Jump to content
Islamic Forum


IF Guardian
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by yusufar

  1. My goodness, a hoax! :D Is it similar to the hoax that the israelis keep repeating about Ahmadinejad wanting israel wiped off the map? Strange thing these hoaxes and the way they keep repeating themselves.
  2. Jyllands Posten's Editor Dead

    They sit around in bars in the evenings thinking up and laughing at all this rubbish over some beers, then go to work the next day and see how they can seriously disseminate it to any gullible Muslims who will take the bait and spread it even further without even realising it. This is part of the West's disinformation tactics, the objective of which is to make Muslims look stupid and confused as well as to actually confuse them. Before you know it, the original source of the story would have been forgotten (if it was actually known in the first place) and Muslims have themselves become the "source" and are not only spreading the story but believing it as well, almost as fervently as they believe in their own religion. yusufar
  3. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.nowarforisrael(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Brigadier%20General.htm"]Brigadier General Says israel is the problem not Iraq[/url] Questions and Answers about Iraq and israel by James J. David a retired Brigadier General Jan 7, 2003 (James J. David is a retired Brigadier General and a graduate of the U.S.Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington, DC. He served as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969.) Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons? Answer: israel. Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections? Answer: israel. Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions? Answer: israel. Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire? Answer: israel. Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)? Answer: israel. Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed? Answer: israel. Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war? Answer: israel. Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses? Answer: israel. Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated? Answer: israel. Q: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated? Answer: israel. Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister? Answer: israel. Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors? Answer: israel. Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union? Answer: israel. Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon? Answer: israel. Q. What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody? Answer: israel Q. What Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Masjid. Answer: israel Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders? Answer: israel. Q. Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children? Answer: israel Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes? Answer: israel. Q. Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-third of all U.S. aid yet is the 16th richest country in the world? Answer: israel Q. Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S.? Answer: israel Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely insults the American people by having its Prime Minister address the United States Congress and lecturing them like children on why they have no right to reduce foreign aid? Answer: israel Q. Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because "We control America?" Answer: israel Q. What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing. Answer: israel Q. Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children? Answer: israel Q. Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks? Answer: israel Q. Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing? Answer: israel Q. Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children? Answer: israel Q.. Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes? Answer: israel Q: What country in the Middle East is the United States threatening to attack because of fear that it may be a threat to us and to our allies? Answer: Iraq
  4. Filth Of Us Army

    “Until we go through it ourselves, until our people cower in the shelters of New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere while the buildings collapse overhead and burst into flames, and dead bodies hurtle about and, when it is over for the day or the night, emerge in the rubble to find some of their dear ones mangled, their homes gone, their hospitals, churches, schools demolished — only after that gruesome experience will we realize what we are inflicting on the people of Indochina...” — William Shirer author 1973 ...and now Iraq ...and next Iran? ...and on to Syria? When will perverse Americans realize this? If it really happened to them on the same scale that they are inflicting on others, they will probably only have further revenge in mind... yusufar
  5. Filth Of Us Army

    “I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. ... “They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.” — John Kerry Navy lieutenant, leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee April 23, 1971 If this was what they were doing in Vietnam 30 odd years ago, dare we think that they are doing anything different in Iraq today? yusufar
  6. “The September 11 attacks were a monstrous calling card from a world gone horribly wrong. The message may have been written by Osama bin Laden (who knows?) and delivered by his couriers, but it could well have been signed by the ghosts of the victims of America’s old wars. “The millions killed in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, the 17,500 killed when israel — backed by the U.S. — invaded Lebanon in 1982, the 200,000 Iraqis killed in Operation Desert Storm, the thousands of Palestinians who have died fighting israel’s occupation of the West Bank. And the millions who died, in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, at the hands of all the terrorists, dictators and genocidists who the American government supported, trained, bankrolled and supplied with arms.” — Arundhati Roy East Indian activist and fighter for women’s rights Author of The God of Small Things “Every time we do something, you [shimon Peres] tell me America will do this and will do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” — Ariel Sharon israeli Prime Minister, homicidal psychopath Knesset, Tel Aviv, October 3, 2001
  7. Axiz Of Evil

