driven by their belief that they do not know or care about what happens after this life. Their secular creed teaches them that they must to acquire wealth and material so that they can indulge themselves in this life.

The relationship of the Khilafah state with other nations will be based upon sharing the Islamic shariah with them, so that they too can lift themselves from the misery of false creeds, ways of living and the tyranny of the rich and powerful amongst them. This is because Islam was sent to look after the affairs of all of mankind and is not to be confined to any one set of people. The relationship of the Muslims with other nations is not based upon using other nations for their benefit. Rather it is based upon the fact that the Muslims as a state are obliged by Allah (SWT) to share Islam with the rest of mankind. This is their sole aim when establishing relationships with other nations. The Khilafah state would help mankind to liberate itself from the forced misery they have to endure at the hands of the colonialist nations. The Khilafah would not allow millions to starve or die so that corporations could make money. The Islamic Shariah does not permit Muslims to deceive and cheat people in order to take their wealth and resources.

Muslims are becoming increasingly aware that the leadership of the world truly belongs to Islam. This leadership cannot present itself in reality until the Muslims establish the Khilafah in their lands. Muslims must establish a state with the Islamic aqeeda as the source of every law and action. Until that time, the world will continue to suffer under the misery of Western exploitation. It is only when the Khilafah is established, that the Islamic leadership can be presented to the world. Muslims must work and continually call for the Khilafah until it is established and colonial tyranny is relegated to its rightful position.

Iran, Nuclear Weapons and Western Hypocrisy

2007-12-05T13:21:00.000-08:00

Over the past few years America, Britain, France and others have raised many concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme. They have argued that, although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is for purely civilian purposes, it has the potential to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear bomb. This they claim is a threat to them and the region. In their view Iran simply cannot be trusted and should be stopped before it is too late.

To many Muslims these objections are seen as hypocrisy by the colonialist nations. They see that the western countries continue to develop their nuclear weapons arsenals whilst on the other hand they see that other countries are stopped from doing so. The US spent a staggering $6.5 billion in 2004 on nuclear weapons, with Bush applying for a further $30 billion over the next 4 years.

In the absence of any real leadership in the Muslim World, some Muslims harbour a hope that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. They hope that this will some how allow Iran to help Muslims around the world and stand up to colonial hegemony.

The Nature of Western Nations

The world today is dominated by nations that adhere to the capitalist ideology, which drives them to exploit weaker nations. The capitalist nations seek to take resources from others in order to enrich their capitalist elites. They rely on political manipulation of other nations, having superiority in technology and a strong well equipped military.

Colin Powell, who portrays himself to be more reasonable than the American Neo-Cons, once said in relation to US military strength and strategic objectives that “I want to be the bully on the block.” This was when he was the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman in the US military. The West uses its military strength to keep other nations from developing and to keep them open to exploitation.

They actively prevent other nations from developing the infrastructure to develop technology, by sponsoring corrupt ruling elites and poisoning the political climate in such countries. The elites in these countries serve only Western interests and not those of their people. Musharraf for instance, a western backed ruler has brought turmoil to his country. He has been responsible for creating political havoc in Pakistan and has made it impossible for that country to stand on its own two feet.

Western Powers Rely on Military force

The American President Theodore Roosevelt once said “Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far". In the context of international relations ‘Big stick diplomacy’ means that the US has to have a strong miltary to threaten other nations in order to secure favourable terms for itself and the interests that it represents. The British also have a term “gunboat diplomacy” for the actual or threatened use of miltary force to achieve what they want. The US policy of ‘Shock and Awe’ during its attack on Iraq, shows that Western Powers see military force as a vital tool for them the extend their domination over other countries. A nuclear weapon is the ultimate ‘big stick’- it can be used to threaten other nations with total destruction.

The US made its case clear to the world by anhilating the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is for this reason that the colonial nations seek to prevent wherever possible other nations acquiring nuclear weapons. Once a nation has its own nuclear weapons it can no longer be held to ransom by the colonialist nations as it has a nuclear detterent.

The Nuclear Club

Muslims are increasingly aware that international law and institutions are tools in the hands of a few nations that seek to achieve their own agendas. In 1968 the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty (NPT) was enacted. Only four countries in the world are not signatories to the NPT- Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea. This treaty defined the US, Britain, France, Russia and China – countries that had tested a nuclear weapon before the 1st of January 1967 as Nuclear Weapons States (NWS). The non-proliferation treaty means that most of the nations in the world are not allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, leaving only the colonialists and a handful of countries to form a club with nuclear weapons.

