Thursday, 31 January 2008

Kenya

What is happening in Kenya?


Kenya's opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) claims that last month's election was rigged in favour of President Mwai Kibaki. Protests have led to over 900 deaths nationwide and more than 250,000 people have fled their homes.
According to the official results, Mr Kibaki won with a tiny margin of 230,000 votes out of a total cast of some 10 million. There were various discrepencies in the elections, such as:

The results were delayed for more than a day, at a time when ODM candidate Raila Odinga was leading
Many thousands of people seem to have only voted in the presidential election but not the parliamentary or local polls held at the same time
Some of these results came from areas known to be pro-Kibaki
In the parliamentary race, Mr Odinga's ODM won twice as many seats as Mr Kibaki's Party of National Unity (PNU)
Results in some constituencies were different when announced nationally, to when they had previously been announced locally
The head of the election commission has admitted that turnout in one constituency was 115%.
Opinion polls conducted by Steadman prior to the election indicated that Raila was ahead and his ODM was more popular than the PNU. It is likely that President Mwai Kibaki manipulated the results in order to remain in power.
It is important to understand the background of both parties and their allegiences.
I) The Party of National Unity (PNU) headed by the incumbent president Mwai Kibaki. This group actually is an alliance for the following groups:
1. National Rainbow Coalition-Kenya: This is Kibaki’s original party.
2. The Democratic Party (DP)
3. Kenya African National Union (KANU)
4. Forum for the Restoration of Democracy-Kenya.
5. Forum for the Restoration of Democracy-People.
6. Shirikisho Party of Kenya.
7. TIP
8. Safina
9. Sisi Kwa Sisi
10. Agano
Most of these ten parties are led by the regional tribal leaders. This alliance was hastily cobbled up just before the general elections because Kibaki feared that chances of his NARC party winning the polls alone were slim. He therefore forged this alliance under a single umbrella to face the opposition as a unified front.
II) The Opposition Alliance: The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) which split into three outfits:
1. The Orange Democratic Movement is the main group and the strongest of the alliance. This is led by Raila Odinga who is the Opposition Leader who is form Lou, the second largest tribe in Kenya. He was chosen to head the party in its conclave held recently and nominated to be the opposition candidate for the Kenyan presidency in the ensuing elections. Immedeately on being elected leader, Odinga took the initiative to foster cordial relations with all his 5 rivals whom he had defeated at the party conference. This was designed to put forward a unified opposition front as these rival leaders represented various tribes as follows:
A. Musalia Mudavadi, the former Vice President represented the Luhya tribe which is the 3rd largest tribe on Kenya.
B. William Ruto, was the right hand man of the former president Moi. He represents the Kanenjin tribe.
C. Najeeb Bala’la’, a Muslim of the Yemeni (Hadhrami) origin. He is a strong supporter of Raila Odinga within the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).
D. Joseph Niagah, who although belongs to the Kikuyu tribe of the current president, yet is in the opposition.
E. Charity Ngilu, is from the Kamba tribe who heads the NARC alliance which actually brought Kibaki to the presidency. She then joined the opposition.
Raila won the nomination to head the oppostion alliance thanks to the American support which is evident from the statements of the US Ambassador who called upon the voters to back the “youth” , indicating Raila who is many years junior to Kibaki. It is known that Kibaki who inspite of his previous British loyalties, was closer to the US in his tenure as president during 2002-2005 and the US had hoped to lure him to its ways especially after his US visit in 2003.
Britain on its part had foisted its own men around the president by using the ‘carrot and stick’ tactics. This campaign for Britain was carried out by the former president Moi who is a bastion of the British politics in Kenya: Moi thretened to start an intensive campaign to expose Kibaki’s corrupt practices, at the same time he offered to support him in the next prsendential elections. Moi convinced him that the current public opinion was against the US and cited the results of the 2005 referendum on the draft constitution prepared by Kibaki which went against him. Kibaki was convinced that the people and their votes were with Moi and thereby the British loyalists and if he went wioth them, he can be assured of a second presidential term.
Thus by using the threat of exposure and incentive for a second term, Britain ensured that since 2005, Kibaki reverted back to his original loyalty.This prompted the US to back Raila as Kibaki’s rival. Consequently, the alliance in power started a massive campaign against Raila and the US as follows:
A. The government charged Raila that he promised the Americans to establish their military base in Kenya.
B. The government refused to allow American observers for elections from the Carter Center while permitting only EU deputed observers.
C. Newton Kulundu, the Labour Minister in the government charged the US of ignoring the Human rights and liberties aspirations of the Third World and cited the Guantanamo and Abu Ghuraib incidents. This infuriated the US Ambassador so much so that he refused to shake hands with Kulundu.
D. The government supporters organised a protest at the site of the 1998 US embassy blasts and raised anti-American slogans.
2. The Orange Democratic Movement-Kenya (ODM-K) is led by Kalonzo Musyoko, a conservative christian with links to the former president Moi and belongs to the 5th largest Kenyan tribe of Kamba. It may be recalled that Kalonzo had split from the original ODM before its conference where Raila was elected its leader. He his regarded by most local observers as a government agent sent to the opposition in order to cause disruption in its ranks and confuse the voters due to the similarity in the names and their election symbols. Kalonzo has so far only succeeded in getting a few leaders to his party from his own tribe. His party is therefore regarded as a mere tribal entity.
3. Kenya African National Union (KANU) has further split into two factions:
1. Faction led by Uhuru Kenyatta the younger son of the first Kenyan president Jomo Kenyatta. He has little political expertise but belongs to the largest Kenyan tribe of Kikuyu. He is widely regarded as a pawn in the hands of the former president Moi. Until recently, Uhuru was in the opposition ODM even during the referendum on the new draft constitution in November 2005, but switched his loyalties to the current president Kibaki under pressure from former president Moi. As a result, the ODM movement was reduced to being a single party rather than an alliance.
2. The new Kenya African National Union (KANU) led by Nicholas Biwott, who is a right-hand man of Moi. There wer persistent rivalries between Biwott and Uhuru, but were sorted out by Moi to unify the KANU.
Raila is the strongest opponent of Kibaki who was nominated by the ODM as the presidential candidate. This is why Kibaki spared no effort to engineer a split in the ranks of the ODM with the help of former president Moi. Hence the opposition charged Kibaki of allying with a dictator.
Both Kibaki and Moi are from the British Imperialist background are working to keep Kenya under the British influence and to isolate Raila who appears to harbour American loyalty. They regard him as dangerous for the British influence as he is an impressive orator who can sway the people with his eloquent speaking skills.
This is another example of the turmoil created by the meddling of the Western powers in Africa, a rich continent destroyed by the greed of the colonialists.