    (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.zmag(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/content/TerrorWar/herman_axis-of-evil.cfm"]Axis of Evil - In Washonton D.C.[/url] by Edward Herman Coup d'etat president George W. Bush has designated three poor and unconnected states as an "axis of evil," reflecting this great moralist's sensitivity to good and evil. He has been subjected to a certain amount of criticism for this strong language even in the mainstream press, but nobody there has suggested that, as so common in this post-Orwellian world, such language might better fit its author and his associates. There IS a political axis of evil running strong in the United States that underpins the Bush regime, which includes the oil industry, military-industrial complex (MIC), other transnationals, and the Christian Right, all important contributors to the Bush electoral triumph, and each of which has high level representation in the administration including, besides Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, O'Neill and Ashcroft. This REAL axis of evil is using 9/11 and the "war on terrorism" to carry out its foreign and domestic agenda on a truly impressive scale, and so far without much impediment at home or abroad. What is notable about their agenda is that it flies in the face of all of the requirements for peace, global democracy, economic equity and justice, ecological and environmental protection, and global stability. It represents the choice of an overpowerful country's elite, determined to consolidate their economic and political advantage in the short run, at whatever cost to global society. They are accelerating all the ugly trends of militarization and globalization that have led to increasing violence, income polarization, and the vigorous protests against the World Trade Organization, IMF and World Bank. Consider the following: 1. New arms race: Even before 9/11 the Bush government was pushing for a larger arms budget and that gigantic boondoggle and offensive military threat, the National Missile Defense. With 9/11 and the collapse of the Democrats, they are allocating many billions to anything the MIC wants, and with their more violent behavior and threats abroad, other countries will have to follow. This takes enormous resources from the civil society, and will exacerbate conflict based on cutbacks and pain for ordinary citizens. The same will be true across the globe. Thus, the polarization of income effects of corporate globalization will be increased by this diversion of resources to weapons. As Jim Lobe notes, "Whatever hopes existed in the late 1990s for a new era of global cooperation in combating poverty, disease, and threats to the environment seem to have evaporated" (Dawn [Pakistan], Jan. 23, 2002). The complete irrationality and irresponsibility of this arms budget surge is reflected in the fact that almost none of it has to do with any threat from Bin Laden and his forces. Weapons designed to combat Soviet tanks are going forward, as well as advanced new aircraft and a missile defense system that are hardly answering Bin Laden, but represent instead MIC boondoggles and a rush for complete global "full spectrum" military hegemony. 2. The new violence: The Washington Axis has found that war and wrapping themselves in the flag is just what was needed to divert the public from bread and butter issues, inducing the public to revel instead in the game of war, rooting for our side while we beat up yet another small adversary, with perhaps others to follow. As the great political economist Thorstein Veblen wrote with irony almost a century ago, "sensational appeals to patriotic pride and animosity made by victories and defeats...[helps] direct the popular interest to other, nobler, institutionally less hazardous matters than the unequal distribution of wealth or of creature comforts. Warlike and patriotic preoccupations fortify the barbarian virtues of subordination and prescriptive authority...Such is the promise held out by a strenuous national policy" (Theory of Business Enterprise [1904]). The Bush team is threatening to beat up anybody who "harbors terrorists" or aims to build "weapons of mass destruction" without our approval. israel is of course exempt from this rule and has been given carte blanche to smash the Palestinian civil society. Bush and his handlers will decide who are terrorists, who harbors them, and who can build weapons. It is easily predictable that anybody who resists the corporate globalization process and tries to pursue an independent development path, will be found to violate human rights, harbor terrorists, or otherwise threaten U.S. "national security," with dire consequences. Because the ongoing globalization process is increasing inequality and poverty, protests and insurgencies will continue to arise. The U.S. answer is spelled out clearly in the "war on terrorism" and simultaneous push for "free trade" and cutbacks in spending for the civil society at home and abroad. The Washington Axis is also pursuing a "war on the poor" that will merge easily into the "war on terrorism," as the poor will be driven to resist and resistance will be interpreted as terrorism. This is in a great U.S. tradition, brought to a high level in the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 and installation of the Shah, the assassination of Guatemalan democracy by Eisenhower and Dulles in 1954, the war against Vietnam, and the U.S.-sponsored displacement of democratic governments by National Security States throughout South America in the 1960s and 1970s. They were wars allegedly against the "Soviet Threat," but really against the poor and the populist threat to "free trade." The Bush team obviously threatens even more violence than we witnessed in that earlier era. The military force they control is relatively stronger and without the Soviet constraint. With the help of the more centralized and commercialized media they have worked the populace into a state of war-game fervor. They have brought back into the government some of the most fervent supporters of terrorism and death squads from the Reagan years in Otto Reich, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte, Elliott Abrams, and Lino Guterriez; men who can now work in a more killer- friendly environment. 3. Escalated support for authoritarian regimes. The United States actively helped bring to power and supported large numbers of murderous regimes in the years 1945-1990, on the excuse of the Soviet Threat, but really because those regimes were suitably subservient to U.S. interests and willingly provided that crucial "favorable climate of investment" (especially, union-busting). With the Soviet Threat gone, for a while there was a problem finding rationalizations for the long-standing and structurally-rooted anti-populist and anti-democratic bias, but now we have the "war on terrorism," which will do quite nicely. The Washington Axis has already leapt to the support of the military dictator of Pakistan, the ex-Stalinist boss of Uzbekistan, and it is clear that willingness to serve the "war on terrorism" will override any nasty political leadership qualities. At the same time, as with Sharon in his escalated crackdown on the Palestinians and Putin in Chechnya, cooperation with the war will mean support for internal violence against dissidents and minorities, forms of state terrorism that will readily be interpreted as part of the "war on terrorism." Just as militarization and war do not conduce to democracy, the effects of mobilization of countries to support the Washington Axis of Evil's war will damage democracy globally. 4. Destabilization effects. Corporate globalization has had a major destabilizing effect in the global economy, causing increased unemployment, civilian budget cuts, large-scale internal and external migrations, and environmental destruction. The more aggressive penetration of oil interests, in collusion with local governments in Nigeria, Colombia, and now Central Asia, and the new war on terrorism, should intensify destabilization trends. 5. The fight against democracy at home. At every level the Bush team has fought against the basics of democracy and attempted to concentrate unaccountable governmental authority in its own hands. Militarization itself is anti-democratic, but the team has attempted to loosen constraints on the CIA and police, reduce public access to every kind of information, and constrain free speech. They have put in place a secret government and are moving the country toward a more openly authoritarian government, and, if they can keep it going, their planned open-ended war on terrorism should serve this end well. 6. The Bush "vision" versus the "End of History." This process does not comport well with Francis Fukayama's vision of the new peaceful, democratic order that would follow the death of the Soviet Union and triumph of capitalism. Fukayama missed the boat on three counts. He failed to see that the end of the Soviet Union and termination of a socialist threat would also end the need to accommodate labor with social welfare concessions--in other words, that there could be a return to a pure capitalism such as Karl Marx described in the first volume of Capital. Second, he failed to see that corporate globalization and greater capital mobility would make for a global "reserve army of labor" and weaken labor's bargaining power and political position. Finally, he failed to recognize that without the Soviet Union's "containment" the United States would be freer to use force in serving its transnationals, forcing Third World countries to join the "free trade" nexus, and preventing them from serving the needs of their citizens (as opposed to the needs of the transnational corporate community). As this entire process will involve further polarization and immiseration of large numbers, insurgencies are inevitable, justifying more militarization and an escalated war on "terrorism" in a vicious cycle. What can be more frightening and dangerous to the world than facing the Washington Axis of Evil as the overwhelmingly dominant holder of "weapons of mass destruction," which it is seeking to improve and make more usable, with the elite's longstanding arrogance and self-righteousness at an all-time high, and with no countervailing force in sight? Bin Laden's threat is nothing by comparison. What is more, the Bin Laden threat flows from U.S. actions, which played a crucial role in building up the Al-Qaeda network, and policies which have made a hell of the Middle East and polarized incomes and wealth across the globe. The cycle of violence will only be broken if the Washington Axis of Evil is defeated, removed from office, and replaced by a regime that aims to serve a broader constituency than oil, the MIC, the other transnationals, and the Christian Right.
  8. Iraqi Wmd's Found

    In the first place who is Kenneth R Timmerman? This man is, among other things, a rabid anti-Muslim Islamophobe bent on preaching his message of hate against Islam and Muslims, as witness two of his books: "Preachers of Hate - Islam and the War on America" and "The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran". Anyway, the Bush regime's disinformation tactics, as exemplified by people like Timmerman, are quite well known. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece"]Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'[/url] By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 29 May 2006 Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products. Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items... The US print media has been even more partisan and has actively participated in this disinformation campaign (worldwide mass deception) to the extent that ordinary Americans and many others around the world may no longer fully know what is true and what is false. Even more telling, if Iraqi WMDs had really be found, the Bush regime would have fully capitalised on it and there would have been screaming headlines all over the world. And yes, even if it was true that Saddam had WMDs, he was never a threat to the US. He was in fact a creation of the US, which had also given him the capacity to manufacture WMDs. And what about the US's own WMDs? This is an issue most Western and US apologists and their ilk like to ignore or sidestep. If bdcent really wants to be decent about it, perhaps she should address this issue as well, instead of giving us 2 year old "news" about Saddam's WMDs from a highly suspect source. yusufar What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Mahatma Gandhi
  9. 1st principle of Makkonism: Delude yourself before you attempt to delude others. You will better be able to convince others of your sincerity. :D Chief Subscribers to Makkonism: George Wakko Bash, Thorny Bliar & Co. Official Sponsors of State Terrorism for the New Millenium. yusufar Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. H. L. Mencken
  10. For a person with a nice nick you sure have indcent thoughts and views. Based on your twisted "logic", the 58,000 Americans sent to 'Boot Hill' in Vietnam were losers too. How nice??? yusufar Evil to him who evil thinks. (Honi Soit Qui Mal Pense) King Edward the Third
  11. ~ Iran Welcome In China's New Sphere ~

    For what probably really happened in Florida: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gregpalast(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2"]Winning the Election The Republican Way: Racism, Theft and Fraud in Florida[/url] But then, as proven by Wakko, I could be wrong: "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."- H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. yusufar
  12. ~ Iran Welcome In China's New Sphere ~