Under the Non Proliferation Treaty the Nuclear Weapons States are not allowed share technology or sell a nuclear device to any other nation. The NPT also stated that all nations should be committed to disarmament and that they should be allowed to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Clearly, the colonialist powers have no intention of disarming and even try to stop nations like Iran from pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Britain is upgrading its Trident nuclear weapons so that they can strike at targets that they are not capable of reaching at the moment. This is an example of how Western Nations manipulate international law to maintain their rank in the world and in turn the share of the spoils from the exploitation of weaker countries.

The Case of Iran

Is Iran trying to build a nuclear bomb? Many Muslims harbour the hope in their hearts that they are. This is because the Muslims today are yearning for a leadership that will protect them from the threats, savage attacks and the misery inflicted upon them by the kafir colonialists and their installed puppet rulers.

The fact of the matter is that Iran is a very long way from producing weapons grade nuclear material. Iran’s enrichment programme produces uranium below five percent – this can only be used for civilian nuclear applications. To produce weapons grade uranium more than ninety seven percent enrichment is required. The UN Security Council met on the 23rd of April 2007 passing resolution 1747. This gave Iran a deadline of 2 months to stop enrichment- effectively denying Iran its right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian purposes. The Iranians insist on maintaining their right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. In this way the fuss over the Iranian nuclear programme continues year after year.

The colonialist powers are well aware that Iran is a very long way from producing nuclear weapons. It is the Americans that keep the issue alive. It can be seen that US has cast Iran as a nuclear ‘bogey man’. This serves US interests in two ways. Firstly, it is allows the US to support its case for the continued presence of US bases in the Gulf region, by stating that the gulf countries would be under threat from Iran if they were to leave. Secondly, it gives the United States justification for the construction of a nuclear protection shield in Poland and the Czech Republic under the belly of Russia. The Muslims that harbour hope that countries like Iran will safeguard the interests of the Muslim Ummah need to have a rethink.

Only an Ideological State Can Choose its Own Actions

The question ‘should Iran disarm?’ is a false one. The fact of the matter is that Iran is a nation that finds it difficult to assert its legitimate rights under current international law, let alone develop nuclear weapons and challenge the West.

The international situation today does not have the presence of an ideological Islamic State that truly looks after the affairs of the Muslims. The colonialist nations have manipulated countries into signing treaties like the NPT that benefit them alone and help them exploit others. Iran is not a state that is based upon Islam. For this reason Iran is weak nation that seeks compromise and permission from the colonialists to even exercise its right to develop nuclear technology on its own soil.

It allows America to use peaceful nuclear development, by the Iranians as a political tool furthering US interests in the region. Muslims are increasingly aware that all the regimes in the Muslim world are subservient to the West and will not look after their affairs- Iran being no different.

The Khilafah when it is established will be state based upon Islam. It will not be dependent on other nations for its thinking. It will judge how to address the needs of the Muslims on the basis of Islam. Does Islam allow it to have nuclear development or not? It will judge if having nuclear weapons is a need for the Ummah. It will expose the conspiracies of the colonialist powers. It will decide its own policies and not be bullied by others into signing treaties and agreements that do not serve the needs of the Muslims. If Muslims are to harbour any hopes of having a leadership that will protect them and serve their needs- then the hope is not with Iran- rather hope is with the soon to be established Khilafah state.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Nasheeds, Western Foreign Policy and Darfur

2007-10-21T10:34:00.000-07:00

The ‘Concert for Peace In Darfur’ held in Wembley Arena London, has been hailed by some to be a great way for Muslims to help other Muslims. This concert featured as the main performer, the nasheed ‘artist’ Sami Yusuf. Who visited Darfur, with an Islamic charity organisation. He has publicised the plight of the Muslims in Darfur and in many ways re-enforced the narrative spun by the British government as to what happening in Darfur. This is hardly surprising as one the events sponsors is the British Foreign Office.

Some Muslims, view the holding of such concerts as a charitable deed that Islam deems to be praiseworthy. They see it is an attempt to help Muslims that are less fortunate. More aware Muslims realise that often there is more than meets the eye when it comes to such events. The context needs to be examined before a sound judgement as how to view such events can be made.