Thursday, 24 January 2008

World Aids day




World Aids day - an Islamic perspective



• December 1st was World Aids Day, we have seen in the newspapers and on TV screens a lot of discussion about HIV & Aids
• Let us look at this subject to understand its reality and look at the Islamic solution to the problem of HIV & Aids.
• HIV stands out in respect of its prevention. It is one of the most notorious infectious diseases around today, with good reason, as it is currently incurable. Although, it’s disease progression in an individual can be significantly slowed down.
• The uniqueness of HIV is in its transmission. It is a virus that must pass from person to person through the exchange of significant quantities of bodily fluids, primarily sexual fluid or blood.
• These fluids do not ordinarily transfer from person to person except through the undertaking of specific activities over which an individual normally has control. The main methods of transmission amongst adults are via sexual intercourse or the sharing of needles that enter the blood stream of sequential individuals. The sharing of needles primarily occurs during the use of recreational drugs such as heroine.
• A safe assertion may be made that if a healthy adult avoids certain high risk activities, the probability of contracting HIV are miniscule. If two people of the opposite gender marry, and are faithful to each other for the rest of their lives, their risk of contracting HIV through sexual activity is negligible. HIV in children is usually transmitted during childbirth from an infected mother. There are various techniques that can be used to prevent this vertical spread. However, it is simple reality that if adults do not have HIV, children could not get it either.
• The UN has reported that rates of HIV throughout the world are reaching previously unprecedented levels, estimated to be 40 million people infected worldwide. There were over 4 million new cases in the last year, 700 000 of which were in children. Current boom areas are Pakistan and Indonesia, where the report said that transmission was out of control, although the problem is most critical in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Secular response
“Freedom” is one of the core principles in the capitalist ideology. They therefore shy away from advising people to avoid those behaviours likely to lead to HIV infection. They prefer to try to find ways to perform the various risky behaviours that they want to practice, but with a modicum of protection.Practically speaking this means the promotion of condom use, and the provision of clean needles and syringes to drug addicts so that they do not need to share. These principles have been the lynch pins of strategies aimed at preventing the spread of HIV in the Western world. These approaches are increasingly being peddled to the developing world as the solution.
This has not worked at all so far. While condoms are believed to be protective and the provision of clean needles may well limit the risk of transmission, it is naïve to expect uneducated drug addicts to be responsible, and condoms do not provide full proof protection. If these are really the only preventative measures that can be offered, failure is assured and the virus will continue to spread. This is an issue that many in the west are starting to acknowledge.Jim Yong Kim, head of the WHO’s HIV/Aids program, said in reference to the G8’s pledge to pump more money into getting wide spread access to anti-retroviral drugs that this is more to do with social change rather than administering better pharmaceuticals. “Treatment is not rocket science,” he said “prevention is rocket science”.
Cause
The cause behind the increase of promiscuity & drug taking in society here and everywhere in the world is concepts of Freedom & Benefit.Destroys any type of morality people haveIndecency & fornication are norms in West e.g. office environment. Places like Indian subcontinent are catching up, traditional values eroding.This is occurring due to concepts of personal freedom, freedom of ownership and benefit as the criterion for actions.Let us look at the cause behind this – idea of Freedom. They believe in 4 Freedoms – Freedom of belief, expression, ownership and personal freedom
Personal Freedom
The fourth type of freedom which the Capitalist system calls for and works to achieve and protect is the personal freedom. According to this system, every human being has the right to live his private life as he wishes unless he transgresses against the private lives of other people. He has the right to marry or to have an extra-marital relationship with any woman as long as it is done with her consent.He has the right to practice sexual perversion as long as this practice does not involve a minor. Also, he has the right to eat, drink and wear whatever he wants within the public laws. For these Capitalists, the concept of halal and haram does not exist when it comes to personal conduct, as long as the person behaves lawfully, and "lawful behaviour" in the Capitalist societies is subject to disparity from one society to another and from one time to another.
Religion has no influence upon this freedom. The system is detached from religion according to the Capitalist ideology. As a result of applying this type of freedom in the Capitalist societies, immorality has spread. Men and women live together without any legal relationship, and even men and women have partners of the same sex and establish abnormal relationships amongst themselves under the protection of the law.The personal and sexual perversions that prevail in the Capitalist societies result from personal freedom which has also led to unbelievable conflicts. Pornographic magazines and movies, sex phone lines, and nude bars are just a few examples of the abnormalities and perversions which the Capitalist societies have degenerated to as a result of personal freedom. The evident disparity between one Capitalist society and another in the practice of this freedom results from the origin of the Capitalist societies and their gradual application of the Capitalist ideology.
The Capitalist societies were established on the ruins of the Feudal system and the traditions and culture upheld by the Church. Because it was impossible to change these traditions overnight, the Capitalists were divided among themselves. One group pushed to immediately abandon these traditions, whilst another group called for removing the old traditions and culture gradually by taking into consideration the reality of the societies and the prevalent culture and traditions at the time. Those who called for the immediate practice of freedom were called Liberals, and those who called for the gradual application of freedom were called Conservatives. Another intermediate group has surfaced between these two groups who were called Moderates. This "Middle Group" was also divided; some of them were more inclined to the Conservatives and were called Rightists, and some of them were more inclined to the Liberals and were called Leftist. The Capitalist societies still have these classifications of groups today.
A Muslim is not allowed to accept personal freedom because it allows what Allah has forbidden, even aside from it being a source of various social diseases. Personal freedom is the freedom of fornication, sexual perversion, immorality, drinking alcohol, and other diseases.
“And those who disbelieve, their actions are like a mirage in a desert. The thirsty one thinks it to be water, until he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing, but he finds Allah with him, Who will pay him his full due (hell). And Allah is swift in taking account.”
[Nur: 39]
He (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) also said:
“Two categories of people I have not seen them (yet): some people who hold whips like the tails of the cows by which they lash the people. And women who wear (clothes) but (are) half-naked, bending (their bodies) and bending the sight of the men to them. Their heads are like the tilted humps of the camels. These women will not enter the paradise nor will they experience its smell (odour), though its odour is felt at a distance of so and so (days)”
[Muslim].
Islamic alternative
The Islamic social system properly applied, holds the long-term solution to the problem of HIV. It constructs a society that heavily emphasises the importance of marriage prior to sexual relations, even prescribing penalties on those who transgress such boundaries. The resulting society would therefore have a particular complexion. The society would be founded on a number of principles.