    My, my, you are rather perceptive. Unfortunately for you I am not the only one who sees it...the question is do you understand? Whether you do or not is immaterial really. Don't bother trying to insult me with stories of your schizophrenic friend. It won't work. I see the truth which you do not. To you be your truth and to me mine. The truth is only American pigs can fly. Do you understand? yusufar
  13. ~ Iran Welcome In China's New Sphere ~

    On the contrary, I make it a point to read rubbish propaganda as well. Yes, MEMRI, indeed! I would not put it past the US or israel. They have experimented with and done worse things. Probably the same way that American pigs flew into Afghanistan and Iraq. Give us a break...and the people running US and America are not? Only a bunch of idiots would do that. This kind of pre-emption will lead to further pre-emption. "Offensive nuclear capability"... Now who in the world has that capability today??? Perhaps one day the US and israel may be pre-empted by their own logic (and yours)! :D The sad part is they may even then still not realise it, and that is what makes them idiots - ignorant or otherwise! yusufar
  14. ~ Us Biggest Threat To Global Peace ~

    Iran has never invaded a foreign country for many centuries, unlike the US, Europe or the USSR and China. Peace is peace anywhere on earth. yusufar
  15. ~ Us Biggest Threat To Global Peace ~

    Most right-thinking people can probably see the great irony of the world's largest perpetrator and sponsor of State terrorism today leading a purported global war on "terrorism". What a pity, when the US could actually use the money it spends on its terrorist activities on improving education, welfare and health in the US itself and around the world and earn so much more goodwill as well as actually getting rid of the real causes of the counter-terrorism that it attracts. Unfortunately, the military-industrial terrorist complex now in effective control of the US will conspire to ensure that this will not happen, given the hundreds of billions and now even trillions of US dollars involved in sustaining its terrorist activities. Will world peace ever be really given a chance? yusufar
  16. ~ Iran Welcome In China's New Sphere ~

    Like the Americans and israelis have never gone off the deep end! Nations confused and deluded indeed, and they already have collectively enough nukes to destroy not just the Middle East but the whole world many times over. Who therefore are the greatest threat to the world's security? Not that you would see it of course, being yourself confused and deluded. Perhaps a change of name would be in order. May I suggest Wakko?
  17. Unity In Islam

    :D :D Brothers and Sisters in Islam, Let us seriously discuss the issue of Unity in Islam. Non-Muslims may also have a bash at this (or bash it, as they please), although obviously most of them would not like to see a truly United Islam being formed, least of all a United Islamic State which they think will terrorise them and force them all to become Muslims, although this would not be the case. Many Muslims themselves (especially many Muslim despots, dictators and elites), for their own selfish reasons, may not even like to see it take place, but may nevertheless pay lip-service to it. Notwithstanding such detractors, I believe at the very least that we should all set in motion an Islamic initiative to promote greater unity amongst Muslims and Islamic countries. If we all work together with other like-minded individuals, organizations, institutions and governments, concrete steps may be taken to help establish workable methods and practical solutions towards achieving the goal of a United Islamic State, if of course in the first place Muslims (or least a majority of Muslims) can agree that this is a desirable goal. A good starting point to remind us of our obligations as Muslims in this regard would be the (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.islamicunityfoundation(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/Last_Sermon.htm"]Last Sermon of the Prophet[/url] (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Among one of the worst things that we as Muslims can do today is to merely pay lip-service to those obligations and to ignore the real teachings of Islam brought by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as embodied in the Qur’an and his Sunnah. Most Muslims must understand that it is not sufficient only to obey the basic outward requirements of Islam but forget its real basic teachings. The Prophet (peace and the blessings of Allah be on him) clearly stated in his Last Sermon that the life and property of every Muslim is a sacred trust (as far as all Muslims are concerned). Do Muslims pay much heed to this today? Throughout the Muslim world the life and property of Muslims is at risk from Muslims themselves either acting by themselves or in collusion with non-Muslims. Can this be redressed so that Muslims will feel safe from one another and with each other, no matter where they may be? The path in Islam has been clearly set – affirmation of Allah's Unity and the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), worship of Allah, prayer, purification of wealth, fasting, pilgrimage (if one can afford it), remembrance of Allah, righteousness, piety, knowledge, good thought, good action, good behaviour, good deeds, trust, humility, kindness, tolerance, justice, equity, legitimacy, faith, reason, rationale, charity, peace, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, brotherhood and love. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also made it very clear that if Muslims were to follow the Qur’an and his Sunnah, they would never go astray. Yet increasingly, Muslims seem to become their own worst enemies, making it easy for non-Muslims to take advantage of the divisions amongst and weaknesses of Muslims themselves. Oppression of Muslims by Muslims is thus compounded by oppression of Muslims by non-Muslims (often in collusion with Muslim oppressors as well), leading to frustration upon frustration for the bulk of the oppressed Muslims. The reason is clear – many Muslims do not really follow the Qur’an and the Prophet’s Sunnah (even if outwardly they profess to do so) and have gone astray. This is the reality that Muslims must face and address. Can Muslims change for the better? As Ahmed Abu Lafi said in his paper (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.passia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/meetings/2004/June-21-Islam-Bi-national-State.htm"]“Islam and the Bi-National State”[/url] “In fact, the most difficult issue is to change these minds that have been educated and influenced with un-Islamic cultures, and took these cultures as the base for their thinking. This resulted in separating religion from life and the state. Thus they accepted the emergence of a state on foundations other than Islam, and they accepted the establishment of many states in the Islamic lands. Islam has been pushed away from governance and the state, and the Islamic lands have been divided into multiple entities that are not related to Islam at all, even though some of them nominally call themselves Islamic.” Today, more than ever, the ideal of a united Islam seems further from reality than it has ever been at any time in the past. While it may be arguable that a really united global Islamic State has ever existed at any time in history, even during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, nevertheless I would argue that its establishment is necessary to address almost every problem that Muslims all over the world face today, especially in their dealings with non-Muslims. Khalid Baig in his (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.albalagh(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/food_for_thought/corrupt_societies_rulers.shtml"]“Analysis: More Than Bad Rulers and Corrupt Societies”[/url] put it more directly: “…Is the 1.2 billion strong Ummah suffering only because there are fifty-four corrupt persons who are ruling it? These rulers do not carry out all their plans personally. They have armies of compliant soldiers, bureaucrats, and other staffers at every level of government that do the dirty work. Further the societies at large produce, nurture and sustain the corrupt machinery of the corrupt governments. As we continue our investigation, we find that our problem is corruption; not only of the rulers but also of the ruled. Today we have strayed from the Shariah in our personal lives; we lie, cheat, steal at a higher rate than ever before; we exploit and oppress in our small spheres. In short, our problems are caused by our moral corruption. But there is something more. And it is getting scant attention in the Muslim discourse. Islam teaches us the correctness of belief is even more important than the correctness of deeds. There is an implied message here: The corruption of ideas is far more devastating than the corruption of actions. This may be happening here. We complain about the particular tribal leaders that happen to be there today but forget about the tribalism that seats at the root of all this. This tribalism of the nation-states has been enshrined into the constitutions, legal structures, bureaucracies, and the entire apparatus of government in every Muslim country. Its language and thinking, though anathema to Islam, has gained widespread acceptance. While we condemn its outcome, we do not sufficiently examine or challenge the system itself. We constantly talk about the Muslim brotherhood and the need for Muslim unity. We assert that Muslims are one Ummah. Simultaneously – and without much thought – we embrace the symbols, ideas, and dictates of its exact opposite. We have lived under our nation-states, celebrated our national days, and sang our national anthems all our lives. As a result the realization that the gap between the idea of the nation-state and that of one Ummah is wider than can be patched with good leaders of individual nation-states does not occur easily. We do not realize that we may be trying to simultaneously ride two different boats going in opposite directions.” Muslims at large need a United Islamic State to free themselves from oppression by other Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But to do that they first have to free themselves from their own egos and their sometimes extreme attachment to self, tribe, sect, race and nation. We have to put Allah, the Prophet (peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him), Islam, the Muslim Community and the Islamic Nation first before ourselves, our tribe, our sect, our race or our nation. This is not and has never been an easy prescription, but one that needs and cries out to be implemented from the very birth of Islam itself. That is the natural state and path of those who have chosen to submit themselves to God, not the path of those led astray by egoism, individualism, tribalism, sectarianism, racism, nationalism and materialism and many other undesirable “isms”. Once the majority of Muslims agree that a United Islamic State is a desirable goal, an arduous enterprise in itself, the further practical steps of drawing up a complete and utterly new framework for the proposed Constitution and the proposed Political, Legislative, Legal, Administrative, Judicial and Economic Structures for such a state which the majority of Muslims agree on will also have to be drawn up and adopted. Muslims must make it a priority to dialogue and discuss Islamic and Muslim Unity and put into operation steps to make it a reality. The obstacles are numerous, not only from non-Muslim but also Muslim sources, but are not insurmountable. Many Muslims themselves may feel that Islamic and Muslim Unity is not necessary, yet react with frustration and misplaced impotent rage at every encroachment, mockery, threat, intimidation, oppression, bombing, killing against and of Muslims by non-Muslims (and other "extremist" Muslims as well). Muslims of all races, tribes, sects and nations must stand united for Islam to stand. For Muslims to be in disarray will mean the eventual demise of Islam and all it stands for. Muslims, unite! The future of Islam and of all Muslims is in your own hands. ONE GOD, ONE RELIGION, ONE COMMUNITY, ONE NATION. yusufar :D “Truly the faithful are brothers” (Qur’an 49:10) “And hold fast, all together, by the rope of Allah, and do not be divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favour on you, for you were enemies and He united your hearts, so that by His grace you became brothers” (Qur’an 3:103) “And indeed, this your community (“ummah”) is one community and I am your Lord, so worship Me” (Qur’an 21:92)
  18. Prof. A. K. Dewdney: (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.serendipity.li/wot/spine2.htm"]Welcome to the World of Synthetic Terror[/url] ..."We are now living in what has been called the Age of Synthetic Terror. In contrast to the corporate media line, "terrorism" is the brainchild and product of western intelligence agencies. Its purpose is to foment domestic anger at Muslims in order to justify a program of a) invasion of sovereign nations, B) seizure of their oil resources, c) mass murder designed to look like sectarian violence, d) establishing permanent military bases and e) the installation of puppet governments in the countries so affected..."
  19. Unity In Islam