Western Foreign Policy

Although the colonialist nations like the US, Britain and France make claims that they are against human suffering and misery they are ones that are usually cause it. It is blatantly obvious that they hold the interests of their wealthy capitalist classes and corporations dearer than the lives of people. One only needs to look at Iraq as an example. The case of Iraq shows that oil and natural resources mean more to these Governments than the blood of people. A figure of 650,000 is often stated as the number of Iraqi civilians that have died as result of the colonial conquest of Iraq. This figure was the average used in the report published in the Lancet, the upper range was stated to be 942,000. The report was published some time ago and the figure has probably reached more than a million innocent lives lost since then. This is in addition to the suffering and misery of millions. Iraq has become a society that has been torn into tatters, with insecurity, bloodshed and tension featuring in everyday life. The displaced have become victims of hunger and desperation. Vulnerable young Iraqi girls are being forced into prostitution in neighbouring Syria. All this suffering to feed the greed of the West, that stems from the evil of capitalism. Alan Greenspan the former governor of the US Federal Reserve admitted in his recent book that the war in Iraq was fundamentally about oil. Only the naïve would view the western nations as being altruistic and caring for the affairs of mankind.

The Case of Darfur

Why are Western Nations so concerned about Darfur? Are the people of Darfur the only ones that are suffering in the world today? The Western Nations talk about helping people in Darfur, whilst at the same time they are killing people daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is the significance of Darfur to the West?

Darfur is located in Southern Sudan, an area known to be rich on oil. The Colonialist Nations are exploiting the violence and consequent humanitarian crisis that has resulted. It is widely believed that it was the US that first armed rebel factions so as to create a problem to solve in the area. The tragedy in Darfur is now being exploited in various ways by different colonialist nations.

This historical backdrop for this lust for the regions oil resources began with the American company Chevron, which had been granted oil exploration rights by the Numeri regime. In the early 1990’s Chevron decided to no longer pursue its oil interests in Southern Sudan. In this period the Chinese secured major rights for oil in the region due to its increasing thirst to feed its industries. Now there is a clamour amongst different nations to secure a piece of the pie.

As always the colonialist nations compete with other to secure the right to plunder weaker nations. France and Britain are keen to send troops to Darfur, the US has already has troops in the region although not in Darfur. The Chinese have a small amount of soldiers in Sudan to protect their interests, the British and the French have very little military influence in Darfur.

That is why the French and British welcomed the passing of UN resolution 1706 in August 2006 calling for the deployment of UN 'peacekeepers' to supplement the 7000 African Union troops. It is thought that the US is not keen on allowing UN troops into the region as it will allow the issue to be internationalised allowing the British and French to have share of the future spoils. France held a conference about Darfur on 25th June 2007 in which they proposed to use the French military to open ‘humanitarian corridors’ to Darfur from their bases in Chad. No one from Sudan, the Darfur rebels or the surrounding countries such as Chad was even invited to attend this conference.

The British for their part have been highlighting the plight of the people in Darfur by using various means to publicise the humanitarian issues. Hoping that this will create a favourable public opinion for future military intervention.

Nasheed Concerts and Muslims in Britain

Whilst the organisers of concerts such as the one in Wembley, may have been blissfully unaware of the background to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Muslims in Britain are increasingly aware about the nature of the society that they live in and the government that rules over them. They are aware that the British government has an agenda for them, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. The British government knows from is murderous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it is better to have Muslim public opinion on its side. It is for this reason that they wish to win Muslim hearts and minds. Wouldn’t it be great for the British government if British forces were to occupy Darfur, that Muslims in Britain viewed it as a humanitarian intervention rather than a colonial aggression against their brothers and sisters?

Muslims are increasingly realising that these pseudo Islamic events are not going to solve the problem for Muslims in Darfur. The organisers may well have the well being of the Muslims in Darfur at heart, but they need to understand the context in which they do their actions. Those that have other political motives for the Muslims can easily use such events to suit them. Why would the Foreign Office sponsor events like this one in Wembley, if it did not serve their purpose?

If Muslims want to do something to help their brothers and sisters in Darfur, Iraq or any other place then they must put their efforts and energies to working to re-establish the Khilafah. This is the real solution to the problems of the Muslims throughout the world. The Darfur crisis is a result of a weak leadership in Sudan, a weak regime that does not rule by Islam. They allowed the crisis to occur and they have conceded to the wishes of the colonialist enemies of Islam and the Muslims.

The Faces May Change But the Corruption Remains

2007-08-27T10:30:00.000-07:00

Since its formation Pakistan has flip-flopped between military and civilian rule. Both military and civilian rulers have failed the people and let the nation drift from one crisis to another. The people have all but lost hope for any real improvement in their standard of living. They have resigned themselves to a life of apathy and desperation.