Firstly, an Islamic State would create an atmosphere conducive for taqwa (consciousness of Allah [swt]) to thrive. Islamic codes contain certain etiquettes, which guard against inappropriate social relationships. These include dress regulations and arrangement of private buildings.
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze, and protect their private parts. That is purer for them. Verily, Allah is All Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect their private parts."
[TMQ An-Nur : 30-31].
Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,
“When a person commits fornication there goes out of him the Iman (belief) and it hovers like a canopy over his head and when he quits this act the Iman reverts to him again”
[Tirmidhi & Abu Dawud]
It has been narrated by Abu Musa al-Ashari that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,
“Any women that uses perfume and walks past men in order for them to smell her fragrance; she is a fornicator”
[Tirmidhi & Abu Dawud].
The Shari’ah prevents khulwa (seclusion) between men and women. The reality of khulwa is that it makes the man and woman more sexually agitated. By prohibiting this solitary privacy a cause of corruption is eliminated, because the khulwa is one of the direct means to corruption.
Jabir ibn Abdullah narrated that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,
“Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day (Al-Yawm al-Akhir) let him not be alone with a woman who has not a Mahram (male relative who she cannot marry) with her. Indeed, the third (person) is al-Shaytan!”
[Ahmad]
Taqwa & public opinion – quote of Umar – Those who are not corrected by the Taqwa are corrected by the Sultan (authority).
The Islamic punishment system enforces these rules
“The woman and man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes."
[TMQ An Nur: 2]
Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah Al-Ansari: a man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah's Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah's Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) ordered him to be stoned to death, as he was a married person.
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol 8, Hadith no 805).
Homosexuality
From Ikrimah from ibn Abbas who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lut, kill the doer and the one to whom it is done”
[it is narrated by the five excep An-Nisai]
As for Ijma as-Sahabah, the Sahabah differed in the style of killing the homosexual; however, they had a consensus (ijma) on killing him. Al-Bayhaqi extracted from Ali (ra) that he stoned a homosexual, and Al-Bayhaqi extracted from Abu Bakr that he gathered the people in the concerning a man who was married just as women are married and he asked the companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw) about that. The most severe among them on that day was Ali (ra). He said: ‘No nation among the nations has disobeyed with this sin except one nation with whom Allah did what you know. We view that we should burn them with fire.’
And Ja’far bin Muhammad narrated from his father from Ali in other than this incident who said: ‘He is stoned then burnt with fire.’Al-Bayhaqi extracted from ibn Abbas that he was asked about the hadd of the homosexual and said: ‘The highest building in the town is looked for then he is thrown from it upside down, then he is followed by stones.’ And it narrated from Ali: ‘He is killed by the sword then burnt due to the enormity of the sin.’ Umar and Uthman adopted ‘that a wall is thrown upon him.’ All these opinions collectively indicate killing even if they differ on the style of killing.
Marriage
Finally, Islam encourages marriage at a young age if possible, and seeks to remove the obstacles to this.
“Oh you who are young. Whoever amongst you can afford to marry should marry, because it will help him refrain from looking at other women, and guard his modesty (i.e. private parts from unlawful sex). And whoever is not able to marry he should fast because it will protect him”
[Muslim].
Abu Hurairah (ra) narrates that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
"Three (persons) have a right from Allah to be helped: the Mujahid in the way of Allah, the seeker for marriage who wishes to guard his chastity and the slave who seeks funds to free oneself."
The upshot of the Islamic social system regarding marriage is that young people would not have casual affairs but make strong commitments before engaging in sexual relationships. This is likely to go a long way in preventing the spread of HIV. In contrast with some major religions, it does not prohibit barrier contraception, which could be seen as the last protection against the spread of HIV rather than the only protection.As for the injecting of drugs, intoxicants are absolutely prohibited in Islam and an Islamic social system would seek to eradicate drug use among its people. This would start with the cultivating of the individuals taqwa and creation of an Islamic atmosphere in society, but would proceed to an uncompromising crack down on the producers and dealers of drugs. It should be remembered that the medical name for heroine is diamorphine, which is used in many medical conditions and is currently in short supply (Britain’s National Health Service recently went through a national shortage, some hospitals running out altogether). Therefore such produce does not have to be traded illegally though the illegal version ismore profitable.
The Problem of Stigma – the Islamic view
Muslim countries with HIV problems such as Pakistan or Indonesia should cultivate an Islamic environment within their societies and this is the best way to eradicate the spread of HIV in the short and long term. HIV is not a disease exclusively transmitted between homosexuals. It is now possible to contract HIV without performing any action prohibited in Islam, although very unlikely. HIV must not carry a stigma in Islamic societies. If a person has performed a prohibited action it must be proven, otherwise speculation and suspicion is not permitted. If a person has performed a prohibited action and it has been proven, then he should be penalised as proscribed in Islam, but the presence or absence of this infection does not make him or her guilty of any further crime.
In Islam having HIV is not a sin in itself. It is mostly, but not exclusively, transmitted through prohibited actions and it is those actions that should be frowned upon if it is proven that they have been performed, regardless of the transmission of this virus.Seeking a cure – Prophet (saw) said “For every disease there is a cure, so seek the cure”
Conclusion
Eliminating the stigma and cultivating an Islamic society may contribute to controlling the spread of HIV in Islamic lands. Those who have already contracted the virus should be treated with the appropriate medications with compassion.As for the non-Muslim lands, they are likely to continue to suffer hugely until a satisfactory model of an Islamic society can be displayed to them proving its capability to prevent HIV. Strong political leadership in these countries is required to modify behaviours but these political leaders need something to lead with which they do not currently have.
The importance of retroviral drugs and future vaccines should not be over-emphasised. They are needed for those people who currently suffer from the virus, but are not the solution. Even if a vaccine or cure is found, it will inevitably be expensive and there are many terrible eminently treatable infections that plague the developing world and are not treated due to expense or practicality leading to millions of deaths each year. Pharmaceutical companies will not solve this problem.
The Euro/American plan of action involving condoms, clean needles and medication has not worked so far and is unlikely to work in the long run. Total social change is required world wide to help stem the spread of this disease but that must be based on ideas and only the Islamic ideology has a social structure likely to tackle this disease. This is particularly relevant in affected Muslim countries, which should act as leaders by example.These changes are needed immediately because sub-Saharan Africa, standing now as 28 million infected and 2.4 million dead, cannot continue like this for much longer.