    Agreed. There can be no attempts to force unity. This would be counter-productive. It all really depends on enlightenment of the general Muslim Community and needs to be worked on in a patient and constructive manner. Many Muslims are unaware of the damage they do to Islam and other Muslims by trying to force their point of view on others. Yes indeed, unity is the work of Allah, but human though we may be there is still a role for us to play in our own affairs, provided it is constructive and not destructive. As Sister Haqqul Yaqeen likes to point out :D , we must change ourselves before we can expect Allah to change our condition. It would be a derogation of our duty to Allah as Muslims to merely leave things as they are just because we think it is His work. Allah will of course have the final say in everything but we still have to endeavour and strive - for ourselves and for the general good of the Ummah. yusufar
  20. Unity In Islam

    Unity of football precedes Unity in Islam for the time being. :D
  21. Unity In Islam

    Brother Sallahudeen, if dawah is only spread by force, then this will put the entire Islamic world forever at war with the non-Islamic world. This is such a simplistic and untenable position from the real Islamic point of view. However, Non-Muslims will absolutely agree with you on this, since it makes Islam the religion spread by force which they can then legitimately resist by force as well. You have now, purposely or inadvertently, become a tool in aiding and abetting the cause of anti-Islamic propaganda. Where does that put Islam and the majority of peaceful Muslims then? Is Islam a religion of war or peace? More pertinent, do you see all non-Muslims as the enemy? If you do then this is the very same justification for the killing of innocent civilians, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Is this what you advocate? And is this what Islam really advocates? Must the Ummah forever be at war with the non-Muslims? Perhaps you had better have a relook at what you have posted above and think about it seriously. What it advocates will lead to the destruction of Islam, not its advancement. So what will happen to your dawah then? Are there not times (most of the time) when use of force - for dawah or any other reason would be counter-productive to the interests of Islam and the Ummah? Perhaps it is time that the firebrands of Islam paused to really think and study the real concepts of jihad in Islam. Or is it a case of it being easier to declare war in the name of jihad than to live up to the real principles of jihad and Islam? Your mention of what "the scholars of the principles of religion" say above is a narrow-minded view which I do not find support for in the broader principles of Islam. What then is the meaning of "There is no compulsion in religion" in Islam? Why then didn't the Rightly-Guided Caliphs exterminate all non-Muslims and their places of worship in the lands of Islam? Why then are there provisions for non-Muslims to come under the protection of the Islamic State by paying jizyah? Will there really come a time when ALL non-Muslims submit to Islam? Is it really God's Plan that ALL non-Muslims submit to Islam? I can only quote the "fatwa" below as a more reasonable basis of the position of Jihad in Islam, whether you agree or not is immaterial. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.themodernreligion(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/jihad/jihad-misunderstood.html"]Jihad - A Misunderstood Concept from Islam[/url] A Judicial Ruling (fatwa) Issued by Shaykh Hisham Kabbani and Shaykh Seraj Hendricks, 1998 It cannot be over-emphasized that Islam upholds the values of reason, balance and responsibility in the conduct of its worldly affairs. There is nothing arbitrary about its legal provisions relating to matters of war, peace, international relationships and the rule of law. In this area there is considerable agreement between Islamic law and the legal systems currently practiced throughout the world. In addition to the real possibility that these legal systems were profoundly influenced by the legal heritage of Islam, this commonality can be explained by the fact that the protection and endorsement of basic human rights form the cornerstone of Islamic legislation. The international community has come to agree, through the institution of the United Nations, on a body of human rights and interests which Islam has always endorsed. This ought not to surprise anyone if the basic realism, rationality and pragmatism of Islamic law is recognized. The critics of Islam, however, insist that Islam and Muslims are openly hostile and intolerant towards communities other than their own. They refer to the Qur’anic verses that exhort the believers to fight the infidels, they point to the battles of early Islam and the eventual confrontation between the Crusaders and the Saracens or Moors, and now, the contemporary stereotype of the Arab "terrorist". It must be noted that many Orientalists might object to this characterization of their views on the question. Indeed many of them subscribe to more nuanced positions. More recent scholarship has completely abandoned the emotionally-charged vocabulary of earlier Orientalism. It remains true, however, that Islam is still imagined as threatening, fanatical, violent and alien by significant sections of the world's media. In formulating an answer to all of this, it is crucial to focus on a general definition of Islam, so as not to fall into any misunderstanding about Jihad and its place within the Din. The common expression that Islam is a "way of life" has become hackneyed to the point where we can well do without it. Islam is more accurately described as “establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth.” This latter statement must be carefully understood if we are to avoid the superficial moralizing or equally misleading literalism that characterizes much contemporary thinking about Islam. It is far from desirable to simply quote, as an apparent show of understanding, scriptural support for this or that personal opinion we may have about a particular subject. Neither is it enough to use Qur’anic or Prophetic texts without adequate knowledge of the human situation and cultural milieu in which they were revealed and first applied, as well as the precedence of some verses over others based on order of revelation or abrogation. In other words, context and circumstance of Qur’anic revelation and Hadith are crucial in coming to terms with Jihad. It is an error to judge Islam and Muslims in the light of the kind of "Jihad" that has fallen victim to ideological tendencies. The critic also has to be wary of the interpretation of "Jihad" which is projected, and sometimes imposed, by the selective "religious reformism" so rampant today. They ignore central aspects of Islam’s intellectual heritage, selectively repress important figures and disregard Islam's impeccable history of adherence to the standards of law and justice in affairs of state. Jihad in History and Law This being said, let us now consider the nature of Jihad more fully as it appears in the history and law of Islam. Jihad in Arabic means "to strive for some objective". Thus, the common assumption, that Jihad is combat, is incorrect. In fact Jihad, in its technical meaning, has several branches, among which are the combative forms of Jihad. Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimaat, divides Jihad into four kinds: "Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah (swt) ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites” [9:73]. So the Prophet (s) strove against the unbelievers by sword and against the hypocrites by tongue." Said Ramadan Buti, a contemporary Orthodox scholar from Syria states, in his seminal work on the subject Jihad in Islam "… even before he conducted Jihad by sword against the unbelievers, there is no doubt the Prophet (s) invited these unbelievers peacefully, lodged protests against their beliefs and strove to remove their misgivings about Islam. When they refused any other solution, but rather declared a war against him and his message and initiated the fight, there was no alternative except to fight back." One form of Jihad, usually overlooked in today's pursuit of newsworthy headlines, is the Jihad of presenting the message of Islam-da`wah. Thirteen years of the Prophet's (s) 23-year mission consisted purely of this type of Jihad. Contrary to popular belief, the word Jihad and related forms of its root word <jahada> are mentioned in many Makkan verses in a non-combative context. (emphasis added) Combative Jihad in the technical usage of Islamic law means "the declaration of war against belligerent and aggressive non-Muslim powers or against fellow Muslim transgressors". It is not a haphazard decision taken by anybody. The principles of Islamic jurisprudence state that the actions of the leader must be guided by the interests of the people and that the interests of the collectivity has, in some cases, precedence over the interests of the individual. Jihad and Islamic Propagation God states in the Qur’an, "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance." [16:125] (emphasis added) Calling people to Islam and making them acquainted with it in all its aspects through dialogue and kind persuasion is the first type of Jihad in Islam, in contrast to the imagined belief that Jihad is only of the combative form. This is referred to in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) says, "so obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them (by preaching) with the utmost endeavor with it (the Qur’an)" [25:52]. Here the word "strive" <jaahidu>, is used to mean struggle by means of the tongue—preaching and exhortation—and to persevere despite the obstinate resistance of some unbelievers to the beliefs and ideals of Islam. Imam Nawawi in his book al-Minhaj, when defining Jihad and its different categories, said, "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct". The explanation of Jihad in Imam al-Dardir's book Aqarab al-Masalik is that it is propagating the knowledge of the Divine Law commending right and forbidding wrong. He emphasized that it is not permitted to skip this category of Jihad and implement the combative form, saying, "the first [islamic] duty is to call people to enter the fold of Islam, even if they had been preached to by the Prophet (s) beforehand." Similarly, Imam Bahouti commences the chapter on Jihad in his book Kashf al-Kinaa by showing the injunctions of collective religious duties (kifaya) that the Muslim Nation must achieve before embarking on combative Jihad, including preaching and education about the religion of Islam, dismissing all the uncertainties about this religion and making available all the skills and qualifications which people might need in their religious, secular, physical and financial interests because these constitute the regulations of both this life and the life to come. Hence, da`wah—performing the activities of propagating Islam and its related fields of knowledge—is the cornerstone of the 'building' of Jihad and its rules; and any attempt to build without this 'stone' would damage the meaning and reality of Jihad. Removing all misconceptions and stereotypes in clarifying the image of Islam held by non-Muslims, building a trusting relationship and working with them in ways that accord with their way of thinking, are all primary forms of Jihad. Similarly, establishing a strong community and nation which can fulfill all physical needs of its people, thereby creating for them conditions in which the message will be heard, rather than being lost in the strife and struggle of everyday life, are requirements and form a basic building block of the Jihadic concept. These foundations fulfill the Qur’anic injunction, "Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: and these it is that shall be successful." [3:104] Until this is accomplished the conditions of Jihad remain unfulfilled. Forced Conversion? So the foundation of Jihad is Islamic propagation (da’wah). The question often asked is whether Islam condones and teaches the forced and armed conversion of non-Muslims. This is the image sometimes projected by Western scholars and as any Muslim scholar will tell you, is seriously flawed. The Qur’an clearly states "There is no compulsion in religion, the path of guidance stands out clear from error" [2:256] and [60:8]. In this verse, the word "rushd" or "path of guidance" refers to the entire domain of human life, not just to the rites and theology of Islam. There is no debate about the fact that pre-Islamic Arabia was a misguided society dominated by tribalism and a blind obedience to custom. In contrast, the clarity of Islam and its emphasis on reason and rational proofs excluded any need to impose it by force. This verse is a clear indication that the Qur’an is strictly opposed to the use of compulsion in religious faith. Similarly, Allah addressed Sayiddina Muhammad (s) saying, "Remind them, for you are only one who reminds." [88:21] Allah addresses the believers, urging them to obey the injunctions of Islam, "Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, then know that it is Our Messenger's duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner." [5:92] However, this verse makes it clear that the Messenger's duty is only to proclaim and preach the message; it remains to each individual to accept and to follow. (emphasis added) Conditions for Combative Jihad The ruler, the Imam, is completely answerable to the people and their legal apparatus, the most important representatives of whom are the scholars. The position of the law is that only at such a time when it can be reasonably proven that; there are aggressive designs against Islam; and, there are concerted efforts to eject Muslims from their legally acquired property; and, that military campaigns are being launched to eradicate them. At such a time the ruler can declare and execute the provisions of Jihad. It is a condition that there be a leader of the Muslims, an Imam, to declare combative Jihad. In al-Mughni, Ibn Qudama states "declaring Jihad is the responsibility of the Imam and is his independent legal judgment." Al-Dardir says, "proclaiming Jihad comes through the Imam's assignment of a leader". Abu Bakr Al-Jazaa'iri states that the pillars of Jihad are: "A pure intention and that it is performed behind a Muslim Imam and beneath his flag and with his permission. …it is not permissible for them to fight without an Imam." Similarly the ruler, the political leader of the whole country, has the power to ratify peace treaties if they are consistent with the interests of the Muslims. Conscription has to be confined to young men of sound health on condition that they have parental permission to engage in combat. The exception is where the enemy has already entered the borders of a Muslim state in which case Jihad becomes unconditionally incumbent on every able man. Islamic Terms of Ratifying Peace Allah said, "Enter into peace completely and do not follow the steps of Satan." [2:208] The Prophet (s) said, after establishing the Islamic state in Madina, that the way of the Muslims is one. No single group can autonomously declare war or fight, nor can any one group make peace by itself, but the entire Muslim nation must make peace. A peace treaty can be made by the nations’ leader and all subjects of the nation are bound by that decision, regardless of whether the leader was appointed or elected. The final decision is up to the ruler after his consultation with others. (emphasis added) If a state has no leader then it must select one, or all the neighboring states and nations must come together and agree on a treaty with any foreign country. This applies as much to peace as it does to war. No individual or group may come forth and declare a Jihad: such will be a false Jihad. All Muslim nations and their leaders must come together for a decision of war or peace and that is the only accepted process. Naturally every community has the right to self-defense and in the case of Islam, where religion is the primary dimension of human existence, war in defense of the nation becomes a religious act. A lack of understanding of this quality of Islam, its non-secularism; has also contributed considerably to the fear that when Islam talks about war it means going to war to convert. This might be true in other cultures, but Islam must be allowed to speak for itself. Al-Dardir says of this, "Jihad becomes a duty when the enemy takes [Muslims] by surprise". Said