The recent Supreme Court ruling allowing Nawaz Sharif to return to Pakistan has opened the door for his to return to Pakistani Politics. Benazir Bhutto has also made her intention clear to return to Pakistani politics. Many observers believe that moves are afoot to relieve Musharraf from the increasing opposition that he is facing from the people.

Many Muslims from Pakistan and beyond are asking themselves why the only candidates to look after their affairs are proven to be crooked and corrupt. Musharraf’s selling out to the US, Nawaz Sharif’s humiliating stance at Kargil and Benazir’s Mr Ten Percent husband come to the mind when these names are mentioned.

The Need for Functional Politics

For any nation to look after its affairs at least some of its people must propose, debate and implement solutions to problems faced domestically and internationally. How should the basic infrastructure like roads, electricity, clean water and other necessities be provided for the people? How should a nation develop its literacy, how can economic opportunities be created? What should be the basis of relations with other nations, how should the nation deal with external threats? It is the politicians that deal with these issues. Unfortunately, the politicians in Pakistan have failed miserably in this regard. They have accepted a framework in which to work, that does not allow them to achieve satisfactory solutions to the issues faced by society. Pakistan, despite its huge potential languishes in the ranks of failed states and third world nations.

A False Choice

The likes of Benazir and Nawaz are the only choices presented to the Muslims as people that can run the country. Muslims are given a false choice. If the Muslims of Pakistan are sick and tired of their US puppet military dictator then the alternative is corrupt civilian rule. When the people have had enough of the corruption of civilian rule, then the military can step in to rule. All other alternatives have been ruled out in Pakistan.

The Islamic alternative has been dismissed by many people. Taking seats in parliament has silenced Pakistani Islamic parties, in the eyes of many. They are perceived as having a vested interest in keeping the situation as it is. As a joke, MMA a coalition of Islamic parties is often said to stand for the Mullah Military Alliance. Many are resigned to these choices as an unchangeable reality.

Poisoned Politics

The politics of Pakistan have been poisoned since their very start in 1947. Pakistan was established in the name in the name of Islam, as a state for Muslims. Unfortunately this vision has not truly been realised. The politics of Pakistan have been based on a cocktail of un-Islamic political thought and alien ideologies.

This is not just the case for Pakistan but the entire Muslim world. When they left, the colonial powers knew that they must ensure that such newly ‘independent’ countries are still politically dependent. They ensured that the politics in such countries should still serve them. The politicians within them would serve to line their own pockets and preserve the interests of the colonial Kafir nations. They made sure anyone in politics was in fact aligned to their way of thinking and dependent upon them to formulate polices. Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington DC at the height of the Kargil crisis to seek what to do and Musharraf’s usage of Neo-con language when addressing the so called “war on terror” in Pakistan, are clear examples.

Such individuals have no basis apart from self-interest, ego and a smattering of patriotism to base their politics upon. They are entirely dependent upon the enemies of their people to formulate their policies. This is why Pakistan has failed politically since its inception. The political atmosphere has been corrupted ensuring that the politicians cannot effectively rule the country and Pakistan moves from one crisis to another.

Breaking The Political Shackles

Increasingly Muslims are rejecting the false political choices put in front of them. If Benazir or Nawaz return to power, people have little hope in any improvement of their lot in life. Muslims are searching for a politics that gives an alternative to the misery inflicted upon them by the corrupted system. What Pakistan requires like the rest of the Muslim world is a shift in thinking. They must to reject the so-called solutions offered to them by the corrupt system and politicians. Increasingly people are realising that a more radical change is required, a break from the past.

Islam and Khilafah

For Pakistan to truly progress it needs politicians that can look after its affairs both domestically and internationally. The failure of the likes of Musharaf, Sharif and Benazir show that the existing form of politics is inadequate. This is because it is based upon western political thought, which cannot bear fruits in Muslims societies. Muslims must return to looking after their affairs on the basis of Islam. It is only then that they can proceed in all aspects of life.

Without the Khilafah ruling system, the politics of Pakistan will continue in its chaotic, confused and corrupt path. This will make it easy for its enemies to destroy it, enslaving its people and resigning them to a life of misery and despondency. The Khilafah ruling system will allow good people to enter into politics, letting them do good for the people. Today the rotten system only allows the crooked to enter politics, who when in power do nothing for the betterment of the people and state. If the political framework in Pakistan is not changed only the faces will change but the corruption will remain. Muslims must take Islam in its entirety, which includes politics. Ruling by Islam will end the corruption and allow Muslims to progress.