Saturday, 5 January 2008

America campaigns



America campaigns to eradicate Islam


بِسْمِ الله الرَّحمَنِ الرَحيمهَذَا بَلاَغٌ لِلنَّاسِ وَلِيُنذَرُوا بِهِ“

This is a Message for humankind, so that they take heed of its warning.”

[Surah Ibrahim 14:52]


Even whilst the Muslims of Pakistan faced the violent upheaval that came after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, with many deaths, much destruction of private property and shortages in fuel and food, the Americans vigorously campaigned for democracy in Pakistan. On 28 December 2007, US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice said, “But obviously, it’s just very important that the democratic process go forward.” And on the same day, US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher, said, “We want to see smooth and safe elections go forward.” However, America’s campaign for democracy is not for a truly representative government in Pakistan, rather it is an attempt to prevent the rise of Islam.
The Muslims of Pakistan have faced the oppression of dictatorship for a long time. In this situation, America tries to make the Muslims feel that the only substitute for dictatorship is democracy. In its campaign for democracy, America attempts to appeal to the feelings of the Muslims by linking democracy to elections for a representative government, where the Muslims would choose their rulers. Since Islam rejects the one who usurps the authority and commands that the ruler is elected by choice and consent, America hopes to make democracy appealing to the Muslims by embellishing democracy in their eyes. This is in order to cast a veil over the eyes of the Muslims about the actual essence of democracy, which is legislation by other than the laws of Allah سبحانه وتعالى, and turn their gazes instead to what democracy calls for in terms of representative government.
However, we are confident that America’s campaign for democracy will fail in Pakistan. It is a fact that anything that clashes with the belief of the Muslims can never become entrenched strongly in their hearts and minds, however much effort America may expend in spreading it and however many agents were mobilized to impose it. The fundamental basis of democracy to which America invites is that the sovereignty belongs to people wherein they are free in deciding right and wrong, they are not answerable in front of any other, hence being sovereign they will legislate through their representatives. So, in democracy, it is man who decides what ought to be Halal and what ought to be Haram, rejecting and accepting according to desire that which Allah سبحانه وتعالى has decided, thereby wrongfully raising man to the status that Allah سبحانه وتعالى claims for Himself Alone. But no Muslim can accept that any man or assembly of men should decide what is legaly Halaal and Haraam for others, after Allah سبحانه وتعالى and RasulAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered and forbade. Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلاَ مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمْ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ“
It is not for a believer man or woman to have any say in the matter after the decision is made by Allah and RasulAllah ”
[Surah al-Ahzab 33:36]
And Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
وَمَا آتَاكُمْ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانْتَهُوا وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ
"So take what RasulAllah assigns to you and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment.”
[Surah Al-Hashr 59:7]
And Allah سبحانه وتعالى has strongly condemned ruling other than Islam, in any taghoot (non-Islamic authority),
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ يُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ وَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلاَلاً بَعِيدًا
"Have you not seen those who pretend that they believe in that which has been revealed unto them and that which was revealed before them, how they would go instead for judgement to taghoot (non-Islamic authority) when they have been ordered to disbelieve in it? Shaytan would mislead them far astray.”
[Surah An-Nisai 4:60]
And Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمْ الظَّالِمُونَ
Those who do not judge by the law which Allah has revealed, they are the oppressors.”
[Surah Al-Maidah 5:45]
The above-mentioned ayahs are explicit in establishing that any system in which sovereignity does not belong to Allah سبحانه وتعالى, or in which the people share in holding sovereignty with Allah سبحانه وتعالى, is a kufr system, whether it is democracy or dictatorship.
Since in democracy sovereignity belongs to man, as in dictatorship, this matter makes this system suitable in the eyes of the colonialist powers, because it opens the door for making laws which protect the interests of the colonialist. The 17th Amendment, through which all the steps taken by the Pakistani government to support the American war on Muslims have been provided legal validity, is a clear, recent example.
Moreover, there is no truth in America’s high claim that it wants representative government in Pakistan. America knows that if Muslims’ opinion was represented then no ruler of Pakistan would have the courage to embolden the Hindu mushrikeen by abandoning the Muslims of Kashmir, or diminish the nuclear program of the world’s only Muslim nuclear power, or eliminate Islamic values from the education syllabus, or allow the savage killing of hundreds of students in Lal Masjid, or order Muslim soldiers to fight Muslims in the tribal areas to secure America’s occupation of Afghanistan, as Musharraf has done for so long in the name of “true democracy.” Indeed, America is always full of praise for Musharraf who is imposed upon the Muslims, without their choice and approval! And America knows that after dictatorship, it is democracy alone that can prevent the real representation of Muslims from reaching the ruling.And as for the Muslims’ opinion for the establishment of Islam as a state, a survey supported by the US Department of Homeland Security and conducted by the University of Maryland between December 2006 and February 2007, revealed that the majority of Muslims in Pakistan held a goal “to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate (Khilafah).” So, how can America ever tolerate a government that represents the Muslims in their deen, Islam, when it would mean that the Muslims would then emerge as the largest, most powerful state in the world? How, O Muslims, how?