Ramadan al-Buti shows that fighting in this case is an obligation of the community as a whole. This is based on the Prophet's (s) saying "He who is killed in defence of his belongings, or in self-defence, or for his religion, is a martyr". This verse mentions a fundamental principle of Islam regarding Muslim/Non-Muslim relationships. Muslims are enjoined to act kindly and justly towards members of other faiths except in two circumstances; firstly, if they dispossess Muslims of their legitimate land-rights, and; secondly, if they engage in hostilities towards Muslims or show clear intent to do so (al-hirabah) because of their religion with a clear intention to destroy the Islamic nation as a whole. In the second eventuality, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler to declare the Jihad as a defensive action to repel such attacks. It is evident from the Qur’an and other sources that the armed struggle against the polytheists was legislated in the context of specific circumstances after the Prophet (s) had migrated from Makkah to Madina. There he secured a pact with the Jewish and Arab tribes of the city, who accepted him as the leader of their community. In the milieu of this newly-founded base of operations, under the governance of Divine legislation and the leadership of the Prophet (s), Islam attained the status of a nation with its corequisite territory and the accompanying need to protect its self-interests. At that time the divine command was revealed permitting Jihad, but this occurred only after: Persistent refusal of the Makkan leadership (the Prophet being in Madina at the time) to allow the peaceful propagation of Islam in Makkah. This is in fact the most basic reason for armed Jihad. Continuous unabated persecution of Muslims remaining at Makkah after the Prophet’s (s) emigration to Madina triggered an armed insurrection against Qurayshite interests in the Hijaz. Makkans themselves starting off military campaigns against the Muslims at Madinah with the sole objective of eradicating Islam. Key security pledges being abrogated unilaterally by a number of tribes allied to the Prophet (s), forcing him into a vulnerable position. These conditions for Jihad involving armed struggle were then clearly specified in the Qur’an: "And fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you, and do not transgress [limits] for Allah likes not the transgressors" [2:190] and "Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first…?" [9:13] (emphasis added) The picture that emerges here is that the command to fight was given in relation to specific conditions. Thus the declaration of war is not an arbitrary act at all. A further implication here, as the Hanafi school in fact argues, is that war was declared by the Prophet (s) as the head of the Islamic nation, and as such no one else can legitimately declare Jihad except a ruler who is head of an Islamic state. The duty lies squarely with the religious/political leadership to determine whether the conditions for Jihad exist and to then give the appropriate judgement. In later times, the Muslims engaged in warfare to establish the "Pax Islamica" or Islamic Order. The legal and political order must flow from the divine imperative (Qur’an, Sunnah, etc.). It alone guarantees the rights of every individual by keeping in check all the dark psychic tendencies of man and so preventing him from indulging in anti-social behaviors, from political aggression, right down to the commonest criminal act. It is for this that the Qur’an calls on the believers to go forth in defense of those whose rights and liberty have been trampled by the unbridled tyranny of oppressors and conquering armies, or who are prevented from freely hearing the word of Allah espoused to them by preachers and educators. Allah says, "How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!" [4:75] No reliable evidence exists that Muslims ever intended or attempted to impose the specific rites and beliefs of Islam. The histories of Spain, India and the Balkans are concrete proof of this. The idea, often postulated in the media, that Islam is hostile to non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims, is a major a misconception. Beyond the conditions described above there exists no valid reason to hold any hostility towards them for the Qur’an states: "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not remove you from your homes (by force) and who do not fight you because of your religion, that you act kindly and justly towards them ..." [60:8] The reference in this verse is to the non-Muslims in general. (emphasis added) Jihad Between Muslims Properly speaking Jihad, in the case of internal dissension, only occurs when these two conditions—a just Imam fighting unjustifiable insurrection—are met and the Muslims fight in support of the Imam against the offending parties. In Islam allegiance and obedience to a just authority is obligatory. It must be noted also that rebellions against authority and especially political authority simply for the sake of rebellion have no place in the concept of Jihad. In this age of relativism, the spirit of rebellion seems to have penetrated every layer of society. However, Islam and its principles cannot be made subservient to these cultural trends. In some of the contemporary "Islamic" groups, Jihad has been adapted to a virtually Marxist or Socialist concept of class revolt aimed at overthrowing the authority of the state. In the often fervently materialistic milieu of contemporary political and revolutionary ideologies, Islam is inevitably reduced to nothing more than a social philosophy. This reductionism simply amounts to an abysmal misunderstanding of the essential function of Islam, which is to turn the "face" of the human receptacle away from the world of disharmony and illusion to the tranquillity and silence of Divine awareness and vision. Inward Jihad, as we alluded to at the beginning of this essay, has a key role to play in this respect. Rebellion Against Rulers The scholar Ibn Nujaym said "it is not permitted for there to be more than one state leader (Imam) in a time period. There may be many judges, even in one state, but the leader is one." Al-Bahjouri said "It is an obligation to obey the leader, even if he is not fair or trustworthy or even if he committed sins or mistakes." Abu Hanifa's school says that the head of the state, the Imam, cannot be expelled for being a corrupt person (fasiq). Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman ® narrated a hadith in which he said, "The Prophet (s) said, 'there will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my sunna, and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of satan in the body of a human being.' And I asked the Prophet (s), 'What I should do at that time if I reach it?' He said, 'listen and obey the ruler, even if he lashed your back and took your money, listen and obey.'" In another narration, Auf bin Malik ® said, "O Prophet of Allah, do you recommend that we fight them?" He said, "No, don't fight them as long as they do not prevent you from your prayers. And if you see from them something that you dislike, dislike their acts, do not dislike them. And do not take your hand out from obedience to them." Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abdullah ibn al-Abbas ®, "if someone dislikes his ruler, he must be patient, because if he comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by only a handspan and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyyah) and sin." These source texts are clear evidence that whoever lives under a particular government must obey the ruler and live peacefully. They are prohibited from taking up arms against him. Uprising or violence by any group against the ruler is completely rejected in Islam, and was prohibited by the Prophet (s) and will be a cause of death on the way of ignorance (jahiliyya). Thus Islam considers rebellion against the ruler a great iniquity. These hadith affirm that one must be patient with one's ruler, even if he commits oppression. These hadith refer to the leader of a nation, not the leader of a small group. Therefore groups that take up violent struggle against their regimes are prohibited in Islam and are by default illegal and blameworthy. In fact the true path to correction of the mistakes of a ruler is according to the hadith "a most excellent Jihad is when one speaks a word of truth in the presence of a tyrannical ruler." Note here the hadith does not mention fighting the ruler, but rather praises the one who corrects the ruler by speech. Armed and violent opposition to a state regime can never be recognized as Jihad in the way of Allah, despite the claims of many groups. Unfortunately we see today countless individuals and groups who label their rulers and their governments apostates or unbelievers, thereby giving themselves the excuse to declare "jihad" against them, asserting that this is because they do not rule by what was revealed to the Prophet (s). Even worse, they go further by terrorizing and killing government officers, members of the armed forces and public servants, simply because they are easy targets. These groups use a "militant Islamic" ideology to justify such felonious action, declaring the ruler, the government, and its officers to be criminals standing in the way of "true Islam", who must be eliminated. Thus, those who are innocent of any crime, but who are earning a living and raising their families, such as officers and officials of ministries and departments, county and city officials and police, become targets of these extremist ideologues. Such groups do not hesitate to kill them in surprise attacks, terrorizing the entire nation by blasting here and there and harming the innocent. If the ruler commits wrong, it is not permitted to label him an apostate, nor to indoctrinate people to use militancy to oppose him. In the time of the Prophet (s) after the conquest of Makkah, a Companion named Hatib ibn Abi Balta, assisted some of the enemy by supporting them extensively and passing them secret information. It may be that no one today supports a tyrannical ruler as Hatib supported the unbelievers at that time. When questioned as to his motives, Hatib replied, "O Allah's Prophet! Don't hasten to give your judgment about me. I was a man closely connected with the Quraish, but I did not belong to this tribe, while the other emigrants with you, had their relatives in Mecca who would protect their dependents and property. So, I wanted to compensate for my lacking blood relation to them by doing them a favor so that they might protect my dependents. I did this neither because of disbelief nor apostasy nor out of preferring disbelief (kufr) to Islam." Allah's Prophet (s), said, "Hatib has told you the truth." We see here that the Prophet (s), though fully aware of Hatib's actions, never considered him to be outside the fold of Islam, nor did he inflict any punishment on him. Regarding Hatib and his support of the unbelievers Allah revealed the following verse: "O you who believe! Do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Messenger and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord?" [60:1] Though the verse reprimands Hatib, showing him in the wrong, nonetheless Allah (swt) did not take him out of the state of faith yet continued to address him with the honorable title "O you who believe", despite his assisting the enemies of Islam. This constitutes proof that even if someone assists a regime that does not support Islam, one cannot harm that person as the Prophet (s) did not inflict any punishment on Hatib. One wonders then how today so many groups freely label those working for the government as renegades and apostates, and issue fierce edicts to kill them? Their work with the government might be for their livelihood, or for building a bridge of trust for the Islamist community to ensure a better future relationship or a better understanding of Islam. Such actions are baseless in Islam and are founded on an extremist ideology, far removed from the middle path which always constitutes this blessed religion of Allah (swt). The Inner Jihad Islam is not a rhetorical religion, it is based on unity, love and rational action. Soon after the Prophet’s (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) death, Islam radiated outwardly from its earthly center, the Ka’aba, implacable symbol of the faith. Jihad was the dynamic of this expansion. Outwardly it embodied the power of Islam against error and falsehood, while inwardly it represented the means of spiritual awakening and of transcending the self. Referring to this, the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said while returning from battle: "We are now returning from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad , the Jihad against the self." The Prophet (s) is reported to have said during the Farewell Pilgrimage, "... The Fighter in the Way of Allah is he who makes jihad against himself (jahada nafsah) for the sake of obeying Allah." The means of the combative Jihad, the sword, was adopted and internalized by Islam as the charismatic symbol of sacred warfare. It symbolizes the qualities of strength and vigilance, indispensable for the spiritual wayfarer in his quest for illumination and the beatific vision. This symbolism deeply inspired Muslim artists and craftsmen. In calligraphy, for example, one finds the sword-motif embossed in gold and silver as the initial letter of the testimony of faith, the shahada. Historical evidence and current practice indicate that this symbol often forms a central feature of cultural events of the Muslim world, such as folk-dancers sporting gleaming blades as they chant and move to rhythmic Sufic recitation. Allah says in the Holy Qur’an, "Those who have striven for Our sake, We guide them to Our ways" [29:96] In this verse, God uses a derivative of the linguistic root of the word“Jihad” to describe those who are deserving of guidance, and has made guidance dependent on Jihad against the false desires of the soul. Therefore, the most perfect of people are those who struggle the most against the selfish promptings of the ego for God's sake. The most obligatory Jihad is that against the base side of the ego, desires, the devil, and the lower world. The great Sufi Al-Junayd said: "Those who have striven against their desires and repented for God's sake, shall be guided to the ways of sincerity. One cannot struggle against his enemy outwardly (i.e. with the sword) except he who struggles against these enemies inwardly. Then whoever is given victory over them will be victorious over his enemy, and whoever is defeated by them, his enemy defeats him." Dhikr: the Remembrance of God The Prophet peace be upon him said: "Shall I tell you something that is the best of all deeds, constitutes the best act of piety in the eyes of your Lord, elevates your rank in the hereafter, and carries more virtue than the spending of gold and silver in the service of Allah, or taking part in Jihad and slaying or being slain in the path of Allah?" They said: "Yes!" He said: "Remembrance of Allah." Thus one finds the principles of the spiritual Jihad are based on eliminating the ugly, selfish and ferocious characteristics of the ego through spiritual training and mastery of dhikr, the Remembrance of God. This remembrance takes many forms: each school of Sufism focuses on a different form of ritual dhikr to enable the seeker to approach the Divine Presence, varying from individual silent recitation and chanting to vocal group sessions. It is this spiritual struggle that raises humankind and instills in him the sense of relationship with His Creator, and the proper perspective in relating to all creation, always calling for love between humanity and striving in Allah’s Way for better understanding between various communities of all faiths. Through this spiritual Jihad the effect of the selfish ego on the soul of the seeker will be removed, uplifting his state from depression, anxiety and loneliness to one of joy, satisfaction and companionship with the Most High. Shaykh Hisham Kabbani is Chairman, Islamic Supreme Council of America and Shaykh Seraj Hendricks is a Mufti in Cape Town, South Africa. If the above does not correctly reflect the true Islamic position, it may be refuted. However, please take note that the main theme of this thread is Unity, not Disunity. My fervent hope is that Muslims can learn what is responsible for Disunity in Islam so that by avoiding it, we may strive for and get closer to Unity. yusufar
  22. ~ They're Staying In Iraq ~