“and rule between them by that which Allah has revealed, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you.” [Al- Ma’idah: 48]

Working for Revival

2007-07-07T10:20:00.000-07:00

How can a Muslim aid the revival of the Ummah? Firstly, as an individual he or she must understand the Islamic ideology. This means to study in depth the differences between Islam and capitalism and to understand how Islam works as a system for running the affairs of life, not just as a religion of ritual and rites.

Secondly, having understood the Islamic ideology Muslims must carry dawah for it and work to correct those understandings of Islam that are incorrect. This is so that a sound awareness of Islam is created amongst the people and erroneous understandings are corrected. If the dawah to the ideology is carried in an effective manner, it is inevitable that the Islamic state will be established in society, hence reviving the Ummah.

Thirdly, collective movements are required. These collective movements need to call to the Islamic thought by constantly linking it to issues facing the Muslims. This in essence has to be political in nature. Collective movements have to be aware that the work for individual reformation, education, publishing literature and a general call to the khairaat in Islam will not lead to revival.

Political work means to address the corruption of the rulers and the problems within societies targeted for change. For example, in Pakistan, the increases in gas prices, the establishment of FBI offices, the permission to construct US military bases, the treachery over Kashmir by the Musharaff junta could all be political issues to address.

In order to aid revival the manner in which these issues must be discussed is that these problems arise due the absence of Islam as an ideology and the presence of a kufr ruling system in place of the Khilafah. The linkage to Islam as an ideology must be re-iterated continuously so that the Islamic viewpoint about life becomes the predominant thought in society.

It is important that this call be carried politically as rules and thoughts without application to life’s affairs are not effective in changing the people. This is especially true when one is addressing society. The call must influence the people to change their existing thoughts with the Islamic thoughts. This does not mean that there is no need to pay attention to culturing people on an individual basis, rather this is imperative as without the ideology being deeply embedded in individuals it would not be possible to carry it to society.

This can be seen in the work of the Prophet (saw). Where people understood and embraced His (saw) message. It became deeply embodied in them. They carried it as a dawah to others and also worked collectively to convey it to Makkan society at large.

To achieve the revival one needs to cultivate individuals with a deeply embedded understanding of the Islamic ideology and collectively address issues linked to revival. As this dawah has been going on for decades we make dua to Allah (SWT) that this will lead to the establishment of the Khilafah Rashida in the very near future and the Muslim Ummah raises its self out of the misery and turmoil that she finds herself in today.

Understanding Revival

2007-06-23T16:04:00.000-07:00

To many the understanding of revival is ambiguous. To some it is to have what the Western world has in terms of technology, organisation and material progress. Others take it to mean progress economically or where the standard of life increases.

Others use terms that are not crystallised in their minds. Terms like irtafaa al fikri-intellectual elevation are submerged in a cloud of vagueness. It is essential that the meaning of revival be understood otherwise the aim of reviving the ummah may never be achieved. Distraction and confusion may reign and the very move towards reviving could well fizzle out or be diverted to preserving the declined situation.

The term Arabic term for revival nahda comes from the root to arise, to get up, to stand. So the meaning of nahda in the context of the situation of the ummah points to the fact that they need to arise from their declined position.

How should Muslims view this subject about reviving the Muslim Ummah from its current state to a revived golden era? An explanation by the will of Allah (swt) follows.

The West is revived but it does not have true revival, as their basis secularism is false. It can be seen that every issue faced by the West is thought through on the basis of their viewpoint about the meaning of life, their aqeeda, and secularism.

Secularism maintains that the everyday affairs of life in this world have no connection to what was before this life and what is to come after. It holds that man is the ultimate source of what is acceptable or unacceptable. A view that does not fit to this basis is immediately rejected, labelled as wacky or called extreme. This has been proved when Muslims have tried to speak from an Islamic perspective in the media. In western society the acceptable and the non acceptable, the good and the bad, the right and the wrong are all viewed from a single basis. The laws in society, the systems of ruling and their conduct with other nations are driven by this viewpoint. One may find differences but these differences emerge in the branches but not at the root. For example when “ We disagree with the war in Iraq, we think that religions should not be insulted, we disagree with homosexuality” and other statements of this nature are examined it can be seen these are based upon the same viewpoint or basis as those that carry the opposite views. It is this unity upon the basis and how to view problems that leads the west to move forward in all aspects of life albeit in the incorrect way as their basis is flawed. Take the argument in the USA where some call for isolationism and others call for the current US philosophy of treating the world as their ranch- both arguments come from the same basis, but the difference lies in a judgement about national interest.