And this is why the Americans in particular, and the West in general, campaign against the rise of Islam with all their might, funding agents and organizations to spread democracy and sponsoring brutal oppression of those who call for Islam. The example of Algeria is not far from our minds. Under the watchful gaze of the West and its agents, the ballot boxes showed that the people wanted Islam. The West and its agents were shocked and agreed unanimously to cancel the elections. And with Western blessings, the Algerian rulers began to brutally suppress the Muslims, rather than honoring the elections.So rather than allowing representation of the Muslims, America campaigns for democracy to prevent the rise of Islam. This is why they will also never spare any opportunity to accuse the Muslims, without proof, violate and occupy the Islamic Lands, attack the Islamic values and even desecrate the Qur’an in their prisons.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
قَدْ بَدَتْ الْبَغْضَاءُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ
Rank hatred comes from their mouths and what their breasts conceal is greater.”
[Surah Aali Imran 3:118]
O Muslims!
America aims to hoist democracy, the cause of your ills and woes, over your necks so that you will never taste the blessings of the implementation of the one true deen, Islam. We call upon you to boycott the elections thereby demonstrating your clear, unequivocal rejection of democracy. And we call upon all of you to stand with us, the youth of Hizb ut-Tahrir, in the serious work to remove democracy that has been imposed in the Muslim World, and re-establish the Khilafah in its place.
And know that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has promised that those of you who believe and do righteous deeds will be granted succession in ruling, providing security after a time of fear.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى said,
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لاَ يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا
"Allah has promised those amongst you who believe, and do righteous deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession in ruling on the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practice their religion, that which He has chosen for them. And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear provided they worship Me and do not associate anything in worship with Me."
[Surah an-Nur 24: 55]

Thursday, 3 January 2008

Interfaith Dialogue

Interfaith Dialogue


Inviting non-Muslims to Islam is a matter that Allah has made
obligatory on the Muslims. The Muslims have been doing this for
fourteen centuries, and continue call others to Islam whether they
are from the People of the Book or not. Allah said:
"Invite (O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with Hikma
(clear proof) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better."
[Al-Nahl: 125]
And he said in his letter to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor:
“Verily,I invite you with the call of Islam. Embrace Islam and you shall be
safe and Allah will grant you the reward twice. If you turn away
then upon you will bear the sin of the people under your rule.”
Thus, our call to the non-Muslims is an invitation to have conviction
in Islam and to abandon Kufr.
As for the idea of interfaith dialogue that is being circulated nowadays,
it is a foreign, evil and Western idea that has no basis in Islam. This is
because it calls for mutual relationships between different religions. It
calls for a new fabricated religion which the Kuffar want the Muslims to
embrace instead of Islam, because the advocates and followers of this
idea are the Kuffar themselves.
Internationally, this idea started in 1932 when France sent
representatives to confer with the scholars of al-Azhar University about
the idea of uniting the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
This was then followed by the Paris Conference of 1933 attended by
orientalists and missionaries from every university in France, England,
Switzerland, America, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey and others. The
Conference of world religions in 1936 was the last conference of
religions before the Second World War, which distracted the Europeans
from these conferences.
In 1964 Pope Paolo VI sent a letter in which he called for dialogue
between the religions. The Vatican then published a book in 1969 with
the title: 'Guide to dialogue between the Muslims and Christians.'
During the 1970’s and 1980’s more than thirteen interfaith and
intercultural meetings and conferences were held, the most prominent of
which was the Second World Conference of Religion and Peace held in
Belgium attended by 400 delegates from various world religions. Another
conference was held in Cordoba in Spain attended by Muslim and
Christian representatives from 23 countries. These two conferences were
held in 1974 followed by the Christian-Muslim assembly in Qurtaj, Tunis
in 1979.
It was in the 1990s that those calling for interfaith dialogue became
most active. Thus they held the Arab-European Conference in 1993 in
Jordan, followed in 1994 by the Khartoum Conference for interfaith
dialogue. In 1995 two dialogue conferences were held, one in Stockholm
and the other in Amman, both of which were followed by the
Conference "Islam and Europe" at the University of Ahl al-Bayt in
Jordan in 1996.