    Cogito has become Incognito. :D
  23. Palestinians Killed On Gaza Beach

    Wa 'alaykumsalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh Sister, My sincerest apologies. I have this bad habit of not looking at the gender sign and making assumptions based on just the name (and your name is one I would normally associate with a male - no excuse though). I must be more careful before I really offend someone. Wassalaam, yusufar
  24. Palestinians Killed On Gaza Beach

    As far as Liberte is concerned, these were all self-inflicted by the Palestinians themselves, as he said in a different thread: "The fact is that the brunt (sic) of Palestinian suffering is self inflicted." This is the line the Americans and israelis are selling in the West and it appears quite successfully as well. Now they are trying to sell it to us as well! They must think all Muslims are morons! :D In fact that is exactly what Liberte called Brother Haqqul Yaqeen in another thread, so it surely comes as no surprise that that is what they really think of us. yusufar edited to comply with Rule 39
  25. Unity In Islam

    Personally I would think that democracy is not intrinsically unIslamic. It may become unIslamic when the democratic process is subverted or used to put in place a governing system which is not based on Islam. Islam has been able to adapt many types of governance to its principles and any type of governance can be Islamic if it is based on Islam rather than some secular ideology. Islam does not exclude common people from its decision-making process and neither is governance in Islam the exclusive province of only the religious scholars - who may also have their own narrow prejudices which can influence their interpretation of Islam. Islamic governance can be a combination of both factors - the recommendations of the scholars as to who are qualified to be the political leaders of the Community and the democratic decisions of the ordinary members of the Community from those so qualified to lead. Let us then examine the articles recommended by Brother Sallahudeen, firstly on (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/khalifa.html"]"The Muslim Khalifa"[/url]. Definition of Khilafa and Khalifa Khalifa is an Arabic word literally meaning "one who replaces someone else who left or died" (English: caliph). In the context of Islam, however, the word acquires a narrower meaning. The Muslim Khalifa is the successor (in a line of successors) to Prophet Muhammad's position as the political, military, and administrative leader of the Muslims. The prophetic role of Muhammad is strictly not included in this definition, as the Qur'an and Hadith clearly state that Muhammad was the last of the prophets. Khilafa is a related Arabic word which, in the context of Islam, is used to denote the government of the Muslim state, of which the Khalifa is the head. A workable analogy of Khalifa and Khilafa is president and presidency or king and monarchy. The Khilafa is a fard kifaya on the ummah. If the establishment and maintenance of the Khilafa is a fard kifaya, then it is something worth striving for as far as Muslims and Muslim governments and nations/countries are concerned. Why is it then that Muslims are generally not bothered? It is probably the one thing that will rid all Muslim lands of oppression, suppression and repression, both from Muslims themselves as well as non-Muslims. Most Muslim ruling elites are either happy with an entirely secular form of government which is nominally democratic - i.e. only in appearance, democracy being only a tool to gain power and wealth without needing to be answerable to any Islamic principles at all. Freedom without responsibility. Subversion of human values under the guise of freedom of choice. Tyranny masquerading as opportunity. Other Muslim ruling elites have gone as far as to utilize the very principles of Islam to institute forms of government which are Islamic in name only but not in actual practice - Islam becomes for them a mere tool to keep their populace under tight and ruthless control while they also control all the power and wealth without having to be answerable to any Islamic principles themselves. Repression without accountability. Oppression and suppression in disguise. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Where do we find the middle path here, the right balance between absolute democracy and religious extremism, that will allow the worldwide Muslim Community a chance to realize happiness both in this life as well as the hereafter? According to the article: "The duties and responsibilities of the Khalifa The Khalifa of the Muslim ummah must strive to: 1. Safeguard Islam in its original form, and to protect against the introduction of new things (bid'a) into Islam. 2. Establish justice (including punishments for crimes) among the people. 3. Ensure the protection of the ummah. People within the boundaries of the Muslim state (regardless of whether they are Muslims or not) should feel secure enough to be productive. 4. Protect the physical boundaries of the state through the use of arms and other methods. 5. Defend the rights of Muslims abroad, and to see to it that Islam can spread freely in non-Muslim lands (including the use of force). 6. Organize jihad against any non-Muslim government which prevents Muslim da'wah from entering its land. 7. Collect and distribute zakat and the spoils of war according to the Qur'an and Sunnah (and ijtihad, if necessary). This must be done without the use of fear as an incentive (unless a person refuses to pay). Zakat is not to be taken from the best or worst of people's possessions, but rather from the middle. 8. Pay the salaries of Bayt-ul-Mal employees, i.e., those people whose job is the collection of zakat and other state-levied taxes. Their salaries should be reasonable and be paid on time. 9. Hire honest people as helpers, aides, governors, etc. The Khalifa must appoint to public office those who are competent and who can give good advice. This especially applies to Bayt-ul-Mal officials. 10. Be heavily involved personally in the acts of governing. The Khalifa must be actively checking and overseeing the duties of the government, and constantly be guarding against internal corruption." While Islam in its original form must be protected, Muslims today must also learn to deal constructively with new things or bid'a, as changes take place every second. These changes present constantly new challenges to Muslims. How do we meet them without sacrificing Islam? How do we adapt to them without ourselves changing into something which is unIslamic? Not everything new is unIslamic. Muslims must continue to be in the forefront of science and knowledge and examine all things on the basis of Islam and Islamic principles and tenets. Islamic justice must be properly understood by the scholars and ordinary Muslims alike. While it would be ideal for the Khalifa to defend the rights of Muslims abroad, and to see to it that Islam can spread freely in non-Muslim lands, this cannot include the use of force. There is no compulsion in religion and our duty is only to pass the message, the reception of which we have to leave to Allah. Islam has never needed to be spread by use of force. Muslims who choose to live in non-Muslim lands are subject to the laws of the land where they live. While the Khalifa can intercede and make representations on their behalf, the Khalifa cannot use force to defend them - to do so will mean that the Islamic State will forever be at war with non-Muslim nations and this is not a tenable position. However, if genocide is threatened against Muslims in non-Muslim lands, then it may be possible for the Khalifa to use such force as necessary to stop the same from taking place, if the Islamic State is in a position to do so without itself being destroyed. There is no principle in Islam which justifies the organization of jihad against any non-Muslim government which prevents Muslim da'wah from entering its land and this cannot be one of the duties or responsibilities of the Khalifa. Muslim da'wah must always be peaceful. Allah has given humans freedom of choice to accept Islam or reject it. Who are we to force it upon others? Do we want to be continually at war with non-Muslims who reject Islam? Is it even necessary? In the next post let us examine "The prerequisites to becoming the Khalifa". yusufar ...to be continued