If one were to contrast this to a society like Pakistan one would witness that there is no basic thought that is predominant. Rather there are a whole host of thoughts that are used. Some people are Islamic but only in the spiritual sense, some are capitalistic but only in the monetary sense, some are nationalistic and some are so declined in their thought that they are prepared to do anything to try to achieve what they want. Pakistan is said to be a democracy, an Islamic Republic and a dictatorship at the same time. As result confusion reigns, there is no standard; right and wrong are not considered on a single basis. In sum, Pakistan like all the countries in the Muslim world is a messy soup of confused thought and conflicting ideas. It is little wonder that countries like Pakistan take one step forwards and two steps back whilst gawping at the advancement of the West.

The Need to Return to Islamic Ideology.

Islam obliges Muslims to make sure that every thought; emotion, view, rule and law are linked back to the Islamic aqeeda. The relationship of creation i.e. the purpose of this life is to worship Allah (swt) and the relationship of resurrection that actions undertaken in this life will be accounted on the day of judgement are the basis upon which Muslim societies must proceed. The Muslim world would become revived once society has adopted Islam as the basis in all its relationships and Islam becomes the source of individual and societal actions, emotions and thought. It would be essential that the Khilafah be established to say that we have revived. In the meantime the ummah would head towards revival but it would be incorrect to say revival had occurred as. The ummah would only have true progress and revival once Islam became the basis for all issues.

One of the best examples of revival is that of the Prophet (saw). He (saw) brought the Islamic viewpoint about life to the declined people of Arabia. Once they had embraced the thought and applied it in society via the Islamic ruling system society progressed in an unprecedented manner. The fruits of this revival reverberated through many lands and humanity advanced upon the basis of the message from Allah (swt).

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Only The Khilafah Can Bring Prosperity to All Muslims

2007-06-17T03:28:00.000-07:00

"We are now at a crossroads in our history as an ummah. Never in the history of the ummah ... have we faced such great odds,”

"While the nations of the West basked in the glory of their global ascendancy, Muslim nations were largely consigned to what people term 'the Third World,"

These are the words of Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi in a speech to attendees at the recent World Islamic Economic Forum in Kuala Lumpur.

On the face of it, these words seem reasonable, for Muslims to start to raise the standard of life in their societies. However such words from Muslim rulers are starting to ring hollow. Such words have been repeated for decades. For this reason more and more Muslims are asking questions about why Muslims find themselves in the position that they are in.

Abdullah Badawi mentioned in his speech that in the Muslim world 50% of the population lives on less that $2 a day. This means that there are a huge amount of Muslims living in desperate poverty. Many Muslims question how could this be so? The Muslim world has vast resources, of all types. It has oil, gas, minerals, vast areas of land suited to agriculture, as well as many other sources of wealth. It is beginning to dawn upon Muslims that it is not annual conferences to discuss economic initiatives that will change the lives of the poor amongst the Muslim Ummah. Rather a more radical change is needed.

Muslim Rulers In Awe of Western Economies

From his words it is clear that Abdullah Badawi and other Muslim rulers look to the West as a guide to follow. The hope being that if the West is doing something that allows them to progress, perhaps if the Muslim world follows, it too can achieve what the West has. This thinking is flawed, yet Muslim rulers and those around them persist in carrying such ideas, even after having seen these ideas fail time after time.

The fact of the matter is that the Western nations believe in secularism and the capitalist ideas that spring from it. For this reason they move in all aspects of life on a single basis. Their way of life believes in making economic activity the most important of issues in life. Therefore it is not surprising to find that Western nations have the greatest share of the world’s wealth. They use all means foul or fair, from doing straight deals, to spilling blood in order to bring wealth back to their countries. When trying to imitate the west the rulers in the Muslim world ought to consider the words of Muhammad (saw).

“Whosoever does an action that is not from our matter then it is rejected.”

It is a sad fact that the rulers of Muslim countries are in awe of the West. For this reason economic successes in the West are magnified and exaggerated in their minds. They do not appreciate that 13% of the US population is considered to be below the poverty line. It is only the elites in such countries that truly enjoy vast wealth. Most of the population in capitalist countries are heavily in debt and have to work hard to survive. They are far from economically prosperous. Is this the shortsighted vision that they have for Muslims across the globe? Where the rich will amass great wealth whist the poor continue in a miserable cycle of poverty.