One of the most significant justifications presented by delegates at
the interfaith conferences is standing firm in the face of the disbelief and
atheism represented by the Soviet Union before its collapse.
Communism was depicted as a danger to the divine religions, which
would threaten their cultural achievements. Then they pretended to weep
for humanity and to fight for the defence of all believers in the world.
They sought to define truth in relative terms, emphasising that no
individual and no religion could claim sole ownership of the truth, but
it should be subject to the democratic process where the majority
opinion is closest to the truth.
The following were the most important recommendations of the
conferences held in the name of interfaith and intercultural dialogue
and between Islam and Europe:
1. Devising and adopting new meanings and provisions for words
such as disbelief, atheism, polytheism, belief, Islam, moderation,
extremism and fundamentalism to ensure that these words would not
become factors of division between people of different religions.
2. Identifying shared elements in the three religions, which would
include creed, morals and culture, and to place emphasis on positive cooperation
between the religions and cultures, since all the people of the
Book were accepted as believers, and worshippers of Allah .
3. The formation of a joint document on human rights to permit
peace and co-existence between the followers of different religions. This
would be achieved by eliminating the feeling of barriers of blood
between the religions and by removing the concept of the cultures of
different peoples and policies of different states.
4. A comprehensive review of the history and education curricula,
so that they become free of any incitement or hatred. Religious
education would be considered part of basic humanitarian studies that
aim to create personalities open to human cultures and with mutual
understanding of others. Therefore, the study of certain beliefs and
worships had to be disqualified.
5. Raising interest in studying the following subjects and
formulating unified concepts for them: justice, peace, women rights,
human rights, democracy, work morals, pluralism, freedom, world peace,
peaceful co-existence, cultural openness, civil society etc.

After the failure of the Western Kuffar in distancing the Muslims from
their Aqeedah via the missionaries, orientalists, cultural works, the media,
intellectual and political deception, they resorted to government
authorities in their countries and in the countries of their agents. They
began to hold conferences and seminars, formed joint work teams and
established centres of study in their countries and in the Muslim lands,
such as the Oxford Centre for Islamic studies, the Centre for Middle
Eastern Studies at Durham University, the American college of the Holy
Cross, the Muslim League, the Royal Academy for the study of Islamic
Culture, the University of Ahl al-Bayt and the World Council of
Churches etc.
They deliberately used terminologies and pretentious general
expressions with undefined meanings to create deception and delusion.
For example, terms such as renovation, openness to the world, human
civilisation, universal sciences, the need for peaceful co-existence,
renunciation of partisanship and extremism, globalisation etc., were all
examples of this.
They mixed the concepts of science and culture, and the concepts of
Hadharah (civilisation) and Madaniyya (material progression) to justify
attacking those who hold to their specific way of life. They claimed that
such people opposed science and technology and the civilisation arising
from them, and accused them of being reactionary and backward, even
though this is not the case in Islam. Islam opens its gates to science and
to the technology that is derived from this science, but closes them in the
face of any Thaqafa (culture) or Madaniyya from other than the Thaqafa
and Hadharah of Islam. This is because these thoughts and concepts are
related to the behaviour of the human being, which has to be controlled
by the Islamic concepts about life.
They painted certain capitalist thoughts in glowing tones to the
Muslims and promoted them by claiming that they do not contradict
Islam to such an extent that some Muslims considered them as part of
Islam, such as democracy, freedom, pluralism, socialism and others. On
the other hand, they denounced certain Islamic thoughts and described
them as uncivilised and out of date, such as Jihad, the Hudood, polygyny
and other Shara’i rules.
They subjected the study of the Islamic texts to the Capitalist way of
thinking, which makes the reality the source of the rule and not the
subject of the thought. It makes benefit the criterion in adopting or
leaving the rule rather than the Halal and the Haram. This incited some
Muslims to invent certain principles, which did not rely on the Shara’i
texts to understand Islam. This is like the Fiqh of reality, the Fiqh of
balances, necessity permits the prohibited things and others. This
resulted in the dilution of certain rules of Islam and non-differentiation
of the foreign rule from the original rule, and even between what
constitutes Kufr and what constitutes Islam. For example, Riba (usury)
has become acceptable and martyrdom is now portrayed as suicide.
The non-muslims who initiated this dialogue are now generalising and
widening its scope. It will no longer remain restricted to the few who
participate in conferences and seminars. Rather it will include all sections
of society from men, women, the educated and labourers. This is done
via the universities, institutes of study, parties and associations. It is, as
some conference delegates have described, joining the western Hadharah
in economics, social relations, politics, education etc. Thus, Capitalism -
according to their claim - is humanity, rationalism, freedom and
democracy. It is the new and successful Hadharah. As for Islam, it is seen
as blind faith, despotism and heritage and depicted as the sovereignty of
religion, slavery and polygyny. It is thus an uncivilised religion!
One of the styles used to blind the Muslims to the real objective of
these conferences is to invite those belonging to certain beliefs such as
Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism to attend alongside the Muslims,
Christians and Jews. This happened at the World Conference for Religion
and Peace in Japan and in a seminar in Beirut in 1970, to ensure that
Muslims would not suspect they were the only targets of the dialogue.
How could so-called Muslim scholars allow Islam to be placed on an
equal stage with Buddhism and other religions?!