Only the Khilafah Will Bring Prosperity to the Muslim World.

The rulers in the Muslim world cannot see beyond what the west has to offer them. They have little, if any confidence in Islam as a way of life. Their minds have been prepared by the kafir colonialist to view Islam as only a spiritual matter. They have been taught to hold the West and its ways in high esteem and as the only path to follow for progress.

Whilst the rulers of the Muslim World continue with their tired conferences, Muslims are sensing that all that western inspired economic policies that are being offered to them will end in more misery for the Ummah. They will only serve to enrich some corrupt individuals whilst the rest of the Ummah suffers. If Muslims choose what the west puts forward to them, they will continue to allow the West to exploit their resources and steal their wealth.

It is the rulers in the Muslim lands that allow west to plunder the wealth. They are truly negligent of their responsibility. It is these rulers that are meant to safeguard their people. Amongst the Muslim rulers there is cocktail of ignorance of the west’s ruthless greed fuelled motives and corruption. Most seek only to fill their pockets and those of their masters that support them in power. If those in positions of power in the Muslim world truly want to bring prosperity for all Muslims, they must break out of the mindset that has been built in them by the colonialists and think about the solution from Islam.

In the Khilafah, those that rule will be astute, aware of the kafir countries lust for the wealth of the Muslims. They will be obliged to look after the affairs of the people, not the interests of the West. They will be aware of the need to build an economy on the basis of Islam, so as to bring prosperity to all the people of the Islamic state. It is then and only then that Muslims will be given a chance to bring themselves out a cycle of poverty and desperation. To build industries and use what Allah (swt) has gifted them with to fulfil their needs. No longer will they feed the greed of the capitalists sitting in the west.

Abdur Rahman Siakhi

Musharraf – Making of a Western Agent

2007-06-17T03:18:00.000-07:00

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said "On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of treachery. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men" [Muslim]

What could lead a ruler to betray his nation? Cause huge damage to the security of his country, sell out Kashmir, kill its citizens with its own army, humiliate the architects of its nuclear programme and disappear its sons?

What kind of ruler could seek to look after the needs of other nations whilst his own suffers? What kind or ruler could have great sympathy for Western nations and show little for his own? This type of ruler is an agent, in Pakistan this man is called General Pervez Musharraf. Muslims are increasingly sensing the reasons that allow agents like Musharraf to rise to power.

Corrupting the Elites.

The kafir colonialists understood that in order to manipulate Muslim countries, take their resources and spread corruption in the land, that they needed to have a pool of people that they could rely on. This pool of people is often unaware that it is to be used to extend the influence of countries like Britain, France or the US.

Institutions in such countries are often structured in such a way that anyone that does not hold western values or tastes cannot progress. Today this is true of the military in Pakistan where the CIA are searching for a suitable replacement for Musharraf to head the military, practising Muslims or even those with sentiments for Islam will be left out. In Pakistan to enter politics the criteria is that you have to be corrupt or at least corruptible. This means that it is easy for the colonial powers to manipulate policies in their favour towards as the politicians can be bought in one way or another.

In Pakistan, the US for example takes a keen interest in the educational curriculum. The children of most influential individuals in Pakistan are schooled in places like Aitchison College, or Beacon House known for their pro-western bias and the teaching of western values like free mixing between the sexes. It is here where western tastes of the future elites are developed. This makes it easier for the kafir nations to exert their influence in these countries, in business, politics or other matters.

Musharraf was brought up to have western tastes. He was educated at Forman Christian College in Lahore, run by American missionaries. In his autobiography he talks about his parents having a love for ballroom dancing, having girlfriends and being in love. Although he may not realise or admit it Musharraf was groomed to have love for the West and have the tastes of the west.

Inferiority Complex about Islam

Some agents reject Islam outright and others may believe in it in a spiritual sense but not as a system for life. It is apparent that Musharraf does not believe that Islam has a solution for life’s affairs. From his eight years in power it can be seen that he wishes to implement a cocktail of Western ideas, Pakistani traditions and his own notion of ‘Enlightened Moderation’.

Such individuals although they say that they believe in Islam cannot accept that Islam is a complete way of life that is revealed by Allah (swt) for mankind. They see the superiority of western technology, organised societies compared with dire conditions in the Muslim world. They equate progress to the West and they equate the decline witnessed in the Muslim world to Islam. They fail to see that it is because Muslims turned away from implementing Islam in their societies that they have declined. They fail to see the ugly nature of capitalism and the misery it inflicts on the majority of people in the world. For this reason their tastes and their thinking becomes aligned with the West. Such individuals may well believe in putting Pakistan or such countries first. They may have some genuine sentiment for their people but this is founded on a weak basis that gives way to their programmed western mindset. It is for this reason they become useful pawns in the hands of kafir colonialist.

The Khilafah will Drain the Swamp

Today Muslims are thankful to Allah (swt) about the increased awareness of Islam as a system of life. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the kafir colonialists to continue to steal and loot resources of the Muslim Ummah. Awareness amongst the Muslims of the true nature of the West has increased and Western agents in the Muslim world are finding it increasingly difficult to hold on to power. Ultimately, they will be thrown out.

It is only when the Khilafah established that the Ummah will truly take its destiny into her own hands. It will no longer by sold to the Kafir nations by its agent rulers in return for misery and decline for the people. The Muslim world will no longer be a swamp plagued with Western agents, the swamp will be drained. No longer will the elites in Muslims lands be groomed to look up to the West and develop its sick tastes. The education system will be built upon Islam producing Muslims that fear Allah (swt) and are loyal to Islam. The Islamic way of life will outshine capitalism in all aspects of life. Muslims, as is increasingly the case today will see the ugliness of the Western way of life, they will no longer even contemplate becoming followers of the West. Rather than becoming pawns to enslave the Ummah they will become politicians that will truly look after the affairs of the Muslim Ummah and work to build a state that will become the guiding light for humanity.

Wolfowitz Resigns Whilst The World Bank Continues to Loot the Muslim World

2007-06-16T16:49:00.001-07:00

The Prophet (SAW) said: “The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish.” Abu Dawood

Paul Wolfowitz one of the grand architects of the loot and plunder of Iraq has announced his resignation as President of the World Bank. Not content with having been directly responsible for the cruel, heartless destruction of an entire nation, Wolfowitz moved on to become President of the World Bank.

Wolfowitz was forced to resign from his position amid accusations of corruption. The accusation was that under his orders his girlfriend Shaha Riza was given an unjustified pay increase from $132600 to a current wage of $193000. Some commentator’s claim that this was not the real reason for the pressure applied on Wolfowitz to resign, rather it was a coup to remove a his type of US political influence in the World Bank.

Regardless of the competition over influence by rival factions linked to Europe or the US, Muslims are becoming increasingly aware about the inherently corrupt nature of international institutions. It is clear that such institutions are mere pawns used for the interests of capitalist nations like the US, Britain and France.

The World Bank is no different and it is ironic that its President should be forced out for being corrupt when the entire organisation relies on corrupted elites in the Muslim world and beyond for it to function. Muslims are no longer easily fooled by terms like ‘Aid’, ‘Structural Adjustment’ and ‘Poverty Reduction’.

The truth is that World Bank is an institution run by the wealthy capitalist nations. It allows developing countries to be exploited by corporations and other capitalists. The interests of the people of these developing countries are not served and they are exploited. The only ones that benefit in such nations are corrupt officials in finance ministries that sign agreements that will plunge their people in to a life of misery.

Examples of World Bank policies to ‘help’ poor countries pay back loans include demanding that governments cut spending on social welfare, cutting subsidies on basic foods and to allow privatisation of state controlled assets. The results of these demands on the poor of these nations both Muslim and Non Muslim are increased poverty and desperation. As a result of these demands these poor nations cannot spend adequately on healthcare, provide proper education, or even allow the provision of basics like wheat to be sold at an affordable price. The industries that are set up in these countries often find themselves in foreign ownership benefiting the West and not the nations in which they are based.

The reason why the world finds itself in this situation is because the rule and the justice of Islam are absent. The world today is led by ruthless capitalist nations that care only for enriching their elites. The Khilafah state would endeavour to truly eradicate poverty, not set up institutions that would be tools in the hands of the greedy capitalists spreading misery, death and disease to mankind.

The Muslims are now well aware of the impact of the words of Muhammad (saw) “Verily Imam is the Shield”. The Khilafah state would stop the capitalists treating the Muslim world as dish of food to compete over. Indeed it would be the shield that would protect the Ummah from the greed of the capitalists. Unlike the rulers of today who work with the kafir capitalists to exploit the Muslim World, the Khilafah will truly look after the interests of the ummah and indeed the rest of the world.