The West, which calls for dialogue with the Muslims and heads
conferences of dialogue, views Islam as the enemy. This viewpoint is
the motive for such dialogue and governs and directs this dialogue. For
example, the encyclopaedia of French culture, which is a renowned point
of reference, states that the Messenger Muhammad  is: 'a killer, the

Antichrist, kidnaps women and the greatest enemy to the human mind.'
Likewise most of the textbooks in Western Europe describe the
Messenger Muhammad , Islam and the Muslims with the most ugliest
of descriptions. Recently, the following has been mentioned in the book
'The End of History' written by the American thinker Fukuyama: “The
Capitalist system is the eternal salvation for man on earth. Islam, despite
its weakness and disintegration, threatens this new victorious way of life
(i.e. capitalism).” The former General Secretary of NATO, Javier Solana,
said: 'Fundamentalist Islam is the danger which threatens the geopolitics
of the future.' The orientalist Barnard Lewis said about Islam and
Capitalism: 'They are contradictory. There is no scope for dialogue.' And
Samuel Huntington, professor of political science at Harvard University
and the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies said: “The clash
between civilisations (Hadharah) will dominate foreign policy. The
dividing lines between the civilisations (Hadharah) will be the battle lines
in the future.” Then he says: “Religion vehemently distinguishes itself
and it is clear to the people. A person can be half French and half
Arab...but it is difficult for a man to be half Catholic and half Muslim...”
Where is the dialogue they call us for from t h i s enmity?
When these statements are compared with the hostile actions which
have come from the West against Islam and the Muslims, such as the
Crusades, the extermination of Muslims in Spain, the destruction of the
Khilafah State and afterwards the establishment of the Jewish state in
Palestine, and the portrayal of Islam and the Islamic movements as
terrorist and extremist. When we compare these statements, we realise
the meaning and the aims of the dialogue that the Kafir West is
conducting with the Muslims.

The primary aim that the capitalists are working to achieve from the
dialogue between religions and Hadharah is to prevent the return of
Islam to life's affairs as a comprehensive system. This is because it
threatens the survival of their ideology and Hadharah and will destroy
their interests and influence.
As for other partial aims that serve their primary aim, these are various.
Thus the West aims to paint the world according to the colour of the
Capitalist civilisation, especially in the Muslim lands, in order to replace
the Islamic Hadharah. This will make it easy for them to remove the
Islamic Thaqafa (culture) from the minds of the people. They aim to
achieve that by shaking the confidence of Muslims in the Islamic Thaqafa
(culture) and in its sources and principles. They aim to neutralise Islam
in the clash of civilisations by stripping it of its most important
characteristics which distinguish it from other religions, namely the
political aspect with which the Khilafah would be established to look
after the affairs of the people according to the rules of Islam and carry
it to the whole of mankind.
The Capitalists also aim to reshape the personality of the Muslim a new
such that he finds no shame in leaving the duty and doing the
prohibited . Then they aim to corrupt the Islamic desires and
values and destroy in the Muslim the zeal for Islam such that he no
longer hates Kufr and the Kafireen, and he no longer enjoins good and
forbids evil. With this they will remove the cultural immunity of the
Islamic Ummah with which she resisted all external elements, and will
remove the emotional and intellectual barriers that threatened the
presence of Capitalist civilisation in Muslim lands. Thus, preserving their
influence and interests becomes easier and they guarantee their survival
and continuance.
The intention behind this dialogue, which the non-muslimsand their agent
rulers guard in the Muslim countries with an entourage of scholars and
thinkers, is to create a new religion for the Muslims. It is based upon the
creed of separating religion from life, and in which man is the Legislator
instead of Allah , the Creator of mankind. They are as Allah
describes them:
"And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your Deen."
[Al-Baqarah: 217]

And He said regarding the people of Lut (peace be upon him):
"But We found not there any household of those who submitted (muslimeen)
except one (i.e. of Lut and his two daughters)."
[Az-Zariyat: 36]
And on the tongue of Musa (peace be upon him):
"Then in Him put your trust if you are those who have submitted (to Allah's will
[Muslimeen])."
[Yunus: 84]
And on the tongue of the Hawariyyoon, the followers of 'Isa (peace
be upon him):
"We believe in Allah, and bear witness that we are those who have submitted
(muslimoon)."
[Al-Imran: 52]
So the word 'Muslimoon' found in the Ayats means 'those who have
submitted' (Munqaadoon). It does not mean that they professed one Deen,
which is Islam as revealed to Muhammad saw. Islam was not known to
them and they were not addressed with it. Rather, each people had a
particular Messenger who called them to a specific Shari'ah. Allah
said:
"To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari'ah) and a clear
way (Minhaaj)."
[Al-Ma'ida: 48]
After the revelation (Wahy) came down to Muhammad , the
revelation took up certain Arabic words and transferred them from their
conventional linguistic meanings to Shara’i meanings. The Shari'ah texts
from the Qur'an and Sunnah have clarified this. One of these transferred
expressions is the word 'Islam' which linguistically used to mean
'submission' (Inqiyaad), and became a Shara’i meaning - the Deen revealed
by Allah to His Messenger Muhammad . Allah said, addressing
the whole of mankind until the Day of Judgement:
"I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen."
[Al-Ma'ida: 3]
And Allah said:
"And whosoever seeks a Deen other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him."
[Al-Imran: 85]
And the Messenger of Allah saw said:
“Islam has been built on five.”
Other religions are not based on these five.
After the divine transference of the meaning of the word 'Islam', the
words derived from it, such as the verb and active participle (Aslama
and Muslim), if used without a Qareena (context), indicate the Shara’i
meaning only. If the conventional linguistic meaning is intended this
would then require a Qareena to change it from the Shara’i meaning.
Allah for example says:
"Ibraheem was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one who truly submitted
(Musliman) (to Allah's will)."
[Al-Imran: 67]
This does not mean that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) was on the
Deen that Allah revealed to Muhammad . Rather it means that
Ibraheem (peace be upon him) had submitted to Allah regarding that
which Allah revealed to him, unlike the Jews and Christians who
fabricated the Deen of their Prophets.
As for the statement that Muhammad , 'Isa and Musa (peace be upon
them) were on the Deen of Ibraheem (peace be upon him), it means that
they believed in the same ‘Aqeedah, which is the foundation of every

Deen revealed from Allah .
This is what is meant from His saying:
"He (Allah) has ordained for you the same Deen which He ordained for Nuh, and
that which We have inspired to you (O Muhammad), and that which We ordained
for Ibraheem, Musa and 'Isa saying you should establish the Deen and do not become
divided over it."
[Ash-Shura: 13]
So the word 'Deen' in the Ayah means the foundation of the Deen,
which is the ‘Aqeedah. Allah specified this when He said:
"To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari'ah) and a clear
way (Minhaaj)."
[Al-Ma'ida: 48]
(2) The Shar’i issue
Allah sent Muhammad saw was the seal of the Prophets and the
Messengers to the whole of mankind. He ordered them to leave
whatever religion they were following, whether divine or not, and called
on them to embrace Islam as a Deen. Whoever responded to the call
became a Muslim and whoever rejected committed Kufr. Allah said:
"And say to those who were given the Book (the Jews and Christians) and to
those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): 'Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah
in Islam)?' If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is
only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His) slaves."
[Al-Imran: 20]
And He said:
"Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book (Jews and Christians)
and among the Mushrikeen (polytheists), were not going to leave (their disbelief)
until there came to them clear evidence, a Messenger (Muhammad) from Allah."
[Al-Baiyinah:1-2]
They are not separated from the Kufr except by their embracing of
Islam. The Messenger of Allah  said: “By the one in whose Hand
lies Muhammad's soul! No one from this Ummah, whether Jew or
Christian, who hears about me and then dies without believing in
what I have been sent with, except that he will be from the
inhabitants of the Fire.” So the people are all called to gain conviction
in Islam, and whoever does not profess Islam after the matter has been
proven to him, then he is definitely a Kafir. After Muhammad  was
charged with prophethood, if the Jews and Christians continued to hold
to their religion, they are considered Kafir according to the Quranic text.
It is forbidden to describe them as Muslims, and whosoever believes
that they or others are Muslims, he is a Kafir. This is because with this
belief of his he has rejected clear Shara’i texts that are definite in
meaning and authenticity. If they die on this belief then they will be
from among the inhabitants of the Fire.
(3) The issue concerning the sons of Ibraheem (Peace be
upon them)
This is a call to the bond of nationalism. It is a bond arising from the
survival instinct and is shallow and emotional in nature. It is not suitable
for man because it cannot bind one human being with another if they
differ in lineage.
The bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) has been
negated by time. It does not exist today because the descendants of
Ibraheem (peace be upon him) and his offspring have mixed with other
peoples through marriage, social intercourse, migration and wars.
Todayit is impossible to separate them from other peoples. Since the followers
of the three religions can be found among all peoples and tribes of the
world, they have mixed on the basis of religion and not on the basis of
ethnicity. Therefore, applying the claim regarding the sons of Ibraheem
(peace be upon him) on the Muslims, Jews and Christians and on those
who live around al-Masjid al-Aqsa or any others is a pointless exercise
and is incorrect. The intention is to fight Islam, justify the peace process
and normalise relations with the Jewish entity of Israel that exists on the
usurped land of the Muslims; all of this to give legitimacy to the terrible
crimes committed by the treacherous rulers of the Islamic lands under
the orders of their masters, the Kuffar of the West.
The family or nationalist bond is like the bond of the sons of
Ibraheem (peace be upon him). It is rejected by the Shari'’ah as a basis to
organise the relationships of the people. Allah said:
"Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the
wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear decline, and the dwellings
in which you delight...are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving
hard and fighting in His Path, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision
(torment). And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqoon (disobedient)."
[At-Tauba: 24]
Thus, the order of Allah is above every nationalistic, family or benefit
bond. Allah clarified the shallowness of this bond to the previous
Messengers. He said:
“And Nuh called upon his Lord and said: 'O my Lord! Verily, my son is of my
family! And certainly your promise is true, and You are the most just of the judges'.
And He said: 'O Nuh! Surely, he is not of your family, indeed his work is
unrighteous.’”
[Hud: 45-46]
And He said about Ibraheem:
"He said to him: ‘Verily, I am going to make you a leader of mankind',
(Ibraheem) said: ‘And of my offspring (to make leaders).’ (Allah) said: ‘My covenant
includes not the Zalimeen (wrongdoers).’”
[Al-Baqarah: 124]
Thus, the son of Nuh (peace be upon him) according to the Shara’i
criterion is not from his family, because he did not believe in what Allah
revealed to his father. And the Zalimeen (wrongdoers) from the
offspring of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) are exempt from the
covenant of leadership made by Allah since they did not follow what
Allah revealed to their father Ibraheem (peace be upon him). So the
call to the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) today is Jahil (ignorant)
and a politically motivated call. It is forbidden to call for it and invite
people to it. This is because the intention is to fight Islam, divert the
Muslims from their Deen, justify the treacherous peace treaty with the
Jews and concede to them what they usurped from the blessed land of
Palestine, so that relations with them may be normalised and Israel can
be accepted as a state in the Middle East.